Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
Multi-Body Dynamics Modeling and Straight-Line Travel
Simulation of a Four-Tracked Deep-Sea Mining Vehicle
on Flat Ground
Maozhen Xia 1,2,3 , Haining Lu 1,2,3, *, Jianmin Yang 1,2,3 and Pengfei Sun 1,2,3
Citation: Xia, M.; Lu, H.; Yang, J.;
Sun, P. Multi-Body Dynamics
Modeling and Straight-Line Travel
Simulation of a Four-Tracked
Deep-Sea Mining Vehicle on Flat
Ground. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11,
1005. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse11051005
Academic Editor: Alessandro
Ridolfi
Received: 22 March 2023
Revised: 2 May 2023
Accepted: 5 May 2023
Published: 8 May 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11051005
1 State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China;
xmzxmzzz@sjtu.edu.cn (M.X.)
2 Yazhou Bay Institute of Deepsea SCI-TECH, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Sanya 572024, China
3 Institute of Marine Equipment, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
* Correspondence: haining@sjtu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-13817328717
Abstract: Deep-sea mining vehicles (DSMVs) are highly prone to sinking and slippage when traveling
on extremely soft seafloor sediments. In addition, DSMVs can be vulnerable to dangerous situations
such as overturning due to the non-homogeneous characteristic of the seafloor sediments, the heavy
loads carried by DSMVs, and the complex and varied topography of the seafloor. When the terrain is
uneven, four-tracked DSMVs can show excellent traveling abilities and safety performances compared
with conventional dual-tracked vehicles, thus having a broad range of applications. Consequently,
modeling and simulation of a four-tracked DSMV are essential for the study of DSMV traveling
performance. To enhance adaptability to uneven terrain, the tracks are designed to be rotatable.
First, a multi-body dynamics model is built in the Recurdyn software based on the actual structural
properties of a specially designed four-tracked DSMV prototype. Then, the model’s forces are
modified to reflect the actual circumstances of seafloor travel. Applying a more accurate shear model,
a user subroutine is written to modify the track–soil force. Moreover, internal resistance and water
resistance are considered and applied to the model in the form of external loads. Then, based on
the multi-pass effect, the track–soil force to the rear track is modified. Moreover, considering the
relationship between soil forces and velocity, a velocity coefficient is summarized and added to
the resistance estimation equation. Consequently, a more realistic dynamic model of the mining
vehicle has been developed. On this basis, simulations of straight-line travel on flat ground are
performed. In addition, to investigate the effects of rotatable tracks, a straight-line travel simulation
with tracks fixed is also performed. By analyzing the simulation results, the motion features and
dynamic characteristics of a four-tracked DSMV with rotatable tracks when traveling in a straight
line on flat ground can be studied.
Keywords: four-tracked deep-sea mining vehicle; multi-body dynamics modeling; multi pass effect;
track–soil force
1. Introduction
Terrestrial minerals are in low supply [1]. Population growth and economic expansion
are driving the need for metals, including manganese, nickel, and cobalt [2], especially
for new electric vehicles. There are many minerals on the seafloor, including seafloor
massive sulfides (SMS), ferromanganese crusts, and polymetallic nodules, with enormous
reserves and a variety of uses. As a result of the increasing demand for metal resources
and economic growth, deep-sea mining has begun to develop rapidly [3]. Looking for
solutions that are both economical and environmentally friendly is necessary, as while the
exploitation of deep-sea mineral resources may result in significant economic gains, it may
also bring governance challenges, such as ecological concerns [4].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 2 of 36

Specific technology and equipment are needed for mining considering the unusual
deep-sea environment in which mineral deposits are found [5]. As a crucial part of deep-
sea mining operations [6], the tracked deep-sea mining vehicle (DSMV) is recognized as
suitable for traveling and mining on soft seafloor soils because of its high traction, low
ground-specific pressures, and excellent passing abilities [7]. The physical and mechanical
characteristics of seafloor sediments are different from those of terrestrial sediments, featur-
ing high water contents, high compressibility, and low shear strengths. Therefore, seafloor
sediments are soft and have poor bearing capacities [8]. Furthermore, the complicated
terrain, the lack of light, and the interference of complex currents can also lead to accidents
such as overturning. Therefore, the safety performances and traveling capacities of DSMVs
must be properly researched to lower the risk and improve safety.
During the travel of a DSMV, the seafloor sediment is not only the provider of a
load-bearing force but also the generator of a traction force. It is mainly the track plate
that contacts and interacts with the ground. Therefore, the research on the interaction
mechanism between the track plate and the sediment is the foundation of the dynamics
modeling study of DSMVs.
Simulated sediments were recreated in the laboratory by mixing bentonite with water
since in-situ seafloor sediments are expensive to obtain. By recreating seafloor sediments,
Choi et al. [9] performed a series of track–sediment interaction tests and evaluated the effect
of the DSMV dimensions on the traction performance. Then, Schulte et al. [10] analyzed
the mechanical characteristics of simulated sediments under various shear devices and
acquired the shear stress–shear displacement relationship. Additionally, Dai et al. [11]
constructed simulated sediments to conduct track–soil interaction tests based on the in-situ
data and obtained soil mechanical parameters based on the Bekker model and the Wong
model. Baek et al. [12] conducted an experimental study on the soil thrust mechanism of
cohesive soils and proposed two damage mechanisms of simulated sediments.
Based on the research of track plate–sediment interactions, a number of studies on
DSMV dynamics modeling have been performed. Li et al. [13] built a tracked DSMV multi-
body dynamics model in the software ADAMS/ATV, analyzed the abilities of the DSMV in
the ditch and obstacle crossing and slope climbing, and verified the simulation with 150-m
lake test results. To analyze the effects of the buoyancy position on the climbing ability,
Lee et al. [14] used the DSMV MineRo as the base for dynamics modeling in the software
Recurdyn and ran simulations for climbing from 0◦ to 40◦ on various soils. To qualitatively
analyze the traction performances of DSMVs on a soft seafloor, Dai et al. [15] built a dy-
namics model in the software Recurdyn and wrote a track–soil force user subroutine based
on the experimental results. Moreover, DSMVs travel performance testing on simulated
sediments was carried out with a test vehicle. Kim et al. [16] made a comparison of the
computational accuracy and solution efficiency of single-body and multi-body dynamics
methods. A trencher’s travel performance and operational performance were evaluated
during a seafloor operation by Morgan et al. [17], who also investigated the relationship
between the driving traction and resistance to motion of the trencher and the parame-
ters of the seafloor sediment. To verify the validity of the experiment and theory, Katsui
et al. [18] built a small-scale test device of a mining vehicle and established the climbing
dynamics equations of a tracked vehicle. They also theoretically analyzed the changes
in posture, center of gravity, and floating center of the tracked vehicle during climbing.
Subsequently, Dai et al. [19] developed a lifting pipe model by secondary development of
the RecurDyn/PrcocessNet software. The collaborative simulation of the entire mining
system, including the DSMV, pipe, and mining vessel, was then accomplished, and the
interaction forces between the pipe and mining vehicle were analyzed. Edwin et al. [20]
proposed an algorithmic method to calculate soft soil deformation in the track contact
patch, which was verified through multi-body dynamics modeling in ADAMS.
Compared with the seafloor plains where polymetallic nodules lie, the enrichment
zones of polymetallic sulfides and cobalt-rich crusts are, respectively, hydrothermal vents
and seamounts [21–24], featuring highly rough and complicated topographies with many
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 3 of 36

slopes and obstacles. Thus, four-tracked DSMVs are deemed to be more suitable for seafloor
massive sulfide and ferromanganese crust mining than dual-tracked DSMVs because they
have better uneven terrain trafficability and adaptability [25] and better obstacle-crossing
capabilities.
Consequently, research has been conducted on the dynamics modeling of four-tracked
DSMVs. To study the effects of the driving mode and the hinge connection on the travel
performances of DSMVs, the modeling of a hinged four-track DSMV was accomplished
in the software Recurdyn [26]. Then, Kim et al. [27] achieved modeling of the four-track
polymetallic sulfide DSMV and created the analysis program TRACSIM-III based on the
subsystem synthesis method. The dynamics of a four-track DSMV overcoming obstacles
were studied by Liu et al. [25], who also performed a simulation of the performance of a
DSMV when climbing and steering under complex terrain conditions. For a four-tracked
DSMV, Xu et al. [28] established a traction model that considered dynamic sinkage and
front and rear track effects. On this basis, a dynamics model was created, and the effects of
the track characteristics on the straight-line traveling capacity were evaluated.
In this paper, the motion features and dynamic characteristics of a four-tracked mining
vehicle with rotatable tracks during straight-line travel on flat ground are mainly studied.
The flow chart for the overall content of this paper is shown in Figure 1. The general idea
of this study is as follows:
• First, the mining vehicle structure was recreated as accurately as possible in the model;
• Second, the force conditions of the mining vehicle in the model were established as
close as possible to the actual situation, including adding the water resistance and the
internal resistance to the model, optimizing the track–soil force calculation equations in
the user subroutine (USUB) and considering the multi-pass effect and the relationship
between force and velocity;
• Third, simulations were then carried out to evaluate the motion characteristics of the
four-tracked mining vehicle model during travel, including the actual travel velocity,
sinkage, and pitch angle. The effect of two designs, rotatable and fixed tracks, on the
mining vehicle model was also studied;
• Additionally, since the track–soil forces in the simulation are difficult to extract, an
approach for estimating soil-related resistances was introduced into this study by
modifying the classical resistance equation based on the multi-pass effect and the
force-velocity relationship. As the calculation of soil-related resistances was already in-
cluded in Recurdyn.USUB, the estimation equations were added to the model without
affecting the calculation results. They are the only equations to obtain the estimated
values of the soil-related resistances based on the motion parameters calculated by the
simulation.
Based on this study, it is possible to avoid risky situations and gather knowledge for
the development and optimization of commercial DSMVs in the future.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 4 of 36
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 39

Figure 1. Flowchart of the research content in this paper.

Figure 1. Flowchart of the research content in this paper.

Based onofthis
2. Modeling study, it Mining
Deep-Sea is possible to avoid(DSMVs)
Vehicles risky situations and gather knowledge for
the development andDSMV
A four-tracked optimization of commercial
designed DSMVswas
for SMS mining in the future.
used for modeling. As shown
in Figure 2, the original vehicle structure was recreated in the software Recurdyn, and a
multi-body dynamics model was established. This software was an integrated multidisci-
plinary computer-aided engineering software based on recursive algorithms with excellent
calculation efficiency, providing outstanding performances in multi-body problems.
The model mainly consisted of a chassis, four tracks, a vehicle body, mining devices
and buoyancy materials.
Additionally, they were all regarded as rigid bodies during the simulation. The center
of the chassis was set as the zero point of the whole model.
The detailed mass and dimensions of the DSMV prototype are demonstrated in Table 1.
Except for the tracks, there would be no apparent displacement between the remaining
components relative to the chassis during travel, so that the vehicle body, mining devices,
and buoyancy materials were set as a whole, and then fixed to the chassis. All components
in the model were modeled as precisely as possible based on their original positions,
dimensions, and materials in the prototype, so that their masses, inertias, and coordinates
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 39

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 2. Modeling of Deep-sea Mining Vehicles (DSMVs) 5 of 36
A four-tracked DSMV designed for SMS mining was used for modeling. As shown
in Figure 2, the original vehicle structure was recreated in the software Recurdyn, and a
multi-body
could dynamics
be deemed model was
as accurate andestablished.
convincing,This software
which wasplay
would an integrated multidisci-
a significant role in
plinary computer-aided engineering software based on recursive algorithms
the simulation calculation. Moreover, the underwater weight, which can be obtained with excel-
by
lent calculation efficiency, providing outstanding performances
converting gravity minus buoyancy, was used in the model. in multi-body problems.

Figure2.2. Multi-body
Figure Multi-body dynamics
dynamicsmodel
modelof
offour-tracked
four-trackedDSMV.
DSMV.

Table 1. Main structural parameters of DSMV.

The model mainly consisted of a chassis, four tracks, a vehicle body, mining devices
and buoyancy
Parametermaterials.
Categories Parameters Value
Additionally, they were all regarded as rigid bodies during the simulation. The cen-
Length × width × height 6m×2m×3m
ter of the chassis was set as the zero point of the whole model.
Underwater weight 7t
The structural
DSMV detailed mass and dimensions ofVehicle
parameters the DSMV prototype are demonstrated
volume 20 m3 in Table
1. Except for the tracks, there would be noTravel
apparent displacement between0.5the
velocity m/s remaining
components relative to the chassis during travel,
Working so that
water the vehicle body,
depth mining m
1000–4000 devices,
and buoyancy materials were set as a whole, and then fixed
Single track width to the chassis. All components
550 mm
in the model were modeled as precisely as underwater
Chassis possible based on their original 2positions,
weight t di-
mensions, and materials in the Tension
prototype, so preload
that their masses, inertias, 10 kN
and coordinates
Track components and
couldstructural
be deemed Trackwhich
as accurate and convincing, spacingwould play a significant
1.6 mrole in the
parameters
Total track ground area
simulation calculation. Moreover, the underwater weight, which can be obtained 3.1 m2 by con-
Sprocket (pith circle radius) 226 mm
verting gravity minus buoyancy, was used in the model.
Idler (wheel radius) 175 mm

Table 1. Main structural parameters of DSMV. Plate width 550 mm

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Plate height 12 mm6 of 39

Parameter Categories Plate length

Parameters 133Value
mm
Track plate parameters Grouser height 45 mm
Length × width × height 6m×2m×3m
Grouser thickness 42 mm
Grouser thickness
Underwater weight 42 mm 7 t
Length segment 2
DSMV structural parameters Length segment
Vehicle volume
Depth segment 2 203 m3
Depth segment
Travel velocity 3 0.5 m/s

As the tracks
tracksare
arethe
thecrucial
crucial factor Working water
determining depth 1000–4000 m
As the factor determining the the dynamic
dynamic characteristics
characteristics and safety
and safety
performance
performance of ofaaDSMV,
DSMV,theytheyare
arealso
also
thethe primary
Single
primary focus
track
focus of the
width
of the modeling.
modeling. EachEach550 mm
track track
had had
28 track plate units, and the relevant dimensions of
Chassis underwater
28 track plate units, and the relevant dimensions each track
weight
of each track plate are listed 2 t Table
plate are listed in Tablein 1. 1.
These dimensional parameters of the track
These dimensional parameters of the track plate plate are defined
are defined
Tension in Figure
preloadin Figure 3. 3. 10 kN
Track components and struc-
Track spacing 1.6 m
tural parameters
Total track ground area 3.1 m2
Sprocket (pith circle radius) 226 mm
Idler (wheel radius) 175 mm
Plate width 550 mm
Plate height 12 mm
Track plate parameters
Plate length 133 mm
Grouser height 45 mm

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Schematic
Schematicdiagram
diagramofofdimensions
dimensionsof of
track plate.
track plate.

