Modelling Damping in Linear Dynamic Systems: D.J. Rijlaarsdam

Modelling damping in linear dynamic systems
Final Bachelor Project

DCT report number : DCT 2005.39
D.J. Rijlaarsdam
Coach: dr. ir. R.H.B. Fey
21st April 2005
Abstract
Damping is an important issue in modelling dynamic systems. Different models like modal or
proportional damping, Rayleigh damping, viscous damping and structural or hysteresis damping
are available. They each have their specific characteristics. This report compares the above
mentioned models with respect to the response in the time domain as well as in the frequency
domain. This is accomplished by searching for equivalent parameters for the damping constants,
so that the damping levels in the various damping models are more or less comparable. Differences
and similarities between the different damping models are explored. In this report conclusions are
drawn with respect to implementation as well as usage of the different models.
Damping can be velocity and displacement dependent. In case of general viscous damping and
both subtypes of general viscous damping: modal and Rayleigh damping, damping is velocity
dependent. Hysteresis damping on the other hand leads to displacement dependent energy dissipation. The last model is therefore useful in modelling damping in situations where energy
dissipation does not depend on velocity, for example hysteresis.
When viscous dashpots are modelled or present in a dynamic system, general viscous damping
can be used as a damping model. Eigenvalues and eigenmodes of this system will in most cases
be complex if the system is under damped. Although modal and Rayleigh damping are subtypes
of general viscous damping the eigenmodes are real in these cases which means that all DOF pass
through their zero at the same time. Modal damping leads to as many damping coefficients as
there are modes (and DOF), which enables easy tuning of these coefficients to measurements.
Rayleigh damping only offers two damping coefficients which only makes correct tuning of two
modes possible and possibly leads to unrealistic damping levels of the remaining modes.
Hysteresis damping is a useful but complex damping model. Energy dissipation is modelled by
means of a complex stiffness, which leads to displacement dependent damping. Complex stiffness
is no property that can be derived using physical laws. It is only applicable in the frequency
domain, because it leads to non causal behavior in the time domain.
The values calculated in this report, although only valid for the specified reference system and
the specified static displacement field, clearly show the different properties of the four different
damping models. The advantages an disadvantages of the different models are discussed using
these calculations in combination with existing theory.
D.J. Rijlaarsdam, Eindhoven, 21st April 2005
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Theoretical background of damping models
2.1
Undamped systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2
General viscously damped systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1
Interpretation of complex eigenvalues and eigenmodes . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2
Dashpots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Three other methods of modelling damping in linear dynamic systems . . . . . . .
2.3.1
Weakly and proportionally damped systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2
Modal damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
2.3.3
Rayleigh damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
2.3.4
Structural damping or hysteresis damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
2.3
3 The reference system
13
3.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.2
Initial displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.3
Undamped eigenmode and eigenfrequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
3.4
Equivalent damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
4 Modal damping
16
4.1
Free vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
4.2
Forced vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
5 Rayleigh damping
5.1
19
Damping only proportional to the mass matrix ( > 0, = 0) or stiffness matrix

( = 0, > 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
5.2
Damping proportional to both the mass matrix and the stiffness matrix ( > 0, > 0) 21
5.3
Forced vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 Viscous damping
23
24
6.1
Eigenvalues and eigenvectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
6.2
An extreme example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
6.3
Equivalent values for viscous damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.4
The Frequency Response Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
7 Structural damping or hysteresis damping
29
7.1
Fitting first mode resonance peak FRF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
7.2
FRF in case of structural damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
8 Conclusions
32
A Derivations
33
A.1 General formulation of the frequency response matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
B Eigenvalues
34
C Additional figures
36
C.1 Additional figures chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
37
38
41
43
List of symbols
45
References
46
Index
47
List of Tables
5.1
Equivalent values for and in case of k = 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
5.2
20
5.3
Equivalent modal damping value constants for = 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
5.4
Equivalent modal damping value constants for = 0.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
6.1
Calculated viscous damping constants for equivalent damping with = 0.1 . . . . .
26
6.2
Calculated viscous damping constants for equivalent damping with = 0.01 . . . .
26
7.1
29
7.2
29
B.1 Eigenfrequencies undamped system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
B.2 Eigenvalues different damping models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
35
35
List of Figures
1.1
Different damping models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
Comparing generally valid equations and assuming proportional damping . . . . .
10
3.1
The modelled system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.2
Visualisation eigenmodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
4.1
Free respons of the sixth DOF (undamped and modal damping = 0.01) . . . . .
16
4.2
Energy change in case of no damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
4.3
Energy change in case of modal damping = 0.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
4.4
Bodeplot: modal damping = 0.01 versus undamped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
5.1
Free response (Modal damping = 0.01 and equivalent Rayleigh damping) . . . . .
21
5.2
Solutions for and for equivalent damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
5.3
Equivalent modal damping factors as a function of and ( = 0.01) . . . . . . .
22
5.4
Equivalent 1R to 6R as a function of the eigenfrequenties ( = 0.0803 and = 0.0705) 22
5.5
Bodeplot for modal damping ( = 0.01) and equivalent Rayleigh damping . . . . .
23
6.1
Energy change for interconnected DOF, equivalent with modal damping k = 0.01
24
6.2
Example of the FRF when a strong viscous damper has been placed between the
third and fourth DOF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
Free response when a viscous damper has been placed between the third and fourth
DOF (k = 0.01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
FRF when a viscous damper has been placed between the third and fourth DOF
(k = 0.01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
6.3
6.4
7.1
FRF of structural damping compared to the FRF of modal damping = 0.01 ( = 0) 30
7.2
Difference between the FRF in case of modal damping (k = 0.1) structural damping
( = 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
C.1 Calculation of the (6,6)-term of the frequency response matrix with first order
formulation and equation (2.14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
C.2 Free respons of mass six (undamped and modal damping = 0.1) . . . . . . . . . .
37
C.3 Bodeplot: modal damping = 0.1 versus undamped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
C.4 Energy change in case of modal damping = 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
C.5 Free response (Modal damping = 0.1 and equivalent Rayleigh damping) . . . . .
38
C.6 Free response ( = 0 and beta = 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
C.7 Equivalent modal damping factors as a function of and ( = 0.1) . . . . . . . .
39
C.8 Bodeplot for modal damping ( = 0.1) and two kinds of equivalent Rayleigh damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
C.9 Bodeplot for modal damping ( = 0.01) and equivalent Rayleigh damping = 0 en
beta = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
C.10 Energy change for interconnected DOF, equivalent with modal damping k = 0.1 .
41
C.11 FRF when a viscous damper has been placed between the sixth DOF and the solid
world (k = 0.01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
C.12 Free response when a viscous damper has been placed between the sixth DOF and
the solid world (k = 0.01) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
C.13 Energy change for DOF connected to the solid world, equivalent with modal damping = 0.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
C.14 Energy change for DOF connected to the solid world, equivalent with modal damping = 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
C.15 FRF of structural damping compared to the FRF of modal damping = 0.1 ( = 0) 43
Introduction
Over the years modelling the behavior of dynamic systems has become more and more important,
mainly because cost savings when using models instead of numerous prototypes in early stages
of development. In these models damping must be introduced to account for energy dissipation during motion. This energy dissipation may depend on velocity (general viscous damping),
displacement (hysteresis damping) or a combination of both. Many different ways of modelling
damping in (linear) dynamic systems are available these days. However each model possesses
different properties and a thorough knowledge regarding the differences between these models is
necessary in order to correctly choose and use one or more of these models.
The main goal of this report is to elucidate the differences between several damping models. Four
types of models will be treated in this report. After introducing the theoretical background of the
four damping models shown in figure 1.1, in chapter 2, a reference or test system is introduced
in chapter 3 which will be used in the numerical analysis of several damping models which is
discussed in chapter 4 to 7.
Damping models
Displacement dependent
Velocity dependent
General viscous damping
Structural / hysteresis damping
Modal / proportional
damping
Rayleigh damping
Figure 1.1: Different damping models
In chapter 8 these four ways of modelling damping are compared. All comparisons will be made
with respect to two levels of modal damping introduced in chapter 4. As the main references for
this report [De Kraker and Van Campen - 01] and [De Kraker - 04] have been used. Mathematical
derivations which are presented in these references will be referred to rather than repeated in this
report.
Theoretical background of damping models

