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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">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.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">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.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">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.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">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.</div></div>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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