Furthermore, as shown in Figure 4a, in the software Recurdyn, the shape of the track
plate was determined by a set of points. Each point represents a line on the track plate
along the plate width. When the track contacted the hard ground, Recurdyn calculated
the track–soil force by defining shoe points, which were selected from the points in Figure
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 6 of 36
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of dimensions of track plate.

Furthermore,
Furthermore, as shownas shown in Figure
in Figure 4a, in
4a, in the the software
software Recurdyn,
Recurdyn, the shape
the shape of the of the track
track
platedetermined
plate was was determined
by a setbyof
a points.
set of points. Each point
Each point represents
represents a line aonline
theon the plate
track track plate
along the plate width. When the track contacted the hard ground, Recurdyn calculatedcalculated
along the plate width. When the track contacted the hard ground, Recurdyn the
the track–soil
track–soil force byshoe
force by defining defining shoe
points, points,
which werewhich werefrom
selected selected from the
the points in points
Figure in4a.Figure
4a. However, when the track was in contact with the soft seafloor sediment,
However, when the track was in contact with the soft seafloor sediment, this calculation this calcula-
methodtion
didmethod
not meetdidthe
notrequirements.
meet the requirements.

(a) (b)

Figure Figure 4. Schematic

4. Schematic diagramdiagram
of trackofplate:
track(a)
plate: (a) drawing
drawing of trackofplate
trackinplate in Recurdyn
Recurdyn and (b)and (b) grouser
grouser
mesh.
mesh.

Therefore,
Therefore, to increase
to increase the accuracy
the accuracy of the of the simulation
simulation results,results,
the meshthe on
mesh
theon the surface
surface
of the of theplate
track trackwas
platedrown.
was drown.
AlongAlong the direction
the direction of the of thewidth,
plate plate width, the width
the width between between
the two sides of the track plate was divided into several depth segments,
the two sides of the track plate was divided into several depth segments, and similarly, the and similarly,
lengththe lengthneighboring
between between neighboring
points on thepoints
same onsidethe same
was sideinto
divided waslength
divided into length
segments. As seg-
shown in Figure 4b, in this DSMV model, the surface of the track plate was drawn as a was
ments. As shown in Figure 4b, in this DSMV model, the surface of the track plate
mesh, drawn as alength
where the mesh, segment
where the andlength
depthsegment
segment and depth
were, segment were,
respectively, set torespectively,
2 and 3. set to
In2 addition
and 3. to track plates, each track included a track frame, a sprocket, an idler,
In addition
three road wheels, and to track plates,
a carrier roller. each
Everytrack
wheel included
was also a attached
track frame, a sprocket,
to the track frame an idler,
three road
by revolutes. wheels, and
Furthermore, toaensure
carrierthe
roller. Every
tension of wheel was each
the tracks, also attached
track hadtosprings
the trackas frame
by revolutes.
tensioners that wereFurthermore,
applied between to ensure theand
the idler tension of the
the track tracks,
frame, each track
increasing thehad springs as
stability
of the tensioners
entire trackthat were applied
structure. between in
As displayed theTable
idler 2,
and
thethe track frame,
preload of the increasing
springs was theset
stability
according to the vehicle’s real weight.

Table 2. Parameters of seafloor sediment related to track–soil force and resistance.

Soil Parameters Symbol Value

Cohesion c 5000 Pa
Internal friction angle ϕ 6◦
Specific weight γs 14157 N/m3
Cohesive deformation coefficient kc 0.81 × 103 N·m− (n + 1)
Friction deformation coefficient kϕ 3.88 × 104 N·m− (n + 2)
Plasticity index Ip 88.2%
Deformability index n 0.48
Ratio of maximum shear strength to residual
Kr 0.42
shear strength
Shear displacement corresponding to
Kw 0.037 m
maximum shear strength
Nc 7.77
Terzaghi bearing capacity coefficients
Nγ 0.65
Rutted Soil Parameters Symbol Value
Residual internal friction angle ϕr 4.46◦
Cohesive deformation coefficient kcr 2.45 × 103 N·m− (n + 1)
Friction deformation coefficient k ϕr 1.17 × 105 N·m− (n + 2)
Ncr 7.15
Terzaghi bearing capacity coefficients
Nγr 0.45
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 7 of 36

It is worth noting that every track frame was connected to the chassis by a cylindrical
shaft. One end of the shaft was fixed to the chassis, and the other end was connected to the
center of the track frame by revolutes. With such a structure, the design of rotatable tracks
can be realized, which enabled the DSMV to possess a good obstacle-crossing capability.
When walking on an uneven seafloor, the tracks could be rotated to achieve terrain self-
adaptation. Meanwhile, the rotation of the tracks was limited within a certain range to
prevent the rotation angle from being too large.

2.1. Track–Soil Force Calculation

The most important part is the setting of the track–soil interaction forces that provide
support force and soil thrust for the travel of the model. As shown in Figure 5, FNf and FNr
are, respectively, the support force of the front and rear track, Ftf and Ftr are, respectively,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 39
the soil thrust of the front and rear track, G is the gravity, and FB is the buoyancy force.
G and FB can be considered together by setting the underwater weight for the model.

Figure5.5.Schematic
Figure Schematicdiagram
diagramof
oftrack–soil
track–soilinteraction
interactionforce.
force.

Thenormal
The normalsupport
supportforce
forceprovided
provided bybythethe soil
soil is mainly
is mainly related
related to the
to the pressure-sink-
pressure-sinkage
age relationship.
relationship. The Themostmost
popular popular pressure–sinkage
pressure–sinkage relationship
relationship equation
equation waswas created
created by
by Bekker
Bekker [29].[29]. Although
Although it isitan
is an empirical
empirical formula,
formula, a significantcollection
a significant collectionofofexperimental
experimental
datahas
data hasproven
provenits itsreliability.
reliability.As Asaaresult,
result,thethenormal
normaltrack–soil
track–soilforce
forcecan
canbebecalculated
calculatedas as
follows:
follows:  
kc
p= + k ϕ zn , (1)
 kc b  n
p =  + kϕ  z , (1)
where p is the normal pressure, b is the  btrack width,
 kc is the soil cohesive deformation
coefficient, k ϕ is the coefficient of soil friction deformation, z is the depth at which the track
where
plate p isinto
sinks the the
normal pressure,
sediment, and bn is the soil
is the track width, kc isexponent.
deformation the soil cohesive deformation
coefficient, k is the coefficient of soil friction deformation,
In addition to the normal support force, the traction force
φ z is of
thethe
depth
DSMV at which
mainly the track
comes
plate sinks into the sediment, and n is the soil deformation exponent.
from the shear interactions between the track plate and the sediment. As shown in Figure 6,
there In
areaddition
two main to classical
the normal supportJanosi
equations. force, the
andtraction
Hanamoto force of the
[30] DSMVamainly
proposed comes
shear stress–
from displacement
shear the shear interactions
equation between the track
to describe plate and
the plastic groundthe sediment.
based onAs shown
a large in Figure
number of
experimental
6, there are two studies.
mainThe Janosi equations.
classical and Hanamoto Janosi (J-H)
andmodel is shown
Hanamoto [30]asproposed
follows: a shear
stress–shear displacement equation to describe  the plastic
 ground based on a large num-
− j/K
ber of experimental studies. The τJanosi = τmax and· Hanamoto
1−e ,(J–H) model is shown as follows: (2)

where τ max is the maximum shear stress, τ =and (

τ maxK⋅ is
1 −the − j/K
e shear )
, displacement parameter, which (2)
represents the shear displacement when the shear stress reaches its maximum. Furthermore,
where
by τmax is thetrack
conducting maximum shear
plate–soil stress, and K is the
multi-parameter shear Wong
testing, displacement
et al. [31] parameter,
proposedwhich
the
representsshear
following the shear displacement
stress–shear when the
displacement shear stress reaches its maximum. Further-
model:
more, by conducting track  plate–soil
 multi-parameter  testing, Wong et al. [31] proposed
the following shear stress–shear 1
τ = τmax · Kr 1 + displacement model:
− 1 e 1 − j/K w 1 − e− j/Kw , (3)
Kr (1 − e −1 )
   
  e 1− j / Kw  1 − e − j / Kw ,
τ = τ max ⋅ Kr 1 + 
1
− 1 ( ) (3)
(
  Kr 1 − e
−1
) 
 
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 8 of 36

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 39

where Kr is the ratio of the residual shear stress to the maximum shear stress, KW is the
shear displacement at the maximum shear stress, and j is the shear displacement.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 40

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Curves
Curves of
of two
two shear
shear stress–shear
stress–shear displacement
displacement models.
models.

Figure 6. Curves of two

According toshear stress–shear displacement
the Mohr–Coulomb law, models.
According ττmax
max can
canbe
becalculated
calculatedas
asfollows:
follows:
According to the Mohr–Coulomb law, ττmax p ⋅ ta n ϕ , as follows:
= cbe+ calculated
can (4)
τmax = c + p · tan ϕ,
m ax (4)
τ = c + p ⋅ ta n ϕ , (4)
where c is the cohesion, and φ ismthe ax
internal friction angle.
where c is the cohesion, and ϕ is the internal friction angle.
where cAccording to Equations
is the cohesion, and φ is the (2)–(4), it can angle.
internal friction be learned that in both models mentioned
According to Equations (2)–(4), it can be learned that in both models mentioned
According
above, the to Equations
shear stress is (2)–(4), ittocan
related two beparameters,
learned that which
in bothare
models mentioned
normal pressure and
above,
above, the
the
shear
shear stress
stress is
is related
related to two
to two parameters,
parameters, which are
which
normal
are normal
pressure and
pressure and shear
shear
shear models, and
displacement.
displacement. According
According to
to Table
Table 2,
2, the
the same
same parameters
parameters were
were set
set for
for both
both models, and
displacement. According to Table 2, the same parameters were set for both models, and
the
the relationship
relationship between
between the
theshear
shear stress
stressand
andthethe
twotwoparameters
parameters in both
in models
both are are
models re-
the relationship between the shear stress and the two parameters in both models are re-
spectively
respectively
spectively presented
presented
presented in
in FiguresFigures
in Figures 7 and
7 and 8. It7can 8.
and It
be8.can be observed
It can be
observed that
thatobserved the difference
thatbetween
the difference the difference
the between the
between
two
two models
models is is
quitequite noticeable.
noticeable.
the two models is quite noticeable.

Figure
Figure 7. Relationship
7. Relationship surface
surface of stress
of shear shear relating
stress relating to pressure
to positive positiveand
pressure and shear displacement in
shear displacement
inthe
the J-H model.
J-H model.

Figure 7. Relationship surface of shear stress relating to positive pressure and shear displacement
in the J-H model.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 9 of 36
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 39

Figure 8. Relationship surface of shear stress relating to positive pressure and shear displacement
Figure 8. Relationship surface of shear stress relating to positive pressure and shear displacement in
in the Wong’s model.
the Wong’s model.
Based on the physical characteristics tests conducted on seafloor sediments, it was
concluded that the
Based onseafloor sediments characteristics
the physical could be classified as “undisturbed
tests conducted firm soil”
on [32].
seafloor sediments, it was
Additionally, the Wong shear stress–shear displacement model is believed to be more ac-
concluded that the seafloor sediments could be classified as “undisturbed firm soil” [32].
curate for this type of soil [16].
Additionally,
However, in thethe Wong
software shear the
Recurdyn, stress–shear displacement
Janosi and Hanamoto (J–H) shearmodel
stress– is believed to be more
accurate
shear for this
displacement type
model of soil
is used as the[16].
default track–soil force model. Therefore, written
in Visual Studio in the C# language, a customized user subroutine (USUB) was created,
However, in the software Recurdyn, the Janosi and Hanamoto (J-H) shear stress–shear
and a .dll file was added to the model to calculate the track–soil force.
displacement
The longitudinal model is used
soil thrust can beas the default
calculated from the track–soil force
integral of the model.
shear stress Therefore, written in
Visual
over Studio
the ground in theTherefore,
surface. C# language, a customized
the soil thrust usercan
of a single track subroutine
be calculated(USUB)
as was created, and a
follows:
.dll file was added to the model to calculate the track–soil force.
The longitudinal   soil thrust can becalculated from the integral of the shear stress over
the ground0 surface.

Ft =  τ ⋅ sgn ( j ) dA = b ( c + p tan φ ) Kr 1 + 
L

(
1
)
Therefore,
  Kr 1 − e
−1 the (
1− j x / K 

 soil thrust 
)
− 1 e ( ) w  1 − e ( ) w sgn ( j ) dx
−j x /K
of a single track can(5)
be calculated as follows:
 
x where L andL b are, respectively, the length and width
Z   
1 of a single track’s

( xground
)/Kw surface. − j( x )/Kw

Ft = τ · sgn( j)dA = The (c +above
b equation p tanis φ
the r 1as+the track–soil force
)Ksame − 1
− 1 e1− jequation
calculation 1 −Re-
in the e sgn( j)dx (5)
0 Kr (1 − e )
curdyn.USUB. The soil parameters in the Equation (5) were set as shown in Table 2. As a
result, the DSMV dynamics model was optimized based on a more accurate shear stress–
where L and b are, respectively, the length and width of a single track’s ground surface.
shear displacement model.
The equation above is the same as the track–soil force calculation equation in the
2.2. Resistance Calculation and
Recurdyn.USUB. TheEstimation
soil parameters in the Equation (5) were set as shown in Table 2.
As a result, the DSMV dynamics model was by
In addition to traction forces, the DSMV is also influenced various resistance
optimized based forces
on a more accurate shear
during travel, as demonstrated in Figure 9.
stress–shear displacement model.

2.2. Resistance Calculation and Estimation

In addition to traction forces, the DSMV is also influenced11by
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW various resistance forces
of 39
during travel, as demonstrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of the resistance to the model.

