This is a National Stage of International Application No. PCT/IB2012/052717, filed May 30, 2012, claiming priority from Italian Patent Application No. TO2011A000471, filed May 30, 2011, the contents of all of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
The present invention relates to a method of determining the longitudinal pitch of tread band blocks.
Reducing tyre rolling noise is now an important design issue to conform with stricter future tyre approval standards, which are expected to demand a reduction in maximum rolling noise emissions.
The present invention in particular is aimed at reducing pass-by noise produced by the tread band blocks cyclically impacting the pavement.
Patent Application US2004093106A1 describes a tread band with a raised pattern comprising a number of longitudinal and transverse grooves defining a number of blocks with a given longitudinal pitch, which varies along the tread band as a whole to achieve a given rolling noise emission.
Patent Application US2003040886A1 describes a method of analyzing the tire pitch sequence based on the lug stiffness variations.
Patent Applications WO2010032736A1 and WO2010032737A1 describes a method of designing a tire comprising: determining a resonance frequency based on the ground contact length, determining the number of pitches of a block row, and determining the phase of the block row.
It is an object of the present invention to provide a method of determining the longitudinal pitch of tread band blocks, designed to reduce pass-by noise and which at the same time is cheap and easy to implement.
According to the present invention, there is provided a method of determining the longitudinal pitch of tread band blocks, as claimed in the accompanying Claims.
A non-limiting embodiment of the present invention will be described by way of example with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
Number 1 in
As shown in
For the sake of simplicity, the
1. fluctuations in pressure produced by the leading edge 12 of block 11 impacting the pavement, and which produce noise N1;
2. fluctuations in pressure produced by resonance of the air inside longitudinal grooves 9 defining block 11, and which produce noise N2;
3. fluctuations in pressure produced by the trailing edge 13 of block 11 impacting the pavement, and which produce noise N3.
It is important to note that noises N1, N2 and N3 are offset in time, i.e. start at different times: as shown in
Tests show that noises N2 and N3 may overlap in time (i.e. noise N3 may start while noise N2 is still significantly present). This overlap may result in constructive interference, i.e. the intensity of one of noises N2, N3 is added to that of the other, or in destructive interference, i.e. the intensity of one of noises N2, N3 is subtracted from that of the other. The total transit time T of block 11 is calculated using the following equation [1]:
T=P/V [1]
The longitudinal pitch P of block 11 being constant, adjusting the linear speed V of tyre 1 obviously alters the total transit time T of block 11 and therefore the timing of noises N2 and N3. In other words, at certain linear speeds V of tyre 1, the interference between noises N2 and N3 is totally constructive, so pass-by noise (equal to the sum of noises N1, N2 and N3) is maximum (i.e. has local maximums), whereas, at other linear speeds V of tyre 1, the interference between noises N2 and N3 is totally destructive, so pass-by noise (equal to the sum of noises N1, N2 and N3) is minimum (i.e. has local minimums).
Equation [2] below has been determined experimentally to determine when (i.e. at which speeds V of tyre 1) the local pass-by noise minimums occur (i.e. when the interference between noises N2 and N3 is totally destructive):
More specifically, local pass-by noise minimums occur when the above equation [2] applies, i.e. when the ratio between the resonance frequency fp of longitudinal grooves 9 and sequence frequency fs equals 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 . . . . Inserting the above equation [3], defining sequence frequency fs, into equation [2] gives equation [4] below, which applies when local pass-by noise minimums occur:
Resonance frequency fp of longitudinal grooves 9 is normally calculated using test-determined equations, such as equation [5] below:
For example, resonance frequency fp of longitudinal grooves 9 is roughly 800-1000 Hz in an average-size car tyre 1, and roughly 500-700 Hz in an average-size TBR tyre 1.
Equation [5] above is obviously only one example of a test-determined equation by which to calculate resonance frequency fp of longitudinal grooves 9. Others are proposed in literature, and may be substituted for equation [5], such as the following equation [6]:
The above equation [4] may therefore be used to determine the best longitudinal pitch Pb of blocks 11 of tyre 1 to minimize pass-by noise at (i.e. when tyre 1 travels at) a target linear speed Vd.
