MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395080064 · doi:10.4271/2024-01-5049

Proposed Test Method for Brake Pad Lining Robustness in Cold Conditions

2024· article· en· W4395080064 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Daniel Austin Passador, Douglas Barret Boudreau, Christopher James Capacchione

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBrake Systems and Friction Analysis
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)BrakeAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceReliability engineeringStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With globalization, vehicles are sold across the world throughout different markets and their automotive brake systems must function across a range of environmental conditions. Currently, there is no current standardized test that analyzes brake pads’ robustness against severe cold and humid environmental conditions. The purpose of this proposed test method is to validate brake system performance under severe cold conditions, comparing the results with ambient conditions to evaluate varying lining materials’ functional robustness. The goal of this paper is to aid in setting a standardized process and procedure for the testing of automotive brakes’ environmental robustness. Seven candidate friction materials were selected for analysis. The friction materials are kept confidential. Design of experiment (DOE) techniques were used to create a full-factorial test plan that covered all combinations of parameters. The test script involves brake applications at 5, 10, 15, and 20 bar, at both ambient/non-humid and cold/humid conditions. Each brake application collects the stop time and coefficient of friction (COF) values throughout the stop. Failure modes are subjectively long braking times and failed brakes. The test results verify that brake pad effectiveness is dependent on friction lining, braking pressure, and environmental conditions. Other than at the lowest tested braking pressure, the COFs appear to be consistent across the tested braking pressures. Each material was evaluated for robustness against cold conditions by calculating their signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio, a common method used during design for six sigma (DFSS) robust optimization analysis. The braking time S/N is calculated using smaller the better (STB) analysis, whereas the COF S/N is calculated using the larger the better (LTB) analysis. Using the S/N ratio, it can easily be determined which brake pad friction lining material is the most robust against environmental conditions. Friction designation A was consistently calculated to be the most robust friction material against the cold environmental conditions. All friction linings had extended stopping times in cold conditions when compared to ambient conditions. In some cases, the lining materials reached critical failure in severe cold environments. Additionally, the collected friction values gave insight into potential extreme pad wear rates.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
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