Journal of Terramechanics, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 239-255, 1992.

Printed in Great Britain.

0022-4898/9255.00+0.00 Pergamon Press Ltd 1992 ISTVS

MODIFICATIONS

TO THE MEAN SYSTEM

MAXIMUM

PRESSURE

J. C. LARMINIE*

Summary--This article presents modifications to the vehicle ground pressure criterion of Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP). There is an introductory explanation of why MMP is preferred to other ways of expressing ground pressure. The main modification concerns the relationship for wheeled vehicles of tyre deflection to tyre size. Earlier, deflection had been in relation to tyre height; now it is to tyre diameter, which allows truer representation of low-profile tyres. This has required revised constants in the formulae, and new standardised deflections for normal comparisons. There are also developments to the MMP formula for wheels in sand. Aspects with scope for further research are described.

INTRODUCTION

THE MEAN MAXIMUM PRESSURE (MMP) is a criterion for expressing the ground pressure of a vehicle, either wheeled or tracked, It is referred to as a "system", since it has relationships to soil strength and vehicle trafficability, such as sinkage resistance. For wheeled vehicles, it also takes into account the drive line. Soon after World War II, actual ground pressures were measured under the tracks of various vehicles, including tanks of generally similar Nominal Ground Pressures but very different soft-ground performance. Those which had performed better than expected on soft ground included the German Panther and British Churchill. Panther had many large diameter wheels, so large that they overlapped each other; its track link pitch was "normal". The Churchill had a very large number of very small wheels, running on a track of long pitched links. By comparison, the contemporary fast British tanks such as Cromwell had fine pitched tracks for smooth running at speed, and relatively poor soft-ground performance. In the trials, the measurements under the track showed the expected peaks in pressure as each wheel passed over the measuring transducer. A mathematical expression relating the mean of these peak pressures to running gear dimensions was derived from the results. This expression is the tracked vehicle Mean Maximum Pressure formula, given in Table 1. Its derivation and validation by Rowland is in Ref. [1]. MMP explained the performances of the tanks described above [2]. For wheeled vehicles an equivalent ground pressure expression was also derived at the British Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE). This was based on the results of vehicle trials at the US Army Waterways Experiment Station, which had been translated into "Numerics", or Mobility Numbers. These Numerics were converted into pressures for MMP, as described in Ref. [3]. Ground pressure is a key issue in cross-country mobility for designers, procurers,
*Tithe Barn, Lytchett Matravers, Poole, Dorset BH16 6B J, U.K. 239

240

J. C. L A R M I N I E TABLE 1.

M E A N MAXIMUM PRESSURE EXPRESSIONS

For fine grained soils (clays, c o h e s i v e soils)

(a) M M P F o r m u l a for t r a c k e d vehicles: MMP 1.26W
-

2m c b (pd) .~

kPa

W = vehicle w e i g h t (kN) m d b p c = = = = = n u m b e r of axles w h e e l d i a m e t e r (m) track w i d t h (m) track link pitch (m) t r a c k link profile factor f o o t p r i n t - a r e a / p b

(b) M M P F o r m u l a for wheels: MMP =

K'W kPa 2m bO.85dI15(6/d)O.5

W = vehicle w e i g h t ( k N ) m d b 6 K' = = = = = n u m b e r of axles tyre d i a m e t e r ~ [ u n l a d e n (m) tyre b r e a d t h tyre d e f l e c t i o n on h a r d g r o u n d (see n o t e s b e l o w ) factor from table b e l o w

Factor K': Number of axles 2 3 4 5 6 P r o p o r t i o n of axles d r i v e n

1

3/4 --2.22 ---

2/3 -2.17 --2.57

3/5 ---2.48 --

1/2 2.2 -2.48 -2.77

1/3 -2.62 --3.1

1/4 --3.02 ---

1.83 1.95 2.05 2.16 2.3

Notes: ( l ) If differential locks are in use, the e q u i v a l e n t M M P is i m p r o v e d : 4 x 2 vehicles; M M P x 0.98. 4 4 , 6 x 6 ; M M P 0,97. The effect in o t h e r cases has to be established: use x 0.97. (2) T y r e d i a m e t e r d is in t h e o r y the actual d i a m e t e r in use, which t h a n the m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s d a t a for a new tyre. For s t a n d a r d i s a t i o n , d i a m e t e r t a k e n to the base of the t r e a d p a t t e r n . (3) T y r e d e f l e c t i o n 6 is as m e a s u r e d on a h a r d surface. In g e n e r a l m o d e s t d e f l a t i o n for off-road w o r k : that is 1.3 the deflection motorways. in practical t e r m s will always be less it has b e e n the practice to use the cases the d e f l e c t i o n u s e d is t h a t with q u o t e d for high s p e e d r u n n i n g on

2.

