What are the differences between damper and shock absorber?

If you want to learn more, please visit our website.

vika DPA

·

Follow

2 min read

·

Aug 10,

--

Damper is mainly used in electronic industry to reduce the amplitude of vibration waves. Dampers are classified based on their performance and purpose;

Shock absorber is designed to suppress vibration of rebounding springs after shock absorption and impact from road surface. It is widely used on cars to achieve faster attenuation of car frame and body vibration and consequently smoother drives. When a car runs on bumpy roads, although the shock-absorbing springs dampen the road impact, they move reciprocally in this process. Shock absorber is intended to suppress such reciprocating motion;

Given the vibration of elastic components in a suspension system under shock, in order to improve rider comfort, a shock absorber is installed in parallel with the elastic components of the suspension system. For more effective vibration attenuation, most shock absorbers adopted for automobile suspension systems are hydraulic. They work on the following principle: When the car frame (or body) moves relative to the axle due to vibration, the piston in the shock absorber will move up and down, and the oil in the shock absorber chamber will flow from one cavity to another via different holes cyclically.

What are the differences between damper and shock absorber?

Name: damper/front/air pressure

Ref No. : 6NM

Product system: chassis

Brand: vika

Applicable models:

VW: PO95&#;02/LU99&#;06

Audi: AR97&#;03

INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!

• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
  To Your Posts
• Keyword Search
• One-Click Access To Your
  Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
  On Your Posts
• Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Us!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving . By joining you are opting in to receive .

Posting Guidelines

Students Click Here

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Eng-Tips Posting Policies

Contact US

shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

4

thread404- Forum Search FAQs Links MVPs

• Forum

• Search

• FAQs

• Links

• MVPs

shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

metman

(Materials)

(OP)

15 Mar 04 16:29

Is not absorption of shock a dampening effect?

Please explain the distinction between shock absorber and damper.

Ref: Thread- Is not absorption of shock a dampening effect?Please explain the distinction between shock absorber and damper.

Jesus is THE life,
Leonard

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

MintJulep

(Mechanical)

15 Mar 04 16:45

The term "shock absorber" is generally understood to be a damper as applied as part of an automotive suspension system.  however, "shock absorber" is technically imprecise.

As shock pulse has a magnitude and a duration.  This defines an amount of energy.

The word "absorber" implies that the shock goes in, but doesn't go out.  Like a sponge absorbs water.  In reality a damper converts kinetic energy to heat energy.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

2

GregLocock

(Automotive)

15 Mar 04 16:52

What it does do is damp the subsequent resonance.

That is why they are dampers, not shock absorbers.

As you increase the force/velocity coefficient in a shock absorber it increases the reaction force in the body.What it does do is damp the subsequent resonance.That is why they are dampers, not shock absorbers.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

metman

(Materials)

(OP)

15 Mar 04 17:20

Greglocock said "Dampening has a definite USAn ring to my ear.

Incidentally shock absorber is a terrible name. When you apply an impact to a typical isolation system a shock absorber TRANSMITS the shock to the isolated body. Damper is a much better descriptor, technically."

I will come back later and read the responses in between.  Gotta get bakc to work.

On Thread- Greglocock said "Dampening has a definite USAn ring to my ear.Incidentally shock absorber is a terrible name. When you apply an impact to a typical isolation system a shock absorber TRANSMITS the shock to the isolated body. Damper is a much better descriptor, technically."I will come back later and read the responses in between. Gotta get bakc to work.

Jesus is THE life,
Leonard

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

CoryPad

(Materials)

16 Mar 04 08:26

You should use the word damping (to diminish the activity or intensity of) rather than dampening (to make damp/wet).

Leonard,You should use the word damping (to diminish the activity or intensity of) rather than dampening (to make damp/wet).

Link to teao

Regards,

Cory

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

CanEngJohn

(Automotive)

16 Mar 04 10:40

However the general public looks at the automotive shock absorber as ...
a device which reduces the shock effects on driver and passengers resulting from vehicle operation over a defined surface
(it reduces the shocking forces resulting from bumps in the road - as quoted from a non-engineer)

In their eyes the forces are absorbed by the device so that they do not get transmitted.  Since the forces are "shocks" from the road the name Shock Absorber is quite appropriate for the general public.  We could call them fluid based force-energy conversion dampers (as opposed to gas based-air shock or solid based-coil spring) but that doesn't roll off the tongue easily.

