Proceedings of the IMAC-XXVII February 9-12, 2009 Orlando, Florida USA 2009 Society for Experimental Mechanics Inc.

Experimental evaluation of the damping properties of beams and thin-walled structures made of polymeric materials

Giuseppe Catania, Silvio Sorrentino DIEM, Department of Mechanics, University of Bologna, Viale del Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy
ABSTRACT In the field of structural vibrations, an appropriate rheological model should be accurate in fitting the experimental data on a wide interval of frequencies by means of a minimum number of parameters and, in particular, it should be able to reproduce the experimentally found behavior of the damping ratio n as a function of the natural angular frequency n. In this study a non-integer order differential linear rheological model is considered, discussing its effectiveness in solving the above mentioned problem. This model, refferred to as the Fractional Double Kelvin model, combines the properties of both the Fractional Kelvin and Fractional Zener models, which are considered to be very effective in describing the viscoelastic dynamic behavior of mechanical structures made of polymers. An identification method of general validity for viscoelastic models is adopted, based on the concept of equivalent damping ratio and on the circle-fit technique. It is applied to the analysis of vibrating beams and plates of different sizes, made of polymeric materials such as Polyethylene, Polyvinyl-chloride and Delrin. Nomenclature b C E E0 h L n Q s W, w 1 Introduction When dealing with structural dynamic problems, it would be useful to obtain a viscoelastic model identification from vibration measurement data only. In this case, however, the direct identification of an optimal set of parameters from time or frequency domain measurements is a difficult task, especially if the structural dissipative contributions are slight. In this paper, an indirect approach is adopted, based on the concept of damping ratio n, focusing the attention on the behavior of n as a function of the modal frequency n. As is well known, a modal parameter n can be analytically defined and experimentally estimated by considering a linear viscous dissipative model (based on a single Newton element). However this theoretical parameter shows a dependency on the modal frequency that in most cases dramatically fails in fitting the experimental data. On the contrary, it was shown that a better agreement between theory and experiments can be achieved by means of non-integer order differential models, obtained by replacing the first derivative (Newton element) with a fractional derivative (Scott-Blair element) [1]. Extensive literature exists on the application of fractional calculus to viscoelasticity, since it yields to physically consistent stress-strain constitutive relations with a few parameters, width of a beam or a plate damping coefficient complex Youngs modulus static Youngs modulus thickness of a beam or a plate length of a beam or a plate modal index modal coordinate Laplace variable displacement

x, x

spatial coordinate fractional derivative order angle strain Poissons ratio density time angular frequency modal natural frequency modal damping factor

good curve fitting properties and causal behavior [2-3-4]. In particular, regarding the n = n(n) behavior, it was experimentally observed that it may not be monotonic, and consequently the Single Kelvin and Zener models (either integer or fractional order) may in some cases not be suitable for fitting the experimental data [5]. In this paper a more refined rheological model is thus considered, referred to as the Fractional Double Kelvin model, applied to the analysis of vibrating beams and plates of different sizes, made of polymeric materials such as Polyethylene, Polyvinyl-chloride and Delrin. Structural damping laws are not included in the analysis, since they may lead to non-causal behavior. Since in the case of fractional derivative models analytical expressions for n are usually difficult to find, a method of general validity for viscoelastic models was developed, introducing the concept of equivalent damping ratio applied to the circle-fit technique [6]. This identification method is based on the assumption that the Nyquist plot of the mobility for any mode n can be approximated by a circumference, which is still acceptable when considering fractional derivative models [7-8-9]. 2 Linear viscoelastic model and identification technique According to the circle-fit technique [6], the circular Nyquist plot of the Mobility for each vibration mode allows the experimental estimate of the related modal damping (Fig.1). As a consequence, the modal damping ratio n for the classical Integer Single Kelvin model can be evaluated by means of the expression:

n =

2 2 1 2 1 2 n 2 tan( 2 ) + 1 tan( 1 )

(1)

where n is the natural angular frequency and the other symbols refer to Fig.1.

