Sunteți pe pagina 1din 15

A phenomenological dynamic model of a magnetorheological damper using a neuro-fuzzy system

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2013 Smart Mater. Struct. 22 125013

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/22/12/125013)

Download details:

IP Address: 161.139.152.4 This content was downloaded on 13/11/2013 at 06:35

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING

SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013 (14pp)

A phenomenological dynamic model of a magnetorheological damper using a neuro-fuzzy system

Mohammadjavad Zeinali 1 , Saiful Amri Mazlan 1 , Abdul Yasser Abd Fatah 1 and Hairi Zamzuri 2

1 VSE Research Laboratory, Malaysia–Japan International Institute of Technology (MJIIT), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 54100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2 Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Jalan Semarak, 54100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Received 22 August 2013, in final form 10 October 2013 Published 5 November 2013 Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/22/125013

Abstract

A magnetorheological (MR) damper is a promising appliance for semi-active suspension

systems, due to its capability of damping undesired movement using an adequate control strategy. This research has been carried out a phenomenological dynamic model of two MR dampers using an adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) approach. Two kinds of Lord Corporation MR damper (a long stroke damper and a short stroke damper) were used in experiments, and then modeled using the experimental results. In addition, an

investigation of the influence of the membership function selection on predicting the behavior

of the MR damper and obtaining a mathematical model was conducted to realize the

relationship between input current, displacement, and velocity as the inputs and force as output. The results demonstrate that the proposed models for both short stroke and long stroke MR dampers have successfully predicted the behavior of the MR damper with adequate accuracy, and an equation is presented to precisely describe the behavior of each MR damper.

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction

The capability of a magnetorheological (MR) damper as a semi-active system to produce high force capacity and wide dynamic range has attracted researchers to focus more on MR dampers. Some comprehensive reviews have considered a wide variety of studies involving MR dampers: design and modeling for a rotary MR damper (Imaduddin et al 2013) and structure design and analysis (Zhu et al 2012). Figure 1 shows a schematic of an MR damper with an accumulator. The applied input current produces a magnetic flux in which the flux lines are perpendicular to the symmetric axis (the horizontal line in figure 1). The produced magnetic field influences MR fluid particles to increase the MR fluid viscosity in terms of magnetic flux density (the magnified ellipse in figure 1). This phenomenon generates

0964-1726/13/125013+14$33.00

a complex relation between the effective input parameters

such as displacement, which represents the behavior of the accumulator as a spring, velocity, which corresponds to the damping behavior of the MR damper, and input current.

To control an MR damper, an accurate mathematical model of the MR damper must be implemented in the

controlling strategy to describe this complex relationship. The multi-physics and nonlinearity behaviors of an MR damper create a challenging objective in order to achieve the most precise model. All designed models can be divided into two different types: predictive quasi-static and phenomenological dynamic models. In predictive quasi-static modeling, the conventional model is the Bingham model, which is utilized in much research (Bhatnagar 2013, Yang et al 2002, Chew et al 2006). The Hershel–Bulkley model has been presented with

a higher accuracy (Wang and Gordaninejad 2007). Between

1

c 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd

Printed in the UK & the USA

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013

M Zeinali et al

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013 M Zeinali et al Figure 1. Schematic of an MR

Figure 1. Schematic of an MR damper model.

M Zeinali et al Figure 1. Schematic of an MR damper model. Figure 2. (a) Bouc–Wen

Figure 2. (a) Bouc–Wen model. (b) Modified Bouc–Wen model (Spencer et al 1997).