After a short introduction to undamped systems the general viscous damping model will be introduced. The first order formulation will be derived and explained and an introduction to the
interpretation of complex eigenmodes will be made. Next three other damping models will be
introduced. Modal and Rayleigh damping are forms of general viscous damping where structural
damping is not related to velocity but is displacement dependent.
2.1
Undamped systems
The dynamic behavior of an undamped mechanical system consisting of n degrees of freedom

(DOF) is described by the following equation of motion:
M q(t) + K q (t) = f (t)
(2.1)
where M (n n) is the mass matrix and K (n n) is referred to as the stiffness matrix. The
matrix M is positive definite and K is (semi) positive definite [De Kraker - 04]. When calculating
the eigenvalues (or in this case undamped eigenfrequencies ok ) and undamped eigenmodes of this
undamped system the eigenvalue problem in equation (2.2) is solved.
2
ok
M + K uok = 0
k = 1, 2, ..., n
(2.2)
It becomes clear that solving the eigenvalue problem in equation (2.2) leads to n real eigenfrequencies ok and n eigenmodes uok of the undamped system.
2.2
General viscously damped systems
In case of damped motion the systems dynamics are no longer fully described by equation (2.1),
but an additional damping term should be added. In case of viscous damping the damping is
accounted for by adding a velocity dependent term. However in case of structural damping,
damping is accounted for by means of a complex stiffness (see 2.3.4). The equation of motion
then becomes:
M q(t) + B q(t) + K q (t) = f (t)
(2.3)
The corresponding eigenvalue problem is defined below.

k2 M + k B + K uk = 0
k = 1, 2, ..., n
(2.4)
This quadratic eigenvalue problem can not be solved by conventional eigenvalue solvers. In the
following paragraph therefore a method called first order formulation will be introduced to convert
the quadratic eigenvalue problem in equation (2.4) to a lineair eigenvalue problem that can be
solved by conventional eigenvalue solvers.
First order formulation
The first order formulation as described in [De Kraker - 04], starts by rewriting the system of n
second order, coupled differential equations in (2.3) to a set of 2n first order, coupled differential
equations, see equations (2.5) to (2.7).
C y (t) + D y (t)
= g (t)
(2.5)
where:
C=
B
M
y (t) =
M
0
D=
q (t)
q(t)
g (t) =
K
0
0
M
f (t)
0
(2.6)
(2.7)
Usually equation (2.5) leads to both a right and a left eigenvalue problem. However, the matrices
of the system that will be dealt with in this report are symmetric, which leads to identical solutions
of the left and the right eigenvalue problem. Solving only one of the eigenvalue problems then
suffices. These eigenvalue problems can be formulated as below.
[k C + D] v k
vk =
uk
k uk
k C T + D T w k = 0
wk =
(2.8)
xk
k xk
Where k , v k and wk are the 2n eigenvalues and eigenmodes. With respect to the eigenvectors,
one should realize that only the first n terms give essential information about the vibration. The
last n terms are velocity terms that are directly related to the first n terms by the corresponding
eigenvalue. For more detailed information and proof of the statements above, the reader is referred
to [De Kraker - 04, 1.3].
Normalization of the (complex) eigenmodes is accomplished by dividing each of the components
of the eigenmode by the term of the first n terms of the eigenmode with the largest modulus. As
a result one of the first n components will always be equal to 1.
For the (p, q)-term of the frequency response matrix H() that relates the n physical coordinates
q to the excitations f we can now write:
2n
H p,q () =
k=1
where:
Ak (p, q)
(j k )
(2.9)
uk uTk
(2.10)
c
This relation is derived in appendix A.1. Relation (2.9) is valid for general viscously damped
systems. This equation will be used to calculate frequency response matrices throughout this
report. Still, in some cases, simplifications can be made to this equation. They will be introduced
in 2.3.
Ak =
2.2.1
Interpretation of complex eigenvalues and eigenmodes
The eigenvalue problem defined in equation (2.8) generally leads to 2n complex eigenvalues and
eigenmodes. The imginary and real parts of the eigenvalues (k ) each have a physical meaning.
The arbitrary eigenvalue k is defined as follows:
k = k + jk
(2.11)
The real part of the eigenvalue (k ) now accounts for the rate of convergence to zero (k < 0)
when the system is freely vibrating with damped frequency k rad
sec using eigenmode uk as initial
conditions.
Complex eigenmodes will lead to asynchronic movement of the different DOF. This means that not
all DOF pass though their equilibrium point at the same time as is the case when the eigenmodes
are real.
2.2.2
Dashpots
When a physical dashpot is placed between two DOF or one DOF and the solid world this will
lead to general viscous damping.
In case of a linear viscous dashpot with damping coefficient c
becomes:
fi
fi+1
c c
c c
Ns
m
the element damping matrix
qi
qi+1
(2.12)
A remark is in order here. A higher value of c will damp out the vibration between the two
connected DOF earlier. But the opposite may be true for the vibration of the total structure, if
the dashpot more or less starts to behave as a rigid link.
2.3
Three other methods of modelling damping in linear

dynamic systems
First the terms weakly and proportionally damped will be defined. Further on in this paragraph
a short introduction with respect to different ways of modelling damping in linear dynamic systems will be given. First general viscous damping is further introduced. Then modal damping
and Rayleigh damping are described. Finally structural damping will be introduced and some
simplifications are made to this particular model to make it easier to handle.
2.3.1
Weakly and proportionally damped systems
Under certain conditions equation (2.9) can be simplified, see also chapter 4. In view of these
simplifications the terms proportional damping and weak damping should be well defined.
A thorough definition of these terms is given in [De Kraker and Van Campen - 01, p.228-240]. In
this report weak damping will simply be defined as damping where the damped eigenmodes differ
little from the eigenmodes of the undamped system uk uok . Proportional damping will be
defined as a system where U T B U results in a diagonal matrix leading to uncoupled equations of
motion. Please note that these definitions are not equivalent, as is illustrated by figure 2.1 where
the frequency response matrix has been calculated using (2.9) and using the simplified formulation
of equation (2.14) assuming proportional damping (not weak damping!), which will be introduced
in 2.3.2. All modes of the system are over damped and thus not weakly damped. U T B U ,
however, still results in a diagonal matrix and so the results of both equations are identical.
Modulus of H(6,6)
Equation 2.14, modal or proportional damping
Equation 2.9, general viscous damping
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
0
Angle H(6,6) [ ]

