## 3 Numerical Simulations and Discussion
### Application of Adjustment Point  
#### 3.3.1 Results of the First Kind of Simulation  
(1) Simulation results based on Algorithm I. In this simulation, the computational examples are g1.1 and g1.4. The adjustment points in Tables 3 and 4 are considered. Tables 5 and 6, which show the maximum relative errors of identified coefficient of each bearing's main stiffness coefficients and main damping coefficients, are obtained. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \#14 & \#29 & \#31 & \#49 & \#51 & \#69 & \#71 & \#89 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The last measuring point. For g1.1, according to Table 5, the maximum relative errors of the two bearings' main coefficients are almost equal to zero. The maximum relative errors of k1.xx, k1.yy, k2.xx and k2.yy are only 2.71 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)%, 6.16 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-8}\)%, 2.39 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)% and 8.16 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-8}\)%, respectively. Moreover, the maximum relative errors of c1.xx, c1.yy, c2.xx and c2.yy, which are 0.0306%,  
For g1.1, according to Table 9, the maximum relative errors of the two bearings' main coefficients, which are only 3.25 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)%, 6.00 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)%, 0.00573%, 0.00192%, 3.11 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)%, 5.63 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)%, 0.0287% and 0.00352%, respectively, are also quite small. Moreover, the identification errors of the main stiffness coefficients are smaller than those of the main damping coefficients. For the cross-coupled coefficients of the two bearings, the absolute identified values are only 0.0333, 0.0108, 0.00998, 0.00108, 0.117, 0.0159, 0.00887 and 0.00155, respectively. They are almost equal to zero. For g1.4, according to Table 10, the maximum relative errors of the two bearings' main coefficients, which are only 4.94 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)%, 1.85 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)%, 0.00472%, 0.000425%, 2.22 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)%, 9.48 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-8}\)%, 0.00278% and 0.00170%, respectively, are also quite small. Moreover, the identification errors of the main stiffness coefficients are smaller than those of the main damping coefficients. For the cross-coupled coefficients of the two bearings, the absolute identified values are only 0.0210, 0.00870, 0.0154, 0.00145, 0.0108, 0.00762, 0.00480 and 0.000967, respectively. They are almost equal to zero. For h1.1, according to Table 11, the maximum relative errors of the two bearings' stiffness coefficients are almost equal to zero. They are 0.00435%, 0.00350%, 0.00537%, 0.0118%, 0.0324%, 0.0218%, 0.00346% and 0.00633%, respectively. Moreover, the maximum relative errors of the two bearings' damping coefficients, which are only 1.56 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\)%, 0.000229%, 2.45 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\)% and 0.000204%, 0.000416%, 0.000188%, 9.41 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\)% and 0.000190%, respectively, are smaller than those of the stiffness coefficients. For h1.4, according to Table 12, the maximum relative errors of the two bearings' stiffness coefficients are almost equal to zero. They are 0.0535%, 0.0367%, 0.01841841%, 0.181%, 0.677%, 0.241% and 0.0131%, 0.0880%, respectively. Moreover, the maximum relative errors of the two bearings' damping coefficients, which are only 0.000281%, 0.000627%, 0.000152%, 0.0006124%, 0.00926%, 0.000473%, 0.000265% and 0.000604%, respectively, are smaller than those of the stiffness coefficients. Results of the Second Kind of Simulation  
(1) Simulation results based on Algorithm I. The proposed adjustment points are applied in the second kind of simulation. Figure 4, which represents the maximum identified relative errors of each bearing's main coefficients, is obtained using g4.4. The points in Table 1 are used as adjustment points.