these models, the phenomenological dynamic model produces a thorough characterization of an MR damper. This type of model outperforms the predictive quasi-static model in all aspects of the damper, such as force–velocity behavior. The Bouc–Wen model has been used widely as a phenomenological dynamic model in a large number of studies (Weber 2013, Ismail et al 2009) (see figure 2(a)). Spencer et al (1997) presented a modified Bouc–Wen model which is based on a mixture of elastic springs and a viscous damper (see figure 2(b)). Spaggiari and Dragoni (2012) suggested an efficient dynamic model in which the proposed model by Spencer et al (1997) is modified to investigate a simpler and efficient model. There are number of studies which modeled RD-8040-1 (short stroke) and RD-8041-1 (long stroke) MR dampers using a feed-forward neural network (Ekkachai et al 2011), a time-delayed adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) model under high impact forces (Sarp Arsava et al 2013), and a polynomial model (Bin Pokaad and Nasir 2011). In recent years, the outstanding learning capability of fuzzy systems and neural networks has led researchers to apply these approaches in predicting the complex relationship between

MR damper parameters (Patil et al 2012, Azwadi et al 2013, Guneri¨ et al 2011). In addition, the model of the MR damper can be used in control strategies and simulation of semi-active suspension systems. Therefore, the response time (fast solution) and accuracy of the model are priority targets to utilize in the suspension system. Both mentioned targets can be achieved by the ANFIS approach due to its capability to quickly predict the phenomena with reasonable accuracy (Jang 1993, Nazari et al 2012). In this study, an ANFIS approach is implemented to achieve an accurate prediction of the MR damper force by using the input current, unwanted displacement, and unwanted velocity as the prediction system’s inputs. In the vehicle semi-active suspension system, the unwanted displacement and velocity are equivalent to displacement and velocity. The ANFIS model has been trained by the experimental results of testing the magnetorheological damper under various speeds and input currents. This paper is structured as follows. The experimental setup is explained in section 2. In section 3, the ANFIS method and parameters are described. Section 4 gives the

2

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013

M Zeinali et al

Table 1. Specification of variables in the experiment.

Input

Short stroke MR damper

Long stroke MR damper

Displacement (mm)

±5

±10

Frequency (Hz)

3.2, 6.3, 9.5, 12.6 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1

1.6, 3.2, 4.8, 6.3, 7.9 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1

Current (A)

6.3, 7.9 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1 Current (A) Figure 3. Side view

Figure 3. Side view of RD-8040-1 and RD-8041-1 MR dampers.

prediction results, and the accuracy of the ANFIS approach is discussed. Conclusions are presented in section 5.

2. Experimental setup

Two types of MR damper are investigated in this study, RD-8040-1 (short stroke) and RD-8041-1 (long stroke), shown in figure 3, supplied by Lord Corporation. The difference between these two products is the length of the stroke, which is related to the application of the damper. However, the function of the dampers is similar and helps validate the proposed ANFIS model. The length of the dampers at full extension is 207.8 ± 1.9 mm and 248.15 ± 2.25 mm for the short stroke MR damper and the long stroke MR damper, respectively. The stroke length is 55.45 ± 0.65 mm and 73.7 ± 0.7 mm in the short and long strokes, respectively. The maximum value for the input current exerted to the coils is 2 A. The experiments were done using a damper test system MTS 850, which is shown in figure 4. The experimental results were evaluated and developed in the vehicle system engineering laboratory at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). The test rig is able to measure three parameters of the damper (relative displacement, velocity, and damper force) by using a transducer and a load cell. Figure 4 shows the experimental setup, the MR damper, and a device controller provided by Lord Corporation to control the input current of the coils. Table 1 presents the input variables in the experiment, which are displacement, frequency, and input current. There are three significant parameters, which are the variation of displacement, velocity, and peak velocity, during each test. As can be seen in table 1, the displacement is varied from 5 to +5 mm for the short stroke damper and from 10 to +10 mm for the long stroke damper. The frequencies, in table 1, represent the variation of both velocity and peak velocity. As as example, the 1.6 value of frequency for the long stroke MR damper shows that the velocity is varied from 0.1 to 0.1 m s 1 and that the magnitude of the peak velocity is 0.1 m s at a displacement of 0 mm. Thus, the initial position of the piston is in displacement of 5 mm for short stroke

3

piston is in displacement of − 5 mm for short stroke 3 Figure 4. Experimental setup

Figure 4. Experimental setup for testing short and long stroke MR dampers.

