Influence of Modified Phenolic Resins on the Fade and Recovery Properties of the Friction Materials: Supportive Evidence Multiple Criteria Decision-making Method (MCDM)

Abstract

Multiple criteria decision-making method (MCDM), called balancing and ranking method, is employed for the ranking of five non asbestos fiber reinforced organic friction materials (FMs). This variant of MCDM uses three steps to derive a transitive overall final order of a finite set of options. First, an outranking matrix is derived in which pairwise comparison indicates the frequency with which one option is superior to all other options based on each criterion. Second, the outranking matrix is triangularized to obtain an implicit pre ordering or provisional order of options. Third, the provisional order of options is subjected to various screening and balancing operations that require sequential application of a balancing principle to the advantage and disadvantage table.

Five FMs based on five different phenolic resins are evaluated on Krauss friction tester according to ECE R-90 regulation (Economic Commission for European regulation). Resins used for friction composites are; (i) straight phenolic resin, (ii) alkyl benzene modified resin, (iii) cashew nut shell liquid modified resin, (iv) NBR modified resin, and (v) linseed oil modified resin. The various performance criteria selected for the analysis are: performance-μ,% recovery in μ,% Fade in μ, wear, and temperature rise in the rotor disc. After optimization of various performance parameters of five FMs it was observed that the alkyl benzene modified phenolic resin composite performed well and linseed oil modified phenolic resin based composite was poor. The order obtained after evaluating this method complies with the results presented theoretically.

Keywords

MCDM friction material % fade % recovery phenolic resin

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blau, P. J. and Mclaughlin, J. C. (2003). Tribol. Intl., 36: 709-715 .

Kim, S. J. and Jang, H. (2000). Tribol. Intl., 33: 477-484 .

Chan, D. and Stachowiak, G. W. (2004). Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs ., J. Automobile Engineering, I Mech E, 218: 953-966 .

Sen, P. and Yang, J. B. (1998). Multiple Criteria Decision Support in Engineering Design, Springer-Verlag London Ltd., London .

Saaty, T. L. (1988). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, University of Pittsburgh, USA .

Hwang, C. L. and Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey, Springer Verlag, Berlin .

Stewart, T. J. (1992). OMEGA Int. J. of Mgmt. Sci., 20: 569-586 .

Zak, J. (1997). Int. Trans. in Op. Res., 6: 571-590 .

Chau, O. L. and Parkan, C. (1995). J. Eng. Technol. Manage., 12: 219-237 .

10.

Strassert, G. and Prato, T. (2002). Ecological Economics, 40: 269-277 .

11.

Prato, T. (1999). Ecological Economics, 30: 207-222 .

12.

Strassert, G. (1997). Revista Interamericana de Planification, XXIX, 113: 48-66 .

13.

Bijwe, J. , Nidhi, Majumdar, N. and Satapathy, B. K. (2005). Influence of Modified Phenolic Resins on the Fade and Recovery Behaviour of Friction Materials , Wear, 259: 1068-1078 .

14.

Solmaz, E. , Babalik, F. C. and Ozturk, F. (2002). Indl. Lub and Tribol., 54(1): 20-25 .

15.

Elzey, D. M. , Vancheeswaran, R. , Myers, S. W. and McLellan, R. G. (2000). SAE Proc., 2000-01-2779, 181-192 .

16.

Elzey, D. M. , Vancheeswaran, R. , Myers, S. and McLellan, R. (2000). In: Barton, D. and Earle, S. (eds), Intl. Conf. on Brakes 2000 Automotive Braking -Technologies for the 21st Century, Leeds, UK, 11-12 July, pp. 197-205 .

17.

Satapathy, B. K. and Bijwe, J. (2004). Wear, 257: 585-589 .

18.

Lansdowne, Z. F. (1997). Social Choice and Welfare, 14: 125-128 .

19.

Bartnick, J. (1991). In: Gruber, J. (ed.), Econometric Decision Models, Springer, Berlin , pp. 487-495.