Development of a detailed aircraft tyre finite element model for safety

assessment

Author Contact Details:

H. Guo
Faculty of Engineering, Coventry University, Coventry, CV15FB, UK
E-mail: guoh@uni.coventry.ac.uk
C. Bastien
Faculty of Engineering, Coventry University, Coventry, CV15FB, UK
E-mail: aa3425@coventry.ac.uk
M. Blundell
Faculty of Engineering, Coventry University, Coventry, CV15FB, UK
E-mail: m.blundell@coventry.ac.uk
G. Wood
Faculty of Engineering, Coventry University, Coventry, CV15FB, UK
E-mail: gary.wood@coventry.ac.uk
Correspondence author:
H. Guo
Faculty of Engineering, Coventry University, Coventry, CV15FB, UK
E-mail: guoh@uni.coventry.ac.uk

Abstract
This paper describes the development of a detailed finite element (FE) model of an aircraft
test tyre in order to investigate its performance and assess its safety criteria. It is noticed that
rubber and fabric composite materials are the major components of this tyre model and their
characterization requires tests and correlation. The characterization of such materials is of
great importance in the model development process.
Due to its complicated mechanical behaviour that exceeds the linear elastic theory, rubber
is generally considered as hyperelastic material in FE analysis. It can be defined by a stored
energy function with various coefficients that need to be determined by a series of
experimental test data. The key issue is to define an appropriate energy function that can
provide good fit with the experimental test data.
Initially, a full-scaled LS-Dyna FE model has been development to replicate the actual
geometry of the target test tyre. The material properties of each individual component have
been characterized and correlated with industrial uniaxial tension test data. The inflation and
static load simulations have been analyzed basing on the characterized tyre model, indicating
its reliability.
The dynamic simulations that aim to duplicate tyre load upon aircraft landing scenarios
have also been analyzed. Following the comments and guidelines from aircraft industrial data,
the dynamic simulations have covered the tyre loading scenarios from normal (soft) landing,
hard landing to crash landing under different aircraft landing weights and vertical speeds. The
tyre deflection rate and the contact load have been chosen as the safety criteria. The
simulation analysis, results and comments have been discussed in detail.
The modelling and correlation processes described in this paper aim to demonstrate the
importance of hyperelastic material characterization in developing a detailed FE tyre model.
Such a predictive model can be effectively used during tyre design process to allow
manufacturers to assess its availability, and also add to the general drive towards the use of
more virtual prototypes in an area traditionally reliant on experimental testing.
Keywords: Hyperelastic rubber, Aircraft tyre, Correlation, Predictive model, Finite Element
Analysis