MR damper and displacement of 10 mm for long stroke MR damper. The actual and predicted values of damping force in terms of displacement, velocity and peak velocity are shown in section 4. The input variables have been specified for each MR damper on the basis of the specifications of each individual damper.

3. ANFIS model

The ANFIS model is a combination of a fuzzy system and a neural network to accurately predict the behavior of nonlinear and complex relationships in a phenomenon (Jang 1993). An if–then rule is employed in this model, proposed by Takagi and Sugeno (1985). This structure comprises five layers, which are the input membership function, rule layers (layers 2 and 3), output membership function, and summation layer. In this study, three inputs, namely the input current, displacement, and velocity, were assumed to realize the amount of force as output (see figure 5). The inputs were divided into various spaces by different membership functions (MFs), as shown in tables 2 and 3. In the first layer, the parameters of the input MFs which describe the configuration of the MFs are defined; these parameters are called premise parameters. An AND rule was utilized to multiply the incoming signals from the first layer to the second layer. The general equation of this layer can be written as

w i = µ A i (I) × µ B i (d) × µ C i (v), (1)

where w i is the output of each second layer’s node and µ A i , µ B i , and µ C i are the incoming signals from the applied MFs

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013

M Zeinali et al

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013 M Zeinali et al Figure 5. Schematic of the ANFIS

Figure 5. Schematic of the ANFIS method.

on the inputs (input current (I), displacement (d), and velocity (v)) to the individual second layer’s node. In the third layer, the relative value of each rule weight is acquired by dividing w i by the total amount of all rule weights:

w¯ i =

w i (w i ) ,

i=1

n

(2)

where w¯ i is the relative rule weight of ith node. The proposed Takagi and Sugeno if–then rule is applied in this layer (Takagi and Sugeno 1985), whereby the node function of the fourth layer is

(3)

where p i , q i , r i , and s i are the corresponding coefficients of each input in the if–then rule and are known as consequent parameters. The premise and consequent parameters are the adjustable parameters of the ANFIS structure which are placed in different layers. The overall output is obtained in the last layer by aggregating the incoming signals from layer 4. In this structure, a hybrid algorithm of gradient descent and least square estimates is employed to update the premise parameters in the first layer and consequent parameters in the fourth layer, respectively.

w¯ i f i = w¯ i (p i I + q i d + r i v + s i ),

3.1. Membership function selection

Various configurations of MFs are used to investigate the best type and number of MFs for all inputs by comparing the least root mean square error (RMSE). The RMSE can be calculated as

RMSE =

1

N

N

i=1

(Actual Force Predicted Force) 2 ,

(4)

where N is the number of testing sets. In this aim, two diverse types of membership function, (bell shaped and Gaussian shaped), and 64 combinations of

4

number of MFs are employed in order to realize the most

accurate model (see tables 2 and 3). It can be noted that

the RMSE value for 6-6-6 input MFs (bell shaped) in the

short stroke damper is extremely close to the RMSE value

for 4-6-6 input MFs (Gaussian shaped), while its number of

rules is many more than the second configuration, and it will

be shown that the rules of the second configuration can be

simplified. Therefore, the configuration of 4-6-6 input MFs with Gaussian-shaped MF has been selected for the short stroke damper. In the long stroke MR damper, the best ANFIS structure is similar to the structure of the selected ANFIS model in the short stroke MR damper, which is 4–6–6 input MFs with Gaussian-shaped function as the input membership function. All proposed ANFIS approaches were trained for 1000 epochs to generate the structure. Figure 6 shows the convergence trend of the RMSE for the training data in terms of number of epochs for both MR dampers. The experimental data are split into two different data sets, training and testing data sets. Seventy per cent of the experimental data are randomly selected to train the ANFIS structures, and the remaining data are used to evaluate the constructed ANFIS

structures. The selected ANFIS models produce 144 if–then rules for both short stroke and long stroke MR dampers.

