Simulation of Dynamic Charateristics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simulation of dynamic characteristics of a cuboid structure, specifically focusing on the vibration effects of systems mounted on its top panel. Participants explore the validity of a finite element (FE) model of the top panel in representing the dynamic behavior of the entire structure based on available vibration test data.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the FE model of the top panel accurately incorporates the dynamic characteristics of the actual cuboid structure, given that only the first mode frequency is matched.
  • Another participant suggests that if the model and test data show similar mode shapes, amplitudes, and frequencies, the model could be considered accurate, but notes that the effects of affixed systems might not be fully captured.
  • Some participants argue that replacing a flexible substructure with a rigid mass may not preserve dynamic characteristics, emphasizing that natural frequencies and mode shapes are system properties.
  • A participant mentions that to achieve full equivalence, all natural frequencies and mode shapes must be matched, which is acknowledged as a challenging task.
  • One participant clarifies that while the model might be accurate based on limited testing, it may not be precise without incorporating the effects of the systems mounted on the top panel.
  • Details about the testing setup, including accelerometer placement and damping values used in the FE model, are provided, with a noted response difference of within 5% between test and model results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the adequacy of the FE model in capturing the dynamic characteristics of the structure. There is no consensus on whether the model can be used for further analysis without incorporating additional parameters related to the mounted systems.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations such as the reliance on the first mode frequency and the absence of data for higher modes, which may affect the accuracy of the FE model. The impact of the mounted systems on the top panel's dynamic response remains unresolved.

chinmay
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I have an assembly (a cuboid shaped structure). The vibration test data of this structure is available with me.

I want to study the effect of vibration generated by a system mounted on top panel on another system mounted on same top panel. In order to complete this, I have prepared the FE model of only top panel with lumped mass (to match the total mass of systems mounted on this panel) and fixed/simply supported boundary conditions (actual structure is having bolted joints).
In this configuration, the 1st mode (out of plane) frequency of top panel in actual structure and FE model is very closely matching. (The test data contains details about only first mode)

So, Can we say that the FE model of top panel incorporates / matches the dynamic characteristics of the actual cuboid structure ?
If not, what other parameters should be included/matched to simulate dynamic characteristics of the actual structure; so that any study carried on this FE model is valid on total structure too
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Are you able to analyze the mode shapes that would've been measureable during the testing? If your model and your tests are showing similar mode shapes, amplitudes, and frequencies given the same input, then you could say that the model matches.

However, if the top panel would only be marginally effected by systems affixed to it, then it is possible that your model could be accurate without incorporating the effects that the affixed systems have on the top panel's structure.
 
In general, you cannot adequately replace a flexible substructure with a rigid mass and expect to preserve the dynamic characteristics. Dynamic characteristics, such as natural frequencies and mode shapes, are system properties, not properties of a localized part of the system.
 
Dr.D said:
In general, you cannot adequately replace a flexible substructure with a rigid mass and expect to preserve the dynamic characteristics. Dynamic characteristics, such as natural frequencies and mode shapes, are system properties, not properties of a localized part of the system.
Sir, the complete cuboid is ~ 1000 kg, whereas top panel assembly is only ~62 kg. The systems mounted on top deck are highly stiff (frequency >1Khz). So my idea is to make FE model of only top deck (instead of complete structure) for analysis, but this top deck model must have same dynamic characteristics as that of when it is with cuboid structure. So, I have considered 2 point mass (29 kg each + 4 kg panel mass) located symmetrically near CG of panel, and fixed boundary condition. In this configuration the 1st mode frequency is matching with the experimental result. I want to know, what other parameters should be verified , so that the FE model of panel alone can be used to study response on system mounted on top deck (source of vibration is also on top deck).
 
To be fully equivalent, you must match all natural frequencies (not just the first) and all mode shapes. This is more than pretty difficult to accomplish!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: RogueOne
Dr.D said:
To be fully equivalent, you must match all natural frequencies (not just the first) and all mode shapes. This is more than pretty difficult to accomplish!
ok, I have experimental data upto 120 Hz only, in which only first mode is captured.
I will try to model the complete structure.
Thanks for the reply
 
I re-read what I posted and I want to clarify what I meant when I said

"..However, if the top panel would only be marginally effected by systems affixed to it, then it is possible that your model could be accurate without incorporating the effects that the affixed systems have on the top panel's structure."

What I was saying was that although your model might be accurate (as far as the limited amount of testing you've done will show), it is not precise until you incorporate the effects that the affixed systems have on the top panel's structure.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chinmay
RogueOne said:
I re-read what I posted and I want to clarify what I meant when I said

"..However, if the top panel would only be marginally effected by systems affixed to it, then it is possible that your model could be accurate without incorporating the effects that the affixed systems have on the top panel's structure."

What I was saying was that although your model might be accurate (as far as the limited amount of testing you've done will show), it is not precise until you incorporate the effects that the affixed systems have on the top panel's structure.
Thanks for your response.
The sides of the panel is approximately 800 mm. During testing accelerometer was put at 4 locations on the panel. In my FE model, I gave the same input force as that in testing and checked the response at the location of accelerometer, (exact location was not known, so I took the average of response of surrounding 8-10 nodes). Also measured damping value for 1st mode (from test) was used in FE model. In this configuration, difference in test & FE response is within 5%. So, I assumed that this model is correct and can be used for further analysis.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 163 ·
6
Replies
163
Views
28K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K