This is one of those scenarios where the iten did not get its name from an engineer and that is probably a good thing.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

ivymike

(Mechanical)

16 Mar 04 11:05

doesn't it tend to INCREASE the shock experienced by the occupants, and reduce subsequent vibrations?

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

CanEngJohn

(Automotive)

16 Mar 04 11:09

Not that I am aware of.  You have resistances in both directions.  Compression is lower than the Rebound however.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

ivymike

(Mechanical)

16 Mar 04 11:25

isn't it the resistance to upward movement that increases the shock experienced by the passengers?

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

MintJulep

(Mechanical)

16 Mar 04 11:33

Assuming a "bump" rather than a "dip", on the initial upstroke the energy generated by the shock pulse travels in parallel into the spring and the damper.  Some of the energy is converted into heat and dissipated by the damper, but most is converted into potential energy by compressing the spring.

As the spring lengthens more of the energy is dissipated as heat by the damper.

This cycle continues for however many oscillations the suspension designer has allowed.

In addition to dissipating the shock pulse energy, the shape of the pulse reaching the vehicle structure is also modified.  Typically the magnitude is decreased, while the duration is increased.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

ivymike

(Mechanical)

16 Mar 04 12:32

Isn't the force at the bottom of the spring/damper assy virtually the same as the force at the top of the spring/damper assy, at any given point in time?

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

GregLocock

(Automotive)

16 Mar 04 18:19

At low frequency it is entirely safe to ignore the mass of the shock absorber, so Mr Newton says Ftop=Fbottom.

If you take the shock absorber off the car it MUST reduce the force into the body for the intital pulse, since both the velocity and the displacement are increasing together.

Therefore, a car without shock absorbers will see lower forces up to the first peak (roughly).

Thereafter all bets are off, phasing becomes important.

Good to see polite persistent questioning being used to iron out the details.At low frequency it is entirely safe to ignore the mass of the shock absorber, so Mr Newton says Ftop=Fbottom.If you take the shock absorber off the car it MUST reduce the force into the body for the intital pulse, since both the velocity and the displacement are increasing together.Therefore, a car without shock absorbers will see lower forces up to the first peak (roughly).Thereafter all bets are off, phasing becomes important.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

CanEngJohn

(Automotive)

17 Mar 04 08:29

Here we are having a nice discussion of the English language and suddenly a discussion about physics breaks out.

Bloody Engineers. Can't keep them interested in anything but practical science.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

MintJulep

(Mechanical)

17 Mar 04 08:54

Greg,

Your statements:

"At low frequency it is entirely safe to ignore the mass of the shock absorber, so Mr Newton says Ftop=Fbottom."

and

"Therefore, a car without shock absorbers will see lower forces up to the first peak (roughly)."

appear to be contradictory.

I'm not convinced that Mr. Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies apply.  In the automotive application neither end is constrained.  We need to consider work and power I think.

Consider a fully rigid system.  Force applied vertically up-wards to an unconstrained mass.  The mass will accelerate up-wards (assuming the force is of sufficient magnitude to overcome gravity).

Now consider a a system with a very soft damper of infinite stroke installed between the force and the mass.  You can conceive of a system such that the force will cause the damper to stroke at a constant velocity, thus doing work and resulting in no acceleration of the mass.  The work and the speed of compression determine the power the must be dissipated as heat.

Somewhere in between these two extreme cases lies the real world.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

ivymike

(Mechanical)

17 Mar 04 10:16

Aren't suspension dampers constrained at both ends (to the vehicle at one end, to the suspension at the other)?  

hmmm... maybe this simplified example will help:

Consider a body (vehicle) supported at a distance above the ground, and held at constant height.  Below the vehicle there is a (massless, rigid) wheel, which is free to move vertically with respect to the vehicle, but is not allowed to move laterally (in any direction).  The wheel encounters a "bump" as the vehicle moves down the road.  The bump forces a displacement of the wheel in the vertical direction, much as a cam would displace a follower.  

* with no spring or damper connecting the spring to the wheel, there is no force between them, and the wheel moves up freely.  No force is applied to the vehicle.