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of the resistance to the model.
(1) Internal resistance (Rin)
First, the internal resistance of a tracked vehicle is generated by the friction and col-
lision of the track components, which is mainly related to the vehicle weight and the ve-
locity during the track travel [33]. It can be estimated empirically by the following equa-
tion:
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 10 of 36

(1) Internal resistance (Rin )

First, the internal resistance of a tracked vehicle is generated by the friction and
collision of the track components, which is mainly related to the vehicle weight and the
velocity during the track travel [33]. It can be estimated empirically by the following
equation:
Rin = Ci · W, (6)
where Ci is the coefficient of internal resistance, which is 3–8% according to the structure of
the track, and W is the DSMVs underwater weight.
(2) Water resistance (RW )
Moreover, despite the low velocity, the resistance of the flow field is also an influential
factor in the dynamic performance of the DSMV owing to the high seawater density
and large vehicle volume. According to the computational fluid dynamics simulation
results of the DSMV, water resistance caused by hydrodynamic effects can be calculated as
follows [34]:
1
Rw = − Cd ρv2 A, (7)
2
where Cd is the coefficient of water resistance, ρ is the density of seawater, v is the motion
velocity, and A is the waterfront area.
(3) Bulldozing resistance (Rb )
Furthermore, the seafloor sediment, in addition to providing traction for the DSMV,
also generates resistance. Due to the sinkage of the tracks, sediments are raised up at
the front end of the tracks, leading the tracks continuously push horizontally against the
soil wall in front of it. As a result, the track is subjected to a reaction force known as the
bulldozing resistance, which plays a major role in all resistance [35]. Considering the track’s
pitch angle, track plates sinking in the soil will also be hindered by the soil in front of them.
Based on Rankine passive soil compression theory, the bulldozing resistance of a single
track is equal to the horizontal force of the soil pressure on a vertical retaining wall of equal
height. The following equations were used for calculating the bulldozing resistance of a
single track [36]: h i
Rb = b 0.67c(z B + h)Kc + 0.5(z B + h)2 γs Kγ , (8)

Kc = ( Nc − tan ϕ) cos2 ϕ, (9)

Kγ = (2Nγ / tan ϕ + 1) cos2 ϕ, (10)

where h is the height of the raised soil wall at the front of the track, zB is the bulldozing
height of the track in the horizontal direction, namely, the sinking depth of the rear end of
the track, as shown in Figure 10, γs is the specific weight of the sediment, Kc and Kγ are
coefficients related to the passive earth pressure, and Nγ and Nc are the Terzaghi bearing
capacity coefficients, which are determined by the sediment’s internal friction angle. Since
the soil raised at the front of the track is squeezed and deformed, the internal structure
of the soil is almost destroyed, so the blocking effect by this part of the soil is quite weak.
Therefore, h can be considered approximately to be 0.
 height of the track in the horizontal direction, namely, the sinking depth of the rear end
of the track, as shown in Figure 10, γs is the specific weight of the sediment, Kc and Kγ are
coefficients related to the passive earth pressure, and Nγ and Nc are the Terzaghi bearing
capacity coefficients, which are determined by the sediment’s internal friction angle. Since
the soil raised at the front of the track is squeezed and deformed, the internal structure of
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 11 of 36
the soil is almost destroyed, so the blocking effect by this part of the soil is quite weak.
Therefore, h can be considered approximately to be 0.

Figure10.
Figure 10.Schematic
Schematicdiagram
diagramof
ofthe
theorthogonal
orthogonaldecomposition
decompositionofoftrack–soil
track–soilforces.
forces.

(4) Compaction
(4) Compactionresistance
resistance(R
(Rc)c )

Apart from the bulldozing resistance, the track also consumes energy in the vertical
Apart from the bulldozing resistance, the track also consumes energy in the vertical
compaction of the sediment. This part of the lost mechanical energy can then be equiva-
compaction of the sediment. This part of the lost mechanical energy can then be equivalently
lently expressed
expressed as the compaction
as the compaction resistance
resistance that hinders
that hinders the DSMVs
the DSMVs movement
movement forward.
forward.
The work W 1 performed by the track bottom to compact the soil into a rut can be
The work W1 performed by the track bottom to compact the soil into a rut can be
calculatedby
calculated byintegrating
integratingthe
thenormal
normalpressure.
pressure.The
Thework
workW W2performed
performedby bythe
theequivalent
equivalent
2
longitudinal compaction resistance can be obtained by multiplying the value
longitudinal compaction resistance can be obtained by multiplying the value of the of theforce
force
withthe
with therut
rutlength
lengthL.L.Moreover,
Moreover,WW2should
shouldbe beequal
equaltotoW
W1, ,shown
shownasasfollows:
follows:
2 1

z  k   n+1 
kc c + k   zzn+1  ,
0 = bl b b+ k ϕ ϕ nn++ 11 ,
Z z 
W = bl
W1 = bl1 pdz pdz = bl (11)
(11)
0

W 2R=c lR=
W2 = c 1 .1 .
l =WW (12)
(12)

wherel lisisthe
where thelength
lengthofofthe
therut.
rut.
Thus,
Thus,thetheequation
equationforforthe
thecompaction
compactionresistance
resistanceisisshown
shownasasfollows
follows[28]:
[28]:

kc  k zczc 
  n+n+11
Rc =Rbc = b + ck +
ϕ kϕ  
n + 1  .
. (13)
(13)
b b
  n + 1 
where zc is the depth of the rut, as shown in Figure 10, namely, the sinking depth of the
where zc is the depth of the rut, as shown in Figure 10, namely, the sinking depth of the
track plate at the rear end of the track.
track plate at the rear end of the track.
In addition, considering the track’s pitch angle, the orthogonal decomposition of
In addition, considering the track’s pitch angle, the orthogonal decomposition of sup-
support force and soil thrust are demonstrated in Figure 10. It can be observed that the
port force and soil thrust are demonstrated in Figure 10. It can be observed that the
support force has a horizontal partial force hindering the travel of the mining vehicle and
is called gradient resistance [37].
In combination with the previous analysis, the essence of the gradient resistance is the
horizontal bulldozing resistance of the track due to track pitch, so the two are essentially
the same force. Meanwhile, as the vehicle travels, the vertical partial forces of soil thrust
and support force continuously compact the soil into a rut.
Therefore, given that the support force and soil thrust are the track–soil forces calcu-
lated in the Recurdyn.USUB, the bulldozing resistance, and the compaction resistance were
already included in the model.
Assuming that the pitch angle and soil thrust of the front and rear tracks are the
same and the mining vehicle is in static equilibrium in the vertical direction during the
 tially the same force. Meanwhile, as the vehicle travels, the vertical partial forces of soil
thrust and support force continuously compact the soil into a rut.
Therefore, given that the support force and soil thrust are the track–soil forces calcu-
lated in the Recurdyn.USUB, the bulldozing resistance, and the compaction resistance
were already included in the model.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 Assuming that the pitch angle and soil thrust of the front and rear tracks are the12same
of 36
and the mining vehicle is in static equilibrium in the vertical direction during the stabili-
zation phase of travel, the total gradient resistance can be calculated by the following
equation. phase of travel, the total gradient resistance can be calculated by the following
stabilization
equation.
R = F sin α = W ta n α − 4 F sin α ta n α , (14)
RG =G FN Nsin α = W tan α − 4Ftt sin α tan α, (14)
whereααare
where arethe
thepitch
pitchangle
angleof ofthe
thetrack.
track.
It can be seen that it is the horizontal
It can be seen that it is the horizontal component component of the
of the soil soil thrust
thrust that that actually
actually pro-
provides
vides the longitudinal traction. Moreover, the vertical components
the longitudinal traction. Moreover, the vertical components of both the soil thrust and theof both the soil thrust
and the force
support support force provide
together togetherthe provide
sources the
ofsources of the compaction
the compaction resistance, resistance, and the
and the horizontal
horizontal component
component of the support of the support
force providesforce
theprovides the resistance.
bulldozing bulldozing resistance.
Insummary,
In summary,the thesoil-related
soil-relatedresistances
resistanceswere
were already
already included
included in in the
the model’s
model’s track–
track–
soil force. Instead of setting up friction contact between the track components
soil force. Instead of setting up friction contact between the track components during the during the
modeling process, the internal resistance was simplified to a resultant
modeling process, the internal resistance was simplified to a resultant force and added to force and added to
the model in the form of an external load. Moreover, the effect of water
the model in the form of an external load. Moreover, the effect of water resistance, which resistance, which
cannot be
cannot be accurately
accurately simulated
simulated in in the
the software
software Recurdyn,
Recurdyn, was was also
also introduced
introduced intointo the
the
modelby
model byadding
addingan anexternal
externalload. load.
Asaaresult,
As result,thethe above-mentioned
above-mentioned resistances
resistances canbeall
can all be realized
realized in the dynamics
in the dynamics model.
model.
As shown Asin shown
Figurein11,Figure 11, theresistance
the water water resistance was applied
was applied at the
at the front facefront facevehicle
of the of the
vehicle
body, andbody, and the resistance
the internal internal resistance
was appliedwas atapplied at the
the mass mass
center ofcenter of the chassis.
the chassis.

Figure11.
Figure 11.Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of
ofDSMV
DSMV in
inprocess
processof
oftravel
travel(the
(theblue
blueand
andpurple
purplearrows
arrowsrepresent
represent
the resistance acting on the DSMV during travel and the red curve represents the trace of the
the resistance acting on the DSMV during travel and the red curve represents the trace of the model.).
model.).
As it is difficult to extract the values of soil-related resistance directly from the software
As it is
Recurdyn, difficult
the to extract
estimation the values
equations of soil-related
for compaction resistance
resistance directly from
and bulldozing the soft-
resistance
ware Recurdyn, the estimation equations for compaction resistance and bulldozing
were added to the model in the form of Expression. The estimation equations for soil-related re-
sistance were added to the model in the form of Expression. The estimation
resistances added to the model would not participate in any simulation calculations of the equations for
soil-related
model and doresistances
not haveadded to the model
any influence would
on the not participate
simulation in anyare
results. They simulation calcu-
just equations
lations
that of the
obtain modelparameters
relevant and do not simultaneously
have any influence onthe
from theresults
simulation
of theresults. They are
simulation. just
Hence,
as the simulation proceeds, curves for the change in the values of soil-related resistances
can be estimated from the equations.

2.3. Multi-Pass Effect

Based on the multi-pass effect [38], soil characteristics at the same location can change
as a result of multiple passes of the track. This results in different properties of the ground
in contact with the front and rear track, thus leading to a change in the traction performance
and the resistance to the track.
After the compression of the front track, the soil in the rut will become stronger. At the
same time, after the shear interaction of the front track, the rutted soil undergoes excessive
shear displacement deformation, and the strength will be reduced. Given the thin and soft
characteristics of the seafloor sediment, as well as the slippage and dynamic sinkage, the
 as a result of multiple passes of the track. This results in different properties of the ground
in contact with the front and rear track, thus leading to a change in the traction perfor-
mance and the resistance to the track.
After the compression of the front track, the soil in the rut will become stronger. At
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 the same time, after the shear interaction of the front track, the rutted soil undergoes 13 ofex-
36
cessive shear displacement deformation, and the strength will be reduced. Given the thin
and soft characteristics of the seafloor sediment, as well as the slippage and dynamic sink-
age, the shear destruction on the soil by the front track will be more considerable. As a
shear destruction on the soil by the front track will be more considerable. As a result, the
result, the rutted soil can be approximately regarded to have decreased compressibility
rutted soil can be approximately regarded to have decreased compressibility and lower
and lower shear strength.
shear strength.
2.3.1. Repetitive
2.3.1. Repetitive Compression
CompressionCharacteristics
Characteristicsof ofSoils
Soils
According to
According to classical
classical geotechnical
geotechnicaltheory
theory[39], [39],cohesive
cohesivesoil has
soil an an
has elastic-plastic
elastic-plasticna-
ture, so most of the compressive deformation is irreversible plastic deformation,
nature, so most of the compressive deformation is irreversible plastic deformation, except except
foraasmall
for smallpart
partwhich
which is is irreversible
irreversible elastic
elastic deformation.
deformation. Therefore,
Therefore, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 12a,
when the soil is loaded (OA) and subsequently unloaded (AB), the deformation of theofsoil
12a, when the soil is loaded (OA) and subsequently unloaded (AB), the deformation the
soil does
does not return
not return to zero.
to zero. Additionally,
Additionally, e1 -e0e,1-e
the0, the amount
amount of rebound
of rebound duedue to unloading,
to unloading, is
is much
much smaller
smaller than
than 1, the
e1 ,ethe amount
amount ofofvirgin
virgincompression.
compression.As Asshown
shownin insection
sectionBA’,
BA’,after
after
unloading,reloading
unloading, reloadingtotothe theoriginal
originalload
loadpp willproduce
0 0will produceaanewnewnormal
normalstrain
straine2e-e
2-e thatisis
0 0that
similarlymuch
similarly muchsmaller
smallerthan thanee11..

(a) ( b)
Figure12.
Figure 12.Cohesive
Cohesivesoil
soilconsolidation
consolidationcharacteristic
characteristiccurve:
curve: (a)
(a)the
thenormal
normalstress-strain
stress-strainrelationship
relationship
of the soil under consolidation condition, and (b) estimation for unloading and reloading processes
of the soil under consolidation condition, and (b) estimation for unloading and reloading processes
of soil.
of soil.

Hence, although
Hence, although both both loadings
loadings are
are loaded
loaded from
from zero
zeroto
topp0,0 ,the
thenormal
normalstrains
strainsgener-
gen-
ated by the soil are not the same. This indicates that after loading and
erated by the soil are not the same. This indicates that after loading and unloading, unloading, the com-
the
pressibility of the
compressibility soil soil
of the recompressed
recompressedin the original
in the stress
original range
stress rangeis much smaller
is much thanthan
smaller that
at the
that at virgin compression.
the virgin compression.
In order
In order totocalculate
calculatethethesinkage
sinkageduring
duringunloading
unloadingandandsecondary
secondaryloading,
loading,asasshown
shown
inFigure
in Figure12b,
12b,ititisisassumed
assumedthat thatthe
the pressure-sinkage
pressure-sinkagerelationship
relationshipcurves
curvesofofthe
theunloading
unloading
section AB and the reloading section BA’ are overlapping straight lines, which means that
e1 = e2 .
Therefore, according to the above analysis, for soil in a certain location:
1. OA: The front track compressed the sediment into a rut, resulting in a sinkage that
corresponds to the sinkage z1 ;
2. AB: The front track moved away and the sediment in the rut rebounded, the amount
of rebound corresponds to the sinkage reduction z1 -zuf ;
3. BA’: The rear track moved up to this position, and the track again applied load to
the sediment, resulting in a second compression, which corresponds to the sinkage
zur —zuf . Moreover, the second compression of the rear track is much smaller than the
virgin compression of the front track. Therefore, the total amount of sinkage in the
rear track corresponds to the total sinkage zur generated by the two loads;
4. A’E: After the rear track left, a second rebound of the sediment occurred.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 14 of 36

The range between unloading and reloading can be approximated by a linear function
in the pressure-sinkage relationship.

p( z ) = p1 − k ( z1 − z ), z u f < z < z1 , (15)

p1
k= , (16)
z1 × r s
where p and z are, respectively, the pressure and sinkage during unloading or reloading,
p1 and z1 are the pressure and sinkage when unloading begins, k is the average slope of the
unloading-reloading line, and rs is the sinkage ratio.
As displayed in Equation (17), the compression index Cc and the expansion index Ce
were respectively applied to describe the soil’s compressive characteristics in the compression
section and unloading-reloading section. The expansion index Ce is generally several times
less than the compression index Cc [40]. For a typical cohesive soil, Ce = (0.1~0.2)Cc [39].
Therefore, the value of rs was taken as 0.1.

