Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2020, Vol. 12(11) 1–12
Ó The Author(s) 2020
Modal characteristics and phase DOI: 10.1177/1687814020971175
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
response of vibrator under excitation
of sweep frequency

Gang Li1,2,3 , Wen Qi1, Zhiqiang Huang1 and Zhifei Tao4

Abstract
To analyze the dynamic responses of vibrator, a vibrator-ground coupling vibration model considering sweep frequency
is proposed based on half-space theory, and modal characteristics and phase response of the structure are investigated.
Results show that the sweep frequency has a significant effect on the dynamic responses of the vibrator. The natural fre-
quency of the vibrator changes with sweep frequency, and the resonance may occur at 2.071 Hz and 53.12 Hz. The vibra-
tor has two mode shapes. The first-order mode shape is that the reaction mass and the baseplate move in the same
direction and the structure is dominated by the reaction mass. At the second-order resonance, the reaction mass and
the baseplate move in opposite directions and the baseplate dominates the system. The phase of the vibrator also
changes with the frequency and varies greatly. The phases of reaction mass acceleration, baseplate acceleration and
ground force suffer abrupt changes at about 2 Hz and 50 Hz. Especially, the phase of the baseplate acceleration experi-
ences a 180° jumping at about 50 Hz. The abrupt change/jumping frequencies of the phase are basically the same as the
natural frequencies, indicating that the resonance has significant effect on the vibrator output.

Keywords
Seismic vibrator, vibrator-ground coupling vibration model, natural frequency, mode shape, phase response, sweep
frequency

Date received: 9 July 2020; accepted: 9 October 2020

Handling Editor: James Baldwin

Introduction shown in Figure 1(b), the vibrator consists of reaction

Seismic vibrator (as shown in Figure 1(a)) has become
the most widely employed seismic source in land oil
and gas exploration. With the development of oil and
gas exploration toward deep, ultra-deep and unconven-
tional reservoirs, higher requirements have been placed
on seismic vibrator.1 High-quality seismic signals are
conducive to improving the vertical resolution of the
reservoir and to full-waveform seismic inversion,2,3
which are very beneficial for improving the deep ima-
ging quality, especially in special areas such as shale
gas.4,5 In order to meet the development of exploration,
it is necessary to investigate the dynamic characteristics
of the vibrator.
The vibrator is the core structure of seismic vibrator
and plays a vital role in generating seismic signal. As
mass, baseplate, piston and other auxiliary structures.
The piston is firmly installed on the baseplate, and the
1
School of Mechatronic Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University,
Chengdu, People’s Republic of China
2
Key Laboratory of Oil & Gas Equipment, Ministry of Education
(Southwest Petroleum University), Chengdu, People’s Republic of China
3
Center for Post-Doctoral Studies, Southwest Petroleum University,
Chengdu, People’s Republic of China
4
Source Department, CNPC Bureau of Geophysical Prospecting Inc.,
Zhuozhou, Hebei, People’s Republic of China
Corresponding author:
Gang Li, School of Mechatronic Engineering, Southwest Petroleum
University, NO.8 Xindu Avenue, Xindu District, Chengdu, Sichuan
610500, People’s Republic of China.
Email: ligang_mail@qq.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work
without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 1. (a) Seismic vibrator, and (b) the structure of vibrator.
reaction mass rings on the piston. One upper chamber
and one lower chamber are between the piston and the
reaction mass. During operating seismic vibrator, high
pressure hydraulic oil alternately flows into the lower
chamber and the upper chamber, driving the reaction
mass to move up and down, and then the seismic signal
is transmitted into the ground through the baseplate.
As the vibrator is the source of the seismic signal, which
attracts lots of researches.
To improve the performance of vibrator, some stud-
ies focus on the response of vibrator. Brook and Crew6
conducted field tests to analyze the baseplate dynamics
and found that structural problems could introduce
errors in the higher frequencies. Martin and Jack7 used
a down hole string of cemented geophones to monitor
the seismic signal generated by vibrator, and found that
the vibrator response changed with different force level.
Lebedev et al.8,9 proposed an equivalent model to ana-
lyze the nonlinear parameters according to harmonic
levels. Ley et al.10 employed a seismic vibrator to inves-
tigate the ground viscosity and stiffness, and pointed
out that the viscosity of outcrop was different from
that of sand. Tinkle and Rowse11 introduced a simple
model to analyze the vibrator performance and sug-
gested that resonance frequencies and damping factors
could be obtained from the acceleration signals of reac-
tion mass and baseplate. A thin-film pressure pad was
used by Dean et al.12 to research the pressure distribu-
tion between the baseplate and the ground, and they
concluded that the interaction between the baseplate
and the ground was very complex. Then, Noorlandt
and Drijkoningen13 carried out a field experiment to
investigate the interaction between the vibrator and the
ground. In 2017, Huang et al.14,15 used finite element
method to simulate the vibrator-ground system, and
demonstrated that the dynamic responses of vibrator
was different from low frequencies to high frequencies.
Liu et al.16 investigated the factors affecting vibration
output by establishing a model with static ground
stiffness and damping. However, a static model cannot
accurately describe the response of the vibrator. Huang
et al.17 optimized the dynamic stiffness of the seismic
vibrator with harmonic response model. The results
showed that this method can improve natural fre-
quency of the vibrator and reduce the resonance peak.
These researches mainly concentrate on the vibrator
structure and show that the response of vibrator is very
complex under excitation of sweep frequency. At the
same time, there are many studies also focusing on the
ground force.
The ground force is the force that the vibrator
applying on the ground, which is the direct perfor-
mance indicator of seismic vibrator. In 1984, Sallas18
expound the weighted sum method to estimate the
ground force. In weighted sum method, the ground
force is equal to the weighted sum of reaction mass
weight and baseplate weight multiplied by their respec-
tive accelerations. This method is a practical estimation
of ground force and has been widely used in the indus-
try. However, recent researches and field application
indicate that the applicability of the weighted sum
method exists only in a narrow bandwidth.19–22 So,
some new models and methods are developed, but there
is no consensus on how to calculate the vibration out-
put more accurately.23–25
The above approaches have carried out a lot of
research on the vibrator structure and ground force,
providing a very meaningful reference for understand-
ing the seismic vibrator. However, few studies are on
the modal characteristics and phase response of the
vibrator, and there is also a lack of targeted and reli-
able model to describe the vibrator-ground system. In
this paper, a model considering frequency is developed
based on half-space theory and verified, and the modal
characteristics and phase response of vibrator under
excitation of sweep frequency are studied. This research
will provide a reference for a better understanding of
vibrator and ground force.
Li et al. 3

