See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265475296

DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATION OF

TANK SUPPORTS IN A HEAVY VEHICLE

Conference Paper July 2008

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1371.5848

CITATIONS READS

0 86

2 authors, including:

Dimitrios Koulocheris
National Technical University of Athens
102 PUBLICATIONS 225 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitrios Koulocheris on 10 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

-,

3rd International Conference "From Scientific Computing to Computational Engineering

3rdIC-SeCE
Athens, 9-12 July, 2008
to IC-SCCE

DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATION OF TANK SUPPORTS IN A

HEAVY VEHICLE

Dimitris V. Koulocheris and Vasilis K. Dertimanis

Vehicles Laboratory
National Technical University of Athens
15780, Zografou, Athens, Greece
e-mail: dbkoulva@central.ntua.gr, web page: http://vlab.mech.ntua.gr

Keywords: Fixed-tank vehicles, full-car model, optimization, ECE RIll.

Abstract. This study attempts to optimize the performance of afrxed-tank three-axle vehicle, with respect to its
vertiqal and lateral performance. For the vertical dynamics of the vehicle a linear full-car model with twelve
degrees offreedom (DOF) is implemented, while its lateral description is determined according to international
regulations. The corresponding stiffness and damping characteristics of tank's supports are optimized
simultaneously with the relative characteristics of vehicle's suspensions, such that the maximum vertical and
lateral accelerations are optimized, taking under consideration all the design limitations, as well as the
geometrical constraints of the vehicle. For the optimizationprocedure the Complex method is employed.

1 INTRODUCTION
Heavy vehicles, especially these carrying dangerous goods, have been gain an increasing attention over the
last two decades, not only from a scientific[J-4],but also from a legal point of view rs.6],since they interact with
public in a daily basis. Thus, their accurate and careful design is of crucial importance, in order to avoid fateful
accidents in human and environment, as well as to reduce any unpleasant effects, such as road damage.
Consequently, international regulations are becoming stricter, with respect to the required specifications for their
type approval.
A fixed-tank vehicle, which may transport flammable liquids (petrol, diesel, e.t.c.) is a common example of
dangerous goods carriage by road. This type of vehicles, or more generally, structures which are torsionally very
rigid, must be fitted so that the vehicle chassis retains sufficient and gradual torsional flexibilitY,by avoiding
areas of high stress, and the vehicle maintains an acceptable dynamic performance. As a general rule, the
installation of tanks requires the use of an appropriate auxiliary frame. The use of elastic joints between the body
of the tank and the auxiliary frame is recommended at the front, and rigid supports that are capable of
withstanding longitudinal and transverse forces is implemented at the rear. The rigid mounts go in a position
corresponding to the rear suspension supports and the flexible mounts as near as possible to the rear support of
the front suspension. In order to define the elastic connection, the rigidity characteristics of the vehicle chassis,
the points where the connections are to be installed, as well as the type of use for which it is intended, must be
taken into account. Experience shows that for road use, the first front elastic connection will allow for a gap of a
few millimeters between the sub-frame and chassis frame, during the chassis torsional level.
The subject of this study is to optimize the dynamic performance of a fixed-tank vehicle with three axles,
with respect to its vertical and lateral stability. To this, two separate models are assessed: for the former, a linear
full-car model with twelve degrees of freedom is proposed, that is roll and bounce displacementsfor each axle, as
well as pitch, roll and bounce displacements for both the chassis and the tank, while the latteris'described
according to Annex 4 of the ECE Regulation No.lll, which is a standard requirement for the type approval of
tank vehicles in relative legislations. All the involved quantities, such as suspension characteristics and tank's
supports, are included in the optimization process, so that both the vertical and the lateral acceleration of
vehicle's centre of mass are optimized. Regarding the tank, two distinct cases are considered for the number of
supports (two and four), while for the simulation tasks a stochastic road profile has been consid~red leading to
random road-tires interaction forces. The optimization procedure is carried out using the Complex method.
 Dimitris V. Koulocheris and Vasilis K. Dertimanis.

