Novel Empirical Model of Rubber Bushing in Automotive

Suspension System

Zhang Lijun, Yu Zengliang, Yu Zhuoping

College of Automotive Engineering, Tongji University Cao’an Road, 4800, 201804 Shanghai, China

email: lijun.zhang@fcv-sh.com

Abstract
It is very important to establish appropriate dynamical model of rubber bushing for the suspension
vibration reduction, vehicle noise refinement and vehicle maneuverability enhancement. This paper aims
to present a novel empirical modeling method of rubber bushing used in double wishbone suspension
system. Firstly, the mathematical equations of both Berg and Dzierzek models are derived, and the
theoretical methods employed to identify parameters are discussed. Secondly, static and dynamical
characteristics of the rubber bushing were tested and the prediction precisions of the both models are
analyzed with the parameters identified from the experimental data. Based on the detailed analysis of
dynamical stiffness and damping, a novel empirical model is established, taking advantage of both Berg
and Dzierzek models. The novel model can gain reasonable compromise between prediction accuracy,
identification difficulty and computational effort, and it can be suitable tool for automotive chassis
dynamics simulation and analysis.

1 Introduction

Various rubber bushings have been used in modern automobile suspension systems, whose elasticity
property and inherent damping enhance vehicle driving performance significantly. They can improve
suspension kinematics and elastic kinematics by acting as elastic joints, and effectively reduce vehicle
body vibration induced by road roughness. So the design and selection of rubber bushing for automotive
chassis has attracted attention from scientists and engineers all over the world. It is very important to take
the characteristics of rubber bushing into account, from the viewpoint of system engineering, when men
design automotive suspension system, predict suspension dynamic behavior or optimize system and each
component. So it has become one of the most important works to understand the mechanical properties
and to establish or choose appropriate rubber bushing model for component behavior prediction and
suspension dynamics analysis [1].
However, it is not an easy task. As we know, the viscoelasticity of rubber bushings is usually nonlinear
and displays obvious preload, frequency, dynamic amplitude and temperature dependence. To develop a
simple but effective model to represent rubber bushing dynamical properties and to use it for fast vehicle
dynamics simulation is very desirable. Till now, many rubber bushing models have been built to represent

4259
4260 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

the linear viscoelastic properties, such as Maxwell model, Kelvin Voigt model, multi-parameters Maxwell
model, standard linear solid model. A better description of rubber characteristics can be obtained by using
a summation of Maxwell models [2, 3]; however it correspondingly increases the model parameters and
the difficulty of parameters identification. To simulate frequency dependence of rubber bushing, Kari and
Sjöberg [4-7] establish a fractional derivatives model, which can predict frequency dependent
characteristics with two parameters. Amplitude dependence is significant for rubber components filled
with carbon black. One way to simulate the amplitude effect is to adopt a friction component in addition to
the elastic and viscous forces. As the commonly used linear Coulomb friction model plays jagged
behavior, Berg [8] presented a more sophisticated description of friction giving more smooth friction
behavior. Dzierzek [9] carried out a further trial to build radial-normal coupled model by extending linear
elastic force to nonlinear regime, combined with nonlinear frequency and amplitude dependence
components. All these works significantly improve the model accuracy of cylindrical, carbon black filled
rubber bushings.
This paper is to extend and improve previous works, particularly taking advantage over the works done in
references [8] and [9], attempting to develop a novel, nonlinear dynamic model of a cylindrical, carbon
black filled rubber bushing. At the same time, the model accuracy, parameter identification method will
also be studied and discussed.

2 Model Formulations and Parameter Identification

2.1 Model Formulation and Characteristics

2.1.1 Berg Model

The model proposed by Berg [8] (depicted in Figure 1a) is one-dimensional, contains five parameters and
is based on a superposition of elastic, friction and viscous forces. The elastic part reflects the amplitude
dependence. The included friction force means that an increased stiffness at small displacements as well as
rate-independent hysteresis can be considered. And the viscous force can describe increasing stiffness with
increasing frequency as well as rate-dependent hysteresis. This model represents a reasonable compromise
between accuracy and computational effort and is used for railway vehicle dynamics analysis.
As shown in Figure 1(a), the Berg model describes the relationship between force and motion through the
superposition of three forces

F = Fe + F f + Fv (1)

Where Fe , F f and Fv are the elastic, friction and viscous forces respectively.

