Construction and Building Materials 204 (2019) 105–112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Evolution of coefficient of friction between tire and pavement under wet

conditions using surface free energy technique
Dharamveer Singh a,⇑, Harsh Patel a, Ayyanna Habal a, Aditya Kumar Das a, Bharat P. Kapgate b,
Kasilingam Rajkumar b
a
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay 400076, India
b
Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association, Thane, Mumbai 400604, India

h i g h l i g h t s

Development of semi-empirical correlation to predict actual CoF from theoretical CoF.

Wet adhesion was found to be highest contributor to the total theoretical CoF.

Dry adhesion of tire-basalt had least impact on the total theoretical CoF.

Hardness of rubber showed a good correlation with the actual CoF.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The interaction between tire rubber and pavement surface depends upon their surface characteristics and
Received 11 July 2018 physical properties. Presence of water on the pavement surface aggravates the interaction and decreases
Received in revised form 5 November 2018 the skid resistance drastically. Due to the interfacial water, the real contact area between pavement and
Accepted 18 January 2019
tire decreases, which leads to decreased Coefficient of Friction (CoF). It is reported that CoF in this tripha-
sic system (tire- water – pavement) can be derived from three components: hysterical, dry adhesion (tire-
pavement) and wet adhesion (tire- water – pavement). The present study analyses a mechanistic-
Keywords:
empirical model to evaluate the CoF between pavement and tire in wet conditions considering Surface
Tire rubber
Skid resistance
Free Energy (SFE) characteristics of materials. The present study was conducted on five distinct types
Surface free energy of rubber samples prevalent in Indian condition with basalt rock chosen as the surface mimicking pave-
Hysteresis ment. Physical properties of the rubber samples (Hardness, material yield strength and tan delta values)
Tribology were determined according to the ASTM standards. SFE parameters were calculated by measuring the
Coefficient of friction contact angles using Sessile drop method. Surface roughness of basalt aggregate was measured using a
Zeta Profilometer. Actual friction coefficient was measured using British pendulum (BP) tester under
wet conditions. Further, theoretical CoF was calculated by inputting the experimental material properties
into mathematical model. The results showed that the wet adhesive friction was the main contributor to
the theoretical CoF, whereas dry adhesive friction was the least. Also, the correlation between actual CoF
and the material properties was tried. The actual CoF showed fairly good correlation with the hardness of
the rubber samples (R2 = 0.95). The study concludes that the SFE based model to determine friction coef-
ficient between wet pavement and road shows potential to ascertain the frictional interactions taking
place between the two surfaces.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of friction (CoF), defined as the ratio of the friction force parallel to
the surface of contact between two bodies and opposite to their
Friction between tire and pavement ensures stability and espe- motion, and the normal force perpendicular to surface of contact.
cially safety of a vehicle. Friction is evaluated in terms of coefficient In the context of highway, the surface of contact is the pave-
ment–tire interface, and the normal force is the wheel load [1].
Friction arising between the tire and pavement surface is reported
⇑ Corresponding author. to be dependent on many factors such as road surface, tire, weather
E-mail addresses: dvsingh@civil.iitb.ac.in (D. Singh), bk@irmra.org conditions, vehicle speed, wheel slip and the drift angle. Sabey
(B.P. Kapgate), rk@irmra.org (K. Rajkumar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.122
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
106 D. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 204 (2019) 105–112
et al. [2] reported that viscoelastic properties of the tread material
(i.e. tire rubber) plays a great role in improving the CoF in wet con-
ditions. According to Bowden and Tabor [3], the friction force aris-
ing during the interaction between two surfaces (i.e., pavement–
tire interface) slipping on each other is attributed to two main fac-
tors, adhesion and deformation.
Adhesion between tire and pavement surface changes in pres-
ence of water, thereby affecting the overall CoF. Moreover, the con-
cept of adhesion and related CoF can be well understood by
considering the whole system as a three phase system of tire-
water-pavement. Fig. 1 illustrates the interactions between the
three phases (tire, water and pavement). Effectively as two free
surfaces (tire-pavement) meet each other in the presence of water,
it is imperative to study both adhesive and cohesive phenomena
occurring in the triphasic medium of tire-water-road. Surface free
energy (SFE) of the individual surfaces is an important factor in
determining the extent of adhesion and cohesion occurring at the
interface. Mazzola et al. [4] discussed a mechanistic empirical
model to predict the CoF in wet conditions encompassing the sur-
face free energy characteristics of materials. The theoretical CoF
predicted by this model consists of three components: hysterical
(internal friction arising due to deformation of tire), dry adhesive
(friction arising due to direct contact of road asperities and tire)
and wet adhesive (friction generated in the presence of water
between tire and road). Hysterical CoF (lHyst ) depends purely upon
the physical characteristics of tire rubber. Dry adhesive CoF (ldry
adh )
is mainly attributed to surface free energies of interacting free
Fig. 1. Representation of triphasic system [tire (phase 1) –water (phase 2) – pavement (phase 3)].
surfaces (tire and road) and surface profile of the harder substrate
over which softer substrate treads (in this case, road and tire
respectively). On the other hand, wet adhesive CoF (lwet adh ) depends
upon the work of wet adhesion done in the overall system of tire-
water-pavement, normal force applied by the tire on the road sur-
face (F N ) and the real area of contact (Awet ) between tire and the
road asperities through the layer of water (Fig. 1).
So far not much research has been undertaken to investigate tri-
bological interactions between tire and rubber considering surface
free energy based approach. The present study develops a theoret-
ical model to estimate CoF, considering microscopic phenomena
occurring at the interface by dividing it into three major compo-
nents and incorporating the surface free energy parameter of rub-
ber and aggregates. Five types of tire tread rubber with different
chemical compositions were studied in the present framework.
Basalt aggregate was chosen as the choice of surface to imitate
pavement surface. The robustness and consistency of the theoreti-
cal CoF obtained through the model was compared with the exper-
imental CoF measured using British Pendulum Tester.
Furthermore, a correlation was developed between the actual
and the theoretical CoF. It is expected that the outcome of this
study would develop a better understanding into applicability of
surface free energy analysis in friction studies and hence evaluat-
ing coefficient of friction from the material properties of the inter-
acting substrates. The objective of the present study is to develop a
model to estimate the theoretical CoF between tire-pavement
under wet conditions using surface free energy approach. Also, to
 D. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 204 (2019) 105–112 107

