New Generation Single Tires

A review of the facts

Presented by Ralph Beaveridge of Michelin North America (Canada) Inc

R Beaveridge Page 1 Nov 30th

Agenda
Introd!ction New vers!s old Pavement
HMA Subgrade

Real world d!als Real world val!e "ingles can save the world #$!ality for New %eneration single tires
Page 2

Introduction

&ransportation Responsibility 'ive years (nited with ind!stry Michelin) father) Canadian

Page 3

Apples versus watermelons

425/65R22.5 XZY

445/50R22.5 X One XDA

Page 4

New technology to limit tread deformation

*"'' +idth ,tee' -rote(tion

ni!"e #n$ini%&oi'TM te(hno'og).

mile of continuous steel cable to help eliminate casing growth
Page 5

Even distribution of contact stress

Page 6

Contact Stress!,-a$ 1006.00 106.00 206.00 306.00 406.00 506.00 606.00 706.00 806.00 906.00

6.00

Page .

766.50

Dua Drive !275"80#22.5$

748.85

Steer !275"80#22.5$

777.03

%e& 'eneration (i)e*ase !445"50#22.5$

Avg Contact Stress Per Tire Size

Tire Di+ension

765.64

%e& 'eneration (i)e*ase !455"55#22.5$ Conventiona (i)e*ase !385"65#22.5$

947.96

Conventiona (i)e*ase !445"65#22.5$

898.73

Pavement

&here have been two pavement arg!ments* +singles are to!gher on o!r wea,er Canadian pavements-wea,er meaning thinner .MA layer/ +we are not so concerned with the .MA layer as the s!bgrade It is the destr!ction of the s!b layer by single tires that concerns !s/

Page /

Pavementfacts
'act* Initial 0irginia &ech (0&) st!dy loo,ed at strong pavements and applied (" loads 1 23)333 %04 5 (" directed test on pavement impact of tires 5 Clearly showed no impact of single vers!s d!al config!rations on .MA or s!bgrade with (" loads (p to 6)633,g7a8le singles have no impact

Page 0

Pavementfacts
'act* Provincial governments are faced with shrin,ing monies for road maintenance and greater p!blic and ind!stry fr!stration with a National .ighway "ystem in generally poor condition 5 A prod!ct with negative impact on pavement life needs to be avoided 5 Prod!cts that have a positive or ne!tral effect on pavements m!st be considered on other merits
Page 10

Pavementfacts
'act* 9aval (niversity st!dy commissioned by the M&: to e8amine pavement impact of new generation singles is the basis of the M&: report 5 Canadian loads) wea,er pavement 5 .MA 1 ;s!mmer < =ne slightly positive) spring < =ne slightly negative> 5 Regarding the s!bgrade 1 margin of error too large to !se meas!rements

Page 11

Pavementfacts
'act* &ire contact stress is not evenly distrib!ted across the contact patch 5 Research based on this ass!mption is flawed 'act* &he tire contact patch is neither ro!nd nor spherical for all tires 5 Research !sing this ass!mption has ignored an important advancement in tire design
Page 12

Pavementfacts
'act* Most single tire impact st!dies have loo,ed at traditional single tires (apples and watermelons) 5 Attrib!ting those res!lts to new generation singles in inacc!rate and !nfair 'act* &he M&= st!dy by ? Ponniah is a theoretical st!dy 5 ?oseph clearly indicated he wo!ld defer to any valid physical tests
Page 13

Pavementfacts
'act* 4hen addressing the iss!e of s!bgrade impact) both 0& and C="& Action clearly stated that impact of wide base tires on lower layers incl!ding s!bgrade) is e$!ivalent to d!al tire config!rations beca!se they carry the same load and distrib!te it over the same area at greater depths 5 "ingle tires have no negative impact at the s!bgrade

Page 14

Pavementfacts
'act* 9aval (niversity indicated that impact meas!rements at the s!bgrade were so small as to be virt!ally none8istent B!t concl!ded that there was no difference between d!als and singles at that level 5 "ingle tires have no negative impact at the s!bgrade

Page 15

Pavementfacts

'act* 0&) 9aval confirm that .MA impact is virt!ally identical un)er test con)itions

5 &he real world has another dimension 4hat part of the tire s!pports @AB of the load and what s!pports @CABD

Page 16

eal world dualsfacts

'act* &he &ransportation Research Board (&RB) p!blished a st!dy on real world tire press!re conditions 5 6EB of d!als are within E3B of each other 5 FCB of the general pop!lation of d!als in the real world are more than E3B apart in psi 5 EAB of the pop!lation is off by more than F3B
Page 1.

