MT Lectures 1-10 PDF

Modal Testing
(Lecture 1)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

School of Mechanical Engineering
Iran University of Science and Technology
ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
Overview
Introduction to Modal Testing

Applications of Modal Testing
Philosophy of Modal Testing
Summary of Theory
Summary of Measurement Methods
Summary of Modal Analysis Processes
Review of Test Procedures and Levels
Overview of Modal Testing
IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian
Introduction to Modal Testing
Experimental Structural Dynamics
To understand and to control the many vibration

phenomenon in practice
Structural integrity (Turbine blades- Suspension Bridges)

Performance ( malfunction, disturbance, discomfort)
Introduction to Modal Testing (continued)
Necessities for experimental

observations
Nature and extend of vibration in operation

Verifying theoretical models
Material properties under dynamic loading
(damping capacity, friction,)
Test types corresponding to objectives:
Operational Force/Response measurements
Response measurement of PZL Mielec Skytruck Mode

Shapes (3.17 Hz, 1.62 %), (8.39 Hz, 1.93 %)
Modal Testing in a
controlled environment/
Resonance Testing/
Mechanical Impedance
Method
Testing a component or
a structure with the
objective of obtaining
mathematical model of
dynamical/vibration
behavior
Structural Analysis of
ULTRA Mirror
Milestones in the development:
Kennedy and Pancu (1947)
Bishop and Gladwell (1962)
Natural frequencies and damping of aircrafts

Theory of resonance testing
ISMA (bi-annual since 1975)

IMAC (annual since 1982)
Applications of Modal Testing
Model Validation/Correlation:
Producing major test modes validates the model
Natural frequencies
Mode shapes
Damping information are not available in FE models
Applications of Modal Testing (continued)
Model Updating
Correlation of experimental/analytical
model
Adjust/correct the analytical model
Optimization procedures are used for
updating.
Component Model
Identification
Substructure process
The component model
is incorporated into the
structural assembly
Force Determination
Knowledge of dynamic force is required

Direct force measurement is not possible
Measurement of response + Analytical Model
results the external force
([K ] [M ]){x} = { f }
2
Philosophy of Modal Testing
Integration of three components:
Theory of vibration
Accurate vibration measurement
Realistic and detailed data analysis
Examples:
Quality and suitability of data for process

Excitation type
Understanding of forms and trends of plots
Choice of curve fitting
Averaging
Summary of Theory (SDOF)
Summary of Theory (MDOF)
Summary of Theory
Definition of FRF:
H ( ) = ([K ] 2 [M ] + i[D ])
x j ( ) N jrkr
.
h jk ( ) =
= 2
2
f k ( ) r =1 r
1
Curve-fitting the
measured FRF:
Modal Model is obtained

Spatial Model is obtained
Summary of Measurement
Methods
Basic measurement system:
Single point excitation
Summary of Modal Analysis

Processes
Analysis of measured FRF data
Appropriate type of model (SDOF,MDOF,)

Appropriate parameters for chosen model
Review of Test Procedures

and Levels
The procedure consists of:
FRF measurement
Curve-Fitting
Construct the required model
Different level of details and accuracy in

above procedure is required depending
on the application.
Review of Test Procedures

and Levels
Levels according to Dynamic Testing Agency:
Level
Natural
Freq
Damping
ratio
Mode Shapes
Usable for
validation
Out of range
residues
Updating
0
1
Only in few
points
2
3
4
Text Books
Ewins, D.J. , 2000, Modal Testing; theory,

practice and application, 2nd edition,
Research studies press Ltd.
McConnell, K.G., 1995, Vibration testing;
theory and practice, John Wiley & Sons.
Maia, et. al. , 1997, Theoretical and
Experimental Modal Analysis, Research
studies press Ltd.
Evaluation Scheme
Home Works (20%)

Mid-term Exam (20%)
Course Project (30%)
Final Exam
(30%)
Modal Testing
(Lecture 10)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
Theoretical Basis
Analysis of weakly nonlinear structures

Approximate analysis of nonlinear
structures
Cubic stiffness nonlinearity
Coulomb friction nonlinearity
Other nonlinearities and other
descriptions
Theoretical Basis
Analysis of weakly nonlinear

structures
The whole bases of modal testing assumes

linearity:
Response linearly related to the excitation

Response to simultaneous application of several
forces can be obtained by superposition of
responses to individual forces
An introduction to characteristics of weakly

nonlinear systems is given to detect if any
nonlinearity is involved during modal test.
Theoretical Basis

m&x& + cx& + kx + k3 x 3 = F sin(t )
x(t ) = X sin(t )
m 2 X sin(t ) + cX cos(t ) + kX sin(t ) + k3 X 3 sin 3 (t )
= F sin(t )
m 2 X sin(t ) + cX cos(t ) + kX sin(t ) +
1
3
k3 X sin(t ) sin(3t ) = F sin(t )

4
4
Theoretical Basis

m X sin(t ) + cX cos(t ) + kX sin(t ) +
2
1
3
k3 X sin(t ) sin(3t ) =
4
4
F sin(t ) cos( ) F cos(t ) sin( )

3
2
3
m X + kX + k3 X = F cos( )
cX = F sin( )
Theoretical Basis

X
1
=
2
F
3
2
2
2
m + k + k3 X + (c )
4
3
2
keq = k + k3 X
4
Theoretical Basis
Softening effect
Theoretical Basis
Hardening effect
Softening-stiffness effect
Theoretical Basis
Theoretical Basis
Theoretical Basis
Theoretical Basis

x& (t )
f d (t ) = cx& (t ) + cF
x& (t )
E
4cF
E = 4cF X ceq = 2 /
=
2
X
&
(
)
x
t
dt
X
=
F
Theoretical Basis
1
4c F
2
k m + i c +

