The Journal of Engineering

7th International Symposium on Test Automation and Instrumentation

(ISTAI 2018)

Simulation for rubber friction on self-affine eISSN 2051-3305

Received on 15th October 2018
Accepted on 9th January 2019
surface based on energy method E-First on 3rd December 2019
doi: 10.1049/joe.2018.9163
www.ietdl.org

Fuqiang Zhou1 , Shaohong Wang1, Yintao Wei2

1Key Laboratory of Modern Measurement & Control Technology, Beijing Information Science & Technology University, Beijing, People's Republic
of China
2State Key Lab Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China

E-mail: fuqiangzhou@126.com

Abstract: Here, the authors propose an energy method to obtain the friction coefficient of a rubber block sliding on self-affine
substrates via simulation. Due to the multi-scale property, the rough surfaces are modelled with four harmonic rigid frictionless
roads. As the rubber block is a viscoelastic solid, energy dissipation in the contact area results in friction. The authors propose a
new simulation method to obtain friction coefficient through energy dissipation. With different loads and sliding velocities, the
change law of friction coefficient is calculated. The authors design a test instrument to verify the friction coefficients of rubber on
some certain surface. The findings of this research constitute a theoretical basis for safe tire design and tire grip improvements.

1 Introduction
The rubber friction on various rough surfaces has a significant
impact on tire grip, conveyor belts, and other rubber products.
Some models, e.g. the Coulomb friction law, Dahl model, and
Lugre model, provide a relation between the friction force and
operating parameter. Some models [1, 2] reveal the relationship
between the microscopic property of the road surface and the
viscoelastic parameters of rubber and the friction force. In contrast
to metallic friction, which is dependent on the interaction between
contact surfaces, rubber friction is principally affected by the
internal energy dissipation. This conclusion was demonstrated by
numerous research studies and is now generally accepted [3]. The
rubber friction coefficient is affected by the properties of the rubber
and friction conditions [4]. Regarding rubber material, the rubber
friction is the sum of the deformation energy dissipation and the
adhesion of the interface layer. The adhesive force of the interface
layer principally affects dry, clean, and relatively smooth surfaces,
e.g. a clean smooth glass surface. The multi-scale analysis of
rubber friction here ignores adhesion.
Many roads have the feature of self-affinity [5]. The multi-scale
method reported by Wriggers and Reinelt [6] is used to derive the
macro-friction coefficient of rubber sliding on a self-affine surface.
According to this method, a set of discrete different length scales
and harmonic functions are superimposed to approximately
estimate the self-affine surface. The friction is derived from the
lower scale surface and used for the next larger scale surface.
Repeated iterations are performed until the maximum scale is
reached for the calculation of the macro-friction coefficient.
In most cases, friction coefficient is obtained by using friction
test rig. For rubber materials, it is difficult to implement. At
present, there are many phenomenological friction mechanisms,
but the friction between the multi-scale pavement and the rubber
block is not much, especially the method of describing the friction
mechanism of rubber through simulation.
Through an analysis of the rubber deformation and energy
dissipation, this paper considers contact homogenisation as a
function of the sliding velocity and impressed pressure to infer the
macroscopic effective friction coefficient of rubber. We build the
rubber block and the multi-scale road model, perform a sliding test
on the numeric self-affine surface at the appointed load and
velocity, and then acquire the energy of each mesh of the rubber.
Subsequently, the energy dissipation at each scale is calculated to
obtain the effective friction coefficient. We consider the law of
friction when choosing the appropriate test parameters, selecting a
typical harmonic road surface pattern, and investigating the effect
of conditions on the friction test results. In other words, we obtain
the friction coefficient of the rubber block sliding on the self-affine
surface with the energy method.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the
energy dissipation and introduces a multi-scale method of a rubber
block on a rough surface. Section 3 simulates the rubber friction
test, reports the rheological model of rubber and the self-affine
surface approximation with four sine waves, and discusses the test
parameters of the numerical result. Section 4 describes the
proposed experimental apparatus for measuring friction. Section 5
presents the summary and conclusions.
2 Energy method
2.1 Rubber/road surface contact
At the micro-scale, an object surface is not flat; the contact
between two planes at the macro-level is actually composed of
many small contact areas. The actual contact area is associated
with the external load and various parameters (e.g. the material,
stiffness, and modulus of elasticity) of the contact surface. When
the contact between two surfaces is observed at coarse scales (e.g.
dimension magnification ξ = 1), the surfaces are smooth planes.
The two surfaces are in full contact with each other, and the contact
area is A0. When ξ = 10, peaks and valleys can be observed at the
contact surface. Only the peak is in contact with rubber, and the
load on the surface becomes uneven.
In view of the microscopic roughness of the road surface, when
rubber comes in contact with the road surface and slides at a
certain relative speed, the road surface has a road surface
morphology-related load F(ω1, ω2, …ωn) input for rubber, thus
leading to the energy dissipation of the rubber [7].
A number of energy dissipation patterns exist near the contact
area between the rubber and substrate asperity during the sliding
process of a rubber block on a road surface: (1) the random loading
of the road substrate asperity leads to rubber deformation; (2) at
certain points of the rubber block, significant viscoelastic
deformation induces the stretching and closure of internal micro-
cracks [8]; (3) work is performed by the membrane of impurities
between the rubber and road surface; and (4) the connection and
fracture of force between the rubber and road surface molecules
contribute to the energy dissipation. This paper focuses on the
energy dissipation and friction issues of rubber during the rolling
process of a tire on a road, ignores the cracks in rubber, and does

