Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018

Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018

ABSTRACT

Split systems now protecting passenger car brakes against

complete failure can serve the hydraulic brakes of commer-
Split Systems for
Commercial Vehicle
cial highway vehicles.
A tandem master cylinder separates the conventional hy-
draulic circuitry into two sections. The tandem cylinder

Hydraulic Brakes
has independent fluid reservoirs and bores, and thus it con-
tinues to operate either section alone in the event a failure
occurs in the other. Because there is no splitting between
brakes on the same axle, vehicle directional stability and
control is facilitated when either section is operated in the
absence of the other.
The tandem master cylinder can be utilized on both light D. J. Gardner and C. N. French
and heavy duty vehicles.
Bendix Products Automotive Div., The Bendix Corp.

P. B. Shutt
Lakeshore Div., The Bendix Corp.
HYDRAULIC BRAKES FOR COMMERCIAL highway vehicles
can be made "fail safe" by splitting their systems as is now
done on passenger cars. Fig. 1 shows that a failure which
causes complete loss of service brakes with a conventional be split. A typical conventional system such as that of Fig.
system, such as a burst hose, does not do so with a split sys- 2 was rearranged and equipped with shut-off valves as shown
tem. This is because the latter has two independent sec- in Fig. 3, and vehicle performance was then evaluated with
tions, and either will continue to operate in the event that a failure simulated in each of the sections of the arrange-
a failure occurs in the other. ments.
This kind of brake protection is not new. The T-17 Arm- The axle-by-axle split was selected in preference to the
ored Car of World War II incorporated a split system to min- others because it facilitated directional stability and con-
imize the possibility of disabling battle damage, and split trol. With it the resultant braking force remaining after each
systems were used on some post-war race cars. German, simulated failure was in line with shift in vehicle center of
Italian, and English passenger cars featured them as long ago gravity, and there was no tendency to pull or dive.
as 1960, and they appeared on American passenger cars with There obviously had to be a reduction in vehicle braking
the introduction of 1962 models. effectiveness with all of the arrangements. However, it was
Application of the concept to highway vehicles has broad- possible to compensate for this to some extent by increasing
ened in recent years with increased emphasis on improved pedal effort. At gross vehicle weight nominal decelerations
highway safety. Not only do split systems provide service could be maintained with the front section of the axle-by-
brakes in the event of a failure, but these brakes surpass con- axle split by increasing effort approximately one and one-
ventional parking brakes in emergencies. They are more half times. They could be maintained with the rear section
certain because there is no separate operating lever, and their by approximately doubling pedal effort. Peak decelerations
hydraulic actuation makes them more efficient than mech-
anically operated parking brakes. For these reasons Italy
requires in its "Road Code" that heavy duty vehicles have
split systems where a specified stopping distance cannot be
achieved with either parking brakes or auxiliary brakes.
France has an unqualified requirement for split systems on
its heavy duty vehicles and its busses.
While there are no split systems on commercial vehicles
in this country today, those on its passenger cars utilize a
system circuitry and tandem master cylinder which can be
adapted for commercial applications.

