John R. Luchini1 and James A.

Popio2

Modeling Transient Rolling Resistance of

Tires3

REFERENCE: Luchini, John R. and Popio, James A., ‘‘Modeling Transient Rolling Resis-
tance of Tires,’’ Tire Science and Technology, TSTCA, Vol. 35, No. 2, April – June 2007, pp.
118-140.

ABSTRACT: The transient rolling resistance of several tires is predicted from the behavior of
each tire on an equilibrium test. The objective of the study was to determine if model predic-
tions would fall within the lab-to-lab experimental error described in the J-2452 test standard.
The model used for this study, to predict the results of J-2452 from J-1269 data, was presented
in Ref. 关1兴. The study used data from one tire to establish the model parameters. Then those
parameters were used with tire and rolling resistance measurements from 12 other tires of
another size. These tires were from four samples of each of three different tire constructions
共tread patterns兲 and manufacturer. The reasons for the differences between the predictions and
the test results were investigated and two significant sources of error were identified. First, the
simplistic assumption that one set of heat-transfer parameters would apply to all tires was
found to be inadequate. Second, the matrix of test conditions and regression model in J-1269,
which must be used to extrapolate to the test conditions of J-2452, is inadequate. The model-
ing work in this article also found some of the details of the test protocols that may have
significant effects on reported rolling resistance.
KEY WORDS: tire rolling resistance, tire rolling loss, transient coastdown testing, SAE
J-1269, SAE J-2452

The theoretical approach, and principal reference, used in this work was
previously published 关1兴. A good summary of research on tire rolling resistance
through 1980 may be found in Schuring’s monograph 关2兴 which was substan-
tially revised for 1990 by Schuring and Futamura 关3兴. A later review of mea-
surement and modeling technology was presented for the Department of Energy
and at the International Tire Exhibition and Conference in 2000 关4兴.

Background

In 1998 a theoretical method for using equilibrium test data from SAE
J-1269 to model transient tire rolling resistance was presented by Mars. At the
time of the presentation, the SAE J-2452 test had not yet been established. The
technique was developed from an understanding of the known behavior of tire

1
Cooper Tire and Rubber Company, Findlay, Ohio 45840. Electronic mail:
JRLuchini@CooperTire.com
2
Smithers Scientific Services, Ravenna, Ohio 44266. Electronic mail: JPopio@Smithersmail.com
3
Presented at the twenty fifth annual meeting of The Tire Society, Akron, Ohio, September 11–12,
2006.

118
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 119

rolling resistance and basic thermodynamics 关5–9兴. The Mars model uses tire
measurement data, such as diameter and mass, as well as data from an equilib-
rium rolling resistance test of a tire. This information is then used in a thermal
model to predict the transient rolling resistance of the tire for an arbitrary
history.
This article will use the Mars model, with the established SAE procedures,
to evaluate how well it can predict transient rolling resistance from measured
equilibrium rolling resistance.

Motivation

The question to be addressed in this article is whether the predicted tran-

sient tire rolling loss is as accurate as current testing methods can measure the
results. There are relatively few laboratories that can run SAE J-2452, while
most of the published tire rolling resistance data during the last 25 years was
measured with SAE J-1269. The relationship between fuel efficiency and tire
rolling resistance remains under study 关10兴.
While numerous computational models for tire rolling resistance have been
presented 关11–14兴, a fully transient, and thermomechanically coupled, rolling
loss prediction for a tire remains computationally intense and impractical for
routine use in parametric studies of common tire designs. An accurate, theoret-
ical, transient rolling resistance model could supplement complex testing and
could be used for a wider variety of test histories than could be done cost-
effectively with experimental setups.

Review of Transient Rolling Resistance Model

The model is constructed with the assumption that the transient rolling
resistance is a function of only the steady-state rolling resistance 共at given
instantaneous operating conditions兲 and the instantaneous tire temperature. The
input rolling resistance data can be obtained from SAE J-1269.
For a given set of conditions, the regression equation specified in J-1269
provides the steady-state rolling resistance. Using this value for rolling resis-
tance, a steady-state operating temperature 共representative of the average tire
temperature兲 is computed. At steady state, the tire’s internal heat generation
exactly balances the heat energy dissipated to the surroundings. This internal
heat generation is also equal to the work required to maintain constant rolling
velocity. The first-order differential equation for the time evolution of tempera-
ture in the tire is Mars’ Eq. 16
120 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

dT ␣ 共2−p兲 *2
mc = 共␤AV p + ␣VR*兲共T⬁ − T兲 + VR* + V R
dt ␤A
The model then predicts a rolling resistance that depends on the instantaneous
temperature, using the empirically known decrease in rolling resistance for an
increase in temperature. For the case of a rapidly changing transient speed test,
the tire temperature is presumed constant and the equation becomes Mars’ Eq.
18

