Estimate Damping Coefficient of Car with Hand Bouncing & Dropping

  • Thread starter Thread starter zacharoni16
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Car Damping
AI Thread Summary
Estimating the damping coefficient of a car can be achieved by hand-bouncing the vehicle and analyzing its harmonic motion. The relationship between the damping coefficient and the time it takes for the amplitude to decrease can be derived mathematically, allowing for straightforward calculations based on measured bounce times. It's important to note that car dampers are designed with asymmetrical damping, providing less resistance during compression for a smoother ride, which complicates the estimation. Additionally, damping plays a crucial role in preventing wheel overshooting during bumps, which can affect traction and stability. Understanding these dynamics is essential for accurately assessing a car's damping characteristics.
zacharoni16
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I was wondering how I can estimate the damping coefficient of my car by doing the hand bouncing the car body and watching the motion of the car?

Mechanics usually bounce the car by applying hand force and watching how the car moves in harmonic motion. Is there a way to estimate the damping coefficient by using this technique?

Or is there another technique like dropping the car a few inches or something to estimate it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The motion of the car is of course (intentionally) overdamped, to keep you from bouncing around forever. How fast it returns to equilibrium depends on the damping coefficient quite directly. So with a bit of math, you could derive a relationship between the damping coefficient and the time it takes, for example, for the amplitude to reach some fraction of the initial amplitude. Then you could easily test this by bouncing the car by hand and measuring this time. Then you can just plug in the time and calculate the damping coefficient. Note that in the theoretical calculation, the damping is exponential so it will never quite reach zero. However, the car quite obviously stops bouncing after two or three periods. This introduces a bit of uncertainty in when you decide which fraction you will take. I guess something like 1% could do, in physics 1/e is a common factor.
 
Car dampers are not symmetrically damped. There is purposely less damping on compression (to allow the wheel to ride sharp bumps and to give a softer ride) than on recovery. The have a flap valve inside which closes some of the holes in the piston on the down stroke.
This makes the 'damping coefficient' a bit less accessible than for a simple damped oscillator.

@CompuChip
The damping has another function. It stops the wheel overshooting when it is thrown upwards by a bump. The wheel-spring combination has a much shorter time constant than the car-spring combination and it is easy to get a resonance with the wheel and tyre. You can get an oscillation, particularly when braking and the wheel can actually leave the road in a series of bounces. It also plays hell with cornering as your traction can be halved. I had a Renault 4 that did this until I replaced one of the rear dampers. Very dramatic but no noticeable affect on the 'ride' as the torsion bar suspension was very soggy anyway.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top