50
100
150
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 2.1: Compared calculations performed with generally valid equations and simplified equations
assuming proportional damping (modal damping k = 1.2).
2.3.2
Modal damping
When applying modal damping or proportional damping, a dimensionless damping factor k is

defined for each mode uok . A particular motion is thus damped, depending on the relative presence
of each of the systems modes (see chapter 3). A diagonal dimensionless damping matrix is then
defined, with diagonal elements k , which satisfies 2 = U0 T B U0 . The eigenmodes in this case
are equal to the eigenmodes uok of the undamped system so I = U T0 M U 0 and 2 = U T0 K U 0 .
Using the definition above a direct relation between the damping matrix BM and the modal
damping matrix can be formulated:
BM = 2U T U 1
(2.13)
This equation is valid for proportionally damped systems and is only approximately valid for
weakly damped systems. In this report two levels of modal damping, k = 0.1 and k = 0.01 are
used as reference levels of damping for the three other damping models.
Furthermore a simplification with respect to equation (2.9) can be made in case of modal damping.
Assuming proportional damping the (p, q)-term of the frequency response matrix can be defined
as:
n
H p,q () =
k=1
uok uok T (p, q)

2 2 + 2j )
mk (ok
k ok
(2.14)
This equation is derived in [De Kraker - 04, 1.3]. A figure showing the similarity between equation
(2.14) and (2.9) is included in appendix C.1 (figure C.1). Note that modal damping or proportional
damping is a special form of general viscous damping.
10
2.3.3
Rayleigh damping
Sometimes damping is assumed to be proportional to the mass and stiffness matrix. This is called
Rayleigh damping. The damping matrix can then be formulated as:
BR = M + K
(2.15)
Because this model only possesses two variables its of little use when tuning of multiple modes
is required. A direct relation between modal and Rayleigh damping can easily be derived when
combining equation (2.13), (2.15) and the basic relations defined in the first alinea of 2.3.2.
1 T
U [M + K] U 1
2
1
1
I 1 +
2
2
(2.16)
(2.17)
Note that Rayleigh damping is a special form of modal damping.
2.3.4
Structural damping or hysteresis damping
Structural damping is used in situations where energy dissipation depends on displacement and
not on velocity. In this case terms as introduced in equation (2.3) will thus have no effect. In
the case of structural damping or hysteresis damping this is accomplished by introducing complex
stiffness. The equation of motion and the eigenvalue problem below describe this model.
M q(t) + K + jHs q(t) = f ejt
2k M + K + jHs
uk = 0
(2.18)
(2.19)
One of the advantages of equation (2.19) is that the eigenvalue is of the form of equation (2.2) and
can thus be solved by conventional eigenvalue solvers. However, calculation of the matrix Hs to
obtain a certain level of damping will be very difficult. This problem originates in te fact that the
eigenmodes uk are necessary to calculate Hs and that Hs is needed to calculate the eigenmodes
on their turn... The structural damping matrix Hs is therefore defined as:
Hs = M + K
(2.20)
In this case the corresponding eigenvalue problem becomes:

2 + j
M +K u = 0
1 + j
(2.21)
Its now possible to define the solutions of this eigenvalue problem as shown below. Furthermore
a so called structural loss factor k is defined, which can be expressed in the parameters , and
ok .
uk = uok
k
k = jok
+ 2
ok
11
1 + jk
(2.22)
(2.23)
These solutions are only valid for proportionally structurally damped systems. For an elaborate
derivation of the equations and solutions in this paragraph, the reader is referred to [De Kraker - 04,
1.4].
Because the only damping parameters used in equation (2.20) to (2.23) are , and known system
parameters this formulation makes it possible to compare structural damping to modal damping.
The equation used to calculate frequency response matrix can again be simplified and is defined
as in (2.24). Again the reader is referred to [De Kraker - 04, 1.4] for more information.
n
H() =
2
mk [ok
k=1
uok uTok
2 ]
2 + jok
k
(2.24)
Because of the non-physical character of this structural damping model it is only applicable in the
frequency domain. In order to compare the motion of a system to the motion obtained when modal
damping is applied, frequent Fourier and inverse Fourier transformation is necessary. Because of
significant disadvantages (signal leakage and aliasing), a more elegant methode is chosen which
will be described in chapter 7. One of the difficulties of structural damping modal is that it results
in non-causal behavior in the time domain. This means that the system responds to forces before
they are actually applied.
12
The reference system

3.1
General
In this report the different damping models are explored and compared by means of a simple
system consisting of six masses of m = 0.5 kg each which are connected by six linear springs with
spring stiffness k = 2 N
m , see figure 3.1.
x1 ,f1
K2 = 2 [N/m]
K1 = 2 [N/m]
x6 ,f6
x2 ,f2
k6 = 2 [N/m]
M2 = 0.5 [kg]
M1 = 0.5 [kg]
M6 = 0.5 [kg]
Figure 3.1: The modelled system

The mass and stiffness matrix are easily determined for this undamped system and result in the
following equation of motion:
M q(t) + Kq (t) = f (t)
(3.1)
Pleas note that on the remaining pages of this report all figures and FRFs presented
resemble the movement or direct transfer function1 of the sixth DOF.
3.2
Initial displacement
In this report a force will only be applied to the sixth DOF. A static initial displacement of 0.1 m
of this DOF is assumed for investigation of the free vibration. To calculate the force necessary to
accomplish a displacement of 0.1 m for the sixth DOF and to calculate the displacements of all
other mass Finite Element Methode (FEM) will be used. A column q containing all displacements
and a column f containing all external forces acting on the system are introduced. After evaluating
force balance in the system it follows that:
Kq = f
1 The
direct transfer function is the response of a DOF related to a force applied on this DOF.
13
(3.2)
After realizing that all terms of f except f 6 are zero and q f = [q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 ] is unknown while
q g = q 6 = 0.1 m the system can be partitioned as below.
Kff

Kfg
qf
| K gf
+
=
| K gg
0.1
fg
0

fg
(3.3)
K gg q g + K f g q f
(3.4)
The force needed to realize the prescribed displacement turns out to be fg = f6 = 0.033 N and
T
T
q g = [q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 ] = [0.017 0.033 0.05 0.067 0.083] .
3.3
Undamped eigenmode and eigenfrequencies
With both the stiffness matrix and mass matrix know, the undamped eigenvalues and undamped
eigenmodes of this system can be calculated as defined in 2.1. The results are shown below.
uT1
uT2
uT3
uT4
uT5
uT6
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
0.1877
0.3646
0.5202
0.6456
0.7335
0.7787
0.5202
0.7787
0.6456
0.1877
0.3646
0.7335
0.4821
1.4184
2.2723
2.9940
3.5418
3.8838
rad
sec =
0.7335
0.5202
0.3646
0.7787
0.1877
0.6456
0.0767
0.2257
0.3616
0.4765
0.5637
0.6181
Hz
0.7787
0.6456 0.3646
0.1877 0.7335 0.6456
0.7335 0.1877 0.7787
0.3646
0.5202
0.7335
0.6456 0.7787 0.5202

