Downloaded from SAE International by Radu Drosescu, Monday, March 10, 2014 03:26:18 AM

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES

2003-01-1533

Lab-to-Lab Correlation for Tire Noise Load Cases

Jason Zhu and Tim Roggenkamp
General Motors

Dinghong Yan
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Noise & Vibration Conference and Exhibition

Traverse City, Michigan
May 5-8, 2003
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax:
724-772-4891
Tel:
724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service
Tel:
877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel:
724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax:
724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2003 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of
SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which
discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA

2003-01-1533

Lab-to-Lab Correlation for Tire Noise Load Cases

Jason Zhu and Tim Roggenkamp
General Motors

Dinghong Yan
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Copyright 2003 SAE International

ABSTRACT
The paper presented a correlation work between the GM
and Goodyear acoustical laboratories to determine the
tire noise load cases used for vehicle tire noise allocation
and high-frequency airborne noise analysis. A large
group of tires with different sizes were tested in the two
labs to examine the lab-to-lab load cases differences in
terms of near-field sound intensity and far-field sound
power. A good agreement was found for the noise
ranking between the two labs by 1/3 octave band and
overall A-weighted sound intensity and sound power. The
correction factors could be determined from one lab to
another as well as from the near-field sound intensity to
the far-field sound power. The discrepancies were
investigated by comparing the two fixtures and two dyno
shell profiles. The differences in 1/3 octave band sound
measurement between the two labs were found to be
contributed mainly by the shell profiles.

INTRODUCTION
Developing an engineering method to quantify the airborne tire noise load cases is an important step towards
the vehicle noise specs allocation and vehicle highfrequency SEA analyses. The load cases can be
described as total sound power or sound intensity around
the tire, or more complicatedly as source strengths or
volume velocities on the facets of the tire. Recently,
several methods have been developed in the literature
[1-2] to inversely identify volume velocities. To do the
inverse processing, these methods required the nearfield operational pressure responses and transfer
functions from the source (volume velocity) to the
pressure responses. Accuracy relied on a great amount
of measurement or numerical calculation (such as BEM)
to obtain transfer functions, as well as a great amount of
operational pressure measurement. Accuracy tended to
fail due to the increase of radiation complexity when the
frequency went high. In this paper, to practical
engineering concern, the authors were interested in the
measurement of spatially averaged sound power around
the tire as the load cases, which can be easily and

directly applicable into the vehicle noise specs allocation

and SEA analyses.
General Motors developed an in-situ near-field sound
intensity measurement technique [3-4] to guide the tire
air-borne noise development work. This paper further
implemented this technique into dyno testing and derived
the empirical correction factors to convert the in-situ
sound intensity into total sound power as load cases
based on dyno measured results. Furthermore, the
correction factors can be applied into the on-road
measured sound intensity to determine the on-road tire
air-borne noise load cases.
In order to standardize this process and to share the
information, General Motors worked with Goodyear to
test a large group of tires that covered different types of
applications, more than 11 tires involved. The variations
and average correction factors from lab to lab were
investigated. GM worked with Goodyear because of the
similarity in both test facility and will share the nonproprietary information with other suppliers in the future.
The good correlation between two different labs also led
to the confidence of using dyno results in measuring tire
airborne noise load cases, as well as in sharing results
between the two labs.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS AND DISCUSSIONS

The special lab fixture was operated by loading a tire on
the dyno shell at Goodyear semi-anechoic chamber as
seen in Figure 1. The same tires were tested with a twowheel GM special trailer used on a GM dyno facility as
seen in Figure 2. Tires were loaded with the same
vertical load (either 700 kg or 550 kg depending on the
tire size) on both labs. However, different smooth road
shells and different rough road shells were installed on
both dyno drum surfaces. Tires ran at two different
speeds of 80 KPH (kilometer per hour) on smooth road
shells and 60 KPH on rough road shells.