6900

3100

L2000--L-1350~' 4500 ...L1450~

Figure 1. Three-axle fixed-tank vehicle: four supports.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Sec.2 the two-model approach is presented and in Sec.3 the
corresponding optimization problem is formulated. Section 4 covers the optimization tasks and in Sec.S the
results are concluded and suggestions for further research are given.

2 VEHICLE DYNAMICS
2.1 The vertical model
A typical three-axle truck, with a fixed-tank installed on the chassis frame, is presented in Fig. 1 (for the four
supports. In the case of two supports, the first retains the same position, while the distance of the.second from the
rear of the tank is 2000 mm). The tank and the vehicle are modeled as rigid bodies with 3 DOF, that is bounce
xr(t) & XM(t),pitch CfJr(t)
& CfJM(t),
and roll angle (Jr(t)& OM(t),respectively. The supports have been considered as
mass-less elements with corresponding stiffness and damping characteristics. Each axle, together with the tyres,
is modeled as an unsprung mass with a 2 DOF (bounces xfa(t),xma(t),xra(t)and roll angles Ofa(t),Oma(t),Orit)) that
is connected to the chassis frame through the relative suspension. Table 1 displays the selected parameters for
the three-axle fixed-tank vehicle.
Despite their simplicity, as suspension nonlinearities or complexities of the sprung masses' motion are not
modeled, this kind of models illustrate many critical characteristics of the lateral dynamics of heavy vehicles[7,8]
and may used for design purposes. With respect to Fig. 1 and Tab. 1, it can be viewed that the part of the model
which describes the vehicle is not symmetric with respect to the pitch axis, neither in its centre of mass, nor in its
front and rear wheelsets, while the installed body, such as the tank, is generally assumed symmetric in fixed-tank
vehicles.
Considering matrix/vector notation, the above described model may represented in the following well-known
vector form,

[M]. x(t) + [C]. x(t) + [K]. x(t) = [P]. f(t) (1)

where [M], [C], [K], are the symmetric and positive defmite Mass, viscous Damping and Stiffness matrices
respectively, with the Damping matrix being by default non-proportional, due to the dissymmetry of the system,
x(t) is the vibration displacement vector, f(t) is the forces vector, which act on the system as the coordinates
matrix [P] indicates.
The requirements for computer simulation and analysis of systems that may represented in the form of Eq. 1
has been extensively reported in literature[8].For systems with non-proportional damping, where the decoupling
of equations is a rather subtle issue, the use of a state-space equivalent for Eq.l has proved to provide significant
computational gain, as well as accurate modal parameter extraction[9]. By selecting the state vector as
z = [x(t) X(t)]T and the output vector as y = [x(t) x(t) x(t)f ' the state-space form ofEq.l is,
 Dimitris V. Koulocheris and Vasilis K. Dertimanis.

Parameter Value Unit

Front axle' mass 600 Kg

Front axle's roll inertia 2400 Kg.m2

Middle axle's mass 1300 Kg

Middle axle's roll inertia 4200 Kg.m2

Rear axle's mass 600 Kg

Rear axle's roll inertia 2000 Kg.m2

Pennissible axle load (front I middle-rear) 7000 120000 Kg

Chassis mass 6500 Kg

Chassis inertia (pitch I roll) 120000/400 Kg.m2

Tank's mass 17000 Kg

Tank's inertia (pitch I roll) 71000/8500 Kg.m2

Chassis frame width 0.860 M

Tyre stiffness (front I middle I rear) 800/1600/1600 kN/m

Tyre damping (front I middle I rear) 80/160/160 kN.s/m

0 I 0.350 I 0.350 m
Twin tyre width (front I middle I rear)
Track width (front I middle Irear) 2.100/1.900/1.900 m

Table 1. Numerical values of the physical parameters for the fixed-tank vehicle.

z = [A,,] . z + [B,,] . f
(2)
Y = [CJ . z + [DJ .f

where the involved matrices have the following standard fonn:

12XI2 112X12 12X6

[AJ= [ -[Mr.[K] -[Mr .[C]] [BJ = [ [Mr. [P]]

(3)
24X6

[CJ =[-[M]'r:t" -[M]' orc]] [DJ = [ [Mr .[P]]

The main concern in the design and analysis of such vehicles is the safety of the carriage goods, according to
international regulations[5,6].Especially in fixed-tank vehicles, the carrying liquid must be retained, as far as
possible, unaffected from the road irregularities and the corresponding dynamic perfonnance of the chassis. In
the pitch-bounce-roll model described above, this implies that the tank must be installed in such a way, so that its
corresponding vibration characteristics (receptance, mobility or accelerance) are minimized. For this scope, the
equivalent stiffness and damping, which describe the dynamic interconnection between the chassis and the tank,
must be optimized. Naturally, in the case where there is the availability to interfere in vehicle's structural
components, such as the suspension system, it's of crucial importance to simultaneously optimize their relative
stiffness and damping, so that a more complete view of the whole vehicle set up may assessed.
 Dimitris V. Koulocheris and Vasilis K. Oertimanis.

Parameter Constraint Unit

Suspension Stiffness 10000-500000 N/m

Suspension Damping 1000-50000 N.s/m

Support equivalent Stiffness 1000-50000 N/m

Support equivalent Damping 100-5000 N.s/m

Lateral acceleration low limit 4 mIsec2

Suspensions' available working space :tOA m

Stability of the system

- -

. Table 2. Constraints of the optimization problem.

2.2 The lateral model

Annex 4 of the Regulation No.lll, which is a standard requirement for fixed tank vehicles' type approval in
every country member of the ADR agreement, is used, exactly as is, for the description .ofthe lateral dynamics.
The researcher may refer to the relative publication[6J,while here only a brief introduction will take place.
According to the specified Annex, a steady-state circular test is performed, under standard assumptions,
regarding the lateral stability of the fixed tank vehicle, and the calculation method takes into account the main
factors which influence this stability, such as the heightYGof the CG, the type and number of tires in every axle,
as well as the suspension characteristics. For every unsprung mass, having either single or twin tires, a pseudo-
roll angle at a hypothetical wheel lift is computed

e = A.I;
I
(4)
I
C
2. DRESi

where Ai is axle's load, Ti is the track width and CDRESi the combined roll stiffness that simulates the lateral shift
of YG,and the unsprung mass that produces the lower e value is selected, as the one at which first wheel lift shall
occur. Some total quantities of the fixed tank vehicle are determined, such as the unsprung weight, the effective
track width and the total roll stiffness, and the lateral acceleration at overturn, qc, is calculated using a linear
interpolation between the lateral acceleration at first wheel lift and the maximum theoretical lateral acceleration.
The value of qc must in any case be no less than OAg, provided of course that any structural constraint involved,
such as axles' loads, is within the specifications of the manufacturer.
The calculation of lateral stability in a specific tank vehicle, by means of Annex 4, is not of course registers to
reality, since the assumption made are ideal, butprovides a very useful insight into lateral dynamics. It must be
noted that the Regulation No.lll provides an alternative way of determining the lateral stability, using a tilt table
test and an extensively specified procedure.

3 THE OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM

With respect to the above two-models procedure, from which the vertical and lateral accelerations ofthe fixed
tank vehicle are determined, a corresponding optimizationproblem can be formulated for the objective function,

f(p)=cl.qz+(I-cJ(-qJ (5)

where p is the parameter vector to be optimized, containing the vertical stiffness and damping values of the
suspensions and tank supports, as well as the relative position of the tank on the chassis frame, c) is weighting
constant in the {O I] interval and q" qc the vertical and lateral accelerations of vehicle's centre of weight,
respectively. The function ofEq.5 must be optimized under explicit constraints that are presented in Tab.2.
As far as concerned the limits of the quantities in the parameter vector, these are a-priori satisfied, using a
simple change of variable. More specifically, if lower and upper bounds are specified for a variable as,
 Dimitris V. Koulocheris and Vasilis K. Dertimanis.