J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 23, pp. 8986-8990 8986

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
not account for the membrane of impurities; the surface of a typical
road is unlikely to be sufficiently smooth and clean for adhesion to
occur.
2.2 Rubber energy dissipation
The elastomer slides on an ideal frictionless road surface, i.e. load
is only applied from the road surface, and all external force work is
converted into potential energy; upon the removal of the load, the
elastomer restores its status observed before deformation, and all of
the energy is released without energy loss. For a viscoelastic
material, such as rubber, the stress and strain are in different phases
along with the alternative variation of load applied, in which case
the material becomes associated with the frequency through the
hysteresis effect, thereby resulting in energy dissipation.
The following conditions are established without regard to the
heat exchange between the rubber and the environment:
(i) No heat work is absorbed/released by the rubber from/to the
environment, whereas the work performed by the external force
(surface force and body force) is equal to the work performed by
the stress against the corresponding strain.
∫f
V
(s) (k )
i ui dV + ∫p S
(s) (k )
i ui dS = ∫σV
(s) (k )
ij εij dV
(ii) Part of the external force work on the rubber block serves as the
energy for its movement, with part being potential energy and part
being consumed by the hysteresis effect. The heat converted from
the energy consumed has no effect on the local material of the
rubber, the characteristic of the material remains unchanged.
Assuming that strain εij occurs when the rubber mass point changes
from t0 to ti, the strain energy density is
εij
∫
W(εij) = σijdεij
0
Rubber deformation is the result of multi-scale road surface
ξ1, ξ2, …, ξn loads. The road surface scale ξt causes a certain stress
ξ ξ
and strain σijt, εijt on the rubber block, and the strain energy
density could be affected by various road surfaces conditions:
W(εij) = W(εij)ξ1 + W(εij)ξ2 + ⋯W(εij)ξt
The total strain energy density is determined by superimposing the
strain energy density of the road surface at each scale.
The effective friction coefficient is obtained through a
discussion of the stress response and energy dissipation of rubber
under the effect of the cyclic strain of the road surface based on the
constitutive relation and dynamic mechanical property of the
viscoelastic material. The energy dissipation rate of the viscoelastic
material can be expressed as
dE
dt
= ∫ d xdtσ ε̇
3
ij ij = Fv
where σij represents the stress component, ε̇ij denotes the strain
change rate, the friction force on a typical unit of rubber block is F,
and the mean movement velocity is v. If the force applied to the
unit is L, then the effective friction coefficient μ is
F assumed to be a viscoelastic body. Define the road surface as a
μ=
L discrete rigid grid and set the rubber block to be a CPS4R four-
2.3 Multi-scale method
The substrate asperity is vital to rubber friction. The micro
topography of the road surface affects the load amplitude, and the
load exerted on the rubber block results in different amounts of
energy dissipation with different sliding velocities of the rubber
block.
J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 23, pp. 8986-8990
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Regarding the morphological properties of the road surface, a
statistical contact model, numerical contact model, and multi-scale
contact model can be used to describe the contact with the rough
surface [9]. The road surface can be classified into the following
patterns: identical asperities, random non-overlapping substrate,
and self-affine surface [10]. Identical asperities (R(x) = asin(bx))
are independent of the location, i.e. the time history; in the case of
movement on a random non-overlapping substrate, the road surface
changes with position and is a function of time that can be
expressed based on the road surface power spectral density or
elevation difference function Cz(λ) =< (z(x + λ) − z(x))2 >.
The self-affine surface is characterised by the fact that the micro
topography of the rough surface is similar at all scales; when the
contour of the rough surface is partially enlarged, the contour
structure is extremely similar at the amplified scale. This feature of
the rough surface can be characterised by self-affine geometric