X
=
F
1
4c F
2
k m + i c +
X increasing
Theoretical Basis
Other nonlinearities and other

descriptions
Backlash
Bilinear Stiffness
Microslip friction damping
Quadratic (and other power law
damping)
..
Theoretical Basis
Modal Testing
(Lecture 2)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
MODAL ANALYSIS THEORY
Understanding of how the structural

parameters of mass, damping, and stiffness
relate to
the impulse response function (time domain),

the frequency response function (Fourier, or
frequency domain), and
the transfer function (Laplace domain)
for single and multiple degree of freedom

systems.
Theoretical Basis
Theoretical Basis
SDOF system
Time Domain: Impulse Response Function

Presentation of FRF
Properties of FRF
Undamped MDOF system

MDOF system with proportional
damping
Theoretical Basis
SDOF System
Three classes of system:
k m
Response Models:
1
X ( )
H ( ) =
=
2
F ( ) k m + ic
1
k m 2 + id
Undamped
Viscously-damped
Structurally Damped
Theoretical Basis
Time Domain: Impulse

Response Function
Theoretical Basis
Frequency Domain:
Frequency Response Function
Theoretical Basis
Alternative Forms of FRF
Receptance
Mobility
Inverse is Dynamic
Stiffness
Inverse is Dynamic
Impedance
Inertance
Inverse is Apparent
mass
Theoretical Basis
X ( )
F ( )
V ( )
X ( )
= i
F ( )
F ( )
A( )
2 X ( )
=
F ( )
F ( )
Graphical Display of FRF
Theoretical Basis
Graphical Display of FRF
The magnitude of the three mobility functions

(accelerance, mobility and compliance)
Theoretical Basis
Stiffness and Mass Lines
Theoretical Basis
Reciprocal Plots
F ( )
2
The inverse or
Re(
)
=
k
m
X ( )
reciprocal plots
F ( )
Real part
Im(
) = c
X ( )
Imaginary part
Theoretical Basis
Nyquist Plot
For viscous damping the Mobility plot is a

circle.
For structural damping the Receptance and

Inertance plots are circles.
Theoretical Basis
3D FRF Plot (SDOF)
Theoretical Basis
Properties of SDOF FRF Plots
Nyquist Mobility for viscose damping

Y ( ) =
k m 2 + ic
c 2
Re(Y ) =
( k m 2 ) 2 + ( c ) 2
( k m 2 )
Im(Y ) =
( k m 2 ) 2 + ( c ) 2
U = Re(Y ) , V = Im(Y )
2c
U 2 +V 2 =
Theoretical Basis
((k m ) + (c ) )
4c (( k m ) + ( c ) )
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
1
=
2c
Properties of SDOF FRF Plots
Nyquist Receptance for structural damping
(
1
k m 2 ) id
H ( ) =
=
2
2
2
k + id m
(k m ) + d 2
(
k m )
U=
(k m ) + d
2
2 2
,
V
=
2
1 1
U + V +
=
2d 2d
(k m )
2 2
+ d2
Theoretical Basis
A Demo
Basic Assumptions
The structure is assumed to

be linear
The structure is time invariant
The structure obeys Maxwells
reciprocity
The structure is observable
loose components, or degrees-offreedom of motion that are not

measured, are not completely
observable.
Theoretical Basis
Modal Testing
(Lecture 3)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
Theoretical Basis
Undamped MDOF Systems

MDOF Systems with Proportional
Damping
MDOF Systems with General Structural
Damping
General Force Vector
Undamped Normal Mode
Theoretical Basis
The equation of motion:
[M ]{&x&(t )}+ [K ]{x(t )} = { f (t )}
The modal model:

The orthogonality:
[ ], = diag (12 , 22 ,K, N2 )
[ ] [M ][ ] = [I ], [ ] [K ][ ] = [].
T
Forced response solution:

([K ] 2 [M ]){X }eit = {F }eit
{X } = ([K ] [M ]) {F } {X } = [ ( )]{F }
2
Theoretical Basis

(continued)
Response Model
([K ] [M ]) = [ ( )]
[ ] ([K ] [M ])[ ] = [ ] [ ( )] [ ]
([] [I ]) = [ ] [ ( )] [ ]
[ ( )] = [ ] ([] [I ])[ ]
[ ( )] = [ ]([] [I ]) [ ]
1
Theoretical Basis

(continued)
The receptance matrix is symmetric.