For coarse grained soil (sands, frictional soils)

(a) M M P F o r m u l a for t r a c k e d vehicles: Use the s a m e f o r m u l a as for clay; see p a r a g r a p h l ( a ) above. (b) M M P F o r m u l a for w h e e l s on sand: MMP

S T W ~3 2 m bl.Sdl.~ Old

kPa

= Proportionality constant below = Tyre t r e a d factor: 1 for s m o o t h tyre 1.4 r o a d tyre 2.8 r o a d / C C tyre 3.3 e a r t h m o v e r t r e a d

M E A N M A X I M U M P R E S S U R E SYSTEM TABLE 1. MEAN MAXIMUM PRESSURE EXPRESSIONS (cont'd)

241

Otherwise, factors as for fine-grained soil. Constant S; pending further research take: S = 0.31 for all wheel drive; for 4 x 2, S = 0.37: for 6 x 4, S = 0.35: for 8 x 6, S = 0.34: for 8 x 4, S = 0.38.

3. MMP Formula for belt tracks with pneumatic tyres

MMP 0.5W
-

2m b (d6) .s

kPa

6 b

= tyre deflection on hard ground (m) = track width (m)

For belt tracks on solid tyred wheels, the tracked MMP is used, with the pitch being taken as the length of reinforcement at the tread (if internal, assess pitch where the track bends around the idler).

4. MMP Formula for wheels of different sizes (fine grained soils)

MMP= +...+

b,,85d-TC~,6,d,OS
i i

where suffix (1) refers to the first axle, and so on to the ith axle, and all other factors are the same as in the normal MMP for wheels in paragraph l(b).

5. Special cases. For trailers, articulated vehicles, or ~-tracks formulae from those above can be used,
allowing for any differences in running gears in the manner shown in paragraph 4 above. For Ltracks, for the one axle take K ' = 1.66. From the point of view of soil and vehicle interaction, the vel~icle can be considered as one, with anomalies usually no greater than those arising from various steering systems or axle tracks on single vehicles. For twinned wheels, take: w = total number of wheels; then on sand substitute w for 2m, and on clay for 2m substitute (2m + w)/2.

and users of vehicles, military and civil. Its relationship to other vehicle characteristics was described in Ref. [4]. The most obvious use of ground pressure is in assessing ability to move at all over soft ground, for Go or NoGo. However, its greatest value probably lies in the interrelationship of ground pressure to sinkage into the soil, from which comes resistance to motion and power requirements, and to damage to the soil. The three most common methods of quantifying ground pressure all have limitations, but MMP is the truest. The Nominal Group Pressure (NGP) is, as its name implies purely nominal, and not related to actual loading of the soil. The N G P for tracked vehicles only takes account of the length and breadth of the track on the ground, not such matters as track-link pitch, the number of wheels or their diameter. It thus is so insensitive to important design characteristics that it is dangerously misleading. There are two forms of NGP for wheels. The common one, as used by tyre manufacturers, takes the footprint on a hard surface. This has no correlation to tracks, so is little help in comparisons of rival vehicles. The other N G P for wheels was only used for a short time, and only by the British Army (having been developed at the RAC School of Tank Technology), being supplanted by MMP in 1972 for greater accuracy. The Vehicle Cone Index (VCI) of the U.S. Army is a comprehensive criterion that includes many factors other than ground pressure. Thus it is difficult to separate out the various influences which give a particular vehicle a certain value of VCI. Furthermore, VCI contains its various factors in unlikely interrelationships which do not accord to common sense. It is also unwieldy to use. MMP has its

242

J. C, LARMINIE

limitations too (these are summarised near the end of this article). However, these are minor compared with those of VCI or NGP. The three methods put vehicles into different orders of merit. Thus two of them must be less good than the third. The MMP for tracks was derived from a considerable quantity of trial measurements, and is actual ground pressure. MMP for wheels uses Vehicle Numerics (or Mobility Numbers), whose origins go back to work in the US Army at the same establishment which had developed VCI [3]. These wheeled vehicle Numerics have also been subjected to further examination in trials by the British Ministry of Defence, described by Maclaurin [5, 6], and thus are well researched. The formulae for MMP (incorporating the recent modifications) are given at Table 1. It will be seen that they use the factors which experienced vehicle engineers, or users, intuitively take into account. NGP has been proved to be inaccurate. VCI has been shown to be unsatisfactory, since it is so loosely related to ground pressure. Thus MMP appears to be the most useful criterion.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE This article is concerned with the practical use of the output from earlier research studies which had been published through ISTVS. Much of the work of ISTVS members reported in this journal is concerned with deep research. Such work has great value for improving understanding in detail of vehicle soil interaction. However, some of this work puts the emphasis on the detailed and thorough development of the research techniques as the aims of the work, rather than only taking them as far as is necessary for use as a tool to produce results that can have practical value. The author of this article published in this journal [4], a digest of earlier work giving a full set of mobility criteria to control mobility standards for military vehicles. These standards have been used with considerable success for some time by the British Ministry of Defence for specifying the characteristics of future vehicles. However, the definition of the standards, and the ability to interpret the implications of various levels of each criterion could benefit from further research, such as that done by ISTVS members. Such criteria must be readily understood by laymen such as users or treasury officials, and simple to apply by professionals. Designers and users need to know the practical implications in service of changes in vehicle characteristics, or the mobility available to a particular vehicle when operating in various types of terrain, or under various weather patterns. The criteria when used for such purposes do not need utterly precise accuracy. For instance, it is well known that quoted Power to Weight ratios must be used with care to allow for differences such as transmission efficiency and effectiveness. Thus P/W has long been a useful guide despite its inaccuracies, and is often used without reference to detailed computer models of output results. Much the same applies for performance in mud. For many users, the ground pressure criterion need not have clinical accuracy, or fine detail of soil interaction at each tyre lug or track link. Both designers and users will know from experience how their existing vehicles perform in the places where they have already been used. But the designer needs to know in broad terms what will be the change in performance of alterations to running gear, and what will be the implications of these changes for his customer, the user. The user needs to know what will happen if an existing vehicle is asked to work in different types of soil or soil condition, whilst allowing for realities of life such as a few millimetres of rain in the last few days. The procuring authority

