M. G. B e k k e r ~ a n d E. V.

Semonin 2

A Note on Tire Rolling Resistance

Due to Test Wheel Curvature

REFERENCE: Bekker, M. G. and Semonin, E. V., "A Note on Tire Rolling Resis-
tance Due to Test Wheel Curvature," Tire Science and Technology, TSTCA, Vol. 5,
No. 2, May 1977, pp. 119-122.

ABSTRACT: Tire rolling resistance is affected by laboratory drum diameter. Such

tests produce higher rolling resistance values than road testing. Semi-empirical formulae
were developed to correlate tire behavior on a test drum with wheel-road systems
analysis, and the geometry of the tire and test drum were analyzed.

KEY WORDS: tires, rolling resistance, contact area, deflection, drum curvature

Laboratory testing of tire rolling resistance is affected by the d r u m

diameter. It is well known that such laboratory tests produce higher values
than road testing.
Such parameters as inflation pressure, carcass stiffness, tread radius,
and internal tire structure and shape are too complex to be included in a
general m a n n e r in laboratory wheel versus road testing.
An approach based on semi-empirical assumptions which include the
above factors makes it possible to calculate flat surface rolling resistance
from data taken on a test d r u m [1].
Assume that the g r o u n d contact area between the test wheel and the
tire is flat, as indicated in Fig. 1. This assumption m a y be acceptable for
values of the ratio z of the d r u m to tire diameter above a critical value. W e
may also assume that the geometrical shape of the contact area on the
d r u m approximates that on a flat road. However, let the "flat r o a d " tire
deflection ~ be augmented by the deflection ~ d caused by the d r u m curva-
ture. F r o m Fig. 1; one might then suppose that the total motion resistance
of the tire is the sum of the motion resistance of the tire rolling on an

Presented at the Symposium on Indoor Tire Testing sponsored by ASTM Committee F-9
on Tires, Akron, Ohio, 12 Nov. 1975.
lSanta Barbara, Calif. 93101.
2Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio 44316.

119
120 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

IMAGINARY
FLAT SURFACE

FLYWHEEL

Dd

FIG. 1--Geometry of the tire and test wheel

imaginary flat surface, defined by the intersection of tire and test drum,
and of the motion resistance of a deflected drum having the same physical
properties and angular velocity as the tire moving on the same imaginary
flat surface. Then the semiangle subtended by the drum ad is

ad = arcsin(2 vr-D-~- 6=/Dd) (1)

and the fictitious deflection of the drum ~ d is

d=Da(1 -- COSad)/2 (2)

It is postulated that at speeds up to 40 mph (64 km/h) rolling resistance

of the freely rolling tire is primarily a consequence of the work spent on
deflection. Thus, if rolling resistance is calculated as deformational work
per unit distance traveled on a flat surface for both the tire and the drum [1]
 BEKKER AND SEMONIN ON TIRE ROLLING RESISTANCE 121

Ft. t i r e = (180/16r)bopgD ~ [(r/90)a - sin 2oz]/a(D - 26) (3)

and

F,.,drum=(180/16rr)bOpgDd~d[(Tr/90)O~d--sin 2ad]/ad(Dd-- 26d) (4)

The total rolling resistance is

Fr=Fr, tire + Fr, drum (5)

The term b0 is the width of the tire contact area. The ground pressure pg
is the sum of the inflation pressure and the "carcass stiffness pressure"
which has to be determined experimentally as a function of inflation pres-
sure and tire load. The factor ~ signifies the energy restoration of the re-
bounding part of the footprint and is a purely empirical quantity. Numer-

I.U

IM
o " ~ODE~- -rt6rr.. T~.5~$
t.)
Z 9 -CALCULATED

W 50

J
_J
0 40-
11:
0

I-

I-- z 50-
J~
8
I-
~er"
2C- n,,, 0
tO 0
h~

@
I0--

I I I I I I
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 5.0 3.5 4.0

~ = FLYWHEEL DIAMETER Dd RATIO

TIRE DIAMETER D

FIG. 2--Comparison of computed to measured rolling resistance increase above that for
a flat surface with a 7.00-16 tire at an inflation pressure of 9.2 psi (63.4 kPa) and under a
500-lbf (2000-N) load on drums of various diameter. The abscissa z is the ratio of drum to
tire diameter.
122 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ous tests with tires ranging from bicycle to earthmover tires have shown
that

= 1 - exp( - 27.56d/ha) (6)

Details of the derivation of Eqs 3 through 6 are given in Ref 1.

Figure 2 shows a comparison of calculated and experimental results for a
7.00-16 passenger tire. The critical value below which the accuracy of the
prediction formula may not be acceptable appears to lie in the vicinity of
z = 1.75. It is suggested that the discussed method requires further refine-
ments which would enable large tires to be tested on relatively small test
wheels, thus avoiding more costly highway tests.

Reference
[1] Bekker, M. G. and Semonin, E. V., "Motion Resistance of Pneumatic Tyres," Journal
of the Automobile Division, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 6, No. 2, April
1975.