Inertia Blok PDF

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust
A study of the effect of inertia blocks on the

stability of the vibratory system and the
performance of vibration isolation
Yi Yun, C.M. Mak *, S.K. Tang
Department of Building Services Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
Kowloon, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
Received 30 March 2006; received in revised form 13 July 2006; accepted 8 August 2006
Abstract
Resilient vibration isolators and inertia blocks are commonly used by building services engineers
to isolate vibratory machines in buildings. They are selected in practice according to the force trans-
missibility method and some crude methods or the experience of building services engineers. These
methods, however, can produce inaccurate predictions, and a power transmissibility method has
recently been proposed to assess the performance of vibration isolation. In this paper, normalized
average vibration velocities and overall rotational velocities are proposed to study the stability of
the vibratory system. The result shows that the use of an inertia block primarily does not improve
the performance of vibration isolation, but does increase the stability of the vibratory system regard-
less of whether the machine is of even or uneven mass distribution and whether it is driven by the
vibratory force or the rocking moment.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Intertia blocks; Stability; Vibration isolation; Performance; Building services equipment
1. Introduction
Resilient vibration isolators together with inertia blocks are commonly used by engi-
neers to reduce structure-borne sound power that is transmitted from a machine such as
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2766 5856; fax: +852 2765 7198.
E-mail address: becmmak@polyu.edu.hk (C.M. Mak).
0003-682X/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2006.08.009
Please cite this article in press as: Yun Y et al., A study of the effect of inertia blocks on the ...,
Appl Acoust (2006), doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2006.08.009
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
a pump to the floor structure. Vibration isolators are usually selected in practice according
to the force transmissibility method [1–4]. However, this method oversimplifies the struc-
ture-borne sound power transmission from the machine to the floor structure and ignores
the interaction of mounting points and the dynamic characteristics of the floor. The selec-
tion of an inertia block is usually based on crude methods or the experience of the engi-
neers. No clear method or indices are available for assessing the effect of inertia blocks
on vibration isolation or the stability of the vibratory system.
Mondot and Petersson [5] proposed a characterization of structure-borne sound
sources in terms of source descriptors by using the free velocity and source mobility at
the contact point. This model was later extended to the multi-point and multi-component
sources [6,7]. More studies [8–10] have been conducted to determine the vibration veloc-
ities, transmitted forces, and transmitted power for a resiliently supported machine. How-
ever, these studies have been primarily devoted to the characterization of structure-borne
sound sources instead of the development of an engineering method for vibration isola-
tion. Mak and Su [11] recently proposed the power transmissibility method to assess the
performance of vibration isolation. Based on the total structure-borne sound power trans-
mission, this method takes into account the dynamic characteristics of structure-borne
sound emission and the interaction of mounting points.
To assess the effect of inertial block on the performance of vibration isolators and the
stability of the system, a simple machine model with four mounting points is used. With a
more concise physical concept, the mobility method is adopted for modeling the structure-
borne sound power transmission from a vibratory machine model to the floor structure.
The structure-borne sound power that is transmitted from the multi-point machine to
the structure and the intensities of the vertical and rotational motions of the vibratory sys-
tem are investigated analytically. Normalized average vibration velocities and overall rota-
tional velocities are proposed and used to assess the stability of the vibratory system.
2. Theoretical models
2.1. Simple model for the symmetrically placed even mass system
A vibratory machine model of even mass distribution M0 with four symmetrical contact
points as shown in Fig. 1a is placed symmetrically on a square concrete floor. It is assumed
that the machine is effectively driven by a source vibratory inherent force F0 at the center
of gravity. The free velocity vector of the source is given by
T F0
½V so ¼ V 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 ; V0 ¼ ð1Þ
jxM 0
where V0 is the effective free velocity. It should be noted that each component of the free
velocity vector just expresses the degree of vertical vibration velocity at the corresponding
contact point, the ‘vector’ does not indicate a kind of multi-degree vibratory motion. Since
the components of force and velocity at all contact points are equal, the machine can be
thought as an effective simple source driven by the vertical vibratory force as shown in
Fig. 2a. The transmitted force through every spring isolator is therefore given by:
V0 F 0 =4
FT ¼ ¼ ð2Þ
1=jxm0 þ jx=k þ Y pr 1 ðx=x0 Þ2 þ jxm0 Y pr
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 3
Fig. 1. (a) The vibratory machine of even mass distribution with four symmetrical contact points placed
symmetrically on the simply-supported square concrete floor plate. (b) The vibratory machine of even mass
distribution attached to the inertia block with four symmetrical contact points placed symmetrically on the floor
plate.
Fig. 2. (a) Equivalent circuit diagram of the simple model of a vibrating machine mounted on the flexible floor.
(b) Equivalent circuit diagram of the simple model of the isolated machine with inertia block.
where Ypr = Ypi1 + Ypi2 + Ypi3 + Ypi4 for i = 1, 2, 3, 4 is the effective floor mobility [12] at
each contact point with the spring isolator, where Ypik are the transfer mobility compo-
nents from the contact point pk to pi (whose mathematical functions are derived in Ref.
[13, ppp.
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi322–327]), m0 = M0/4 is the effective mass distributed on each mounting point,
j ¼ 1 and x0 is the natural frequency of system that is given by
ARTICLE IN PRESS

sffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffi
k g
x0 ¼ ¼ ð3Þ
m0 d0
where k is the axial stiffness of spring, g is the gravitational acceleration, and d0 is the static
deflection. As the machine model is placed on an inertia block of mass Mb as shown in
Fig. 1b and Fig. 2b, new springs are selected to maintain the same static deflection
(Ref. [3, Section 6.5.4, Chapter 6]):
ðM 0 þ M b Þ ðm0 þ mb Þ
k0 ¼ k¼ k ð4Þ
M0 m0
where mb = Mb/4 is the effective mass of the inertia block distributed on each mounting
point. Note that the parameter with apostrophe ( 0 ) means the parameter is for the system
with the inertia block.
The free velocity vector of the source with the inertia block is:
T M0
½V so ¼ V 00 ½ 1 1 1 1 ; V 00 ¼ V ð5Þ
M0 þ Mb
The transmitted force through a suited spring to the floor is given by
V 00 F 0 =4
F 0T ¼ ¼ ð6Þ
1=jxðm0 þ mb Þ þ jx=k 0 þ Y qr 1 ðx=x0 Þ2 þ jxðm0 þ mb Þ0 Y qr
where Yqr = Yqi1 + Yqi2 + Yqi3 + Yqi4 for i = 1, 2, 3, 4, which is the effective floor mobility
at the new contact points on which the inertia block is placed (as shown in Fig 1b).
To assess the performance of vibration isolation, the active structure-borne sound
power that is transmitted to the floor must be obtained [11]. For the machine that is sym-
metrically placed on the floor without isolators, the transmitted active power is
2
1 4 F 0
P ðnsÞ ¼ ReðY pr Þ ð7Þ
2 j1 þ jxm0 Y pr j 4
2
For the machine spring with isolators, the total transmitted power P(s) is
2
4 jxm0 V 0
2
P ðsÞ ¼ ReðY pr Þ ¼ 2jF T j ReðY pr Þ
2 1 ðx=x0 Þ2 þ jxm0 Y pr
1 1 2
¼ jF 0 j ReðY pr Þ ð8Þ
8 j1 ðx=x0 Þ2 þ jxm0 Y pr j2
For the machine that is placed on the inertia block with isolators, the transmitted power is
1 2 1 jF 0 j2
P ðbsÞ ¼ 4 jF 0T j ReðY qr Þ ¼ ReðY qr Þ ð9Þ
2 8 j1 ðx=x0 Þ2 þ jxðm0 þ mb ÞY qr j2
For the machine with spring isolators, the vibration velocity is defined as the velocity of
the machine at the contact point with the spring isolator, and is given by
2
jxm0 Y pr ðx=x0 Þ
V pi ¼ V0 ð10Þ
1 ðx=x0 Þ2 þ jxm0 Y pr
ARTICLE IN PRESS
For the machine that is placed on the inertia block with isolators, the vibration velocity is
defined as the velocity of the machine and the inertia block at the contact point with the
spring isolator, and is given by
jxðm0 þ mb ÞY qr ðx=x0 Þ2 m0
V qi ¼ 2
V0 ð11Þ
1 ðx=x0 Þ þ jxðm0 þ mb ÞY qr m0 þ mb
Based on the unity of effective free velocity (i.e. V0 = 1), the values of transmitted active
power and vibration velocity are normalized. The normalized transmitted power repre-
sents the amount of the transmitted vibratory energy relative to the source excitation.
For a multi-point isolated system with or without the inertia block, the normalized aver-
age vibration velocities are given by:
1X 4
U¼ jV pi j; ðV 0 ¼ 1Þ ð12Þ
4 i¼1
1X 4
U0 ¼ jV qi j; ðV 0 ¼ 1Þ ð13Þ