Single Input
Xj
Xk
,
jk =
= kj =
Fj
Fk
Modal Constant/
Modal Residue
N
jrkr
r A jk
jk ( ) = 2
= 2
2
2
r =1 r
r =1 r
N
Theoretical Basis
Example:
1.2 0.8
[K ] =
MN / m
0.8 1.2
1 1 1
[ ] =
2 e 6
2 1 1
0.5
05
1.2e6 2
=
11 ( ) =
+
.
2
2
2
4
4e5
2 e6
8e11 2.4e6 +
1
[M ] =
4e5
2
r =
[ ]
Theoretical Basis
kg
Example
(continued)
Zero
0.5
05
1.2e6 2
11 ( ) =
+
=
.
2
2
2
4
4e5
2 e6
8e11 2.4e6 +
Theoretical Basis
Poles
Example
(continued)
0.5
05
8e4
.
12 ( ) =
=
2
2
2
4
4e5
2 e6
8e11 2.4e6 +
Theoretical Basis
MDOF Systems with

Proportional Damping
A proportionally damped matrix is

diagonalized by normal modes of the
corresponding undamped system
[ ] [D ][ ] = diag (d1, d 2 ,L, d N )

T
Special cases:
Theoretical Basis
[D ] = [K ],
[D ] = [M ],
[D ] = [K ] + [M ].
MDOF Systems with Structurally

Response Model
([K ] + i[D] 2 [M ]) = [ ( )]1
[ ]T ([K ] + i[D ] 2 [M ])[ ] = [ ]T [ ( )]1[ ]

([r2 (1 + ir2 )] 2 [I ]) = [ ]T [ ( )]1[ ]
[ ( )]1 = [ ]T ([ r2 (1 + ir2 )] 2 [I ])[ ]1
1
2
2
2
[ ( )] = [ ]([ r (1 + ir )] [I ]) [ ]T
jrkr
jk ( ) = 2
2
2
(
1
+
i
r =1
r
r
N
Theoretical Basis
Real Residue
Complex Pole
MDOF Systems with Viscously

Response Model
([K ] + i [C ] [M ]) = [ ( )]
[ ] ([K ] + i [C ] [M ])[ ] = [ ] [ ( )] [ ]
([ ]+ i [2 ] [I ]) = [ ] [ ( )] [ ]
[ ( )] = [ ] ([ ] + i [2 ] [I ])[ ]
[ ( )] = [ ]([ ] + i [2 ] [I ]) [ ]
1
2
r
2
r
2
r
jrkr
jk ( ) = 2
2
+ 2 r r
r =1
r
N
Theoretical Basis
MDOF Systems with General

Structural Damping
The equation of motion:

[M ]{&x&(t )}+ ([K ] + i[D ]){x(t )} = { f (t )}
The orthogonality:
[ ] [M ][ ] = [I ], [ ] [K + iD ][ ] = [].
T
Complex Mode Shapes
Complex Eigen-values
Forced response solution:
([K ] + i[D] 2 [M ]){X }eit = {F }eit
{X } = ([K ] + i[D ] [M ]) {F } {X } = [ ( )]{F }

2
Theoretical Basis
Example:
Model 1
m1 = 0.5kg , m2 = 1kg , m3 = 1.5kg
k j = 1e3N / m, j = 1,...,6
Undamped
950
0.464 0.218 1.318

, [ ] = 0.536 0.782 0.318
=
3352
6698
0.142
0.635 0.493
Theoretical Basis
Example:
Pr oportional
[D ] = 0.05[K ]
950
0.464 0.218 1.318

, [ ] = 0.536 0.782 0.318
3352
= (1 + i 0.05)
6698
0.142
0.635 0.493
Non Pr oportional
d1 = 0.3k1 , d j = 0.0, j = 2,...,6
957(1 + i 0.067)
,
3354(1 + i 0.042)
=
6690(1 + i 0.078)
0.463( 5.5 ) 0.217(173 ) 1.318(181 )

[ ] = 0.537(0.0o ) 0.784(181o ) 0.318( 6.7o )
0.636(1.0o ) 0.492( 1.3o ) 0.142( 3.1o )
Theoretical Basis
Almost real modes
Example:
Model 2
m1 = 1kg , m2 = 0.95kg , m3 = 1.05kg
k j = 1e3N / m, j = 1,...,6
Undamped
999
0.577 0.602 0.552

, [ ] = 0.567 0.215 0.827
=
3892
4124
0.207
0.587 0.752
Pr oportional
[D ] = 0.05[K ],
999
0.577 0.602 0.552

, [ ] = 0.567 0.215 0.827
= (1 + i 0.05)
3892
4124
0.207
0.587 0.752
Theoretical Basis
Example:
Non Pr oportional
d1 = 0.3k1 , d j = 0.0, j = 2,...,6
1006(1 + i 0.1)
,
3942(1 + i 0.031)
=
4067(1 + i 0.019)
0.578( 4o ) 0.851(162o ) 0.685( 40o )

[ ] = 0.569(2o ) 0.570(101o ) 1.019(176o )
0.588( 2o ) 0.848(12o ) 0.560( 50o )
Heavily complex modes

Theoretical Basis
MDOF Systems with General

Structural Damping
([K ] + i[D] [M ]) = [ ( )]
[ ] ([K ] + i[D ] [M ])[ ] = [ ] [ ( )] [ ]
([ (1 + i )] [I ]) = [ ] [ ( )] [ ]
[ ( )] = [ ] ([ (1 + i )] [I ])[ ]
[ ( )] = [ ]([ (1 + i )] [I ]) [ ]
1
2
r
2
r
2
r
2
r
2
r
2
r
jrkr
jk ( ) = 2
2
2
(
1
+
i
r =1
r
r
N
Complex Residues
Complex Poles
Theoretical Basis
In many situations
the system is
excited at several
points.
Theoretical Basis
The response is governed by:
([K + iD] [M ]){X }e