* add a simple spring - now the force between the vehicle and the wheel depends on the displacement of the wheel, and increases as the wheel moves upward

* add a simple damper - now the force between the vehicle in the wheel depends on the displacement of the wheel (spring) and also on the vertical velocity of the wheel (damper).  As the wheel moves upward faster, the force on the vehicle is increased.  

For all of the above cases, the force on the body is the same magnitude as the force on the wheel, because the wheel, spring, and damper are all represented by "ideal" massless entities.  

It's easy enough to see that (f.spring + f.damper) > f.spring  > 0 when the wheel is moving upward on the flank of the bump.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

MintJulep

(Mechanical)

17 Mar 04 11:22

InHiding:

The damper is constrained at the top only WRT the car body, and at the bottom only WRT the suspension compnent it is attached to.

Both of thoese items are free to move.  The body is most definately not held at a constant height.

Your third bullet correctly notes that force transmission through a damer is a function of velocity.  This contradicts your conclusion that the force on the wheel is the same as the force on the body.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

ivymike

(Mechanical)

17 Mar 04 12:01

The body is most definately not held at a constant height.

In my example it was.  If you think there was something fundamentally wrong with the example, please elaborate.

Your third bullet correctly notes that force transmission through a damer is a function of velocity.  This contradicts your conclusion that the force on the wheel is the same as the force on the body

It might be worth it for you to draw a free body diagram of that - if the velocity of the damper piston is constant, what is the relationship between the force at the bottom connection (to suspension) and the force at the top connection (to the car)?  I maintain that they're equal.  If they're not equal, where does the extra force come from?

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

mloew

(Automotive)

17 Mar 04 12:53


Viscoelastic Damping 101
by Paul Macioce, Roush Industries, Inc., Livonia, Michigan

Please see the following article:by Paul Macioce, Roush Industries, Inc., Livonia, Michigan

Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew
"Luck is the residue of design."
Branch Rickey

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

MintJulep

(Mechanical)

17 Mar 04 13:38

InHiding,

Holding the body at a constant height is an over simplification.  It results in artificially constraining the mass to have zero acceleration.

On a more fundamental level, you are attempting to apply a rigid body analysis to a non-rigid system.

I agree with you that if the velocity of the damper piston is constant then the forces are equal, however your example stated a change in velocity of the piston, ie an acceleration.

Once acceleration comes into play you can no longer assume massless bodies.

Furthermore, this is an energy problem.  The wheel traveling over a bump may be represented by a shock pulse having a time-variant magnitude and a duration.  This defines a fixed amount of energy available.

As the event progresses the total energy must remain constant.  A portion of the energy is converted into potential energy by increasing the height of the unsprung mass.  A portion of the energy is converted into potential energy stored in the compression of the spring.  Because the spring and the damper compress, work is done (force x distance).  For this example we can safely ignore internal damping within the spring.  The energy used to compress the damper is converted to heat, and dissipated.  The energy left over is available to accelerate the sprung mass up-wards.

The The position-time curve of the sprung mass is dependent upon the characteristics of the spring and damper, and the amount of mass.

Differentiate the position-time curve twice to obtain the acceleration-time curve for the sprung mass.  Dividing by the mass results in the force-time curve.

It seems highly improbably that this force-time curve will be identical to the initial shock pulse.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

ivymike

(Mechanical)

17 Mar 04 14:11

The point I have been trying to make is that the initial force transmitted to the vehicle body is greater when the damper is present than it would be if the damper was not present.  Do you agree?

I question the supposition that the mass of the damper is significant for the purposes of this discussion - they seem pretty light compared to most of the other parts in consideration, and the force to accelerate the damper piston is certainly much smaller than the damping force "seen" by the suspension.

You are right that if you put a given amount of energy into the system, it must be split between the various storage / dissipation methods on the vehicle.  I'm not so sure that the bump (forced displacement profile) represents a fixed amount of energy, but that's another discussion.  

