ROSANNE Rolling resistance round robin test & draft standard preparation. MIRIAM Workshop, Sterrebeek, 19 May 2016

Transcription

1 ROSANNE Rolling resistance round robin test & draft standard preparation MIRIAM Workshop, Sterrebeek, 19 May 2016 Bergiers Anneleen Maeck Johan

2 Overview State-of-the-art texture/uneveness & rolling resistance (RR) Trailer-based RR method Round robin test Draft standard preparation 2

3 1. Introduction EU FP7 Small Collaborative Research Project Coordinator: AIT (Austria) Partners: DRD (Denmark) BRRC (Belgium) TRL (UK) TUG (Poland) VTI (Sweden) ZAG (Slovenia) BASt (Germany) FEHRL (Belgium) IFSTTAR (France) DIN (Germany) Budget: EUR 3,016,938 EC contribution: EUR 2,395,413 Duration: 36 months Starting date: 1st November

4 1. Introduction WP3: preparation for standardisation of measurement methods for characterisation of road surface RR properties improve trailer method explore various effects on RR analyse & compare properties of available test equipment provide a draft for standardisation of a procedure for harmonised RR classification of road surfaces WP4: texture influence, reference tyres & surfaces 4

5 2. Sota RRC vs MPD Deliverable D4.1: State-of-the-art concerning texture influence on skid resistance, noise emission and rolling resistance MSD/MPD 0,015 0,014 y = 0,0017x + 0,0121 RRC for average of the three test tires 0,013 0,012 0,011 0,010 0,009 y = 0,002x + 0,0098 R 2 = 0,9466 y = 0,0022x + 0,0087 R 2 = 0,8224 y = 0,0021x + 0,0079 R 2 = 0,976 y = 0,0016x + 0,0079 R 2 = 0,7712 y = 0,0017x + 0,0087 R 2 = 0,7604 0,008 0,007 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2,0 MPD [mm] (Swedish-Polish results ) 5

6 2. Sota RRC vs LMe, LMa & MPD Without enveloping 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 MPD LMa LMe With enveloping 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 MPD LMa LMe 6 R² R² ES14/BRRC_50 ES14/BRRC_80 SRTT/BASt_50 SRTT_BASt_80 AAV4/BASt_50 AAV4/BASt_80 ES16/BASt_50 ES16/BASt_80 SRTT/TUG_50 SRTT/TUG_80 AAV4/TUG_50 AAV4_TUG_80 ES16/TUG_50 ES16/TUG_80 ES14/TUG_50 ES14/TUG_80 (source: MIRIAM 2011) Trailer-Tyre-Speed combination ES14/BRRC_50 ES14/BRRC_80 SRTT/BASt_50 SRTT_BASt_80 AAV4/BASt_50 AAV4/BASt_80 ES16/BASt_50 ES16/BASt_80 SRTT/TUG_50 SRTT/TUG_80 AAV4/TUG_50 AAV4_TUG_80 ES16/TUG_50 ES16/TUG_80 ES14/TUG_50 ES14/TUG_80 Trailer-Tyre-Speed combination

7 Dias nummer 6 JM3 ANB9 conclusie: enveloping verbetert correlatie mpd en rrc, meer dan lma en lme (vreemd dat metextuur beter correleert dan macrotextuur? Maeck Johan; klopt; ook geen verklaring voor ik denk dat ze gewoon op die MPD gesprongen zijn omdat die al gemeten wordt en dus meteen gebruikt kan worden; LME lijkt een beetje vergeten geweest sindsdien Bergiers Anneleen;

8 2. Sota RRC vs MPD RRC = a * MPD + b Source Year Value found for slope a BRRC, Belgium ,0021 New Zealand ,0022 TUG, Poland (drum) ,0021 SILENCE ,0020 NordTex ,0018 VTI, Sweden (coast down) ,0017 MIRIAM (without enveloping) ,0017 Minnesota (problem texture?) ,0004-0,0009 The Netherlands (porous surfaces) ,

9 2. Sota RRC vs unevenness Roughness resistance(n) IRI 50 km/h 90 km/h (Hammarström et al., 2008) 8

10 3. Trailer-based RR method Angle based e.g. trailers BRRC, TUG Significant influence on small angle Slope road Angle towing verhicle (fuel & passenger load) Acceleration Air drag 9

11 3. Trailer-based RR method Force based e.g. trailers BRRC (new), BASt Parasitic influence of: Friction losses Offset force transducers Acceleration Slope of road Air drag 10

12 4. Round robin test (RRT):Test location 11

13 4. RRT: Test location MPD sections from 0,1 to 4 12

14 4. RRT: Participants RR (trailer): Angle measurement: BRRC, TUG Force measurement: BRRC, BASt, COLAS Texture and unevenness: Road Surface Tester (RST): VTI Dynamical laser profilometer: BRRC, TUG Alternatieve RR methods: Coast down: VTI Energy consumption: VTI 13