2
The solution:
{X } =
r =1
(continued)
it
it
{
}
= Fe
{ } {F }{ }r
T
r
(1 + i )
2
r
2
r
All forces have the same frequency but

may vary in magnitude and phase.
Theoretical Basis
The response vector is referred to:
(continued)
Forced Vibration Mode

or Operating Deflection Shape (ODS)
When the excitation frequency is close

to the natural frequency:
ODS reflects the shape of nearby mode

But not identical due to contributions of
other modes.
Theoretical Basis
(continued)
Damped system normal mode:
By carefully tuning the force vector the

response can be controlled by a single
mode.
T
{
}
The is attained if r {F }s = rs
Depending upon damping condition the
force vector entries may well be complex
(they have different phases)
Theoretical Basis
Special Case of interest:
Harmonic excitation of mono-phased forces
Same frequency
Same phase
Magnitudes may vary
Is it possible to obtain mono-phased

response?
Theoretical Basis

(continued)
The real force response amplitudes:
{}
{}
it
{ f (t )} = F e
2
}e it = {F }e it
{
(
[
]
[
]
)
K
+
iD
M
X
{x(t )} = X ei (t )
Real and imaginary parts:
(([K ] [M ])cos + [D]sin ){X }= {F }

(([K ] [M ])sin + [D]cos ){X }= {0}
2
2
The 2nd equation is an eigen-value problem;

its solutions leads to real {F }
Theoretical Basis
N solutions

(continued)
At a frequency that the phase lag

between all forces and all responses is
90 degree then
(([K ] 2 [M ])sin + [D]cos ){X }= {0}
Results
Undamped normal modes

Natural frequencies of undamped system
Theoretical Basis

(continued)
The base for multishaker test procedures.

Modal Analysis of Large
Structures: Multiple
Exciter Systems By: M.
Phil. K. Zaveri
Theoretical Basis
Modal Testing
(Lecture 4)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
Theoretical Basis

MDOF System with General Viscous
Damping
Force Response Solution/ General
Viscous Damping
Theoretical Basis
In many situations
the system is
excited at several
points.
Theoretical Basis
Otherwise you end up

damaging the structure!!!!
Theoretical Basis
The response is governed by:
([K + iD] [M ]){X }e
= {F }eit
All forces have the same frequency but
may vary in magnitude and phase.
The solution:
T
2
(continued)
{X } =
r =1
Theoretical Basis
it
{ }r {F }{ }r
(1 + i )
2
r
2
r
The response vector is referred to:
(continued)
Forced Vibration Mode

or Operating Deflection Shape (ODS)
When the excitation frequency is close

to the natural frequency:
ODS reflects the shape of nearby mode

But not identical due to contributions of
other modes.
Theoretical Basis
(continued)
Damped system normal mode:
By carefully tuning the force vector the

response can be controlled by a single
mode.
T
{
}
This is attained if r {F }s = rs
Depending upon damping condition the
force vector entries may well be complex
(they have different phases)
Theoretical Basis
Special Case of interest:
Harmonic excitation of mono-phased forces
Same frequency
Same phase
Magnitudes may vary
Is it possible to obtain mono-phased

response?
Theoretical Basis
512 channel
37 Shakers
Theoretical Basis

(continued)
The real force response amplitudes:
{}
{}
it
{ f (t )} = F e
(
[
K + iD ] 2 [M ]){X }ei (t ) = {F }eit
{x(t )} = X ei (t )
Real and imaginary parts:
(([K ] [M ])cos + [D]sin ){X }= {F }

(([K ] [M ])sin + [D]cos ){X }= {0}
2
2
The 2nd equation is an eigen-value problem;

its solutions leads to real {F }
Theoretical Basis
N solutions

(continued)
At a frequency that the phase lag

between all forces and all responses is
90 degree then
(([K ] [M ])sin + [D]cos ){X }= {0}

Results ([K ] [M ]){X }= {0}
2
Undamped normal modes

Natural frequencies of undamped system
Theoretical Basis

(continued)
The base for multishaker test procedures.

Modal Analysis of Large
Structures: Multiple
Exciter Systems By:
M. Phil. K. Zaveri
Theoretical Basis
MDOF System with General

Viscous Damping
E.O.M . [M ]{&x&}+ [C ]{x&} + [K ]{x} = { f }
{ f (t )} = {F }e {x(t )} = {X }e
1
2
{X } = ([K ] [M ] + i[C ]) {F }
i t
i t
Next the orthogonality properties of the

system in 2N space is used for force response
solution.
Theoretical Basis
Force Response Solution

C
EOM
M
M x& K
+
0 &x& 0
C
Free Vib.
M
M
K
{u&}+
0
0
C
Eigen solution sr
M
C
U
M
T
Theoretical Basis
0 x f
=
M x& 0
M
T K
U = I ,U
0
0
0
{u} = {0}
M K
+
0 0
0
{ur } = {0}
0
U = diag ( s1 , s2 ,L , s2 N ).
M

F
T F
H F
u
u
u
u
u
u
r
r
r
r
r
2
N
N
0
0
0
X
+
=
=
*
i
X
i
s
i
s
i
r
r =1
r =1
r
r
T
r
The above simplification is due to the fact

that eigen-values and eigen-vectors occur in
complex conjugate pairs.
Theoretical Basis
Single point excitation:
jk ( ) =
r =1
Theoretical Basis
u jr ukr
i sr

jr kr
u u
i s
Modal Testing
(Lecture 5)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
Modal Analysis of Rotating

Structures
Non-symmetry in system
matrices
Modes of undamped rotating
system
Symmetric Stator
Non-Symmetric Stator
FRFs of rotating system