1 Introduction
Aircraft tyres play an important role in a landing gear system. They are critical for aircraft
safety and performance upon landing and taxing on the ground. The performances of a tyre
under varied load conditions are vital requirements for aircraft safety certification.
In this paper, a detailed finite element (FE) model has been constructed in order to
investigate the tyre performance and its safety criteria. The work follows the finding from
previous researches in order to develop the full-scaled aircraft tyre model. The methodology
of using combined solid and beam elements to model a detailed tyre that is highlighted in
Reids paper has been reviewed [1]. The successful modelling processes and simulation
solutions in LS-Dyna have also been reviewed from Halls published papers [2] [3]. Those
detailed modelling approaches have been adopted and adjusted in order to develop a model
suitable for the proposed work.
The rubber material properties and their modelling and characterization have also been
investigated. As the major component of an aircraft tyre, rubber can be defined by a stored
energy function as hyperelastic material. The coefficients in these functions should be
determined by various test data. Highlighted by Ali, The essential problem is to determine the
strain energy function for providing good fit with a number of sets of experimental data. [4]
In this work, Yeoh model is applied to represent rubber in the FE model. The material
characterization and correlation undertaken will be described in detail.
The detailed tyre model has been inspected through comparing simulation results with
experimental inflation load case. The finding on the static load scenario against industrial
static load test has also indicated its reliability. This work also focuses on the tyre safety
assessment that was not yet studied. The predictive safety assessment has been approached
under various dynamic loading scenarios. Following aircraft manufacturers (Michelin and
Goodyear) guidelines [5] [6], certain criteria have been chosen to assess aircraft tyre safety,
including tyre deflection rate and rated load.
In general, this work aims to demonstrate the effective use of FE models for aircraft safety
assessment, by studying the criteria of the tyre for load cases corresponding with testing and
operational scenarios. It will also introduce the outlook and opportunities to complete such a
tool to improve aviation safety.
2 Process of aircraft tyre modelling
The proposed paper is based on a dual bead radial ply H41x16.0R20 testing tyre from the
cooperation company, Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited (DATL).
2.1 Structure of tyre
Typical aircraft radial tyres contain one single bead cord [7], creating a small bead chafer area
contacting with the wheel rim. However, the chosen H41x16.0R20 test tyre has a double bead
cord design which enlarged the chafer area compared to the single bead cord design.
The FE modelling of this specific tyre/wheel interaction is supposed to provide detailed
results around the contact area which could be utilized in further industrial product
development.
The structure definition for the target tyre includes:
Cable beads: Bead Code, Bead Wrapping
Fabric: Chafer, 1st to 4th Plies, Bias Breakers, 0 Deg. Belts, Inner Tread Fabric
Rubber Compounds: Chafer, Inner Liner, Apex, Clinch, Insulations, Sidewall,
Breakers Cushion and Strips, Sub Tread, Tread

2.2 Finite element model of tyre

Several simplifications in the FE model have been made: clinch and sidewall are considered
as the same part, Chafer and Apex are categorised as the same part although they are
separated in the model.
The major construction parts used in the tyre FE model include:
a. Tread: The component of the tyre that is in contact with the road. Solid elements are used
with three element layers across the cross-section in order to effectively model bending
stresses.
b. Belts: They play an important role in the function of a tyre, providing puncture resistance
as well as improving tyre contact with the road. Located under the tread, belts are
composed of fabrics encased in rubber.
c. Sidewall and Apex: They are the portions of rubber running from the rim of the wheel and
the bead up to the tread. They provide lateral stability to the tyre and also provide
resistance to the vertical compression load. Higher sidewall stiffness will provide better
driver control as it increases cornering capabilities.
d. Bead: It carries forces exerted on the sidewall that would otherwise cause the sidewall to
separate from the rim and therefore lose air pressure. Their role is to lock the tyre onto the
wheel rim. The beads are constructed with a high strength cable encased in Apex rubber.
The reinforcement layers in the plies warp around the steel beads.
e. Plies: They increase the lateral load capacity of the tyre and add sidewall stiffness. They
are made of a polyester material running perpendicular to the direction of the tread and
belts. The plies serve as the main reinforcement materials. Different types of tyres contain
different layers of plies, (4 layers in this H41 tyre), which are encased in rubber to aid
adhesion to other components.
Modelling the ply and belt with beams and solid elements allows the different materials to
behave independently, which affects the vertical compressive strength of the tyre. This
method still allows the tyre to get lateral stability from the beams, which are only tied
together in the radial direction by the sidewall rubber. [1]
The average tyre element mesh size in the model was set to be 5mm, which is finer than
the work already published [8], which used a size of 10mm to represent a detailed
configuration. The proposed configuration will have for advatage to improve prediction of
stresses in the rubber components compared to current work. The meshing size of 5mm was
also set so that the timesteps allowes acceptable mass scaling, the target between 0.5
microsecond and 1 microsecond value, for standards industrial impact simulations [9]. The
simulaton of this H41 model runs with a timestep of 0.5microseconds for a mass scaling of
1%.
The actual 2D FE H41 dual bead tyre cross-section and its computer model are shown in
Figure-1

Figure-1: Comparison between H41x16.0R20 tyre cross-section and FE model [10]