0.5202 0.3646
0.1877
(3.5)
(3.6)
The eigenmodes has been normalized with respect to M so that U T M U = I. Each term in each
eigenmode describes the amplitude of DOF concerned. When this is visualized as in figure 3.2
it is clear that the first mode looks much like the initial static displacement found in 3.2. This
statement can also be formulated in a more mathematical way if an arbitrary displacement is
defined as a weighted sum of the eigenmodes.
n
q=
ak uk
(3.7)
k=1
In this case we find that a1 = 0.11 while the sum of all other weight factors is less than 0.02. It
can now be formally stated that the first mode is dominantly present in the chosen initial static
displacementfield. This knowledge will be used in chapter 7, where hysteresis damping is discussed.
The effects of the great resemblance between the first mode and the initial static displacement
field are visible in all bodeplots in this report.
14
Figure 3.2: Visualisation of the eigenmodes
3.4
Equivalent damping
The term equivalent damping will be frequently used when comparing different models. This
means that 90 percent of the systems total energy should have been dissipated within a given
time span. Two levels of modal damping will be used as reference. The time at which 90 percent
of the total energy has been dissipated (t = ) can be formulated as the time when:
1
2 q ( ) M
1
2 q (0) M
q ( )T +
q (0)T +
1
2
1
2
q ( ) K q ( )T
q (0) K q (0)T
= 0.1
(3.8)
where the static displacement field of section 3.2 is taken as q (0) and q(0) = 0. Because q (0)
resembles the first mode very much, not only will both compared models have dissipated an equal
amount of energy at t = but the first peaks in the bodeplot will also look very similar. This
knowledge is used in chapter 7 for calculation equivalent damping in case of structural damping
in the frequency domain. It should be noted that any equivalent damping constant found in this
report is only valid for the given initial conditions q (0) and q(0) = 0.
15
Modal damping
As stated in 2.3.2 modal damping is a damping model where each mode is damped by a dimensionless constant k . Two levels of modal damping (k = 0.01) and (k = 0.1) are used as a
reference for other ways of modelling damping in the next three chapters. In this chapter modal
damping will be introduced.
4.1
Free vibration
Because both damping factors result in an under damped system (k < 1), the systems movement
when released from the initial displacement introduced in 3.2, is expected to be a vibration with
decreasing amplitude. This is shown for k = 0.01 in figure 4.1. A similar figure for k = 0.1 can
be found in appendix C.2 (figure C.2). The -sign indicates the point at which 90 percent of the
total energy has been dissipated (t = ). Calculations show that 90 percent of the total energy
has been dissipated after 0.1 = 22.94 s in case of k = 0.1 and after 0.01 = 224.75 s in case of
k = 0.01.
0.1
Modal or proportional damping = 0.01
Undamped
0.08
0.06
Displacement m [m]
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
50
100
150
200
250
Time [s]
Figure 4.1: Free respons of mass six (undamped and modal damping = 0.01)
The figures below illustrate the change of energy in both the undamped and modally damped
(k = 0.01) case. Any change in the amplitude of the vibration of the sixth DOF in cases of the
16
undamped system, in figure 4.1, originates in energy transfer beween different masses. In figure
4.3 a significant decrease in energy is seen as a result of modal damping. A similar figure for
k = 0.1 is presented in appendix C.2 (figure C.4). This energy decrease has been used and will
be used to formulate a specific time at which the specified amplitude decrease (90 percent) has
been accomplished (0.1 and 0.01 ).
3
1.8
x 10
Potential energy (undamped)

Kinetic energy (undamped)
Total energy (undamped)
1.6
1.4
Energy [J]
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
10
15
20
25
Time [sec]
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 4.2: Energy change in case of no damping
1.8
x 10
Potential energy ( = 0.01)

Kinetic energy ( = 0.01)
Total energy ( = 0.01)
1.6
1.4
Energy [J]
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
50
100
150
200
250
Time [sec]
Figure 4.3: Energy change in case of modal damping = 0.01
17
4.2
Forced vibration
The eigenvalues in case of modal damping with damping level k = 0.1 and k = 0.01 have been
included in appendix B. In the direct FRF of the sixth DOF the resonance peaks also appear at
almost the same frequency as in the undamped case. These resonance and antiresonance peaks
are, however, less high and less steep as is to be expected in a damped system. The FRF for
modal damping in case of k = 0.1 can be found in appendix C.2 (figure C.3).
Modulus of H(6,6)
Undamped
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
200
Angle H(6,6) [ ]

Undamped
100
100
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 4.4: Bodeplot: modal damping = 0.01 versus undamped
18
Rayleigh damping
When the damping matrix is assumed to be proportional to the mass and stiffness matrix, this is
called Rayleigh damping. This damping model has been introduced in 2.3.3. For the calculation
of the damping matrix, equation (2.15) has been formulated. This equation is repeated here for
the readers convenience.
BR = M + K
(5.1)
This chapter will focus on finding values for , that damp the system in such a way that 90
percent of all energy will have dissipated after either 0.1 = 22.94 s or 0.01 = 224.75 s. Please
note that these are the reference times already found for modal damping in 4.1.
First the cases where = 0, > 0 and > 0, = 0 are dealt with. Then combinations of and
will be looked at in more detail1 . Because Rayleigh damping is a special form of modal damping
a closer look will also be taken at the equivalent damping factors resulting from equation (2.17),
which is also repeated here:
R =
1
1
I 1 +
2
2
(5.2)
Finally the FRFs for different forms of Rayleigh damping will be presented and compared with
those resulting from modal damping. The eigenvalues and eigenmodes calculated in chapter 3
remain almost the same (for the evaluated cases of equivalent damping) and can be found in
appendix B.
5.1
Damping only proportional to the mass matrix ( > 0,

= 0) or stiffness matrix ( = 0, > 0)
If damping is only proportional to the mass matrix equation (5.1) and (5.2) simplify because
the last terms of these equations become zero. Calculation of equivalent values for , so that
the system dissipates 90 percent of its energy in respectively 0.1 = 22.94 s or 0.01 = 224.75 s,
seconds have been performed using matlab.
A similar calculation was performed in case of = 0, > 0. The results for equivalent damping
are presented below. The factor 10 which is present in the two considered modal damping levels
k = 0.01 and k = 0.1 dos not stay exactly 10 when comparing the equivalent damping values for
and .
1 Please note that all equivalent constants presented are only equivalent for the free vibration based on the initial
conditions q (0) as defined in 3.2 and q(0) = 0.
e
e
19
k = 0.1
=0
=
=0
X
0.1026
=
0.4145
figure 5.2
Table 5.1: Equivalent values for and in case of k = 0.1

k = 0.01
=0
=
=0
X
0.0103
=
0.0415
figure 5.2

Using equation (5.2) it is now possible to calculate the modal damping factors kR for the different
values of and that are presented in table 5.1 and 5.2. The eigenvalues for the cases presented
in 5.1 and 5.2 can be found in appendix B.
1R
2R
3R
4R
5R
6R
= 0.1026 = 0
0.1064
0.0362
0.0226
0.0171
0.0145
0.0132
= 0 = 0.4145
0.0999
0.2940
0.4709
0.6205
0.7340
0.8049
Table 5.3: Equivalent modal damping value constants for = 0.1
1R
2R
3R
4R
5R
6R
= 0.0103 = 0
0.0106
0.0036
0.0023
0.0017
0.0145
0.0014
= 0 = 0.0415
0.0100
0.0294
0.0471
0.0620
0.0734
0.0805
Table 5.4: Equivalent modal damping value constants for = 0.01

Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show that the equivalent modal damping constant of the first mode is almost
equal to respectively 0.1 and 0.01 while all other equivalent damping constants are significantly
larger or smaller. This is a result of the resemblance between the initial static displacement field
(on which all values are based) and the first mode (see 3.3). The damping factor 1 of the
first mode will therefore dominate the free vibration compared to the dampening factors of the
other modes. When calculating damping factors that result in the same free vibration as modal
damping2 (k = 0.01 or k = 0.01) 1R will thus bo close to respectively 0.01 or 0.1. In case of
= 0 the tables above show that the higher modes are damped stronger than the first mode
while the opposite is true when = 0. This also follows directly from equation (5.2). The next
paragraph shows how the different equivalent modal damping factors behave when and vary.
Figure 5.1 gives a graphical representation of the movement of the sixth mass when two kinds of
Rayleigh damping are applied. The free responses are not exactly the same, but the indicated
2 It should again be noted that all equivalent constants presented are only equivalent for the free vibration based
on the initial conditions q (0) as defined in 3.2 and q(0) = 0.
e
e
20
times when 90 percent of the total energy has been dissipated, are identical. A similar figure in
case of k = 0.1 can be found in appendix C.3 (figure C.5).
0.1
Rayleigh damping = 0.0103, = 0
Rayleigh damping = 0, = 0.0415
0.08
0.06
Displacement m [m]
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
50
100
150
200
250
Time [s]
Figure 5.1: Free response (modal damping = 0.01 and equivalent Rayleigh damping)
5.2
Damping proportional to both the mass matrix and the

stiffness matrix ( > 0, > 0)
In the preceding paragraph a number of calculations were performed to calculate equivalent values
for and for equivalent damping with modal damping with k = 0.1 and k = 0.01. Naturally,
a range of solutions exists when both > 0 and > 0. In figure 5.2 these solutions are shown.
In appendix C.3 (figure C.6) a graph showing the motion of the sixth mass when damped by this
kind of Rayleigh damping has been included to verify these results.
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
[]
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.06
[]
0.08
0.1
0.12
Figure 5.2: Solutions for and for equivalent damping with modal damping ( = 0.1 and = 0.01)
21
An infinite number of combinations of and are thus possible, all producing the desired result.
This should result in an infinite number of corresponding sets of equivalent modal damping factors.
Figure3 5.3 shows how the different equivalent modal damping factors change for different combinations of and . As already noted in the preceding paragraph the effect of stronger damping
of the higher modes when = 0, > 0 and weaker damping of these modes when > 0, = 0
can also be observed here. Another effect is shown by plotting the different equivalent modal
damping factors with respect to the eigenfrequencies corresponding to the different eigenmodes of
the system for combination = 0.0803 and 0.0705. A clear minimum is observed in figure 5.4.
(, ) (equivalent with = 0.01)
0.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
[]
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
[]
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.1
0.12
() (equivalent with = 0.1)

0.5
[]
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
[]
0.08
Figure 5.3: Equivalent modal damping factors as a function of and (equivalent for modal damping
( = 0.01))
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
[]
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Eigenfrequency (ok/2) [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 5.4: Equivalent 1R to 6R as a function of the eigenfrequenties ( = 0.0803 and = 0.0705)

3A
similar figure for the situation where k = 0.1 is included in appendix C.3 (figure C.7).
22
5.3
Forced vibration
The equivalent modal damping factors kR presented in table 5.3 and 5.4 result in a similar free
response as modal damping with respectively k = 0.1 and k = 0.01 does. However all but the
first of the corresponding equivalent modal damping factors, calculated using equation (5.2), differ
significantly from 0.1 and 0.01. Although this results in a similar free response, the FRF is expected
to differ significantly because each mode is now damped in a different amount. Different FRFs
for equivalent Rayleigh damping are presented in figure4 5.5. Although both the combinations
( = 0.0103, = 0) and ( = 0, = 0.0415) both result in 90 percent energy dissipation at
0.01 = 224.75 s they result in different modal dampening factors kR and thus in different FRFs.
Modulus of H(6,6)
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10

10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Phase H(6,6)
Angle H(6,6) [ ]
0
50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 5.5: Bodeplot for modal damping ( = 0.01) and equivalent Rayleigh damping
4 Two
other bodeplots for k = 0.1 are included in appendix C.3 (figure C.8 and C.9).
23
Viscous damping
General viscous damping is obtained when using dashpot elements. As described in 2.2.2 the
damping matrix is easily constructed, but for some system configurations it appeares to be impossible to place a damper strong enough to dissipate enough energy within the specified time
spans.
The following example illustrates this. Viscous dampers are placed between different two DOF (not
the solid world). Its now possible to compute the total energy of the system at 0.01 = 224.75 s
as a function of the viscous damping constant c. Figure 6.1 it shows that for four out of the five
possible locations, it is possible to define a viscous damping constant that leads to a 90 percent
decrease in energy at time 0.01 = 224.75 s. However, if the damper is placed between the fifth
and sixth DOF, the total energy reaches a minimum of about 32 percent around c = 4 Nms and then
starts to increase, because the effect of linking the two mass starts to dominate the dissipation
capacity of the damper. Increasing the damping constant wil now only lead to more synchronic
movement of the fifth and sixth DOF. An extreme example of this effect is given in 6.2. More
energy graphs are included in appendix C.4 (figure C.10, C.13 and C.14). These support the
equivalent viscous damping constants presented in this chapter but are excluded from this text to
increase readability of this report.
1
Dashpot interconnecting m1 and m2 (eq. = 0.01)
Dashpot interconnecting m and m (eq. = 0.01)
2
3
4
5
0.9
0.8
0.7
Etotal / E0 []
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
3
c [Ns/m]
Figure 6.1: Energy change at 0.01 = 224.75 s (equivalent with modal damping k = 0.01) as a
function of the viscous damping constant c for interconnected DOF.
24
6.1
Eigenvalues and eigenvectors
In case of modal and Rayleigh damping it has been observed that the eigenvalues and eigenvectors
did not significantly change with respect to the undamped eigenvectors and eigenvalues (for eigenvalues see appendix B). Moreover all the eigenvectors were found to be the real eigenvectors of
the undamped system, which means that all DOF pass through zero at the same time. In general
viscously damped systems the eigenvectors will, however, be complex, and the different DOF will
not pass through zero at the same time. The interpretation of the eigenvectors is much more
difficult in these cases, because we now have include the phase difference as well as the amplitude
in the interpretation.
6.2
An extreme example
An (almost) infinitely strong damper placed between the third and fourth DOF gives a clear
illustration of the effect described in the introduction of this chapter. In this case the FRF is
given by figure 6.2 and only five resonance peaks are found instead of the former six.
Modulus of H(6,6)
Dashpot interconnecting m3 and m4 (semi rigid link)
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
0
Angle H(6,6) [ ]
Dashpot interconnecting m3 and m4 (semi rigid link)