Out-of-balance excitation
Synchronous excitation
Non-Synchronous excitation
Theoretical Basis
Non-symmetry in System
Matrices
The rotating structures are subject to

additional forces:
Gyroscopic forces
Rotor-stator rub forces
Electrodynamic forces
Unsteady aerodynamic forces
Time varying fluid forces
These forces can destroy the symmetry of the

system matrices.
Theoretical Basis
Non-rotating system
properties
A rigid disc mounted on

the free end of a rigid
shaft of length L,
The other end of is
effectively pin-jointed.
Theoretical Basis
Modes of Undamped Rotating

System
0 &x&
0
J z / L x& k x L 0 x 0
I0 / L
= .
+
+
I 0 / L &y& J z / L
0 y& 0 k y L y 0
Theoretical Basis
Symmetric stator
kx = k y = k,
Support is symmetric
x = Xeit ,
y = Ye it ,
(k 2 I 0 / L2 )
( iJ z / L2 )
Simple harmonic motion
(iJ
2
) X = 0,
/
L
z

2
2
(k I 0 / L ) Y 0
2
2
kL2 J 2
kL
4
2
z
= 0.
+
2
+
I0 I0
I0
Theoretical Basis
Natural Frequencies
2
2
kL2 J 2
kL
z
2 +
= 0.
+
4 2
I0 I0
I0
2 2
2 2
2
2
2
=
+
1, 2
0
0
2
4
2
kL
J
02 =
,
=
I0
I0
Theoretical Basis
Mode Shapes
(k 12 I 0 / L2 )
( i1J z / L2 )
(i J / L ) 1 = 0 ,
(k I / L ) i 0
2
2
1 0
Theoretical Basis
(k 22 I 0 / L2 )
( i2 J z / L2 )
(i J / L ) i = 0.
(k I / L ) 1 0
2
2
2 0
Non-symmetric Stator
kx k y
Theoretical Basis
FRF of the Rotating Structure

External Damping
I 0 / L2
0 &x&
c
+
2
I 0 / L &y& J z / L2
J z / L2 x& k 0 x f x
= ,
& +
c y 0 k y f y
(k I 0 / L + ic )
(
iJ z / L )
[ ( )] =
2
2
2
(
)
(
)
i
J
L
k
I
L
ic
0
z
Loss of Reciprocity
xx ( ) = yy ( )
xy ( ) = yx ( )
2
Coupling Effect
Theoretical Basis
FRF of the Rotating Structure

with External Damping
Complex Mode
Shapes
due to significant
imaginary part
Theoretical Basis
Out-of-balance excitation
Response analysis for the particular

case of excitation provided by out-ofbalance forces is investigated:
When the force results from an out-ofbalance mass on the rotor, it is of a

synchronous nature
When the force results from an out-ofbalance mass on a co/counter rotating
shaft, it is of a non-synchronous nature
Theoretical Basis
Synchronous OOB Excitation

cos(t )
1 it
{F } = mr
= FOOB e
sin(t )
i
2
Symmetric Stator :
A it
X it
e
e = FOOB
Y
iA
2
L
A=
I 0 (02 2 (1 ) )
Theoretical Basis
Synchronous OOB Excitation
Theoretical Basis
Non-Synchronous OOB
Excitation
Force is generated by another rotor at

different speed
Excitation
A it
X it
e
e = FOOB
iA
Y
L2
A=
I 0 ( 02 2 ( ) )
The essential results are the same as for
synchronous case.
Theoretical Basis
Modal Testing
(Lecture 6)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
Theoretical Basis
Analysis using rotating frame

Damping in rotating and stationary
frames
Dynamic analysis of general rotor-stator
systems
Linear Time Invariant Rotor-Stator

Systems
LTI Rotor-Stator Viscous Damp System
LTI Systems Eigen-Properties
Theoretical Basis

Yr
Y
Xr
x cos(t ) sin(t ) xr
=
y
y
sin(
t
)
cos(
t
)

r
xr cos(t ) sin(t ) x
=
y
y
t
t
sin(
)
cos(
)
r

Theoretical Basis

xr cos(t ) sin(t ) x
x
[
]
=
=
T

1 ,
y
y
sin(
)
cos(
)
t
t
y
r

Transformation Matrices
x& r cos(t ) sin(t ) x&

x&
x
sin(t ) cos(t ) x
=
y& + cos(t ) sin(t ) y = [T1 ] y& + [T2 ] y ,
&
y
sin(
)
cos(
)
t
t

r

sin(t ) x
&x&r cos(t ) sin(t ) &x&
sin(t ) cos(t ) x&
2 cos(t )
2
=

sin(t ) cos(t ) y
cos(t ) sin(t ) y&
&y&
&
&
y
sin(
)
cos(
)
t
t
&x&
x&
x
= [T1 ] + 2[T2 ] + 2 [T1 ]
&y&
y&
x
Theoretical Basis

Equation of Motion in Stationary Coordinates
I 0 / L2
0 &x&
0
+

I 0 / L2 &y& J z / L2
1 = 02 + ( z / 2) 2 z / 2
I0 / L
J z / L2 x& k x
& + 0
0 y
0 x 0
= ,
k y y 0
2 = 02 + ( z / 2)2 + z / 2
Equation of Motion in Rotating Coordinates
0 &x&r
0
+

I 0 / L2 &y&r 2 z I 0 / L2 J z / L2
2z I 0 / L2 + J 2z / L2 + k x c 2 + k y s 2
+
cs (k y k x )
2 z I 0 / L2 + J z / L2 x&r
&
0
yr
xr 0
= .
2
2
2
2
2
2
z I 0 / L + J z / L + k x c + k y s yr 0
1 = 02 + ( z / 2)2 z / 2 + z
cs (k y k x )
2 = 02 + ( z / 2) 2 + z / 2 z
Note: Eigenvectors remain unchanged
Theoretical Basis