Establishment and validation of vibrator-

ground coupling vibration model
Establishment of vibrator-ground coupling vibration
model
In seismic survey, the seismic vibrator is used to excite
vibration by applying a variable load directly on the
ground within a certain period of time. The traditional
model of vibrator-ground does not consider the inter-
action between the baseplate and the ground, as well as
the sweep frequency. The baseplate and the ground are
modeled separately. Although the static conditions are
satisfied, the interaction between the baseplate and the
ground is missed. Such method cannot express the true
response of the system and reflect the interaction Figure 2. Vibrator-ground coupling vibration model.
between the baseplate and the ground.
The half-space theory is widely used in civil engineer- Equation (1) can be written as follows:
ing. The basic assumption of the half-space theory is
that the ground is a semi-infinite space body, and the mr X€r + Co X_ r  Co X_ b + Ko Xr  Ko Xb = QðtÞ ð2aÞ
dynamic foundation vibrates on this semi-infinite space
mb X€b  Co X_ r + ðCo + Cz ÞX_ b
body. The mechanics of the ground is characterized by ð2bÞ
parameters such as elastic modulus and density. The  Ko Xr + ðKo + Kz ÞXb = QðtÞ
half-space theory can analyze the dynamic contact
Equation (2) can be written into matrix form:
between the foundation and the ground, as well as the
law of the foundation’s vibration. This theory is rigor-  " #  " #
ous in mathematical mechanics which is widely used in mr 0 X€ r Co Co X_ r
+
the design and verification of foundation vibration.26–28 0 mb €
Xb Co Co + Cz X_ b
    