15 4. RRT: Angle based trailer BRRC 14

16 RRC [%] 1,7 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 4. RRT: Repeatability BRRC C d 1 1 2d 5 3 C RRC [%] 1,7 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 C d 3 1 2d 6 4 C RRC [%] On average: One day 1,5 % Diff. Days 3,3 % 1,7 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 A d 2 1 2d 6 2 A day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 50 km/h 80 km/h 50 km/h 80 km/h 50 km/h 80 km/h RRC with t corr [%] 1,7 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 C d 2 2 2d 7 6 C RRC with t corr [%] 1,7 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 C d 2 2 2d 9 8 C RRC with t corr [%] 1,7 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 A A 1d 2 2 2d day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 day 1 day 2 50 km/h 80 km/h 50 km/h 80 km/h 50 km/h 80 km/h 15

17 4. RRT: RR BRRC Texture 1,6 1,4 RRC [%] with temp.corr. 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 y = 0,1211x + 0,9251 R² = 0,9353 0,4 0, MPD BRRC AAV4, 50 km/h Temperature range 15,9 20,5 C Formula temperature correction F r,25 = F r [1 + K t (t amb 25)] AAV4 Kt = 0,010 SRTT Kt = 0,015 16

18 4. RRT: Force based trailer prototype BRRC SRTT as well as AAV4 tyre, 400 kg vertical mass, no wind shield A left out analysis, too short 1,8 1,6 1,4 ARW2/AAV4 with t corr arw2/aav4 without t corr arw2/srtt with t corr arw2/srtt without t corr RRC [%] 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 C1 C2 A A N E1 E2 M2 L1 L2 M1 F 17

19 4. RRT: Comparison with results MIRIAM RRT ,026 BASt_50 ARW1b_50 BASt_80 ARW1b_80 C r 0,024 0,022 0,02 0,018 0,016 0,014 0,012 0,01 0,008 0,006 0,004 0,002 0 M1 F L1 L2 E1 E2 M2 A C A' N Test sections 18

20 4. RRT: Comparison with results MIRIAM RRT km/h y = 0,7589x + 0, km/h y = 0,1049x + 0,0096 R² = 0,7733 R² = 0,0576 0,015 0,015 0,013 0,013 AAV4/ARW1 0,011 0,009 AAV4/ARW1 0,011 0,009 0,007 0,007 0,005 0,01 0,012 0,014 0,016 0,018 0,02 0,005 0,01 0,012 0,014 0,016 0,018 0,02 AAV4/BASt_BASt AAV4/BASt_BASt 19

21 4. RRT: Comparison with results MIRIAM RRT 2011 C r 0,026 0,024 0,022 0,02 0,018 0,016 0,014 0,012 0,01 0,008 0,006 0,004 0,002 0 ARW1b_50 TUG_50 ARW1b_80 TUG_80 M1 F L1 L2 E1 E2 M2 A C A' N Test sections 20

22 4. RRT: Comparison with results MIRIAM RRT km/h y = 0,9576x - 0,0043 y = 0,4295x + 0,0046 R² = 0, km/h R² = 0,5151 0,015 0,015 0,013 0,013 AAV4/ARW1b 0,011 0,009 AAV4/ARW1b 0,011 0,009 0,007 0,007 0,005 0,01 0,012 0,014 0,016 0,018 0,02 0,005 0,01 0,012 0,014 0,016 0,018 0,02 AAV4/TUG_TUG AAV4/TUG_TUG 21

23 5. Draft standard preparation Draft standard for harmonized, consistent and practical measurement of rolling resistance properties of road surfaces based on trailer measurements Stepwise approach: D3.1 Sota on RR measurement devices incl. draft standard outline D3.5: Draft standard for a trailer-based RR measurement method including robust calibration procedures RRT to validate D3.5 D3.6: Experimental validation of the RR measurement method including updated draft standard 22

24 5. Draft standard preparation Reference tyres: representative for passenger cars and trucks e.g. SRTT (P1) and AAV4 (H1), for electrical vehicles, Wheel dimensions for various reference tyres e.g. 6.5J x 16 for P1 Reference speeds: 80, 50 and 30 km/h Tyre load: e.g. 4 kn for P1 and H1 Tyre inflation: e.g. 210 kpa for P1 and H1 23

25 5. Draft standard preparation Test procedure Tyre condition check Inflation pressure adjustment Warm up Minimum number of runs for very short road sections Lateral/longitudinal position on the road Temperature measurement Data interpretations and analysis Certification of test equipment Calibration procedures 24

26 Acknowledgements F. Anfosso-Lédée (IFSTTAR) J. Ejsmont (TUG) L. Goubert (BRRC) R. Karlsson (VTI) U. Sandberg (VTI) M. Zöller (BASt) 25

27 26