1 Im

x 10

-3

n
1 2 2 r n
Imaginary [Mobility]

-2

-4

Re

-6

-8

-10 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 x 10
-3

Real [Mobility]

Fig. 1 Nyquist plot of Mobility. General scheme for mode n (left) and experimental plots (right) [5]. The experimental estimates of n as a function of the natural frequency n usually show a behavior which is very far from the straight increasing line passing through the origin predicted by the Integer Single Kelvin model [8-9]. As a consequence, in order to fit such experimental curves, more refined models are needed. In the present study the Fractional Double Kelvin model is adopted, which can be considered as a generalization of both the Single Kelvin and the Zener models. Its analogical representation is shown in Fig.2, and its analytical expression in the frequency domain is given by:
2 E1 + C1(i)1 E2 + C2 (i) E ( ) = E1 + E2 + C1(i)1 + C2 (i)2

(2)

where 1 and 2 are non-integer or fractional derivative orders (values between 0 and 1).

Expression 2 can be rewritten highlighting the static Youngs modulus E0 as well as the characteristic times (related to the creep behavior) and (related to the relaxation behavior), according to the definitions reported in Tab.1:

1 + (i 1)1 1 + (i 2 ) 2 = E N () E ( ) = E0 0 1 2 D() 1 + (i 1) + (i 2 ) which for 1 = 2 = reduces to:

1 + (i 1 ) 1 + (i 2 ) E ( ) = E0 1 + (i )

(3)

(4)

The relations among the viscoelastic parameters in the Fractional Double Kelvin model, as well as in the Fractional Single Kelvin and Zener models, are reported in Tab.1. Clearly for = 1 these fractional models correspond to the more conventional integer order ones.
Table 1: Parameter relations for the viscoelastic models.

Model
Single Kelvin
C2 = 0, E2 =

E0 E1 E1E2 E1 + E2 E1E2 E1 + E2

1
C1 E1 C1 E1 C1 E1

2
2

1
1

2
2

0 0
C2 E2

0
C1 E1 + E2 C1 + C2 E1 + E2

0
C1 E1 + E2 C1 E1 + E2

0 0
C2 E1 + E2

Zener
C2 = 0

Double Kelvin

E1 C1

E2 C2

Fig. 2 Viscoelastic Double Kelvin analogic model. At this stage a definition of general validity is needed for n, in order to create a link between the experimental damping estimates of Eq.1 and the viscoelastic parameters reported in Tab.1. For this purpose let us consider, for example, a homogeneous Kirchhoff plate. Its (homogeneous) equilibrium equation in the Laplace domain can be written as:

h s 2w ( x, s ) +

Eh3 4 4 4 4w ( x, s ) = 0, 4 () = 4 () + 2 2 2 () + 4 () 2 x x y y 12(1 )

(5)

where x denotes the spatial coordinates, h the mass per unit area of the plate and the Poissons ratio [10].

The expression of the Youngs modulus for the Fractional Double Kelvin model (Eq.3) can be rewritten in the Laplace domain, and then introduced in Eq.5 in place of E. Multiplying both sides of Eq.5 for D(s) (Eq.3) yields:
+ 4 0 + + + 1 h s 2 1s 2s 1 2 s w ( x, s ) = 0 s + s + 1 w ( x, s ) + 12(1 2 )
1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2

E h3

(6)

By separating the variables, i.e. introducing w(x,s) = W(x)Q(s), Eq.6 can be easily decoupled [11-12-13]. More in detail, it can be rewritten separating the x-dependent part from the s-dependent part in the form:
E0 h 3 4W ( x ) s 2 D(s ) = = = constant N (s ) 12(1 2 ) h W ( x )

(7)

2 Introducing the modal natural frequency = n , equation (7) yields the homogeneous characteristic equation associated with the n-th mode:

1 1 2 2 1 2 1 + 2 1 1 2 2 2 s2 + + + 1 1s 2s 1 2 s =0 1 s + 2 s + 1 + n

(8)

Clearly, Eq.9 is valid not only for plates, the geometry of the vibrating structure being influential on n only. In the cases of practical interest this equation gives a couple of complex conjugate roots and a real negative one. Since the real negative part of the complex conjugate roots is responsible for the oscillation decay, a general definition for an equivalent n can be given as the absolute value of the real part of the complex conjugate roots of the characteristic equation, divided by n, i.e.:

n 

Re(s2,3 )

