The disc brake works in an open environment in contact with the outside world. The particles will cause fluctuations in the friction coefficient of the brake. A friction model is established to reflect the morphology characteristics of the surface and the particles, as well as the relationship between the mechanical properties of the brake pair and friction-velocity. The influence of surface morphology parameters and particle parameters on the friction model is analyzed. Based on the model, the stability of the braking system was analyzed, and the influence of friction parameters on the stick-slip vibration characteristics of the system was studied numerically. The results show that the variation of particle parameters has a great influence on the motion stability of the braking system.
ZhangZOberstSLaiJCS. On the potential of uncertainty analysis for prediction of brake squeal propensity. J Sound Vibration2016; 377: 123–132.
3.
MillsHRBrake squeak. Technical report 9000 B. Inst Automobile Eng1938.
4.
GuoKZhangXLiH, et al.Non-reversible friction modeling and identification. Archive Appl Mech2008; 78: 795–809.
5.
LiCBPavelescuD. The friction-speed relation and its influence on the critical velocity of stick-slip motion. Wear1982; 82: 277–289.
6.
BoucR. Forced vibration of mechanical system with hysteresis. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Nonlinear Oscillations, Prague, 5–9 September 1967.
7.
WenYK. Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. ASCE J Eng Mech Div1976; 102: 249–263.
8.
WeiDRuanJZhuW, et al.Properties of stability, bifurcation, and chaos of the tangential motion disk brake. J Sound Vib2016; 375: 353–365.
9.
PapangeloAPutignanoCHoffmannN. Critical thresholds for mode-coupling instability in viscoelastic sliding contacts. Nonlinear Dyn2021; 104.4: 2995–3011.
10.
ZhangZOberstSLaiJCS. A non-linear friction work formulation for the analysis of self-excited vibrations. J Sound Vib2018; 443: 328–340.
11.
ErikssonMBergmanFJacobsonS. Surface characterisation of brake pads after running under silent and squealing conditions. Wear1999; 232: 163–167.
12.
BergmanFErikssonMJacobsonS. Influence of disc topography on generation of brake squeal. Wear1999; 225–229: 621–628.
LeeSMShinMWJangH. Friction-induced intermittent motion affected by surface roughness of brake friction materials. Wear2013; 308: 29–34.
15.
YoonSWShinMWLeeWG, et al.Effect of surface contact conditions on the stickslip behavior of brake friction material. Wear2012; 294-295: 305–312.
16.
LeeSMShinMWLeeWK, et al.The correlation between contact stiffness and stickslip of brake friction materials. Wear2013; 302: 1414–1420.
17.
HammerstrmLJacobsonS. Surface modification of brake discs to reduce squeal problems. Wear2006; 261: 53–57.
18.
ShinMWKimYHJangH. Effect of the abrasive size on the friction effectiveness and instability of brake friction materials: a case study with zircon. Tribol Lett2014; 55: 371–379.
19.
LeeSJangH. Effect of plateau distribution on friction instability of brake friction materials. Wear2018; 400–401: 1–9.
20.
SherifHA. Investigation on effect of surface topography of pad/disc assembly on squeal generation. Wear2004; 257: 687–695.
21.
OstermeyerGP. On the dynamics of the friction coefficient. Wear2003; 254: 852–858.
22.
DankowiczH. On the modeling of dynamic friction phenomena. Z für Angew Mathematik Mechanik1999; 79: 399–409.
23.
GausNProppeCZaccardiC. Modeling of dynamical systems with friction between randomly rough surfaces. Probabilistic Eng Mech2017; 54: 82–86.
24.
StenderMTiedemannMHoffmannN. Impact of an irregular friction formulation on dynamics of a minimal model for brake squeal. Mech Syst Signal Process2018; 107: 439–451.
25.
GreenwoodJAWilliamsonJ. Contact of nominally flat surfaces. Proc R Soc Lond1966; 295: 300–319.
26.
AbbottEJ. Specifying surface quality a method based on accurate measurement and comparison. Mech Eng1933; 55: 569–572.
27.
ChangWREtsionIBogyDB. An elastic-plastic model for the contact of rough surfaces. Trans Asme, J Tribol1987; 109: 257–263.
28.
GodetM. The third-body approach: a mechanical view of wear. Wear1984; 100: 437–452.
29.
LazimAMBakarAAHamidM, et al.Influence of silica sand particles on disc brake squeal noise. Appl Mech Mater2014; 471: 81–85.
30.
ZhaoYChangL. A micro-contact and wear model for chemical–mechanical polishing of silicon wafers. Wear2002; 252: 220–226.
31.
HorngJHLeeJSDuDC. Three-body microcontact model of rough surfaces and its application on polishing of wafer. Mater Sci Forum2006; 505-507: 445–450.
32.
WuHWChenYYJeng-HaurH. The analysis of three-body contact temperature under the different third particle size, density, and value of friction. Micromachines2017; 8: 302.
33.
MassiFBerthierYBailletL. Contact surface topography and system dynamics of brake squeal. Wear2008; 265:1784–1792.
34.
SherifHA. Investigation on effect of surface topography of pad/disc assembly on squeal generation. Wear2004; 257: 687–695.
35.
HetzlerHWillnerK. On the influence of contact tribology on brake squeal. Tribol Int2011; 46: 237–246.
36.
SandersPGXuNDalkaTM, et al.Airborne brake wear debris: size distributions, composition, and a comparison of dynamometer and vehicle tests. Environ Sci Technology2003; 37: 4060.
37.
MserMPopovVL. Contact mechanics and friction: physical principles and applications. Tribol Lett2010; 40: 395.
38.
TolstoiDM. Significance of the normal degree of freedom and natural normal vibrations in contact friction. Wear1976; 10: 199–213.
39.
HamidMAStachowiakGW. The effects of grit particle size on frictional characteristics of automotive braking system. Adv Mater Res2011; 189-193: 3511–3516.
40.
ChoKHJangHHongYS, et al.The size effect of zircon particles on the friction characteristics of brake lining materials. Wear2008; 264: 291–297.