4 i¼1
These values represent the relative response of a resiliently mounted vibratory system to
the source excitation. The smaller the normalized average vibration velocity, the less active
is the vibratory motion of the isolated system.
2.2. Asymmetrically placed uneven mass system, in case of vibratory driven force
For the machine model of uneven mass distribution with the inertia block placed asym-
metrically on the floor as shown in Fig. 4a, there is a transverse distance between the center
of gravity and the geometrical center. In this case, the interactions among the different
contact points must be considered in the theoretical calculation. Based on the dynamics
theory of Ref. [14], the whole mass, the location of the gravity center, and the moments
of inertia around the axes throughout its center of gravity are given by
M 0 ¼ M 01 þ M 02 ð14Þ
M 01 L þ M 02 ð2c þ wÞ
a0 ¼ ð15Þ
2ðM 01 þ M 02 Þ
L2 þ l22 þ H 2 w2 þ H 2 M 0 1M 02 2
I 01 ¼ M 01 þ M 02 þ ðL 2c wÞ ð16Þ
12 12 4ðM 01 þ M 02 Þ
L2 þ l22 þ H 2 H 2 þ l22
I 02 ¼ M 01 þ M 02 ð17Þ
12 12
where M01 is the mass of the hollow rectangular machine model of which L is the each
external side length, l2 is the internal side length, H is the height, and M02 is the mass
of the embedded rectangular machine part shown in Fig. 4, of which l2 is the long side
length, H is the height, w is the width, c is the distance between the even mass embedded
part and the external side of p3. To express the multi interaction among the contact points
on the machine in a matrix form for calculation with mobility method, the source mobility
matrix of the machine is given by
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1
1 þ a11 þ a12 1 þ a11 a12 1 a13 1 þ a14
1 B B 1 þ a11 a12 1 þ a11 þ a12 1 a13 1 þ a14 C
C
½Y s ¼ B C
jxM 0 @ 1 a13 1 a13 1 þ a33 1 a34 A
1 þ a14 1 þ a14 1 a34 1 þ a44
2 2
M 0 ðL 2a0 Þ M 0L ð18Þ
a11 ¼ ; a12 ¼ ;
4I 01 4I 02
M 0 ðL 2a0 ÞL M 0 ðL 2a0 ÞðL a0 Þ
a13 ¼ ; a14 ¼
2I 01 2I 01
M 0 L2 M 0 LðL a0 Þ M 0 ðL a0 Þ2
a33 ¼ ; a34 ¼ ; a44 ¼
I 01 I 01 I 01
Driven by vibratory inherent force F0, the free velocity vector [VSO] of source is same as
Eq. (1) in Section 2.1. As the machine is directly mounted on the floor, the dynamic force
vector and structure-borne power transmitted to the floor are given by
1
½F n ¼ ð½Y s þ ½Y rp Þ ½V SO ð19Þ
1 T 1 T
P ðnsÞ ¼ Reð½F n ½Y rp ½F n Þ ¼ ½F n Reð½Y rp Þ½F n ð20Þ
2 2
where [Yrp] is the floor mobility matrix of the contact points as the machine is placed on
the floor. With the installation of the vibration isolators, the vector of the dynamic forces
and active power transmitted to the floor are calculated by
1
jx
½F ¼ ½Y s þ ½I þ ½Y rp ½V SO ð21Þ
k
1 T 1 T
P ðsÞ ¼ Reð½F ½Y rp ½F Þ ¼ ½F Reð½Y rp Þ½F ð22Þ
2 2
The vibration velocity vector of the isolated machine is given by