(9)

It should be noted that definition 9 is generally coherent with the equivalent n evaluation via circle-fit technique (with the assumption E1 < E2, C2 < C1, 2 << 1 and 2 << 1, valid for most polymeric materials), making it possible to experimentally validate the theoretical model. The n experimental estimates can be plotted with respect to the natural frequency n, and then compared with the theoretical curves, computed according to different viscoelastic models (Eqs.3-4). A least square procedure for minimizing the difference between experimental and analytical curves can finally be adopted for optimal parameter identification. Figures 3-4 highlight the qualitative behavior of the equivalent damping ratio n as a function of the natural frequency n according to definition 9. The curves were computed assuming realistic values for the viscoelastic parameters, with E1 < E2, C2 < C1, 2 << 1 and 2 << 1. In Fig.3 the Double Kelvin model is compared with the Single Kelvin and Zener ones, integer orders (left, 1 = 2 = 1.0) and fractional derivative orders (right, 1 = 2 = 0.5). Both the Single Kelvin and Zener models yield a n(n) monotonic behavior, while the Double Kelvin produces a minimum. In the medium-high frequency range, the Integer Double Kelvin model yields a n(n) plot curve which is asymptotic to a straight line (i.e. the Integer Single Kelvin model line, Fig.3 left). In the fractional derivative case the Single Kelvin n(n) plot is not a straight line (Fig.3 right). Figure 4 shows the effect due to two different values 1 and 2 of fractional derivative in the Double Kelvin model. Recalling the assumption E1 < E2, C2 < C1, 2 << 1 and 2 << 1, the effect of raising 1 from 0.5 to 1.0 (keeping constant 2 = 0.5) is shown on the left, while the effect of raising 2 from 0.5 to 1.0 (keeping constant 1 = 0.5) is shown on the right. Moreover, it was shown [9] that the primary effect of parameters 1 and 2 is on the slopes of the low and high frequency branches of the n(n) plot curve respectively. Regarding 1 and 2, they are functions of 1 and 2 respectively, and both of them are also a function of the ratio E1/E2. A variation of this latter parameter produces a shift in the magnitude of the n(n) plot curve. 3 Experimental application The proposed technique was applied to the analysis of clamped-free beams in plane flexural vibration and plates clamped on one edge, made of Polyethylene, Polyvinyl-chloride and Delrin (Tab.2).

0.04 0.035 Single Kelvin Double Kelvin Zener

0.04 0.035 Fractional Single Kelvin Fractional Double Kelvin Fractional Zener

Equivalent damping ratio

Equivalent damping ratio

0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Natural frequency [Hz]

Natural frequency [Hz]

Fig. 3 Behavior of n as a function of n. Integer order models (left) and fractional order models (right).
0.04 0.035 0.04

= 1.0 1 = 0.5

0.035

Effect of 2 variation

0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0 500 1000 1500 Effect of 1 variation 2000 2500 3000

Equivalent damping ratio

Equivalent damping ratio

0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

= 0.5 1 = 0.5
2

= 0.5 = 0.5 1 2

= 0.5 = 1.0 1 2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Natural frequency [Hz]

Natural frequency [Hz]

Fig. 4 Fractional Double Kelvin model. Variation of 1 from 0.5 to 1.0 (left, steps 1 = 0.1, 2 = 0.5) and variation of 2 from 0.5 to 1.0 (right, steps 2 = 0.1, 1 = 0.5). Table 2: Materials. Material Polyethylene (PE) Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Delrin Density [Kgm3] 964 1425 1437

Tests were made on specimens of different size, as reported in Tab.3 (plates L b and beams with thickness h1 and h2, cut at 5 different lengths L), using the experimental setup shown in Fig.5. The system was excited by a suspended shaker with random excitation, and acceleration responses were evaluated by means of 3 ICP piezoelectric accelerometers placed as shown in Fig. 6. Frequency response functions (inertances) were estimated on the interval 0-4000 Hz with resolution f = 0.3 Hz, H1 technique [9], 50 averages, Hanning window