SPLIT SYSTEM CIRCUITRY

Concentrated effort toward the development of the pas-

senger car system began about five years ago with studies
of the various circuitries into which a hydraulic system could Fig. 1 - Split system protection in event of failure
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
of 15 fps2 and 13 fps2 could be achieved with the front and
rear, respectively. These compared with 25 fps for both
sections under like test conditions.
TANDEM MASTER CYLINDER CONSTRUCTION AND OP-
ERATION
Separation of the hydraulic system into the two sections
of the axle-by-axle split established a need for dual and in-
dependent means to operate these sections, and the tandem
master cylinder was subsequently developed. Its basic con-
struction is shown in Fig. 4 compared with that of the con-
ventional master cylinder it replaces. Two conventional cy-
linders are joined on a line through their bores to form it,
with the piston of the front member also serving as a mov-
able end of the bore for the rear member.
Normal brake system operation is the same with the tan-
dem cylinder as with the conventional cylinder. As the brake
pedal is depressed it moves the rear piston forward. This
piston then displaces fluid and exerts pressure to the front
brakes. It also displaces the front piston, causing it, in turn,
to displace fluid and exert pressure to the rear brakes. These
MASTER CYLINDER
REAR AXLE BRAKES FRONT AXLE BRAKES
Fig. 2 - Typical conventional brake system
'.illF W
iXU-IY-AXli IT
SWT *V
Fig. 3 - Split system circuitries
actions occur simultaneously, so there is no delay or stag-
o
gering of brake application.
While the bores of the tandem cylinder function inter-
dependently by virtue of hydraulics when the brake system
is intact, they become independent hydraulically when a
section fails. With the rear axle section failed as depicted
in Fig. 5, hydraulic pressure from the rear piston causes the
unresisted front piston to bottom in its bore. The rear pis-
ton then proceeds to apply the front brakes upon continued
stroke of the brake pedal. Should there be a failure in the
front axle section, as Fig. 5, also depicts, initial pedal stroke
causes the now unresisted rear piston to bottom out on the
front piston. Continued pedal stroke moves them together,
then, and the front piston applies the rear brakes. In both
cases of failure the bore for the intact section is capable of
providing the same total displacement that it made avail-
able previous to failure. In addition, hydraulic output pres-
RESIMJAL CHECK VAIVI
1 0 REJUt AXLE RRAKES TO FRONT AXLE RRAKES
I U « H « 1 S T B I OTUHDERl
Fig. 4 - Master cylinder constructions
FRONT AXLE FAILLJrTI
\
REAR AMI
BRAKES
Fig. 5 - Master cylinder operation with system sections
failed