4. Results and discussion

A study of the prediction of two magnetorheological

dampers has been carried out by examining diverse ANFIS model configurations. The selected ANFIS models for both short stroke and long stroke MR dampers have

the same configurations of 4-6-6 MFs for inputs with a Gaussian-shaped membership function. Figures 7 and 8 depict

the plots of force in terms of displacement at 1.6 and 3.2 Hz

frequencies for the long stroke MR damper and the short stroke MR damper, respectively. The input current is varied from 0 to 1 A. As can be seen, the values of force have been

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013

M Zeinali et al

Table 2. Configuration of MFs applied in the ANFIS model. (Note: a, b, c, and σ are the MF parameter sets.)

Membership

function

Equation

Figure

Gaussian shaped

e

(xc) 2 2σ 2

 
Gaussian shaped e − ( x − c ) 2 2 σ 2  

Bell shaped

1

2b

Bell shaped 1 2 b
 

1+

xc

a

Table 3. Comparison of output RMSE for diverse numbers and types of MF.

Number of

MFs for

Short stroke

Long stroke

Number of MFs for

Short stroke

Long stroke

 

Bell

Gaussian

Bell

Gaussian

Bell

Gaussian

Bell

Gaussian

(I)

(d)

(v)

shaped

shaped

shaped

shaped

(I)

(d)

(v)