50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 6.2: Example of the FRF when a strong viscous damper has been placed between the third
and fourth DOF.
The complex eigenvalues offer an explanation in this case. Close examination of the eigenvalues
shows that the complex part (responsible for the vibration frequency) of 7,8 and 9,10 are almost
the same. In the FRF they will show up as one peak. One should however realize that no matter
how few peak show up in the FRF there will always be 2n = 12 distinct complex conjugated
eigenvalues and eigenmodes .
25
1,2
3,4
5,6
7,8
9,10
11,12
6.3
=
=
=
=
0.0048 0.4828i
0.0596 1.4394i
0.0358 2.2990i
0.9456 3.2767i
(6.1)
(6.2)
(6.3)
(6.4)
= 0.1873 3.2909i
= 0.0127 3.5599i
(6.5)
(6.6)
Equivalent values for viscous damping
Equivalent dashpot damping, with respect to modal damping levels k = 0.01 and k = 0.1 from
chapter 4 can now be further investigated. The energy graphs presented at the beginning of this
chapter show that only a limited number of optional locations exist to place a viscous damper. In
table 6.1 and 6.2 the result of the performed calculations are presented1 . The eigenvalues for a
number of situations presented in table 6.1 and 6.2 can be found in appendix B.
Table 6.1: Calculated viscous damping constants for equivalent damping with = 0.1
Location viscous damper
Calculated viscous damping constants [N s/m]
Between DOF 1 and 2
Impossible
Between DOF 2 and 3
Impossible
Between DOF 3 and 4
Impossible
Between DOF 4 and 5
Impossible
Between DOF 5 and 6
Impossible
Between DOF 1 and solid world
Impossible
0.7469
0.3795
0.3816
0.2621
0.1741
Table 6.2: Calculated viscous damping constants for equivalent damping with = 0.01
Location viscous damper
Calculated viscous damping constants [N s/m]
Between DOF 1 and 2
0.3131
Between DOF 2 and 3
0.4376
Between DOF 3 and 4
0.6229
Between DOF 4 and 5
1.3732
Between DOF 5 and 6
Impossible
0.2740
0.0746
0.0381
0.0363
0.0262
0.0177
1 The
values correspond to the previously defined initial excitation an are only valid for this specific initial
conditions q (0) (static displacement field) and q(0) = 0.
e
e
26
Checking the results that are presented in the tables above, one should realize that k is in the
order of 2ckm = 2c , which corresponds to the values that are presented here. Another important
conclusion that should be drawn from table 6.1 and 6.2, is that the equivalent damping constant
increases when we interconnect two DOF further from the solid world and that the calculated values
decrease when we connect a DOF further from the solid world to the solid world. Dampers between
two DOF further in the chain cannot influence the motion of the system as good as dampers placed
closer to the solid world. This is why higher viscous damper constants are necessary to accomplish
equivalent damping. An example of the free vibration2 of the sixth DOF when a viscous dashpot
is placed between the third and fourth DOF is given in figure 6.3 (third case in table 6.2).
0.1
Dashpot between m3 and m4 (eq. = 0.01)
0.08
0.06
Displacement m [m]
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
50
100
150
200
250
Time [sec]
Figure 6.3: Free response when a viscous damper has been placed between the third and fourth
DOF (equivalent with modal damping k = 0.01)
.
6.4
The Frequency Response Function
The FRF in figure 6.4 refers to the case where a dashpot with c = 0.6229 Nms (equivalent damping
k = 0.01) has been placed between the third and fourth DOF. Another FRF for one of the cases
presented in table 6.1 and 6.2 is presented in appendix C.4 (figure C.11).
2A
similar graph for equivalent damping in case of k = 0.1 is included in appendix C.4 (figure C.12)
27
Modulus of H(6,6)
3
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
0
o
Angle H(6,6) [ ]
50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 6.4: FRF when a viscous damper has been placed between the third and fourth DOF
(equivalent with modal damping k = 0.01).
28
Structural damping or hysteresis damping

As already stated in 2.3.4, in case of structural damping, energy dissipation is not modelled by a
damping matrix, but by means of complex stiffness. The energy dissipation is no longer dependent
on velocity. Complex stiffness is no property that can be derived using physical laws. It can only
be applied in the frequency domain, because it leads to non causal behavior in the time domain,
which means that the system responds to forces before they are actually applied. This is simply
stated here as a property of structural damping. In this report no further attention will be given
to the concept of non-causal behavior.
7.1
Fitting first mode resonance peak FRF
Because structural damping is applied in the frequency domain, frequent Fourier and inverse
Fourier transformation would be necessary to find the appropriate hysteretic damping constants
( and , see 2.3.4) for equivalent damping. In case of the particular system and the free vibration
introduced in chapter 3, it has been shown that the first mode shows a close resemblance to the
initial static displacement field. In the former chapters it has been observed that equivalent
damping more or less leads to equality of the first resonance peak (see FRFs plotted). This
knowledge can now be used to find equivalent damping factors in case of structural damping.
Instead of calculating the total energy as a function of time, the peak of the FRF in case of
structural damping is fitted to the first peak of the FRF in case of modal damping. The calculated
values are presented in table 7.1 and 7.2.
k = 0.1
=0
=
=0
X
0.0460
=
0.1992
X

k = 0.01
=0
=
=0
X
0.0046
=
0.0199
X

The factor 10 which is present in the two considered modal damping levels k = 0.01 and k =
0.1 dos not stay exactly 10 when comparing the equivalent damping values for and .. The
eigenvalues in case of the situations presented in table 7.1 and 7.2 can be found in appendix B.
Its striking that the values of seem almost twice the values of k if = 0. This phenomenon
29
can be explained by comparing equation (2.14) and (2.24) using equation (2.23), repeated below.
Note that only the Rayleigh variant of hysteresis damping is considered where Hs = M + K.
n
H p,q () =
uok uok T (p, q)
2
mk (ok
k=1
n
H() =
2
mk [ok
k=1
k = +
(7.1)
2 + 2jk ok )
uok uTok
2 ]
2 + jok
k
(7.2)
2
ok
(7.3)
If = 0 and > 0 the relation between and k follows from comparing of the last terms in the
denominator of equation (7.1) and (7.2).
=0
= 2k ok
(7.4)
This proces is repeated for the case where = 0 and > 0.

=0
= 2k
ok
(7.5)
In case of equation (7.4) it is clear that higher modes will be less damped than lower modes (see
next paragraph). In case of equation (7.5) ( = 0) for equivalent damping one should expect
to be equal to 2k when the system is vibrating in eigenmode uok with the undamped frequency
ok . This is indeed approximately the case if when the system is vibrating freely with the static
displacement field q (0) defined in 3.2 and q(0) = 0, as initial conditions. These effects also
influences the FRFs in both cases = 0 and = 0. This will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Next to that the first peaks show great resemblance due to the applied fitting procedure.
7.2
FRF in case of structural damping
When looking at the FRF in case of = 0 and = 0.0046 (figure 7.1)1 its observed that the
higher modes are clearly less damped than the lower modes because k = 2
.
ok
Modulus of H(6,6)
Structural or hysteresis damping = 0
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
0
Angle H(6,6) [ ]