Tests show that, to minimize pass-by noise at a target linear speed Vd, the best longitudinal pitch Pb of blocks 11 of a car tyre 1 is best calculated using equation [4] with a minimum constant k value (i.e. of one). For example, a typical average-size car tyre 1 has a longitudinal pitch P of blocks 11 of 18-25 mm, whereas, for the same tyre, the best longitudinal pitch Pb of blocks 11 to minimize pass-by noise at a target speed Vd of 80 km/h is 28-45 mm, i.e. much longer than the longitudinal pitch P of blocks 11 of a standard tyre 1.
Once the best longitudinal pitch Pb of blocks 11 of tyre 1 is determined using equation [4], tyre 1 can be constructed in two ways : with a constant longitudinal pitch blocks 11 all have the same longitudinal pitch P equal to best longitudinal pitch Pb), or with a variable longitudinal pitch (i.e. blocks 11 have different longitudinal pitches P concentrated about best longitudinal pitch Pb).
A constant longitudinal pitch (i.e. the same longitudinal pitch P, equal to best longitudinal pitch Pb, for all of blocks 11) has the advantage of very low (minimum possible) pass-by noise at target speed Vd, but the drawback of pass-by noise increasing significantly at other than target speed Vd. A constant longitudinal pitch of blocks 11 is normally used on TBR (Truck Bus Radial) tyres used on vehicles typically operated for long periods at the same cruising speed (i.e. long-haul trucks and buses used on motorways, and which therefore practically always travel at the maximum speed limit). In this case, tyre 1 may be built to minimize pass-by noise at a target speed Vd equal to the maximum motorway speed limit of the vehicle for which it is designed. (Admittedly, tyre 1 is proportionally noisier at lower speeds, but the overall noise level at low speed is low anyway).
A variable longitudinal pitch of blocks 11 (i.e. different longitudinal pitches P concentrated about best longitudinal pitch Pb) obviously has the drawback of failing to reduce pass-by noise as much as possible at target speed Vd, but on the other hand has the advantage of also reducing pass-by noise at other than target speed Vd. In other words, compared with the same tyre 1 with a constant longitudinal pitch, a variable longitudinal pitch tyre sacrifices part of the reduction in pass-by noise at target speed Vd in favour of reducing pass-by noise at other than target speed Vd. A variable longitudinal pitch of blocks 11 is normally used on passenger car tyres, i.e. given the wide speed range (at least up to 130 km/h) and, above all, the widely varying speeds at which passenger cars are normally operated, it is extremely difficult to select one specific target speed Vd to favour over others (unlike long-haul trucks and tourist buses operated on motorways).
Variable longitudinal pitch blocks 11 have different longitudinal pitches P concentrated about best longitudinal pitch Pb, i.e. within longitudinal pitches P as a whole, best longitudinal pitch Pb predominates. For example, longitudinal pitches P as a whole may form a Gaussian curve centred about best longitudinal pitch Pb or, in the event of a very long best longitudinal pitch Pb, an asymmetric Gaussian curve unbalanced strongly on the side of longitudinal pitches P smaller than best longitudinal pitch Pb (which represents the predominant value).
One particular asymmetric Gaussian curve is in the form of a half Gaussian curve with an upper (maximum) limit at best longitudinal pitch Pb (i.e. best longitudinal pitch Pb constitutes the predominant and maximum value within longitudinal pitches P as a whole). In other words, a very long longitudinal pitch P of blocks 11 may pose other than noise-related problems (such as water purging problems), so the longitudinal pitch P of blocks 11 is preferably kept within best longitudinal pitch Pb. In a preferred variable-pitch embodiment, best longitudinal pitch Pb constitutes at least 40-60% of the longitudinal pitches P of tyre 1 (i.e. 40-60% of the longitudinal pitches P equal best longitudinal pitch Pb, and 60-40% are other than best longitudinal pitch Pb).
In a preferred variable-pitch embodiment, a minimum longitudinal pitch Pmin and maximum longitudinal pitch Pmax defining a longitudinal pitch P range may be determined as a function of a minimum speed Vmin and maximum speed Vmax defining a speed range in which to reduce pass-by noise and obviously containing target speed Vd.
In a first embodiment employing equations identical to equation [4], minimum longitudinal pitch Pmin and maximum longitudinal pitch Pmax are determined using the following equations [7] and [8]:
In an alternative embodiment employing equations other than (but obviously derived from) equation [4], minimum longitudinal pitch Pmin and maximum longitudinal pitch Pmax are determined using the following equations [9] and [10]:
For example, with a target speed Vd of 80 km/h, maximum speed Vmax may be 90 km/h, and minimum speed Vmin 70 km/h. The speed range between minimum speed Vmin and maximum speed Vmax must obviously not be so wide that the longitudinal pitch P range is wide enough to also include significant positive interference between noises N2 and N3.
