discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/3298119
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
50
303
86
3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Glenn R. Heppler
J. Aplevich
University of Waterloo
University of Waterloo
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
479
I.
ALUMINUM BEAM,
2-0mm thick
TIP MASS
INTRODUCTION
ALIGNMENT
RODS
IMPACTING
SPHERE
Fig. 1.
Experimental apparatus.
finite-element method is used because it simplifies the inclusion of initial conditions such as those generated by tip
impact, hub-applied torques, and frictional torques. Coulomb
friction is incorporated into the formulation, including slipstick characteristics. Rayleigh beam damping and viscous hub
friction are also considered.
Numerical results generated by the model are compared to
experimental data gathered from a single-link flexible arm
apparatus in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the
University of Waterloo [19], [20]. Through this experimental
data it will be shown that the derived model accurately
predicts both impact effects and the ensuing motion of the
flexible arm.
II.
ExPERIMENT DESCRIPTION
480
FINITE-ELEMENT MonEL
RIGID-BODY
LINE
x=L
Fig. 2.
Frame of reference.
components: a "rigid-body" component describing the motion of a line that is tangent to the beam at the hub (to be
referred to as the rigid-body line) and a component describing the elastic deflection of the beam from this tangent line
(see Fig. 2). The position of any point on the beam is given
(for small w(x, t)) by
S=x8+w(x,t)
(1)
+ 2s 3
2s 2 + s 3 )
cf> 1(s) = 1 - 3s 2
cf> 2 (s)
ln(s-
2 s3
-
s 2 ).
(2)
X
by
(3)
This transformation allows the transverse deflection for the
nth element to be expressed in the form [ 11]
(4)
where [cl>]n = [cf> 1(s), cf> 2 (s), cf> 3 (s), cf>4 (s)]n and { Q}n =
[wn_ 1(f), 8n_ 1(t), wn(t), On(t)]T. The notation[] indicates
a matrix while the notation { } indicates a vector. In this
equation, wn_ 1(t) and wn(t) are the elastic deflections of the
nodes the ends of the element, and (Jn_ 1(t) = wn-l, xU) and
On(t) = wn, it) are the corresponding rotations, where ( ), x
indicates partial differentiation with respect to x.
481
d (
dt
a!l')
aiJ
i
a!l'
q;
i=l, .. n
0'
[M]
(6)
[M~
MJB
(11)
where [MBB] is associated with the elastic degrees of freewhere Q; are the generalized coordinates of the model and dom, MJB represents the coupling between these elastic
!l' = T - V is the Lagrangian. T is the kinetic energy of the degrees of freedom and e, and M JJ is the total rotary
system and V is the total potential energy given by V = U inertia of the system about the motor axis.
- W, where U is the strain energy in the beam and W is the
In (10) the first six terms on the right-hand side contribute
external work done on the beam. The Lagrangian is given by solely to the global mass matrix, each group of six terms in
the following e]5.pression:
. the summation providing an individual element mass matrix.
1
1
.
2
1
.2
The first and second terms will contribute to the submatrix
!l'= 2 LpAS 2 dx + 2mr(Le + w I x=L) + 2JHe
MBB while the third and fourth terms contribute to the
coupling matrix MJB The fifth and sixth terms give rise to
d2
EI ( ----;.
dx + w. (7) the contributions of the beam, the hub, and the tip mass to
dx
the rotary inertia of the apparatus about the motor axis, and
2 L
they contribute to the 1 X 1 submatrix MJJ.
By substituting for S from (1), the Lagrangian may be
The global stiffness matrix is obtained from the penultireexpressed as
mate term in (10) with each value of n yielding an individual
element stiff matr~x.
!l'= pAx 28 2 dx +
pAxewdx + pAw 2 dx
The global stiffness matrix will have the form
2 L
L
2 L
)2
_2. j
1/
2 2
J .
1/
e + mrLew I x=L
+ 2mrL
(12)
.2
-2.2 j
2
2
EI( d w ) dx
2
L
dx
W.
(8)
(9)
is the moment of inertia of the beam about the motor axis,
and by recalling (4) and introducing the parametric transformation (see (3)), the Lagrangian may be shown to take the
form
where { K BB} is associated with the elastic degrees of freedom. Note that the elastic degrees of freedom do not couple
with e through the stiffness matrix. A more detailed discussion of the derivation and form of the element mass and
stiffness matrices may be found in Chapnik [26].
The last term in the expression for !:t (see (10)) yields the
consistent force vector { F} .
