PDA

View Full Version : Brake design: mu, pressure, pedal force, heat capacity and disapation



Jonny Rochester
03-31-2015, 05:34 AM
I am looking at brakes. To preserve the UTAS 2014 we must buy everything again.

Background: 2014 car used 3 Wilwood Dynalite brakes, with aluminium discs, and 3/4" MC's. It worked well. To buy again we will probably use steel discs, but first I must do calculations for the old car to see if the numbers work out. But also I am thinking from first principles for designing brakes. Please forgive my language as I wrote the following for myself, or internal use...

Thinking out loud:
Consider our desired acceleration goal with a 600cc. If we are able to accelerate to 75 meters in 4.0 seconds, s=ut+(1/2)at2 → acceleration is 9.4m/s^2 or nearly 1g. To feel confident in a vehicle you want the brakes to be better in deceleration than the car is in acceleration. We aim for braking of more than 1g.

Also consider, our best decelerating (braking) needs to be limited by the tyres. This is a requirement for our brake lockup test. Our brakes need to be more capable of decelerating the car than our tyres (otherwise lockup can't be achieved).

From some info on the forums, at FS Austria one year they measured deceleration. Some of the best cars got to 95km/h then came to a stop in 22 meters. v2=u2+2as → means a deceleration of 16m/s^2 or about 1.6g. This would be limited by tyres, which may have a mu of 1.6. Some cars got over -1.6g. (With no aero 1.6g means tyre mu of 1.6).

From this info, new tyres are capable of 1.6g. We need brakes that are better than this. If we design for 1.6g then include a safety factor that may work OK.

Under max braking the vertical weight on the front wheels is higher than the rear. This could be calculated knowing CoG and other things, or we assume about 65 or 70% weight (and braking) is on the front. (Weight% on the front changes with CoG and deceleration. It maybe more like 80% at 1.6g).

With a chosen brake setup, we can use all the measurements to calculate fluid pressure and brake pedal force at 1.6g deceleration. And we check that fluid pressure is less than the component manufactures limit, and also that the drivers leg force required is not going to cause fatigue.

Also, we have selected a new brake calliper, 2 piston fixed. At this point our faculty adviser suggests we use 4 piston callipers because of their "feel". I say we can't account for that with this level of calcs so can't consider it.

Moving along... The next thing is to use energy calculations to size the thermal mass of the brake discs.

KE=(1/2)mv2 gives the energy required to convert into heat energy. Using v as the max speed, decelerating to 0km/h, and m the mass of the vehicle. Q = Cp.m.ΔT is the amount of heat energy put into the discs. m is the weight of all discs in grams. Cp is the thermal capacity of the disc material. Putting this together:

(1/2)mv2 = Cp.m.ΔT

Also checking the temperature range of the pads used to avoid pad fade. Some general assumptions are needed thinking about brake cooling and heat soak of other components, and duty cycle. For reference, another teams steel disc is 417g which is on the small side of OK.

Some general numbers I found:

max fluid pressure 1000psi, (Brembo say 1015psi, Wilwood say 1500psi)
Brake pedal has 6:1 ratio to the tip of the pedal, but effective 5:1 where the foot presses
Foot force between 250N and 500N
Brake pad pressure not over 12N/mm^2
Organic pads mu ~ 0.4
Sintered pads mu ~ 0.65 (Wilwood have graphs of brake pad specs)
Aluminium disc mu 0.47 (Wilwood PolyMatrix Q)
Front and rear master cyl. diameters maybe different.
Assume balance bar provides 1/2 pedal force to the front brakes, can be adjusted.
Cp for steel is 0.466
Cp for aluminium is 0.897 (Joules per gram per kelvin)
Brake pad fade temp ~400 degrees or 700 degrees for racing pads?

I calculated out our 2014 car with these assumptions and to brake at 1.6g we would have a foot force of about 300N.
Fluid pressure = 2.6 N.mm^2 = 377psi
Brake disc (aluminium) after 1 braking event from 150km/h, 173 degrees C.

I did this again thinking about a 5mm thick steel disc, braking from 150km/h I think it gets to ~700 degrees C if using a 500g disc. This is assuming all kinetic energy is transferred to heat energy in the discs. With the basic outer dimentions of our disc it would be 1kg, so we drill holes in it till its ~500g, which also increased cooling by convection...

So... this is all a embarrassing mess.