∆e
Cc /Ce = − , (17)
∆(lgp)

where e is the void ratio, and ∆e can represent the soil strain during compression.
In conclusion, the sediments in the ruts were compressed by the front track, the soil
properties were changed, and the compressibility was greatly reduced. Therefore, in this
model, the second compression depth of the rear track on the rutted sediment was set to be
10% of the depth of the virgin compression caused by the front track. So, it can be assumed
that sinkage-related parameters of rutted soil change correspondingly.
According to this setting, based on Bekker’s equation, the pressure-sinkage relation-
ship equation for the rear track on the rut can be gained as follows:
 
k cr
pr = + k ϕr zr n , (18)
b

where kcr and k ϕr are, respectively, the rut’s coefficient of soil cohesive deformation and
soil friction deformation, and zr is the second compression depth of the rear track.
Since the equations of soil-related resistance are closely related to the depth of sinking,
the new sinkage zr generated by the rear track and rutted soil’s parameters kcr and k ϕr
should be used instead in the soil-related resistance estimation equation of the rear track.
Furthermore, Equations (15), (16) and (18) were also included in the Recurdyn.USUB for
the track–soil force calculation.

2.3.2. Residual Shear Characteristics of Soils

Due to the damage to the soil’s structure, the rutted soil that experienced a large
shear deformation can only generate relatively low shear strength and a different shear
stress-shear displacement model should be applied instead, which is exactly the residual
shear characteristics of soils.
As demonstrated in Figure 13, according to Mohr Coulomb’s formula (Equation (4)),
the relationship between the shear strength and normal stress of undisturbed clay is
shown in the AB line segment. In addition, for the soil after a large shear deformation,
the relationship between residual shear strength and normal stress is shown as the OC
segment.
The angle between the two lines and the horizontal axis are, respectively, the internal
friction angle ϕ and the residual internal friction angle ϕr . The value of the residual internal
friction angle is smaller than the internal friction angle and is mainly determined by the
mineral composition of the soil. Besides, based on the results of a series of tests, since the
previous shear deformation destroyed the structural strength of the soil, the cohesion in
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 39

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 15 of 36

2.3.2. Residual Shear Characteristics of Soils
Due to the damage to the soil’s structure, the rutted soil that experienced a large shear
deformation can only
the residual shear generatecan
relationship relatively
be takenlow shear[40],
to zero strength and a different
thus enabling shear
the failure stress-
envelope
of sheared
shear soil to be model
displacement a line through
should be theapplied
zero point.
instead, which is exactly the residual shear
Therefore,offor
characteristics the soil at a certain location:
soils.
1. As
AB: Compressioninand
demonstrated Figure
shear 13,occurred
according to Mohr
when Coulomb’s
the front formula
track passed by,(Equation (4)),
and the shear
the relationship between
strength increased andthe shearstabilized
finally strength atand normal
point B; stress of undisturbed clay is
shown
2. in The
BO: the AB line
front segment.
track In addition,
left, and both normalfor the soiland
stress after a large
shear shearbecame
strength deformation,
zero; the
relationship
3. OC: Thebetween
rear track residual
went up shear strength
to this andand
position, normal stress isshear
the residual shown as theincreased
strength OC seg-
ment.and finally stabilized at point C. After the rear track left, it returned to the zero point.

Figure 13. Shear curves for cohesive soils.

From
The the above
angle between analysis,
the two it lines
is clear
andthat
thezero cohesion
horizontal ofare,
axis sheared soil alsothe
respectively, means that
internal
the soil becomes plastic after shear deformation. Consequently, the soil thrust
friction angle φ and the residual internal friction angle φr. The value of the residual inter- generated
by the
nal rear angle
friction track isshould
smallernot thanbe the
calculated
internal by Equation
friction angle(3),
andbut rather determined
is mainly the J-H model by
needs
the to becomposition
mineral used. As a of result,
the soil.a residual
Besides, shear
based model can be of
on the results obtained,
a series ofastests,
shown in
since
Equations
the previous(19) and deformation
shear (20). destroyed the structural
 strength of the soil, the cohesion
− j/K
in the residual shear relationship can τ =be · 1−
τrestaken toezero [40],
, thus enabling the failure enve-(19)
lope of sheared soil to be a line through the zero point.
Therefore, for the soil at a certain location:
τres = p · tan ϕr , (20)
1. AB: Compression and shear occurred when the front track passed by, and the shear
A modified
strength empirical
increased andequation was obtained
finally stabilized at point forB; the residual internal friction angle
of the soil by fitting some selected experimental
2. BO: The front track left, and both normal stress and data based
shearonstrength
the characteristics
became zero;of the
seafloor sediments [40], which is shown as follows:
3. OC: The rear track went up to this position, and the residual shear strength increased
and finally stabilized at point C. After the rear
−track
1.36 left, it returned to the zero point.
ϕr = 1988 · I p . (21)
From the above analysis, it is clear that zero cohesion of sheared soil also means that
the soilIpbecomes
where plastic after
is the plasticity indexshear
of thedeformation.
soil. Consequently, the soil thrust generated
by the rear track should
Accordingly, Nγ andnotNcbe calculated
, which by Equation
are related to the angle (3), but rather the
of internal J-H model
friction, needs
would also
to
change. As a result, the passive soil pressure coefficients Kcr and Kγr can be calculated(19)
be used. As a result, a residual shear model can be obtained, as shown in Equations for
and (20). soil based on the residual internal friction angle, which can be used to estimate
the rutted
the bulldozing resistance of the rear track in the rut.
Similarly, the parameters in the τresidual (
= τ res ⋅ 1shear )
− e − j / Kmodel
, were set according to Table (19)
2.
The relationship surface of the residual shear stress relating to the two parameters was
obtained, as shown in Figure 14. Compared τ res = with
p ⋅ tanFigures
ϕr , 7 and 8, the residual shear stress
(20)
is apparently lower.
A modified empirical equation was obtained for the residual internal friction angle
of the soil by fitting some selected experimental data based on the characteristics of the
seafloor sediments [40], which is shown as follows:
 change. As a result, the passive soil pressure coefficients Kcr and Kγr can be calculated for
the rutted soil based on the residual internal friction angle, which can be used to estimate
the bulldozing resistance of the rear track in the rut.
Similarly, the parameters in the residual shear model were set according to Table 2.
The relationship surface of the residual shear stress relating to the two parameters was
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 16 of 36
obtained, as shown in Figure 14. Compared with Figures 7 and 8, the residual shear stress
is apparently lower.

Figure
Figure 14.14. Relationship
Relationship surface
surface of residual
of residual shearshear
stressstress relating
relating to positive
to positive pressure
pressure and dis-
and shear shear
displacement
placement in theinJ-H
themodel.
J-H model.

2.3.3. Distance between Front and Rear Tracks

2.3.3. Distance Between Front and Rear Tracks
However, it is also worth noting that the rear tracks did not walk on the ruts left by
However, it is also worth noting that the rear tracks did not walk on the ruts left by
the front tracks from the very beginning. There is a distance between the front end of the
the front tracks from the very beginning. There is a distance between the front end of the
rear track and the rear end of the front track. Assuming that d is the longitudinal distance
rear track and the rear end of the front track. Assuming that d is the longitudinal distance
between tracks and L is the ground length of a single track. As a result, the travel of the
between tracks and L is the ground length of a single track. As a result, the travel of the
rear track during the starting phase can be described as follows:
rear track during the starting phase can be described as follows:
• When the travel distance was less than d, the ground interacting with the rear track
• When the travel distance was less than d, the ground interacting with the rear track
was still undisturbed sediments;
was still undisturbed sediments;
• When the travel distance of the rear track was greater than d, the rear track gradually
• When the travel distance of the rear track was greater than d, the rear track gradually
started to walk on the ruts. As shown in Figure 15, only part of the rear track entered
started to walk on the ruts. As shown in Figure 15, only part of the rear track entered
the rut when the travel distance was still less than L + d. Thus, only part of the soil
the rut whenwith
interacting the travel distance
the rear was
track was still less
rutted soil, than
whileL+d.
the Thus, onlywas
other part partstill
of relatively
the soil
interacting with the rear
undisturbed sediments; track was rutted soil, while the other part was still relatively
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER undisturbed
• REVIEW sediments;
When the travel distance was greater than L + d, the rear track had completely18entered
of 39
• When the travel distance was greater than L+d, the rear track had completely
the rut, and all that interacted with the rear track thereafter was rutted soil. entered
the rut, and all that interacted with the rear track thereafter was rutted soil.

Figure15.
Figure 15. Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of
of the
the process
processof
ofthe
thetrack
trackentering
enteringthe
therut.
rut.

Taking this phenomenon into account, the final shear stress and soil thrust calculation
equation for the rear track are demonstrated in Equations (22) and (23).

( )
τ ⋅ 1 − e − j / K , x ≤ d / 2
 res g
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 17 of 36

Taking this phenomenon into account, the final shear stress and soil thrust calculation
equation for the rear track are demonstrated in Equations (22) and (23).
− j/K , x ≤ d/2


 τres · 1 − e
 g
τr =     , (22)
1
1 e1− j/Kw 1 − e− j/Kw , xg > d/2


 τmax · Kr 1 +

− 1 −
Kr ( 1− e )

 R  
L
x  b 0 p tan ϕr · 1 − e− j( x)/K sgn[ j( x )]dx, xg ≤ d/2

Ftr = τ · sgn( j)dA = , (23)
    
RL
 b 0 (c + p tan ϕ)Kr 1 + K 1−1 e−1 − 1 e1− j( x)/Kw
 1 − e− j( x)/Kw sgn[ j( x )]dx, xg > d/2
r( )

where xg is the global position of each contact patch on the track mesh. Since the zero point
is at the center of the chassis, the contact patch can be regarded as having entered the rut
when the position was greater than d/2.
Similarly, the estimation equation for soil-related resistance of rear tracks can be
modified as follows:
  
b kc


 n+1 b + k ϕ z 0 n +1 , 0 < s < d


 h    i
Rcr = b kc
+ k z n+1 + k cr + k z n +1 , d ≤ s ≤ d + L , (24)
n+1 b ϕ 0 b φr r


  
 b kcr + k φr zr n+1 , s > d + L


n+1 b

b 0.67cz0 Kc + 0.5z0 2 γs Kγ , 0 < x < d





 
b 0.67cz0 Kc + 0.5z0 2 γs Kγ + 0.67czr Kcr + 0.5zr 2 γs Kγr , d < x < L + d ,



Rbr = (25)


b 0.67czr Kcr + 0.5zr 2 γs Kγr , x > L + d



h, 0 < s < d
z0 = , (26)
h · s−L d , d ≤ s ≤ d + L

 h · rs · L−Ls+d , d ≤ s ≤ d + L


zr = . (27)
h · rs , s > d + L


where s is the travel distance of the mining vehicle, h is the sinking depth of the rear end of
the rear track, z0 is the sinking depth of the track in undisturbed soil, and zr is the second
compression depth of the rear track in ruts.
Since the parameters that can be used to calculate the resistance in the Expression of
the software Recurdyn are the states of the model components. Therefore, the sinkage in
the calculation equation is converted into the form expressed in h. The amount of sinkage
h expressed in the software for the rear track should be the total amount of sinkage for the
front and rear tracks, namely, the z1 in Figure 12b so that the amount of sinkage for the rear
track can be expressed with the use of rs .
In summary, in the Recurdyn.USUB, the calculation equations for the track–soil force
of the rear track were modified according to Equations (15), (16), (18) and (23), and the
estimation equations for soil-related resistances to the rear track were modified in the
model according to Equations (24)–(27). As a consequence, modifications of the soil-related
resistance and soil thrust based on the multi-pass effect were achieved.

2.4. Velocity-Related Resistance Coefficient

The results of numerical simulation [41] concerning soil compression show that the
pressure does not vary with increasing loading rate during the elastic phase (sinkage < 0.05 m).
After the elastic phase, the loading rate and the normal pressure are positively correlated.
Additionally, based on the results of another numerical simulation [42], the soil thrust
obtained by the track plate during bulldozing is also positively related to the velocity.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 18 of 36

Since the compaction resistance is directly related to the work performed by the normal
pressure, the greater the travel velocity, the more work will be performed in unit time.
Consequently, it can be approximately inferred that the values of the compaction resistance
are directly proportional to the velocity. Furthermore, the equation of bulldozing resistance
is derived from the passive soil pressure theory in the bulldozing process of the track
plate. It can be inferred that the value of bulldozing resistance is also positively related to
velocity. Therefore, a velocity-related coefficient was introduced into soil-related resistance
estimation equations.
Based on the results of numerical simulations, the classical empirical equation for soil-
related resistance was modified as shown in Equations (28)–(30). As a result, soil-related
resistances can vary with the sinking depth and velocity during the travel.

 R c , 0 < z < zd

RcV =     n +1  
zd ( z − z d ) n +1
  , (28)
kc
 b b + kϕ

n +1 + n +1 × CsV , z > zd

RbV = Rb × CsV , (29)

( "  0.75 #)
Vx
CsV = 2 · 1 − 1/ 1 + , (30)
V0

where zd is the dividing point between the elastic phase and the transition phase, which is
taken as 0.05 m, V 0 is the base velocity, and CsV is the velocity-related coefficient for the
estimation of soil-related resistances.
In addition, the internal resistance is closely associated with the energy consumed
by friction and collision, which is also work-related. Therefore, it can be deduced that
the value of the internal resistance is also positively related to the velocity. However, the
internal resistance is a constant value, which is obviously contrary to the actual situation.
As shown in Equation (31), the original internal resistance coefficient is modified to a new
velocity-related empirical coefficient CiV . This makes the internal resistance vary with the
travel velocity while not exceeding its maximum value, which is set as 8% of the self-weight.

−( Vx
V −1)
RinV = CiV · W = (8 − 2.94e 0 ) · W. (31)

2.5. Traction Force Calculation

By combining the abovementioned analysis, the calculation equation of net longitudi-
nal traction force can be obtained as follows:
  h i
FT = 2 Ftf cos α f + Ftr cos αr − RinV + Rw + 2( Rb f + Rbr ) + 2( Rc f + Rcr ) . (32)

where αf and αr are, respectively, the pitch angles of the front and rear track.
In summary, the soil thrust and soil-related resistance can be generated by the Recur-
dyn.USUB. Additionally, the rest of the resistances were added to the model as external
loads by means of the translation force in the software Recurdyn. Based on the multi-
pass effect, the shear model used to calculate the soil thrust generated by the rear track
was amended in Recurdyn.USUB and soil-related resistance of the rear track were mod-
ified in estimation equations. In addition, velocity-related coefficients were also added
to calculation equations for internal resistance and estimation equations of soil-related
resistances.
Detailed information on the parameters in each of the abovementioned resistance
equations is shown in Tables 2 and 3. The soil mechanical parameters of the sediments, such
as kc , k ϕ , Kr, and Kw, were set with reference to the experiment results of simulated sedi-
ments [32]. Additionally, the soil physical properties of the sediments, such as γ, c, ϕ, and Ip,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 19 of 36

were set with reference to the test results of the seafloor sediments in the CCZ mining
area [8,43].

Table 3. Parameters of DSMV structure.