50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 7.1: FRF of structural damping compared to the FRF of modal damping = 0.01 (fitting first
resonance peak) = 0.00460 en = 0
1A
similar figure for k = 0.1 can be found in appendix C.5 (figure C.15)
30
If = 0.01992 and = 0 the FRFs of modal and structural damping seem to be the same over
the whole frequency range. Equation (7.5), however, shows that this would only exactly be the
case when ( = ok ). As shown below2 both FRFs are not exactly the same and a clear drop in
error is observed when approaching = ok .
Modulus of H(6,6)
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Error [m/N]
10
10
0.8
Figure 7.2: Difference between the FRF in case of modal damping (k = 0.1) structural damping ( = 0)
2 Although modal damping with = 0.01 had been used as reference throughout this report an exception has
k
been made in case of the FRF in figure 7.2 because the described effects are much better shown in case of k = 0.1
than in case of k = 0.01.
31
Conclusions
In this report four different damping models for dynamic systems have been presented. The models
compared are general viscous damping, modal or proportional damping, Rayleigh damping and
structural or hysteresis damping. Each of the models possesses different properties and has its
advantages and disadvantages. The first three models are velocity dependent whereas the latter
model is displacement dependent.
General viscous damping occurs in systems where discrete dashpots are applied. Eigenmodes will
generally be complex, which means that not each DOF passes through its zero at the same time.
This makes interpretation of these complex eigenmodes more difficult than for real eigenmodes.
In case of modal damping each eigenmode is damped separately. This means that there are as many
damping coefficients as there are modes, which enables easy tuning of these coefficients with respect
to measurements. The eigenmodes of modally damped systems are real (after normalization) which
means that all DOF pass through their zeros at the same time. Modal damping is a subclass of
general viscous damping.
Rayleigh damping leads to a damping matrix proportional to the mass and stiffness matrix. Only
two tuning parameters are available. Consequently the damping levels of only two modes can be
tuned independently, which may lead to unrealistic damping levels for the other modes. Rayleigh
damping is a subclass of modal damping. The eigenmodes remain real.
For systems in which displacement dependent energy dissipation takes place structural or hysteresis
damping can be applied. In this case energy dissipation is modelled by a complex stiffness. This
kind of damping is only applied in the frequency domain because it leads to non-causal behavior
in the time domain. As may be expected, the eigenmodes in case of structural damping will be
complex.
In this report the free and forced vibrations of a specific structure have been studied for the
several damping models. Two modal damping levels have been taken as a reference and equivalent
damping values have been obtained for the other damping models based on the free vibration
behavior. These values are however only valid for this specific structure and the initial conditions
used. The advantages an disadvantages of the different models have been discussed using these
calculations in combination with existing theory.
32
Derivations
A.1
General formulation of the frequency response matrix
In case of a symmetrical system the matrix C (see 2.2) can be written as (bi-orthogonality
property):
C = W T C V = V T C V
(A.1)
The matrix H 2n will be 2n 2n is this case. However only the first n terms of the (complex)
eigenvector posses essential information about the vibration of the system. From this it can be
concluded that only the first n n terms of this matrix are necessary to describe the relation
between the physical coordinates q and the excitation f . For the frequency response matrix we
can now write:
2n
H() =
k=1
uk xTk
ck (j k )
(A.2)
Again regarding the symmetry which leads to identical solutions for the left and right eigenvalue
problem it follows that uk = xk and the (p, q)-term of H is defined by equation (A.3). For a more
extensive derivation of this relation the reader is referred to [De Kraker - 04, p. 24].
2n
H p,q () =
k=1
uk uTk (p, q)
=
ck (j k )
33
2n
k=1
Ak (p, q)
(j k )
(A.3)
Eigenvalues
Table B.1: Eigenfrequencies undamped system

Eigenfrequency rad
sec
1
0.4821
2
1.4184
3
2.2723
4
2.9940
5
3.5418
6
3.8838
34
A Modal damping: k = 0.01

B Modal damping: k = 0.1
C Rayleigh damping: = 0.0103, = 0, equivalent with = 0.01
D Rayleigh damping: = 0.1026, = 0, equivalent with = 0.1
E Rayleigh damping: = 0, = 0.0415, equivalent with = 0.01
F Rayleigh damping: = 0, = 0.4145, equivalent with = 0.1
G General viscous damping: Viscous damper between m6 and world, c = 0.0177, equivalent with
k = 0.01
H General viscous damping: Viscous damper between m6 and world, c = 0.1741, equivalent with
k = 0.1
I Hysteresis damping: = 0, = 0.0046, equivalent with = 0.01
J Hysteresis damping: = 0, = 0.0460, equivalent with = 0.1
K Hysteresis damping: = 0.0199, = 0, equivalent with = 0.01
L Hysteresis damping: = 0.1992, = 0, equivalent with = 0.1
1,2
3,4
5,6
7,8
9,10
11,12
A
0.0048
0.0142
0.0227
0.0299
0.0354
0.0388
Table B.2: Eigenvalues different damping models

B
C
0.4821i 0.0482 0.4797i 0.0051 0.4821i
1.4183i 0.1418 1.4113i 0.0051 0.4184i
2.2721i 0.2272 2.2609i 0.0051 2.2723i
2.9939i 0.2994 2.9790i 0.0051 2.9940i
3.5416i 0.3542 3.5241i 0.0051 3.5418i
3.8836i 0.3884 3.8643i 0.0051 3.8838i
0.0513
0.0513
0.0513
0.0513
0.0513
0.0513
0.4794i
1.4175i
2.2717i
2.9936i
3.5415i
3.8834i
1,2
3,4
5,6
7,8
9,10
11,12
Table B.3: Eigenvalues different damping models

E
F
G
0.0048 0.4821i 0.0482 0.4797i 0.0054 0.4821i
0.0412 1.4178i 0.4170 1.3558i 0.0048 1.4184i
0.1070 2.2697i 1.0700 2.0045i 0.0037 2.2722i
0.1858 2.9883i 1.8578 2.3480i 0.0024 2.9940i
0.2600 3.5323i 2.5998 2.4053i 0.0012 3.5418i
0.3126 3.8712 3.1260 2.3047i 0.0003 3.8838i
0.0532
0.0470
0.0362
0.0233
0.0114
0.0030
0.4811i
1.4158i
2.2691i
2.9913i
3.5403i
3.8833i
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table B.4: Eigenvalues different damping

I
J
K
0 + 0.4869i 0 + 0.5280i 0 + 0.4833i
0 + 1.4325i 0 + 1.5533i 0 + 1.4217i
0 + 2.2948i 0 + 2.4883i 0 + 2.2775i
0 + 3.0237i 0 + 3.2787i 0 + 3.0009i
0 + 3.5769i 0 + 3.8786i 0 + 3.5500i
0 + 3.9223i 0 + 4.2530i 0 + 3.8927i
35
models
L
0 + 0.4931i
0 + 1.4507i
0 + 2.3240i
0 + 3.0622i
0 + 3.6224i
0 + 3.9721i
Additional figures
C.1
Additional figures chapter 2

Modulus of H(6,6)
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
0
Angle H(6,6) [ ]

50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure C.1: Calculation of the (6,6)-term of the frequency response matrix with first order formulation
and equation (2.14) (modal damping, = 0.01).
36

0.1
Undamped
0.08
0.06
0.02
Displacement m [m]
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
10
15
20
25
Time [s]
30
35
40
45
50
Figure C.2: Free respons of mass six (undamped and modal damping = 0.1)
Modulus of H(6,6)
Undamped
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
200
Undamped
o
Angle H(6,6) [ ]
C.2
100
100
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure C.3: Bodeplot: modal damping = 0.1 versus undamped
37
1.8
x 10
Potential energy ( = 0.1)

Kinetic energy ( = 0.1)
Total energy ( = 0.1)
1.6
1.4
Energy [J]
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
10
15
20
25
Time [sec]
30
35
40
45
50
Figure C.4: Energy change in case of modal damping = 0.1

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
6
Displacement m [m]
C.3
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
10
15
20
25
Time [s]
30
35
40
45
50
Figure C.5: Free response (Modal damping = 0.1 and equivalent Rayleigh damping)
38
0.1
Rayleigh damping = 0.0685, = 0.1202
0.08
0.06
Displacement m [m]
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
10
15
20
25
Time [s]
30
35
40
45
50
Figure C.6: Free response (modal damping with = 0.01 and equivalent Rayleigh damping ( = 0 and
beta = 0 ))
(, ) (equivalent with = 0.1)

1
1
2
3
4
5
[]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
[]
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.08
0.1
0.12
() (equivalent with = 0.1)