The global damping matrix has the form
[ C]
= [Fov
(13)
0 ]
CBB
where [ CBB] denotes the submatrix associated with the material damping. The matrix [CBB] is obtained by assuming, for
the reasons stated in the introduction to the development of
the finite-element model, that the beam exhibits characteristic
Rayleigh damping (i.e., [CBB] = b 1[MBB] + b2[KBB]).
The assumption of Rayleigh damping dictates that
bI
2w 1 w 2 (~ 1 w 2 - ~ 2 w 1 )
W~-
wi
b2
2(~ 2 w 2 - ~ 1 w 1 )
= ___;_-=-----:::---'w~-
wi
(14)
where ~ n, n = 1, 2 is the damping coefficient of th~ nth
mode and wn, n = 1, 2 is the natural frequency of the nth
482
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF MODEL PARAMETERS
0.7652 m
6.5 X 1010 Pa
35.5185 X 10- 12 m4
103.23 X 10- 6 m
0.2022 kg
0.153 kg
0.0795 kg
0.001
0.003
0.007
0.343
42.2 m- 1
104.7 m- 1
18.8 x 10- 12
1.4 x 10- 12
0.059Nm
-0.037 Nm
0.002 Nms
10-s J
5.0 X 10- 4 radjs
E (Young's Modulus)
I (Second Moment of the Area)
A (Beam Cross-Sectional Area)
Mbeam (Beam Mass)
Mtip (Payload Mass)
mball (Mass of Impacting Sphere)
~ 1 (First-Mode Damping Coefficient)
~ 2 (Second-Mode Damping Coefficient)
~ 3 (Third-Mode Damping Coefficient)
qk (Geometric Impact Parameter)
A (Geometric Impact Parameter)
B (Geometric Impact Parameter)
o1 (Material Impact Parameter)
o2 (Material Impact Parameter)
F;;, (Static Coulomb Friction Torque)
F52 (Static Coulomb Friction Torque)
F, (Viscous Friction Coefficient)
K.E.stick (K.E. Stick Threshold)
I I stick (Hub Speed Stick Threshold)
(15)
MODELING FRICTION
Any motor dynamics contributing to energy loss in the where ~~ and ~2 are the two limits of static Coulomb
system, including electromagnetic effects, are included by friction, and Fdc is the dynamic Coulomb friction. Once
modeling them as friction. Friction inherent in the hub (due determined, Fdc is incorporated into the simulation by includto rotor characteristics, imperfectly aligned motor shaft, elec- ing it in the first entry in the applied force vector in (5).
Traversal of the slip -+ stick boundary is determined by the
tromagnetic effects', etc.) is modeled as a combination of
Coulomb and viscous friction.
hub speed and the kinetic energy in the beam. When these
The static Coulomb friction values used in the simulation variables fall simultaneously beneath experimentally deterwere obtained experimentally by determining the torque re- mined thresholds (K.E.stick and I I stick), the hub "clamps"
quired to move the beam from rest at various values of e' again (the boundary condition is reintroduced as 8(t) =
applying step torques of different amplitudes. In this way, a eboundary), not to slip again until the bending moment about
mean value of static Coulomb friction was obtained that the hub axis again exceeds the static friction threshold.
represented the torque threshold required for hub motion. In Examination of the kinetic energy in the beam is required in
our experimental apparatus, this mean value varied signifi- order to prevent the hub from sticking, due to momentarily
cantly depending on the sign of the applied torque. In other low hub speeds, while the mass center of the beam swings
words, it required more torque to move the beam in one through the rigid-body line (i.e., when the hub velocity
direction than in the other (see Table I). This is likely due to switches sign). The beam kinetic energy is obtained using
both imperfect shaft alignment and alignment of the rotor
brushes. Thus, there are two appropriate values of static
Coulomb friction, the relevant value at any given time depending on the sign of the velocity of the hub.
where { Q*} = [w0 , 80 , Wp Op , wN, ON]r.
Using the measured value of static friction at the . rest
The slip-stick boundary negotiation, as described here, has
position ( e = 0) of the arm as a threshold for hub motion been used (albeit in a simpler form) by others to model
(i.e., the stick-+ slip boundary), the beam motion was simu- slip-stick behavior in translational vibratory systems [24].
lated using (5) with the hub clamped by introducing the
Viscous hub friction (F) was found to be relatively conboundary condition 8(t) = 0, .t < Islip When the bending stant over the range of velocities encountered in the experimoment about the hub axis exceeds the static friction torque ments. The value used in the simulations was obtained by
threshold (which in turn depends on the sign of the moment simulating arm responses to many different velocity impacts
about the hub), this boundary condition is removed, allowing and comparing simulation results to experimental data. It was
rotation of the hub and arm.