Vehicle Parameters Value

A 5.6 m2
b 0.55 m
Ci 5%
Cd 2.0
V0 0.5 m/s
d 0.4 m

3. Simulation: Straight-Line Travel on Flat Ground

In the beginning, the bottom of the track grouser just contacted the ground, and the
initial height of the mass center of the chassis was zero.
Since the DSMV moved by the rotation of the drive wheels to propel the tracks, the
sprockets were used as the drive wheels, and the idlers were used as the driven wheels, so
the driving mode of each track was rear-wheel drive. The velocity of the model was set as
follows: From 0 to 1 s, the DSMV accelerated from zero to the designed velocity, and from
44 to 45 s, it decelerated to zero. The angular velocity of the driving wheels was defined
using the STEP function.
In the software Recurdyn, the STEP function is an interpolation equation using a
cubic polynomial linking two points. Since it is a smooth gradual curve, it can give the
drive wheel a smooth velocity change process. The detailed angular velocity values can be
calculated based on the pitch circle radius of the drive wheel, as shown in Table 4. Then,
the model was given a design velocity to simulate straight-line travel.

 h0 , x ≤ x 0

 h i2
STEP = h0 + (h1 − h0 ) xx−−xx00 , x0 ≤ x ≥ x1 . (33)
 1
h1 , x ≥ x 0


Table 4. Conditions of simulation.

Simulation Conditions Settings

Simulation time 45 s
Time step 900
Plot multiplier step factor 4
STEP(TIME,0,0,1,126.7606D) + STEP
Angular velocity function
(TIME,44,0,45, −126.7606D)

The simulation-related parameters are listed in Table 4. Additionally, the simulation

process is shown in Figure 11, where the red line represents the trace of the vehicle.
In addition, to investigate the rotatable design of the tracks for the DSMVs travel
characteristics on flat ground, the model was modified to fix the tracks to the body. The
other conditions were kept the same, and another travel simulation was also carried out.

3.1. Sinkage and Pitch Angle

Figures 16 and 17, respectively, display the sinkage and pitch angle of the vehicle
model. Due to the rotatable design of the track, the motion characteristics of the bow end
and the stern end of the track were not identical. To investigate this difference, the driving
and driven wheels are respectively used to represent the bow and stern ends of the track.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2220of
of 39
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005
x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 36
39

Figure
Figure 16.
Figure 16. Sinkage
16. Sinkage curves
Sinkage curves of
curves of different
of different parts
different parts of
parts of DSMV.
of DSMV.
DSMV.

Figure
Figure 17.
17. Pitch
Pitch angle
angle curves
curves of
of the
the track
track and
and vehicle
vehicle body.
body.
Figure 17. Pitch angle curves of the track and vehicle body.

3.1.1.
3.1.1. Phases
Phases ofof Travel
Travel
According
According to the
to the motion
motion characteristics
characteristics of of the
the vehicle
vehicle model,
model, the
the whole
whole travel
travel process
process
can
can be divided into the following phases: the starting phase, the fluctuation phase, the
be divided into the following phases: the starting phase, the fluctuation phase, the
stabilization
stabilization phase,
stabilization phase, and
phase, and the deceleration phase.
the deceleration phase. Additionally,
Additionally, the
Additionally, the starting
the starting phase
starting phase can
phase can be
be
divided
divided into
into the
the following
following two parts: initial
two parts: initial sinkage
sinkage and and climbing.
climbing.
At
At the
At the beginning,
the beginning, the
the time
time period
period 0–3.7s
0–3.7ssis
0–3.7 iscalled
is calledthe
called thestarting
the startingphase.
starting phase.
phase.
(1) Initial
(1) Initial sinkage
sinkage
Initial sinkage
To
To start
start with, the
with, the vehicle
the vehicle body
vehicle body and
body and tracks
and tracks
tracks sanksank rapidly
sank rapidly from
from 000 to
rapidly from to 0.35
to 0.35 s.
s. As
0.35 s. As the
the track
track
was To start accelerating,
already with, the track sheared the sediment at the same time the As the
DSMV track
was
was
was already
already accelerating,
accelerating, the track sheared
the trackthis
sheared the sediment
theresult
sediment at the same
at the same timetime the
the DSMV
DSMV was
was
sinking
sinking due
due to
to gravity.
gravity. Therefore,
Therefore, this was
was the
the result of
of aa combination
combination of
of the
the static
static sinking
sinking
sinking by
caused due to gravity. Therefore, this was thecausedresult of athecombination of the static sinking
caused by gravity
gravity and
and the
the dynamic
dynamic sinkage
sinkage caused by by the tracks
tracks shearing
shearing the the sediment.
sediment.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 21 of 36

caused by gravity and the dynamic sinkage caused by the tracks shearing the sediment.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 39
However, because the velocity was still relatively low at the beginning, the DSMVs own
weight should play a major role in this period. The sinkage during this period is called the
“initial sinkage.”However, because the velocity was still relatively low at the beginning, the DSMVs own
As shown in Figure
weight 18a,b,
should play a the
majorperiod of period.
role in this initialThe
sinkage
sinkage consists
during this of theisfollowing
period called the two
“initial sinkage.”
parts:
As shown in Figure 18a,b, the period of initial sinkage consists of the following two
1. parts:end and stern end of the track were sinking down together;
First, the bow
2. 1. First, the
Then, the position bowbow
of the end and
end stern
of end
theoftrack
the track were
rose, sinking
while down
the together;
position of the stern end
2. Then, the position of the bow end of the track rose, while the position of the stern end
of the track and vehicle body were still sinking.
of the track and vehicle body were still sinking.

(a) ( b)

(c) ( d)

Figure 18. SchematicFigurediagram

18. Schematicof starting
diagram ofphase: (a) the
starting phase: (a)first stage
the first stageof
ofinitial sinkage,
initial sinkage, (b)second
(b) the the second
stage of initial sinkage, (c) the first stage of the climbing phase (stern sinkage), and (d) the second
stage of initial sinkage, (c) the first stage
stage of the climbing phase.
of the climbing phase (stern sinkage), and (d) the second
stage of the climbing phase.
Throughout the starting phase, the pitch angle of the track rose rapidly. This “track
buckling” phenomenon
Throughout the starting phase,is the result
the of the
pitch following
angle two track
of the reasons:rose rapidly. This “track
• First, dynamic
buckling” phenomenon sinkageof
is the result is the
thedominant reason.
following twoThe shearing interaction caused the
reasons:
sediment beneath the track to be removed, thus increasing the sinkage. As shown in
•First, dynamicFigure
sinkage19, the
is shear displacementreason.
the dominant increased The
linearly along the interaction
shearing ground surfacecaused
from the
bow to stern. Therefore, the dynamic sinkage in the stern was significantly greater
sediment beneath the track to be removed, thus increasing the sinkage. As shown in
[44];
Figure 19, the
• shear displacement
Additionally, increasedalso
successive compression linearly
plays a along
role. Forthe ground
a certain surface
location, the from
bow to stern. Therefore,
short passingthe dynamic
time sinkage
of a single-track inisthe
plate notstern was
sufficient to significantly
compress the soilgreater
com- [44];
• pletely. As a compression
Additionally, successive result, the ground at a plays
also certain alocation will be
role. For compressed
a certain more as the
location, the short
number of passing track plates increases. Then, the sediment underneath the rear end
passing time ofofathe
single-track plate
track is relatively is not
more sufficient
compressed, whichto leads
compress thesinkage.
to greater soil completely. As
a result, the ground at a certain location will be compressed more as the number of
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 39
passing track plates increases. Then, the sediment underneath the rear end of the track
is relatively more compressed, which leads to greater sinkage.

Figure19.
Figure 19.Schematic
Schematicdiagram
diagramof
ofshear
sheardisplacement
displacementunder
underthe
thetrack.
track.

(2) Climbing phase

Then, as shown in Figure 18c,d, because of the rise in vehicle height, the time period
of 0.35–3.1 s is called the “climbing phase,” which consisted of the following two parts:
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 22 of 36

(2) Climbing phase

Then, as shown in Figure 18c,d, because of the rise in vehicle height, the time period
of 0.35–3.1 s is called the “climbing phase,” which consisted of the following two parts:
1. First, during the period 0.35–1.35 s, the drive wheels continued to sink downwards
while the vehicle body and driven wheel positions rose. This extra sinkage of the
track’s stern end is called “stern sinkage,” which was nearly the same for the front
and rear tracks. Meanwhile, the pitch angle of the track was still rising. The reason
for this is that as the velocity of travel increased, the effect of dynamic sinkage and
successive compression became more significant, resulting in the increasing height
difference between the front and rear ends;
2. Second, during the period of 1.35–3.1 s, the positions of all the parts of the vehicle
model rose together. This was due to the pitch angle of the tracks, which enabled the
DSMV to have an upward climbing posture. The rate of climbing gradually decreased,
and eventually, the position of the vehicle body reached its maximum climb height at
the end of this phase. At around 2.5 s, the pitch angle of both the vehicle body and
tracks reached the maximum.
(3) Fluctuation phase
After the starting phase, the time period 3.1–6.1 s is called the fluctuation phase.
During this phase, there were more apparent and constant fluctuations in the sinking depth
and pitch angle of the vehicle body. The sinking depth of the track’s front ends fluctuated
quite apparently, while the sinkage of the rear track varied relatively smoothly.
1. First, during the period 3.1–4.7 s, the vehicle’s position and pitch angle fluctuated
continuously. The front ends of the tracks were all fluctuating strongly. Additionally,
for the rear ends, the rear track was rising while the front track was falling. So, for the
pitch angle, the rear track was decreasing while the front track was increasing;
2. Second, there was a sudden change in vehicle position and pitch angle at 4.7 s, with
the position dropping and the pitch angle rising. The front end of the track also
changed abruptly, with the front track rising and the rear track falling. Subsequently,
the sinkage and pitch angle of each component gradually stabilized.
It can be noted that there were strong fluctuations in the status of the mining vehicle
throughout the fluctuation phase. This is due to the fact that both the traction and the soil-
related resistance of the rear tracks were changed significantly as the rear tracks gradually
drove into the ruts, leading to instability and reduced safety.
Apart from the fluctuation, another obvious characteristic is the pitch difference
between the front and rear track.
The pitch angle of the rear track decreased for the following two main reasons:
• The rutted soil became less compressible;
• Weaker shear interactions lead to less dynamic sinkage of the rear track.
As more of the rear track entered the ruts, the traction generated by the rear tracks was
reduced. In order for the vehicle model to travel at the designated velocity, more traction
was required from the front tracks to compensate for this loss of traction. As a result, the
front track had to shear the sediment harder, and the dynamic sinkage grew greater, thus
leading to an increase in the pitch of the front track.
(4) Stabilization phase
During the period of 6.1–44 s, the sinkage and pitch angles of the vehicle model no
longer changed significantly, so this phase is called the stabilization phase.
(5) Deceleration phase
From 44 to 45 s, the brake caused the DSMV position to fluctuate and then stay steady.
When braking, the track’s shear direction would turn opposite. Therefore, as opposed
to the acceleration process, it is not the rear end of the track but the front end that had the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 23 of 36

greater shear displacement. During this period, a drop in the sinking depth of the vehicle
body occurred, which resulted from the tracks shearing the sediment harder during the
braking process to gain sufficient braking forces. The stronger shearing interaction would
bring about a greater dynamic sinkage at the front of the tracks.
Therefore, the DSMV had a tendency to lean forward as a result of the brakes, and the
pitch angles of both the vehicle and the tracks were reduced.

3.1.2. Detailed Sinkage of Different Components

Since the track had a slightly inverted trapezoidal shape, at the initial moment, the
track plates under the drive and driven wheels were overhanging from the ground. While
the sinkage curves in Figure 16 can only represent the height drops based on the initial
position, as shown in Table 5, the detailed sinkage of the drive and driven wheels could be
obtained by subtracting this overhang distance from the sinkage in Figure 16.

Table 5. Detailed values of sinkage of components of the mining vehicle.

Initial Sinkage Maximum Stable Grouser Depth

Component of DSMV
(mm) Sinkage (mm) Sinkage (mm) Range (mm)
Driven wheel 198.18 14.79 0–14.79
Front track Track frame 242.96 170.85 125.85–170.85
Drive wheel 279.61 307.11 211.18 166.18–211.18
Driven wheel 190.11 51.42 6.42–51.42
Rear track Track frame 237.52 189.55 144.55–189.55
Drive wheel 261.86 299.78 226.72 181.72–226.72
Vehicle body 288.69 188.76 143.76–188.76

It can be noticed that the initial sinkage of the front track was slightly larger than
that of the rear track. This is because the mining vehicle has a forward center of gravity
and therefore tended to lean forward during the initial sinking, which is also reflected
in Figure 17. The initial value of the body pitch angle was negative and could reach a
maximum of −0.24◦ .
In addition, the stable sinkage of the rear track was deeper than that of the front track,
which is displayed in Table 5. The difference in sinkage between the front and rear tracks
would lead to a certain elevation angle of the vehicle body, as shown in Figure 17.
 1
p n
z= (34)
(k c /B) + k φ

What is more, from Equation (35) and the related parameters, the static sinking depth
of DSMV can be calculated as 28.74 cm, while the initial sinkage of the vehicle body was
28.87 cm, as shown in Figure 16 and Table 5, which was very close to each other with a
relative error of 0.45%, thus proving the simulation calculation are reliable and realistic.
Additionally, as can be seen in Table 5, the average sinkage of the mining truck during
the stabilization phase was 18.88 mm, which was much reduced compared to the previously
calculated static sinkage. The reason for the static sinkage is due to the self-weight of the
mining vehicle, but in essence, it is directly related to the support force provided by the
soil. Considering the pitch angle of the track, a more accurate description would be that
static sinkage is directly related to the vertical component of the soil support force. When
the vertical component of the soil support force is less than the gravity due to the presence
of other forces, then the static sinkage would decrease correspondingly.
As shown in Figure 10, during the stabilization phase, the vehicle is approximately
balanced in the vertical direction, so the sum of the vertical component of the soil thrust
and the support force should be equal to the gravity. Due to the increase in the track
pitch angle in the starting phase, the vertical component of the soil thrust force increased
gradually, and then the vertical component of the soil support force should decrease as
a result. As a consequence, the required support force provided by the soil-track plate’s
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 24 of 36

normal interaction force would be less than the gravity. Then, in the stabilization phase,
the static sinkage would be less than the initial sinkage. The gradual reduction of the soil
support force is also the essential reason for the climbing phase. In addition, since the
acceleration required by the mining vehicle in the stabilization phase is lower than that in
the starting phase, the dynamic sinkage is also reduced.
Therefore, given that the sinkage is considered the sum of static sinkage and dy-
namic sinkage, then it can be concluded that the sinkage of the mining vehicle in the
stabilization phase is much smaller than that in the starting phase, which is also reflected
in Table 5 and Figure 16. In other words, after the climbing phase, the sinking depth of the
mining vehicle will be greatly reduced.
Furthermore, based on the fact that the sinkage in this study was the sinking depth of
the end of the grouser, the entire range of sinking depths corresponding to the grousers
was calculated, as shown in Table 5. It was this part of a range of depths that generated the
soil thrust.
According to the in-situ tests conducted on the seafloor sediments from the CCZ
mining area [45], 14–20 cm of the seafloor sediments had relatively good physical and
mechanical properties with a relatively homogeneous shear strength and penetration
resistance. So, they were considered suitable as the shear-bearing layer of the track.
Although the sinking depth of the grouser at the bow end of the track was quite
shallow and the sinkage at the stern end of the grouser was a little deeper, it can be inferred
from the average range of the grouser depths that most of the grousers fell in the shear-
bearing layer. Therefore, the designed DSMV exhibited good dynamic performances from
the perspective of sinkage.
Additionally, for safety considerations, the maximum sinking depth of the mining
vehicle should not exceed the height of the chassis from the ground at the initial moment.
If it does, not only will the chassis sink into the sediments, but the chassis will also
suffer additional soil-related resistances. This can lead to a significant undermining of
the dynamic performance of the mining vehicle and can even make the vehicle unable to
move. The simulation results show that the maximum sinkage of the whole process was
307.11 mm, which is much less than the initial height of the chassis and left a sufficient
margin of distance. Consequently, from this point of view, it can be deduced that the safety
performance of this mining vehicle model is excellent.