(beams and plates) and on the interval 0-1250 Hz with resolution f = 0.1 Hz, H1 technique, 20 averages, Hanning window (plates only). During the tests, the average temperature was 28C 1C. Figures 7-9 show the plots of the experimentally estimated damping ratios with respect to the natural frequency. The analytical curves due to the identified Fractional Double Kelvin model (black solid lines) are superimposed on the experimental data plots. Thick black lines refer to present identification, while thin lines refer to previous identification [9], based on beam data only. The figures on the right side are enlargements of the low-medium frequency range of those on the left side. Table 4 refers to the conventions adopted in Figs.7-9, related to specimen sizes and accelerometer positions.

Fig. 5 Experimental testing setup: beam (left) and plate (right).

b
Force sensor
10 mm 20 mm

Accelerometer 1 Suspended shaker

3 b 8
Suspended shaker

5 b 9
Accelerometer 1

20 mm

Accelerometer 2

L
Accelerometer 2

Accelerometer 3

3 L 8

5 L 9

Accelerometer 3

3 L 8

5 L 9

54 mm

54 mm

Fig. 6 Sensor position: beam (left) and plate (right).

The identified parameters of the Fractional Double Kelvin model are reported in Tab.5 (bold red), where they are compared with the previous identification based on beam data only [9] (green). The data provided by the analysis of vibrating plates made it possible to improve the indentification in the low frequency range (in Figs.7-9 the thin solid lines refer to the previous identification, while the thick solid lines to the improved one). As a consequence, the viscoelastic parameters identified using beam data only were slightly modified (Tab.5), with the exception of PVC (in this case the previously identified parameters fit also the new data). The numerical values plotted in Figs.7-9 are reported in the Appendix table. The symbols A i reported in Tab.4 and in the Appendix refer to the frequency response functions computed from accelerometer i data (Fig.6). Table 3: Size of specimens. BEAMS Material: PE Width b = 100 mm Thickness Length L [mm] Material: PVC Width b = 100 mm Thickness Length L [mm] Material: Delrin Width b = 100 mm Thickness Length L [mm] L1 951 h1 = 25.0 mm L2 L3 L4 851 752 400 L5 200 L1 951 h2 = 10.5 mm L2 L3 L4 851 755 400 L5 200 L1 971 h1 = 26.5 mm L2 L3 L4 871 744 400 L5 200 L1 968 h2 = 10.5 mm L2 L3 L4 868 769 400 L5 200 L1 952 h1 = 25.0 mm L2 L3 L4 852 748 400 L5 200 L1 952 h2 = 10.5 mm L2 L3 L4 852 746 400 L5 200

PLATES Material Thickness h [mm] Width b [mm] Length L [mm] PE 10 1000 946 PVC 10 1000 969 Delrin 10 1000 951

Table 4: Meaning of symbols and colors in Figs.7-9. BEAM (color = length of specimen) length color thickness Frf symbol A1 O L1 red L2 magenta h1 A2

PLATE L5 green h2 size color thickness A3

L3 cyan

L4 blue

Lb black h A1 O + A2

symbol = thickness of specimen + position of accelerometer A3

symbol = position of accelerometer Frf symbol A3

A1

A2
+

Table 5: Material estimated parameters. Material PE PVC Delrin

1
0.5 0.45 0.4 0.3 0.5

2
0.5 0.45 0.4 0.3 0.3

1 [s] 10 10 35 30 30

2 [s] 2.0 10-8 2.0 10-8 0.6 10-8 1.0 10-8 0.6 10
-8

[s] 1.25 1.23 7.00 10.0

1 [s] 8.33

2 [s] 4.33 10
-9

Figure 6 6 7 8 8

4 Discussion Examination of the experimentally estimated damping ratios in Figs.7-9 suggests the following remarks:

different specimen shapes and measurement points lead to n values converging on a single curve, depending on the material properties only (and not on the geometry). The dispersion, mainly due to measurement errors, may also be partially due to the temperature effect (varying from 27 to 29C); the curves related to different materials show different behaviors in magnitude and shape; in the medium-high frequency region the data show a moderately increasing trend with respect to frequency, which in the frequency range examined is linear (or almost linear) for PE and PVC, but it is clearly non-linear for Delrin (with decreasing slope); in the low frequency range the data show a rather sharp decreasing trend, leading to a minimum; the proposed fractional double Kelvin model was able to accurately fit the experimentally found behavior of n for all of the different materials under analysis; in the case of PE and PVC a single value for the fractional derivative order (1 = 2 = ) seems to be sufficient for fitting the data. On the contrary, Delrin required the adoption of two different orders 1, 2 to be able to reproduce the data behavior.