!hances are your fleet is under pressure"

$!ommercial %ehicle Tire !ondition Sensors$ &'!SA(PS%()*())+, &ederal 'otor !arrier Safety Administration, -ecember +)).
Kreeb, R., Nico sia, B ., Fisher, P ., " Co mmercial Vehicle Tire Co nditio n Senso rs" FM CSA P SV- !- ", Federal M o teo r Carrier Sa#et$ A dministratio n, %ecember " &

T # Survey

Di,tri1"tion o$ A'' 2ire, 3"rve)ed

30 8.07

71%
0 17.! 7 o$ 2ire, 16.09 1!

29% 15%

11.1! 10 9.1

!. ! ! .9 0.64 0 "!0 "4! "40 "3! "30 " ! " 0 "1! "10 "! 0 ! 10 1! 0 Pre,,"re Di$$eren(e $ro4 2arget 5-,i6 0.18 0.36 0.49 1.03 1.47 3.16 1.73 0.!3 0. 3 0.07 0.03 ! 30 3! 40 0 4! 0 !0 0 More

Page 1/

eal world dualsfacts

'act* EGB of d!als on the road today are impacting the pavement as E F to E H tires EAB of d!als on the road are impacting the pavement as E to E F tires 5 E33B of single tires have one air press!re 5 eliminating mismatched d!al press!res will have a large positive impact on pavement damage on the order of EA to F3B
Page 10

Pavement / the real world

(nder test conditions* .MA 1 singles present slight positive in s!mmer) slight negative in spring thaw "!bgrade 1 singles are ne!tral as strain is distrib!ted over the same area (nder real world conditions FCB of mismatched d!als create far more negative impact than single tires
Page 20

The 0u1bec e2ample

'act* :!ebec has estimated IG3M as the ann!al increase in road maintenance costs if new generation single tires replaced E33B of the d!al pop!lation 5 &his does not consider the mismatched d!als dimension 5 #liminating E33B of mismatched d!als wo!ld save the province of :!Jbec several times IG3M

Page 21

eal world value

+4e have a responsibility to ens!re the tr!c,ing ind!stry has an opport!nity to deliver its service in the most efficient effective and socially responsible manner/

R Beaveridge Page 22 Nov 30th

&uel Efficiency" 3here does fuel go4

#t 100 $m%h&
aerod)na4i( drag 4e(hani(a' 'o,,e, ro''ing re,i,tan(e

#ero'(namic 'rag consumes appro)imatel( 40* of the fuel. Mechanical losses +engine, 'ri-e train etc.. consume appro)imatel( !* of the fuel. /olling resistance of tires accounts for appro)imatel( 3!* of the fuel consume'.

Page 23

-o tires ma5e a difference in your fuel consumption4

160 140
Ro''ing Re,i,tan(e #nde8

120 100 /0 60 40 20 0 XZA%19 X2%1 XZ: XDA XDA3 XDA%;2 X One X One :nerg) X2A XDA

Re4e41er< 357 o$ )o"r $"e' i, (on,"4ed 1) tire,

Page 24

A(t"a' 2ire Ro''ing Re,i,tan(e Range, % &'a,, /

0ew tires /ecap tires 1 .00 2ire RRt 5=g / 1000 =g6 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 .00 0.00
#ct.
Page 25

%227 RR (o4-are %227 to 1e,t in ('a,, R.R.

#ct. #ct.

bic
Xone

bic
Xone

#ct.

Xone

bic

3teer
000 a-g.

