Effects of Central Cut Width on the Dynamical Characteristics of Box Assembly Structure
Source abstract
Abstract
An investigation into the Box Assembly with Removable Component (BARC) structure is conducted by utilizing computational simulations and experimental structural testing in order to determine the complex dynamical responses instigated by the central cut of the system. Because the dynamics of the BARC system is complex, this study focuses primarily on analyzing the behavior of the box assembly (BA) system. The investigation explores the dynamics of the BA system by varying the central cut widths, ranging from a cut as wide as 0.5” cut to a 0.25” cut system, as well as a 0.1” cut and a system with no cut at all. Experimental testing is performed on each system including a free vibration test using an impact hammer to excite and identify the dominant frequencies of each structure. This testing is followed by pseudo-random vibration tests and swept sinusoidal excitation tests to determine the nonlinear aspects of these systems, such as the possible existence of nonlinear softening, hardening, and/or damping. The results show that nonlinear softening and nonlinear damping are present in each system. The no-cut system demonstrated the highest peak frequencies throughout all the tests, being the most rigid structure. The 0.25” cut system was shown to have the highest peak frequencies among all the cut systems in both the finite elemenet analysis (FEA) and impact testing. This trend did not continue, though, in the random and harmonic testing, possibly due to the added stiffness of the test setup with the slip table and stinger. The results show the importance of accurately measuring the central cut width and how possible geometric uncertainties change the overall dynamical behaviors of complex systems, such as natural characteristics, nonlinear responses, coupling of modes, and oscillating amplitudes.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems · Vibration and Dynamic Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
Funding
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. Encyclopedia of vibration: Volumes 1, 2, and 310.1115/1.1470670 ↗
2. Keightley, W.O. (1964). Vibration Tests of Structures. [Doctoral Dissertation, California Institute of Technology].
3. Takeshita, A., Madrid, J., Granillo, E., and Abdelkefi, A. (2023). Insights on the impacts of accelerometer location on the dynamics and characteristics of complex structures. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23249830 ↗
4. Main frequency band of blast vibration signal based on wavelet packet transform10.1016/j.apm.2019.05.005 ↗
5. An energy-frequency parameter for earthquake ground motion intensity measure10.1002/eqe.3752 ↗
6. Varoto, P.S. (2020). Issues in laboratory simulation of field vibration data: Experimental results on a typical structure. Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7: Proceedings of the 37th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Orlando, FL, USA, 28–31 January 2019, Springer International Publishing.
7. He, R. (2015). Airborne Path Frequency Based Substructuring Method and Its Applications. [Master’s Thesis, University of Kentucky].
8. Dilworth, B.J., Karlicek, A., and Thibault, L. (2020). An approach to component testing: An analytical study. Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7: Proceedings of the 37th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Orlando, FL, USA, 28–31 January 2019, Springer International Publishing.
9. de Klerk, D., Rixen, D.J., and de Jong, J. (February, January 30). The frequency based substructuring (FBS) method reformulated according to the dual domain decomposition method. Proceedings of the 24th International Modal Analysis Conference, A Conference on Structural Dynamics, St. Louis, MO, USA.
10. Full-degrees-of-freedom frequency based substructuring10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.04.051 ↗
11. A frequency-based substructuring approach to efficiently model position-dependent dynamics in machine tools
12. General framework for dynamic substructuring: History, review and classification of techniques10.2514/1.33274 ↗
13. A dual Craig–Bampton method for dynamic substructuring10.1016/j.cam.2003.12.014 ↗
14. Interface reduction for Hurty/Craig-Bampton substructured models: Review and improvements10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.05.031 ↗
15. Bari, N.A., Serrano, M., Shenouda, S.M., Taylor, S., Schultze, J., and Flynn, G. (2021). Quantifying Joint Uncertainties for Hybrid System Vibration Testing. Dynamic Substructures, Volume 4: Proceedings of the 38th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Houston, TX, USA, 10–13 February 2020, Springer International Publishing.