compare theoretical CoF with the actual CoF determined using Bri-
tish pendulum tester.
2. Theoretical background on coefficient of friction (CoF)
Rubber friction differs in many ways from the frictional proper-
ties of most other solids. The reason for this is the very low elastic
modulus of rubber and the high internal friction exhibited by rub-
ber over a wide frequency range [5]. Suh [6] recognized three con-
tributions to friction by modelling surface deformation using the
slip line theory: elasticity of rubber material (Hysterical compo-
nent), adhesion properties of the participating surfaces and
ploughing component.
2.1. Hysteric component
Hysteretic component arises from the internal friction of the
rubber and energy dissipation. The greater the surface roughness
of the substrate, the higher the tangential forces developed in the
contact area [4]. According to Moore [7], the hysteretic friction
coefficient lHyst is given by Eq. (1).
K between two contacting solid surfaces can be evaluated as the geo-
lHyst ¼  tand
H
where, K is a constant and H the hardness of the rubber expressed
on Vickers scale. The mechanical loss factor tand is a parameter that
identifies the viscoelastic behaviour of the rubber and is given by
the ratio between the imaginary part (ImE = E00 ) and the real part
(ReE = E0 ) of the dynamic modulus E [8] (Eq. (2)):
E0 ImE
tand ¼ ¼ ð2Þ
E00 ReE
In physical sense, tand is indicative of mechanical loss energy in
each cycle. This energy further appears as equivalent heat gener-
ated in rubber [8].
2.2. Adhesive component
2.2.1. Dry adhesive coefficient of friction (ldry
adh Þ
Remodelling the relationship between roughness angle, work of
adhesion and friction coefficient between two sliding surfaces [9],
ldry
adh can be equated as follows (Eq. (4)):
Z
ldry
adh ¼
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ffi ð4Þ
1  12  Z2
where, Z ¼ 5  104  GE  cot h.
GE is defined as the effective work of adhesion occurring
between two surfaces in contact. It is formulated as GE ¼ F  W 13
ad
where F is the dissipation factor [9] and W 13ad is the work of adhe-
sion (mJ=m2 ) between the rubber and pavement surface. In this
study, F value is considered equal to the value of unity based on
study conducted by Mazzola et al. [4]. The angle made by the cone
generatrix of the material with the nominal horizontal line is
defined as the roughness angle ðhÞ. It is representative of the hard-
est material among the participating surfaces, in this case, the
pavement surface (basalt).
Dry work of adhesion (W13ad ) is the work of adhesion between
basalt and rubber surface in dry state i.e. in absence of water.
Researchers [10,11] have reported that the work of adhesion
ð1Þ
metric mean of their individual surface free energies (Eq. (5)):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
W 13
ad ¼ 2 c1  c3 ð5Þ
where, c1 and c3 are total surface free energy (SFE) of the two contact-
ing surfaces in mJ=m2 . In the literature, SFE is defined as the energy
needed to separate a solid or a liquid in vacuum to create a unit area
of new surface [12]. The energy is called cohesion if the separated sur-
face is homogenous and adhesion if the separated surfaces are differ-
ent. Good-van Oss-Chaudhury theory is the most widely accepted
theory for calculating the SFE, which is determined by measuring
the work of adhesion of the material with other vapour or liquids.
The two major components, which determine the SFE are the
Lifshitz-van der Waals intermolecular forces (dispersive component)
and acid base forces (polar component) (Eq. (6)) [13]:
ctotal ¼ cLW þ cAB ð6Þ