jx
½V p ¼ ½I þ ½Y rp ½F ð23Þ
k
The overall rotational velocity indicates the rocking motion of the vibrating machine with
vibration isolators:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
jV p1 V p2 j2 þ jV p3 V p4 j2
Rm ¼ ð24Þ
L
When the machine is placed on the inertia block as shown in Fig. 4b, the mass distribution
of the combined system is balanced. The moments of inertia around the two horizontal
axial throughout the gravity center of the combined vibratory source with the inertia block
can be expressed as
B 2 þ D2 M 0M b 2
I sb1 ¼ I 01 þ M b þ ðD þ H Þ ð25Þ
12 4ðM 0 þ M b Þ
B 2 þ D2 M 0M b 2
I sb2 ¼ I 02 þ M b þ ðD þ H Þ ð26Þ
12 4ðM 0 þ M b Þ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
The new source mobility matrix with the inertia block is given by:
0 1
1 þ bu2 1 bu2 1 1
1 B1 b 1 þ bu2 1 1 C
B u2 C
½Y 0s ¼ B C
jxðM 0 þ M b Þ @ 1 1 1 þ bu1 1 bu1 A
ð27Þ
1 1 1 bu1 1 þ bu1
ðM 0 þ M b Þ B2 ðM 0 þ M b Þ B2
bu1 ¼ ; bu2 ¼
4I sb1 4I sb2
Driven by the same vibratory inherent source force, the new source free velocity ½V 0SO is
the same as that in Eq. (5). The dynamic force vector and active power transmitted to the
floor through the four vibration springs with the inertia block are given by
1
0 0 jx
½F ¼ ½Y s þ 0 ½I þ ½Y rq ½V 0SO ð28Þ
k
1 T 1 T
P ðbsÞ ¼ Reð½F 0 ½Y rq ½F 0 Þ ¼ ½F 0 Reð½Y rq Þ½F 0 ð29Þ
2 2
where [Yrq] is the mobility matrix of the floor at the new contact points supporting the
vibratory system with the inertia block. The vibration velocity vector of the isolated ma-
chine with the inertia block is given by:

jx
½V q ¼ ½I þ ½Y rq ½F 0 ð30Þ
k0
Substituting this [Vq] into Eq. (13), the normalized average vibration velocity of the com-
bined system can be calculated. To indicate the rocking motion of the vibratory machine
placed on the inertia block with vibration isolators, the overall rotational velocity is given
by:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
jV q1 V q2 j þ jV q3 V q4 j
R0m ¼ ð31Þ
B
2.3. Inertia block for asymmetrically placed uneven mass system, in case of driven rocking
moment
The machine model in Fig. 4a is now driven by a one-degree rocking moment, X0, and
the source free velocities are
2 3 2 3
0 0
X0 L 6 6 0 7
7 6 0 7
6 7
½V SO ¼ 6 7 ¼ V 06 7
2jxI 01 4 r01 5 4 r01 5
ð32Þ
r02 r02
2a0 2ðL a0 Þ
r01 ¼ ; r02 ¼
L L
As the machine of uneven mass distribution that is placed on the inertia block is balanced
as shown in Fig. 4b, the new free velocity vector is:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 3 2 3
0 0
X0 B 6 7 6
6 0 7 I 01 B 6 0 7
7
½V 0SO ¼ 6 7¼ V 06 7 ð33Þ
2jxI sb1 4 1 5 I sb1 L 4 1 5
1 1
Substituting the [VSO] from Eq. (32) into Eqs. (19) and (20), the power that is transmitted
from the machine to the floor without vibration isolators P(ns), can be given. Substituting
the [VSO] and ½V 0SO from Eqs. (32) and (33) into Eqs. (21)–(23) and (28)–(30), the corre-
sponding powers transmitted from the machine to the floor with vibration isolators, the
normalized average vibration velocities, and the rotational velocities can be correspond-
ingly calculated for the moment driven machines of uneven mass distribution that are iso-
lated by springs without and with inertia block.
3. Analysis
The machine of even mass with four supports that are placed symmetrically on the
square concrete floor is shown in Fig. 1a, and the case with the concrete inertia block is
shown in Fig. 1b. The physical parameters of the concrete floor are density
qc = 2.8 · 103 kg/m3, Young’s modulus E = 2.1 · 1010 N/m2, loss factor g = 2 · 102,
and Poisson’s Ratio l = 0.2, and the boundary of square floor is simply supported, with
the side length La = Lb = 5 m and thickness d = 0.24 m. These physical parameters are
primarily based on the values given in Ref. [11]. In this paper, the components of floor
mobility matrix are computed by:
n x p n z p n x p n2 zfk p
4jx X m sin 1 fi sin 2 fi sin 1 fk sin
La Lb La Lb
Y rp ði; kÞ ¼ 0 ; i; k ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4
m La Lb n¼1 x2n ð1 þ jgÞ x2
rffiffiffiffiffi" 2 2 #
B0 n 1 p n2 p ð34Þ
xn ¼ 0
þ ; xm > 50x
m La Lb
12Ed 3
B0 ¼ ; m0 ¼ qc d
1 l2
Fig. 3. (a) The structure and dimensions of the machine of even mass. (b) The structure and dimensions of the
machine placed on the inertia block.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I bs1
I 01
q2
a p2
b
M 01
M 02 G I 02
0
p3 l2 p4
q3 G0 q4
w I bs 2
a0
p1
L
q1
B
Fig. 4. (a) The plan view of the structure and dimension parameters of the uneven-mass machine. (b) The plan
view of the balanced setting with the inertia block.
The geometrical dimensions of the machine are shown in Fig. 3a, where L = 1.485 m,
l = 1.185 m, H = 0.32 m, with the steel density qs = 7.85* 103 kg/m3 and the mass of ma-
chine M0 = 2 · 103 kg. The dimensions of the inertia block are indicated in Fig. 3b,
where side length B = 2.22 m, thickness D = 0.42 m, with the concrete density
qc = 2.8 · 103 kg/m3 and the mass of inertia block Mb = 5.8 · 103 kg. It is assumed that
the vibration springs that symmetrically support the machine (for the free source
Fig. 5. (a) The plan view of the uneven-mass machine asymmetrically mounted on the simply-supported floor
plate. (b) The plane view of the machine attached to the inertia block placed asymmetrically on the floor.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
V0 = 1 m/s) without and with the inertia block are chosen to maintain the same natural
frequency f0 = 15 Hz.
For a symmetrically placed machine of even mass distribution that is driven by a vibra-
tory force, Fig. 6a shows the curves of the normalized transmitted power P(ns), P(s), P(bs)
versus frequency ratio Cf = f/f0. It can be seen that the powers transmitted from the
machine to the floor change significantly with and without the installation of spring isola-
tors, but do not change a lot with or without the inertia block at frequency ratios of
greater than 2.5 (2.5 < Cf < 10, which is the major region of vibration isolation). This
implies that the main use of an inertia block does not improve the performance of vibra-
tion isolator. Fig. 6b shows the curves of normalized average vibration velocity, U, U 0
versus Cf. This clearly indicates that the use of an inertia block significantly reduces the
normalized average vibration velocity at frequency ratios of greater than 2.5
(2.5 < Cf < 10). In other words, the use of an inertia block increases the stability of the
vibratory system.
without isolators & inertia block