冋
R = R* 1 +
␣ 1−p *
␤A
共V R − Veq Req兲
1−p *
册
The following assumptions were used in developing the simulation model:

1. The tire has a single, uniform temperature.

2. The work done by the instantaneous rolling resistance force is entirely
converted to heat in the tire.
3. The instantaneous temperature of the tire adjusts the rolling resistance
relative to the equilibrium rolling resistance at the corresponding load,
inflation pressure, speed, and ambient temperature. This effect is due to
the behavior of rubber, which becomes less hysteretic with an increase
in temperature.
4. The tire inflation pressure does not vary with tire temperature. On the
road, of course, this assumption is not valid. However, this condition is
true for the standard Society of Automotive Engineers 共SAE兲 transient
test since the testing is run with regulated inflation pressure.

The tire’s transient rolling resistance is more sensitive to speed than is the
tire’s equilibrium rolling resistance. Some testing done within the SAE commit-
tee showed that the rolling resistance may vary by as much as 8% at a single
speed, given different speed histories. The Mars’ simulation model can use the
estimated temperature for a particular speed history of the tire to predict this
result.
The article by Mars used an experimental program with a single OE tire, a
tire that was supplied as “Original Equipment” for a given vehicle. The input
information came from various sources including SAE J-1269 data for the tire.
The output transient results were compared with a coastdown test similar to
SAE J-2452 before it was an established standard.

Approach

To evaluate the model, data was acquired from the set of tires tested by
Popio and Luchini 关15兴. The experiment examined the fidelity of the rolling
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 121

resistance results from the two SAE tests, on each tire in a set of 12, where all
tires were the same size. The selection of tires was not intended to be represen-
tative of any particular tire market segment.

Preliminary Study of the “First Tire”

Consider the factors ␣ and ␤ from Mars’ Eq. 16, shown previously. The
temperature factor, ␣ = 0.006/ ° C, was taken directly from J-1269. The input
parameter ␤ is 共h0兲 / 共V p兲. Also note that the steady-state rolling resistance Req
*
in
Mars’ Eq. 18 was assumed to be a quadratic function of speed, based on ex-
tremely limited empirical data. For the current study, this function was
“switched” using a speed factor 共SF兲 which could be 0 or 1
*
Req = R80kph 关for SF = 0兴
or
*
Req = R80kph共V2/V80
2
兲 关for SF = 1兴
The heat-transfer parameters used in the original Mars model were well
founded, but there was no reason to assume that those parameters were appro-
priate for other tires. The parameters would be reestablished for the current
study, using a tire that would not be part of the set of tires in the primary
evaluation.
This tire is identified here as the “First Tire.” The First Tire in this study
was a P255/45ZR17 of known construction and manufacturer that had been
used in an interlaboratory study. The appropriate rolling resistance data was
available to set the values of parameters in the model.
The following model parameter values were used for all tires.

• c = 1300 J / 共kg° C兲 共average specific heat of a tire that is 20% steel 80%
rubber兲.
• h0 = 40 W / 共m2 ° C兲 共heat-transfer coefficient for the whole tire surface兲.
• p = 0.5 共heat-transfer exponent, where textbook values are: 0.5⫽laminar,
0.8⫽turbulent兲.
• Quadratic velocity effect 共SF= 1, in the parameter study兲.

Input Data for Tires in the Study

The test results for each tire and other information were obtained from the
article by Popio 关15兴. The data acquired for the tires in the study are summa-
rized in Table 1, and the J-1269 and J-2452 test conditions are compared in
Table 2.
122 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 1 — Data supplied to the model.

Information Data Source

Tire size Sidewall information
Wheel diameter Sidewall information
Tire diameter Laboratory measured
Tire weight Laboratory measured
Surface area共s兲 Computed from wheel and tire diameters and
tread width from tire size
Inflation pressure rise SAE J-1269 test output
共initial load-pressure point兲
Equilibrium rolling resistance SAE J-1269 test output
at four load-pressure points
Rolling resistance regression SAE J-1269 specified regression model
共for other load-pressure points兲

Note that the 12 sets of tire data were supplied to this study “blind.” The
tire identification was coded, with no reference to construction or manufacturer.
Only the size, P235/70R16, weight, geometry 共outside diameter, rim diameter,
and section width兲, and J-1269 test data were supplied to the model. After the
model predicted the J-2452 results, they were compared to the measured data
for the same tire. The results presented here have identification to match the
source article for clarity and consistency.