Adhesive component of friction between tire and rubber in wet The methodology of calculating the surface energy values from
conditions arises from two phenomena occurring simultaneously the contact angle data can be found in literature [14].
on microscopic levels between the tire and the road surface: dry
adhesion and wet adhesion (Fig. 1). The present models for the cal- adh Þ
2.2.2. Wet coefficient of friction (lwet
culation of the adhesive coefficient of friction between tire and According to Mazzola et al. [4], lwet adh can be derived as Eq. (7):
rubber in wet conditions only consider the direct contact between
W adh  Awet  g
adhesiv e /
lwet ð7Þ
the rubber and the basalt surface [3]. To concretely analyse the
adhesion phenomena occurring, it is necessary to incorporate the FN
contribution of the adhesive forces arising from the presence of Taking care of the proportionality sign, the equation can be
water in the voids manifested between the tire and rubber surface. rewritten as Eq. (8):
From Fig. 1, we can easily ascertain that two types of adhesive
lwet
adhesiv e W adh  Awet  g
forces are into play: rubber-basalt work of adhesion where the ¼ ð8Þ
asperities of the pavement surface are directly in contact with rub- a FN
ber and, the rubber-basalt-water work of adhesion in the regions where, a is the proportionality constant and g is the viscosity of
where water has manifested in the voids between basalt and rub- distilled water, equal to 1.002 mPa.s at 20°. As described in Fig. 1,
ber. We name the first phenomenon dry work of adhesion ðW 13
adh Þ the wet work of adhesion (Wadh ) in the triphasic system can be


and the latter wet work of adhesion W 123
adh . Both phenomena obtained by adding three separate works of adhesion-W12
ad (Work

together give rise to total adhesive friction coefficient, which is for- of adhesion for rubber water), W22
ad (Work of cohesion of water)