For steady harmonic excitation x = x0 sin ωt , the amplitude of each force can be expressed as:
V EHICLE DYNAMICS 4261

⎧ Fe 0 = K1 x0
⎪
⎪ F = Ff max ( x 2 + x 2 + 6 x x − x − x )
⎪ f0 2 x2
2 0 2 0 2 0

⎪
⎨ (ωC / K 2 ) 2
⎪ F = K 2 x0
1 + (ωC / K 2 ) 2
v 0Re
⎪
⎪ 1
⎪ Fv 0Im = ωCx0
⎩ 1 + (ω C / K 2 )2
(2)

Where x0 , ω and t are displacement amplitude, circular excitation frequency and time. F f max is the

maximum friction force, whereas the displacement x2 is the displacement required to gain the friction

force as large as F f = F f max / 2 . K1 denotes the linear elastic stiffness constant corresponding to linear

elastic behavior. K 2 and C represent the spring stiffness constant and the damping coefficient of

viscous branch. Fv 0 Re and Fv 0 Im are the real and imaginary force component of complex viscous force.

The energy losses per cycle of elastic, viscous and friction branch are then given by

⎧
⎪
⎪ Ee = 0
⎪ x2 (1 + a0 ) + 2 x0
⎨ E f = 2 Ff max (2 x0 − x2 (1 + a0 ) ln
2
)
⎪ x2 (1 + a0 )
⎪ πωC
⎪ Ev = x2
⎩ 1 + (ωC / K 2 ) 2 0
(3)

The total force amplitude F0 and energy per cycle E can be written as

⎧⎪ F = ( F + F + F ) 2 + ( F ) 2
0 e0 f0 v 0Re v 0Im
⎨
⎪⎩ E = Ev + E f
(4)
Hence the dynamic stiffness K and loss angle δ of the rubber bushing can be gained as

⎧ K = F0 x0
⎨
⎩δ = arctan( E π F0 x0 ) (5)

Figure 1b shows the typical results of rubber bushing force versus harmonic displacement based on Berg
model. It can be seen that there is stiffness increase after the displacement changes in direction. The
hysteresis loops also clearly indicate that dynamic stiffness decreases as the displacement amplitude
increases, which behavior is known as the Payne effect.
The characteristics of dynamic stiffness and loss angle versus amplitude and frequency are plotted in
Figure 1c and 1d. It is concluded that:
4262 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

Dynamic stiffness is significantly affected by excitation amplitude and frequency. Dynamic stiffness
increases with the increase of frequency, but decreases as amplitude increases. This results from the
breaking of the filler structure. The structure is composed of carbon black aggregates held together by van
der Waals bonds [10].
Loss angle is also greatly affected by excitation amplitude and frequency. In frequency domain, rubber
materials energy dissipation normally experiences rubber, transition and glassy region in turn. The loss
angle increases with frequency in the rubber region, and reaches a maximum in the transition region, and
then decreases in the glassy region. Berg model displays this theoretical property of loss angle throughout
broad frequency range. For various amplitudes, the loss angle decreases with amplitude increasing except
for the very low excitation amplitude region, where the loss angle increases with increasing amplitude,
which coincides with the measurement results.