4

3 Material characterizations and correlation

It is noticed that rubber and fabric composite materials are the major components of an
aircraft tyre. Their characterisation requires tests and correlation.
Rubber material usually has long chain molecules. [11] It presents a complicated
mechanical behaviour that exceeds the linear elastic theory and contains large deformations,
plastic and viscoelastic properties and stress softening [12] [13].
In general, rubber can be defined by a stored energy function as hyperelastic material. The
coefficients in these functions should be determined by uniaxial, biaxial and shear test data.
As highlighted in Alis work [4], the essential problem is to determine the strain energy
function for providing good fit with a number of sets of experimental data.
Yang [14] also emphasised the complexity when determining rubber materials hyperelastic
and viscoelastic characteristics. The researches regarding fitting and comparison of such
models with experimental test data can also be seen in Markmann [15], Sharma [16] and
Ogdens [17] work. Other examples in tyre FE application using hyperelastic models have
been published by a number of researchers, such as Alkan [18], Shiraishi [19], Zhang [20],
Korunovi [21] and Ojala [22]. It can be concluded from the previous researches that the
selection of an appropriate strain energy model is of significant importance to ensure that the
FE simulation is able to replicate the response of the tyre accurately.
For this H41 tyre FE model, the materials have been characterised and correlated
individually. Considering that rubber and fabric materials are the major component of this
model, their hyperelastic properties are of prior concern. Although previous research [8] has
pointed out that a non-linear viscoelastic property is a more accurate representation of real
world behaviour of rubbers, viscous effects are considered as negligible in this H41 tyre FE
model.
Viscous effects in this H41 model can be disregarded for two main reasons. First one is the
designed static analyses for inflation and static load scenarios are free of viscous effects.
Second one is that, although it has been investigated that the viscoelastic property of rubber
has a significant influence on the traction, steering response and rolling resistance property of
a tyre [23], none of the situations are involved in the dynamic scenarios designed for this H41
tyre model.
3.1 Material characterizations and LS-Dyna modelling
To obtain the hyperelastic (stress-strain) properties of the rubber materials, a series of
uniaxial tension tests have been processed in DATL as shown in Figure-2. The experimental
tests use samples with gauge length 25mm, width 4mm and thickness 2mm, applied with
uniaxial extensions up to 250mm. The forces applied on the test sample, along with the gauge
deformations are recorded, thus the force vs. displacement curves are given to represent
materials stress-strain properties.

Figure-2: Uniaxial tension test

5

For the fabrics, similar uniaxial tension tests have also been processed. The samples are in
250mm length, various diameters. The force vs. displacement relationships are recorded from
extension tests up to 200mm.
For the LS-Dyna FE tyre model, material properties are represented by material models.
With its database, LS-Dyna has numerous Material Cards [24] to represent rubber material
models, including Mooney-Rivlin rubber, Frazer-Nash rubber, General Viscoelastic (Maxwell
Model), Hyperelastic and Ogden Rubber (Yeoh model), Arruda Boyce Rubber and etc. It is
noticed that *Material Card in LS-Dyna requires the setting of orders, coefficients, or relative
experimental data of each individual energy function. Regarding the fact that the actual
material properties data are curves giving force versus actual change in the gauge length only
from uniaxial tensile tests[9], the Yeoh model, which represented as *MAT_77 Hyperelastic
rubber has been chosen. The reason is that: the Yeoh model is applicable for a much wider
range of deformation and is able to predict the stress-strain behaviour in different deformation
modes from data gained in one simple deformation mode like uniaxial extension. [15]
For the fabrics, *MAT_67, nonlinear elastic discrete beam is chosen. It is because the
fabric cords encased by the rubbers are considered as elastic cables (do not take bending)
merged with rubber compounds in this FE model. The data of each individual fabric provided
by DATL contains force vs. displacement curve which display its non-linear elastic behaviour.
For *MAT_67, the curve can be used to define the material elastic behaviour at a certain axis,
which permits the beams to be realistically modelled. [24]
To correlate the material computer model with experimental test, FE sample models and
simulations have been developed in LS-Dyna. A same sized rubber material sample has been
built, using a 25mm in length, 4mm in width and 2mm sample thickness. A test prescribed
motion has been applied on the boundaries of the sample, to simulate its uniaxial tension as
shown in Figure-3. A cross-section in the middle has been set up to collect the force data in
simulation.

