J . C.

A m b e l a n g 1

Testing of Tire Treadwear under Laboratory

and under Service Conditions

REFERENCE: Ambelang, J. C., "Testing of Tire Treadwear under Laboratory

and under Service Conditions~" Tire Science and Technoloqy, TSTCA, Vol. 1,
No. 1, Feb. 1973, pp. 39-46.
ABSTRACT: Four different laboratory machines for the evaluation of tire tread-
wear have been described which used concrete, steel, and tungsten carbide abrasion
surfaces at variable speed and slip, but none has satisfactorily replaced highway
testing. Predominant sources of wear on passenger tires appear to be cutting and
frictional fatigue, the rates of which are influenced differently by temperature and
load. Thus, seasonal or climatic, topographical, and geographical effects are evi-
denced. Treadwear cannot be expressed solely as a property of the tire since it is the
resultant of the interaction of the tire with multivariate environmental conditions.
KEY WORDS. tires, treads, road tests, wear tests, abrasion, environmental tests,
topographical effect

This survey is limited to tests performed on automobile tires to deter-

mine the treadwear performance of the products themselves. Excluded are
procedures intended primarily for materials evaluation, for example,
laboratory or towed road tests on small, solid tires. The latter are run to
compare abrasion resistance of rubber compositions with fewer variables
than the multiplicity of factors and interactions that determine the wear
rate of a pneumatic tire under service conditions. Likewise are excluded
towed vehicle wear tests on automobile tires since they are not representa-
tive of actual service conditions and are oriented toward materials evalua-
tion rather than product performance. The earlier literature was covered in
Ref 1; publications from the last decade were searched through Rubber
Abstracts b y the Rubber and Plastics Research Association of Great Bri-
tain. An exhaustive survey of rubber literature uncovered relatively few
references to laboratory devices attempting to simulate wear service per-
formance of regular vehicle tires. These are compared in Table 1.

Presented in part at the American Society for Testing and Materials Committee F-9
Symposium on Tire Treadwear, Akron, Ohio, 11 Nov. 1971.
1Tire Development, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio 44316.
39
 0

T A B L E 1--Laboratory treadwear testing machines for automobile tires.

o~
Circumfer- Circum- Examples
ential ferential of
Originator Principle Surface Drive Speed Slip Angle Slip Torque Camber Rates
Z
(7
Stiehler et al drum- concrete drum, vaxiable, variable, 155 g/1000
vertical (internal 12-30 hp 0-65 mph 0 4- 73 min miles at 50 O
"1"
dia 28 ft surface) motors mph 0 deg Z
slip angle o
McIntosh [4] drum- steel with tire 40 mpb variable, 140 mils/ o
horizontal four 1.25 in. 25 hp motor 0 4- 6 deg 1000 miles
tilting, dia gritted bars, (7 miles/rail)
8 in. 10-46 grit
tungsten
carbide
Novopol'skii drum- concrete or drum and concrete: fixed: variable 0 4- 392 on concrete, at
et al [3] horizontal ridged metal tire, 41.5 k m / h r 0 deg from Nm 98 Nm
dia 1 m connected; (26 mph) drive to torque:
15 kW metal: braking 25 mils/
motor 45.5 k m / h 1000 miles
(28 mph) or 40
miles/mil
Cornell belt- (not belt and 0-200 mph variable, locked 0 =t=30 undetermined
Aeronautical horizontal announced) tire, 0 4- 30 deg wheel to deg
Laboratory over two 67 in. 1000 hp motor spin
[51 drums
 AMBELANG ON TREADWEAR TESTING $,1

Tire Treadwear Testers

The most ambitious wear testing machine was the 18 station revolving
concrete drum built by Stiehler and coworkers at the National Bureau of
Standards [2]. Though the results demonstrated the relation between slip
angle and rate of wear, their relation to highway performance was appar-
ently not promising enough to sustain interest in further development.
Another concrete surface tester was described by Novopol'skii [8]. The
rates of wear reported are in the range of highway testing. Since the ma-
chine as described has no provision for simulating cornering, the correlation
would be limited to a single type of service.
McIntosh devised a drum with a steel surface and inserted bars with
tungsten carbide as the abrasive [4]. This system gave a cutting type of
wear, much more severe than obtained on concrete surfaces. Although the
device allows for varying side force, the type of abrasion was very dif-
ferent from normal service conditions and may be the reason correlation
was not obtained.
The fourth device has been proposed by the Cornell Aeronautical Labora-
tory [5] as a possible development from an instrument for torque measure-
ments. This instrument permits wide variations in speed, load, and slip
angle, but the surface, a steel belt, would be difficult to provide with a con-
crete surface. The prospects of simulating frictional type of wear en-
countered on paved roads do not appear encouraging.