When analyzing the force of the vibrator applying on the Ko Ko Xr QðtÞ
ground, if the structure above the baseplate is ignored, + =
Ko Ko + Kz Xb Q ðt Þ
the effect of the baseplate on the ground is consistent
ð3Þ
with the effect of the dynamic foundation on the ground.
According to half-space theory, the baseplate and the According to the half-space theory, equivalent
reaction mass are treated as rigid bodies, and the ground dynamic stiffness Kz and equivalent dynamic damping
is assumed as isotropic elastic body. Cz are functions of dimensionless frequency a0, and the
A vibrator-ground coupling vibration model is following relations exist:29,30
established as shown in Figure 2. In this model, mr rep-
resents mass of the reaction mass, mb represents mass f2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2
Cz =   Grr0 ð4Þ
of the baseplate, Xr represents the displacement of the f12 2
+ f2 a0
reaction mass, Xb represents the displacement of the
baseplate, Ko represents hydraulic spring, Co represents f1
Kz = Gr0 ð5Þ
hydraulic damping, Kz represents equivalent dynamic f12 + f22
stiffness between the baseplate and the ground, Cz rep-  
f1 = 0:238733  0:059683a20 + 0:004163a40     +  
resents equivalent dynamic damping between the base-
plate and the ground, and Q(t) is the hydraulic force. ð6Þ
According to force balance, the dynamic equilibrium
f2 = 0:148594a0  0:011837a30  0:000405a50 ð7Þ
equations of the reaction mass and the baseplate are
written in equations (1a) and (1b), respectively. where f1 and f2 are the functions of a0; a0 is equal to
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
For the reaction mass: vr0 r=G; r is soil density; G is shear modulus; r0 is
pffiffiffiffiffi
  baseplate equivalent radius and r0 = 0:55 Sb ; Sb is the
 QðtÞ  Co X_ r  X_ b  Ko ðXr  Xb Þ = mr X€r ð1aÞ
baseplate area; v is angular frequency and v=2pf; f is
For the baseplate: the sweep frequency whose range is from fs to fe; fs is
the start frequency of sweep frequency and fe is end fre-
  quency of sweep frequency. Kz and Cz change with the
QðtÞ + Co X_ r  X_ b  Cz X_ b
ð1bÞ sweep frequency, which is a significant progress com-
+ Ko ðXr  Xb Þ  Kz Xb = mb X€b paring to the previous study.16
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Table 1. Specifications for the vibrator-ground coupling vibration model and the field test.
Parameter mr(kg) mb(kg)
Value 4998 2027
Parameter fs(Hz) fe(Hz)
Value 5 105
Figure 3. Comparison of ground forces between three methods.
So, the ground force can be expressed as:
Fg = Cz X€ b + Kz Xb
Validation of vibrator-ground coupling vibration model
To ensure the accuracy of the vibrator-ground coupling
vibration model, the comparison of ground forces
obtained from vibrator-ground coupling vibration
model, weighted sum method, and field test is carried
out. The test was conducted on stiff clays with an
AHV-IV seismic vibrator, and the ground force was
detected by eight load cells. The load cell is a strain sen-
sor which can directly measure the true output of the
vibrator. In the field test, the sweep frequency is from
5 Hz to 105 Hz, the sweep length T is 10 s, the hydraulic
force is 250,000 N, and 0.5 s cosine taper is applied at
start and end of the sweep. The specifications for the
model and the test are as shown in Table 1.
Co(Ns/m) Ko(N/m) r(kg/m3) G(MPa)
13104 6.253105 1800 20
A(N) T(s) Sb(m2) m
250,000 10 2.50 0.25
Figure 3 demonstrates the comparison of ground
forces between the three methods. The blue curves are
ð8Þ the ground force estimated by weighted sum method.
The red curves represent ground force calculated by
equation (8). The purple curves are the ground force
obtained from the field test. From the perspective of
amplitude, before 4 s (or below 45 Hz) the ground
forces obtained by the three methods are basically the
same. With the increase of sweep time (sweep fre-
quency), the ground forces obtained by the vibrator-
ground coupling vibration model and the field test are
generally in consistent, which are gradually decreasing,
while the weighted sum method overestimates the
ground force and its calculation error is getting higher.
From the perspective of phase, the ground forces of the
model and the field test maintain good synchronization,
but the ground force of weighted sum method has a sig-
nificant phase difference at high frequencies. Compared
to Liu’s model,16 this comparative analysis shows that
the vibrator-ground coupling vibration model can more
Li et al. 5

Figure 4. Sweep signal: (a) Full sweep, and (b) local enlarged view.

accurately describe the coupling relationship between sweep. Since the sweep frequency increases linearly
the vibrator and the ground throughout the sweep fre- with time, in this case the sweep frequency is likely to
quency and is suitable for analyzing the modal charac- overlap with the natural frequency of the structure,
teristics and phase response of the structure. In the blue which may cause resonance, affecting the modal char-
box, it is can be observed that there are some harmonic acteristics and phase response of the vibrator.
distortion of the test data, which is due to the hydraulic
system.
Analysis of natural frequencies
The modal analysis can determine the main modal
Modal characteristics of the vibrator characteristics of the vibration system in a frequency
range, and make a preliminary judgment on the
Sweep signal response of the structure under external force. For the
The hydraulic force is also called sweep signal. The vibrator-ground coupling vibration model, the damp-
amplitude and frequency of sweep signal are both func- ing is neither a Rayleigh damping nor a proportional
tions of time.31 The sweep frequency is a linear mono- damping, and solving the damped natural frequency is
tonic function of time and the rate of change of the cumbersome and complicated, in addition, the effect of
frequency is constant, and this is why static models damping on the solution result is very small.32–34
cannot reflect dynamic changes in frequency. Equation Therefore, in the modal analysis, the vibrator-ground
(9) shows the function of sweep signal. coupling vibration system is considered as an
   undamped system. Under this consideration, it is not
fe  fs only convenient, but the accuracy of the solution can
QðtÞ = AW (t) sin 2p fs + t t ð0 ł t ł T Þ
2T also meet the requirements. For the undamped free
8 n h t
io vibration of the vibrator-ground coupling system, its
> 1
>
>2 1 + cos p + 1 ð0 ł t ł TcÞ vibration equation can be expressed as:
>
< Tc
W ðt Þ = 1 ðTc\t\T  TcÞ        
>
>     mr 0 X€ r Ko Ko Xr 0
>
> 1 T  t + =
: 1  cos p ðT  Tc ł t ł T Þ 0 mb X€ b Ko Ko + Kz Xb 0
2 Tc
ð10Þ
ð9Þ
Assuming the initial conditions are:
where A is the hydraulic force amplitude, t is time, Tc
       
