influence of road surface characteristics on rolling resistance

Authors: dr. G.J.van Blokland, M+P (NL), ir. W. Schwanen, M+P (NL) S.W. Boere, student TU/e (NL)

Tentative study on effects of different road surfaces on rolling resistance and the relation with rolling noise and wet grip
Test program
test procedure road surface types measurement results

rolling resistance

Rolling resistance explained with surface characteristics

road surface texture road surface mechanical impedance

Relation of rolling resistance with

wet grip rolling noise

Rolling resistance

rolling resistance
3

Test vehicle
Designed and operated by TU Gdansk

rolling resistance
4

Test vehicle: Schematic representation

direct measurement system load adjustment system

rolling resistance

F RRC = = tan( ) N
r

: orientation of Arm 1

Test surfaces
Kloosterzande test track in the Netherlands 40 different test tracks
ISO 10844 SMA (0/6, 0/8, 0/11 and 0/16) Dense Asphalt Concrete 0/16 Semi-porous thin layered surfaces Porous Asphalt Concrete with various stone-sizes and layer thickness two-layer Porous Asphalt Concrete with different stone-sizes and layer thickness eight experimental rubberized surfaces two surface dressings

rolling resistance
6

Typical result
Rolling resistance level as function for distance Grey area is dominated by transient effects two different tyres Uniroyal Tigerpaw (SRTT) 225/60 R16 Continental CPC2 LI98 225/60 R16

rolling resistance
7

Test results: average rolling resistance

Results for Continental tyre in categorical sequence (average over 5 measurements) Error bars indicate peak-to-peak levels
2.20% 2.00% 1.80% 1.60% 1.40% 1.20% 1.00% 0.80% 0.60%
1 19 20 21 22 23 2 ISO SMA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 24 31 38 10 11 12 13 14 16 25 26 27 28 29 30 17 18 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 PAC double layer PAC rubberized surfaces surface dressings DAC Thin layered asphalt

rolling resistance

Rolling Resistance Coefficient [-]

Section

Test results: average rolling resistance

Results for SRTT tyre in categorical sequence (average over 5 measurements) Error bars indicate peak-to-peak levels
2.20% 2.00% 1.80% 1.60% 1.40% 1.20% 1.00% 0.80% 0.60%
1 19 20 21 22 23 2 ISO SMA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 24 31 38 10 11 12 13 14 16 25 26 27 28 29 30 17 18 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 PAC double layer PAC rubberized surfaces surface dressings DAC Thin layered asphalt

rolling resistance

Rolling Resistance Coefficient [-]

Section

Test results: comparison between tyres

scatter diagram of rolling resistance results of both tyres positive correlation : R2 = 0.99, slope = 1.07, residue = 0.02,
2.20 2.00 1.80

rolling resistance

1.60

1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20

ISO SMA DAC Thin layered asphalt PAC double layer PAC rubberized surfaces surface dressings

SRTT

Continental

10

Surface texture
-6

65

m) Texture Amplitude [dB] (Ref. = 10

60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 200

S19: 20 mm SMA 0/6 S20: 25 mm SMA 0/8 S21: 30 mm SMA 0/11 S22: 40 mm SMA 0/16

rolling resistance

3-D laser profilometer: 2.95 x 0.3 m area 0,3 mm step and 20 m resolution

125

63

31.5

16

Wavelength [mm]

rms = effective amplitude of surface texture

SMA 0/6 SMA 0/8 SMA 0/11 SMA 0/16

rms 0.53 0.88 1.16 1.37

11

Surface texture and rolling resistance

surface dressings rubberized surfaces

rolling resistance
12

Correlation between rms of surface texture and rolling resistance coefficient. Various colors indicate the surface types, slope =0.078 %/mm , R2 =0.89 , residue = 0.016

Mechanical Impedance : measurement principle

harmonic excitation : F(t)=F0*sin(2f*t) result
stiffness of road surface admittance

measurement in lab

rolling resistance

frequency range 125 4 kHz presented result is an average over 20 excitations

rolling resistance: frequency range of interest : 250 400 Hz

13

Mechanical impedance
differences in mechanical behavior of flexible surfaces in frequency area relevant for rolling resistance

14

rolling resistance

Rolling resistance and mechanical impedance

influence of damping on rolling resistance ? part of the differences explained by difference in damping

1.60%

R olling res is tanc ec oeffic ient[% ]

1.40%

rolling resistance

1.20%

1.00%

0.80%

0.60% 32 33 34 S e c tion 35 36

15

Rolling resistance and wet grip

results of ten surfaces including rubberized surfaces
Rolling Resistance Coefficient [%] 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Wet Grip [-]

40 mm DAC 0/16 50 mm PAC 0/16 double layer PAC rubberized surfaces

16

rolling resistance

Rolling resistance and tyre/road noise

17

rolling resistance

rolling resistance and tyre/road noise

subset of dense surfaces
relation on previous sheet spoiled by effect of acoustic absorption and elasticity subset of test sections with no absorption and high mechanical impedance slope = 0.21 [%/dB] R2 = 0.79 residue = 0.14

18

rolling resistance

Conclusions
Road Surface Characteristics
good correlation between rms of texture profile and rolling resistance outliers are surface dressings and elastic rubberized surfaces

Rubberized surfaces
the real part of the admittance measure for energy dissipation

rolling resistance

in relevant frequency range (250 400 Hz) higher energy dissipation corresponds to higher rolling resistance

Effect of rolling resistance of road surfaces

In this study we found no correlation between wet grip and rolling resistance for road surfaces For dense surfaces a positive correlation between rolling noise and rolling resistance was found

19

Recommendations
It shall be generally acknowledged that road surface characteristics have a significant effect on the rolling resistance of tyres Improving sustainability of road transport shall therefore incorporate both acoustic and fuel efficiency properties of road surfaces Measurement methods, test procedures and evaluation criteria are required for large-scale implementation

20

rolling resistance

Integrated studys on the basic interaction process between tyre and road incorporating safety effects, shall be initiated on short notice