4 Appli ed force in the left tyres

2x10

-1
<I>
u
-2
LL
-3

-4
-5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0 2 4

4 Applied force in the right tyres

3x10

-2

-30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (see)

Figure 2. Generated forces for the simulation tasks.

IIv' < - < '

- Pi - Iuv (7)

they can be satisfied by transforming Pi as

Pi = l:v + (l~v-1:v)' sin2 hi (8)

where h is the new variable, which can take any value, assuring that the original vector satisfies the inequality
constraints. This is a very simple and efficient way of avoiding additional penalty functions into the objective
function, which disaffect the search space of the optimization problem. It must be noted though that, prior to the
change of variable, a rescaling of the quantities in the parameter vector has been applied, with respect to Tab.2,
in order to avoid well-known numerical drawbacks, due to the different ranges of the respective variables.

4 NUMERICAL ILLUSTRATIONS
In order to study and optimize the dynamic performance of the fixed-tank vehicle, one random tyre-road
interaction forces set was generated according to draft-ISO formulation[8],which is presented in Fig.2, while the
vehicle was assumed to travel with a constant velocity of 40 km/h. It must be noted, with respect to Fig.2, that the
relative forces, which were applied in the second axle, had twice the amplitude of the ones displayed, due to the
twin tires. Two cases for the number of supports were considered (two and four). Regarding Complex method,
the initial parameter vector was chosen to be the midrange of each parameter permissible band, while a
population of 15 random vectors was generated using the normal distribution. As far as concerned the weighting
factor, it was chosen to be 0, 0.5 and 1.
. Tables 3-4 present the values fmally selected from the outcome of the optimization procedure, with respect to
the weighting factors considered, for the two and the four supports, respectively. Some very useful remarks can
be stretched out:
./ The roll stiffness of the suspensions resulted the same for both cases (2200/3600/2200, for the 1S\ 2nd
and 3rdaxle, respectively), which can be justified from the fact that the load on axles returned the same
 Dimitris V. Koulocheris and Vasilis K. Dertimanis.

Characteristic Unit Value

Front suspension's stiffness N/m 33000

Front suspension's damping Ns/m 22000

Front suspension's roll stiffness kNm/rad 2200

Middle suspension's stiffness N/m 22000

Middle suspension's damping Ns/m 1500

Middle suspension's roll stiffness kNm/rad 3600

Rear suspension's stiffness N/m 20000

Rear suspension's damping Ns/m 5000

Rear suspension's roll stiffness kNm/rad 2200

First support's stiffness N/m 30000

First support's damping Ns/m 23000

Second support's stiffness N/m 2200

Second support's damping Ns/m 4000

Axles' load (front/middle/rear) Kg 6950/13000/6050

Lateral acceleration m/i 5.48

Table 3. Numerical results for the two supports case.

regardless of the supports. This is due to the small available space provided for the installation of the
tank on the chassis frame.
./ Naturally, since the suspension roll stiffness affects substantially the calculation of the lateral
acceleration (along with the CG height, yet the latter was not included in the optimization process, since
the chassis and the tank are the same in both supports' cases), the corresponding values are very close.
./ While the third suspension setup resulted very close (k=20000 N/m - c=5000 Ns/m for the two and
k=20000N/m - c=4000Ns/m for the four supports),the optimizationprocedureresultedin different
setups for the fIrst and the second ones. More specifIcally, when two supports are used, the stiffnesses of
the fIrst two suspensions maintain similar values (33000 N/m and 22000 N/m, respectively), while the
damping performs entirely different (22000 Ns/m and 1500 Ns/m, respectively). In the four supports
installation, it is the fIrst and the third suspensions that present similar dynamics, while the second
results rather stiff.

