Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 27 Jun 2019

An Integrated Approach for Friction and Wear Simulation of Tire Tread Rubber. Part I: Friction Test, Characterization, and Modeling

,
, and
Page Range: 123 – 145
DOI: 10.2346/tire.19.170174
Save
Download PDF

ABSTRACT:

To simulate tire tread friction and wear, a variety of factors have to be taken into account. Among them, the local nonlinear constitutive equation for friction and wear in the contact interface and the related solving strategies, including the wear increment optimization and worn mesh update, are very critical to the predicting methodology. This two-part contribution addresses an integrated approach for friction and wear simulation of tire tread rubber. In Part I, a modified friction test scheme of rubber wheels with the Laboratory Abrasion and Skid Tester (LAT 100) is proposed, along with numerical verification, which greatly improved the distribution uniformities of the contact pressure and sliding velocity. In order to investigate the friction characteristics of tire tread rubber, various contact conditions were conducted, and then a unified friction model was put forward to describe the nonlinear relationship of rubber friction with contact pressure and sliding velocity. Based on the established frictional contact model, the locked traction and cornering rolling were simulated, and the calculated friction forces and lateral forces agree with the experimental results on the whole.

Keywords: tread rubber; friction; wear; simulation; LAT 100; tire
FIG. 1
FIG. 1

(a) Schematic diagram of LAT 100 and (b) test sample.

FIG. 2
FIG. 2

Measured side force coefficient as a function of slip angle and fitting curve using the brush model.

FIG. 3
FIG. 3

Comparison of footprints at static loading and cornering rolling with different slip angles. (a) Contact pressure and (b) axial slip velocity.

FIG. 4
FIG. 4

Comparison of contact areas and uniformity functions at cornering rolling with different slip angles. (a) Contact area at different slip angles and (b) pressure uniformity and velocity uniformity.

FIG. 5
FIG. 5

Comparison of footprints at static loading and locking traction with different slip velocities. (a) Contact pressure and (b) slip velocity.

FIG. 6
FIG. 6

Comparison of contact areas and uniformity functions at cornering rolling with different slip velocities. (a) Contact area at different slip velocities and (b) pressure uniformity and velocity uniformity.

FIG. 7
FIG. 7

Test results of rubber friction coefficient. (a) Ground glass; (b) Alumina 60 sharp; and (c) Alumina 180 blunt.

FIG. 8
FIG. 8

Fitting surface of the friction coefficient of tread rubber on three kinds of friction disks. (a) Ground glass; (b) Alumina 60 sharp; and (c) Alumina 180 blunt.

FIG. 9
FIG. 9

Finite element model including the rubber wheel and friction disk. (a) 2D mesh of axisymmetric section; (b) 3D mesh of rubber wheel; (c) friction disk; and (d) velocity diagram.

FIG. 10
FIG. 10

Comparison of static contact areas between simulation and test at different loads.

FIG. 11
FIG. 11

Comparisons of friction forces of locked traction between simulation and test. (a) Ground glass; (b) Alumina 60 sharp; and (c) Alumina 180 blunt.

FIG. 12
FIG. 12

Comparisons of lateral forces of cornering rolling between simulation and test. (a) Ground glass; (b) Alumina 60 sharp; and (c) Alumina 180 blunt.

Contributor Notes

2 Corresponding author. Email: lzr@ustc.edu.cn; Ph: +86-551-63601236
  • Download PDF