_found that higher values of F" tend to increase the modal
483
s0
...
_c;
Le9end
- - 11odel Oota
-------- E:xperl . .ntol Ooto
_!0
~8
.,.o
...
... -
..
.... ~
~f
.9-s
""f
...,"0
X:f
Legend
- - 11odel. Data
"-clipped Data
.?
~
IS
~+-~~~~~~~-r-r-r-r-r-r-r~-T-T-T~~
r~
Fig. 3.
...
Fig. 4.
...
lsi
Qn'Vn(x) (19)
where
w(x, t) =
I:
(17)
un(X) are characteristic functions normalized accord-
J [un(x)]
L
and
Note that the mode shapes for a clamped-free beam with and
without tip mass are identical [26] but the addition of the tip
mass causes the natural frequencies of vibration to change.
The frequencies are given by the roots of the following
frequency equation in t3n (which depends on wn):
xe[O,L], te[O,CX!)
un(x)Cn(t),
n=l
where
ing to
r~
lsi
+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.00.2 O.t 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 l.t 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.t 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.t 3.6 3.1 t:O
o.oo.2 o.t o.6 0.1 1.0 1.2 1.t 1.6 1.1 2.0 2.2 z.t 2.6 2.1 3.0 3.2 3.t 3.6 3.1 t.o
dx = 1
(18)
Mr
cos ( t3nL)
484
= 0 (i.e.,
Cn(O) ==
r))e-~"'(t-T)F(r)dr
(22)
(27)
where q is the mass of the beam per unit length, wdn is the
nth damped natural frequency, and T
= 1.0873TMH
where
TMH
being the Hertz contact time (the duration of impact for two
colliding bodies [8]), modified to account for beam vibration.
This modification is accomplished [18] by regarding the
impact as being not just between the beam (including tip
mass) and the lead sphere, but between the beam (including
tip mass) and an equivalent mass Me given by
1
Me
mbait
Mt
-=--+-
(23)
[8]
- 2.9432 ( 5 ) 215
TMH- -l/5
-4kk
Vo
(24)
where
F(t)~m,,(l+e)(
( 27ft)
1- cos - -
T T
Os,ts,T
(25)
485
TABLE II
The acceleration vector is then derived from the displacement and velocity vectors according to (5), which must also
v0 = -1.95 m/s
v0 = -1.60 m/s
be satisfied at t = T. Note that, for the dynamic post-impact
0.17353
ms
simulation,
the time scale has been shifted such that the time
0.18053
ms
TMH
0.763606
0.763603
e
origin
coincides
with the end of impact (i.e., t' = t - T).
6.41682 X 10- 3 m312
5.799 X 10- 3 m312
cl
It
is
important
to realize that the value of the coefficient of
3
2
5
-5.04518 X 10- m /
-4.34599 X 10-S m312
c2
3 m3 12
3.7856
X 10- 5 m3 12
restitution
is
not
a
constant but depends on the velocity of the
3.25244
X
10c3
0.854559 m312 /s
0.701175 m312 /s
impacting sphere and the flexibility of the beam as described
C\
-0.330293 m312 /s
-0.27101 m312 /s
62
above. This means that (25) cannot be used as a direct input
3 12 /s
0.234144 m312 /s
0.192119
m
63
to the finite-element model for all impact velocities. In order
to treat the impact problem by the finite-element method, it
would be necessary to create a detailed finite-element model
the total energy in each mode after impact:
of the sphere, the tip mass, and the beam at a discretization
level appropriate for dealing with the impact problem. The
~En(T) = P.E.~(T) + K.E.~eam(T) + K.E.~pmass(T)
structural dynamics present during the impact have character(29) istic frequencies that are much higher than those associated
with the flexure of the beam. The equations of motion would
from which the total energy in the flexible-arm system after
have to be integrated with a time step size that reflected the
impact can be obtained by summing over the modes [18]:
presence of the important high-frequency components in the
3
solution. This would result in a finite-element model with an
~E(T) =
~En(T)
enormous number of degrees of freedom and a very small
n=I
time step size, resulting in tremendous solution complexity
1
2
2
= --mu~(l +e) R = E(l +e) R (30) and cost. This is unwarranted in light of our ability to deal
2
with the impact part of the response analytically and to use
where E is the kinetic energy of the impacting sphere before these results as input to a very modest finite-element model.
impact and R represents the sum of modal energies with the
common factor 4-mu~(l + e) 2 removed.