Optimization of Thermal Parameters

An objective of the preliminary study was to identify heat-transfer param-

eters for the subsequent work. We searched for a better set of “p” and “h0”
parameters and velocity exponents than those acquired from the literature.
Evaluating a range of values, the parameters were changed as indicated in Table

TABLE 2 — P-tire test conditions at regulated pressures for J-1269 and J-2452.

J-1269 J-2452

Base Base
Test % Max Pressure % Max Pressure
Point Load ±kPa Speed Load ±kPa Speed
1 90 −30 80 kph, 30 +10 115 kph to
2 90 +70 steady speed 60 −40 15 kph,
3 50 −30 共equilibrium兲 90 +60 in 180
4 50 +70 90 −40 seconds
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 123

TABLE 3 — Parameter variations evaluated for the model of the First Tire.

Initial Range Selected

Parameter Units Estimate Evaluated Value
Heat-transfer coefficient, h0 W/m 共2°C兲 40 10–100 40
Velocity dependence Dimensionless Squared None-squared Squared
p 共exponent兲 Dimensionless 0.5 −0.5– 1.0 0.5

3, and the model results and data for the first tire were plotted. The best values
for tire heat-transfer coefficient and velocity dependence for the first tire were
the same as those in Mars’ original article.

Test Sequence Effects

The model is sensitive to the tire temperature, which is a function of time.

It provides an opportunity to evaluate the timing aspects of the J-2452 test
sequence. Two items in the SAE J-2452 test are of particular interest. While the
test speed decay rate is carefully specified in the SAE J-2452 procedure, there
are limited instructions on how to perform the tare and crosstalk corrections.
The time for the tare step of the test and the forward/reverse crosstalk correction
are left up to the laboratory operator or machine manufacturer.
SAE J-2452 indicates that a test may be run in the forward and reverse
directions to compensate for crosstalk in the instrumentation. This may be done
within the sequence at each load step or may be done as a separate sequence of
tests. The data in this study was obtained in one direction and then the test was
repeated in the reverse direction. An evaluation with the model showed that the
effect on the predicted results from either method was negligible.
SAE J-2452 indicates that a “tare” or “skim” load may be run at an appro-
priate time during the test. For SAE J-1269 the skim test is run at the end of the
test matrix. This tare step is done as the last condition, as noted in J-1270
section 5.3, to minimize the test time, because tire equilibrium was found to be
reached more quickly in steps of decreasing rolling resistance. Since J-2452 is a
nonequilibrium test, this caveat is not applied and the machine used for J-2452
testing in this study was set up to run the skim step between test points 3 and 4.
The effect of running a “tare” point during the sequence of testing was
evaluated with the model by placing a “tare” step interspersed with the primary
data between steps 3 and 4. This caused the model temperature to decrease prior
to the #4 step and raised the predicted value of the rolling resistance nearer to
the measured value.
124 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Hypotheses Testing

The statistics of the experimental tests and the assumptions in the modeling
must be considered before establishing evaluation criteria.

Statistical Considerations

One way to measure of quality-of-fit is to examine the paired differences

between the laboratory data and the simulation model results. The testing pro-
vided six data during the coastdown portion of each of four distinct load/
inflation steps for each of the 12 tires. A paired-test analysis would have 6
⫻ 4 ⫻ 12= 288 total differences, which can estimate the ability of the simulation
to match the test data in terms of statistical confidence.
Another method of analysis is to treat the model results as another test
laboratory. The model could be evaluated from the variability of the input data
and the reproducibility 共model-to-lab兲 corresponding to good results, or a small
bias, from SAE J-1269 and J-2452.
The components of variation of the paired differences should include a
measure of bias, reproducibility, and repeatability. The tire-to-tire variation pro-
vides an estimate of the BIAS, by comparing the average difference in test
versus model per tire group. The coastdown-to-coastdown variation, at different
loads and inflations, for individual tires, provides the REPRODUCIBILITY.
The within-coastdown variation, pooled variation of six values collected from
115– 15 kph, for each load and pressure, provides the REPEATABILITY
measure.

