Heavy-Vehicle Disc Brake Bridge Layout for Wheel Standard Compatibility

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The existing disc brake systems for heavy vehicles face challenges in compatibility due to varying wheel rim and stud patterns across different territories, leading to increased complexity and mass due to the need for bespoke designs to fit within confined spaces, limiting interchangeability and requiring multiple models.

Innovation Solution

A disc brake design with a standardized bridge configuration that accommodates a range of wheel installations, featuring a U-shaped bridge with a radial aperture for easy pad replacement and a monobloc housing, allowing for reduced size and weight while maintaining brake torque, and a solid rotor for reduced ventilation needs.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If bespoke bridge designs are created for each territory's wheel standards, then compatibility with specific wheel rims and studs is improved, but device complexity and the number of models required increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompatibility with wheel standardsVSAvoidnumber of models
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The bridge is designed with a universal geometry that can accommodate multiple wheel standards (EU and NA PCDs) through a single design. The bridge shape is optimized to clear both EU 335mm PCD studs and NA 286mm PCD studs, eliminating the need for territory-specific bridge variants while maintaining full compatibility with different wheel standards

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

2Adaptability or versatility

If bespoke bridge designs are created for each territory, then fit within confined space is improved, but manufacturing complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefit within space envelopeVSAvoidmanufacturing complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

A single universal bridge design replaces multiple territory-specific designs, simplifying manufacturing processes. The bridge geometry is carefully engineered to accommodate both EU and NA wheel space envelopes, allowing one manufacturing line to produce bridges for all markets without requiring tooling changes or separate production processes

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Strength

If larger bridge material is used to ensure strength, then strength to withstand braking loads is improved, but mass of the disc brake increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestrength to withstand braking loadsVSAvoidmass of disc brake
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSWeight of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The bridge geometry is optimized by adjusting key parameters such as thickness, width, and reinforcement locations to achieve the minimum material required for strength. The design uses finite element analysis to identify high-stress areas and concentrate material only where needed, reducing overall mass while maintaining sufficient strength to withstand maximum braking loads for both EU and NA applications

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP3779222B1A disc brake
Publication Date: 2024.04.03 MERITOR HEAVY VEHICLE BRAKING SYSTEMS (UK) LIMITED
  • EP3779222B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3779222B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3779222B1 patent drawingFigure 3A~3C

AI summary

An air or electromechanically actuated disc brake for heavy vehicles, the disc brake comprising: a first friction element and a second friction element; a brake caliper including a housing and a bridge; the housing containing a wear adjustment mechanism and an actuator mechanism having a friction element contacting actuator output to drive the first friction element in a first axial direction; the bridge being configured to extend over a brake rotor in use and defining a support face to the second friction element in at least the first axial direction; wherein the first friction element and second friction element each have an effective contact area to the rotor of at least 10,000mm2 and wherein the maximum spacing between the actuator output and the support face is in a range of 75mm to 50mm.