mulated in Eq. (3): and W23

ad (Work of adhesion for basalt-water). Therefore, the total
sum gives us the wet work of adhesion (Eq. (9)):
ladh ¼ ldry
adh þ ladh
wet
ð3Þ
W Total
ad ¼ W 123 12 22 23
ad ¼ W ad þ W ad þ W ad ð9Þ
dry
where, l is the dry adhesive component and l
adh
wet
adh is the wet adhe- The individual work of adhesion is calculated using the Young-
sive component. Dupre Eq. [15] (Eq. (10)):
108 D. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 204 (2019) 105–112
W adhesion ¼ cL  ð1 þ coshÞ
where, h (Degrees) is the contact angle of the surface and the liquid
measured experimentally and cL (N/m) is the surface tension of liq-
uid. Thus each term was calculated as:
a) W 12
ad ¼ cL ð1 þ cosh12 Þ
b) W 22
ad ¼ cL ð1 þ cos0Þ ¼ 2  c2
b) W 32
ad ¼ cL ð1 þ cosh32 Þ
Substituting these in Eq. (9) we get Eq. (11).
W 123
ad ¼ cL  ð4 þ cosh12 þ cosh32 Þ
where, h12 is the contact angle made by distilled water on the rub-
ber specimen, h32 is the contact angle made by the distilled water
with the basalt surface and cL is the surface tension of distilled
water equal to 0:0728 N=m [16].
Awet is defined as the difference between nominal contact area
and the real contact area, i.e., (Eq. (12)).
Awet ¼ An  Ar
According to Ludema [17], real contact area (Ar) is the summa-
tion of contact area of each asperities. Nominal contact (An) area is
the macro scale area of consideration. This includes real contact
area, and any void and non-contacting regions between the rough
surfaces [18]. Straffelini [9] has reported the formula for real con-
tact area between two sliding surfaces as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
FN
Ar ¼ 1 þ 12l2
PY
where, Ar real contact area in cm2, FN (kN) is the normal load
applied, PY (MPa) is the material yield strength of rubber and l is
the coefficient of friction generated between two sliding surfaces
i.e., dry-adhesive coefficient of friction. An the nominal contact area
can be equated to the dimensions of the rubber slider, which in this
case to a rectangular area of 7.6  2.5 cm2 .
2.2.3. Ploughing component
When two surfaces of different hardness slide on each other, the
asperities of the harder surfaces are assumed to plough the asper-
ities of the softer one. In the present study, the asperities of basalt
are much harder than the rubber asperities. This would result in
basalt asperities ploughing the rubber material and material
removal, thus causing wear. Mazzola et al. [4] has reported that
given the complexity of this phenomenon, there are no models in
the literature that allow calculation of this component. However,
as the contribution of the ploughing component of friction is very
low as compared to its hysterical and adhesive counterpart, its
effect will be considered negligible and will not affect the overall
coefficient of friction.
Thus the final equation for total friction between tire and rub-
ber interface in presence of water can be written as (Eq. (14)):
ltot lhysterical lwet
¼ lhysterical þ ladhesive ¼ þ ldry
adhesive þ
adhesive
k K a
where, k is the proportionality constant to incorporate the parame-
ter divided values of its components i.e., lhysterical and lwet
adhesiv e .
3. Experimental design
3.1. Materials
3.1.1. Rubber
In the present study five different tire tread rubber samples
with different chemical compositions were collected from Indian
Rubber Manufacturers Research Association (IRMRA), Mumbai,
India. Table 1 presents chemical properties of the different type