sure remains essentially the same for the same pedal effort.
The increase in pedal travel experienced in each instance
to bottom the nonfunctioning piston serves to inform the ve-
hicle driver of the failure. This and attendant increase in
pedal effort, which compensates for reduction in vehicle
braking effectiveness, eliminate the need for separate and
expense adding indicating devices, such as lights and buzz-
ers.
Fig. 6 shows the actual construction of a tandem master
cylinder now in production. The deisgn features a single
reservoir cover to facilitate bleeding of the brake system
sections simultaneously, and a convoluted sealing diaphragm
to protect them from atmospheric contamination. The con-
volutions permit normal breathing of the sections while avoid-
ing atmosphere vents generally used for this purpose.
The dual reservoirs are standard construction for tandem
master cylinders. This provision for independent supplies
of reserve fluid makes possible the maintenance of either
section during a gradual failure in the other as well as after
an abrupt failure. Once failure has occurred, the reserve
fluid is then to ensure that the vehicle can be driven a min-
imum safe distance for repairs. It is not, for obvious rea-
sons, intended for subsequent unlimited use of the vehicle.
Two secondary seals are employed on the front piston to
minimize the possibility of fluid passage between the front
and rear bores and its consequent effect on reservoir levels.
They are not, however,necessary to maintain the integrity
of the split system at this juncture of its sections, for the
front bore would still operate if both these seals were com-
pletely removed.
The push rod travel for closing both compensator ports
of the tandem cylinder is within range of that for the single
port of the conventional master cylinder. This is accomp-
lished in two ways. For one, the number of tolerances in-
volved and their dimensional stack-ups are kept to a min-
imum. The front piston is located in its released position
by the rear piston via the latter's return spring and spring
retainer in order to avoid the larger number of tolerances
which would be necessary with dual stops for the pistons.
In turn, the effects of tolerance in return spring load on for-
ward positioning of the front piston are eliminated by cag-
ing the spring and its retainer with a screw. The screw, then,
is adjustable so that it may be pre-set to minimize tolerance
I M I FLUID I E S I I V O I I
CMTOKATOI p o m
P t I M l I T SIAl
SKOMDUV S U l
SNAP MM STOP
H i t PISTON
U X K H M i CAGMG SOfW
HUIOK
tut p i s h * mum sppjk
Fig. 6 - Design features of tandem master cylinder
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
stack-up in the subassembly of retainer and rear piston. In-
fluence of tolerances in load of the front piston return spring
on rearward positioning of the front piston is eliminated by
making this spring's installed load less than that of the rear
return spring. This feature, the unbalancing of return spring
loads, also contributes the second means for holding com-
pensator travel down. Because of it, initial brake pedal ap-
plication results in simultaneous rather than alternate move-
ment of the pistons for closure of their compensator ports.
The back-up stop of Fig. 6 is not involved with location
of the front piston in its released position, but is to limit
over-stroke of the piston rearward as a result of differential
pressures. Consequently it prevents these pressures from forc-
ing the front piston primary seal into its replenishing hole
and damaging it. This is a safety measure, for differential
pressures are not normal. They can occur if the front bore
is bled independent of the rear bore or, in the case of com-
mercial vehicles, they can occur momentarily when a hy-
draulic brake locking device is released.
The basic design of the tandem master cylinder makes it
desirable that the rear bore supply that section of the brake
system requiring the greater part of total displacement. This
is to keep overall length of the cylinder as short as possible,
and it explains what would appear to be mismatched plumb-
ing in the passenger car system of Figs. 4 and 5. The de-
sign considerations are shown in Fig. 7, where they are il-
lustrated by providing equal displacements from the bores
and then alternately doubling these displacements. Doubling
displacement in the rear bore results in a shorter length b e -
cause it only requires lengthening that bore and its piston.
Doubling displacement in the front bore necessitates addi-
tions to the rear bore and its piston as well as to the front
bore and its piston. This is because the rear bore must be
capable of fully displacing the front piston in addition to
displacing fluid to its own section.
The curves of Fig. 8 give a measure of the performance
of the tandem cylinder. These curves are actual, with the
slight difference in pressure between the rear and front bores
REAR l
filMKHING PORT
turt
SUUN6 UtPHIAMI
KSUVOII ( O K I
F I 0 N 1 IIUID I f S E I V O I t
. „STJKKfU
MirUCEMEHT Ju u
<3
M S ! ! ! CTUNMt MOT
PtltUIT Sill
fiont piston unm sraw
,,-J | J J L„J U J
FIONT K W
FIONT PISTON
SECOMUT SIMS
u
msbuai CHta v u n s _»_J L^jJJ LJ
Fig. 7 - Designing for minimum length
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
reflecting a difference in friction between the bores intro-
duced by the front piston. A curve of an equivalent conven-
tional master cylinder has been included for comparison.
Not only is there negligible difference between the cylinders
in regard to output pressure variation with stroke, but the
proximity of their curves indicates similar efficiencies in
force input-pressure output. The slight negative slopes of
the curves reflect buildup in return spring loads with stroke.
VEHICLE INSTALLATION
While duplication of conventional master cylinder op-
eration and performance were paramount objectives of the
split system master cylinder design, it was also desired that
the cylinders be interchangeable from the standpoint of ve-
hicle installation. This was accomplished to an appreciable
degree, as may be seen from the photograph of Fig. 9. The
tandem cylinder is relatively compact when compared with
the conventional cylinder it replaces, and its mounting is
identical to that of the conventional cylinder.