Drive
bic
1best in class1

2rai'er
Xone
0ew 2i'e"base

3eight Efficiency" 6ow much weight will single tires save on a tractor4
X One D"a' Di$$eren(e 445/50R22.5 2.5//0R22.5 XDA 5'16 XDA2 2ire >hee' 2ota' 1.6 .0 246
X One 455/55R22.5 XDA%;2 5'16 2ire >hee' 2ota'
Page 26

#luminum to aluminum wheel comparison

240 100 350

D"a' 11R22.5 XDA%;2 2.0 100 3/0

.3 30

103
Di$$eren(e

101 .0 261

.0 30

109

7n a trailer4
X One D"a' Di$$eren(e 445/50R22.5 2.5//0R22.5 X2A 5'16 X2%1 2ire >hee' 2ota' 156 .0 226 216 100 316 60 30
#luminum to aluminum wheel comparison

90
Di$$eren(e

X One 455/55R22.5 X2: 5'16 2ire >hee' 2ota'

Page 2.

D"a' 11R22.5 X2: 222 100 322

1.5 .0 245

4. 30

77

&or a tandem8tandem set(up

>eight 3aving &a'("'ator
Tire Tire weight 2heel 2heel weight 7t( per -ehicle Total weight Tire Tire weight 2heel 2heel weight 7t( per -ehicle Total weight

D"a',
7!%80/ .! 34#"5T 1 6. lbs 8. !3 .! #luminum !0.0 lbs 8 1409.6 lbs 7!%80/ .! 389 117.9 lbs 8. !3 .! #luminum !0.0 lbs 8 1343. lbs 7! .8 lbs 44!%!0/ .! 3 6ne 34#"5T 17!.9 lbs 14.003 .! #luminum 70.0 lbs 4 983.6 lbs 44!%!0/ .! 3 6ne 3T9 1!9.4 lbs 14.003 .! #luminum 70.0 lbs 4 917.6 lbs 1901. lbs

2ota' >eight 3aving

Page 2/

2rai'er

Drive

/51.6 '1,

'aintenance Efficiency" 6ow can singles reduce maintenance costs4

Press!re chec,s Mismatched press!res =ne tire to mo!nt No hidden d!al

Page 20

3ill single tires reduce your flats4

4here do flats occ!rD

&railer (AGB) Krive (GLB) "teer (LB)

Why? Air pressure maintenance!!!

6ne -al-e stem 6utsi'e : easil( accessible 0o ;camouflage< from insi'e 'ual

Page 30

!omfort Safety" 9* -7& 'odel

Note: Beaming DOFs not sho n
Cab
zc ks cs
c

zs

Seat w/ Driver

Tractor

Engine ! "on#t get e$cite" %& engineer#s "ra ings' %(t Trailer w/ Load z it gi)es &o( an i"ea of the "e*th of the research
e

kcf

ccf ke

kcr zT
T

ccr

zTLR

TLR

k1

k3 c2 kt3 ct2 zr2 c3 zt3 zt4

k4

k5 c4 c5 zt5

Axles
kt1

c1

zt1

zt2

k2 kt2

ct1 zr1

kt4 ct3 zr3

kt5 ct4 zr4

ct5 zr5

Page 31

-ual vs: 3ide(#ase Tires

X%One Drive and 2rai'er 2ire, ? 34ooth ;igh+a) @ 65 4-h 5-er A8'e Aoad,6
+$,e -teer7 1st Tractor Dri)e 2n" Tractor Dri)e 1st Trai,er 2 Trai,er
n"

-tatic +$,e Loa" .N/ 448434e9884 343841e9884 542322e9884 343146e9884 ;43566e9884

0ro%a%i,it& 1 23435 D&n4 Loa" Range .N/ : 44;821e9883 : 548463e9883 : 541526e9883 : 54482;e9883 : 543;83e9883

0ro%a%i,it& 1 654455 D&n4 Loa" Range .N/ : 644122e9883 : 148188e9884 : 148314e9884 : 148313e9884 : 148;41e9884

