Experimental testing and modelling of a rotary variable stiffness and damping shock absorber using magnetorheological technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a novel rotary shock absorber which combines the abilities of variable stiffness and variable damping by assembling a set of two magnetorheological damping units, one of which being placed in series with a rubber spring. This allows the damping and stiffness to be controlled independently by the internal damping and the external damping units, respectively. A test bench was established to verify the variable stiffness and damping functionality. The experimental results for variable damping test, variable stiffness test and co-working test are presented. At the amplitude of 10° and the frequency 0.5 Hz, increases of 141.6% and 618.1% are obtained for damping and stiffness separately if the corresponding current increased from 0 to 1 A and from 0 to 2 A, respectively. A mathematical model is then developed and verified to predict the changing of the damping and stiffness. The test results and the simulated model confirm the feasibility of the shock absorber with the ability of varying damping and stiffness simultaneously.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".