Determining minimum longitudinal pitch Pmin and maximum longitudinal pitch Pmax using equations [7] and [8] ensures the absence of positive interference between noises N2 and N3 (obviously, providing the speed range between minimum speed Vmin and maximum speed Vmax is not too wide), and the pitch range between minimum longitudinal pitch Pmin and maximum longitudinal pitch Pmax is therefore narrower. Conversely, when determining minimum longitudinal pitch Pmin and maximum longitudinal pitch Pmax using equations [9] and [10], a limited amount of positive interference between noises N2 and N3 is allowed (obviously, providing the speed range between minimum speed Vmin and maximum speed Vmax is not too wide), and the pitch range between minimum longitudinal pitch Pmin and maximum longitudinal pitch Pmax is therefore wider.
For example, in the case of an average-size car tyre 1 with a 900 Hz resonance frequency fp of longitudinal grooves 9, and a target speed Vd of 80 km/h, the best longitudinal pitch Pb is 37 mm (using a constant k of one, i.e. minimum value). In the case of a maximum speed Vmax of 90 km/h and minimum speed Vmin of 70 km/h, minimum longitudinal pitch Pmin and maximum longitudinal pitch Pmax are respectively 32 mm and 42 mm using equations [7] and [8], and respectively 27 mm and mm using equations [9] and [10]. As stated, an excessively long longitudinal pitch P of blocks 11 can be avoided using more longitudinal pitches P shorter than best longitudinal pitch Pb than longitudinal pitches P longer than best longitudinal pitch Pb.
For example, in the case of an average-size TBR tyre 1 with a 600 Hz resonance frequency fp of longitudinal grooves 9, and a target speed Vd of 70 km/h, the best longitudinal pitch Pb is 48 mm (using a constant k of one, i.e. minimum value) or 81 mm (using a constant k of two). In the case of a maximum speed Vmax of 80 km/h and minimum speed Vmin of 60 km/h, minimum longitudinal pitch Pmin and maximum longitudinal pitch Pmax are respectively 41 mm and 55 mm using equations [7] and [8] (and a constant k of one, i.e. minimum value), and respectively 37 mm and 55 mm using equations [9] and [10] (and a constant k of one, i.e. minimum value).
The method described of determining the longitudinal pitch P of blocks 11 of tread band 4 has numerous advantages. It provides for sizing the longitudinal pitch P of blocks 11 to achieve a significant reduction in pass-by noise at (or, rather, about) a given target speed Vd, and, what is more, with no negative side effects whatsoever (provided the lowest longitudinal pitch P values of blocks 11 supplied by the method are use, if necessary).
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
TO2011A0471 | May 2011 | IT | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/IB2012/052717 | 5/30/2012 | WO | 00 | 2/11/2014 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2012/164505 | 12/6/2012 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5301727 | Inoue | Apr 1994 | A |
5371685 | Bandel et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5951607 | Senn | Sep 1999 | A |
5964266 | Boiocchi | Oct 1999 | A |
6311748 | Boiocchi | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6539788 | Mancosu | Apr 2003 | B1 |
7006930 | Stuckey | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7163039 | Boiocchi | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7434606 | Miyabe | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7769567 | Stuckey | Aug 2010 | B2 |
8622104 | Matrascia | Jan 2014 | B2 |
9205706 | Kline | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9327558 | Stuckey | May 2016 | B2 |
20020005238 | Boiocchi | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020139460 | Boiocchi | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030040886 | Stuckey | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20040093106 | Stuckey | May 2004 | A1 |
20060137791 | Miyabe | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20070017619 | Yukawa | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070078633 | Sundkvist et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20080196806 | Matrascia | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20100132864 | Colombo | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20110208488 | Sakuraba | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110296921 | Sakuraba | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120318420 | Sawai | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130112326 | Mellara | May 2013 | A1 |
20140090760 | Matrascia | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20150183273 | Colombo | Jul 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
4363234 | Dec 1992 | JP |
200762731 | Mar 2007 | JP |
2010032736 | Mar 2010 | WO |
2010032737 | Mar 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Communication dated Jan. 19, 2016, issued by the Japan Patent Office in corresponding Japanese Application No. 2014-513297. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140149071 A1 | May 2014 | US |