Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 27 Jan 2024

Friction Law for Rubber from Laboratory Abrasion Tester

and
Page Range: 299 – 319
DOI: 10.2346/tire.22.21022
Save
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to devise a method to obtain an empirical friction law for rubber using the Laboratory Abrasion Tester (LAT 100). The LAT 100 experiments, which aim to measure the side force at various slip angles, loads, and speeds, are carried out, followed by finite element simulation using ABAQUS. A friction law is implemented using a subroutine (UFRIC), which calculates the friction coefficient at each node on the contact patch based on contact pressure and slip velocity at the corresponding node. Coefficients of the frictional law, μ = a + b × e−1/(αp) + c × e−1/(βv), have been estimated by using a series of simulations along with minimizing the error between experiment and simulation side forces. The procedure followed in this paper can be used to fit friction models for rubber using LAT 100 side force experiments.

Keywords: Friction; Rubber; Rolling; Finite element analysis; LAT 100
FIG. 1 —
FIG. 1 —

Laboratory Abrasion Tester (LAT 100).

FIG. 2 —
FIG. 2 —

LAT 100 principle components.

FIG. 3 —
FIG. 3 —

Rubber wheel sample.

FIG. 4 —
FIG. 4 —

Footprint contact pressure P185/65/R14 passenger car tire [14].

FIG. 5 —
FIG. 5 —

Force diagram of LAT 100 wheel.

FIG. 6 —
FIG. 6 —

FE model of (a) 2D section (b) LAT 100 rubber wheel.

FIG. 7
FIG. 7

Comparison of uniaxial test and Ogden model.

FIG. 8 —
FIG. 8 —

Plot for e(−1/x).

FIG. 9 —
FIG. 9 —

Flow chart for FRIC subroutine penalty method implementation.

FIG. 10 —
FIG. 10 —

Contact pressure for A with 75 N and 6.3 km/h in (a) loading and (b) free rolling.

FIG. 11
FIG. 11

Variation of obtained friction law.

FIG. 12 —
FIG. 12 —

LAT 100 wheel surface under microscope with magnification of 5×.

FIG. 13 —
FIG. 13 —

Comparison of experiment and simulation side forces for (a) optimization conditions of A, (b) validation condition of A, (c) optimization conditions of B, (d) validation condition of B.

FIG. 14 —
FIG. 14 —

Contact pressure distribution for (a) Compound A at 0°, (b) Compound A at 32.5°, (c) Compound B at 0°, and (d) Compound B at 32.5°.

FIG. 15 —
FIG. 15 —

Slip velocity distribution for (a) Compound A at 17°, (b) Compound A at 32.5°, (c) Compound B at 17°, and (d) Compound B at 32.5°.

FIG. 16 —
FIG. 16 —

Frictional coefficient distribution for (a) Compound A at 17°, (b) Compound A at 32.5°, (c) Compound B at 17°, and (d) Compound B at 32.5°.

Contributor Notes

1 Department of Engineering Design, IIT Madras, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600036, India. Email: abantom92@gmail.com
2 Corresponding author. Department of Engineering Design, IIT Madras, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600036, India. Email: rkkumar@iitm.ac.in
  • Download PDF