Figure-3: LS-Dyna model for rubber material correlation

Similar models and simulations have also been developed for fabric materials. The
difference is that fabric models in LS-Dyna are beams in 250mm length, various diameters,
duplicating the actual geometry of the test samples. By comparing the curves from computer
simulation and experimental test, the material characteristic correlation can be achieved.
3.2 Tyre tread rubber, DC001 material model characterisation
Take the rubber material DC001 for example, the correlated the material is used for the tyre
tread component.
The force vs. displacement curves from simulation and experimental for the rubber
material DC001 are displayed in Figures-4.

Tread material model (DC001) correlation

240

Force (N)

200
160
120

Computer Simulation

80

Test

40
0
0

40

80 120 160 200 240 280

Displacement (mm)

Figure-4: Material correlation for tread rubber DC001

From Figure-4, it can be concluded that the tread material model has been correlated with
the experimental test.
3.3 Inner tread fabric, DF014 material model correlation
Fabric material DF014 is used for inner tread fabric. Force vs. displacement curve
comparison is shown in Figure-5.
Inner tread and ply fabric material model (DF014)
correlation
240
Force (N)

200
160
120
80

Computer Simulation

40

Test

0
0

40
80
120
Displacement (mm)

160

Figure-5: Material correlation for ITF and ply fabric DF014

From Figure-5, it can be concluded that the inner tread fabric material has been correlated
with the test.
Following the same process, the correlations of the other rubber and fabric materials used
in the H41 tyre model have been achieved. All material models have been validated through
comparing LS-Dyna simulations to DATL test data. (Shown in Figures-6, 7, 8, 9)

Apex material model (DC003) correlation

200
Force (N)

160
120
Computer Simulation

80

Test

40
0
0

40
80
Displacement (mm)

120

Figure-6: Material correlation for Apex rubber DC003

Belt and ply material model (DC005) correlation
240

Force (N)

200
160
120

Computer Simulation

80

Test

40
0
0

40

80 120 160 200 240 280

Displacement (mm)

Figure-7: Material correlation for Belt and ply rubber DC005

Side wall material model (DC012) correlation
200

Force (N)

160
120
Computer Simulation

80

Test
40
0
0

40

80 120 160 200 240 280 320

Displacement (mm)

Figure-8: Material correlation for Side wall rubber DC012

Force (N)

Belt fabric material model (DF021) correlation

360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0

Computer Simulation
Test

20
40
60
Displacement (mm)

80

Figure-9: Material correlation for Belt fabric DF021

As a conclusion, Table-1 below shows all the details of the element types (section card in
LS-Dyna), finite element formulation, material model (material card in LS-Dyna) that were
used for the tyre finite element model respectively.
Part
Material
Poisons
Density
Youngs
Element Mat_Card
Code
Ratio
kg/mm3
modulus
GPa
Tread
DC001
0.495
1.10e-6
N/A
Solid
Mat_77
Belt
DC005
0.495
1.10e-6
N/A
Solid
Mat_77
Sidewall
DC012
0.495
1.10e-6
N/A
Solid
Mat_77
Apex
DC003
0.495
1.10e-6
N/A
Solid
Mat_77
Plies
DC005
0.495
1.10e-6
N/A
Solid
Mat_77
Belt Fabric
DF021
0.28
7.86e-6
200
Beam
Mat_67
IT Fabric
DF014
0.28
1.39e-6
5
Beam
Mat_67
Ply Fabric
DF014
0.28
1.39e-6
5
Beam
Mat_67
Bead
N/A
0.28
7.86E-6
200
Solid
Mat_1
Table-1: H41x16.0R20 Tyre Parts Material properties
4 Simulations and validation under static load scenarios
In order to validate the FE tyre model, simulations duplicating aircraft tyre testing and
operational scenarios have been designed and tested. FE models with two different time steps
(simulation resulting 0% and 2% age added mass) have been processed.
4.1 Setup of the Inflation scenario
In this scenario, the 3D FE tyre model was mounted to the corresponding wheel FE model,
which is fully constrained at the bearing. The volume of the tyre was inflated from 0 to
187psi (1.289MPa recommended by the tyre manufacturer). The tyre pressure can be
modelled in different ways [3] [13] [19] [25]. The chosen method is to apply the control
volume option by using an LS-Dyna *AIRBAG command.
The deformations of the tyre cross-section and the airbag pressure from simulation have
been compared with the experimental data in order to validate the FE model, as will be
explained in this section.