shaped

shaped

shaped

shaped

3

3

3

111.08

124.60

147.59

151.31

5

3

3

108.89

118.97

160.87

171.39

3

3

4

95.07

78.54

94.37

64.33

5

3

4

89.21

104.08

66.77

124.29

3

3

5

99.54

106.22

102.08

127.48

5

3

5

106.25

106.07

112.89

80.69

3

3

6

85.92

72.36

64.33

105.33

5

3

6

93.90

97.14

73.17

97.88

3

4

3

105.67

123.10

146.39

142.14

5

4

3

110.49

120.37

157.38

147.66

3

4

4

84.70

92.95

66.60

110.04

5

4

4

88.62

77.97

97.80

77.52

3

4

5

96.49

79.49

55.94

102.08

5

4

5

96.03

71.12

106.00

91.60

3

4

6

71.17

84.08

68.13

59.55

5

4

6

85.48

90.09

72.51

55.54

3

5

3

105.49

111.02

156.92

142.45

5

5

3

106.80

109.00

155.63

138.63

3

5

4

75.24

65.41

80.52

63.11

5

5

4

74.91

70.11

77.66

101.12

3

5

5

78.64

74.31

75.83

81.25

5

5

5

78.40

82.65

100.86

83.12

3

5

6

71.26

66.02

68.24

57.46

5

5

6

65.44

80.21

63.31

74.16

3

6

3

115.53

99.90

151.11

139.31

5

6

3

115.74

100.32

142.01

141.16

3

6

4

66.10

74.86

75.89

66.60

5

6

4

66.41

75.74

61.75

71.13

3

6

5

72.52

75.81

76.33

82.08

5

6

5

77.56

76.99

73.19

79.87

3

6

6

64.05

69.52

64.88

71.77

5

6

6

65.52

71.02

51.32

54.34

4

3

3

110.88

130.59

155.79

170.33

6

3

3

104.35

117.80

152.81

169.55

4

3

4

95.91

103.85

89.89

124.38

6

3

4

94.73

106.75

69.56

79.62

4

3

5

85.74

81.38

85.45

95.87

6

3

5

106.02

104.20

83.83

117.62

4

3

6

94.26

92.04

66.28

102.27

6

3

6

97.66

99.52

75.58

63.71

4

4

3

129.40

124.32

154.27

127.98

6

4

3

109.97

129.43

164.33

149.57

4

4

4

86.60

69.74

87.97

72.05

6

4

4

90.43

78.50

90.35

58.00

4

4

5

71.17

93.71

70.39

86.85

6

4

5

97.44

92.33

101.52

92.51

4

4

6

80.93

90.33

52.80

59.00

6

4

6

86.26

94.33

73.07

61.10

4

5

3

104.55

111.66

150.65

139.28

6

5

3

107.46

109.63

155.11

137.50

4

5

4

67.90

83.69

83.01

61.55

6

5

4

68.31

85.24

74.65

62.67

4

5

5

87.78

86.65

83.02

83.24

6

5

5

65.08

88.62

98.89

83.93

4

5

6

74.39

75.78

54.93

53.44

6

5

6

77.55

64.48

67.17

62.37

4

6

3

103.01

100.31

160.58

124.89

6

6

3

116.94

100.50

148.92

141.51

4

6

4

63.20

75.20

70.76

94.74

6

6

4

66.05

76.28

63.18

51.68

4

6

5

77.87

76.56

79.71

83.86

6

6

5

77.72

77.53

98.68

85.03

4

6

6

64.21

60.47

60.66

48.26

6

6

6

59.34

71.86

67.52

73.17

 

5

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013

M Zeinali et al

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013 M Zeinali et al Figure 6. Training data RMSE versus

Figure 6. Training data RMSE versus number of epochs. (a) Long stroke MR damper. (b) Short stroke MR damper.

(a) Long stroke MR damper. (b) Short stroke MR damper. Figure 7. Force versus displacement in

Figure 7. Force versus displacement in different currents for the long stroke MR damper.

successfully predicted in the whole range of displacement from 10 to 10 mm for the long stroke damper and 5 to 5 mm for the short stroke damper. It is obvious that the numerical result of force versus displacement in the long stroke MR damper (figure 7) has better agreement with the experimental result than is the case for the numerical result of the short stroke MR damper (figure 8). In particular, the proposed ANFIS model of the long stroke MR damper outperforms the short stroke MR damper’s model around displacement boundaries. These portions of displacement can be defined as the last 20% of both positive and negative displacements in which the direction of motion is going to be changed. Displacement is one of the effective input parameters of the force produced by the damper that is considered in the proposed ANFIS model. All effective input parameters must be assessed to entirely evaluate the performance of the proposed prediction models. Velocity is another effective parameter which has been applied as an input of the ANFIS model. Figures 9 and 10 show the predicted force in terms of velocity in different input

6

predicted force in terms of velocity in different input 6 Figure 8. Force versus displacement in

Figure 8. Force versus displacement in different currents for the short stroke MR damper.

in different currents for the short stroke MR damper. Figure 9. Force versus velocity in different

Figure 9. Force versus velocity in different currents for the long stroke MR damper.

currents. As can be seen, the prediction results which are close to peak velocities in each input current outperform the other velocities.

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013

M Zeinali et al

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013 M Zeinali et al Figure 10. Force versus velocity in

Figure 10. Force versus velocity in different currents for the short stroke MR damper.

in different currents for the short stroke MR damper. Figure 11. Force versus peak velocity in

Figure 11. Force versus peak velocity in different currents for the long stroke MR damper.

in different currents for the long stroke MR damper. Figure 12. Force versus peak velocity in

Figure 12. Force versus peak velocity in different currents for the short stroke MR damper.

Figures 11 and 12 demonstrate the accuracy of the prediction model in the long stroke MR damper and the short stroke MR damper, respectively. These figures show that both

7

MR damper, respectively. These figures show that both 7 Figure 13. Regression plot of the prediction

Figure 13. Regression plot of the prediction model for the long stroke MR damper.

plot of the prediction model for the long stroke MR damper. Figure 14. Regression plot of

Figure 14. Regression plot of the prediction model for the short stroke MR damper.

Table 4. The applicable intervals of the MR damper inputs.