There is a necessary difference between brake pedal geo-
metries for the cylinders. This arises from a need for the
tandem cylinder to be stroked to bottom at full pedal travel,
whereas such is not generally the case with the conven-
tional cylinder. As shown by Fig. 1 0 , where the solid
400 •
CONVENTIONAL MASTER CYLINDER
• ~ ~ ~5T.-:!T!7.7V: »"*
« 0 N T ROREJ-1
TANDEM MASTER CYLINDER
SO POUNDS CONSTANT PEDAL EFFORT
100
25 SO 75
BRAKE PEDAL STROKE --PER CENT OF TOTAL
Fig. 8 - Master cylinder performance
TANDEM CYLINDER
C O N V E N T I O N A L CYLINDER
i-.O 9 - Interchangeability of tandem cylinder
line sketch depicts tolerance stack-up producing minimum
pedal travel and the overlay sketch depicts tolerance stack-
up producing maximum pedal travel, the conventional cy-
linder may include some "over-stroke" to permit the brake
pedal to bottom on the vehicle floor mat under all toler-
ance conditions. The arrangement is desirable because it
always provides a true indication of available reserve hy-
draulic displacement which is visible to the vehicle driver,
and it is acoomplished without any penalty to the installa-
tion. The added stroke in the master cylinder simply rep-
resents unavailable surplus displacement in an installation
with minimum pedal travel and it becomes an available
bonus displacement when maximum pedal travel occurs.
Use of the foregoing pedal geometry with a tandem mas-
ter cylinder will penalize its installation. This is illustrated
by the sketches of Fig. 1 1 . The minimum pedal travel con-
dition of Fig. 1 0 is repeated in the top view, and over-stroke
has been added to the front bore of the tandem cylinder to
accommodate the maximum pedal travel condition. H o w -
mil
SURPLUS DISPLACEMENT AT MINIMUM
PEDAL TRAVEL AND BONUS DISPLACEMENT
AT MAXIMUM PEDAL TRAVEL
FLOOR MAT
MAXIMUM
Fig. 1 0 - Brake pedal geometry with conventional cylinder
AUNT M M SUtniK MVUOMIHT
i
m m FAiLuif or front khk
i JL.
';/ m
WtftUJ DiirUOMiHI
Fig. 1 1 - Conventional pedal geometry with tandem mas-
ter cylinder
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
ever the bottom view demonstrates that this overstroke no
longer merely represents unavailable surplus displacement
at minimum pedal travel. In the solid lines, the pedal has
been released by that travel necessary to produce a usable
displacement in the rear bore equiavlent to the surplus of
the front bore. Then, when a failure is made to occur in
the front bore's section of the brake system, the overlay
shows that the unresisted piston of the front bore moves to
bottom as the pedal is again fully depressed, and no pedal
travel remains to deliver the usable displacement of the rear
bore. The situation is equivalent to simultaneous failures
of the brake system sections.
Because tolerances of an installation will not always per-
mit brake pedal bottom and master cylinder bottom to coin-
cide, pedal geometry for the tandem master cylinder is de-
signed in favor of the more important requirement that the
cylinder bottom. The design is shown in Fig. 12. With tol-
erances for minimum pedal travel, as depicted by the solid
line sketch, both pedal and master cylinder are bottomed.
The master cylinder remains bottomed but the pedal does
not under tolerances for maximum pedal travel. This is
shown in the overlay sketch, where it may be seen that the
pedal has some unusable surplus travel. It is possible to min-
imize surplus travel here, and thereby approach pedal bot-
tom for all tolerance conditions, by two practical means.
One is to re-establish designed tolerances on the basis of
measurement of actual piece parts. The second means is
to provide an adjustment at either the pedal pivot or master
cylinder push rod pivot so that travel may be tailored for
each individual installation.
The total displacement of the tandem cylinder, other
than for avoiding any unusable surplus, is the same as that
of a conventional cylinder for the same brake system. Though
it might seem reasonable, this displacement is not split in
a ratio exactly equal to that of the wheel cylinder sizes be-
tween the sections. The section with the smaller wheel cy-
linders is given slightly more reserve because greater de-
flections and distortions can occur when it operates alone
as opposed to when the section with larger wheel cylinders
operates alone. This difference is explained by a similar
difference in hydraulic pressures between the sections for
achieving equal decelerations. The reserve fluid capacity
of the tandem cylinder is split between its reservoirs in a
ratio approximately equal to that of its split in displace-
ment.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
Fig. 13 shows a split system which, while it is typical of
those on today's passenger cars, could be applied equally
well to one-half through one ton commercial vehicles. There
would be a difference in vehicle braking effectiveness when
each section of the system is operated alone because weight
distribution, and therefore brake balance, of these light duty
vehicles is more nearly square than that of the average car.
In the loaded condition, and comparing vehicle braking ef-
fectiveness with each axle alone against that with both ax-
les, the rear axle of the light duty vehicle will provide a
greater proportion of the total and the front axle a lesser
proportion than will the equivalent axles of the car. Brake
effectiveness of the light duty vehicle in the unloaded con-
dition would be similar to that of the passenger car for rear
axle operation, and front axle operation would improve over
the loaded condition, coming closer to that of the car front
axle.
The ratio of split in hydraulic displacement between the
sections of the system approximates the ratio of vehicle brake
balance. Since balance favors the rear brakes on some light
duty vehicles, it is likely that their master cylinder con-
nections would be reversed from those of Fig. 13 in the in-
terest of keeping master cylinder length to a minimum.
The power unit of Fig. 13 is the vacuum-mechanical type
presently common on passenger car and some light truck
conventional installations. In that it mounts between the
brake pedal and master cylinder, it mush have sufficient
stroke in the split installation to permit the master cylinder
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018

