Optimization of a Commercial Brake Pad Formulation

YAFEI LU, CHOONG-FONG TANG, MAURICE A. WRIGHT

Center for Advanced Friction Studies, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-4343

Received 8 May 2001; accepted 9 October 2001

Published online 15 April 2002 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/app.10606

ABSTRACT: A brake pad material used in a popular, commercially available vehicle that
consisted of steel wool, iron powder, graphite, coke, styrene– butadiene rubber, MgO,
BaSO4, and phenolic resin was tested with the friction assessment and screening test.
The average friction coefficient (0.357) and total wear (19.75 wt %) were measured. An
alternative friction material formulated with identical constituents but optimized with
the golden section principle and relational grade analysis was produced in a laboratory
environment. This material exhibited an average friction coefficient of 0.419 and a low
total wear of 6.25 wt %. An analysis of component costs indicated that the large volume
price of the commercial material, $1.01/kg, was less than that of the laboratory mate-
rial, $1.21/kg. However, the performance/cost ratio of the new material was appreciably
greater. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 84: 2498 –2504, 2002

Key words: friction materials; optimization; design of experiments; golden section;

relational grade analysis; composites; fillers; thermosets

INTRODUCTION steel wool and iron powder can be used for higher
temperature applications. Thirty years ago, when
The first friction material (1878 –1897) was based disc brakes were becoming common, the brake
on hair or cotton.1–3 As a matter of fact, automo- users were impressed by how long the linings
tive friction materials have been formulated for could last. Unfortunately, most of the late model
about 100 years. In the early 1920s, asbestos fiber brake pads wore quickly. Therefore, the tendency
was chosen as a friction material for automobiles, is to design new friction materials with good wear
trucks, and all kinds of moving machinery. Be- resistance.6 Furthermore, most of the cars today
cause asbestos can cause health problems, brake- are designed for more horsepower, which makes
lining designers have been scrambling to find a them more likely to reach a higher speed. As a
replacement for it, using glass fibers, mineral fi- result, manufacturers are investing heavily in
bers, metal fibers, and, more recently, carbon and new friction materials to get optimal performance
synthetic fibers. Mixtures of chopped or powdered from the brake pads. Good performance for brake
metal and other filler materials bound together pads is not the only concern for engineers design-
with phenolic resin, known as semimetallic brake ing them; the costs of their manufacturing and
pads, have been popular since the 1970s.4,5 Metal raw materials have to be taken into consider-
is mostly favored for heat transfer. Generally, ation.
Until now, however, many of the brake pads
available in the market did not have good perfor-
Correspondence to: Y. Lu ([email protected]). mance, causing the need for frequent replacement
Contract grant sponsor: NSF/State/Industry/University of the brake pads. Brake pads with good perfor-
Cooperative Research Center for Advanced Friction Studies.
Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 84, 2498 –2504 (2002)
mance will save customers money. For further
© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. brake design, the main consideration in the de-
2498
 COMMERCIAL BRAKE PAD FORMULATION 2499

