MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590007895 · doi:10.4271/2006-01-3219

Brake Insulator Development: Thermal and Structural Dynamic Semi-Empirical Design Guidance/Data Synthesis Methods

2006· article· en· W1590007895 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher T. Griffen, Sharon Wanigatunga, Victor Abramson

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBrake Systems and Friction Analysis
Canadian institutionsEaglePicher (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrakeComputer scienceThermalDevelopment (topology)Automotive engineeringControl engineeringEngineeringPhysicsMathematicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brake insulator performs a significant function when properly designed in controlling the brake system high frequency dynamic instabilities leading to brake squeal. The second major challenge is thermal management. It provides the direct heat flow, storage and corresponding temperature differential profile between the rotor and piston. Suboptimal thermal control can lead to lower operational bands of damping outside of the peak loss factor range, variation in modal dynamics with temperature, heat aging and degradation of elastomer/visco-elastic polymer physical properties [2, 3]. Design of the insulator is dictated by the unique squeal signature (and associated thermal cycles) specific to the brake corner architecture. Short time frame insulator solutions are typically required in the later development stages with no latitude for design modification flexibility. The use of numerical approximation and semi-empirical tools provide the flexibility to address compressed development time. This allows provision for a greater number of alternative solutions to be assessed and significant reduction in hardware and test resources and time during the insulator selection process. This paper demonstrates efficiencies obtained through integration of the underlying thermal and Oberst based beam based theories with empirical data results to provide directional guidance of alternative designs and the ability to synthesize data from existing results without additional testing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicBrake Systems and Friction AnalysisFrench-language works237,207