Problems Correlating Laboratory Abrasion with Tire Service

Very limited success has thus far been achieved in laboratory machines
that will give results comparable with a particular highway treadwear test.
The problem is often seen in oversimplified terms. Since the wear rate of a
tire varies rather widely with conditions of service, a single laboratory test is
unlikely to correlate with more than one set of conditions. A number of
fundamental studies have been made of the factors affecting abrasion, but
their implications appear not to have been fully considered. Bulgin and
Walters [6] presented a review with original work at the International
Rubber Conference in 1967. A few examples should be pointed out.
Wear results preponderantly from two processes (see Fig. 1): (1) Cutting
on surfaces with pronounced asperities, and (2) "fatigue" on relatively
smooth surfaces. (Roll formation has been observed when rubber is
"abraded" against a smooth (metallic) surface [7]. Thermal breakdown can
occur on an airport runway [8]. These two mechanisms are assumed to be
negligible in the present discussion of wear of passenger tires on highways.
As discussed by Holmes et al [8], oxidation is involved in "fatigue," a
"conglomerate" term for mechano-chemical failure.)
Cutting is evidenced by scoring parallel to the direction of motion.
"Fatigue" is a frictional process and produces chipping on the surface or
42 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

FIG. 1--The two predominant modes of abrasion. (Reproduced from Ref 6 with permis-
sion of the Institution of the Rubber Industry, London.)

ridges at right angles to the direction of motion. These two types of abrasion
are affected differently by changes in environment. As an actual road gives
rise to both types of abrasion, and these in turn are variously affected by
temperature, load, and driving conditions, the overall result has many
possible values.
An example is the effect of load on rate of wear. In the case of cutting
abrasion, the relationship is linear (Fig. 2). Since cutting occurs when rub-
ber is abraded on a carborundum covered wheel, the rate of wear can be
accelerated by increasing the load. However, in fatigue abrasion, which re-

I
WEAR

LOAD

FIG. 2--Rate of cutting abrasion as a function of load. (Reproduced from Ref 6 with per-
mission of the Institution of the Rubber Industry, London.)
 AMBELANG ON TREADWEAR TESTING 43

I
WEAR
RATE

LOAD

FIG. 3--Rate of frictional or fatigue abrasion as a function of load. (Reproduced from

Ref 6 with permission of the Institution of the Rubber Industry, London.)

sults from friction, the relation of wear rate to load is not linear but ex-
ponential (Fig. 3).
Another example is the effect of temperature. Cutting abrasion of styrene-
butadiene rubber (SBR) is high at subfreezing temperatures, passes through
a minimum, then increases with rising temperature. Fatigue, or frictional,
abrasion of SBR actually decreases with temperature (Fig. 4).

I
4J
RELATIVE
WEAR
RATE "~*'~*=~'*******%

',..
o,.

I
CUTTING FRICTIONAL
.n.HD.Hn

-40 -20 0 20 4 6 I00 ~

FIG. 4--Effect of temperature on relative rates of abrasion: cutting (--40 to 80 C); fric-
tional (20 to 100 C). (Reproduced from Ref 6 with permission of the Institution of the Rubber
Industry, London.)
44 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 2--Comparison of tire abrasion: California vs Texas ~traight-line

highway courses [9].