4.2 Setup of the Static load scenario

This scenario involves squashing the tyre against a rigid plane. To achieve this, the wheel is
clamped, with the inflated tyre mounted on it. The vertical load is achieved by placing a rigid
moving wall below the tyre and then prescribing an upward displacement towards the tyre.
The actual simulation process is: first inflating the tyre, then pushing the rigid against the
inflated tyre.
Forces on the wall, as well as the tyre deformation on the tyre/road contact interfaces are
recorded in order to compare with the experimental test results from DATL.
4.3 Results and comparison of both scenarios
4.3.1 Inflation
The deformations of the tyre cross-section have been selected to examine the reliability of
the tyre FE model. Outlay of the tyre model after inflation, along with the points of
measurements in LS-Dyna can be seen in Figure-10.

Figure-10: Tyre corss-section after inflation, points of measurements

The expected tyre cross-section widths, X deformation, outside diameter and Z/Y
deformation have been listed in Table-2 below.
The relevant results provided by the LS-Dyna inflation simulation have also been listed.
Section
X deform Out
Y/Z deform
Width
(mm)
diameter
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
Dual Bead DATL test
330.00
2.5
1034.00
20.35
Simulation Magnitude
329.4
2.2
1032.60
19.65
0% added Difference (%) 1.08%
12%
0.14%
3.44%
mass
Simulation Magnitude
328.5
1.75
1032.70
19.70
2% added Difference (%) 1.35%
30%
0.13%
3.19%
mass
Table-2: Inflation test and simulation results
Neglectable differences are between the experimental inflation test and the LS-Dyna
simulation. Compare 0% age added mass simulation with the test data, the X deformation has
an only 0.3mm difference at section width measure point. And the Y/Z deformation only has
a 3.44% difference.
10

The plots are showing that the pressure is applied as expected to the tyre. During the
simulation process, the tyre diameter is increasing due to the inflation loading. For Y
deformation, inflation simulation have resulted in just a slight difference as shown in Table-3.
The outlays are comparable to the tests, and are as expected.
It is noticed that there is a 30% difference in X deformation from 2% added mass time step
simulation. However, the actual magnitude difference is only 0.75mm out of 2.5mm.
Regarding the small difference in actual section width (1.08% and 1.35%), that 30%
difference is not considered as a fault. To prove this point, both 0% and 2% added mass
simulations have been processed in static load scenario, and the outputs are compared in the
following section to validate the reliability of the 2% added mass time step simulation.
4.3.2 Static load
The tyre cross-section before and after static load is displayed in Figure-11.
Deformation results are listed in Table-3.

Figure-11: Tyre cross section after static load (Y-deformation 0% added mass)
Time Step(s)

Mass scaling

X deformation (mm)

Y deformation (mm)

4.43E-07

0% added mass

15.17

26.57

5.31E-07

2% added mass

15.15

26.61

0.13%

0.15%

Difference (%)

Table-3: Static load scenario results

It is worth mentioning that in static load scenario, the deformation of the tyre under both 0%
and 2% added mass time steps are following the same trend as expected. The recorded Y
deformations and X deformations are listed in Table-3. The differences are neglectable, which
indicates the reliability of the 2% added mass time step simulation.
The load vs. force curve from the static load simulation has also been compared with
DATL load vs. deflection data, which can be seen in Figure-12. The results from DATL test
and LS-Dyna simulation are very close, and the trends of two curves are similar with each
other as expected.
11