8 only with resilient isolators
10 with isolators & inertia block
normalized transmitted power
6
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
-2
10
-4
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency ratio
2
10
only with resilient isolators
with isolators & inertia block
1
normalized average vibration velocity
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency ratio
Fig. 6. The performance of vibration isolation without and with inertia block for the symmetrically placed even-
mass machine, driven by the inherent vibratory force. (a) The transmitted power P(ns), P(s), P(bs) versus the
frequency ratio Cf. (b) The normalized average vibration velocity versus U, U 0 versus Cf.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
a 10
8 without isolators & inertia block
6
10

4
10
2
10
0
10
-2
10
-4
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency ratio
3
b 10
10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency ratio
4
c 10
2
10
overall rotational velocity ( /s)
0
10
-2
10
-4
10
-6
10
-8
10
-10
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency ratio
Fig. 7. The performance of vibration isolation without and with inertia block for the asymmetrically placed
uneven-mass machine, driven by the inherent vibratory force. (a) The normalized transmitted power P(ns), P(s),
P(bs) versus the frequency ratio Cf. (b) The normalized average vibration velocity versus U, U 0 versus Cf. (c) The
overall rotational velocity of the isolated system without and with inertia block Rm, R0m versus Cf.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
without isolators & inertia block

8
10 only with resilient isolators
6
10

4
10
2
10
0
10
-2
10
-4
10
-6
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency ratio

10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency ratio
only withre silient isolators