California Texas
Tread Stock cc/1000 miles Index cc/1000 miles Index

SBR 43 100 87 100

BR 67 64 52 167
NR 55 78 91 96

These fundamental observations afford a qualitative explanation of the

multivalent treadwear indices often obtained in highway tests on tires.
Straight-line highway courses in California and Texas were found to give
divergent results by Davison and Deisz [9] (Table 2). The butadiene rubber
(BR) tread performed in superior fashion in Texas but fell below SBR in
California; natural rubber (NR) was comparable to the control in Texas
but not in California. One notable difference was the aggregate in the Texas
road surface while the California road was polished concrete or asphalt.
Temperatures were comparable; the tires were replicates.
Temperature is one of the most readily observed factors influencing wear.
Replicate tires with two different SBR-BR tread compositions were highway
tested at three different seasons (Table 3). The maximum mileage was ob-
tained in the spring, more severe wear occurred in the winter, and still
more severe wear in late summer. Not only was there a difference in abso-
lute wear rate, but the relative wear of the two compositions changed;
compound B was 16 percent superior in the late summer but equal to com-
pound A in winter and spring.
Traffic conditions and driving habits have a pronounced effect on wear,
but their influence would be difficult to express numerically. Relative wear
rates of three tread compounds were reversed between Ohio suburban and
Southwest Texas highway fast wear conditions (see Fig. 5). Still another
order resulted when the tires were run under slow wear conditions on Texas
highways.

TABLE 3--Seasonal effect on treadwear

in miles~rail.

Temperature, F Compound A Compound B

52.5 54.5 52.5

80 61.0 62.0
88 42.3 49.0
 AMBELANG ON TREADWEAR TESTING 45

OHIO WEST TEXAS

SUBURBAN SLOW WEAR FAST WEAR

100

C D E C D E C D E

FIG. 5--Effect of tra~c and road conditions on relative wear rate of three automotive tread
compositions.

These tables and figures illustrate that treadwear is not exclusively a

property of the tire but a result of the tire-road interaction; influencing
factors include road surface and geometry, topography, climatic conditions,
wheel and vehicle geometry, load, traffic conditions, and driver responses.

Conclusions
Two conclusions can be drawn from these considerations:
1. Treadwear rating of a tire cannot be adequately or unequivocally ex-
pressed by a single figure; but an array of numbers would be required to
include, for example, the two types of abrasion and the dimensions of tem-
perature and side force.
2. A laboratory tire wear tester that would give reliable results would
have to include modifications to simulate a range of environmental condi-
tions.
The laboratory testing devices brought out thus far provide for load and
slip variations but not for the range of surfaces encountered by tires on the
road. The possibilities of correlation are for that reason limited to a single
type of surface but do not include a realistic combination of cutting and
frictional types of abrasion encountered in service.

References
[1] Division of Rubber Chemistry, American Chemical Society, Library and Information
Service Bibliography: Abrasion Testing of Synthetic Rubber, 1970.
[2] Riehey, G. G., Mandel, J., and Stiehler, R. D., Rubber Age, Vol. 85, No. 4, 1959,
p. 640; Proceedings of the International Rubber Conference, 1959; U.S. Patent
2,766,618.
[3] Novopol'skii, V. I., Nepomnyashchii, E. F., and Zakharov, S. P., in Abrasion of
Rubber, D. I. James, Ed., Palmerton, New York, 1967, p. 261.
[~] McIntosh, K. W., "Laboratory Tire Treadwear Testing," Tire Science and Technol-
ogy, TSTCA, Vol. 1, No. 1, Feb. 1973, pp. 32-38.
~.6 TIRE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

[5] Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory Report, Contract No. DOT-HS-053-1-108,

30 Nov. 1971.
[6] Bulgin, D., and Walters, M. H., Proceedings of the International Rubber Conference,
1967, Maclaren and Sons 1968, London, p. 445.
[7] Regnikovskii, M. M., and Brodskii, G. I., Proceedings of the 4th Rubber Technology
Conference, London, 1962, p. 413.
[8] Holmes, T., Lees, G., and Williams, A. R., presented at the 99th Meeting of the
Division of Rubber Chemistry, American Chemical Society, Miami Beach, 27-30
April 1971.
[9] Davison, S., Deisz, M. A., Meier, D. J., and Reynolds, R. J., Rubber World, Vol. 151,
No. 5, Feb. 1965, p. 81.