theory. With respect to the multi-scale road surface expressed by
N
the use of several sine functions, R(x) = ∑i = 1 aisin(ωi x)
(ω1 > ω2 > ⋯ > ωN ), the establishment of the above-noted road
surface and the rubber block of the corresponding size will
consume considerable storage space. In addition, the rubber block
is divided into grids that are sufficiently fine to achieve accurate
(1)
deformation and stress; in the simulation, the computing load is
extremely high and achieving convergence is difficult due to the
non-linearity of the material and contact. Here, the multi-scale
method is used to determine the friction coefficients μi of the road
surface aisin(ωi x) at different scales, which are summed up to
obtain the total friction coefficient.
3 Modelling and simulation
3.1 Rheological model of rubber
The viscoelastic constitutive relation of rubber is a
phenomenological mathematical description of the rubber material
(2) and its mechanical properties. Normally, rubber exhibits
viscoelastic features above room temperature and dissipates energy
during deformation. Due to its large strain and viscoelastic nature
[11], rubber deformation and energy dissipation do not have
explicit solutions. Here, the constitutive equation is composed of
six Maxwell elements and a spring. As the harmonic input of
contact between the road surface and rubber during the sliding
process of the rubber block contains no damping, it is possible to
(3) describe the load input through the superposition of a series of sine
functions.
The friction coefficient is maximised when the rubber block
moves at such a speed that the road surface loading harmonic
frequency is equal to the inherent harmonic ω̄ = 1/τ. However,
with regard to sophisticated material models, it is more difficult to
find the solution for the equivalent friction coefficient based on the
constitutive relation. The computing load that obtaining the friction
coefficient can be reduced by using the FEM.
For the rubber material described here, the Young's modulus is
set to 4.17 MPa and the Poisson's ratio is defined as 0.49; the
viscoelastic property is described using the Prony series of the time
(4) domain, as shown in Table 1.
3.2 Simulation
When coming into contact with road substrate asperities, the rubber
is normally subjected to considerable deformation, whereas the
deformation of the road surface is less significant; accordingly, the
road surface is supposed to be a rigid body, and the rubber block is
(5)
node grid. The contact and sliding simulation test of the rubber
block on the rough road surface involves material non-linearity,
geometric non-linearity and contact non-linearity; such non-
linearities are likely to result in convergence difficulties during
iterative computations. By breaking down the road surface level by
level until the minimum scale is reached, the action of road surface
on rubber block approaches zero. Define the tangential friction
coefficient between the road surface and rubber block as 0.
8987
Table 1 Constitutive parameter for the finite viscoelastic material
Serial number g_i_Prony
1 0.000592717
2 0.002536278
3 0.024459921
4 0.17432432
5 0.387971288
6 0.408678482
Fig. 1  Friction coefficients obtained through simulation with different height-to-width ratios
Fig. 2  Variation of the node strain energy density of rubber block
Considering that the representative contact element is a road
surface harmonic length, which is infinitesimally small considering
the overall rubber sample, the binding of the left and right
boundaries of the rubber block exhibits a synchronous deformation
trend.
According to Persson [1], the roughness below the micrometre
scale can be excluded in multi-scale finite element simulation
analysis because of dust and dirt particles that fill the smaller
cavities of a road surface. On this basis, a sine harmonic road
surface 0.015sin(35x) is established at the level-1 scale,
0.006sin(80x) is established at the level-2 scale, 0.003sin(200x) is
established at the level-3 scale, and the 0.002sin(300x) sine
harmonic road surface is established at the level-4 scale. A
harmonic wave length λ is taken for the rubber block, and the
height of the rubber block must be properly selected.
Rubber blocks with different height-to-width ratios are slid on
harmonic road surface under the same load, and the obtained
results are shown in Fig. 1. As shown in the figure, the friction