MEAN MAXIMUM PRESSURE SYSTEM

243

acting on behalf of the user, and users themselves need to be able to pierce the fog of advertising to find out how some future vehicle will perform. As an example, in the military field, the claims made for some wheeled fighting vehicles are clearly nonsense. Vehicles of say 16-25 tonnes are supposedly capable of " G o o d cross-country performance", despite having only relatively few wheels, with tyres not big enough to give a reasonable ground pressure. Bearing in mind that tracked armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) with ground pressures less than half that of the wheeled ones can themselves often find their mobility insufficient, there is a need to know honestly what can be expected. Realistic trials are seldom possible. Peacetime running is usually confined to a narrow range of conditions, generally on easier types of soils, and not in the wettest weather, due to limited availability of training or test areas, and the need to limit damage. Thus reasonably accurate criteria are needed to ensure future vehicles will have adequate performance when ultimately it is needed in earnest. There is a general desire, primarily driven by efforts to reduce costs, to increase vehicle payloads (be it armour on tanks) without compensating improvements to running gear. So, ground pressures have tended to rise. A simple example is the British Army common work truck, the 4 Tonner. Three generations have all had the same payload, and the same roles and tasks: and the same 12.00 20 tyres. But the gross weights have grown successively from 8.8 tonne for the Bedford RL of the 1960s, through 9.45 t for the Bedford MK, to 10.2 t for the new Leyland-DAF of 1990. The soldiers were also sure that the first of these three had no surplus in cross-country ability. Such failings are not confined to the British Army, nor to trucks, nor to military vehicles. In peacetime much reliance is placed on Operational Analysis. This is often based on detailed computer simulations. The analyst must be able to tell the client designer or user which particular engineering attributes are the causes of differences in performance in the complex modelling. It is for all such reasons that the MMP ground pressure system is so useful: since it is much more accurate than NGP, it allows comparisons of tracks versus wheels, whilst being easier to interpret and more convincing than VCI. MMP was derived from detailed and deep research of the type referred to earlier, and has had considerable practical application. It has shown itself in use to be a reliable guide. The improvements to it reported here have been validated by work at R A R D E [5, 6]. This article is centred on military vehicles, but has many applications in the civil field. It is aimed at two types of reader: (a) The designers, procurers, and users who already make use of MMP, to broadcast the improvement to the formula, and allow standardised use of it. (b) To researchers, with the plea that their work should take into consideration the practical application of their findings to reinforce the facilities available. Various aspects on which further research is needed are described towards the end of this article.
MODIFICATIONS TO WHEELED MMP FORMULA [Fine-grained soils (clay. etc.)]

Tyre deflection
One of the important components of the MMP expression for wheels is the allowance for tyre deflection (6), since the ground contact patch of the tread

244

J. C. LARMINIE

lengthens with increasing deflection. There is also a modest increase in breadth, which can increase side-wall support with deep sinkage. The deflation of pneumatic tyres has long been an effective means of improving soft ground performance, for agricultural and sports vehicles, as well as military. There is currently renewed interest in Central Tyre Inflation systems. MMP needs to allow for this realistically.

Deflection relationship
The original MMP formula used the term 6/h; that is, the deflection in relation to tyre height. This seemed satisfactory at the time. However, it was always potentially unsatisfactory because, for a given 6/h a change in tyre squatness of height d/h would give a different length of tyre in contact with the ground. In recent years the use of low-profile tyres common on motorcars spread to military vehicles. This gave misleading representations of ground contact length using 6/h, such low profile tyres being credited with a ground pressure lower than they merited. The true relationship is Old; deflection in relation to tyre diameter. Thus, from a logical consideration of tyre footprint size, the use of bid rather than 6/h seems better. Recent work at R A R D E has confirmed the soundness of the use of the term bid. Trials measured the soft-ground performance of a range of tyre sizes on a singlewheel tester, and the results are described by Maclaurin [6]. The analysis of the trials results examined the "best-fit" Soil Numeric. The examinations included the study of values of the powers for tyre breadth b X and diameter d y. These showed differing optimum values for traction and for resistance, which were astride the current values as used in the MMP formula. The current values are: b ~5 and d 1"15 These make the expression the equivalent to a pressure. There seems to be no case for varying these powers; rather, there are good reasons for retaining them as they are. The two Soil Numerics of prime interest thus are: Nd = C bSSd 1"15 (6/d) 5 W and N h =

C b85d H5 (6/h) '5

W

where C = Soil Cone Index; other symbols as in Table 1. The use of 6/d for Nd gives an improvement in standard deviation to 0.0497, compared with 0.0520 using 6/h for N h. Although this is for only the particular circumstances of these trials, it serves as useful confirmation of the soundness of using The revision of the MMP formula for wheels using 6/d is minor, and it remains in the same general form. Its basis remains the relationships to tracks, and both wheels and tracks to soil strength Cone Index. Thus MMP calculated using the old formula will only change marginally when recalculated using the new. The most pronounced changes will be in cases where there is the new fairer allowance for low-profile tyres. To implement this, the changes of the wheeled MMP for fine grained soils (clays, etc.) required the derivation of a new constant K in the formula, since quantitatively 6/d is much smaller than 6/h.