Table I Composition and Friction Performance material was chemically analyzed, and the vol-
of CFE and Cost of Raw Materials ume fraction of its component phases was deter-
mined. These components were then reformu-
CFE Cost, $/kg lated to produce a new friction material of supe-
rior performance as measured by FAST.
Steel wool 0.25 1.18
Iron powder 0.07 1.02
Graphite 0.05 1.48
Coke 0.05 0.87 EXPERIMENTAL
SBR 0.05 1.44
MgO 0.04 1.18 Raw Materials Used and Preparation of Friction
BaSO4 0.18 0.20 Materials
Phenolic 0.31 1.44
Average ␮ 0.357 All raw materials except phenolic resin were
Wear (wt %) 19.75 mixed in a high-speed blender for 40 s. Then,
Formula cost ($/kg) 1.01 phenolic resin was mixed with those ingredients
for 30 s. The mixture was molded with a hot press
at 177°C for 50 min. The samples were cured at
velopment of brake pads is what kinds of materi- 120°C for 60 min, at 140°C for 60 min, and at
als to use and the percentage amount of the ma- 170°C for 120 min.
terials to mix to extend the life of the brake pads.
Because the development of friction materials is FAST
a complex and interactive process, most formu-
lations that are available in the market were ␮ and wear were measured with FAST (M100,
designed by trial and error coupled with prior Link Engineering Co., Plymouth, MI). FAST con-
experience and testing expertise called one-vari- sists of a flat plate of cast iron with a diameter of
able-at-a-time experimentation (OVAT design).7 180 mm and a thickness of 38 mm rotating at a
Recently, multiple regression analysis coupled speed of 6.96 m/s, which is appropriate for a disc
with genetic algorithms,8 chemometrics,9 and in the braking system of an automobile moving at
Taguchi design10 was developed for the optimiza- 50 km/h.18 A small specimen (13.5 mm ⫻ 12.7 mm
tion of friction formulations. However, these ⫻ 4.7 mm) suspended from a hinged arm is pulled
methods require a great deal of data with heavy- onto the surface of the disc with a normal force of
duty computation to draw conclusions with rea- appropriate magnitude. The testing system is
sonable confidence. The interaction effects among controlled by a hydraulic feedback system that
the multiple components of friction performance continuously changes the normal force to main-
are especially difficult to statistically analyze. tain a constant friction force of 17.4 N.19 The
A commercial brake pad formulation (CFE) an- mean temperature measured at some point on the
alyzed and supplied by Dr. Peter Filip at the rubbing track increases with time at a rate that is
Center for Advanced Friction Studies and the re- independent of the composition of the friction ma-
sults of the friction coefficient (␮) and wear of a terial. FAST is a drag test 90 min in duration. All
specimen prepared according to the CFE formu- tests were carried out in ambient air. ␮ was re-
lation tested with the friction assessment and corded every 5 s. The wear was expressed as W
screening test (FAST) are shown in Table I. The ⫽ (W0 ⫺ W1)/W0 ⫻ 100%, where W0 and W1 are
average ␮ value of the brake pads used in North the weights of the specimen before and after
America is around 0.35– 0.45; that of pads used in FAST, respectively.
Europe and Asia is higher than 0.45.11 It has been
proven that the ␮ value of CFE is available in
North America because the average value of ␮ is RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
0.357, but the wear is too high (W ⫽ 19.75 wt %)
and needs to be minimized. In this work, an op- Optimization of CFE Formulation
timizing formulation technique12,13 based on the
Phase 1
golden section principle14,15 in combination with
relational grade analysis16,17 was used to develop A schematic of the optimization formulation tech-
a friction material of high performance from rou- nique is shown in Figure 1. The golden section
tine components. Essentially, a commercial brake principle is based on the most mystical way to
2500 LU, TANG, AND WRIGHT

Figure 1 Optimization formulation technique.

divide a whole into a large piece and a small piece. [graphite, coke, styrene– butadiene rubber (SBR),
As an optimization technique, it assumes that one MgO, and BaSO4], and binder (phenolic resin).
minimum or maximum in a measured property Each ingredient plays a role in improving friction
exists between two points (in two-component sys- performance, depending on its content. Steel wool
tems). This technique is a relatively efficient is a reinforcement. Graphite and coke are used as
method for reducing the error band connected solid lubricants. SBR is used as a toughening
with the position of the assumed point. For exam- agent for the binder. MgO is used for promoting
ple, if the point exists somewhere between A and curing of the binder, and BaSO4 and iron powder
B and the distance between them is one unit, then are cheap fillers. The golden section was used to
the position can be more accurately defined if two determine the volume fraction of each component.
measurements of the property of interest are Ten formulations with different volume fractions
made, one at a point 0.618 units from point A were designed with 0.618n, where n ⫽ 3, 4, 5, …,
(0.382 units from B) and another 0.618 units from as phase 1 for FAST, and the values of ␮ and wear
B (0.382 units from A). Depending on which mea- loss of these formulations are shown in Table II.
surement is larger, the position of the maximum Iron powder was used as the main metal filler
can be established with error limits reduced from in the formulations FE-1 to FE-4, and steel wool
1 to 0.618. It turns out that one of the first two was used as the main reinforcement in FE-5 to
measurements also falls at a distance of 0.618 FE-10. In a comparison of the wear and average ␮
new units from one of the new limits. The maxi- values of the two different main components, we
mum is now defined within smaller limits, a dis- found that better wear resulted and higher ␮
tance of 0.6182 along the original axis. These lim- values were obtained with the formulations that
its become progressively smaller according to the used steel wool as the main reinforcement be-
expression 0.618n⫺1, where n is the number of cause the steel wool had a reinforcement effect in
measurements made. the friction materials. The formulation FE-4 con-
For the amount of the raw materials to be tained 0.146 of graphite and 0.090 of coke, which
mixed, an approach was initially designed to op- acted as lubricating agents and provided better
timize new formulations based on the golden sec- wear resistance in the formulations in which iron
tion, in which the volume fraction of the metal powder was the main metal filler. According to
group (Vm) and volume fraction of the nonmetal the friction performance of the ten formulations,
group (Vnm) were equal to 0.382 and the volume FE-7 had a lower wear loss of 8.33 wt % and an
fraction of the binder (Vb) was equal to 0.236. average ␮ value of 0.429. It was used for further
These designations agreed with 0.618n, where n optimization.
⫽ 2 or 3. In the formulation design, it is important to
The raw materials used in optimized formula- know which ingredient has the greatest effect on
tions (FE) can be classified into three groups: friction performance. Relational grade analysis
metal (steel wool and iron powder), nonmetal can be used to determine the sensitivity of the
 COMMERCIAL BRAKE PAD FORMULATION 2501