coefficient increases with the height-to-width ratio of the rubber
block before the sliding velocity reaches the peak; however, as the
sliding velocity continues to increase, the friction coefficient of
rubber blocks with different height-to-width ratios tends to be
stable, and the difference is not significant. As shown in Fig. 2, as
the node of the grids becomes increasingly further away from road
surface, its strain energy density decreases and tends to maintain
the steady-state value. As shown in Fig. 3, the friction coefficients
at different sliding velocity tends to be stable when the height-to-
width ratio is >0.75. Hence, the rubber block with a height of 0.75λ
is taken as the typical test unit.
The simulation test is performed using the six sliding speeds, as
shown in Table 2.
A rubber friction analysis and forecasting method involving
operating parameters (sliding velocity, perpendicular pressure) and
geometric physical parameters (road substrate asperity, rheological
8988
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
k_i_Prony tau_i_Prony
0 0.01134034
0 0.0002628
0 1.316E-005
0 1.295E-006
0 7.708E-008
0 4.2E-010
Fig. 3  Friction coefficients at different sliding velocity
model of the material) is established based on multi-scale finite
element analysis to simulate the friction caused by sliding rubber
on the self-affine road surface. The test procedure is described in
detail in the following: apply perpendicular pressure L on the upper
surface of the rubber block; apply a certain movement velocity v to
the upper surface of the rubber block; determine the strain energy
density at each grid node of the rubber block; derive the strain
energy density and further determine the strain energy change rate
and equivalent tangential force F; use (5) to obtain the friction
coefficient μ; Fig. 4 shows the resulting sliding friction of the
rubber block. At low perpendicular pressures, the rubber block
cannot fill the entire profile, whereas at high perpendicular
pressures, the rubber block can deform to completely follow the
corrugated substrate profile. At low sliding velocities, the rubber is
able to fill the profile. At high sliding velocities, the rubber is not
able to fill the entire profile because of the increase in the stiffness
of the rubber at high perturbing frequencies. As the steps increase,
the velocity of the rubber block saturates, as do the deformation
and friction coefficient, as shown in Fig. 5.
3.3 Simulation results
The results of simulation tests at various scales are shown in Fig. 6.
As shown in the figure, the friction coefficient is not constant but
instead changes with the variation of such parameters as velocity
and pressure. There is a certain movement velocity that enables the
road surface load input frequency ω to lead to the maximum
friction-induced energy loss, whereas the equivalent friction
coefficient obtained through calculation is the largest. The
calculated total friction coefficient of the macroscopic asperity is
shown in Fig. 7.
J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 23, pp. 8986-8990
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Table 2 Sliding velocities (mm/s)
Serial number 1 2
velocity 0.1
Fig. 4  Simulation result of rubber block at different load and velocity
Fig. 5  Friction coefficient saturates with steps
4 Result validation and test data analysis
We design a friction instrument as shown in Fig. 8 and perform
tests on the sliding process of the rubber block under various
conditions to determine the friction coefficient of rubber at
different values of road substrate asperity, sliding velocity, and
perpendicular pressures. The rubber block is pasted onto the
bottom of the flange force sensor and maintains connection with
the road surface in the sliding sledge. The depth of the sliding
sledge is 10 mm. Different substrate asperities can be placed in the
sliding sledge, such as a steel plate, sand paper, a concrete road
sample, a marble slab, or a glass plate; in addition, water, oil, and
ice can also be put in it. The sliding sledge and sliding rail are
linked by six ball bearings, which can lower the resistance between
them. A hand wheel is used to apply a vertical load. A force sensor
J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 23, pp. 8986-8990
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
3 4 5 6 7
1 10 100 500 1000 10,000