Derivation of constant K'

The original constant K was presented by Rowland [2], and was derived empirically from the results from trials of trafficability Go and N o G o limits: the onset of zero net

M E A N M A X I M U M P R E S S U R E SYSTEM

245

traction. There were two sources for the new K ' ; the original data used in 1972, and that from the recent trials. The recent work at R A R D E described in Ref. [6] provided data subject to the limitations of the nature of the ground on which the trials had been done, and the sizes of tyres tested. From these data comes the comparison for values of the numerics N where the coefficient of traction was zero: N d = 1.35 and Nh = 2.81. K 2.81 This gives the ratios K~ - 1.3~ - 2.08. This figure is confirmed by the fact that the tyres used in the R A R D E trials had an average value of d/h of 4.32. Thus (d/h) '5 = (4.32) 0.5 = 2.08. Since the trials by R A R D E were of a limited number, and the tyres different from those used in the WES trial, a different correction factor for K could be expected from consideration of the earlier trials. The tyre sizes used then had an average profile d/h of 3.7, giving a correction for K of 1.92. The mean of these two correction factors derived from the WES and R A R D E trials is 2.0. Thus: K = 2. K' It is satisfactory to adopt this figure without trying to determine any weighting between the two sources. The fact that it is a round figure is fortuitously appropriate, since MMP is not an exact criterion, due to its own limitations, and the many variables affecting ground conditions. The new MMP for fine-grained soils, with the new K ' values are given in Table 1.

REVISIONS TO W H E E L E D MMP [Frictional soil(sand)]

The long-term experience that has been gained using MMP for assessing performance on clayey soils has not been matched by that on sand. Mobility on sand is less of a difficulty than on wet clay. However, there are vehicles with inadequate performance on clay, and thus it is necessary to be able to use MMP as a guide in optimising them for sand operation. Furthermore, there are vehicles specifically built for use in arid country for which design priorities may be different from those for clay. Thus there is a need for a criterion of ground pressure for such circumstances. Accordingly, the sand MMP was published in Ref. [4]. It is now possible to take it to a further stage of development.

Weight factor. The apparent strength of sand increases with depth, due to surcharge. For a given ground contact area, the heavier the vehicle, the deeper the sinkage; and so the better the support given by the sand. The Sand Numeric, Ns, is given in Ref. [3], and
is:

2m G (bd) 1"5
N s =

6 " h

where G = gradient of Cone Index (CI) with depth, other symbols as in Table 1.

246

J. c. LARMINIE

The heavier the vehicle, the deeper the critical depth, and thus the greater the relevant CI. Thus when the Numeric is reconstituted as an MMP, this needs to be taken into account: MMP =

S TW ~ kPa 2m b15dl"5 (Old)

where S = constant of proportionality; T = tyre tread factor; x = power to account for G. There is insufficient information available from trials on which to establish the value of x. At present both d and b are to the power 1.5, making the Sand Numeric a density. Thus initially, it might be supposed that x - - 1 . 5 . Then the units would become those of a pressure. However, it might be that revisions are needed to the powers of d and b. These powers are the same, on the premise that for sinkage to occur the sand must flow out from underneath the contact patch. However, recent trials at R A R D E , although of only limited scope, give an indication that there might need to be some greater power given to diameter c o m p a r e d with breadth. This could be due to the effect of the wheel moving and shifting sand. Thus evidently, more trials are needed to define the M M P formula more precisely.

Values of S and x for use Pending definitive research which would relate the wheels M M P in sand to CI, and to M M P of tracks, values of S and x are needed so that the formula can be used now. These have been established on the following basis:
(a) The tyre sizes from which the Sand Numeric was derived included those used for the Clay Numeric, thus suggesting some similarities in actual ground pressures under the tyres between the trials on the two types of soil. (b) Use and understanding of M M P would be simplified if M M P for sand and for clay for a particular vehicle were numerically the same. This is a reasonable consideration for those vehicles which have relatively narrow tyres. Limited comparisons between vehicles in c o m m o n use in the British A r m y show that the order of merit of actual performance in sand is much the same as the order of merit predicted by clay MMP. These types of vehicles tend to have tyres of a breadth to diameter ratio generally narrower than tyres used on vehicles specifically designed for sand. (c) For ease of use, the constant S should be the same for vehicles of all weight classes, weight being taken into account by the power x. (d) These requirements are met, with reasonable accuracy consistent with other variables, and for wheeled vehicles in British military service ranging from 2 to 32 t gross weight when: S = 0.31 x = 1.3. (e) These values have been shown in the M M P sand formula in Table 1. Additional values of S where there is not all-wheel drive are also shown; these being in the same proportions as the values of the constant K in the M M P for clay. (f) The calculation was made with tyres at cross-country pressures, that is; deflection taken as 1.3 times that for high speed on roads, as justified below. The breadth to diameter ratio (b/d) of these normal cross-country tyres averaged 28%.

