0
Technical Briefs

Performance Analysis of Finite Element and Energy Based Analytical Methods for Modeling of PCLD Treated Beams

[+] Author and Article Information
Sanjiv Kumar

Deparment of Mechanical Engineering,  B.B.S.B. Engineering College, Fatehgrh Sahib, Punjab, 140407 India e-mail: sanjivsharma2001@yahoo.com

Rajiv Kumar1

Deparment of (I & P) Engineering,NIT, Jalandhar, (Pb), Pin – 144011, India e-mail: rajivsharma1972@yahoo.com; rajivsharma1972@yahoo.com

Rakesh Sehgal

Deparment of Mechanical EngineeringNIT, Hamirpur, (HP) Pin – 177005 India e-mail: rsehgal@nith.ac.in

1

Corresponding author.

J. Vib. Acoust 134(3), 034501 (Apr 24, 2012) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006232 History: Received August 06, 2010; Revised January 21, 2012; Published April 23, 2012; Online April 24, 2012

For active/passive vibration control applications, low order models of flexible structures are always preferable. Mathematical models of passive constrained layer damping (PCLD)/active constrained layer damping (ACLD) treatment generated by energy based analytical methods are of much smaller orders as compared to finite element methods (FEM). Using these analytical methods, one can get rid of complex model reduction techniques, since these model reduction techniques are subjected to errors if applied directly to PCLD or ACLD systems. However, analytical techniques cannot be applied blindly to any PCLD system. There is significant error in loss factor prediction for certain boundary conditions. This error is also dependent on the relative thicknesses of Viscoelastic material layer, constraining layer and base beam. For certain combination of the above thicknesses and under certain boundary conditions, the models generated are useless for controller design purposes. On the other hand, FEM are highly robust and can be applied easily to any set of boundary conditions with guaranteed accuracy. Also, results predicted by this method are of high accuracy for any combinations of thicknesses of different layers. The only disadvantage of this technique is the high order of the developed model. Detailed performance comparison of both the techniques to predict the modal parameters of the PCLD treated beam is presented.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematics and cross-section of beam with PCLD Treatment

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Nodal displacement of a treated beam element

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Percentage errors in loss factors (taking FEM as base) as a function of constraining layer thickness at various thicknesses of VEM layer for simply supported beam

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Percentage errors in natural frequencies (taking FEM as base) as a function of constraining layer thickness at various thicknesses of VEM layer for simply supported beam

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Percentage errors in loss factors (taking FEM as base) as a function of constraining layer thickness at various thicknesses of VEM layer for free-free beam

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Percentage errors in natural frequencies (taking FEM as base) as a function of constraining layer thickness at various thicknesses of VEM layer for free-free beam

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Percentage errors in loss factors (taking FEM as base) as a function of constraining layer thickness at various thicknesses of VEM layer for fixed-fixed beam

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Percentage errors in natural frequencies (taking FEM as base) as a function of constraining layer thickness at various thicknesses of VEM layer for fixed-fixed beam

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Percentage errors in loss factors (taking FEM as base) as a function of constraining layer thickness at various thicknesses of VEM layer for cantilever beam

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Percentage errors in natural frequencies (taking FEM as base) as a function of constraining layer thickness at various thicknesses of VEM layer for cantilever beam

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In