3.1.3. Trend of Pitch Angle

Figure 17 demonstrates that the pitch angle of the front and rear tracks during stabi-
lization was respectively 10.86◦ and 9.76◦ , and the maximum of both front and rear tracks
was 11.31◦ . As shown in Figure 11 and Table 5, the large pitch angle of the tracks led to
the front ends of the tracks buckling out of the ground. The maximum pitch angle of the
vehicle body was 0.72◦ , and the pitch angle during stabilization was 0.50◦ . It can be inferred
that even when the tracks had a large pitch angle, the vehicle body’s pitch angle was quite
small.
As shown in Figure 17, after fixing the tracks to the chassis, the tracks and the body
had the same pitch angle. As a comparison, although the pitch angle of the track was
reduced, the maximum pitch angle of the vehicle body was increased from 0.72◦ to 2.6◦ ,
and in the stabilization phase, it increased from 0.50◦ to 2.11◦ . This represented a significant
enlargement in instability and insecurity compared with rotatable tracks.
Therefore, it is clear from the comparison that this design of rotatable tracks con-
sequently increased the track’s pitch angle but enabled the vehicle body to maintain a
more stable posture, which is as shown in Figure 11, considerably enhanced the safety
performance of the DSMV and would be beneficial for the normal functioning of equipment
such as mineral collection devices inside the vehicle body.
However, Figure 17 reveals that the pitch angle of the vehicle body fluctuated more
compared to a fixed track, although the degree of fluctuation was still within an acceptable
range. Additionally, with fixed tracks, no forward pitch occurred during the starting phase.
 quently increased the track’s pitch angle but enabled the vehicle body to maintain a more
stable posture, which is as shown in Figure 11, considerably enhanced the safety perfor-
mance of the DSMV and would be beneficial for the normal functioning of equipment
such as mineral collection devices inside the vehicle body.
However, Figure 17 reveals that the pitch angle of the vehicle body fluctuated more
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 25 of 36
compared to a fixed track, although the degree of fluctuation was still within an acceptable
range. Additionally, with fixed tracks, no forward pitch occurred during the starting
phase. Hence, it can be deduced that the design of the rotatable tracks increased the free-
Hence,
dom ofitthecan be deduced
mining vehiclethat the design
structure of the rotatable
and consequently tracks increased
undermined the freedom
the overall stabilityof in
the mining vehicle structure and consequently
order to enhance its dynamic performance on uneven ground.undermined the overall stability in order to
enhance its dynamic
Besides, the pitch performance on uneven
angle and dynamic ground.
sinkage were closely related to the shear inter-
action of the tracks. Consequently, it can be inferred were
Besides, the pitch angle and dynamic sinkage closely
that the related
rotatable to the
design shear
of the in-
tracks
teraction of the tracks. Consequently, it can be inferred that the rotatable
made the effect of dynamic sinkage more significant, and so did the effect of shear inter- design of the
tracks
action.made the effect of
The difference indynamic sinkage
the shearing more significant,
interaction andcan
of the tracks so did the effect from
be deduced of shear
the
interaction. The difference in the
difference in pitch angle as follows: shearing interaction of the tracks can be deduced from the
difference in pitch angle as follows:
• During the stabilization phase, it can be inferred from the difference in pitch angle
• During
betweenthe thestabilization
front and rearphase, it that
tracks can betheinferred fromprovided
front tracks the difference in pitch for
more traction angle
the
between the front and rear tracks that the front tracks provided
travel. This is also a reflection of the difference between Figures 8 and 14; more traction for the
travel. This is also a reflection of the difference between Figures 8 and 14;
• During the deceleration phase, as demonstrated in Figures 16 and 17, there was a
• During the deceleration phase, as demonstrated in Figures 16 and 17, there was a fairly
fairly apparent drop in the sinking depth and pitch angle of the front ends of the front
apparent drop in the sinking depth and pitch angle of the front ends of the front track,
track, while the sinking depth and a pitch angle of the front ends of the rear track did
while the sinking depth and a pitch angle of the front ends of the rear track did not
not change significantly in comparison. It can be deduced that the front tracks con-
change significantly in comparison. It can be deduced that the front tracks contributed
tributed more braking force to the mining vehicle.
more braking force to the mining vehicle.
3.2. Resistance
3.2. Resistance Force
Force
3.2.1. Trend
3.2.1. TrendofofResistance
Resistance
According to the equations
According equationsfor
forcalculation
calculationand
andestimation
estimation of of
resistance added
resistance to the
added to
model, the trend of the resistances during the simulation is presented in Figure
the model, the trend of the resistances during the simulation is presented in Figure 20. 20. Addi-
tionally, in the
Additionally, instabilization phase,
the stabilization the average
phase, values
the average of each
values of resistance are shown
each resistance in Table
are shown in
6.
Table 6.

Figure 20. Variation curves of resistances with rotatable tracks.

Table 6. Average value of resistance for two simulations.

Rotatable Track Fixed Track

Resistance Stabilization Maximum Stabilization Maximum
Value (kN) Value (kN) Value (kN) Value (kN)
Compaction resistance 2.94 8.34 0.85 5.45
Water resistance 1.47 1.91 1.50 1.84
Internal resistance 3.47 3.82 3.50 3.78
Bulldozing resistance 10.93 31.02 3.72 20.65

During the 0–4.7 s period, all the resistances changed dramatically. During this period,
the soil-related resistances and the following other two types of resistance showed different
trends:
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 26 of 36

• The compaction resistance and the bulldozing resistance were zero until the track
plate began to interact with the soil at 0.15 s. After that, they grew rapidly and reached
maximum value of 1.35 s. This is due to the fact that the sinking depth of the track
rapidly increased as the initial sinkage progressed. After reaching the maximum, both
began a sharp decline. This is due to the fact that at 1.35 s, the stern sinkage had
finished, and the sinkage of the tracks was reduced, as demonstrated in Figure 15.
Apart from that, the rear track would enter the ruts at some time during the resistance-
reduction period. As can be noted from the previous analysis, the part of the rear track
that entered the ruts would be subject to less soil-related resistances;
• In addition to soil-related resistances, the trend of the water resistance and internal
resistance was not identical. The two resistances increased with the increase in velocity.
The rate of increase first increased and then decreased, and finally, the resistance values
stabilized, which coincided with the increased rate of velocity. It is worth mentioning
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 40
that for the water resistance, since the second power of the velocity parameter in the
calculation equation and, according to Figure 21a, the velocity of the model at the
beginning was quite low and grew slowly, thus leading to a very insignificant growth
trend of resistance values at the beginning.

(a)

( b) (c)
Figure
Figure 21.
21. Velocity
Velocity curve:
curve: (a)
(a) actual
actual and
and ideal
ideal velocities,
velocities,(b)
(b)acceleration
accelerationphase,
phase,and
and(b)
(c) deceleration
deceleration
phase.
phase.

At
At around
around4.7s,4.7 s,allall
resistance
resistancevalues
valuesfluctuated.
fluctuated. ThisThis
is owing to the
is owing to fact
the that the mo-
fact that the
tion of the
motion mining
of the mining vehicle
vehicle would
wouldfluctuate
fluctuatejust asasthe
just therear
reartrack
trackwas
wasabout
aboutto
toenter
enter the
the rut
rut
completely,
completely, andandlikewise,
likewise, itsits force
force conditions
conditions wouldwould also significantly
also significantly change.
change. Subse-
Subsequently,
quently,
after 5 s, after 5s, theofvalues
the values of all resistance
all resistance stabilized stabilized
and slightlyand fluctuated
slightly fluctuated
with thewith the
velocity.
velocity.
Afterward,Afterward,
the valuesthe values
of all of all resistances
resistances gradually to
gradually decreased decreased tovelocity
zero as the zero as the veloc-
decreased
ity
overdecreased over thephase.
the deceleration deceleration phase.
Moreover, the proportion of each resistance value to the total resistance is shown in
Figure 22. It can be concluded that the soil-related resistance was most significant during
the starting phase. Additionally, in the stabilization phase, soil-related resistance still
played a major role, especially bulldozing resistance. As the value of the bulldozing re-
 phase.

At around 4.7s, all resistance values fluctuated. This is owing to the fact that the mo-
tion of the mining vehicle would fluctuate just as the rear track was about to enter the rut
completely, and likewise, its force conditions would also significantly change. Subse-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 quently, after 5s, the values of all resistance stabilized and slightly fluctuated with the
27 of 36
velocity. Afterward, the values of all resistances gradually decreased to zero as the veloc-
ity decreased over the deceleration phase.
Moreover,
Moreover, the theproportion
proportionofofeach
eachresistance
resistancevalue
valuetoto
thethe
total resistance
total is shown
resistance is shown in
Figure 22. It can be concluded that the soil-related resistance was most
in Figure 22. It can be concluded that the soil-related resistance was most significantsignificant during
the starting
during phase. phase.
the starting Additionally, in the in
Additionally, stabilization phase,phase,
the stabilization soil-related resistance
soil-related still
resistance
played a major
still played role,role,
a major especially bulldozing
especially resistance.
bulldozing As the
resistance. As value of the
the value of bulldozing
the bulldozing re-
sistance
resistance waswasthethe
largest andand
largest fluctuated
fluctuatedmost dramatically,
most it was
dramatically, the the
it was most dominant
most dominant re-
sistance
resistanceof the fourfour
of the and and
had the
hadgreatest impact
the greatest on theon
impact dynamic performance
the dynamic of the DSMV.
performance of the
During
DSMV. the stabilization
During phase, the
the stabilization proportion
phase, of the soil-related
the proportion resistanceresistance
of the soil-related was reduced, was
while
reduced,thewhile
internal
the resistance and the and
internal resistance watertheresistance took uptook
water resistance a larger proportion
up a larger than
proportion
before.
than before.

(a) ( b)
Figure
Figure 22.
22. Schematic diagram of
Schematic diagram ofthe
theproportion
proportionofof each
each resistance
resistance to the
to the total
total resistance:
resistance: (a) maxi-
(a) maximum
mum value in the starting phase; (b) stabilization value in the stabilization phase.
value in the starting phase; (b) stabilization value in the stabilization phase.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
3.2.2.
3.2.2. Comparison
Comparison with
with Fixed
Fixed Track
Track 30 of 39

Additionally,
Additionally, thetheresistance
resistancetotothe
themodel
modelwith
withthe thetracks fixed
tracks fixedto to
thethe
vehicle body
vehicle is
body
shown
is shown in in
Figure 23.23.
Figure It It
can bebeobserved
can observedthatthatthe
thetrend
trendofofthe
the resistance
resistance was
was generally
generally
consistentwith
consistent withthe
thesimulation
simulation results
results forfor
thethe rotatable
rotatable track
track butbut
withwith slightly
slightly lessless fluctua-
fluctuation.
tion.maximum
The The maximum and stabilization
and stabilization values ofvalues
each of each resistance
resistance for both for both conditions
conditions are listedare
in
listed6.in Table 6.
Table

Figure23.
Figure 23.Variation
Variationcurves
curvesof
ofresistances
resistancesin
inthe
thesimulation
simulationwith
withfixed
fixedtracks.
tracks.

It can be noticed that the water resistance and internal resistance for both two cases
were approximately the same. However, the stabilization and maximum values of soil-
related resistances to the rotatable tracks were much greater in comparison. This was be-
cause the increase in the pitch angle of the track thus led to an increase in the sinking
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 28 of 36

It can be noticed that the water resistance and internal resistance for both two cases
were approximately the same. However, the stabilization and maximum values of soil-
related resistances to the rotatable tracks were much greater in comparison. This was
because the increase in the pitch angle of the track thus led to an increase in the sinking
depth of the track’s rear end, which in turn caused the track’s bulldozing height hB and rut
depth zc to be greatly enlarged.
Consequently, it is crucial to limit the maximum angle of rotation of the tracks. If the
degree of rotation is too much, it will lead to excessively high soil-related resistances. Higher
resistances can result in heavier slippage, which can strongly reduce the dynamic and safety
performance of the mining vehicle. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on determining the
proper maximum angle at which the mining vehicle is subject to an acceptable level of
soil-related resistance.

3.2.3. Difference between Front and Rear Track

The soil-related resistances to the front and rear tracks under the two conditions
are presented in Figures 24 and 25, respectively. As can be observed, there was a large
difference in the resistance conditions suffered by the front and rear tracks. To investigate
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 31 of 39
this difference, the average values of the two soil-related resistances and their sum are
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
listed in Table 7. 31 of 39

Figure 24.
Figure 24. Variation
Variationcurves
curvesofofsoil-related resistance
soil-related to front
resistance and rear
to front and tracks with rotatable
rear tracks tracks. tracks.
with rotatable
Figure 24. Variation curves of soil-related resistance to front and rear tracks with rotatable tracks.

Figure 25. Variation curves of soil-related resistance to front and rear tracks in the simulation with
Figure 25.
Figure
fixed 25. Variation
Variationcurves
curvesof of
soil-related resistance
soil-related to front
resistance to and
frontrear
andtracks
rearin the simulation
tracks with
in the simulation with
fixed tracks.
tracks.
fixed tracks.
Table
Table 7.
7. Average value of
Average value of resistance
resistancefor
fortwo
twosimulations.
simulations.

RotatableTrack
Rotatable Track(kN)
(kN) FixedTrack
Fixed Track(kN)
(kN)
Resistance
Resistance
FrontTrack
Front Track Rear
RearTrack
Track FrontTrack
Front Track RearRear Track
Track
Compaction resistance
resistance 2.73
2.73 0.21
0.21 0.72
0.72 0.13
0.13
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 29 of 36

Table 7. Average value of resistance for two simulations.