 

Input current, I (A)

Displacement,

Velocity, v (m s 1 )

d (m)

Short stroke MR damper Long stroke MR damper

[0 1]

[0.005 0.005]

[0.4 0.4]

[0 1]

[0.01 0.01]

[0.5 0.5]

prediction models have precisely predicted the force in terms of peak velocity for every input current. In addition, a regression analysis is provided between the actual force and predicted force for further evaluation. Figure 13 shows the comparison of the actual force and predicted force values for the long stroke MR damper with a regression value of 0.9989. Figure 14 shows the comparison of the actual force and predicted force values for the short stroke MR damper with a regression value of 0.9961. Therefore, the regression plots demonstrate the trustable ability of the proposed model in predicting the force with respect to the actual value of the force which is obtained by experiment. Among models presented in previous studies, the accuracy of the proposed model is compared to that of the Bingham, Bouc–Wen, polynomial, and neural network models. It is obvious that the Bingham model is unable to predict the nonlinear hysteresis behavior of an MR damper. Spencer et al presented a modified Bouc–Wen model with

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013

M Zeinali et al

Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (2013) 125013 M Zeinali et al Figure 15. Plots of long stroke

Figure 15. Plots of long stroke MR damper MFs ((a), (c) and (e)) and short stroke MR damper MFs ((b), (d) and (f)).

Table 5. The values of the premise parameters for the short stroke MR damper.

Table 6. The values of the premise parameters for the long stroke MR damper.

Input

MF

σ

c

Input

MF

σ

c

Current

11

0.141 75

0.000 19

Current

11

0.141 71

0.000 19

12

0.141 53

0.333 39

12

0.141 21

0.333 20

13

0.141 71

0.666 10

13

0.142 09

0.665 76

14

0.141 87

0.999 76

14

0.142 20

0.999 50

Displacement

21

0.00270

0.01840

Displacement

21

0.000 75

0.014 87

22

0.000 87

0.000 61

22

0.000 80

0.019 03

23

0.000 23

0.013 49

23

0.001 47

0.002 26

24

0.003 45

0.018 01

24

0.000 45

0.013 69

25

0.001 46

0.016 89

25

0.005 68

0.035 66

26

0.003 49

0.021 49

26

0.001 41

0.015 69

Velocity

31

0.069 07

0.395 20

Velocity

31

0.091 33

0.525 11

32

0.068 54

0.235 92

32

0.093 82

0.310 41

33

0.056 77

0.081 32

33

0.064 50

0.109 54

34

0.058 60

0.081 61

34

0.066 68

0.120 83

35

0.068 94

0.236 04

35

0.092 48

0.323 42

36

0.068 72

0.394 97

36

0.090 99

0.536 64

14 parameters which need to be obtained by curve fitting of experimental results (Spencer et al 1997). In this model, the number of parameters is much less than in the ANFIS model. In addition, the methods of obtaining the parameters of the ANFIS model are more precise and faster than in the Bouc–Wen model. Choi et al proposed a polynomial model

to describe the behavior of an MR damper (Choi et al 2001).

This model has successfully predicted the nonlinear behavior of an MR damper. The capability of the ANFIS model is to predict all damping, stiffness, and hysteresis behavior of

a damper in the whole input range, while the polynomial

model cannot accurately predict the damper as well as the

8

1.964 × 10 4 5.491 × 10 3 2.214 × 10 3 1.744 × 10 3 4.676 × 10 2 6.956 × 10 4 2.445 × 10 3 1.962 × 10 3 1.954 × 10 3 2.061 × 10 3 1.471 × 10 3 2.131 × 10 3 2.529 × 10 4 1.953 × 10 3 1.458 × 10 3 1.870 × 10 3 5.827 × 10 3 1.342 × 10 4 7.966 × 10 2 5.582 × 10 3 2.049 × 10 4