Fxr cos(t ) sin(t ) Fx
=
.
Fyr sin(t ) cos(t ) Fy
For Example:
Fxr cos(t ) sin(t ) F0
=
cos(t )
Fyr sin(t ) cos(t ) 0

F0 cos( )t + cos( + )t
=
2 sin( )t + sin( + )t
Theoretical Basis
Response harmonies not

present in the excitation
Internal Damping in rotating

and stationary frames
Equation of Motion in Rotating Coordinates
I 0 / L2
0 &x&r
cI
+

2
&
&
I 0 / L yr 2 z I 0 / L2 J z / L2
2z I 0 / L2 + J 2z / L2 + k
+
0
2 z I 0 / L2 + J z / L2 x& r
&
cI
yr
xr 0
0
= .
2
2
2
2
z I 0 / L + J z / L + k yr 0
Equation of Motion in Stationary Coordinates

I 0 / L2
0 &x&
cI
+

I 0 / L2 &y& J z / L2
Theoretical Basis
J z / L2 x& k x
& + c
cI y
z I
z cI x 0
= ,
k y y 0
Internal/External Damping in
2DOF System
I0 / L
0
kx
+
c
z
I
0 &x& cE + cI
+
2
2
&
&
I 0 / L y J z / L
J z / L
cE + c I
x&
&
y
z cI x 0
= ,
k y y 0
At super critical speeds the real parts of
eigen-values may become positive,
i.e. unstable system
Theoretical Basis
Dynamic Analysis of General

Rotor-Stator Systems
The rotating machines and their modal

testing is much more complex
Non-symmetric bearing support

Fixed/Rotating observation frame
Non-axisymmetric rotors
Internal/External damping
These lead to:
Time-varying modal properties

Response harmonies not present in the excitation
Instabilites (negative modal damping)
Theoretical Basis

Equation of motion of rotating systems

are prone:
to lose the symmetry

to generate complex eigen-values/vectors
from velocity/displacement related nonsymmetry
to include time varying coefficients as
appose to conventional Linear Time
Invariant (LTI) systems
Theoretical Basis

System Type
Stationary Coord.
Rotating Coord.
R-symm;S-symm
LTI
LTI
R-symm;S-nonsymm
LTI
L(t)
R-nonsymm;S-symm
L(t)
LTI
R-nonsymm;S-nonsymm
L(t)
L(t)
LTI: Linear Time Invariant

L(t): Linear Time Dependent
Theoretical Basis
Linear Time Invariant RotorStator Systems
[M ]{&x&}+ ([C ] + [G ()]){x&}+

([K ] + i[D ] + [E ()]){x} = { f (t )}
[M ], [C ], [K ], [D ] Symm.
[G ()], [E ()] Skew symm.
Solution of equations will follow different

routs depending upon the specific features.
Theoretical Basis
LTI Rotor-Stator Systems

(Viscous Damping Only)
[A]{u&}+ [B]{u} = {0},
C + G () M
[A] =
0
M
K + E () 0
[B] =
M
0
x
{u} =
x&
Theoretical Basis
The system matrices

are non-symmetric
Complex eigenvals
Two eigenvect sets:
RH; mode shapes

LH; normal excitation
shapes
LTI Rotor-Stator Systems

(Viscous Damping Only)
Symmetric Rotor/ Non-symmetric Support
Forwards Whirl
Backwards Whirl
Theoretical Basis
FRF of LTI Rotor-Stator

Systems
[ ( )] = [VRH ][(r i )] [VLH ]

1
Theoretical Basis
Skew-symmetry in damping Matrix
1
3 1
[M ] = , [K ] =
,
1
1 3
0.5
0.5
0
1
[C ] = C
+ (1 C )
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
0
Theoretical Basis

C
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
-0.75+1.85i
Theoretical Basis
-0.68+1.88i
-0.52+1.94i
-0.37+1.99i
-0.23+2.04i
-0.07+2.08i
2.11i
X1
X2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1.00
-1.05+0.08i
-1.08+0.28i
-1.03+0.49i
-0.90+0.63i
-0.76+0.71i
-0.69+0.73i
Skew-symmetry in stiffness Matrix
1
[M ] = , [C ] = 0,
1
0 1
3 1
[K ] = K
+ (1 K )
1
0
1
3
Theoretical Basis

K
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
Theoretical Basis
2
2.00i
1.90i
1.65i
1.23i
0.32+1.00i
0.57+0.79i
0.70+0.70i
X1
X2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1.00
-1.12
-1.58
Infinity
1.58i
1.12i
i
Modal Testing
(Lecture 7)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
Complex Measured Modes
Complex Measured Modes
Display of Mode Complexity
Analytical Real Modes
Extracting real modes from

complex measured modes
H Ahmadian, GML Gladwell - Proceedings of

the 13th International Modal Analysis (1995):
The optimum real mode is the one with maximum

correlation with the complex measured one:
Extracting real modes
Normalizing the complex measured

mode shape:
The problem is rewritten as:
Symmetric
Skew-symmetric
Rank 2 matrices
Since V is skew symmetric,
Therefore the problem is equivalent to:
Follow-ups:
E. Foltete, J. Piranda, Transforming Complex