VI. TIME-DOMAIN RESPONSE CALCULATION
Since energy is assumed to be conserved during the imTo calculate the time-domain response of the beam after
pact, ~ E( T) also represents the energy lost by the impacting
sphere. As the rebound velocity of the sphere is eu 0 , this impact, the Newmark-/) integration scheme [27] was implemented, yielding the vectors { Q}, {Q}, and { Q} from (5)
yields
after every integration time step (referred to as the accelera(31) tion, velocity, and displacement vectors, respectively).
First, the initial conditions are set. The initial displaceEquating (30) with (31) yields the coefficient of restitution
ment,
velocity, and acceleration vectors are determined as
for the impact:
described in Section V.
1-R
The integration constants for the Newmark-/) method (r
(32)
.e =
l+R
and {J) are then chosen, as is a time step (~t) for the
The terms Cn(T) and Cn(T) are now completely deter- time-domain simulation. The values r = 0.5, {J == 0.25 were
mined from (27) and its derivative, and the initial conditions chosen to eliminate any algorithmic damping by the integraon the displacement and velocity vectors are given by (for tion algorithm and to insure stability and second-order accuracy [28]. The time step is chosen, using a rule of thumb
each nodal location 0 :5 x : : ;: L):
SUMMARY OF IMPACT PARAMETERS
w(x, T) =
w(x, T)
un(x)Cn(T),
O(x, T) =
n=I
n=I
un(x)Cn(T),
n=l
e(x, T)
un,x(x)Cn(T),
(33)
I: un.Ax)Cn(T).
n=l
-~--~-
----~~---
----~~--
--~---------------
VII.
SIMULATION RESULTS
The finite-element model described above was implemented in the "C" programming language on a DEC Microvax II. Some modules from the eispack and Unpack
486
(!;
Fortran libraries were accessed to calculate eigenvalues and
.;
to solve systems of linear equations.
B
All results given here were calculated using a 15-element
0
model. Above this number of elements, the results do not
a0
change appreciably, and the time required for simulation
increases rapidly. Relevant physical parameters for the im- -"!
~Q
pact and the ensuing motion are given in Table II.
~~
Young's modulus for the aluminum beam had to be low- ;:o
ered slightly (7%) from the generally accepted handbook u
~
->value [30] in order for the model to reflect the observed ....
c!~
frequency of vibration of the beam. It should be noted that
.~a
others have also found discrepancies with Young's modulus f-o~
Legend
when investigating vibrating beams [31], and have not exB
- - Model Data
.p
plained the phenomenon satisfactorily.
0>
sci
487
sci
...
-"!
Legend
- - Model. Data
-------- E:xperi.11enlal Dat.a
Legend
- - Model Data
-------- E:xperi.11ent.al Dat.a
<?
i5
~+-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~~-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r~~
0.00.2 0.1 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.8 1.0
~+---~r-r-~-,~--~-r-r-r~.-.-.-.-~
0.00.2 0.1 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0
r ..... lsi
Ti.me lsi
Fig. 7.
Fig. 9.
.;:~-----------------------------------------
Legend
- - Ptadel. Da~a
------'- Experi.~~ent.al Dat.a
..
~+-.--r-r-r~~~~~~r-~~~,-,--r-r-r~~
0.00.2 0.4 o.s 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.i 2.1 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.8 1.0
Ti.me lsi
Fig. 8.' Hub response without dynamic Coulomb friction. Impact velocity
is - 1.95 mjs.
vm. SuMMARY
From the experimental results, this enhanced finite-element
model provides an accurate representation of the physical
process being modeled. As well, the model provides a vehicie for investigating the effects of parameters of the process
model, in particular, frictional effects and load profiles.
Impact loading has been effectively represented in terms of
initial conditions and can be applied to a range of finite-element models in this manner. This class of model can aid the
analysis of impact-induced structural vibrations, especially
given the increasing popularity of the finite-element method
for structural analysis and dynamic modeling.
Hub friction, both Coulomb and viscous, and Rayleigh
- - 11odel Data
~
.+-.-.--r-.-.~-.-,~r-r-~~~.-.-.-.--r-.~
0.00.2 0.1 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.6 2..8 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.8 1.0
Fig. 10.
Ti..me lsi
Hub response (8(t)) with Fv = 0.008. Impact velocity is - 1.95
mjs.
[1]
488
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[ 10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[ 17 j
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
--------------------