1.086 × 10 3 1.441 × 10 4 5.097 × 10 2 1.785 × 10 4 6.987 × 10 3 5.080 × 10 3 1.736 × 10 3 5.295 × 10 3 1.072 × 10 5 6.683 × 10 3 5.303 × 10 3 5.344 × 10 3 5.797 × 10 3 4.494 × 10 3 6.866 × 10 3 9.214 × 10 4 1.728 × 10 3 5.172 × 10 3 4.912 × 10 3 9.266 × 10 3

s

8.525 × 10 2 3.233 × 10 4 8.003 × 10 3 6.999 × 10 2 1.350 × 10 4 1.236 × 10 4 3.912 × 10 2 5.859 × 10 2 1.362 × 10 2 8.559 × 10 2 1.453 × 10 3 1.778 × 10 3 2.246 × 10 2 4.304 × 10 4 1.968 × 10 3 5.215 × 10 3 2.070 × 10 4 1.102 × 10 4 1.141 × 10 2 7.112 × 10 2

8.287 × 10 3 1.264 × 10 4 2.904 × 10 3 1.818 × 10 1 2.751 × 10 2 3.733 × 10 4 8.021 × 10 3 3.689 × 10 3 3.549 × 10 4 2.734 × 10 4 1.100 × 10 2 2.381 × 10 2 1.928 × 10 3 3.261 × 10 2 1.120 × 10 3 1.215 × 10 3 1.618 × 10 4 1.188 × 10 4 4.912 × 10 3 8.200 × 10 3 3.552 × 10 4

r

1.067 × 10 2 9.111 × 10 3 2.074 × 10 4 1.901 × 10 5 9.593 × 10 3 3.320 × 10 2 2.065 × 10 4 1.654 × 10 4 1.711 × 10 4 4.500 × 10 3 4.745 × 10 3 3.417 × 10 3 2.473 × 10 2 2.728 × 10 3 1.288 × 10 3 6.806 × 10 3 4.526 × 10 3 1.641 × 10 2 4.840 × 10 0 3.091 × 10 1 2.525 × 10 2

6.504 × 10 1 1.102 × 10 2 3.140 × 10 0 8.691 × 10 1 5.839 × 10 3 1.645 × 10 4 9.915 × 10 4 3.666 × 10 4 2.028 × 10 2 2.489 × 10 3 6.343 × 10 3 1.372 × 10 4 5.152 × 10 3 3.077 × 10 3 1.463 × 10 4 3.819 × 10 2 1.353 × 10 4 3.791 × 10 4 1.320 × 10 3 6.787 × 10 2

Table 7. The values of the consequent parameters for the short stroke MR damper.

q

6.053 × 10 3 2.542 × 10 3 1.216 × 10 3 1.013 × 10 3 2.601 × 10 3 2.804 × 10 4 1.897 × 10 3 1.331 × 10 3 1.379 × 10 3 1.706 × 10 3 8.282 × 10 2 2.224 × 10 3 1.191 × 10 5 1.458 × 10 4 1.680 × 10 3 8.945 × 10 2 6.987 × 10 2 8.319 × 10 3 1.769 × 10 3 4.894 × 10 3 1.736 × 10 4

2.167 × 10 3 9.387 × 10 3 1.344 × 10 2 2.013 × 10 4 1.101 × 10 3 3.251 × 10 3 2.215 × 10 3 1.250 × 10 2 1.171 × 10 5 4.715 × 10 3 3.583 × 10 3 3.628 × 10 3 4.194 × 10 3 2.963 × 10 3 5.280 × 10 3 3.347 × 10 4 6.147 × 10 3 2.668 × 10 2 3.457 × 10 3 8.694 × 10 2

p

Rule

80

110

120

130

82

92

112

74

84

94

104

114

76

96

106

116

79

109

119

129

77

107

117

127

78

108

118

128

75

95

105

115

73

83

93

103

113

81

91

111

131

9.269 × 10 2 3.727 × 10 1 1.800 × 10 2 3.631 × 10 2 1.203 × 10 2 8.048 × 10 3 1.647 × 10 2 1.494 × 10 1 3.071 × 10 1