It is important to point out that the Fractional Double Kelvin model was adopted for fitting the presented experimental data after having recognized the inefficiency of simpler models. The Single Kelvin and Zener models (both integer or fractional order) do not seem to be able to reproduce the experimentally found dependency of n to n, giving a monotonic trend (Fig.3), while the Integer Double Kelvin model lacks in flexibility [9]. 5 Conclusions and future work In this paper, the circle-fit technique was applied for the experimental evaluation of an equivalent modal damping ratio, adopting a method valid for any linear viscoelastic model. Plane flexural vibrations of clamped-free beams and vibrations of plates clamped at one edge were considered, with specimens made of viscoelastic materials such as Polyethylene, Polyvinyl Chloride and Delrin. To fit the experimentally found equivalent modal damping ratio, the Fractional Double Kelvin model was adopted. The accuracy of the proposed model was discussed and proved in comparison with simpler viscoelastic models, namely the Simple Kelvin and Zener models. The presented procedure and rheological model are suitable for possible future application to the analysis of vibrating viscoelastic structures with more complicated shapes than beams and plates, being possible their implementation in the finite element method [11-12-13]. Future work will deal with comparison of the results presented herein with the viscoelastic parameters identified through creep and relaxation tests on the same materials.

0.035 0.03

0.035 0.03

Equivalent damping ratio

0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

Equivalent damping ratio

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Natural frequency [Hz]

Natural frequency [Hz]

Fig. 7 Equivalent damping ratio n as a function of n. Material: PE.

0.03

0.03

0.025

0.025

Equivalent damping ratio

0.02

Equivalent damping ratio

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0.02

0.015

0.015

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

Natural frequency [Hz]

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Natural frequency [Hz]

Fig. 8 Equivalent damping ratio n as a function of n. Material: PVC.

0.03

0.03

0.025

0.025

Equivalent damping ratio

0.02

Equivalent damping ratio

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0.02

0.015

0.015

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

Natural frequency [Hz]

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Natural frequency [Hz]

Fig. 9 Equivalent damping ratio n as a function of n. Material: Delrin.

Acknowledgments This study was developed within the laboratory INTERMECH with the contribution of the Regione Emilia Romagna - Assessorato Attivita Produttive, Sviluppo Economico, Piano telematico, PRRIITT misura 3.4 azione A Obiettivo 2. References [1] Mainardi F., Fractional calculus: some basic problems in continuum and statistical mechanics, in Fractals and fractional calculus in continuum mechanics, Springer, 1997. [2] Nutting P.G., A new general law of deformation, Journal of the Franklin Institute 191, pp. 679-685, 1921. [3] Jones D.G., Handbook of viscoelastic vibration damping, Wiley, 2001. [4] Gaul L., The influence of damping on waves and vibrations, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 13, pp. 1-30, 1999. [5] Catania G., Sorrentino S., Experimental validation of non-conventional viscoelastic models via equivalent damping estimates, proceedings of IMECE 2008, Boston, Massachussetts, USA, 2008. [6] Ewins, D.J., Modal Testing: theory, practice and application, 2nd ed., Research Studies Press, 2000. [7] Catania G., Sorrentino S., Experimental identification of a fractional derivative linear model for viscoelastic materials, proceedings of IDETC/CIE 2005, Long Beach, California, USA, 2005. [8] Catania, G., Sorrentino, S., Fractional derivative linear models for describing the viscoelastic dynamic behaviour of polymeric beams, proceedings of IMAC 2006, Saint Louis, USA, 2006. [9] Catania, G., Sorrentino, S., Analytical modeling and experimental identification of viscoelastic mechanical systems, in Advances in Fractional Calculus: Theoretical Developments and Applications in Physics and Engineering, Springer, pp. 403-416, 2007. [10] Blevins R.D., Formulas for natural frequency and mode shape, Krieger, USA, 1979. [11] Sorrentino S., Fasana A., Finite element analysis of linear systems with fractional derivative damping models, Journal of Sound and Vibration 299 (4-5), pp. 839-853, 2007. [12] Catania G., Sorrentino S., Discrete spectral modelling of continuous structures with fractional derivative viscoelastic behaviour, proceedings of IDETC/CIE 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 2007. [13] Catania G., Fasana A., Sorrentino S., A condensation technique for the FE dynamic analysis with fractional derivative viscoelastic models, Journal of Vibration and Control 2008 14, pp. 1573-1586, 2008.