F x

K2
K1
Ff max
x2
C

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 1: Berg model structure and mechanical characteristics

2.1.2 Dzierzek Model

The Berg model neglects the nonlinear elastic force characterization. It is well known that the nonlinear
elastic force contributes to rubber bushing mechanical performance especially under large amplitude
conditions.
Stawomir Dzierzek [9] presented a semi-empirical model based on measurement observations as depicted
in Figure 2a. The Dzierzek model is also one-dimensional model composed of three major parts, i.e.
V EHICLE DYNAMICS 4263

non-linear elastic force, viscoelastic force and friction force branch. According to [9], the analytical
description of the built model is written as

⎧ 2dt πx
⎪ Fe = kt π tan 2 d
⎪ t

⎪ ⎡ ⎛ ⎞
C4
⎤
⎪ F f = ⎢ c3 ⎜ k t 2 d t tan π x − k t x ⎟ + c5 ⎥ x&
⎪⎪ ⎢⎣ ⎝ π 2d t ⎠ ⎥⎦ x& − xx&&
2

⎨
⎪ (ω c1 / k1 ) 2 (ω c2 / k 2 ) 2
⎪ Fv Re = ( k + k2 ) x
1 + (ω c1 / k1 ) 2 1 + (ω c2 / k 2 ) 2
1
⎪
⎪ c1 c2
⎪ Fv Im = ω x ( + + cv )
⎪⎩ 1 + (ω c1 / k1 ) 2
1 + ( ω c 2 / k2 )
2
(6)

Where Fe is the non-linear elastic force, F f is the friction force, Fv Re and Fv Im are the real and

imaginary force component of complex viscoelastic force. k t is the stiffness coefficient, i.e. the elastic

curve inclination at x=0, d t is the characteristic thickness representing the location of elastic curve

asymptote. c1 , c2 , cv are the viscous damping coefficients and k1 , k 2 are the stiffness coefficients.

c3 , c4 are the dimensionless friction coefficients and c5 is the static frictional force at x=0.

Energy loss per cycle for viscous branch is calculated by

c1 c2
Ev = πω x 2 ( + + cv )
1 + (ω c1 / k1 ) 1 + (ω c2 / k2 ) 2
2
(7)

The energy dissipation of friction force can be solved using integral method
T
E f = ∫ Ff dx(t )
0 (8)
Figure 2b shows the typical results of rubber bushing force versus harmonic displacement based on
Dzierzek model. It can be seen that there is stiffness nonlinearity. The hysteresis loops also clearly
indicate that dynamic stiffness and loss angle are dependent to amplitude and frequency.
The characteristics of dynamic stiffness and loss angle versus amplitude and frequency are plotted in
Figure 2c and 2d. It is concluded that:
(1) Dynamic stiffness dependence with frequency and amplitude is similar to those of Berg model,
except that the sharp decline of stiffness at low amplitude region and the tiny stiffness increase at large
amplitude range. This results from the non-linear elasticity.
(2)Loss angle generally increases with frequency, whereas the increasing grad decreases gradually.
Meanwhile, loss angle reduces with amplitude increase, which is contradicted with physical test results
especially for the lowest amplitude.
4264 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 2: Dzierzek model structure and mechanical characteristics

2.2 Identification of Model Parameters

2.2.1 Berg Model

The Berg model is mainly composed of a friction element and a three-parameter Maxwell element, the
model parameters identification can be divided into two steps:

(1) To retrieve friction parameters F f max based on larger amplitude and triangular waveform

excitation static test.

(2)To identify viscoelastic element parameters by high frequency and low amplitude dynamic
sinusoidal test results.
Detailed procedures are listed as follows:

(1) To evaluate the friction parameter F f max and x2 . From Figure 3a, the two dashed lines

representing the stiffness K e are parallel and the vertical distance between them equals approximately

twice of the F f max . So F f max can be determined and the friction displacement x2 is
V EHICLE DYNAMICS 4265

Fmax
x2 =
K max − K e (9)

(a) Berg model (b) Dzierzek model

Figure 3: Frictional element parameters evaluation method

(2) To determine the contribution of friction force to model dynamic stiffness and energy loss.
According to Equation 2 and 5 the contribution to dynamic stiffness yields

K f = Ff 0 x0 (10)

(3) To determine the corrected dynamic stiffness and energy loss K corr and Ecorr .

⎧ K corr = K dyn − K f
⎨
⎩ Ecorr = E − E f (11)

(4) To set the relationship between dynamic property and component parameters for viscoelastic
element by summarizing Equation 4 and 5

⎧ (ωC / k2 ) 2 ωC
⎪ K corr = ( k + k1 ) 2 + ( )2
⎪ 1 + (ωC / k2 ) 2 2
1 + (ωC / k2 ) 2

⎨
⎪E = πωC 2
⎪ corr 1 + (ωC / K ) 2 x
⎩ 2 (12)

(5) To establish error function to optimize the best parameters.