The tests involved the measurement of near-field sound

intensity by two-microphone cross-spectral method [3-4]
and far-field sound power by ANSI S12.35-1990
pressure method [5].
NEAR-FIELD SOUND INTENSITY
The near-field sound intensity measurement by twomicrophone cross-spectral method was well described in
the previous papers [3-4]. Here, the presented results
were an average of the leading-edge intensity value and
trailing-edge intensity value when the intensity probe was
placed 75mm above the ground and 100mm away from
the tire sidewall in the alignment with the leading-edge or
trailing-edge lines, as shown in Figure 1 or 2.
1/3 Octave Band Sound Intensity Difference
Figure 3 showed the typical tire sound intensity 1/3
Octave spectra obtained from the two labs (Lab 1
indicating GM dyno facility and Lab 2 indicating
Goodyear dyno facility). It was found that the dB
difference for rough road shell is much smaller than that
for smooth road shell.
Figure 4 showed the dB difference for all the tires tested
on 60 KPH rough road shells and indicated that both labs
had a small system error due mainly to the profile
difference as discussed later. The red line was the
average dB difference between two labs and became the
correction factors between two labs for 60 KPH rough
road shells. The dashed lines were the calculated upper
and lower limits for one standard deviation. Similarly,
Figure 5 showed the dB difference for all the tires tested
on 80 KPH smooth road shells and indicated that there
existed a large frequency-dependant system error and a
high standard deviation between two labs.
Overall A-Weighted Sound Intensity Difference
Figure 6 showed an excellent agreement between two
labs for the overall A-weighted sound intensity ranking
order with respect to different tires on 60 KPH rough road
shells. The intensity results were the total RMS values
accumulated from the 1/3 octave range of 400 Hz to 10
kHz. The high correlation was demonstrated in Figure 6
with the correlation coefficient equal to 0.98. However,
the correlation coefficient for the case of 80 KPH smooth
road shells reached 0.84, indicating a favorable
agreement between two labs, as seen in Figure 7.
FAR-FIELD SOUND POWER
The sound power measurement standard [5], ANSI
S12.35-1990, provides the far-field sound power
measurement procedure in a hemi-anechoic room.
Several sound pressure responses required for power
calculation were measured around the hemisphere that
surrounded the rotating tire at the center, as seen in
Figure 8. In this project, the radius of 1.2 meter was

chosen to set the hemisphere and to reach the far-field

effect, that is, the SPL reduced by 6 dB when doubling
the distance to 2.4 meter. Due to the physical limitation,
only six microphones were used to measure the SPLs
and then to calculate the total sound power by assuming
sound radiation to be symmetric to the center plane of
the tire. The six microphone positions were displayed
and their relative coordinates were given in Figure 8.
1/3 Octave Band Sound Power Difference
Figures 9 & 10 demonstrated the far-field sound power
difference between two labs respectively for 60 KPH
rough road shells and 80 KPH smooth road shells. The
thick red line was the mean curve, and both upper and
lower dashed lines were one standard deviation offset
from the mean curve. The far-field sound power
difference between two labs had a very similar pattern as
the near-field sound intensity one respectively for both
rough road shells and smooth road shells. It was
important to find that the standard deviation for far-field
sound power was much smaller. In other words, the farfield sound power comparison between two labs had a
better chance to correlate better.
Overall A-Weighted Sound Power Difference
Figures 11 & 12 compared the overall A-weighted sound
power between two labs respectively for 60 KPH rough
road shells and 80 KPH smooth road shells. Again, the
excellent correlation between two labs was found. In the
far field, the correlation between two labs for 80 KPH
smooth road shell was much better than the near-field
intensity one.
CORRECTION FACTORS
The average dB difference from the near-field sound
intensity to the far-field sound power was plotted for both
labs in two conditions, the 60 KPH rough road and 80
KPH smooth road, as shown in Figure 13. The near-field
sound intensity is approximately 2-5 dB higher than the
far-field sound power. Both labs provided the similar
correction factors in this narrow dB difference across the
frequency range of 315 Hz to 6300 Hz. In fact, their
standard deviations, in each 1/3 octave band, of the dB
difference for all the tires were usually less than 1 dB for
the 60 KPH rough road shell and 1.5 for the 80 KPH
smooth road shell.
The very similar correction factors from both labs helped
conclude that the near-field sound intensity could be
used to quantify the total sound power of the tire with the
proper correction factors applied.
FIXTURE DIFFERENCE
This project also examined the fixture difference on
sound measurement by running Goodyear fixture (Figure
1) and GM Fixture (Figure 2) on the same Goodyear