ð10Þ of rubber samples considered in this study. The rubber samples
were selected based on their usage for production of tires in Indian
conditions. As reflective of the practices in Indian tire making sce-
nario the filler components were varied to produce rubber com-
pounds to make 5 different types of rubber samples.
3.1.2. Basalt rock
Basalt is the most commonly used aggregate for the road con-
struction. For this study, basalt rock sample was collected from
the stone quarry site located near Mumbai. Table 2 presents the
ð11Þ
mineralogical properties of basalt rock sample used in this study.
Preparation of basalt stone sample to be used for CoF and SFE test
involves three steps, cutting, polishing, and cleaning. Cutting: The
rock sample was cut using diamond cutting machine to obtain flat
surface. Thereafter, polishing of cut rock surface was done different
size silicon carbide grits to make it smooth. Later, cleaning of both
polished basalt and the rubber samples were sonicated in the pres-
ence of water for 45 min before testing [19].
ð12Þ
3.2. Experimental plan
Fig. 2 shows the flowchart representing methodology of the
present study.
3.2.1. Characterization of rubber
Material characterization of the physical properties of rubber
ð13Þ was done according to ASTM standards. Material yield strength
of rubber was determined using ASTM D412, hardness of rubber
in a Shore scale was evaluated using ASTM D2240 and ASTM
D5992 was used to determine tand values of the prepared rubber
specimens.
3.2.2. Surface roughness evaluation of basalt aggregate
After cutting and polishing the basalt rock, surface roughness
was measured using an optical based Zeta Profilometer. From the
profilometer analysis, mean Rq value (Root mean square rough-
ness) obtained was 16.25 lm. Roughness angle (h) can be deter-
mined from Rq as follows [4] (Eq. (15)):
hðin degreesÞ ¼ 4:5  R0:4
q ðin lmÞ ð15Þ
By substituting Rq = 16.25 lm, we get h = 13.726°.
3.2.3. Surface free energy of rubber and basalt aggregate
The SFE of basalt and five different rubber samples were deter-
mined by sessile drop method [14]. For contact angle measure-
ment, basalt sample preparation (cutting, polishing and cleaning)
was done as per procedure reported by Koc [19]. For rubber sam-
ples, flat rubber specimens were selected and first cleaned thor-
oughly with distilled water and dried completely before
measuring contact angle. The contact angle of basalt and rubber
samples with three different probe liquids (distilled water, diiodo-
ð14Þ methane and formamide) were measured using Kruss drop shape
analyser. Probe liquids are selected in such a manner that one liq-
uid is bipolar (distilled water), another one polar (formamide) and
one more non-polar (di-iodomethane). All selected probe liquids
are non-reactive with both rubber specimen and basalt aggregate.
A small drop (volume of 5 ll) of selected probe liquid is slowly dis-
pensed on flat sample surface (polished basalt and rubber speci-
mens) at test temperature of 25 °C. The image of the drop shape
on sample surface is captured by a high resolution Charged Couple
Device (CCD) camera. Further, with the help of image processing
software, base lines on the sample surface is set. Similarly contour
line is set around the liquid droplet using polynomial fit. At the
intersection of contour line and base line, contact angle is mea-
sured at both sides using image processing software (Fig. 3a). Sim-
 D. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 204 (2019) 105–112 109

