Comparison of Chase and inertial brake Dynamometer testing of automotive friction materials

For effective and safe automotive brake system applications, friction materials must meet certain minimum requirements for performance, noise and durability. To ensure this, friction materials are subjected to a series of vehicle tests on a test track or on the road before they are released as commercial products. While vehicle tests are expensive, time consuming and subject to road conditions and weather variability, brake dynamometer testing in the laboratory is faster and less costly to screen or verify friction material characteristics. Furthermore, because of the capability to control test conditions precisely, a brake dynamometer serves as an excellent tool for the research and development of friction materials. In the U.S.A. two major types of brake dynamometers are commonly used: the inertial dynamometer which evaluates a full size brake or a brake system and simulates vehicle braking well, but is time consuming and expensive, or a smaller Chase dynamometer that features low capital expenditure and shorter test time using a small friction material sample against a large drum. The Chase dynamometer does not simulate brake conditions as well as the inertial dynamometer, and therefore is used primarily for rapid screening and/or for quality control only. The correlation, or the lack of it, between these two brake dynamometers is discussed in this paper. Friction and wear data from both test systems on several friction pairs under various temperature, sliding speed and load conditions are compared and discussed. The materials used were (a) non-asbestos organic disc pads against cast iron rotors, (b) semimetallic disc pads against cast iron rotors and (c) non-asbestos organic disc pads against copper rotors.