What model should I be using? Our faculty adviser says we should not make our own brake discs because it would take too long (a PhD or someone spending 18 months research) to understand material properties and do enough testing... :eek:

Goost
03-31-2015, 08:46 AM
You only need CoG height, wheelbase, and longitudinal acceleration to get your weight transfer - the weight transfer will nearly match your ideal braking Force distribution
(not quite because of tire load saturation, but way closer than 50%), though it's only ideal for the Ax you choose. (see 'proportioning valves')

For calculating braking energy concepts to find rotor temps, perhaps take a look at this paper by a friend of mine:
http://digitallibrary.sae.org/content/2006-01-1974
Concepts can be easily applied to your situation.

There have been arguments around here before about the energy lost during braking to tires and aero. You might search for those if interested.
Assuming 100% to brakes would be decent in my opinion.

18 mo PhD that's silly. we have had a sophomore design fine brake disks in less than 6 mo.
(with some supervision from older members of course)

As for materials; look into cast iron.

Z
03-31-2015, 09:15 PM
Jonny,

You have covered most of it quite well, so just some short comments...

* There is a massive amount of Brake Design stuff on this Forum. Just a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff... Oddly enough, Brakes are possibly only second to Radiator Design in megabits stored here. Perfecting either of these sub-systems will NOT in themselves maketh a winning car, but cocking-up either one will certainly maketh a loser. I would aim for "guaranteed good enough to do the job", but NOT "hyper-optimalised". So, brakes MUST be able to lock-up all four wheels in Brake-Test (possibly on ultra-high-Mu surface), but MUST NOT BREAK!

* A general rule I have been preaching here is that "FSAE brakes NEVER glow red...". There have been exceptions to this rule pointed out, but those were extreme examples (ie. unlimited power, heavyweight, E-cars at FSG some years ago). In short, heat-dissipation is NOT a big problem, whereas stuff "breaking" is. Worst case, if your brakes do start to glow dull red, then add some small brake-scoops to throw cold air at them. Problem solved!

* Regarding the overall leverages used in the brake system, I would use a lesser pedal-ratio than is common in FSAE, and make up for it with a higher hydraulic-ratio. So, rather than your suggested pedal-ratio = ~5:1, I would aim for about half that, or 3:1 at most. But, so as not to exceed safe hydraulic pressures, you then need to make-up the overall-ratio by INCREASING CALIPER PISTON AREAS (ie. NOT by reducing MC sizes). So, larger diameter caliper pistons, or 4-piston calipers as suggested by your Supervisor, are a good idea. The purpose of this is to reduce flex in the whole system for a stiffer pedal, and thus "better feel". Aim for a "rock-hard brake-pedal". (Edit: Here is a previous rant about brake-system leverages (http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthread.php?11873-Vertical-mounted-master-cylinder&p=121504&viewfull=1#post121504).)

* There is much successful "prior art" in the FS/FSAE world that has the disc made from a flat sheet of MILD-STEEL (!) that is laser/plasma/water-jet cut, with no further machining operations. Maybe the people who have done this can add some details for you. Again, most of the arguments for-or-against different disc materials have been covered on some thread, somewhere, here.

* The most common cock-up in FS/FSAE brake systems is a soft-pedal and non-locking pair of wheels ... due to ... air in the lines! This is fixed with good detail design and correct assembly, which I am sure you can get right.

Z

craigorydean
04-01-2015, 02:13 AM
As Z stated above the whole flat peice of metal cut out in a CNC fashion is what we do here at University of Texas-San Antonio. We get a little fancy with scallops on the edges but thats it. Personal oppinion on this, But Brakes Rotors are the most over calculated and analized waster of time part on the car. The hole are just a cheese grader for the pad if done wrong and you may not have enough surface area to brake either.

Ahmad Rezq
04-01-2015, 07:22 AM
- From car specs and vehicle dynamics obtain the braking force distribution between front and rear at the design deceleration.
- Excel or Matlab can help you to play with the brake system variables(Driver Force,Pedal Ratio,Bias,Master Bores . . . etc) and design your system.

For the rotor
we assumed all the braking power to the rotor, we did thermal analysis by simple calculations and using solidworks simulation, we did another calculations for progress braking finally we did stress analysis for the rotor.
we didn't test yet to tell if our work went fine or not.

for manufacturing as Z mentioned
we laser cut our rotor from Mild steel plate 5mm thickness then grinding to 4mm.
in 2012 the team mill the rotor from a stainless steel plate also look fine.


you then need to make-up the overall-ratio by INCREASING CALIPER PISTON AREAS (ie. NOT by reducing MC sizes). So, larger diameter caliper pistons, or 4-piston calipers as suggested by your Supervisor, are a good idea.

Z i think two pistons are smaller lighter cheaper and can offer you some space in wheel assembly especially if you are using 10" wheels