Table 1
Chemical composition of the rubber specimens.

Ingredients Rubber #1 Rubber #2 Rubber #3 Rubber #4 Rubber #5

Natural Rubber (NR) 75 75 75 75 75
Butadiene Rubber (BR) 25 25 25 25 25
Zinc oxide 5 5 5 5 5
Stearic acid 2 2 2 2 2
Filler ISAF 50 – 40 – 20
HAF – 50 – 40 20
Silica – – 10 10 10
Aromatic Oil 5 5 5 5 5
Antioxidants 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Antiozonants 1 1 1 1 1
Sulfur 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
CBS 1 1 1 1 1

ISAF – Intermediate Super Abrasion Furnace carbon black.

HAF – High Abrasion Furnace carbon black.
CBS – N-Cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazole sulfonamide, as an accelerator.
All values are indicated in pphr (parts per hundred rubber).

Table 2
Mineralogical properties of basalt aggregate sample.

Rock type % Oxides

SiO2 Al2O3 CaO Fe203 MgO Na2O TiO2 Total
Basalt 49.35 10.49 9.02 20.06 6.32 2.79 1.32 99.35

Fig. 2. Flowchart representing methodology of the study.

ilarly, procedure is repeated with different probe liquids for all the
selected samples. Total eight replicates were measured to get the
repeatable results. Finally, polar (cAB ) and non polar (cLW ) surface
free energy components of each sample were calculated using
the Good-van Oss-Chaudhury theory [14].
3.2.4. Friction determination
The actual coefficients of friction between basalt and rubber
samples were measured using the British Pendulum Tester. The
slider was dropped 7 times for each rubber sample and the mean
value was reported. ASTM E303-93 (2013) test procedure was fol-
lowed in performing the tests. The dimensions of the rubber slider
used in the experiment was (7.6  2.5  0.6) in cm. Basalt and rub-
ber samples were wetted before each measurement. According to
Giles et al. [20], the figures marked on the scale (British Pendulum
Number) represent approximately 100 times the coefficient of fric-
tion. Therefore, lactual =BPN/100 where BPN is the British Pendulum
Number. Normal load FN applied by the tire on the pavement
110 D. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 204 (2019) 105–112

be determined. Hence the surface free energies of the basalt aggre-

gate and all the rubber samples were experimentally determined
to calculate W 13
adh using Eq. (5). Total surface free energy of the rub-
ber samples lie in the range of 28.64–34.28 mJ=m2 , highest surface
free energy being for Rubber 1. Also, except for Rubber 1, all other
rubber samples and basalt do not have an Acid-Base component in
their individual surface free energies.
Using the surface free energies for rubber and basalt presented
dry
in Table 4, dry work of adhesion (W 13
ad ), Z parameter and hence ladh
were evaluated for each of the rubber specimen using Eq (4).
Table 5 presents calculated values of dry work of adhesion and
dry-adhesive coefficient of friction. It can be observed that dry
adhesive coefficient of friction is almost same for all the rubber
samples to 4 decimal places. It is also negligible as compared to
the total theoretical coefficient of friction, contributing only an
ltheoretical
average of 0.03% to totalk . Also, higher the dry work of adhesion
between tire and pavement, higher is the dry coefficient of friction.
Highest ldry
adh was found out to be for Rubber 1, indicative of higher
adhesion between rubber #1 and basalt. This may be attributed to
the polar nature of rubber-1 sample compared to other rubber
samples.

4.3. Wet component of adhesive coefficient of friction

Using the surface free energy properties of the rubber samples,

lwet
adh
a was calculated. Table 6 presents the calculated values of work
of adhesion in wet condition, and wet-adhesive coefficient of fric-
tion for different samples. It was observed that wet adhesive fric-
tion is highest for rubber sample with highest wet adhesive
Fig. 3. (a) Contact angle determination by the instrument (b) Contact angle work, which is Rubber #3 in this case. Also, with increase in the
measurement on basalt in process. lwet
distilled water contact angle with the rubber surface, adh
a decreases.
surface is a critical parameter for friction determination. In the cur-
rent research, slider normal force of BPT is equal to the slider static
load [21]. The average slider static load of all the rubber samples Table 4
was found out to be 15.1 N, which is taken as the normal force Surface free energy parameters of basalt and rubber samples.
applied by the slider in the present study.



Material Distilled Water CA [⁰] cLW mJ
cAB mJ
ctotal mJ
m2 m2 m2

4. Results and discussion Basalt 58.93 35.10 0.00 35.10

Rubber #1 80.74 31.56 2.71 34.28
Rubber #2 83.99 28.64 0.00 28.64
4.1. Hysterical component of friction Rubber #3 63.52 33.81 0.00 33.81
Rubber #4 80.10 29.95 0.00 29.95
Physical properties of all the rubber samples are summarized in Rubber #5 68.29 33.69 0.00 33.69
Table 3. The hardness of the rubber samples used in this study was
found to be in the range of 64–69 on Shore-A scale, which is con-
sistent with the values reported by other researchers [4]. Tan d val-
ues were obtained from the dynamic mechanical analysis and Table 5
Calculated values of dry work of adhesion and dry-adhesive coefficient of friction.
found to be in the range of 0.059–0.081. A higher values of tan d
indicates more griping power and may lead to more friction. Basalt-Rubber. (combination) W 13
ad
Z ldry
adh

1 69.37 0.000142 0.000142

4.2. Dry component of adhesive coefficient of friction 2 63.42 0.000129 0.000130
3 68.90 0.000141 0.000141
From Eq. (4), we can infer that to evaluate dry component of 4 64.85 0.000132 0.000133
5 68.78 0.000140 0.000141
coefficient of friction (ldry 13
adh ), dry work of adhesion (W adh ) needs to

Table 3
Physical properties and hysterical component of CoF for different rubber samples.