δtheor
i i
k Kdyn
φ = min ∑(( ,theor
−1)2 + ( −1)2 )
i=1 K i
δexpi
dyn,exp
(13)

i
Where k denotes the number of test cases used for fitting procedure, K dyn,theor is the analytical

i
calculation value of dynamic stiffness, K dyn, exp is the experimental value of dynamic stiffness, similarly

δ theor and δ exp represent analytical and measured values of loss angle, respectively.
i i
4266 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

(6) To implement the fitting procedure by minimizing the error function with Matlab fmincon
c
algorithm , in order to determine the viscous element parameters k1 , k 2 and 1 . As there are three model
parameters to be identified in this step, at least two dynamic test cases are needed.

2.2.2 Dzierzek Model

Dzierzek model consists of 12 parameters, which increases the difficulty of parameter identification and
the number of physical test required.

(a) (b)

Figure 4: Influence of kt and c3 , c4 on parameter identification

The detailed procedure includes:

(1) To determine the nonlinear elastic force parameters kt and dt through static tests. As shown in

Figure 3b, man can evaluate the two parameters value through least-square method based on the static
force-displacement loop.

(2) To determine the sub-parameters p , q , r of stiffness coefficient kt . According to the hyperbolic

function between kt and these sub-parameters, three sub-parameters can be gained by using data fitting. A

sample hyperbolic curve is depicted in Figure 4a. Total 9 static tests with different amplitude are needed to
look for the appropriate sub-parameters.

(3) To gain the friction force parameter c5 . From the definition of c5 , it is determined from the static

force-displacement loop at zero displacement position shown in Figure 3b.

(4) To determine the contribution of friction force to dynamic stiffness and energy loss. From the
description of the friction element, it is found that the friction force is proportional with deformation rate,
so the contribution is focused on the energy dissipation and the influence of friction force to dynamic
stiffness can be neglected.
V EHICLE DYNAMICS 4267

⎛ 2k d t πx ⎞
Additionally, the first part in round brackets of c3 ⎜⎜ t tan − kt x ⎟⎟ mainly appears in highly
⎝ π 2d t ⎠

nonlinear elastic range of hysteresis loop. To ‘isolate’ the exponential parameters c3 and c4 , lower

amplitude excitation tests are chosen for identification. Hence the friction force can be simplified as

x&
Ff = c5 (14)
x& − xx&&
2

And then the energy dissipation due to friction force can be calculated by using integral method. The
corrected dynamic parameters are written as

⎧kcorr = kdyn − kt
⎨
⎩ Ecorr = E − E f (15)

(5) To formulate the contributions of of viscous element to dynamic stiffness and energy loss as

⎧ (ωc1 / k1 )2 (ωc2 / k2 )2 ωc1 ωc2

⎪kcorr = ( k + k )2 + ( + )2
⎪ 1 + (ωc1 / k1 ) 2 1
1 + (ωc2 / k2 ) 2 2
1 + (ωc1 / k1 ) 1 + (ωc2 / k2 )2
2

⎨
⎪ Ecorr = πω x2 (
c1
+
c2
+ cv )
⎪ 1 + (ωc1 / k1 ) 1 + (ωc2 / k2 )2
2
⎩ (16)

(6) To set the error function as same as Equation 13 and to evaluate viscous element

parameters k1 , k2 , c1 , c2 and cv through Matlab fmincon algorithm. Since five parameters will be

determined in this step, three dynamic tests are needed for equation solving.