Table II Formulations Designed with 0.618n (Phase 1)

FE-1 FE-2 FE-3 FE-4 FE-5 FE-6 FE-7 FE-8 FE-9 FE-10

Steel wool 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236
Iron powder 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146
Graphite 0.090 0.022 0.022 0.146 0.034 0.013 0.236 0.022 0.146 0.056
Coke 0.013 0.034 0.090 0.090 0.056 0.090 0.022 0.236 0.034 0.090
SBR 0.022 0.056 0.034 0.022 0.056 0.022 0.090 0.034 0.022 0.034
MgO 0.021 0.236 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.021 0.021 0.056 0.090 0.146
BaSO4 0.236 0.034 0.146 0.034 0.146 0.236 0.013 0.034 0.090 0.056
Phenolic 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236
Average ␮ 0.313 0.331 0.327 0.319 0.344 0.359 0.429 0.332 0.374 0.339
Wear (wt %) 44.42 59.93 37.37 15.98 24.22 20.33 8.33 13.39 22.87 17.07
Formula cost ($/kg) 0.94 1.10 0.99 1.11 1.03 0.94 1.18 1.09 1.09 1.10

measurement to changes in the volume fraction of Steel wool Iron powder BaSO4 Graphite
each phase of a multiphase system. Essentially, 0.9698 ⬎ 0.9629 ⬎ 0.9285 ⬎ 0.9265
changes in many constituents are made, and the
SBR MgO Coke for friction coefficient
resulting change in the property is measured. A ⬎ 0.9263 ⬎ 0.7743 ⬎ 0.7102
number of experiments are carried out, and the
resulting percentage change in the measured (4)
property is compared to the percentage change in
the volume fraction of each component that The ingredient in the left rank (large relational
caused it. If a statistically large number of tests grade) has more sensitivity than the ingredient in
are performed, the sensitivity of the property to the right side (smaller relational grade). For in-
each constituent can be estimated. stance, coke, MgO, and SBR have positive effects
The relational grade (␥i) can be calculated with on reducing wear but poor effects on enhancing ␮,
the following formulas: and steel wool and iron powder have positive ef-
fects on enhancing ␮, but iron powder has a poor
min min兩yi 共k兲 ⫺ xi 共k兲兩 ⫹ effect on reducing wear. The rank for wear is
0.5max max兩yi 共k兲 ⫺ xi 共k兲兩 consistent with our ternary (ABC systems, where
␰ i共k兲 ⫽ A is steel wool, B is an organic binder, and C is a
兩yi 共k兲 ⫺ xi 共k兲兩 ⫹ 0.5max max兩yi 共k兲 ⫺ xi 共k兲兩
third ingredient) combinatorial screening of raw
(1) materials for semimetallic friction materials in
which combinations of coke, MgO, SBR, graphite,
and steel wool show good wear resistance.20 We
␥i ⫽
1
n
冘␰共k兲 (2) found that the wear of friction materials could be
reduced through a reinforcing mechanism (the
addition of fiber reinforcements, e.g., steel wool
where ␰i(k) is the relational coefficient, yi(k) is the and aramid pulp), a toughening mechanism (the
normalized friction performance matrix, xi(k) is addition of rubbers, e.g., SBR and nitrile rubber),
the normalized composition matrix, min repre- a lubrication mechanism (the addition of lubri-
sents the minimum, and max means the maxi- cants, e.g., coke and graphite), and an abrasion
mum. mechanism (the addition of abrasives, e.g., alu-
The relational grades of seven ingredients cal- mina).21 Because the basic requirements for fric-
culated with eqs. (1) and (2) are ranked as follows: tion materials are stable and high values of ␮ and
lower wear, the amount of the ingredient with the
larger relational grade for ␮ should be increased,
Iron powder BaSO4 Graphite Steel Wool
0.9734 ⬍ 0.9704 ⬍ 0.9293 ⬍ 0.9158 and the amount of the ingredient with the larger
relational grade for wear should be decreased.
SBR MgO Coke for wear Instead of the material with the greatest effect on
⬍ 0.8908 ⬍ 0.7524 ⬍ 0.6905 (3) ␮ and the least effect on wear loss, the volume
2502 LU, TANG, AND WRIGHT