MEAN MAXIMUM PRESSURE SYSTEM

247

Typically, special sand tyres have bid of some 40%, in which case the MMPs for sand fall below those for clay, since b is raised to the power 1.5. This conforms to practical experience gained long before these Numerics were derived.

Tyre deflection on sand

The Soil Numerics deflection, since the Consideration of the the use of 6/d rather for such frictional soils as sand emphasise the importance of tyre function is not subject to a square root as on fine-grained soils. tyre footprint relationship to tyre diameter shows that for sand than 6/h is justified, as it was for clay.

Precautions in use: MMP for sand

The MMP for sand is a temporary criterion, pending further research as discussed in the next paragraph. It cannot be used in conjunction with soil strength measurements until the value of the constant S has been examined further. However, it can be used for comparisons over a narrow range, as for instance comparing the options for tyres on a particular design, or comparing rival vehicles of approximately the same gross weight. The sand MMP for wheels does not allow direct comparison against the MMP for tracks, and such comparisons between these two forms of running gear should be done using the clay MMP.

Future developments
There has now been considerable experience in the use of MMP for the prediction of performance, and in its use for specifying vehicle designs of both tracked and wheeled vehicles when concerned with performance on clayey soils. Development is now needed to bring the MMP for sand up to the same usefulness. This will require more accurate definition of the weight relationship, W x, and for the constant S. Revision of the powers of d and b may also be needed. Further information is also needed on the relationship of the MMP for sand to the sand's CI, and G (gradient of CI with depth). This will need trials on sands of various grain size, and sharpness of the grains. It should also include "dust soils", of very fine grain. These include dry pulverised clays, which behave in a frictional manner, and are often found in very arid areas. These are sometimes mistaken for sand by those with the common misunderstanding that all deserts are sand; their fineness of grain makes them a particular mobility problem. It is hoped that soon other contributors to this journal will be able to report such progress.

STANDARDISED QUOTATIONS OF WHEELED GROUND PRESSURE It is useful when reading of vehicle performances if ground pressure could be quoted under standardised conditions. Deflation of the tyres improves soft-ground performance, and is reflected in MMP, so there is a temptation to quote MMP at very low tyre pressures. However, at such low pressures side-slope stability and ground clearance are reduced. Some examples of the range of MMP variation with tyre deflation are given in Table 2. It had been common to quote MMP with tyres inflated so that the deflection in relation to tyre height was 18%. This is now unsatisfactory since differing designs of tyres can run at different deflections, and the merit of increased suppleness of modern

248
TABLE2.
IMPROVEMENTS

J. C. LARMINIE IN MMP
W I T H T Y R E D E F L A T I O N C L A Y A N D S A N D SOILS

Vehicle AMX10 RC wheeled light tank on 12.00R20 tyres on 14.00R20 tyres

Road normal 443 411 573 616 408 355 656 631 80 km/h nil (30 cm) 286 266

Deflection increase Tracks Soft 1.3 2 MMP kPa 380 303 489 448 350 262 564 473 60 km/h 2 cm 252 206 315 207 406 308 290 179 473 333 20 km/h 5 cm 207 140 Clay Sand Clay Sand Clay Sand Clay Sand Clay Sand

Leyland-DAF Truck 4 t GS

Bedford Truck 8 t GS For tyres on the vehicles above: Speed limits: Reduction in ground clearance (from normal of say) Panhard MI1 Scout Car

Notes and comment: (1) Normal deflection is that for high speed on roads. Deflation is limited: AMX10RC by run-flat insert (Hutchinson) For trucks the need for bead-locks By risk of overheating or cuts to the tyre side-walls. (2) Deflation reduces stability and control on side-slopes. (3) AMXI0RC has adjustable suspension and ground-clearance. It also has skid-steer. (4) Weights and tyre sizes of these vehicles are shown in Table 4. Tyre dimensions are those of products of Michelin Tyre plc. (5) The different powers for breadth, diameter, and deflection in the two MMP formulae for clay and sand result in different relationships of sand and clay for the different tyre sizes. The Leyland-DAF has the 12.00R20, which is the smallest tyre of the first three vehicles shown above, which are all on 20 inch rims. Thus it has less breadth and less deflection, both of which rate well in the sand MMP, and thus this one tyre has a sand MMP worse than its clay MMP. The Panhard Mll uses a tyre of tall section (i.e. small wheel in relation to tyre diameter). Thus it can have a large deflection, and so benefits greatly from deflation on soft ground. Its breadth in relation to diameter is not exceptional.