0.5
[]
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
[]
Figure C.7: Equivalent modal damping factors as a function of and (equivalent with modal damping
( = 0.1))
39
Modulus of H(6,6)
10

|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Phase H(6,6)
50
Angle H(6,6) [ ]
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure C.8: Bodeplot for modal damping ( = 0.1) and two kinds of equivalent Rayleigh damping
Modulus of H(6,6)
10

|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Phase H(6,6)
0
Angle H(6,6) [ ]

50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure C.9: Bodeplot for modal damping ( = 0.1) and equivalent Rayleigh damping = 0 en beta = 0
40
C.4

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Etotal / E0 []
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
8
c [Ns/m]
10
12
14
16
Figure C.10: Energy change at 0.1 = 22.94 s (equivalent with modal damping k = 0.1) as a
function of the viscous damping constant c for interconnected DOF.
Modulus of H(6,6)
Dashpot interconnecting m6 and world (eq. = 0.1)
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
100
Angle H(6,6) [ ]
50
0
50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure C.11: FRF when a viscous damper has been placed between the sixth DOF and the solid
world (equivalent with modal damping k = 0.1).
41
0.1
Dashpot interconnecting m and world (eq. = 0.1)
6
0.08
0.06
Displacement m [m]
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
10
15
20
25
Time [sec]
30
35
40
45
50
Figure C.12: Free response when a viscous damper has been placed between the sixth DOF and
the solid world (equivalent with modal damping k = 0.1).
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Etotal / E0 []
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
c [Ns/m]
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Figure C.13: Energy change at 0.01 = 224.75 s (equivalent with modal damping = 0.01) as a
function of the viscous damping constant c for DOF connected to the solid world.
42
1
2
4
Dashpot interconnecting m6 and world (eq. = .01)
0.9
0.8
0.7
Etotal / E0 []
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
3
c [Ns/m]
Figure C.14: Energy change at 0.1 = 22.94 s (equivalent with modal damping = 0.1) as a
function of the viscous damping constant c for DOF connected to the solid world.
C.5

Modulus of H(6,6)
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
0
Angle H(6,6) [ ]

50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure C.15: FRF of structural damping compared to the FRF of modal damping = 0.1 (fitting first
resonance peak) = 0.04602 en = 0
43
Modulus of H(6,6)
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
0
Angle H(6,6) [ ]

50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
resonance peak) = 0 en = 0.01992
Modulus of H(6,6)
|H(6,6)| [m/N]
10
10
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Phase H(6,6)
0
Angle H(6,6) [ ]

50
100
150
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency [Hz]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
resonance peak) = 0 en = 0.19922
44
List of symbols
Symbol
B
c
f
m
n
k
u
U
v
w
q (0)
Unit
rad
sec
rad
sec
rad
sec
sec
Ns
m
Hz
kg
N
m
Description
damping constant for Rayleigh damping
damping constant for Rayleigh damping
damping constant for structural damping
structural loss factor
damping constant for structural damping
eigenvalue
real part of the eigenvalue
frequency
undamped eigenfrequency
matrix of eigenfrequencies
specific damping times
modal damping factor
matrix of modal damping factors
damping matrix
viscous damping constant
frequency
mass
number of DOF
stiffness
eigenmode
matrix of eigenmodes
eigenmode
eigenmode
initial displacement
45
Bibliography
[De Kraker - 04] B. de Kraker (2004)
A Numerica-Experimental Approach in Structural Dynamics Eindhoven Technological University, The Netherlands
[De Kraker and Van Campen - 01] B. de Kraker and D.H. van Campen (2001)
Mechanical Vibrations Shaker Publishing BV, The Netherlands
ISBN 90-423-0165-1
46
Index
complex stiffness, 11
damping
proportional, 9
weak, 9
eigenfrequencies
undamped, 14
eigenmodes
interpretation, 9
eigenvalue problem
damped systems, 7
left, 8
right, 8
undamped systems, 7
energy change, 16
equivalent
modal damping factors, 20
values for and , 19
equivalent damping
definition, 15
first order formulation, 8
eigenvalue problem, 8
fitting peak FRF, 29
frequency response function
modal damping, 18
Rayleigh damping, 23
structural damping, 30
viscous damping, 27
frequency response matrix
derivation general formulation, 33
general formulation, 8
hysteresis damping, 29
initial displacement, 13
mass matrix, 7
modal damping, 10, 16
free vibration, 16
Rayleigh damping, 11, 19
proportional to mass and stiffness matrix, 21
roportional to mass or stiffness matrix,
19
reference system, 13
stiffness matrix, 7
structural damping, 11, 29
undamped mechanical system, 7
viscous damping, 9, 24
eigenwaarden and eigenmodes, 25
47

Modelling Damping in Linear Dynamic Systems: D.J. Rijlaarsdam

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Modelling Damping in Linear Dynamic Systems: D.J. Rijlaarsdam

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Modelling damping in linear dynamic systems

Final Bachelor Project

2 Theoretical background of damping models

General viscously damped systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interpretation of complex eigenvalues and eigenmodes . . . . . . . . . . . .

Three other methods of modelling damping in linear dynamic systems . . . . . . .

Weakly and proportionally damped systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Structural damping or hysteresis damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 The reference system

Undamped eigenmode and eigenfrequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Damping only proportional to the mass matrix ( > 0, = 0) or stiffness matrix

Eigenvalues and eigenvectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equivalent values for viscous damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Frequency Response Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 Structural damping or hysteresis damping

Fitting first mode resonance peak FRF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FRF in case of structural damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.1 General formulation of the frequency response matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.1 Additional figures chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.2 Additional figures chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.3 Additional figures chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.4 Additional figures chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.5 Additional figures chapter 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equivalent values for and in case of k = 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equivalent values for and in case of k = 0.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equivalent modal damping value constants for = 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equivalent modal damping value constants for = 0.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calculated viscous damping constants for equivalent damping with = 0.1 . . . . .

Calculated viscous damping constants for equivalent damping with = 0.01 . . . .

Equivalent values for and in case of k = 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equivalent values for and in case of k = 0.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B.1 Eigenfrequencies undamped system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B.2 Eigenvalues different damping models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B.3 Eigenvalues different damping models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B.4 Eigenvalues different damping models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Different damping models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparing generally valid equations and assuming proportional damping . . . . .

The modelled system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Energy change in case of no damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Energy change in case of modal damping = 0.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bodeplot: modal damping = 0.01 versus undamped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Free response (Modal damping = 0.01 and equivalent Rayleigh damping) . . . . .

Solutions for and for equivalent damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equivalent modal damping factors as a function of and ( = 0.01) . . . . . . .

Equivalent 1R to 6R as a function of the eigenfrequenties ( = 0.0803 and = 0.0705) 22

Bodeplot for modal damping ( = 0.01) and equivalent Rayleigh damping . . . . .

FRF of structural damping compared to the FRF of modal damping = 0.01 ( = 0) 30

C.3 Bodeplot: modal damping = 0.1 versus undamped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.4 Energy change in case of modal damping = 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.6 Free response ( = 0 and beta = 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C.7 Equivalent modal damping factors as a function of and ( = 0.1) . . . . . . . .

General viscous damping

Structural / hysteresis damping

Figure 1.1: Different damping models

Theoretical background of damping models

The dynamic behavior of an undamped mechanical system consisting of n degrees of freedom

General viscously damped systems

The corresponding eigenvalue problem is defined below.

Interpretation of complex eigenvalues and eigenmodes

the element damping matrix

Three other methods of modelling damping in linear

Weakly and proportionally damped systems