dyno. Three tires were operated at 80 KPH to measure

the near-field sound intensity on smooth road shell. The
excellent agreement (identical trend) was shown in
Figure 14 for all three tires except small dB difference for
Tire A and Tire B at high frequencies. Such small error
could be just a run-to-run error due mainly to two
different setups and twice microphone repositioning.
As discussed before, there was a large intensity
measurement difference when tires ran on different dyno
road shells as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, the intensity
difference between two labs was not mainly caused by
fixture difference rather than dyno profile difference.
PROFILE DIFFERENCE
Figures 15 and 16 were the pictures of the epoxy-molded
smooth shell surface in the two labs. Comparing both
clearly showed some different appearance. Their profiles,
defined as vertical displacements, were measured by a
laser displacement measurement device (LMI Selcom
Laser Gauge OPTOCATOR Type 2207-200/325-B) with
a recording accuracy of 2mm distance per sampling rate.
Figure 17 compared the 1/3 Octave RMS auto-power
spectra between the two profiles. The highest 1/3 octave
band frequency was set at 3150 Hz, being limited by the
device resolution. Figure 17 showed that the rough road
shell provided much higher input energy than the smooth
road shell. The power spectra curves of the rough road
shell profiles between two labs looked very similar at the
frequencies above 630 Hz. But it was found that the GM
dyno rough road shell input more energy at lower
frequencies. However, the Goodyear (GY) smooth road
shell power spectrum increased its energy at high
frequencies when compared to the GM one.
Figure 18 provided the spectra dB difference between
two labs respectively for both 60 KPH rough road shell
and 80 KPH smooth road shell. Their trend patterns were
similar to those by sound intensity difference (see
Figures 4 & 5) and to those by sound power difference
(see Figures 9 & 10). It was found that the profile spectra
difference curve on rough road shells was relatively flat
as was the mean sound measurement difference;
however, the spectra difference curve on smooth road
shells was frequencyindependent and reduced as was
the mean sound measurement difference. It implied that
the dB differences in sound intensity or sound power
between two labs were mainly due to the use of different
shell profiles.

having different types and sizes (more than 11 different

tires). The lab-to-lab correction factors were investigated
for the two cases of 60 KPH on rough road shell and 80
KPH on smooth road shell. An excellent correlation was
found between the two labs for the noise ranking
purposes in terms of overall A-weighted sound intensity
or sound power from 400 Hz to 10 KHz. Therefore, the
tire development process could be reliably shared
between the two labs.
The differences in the lab-to-lab acoustic measurements
were analyzed by examining both labs shell profiles and
by swapping fixtures on the same dyno. The dyno shell
profile differences significantly contributed to the sound
intensity difference or sound power difference between
two labs. The fixture difference between GM trailer and
GY fixture was not the major reason to account for the
load case measurement difference.
This paper proposed to use the near-field sound intensity
and converted it into total sound power as load cases
since the near-field sound intensity could be directly
measurable on road. The correction factors from the
near-field sound intensity to the far-field total sound
power were calculated from both labs, and they were
found to be approximately 2-5 dB different across all the
frequencies. Two labs provided the very similar
correction factors in terms of 1/3 octave band so that the
near-field sound intensity could be reliably converted into
the total sound power.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was a part of tire noise road-to-lab effort at GM
and was well supported by Goodyear. The authors would
like to give sincere thanks to GM fellows, Craig Van
Voorhies for testing support, Jeffrey Stott for technical
help, and Jay Pistana for managerial support. Also, the
authors would like to thank Paul Jacobs of Goodyear for
his managerial support. Many thanks also go to Eddy
Pan, Alan Hartke, and Ray Jones of Goodyear for their
technical help.

REFERENCES

1. Wim Hendricx, Experimental Determination of the

2.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper investigated the correlation work between the
GM and Goodyear labs to determine the load cases for
tire air-borne noise that were described as total sound
power. The comparisons between the two labs for
measuring the near-field sound intensity and far-field
sound power were conducted on a large number of tires

3.

4.

Noise Emitting Parts of a Rotating Tire in the

European Research Project TINO, LMS Paper
99NV-154.
Schuhmacher A., On the Use of Inverse BEM for
Deriving Equivalent Acoustic Source Models,
Proceeding of Inter-Noise 2002, Dearborn, MI,
August 2002.
Donavan, P. R., Tire/Pavement Interaction Noise
under Vehicle Operating Conditions of Cruise and
Acceleration, SAE paper 931276, Traverse City, MI,
May 1993.
Donavan P. R. and Oswald L. J., The Identification
and Quantification of Truck Tire Noise Sources under

5.