Let's take another simplified system, where we have a spring, a mass (vehicle), and a damper, where the spring and damper are connected in parallel and support the mass, and we apply a pulse to the bottom of the spring/damper.  
* The energy stored in the spring increases as one end displaces relative to the other
* The energy dissipated by the damper is related to the velocity of one end of the damper relative to the other, the damping coefficient, and the distance that the damper displaces
* The energy stored in the vehicle is related to its velocity and its mass

A stiffer spring will displace less when the pulse is applied, resulting in greater energy transfer to the mass (and greater acceleration, velocity of the mass)

A larger damping coefficient will result in less displacement of the damper, resulting in greater energy transfer to the mass (and greater acceleration, velocity of the mass)

If you disagree, can you give me any real value of a damping coefficient for the damper that will result in more suspension deflection (less body deflection), on the first half of the pulse, than you would have with zero damping?

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

CanEngJohn

(Automotive)

17 Mar 04 15:05

How can the initial force to the vehicle be larger than the input force?  What in the system is adding to the input force?

Everything in the system acts against the input force so in the worst case - no energy loss - the force the occupants see is the force acting onto the system.  In the case where there is an energy loss - which is the primary purpose of a damper - then the forces transmitted through the system have to be less than the input force.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

MintJulep

(Mechanical)

17 Mar 04 15:21

The existence of a spring and damper in the system introduces a phase-shift between the excitation at one end that the response at the other, so the term "initial force" seems somewhat ambiguous.

An "ideal damper" has no effect on the displacement.  The displacement is controlled by the spring. The damper affects the velocity. In reality ,"shock absorbers" have a non-zero spring constant.

A stiffer damper provides a smaller phase shift.

An effective automotive suspension also tends to "spread out" the response over a longer time then the excitation.  I think that you are not considering the time-variant nature of the event.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

ivymike

(Mechanical)

17 Mar 04 16:52

How can the initial force to the vehicle be larger than the input force?

It's not - for a given "bump," the "input force" depends on the characteristics of the suspension.  The force "seen" by the vehicle will be only slightly less than the force "seen" by the bottom of the spring (acceleration of spring&damper components making the difference).  The "input force" is larger if the suspension is "stiffer" because the acceleration of the vehicle mass will be greater.  ("stiffer" suspension deflects less, "stiffer" meaning greater spring stiffness and/or higher damping coefficient)

What in the system is adding to the input force?

The lack of deflection in the suspension means that a given bump will result in greater suspension force.

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

ivymike

(Mechanical)

17 Mar 04 17:01

An "ideal damper" has no effect on the displacement.  The displacement is controlled by the spring. The damper affects the velocity. In reality ,"shock absorbers" have a non-zero spring constant.

For a given bump and vehicle speed, how can you affect the suspension compression velocity without changing the peak suspension deflection?  At rest, you're right, the damper doesn't influence suspension deflection.  When you're talking about a transient "bump" event, with or without elasticity in the damper, the statement is incorrect.  

If I can't persuade you, perhaps trying some calculations on your own will help.  Here is an example that I found online, which you might build from:
http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~kerne/345paper.htm

For a given bump and vehicle speed, how can you affect the suspension compression velocity without changing the peak suspension deflection? At rest, you're right, the damper doesn't influence suspension deflection. When you're talking about a transient "bump" event, with or without elasticity in the damper, the statement is incorrect.If I can't persuade you, perhaps trying some calculations on your own will help. Here is an example that I found online, which you might build from:

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

GregLocock

(Automotive)

18 Mar 04 06:49

http://www.geocities.com/greglocock

 , on the gallery page (sorry,  can't direct link to the pictures). The two cases are examined are of one with adequate damping, and the other has only 10% of that.

The peak total instantaneous force is about 10-20% less with the weaker dampers. There's also a plot of the way the two components (spring + shock) add up.

I had a play around with CarSim, to pull the forces out for a reasonably sophisticated model of a car hitting a step. The results are on my increasingly disorganised website at, on the gallery page (sorry, can't direct link to the pictures). The two cases are examined are of one with adequate damping, and the other has only 10% of that.The peak total instantaneous force is about 10-20% less with the weaker dampers. There's also a plot of the way the two components (spring + shock) add up.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: shock absorber-vs-dampener/damper

Speedy

(Mechanical)

19 Mar 04 03:57

So with better smoother roads does it make sense to increase the level of damping. That is, keep resonance down at the expense of the lesser occurring higher shock loads and therefore higher peak forces.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login

News

For more information, please visit automotive soft Motion damper solution in stock.