Fig. 6  Friction coefficient of rubber block at each scale of rough surfaces
(a) Friction coefficient on micro-scale, (b) Friction coefficient on scale 3, (c) Friction
coefficient on scale 2, (d) Friction coefficient on scale 1
is fixed at the front of the sliding sledge, which is bound to a steel
rope that moves the sliding sledge slide under the dragging force of
the steel rope guided by the leading sheave. A force sensor and
displacement sensor are used to record the vertical load, traction
load and sliding velocity. By varying the weight attached to the
rope, we can obtain the trail load and sliding velocity. A
displacement sensor is set at the rear of the test rig to measure the
position of the sledge. As a result, we can calculate the sliding
velocity. Before starting the test, we lubricate the sliding rail to
lower the unwanted resistance. The relationship between the
calculated relative sliding velocity between the rubber block and
road surface and the friction coefficient and the relationship
8989
Fig. 7  Friction coefficient of the rubber block with P = 5 MPa on the rough surface
Fig. 8  Test rig for rubber specimen
between the perpendicular pressure and friction coefficient are
shown in Fig. 9; similar to the modelling results presented in the
previous section, the friction coefficient increases gradually with
increases in the relative sliding velocity between the rubber block
and road surface, and the speed begins to decrease after reaching a
certain peak.
5 Conclusion
Based on the energy method, this paper considered the friction
model for self-affine road substrate asperities and rubber and
presented a rubber friction analysis and forecasting method that
involves various operating parameters and condition parameters. A
multi-scale harmonic road substrate asperity and rubber finite
element model was built to perform the friction test to identify the
energy method-based law of rubber friction on a self-affine surface.
The multi-scale method and its reliability were demonstrated
through friction tests of a rubber block on a road surface. The
research findings presented here constitute a theoretical basis for
safe tire design and tire grip improvements.
6 Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (grant nos. 11672148, 51275265, and
51175286). The authors would like to thank Professor Wei who
provided expertise that greatly assisted the research.
8990
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
Fig. 9  Relationship between the sliding velocity and friction coefficient of
rubber friction test
7 References
[1] Persson, B.N.J.: ‘Theory of rubber friction and contact mechanics’, J. Chem.
Phys., 2001, 115, (8), pp. 3840–3861
[2] Klüppel, M., Heinrich, G.: ‘Rubber friction on self-affine road tracks’, Rub.
Chem. Technol., 2000, 73, (4), pp. 578–606
[3] Persson, B.N.J., Albohr, O., Tartaglino, U.: ‘A I volokitin and E tosatti, On
the nature of surface roughness with application to contact mechanics,
sealing, rubber friction and adhesion’, J. Phy. Condens. Matter Inst. Phy. J.,
2005, 17, (1), pp. R1–R62
[4] Lorenz, B., Persson, B.N.J., Dieluweit, S.: ‘Rubber friction: comparison of
theory with experiment’, Eur. Phys. J. E., 2011, 34, (12), pp. 1–11
[5] Heinrich, G., Klüppel, M., Vilgis, T.A.: ‘Evaluation of self-affine surfaces and
their implication for frictional dynamics as illustrated with a rouse material’,
Comput. Theor. Polym. Sci., 2000, 10, (1–2), pp. 53–61
[6] Wriggers, P., Reinelt, J.: ‘Multi-scale approach for frictional contact of
elastomers on rough rigid surfaces’, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.,
2009, 198, (21), pp. 1996–2008
[7] Lorenzis, L.D., Wriggers, P.: ‘Computational homogenization of rubber
friction on rough rigid surfaces’, Comput. Mater. Sci., 2013, 77, pp. 264–280
[8] Yamada, S.: ‘General shear-thinning dynamics of confined fluids’, Tribol.
Lett., 2002, 13, (3), pp. 167–171
[9] Hu, Z.W., Liu, K., Wang, W., et al.: ‘Rewiew and prospect of contact models
of rough surfaces’, Cryo. Supercond., 2011, 39, (12), pp. 71–74
[10] Persson, B.N.J., Tosatti, E.: ‘Qualitative theory of rubber friction and wear’,
J. Chem. Phys., 2000, 112, (4), pp. 2021–2029
[11] Kaliske, M., Nasdala, L., Rothert, H.: ‘On damage modelling for elastic and
viscoelastic materials at large strain’, Comput. Struct., 2001, 79, pp. 2133–
2141
J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 23, pp. 8986-8990
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)