./ Regarding the equivalent stiffness and damping of the supports, in the second case (four supports
installation), the second and third supports retain high stiffness values, due to the fact that their position
is near to the second and third axle, where the effects from road irregularities are more evident. The first
support results rather stiff in both cases (especially in the fIrst where the damping is very high), fact that
conflicts with the current experience about fIxed-tank installations, where the front supports are chosen
to be more elastic, for reasons mostly related to braking performance. The explanation for this result lies
in the selection of the specific objective function that includes the lateral acceleration, which of course
..
Dimitris V. Koulocheris and Vasilis K. Dertimanis.

Characteristic Unit Value

Front suspension' s stiffness N/m 29000

Front suspension's damping Ns/m 7000

Front suspension's roll stiffness kNm/rad 2200

Middle suspension's stiffness N/m 100000

Middle suspension's damping Ns/m 6000

Middle suspension's roll stiffness kNm/rad 3600

Rear suspension's stiffness N/m 20000

Rear suspension's damping N.s/m 4000

Rear suspension's roll stiffness kNm/rad 2200

First support's stiffness N/m 18000

First support's damping Ns/m 3000

Second support's stiffness N/m 28500

Second support's damping Ns/m 2600

Third support's stiffness N/m 22800

Third support's damping N.s/m 2400

Fourth support's stiffness N/m 19000

Fourth support's damping Ns/m 4000

Axles' load (front/middle/rear) Kg 6900/1 3000/6100

Lateral acceleration m/i 5.50

Table 4. Numerical results for the four supports case.

"demands" that the entering to a possible circular path, or maneuvering, should take place no further
loading from the tank to the chassis.

5 CONCLUSIONS
This paper addressed the modeling and optimization problem of a three-axle fixed-tank vehicle. To this, a
two-model approach was utilized, for the separate description of the vertical and lateral dynamics of the vehicle
and the connections between them were implemented. For the vertical performance, a lumped mass model with
twelve DOF was employed; while the lateral acceleration was build according to an international regulation,
regarding the type approval of this type of vehicles, with respect to their rollover stability. Corresponding
relations were extracted for the centre of gravity of the total vehicle, load distribution in every axle and an
 Dimitris V. Koulocheris and Vasilis K. Dertimanis.

optimization problem was fonnulated, taking under consideration themostimportantconstraints thataffectthe

vehicle, by implementing two distinct cases of tank supports. The suspension components, together with the
supports' equivalent stiffuess and damping were optimized, with respect to structural and geometrical
restrictions, using Complex method. The results provided useful information, regarding the set up of the
suspensions, as well as the installation of the tank on the chassis frame.

REFERENCES
[1] Kang, X., Rakheja, S. and Stiharu, I. (2002), "Effects of Tank Shape on the Rollover Dynamic Response of a
Partly Filled Tank Vehicle", VehicleSystem Dynamics, Vol. 35, 2, 75-102.
[2] Wu, TX and Thompson, D.l. (2004), "On the parametric excitation of the wheel/track system", Journal of
Sound and Vibration, Vol. 278, 1-2,725-747.
[3] Yang, X., Rakheja, S. and Stiharu, 1. (1998), "Identification of lateral dynamics and parameter estimation of
heavy vehicles", Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 12,5,611-626.
[4] Koulocheris, D., Dertimanis, V. and Spentzas,C. (2006), "Analysis and optimization of a fixed-tank vehicle",
Forschung im lngenieurwesen, Vol. 70, 3, 171-178. .

[5] E.C.E./Trans ADR 2007 (2006), European Agreement, Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous
Goods by Road, Geneva, United Nations.
[6] ECE-Trans (2001), "Regulation No. 111: Uniform provisions concerning the approval of tank vehicles of
categories N and 0 with regard to rollover stability", Geneva,United Nations.
[7] Bastow, D. and Howard, G. (1993), Car Suspension and Handling, SAE Inc., 3rdEd., Warrendale.
'-. [8] Cebon, D. (2000), Handbook of Vehicle-RoadInteraction, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.
[9] Inman, D.l. (2001), Engineering Vibration,Prentice-HallInc.,New Jersey.

'---

View publication stats