tyres s h o u l d show in M M P . A l s o , the revised M M P f o r m u l a r el at es d e f l e c t i o n to d i a m e t e r , so the old p e r c e n t a g e s of tyre heights are i n c o n v e n i e n t . T h e tyre m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s d e s i g n e d d e f l e c t i o n can be f o u n d f r o m t h ei r data sheets, with d i a m e t e r s and b r e a d t h s . D i m e n s i o n s g iv en in t r a d e c a t a l o g u e s can be m i sl ead i n g , b e i n g w h e e l - a r c h c l e a r a n c e s r a t h e r than tyre d i m e n s i o n s . T h e n o r m a l q u o t e d deflection is usually for the high s p e e d rating o f the tyre. T h e r e is a t e n d e n c y for vehicles to d e p l o y o f f r o ad s with tyres still at full high s p e e d inflation, and thus t h e r e is s o m e justification for using that for s t a n d a r d i s e d q u o t a t i o n s of M M P . H o w e v e r , this gives a falsely pessimistic guide to p o t e n t i a l s o f t - g r o u n d p e r f o r m a n c e . It is s u g g e s t e d that M M P be q u o t e d at 1.3 times the high s p e e d r o a d d ef l ect i o n . This w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e for typical military c r o s s - c o u n t r y inflation p r essu r es for g r o u n d of m o d e s t severity, o f t e n r e f e r r e d to as " t r a c k s " . D e f l a t i o n to this e x t e n t allows s p e e d of s o m e 5 0 - 6 5 k m / h d e p e n d e n t on tyre design, m a i n t a i n s r e a s o n a b l e

MEAN MAXIMUM PRESSURE SYSTEM

249

side-slope stability and ground clearance, yet enhances ride over harsh bumps as well as soft-ground performance to a significant amount. For tyre sizes common for military use the new quoted deflection of 1.3 times that for high speed as on motorways is somewhat greater than the previously quoted deflection of 18% of tyre height. Changes on recalculation can be significant, enough to justify revision of official standards demanded in mobility requirements. Ground pressures quoted for still greater deflections should be assessed with caution. For soft mud or sand a typical deflection would be twice that for roads. At such low pressures, speed must be limited to some 20 km/h, ground clearance is reduced, and handling and side-slope stability are impaired. Tyre side-walls also bulge vulnerably. Tyre deflation to achieve such deflections is usually only practicable on vehicles with central tyre inflation systems. Thus for comparison with tracked vehicles, or for assessment of normal movement, validity is restricted at such extreme deflation.

LIMITATIONSOF MMP The use of MMP must be tempered by the appreciation of its limitations. It is empirical in origin, and its accuracy depends on that of the trials from which it was derived. These trials in turn have their limitations, since soil type and vegetation varies from place to place and occasion to occasion. Such trials are restricted in extent, and thus the sample is relatively small considering the wide number of variables. Tests were done at slow speed, and running straight. MMP has no factor for the reduction of sinkage with speed, and thus cannot quantify the benefit of the reduced resistance. Other relevant matters are given below.

(a) Soil depth

MMP assumes soil or snow with a gentle and positive gradient of increasing strength with depth. Results can be misleading when exceptionally there is a hard crust, as on salt-pans in the desert, or on snow; or when quite commonly there are soft slippery top layers on firmer underlying soil.

(b) Slipperiness
Anomalies will occur where vehicles of high ground pressure will outperform those with lower, the heavier appearing to bite through to firmer ground. This particularly applies to large vehicles, which often perforce have high ground pressure, yet also often can perform better than that ground pressure would imply. To such large vehicles the softer surface layers of soil are relatively shallow, and they can reach down to firmer layers underneath.

(c) Axle loading

MMP assumes axle loading is approximately equal. Often there are variations, but a balanced design naturally tends to minimise them. There have been criticisms of MMP for this, and suggestions that MMP should be calculated using the weight carried by the heaviest loaded axle. This shows a misunderstanding of the derivation of MMP for clay, either wheeled or tracked. Sinkage increases with successive wheel passes. If one axle has reduced loading, it will give reduced sinkage, and vice versa. MMP takes the mean.

250

J.c. LARMINIE

(d) Steering
Trafficability measurements are usually taken when running straight ahead. Some steering systems impose a penalty. A wheeled vehicle with more than one unsteered axle suffers the slewing force needed to move wheels on a bogie sideways. Vehicles with skid steer, such as most tracked and a few wheeled types, have a severe penalty since the inside track is providing a braking force. Such vehicles will perform less well than their ground pressure would indicate (be it NGP, VCI, or MMP). As a yardstick, vehicles with skid-steering need a ground pressure 20% lower than those with articulated or Ackerman steer.

(e) Usability
It must be accepted that MMP has imperfections. But it has been proved in use to be the least bad of the ground-pressure systems available. It is also the criterion that accords best with a logical and common-sense analysis of vehicle/terrain interaction.

(f) Accuracy
Because of all these limitations, MMP must be used with due caution. Experience suggests that in the range common for military vehicles, of MMP between 100 kPa and 450 kPa, and assuming the same types of steering systems and tyres or tracks of similar tractive grip, some 20 kPa is the minimum significant difference in MMP.

