Insights on the Influence of the Central-Cut Width of the Box Assembly with Removable Component on Its Dynamical Responses
Source abstract
Abstract
This investigation focuses on the dynamical effects caused by varying the central-cut width within the Box Assembly with Removable Component (BARC) system. The central-cut widths included in this study are a 0.5″ cut, a 0.25″ cut, a thin 0.1″ cut, and a structure that did not have a cut at all. Finite element analysis was conducted to determine the mode shapes and natural frequencies of each of the BARC structures. Structural dynamics experiments were run to examine the effects of the central-cut width on the dynamical responses and nonlinear characteristics of the BARC system. Free vibration testing with an impact hammer was carried out to excite the system and extract the dominant frequencies and directions of the significant responses. A pseudorandom vibration test that allows for the qualitative determination of any nonlinear behavior within the system was performed. This type of behavior can include nonlinear softening, nonlinear hardening, and the most common, nonlinear damping due to the presence of several bolted-joint connections and the possible activation of geometric and inertia nonlinearities. To quantitatively investigate the impacts of the central-cut width on the dynamics of the system, swept sinusoidal testing was conducted. It is determined that almost all systems with central cuts demonstrate the presence of nonlinear softening, but at times, nonlinear hardening trends are seen, particularly in the 0.1″ cut and no-cut systems when testing harmonically. Each of the central-cut systems displays nonlinear damping, with the amount of damping generally increasing as the central cut decreases in size. The effect of the central cut of the BARC system on the mode-switching ability of the system is negligible; however, mode switching takes place when comparing the central-cut configurations to the no-cut one. These results show the significance of accurately measuring the central-cut width and how geometric uncertainty may change the dynamical responses and nonlinear properties of the system.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Bladed Disk Vibration Dynamics · Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
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
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Schoenherr, T.F. (2019). Designing an Optimized Fixture for the BARC Hardware Using a Parameterized Model (No. SAND2019-12838C), Sandia National Lab (SNL-NM).
2. 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.
3. Musella, U., Blanco, M.A., Mastrodicasa, D., Monco, G., Emilio, D.L., Simone, M., Peeters, B., 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 ↗
4. Rohe, D.P. (2018). Modal Data for the BARC Challenge Problem Test Report (No. SAND-2018-0640R), Sandia National Lab (SNL-NM).10.2172/1418738 ↗
5. Rapid identification of linear and nonlinear systems10.2514/3.4313 ↗
6. Model order reduction for linear and nonlinear systems: A system-theoretic perspective10.1007/s11831-014-9111-2 ↗
7. Nayfeh, A.H., and Mook, D.T. (2008). Nonlinear Oscillations, John Wiley & Sons.
8. Nonlinear damping and quasi-linear modelling10.1098/rsta.2014.0402 ↗
9. 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.
10. Schoenherr, T.F., Clark, B.W., and Coffin, P. (2018). Improve Replication of in-Service Mechanical Environments (No. SAND2018-10187), Sandia National Lab (SNL-NM).10.2172/1493833 ↗
11. Encyclopedia of vibration: Volumes 1, 2, and 310.1115/1.1470670 ↗
12. Keightley, W.O. (1964). Vibration Tests of Structures. [Doctoral Dissertation, California Institute of Technology].
13. 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 ↗
14. He, R. (2015). Airborne Path Frequency Based Substructuring Method and Its Applications. [Master Thesis, University of Kentucky].
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Full-degrees-of-freedom frequency based substructuring10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.04.051 ↗
18. A frequency-based substructuring approach to efficiently model position-dependent dynamics in machine tools
19. Maierhofer, J., Mahmoudi, A.E., and Rixen, D.J. (2020). Development of a low cost automatic modal hammer for applications in substructuring. Dynamic Substructures, Volume 4: Proceedings of the 37th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Orlando, FL, USA, 28–31 January 2019, Springer International Publishing.
20. Wagner, P., Hülsmann, A.P., and Van der Seijs, M. (2020, January 7–9). Application of dynamic substructuring in NVH design of electric drivetrains. Proceedings of the ISMA2020 including USD2020—International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, Leuven, Belgium.
21. General framework for dynamic substructuring: History, review and classification of techniques10.2514/1.33274 ↗
22. Comparison of different approaches to include connection elements into frequency-based substructuring10.1007/s40799-020-00360-1 ↗
23. Introduction of line contact in frequency-based substructuring process using measured rotational degrees of freedom10.1088/1742-6596/1264/1/012025 ↗
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Effects of test fixture connections and interference of the BARC structure on its dynamical responses10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107186 ↗
27. Integration of system identification and finite element modelling of nonlinear vibrating structures10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.09.031 ↗
28. Padilla, C., Flores, A., Granillo, E., Madrid, J., and Abdelkefi, A. (2025). Effects of central cut width on the dynamical characteristics of box assembly structure. Appl. Sci., 15.10.3390/app15010417 ↗
29. 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 ↗
30. Nonlinear modeling of structures with bolted joints: A comparison of two approaches based on a time-domain and frequency-domain solver10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.05.033 ↗
31. Avitabile, P. (2025, February 02). Should I Always Use a Hard Tip for Impact Testing? Modal Analysis-Back to Basics, Experimental Techniques published by Society for Experimental Mechanics. Available online: https://mpihome.com/files/pdf/modal_analysis_pdf/oct98.pdf.
32. Cloutier, D., Avitabile, P., Bono, R., and Peres, M. (2009, January 9–12). Shaker/stinger effects on measured frequency response functions. Proceedings of the 27th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, USA.
33. Model updating in structural dynamics: A survey10.1006/jsvi.1993.1340 ↗
34. De Klerk, D., and Visser, R. (2010, January 20–22). Characterization of measurement errors in experimental frequency based substructuring. Proceedings of the ISMA 2010 Including USD2010, Leuven, Belgium.
35. Allemang, R., and Avitabile, P. (2022). Handbook of Experimental Structural Dynamics, Springer Nature.10.1007/978-1-4614-4547-0 ↗