(7) To get the exponential parameters and c4 . From Figure 4b it can be seen that the ‘half-done

model’ curve without c3 and c4 differs from that of ‘complete model’. The difference results from

C4
⎛ 2d πx ⎞ x&
Fdiff ,theor = c3 ⎜ kt t tan − kt x ⎟
⎝ π 2dt ⎠ x& − xx&&
2

(17)
If man establishes error function based on Equation 17, which is read in Equation 18, the two parameters
can be obtained through Matlab fmincon algorithm.

k
φ = min ∑ ( Fdiff ,exp ( xi ) − Fdiff ,theor ( xi ))
i =1 (18)
4268 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

3 3 Berg and Dzierzek Model Validations

3.1 Experimental

In order to identify the parameters of two models proposed above, a series of experiments are conducted.
A cylindrical, solid rubber bushing is tested, which is made of carbon black-filled rubber and is used in
vehicle suspension system. The rubber bushing is tested on a servo-hydraulic tester, which can excite the
tested object with displacement input. The tests are carried out with sinusoidal waves, whose frequency
ranges from 1 to 40Hz, and the displacement amplitude ranges from 0.1mm to 3mm. At the same time,
triangular wave is used for quasi-static tests. The amplitude rate is only 0.05mm per second and the
amplitude is from 0.2mm to 4mm.
The dynamic characteristics of the tested rubber bushing are shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the
dynamic stiffness and loss angle are both amplitude and frequency dependent. Detailed analysis is as
follows
The dynamic stiffness and loss angle both decreases with increasing amplitude, but the loss angle shows
different states under low amplitude excitation with 25Hz and 30Hz frequency
The dynamic stiffness and loss angle both increases with increasing frequency, but the loss angle shows
very complex cases in high frequency range.

3.2 Model Validation

(a) (b)
Figure 5: Amplitude and frequency dependency of tested rubber bushing

The parameters of the proposed model are identified from experimental data according to the described
procedures. And the two models are validated through comparisons between measurement results and
prediction results of dynamic stiffness and loss angle.
V EHICLE DYNAMICS 4269

3.2.1 Berg Model

Figure 6 illustrates the prediction accuracy of Berg model for dynamic stiffness and loss angle. It can be
found that: (1) The average deviation of dynamic stiffness is about 8%, the highest value is around 16%.
And the smallest error appears when the amplitude is 1mm. The reason is that the 1mm amplitude tests are
used for parameters identification. No matter the amplitude increases or decreases, the deviations increase
always. These mean that the Berg model can basically capture the dynamic stiffness behavior of the tested
rubber bushing but lacking of robustness to identification tests’ variation. (2)The energy loss behavior
under high frequency is predicted more accurate than that of low frequency. For the low frequency and
high amplitude condition, the deviation is as large as 42%.

(a) Dynamic Stiffness Deviation (b) Loss Angle Deviation

Figure 6: Berg model prediction deviation

(a) Dynamic Stiffness Deviation (b) Loss Angle Deviation

Figure 7: Dzierzek model prediction deviation

3.2.2 Dzierzek Model

From Figure 7a and 7b, it can be seen that: (1) The Dzierzek model can predict both dynamic stiffness and
loss angle with higher accuracy than Berg model except some special case; (2) For the special test case,
typically for low amplitude and high frequency excitation situation, the error of loss angle is fast 100%,
which means that this model can hardly predict the real damping behavior.
4270 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

25Hz 30Hz
Figure 8: Dzierzek model amplitude dependency validation for specific frequencies

25Hz 30Hz
Figure 9: Berg model amplitude dependency validation for specific frequencies

4 4 Novel Model Establishment

4.1 Motivation

Based on the above analysis, we can summarize the advantage and disadvantage of the two models as that
the Dzierzek model shows high accuracy for most of test conditions, however it can hardly capture the
energy dissipation amplitude dependence under low amplitudes. While Berg model describes the
component behaviors fairly well with respect to the mean values. It has advantages over modeling energy
dissipation amplitude dependency in low amplitudes .But its main drawback is the unreasonable dynamic
stiffness prediction ability due to the influence of identification test selection.
More detailed analysis to the dynamics stiffness and loss angle prediction accuracy is carried out. And the
results for are higher specific frequencies plotted in Figure 8 and Figure 9 as 2D plots of dynamic stiffness
and loss angle versus amplitude. It can be seen that the predicted loss angle by Dzierzek model shows
opposite tendency in low amplitude range, which is contrasted to the measured results. But, the Berg
model gets much better accuracy in these areas. At the same time, it can be found that the Dzierzek model
has better accuracy for dynamical stiffness prediction than Berg model.
V EHICLE DYNAMICS 4271