to bottom. Other than for confirming this, the power unit It will be evident from previous discussion that the axle plus
requires no changes for use in the split installation. half axle-by-half axle split is superior to the axle-by-axle split
Heavy duty commercial vehicles--those in the one and in performance. With half the rear axle out, the remaining
one-half through three ton category--pose more of a chal- section should afford vehicle directional stability and con-
lenge for conversion to split systems because of fundamental trol akin to that when the system is intact; and performance
differences in their foundation brakes and power units. Fig. in this respect when the half rear axle operates alone should
14 illustrates one of these differences, where the use of two be as good as that with the rear axle of the axle-by-axle
wheel cylinders on each brake makes possible optional split split. The effectiveness of the two way, two leading shoe
arrangements. The axle-by-axle split, as previously, pro- rear brake when one of its wheel cylinders is out produces
vides equal side-to-side vehicle brake balance in the event more balanced vehicle braking effectivenesses with the axle
of failure of either of its sections. The symmetrical sections plus half axle-by-half axle arrangement. Actual tests of a
of the half axle-by-half axle split have this advantage and loaded vehicle revealed these effectivenesses to be 80 and
they also retain a goodly portion of the original front-to- 45% when the front and rear sections, respectively, operated
rear brake balance when either of them fails. alone. Comparable figures for the axle-by-axle split were,
It is evident, then, that the half axle-by-half axle ar- as previously, 30 and 60%.
rangement would give superior vehicle directional stability It might now be concluded that hydraulic systems on
and control under a failed condition. At the same time, ve- heavy duty vehicles should be split on a half axle basis
hicle braking effectiveness would be superior. Not only wouldwherever dual wheel cylinders make this possible. How-
brakes be available at both axles, but also the rears, ratherever, such a conclusion may be premature, for some dis-
than losing 50% of their effectiveness, only lose 33%. This advantages accompany the superior performance of the half
is inherent with their design; they convert from two way, axle approach. Of major significance, the high effective-
two leading shoe brakes to leading-trailing shoe brakes when ness of the two way, two leading shoe brake experienced
one wheel cylinder is out. The fronts reduce 50% in effec- with one wheel cylinder out does not come free. There is
tiveness when one wheel cylinder is out. Actual tests with an attendant change in geometry of the brake which requires
a loaded vehicle have shown that two-thirds of original ve- that the intact wheel cylinder increase in stroke approxi-
hicle braking effectiveness is retained with either of the mately the same amount as that stroke lost from the inoper-
symmetrical sections out. On the other hand, the axle-by- ative wheel cylinder. It would not only be necessary to en-
axle arrangment reflects the brake balance of the intact sys-sure that this additional stroke is available from an existing
tem when its sections are failed -- this being in the neigh- brake's wheel cylinder, but, in order to realize it, it would
borhood of 25-30% on the fronts and 70-75% on the rears for also be necessary to add its equivalent in displacement to
the typical heavy duty vehicle. Actual tests in this case with
that normally available from the vehicle master cylinder.
a loaded vehicle have shown vehicle brake effectiveness to Twice the equivalent displacement, consequently, would
approximate 30% of its original when the rears are out and have to be added to each bore of the tandem master cyl-
60% when the fronts are out. inder in order to handle the rear axle arrangement of Figs.
Fig. 15 shows optional split circuitries for another com- 14 and 15. This displacement is surplus in the sense that it
bination of foundation brakes which are widely used on heavy is not required for operation of the brakes when the system
duty vehicles. Again, the options are possible because, is intact, but is required only in the event of a failure.
though only one wheel cylinder is employed on the front Other undesirable features of the half axle approach may
brakes, there are two employed on each of the rear brakes. also encourage a second look at the axle-by-axle arrange-