Rubber sample Surface roughness, Rq (lm) Yield Strength (MPa) Hardness (Shore A scale) Tan d lHyst
K ¼ tand
H

1 19.94 17.36 68 0.081 0.0012

2 19.41 16.09 69 0.078 0.0011
3 19.50 21.39 65 0.081 0.0012
4 18.37 17.36 64 0.059 0.0009
5 18.28 21.88 64 0.070 0.0011
 D. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 204 (2019) 105–112 111

Table 6
Work of adhesion in wet condition, and wet-adhesive coefficient of friction for
different rubber samples with basalt.

Material W wet
adh
Material Yield Ar (cm2 ) Awet (cm2 ) lwet
adh
a
(N/m) Strength (MPa) = An–Ar

Rubber 1 0.340 17.36 0.0314 18.968 0.428

Rubber 2 0.336 16.08 0.0339 18.966 0.423
Rubber 3 0.361 21.38 0.0255 18.974 0.454
Rubber 4 0.341 17.36 0.0314 18.968 0.429
Rubber 5 0.355 21.87 0.0249 18.975 0.447

lwet
adh
a is found to be the highest contributor to total theoretical coef-
ficient of friction. Hence, we can conclude that wet adhesion phe- Fig. 5. Correlation between Hardness and actual CoF.
nomena has the highest impact over frictional properties of
rubber-basalt interface.
4.5. Correlation of actual CoF with the material properties
4.4. Theoretical and actual coefficient of friction
To investigate the dependence of the tribological interactions
Table 7 shows the total theoretical and actual coefficient of fric- between rubber and aggregate sample on its physical and chemical
tion values of five different rubber samples measured using British properties, various correlation charts were constructed with CoF
ltheoretical on the y axis and material properties on the X axis. Out of all the
Pendulum tester. total
k
values calculated using SFE approach var- material properties, Hardness of the rubber was found to give
ies in the range of 0.42–0.46. Whereas, lactual
total values lies in the the best correlation with the actual CoF with coefficient of deter-
ltheoretical
range of 0.22–0.34. Also, total
is evaluated to be highest for Rub- mination (R2 Þ value of 0.95 (Fig. 5). This finding is consistent with
k
ber #3 whereas lactual the previous studies which had reported that the skid resistance of
total is evaluated to be highest for Rubber #2.
the slider of British Pendulum must increase with the increase in
A correlation was developed between ltheoretical
total and lactual
total as
the hardness of the rubber sample [20].
shown in Fig. 4. Form the correlation developed, lactual can be pre-
dicted using ltheortical as follows:
5. Conclusions
ltheoretical
lactual ¼ 2:22  þ 1:25 ð16Þ
k
The article discusses a mechanistic empirical model to evaluate
the CoF taking into account the surface free energy phenomena
The model developed in this study is based on limited data of
occurring in the tire-pavement interface. The model presented
five rubber and one aggregate combinations. Hence, it is recom-
is able to successfully predict the actual CoF using theoretical
mended that a future study be conducted to strengthen the con-
CoF.
cept and model presented in this paper by considering wider

Based on this study, phenomena of wet adhesion in the tripha-
range of aggregates, rubber types, and field measurement.
sic system of tire-water-basalt was found out to be the highest
contributor to the overall tribological interaction at the inter-
face. On the other hand, phenomena of dry adhesion between
Table 7 the bi-phasic system of tire-basalt was found to have least
Theoretical and actual coefficient of friction values for different rubber samples. impact on the total theoretical coefficient of friction.

Among all the material properties evaluated, hardness was
Rubber # ltheoretical
total lactual
k total
found to be superior to give the best correlation with the actual
1 0.43 0.30 coefficient of friction.
2 0.42 0.34
3 0.46 0.26
4 0.43 0.24
Conflict of interest
5 0.45 0.22
None.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Prof. Ramesh Singh of Mechanical

Engineering Department, IIT Bombay, India for providing facility
for surface roughness analysis. The authors also would like to
thank Concrete Technology Lab staff, IIT Bombay for their help.
The authors would like to acknowledge Science and Engineering
Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India, for procurement of Sessile drop instrument.