3tandard D"a' Drive and 2rai'er 2ire, ? 34ooth ;igh+a) @ 65 4-h 5-er A8'e Aoad,6
+$,e -teer7 1st Tractor Dri)e 2n" Tractor Dri)e 1st Trai,er 2n" Trai,er -tatic +$,e Loa" .N/ 448434e9884 344841e9884 54;322e9884 343126e9884 ;43216e9884 0ro%a%i,it& 1 23435 D&n4 Loa" Range .N/ : 44;884e9883 : ;42535e9883 : ;44235e9883 : 243568e9883 : 24;8;1e9883 0ro%a%i,it& 1 654455 D&n4 Loa" Range .N/ : 644886e9883 : 14451;e9884 : 14463;e9884 : 143;13e9884 : 143414e9884

Average Dynamic Axle Load Range Reduction with Wide 25.6% Base Tires

= >teer #)le tires are 38#

7!%80/

.! for both cases

Page 32

Summary of esults
Average dynamic a8le load range red!ction with wide base tires M FA HB (i)e .ase tires re)uce vertica an) ongitu)ina r+s acce erations o/ )river .0 a.out 381 at &2ee 32o- /re4uencies !511 6z$

A perspective chec5"
"teel frame to leafNspring 1 EA to F3B 9eafNspring to airNride F3 to FAB Add the < =ne and the improvement is h!ge

Comfortable and alert

Page 33

Stability Safety" 3hat factors impact vehicl stability4

?ehicle stabilit( is a function of its trac$ an' the height of its center of gra-it(
Center of Gravity

Overa'' >idth O$$,et 2ra(=

Page 34

6ow do new single tires affect trac5 width4

.1.5B 0B o$$,et

05.6B .4.6B 2B o$$,et

01.0B

Page 35

Rollover Threshold
Ro''over 2hre,ho'd 5g6

Ro''over 2hre,ho'd +ith 2ire 3iCe

0.42 0.40 0.3/ 0.36 0.34 0.32

Page 36

4 2 5 /6 5 R 2 2 .5 4 4 5 /6 5 /R 2 2 .5 4 4 5 /5 0 R 2 2 .5

2 . 5 // 0 R 2 2 .5

3 / 5 /6 5 R 2 2 .5

A;uaplaning Safety

60)ro- aning 2a--ens &it2 0 oa) severa ti+es t2e /orce re4uire) /or 7 8nes

Page 3.

3hat New Generation Single Tires -eliver

Improved efficiency

Minimum 4% on fuel Weight savings ~ 200 lbs/axle Maintenan e

Improved safety

Alertness Stabilit! A"ua tra tion

Page 3/

'a5e the world a better place4

"ome n!mbers 5 E2 billion 5 H 2 billion 5 GB

2#$ million 4%&%00 'gs %40 'gs

Page 30

E;uality for New Generation single tires

'acts*

=verall new generation singles are Impact positive at the .MA for s!mmer impact conditionspositive and they will help !s save the world Impact negative at the .MA for spring thaw
conditions Impact positive for all conditions d!e to matched press!res

Impact ne!tral at the s!bgrade

Page 40

!hallenge
'act* =ld generation singles have a h!ge negative impact 'act* If f!ll e$!ality is given single tires there is a li,elihood of old generation single tires being !sed 5 &raditional single tires are more comple8 to install on e8isting vehicles and do not deliver the same advantages as the new generation singles 5 Ko we need to differentiateD
Page 41

Contact Stress!,-a$ 1006.00 106.00 206.00 306.00 406.00 506.00 606.00

3et the 1ar 906.00 806.00 and 4ar= 706.00 the tire,

6.00

Page 42

766.50

Dua Drive !275"80#22.5$

748.85

Steer !275"80#22.5$

777.03

%e& 'eneration (i)e*ase !445"50#22.5$

Avg Contact Stress Per Tire Size

Tire Di+ension

765.64

%e& 'eneration (i)e*ase !455"55#22.5$ Conventiona (i)e*ase !385"65#22.5$

947.96

Conventiona (i)e*ase !445"65#22.5$

898.73

New generation single tires