Taking into the identification tests requirement, Dzierzek model has 12 parameters and requires 9 static
tests and 3 dynamic tests to identify all the parameters. However, Berg model contains only 5 parameters,
which can be determined from 1 static test and 2 dynamic tests.
Based on the above discussion on the advantages and limitations of the two models, the authors tend to
propose a novel model, which can take advantage of the two models.

4.2 Novel Model Formulation

F x

K1 K2
Kt Ff max
dt x2
C1 C2

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 10: Novel model structure and characteristics

The newly proposed model is shown in Figure 10. The novel model totally includes 10 parameters, which
is a combination of nonlinear elastic part derived from Dzierzek model, friction part adopted from Berg
model and two parallel Maxwell elements represent viscous part. From Figure 10 it is found that:
(1) The novel model contains the frictional element characteristics and appears obvious nonlinear
elastic property at the higher amplitude area, as displayed in Figure 10b.
(2) The dynamic stiffness declines with increasing amplitude and increases with frequency increasing.
The loss angle increases with increasing amplitude under lower amplitudes, and then decreases with
amplitude for larger amplitudes. The loss angle dependence to frequency appears firstly increasing and
then decreasing with frequency.
4272 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

According to the previous analysis, the mathematical equations of forces and energies for the novel model
are

⎧ 2d t πx
⎪ Fe = kt π tan 2d
⎪ t

⎪ Ff max
⎪ Ff = ( x2 2 + x0 2 + 6 x2 x − x2 − x)
(19)
⎪ 2 x2
⎨
⎪F (ω c1 / k1 ) 2 (ω c2 / k2 ) 2
= ( k + k )x
⎪ v 0 Re 1 + (ω c1 / k1 ) 2 1 1 + (ω c2 / k2 ) 2 2
⎪
⎪F c1 c2
⎪ v 0 Im = (1 + (ω c / k ) 2 + 1 + (ω c / k ) 2 )ω x
⎩ 1 1 2 2

⎧ c1 c2
⎪ Ev = πω x (1 + (ω c / k ) 2 + 1 + (ω c / k ) 2 )
2

⎪ 1 1 2 2 (20)
⎨
⎪E = 2F x2 (1 + a0 ) + 2 x0
f max (2 x0 − x2 (1 + a0 ) ln
2
)
⎪⎩ f x2 (1 + a0 )

4.3 Parameters Identification

Based on the parameter identification procedures described in former sections, the parameters fitting
process of the novel model is as follow:

(1) To determine friction element parameters F f max and x2 according to the same approach

mentioned above.

(2) To evaluate the nonlinear elastic branch parameters p , q , r and dt .

(3) To determine the viscous parameters k1 , k2 , c1 , c2 . When setting corrected dynamic stiffness and

loss angle, the friction and nonlinear elastic elements should both be considered. The corrected function is
written as:

⎧kcorr = kdyn − kt − k f (21)

⎨
⎩ Ecorr = E − E f

The correlations between viscous element parameters with corrected dynamic stiffness and energy loss are

⎧ (ωc1 / k1 )2 (ωc2 / k2 )2 ωc1 ωc2

⎪kcorr = ( k + k2 ) 2 + ( + )2
⎪ 1 + (ωc1 / k1 ) 2 1
1 + (ωc2 / k2 )2 1 + (ωc1 / k1 )2 1 + (ωc2 / k2 )2 (22)
⎨
⎪ E = πω x 2 ( c1
+
c2
)
⎪ corr 1 + (ωc1 / k1 ) 1 + (ωc2 / k2 )2
2
⎩

(4) To search the best fitting values of the four parameters through Matlab subroutines.
V EHICLE DYNAMICS 4273

4.4 Model Validation

The prediction accuracy of the novel model has been validated and the results are shown in Figure 11.
From Figure 11 it can be concluded that: (1) The novel model successfully described the dynamic
behavior of rubber bushing with satisfying accuracy. (2) For dynamic stiffness prediction, the novel model
kept lower deviation for all test range. The average deviation of dynamic stiffness is 5.2%, and the highest
value is 12%. Meanwhile, it eliminates the influence of identification test selection. (3) For energy
dissipation characteristic simulation, the novel model inherits the good performance of Dzierzek model
together with the Berg model’s advantage of predicting amplitude dependence of loss angle.