Table III Formulations Designed According to neously decreasing by 0.056 and 0.09, respec-
Relational Grade Analysis (Phase 1) tively. These formulations were also calculated by
0.618n ⫾ 0.618m. The volume fraction of each
FE-11 FE-12 FE-13 FE-14 group in FE-12 was expressed by 0.618n, and the
volume fraction of each group in FE-15 to FE-18
Steel wool 0.292 0.326 0.416 0.472
Iron powder 0.090 0.056 0.056 0.056
was expressed by 0.618n ⫾ 0.618m. For example,
Graphite 0.236 0.236 0.146 0.090 Vm in FE-12 is 0.382 (0.6182) and in FE-15 is
Coke 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.382 ⫹ 0.056 (0.6186) ⫽ 0.438. Vnm in FE-12 is
SBR 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.382 and in FE-15 is 0.382 ⫺ 0.056 ⫽ 0.326. The
MgO 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 volume fraction of each ingredient in their group
BaSO4 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 was proportionally varied. For example, the vol-
Phenolic 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 ume fraction of steel wool in FE-15 was calculated
Average ␮ 0.467 0.413 0.394 0.410 by 0.326 ⫹ 0.326 ⫻ 0.056/0.382 ⫽ 0.374, and the
Wear (wt %) 7.79 7.70 8.03 9.64 volume fraction of graphite in FE-15 was calcu-
Formula cost ($/kg) 1.20 1.21 1.19 1.19 lated by 0.236 ⫺ 0.236 ⫻ 0.056/0.382 ⫽ 0.201.
However, FE-17 and FE-18 were calculated by Vm
decreasing and Vnm instantaneously increasing
by 0.056 and 0.09, respectively, on the basis of
fraction of steel wool should be increased, and the
FE-12. The compositions and friction perfor-
volume fraction of iron powder, BaSO4, and
mances of FE-15 to FE-18 are shown in Table IV.
graphite should be decreased according to the
Comparing the results of FE-12 with those of
ranks (3) and (4). Because the amount of BaSO4
FE-15 to FE-18, we obtained better friction
in FE-7 is too small (0.013) to change, decreasing
performance in FE-17, where Vm ⫽ 0.326 and Vnm
its volume fraction could be eliminated. On the
⫽ 0.438 with an average ␮ value of 0.365 and a
basis of FE-7, with steel wool as the main rein-
wear loss of 6.36 wt %. This indicated that the
forcement, FE-11 and FE-12 were calculated with
amount of nonmetal groups is larger than that of
the volume fraction of steel wool increasing and
metal groups for good friction performance. ␮ of
the volume fraction of iron powder instanta-
FE-17 is similar to that of the commercial formu-
neously decreasing by 0.056 and 0.090, respec-
lation CFE, but the wear of FE-17 is lower than
tively. Then, FE-13 and FE-14 were calculated
that of CFE.
with the volume fraction of steel wool increasing
and the volume fraction of graphite instanta-
Phase 3
neously decreasing by 0.090 and 0.146, respec-
tively, on the basis of FE-12. These formulations In phase 3, the effect of changes in the volume
were calculated by 0.618n ⫾ 0.618m, where 0.618n fraction between the binder group and metal and
⫽ 0.236, 0.146, 0.090, . . . when n ⫽ 3, 4, 5, nonmetal groups was tested. FE-19, FE-20, and
. . . and 0.618m ⫽ 0.146, 0.090, 0.056 . . . when m FE-21 were calculated with Vb decreasing and Vm
⫽ 4, 5, 6, . . . . According to the relational grade of
each ingredient, the volume fraction changes of
four formulations (FE-11 to FE-14) and their fric- Table IV Formulations Designed for Changing
tion performances are shown in Table III. By com- Vm and Vnm (Phase 2)
paring the results before and after relational
grade analysis, we found better friction perfor- FE-15 FE-16 FE-17 FE-18
mance in FE-12 with an average ␮ value of 0.413
and lower wear loss of 7.70 wt %. From this point Steel wool 0.374 0.403 0.278 0.249
of view, relational grade analysis is an effective Iron powder 0.064 0.069 0.048 0.043
way of obtaining better friction performance. Graphite 0.201 0.180 0.271 0.292
Coke 0.019 0.017 0.025 0.027
SBR 0.077 0.069 0.103 0.111
Phase 2 MgO 0.018 0.016 0.024 0.026
The effect of the changes in the volume fraction BaSO4 0.011 0.010 0.015 0.016
between metal and nonmetal groups on friction Phenolic 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236
performance was detected in phase 2. On the Average ␮ 0.399 0.365 0.365 0.351
Wear (wt %) 8.51 9.41 6.36 6.75
basis of FE-12, FE-15 and FE-16 were calcu-
Formula cost ($/kg) 1.20 1.20 1.22 1.23
lated with Vm increasing and Vnm instanta-
 COMMERCIAL BRAKE PAD FORMULATION 2503