Load (kN)

H41 Dual bead tyre static load scenario

Load vs. Deflection
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

LS-Dyna
simulation
Dunlop Test

10

20
30
40
Deflection (mm)

50

60

Figure-12: Load vs. Deflection Dual Bead H41 tyre/wheel assembly under static load
5 Dynamic simulations and analysis
The dynamic simulations are designed to duplicate scenarios that the FE aircraft tyre falls and
hits a rigid ground, carrying certain aircraft weights with various vertical landing speeds.
5.1 Set up of vertical impact scenario
As shown in Figure-13, the simulation duplicates a tyre drop on a rigid ground vertically from
a certain height. The additional aircraft weight is achieved by assign *ELEMENT_MASS on
the node at the centre of the tyre. *RBE3 elements are used to constrain wheel rim to the node.
Landing speed is achieved by using *INITIAL_VELOCITY_GENERATION on the model.

Figure-13: Tyre and Rim constrains in LS-DynaTM

The wheel Weight is defined as 128.6kg from LS-Dyna calculation. Two different aircraft
weight load cases are assumed and applied on tyre: empty weight 7400kg and Max landing
weight approximate 11675kg. The assumption is based on that the actual size of the H41
testing wheel is close to the commercial aircraft tyres that are used on Boeing 737-200 as
shown in Table-4. [5]
Boeing 737-200 has 6 tyres (2 nose tyres, 4 main tyres) and its empty weight: 29600kg;
max landing weight: 46700kg. [26] Assuming 4 tyres equally carry the aircraft weight upon
landing, the mass on each tyre will be: 7400kg in empty weight and 11675kg in max landing
weight.
12

Aircraft Type

Main Tyre
Code/Size
6.00-6
15x6.00-6

General
Aviation/
Business
Aircraft
Commercial
Aircraft

Rated
Load(lbs)
2350
3200

Cessna 172, Skyhawk

Cessna 172 RG,
Cutlass RG
Dassault 10, Falcon
22x5.75-12
5700
Douglas DC-4
15.50-20
20500
Boeing 737-200
H40x14.5-19
36800
Airbus A340-200/300
54x21.0-23
68500
Military
Helio U10A, Courier
6.50-8
3150
Aircraft
Lockheed F-16
25.5x8.0-14
16200
Boeing B52
56x15
76000
Table-4: Aircraft tyre application and data [5]
Downward vertical velocity (vertical landing speed) is defined:
2 to 4 m/s normal landing
6 to 8 m/s hard landing
Over 8m/s crash landing [27]
Considering the significance of landing speed change in crashworthiness certifications and
analysis, the simulations have been processed with 0 m/s (free fall), 3m/s, 5m/s, 7m/s, 8m/s
and 10m/s landing speed, separately.
5.2 Tyre safety criteria upon landing
Two criteria have been chosen to analysis the tyre safety upon landing (vertical impact):
a. Tyre Deflection rate:

% =
(1) [28]

For safety assessment, aircraft tyre are designed to operate at 32% deflection, some at
35%, if deflection rate goes across 35%, the function of tyre will be compromised. [28]
b. Tyre load should not exceed rated load (max load) as listed in Table-4

5.3 Simulation results and conclusion

Deflection rate and tyre load vs. different landing speed are shown in Figure-14 and 15
separately.

Deflection Rate vs. Landing Speed

Deflection Rate (%)

40
38
36

35%

34

Empty Weight /4
wheels
Max Landing
Weight /4 wheels

32
30
0

3
4
5
6
7
Landing Speed (m/s)

10

Figure-14: Deflection Rate under different weight& speed

13

Tyre Load vs. Landing Speed

Rated Load at 163.7kN

1.90E+05

Load (kN)

1.70E+05
1.50E+05
Rated Load

1.30E+05
1.10E+05

Empty Weight /4 wheels

9.00E+04
7.00E+04
5.00E+04
0

3 4 5 6 7 8
Landing Speed (m/s)