Assumptions

The basic assumptions for the study were:

1. The thermodynamic model, from Ref. 关1兴, could provide adequate

simulation of the tire transient behavior for SAE J-2452.
2. The tire inputs for the model could be obtained from simple measure-
ments done when the tire was prepared for testing, along with the
equilibrium rolling resistance results from SAE J-1269.

Hypotheses

The basic hypotheses held at the start of the program were:

1. The parametric inputs for the model could be set based on theoretical
considerations or estimates from a limited sample 共the first tire兲, then
applied to all other tires in the study.
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 125

2. The output of the model would match the test data from SAE J-2452
for the same tire.
3. The value from the model should fall within the limits of the SAE
J-2452 test specification for lab-to-lab reproducibility.
4. The sensitivity of the model to load, pressure, and test sequence 共his-
tory兲 should match the variations seen for specific tires.

Acceptance Criteria

Individual tires of the same nominal brand/construction can have measur-

able differences in rolling resistance due to manufacturing variations or tire
condition 关6–10兴. However, the equilibrium rolling resistance for a single tire, at
a single laboratory, with repeated testing is expected to repeat within ±1%,
according to section 4.3 of SAE J-1269. The reproducibility from lab-to-lab, or
the accuracy of interpolated values from the curve fit, would have a larger
variation.
To test the hypotheses, the model results are compared to test data from the
same tire. The quality of the match between model and test are based on repro-
ducibility limits from the SAE practices.4
The authors have interpreted the statistical criteria for SAE J-1269 共section
4.3兲 as:

1. ±0.5 N 共±0.1# 兲 for the range of measured values due to alignment and
control inaccuracy 共precision兲.
2. 0.5 N 共0.1#兲 for the standard deviation for individual measured values
共repeatability兲.
3. 0.8 N 共0.2#兲 for the standard deviation of the regression residuals 共fit
accuracy兲.
4. ±1.0 N 共±0.25# 兲 for a 99% confidence band of the expected range of
measured values from different laboratories 共reproducibility兲.

For SAE J-2452, section 10 Precision and Bias, we find:

4
The precision and bias for J-1269 is based on documents circa 1980 and the precision and bias
statement in J-2452 is statistically ambiguous. The references suggest a 共properly run兲 J-1269 test
would have a standard deviation of 0.25 N and a 99% confidence band of 2 N. The variability of
J-1269 data for the model should have a statistically insignificant effect on the predictions of the
simulation. The precision and bias statement from SAE J-2452 is ambiguous since there is an
indefinite number of data available from a continuous test, and the outlier removal process affects
the statistical confidence. There is no published data, or references, for J-2452 showing how the
statistical criteria were established.
126 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

1. ±0.5 N 共±0.1# 兲 for within-laboratory repeatability.

2. ±0.8 N 共±0.2# 兲 for between-laboratory bias 共root-mean-square, RMS兲.
3. ±0.9 N 共±0.2# 兲 for between-laboratory reproducibility.
4. ±1.0 N 共±0.25# 兲 Gauge for repeatability and reproducibility 共Gauge
R&R兲.

Assuming the SAE documents use a 95% confidence band and applying the
statistics to a paired T-test for data from 12 tires, we anticipated a 95% confi-
dence band of ±3.2 N 共0.7#兲. Therefore, the criteria used in the hypothesis
testing for this study were:

1. Hypothesis 1, parameters from first tire can be used for other tires:
A single tire would be modeled with the theoretical inputs from
Ref. 关1兴.
The parameters for the model would be adjusted to provide results
within ±1 N of matching J-2452 results. The parameters selected
would be used for 12 other tires.
2. Hypothesis 2, simulation results are within the lab-to-lab
reproducibility:
Using the parameters from hypothesis 1, the model predictions will be
evaluated using a target of ±1 N average difference from the J-2452
test data and 3.2 N standard deviation or RMS difference.

