Production and characterization of brake pad developed from coconut shell reinforcement material using central composite design

Abstract

In this work, locally sourced non-hazardous materials were used to produce brake pad using grey relational analysis (GRA) and experimental design via central composite design. Raw materials selected for production include coconut shell, epoxy resin (binder), graphite (friction modifier) and aluminum oxide (abrasive). Twenty-seven samples were produced separately using coconut shell as reinforcement material by varying process parameters. Formulation of the brake pads samples was done using rule of mixture and a weight percent of 52% reinforcement material, 35% binder, 8% abrasive and 5% friction modifier were used for the production. Grey relational analysis (GRA) shows that optimal process performance can be obtained using molding pressure, molding temperature, curing time and heat treatment time of 14 MPa, 140 °C, 8 min and 5 h, respectively. Optimized sample was produced using the optimal set of process parameters obtained from GRA and compared with commercially available sample produced by Ibeto Group. The experimental results showed that the performance of the optimized coconut shell-reinforced brake pad compared satisfactorily with commercially available samples and capable of producing less brake noise and vibration during application. Analysis of variance shows that curing time with a contribution of 30.38% and 31.40% have the most significant effect on the hardness and ultimate tensile strength of the coconut shell-reinforced friction material, respectively, while heat treatment time with a contribution of 46.3% and 24.23% have the most significant effect on the wear rate and friction coefficient of coconut shell-reinforced brake pad, respectively. The effects of all the factors on the properties of the friction materials are significant since their p values are greater than 0.010 (1%). Keywords Brake pads • Central composite design • Grey relational analysis • Coconut shell and characterization List of symbols Axial value µ Coefficient of friction Distinguishing coefficient u Percentage weight δ Densities f Volume fraction X Weight F Applied load d Disk diameter t Time of exposure of specimen to abrasion N Radial speed b Support span (mm) t Specimen thickness (mm) Deflection (mm) w Specimen width (mm) χ Distinguishing coefficient n Number of factor level combination k Performance value MT Molding temperature MP Molding pressure CT Curing time HTT Heat treatment time

Overview of the Important Factors Influencing the Performance of Eco-Friendly Brake Pads

“…In addition, curing time has the greatest impact on the coconut shell-reinforced friction material’s ultimate tensile strength and hardness, accounting for 31.40% and 30.38% accordingly. In contrast, heat treatment time has the greatest impact on the coconut shell-reinforced brake pad’s friction coefficient and wear rate, accounting for 24.23% and 46%, accordingly [ 34 ].…”

Effect of grain size on the physicomechanical properties

“…The study concluded that CS is an effective substitute for asbestos in producing brake pads. Abutu et al [24] developed CS reinforced automotive brake pads using the gray relational analysis and the central composite experimental design approach. The developed samples produced less noise and vibration during application when compared to the control sample.…”

Tribological Properties of Friction Materials Developed from Non- Asbestos Materials using Response Surface Methodology

“…In this study, CCD via RSM experimental design consisting of moulding pressure (MP), moulding temperature (MT), curing time (CT) and heat treatment (HTT) was built in accordance to standard L27(2) 4 using Minitab 17 statistical software. The factor levels of process parameters and experimental design matrix are shown in Table 1 and Askeland (1985) utilising density ( ) as a criteria while production was carried out on a compression moulding machine situated at Federal College of Chemical and Leather Technology (FCCLT), Samaru, Zaria (Polymer workshop) and was conducted using the procedure adopted by Abutu et al (2019) which involved utilising varying process parameters shown in Table 2 with constant percentage composition as obtained from ROM. This procedure further involved pouring and mixing epoxy resin and hardener (catalyst) in the ratio of 2:1 in a separate container, followed by filling of mould cavity with total mixture of mixed binder and filler materials, then, the withdrawal of cured samples from the moulding machine, cooling of samples and removal of the cooled samples from the mould.…”