MMP FOR TRACKS The original formula for MMP for tracks was well researched, and experience of its use has proved it to be a reliable guide. It can thus be used with confidence. The main validation of MMP for tracks was on fine-grained soils. As discussed above for wheels, this is generally satisfactory, since such soils present the greatest difficulty. Furthermore, even arid countries are often of fine grained soils, and in due season it does rain even in many so-called deserts. But again as explained above in the section on MMP for wheels, it may not always be the case that clay is the critical measure, and so additional research coordinated to improve the knowledge about tracks in dry frictional soils would be useful, relating MMP to sinkage, resistance and CI, and tracks with wheels.

GRIP FOR TRACTION Any review of ground pressure must take into account the grip the vehicle can gain for traction. This is particularly so when the surface layers of the soil are weak, or there is slippery grass. Ground pressure controls sinkage, and thus one of the main components of resistance which that traction must overcome. MMP does not include a factor to evaluate grip, and thus this must be taken into consideration separately. For wheeled vehicles, this is not much of a problem, since it can be assumed that tyres of a certain type will be used in some application, be it for agriculture, civil road vehicles which seldom go off the road, or military vehicles. For tracks there can be a penalty that is highly significant, indeed almost catastrophic, where a vehicle of quite high ground pressure is also hampered by a smooth grip due to rubber padded tracks. There are indications that this can be the equivalent to a change in MMP of about 40% of those ground pressures typical of medium to heavy-weight armoured vehicles.

MEAN MAXIMUMPRESSURE SYSTEM

251

However, little information is available about the subject. Research would have to include the clogging effects of the soil, of vegetation, and the self-cleaning design of the track-link. For the present, it should be born in mind that the upper limit of ground pressure generally deemed acceptable for tanks in the British service, of MMP of some 280 kPa, was established as satisfactory only with tracks of an aggressive spud (grouser) with an all-steel track (e.g. Centurion). Tracks with rubber pads need to be down to less than 240 kPa, as exemplified by Leopard 1. With the lower ground pressures possible in light AFVs, the rubber pad is less of a disadvantage, although grip can still be important. In dry sand, an aggressive grip can be a penalty, since it disturbs a surface layer, increasing sinkage. This is reflected for wheels in the factor T in the MMP sand formula.

OTHER FACTORS Considerations of ground pressure must be done with attention paid to other vehicle characteristics. Ground clearance must be sufficient, so that potential immobilisation will be due to insufficient traction to overcome sinkage resistance, rather than bellying. Power to give speed, and a good suspension and responsive steering to allow that speed to be sustained, allows soft patches to be charged by impetus, and speed reduces sinkage in both fine and coarse-grained soils (clays or sands).

REQUIRED AND ACTUALGROUND PRESSURES The importance of ground pressure is shown by the inability of agricultural vehicles to work in the fields in wet weather, and in undeveloped countries civil transport can be disrupted on unmetalled roads softened by rain and churned by traffic and animals. For military vehicles severe tactical restraints are suffered by fighting and logistics vehicles. In dry weather they perform quite well, but in the wet there are problems about which little fuss is made in war because there are more urgent things to think about. In peacetime the limitations do not come to the fore because of the restrictions in where vehicles can be run, as described earlier. For completeness in this article, tables are included (some being revised versions of those in [4]) to show: (a) Table 3: the maximum ground pressure tolerable to allow freedom of movement. (b) Table 4: the actual ground pressures of various vehicles. It will be seen that many of these are well above the pressures shown as being the limit in Table 3. (c) Table 5: the limit of ground pressures the user ought to accept taking into account the exigiencies of design and cost restraints. These recommended standards have been taken from what has been shown to be possible by the more able designs. The ground pressures shown in Tables 4 and 5 reflect the modifications to the MMP formula for wheeled vehicles, and the altered standardised way of quoting tyre deflection. They also include the benefit possible from more recent tyre designs giving greater deflections. Thus the values have important differences from those published in earlier works by this author. The required MMP for the common group of military trucks, the Medium Mobility Load Carrier (MMLC) has in Table 5 been reduced by 50 kPa compared with past versions of such statements [4]. The standard for Low Mobility has also been altered

252 TABLE 3.

J. C. L A R M I N I E SOIL/VEHICLE RELATIONSHIP

1. Desirable ground pressure M M P values

MMP Levels with skid-steering (and articulation) and performance priority Condition Temperature climate, wet, fine-grain (e.g. clay) soil Tropical, wet fine-grain soil Ideal 120(150) 72(90) Satisfactory 160(200) 112(140) Maximum acceptable 240(300) 192(240)

The figures in brackets (from Ref. [1]) show the heavier ground pressures practicable with normal Ackerman or articulated steering, compared with skid-steering as used on most tracked vehicles, and a few wheeled ones. These figures assume level ground.