Results from the Rolling Resistance Coastdown Simulation Studies

Initial Model Parameter Study

Test Sequence Study. The results of the two model runs, along with the test
data, are presented in Fig. 1共a兲. The graph compares the four steps of test data,
with a tare preceding the last step, and two model predictions for sequences
with and without the tare preceding the last step. The model results are identical
until the end of step 3.
The experimental tare results were used as a zero condition for the other
test data. As a result of the experiment setting the rolling resistance at zero for
all speeds of the tare coastdown, the model shows a “negative rolling resis-
tance” appearing during the tare step. This model prediction is the result of a
real, potentially measurable, rolling resistance effect for the tire at the low loads
of the tare step. The raw data for the tare step should show a similar effect, but
the tare values are automatically subtracted from each matching data point in
the reported test results. Therefore, the experimental data show “zero” for each
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 127

FIG. 1 — “First Tire” test data and model results. Model parameters at default values; two test
sequences. (a) Full coastdown with five steps of load and inflation pressure, including tare. (b)
Expanded and overlapping view of last non-tare step.

tare datum. This predicted tare step effect in the data had never been noted
before.
Because this sequence effect is small on the scale of Fig. 1共a兲, an expanded
graph of the results for the last step, step 4, is presented in Fig. 1共b兲 so they
overlap on the time scale. Even with the expanded vertical scale in Fig. 1共b兲 it
128 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

is difficult to see the difference of approximately 0.5 N 共0.1#兲 at the first

70 mph datum and the even smaller differences at the subsequent data points.
This small effect, on the order of the criteria used for evaluation of the
model, was predicted by the model. The sequence change moved the simulation
results closer to the test data, but the model was consistently higher than the
data. Later simulations for the 12-tire study were consistently lower than the
data. This result is examined further by Popio and Luchini 关15兴.

Model Parameter Settings

The first parameter to be discussed is h0, the nominal heat-transfer coeffi-

cient for a whole tire. The initial value was 40 W / 共m2 ° C兲 and for the study this
value was varied from 10 W / 共m2 ° C兲 to 100 W / 共m2 ° C兲. Figure 2共a兲 shows the
results of four of the simulations, along with the test data, where the other 2
parameters were held at their initial values. Figure 2共b兲 expands the results and
data for the last step, which was between 115 minutes and 118 minutes into the
test. Comparing the simulation curves for the various values of the h0 parameter
and the test data, it appears that the best match to the shape of the data curve
was for h0 = 40 W / 共m2 ° C兲.
From the graphs in Fig. 2 there are two more points of interest that will be
referenced later in this article. First, changing the h0 parameter affects the shape
of the simulation curve versus time but does not substantially affect the average
value. Second, the average of all these curves, and their point of intersection,
appears mid-way through the coastdown step.
The next parameter to be displayed here is the heat-transfer coefficient
exponent. A heat-transfer coefficient exponent of 0.5 would correspond to lami-
nar flow and an exponent of 0.8 would correspond to turbulent flow. Figure 3共a兲
shows the results of four of the simulations, along with the test data, where the
value of this exponent ranged from −0.5 to +1.0. Figure 3共b兲 expands the results
and data for the last step. Comparing the simulation curves for the various
values of the h0 exponent and the test data it appears that the best match to the
shape of the data curve was for an exponent of 0.5. Again in Fig. 3共b兲, the
curves intersect mid-way through the coastdown where the speed is near
80 kph.
The third parameter to be displayed here is the velocity effect on the heat-
transfer coefficient. The original Mars’ study made the assumption that there
would be a quadratic 共velocity squared兲 effect. In this study, a factor 共SF兲 that
could be 0 or 1 is used as a parameter for the graphs in Fig. 4. When SF= 0 the
h0 is constant at any speed. When SF= 1 the value of h0 is multiplied by a
velocity squared expression. Figure 4共a兲 shows the results of four of the simu-
lations, along with the test data.
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 129

FIG. 2 — “First Tire” test data and model results (heat-transfer coefficient varied from default
value, H0 = 40). (a) Full coastdown with five steps of load and inflation pressure, including tare. (b)
Expanded and overlapping view of last loading step.

Figure 4共b兲 expands the results and data for the last step. Comparing the
simulation curves for the various values of the h0 exponent and the test data, it
appears that the best match to the shape of the data curve was for a quadratic
speed effect.
130 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

FIG. 3 — “First Tire” test data and model results (heat-transfer coefficient exponent varied from
default value, Px = 0.5). (a) Full coastdown with five steps of load and inflation pressure, including
tare. (b) Expanded and overlapping view of last loading step.

We will note here that the constant value for h0 共SF= 0兲 causes the coast-
down curve in Fig. 4共b兲 to become a straight line. This feature of the model will
be of interest later when one group of the tires in the “blind” part of the study
is found to exhibit this behavior.
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 131

FIG. 4 — “First Tire” test data and model results [velocity exponent 共VSx兲 varied from default
value, SF = 1]. (a) Full coastdown with five steps of load and inflation pressure, including tare. (b)
Expanded and overlapping view of last loading step.