Eigenmodes into Real Ones Based on an
Appropriation Technique, Journal of Vibration
and Acoustics, JANUARY 2001, Vol. 123
S.D. GARVEY, J.E.T. PENNY, THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE REAL AND
IMAGINARY PARTS OF COMPLEX MODES,
Journal of Sound and Vibration

1998,212(1),75-83
Modal Testing
(Lecture 8)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
Theoretical Basis
Non-sinusoidal Vibration and FRF

Properties:
Periodic Vibration
Transient Vibration
Random Vibration
Violation of Dirichlets conditions

Autocorrelation and PSD functions
H1 and H2
Incomplete ResponseIUSTModels
,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian
Theoretical Basis
Non-sinusoidal Vibration and

FRF Properties
With the FRF data, response of a MDOF

system to a set of harmonic loads:
{X }e
it
= [ ( )]{F }e
it
The same frequency

Different amplitudes and phases
We shall now turn our attention to a range of

other excitation/response situvations.
Theoretical Basis
Periodic Vibration
Excitation is not simply sinusoidal but retain

periodicity.
The easiest way of computing the response
is by means of Fourier Series,
f k (t ) = Fnk e
2
n =
T
i n t
n =1
x j (t ) = jk ( n ) Fnk e
i n t
n =1
Theoretical Basis
Periodic Vibration
To derive FRF from periodic vibration

signals:
Determine the Fourier Series components

of the input force and the relevant
response
Both series contain components at the
same set of discrete frequencies
The FRF can be defined at the same set of
frequency points by computing the ratio of
response to input components.
Theoretical Basis
Transient Vibration
Analysis via Fourier Transform
1
F ( ) =
2
f (t )e
it
dt
X ( ) = H ( ) F ( )
+
x (t ) =
H ( ) F ( )e
it
Theoretical Basis
Transient Vibration
Response via time domain (superposition)

+
x (t ) =
h(t ) f ( )d
1
Let f (t ) = (0) F ( ) =
2
+
1
it
(
=
(
)
Then x (t ) =
H
e
d
h
t
2
Theoretical Basis
Transient Vibration
To derive FRF from transient vibration

signals:
Calculation of the Fourier Transforms of

both excitation and response signals
Computing the ratio of both signals at the
same frequency
In practice it is common to compute a

DFT of the signals.
Theoretical Basis
Random Vibration
Neither excitation nor response signal

can be subject to a valid Fourier
Transform:
Violation of Dirichlet Conditions
Finite number of isolated min and max

Finite number of points of finite discontinuity
Here we assume the random signals to

be ergodic
Theoretical Basis
Random Vibration
Time Signal
f (t )
R ff ( ) =
Autocorrelation Function
f (t ) f (t + )dt
1
S ff ( ) =
2
Theoretical Basis
Power Spectral Density
ff
( )e
Random Vibration
Time Signal
Autocorrelation

Theoretical Basis
Random Vibration
Sinusoidal Signal
Autocorrelation
Theoretical Basis
Random Vibration
Random Signal
Autocorrelation
Theoretical Basis
Random Vibration
Noisy Signal
Autocorrelation
Theoretical Basis
Random Vibration
The autocorrelation function is real and even:

R ff ( ) =
f (t ) f (t + )dt
f (u ) f (u)du = R
ff
( )
u = t +
The Auto/Power Spectral Density function is

real and even.
Theoretical Basis
Random Vibration
Cross Correlation / Spectral Densities
Rxf ( ) =
x(t ) f (t + )dt
1
S xf ( ) =
2
xf
( )e
Cross Correlation functions are real but

not always even.
Cross Spectral Densities are complex
functions.
Theoretical Basis
Random Vibration
Time Domain
R ff ( ) =
Frequency Domain
f (t ) f (t + )dt S ff ( ) = F * ( ) F ( )
Rxf ( ) =
*
x
(
t
)
f
(
t
+
)
dt
S
(
)
=
X
( ) F ( )
xf
Rxx ( ) =
x(t ) x(t + )dt S
( ) = X ( ) X ( )
*
xx
Theoretical Basis
Random Vibration
To derive FRF from random vibration signals:
X ( )
H ( ) =
F ( )
X * ( ) X ( ) S xx ( )
=
H1 ( ) = *
X ( ) F ( ) S xf ( )
F ( ) X ( ) S fx ( )
=
H 2 ( ) = *
F ( ) F ( ) S ff ( )
*
Theoretical Basis
Complete/ Incomplete Models
It is not possible to measure the

response at all DOF or all modes of
structure (N by N)
Different incomplete models:
Reduced size (from N to n) by deleting

some DOFs
Number of modes are a reduced as well
(from N to m, usually m<n)
Theoretical Basis
Incomplete Response Models

jk ( ) =
m< N
r =1
r
2
r
Ajk
+ ir
2
[ ]
2
r
[ ]nm
2
r m m
Theoretical Basis
Incomplete Response Models
Theoretical Basis
Modal Testing
(Lecture 9)
Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

ahmadian@iust.ac.ir
Theoretical Basis
Sensitivity of Models
Modal Sensitivity
SDOF eigen sensitivity

MDOF system natural frequency sensitivity
MDOF system mode shape sensitivity
FRF Sensitivity
SDOF FRF sensitivity

MDOF FRF sensitivity
Theoretical Basis
Sensitivity of Models
The sensitivity analysis are required:
to help locate errors in models in updating

to guide design optimization procedures
they are used in the course of curve fitting
A short summery on deducing

sensitivities from experimental and
analytical models is given.
Theoretical Basis
Modal Sensitivities (SDOF)

k
0 =
m
0
1 k
1 0
,
=
=
3
m
2 m
2 m
0
1
1 0
=
=
.
k
2 mk 2 k
Theoretical Basis
Modal Sensitivities (MDOF)
([K ] [M ]){ } = {0},

