Influence of Test Procedure on Friction Behavior and its Repeatability in Dynamometer Brake Performance Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efforts of the ISO “Test Variability Task Force” have been aimed at improving the understanding and at reducing brake dynamometer test variability during performance testing. In addition, dynamometer test results have been compared and correlated to vehicle testing. Even though there is already a vast amount of anecdotal evidence confirming the fact that different procedures generate different friction coefficients on the same brake corner, the availability of supporting data to the industry has been elusive up to this point. To overcome this issue, this paper focuses on assessing friction levels, friction coefficient sensitivity, and repeatability under ECE, GB, ISO, JASO, and SAE laboratory friction evaluation tests. With multiple companies (or programs) developing and assessing the friction coefficient and friction behavior under different methods, it is inevitable to avoid conflicts of performance requirements or lack of reproducibility or correlation of test results under different test methods. In order to provide an evaluation consistent with previous phases of the Task Force activities, the same brake corner assembly and same friction material is used for this study. The study is comprised of three main steps: 1 Conducting tests under several test procedures. 2 Assessing and comparing friction levels, in-stop friction behaviour, repeatability, as well as friction coefficient sensitivity to the test conditions, including the friction-couple thermal history. 3 Presenting benefits and limitations of each procedure as-written along with a simplified comparison of the test sequences and its main test conditions. Similar to previous phases of the project, the study uses statistical tools for the multidimensional comparison.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".