an analysis of bead compression grooves by dennis carlson and john warren taylor
TRANSCRIPT
AN ANALYSIS OF BEAD COMPRESSION GROOVES
By Dennis Carlson and John Warren Taylor
WHAT IS A COMPRESSION GROOVE?
Compression Grooves
• Deep Compression Grooves Have Been Associated with Over-deflection(OD) and Tire Bead Design for Decades
• Early Bead Designs Did Not Control Compression Groove Growth and Failures Occurred
• Design Changes “Cured” this Problem-Chafers, Protectors, Turn-up Designs and Stiff Flippers
“Severe Bead Chafing” from a Late 1970’s RMA Book
Patents to Control Compression Grooves
Patents, Cont.
Patents, cont.
WHY DO CG’S FORM ?
• The Flange Area is an Area of High Compression Stresses (Hinge Point)
• The CG’s Form Due To Compression Set of the Rubber Over Time
• There Can Also Be a Small Amount of Chaffing (movement)
• The Sidewall “Bends” Outward in the Footprint-This Increases The Stress
WHAT DOES A COMPRESSION GROOVE LOOK LIKE?
Another example
And Another
Analysis of Compression Grooves-Procedure
• 75 tires were run by the DOT as part of the UTQG (Unified Quality Grading System) Wear Test (see CFR 49 575.104)
• These tires were run for ≈7200 miles.• Tire pressures were checked 3 times a day.• In short, these tires were run under ideal
conditions of usage.• After the test, the compression grooves were
measured.
The Compression Grooves Were Measured with a Digital Caliper-
Width and Depth
Tests of Measurement Technique
• A Plaster Cast Was Made of the CG Region-Measurements Agreed
• Profilometer -Measurements Agreed• Repeatability-18 Measurements Taken in the
Same Area by a Semi-skilled Person-Coefficient of Variation ≈ 9% for Depth and 4% for the Width Measurement
Profilometer
Results-All Tires Had CG’s
•
• WIDTH DEPTH• MAXIMUM 0.316" 0.113"• MINIMUM 0.001" 0.001"• AVERAGE 0.156" 0.023"•
ALL TIRES HAD COMPRESSION GROOVES
Biggest Differences Were Between Tire Manufacturers
• Michelins had the smallest- Average Width of .085” and Depth of .016”
• Goodyears had Average Width of .210” and Depth of .031” (Kelly-Springfields were slightly larger but the sample size was smaller and KS is a part of GY)
Importance of Compression Grooves?
• In the old days, bead durability was an important issue. Tires could fail prematurely in the bead.
• In modern tires, this is not an important issue.• Compression Grooves are used by some as an
indicator of over-deflection.
Mis-Use of Compression Grooves-1
• “Any Compression Groove Indicates Over-Deflection”
• Fact-Compression Grooves are developed under normal operating conditions.
• Sources –This Paper, the Cottles Paper and the Standard Testing Laboratory (STL) paper.
Mis-Use of Compression Grooves-2
• “CG’s are a good indicator of over-deflection”• Fact-Because tires develop CG’s under normal
conditions and the wide variation between manufacturers, CG’s are a poor indicator of over-deflection.
Mis-Use of Compression Grooves-3
• “GC’s equal Over-deflection(OD) Equals Tread-Belt Separations”
• Most of the Tests That Have Been Run to Show the Link Between CG’s and OD Do Not Separate the Tires.
• The Standard Testing Laboratory (STL) Test Did Fail Tires But After ≈9000 miles of extreme OD. Other Tires went 20000 miles Without Failure. The Failure Mode was Not Given.
Mis-Use of Compression Grooves-3cont.
• The Amount of OD in the Most Severe STL Test was Equivalent to Loading a Car to GVWR and Then Putting an Additional 23 People in the Car. Some Tires Lasted 20000 miles
• What Good is This Indicator?
STL DATA - RAW•
• STL Bead Groove Study Subjective Ratings• Tire Size= P205/70R14•
•
• Load(lbs) Pressure(psi) T&RA % Subjective Rating Width Depth Mileage• New Rim• 1433 35 100 1.5 20000• 1628 35 114 1 20000• 1055 26 85 1 20000• 1199 26 97 1.5 20000• 1403 26 113 0.75 20000• 1628 26 131 3 0.24 0.05 20000• 2017 26 163 5 0.35 0.11 20000• 1199 20 110 1.5 20000• 1628 20 149 3.5 0.26 0.06 20000•
• Modified Rim• 1628 35 114 1 20000• 1199 26 97 1.5 20000• 1403 26 113 1 20000• 1628 26 131 2 0.17 0.04 20000• 2017 26 163 2.5 0.2 0.06 10150• 1199 20 110 1.5 20000• 1628 20 149 3 0.26 0.06 15600•
STL DATA- Sorted•
• Same Data Sorted by Severity of Condition• Load(lbs) Pressure(psi) T&RA % Subjective Rating Width Depth Mileage• New Rim• 1055 28 85 1 20000• 1199 26 97 1.5 20000• 1199 20 110 1.5 20000• 1403 28 113 0.75 20000• 1433 35 100 1.5 20000• 1628 35 114 1 20000• 1628 26 131 3 0.24 0.05 20000• 1628 20 149 3.5 0.26 0.06 20000• 2017 26 163 5 0.35 0.11 20000•
• Modified Rim• 1199 26 97 1.5 20000• 1199 20 110 1.5 20000• 1403 26 113 1 20000• 1628 35 114 1 20000• 1628 26 131 2 0.17 0.04 20000• 1628 20 149 3 0.26 0.06 15600• 2017 26 163 2.5 0.2 0.06 10150•
•
Future Investigations
• Deep Wheel Weight Impressions- So far appears to be from bad WW installation
• Wheel Flange Paint Loss- Seems to be universal with all steel wheels.
Deep Wheel Weight Impressions
Deep Wheel Weight Impressions