T0 TANDEM MASTER CYLINDER TO TANDEM MASTER CYLINDER TO TANDEM MASTER CYLINDER

TO TANDEM MASTER CYLINDER A

A
t

TWO WAV. TWO NON-SERVO DOUBLE TWO WAY. TWO NON-SERVO DOUILE
LEADING SHOE READS ANCHOR FRONTS LEADING SHOE REARS ANCHOR FRONTS
TWO WAY, TWO ONE WAY, TWO TWO WAY. TWO ONE WAY. TWO
LEADING SHOE REARS LEADING SHOE FRONTS LEADING SHOE REARS LEADING SHOE FRONTS

AXLE-BY-AXLE SPLIT AXLE PLUS HALF AXLE-BY-HALF AXtt SPLIT

AXLE-BY-AXLE SPLIT HALF AXLE-BY-HALF AXU SPLIT Fig. 15 - Optional split circuitries for heavy duty vehicle
Fig. 14 - Optional split circuitries for heavy duty vehicle with two wheel cylinders on each rear brake and one wheel
with two wheel cylinders on each brake cylinder on each front brake
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
ment. It would require duplication of plumbing in the sys-
tem, and, should a failure occur at a wheel cylinder, it is
conceivable that fluid could leak onto the brake linings.
This could result in vehicle control and/or stability diffi-
culties with the intact section greater in magnitude than any
which might be experienced with the sections of the axle-
by-axle arrangement.
On the other hand, the axle-by-axle split may not be so
poor when judged with respect to that vehicle performance
necessary for reasonable safety in the event of failure, rather
than that which it is possible to attain. It is certainly de-
sired that the rears do not easily slide out in order to main-
tain vehicle directional stability, and it is equally desirable
that the fronts do not easily slide out in the interest of di-
rectional control. Too, maximum vehicle brake effective-
ness is desired when each section operates alone in order to
keep stopping distances down. All of these requirements an-
ticipate the need for panic stops simultaneous with failure;
however, many times circumstances will permit stopping the
vehicle well within its performance limits. Prevailing traf-
fic conditions will not always necessitate high deceleration
stops, and when this circumstance does occur, it must com-
bine with those of light vehicle loading and front section
failure to approach the limits of stability. At the same time
control is available with the front steering axle to compen-
sate should instability occur. Directional control would be
affected only when the rear section fails, but its limits are
much the same as those when the complete system is intact
because the brakes of the steering axle generally do not have
sufficient torque capacity for wheel slide to occur.
It would thus be necessary in deciding between the half
axle and whole axle splits to weigh their relative perform-
ances against the complications and costs necessary to
achieve each of them.
It is possible to achieve a compromise between the half
axle and whole axle splits on one heavy duty vehicle - - that
with tandem axles. As Fig. 16 shows, the front axle is split
in half, and then each half is joined with one of the rear
axles. The resultant axle plus half axle-by-axle plus half
axle arrangement provides front-to-rear brake balance when
TO TANDEM MASTER CYLINDER
TWO WAY, TWO LEADING SHOE REARS ONE WAY, TWO LEADING SHOE FRONTS
Fig. 16 - Axle plus half axle-by-axle plus half axle split
circuitry for tandem axle vehicle
either of its sections fail, but without the need for additional
displacement as was required in previous approaches.
Power equipment on heavy duty commercial vehicles to-
day is almost exclusively of the in-line type, and, were this
type to be continued with split systems, two units would be
required for a system as shown in Fig. 17. Their sizes could
be reduced in the case of the axle-by-axle split from that
of the power unit for the equivalent conventional system.
However, this would not be possible with the half axle split
if the power units must supply additional displacement for
operation under failure. Other than for this comparative in-
crease in power unit size, it will be necessary with this
means for handling the half axle split to contend with an-
other of its disadvantages. There is no separation of dis-
placement for normal operation and that required under fail-
ure; therefore, the latter can unknowingly be used as a reserve
when the system is intact and little or none will remain for
the failed condition.
An alternate to the duplicate in-line power unit approach
would be the single mechanical kind of Fig. 13. It could be
either air or vacuum operated. A vacuum operated type,
with a tandem master cylinder, is being produced for com-
mercial vehicles in England at this time. There is also a
company in England producing in-line units in an integrated,
"back-to-back" package for commercial vehicles.
OTHER SPLITTING DEVICES
A split system can be operated in a number of ways other
than with the tandem master cylinder, and several of these
were studied in the course of development of the tandem
cylinder.
Fig. 18 illustrates a system which utilizes conventional
master cylinders for its operation. These are actuated by a
mechanical fork, and a shuttle valve communicates between
their outputs in order to equalize their strokes when the sec-
tions of the system require unequal displacements. This a p -
proach complicates installation mounting and requires ad-
ditional space in the installation, and it does not facilitate
use of the mechanical power unit. To handle failures, ad-
AIR OR VACUUM OPERATED,
IN-LINE POWER UNIT
FRONT AXLE BRAKES
REAR AXLE BRAKES FRONT AXll BRAKES REAR AXLE BRAKES
CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM SPLIT SYSTEM
Fig. 17 - Power for heavy duty vehicle
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
ditional displacement must be available from each master
cylinder to bottom the shuttle valve in the failed section
direction; and a brake pedal bind may be introduced when
failure occurs because the pedal part of the fork is not
aligned with that part which actuates the intact section.
Fig. 19 represents a modification of the above concept.
The Whipple-tree eliminates the need for the shuttle valve
and reduces the likelihood of pedal bind under condition of
failure. An installation of this type is currently used on an
English passenger car. It is power operated, but not by the
mechanical unit commonly used in this country. Compli-
cations which would be encountered in actuating the whip-
pie-tree with such a unit were avoided by employing a re-
mote mechanical unit and intermediate actuating linkage.
Fig. 20 shows an arrangement which does not split the
system, but isolates a portion of it in the case of an abrupt
failure. It has simplicity, and the protection devices can
be easily installed on an existing brake system. On the other
hand, there is no protection should failure occur between
the devices and the master cylinder. The device, itself, is
not foolproof because it relies on a surge of pressure from
the master cylinder for its operation. Consequently, a grad-
ual leak could bypass it and entirely deplete the system fluid
(51
REAR AXLE
BRAKES
6 SHUTTLE VALVE
Fig. 18 - Mechanical fork actuation of dual master cylin-
ders with shuttle valve
Fig. 19 - "Whipple-tree" actuation of dual master cylin-
ders
when the brake system is not in use. Too, the device may
not distinguish between an abrupt failure and consumption
of a good deal of displacement by the brakes. This circum-
stance could combine with a lockout feature of the device
to trap hydraulic pressure on an intact portion of the
system.
Fig. 21 illustrates an early concept for integrating the
sections of the split system within a single master cylinder.
A single primary piston displaced two secondary pistons hy-
draulically to actuate the sections. However, there was no
provision for mechanical actuation of the secondary pistons
in the event of hydraulic failure in the primary bore, and
this occurrence would have been tantamount to simultaneous
failure of the sections. The construction was subsequently
abandoned for this reason plus the fact that an inherently
loose dimensional relationship among the three bores neces-
sitated considerable brake pedal travel for starting fluid dis-
placement.
Fig. 22 shows how a single in-line power unit may be
used to split a system. While this possibility would elimi-
nate the tandem master cylinder and the second in-line unit
it requires, there is no protection between the conventional
master cylinder and the power unit.
ONE-WAY CHECK VALVE
Fig. 20 - Protection devices in hydraulic lines
Fig. 21 - Three-bore master cylinder
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018