Table V Formulations Designed for Changing Vb (Phase 3)

FE-19 FE-20 FE-21 FE-22 FE-23

Steel wool 0.290 0.299 0.311 0.266 0.257

Iron powder 0.050 0.051 0.053 0.046 0.044
Graphite 0.283 0.291 0.303 0.259 0.251
Coke 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.024 0.025
SBR 0.108 0.110 0.115 0.098 0.095
MgO 0.025 0.026 0.027 0.023 0.022
BaSO4 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.014 0.014
Phenolic 0.202 0.180 0.146 0.270 0.292
Average ␮ 0.422 0.419 0.423 0.427 0.403
Wear (wt %) 6.84 6.25 6.71 9.08 6.62
Formula cost ($/kg) 1.22 1.21 1.21 1.22 1.23

⫹ Vnm instantaneously increasing by 0.034, friction performance of FE-20 is better than that
0.056, and 0.090, respectively, on the basis of of CFE.
FE-17. However, FE-22 and FE-23 were calcu-
lated with Vb increasing and Vm ⫹ Vnm instanta- Economic Considerations
neously decreasing by 0.034 and 0.056, respec-
tively, on the basis of FE-17. The calculations When a new brake pad material is being made,
were the same as those for phase 2. The results of the main factors to consider are not only a mod-
␮ and wear loss for each formulation are shown in erate value of ␮ and a low wear rate but also low
Table V. The best friction performance was ob- costs of both the raw materials used and the man-
tained for FE-20, where Vb ⫽ 0.180, Vm ⫽ 0.350, ufacturing process. In general, the cost of a new
and Vnm ⫽ 0.470 with an average ␮ value of 0.420 material with high performance is higher than
and a lowest wear loss of 6.25 wt %. According to the cost of an old one. The performance/cost ratio
the relations between the changes in the amounts is a comprehensive factor to consider for the use of
of the binder group and metal and nonmetal a new material. The formula cost of the original
groups, the role of the binder is mainly to bind all commercial brake pad formulation (CFE) is $1.01/
metal and nonmetal ingredients together. A the- kg, FE-17 with the same level of ␮ as CFE has is
oretical analysis of particle packing models shows $1.22/kg, and the optimized formulation FE-20 is
that there is a critical volume fraction of the $1.21/kg, as shown in Tables I, IV, and V, respec-
binder (Vb,cr).21 The binder amount needs to be tively. Although the cost of FE-17 and FE-20 is
larger than Vb,cr. The FAST curves of the opti- 0.20 times greater than that of CFE, the wear
mized formulation FE-20 and the commercial for- resistance of FE-17 and FE-20 is 2.16 times
mulation CFE are compared in Figure 2. The greater than that of CFE. The performance/cost
ratio of FE-17 and FE-20 is much higher than
that of CFE.

