| Literature DB >> 35335511 |
Agustinus Purna Irawan1, Deni Fajar Fitriyana2, Cionita Tezara3, Januar Parlaungan Siregar4, Dwinita Laksmidewi5, Gregorius Dimas Baskara6, Mohd Zulkfly Abdullah7, Ramli Junid4, Agung Efriyo Hadi8, Mohammad Hazim Mohamad Hamdan9, Najid Najid1.
Abstract
The braking system is a crucial element in automotive safety. In order for the braking mechanism to function effectively, the brake pads' durability as well as quality are crucial aspects to take into account. A brake pad is a part of a vehicle that holds the wheel rotation so that braking can occur. Asbestos, which is harmful to human health, is a raw material that is recently being widely used as a material mixture for the manufacturing of brake pads. Many efforts have been made by researchers to find other natural alternative materials to replace the use of asbestos. Natural materials that have received much attention and research include coconut fiber, wood powder or flour, bamboo fiber, shell powder, etc. This review paper focuses on analyzing the main parameters that affect brake pad performance. The composition of filler and fiber types of reinforcement for polymer composites is discussed. Previous studies' information on the fabrication and testing of brake pads are also highlighted. Furthermore, the findings of this review can provide researchers and academicians with useful information and points to consider for further research.Entities:
Keywords: brake pad; composites; filler; friction; natural fiber; wear test
Year: 2022 PMID: 35335511 PMCID: PMC8955337 DOI: 10.3390/polym14061180
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Force of friction between the brake pads and the rotor surface.
Figure 2Failure on brake pads caused by excessive thermal loading (a) wears, (b) disc thickness variations, and (c) surface cracking.
Chemical and mechanical properties of some agricultural waste materials for composites [19,23,24,25,26,27,28].
| Chemical Properties | Physical and Mechanical Properties | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agricultural Waste Type | Cellulose (%) | Hemicellulose (%) | Lignin | Wax (%) | Density | Elongation (%) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Young’s Modulus |
| Jute | 45–71 | 13.6–21 | 12–26 | 0.5–2 | 1.3–1.46 | 1.5–1.8 | 393–800 | 10–30 |
| Ramie | 68.6–76.2 | 13.1–16.7 | 0.6–0.7 | - | 1.5 | 2.0–3.8 | 220–938 | 44–128 |
| Sisal | 67–78 | 10–14.2 | 8.0–11 | - | 1.33–1.5 | 2.0–14 | 400–700 | 9.0–38.0 |
| Kenaf | 31–39 | 21–21.5 | 15.9 | - | 1.2 | 2.7–6.9 | 295 | - |
| Abaca | 60.8–64 | 17.5–21 | 12–15.1 | - | 1.5 | - | 980 | - |
| Hemp | 57–77 | 14–22.4 | 3.7–13 | 0.8 | 1.48 | 1.6 | 550–900 | 70 |
| Flax | 71 | 18.6–20.6 | 2.2 | - | 1.4–1.5 | 1.2–3.2 | 345–1500 | 27.6–80 |
| Coconut (coir) | 36.62–43.21 | 0.15–0.25 | 41.23–45.33 | - | 0.67–1.15 | 27.21–32.32 | 173.5–175.0 | 4–6 |
| Bamboo | 73 | 12 | 10 | - | 0.6–1.1 | 4–7 | 360.5–590.3 | 22.2–54.2 |
| Sugarcane | 55.60–57.40 | 23.90–24.50 | 24.35–26.30 | - | 0.31–1.25 | 6.20–8.2 | 257.3–290.5 | 15–18 |
| Pineapple | 70.55–82.31 | 18.73–21.90 | 5.35–12.33 | - | 1.25–1.60 | 2.78–3.34 | 166–175 | 5.51–6.76 |
| Palm kernel shell (PKS) | 31.33 | 17.94 | 48.83 | - | 0.93–2.3 | 2.13–5.00 | 227.5–278.4 | 2.7–3.2 |
| Rice straw | 28.42–48.33 | 23.22–28.45 | 12.65–16.72 | - | 0.86–0.87 | 2.11–2.25 | 435–450 | 24.67–26.33 |
Figure 3The layers of the brake pad.
Figure 4Cross-section of a coconut.
Figure 5Cross-section of a palm.
The relation of the type of reinforcement and mechanical properties of non-asbestos brake pads.