(a) Dynamic Stiffness Deviation (b) Loss Angle Deviation

Figure 11: The Novel model prediction deviation

stiffness average Stiffness max. Loss angle average Loss angle max. Required test
deviation deviation deviation deviation
Berg Model 7.9% 16.7% 17% 42.5% Static: 1
Dynamic: 2
Dzierzek Model 4.6% 11% 13.2% 98.9% Static: 9
Dynamic: 3
Novel Model 5.2% 12% 9.3% 17% Static: 9
Dynamic: 2

Table 1: Accuracy and identification comparison

The novel model is a compromise between Berg model and Dzierzek model. It contains 10 parameters
which simplifies model structure and reduces the difficulty of parameter identification. The comparison
results of accuracy and identification among the three models are listed in Table. 1. Obviously, the novel
model has the advantages over the other two models.

5 Conclusions and Further Development

It can be concluded that the proposed novel model, based on Berg model and Dzierzek model, has good
agreement with measurement results and represents higher accuracy for both dynamical stiffness and loss
angle prediction than Berg model and Dzierzek model. The identification tests required are less than
4274 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

Dzierzek model. Such a model can gain reasonable compromise between prediction accuracy,
identification difficulty and computational effort, and it can be suitable tool for automotive chassis
dynamics simulation and analysis.
Future possible extensions of the novel model are to account for preload and temperature effect, to apply it
to random displacement excitation and to analyze multiplex characteristics under multi-directional
displacement excitation.

References

[1] Alan Wineman, Timothy Van Dyke, ShiXiang Shi. A Nonlinear viscoelastic model for one
dimensional response of elastomeric bushing. International Journal Mechanical Sciences, 1998, 12,
1295-1305
[2] P. E. Austrell, A. K. Olsson, M. Jönsson. A method to analyse the non-linear dynamic behaviour of
carbon-black filled rubber components using standard FE codes. Proceedings of the Second
Conference on Constitutive Models for Rubbers, 2001: 231–235
[3] A. K. Olsson, P. E. Austrell. Finite element analysis of a rubber bushing considering rate and
amplitude dependent effects. 3rd European Conference on Constitutive Models for Rubber, 2003
Matias Sjoeberg. On Dynamic Properties of Rubber Isolators. PhD Dissertation of Royal Institute of
Technology, 2002
[4] M. Sjöberg, L. Kari. Nonlinear behavior of a rubber isolator system using fractional derivatives.
Vehicle System Dynamics, 2002(37): 217-236
[5] Mattias Sjöberg. Nonlinear isolator dynamics at finite deformations: An effective hyperelastic,
fractional derivative, generalized friction model. Nonlinear Dynamics, 2003(33): 323-336
[6] Matias Sjöberg. Rubber isolators – Measurements and modelling using fractional derivatives and
friction. SAE 2000-01-3518
[7] M. J. García-Tárrago, L. Kari, et al. Frequency and amplitude dependence of the axial and radial
stiffness of carbon-black filled rubber bushings[J]. Polymer Testing, 2007(26): 629-638
[8] Mats Berg. A non-linear rubber spring model for rail vehicle dynamics analysis, Vehicle System
Dynamics, 1998, 30: 197~212
[9] Stawomir Dzierzek. Experiment-based modeling of cylindrical rubber bushings for the simulation of
wheel suspension dynamic behavior. SAE Paper, No. 2000-01-0095
[10] Fredrik Karlsson and Anders Persson. Modelling non-linear dynamics of rubber bushings parameter
identification and validation. Master Dissertation of Lund University, 2003