Rotatable Track (kN) Fixed Track (kN)

Resistance
Front Track Rear Track Front Track Rear Track
Compaction resistance 2.73 0.21 0.72 0.13
Bulldozing resistance 10.33 0.60 3.27 0.45
Soil-related resistance 13.06 0.81 3.99 0.58

It can be seen that during the stabilization phase, the front tracks were exposed to
much higher soil-related resistance than the rear tracks, which was exactly the influence of
the multi-pass effect.
Moreover, it can be noted that the rotatable design of the tracks aggravated this
difference. For fixed tracks and rotatable tacks, the difference in the soil-related resistance
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEERbetween
REVIEW the two passes was, respectively, 85.46% and 93.80%, which also reflects the
32 of 39
different levels of damage to the soil caused by the track in the two cases.
Based on the relevant experiment results [38], the resistance will decrease as the num-
ber of passes increases. Additionally, the resistance decreases most apparently between
the first and second passes, and the difference maximum may exceed 50%. Solid terrestrial
the first and second passes, and the difference maximum may exceed 50%. Solid terrestrial
soils such as dry sand and tilled loam soil were used by the abovementioned tests. Con-
soils such as dry sand and tilled loam soil were used by the abovementioned tests. Con-
sidering the soft characteristics of seafloor sediments, the change in soil properties by the
sidering the soft characteristics of seafloor sediments, the change in soil properties by the
track passage should be more noticeable. Therefore, by comparing the level of resistance
track passage should be more noticeable. Therefore, by comparing the level of resistance
variation with the experiment results, it can be considered that the estimation of soil-re-
variation with the experiment results, it can be considered that the estimation of soil-related
lated resistances
resistances in thisin this study
study is reasonable
is reasonable and valid.
and valid.
Furthermore, as
Furthermore, as can
can be
be seen
seen in
in Figures
Figures 24
24 and
and 25,
25, for
for the
the front
front and
and rear
rear tracks,
tracks, the
the
maximum values of soil-related resistances did not vary considerably, mainly
maximum values of soil-related resistances did not vary considerably, mainly owing to the owing to
the rear tracks having not yet entered the ruts when the resistances reached
rear tracks having not yet entered the ruts when the resistances reached their maximum their maxi-
mum values.
values. The difference
The difference in the maximum
in the maximum values
values was was caused
caused by the different
by the different sinking sinking
depths
depths of the front and
of the front and rear tracks.rear tracks.

3.2.4. Comparison
3.2.4. Comparison with
with Classical
Classical Equations
Equations
In the modeling
In modeling process,
process,thethemulti-pass
multi-passeffect and
effect thethe
and relationship between
relationship forceforce
between and
velocity
and werewere
velocity taken into into
taken account to modify
account the classical
to modify model.
the classical To better
model. understand
To better what
understand
difference
what the above
difference factors
the above would
factors makemake
would to the
toresults of the
the results of simulation calculations,
the simulation an-
calculations,
other simulation
another simulationusing
usingonly
onlythe
theclassical
classicalmodel
modelwaswascarried
carriedout
out with
with the above two factors
factors
removed
removed fromfrom the
the Recurdyn.USUB
Recurdyn.USUB and and resistance
resistance equations,
equations, thethe remaining
remaining conditions
conditions
were kept unchanged. The comparison results are shown in Figures
were kept unchanged. The comparison results are shown in Figures 26–28. 26–28.

Figure26.
Figure 26. Comparison
Comparison results
resultsfor
forthe
theestimation
estimationequation
equationof
ofthe
thecompaction
compactionresistance.
resistance.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 30 of 36
Figure 26. Comparison results for the estimation equation of the compaction resistance.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of 39

Figure 27.
Figure 27. Comparison results
results for
for the
the estimation
estimation equation
equation of
of the
the internal
internal resistance.
resistance.

Figure28.
Figure 28.Comparison
Comparisonresults
resultsfor
forthe
theestimation
estimationequation
equationof
ofthe
thebulldozing
bulldozingresistance.
resistance.

ItItcan
canbebeobserved
observedthat thatfor
forthe
thefront
fronttrack,
track,soil-related
soil-relatedresistances
resistancesin inthe
thestabilization
stabilization
phase obtained
phase obtained by the two two models
modelswerewereessentially
essentiallyidentical.
identical. However,
However, after ignoring
after ignoringthe
multi-pass effect, since the rear track had a deeper sinkage than the
the multi-pass effect, since the rear track had a deeper sinkage than the front track, the front track, the soil-
related resistance
soil-related of the
resistance ofrear
the track wouldwould
rear track be much greater.
be much It clearly
greater. It violates the relevant
clearly violates the
experimental
relevant results [38],
experimental thus[38],
results proving
thus the classical
proving the model’s
classicalvariance
model’s from the actual
variance from thesit-
uation.situation.
actual
In
Inaddition,
addition,after
afterdisregarding
disregardingthe therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenvelocity
velocity and
and force,
force,ititcan
canbebe
seen
seenthatthatthe
thedegree
degreeof offluctuation
fluctuation of of soil-related
soil-related resistances
resistances becomes
becomes reduced.
reduced. Moreover,
Moreover,
the
thetrend
trendof ofthe
thesoil-related
soil-relatedresistance
resistance value
value waswas exactly
exactly the
the same
same as as that
that of
of the
the sinkage,
sinkage,
and
and the resistance value only decreased slightly with the decrease in sinkageduring
the resistance value only decreased slightly with the decrease in sinkage duringthe the
deceleration
decelerationphase. phase. Based
Based ononthethepreviously
previouslymentioned
mentionedsimulation
simulationcalculations
calculations[41,42],
[41,42],itit
isisclear
clearthat
thatthis
thisisisnot
notin
inaccordance
accordancewith withthe
thereality
realitythat
thatsoil
soilforces
forcesare
areclosely
closelylinked
linkedtoto
velocity.
velocity.
Furthermore,
Furthermore, itit can can also
alsobebenoticed
noticedthat
thatthe
thevalues
valuesofofthe
theinternal
internalresistance
resistanceduring
during
the stabilization phase obtained by the two models were almost
the stabilization phase obtained by the two models were almost the same. However, the same. However,
after
after neglecting
neglecting the effect
the effect of velocity
of velocity on theon the resistance,
resistance, it can beit found
can bethatfound that
there is athere
clearisdif-
a
clear difference between the following two models: The internal
ference between the following two models: The internal resistance calculated by the clas-resistance calculated
by theequation
sical classicalwas
equation was avalue
a constant constant value
without without
any any fluctuation
fluctuation during the during the whole
whole simulation,
and no change occurred even during the acceleration and deceleration phases, which was
obviously different from the actual situation.
In general, after a comparative analysis of the resistance values obtained from the
two models, it can be concluded that the resistance model proposed in this research is
relatively more reasonable. To some degree, the modifications made to the classical model
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 31 of 36

simulation, and no change occurred even during the acceleration and deceleration phases,
which was obviously different from the actual situation.
In general, after a comparative analysis of the resistance values obtained from the two
models, it can be concluded that the resistance model proposed in this research is relatively
more reasonable. To some degree, the modifications made to the classical model based on
the multi-pass effect and the relationship between force and velocity can be accepted as
believable and realistic.
Besides the above comparison, a traction model was proposed in the references [32,44]
and validated by drawbar pull tests. The compaction resistance model in this traction
model is the same as the one in this paper, while the bulldozing resistance model is not.
The experimentally validated pushover resistance model is shown below.
" 1 #2 "  1 !#
1 p n h·i p n h·i
R B = Kγ γs b + + cKc b + , (35)
2 k c /b + k ϕ 1−i k c /b + k ϕ 1−i

The most significant difference between this equation and Equation (8) is that in this
equation, the dynamic sinkage is expressed as a function related to the slip rate and grouser
height, and then the bulldozing height zB is considered as the sum of static sinkage and
dynamic sinkage. From the previous analysis, it is known that the stable sinking depth of
the mining vehicle after the climbing phase is smaller than the initial sinkage. However, this
method of sinkage calculation does not take this into account, and the calculated sinkage
would always be larger than the initial sinkage. Consequently, it can be deduced that this
method of sinkage calculation is relatively more suitable for the starting phase rather than
the stabilization phase. As a result, the slip rate at 1.35 s was brought into the Equation (35),
and the calculated results were compared with the maximum value of the resistance during
the starting phase. The results are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Comparison of the bulldozing resistance.

Bulldozing Resistance Values Relative Error

Maximum in the starting phase 31.02 kN
15.54%
Calculated by Wang’s model 36.73 kN

According to the previous analysis, the climbing phase will reduce the sinkage of the
mining vehicle, and the climbing phase has already started at 0.35 s, so the climbing phase
has been carried out for a while at 1.35 s. Therefore, it is acceptable that the result obtained
by Equation (35) is slightly larger.
Therefore, after another comparison with the experimentally validated resistance
model, the estimation equation for soil-related resistance proposed in this study is further
proved to be convincing and realistic.

3.3. Velocity and Slip

Since the velocity of the model was set by giving sprockets an angle velocity, the
velocity control strategy in the model is to adapt the driving power to ensure that the
angular velocity of the drive wheel matches the designed velocity so that the rotation
velocity of the track plate around the drive wheel can therefore be guaranteed.
As displayed in Figure 21a, it can be noted that the actual travel velocity of the
model fluctuated around the ideal velocity. The velocity variation trends during the
acceleration and deceleration phases are respectively shown in Figure 21b,c. It can be
known that the velocity in the acceleration phase was less than the ideal velocity, while in
the deceleration phase, it was overall greater than the ideal velocity. What is more, during
the designed velocity stabilization phase (1–44 s), the average value of actual travel velocity
was 481.92 mm/s, which was less than the ideal velocity of 500 mm/s.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 32 of 36

These velocity deviations were the result of track slippage. As the DSMV moved
forward, the tracks generated forward soil thrust by shearing the sediments backward. As
the seafloor sediment was very soft, the sheared sediment would deform itself while under-
going shearing. This deformation would cause a difference between the shear displacement
of the track and the actual distance traveled by the DSMV. As a result, the ensured velocity
of track shearing the sediments would not ensure the actual travel velocity of the vehicle,
which was less than the track rotation velocity.
The equation for calculating the slip rate is shown as follows:

vi − v a
i= , (36)
vi

where vi is the ideal velocity of the track, namely, the track plate rolling linear velocity, and
v a is the actual travel velocity of the mining vehicle.
Besides, the actual travel velocity of the vehicle model did not stabilize after 1 s as the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
ideal velocity was set, but the actual velocity fluctuated quite sharply above and35 of 39
below
the set velocity during 1–5 s. According to the abovementioned analyzation, this was
attributed to the forces and posture of the vehicle model varying significantly before 5 s,
resulting inin increased
increased slippage,
slippage, asas demonstrated
demonstrated in Figure
Figure 29.
29. After 5 s, the
the posture
posture andand
forces
forces stabilized,
stabilized, and
and so
so did
did the
the velocity
velocity and
and slippage.
slippage.

Figure 29.
Figure 29. Slip rate curve.

The
The average
averageslip
sliprates
ratesforfor
each period
each periodareare
shown
shownin Table 9. As9.Figure
in Table 29 demonstrates,
As Figure 29 demon-
the DSMV
strates, theslipped
DSMV quite
slippedseverely when it initially
quite severely when it started
initiallymoving,
started after
moving,which thewhich
after slippage
the
rate gradually
slippage decreaseddecreased
rate gradually and stabilized at around at
and stabilized 5 s.around
After 55s,s.the slip5 rate
After s, thestill
slipstabilized
rate still
and remained
stabilized and around
remaineda relatively
around alow level. low level.
relatively

Table 9. Average
Table 9. Average slip
slip rate
rate at
at different
different phases.
phases.

Time Period
Time Period AverageAverage
Slip Rate
Slip Rate
0–1 s 0–1 s 9.57 % 9.57%
1–5 s 1–5 s 4.29 % 4.29%
5–44 s 5–44 s 3.54 % 3.54%
44–45 s −8.32%
44–45 s −8.32 %

During
During the
the acceleration
acceleration phase,
phase, the
the mining
mining vehicle would need
vehicle would need aa high
high level
level of
of accel-
accel-
eration.
eration. To overcome the effects of the resistance and obtain the required velocity and
To overcome the effects of the resistance and obtain the required velocity and
acceleration,
acceleration,the
thetracks
trackswould
wouldneed
needtoto
generate a high
generate level
a high of soil
level thrust.
of soil Consequently,
thrust. Consequently,the
tracks would shear the soil much harder during this period, resulting in a higher
the tracks would shear the soil much harder during this period, resulting in a higher slip slip rate.
rate.
The reason why the slip rate in the deceleration phase was negative is that during
this period, the tracks were still moving, but their velocity was less than that of the DSMV,
so the direction of slip was the same as the direction of movement of the DSMV. To gen-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 33 of 36

The reason why the slip rate in the deceleration phase was negative is that during this
period, the tracks were still moving, but their velocity was less than that of the DSMV, so
the direction of slip was the same as the direction of movement of the DSMV. To generate
sufficient deceleration, the track sheared the sediment forward, providing the DSMV not
with traction but with a braking force.
As shown in Figure 21c, at the last moment of braking (44.89–45 s), the velocity became
negative, and the slip rate increased positively consequently. This was because the tendency
of the body to lean forward during braking caused the tension springs in the track’s front
end to compress and absorb energy. When the braking was over, the braking force which
used to compress the springs before disappeared, and the springs extended, releasing
energy and causing the body to lean backward slightly.
Additionally, there was slightly less slippage during the deceleration phase than the
acceleration phase, as the resistance also provided a proportion of the braking force during
deceleration. As a result, the braking force required from the tracks was consequently
decreased, thus slightly reducing the slip rate.