Results of the 12-Tire Study

The equilibrium test data for each of the 12 tires were fit with the regres-
sion equation recommended in J-1269. These regression coefficients were pro-
132 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

vided to the model for the simulation of the J-2452 test. The results of the
simulations are shown with the test data in the graphs of Figs. 5共a兲–5共c兲. Tabu-
lation of the test data for the 12 tires appears in Ref. 关15兴. The results have been
sorted into tire groups “A,” “B,” and “C” as used in that article.
These graphs are presented to illustrate: 共1兲 the general ability of the model
to match the test data; 共2兲 each tire had similar but different results; and 共3兲 the
variation in test data among tires is similar to the variation in model results for
the same tires.

Hypothesis Testing

The SAE J-2452 data for the 12 tires consisted of six measurements at
decreasing speeds for each of four load-pressure conditions. The data were
paired with simulation results for each tire and the paired difference 共simulation
minus test兲 and standard deviation were computed. Figure 6 shows the average
differences for each of the 12 tires.
Using the criterion that the average difference for a valid model should be
no greater than ±1.0 N, the model was acceptable for 8 of the 12 tires. The
standard deviations should have been no larger than 3.2 N. This criterion was
met by 11 of the 12 tires.
The average differences for each of the 12 tires are plotted versus the
standard deviation in Fig. 7共a兲 and against the RMS value of the differences in
Fig. 7共b兲. The box on the plots represents the target range for the values and
variations. The figures show that seven of the tires met both criteria. Only one
tire, B3, fell outside of the target criteria for both average value and variation.
Figure 8 shows the differences between the simulation and test data were
not evenly distributed among the steps or tires. Note that group B tires have
more variation from each step than either of the other groups of tires. To explain
this variation, we reexamined the shape of the rolling resistance versus speed
plot for group B tires.
The group B coastdown plots in Fig. 5 were similar to the SF= 0 curve of
Fig. 4, while group A and C plots were similar to the SF= 1 curve of Fig. 4. This
suggests that the original idea of using a single set of heat-transfer properties for
all similar tires is not an adequate assumption. Since the tire data was provided
“blind” no cause could be identified. Future research may look for differences in
material or tread pattern affecting the velocity dependence.
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 133

FIG. 5 — Simulation and test data for 12 tires (h0 = 40, p = 0.5, SF = 1, for all simulations). Squares
are experimental test values and diamonds are matching simulation model values. (a) Group A tires.
(b) Group B tires. (c) Group C tires.
134 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

FIG. 6 — Analysis of paired values, test data minus simulation.

Curve Fit for Equilibrium Data

Using the parameter values from the first tire, the discrepancy between test
and simulation was 1 N to 4 N, with the simulation generally lower than the test
data. This result could have been improved by modifying inputs to the simula-
tion; however, the consistency of this condition was of concern. Therefore,
further investigation of both the simulation model and the test was carried out.
The transient model internal parameters affect the shape curves. The equi-

FIG. 7 — Model error measures for 12 tires: (a) standard deviation versus difference and (b) RMS
difference versus difference.
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 135

FIG. 8 — Standard deviation per step for each tire.

librium, asymptotic, value of rolling resistance at 50 mph for each load and
pressure is an input to the model. Since the test points for J-1269 and J-2452 are
different, this input was not a test datum but an extrapolation from the recom-
mended curve fit to the J-2452 load and pressure conditions. The behavior of the
model suggested that this input was not adequate, and was observed to have the
following characteristics:

1. The shape of both the model and data for the transient coastdown
curves appeared to be similar.
2. The value of the rolling resistance at low-load/high-pressure was very
close. The value of the rolling resistance at the tare load may be too
high.
3. The value of the rolling resistance at low inflation pressure points for
the model was always too low.
4. Any of the model parameters that would increase the predicted rolling
resistance for the high-load/low-pressure condition would also change
the values at the other conditions, or the curve shape, or both.

We note, also, that the initial modeling and validation work of Mars used
transient coastdown results for load and pressure conditions that were the same
as, or interpolated from, the test conditions of J-1269. Due to the nonlinear
curve fit recommended in J-1269, it was hypothesized that there was insufficient
136 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 4 — Five regression models used with J-1269 data.