protective features have been accomplished without sacri -

REAR AXLE RRAKES
Fig. 22 - Split in-line power unit
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
ficing operating characteristics of the split system when there
is no failure or those of an equivalent conventional system.
Upwards of 1,500,000 split systems have been installed
as standard equipment in this country since their introduc-
tion in model year 1962, and it is estimated that they now
aggregate 10, 000, 000, 000 miles of operation. This evidence of
their practicability can be further construed to show their
versatility for application. The installations span from the
smallest through the largest passenger cars, and approxi-
mately one-third of them are power operated.
The advantages of the tandem master cylinder type of
split system which make it preferable for passenger cars
also make it preferable for commercial vehicles equipped
with hydraulic brakes, and it is expected that increasing
FRONT AXLE BRAKES emphasis on highway safety in this country will bring about
the use of such systems on both passenger and freight com-
mercial carriers. There are engineering programs currently
under way in anticipation of this eventuality.

Split systems of the kind currently equipped on passenger ACKNOWLEDGMENT

cars in this country have been designed to provide the opti-
mum in braking safety. They retain an intact section of the The tandem master cylinder produced by Bendix today
service brakes plus the service brake pedal should a failure was developed in joint program by its Products Automotive
occur, and they do so irrespective of the location of failure and Lakeshore Divisions. The program required not only the
in the system or whether its occurrence be gradual or abrupt. efforts of the engineering personnel of these divisions for its
The sections are arranged to facilitate directional as well consummation, but also those of the brake groups of the
as braking control of the vehicle when either must operate Cadillac Motor Car Div., General Motors Corp., and the
alone, and each combines with the tandem master cylinder American Motors Corp. Appreciation is extended to Amer-
to contribute a "built in" indicator of failure. All of these ican Motors for the use of the photograph in Fig. 1.

Paper subject to revision. SAE is not responsible for statements or opin- in Engineering, or Transactions. For permission to publish this pa-
ions advanced in papers or discussions at its meetings. Discussion will per, in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Division and the
be printed if paper is published in Technical Progress Series, Advances authors. 1 C

Printed in U.S. A .