2
r
2
[K ] r [M ] {r } = {0},
p
{
}
[
]
K
2
2 [M ]
r
r
{r } = {0},
[K ] r [M ]
[M ] r
+
p
p
p p
Theoretical Basis
Eigenvalue Sensitivity (MDOF)

{r }T
Multiply by
{r }
[K ] [M ]
+
p
{r } (
T
2
r
[
]
T
2 [M ]
r
{r } = {0},
{r }
[M ] r
p
p
p
{r }
=
results
p
2
r
Theoretical Basis
[K ]
2 [M ]
{r }
r
p
p
T
{r } [M ]{r }
Eigenvector Sensitivity
(MDOF)
Starting
from :
{
}
[M ]
[
]
K
{r } = {0},
r [M ] r2
[K ] r2 [M ] r +
p p
p
p
and taking
{r } N
= j { j }
p
j =1
j r
[K ] r2
2 [M ]
{r } = {0}
[M ] r
[K ] [M ] rj { j }+
p
p
j =1
p
2
r
jr
Theoretical Basis
(MDOF)
2
[M ]
[
]
K
{r } = {0}
r [M ] r2
[K ] r2 [M ] rj { j }+
p
p
j =1
p
jr
{s } [K ] r2 [M ] rj { j }+ {s }
T
j =1
j r
rs + {s }
2
s
2
r
Theoretical Basis
[K ] r2
2 [M ]
{r } = {0}
[M ] r
p
p
p
[K ]
2 [M ]
{r } = {0}
r
p
p
(MDOF)
( ) rs + {s }
2
s
2
r
{s }
rs =
[K ]
2 [M ]
r
{r }
p
p
(r2 s2 )
{r }
=
p
s =1
N
sr
Theoretical Basis
[K ]
2 [M ]
r
{r }
p
p
{s }
[K ]
2 [M ]
r
{r }
p
p
{s }
2
2
(r s )
Updating, Redesign,
Reanalysis
12
12
12
p2
p3
12 p12
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
p
p2
p3
1
M
M
M
M
= { } { } { }
1
1
1
{1}
p2
p3
{2 } p1
{2 } {2 } {2 }
M
p2
p3
p1
M
M
M
Theoretical Basis
K p1
p2
K
K p3
M
Updating, Redesign,
Reanalysis
The change in parameters must be very

small for accurate analysis
When the change in parameters is not
small:
Higher order sensitivity analysis

Iterative linear sensitivity analysis
Theoretical Basis
FRF Sensitivities (SDOF)

1
( ) =
2
k + ic m
1
( )
=
2
2
k
(k + ic m )
( )
i
=
2
2
c
(k + ic m )
( )
2
=
2
2
m
(k + ic m )
Theoretical Basis
FRF Sensitivities (MDOF)

[Z ( )] = [K ] + i[C ] 2 [M ],
([A] + [B ]) = [A] ([A] + [B ]) [B ][A]
1
take [A]
[Z ( )]A ,
[A + B ] [Z ( )]x
then [Z ( )]x = [Z ( )]A [Z ( )]x ([Z ( )]x [Z ( )]A ) [Z ( )]A

1
[ ( )]x [ ( )]A = [ ( )]x [Z ( )][ ( )]A

Theoretical Basis
[ ( )]x [ ( )]A = [ ( )]x [Z ( )][ ( )]A ,

{ x ( ) A ( )}
T
j
Theoretical Basis
= { x ( )} [Z ( )][ ( )]A
T
j
Theoretical Basis
[ ( )] [Z ( )]
=
p
p
) = [Z ( )]
[Z ( )]
1
[Z ( )]
p
[ ( )]
[Z ( )]
[ ( )]
= [ ( )]
p
p
[K ]
[C ]
[ ( )]
2 [M ]
[ ( )]
= [ ( )]
+ i
p
p
p
p
Theoretical Basis

MT Lectures 1-10 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MT Lectures 1-10 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modal Testing

Dr. Hamid Ahmadian

Introduction to Modal Testing

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Introduction to Modal Testing

Experimental Structural Dynamics

To understand and to control the many vibration

Structural integrity (Turbine blades- Suspension Bridges)

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Introduction to Modal Testing (continued)

Necessities for experimental

Nature and extend of vibration in operation

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Introduction to Modal Testing (continued)

Test types corresponding to objectives:

Operational Force/Response measurements

Response measurement of PZL Mielec Skytruck Mode

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Introduction to Modal Testing (continued)

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Introduction to Modal Testing (continued)

Milestones in the development:

Kennedy and Pancu (1947)

Bishop and Gladwell (1962)

Natural frequencies and damping of aircrafts

ISMA (bi-annual since 1975)

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Applications of Modal Testing

Producing major test modes validates the model

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Applications of Modal Testing (continued)

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Applications of Modal Testing (continued)

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Applications of Modal Testing (continued)

Knowledge of dynamic force is required

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Philosophy of Modal Testing

Integration of three components:

Quality and suitability of data for process

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Summary of Theory (SDOF)

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Summary of Theory (MDOF)

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Modal Model is obtained

Overview of Modal Testing

IUST ,Modal Testing Lab ,Dr H Ahmadian

Basic measurement system:

Single point excitation