Regression Terms in Regression Source of Model

Equation 1 Constant, SAE J-1269 共1979兲, regression
1/共Pressure兲, model for passenger car tires
Load
Equation 2 constant, An old regression used for
1/共Pressure兲, research by the SAE to identify
Load, a rolling resistance response
Load /共pressure兲, surface with a 10-point test.a,b
共Load squared兲
共Load squared兲/P
共Load squared兲/ 共Pressure squared兲
Equation 3 Constant, SAE J-1269 共1987兲, regression
Load, model for highway truck and
Load /共pressure兲, bus tires
共Load squared兲/P
Equation 4 Load, SAE J-1269 共1987兲, regression
Load /共pressure兲, model for passenger car tiresc
共Load squared兲
Equation 5 Constant, SAE J-1269 共1987兲, regression
1/共Pressure兲, model for light truck tiresa,b
Load,
Load /共d兲,
Load /共pressure兲,
共Load⫻ pressure兲,
共Load squared兲/P
Equation 6 Constant, Most significant terms from
Load, multiple regression
共Load squared兲/ 共pressure兲,
共Load squared兲/ 共pressure squared兲
Equation 7 Constant, Best-fit to the data, smallest
Load, residuals, most termsb,c
共Load squared兲,
共Load squared兲/ 共pressure兲,
共Load squared兲/ 共pressure squared兲
a
No mathematical result was obtained due to divide-by-zero error.
b
The mathematical result was obtained by using a 共zero load-zero rolling resistance兲
datum.
c
The load-squared coefficient was numerically almost equal to zero.

data available to provide a good extrapolation to the values needed as input to

the transient model.
Seven other regression equations were attempted using the data from the
first tire. These regression equations are listed in Table 4 by the terms that were
included and the nominal source of the equation. Some of the regression equa-
tions provided no results due to lack of data causing mathematical overflows.
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 137

FIG. 9 — Simulations with regression equations from Table 4.

For some regressions, the use of a zero-zero point, as per the tare datum,
provided the additional input data that prevented mathematical overflow.
The mathematically successful regressions provided “R-squared” values
above 0.995 and residuals of about 0.8 N 共0.2#兲 or less. The coefficients from
these regressions were then used to provide the input rolling resistance for the
transient tire model. Figure 9 shows the effect of using different regression
equations for the coastdown predictions. The equilibrium data for each of the
regression equations was the same but different equations were input to the
simulation. The selection of the regression equation used with the test data
affects the simulated rolling resistance.
While each of the regression equations gave a good fit to one or more of the
coastdown steps, overall the best match appears to be regression 4. This has the
aesthetic appeal that it is the regression equation recommended in J-1269. From
detailed examination of the results from one tire, it was apparent that neither the
statistically best fit to the data nor the most complex regression equation would
provide better predictions from the simulation.
138 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Conclusions

Based on the initial hypotheses, and the results presented here, we

conclude:

1. The parametric inputs for the model can be set based on simplified
theoretical considerations and limited amount of validation data from a
sample tire. The sample tire should be selected to have a similar be-
havior with respect to the heat-transfer parameters as the tire to be
modeled.
2. The output of the simulation model for the transient test, using data
from the equilibrium test SAE J-1269, matches the qualitative behavior
of SAE J-2452 for the same tire. However, the model output did not
meet the lab-to-lab reproducibility specifications in SAE J-2452 when
compared to all of the test data.

In addition, we conclude that:

1. The sensitivity of the model to load, pressure, and test sequence 共his-
tory兲 matches available test data.
2. The values for the heat-transfer parameters of the model presented in
this study are adequate for prediction of general tire behaviors but
should not be used indiscriminately. It was observed that tires intended
for similar applications could have different model parameters.
3. The difference between the simulation result and the test data may be
due to the mathematical curve fit of the data from the J-1269 standard.
It was noted that the data fitting model from SAE J-1269 is not appro-
priate for the specified test conditions, and thus may not be adequate
for the extrapolations needed to match the test points of SAE J-2452.
4. The sensitivity of the model provides insights into the operation of
SAE J-2452 that can help identify sources of test variability that are
not apparent in the current test standard caveats.

a. The effect of running a tare sequence in the midst of other test

points, rather than before or after, may affect the test result value
or the time for the test result to stabilize at a new load-pressure
point. Since this effect is of the same order of magnitude as the
Gauge R&R 共Repeatability & Reproducibility兲 statement in the
Precision and Bias 共P&B兲 section of J-2452, this should be ex-
amined and further standardized.
b. The different coastdown times 共stepped-speed-time profiles兲 have
an effect that can be estimated from the physics in the simulation
model. However, the speed-time effect may be misrepresented in
 LUCHINI AND POPIO ON MODELING TRANSIENT ROLLING 139

the use of the statistical model suggested in SAE J-2452 because

it ignores the test time-sequence effect on tire temperatures.