On-Road Operating Conditions, Proceeding of InterNoise 80, New York, NY, December 1980.
American National Standard, Precision Methods for
the Determination of Sound Power Levels of Noise
Sources in Anechoic and Hemi-Anechoic Rooms,
ANSI S12.35-1990.

Figure 1. Goodyear Dyno Facility

Figure 2. GM Dyno Facility

2
4

x
z

60
5

Sound Power - ANSI Method (R=1.2m)

ANSI

Mic
Positions

Index

1
2

-1.032

0.6

0.18

1.032

0.6

0.18

1.068

0.54

0.684

0.396

0.9

-0.684

0.396

0.9

10

1.2

6
3

4,5

1,2

Figure 8. Schematic of Sound Power Measurement in

Accordance with ANSI S12.35-1990

Sound Intensity dB Difference between Two Labs

80 KPH on Smooth Road Shells

Sound Intensity dB Difference between Two Labs

60 KPH on Rough Road Shells

15

15
10

S
10
o
u
n
5
d
In
te
0
ns
ity
Di
-5
ff
er
en
ce -10

S
o
u 5
n
d
Int
en 0
sit
y
Di
ffe -5
re
nc
10

-15

31
5

40
0

50
0

63
0

80
0

10
00

12
50

16
00

20
00

25
00

31
50

40
00

50
00

63
00

80
00

Hz

0
00
10

15

31
5

40
0

50
0

63
0

80
0

10
00

12
50

16
00

20
00

25
00

31
50

40
00

50
00

63
00

80
00

Figure 5. Sound Intensity Difference between

Two Labs for 80 KPH Smooth Road Shell

Figure 4. Sound Intensity Difference between

Two Labs for 60 KPH Rough Road Shell

Sound Intensity (OV A) dB Difference between Two

Labs

Sound Intensity (OV A) dB Difference between Two Labs

Lab 2 OV A (400-10,000) Rough Road 60 KPH
Lab 1 OV A (400-10,000) Rough Road 60 KPH