16. A hybrid method of component mode synthesis10.1016/0045-7949(71)90031-9 ↗
17. Rapid identification of linear and nonlinear systems10.2514/3.4313 ↗
18. Model Order Reduction for Linear and Nonlinear Systems: A System-Theoretic Perspective10.1007/s11831-014-9111-2 ↗
19. Nonlinear damping and quasi-linear modelling10.1098/rsta.2014.0402 ↗
20. Nayfeh, A.H., and Mook, D.T. (2008). Nonlinear Oscillations, John Wiley & Sons.
21. Hardening/softening behaviour in non-linear oscillations of structural systems using non-linear normal modes10.1016/j.jsv.2003.04.005 ↗
22. Soine, D.E., Jones, R.J., Harvie, J.M., Skousen, T.J., and Schoenherr, T.F. (2019). Designing hardware for the boundary condition round robin challenge. Topics in Modal Analysis & Testing, Volume 9: Proceedings of the 36th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Orlando, FL, USA, 12–15 February 2018, Springer International Publishing.
23. Harvie, J.M., Schoenherr, T.F., and Skousen, T.J. (2018). Boundary Conditions in Environmental Testing Round Robin (No. SAND2018-1275C).
24. Effects of test fixture connections and interference of the BARC structure on its dynamical responses10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107186 ↗
25. Bouma, A., Campbell, A., Roberts, T., Taylor, S., Haynes, C., and Harvey, D. (2020). Accumulated lifetimes in single-axis vibration testing. Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7: Proceedings of the 37th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Orlando, FL, USA, 28–31 January 2019, Springer International Publishing.
26. Musella, U., Blanco, M.A., Mastrodicasa, D., Monco, G., Emilio, D.L., Simone, M., Mucchi, E., and Guillaume, P. (2020). Combining test and simulation to tackle the challenges derived from boundary conditions mismatches in environmental testing. Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7: Proceedings of the 37th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Orlando, FL, USA, 28–31 January 2019, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-12676-6_23 ↗
27. Schoenherr, T.F., Clark, B.W., and Coffin, P. (2018). Improve Replication of in-Service Mechanical Environments (No. SAND2018-10187).10.2172/1493833 ↗
28. Granillo, E.C., Madrid, J.M., Padilla, C.L., Perez, J., and Abdelkefi, A. (2024, January 8–12). Insights on the scalability of the BARC structure on its dynamical characteristics. Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2024 Forum, Orlando, FL, USA.10.2514/6.2024-2260 ↗
29. Rohe, D.P., Schultz, R.A., Schoenherr, T.F., Skousen, T.J., and Jones, R.J. (2020). Comparison of multi-axis testing of the BARC structure with varying boundary conditions. Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7: Proceedings of the 37th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Orlando, FL, USA, 28–31 January 2019, Springer International Publishing.
30. Rohe, D.P. (2018). Modal Data for the BARC Challenge Problem Test Report (No. SAND-2018-0640R).10.2172/1418738 ↗
31. Rohe, D.P., Smith, S., Brake, M.R., DeClerck, J., Blanco, M.A., Schoenherr, T.F., and Skousen, T.J. (2020). Testing summary for the box assembly with removable component structure. Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7: Proceedings of the 37th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Orlando, FL, USA, 28–31 January 2019, Springer International Publishing.
32. Schoenherr, T.F. (2019). Designing an Optimized Fixture for the BARC Hardware Using a Parameterized Model (No. SAND2019-12838C).
33. Padilla, C.L., Madrid, J.M., Granillo, E.C., Flores, A., and Abdelkefi, A. (2024, January 8–12). Dynamics and nonlinear characterization of BARC systems with varying central cut widths. Proceedings of the AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, Orlando, FL, USA.10.2514/6.2024-2442 ↗
34. Review for order reduction based on proper orthogonal decomposition and outlooks of applications in mechanical systems10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.01.018 ↗
35. Paripovic, J., and Mayes, R.L. (2021). Reproducing a component field environment on a six degree of-freedom shaker. Dynamic Substructures, Volume 4: Proceedings of the 38th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Houston, TX, USA, 10–13 February 2020, Springer International Publishing.
36. Integration of system identification and finite element modelling of nonlinear vibrating structures10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.09.031 ↗
37. Avitabile, P. (2018). Modal Testing: A Practitioner’s Guide, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.. [5th ed.]. The Society for Experimental Mechanics.