Future Work

The SAE is aware that there is need for review of both SAE J-1269 and
SAE J-2452. A task group has been formed to review and evaluate the test
protocols and determine how to update the standards in order to serve the needs
of government, industry, and consumers. There is a need to develop simulation
models with a larger scope that can apply to tire operation on vehicles and work
with existing vehicle models. The simulations should consider a broad range of
factors and have parametric inputs for tires and vehicles based on known phys-
ics, as illustrated in the Mars’ model.

References

关1兴 Mars, W. V. and Luchini, J. R., “An Analytical Model for the Transient Rolling Resistance
Behavior of Tires,” Tire Science and Technology, TSTCA, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1999, pp. 161–175.
关2兴 Schuring, D. J., “The Rolling Loss of Pneumatic Tires,” Rubber Chemistry and Technology,
Vol. 153, 1980, pp. 602–606.
关3兴 Schuring, D. J. and Futamura, S., “Rolling Loss of Pneumatic High-Way Tire in the Eighties,”
Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Vol. 63, No. 3, 1990, pp. 315–367.
关4兴 Luchini, J. R., “Measuring and Modeling Tire Rolling Resistance,” Paper 24A/25A, Presented
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Aug. 1999; and at ITEC 2000, Sept. 2000, Akron, OH, USA.
关5兴 Schuring, D. J., “Transient versus Steady-State Tire Rolling Loss Testing,” SAE 790116.
关6兴 Schuring, D. J. and Speyer, A. G., “Tire Rolling Loss And Pressure Increase,” SAE 831027.
关7兴 Kenny, T. M., “Prediction of Contained Air Temperature from SAE Standard Rolling Resis-
tance Test Data,” SAE 831796.
关8兴 Schuring, D. J., Siegfried, J. F., and Hall, G. L., “Transient Speed and Temperature Effects on
Rolling Loss of Passenger Car Tires,” SAE 850463.
关9兴 Clark, J. D. and Schuring, D. J., “Load, Speed, and Inflation Pressure Effects on Rolling Loss
Distribution in Automobile Tires,” Tire Science and Technology, TSTCA, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1988,
pp. 78–95.
关10兴 “Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy,” Transportation Research Board, Special Report
286, Washington, DC, 2006.
关11兴 Whicker, D., Browne, A. L., and Segalman, D. J., “The Structure and Use of the GMR
Combined Thermo-Mechanical Tire Power Loss Model,” SAE 810164; Whicker, D. and
Rohde, S. M., “Modeling Tire Deformation for Power Loss Calculations,” SAE 810161; Segal-
man, D. J., “Modeling Tire Energy Dissipation for Power Loss Calculations,” SAE 810162;
Browne, A. L. and Arambages, A., “Modeling the Thermal State of Tires for Power Loss
Calculations,” SAE 810163; “A Thermo-Mechanical Approach to Tire Power Loss Modeling,”
General Motors Research Laboratories Research publication GMR-3310, May 30, 1980, and
The General Problem of Rolling Contact, AMD Vol. 40, 1980, published by the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.
关12兴 Warholic, T. C., “Tire Rolling Loss Prediction from the Finite Element Analysis of a Statically
140 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Loaded Tire,” M.S.E. Thesis, University of Akron, Akron, OH, 1987, available from University
Microfilms.
关13兴 Becker, A., Dorsch, V., Kaliske, M., and Rothert, H., “A Material Model for Simulating the
Hysteretic Behavior of Filled Rubber for Rolling Tires,” Tire Science and Technology, TSTCA,
Vol. 26, No. 3, 1998, pp. 132–148.
关14兴 Kennedy, R. H., Englehardt, M., and Day, G. L., “RPA Measurement of Hysteresis for CAE
Rolling Resistance Prediction,” ITEC ’98, Paper No. 30A.
关15兴 Popio, J. A. and Luchini, J. R., “The Fidelity of SAE J-1269 and SAE J-2452 Rolling Resis-
tance Testing,” Presented at the 2006 Tire Society Conference on Tire Science and Technology.