Appendix: Damping ratio estimates. Polyethylene (PE)

n

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) n A3

1.41 1.09 1.05 1.23 1.18 1.18 1.22 1.19 2.59 1.37 1.16 1.20 1.08 1.22 1.05 1.12 1.16 1.05 1.46 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.32 1.25 1.56 1.34 1.17 1.22 1.13 1.06 1.01 1.08 1.12 1.24 64.2 345.5 546.1 883.3 1193.9 0.87 0.92 0.93 1.04 1.03 0.87 0.92 0.93 1.02 1.04 0.87 0.92 0.94 1.03 1.04 67.0 186.4 360.1 58.6 115.5 188.9 273.9 576.1 723.3 894.2 1086.1 0.78 0.77 0.82 0.88 0.86 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.78 0.77 0.83 0.89 0.88 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.78 0.77 0.83 0.89 0.87 0.89 0.88 49.8 139.5 272.9 444.5 1.07 0.97 0.96 0.94 1.07 0.98 0.96 0.94 1.07 0.97 0.96 0.94 147.0 286.7 463.6 723.9 993.0 2012.0 21.1 60.5 118.3 192.3 273.0 585.2 752.0 929.8 1133.0

Delrin n

n [%]
A1
1.39 1.09 1.06 1.20 1.19 1.15 1.18 1.13 2.57 1.37 1.17 1.18 1.05 1.22 1.05 1.02 0.99 1.12 1.05 1.46 1.06 1.08 1.06 1.27 1.20 1.55 1.32 1.16 1.20 1.07 1.00 1.06 1.09 1.08 1.21

n [%]
A1
1.14 0.84 0.83 1.02 1.03 1.02 1.24 1.18

n [%]
A1
1.29 1.22 1.23 1.39 1.49 1.57 1.72 1.63 1.08 1.24 1.28 1.42 1.32 1.37 1.48 1.55 1.61 1.30 1.48 1.58 1.73 1.70 1.99 1.28 1.21 1.27 1.40 1.54 1.58 1.68 1.50

[Hz]
Beam L1 - h1 40.8 114.8 224.8 503.9 595.5 789.2 1025.8 1303.9 Beam L1 - h2 16.7 47.3 92.3 151.1 356.4 416.1 485.2 602.7 738.6 898.9 1068.6 Beam L2 - h1 51.1 142.6 276.7 457.3 716.4 970.8 Beam L2 - h2 20.5 58.6 113.6 183.3 257.3 338.0 425.2 588.9 740.5 914.8 1108.3 Beam L3 h1

A2
1.40 1.09 1.07 1.23 1.19 1.18 1.16 1.16 2.59 1.35 1.18 1.18 1.07 1.23 1.05 1.00 1.15 1.06 1.46 1.06 1.08 1.06 1.33 1.24 1.56 1.39 1.18 1.22 1.13 1.02 1.08 1.12 1.10 1.24

[Hz]
39.8 112.7 220.2 562.3 755.5 990.2 1851.4 2174.8

A2
1.14 0.84 0.83 1.02 1.03 1.00 1.29 1.20

A3
1.14 0.84 0.82 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.32 1.19

[Hz]
42.0 118.6 230.5 377.7 600.2 800.5 1051.4 1330.5 48.3 94.8 156.7 231.1 308.3 427.3 487.9 603.6 744.8 904.2