Lab 2 OV A (400-10,000) Smooth Road 80 KPH

Lab 1 OV A (400-10,000) Smooth Road 80 KPH

10 3

104

10 2
102

O
V
A
S
o
u
n
d
In
te
ns
ity

O
V
A
S
o
u
n
d
In
te
ns

101

100

99

98

97

100

98

96

94

Correlation: R2=0.84
96

Correlation: R2=0.98

92

Tir
e
#1
0

95

90

94

Tir
e
#1

Tir
e
#2

Tir
e
#3

Tir
e
#4

Tir
e
#5

Tir
e
#6

Tir
e
#7

Tir
e
#8

Tir
e
#9

Tir
e
#1
0

Different Tires

Tir
e
#1

Tir
e
#1
1

Tir
e
#2

Tir
e
#4

Tir
e
#5

Tir
e
#6

Tir
e
#7

Tir
e
#8

Tir
e
#9

Different Tires

Figure 6. Overall A-Weighted Sound Intensity

Ranking for 60 KPH Rough Road Shell

Figure 7. Overall A-Weighted Sound Intensity

Ranking for 80 KPH Smooth Road Shell

Sound Power dB Difference between Two Labs

60 KPH on Rough Road Shell

Sound Power dB Difference between Two Labs

80 KPH on Smooth Road Shell

15

S
o
u
n
d
P
o
w
er
Di
ff
er
en
ce

Tir
e
#3

15

10

10

S
o
u
5
n
d
P
o
0
w
er
Di
ff -5
er
en
-10
ce

-5

-10

10
00
0

-15
-15
31
5

40
0

50
0

63
0

80
0

63
00
10
00

12
50

16
20
00 Hz 00

25
00

31
50

40
00

80
00

31
5

40
0

50
0

63
0

80
0

10
00

12
50

16
00

20
00

25
00

31
50

40
00

50
00

50
00

Figure 9. Sound Power Difference between

Two Labs for 60 KPH Rough Road Shell

Hz

Figure 10. Sound Power Difference between

Two Labs for 80 KPH Smooth Road Shell

63
00

80
00

Sound Power Ranking between TwoLabs

60 KPH on Rough Road Shell

Sound Power Ranking between Two Labs

80 KPH on Smooth Road Shell

Lab 2 OV A (400-10,000) Rough Road 60 KPH

Lab 2 OV A (400-10,000) Smooth Road 80 KPH

Lab 1 OV A (400-10,000) Rough Road 60 KPH

Lab 1 OV A (400-10,000) Smooth Road 80 KPH

101
102

100

100

O
ve
ra
ll
d
B
A
S
o
u
n
d
P

O
ve
ral
l
d
B
A
S
o
u
n
d
P

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

Correlation: R2=0.95

98

96

94

92

Correlation: R2=0.94
88

91

90

86

Tir
e
#1

Tir
e
#2

Tir
e
#3

Tir
e
#4

Tir
e
#5

Tir
e
#6

Tir
e
#7

Tir
e
#8

Tir
e
#9

Tir
e
#1
0

Different Tires

Tir
e
#1
1

Tir
e
#1

Tir
e
#2

Tir
e
#3

Tir
e
#4

Tir
e
#5

Tir
e
#6

Tir
e
#7

Tir
e
#8

Tir
e
#9

Tir
e
#1
0

Tir
e
#1
1

Different Tires

Figure 11. Sound Power Ranking Order between Two

Labs for 60 KPH Rough Road Shell

Figure 12. Sound Power Ranking Order between Two

Labs for 80 KPH Smooth Road Shell
102

Sound Intensity - Sound Power Difference

Sound Power Ranking between Two Labs

80 KPH on Smooth Road Shell

60SD Intensity-Power dB Difference - Lab 1 Correction Factors

80 SMIntensity-Power dB Difference - Lab 1 Correction Factors
60SD Intensity-Power dB Difference - Lab 2 Correction Factors
80 SMIntensity-Power dB Difference - Lab 2 Correction Factors

Lab 2 OV A (400-10,000) Smooth Road 80 KPH

Lab 1 OV A (400-10,000) Smooth Road 80 KPH

15

100

O
ve
ral
l
d
B
A
S
o
u
n
d
P

10

C
or 5
re
cti
o 0
n
fa
ct -5
-10

98

96

94

92

Correlation: R2=0.94
88

86

-15

315

400

500

630

800

1000

1250

1600

2000

2500

3150

4000

5000

6300

Hz

Figure 13. Correction Factors from Sound Intensity to

Sound Power

Tir
e
#1

Tir
e
#2

Tir
e
#3

Tir
e
#4

Tir
e
#5

Tir
e
#6

Different Tires

Tir
e
#7

Tir
e
#8

Tir
e
#9

Tir
e
#1
0

Tir
e
#1
1

Figure 14. Sound Intensity Comparison between GY

Fixture and GM Trailer for Three Different Tires

Figure 15. Smooth Shell Surface Texture of Lab 1

Figure 16. Smooth Shell Surface Texture of Lab 2

Dyno Shell Profile Power Spectra

Dyno Shell Profile Power Sepctra Difference

GM Dyno Shell Profile Spectra - 80 KPH Smooth

Road GM Dyno Shell Profile Spectra - 60 KPH
Rough Road GY Dyno Shell Profile Spectra - 80 KPH
Smooth Road GY Dyno Shell Profile Spectra - 60
KPH Rough Road

GM-GY Profile Difference for 80 KPH Smooth Road Shell GMGY Profile Difference for 60 KPH Rough Road Shell
20

-5 0

15
-5 5

m
m
^2
,
d
B
10
L
O
G

10

Diffe
renc
5
e,
Unit:
0
mm
^2
-5
10
LOG
-10
10(*)

-6 0

-6 5

-7 0

-7 5

-15

-8 0

-85

20
0

25
0

31
5

40
0

50
0

63
0

80
0

10
00

12
50

16
00

Hz

Figure 17 Dyno shell profile power spectra

20
00

25
00

31
50

-20
20
0

25
0

31
5

40
0

50
0

63
0

80
0

10
00

12
50

16
00

20
00

25
00

31
50

Hz

Figure 18 Dyno shell profile power spectra difference

between two labs