2
10
overall rotationalvelocity( /s)
0
10
-2
10
-4
10
-6
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency ratio
Fig. 8. The performance of vibration isolation without and with inertia block for the asymmetrically placed
uneven-mass machine, driven by the rocking moment. (a) The transmitted power P(ns), P(s), P(bs) versus the
frequency ratio Cf. (b) The normalized average vibration velocity versus U, U 0 versus Cf. (c) The overall rotational
velocity of the isolated system without and with inertia block Rm, R0m versus Cf.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
The machine model of uneven mass distribution placed on the inertia block with spring
isolators as shown in Fig. 4 is placed asymmetrically on the floor as shown in Fig. 5. The
dimensions of the steel machine of uneven mass distribution are L = 1.485 m, l2 = 1.29 m,
H = 0.32 m , c = 0.27 m, w = 0.20 m, density qs = 7.85* 103 kg/m3 and M01 = 1450 kg,
M02 = 550 kg, and the spring isolators are selected for the same natural frequency
C0 = 15 Hz. In the case of driven vibratory internal force and the case of driven rocking
moment, the curves of the transmitted power, P(ns), P(s), P(bs) versus frequency ratio
Cf = f/f0 are shown in Figs. 7a and 8a, respectively. It can be seen that the power trans-
mitted from the machine to the floor changes significantly with and without the installa-
tion of spring isolators but does not change a lot with or without the inertia block at
frequency ratios greater than 2.5 (2.5 < Cf < 10, which is the major region of vibration iso-
lation). This again implies that the use of inertia block does not improve the performance
of vibration isolation. Figs. 7b and 8b show the curves of normalized average vibration
velocity U, U 0 versus Cf for the case of driven vibratory internal force and the case of dri-
ven rocking moment respectively. It clearly indicates that the use of inertia block signifi-
cantly reduces the normalized average vibration velocity at frequency ratio greater than
2.5 (2.5 < Cf < 10). To study the stability of a vibratory system with uneven mass distribu-
tion, it is necessary to study both the average vibration velocities and the overall rotational
velocities. Figs. 7c and 8c show the curves of the overall rotational velocity Rm ; R0m of the
vibrating machine without and with the inertia block for the case of driven vibratory inter-
nal force and the case of driven rocking moment, respectively. It clearly indicates that the
use of inertia block significantly reduces the overall rotational velocity at frequency ratio
greater than 2.5 (2.5 < Cf < 10). In addition, it should be noted that at frequency ratio
roughly between 1 and 2 (1 < Cf < 2), the average vibration velocities and rotational veloc-
ities of the isolated machine without inertia block are quite large where several peaks occur
at the resonant frequencies coupling with the modes of floor structure, and their values are
reduced significantly after the installation with inertia block. It suggests that at the rela-
tively low frequency components of the transient driven force or moment, the vibratory
system isolated with inertia block is more stable when there are changes in the speed or
loading of the machine. The results of Figs. 7b,c and 8b,c therefore suggest that the use
of an inertia block increases the stability of the vibratory system driven by the vibratory
force or the rocking moment.
4. Conclusion
The normalized average vibration velocity and overall rotational velocity are proposed
in this paper and used to analyze the stability of a vibratory system with and without an
inertia block in three cases: a symmetrically placed machine of even mass distribution that
is driven by an vibratory force, an asymmetrically placed machine of uneven mass distri-
bution that is driven by an vibratory force, and an asymmetrically placed machine of
uneven mass distribution that is driven by a rocking moment. The normalized power that
is transmitted from the machine to the floor is adopted to study the effect of the inertia on
the performance of vibration isolation. The results show that the use of an inertia block in
all cases does not change the power that is transmitted from the machine to the floor at
isolation regions, but decrease the normalized average vibration velocity and the overall
rotational velocity at isolation regions. This indicates that the use of inertia blocks does
not improve the performance of vibration isolation, but does increase the stability of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
the vibratory system regardless of whether the machine is of even or uneven mass and
whether it is driven by the vibratory force or the rocking moment.
References
[1] Tse FS, Morse IE, Hinkle RT. Mechanical vibrations: theory and applications. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon; 1979.
[2] Rao SS. Mechanical vibrations. Addison-Wesley; 1986.
[3] Fry A. Noise control in building services. Sound Research Laboratories Ltd, Pergamon Press; 1988.
[4] Smith BJ, Peters RJ, Owen S. Acoustics and noise control. 2nd ed. Addison Wesley Longman; 1996.
[5] Mondot JM, Petersson BAT. Characterization of structure-borne sound sources: the source descriptor and
coupling function. J Sound Vib 1987;114:507–18.
[6] Fulford RA, Gibbs BM. Use of the source descriptor concept in studies of multipoint and multidirectional
vibrational sources. J Sound Vib 1993;168(1):157–76.
[7] Su JX, Moorhouse AT, Gibbs BM. Towards a practical characterization for structure-borne sound sources
based on mobility techniques. J Sound Vib 1995;185(4):731–41.
[8] Petersson BAT, Gibbs BM. Towards a structure-borne sound source characterization. Appl Acoust
2000;63(12):325–43.
[9] Fulford RA, Gibbs BM. Structure-borne sound power and source characterization in multi-point-connected
systems, part 1: case studied for assumed force distributions. J Sound Vib 1997;204(4):659–77.
[10] Fulford RA, Gibbs BM. Structure-borne sound power and source characterization in multi-point-connected
systems, part 2: about mobility functions and free velocities. J Sound Vib 1999;225(2):239–82.
[11] Mak CM, Su JX. A power transmissibility method for assessing the performance of vibration isolation of
building services equipment. Appl Acoust 2002;63(12):1281–99.
[12] Petersson BAT, Plunt J. On effective mobilities in the prediction of structure-borne sound transmission
between a source structure and a receiving structure, part I: theoretical background and basic experimental
studies. J Sound Vib 1982;82:517–29.
[13] Cremer L, Heckl M. Structure-borne sound. Springer-Verlag; 1988.
[14] Ginsberg JH. Advanced engineering dynamics. Cambridge University Press; 1995.

Inertia Blok PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Inertia Blok PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

A study of the eﬀect of inertia blocks on the

2 Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 3

4 Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 5

6 Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 7

8 Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 9

10 Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

without isolators & inertia block

Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 11

normalized transmitted power

12 Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

without isolators & inertia block

normalized transmitted power

only with resilient isolators

only withre silient isolators

Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 13

14 Y. Yun et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

Anda mungkin juga menyukai