| No. | Type of Reinforcement | Fabrication Method | Weight Fraction (wt.%) | Hardness | Density (g/cm3) | Wear Rate | Coefficient of Friction | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Coconut shell powder | Hot Compression (80 °C, 100 KN/cm2, 5 min) | 2 wt. | 21 | 2.05 | [ | ||
| 4 wt. | 70 | 2 | ||||||
| 6 wt. | 69.7 | 1.89 | ||||||
| 8 wt. | 68 | 1.7 | ||||||
| 10 wt. | 58 | 1.6 | ||||||
| 2 | Grounded coconut shell | Hand lay-up | 50 wt. | 30 (HRF) | 2.55 | 2.56 | [ | |
| 40 wt. | 39 (HRF) | 2.54 | 2.1 | |||||
| 30 wt. | 40 (HRF) | 2.45 | 0.5 | |||||
| 20 wt. | 58 (HRF) | 2.22 | 0.25 | |||||
| 10 wt. | 60 (HRF) | 2.15 | 0.5 | |||||
| 3 | Palm kernel shell + coconut shell | Compression | 25 wt. + 25 wt. | 3.3 (kgf/mm2) | 2.55 | 0.2193 (g/min) | 0.374 | [ |
| 38 wt. + 13 wt. | 3.41 (kgf/mm2) | 2.6 | 0.2733 (g/min) | 0.383 | ||||
| 15 wt. + 36 wt. | 3 (kgf/mm2) | 2.78 | 0.2007 (g/min) | 0.362 | ||||
| 4 | Candlenut shell powder + coconut shell powder | Compression | 35 wt. + 25 wt. | 87 (HR) | 5.28 × 10−5 g/mm.s | [ | ||
| 30 wt. + 20 wt. | 89 (HR) | 4.82 × 10−5 g/mm.s | ||||||
| 25 wt. + 15 wt. | 92 (HR) | 3.67 × 10−5 g/mm.s | ||||||
| 5 | Wood powder + coconut fiber + cow bone | Compression | 0 wt. + 40 wt. + 10 wt. | 23.9 (HV) | 0.47 | [ | ||
| 40 wt. + 0 wt. + 10 wt. | 35.4 (HV) | 0.41 | ||||||
| 20 wt. + 20 wt. + 10 wt. | 32.1 (HV) | 0.38 | ||||||
| 25 wt. + 25 wt. + 0 wt. | 26.5 (HV) | 0.44 | ||||||
| 6 | Coconut shell powder + sugarcane powder | Hand lay-up | 21 wt. + 7 wt. | 3.55 × 10−6 mg/m | 0.448 | [ | ||
| 14 wt. + 14 wt. | 4.13 × 10−6 mg/m | 0.434 | ||||||
| 7 wt. + 21 wt. | 3.87 × 10−6 mg/m | 0.395 | ||||||
| 7 | Coconut | Hot Compression | 29 wt | 37.14 HRB | 0.323 mm3/N·mm | 0.454 | [ | |
| 8 | Bamboo | Hot Compression | 20 wt | 44.10 HRB | 0.242 mm3/N·mm | 0.46 | ||
| 9 | Palm kernel fiber | Hand lay-up | 10 wt. | 2.11 HRC | 0.000197 mm3/N·m | [ | ||
| 20 wt. | 2.75 HRC | 0.001970 mm3/N·m | ||||||
| 30 wt. | 2.84 HRC | 0.000390 mm3/N·m | ||||||
| 40 wt. | 2.92 HRC | 0.000197 mm3/N·m | ||||||
| 50 wt. | 2.98 HRC | 0.000098 mm3/N·m | ||||||
| 10 | Palm kernel fiber + wheat fiber + nile rose fiber | Hand lay-up | 5 wt. + 2 wt. + 3 wt. | 1.83 HRC | 0.00052 mm3/N·m | |||
| 10 wt. + 5 wt. + 5 wt. | 2.05 HRC | 0.00118 mm3/N·m | ||||||
| 15 wt. + 10 wt. + | 2.23 HRC | 0.00026 mm3/N·m | ||||||
| 20 wt. + 10 wt. + 10 wt. | 2.39 HRC | 0.00132 mm3/N·m | ||||||
| 25 wt. + 15 wt. + 10 wt. | 2.47 HRC | 0.00264 mm3/N·m | ||||||
| 11 | Kenaf fiber | Hot Compression | 25 wt. | 87 HRB | 1.429 | 3.48 mg/m | 0.43 | [ |
| 20 wt. | 86 HRB | 1.513 | 3.89 mg/m | 0.41 | ||||
| 30 wt. | 84 HRB | 1.639 | 4.02 mg/m | 0.4 | ||||
| 35 wt. | 82 HRB | 1.712 | 4.33 mg/m | 0.39 | ||||
| 40 wt. | 88 HRB | 2.012 | 4.65 mg/m | 0.38 | ||||
| 15 wt. | 91 HRB | 2.392 | 4.71 mg/m | 0.38 | ||||
| 12 | Banana fiber + coconut coir + rice husk | Hand lay-up | 10 wt. + 5 wt. + 5 wt. | 45.6 | 0.6 | [ |
Physical and mechanical properties of phenolic resin [70,75,76,77,78,79].
| Properties | Value |
|---|---|
| Specific gravity | 1.12–1.16 |
| Flash point (℃) | 72.5 |
| Boiling point (℃) | 181.8 |
| Melting point (℃) | 100–115 |
| Elongation at break (%) | 2 |
| Density (g/cm3) | 1.2–1.4 |
| No tamped volumetric weight (g/dm3) | 350–550 |
| Tamped volumetric weigh (g/dm3) | 600–800 |
| Solubility | acetone, ethyl alcohol, ethyl acetate |
| pH | 7–8.5 |
| Tensile strength (MPa) | 34.5–62.1 |
| Tensile Modulus (GPa) | 2.76–4.8 |
| Thermal-decomposition temperature (℃) | 300 (starting) |
| Total weight losses (%) during the thermal degradation process (room temperature to 800 ℃) | 55.2 |
The thermal-decomposition temperatures of the binder resins [66,91,92].
| The Binder Resins | Thermal Decomposition Temperature (°C) |
|---|---|
| Aromatic Ring-Modified Phenolic Resin | 488.0 |
| Straight Phenolic Resin | 418.5–550 |
| Alkyl-Modified Phenolic Resin | 461.5 |
| Silicon-Modified Phenolic Resin | 378.8 |
| Acrylic 30%-Modified Phenolic Resin | 373.9 |
| Cashew Nut Shell Liquid Modified Resin | 431 |
| Melamine Resin | 408 |
| Alkyl Benzene modified resin | 420 |