4. Conclusions
In this paper, the dynamic characteristics and motion features of a four-tracked mining
vehicle model during its straight-line travel on the flat ground were mainly studied. A
specially designed SMS DSMV was used to conduct multi-body dynamics modeling in the
software Recurdyn, with accurate modeling of the vehicle’s structure and dimensions.
In addition, after modifying the classical resistance model based on the multi-pass
effect and the relationship between force and velocity, applying the water resistance and the
internal resistance to the model, and amending the track–soil force calculation equations in
Recurdyn.USUB, the model’s force conditions were also modeled as realistic as possible.
On the basis of this model, DSMV straight-line travel simulation and another simula-
tion with tracks fixed were performed together. Analyzing the simulation results revealed
the following:
(1) In this paper, a new resistance model and a new track–soil force calculation model
for the four-tracked DSMV were found by modifying the classical model based on
multi-pass effects and the force-velocity relationship. After comparing the resistance,
respectively, calculated by the new model and the classical model, it is possible to
conclude that the modifications made to the classical resistance model can be deemed
as relatively realistic. In addition, the reliability of the proposed resistance estima-
tion model was further supported by another comparison with an experimentally
validated model. However, since the models proposed in this paper were empirical
equations summarized based on the results of previous research findings, more spe-
cific experimental studies on multi-pass effects and the relationship between force
and velocity need to be carried out in the future;
(2) The tracks slipped more during acceleration and deceleration to generate sufficient
soil thrust. During the braking phase, the resistance also provided some of the
braking force, so there was slightly less slippage than in the starting phase. For
mining vehicles, the starting phase can be challenging already. Because the tracks
must generate sufficient acceleration while overcoming resistance, slippage can be
quite severe. Plus, there was a high level of soil-related resistances during the starting
phase, which can further worsen slippage. Meanwhile, the sinkage during the starting
phase was high and could be prone to dangerous situations. Therefore, the safety
performance of the starting phase should be a key concern;
(3) The entire travel process can be divided into the following phases from the perspective
of sinkage and pitch angle: initial sinkage, climbing, fluctuation, stabilization, and
deceleration. As the travel began, the position of the DSMV dropped rapidly at first
and then gradually increased. After reaching the maximum climbing height, the
sinkage gradually stabilized at a certain depth after a period of fluctuation. As a
result, the stable sinkage of the mining vehicle will be significantly reduced compared
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 34 of 36

to the initial sinkage. Then the braking phase began, and the sinkage of the vehicle
deepened to a certain extent;
(4) In the starting phase, the maximum sinking depth was less than the height of the chas-
sis from the ground at the beginning, thus proving the satisfactory safety performance
of this mining vehicle. Furthermore, during the stabilization phase, the sinkage of the
entire grouser basically fell within the range of 14–20 cm, which was the section of the
sediment that was suitable as a shear-bearing layer. Therefore, the dynamics of the
DSMV were excellent from the point of view of the sinking depth;
(5) Based on the multi-pass effect, the change in the characteristics of the rutted soil
would result in the rear track generating much less traction and being exposed to
much less soil-related resistances after entering the rut. The soil-related resistances
of the rear tracks are reduced, respectively, by 85.46% and 93.80% for the fixed and
rotatable tracks compared to the front tracks. This result is also consistent with
the relevant experimental data, considering the soft characteristics of the seafloor
sediment. Additionally, according to the estimation results, it can be seen that the
bulldozing resistance is the most significant one among the four resistances in the
entire travel process;
(6) During the progression of the rear tracks into the ruts, the pitch angle of the front
tracks increased, and that of the rear tracks decreased. This is because the shear
force generated by the rear track was reduced so the front track must compensate
for the reduced traction of the rear track. During this period, there were also some
fluctuations in the posture, sinkage, and velocity. Once the rear track was fully in the
rut, the mining vehicle’s force situation would gradually enter a stabilization phase;
(7) The track’s stern end had a higher dynamic sinkage than the bow end. What is more,
as track plates successively passed, the sediment under the rear end of the track was
relatively more compressed, and the sinkage would have been larger. As a result, the
track maintained a pitch angle while traveling. The tracks’ pitch angle was greater
than that of the vehicle body because tracks were designed to be rotatable to enhance
the mobility in uneven terrain. This design allows the effect of shear interaction and
dynamic sinkage to be more obvious. It is known by observing the difference in
dynamic sinkage that during the stabilization phase, the front track generated more
traction than the rear track, and during the braking phase, the front track generated
more braking force;
(8) Compared to fixed tracks, in the conditions of straight travel on flat ground, the de-
sign of rotatable tracks significantly reduced the pitch angle of the vehicle, improving
the working conditions of the mining equipment and enhancing the safety perfor-
mance. However, the increased structural freedom of the mining vehicle undermined
the internal structural stability, as the price of improved flexibility and adaptability.
Moreover, this design could lead to an increase in the pitch angle of the track and
higher sinkage of the rear ends of the track, increasing the soil-related resistances and
reducing the traction performance. Therefore, the maximum angle of rotation of the
tracks must be limited, and this maximum value must be designed appropriately. As
a result, terrain adaptation and safety performance can be strengthened without too
much loss of traction.

Author Contributions: M.X.: Conceptualization; methodology; software; validation; formal analysis;

resources; data curation; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing; supervision, project
administration; funding acquisition. H.L.: Software; validation; formal analysis; data curation;
writing—original draft; visualization. J.Y.: Methodology; software; validation; investigation; visual-
ization; writing—review and editing. P.S.: Software; validation; writing—review and editing. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by the State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering. This work
was also supported by Project of Sanya Yazhou Bay Science and Technology City (SCKJ-JYRC-2022-
39), the Science and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality (19DZ1207300), Major Projects
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 35 of 36

of Strategic Emerging Industries in Shanghai, and Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province
(520LH015).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive
suggestions which comprehensively improve the quality of the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sharma, R.; Smith, S. Deep-Sea Mining and the Environment: An Introduction. In Environmental Issues of Deep-Sea Mining;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 3–22.
2. Sharma, R. Approach Towards Deep-Sea Mining: Current Status and Future Prospects. In Perspectives on Deep-Sea Mining:
Sustainability, Technology, Environmental Policy and Management; Sharma, R., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2022; pp. 13–51.
3. Kung, A.; Svobodova, K.; Lèbre, E.; Valenta, R.; Kemp, D.; Owen, J.R. Governing deep sea mining in the face of uncertainty. J.
Environ. Manag. 2021, 279, 111593. [CrossRef]
4. Lodge, M.W.; Segerson, K.; Squires, D. Sharing and preserving the resources in the deep sea: Challenges for the international
seabed authority. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 2017, 32, 427–457. [CrossRef]
5. Kang, Y.; Liu, S. The development history and latest progress of deep-sea polymetallic nodule mining technology. Minerals 2021,
11, 1132. [CrossRef]
6. Leng, D.; Shao, S.; Xie, Y.; Wang, H.; Liu, G. A brief review of recent progress on deep sea mining vehicle. Ocean Eng. 2021, 228,
108565. [CrossRef]
7. Sun, P.; Lu, H.; Yang, J.; Liu, M.; Li, S. Numerical Simulation of Multi-Parameter Interaction Between Track Plate of Deep-Sea
Mining Vehicle and Seabed Sediments. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference,
Shanghai, China, 5–10 June 2022.
8. Song, L. The physical properties of surface sediments in oceanic polymetallic nodule. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 1999, 6, 47–54.
9. Kim, H.-W.; Hong, S.; Choi, J.-S.; Lee, T.H. An experimental study on tractive performance of tracked vehicle on cohesive soft soil.
In Proceedings of the Fifth ISOPE Ocean Mining Symposium, Tsukuba, Japan, 15–19 September 2003.
10. Schulte, E.; Schwarz, W. Simulation of tracked vehicle performance on deep sea soil based on soil mechanical laboratory
measurements in bentonite soil. In Proceedings of the Eighth ISOPE Ocean Mining Symposium, Chennai, India, 20–24 September
2009.
11. Dai, Y.; Zhu, X.; Chen, L.; Liu, H.; Zhang, T.; Liu, S. A new multi-body dynamic model for seafloor miner and its trafficability
evaluation. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2015, 14, 732–743. [CrossRef]
12. Baek, S.-H.; Shin, G.-B.; Chung, C.-K. Experimental study on the soil thrust of underwater tracked vehicles moving on the clay
seafloor. Appl. Ocean Res. 2019, 86, 117–127. [CrossRef]
13. Li, L.; Jue, Z. Research of China’s Pilot-miner In the Mining System of Poly-metallic Nodule. In Proceedings of the Sixth ISOPE
Ocean Mining Symposium, Changsha, China, 9–13 October 2005.
14. Lee, C.-H.; Kim, H.-W.; Hong, S.; Kim, S.-M. A study on the driving performance of a tracked vehicle on an inclined plane
according to the position of buoyancy. In Proceedings of the Ninth ISOPE Ocean Mining Symposium, Maui, HI, USA, 19–24 June
2011.
15. Dai, Y.; Su, Q.; Zhang, Y. A new dynamic model and trajectory tracking control strategy for deep ocean mining vehicle. Ocean
Eng. 2020, 216, 108162. [CrossRef]
16. Kim, H.-W.; Hong, S.; Choi, J.-S. Comparative study on tracked vehicle dynamics on soft soil: Single-body dynamics vs.
multi-body dynamics. In Proceedings of the Fifth ISOPE Ocean Mining Symposium, Tsukuba, Japan, 15–19 September 2003.
17. Morgan, N.; Cathie, D.; Pyrah, J.; Steward, J. Tracked subsea trencher mobility and operation in soft clays. In Proceedings of the
The Seventeenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–6 July 2007.
18. Katsui, T.; Murakami, H.; Kajikawa, S.; Inoue, T. Moving performance of crawler driven ROV on the inclined sea bottom. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–6 July 2010; pp.
41–47.
19. Dai, Y.; Yin, W.; Ma, F. Nonlinear multi-body dynamic modeling and coordinated motion control simulation of deep-sea mining
system. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 86242–86251. [CrossRef]
20. Edwin, P.; Shankar, K.; Kannan, K. Soft soil track interaction modeling in single rigid body tracked vehicle models. J. Terramechanics
2018, 77, 1–14. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1005 36 of 36

21. Kawano, S.; Furuya, H. Mining and Processing of Seafloor Massive Sulfides: Experiences and Challenges. In Perspectives
on Deep-Sea Mining: Sustainability, Technology, Environmental Policy and Management; Sharma, R., Ed.; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 167–197.
22. Usui, A.; Suzuki, K. Geological Characterization of Ferromanganese Crust Deposits in the NW Pacific Seamounts for Prudent
Deep-Sea Mining. In Perspectives on Deep-Sea Mining: Sustainability, Technology, Environmental Policy and Management; Sharma, R.,
Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 81–113.
23. Bruyne, K.D.; Stoffers, H.; Flamen, S.; Beuf, H.D.; Taymans, C.; Smith, S.; Nijen, K.V. A precautionary approach to developing
nodule collector technology. In Perspectives on Deep-Sea Mining; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 137–165.
24. Miller, K.A.; Thompson, K.F.; Johnston, P.; Santillo, D. An overview of seabed mining including the current state of development,
environmental impacts, and knowledge gaps. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018, 4, 418. [CrossRef]
25. Liu, W. Research and Design of Four-Tracked Cobalt Crust Mining Vehicle Chassis for Cobalt Crusts in the Deep Sea; Changsha Institude
of Mining Research: Changsha, China, 2018.
26. Kim, H.-W.; Hong, S.; Lee, C.-H.; Choi, J.; Yeu, T.-K.; Kim, S.-M. Dynamic analysis of an articulated tracked vehicle on undulating
and inclined ground. In Proceedings of the Ninth ISOPE Ocean Mining Symposium, Maui, HI, USA, 19–24 June 2011.
27. Kim, H.-W.; Lee, C.-H.; Hong, S.; Oh, J.-W.; Min, C.-H.; Yeu, T.-K.; Choi, J. Dynamic analysis of a tracked vehicle based on a
subsystem synthesis method. In Proceedings of the Tenth ISOPE Ocean Mining and Gas Hydrates Symposium, Szczecin, Poland,
22–26 September 2013.
28. Xu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Yang, G.; Xia, J.; Dou, Z.; Meng, Q.; Xu, X. Research on contact model of track-soft sediment and traction
performance of four-tracked seabed mining vehicle. Ocean Eng. 2022, 259, 111902. [CrossRef]
29. Bekker, M.G. Introduction to Terrain-Vehicle Systems. Part I: The Terrain. Part II: The Vehicle; University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI,
USA, 1969.
30. Janosi, Z. The Analytical Determination of Drawbar Pull as a Function of Slip for Tracked Vehicles in Defarmable Soils. Proceedings
of the International Society for Terrain-Vehicle Systems the 1st International Conference of ISTVS, Torino-Saint Vincent, Italy,
12–16 June 1961. Available online: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB0562643X?l=en (accessed on 22 February 2023).
31. Wong, J.; Garber, M.; Preston-Thomas, J. Theoretical prediction and experimental substantiation of the ground pressure distribu-
tion and tractive performance of tracked vehicles. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D Transp. Eng. 1984, 198, 265–285. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, M.; Wu, C.; Ge, T.; Gu, Z.M.; Sun, Y.H. Modeling, calibration and validation of tractive performance for seafloor tracked
trencher. J. Terramechanics 2016, 66, 13–25. [CrossRef]
33. Merritt, H. Some considerations influencing the design of high-speed track-vehicles. Proc. Inst. Automob. Eng. 1939, 33, 398–430.
[CrossRef]
34. Dai, Y.; Xue, C.; Su, Q. An integrated dynamic model and optimized fuzzy controller for path tracking of deep-sea mining vehicle.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 249. [CrossRef]
35. Varshney, N.; Janarthanan, C.; Muthuvel, P.; Ramesh, N.; Deepak, C.; Atmanand, M. Virtual modelling and navigation controls of
underwater mining machine. In Proceedings of the 2013 Ocean Electronics (SYMPOL), Kochi, India, 23–25 October 2013; pp.
202–207.
36. Wong, J. Terramechanics and Off-Road Vehicle Engineering; Terrain Behavior, off-Road Vehicle Performance and Design; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 129–149.
37. Janarthanan, C.; Kuttikrishnan, G.; Sundaramoorthi, V.; Chandran, V.; Ramadass, G.A. Deep Sea Soil Sinkage Simulation and
Experimental Studies for Development of Deep Water Mining Machine. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2022, 56, 72–82. [CrossRef]
38. Lyasko, M. Multi-pass effect on off-road vehicle tractive performance. J. Terramechanics 2010, 47, 275–294. [CrossRef]
39. Li, G. Advanced Soil Mechanics; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2004.
40. Knappett, J. Craig’s Soil Mechanics; Spon Press: London, UK, 2012; Volume 8.
41. Sun, P.; Lu, H.; Yang, J.; Deng, L.; Liu, M.; Li, S. Numerical Study on Multiple Parameters of Sinkage Simulation between the
Track Plate of the Deep-Sea Mining Vehicle and the Seafloor Soil. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1680. [CrossRef]
42. Sun, P.; Lu, H.; Yang, J.; Liu, M.; Li, S.; Zhang, B. Numerical study on shear interaction between the track plate of deep-sea mining
vehicle and the seafloor sediment based on CEL method. Ocean Eng. 2022, 266, 112785. [CrossRef]
43. Ma, W.-B.; Rao, Q.-H.; Li, P.; Guo, S.-C.; Feng, K. Shear creep parameters of simulative soil for deep-sea sediment. J. Cent. South
Univ. 2014, 21, 4682–4689. [CrossRef]
44. Wang, M.; Wang, X.; Sun, Y.; Gu, Z. Tractive performance evaluation of seafloor tracked trencher based on laboratory mechanical
measurements. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 2016, 8, 177–187. [CrossRef]
45. Wu, H.; Chen, X.; Gao, Y.; He, J.; Liu, S. In-situ shearing strength and penetration resistance testing of soft seabed sediments in
western mining area. J. Cent. South Univ. 2010, 41, 1801–1806.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.