10

Max Landing Weight /4

wheels

Figure-15: Tyre load under different weight & speed

The simulations have shown that with an empty aircraft weight, the tyre is safe at all
landing speed range. (Deflection rate and tyre load all under 35% and rated load 163.7kN).
However, with the maximum landing weight, when tyre hits the ground at a higher landing
speed (10m/s which is over 8 m/s crash landing speed), both the tyre deflection rate and load
went over the limit. The safety of the aircraft would have been compromised if that tyre was
in application. Even at a lower speed (7 m/s, in range of a hard landing), although the
deflection rate was in safe range (35.3%), the load on tyre was over the max rated load
(174.5kN over 163.7kN). The tyre reliability at that aircraft speed/weight range can still not
be guaranteed.
6 Conclusions
The modelling and correlation processes described in this paper aim to demonstrate the
importance of hyperelastic material characterization in developing a detailed FE tyre model.
Depending on a particular materials experimental test data availability, an appropriate
energy function has to be chosen to represent its mechanical characteristics. The correlation
process is also necessary to ensure that the energy function can provide acceptable fit
comparing with the experimental data.
With the successful application of the correlated material model, the predictive aircraft FE
model and its flexible simulation scenarios can effectively progress the safety analysis and
assessment of a particular tyre in a virtual environment. Such a predictive model can be used
to allow manufacturers assessing tyre availability during its design process, and also add to
the general drive towards the use of more virtual prototypes in an area traditionally reliant on
experimental testing.

Acknowledgements
A particular thank goes to Dr Wei Ding for his support during his time at Dunlop aircraft
tyres limited.

14

References
[1] Reid, J. D., Boesch, D. A. and Bielenberg, R. W., Detailed tyre modelling for crash
applications, ICRASH 2006, Athens Greece, 4th-7th July 2006
[2] Hall, W., Mottram, J. T. and Jones, R. P., Tire Modelling Methodology with the
Explicit Finite Element Code LS-DYNA, Tire Science and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.
236-261, 2004
[3] Hall, W., Mottram, J. T. and Jones, R. P., Finite element simulation of a rolling
automotive tyre to understand its transient macroscopic behaviour, Part D: Journal of
Automotive Engineering, 2004 218:1393, 2004
[4] Ali, A., Fouladi, M. H. and Sahari, B., A review of Constitutive Models for Rubber-like
materials, American J. of Engineering and Applied science, 2010
[5] Michelin, Michelin Aircraft tyre engineering Data,
http://www.airmichelin.com/generalcontent.aspx?id=219 site accessed on 21st Sep 2012
[6] Goodyear, Goodyear Aircraft Tyre Data Book,
http://www.goodyearaviation.com/resources/pdf/db_airdatabook.pdf site accessed on 21st
Sep 2012
[7] Tanner, J. A., Daugherty, R. H. and Smith, H. C., Mechanical Properties of Radial-Ply
Aircraft Tires, SAE 2005-01-3438, USA, SAE International, 2005.
[8] M. Behroozi, Olatunbosun, O. A. and Ding, W., Finite element analysis of aircraft tyre
Effect of model complexity on tyre performance characteristics, Journal of Materials
and Design, 25 (2012) 810-819, 2012.
[9] Du Bois, P, Crashworthiness and Impact Engineering with LS-DYNA, LSTC, January
2010.
[10] Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited, H41x16.0R20 tyre documents, 2010
[11] Smith, L.P., The Language of Rubber: An introduction to the specification and testing of
elastomers. London: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, ISBN: 10:0750614137, pp: 257, 1993
[12] Chagno, G., Marckmann, G. and Verron, E., A comparison of the Hart-Smith model
with Arruda-Boyce and gent formulations for rubber elasticity. Rubber Chem. Technol.,
77:724-735, 2004. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16233017, site accessed
on 20th Sep 2012
[13] Naser, B., Kaliske, M. and Andre, M., Durability Simulations of Elastomeric Structures.
In: Constitutive Models for Rubber IV, Austrell, P.E. and L. Kari (Eds.). AA Balkema
Publishers, UK., ISBN:10:0415383463, pp: 45-50, 2005
[14] Yang, X., Olatunbosun, O. A. and Bolarinwa, E., Materials Testing for Finite Element
Tire Model, SAE International, 2010-01-0418, Published on 04/12/2010
[15] Markmann, G. and Verron, E. Comparison of hyperelastic models for rubber-like
materials, Rubber Chem. Technol. 2006
[16] Sharma, S., Critical Comparison of Popular Hyper-Elastic Material Models in Design of
Anti-Vibration Mounts for Automotive Industry Through FEA. In: Constitutive Models
for Rubber III, Busfield, J. (Ed.). AA Balkema Publishers, UK., ISBN:10:9058095665,
pp:161-167, 2003
[17] Ogden, R.W., Saccomandi, G. and Sgura, I., Fitting hyperelastic models to
experimental data, Comput. Mech., 34: 484-502, 2004
[18] Alkan, V., Karamihas, S. M. and Anlas, G., Finite Modelling of Tyre Static
Enveloping Characteristics, Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Part C,
Journal of Material Engineering Science, Journal Number JMES1753
[19] Shiraishi, M., Iwasaki, N., Saruwatari, T. and Hayashi, K., Developing FE-tyre model
library for durability and crash simulations, 7th European Ls-Dyna Users Conference,
2009
15