References

[1] J.M.P. Mayora, R.J. Pina, An assessment of the skid resistance effect on traffic
safety under wet-pavement conditions, Accid. Anal. Prev. 41 (4) (2009) 881–
Fig. 4. Correlation between the theoretical and the actual coefficient of friction. 886.
112 D. Singh et al. / Construction and Building Materials 204 (2019) 105–112
[2] B.E. Sabey, T. Williams, G.N. Lupton, Factors affecting the friction of tires on
wet roads, SAE Trans. (1970) 1203–1218.
[3] F.P. Bowden, D. Tabor, Friction, lubrication and wear: a survey of work during
the last decade, Br. J. Appl. Phys. 17 (12) (1966) 1521.
[4] L. Mazzola, A. Galderisi, G. Fortunato, V. Ciaravola, M. Giustiniano, Influence of
surface free energy and wettability on friction coefficient between tire and
road surface in wet conditions, in: K.L. Mittal (Ed.), Advances in Contact Angle,
Wettability and Adhesion, CRC Press, 2013, pp. 389–410. Chapter 22.
[5] B.N. Persson, Theory of rubber friction and contact mechanics, J. Chem. Phys.
115 (8) (2001) 3840–3861.
[6] N.P. Suh, Fundamentals of Friction and Wear of Materials, ASM, Metals Park,
Ohio, 1981.
[7] D.F. Moore, Principles and applications of tribology. Pergamon international
library of science, technology, engineering and social studies, International
Series in Materials Science and Technology, Elsevier, 2013.
[8] S.K. Clark, Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires, US Government Printing Office, 1981.
[9] G. Straffelini, A simplified approach to the adhesive theory of friction, Wear
249 (1) (2001) 78–84.
[10] J. Skvarla, Hydrophobic interaction between macroscopic and microscopic
surfaces. Unification using surface thermodynamics, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.
91 (3) (2001) 335–390.
[11] A. Habal, D. Singh, Moisture damage resistance of GTR-modified asphalt
binders containing WMA additives using the surface free energy approach, J.
Perform. Constr. Facil 31 (3) (2017) 4017006.
[12] D.N. Little, A. Bhasin, Using Surface Energy Measurements to Select Materials
for HMA Pavements. NCHRP Project 9-37, Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC, USA, 2006.
[13] C. Della Volpe, S. Siboni, Acid–base surface free energies of solids and the
definition of scales in the Good–van Oss-Chaudhury theory, J. Adhes. Sci.
Technol. 14 (2) (2000) 235–272.
[14] A. Habal, D. Singh, Comparison of Wilhelmy plate and Sessile drop methods to
rank moisture damage susceptibility of asphalt–aggregates combinations,
Constr. Build. Mater. 113 (2016) 351–358.
[15] M.E. Schrader, Young-dupre revisited, Langmuir 11 (9) (1995) 3585–3589.
[16] N.B. Vargaftik, B.N. Volkov, L.D. Voljak, International tables of the surface
tension of water, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 12 (3) (1983) 817–820.
[17] K.C. Ludema, 1996. Friction, wear, lubrication, The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, http://s1.downloadmienphi.net/file/downloadfile9/195/1344905.pdf,
(13 May 2017).
[18] T. Luangvaranunt, P. Visuttipitukul, Tribology of Materials, http://pioneer.
netserv.chula.ac.th/~ltachai/tribology/tribo_ch10.pdf, (13 May 13 2017).
[19] M. Koc, Development of Testing Protocols for Direct Measurements of Contact
Angles on Aggregate and Asphalt Binder Surfaces Using a Sessile Drop Device
Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 2013.
[20] C. Giles, B. Sabey, K.H. Cardew, Development and Performance of the Portable
skid-Resistance Tester, Symposium on Skid Resistance, ASTM International,
1962.
[21] B.T. Kulakowski, J.J. Henry, C. Lin, A closed-loop calibration procedure for a
British Pendulum Tester, Surface Characteristics of Roadways: International
Research and Technologies, ASTM International, 1990.