CONCLUSIONS

The friction performance of the commercial brake

pad formulation (CFE) is not optimized for great-
est wear. With an optimization formulation tech-
nique based on the golden section principle cou-
pled with relational grade analysis, the wear rate
of CFE was successfully minimized. The formula-
tion FE-17 of phase 2 has an average ␮ value of
0.365, which is similar to that of CFE (average ␮
⫽ 0.357), as required for North America’s friction
Figure 2 FAST curves of FE-20 and CFE. formulations, but the wear rate (W ⫽ 6.36%) is
2504 LU, TANG, AND WRIGHT

lower than that of CFE (W ⫽ 19.75%). The opti- 9. Drava, G.; Leardi, R.; Portesani, A.; Sales, E. Che-
mized formulation FE-20 has an average ␮ value mom Intell Lab Syst 1996, 32, 245.
of 0.419, which is higher than that of CFE, and 10. Dante, R.; Fernandez, M. C.; Rivacoba, D. In Pro-
the wear of FE-20 (W ⫽ 6.25%) is appreciably ceedings of the 18th Annual Brake Colloquium &
lower than that of CFE. According to the friction Engineering Display; 2000; P-358, 17.
11. Jacko, M. G.; Rhee, S. K. Kirk Othmer Encyclope-
performance and formula cost of CFE and FE-20
dia of Chemical Technology, 4th ed.; Wiley: New
(or FE-17), doubling the lifetime only slightly in-
York, 1992; p 523.
creases the formula cost. 12. Lu, Y.; Wright, M. A. Proc Int SAMPE Symp Exhib
2000, 45, 306.
The authors thank Dr. Peter Filip of the Center for 13. Lu, Y.; Wright, M. A. Proc Int SAMPE Symp Exhib
Advanced Friction Studies for supplying the composi- 2000, 45, 1972.
tion of the commercial brake pad formulation. 14. Runion, G. E. The Golden Section; Dale Seymour:
Palo Alto, CA, 1990.
15. Tannenbaum, P.; Arnold, R. Excursions in Modern
REFERENCES Mathematics; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1992.
1. Smales, H. J Automot Eng 1994, 209, 151. 16. Peng, E.; Kirk, T. B. Wear 1999, 225, 1238.
2. Nicholson, G. Facts about Friction: 100 Years of 17. Liu, S.; Lin, Y. An Introduction to Grey Systems:
Brake Linings & Clutch Facings; Geodoran Amer- Foundations, Methodology and Applications; IIGSS
ica: Winchester, VA, 1995. Academic: Slippery Rock, PA, 1998.
3. Rinek, L. M. Automot Eng 1995, 103(7), 37. 18. Chapman, T. P.; Niesz, D. E.; Fox, R. T.; Fawcett,
4. Libsch, T. A.; Rhee, S. K. Wear 1978, 46, 203. T. Wear 1999, 236, 81.
5. Tsang, P. H. S.; Jacko, M. G.; Rhee, S. K. Wear 19. Anderson, A. E.; Gratch, S.; Hayes, H. P. Soc Au-
1985, 103, 217. tomot Eng Pap 1967, 670079.
6. Todorovic, J.; Duboka, C.; Arsenic, Z. Trib Int 1995, 20. Tang, C. F. M.S. Thesis, Southern Illinois Univer-
28, 423. sity, Carbondale, IL, 2002.
7. Bijwe, J. Polym Compos 1997, 18, 378. 21. Lu, Y. Colloquium Friction Mater Braking Syst
8. Kato, T.; Soutome, H. Trib Trans 2001, 44, 137. 2001, 4.