2. Trafficability limits"
For fine-grain (e.g. clay) soils, wet, for one pass: CI = 0.827 MMP [Cone Index of soil strength in kPa; MMP in kPa]. For multiple passes: Number of passes: Multiply One-pass CI by:
1 2 5

1.2

1.53

10 1.85

25 2.35

50 2.8

3. Resistance from soil sinkage

R = Resistance (kN) W = Weight (kN) (mass 9.81) M = MMP (kPa) C = Soil Cone Index in kPa Take CI = RCI 4- 0.8 i lbf/in-' = 6.895 kPa

by the same amount. This reflects the more flattering M M P of such trucks when due allowance is made in the revised M M P for the flexibility of modern radial tyres. Note that the broad statement of requirement for such M M L C is that they "should have a genuine cross-country performance". Table 3 shows that to have this they would need an M M P at the most of only 300 kPa. But costs limits demand that M M L C must be cheap trucks based on civilian components which cannot meet this. The r e c o m m e n d e d standards must be kept as close to the ideal as is realistic, and thus are revised to reflect the latest developments.

CONCLUSION

The recent modifications to M M P described in this article improve its ability to serve as a vehicle criterion for soft-ground performance, particularly for clayey soils. Such clay soils are the most critical for normal military vehicles. Some such criterion is essential for allowing judgements on capability, particularly during design, or for procurement. M M P remains better, or it could be cynically said less bad, than other methods.

MEAN MAXIMUM PRESSURE SYSTEM

253

[-

~'-:.~=~

x x x x

~ " ~ ~
N ~ ~ N

x , ~ ,"~ x", ~

"

I _~: o x ~ x x

= ~

~xx

-~

I . .. ~ . . . . ~ I ~

tc'seel

d
;

~X
>

X~ ~

o ,v
< >

,~r,.I ~

~ ~ :~

,--,,,~ ,.-, ~ ~

,o x

,-., ~'x

~ ~o',-,'- ,,-, ~
"''~ ~ ~' ~ , _ , , ] ,,.., ~ ~ ~ X

x x

?:..
z~

<~

~, ,.. ~
._ , =

N < Z <

,,,-k ;.

[-

<

~l#b

"-',,.4

#:,.~

a~
~ ,,...,
o'h

O'~

=,,9,0

..--...--., ~X

[-

254
TABLES.

J. C. L A R M I N I E
RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR GROUND PRESSURE MMP

Vehicle type

Maximum ground pressure (kPa) Ground pressure and priority

Armoured vehicles (i) Heavy AFV: above 30 t e.g. MBT, SP Arty. (2) Light AFV: below 30 t (a) Combat Vehicles. Tracked (or skid-steer wheels) Wheeled (or articulated tracks) (b) Armoured wheeled carriers (minimum cost) 'B' Vehicles

Desirable 230

Highly desirable 240

Essential 280 Note 2 Note 3

110 132 --

140 168 --

230 276 450

Ltd mob.

Maximum ground pressure for class: kPa HMLC IMMLC 350 450 450 MMLC 500 550 550 ILMLC 625 650 650 LMLC -Over Over

(1) Utilities, It trucks: Payload < 4 (Note 4) (2) Medium trucks: Payload 4-8 t (3) Heavy trucks: Payload > 8 t.

275 350 350

Notes: (1) These standards were originally published in Ref.[4], with levels for other important characteristics such as ground clearance and power (P/W). The ground pressures suggested are those the user should insist upon, being a very reasonable and pragmatic compromise considering engineering and cost constraints, and the ideal requirements shown in Table 3. There have been slight reductions in the MMP values for some trucks from previous editions of these standards, to take account of recent advances in tyre design, and the way this is reflected in the revised MMP formula. (2) For higher MMP (e.g. MBT and ILMLC/LMLC) aggressive tread is especially important, i.e. all-steel track or wheel chains. (3) The lighter the AFV, the better can be, and needs to be, the ground pressure due to scale effects. Thus what is only Desirable @ 30 t becomes Essential for very small, thus light vehicles. (4) The lighter the vehicle, the easier to meet better mobility classes. Thus the user is more justified in asking for them.

REFERENCES [1] D. ROWLAND, Tracked vehicle ground pressure and its effect on soft ground performance. Proc 4th Int. Conf. 1STVS, Stockholm (1972). [2] D. ROWLAND, A review of vehicle design for soft ground operation. Proc 5th Int. Conf. ISTVS, Detroit (1975). [3] D. ROWLAND and J. W. PEEL, Soft ground performance prediction and assessment for wheeled and tracked vehicles. Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs 205/75. [4] J. C. LARMINIE, Standards for the mobility requirements of military vehicles. J. Terramechanics 25 (3) (1988). [5] E. B. MACLAURIN, The effect of tread pattern on the field performance of tyres. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. ISTVS, Calgary (1981). [0] E. B. MACLAURIN, The use of mobility numbers to describe the in-field tractive performance of pneumatic tyres. Proc lOth Int. Conf. ISTVS, Japan (1990).

ABBREVIATIONS AFV HMLC IMMLC LMLC MBT Armoured Fighting Vehicle High Mobility Load Carrier (see Ref. [4]) Improved MMLC Low Mobility Load Carrier Main Battle Tank

MEAN MAXIMUM PRESSURE SYSTEM MMLC MMP NGP SP Arty VCI Medium Mobility Load Carrier (characteristics in Ref. [4]) Mean Maximum Pressure Nominal Ground Pressure Self-propelled Artillery Vehicle Cone Index

255

See also Table 1 for symbols used in formulae.