[20] Zhang, X., Tamini, N. and Palmer, T., Finite Element Tyre Model Parameters for Road
Load Predictions, SAE international 2005-01-0482, 2005
[21] Korunovi, N., FEA of tyres subjected to static loading, Journal of the Serbian Society
for Computational Mechanics. 2007
[22] Ojala, J., Using ABAQUS in tire development process, ABAQUS Users Conference
2005, Pawtucket, USA, October 14, 2004
[23] Ghosh, P., Saha, A., Bohara, P. C. and Mukhopadhyay, R., Material Property
Characterization for Finite Element Analysis of Tyres, Rubber world: 22-31, Jan. 2006
[24] LS-DynaTM, Keyword manual, version 971, 2007
[25] Danielson, K. T., Computational Strategies for Tyre modelling and Analysis, Computers
& Structures, 1996
[26] Airline inform, Boeing 737-200, http://www.airlines-inform.com/commercialaircraft/Boeing-737-200.html site accessed on 20th Oct 2012
[27] RestArts, Critical situations in take-off or landing flight phase, http://www.fp7restarts.eu/index.php/home/root/state-of-the-art/objectives/2012-02-15-11-58-37/75book-video/how-a-plane-can-fly-assuring-safety/138-5-critical-situations-in-take-off-orlanding-flight-phase site accessed on 10th Dec 2012
[28] Goodyear, Aircraft tyre care and maintenance
http://www.goodyearaviation.com/resources/pdf/aircraftmanual.pdf site accessed on 10th
Dec 2010
Figure Captions
Figure-1: Comparison between H41x16.0R20 tyre cross-section and FE model [10]
Figure-2: Uniaxial tension test
Figure-3: LS-Dyna model for rubber material correlation
Figure-4: Material correlation for tread rubber DC001
Figure-5: Material correlation for ITF and ply fabric DF014
Figure-6: Material correlation for Apex rubber DC003
Figure-7: Material correlation for Belt and Ply rubber DC005
Figure-8: Material correlation for Side wall rubber DC012
Figure-9: Material correlation for Belt fabric DF021
Figure-10: Tyre cross section after inflation, points of measurements
Figure-11: Tyre cross section after static load (Y-deformation 0% added mass)
Figure-12: Load vs. Deflection Dual Bead H41 tyre/wheel assembly under static load
Figure-13: Tyre and Rim constrains in LS-DynaTM
Figure-14: Deflection Rate under different weight & speed
Figure-15: Tyre Load under different weight & speed
Table Captions
Table-1: H41x16.0R20 Tyre Parts Material properties
Table-2: Inflation test and simulation results
Table-3: Static load scenario results
Table-4: Aircraft tyre application and data [5]

16