1.790 × 10 1 8.588 × 10 1 2.396 × 10 2 1.258 × 10 4 1.184 × 10 3 1.132 × 10 3 2.107 × 10 2 5.168 × 10 2 2.020 × 10 3 2.349 × 10 2 8.054 × 10 3 6.777 × 10 4 8.966 × 10 3 1.434 × 10 3 8.766 × 10 1 9.594 × 10 3 2.834 × 10 3 7.024 × 10 2 2.125 × 10 3 1.164 × 10 3 9.458 × 10 2 4.686 × 10 2 3.204 × 10 2 3.169 × 10 2 3.212 × 10 2 2.466 × 10 2 4.514 × 10 2 1.444 × 10 4 6.298 × 10 3 4.260 × 10 3 1.244 × 10 3 4.045 × 10 3

s

3.616 × 10 3 1.183 × 10 3 2.337 × 10 2 5.994 × 10 2 1.582 × 10 3 8.388 × 10 2 1.606 × 10 3 1.225 × 10 3 1.015 × 10 3 1.146 × 10 3 1.527 × 10 3 1.802 × 10 3 2.053 × 10 3 7.076 × 10 3 6.139 × 10 1 9.514 × 10 2 3.888 × 10 3 4.375 × 10 3 7.045 × 10 0 4.236 × 10 2 1.206 × 10 3 4.303 × 10 2 2.255 × 10 1 1.950 × 10 1 6.381 × 10 3 1.445 × 10 4 4.320 × 10 3 1.112 × 10 3

3.071 × 10 3 7.780 × 10 3 4.757 × 10 2 5.547 × 10 2 2.261 × 10 2 1.307 × 10 2 5.670 × 10 2 6.875 × 10 2 3.926 × 10 3 2.507 × 10 4 1.008 × 10 4 7.008 × 10 3 1.905 × 10 4

r

2.522 × 10 1 3.146 × 10 3 1.890 × 10 4 6.536 × 10 4 3.714 × 10 3 6.835 × 10 1 4.113 × 10 3 2.208 × 10 3 3.132 × 10 3 3.579 × 10 3 6.929 × 10 2 7.335 × 10 3 8.321 × 10 1 1.870 × 10 3 1.720 × 10 4 2.404 × 10 3 2.754 × 10 2 2.219 × 10 1 1.120 × 10 0 6.885 × 10 1 5.634 × 10 2 7.654 × 10 1 1.270 × 10 1 7.701 × 10 1 9.667 × 10 1 8.714 × 10 3 4.604 × 10 4 3.996 × 10 5 2.812 × 10 4 1.437 × 10 2 1.209 × 10 4 6.355 × 10 3 2.825 × 10 3 6.197 × 10 3 3.459 × 10 3 8.023 × 10 3 5.915 × 10 1

1.659 × 10 4 6.787 × 10 4 1.360 × 10 4 2.230 × 10 3

q

2.284 × 10 3 1.007 × 10 3 5.796 × 10 2 1.981 × 10 2 1.161 × 10 2 1.527 × 10 4 4.056 × 10 2 5.158 × 10 2 6.185 × 10 2

6.157 × 10 2 6.844 × 10 2 2.034 × 10 2 5.882 × 10 3 2.553 × 10 3 1.824 × 10 2 5.723 × 10 2 6.562 × 10 2 4.120 × 10 2 7.882 × 10 1 1.636 × 10 3 2.468 × 10 4 6.853 × 10 3 9.533 × 10 1 2.605 × 10 1 1.174 × 10 4 1.781 × 10 3 9.847 × 10 2 7.385 × 10 1 3.205 × 10 3 4.894 × 10 3 9.311 × 10 2 1.064 × 10 3 9.794 × 10 2 9.359 × 10 2 1.308 × 10 3 7.775 × 10 2 3.509 × 10 4 2.041 × 10 3 2.956 × 10 2 1.117 × 10 3 1.119 × 10 3

p

Rule

9
10

19
20

39
40

1
2

11
12

21
22

31
32