A2
1.29 1.22 1.24 1.47 1.48 1.61 1.85 1.68 1.09 1.25 1.29 1.42 1.31 1.35 1.54 1.47 1.75 1.30 1.50 1.61 1.80 1.75 2.09 1.31 1.21 1.28 1.41 1.52 1.63 1.59 1.55

A3
1.29 1.22 1.20 1.43 1.50 1.63 1.79 1.10 1.25 1.30 1.43 1.29 1.47 1.42 1.63 1.81 1.30 1.49 1.62 1.86 1.79 2.18 1.30 1.23 1.26 1.41 1.52 1.58 1.73 1.59

1.35 1.38 1.50

1.35 1.38 1.51

1.35 1.38 1.50

Beam L3 - h2

26.4 73.6 142.0 225.1 411.1 572.0 736.7 930.2 1150.5

1.66 1.53 1.29 1.25 1.14 1.19 1.12 1.19 1.22 1.74 1.35 1.24 1.70 1.50 1.12 1.11 1.47

1.67 1.53 1.29 1.28 1.14 1.21 1.21 1.74 1.36 1.24 1.70 1.50 1.12 1.13 1.57

1.68 1.53 1.26 1.29 1.13 1.21 1.14 1.74 1.36 1.24 1.70 1.50 1.13 1.12 1.54 1.57

26.4 75.5 146.7 235.5 556.7 722.7 916.4 1134.2 38.0 723.6 2007.0 94.5 248.6 599.8 885.5 1364.2 2109.5 2426.7 2810.2

0.89 0.85 0.84 0.82 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.95 1.39 0.89 1.10 0.98 0.89 0.78 0.78 0.91 1.01 1.20

0.89 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.89 0.87 0.95 1.37 0.88 1.11 0.98 0.89 0.78 0.80 0.90 1.04 1.18 1.30

0.89 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.90 0.89 0.97 1.35 0.90 1.11 0.98 0.89 0.79 0.82 0.91 1.25 1.35

27.0 75.8 147.3 237.0 333.6 514.5 746.4 938.3 1159.2 71.7 1257.0 239.8 610.2 2794.2

1.25 1.25 1.24 1.48 1.64 1.38 1.67 1.49 1.74 1.79 1.26 1.44

1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.45 1.65 1.45 1.72 1.62 1.73 1.81 1.26 1.45 2.24

1.26 1.25 1.23 1.50 1.46 1.63 1.42 1.62 1.73 1.85 1.28 1.47 2.23

Beam L4 h1 Beam L4 h2

33.3 204.8 628.9 13.9 86.4 566.7 1301.7 2288.6 2640.5

Beam L5 h1 Beam L5 h2

126.7 3347.7

1.21 1.78

1.22 1.80

1.23 1.69 59.2 533.6 1160.5 2178.3 2998.0 1.20 0.93 1.08 1.33 1.69 0.92 0.68 1.20 0.93 1.10 1.38 1.33 1.63 0.93 0.70 1.20 0.93 1.10 1.39 1.37 1.77 0.92 0.73

142.0 2387.7 279.8 548.9 2188.3 3004.2 6.1 16.4 21.7 42.0 99.6

1.45 1.94 1.35 1.36 2.20 1.40 0.89 0.99 0.90 0.94

1.45 1.36 1.36 2.25 1.52 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.95

1.46 1.98 1.36 1.36 2.23 2.34 1.47 0.90 0.90 0.91 1.05

Plate f 0.1 Hz

2.6 6.3 23.6 42.8 50.8 72.8 100.6

3.41 1.99 1.19 1.29 1.10 1.27 0.97 1.16 0.87 0.86 1.13

3.35 2.00 1.38 1.20 1.34

3.32 2.11 1.20 1.27 1.02 1.01

6.2 41.6 100.2

Plate
f 0.3 Hz

50.8 110.2 265.2 422.3 532.7 1152.3

73.3 181.7 270.2 1209.2

1.15 0.82 0.99 0.93

48.9 111.4 272.0 423.9

1.16 1.02 1.26 1.49