is taper time, and W(t) is called cosine taper which xr ð0Þ xr0 x_ r ð0Þ x_ r0
protects the vibrator with a smooth process at starting = , = ð11Þ
xb ð0Þ xb0 x_ b ð0Þ x_ b0
and ending vibrator. Figure 4 shows a sweep signal.
Figure 4(a) shows the sweep signal at full sweep and then, the solution to equation (11) has the following
Figure 4(b) shows the sweep signal from 8 s to 8.1 s. In form (separated variables):
this sweep signal, the sweep frequency is from 5 Hz to    
105 Hz, the sweep length T is 10 s, the force level is x r ðt Þ Rr
= R sin (vt + f) = sin (vt + f) ð12Þ
250,000 N, and 0.5 s cosine taper is applied at the x b ðt Þ Rb
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Differentiating equation (12) with time twice, we get: ðKz + Ko Þmr + Ko mb

v22 =
    2mr mb
€xr ðtÞ Rr qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
= v2 sin (vt + f) ð13Þ ½ðKo + Kz Þmr + Ko mb 2  4mr mb Kz Ko
€xb ðtÞ Rb +
2mr mb
Substituting equations (12) and (13) into equation ð20bÞ
(10), it is can be obtained as follow:
v1 and v2 correspond to the two natural frequencies
   
mr 0 Rr of the vibrator-ground coupling vibration system,
v2 sin (vt + f) respectively. For the natural frequency, negative values
0 mb Rb
     ð14Þ have no meaning, so both v1 and v2 are positive, and
Ko Ko Rr 0
+ sin (vt + f) = v1 ł v2.
Ko Ko + Kz Rb 0 Substituting the parameters in Table 1 into equation
(20), the natural frequencies at each sweep frequency
Since sin (vt + f) is not always equal to 0, equation
can be obtained, as shown in Figure 5. In order to com-
(10) is reduced to:
prehensively analyze the modal characteristics, the
        sweep frequency is modified from 5–105 Hz to 1–
Ko Ko Rr m 0 Rr 0
 v2 r = 120 Hz. In Figure 5, with the increase of sweep fre-
Ko Ko + Kz Rb 0 mb Rb 0
quency, both two natural frequencies decrease first and
ð15Þ then increase. From Figure 5(a), it can be seen that the
change of the first-order natural frequency is small, less
or
than 0.01 Hz. Figure 5(b) shows that the change of the
second-order natural frequency is much larger than
KR = v2 MR ð16Þ
that of the first-order natural frequency, which indi-
It can be further written as: cates that the sweep frequency has significant effect on
the second-order natural frequency.
     If a resonance occurs in the system, a sweep fre-
K o  mr v 2 Ko Rr 0
= ð17Þ quency f must be equal to the resonance frequency v.
Ko Ko + Kz  mb v2 Rb 0
Therefore, the natural frequency v is combined with
Obviously, Rr = Rb = 0 is the solution satisfying the auxiliary line f = v to draw Figure 6. It can be seen
equation (17), but this means that the vibration system from Figure 6 that the auxiliary line and the natural
is at rest. If vibrations exist, the values of Rr and Rb frequency have two intersection points. Point A is the
cannot always be equal to zero. Therefore, the coeffi- intersection of the auxiliary line and the first-order nat-
cient determinant of equation (17) should be equal to ural frequency, and point B is the intersection of the
zero, that is: auxiliary line and the second-order natural frequency.
Point A indicates that the structure may resonate at

2 2.071 Hz. Point B indicates that the structure may reso-
K  v2 M = Ko  mr v Ko =0
Ko Ko + Kz  mb v2 nate at 53.12 Hz.
ð18Þ
Mode of vibration
This is the characteristic equation of the free vibra-
tion of the conservative vibrator-ground system. If Rb(1) and Rr(1) are the solutions in which v1 is substi-
Expanding the determinant, we get: tuted into equation (17), and Rb(2) and Rr(2) are the
solutions in which v2 is substituted into equation (17),
mr mb v4  ½ðKo + Kz Þmr + Ko mb v2 + Ko Kz = 0 ð19Þ the following solutions can be obtained:

This is a quadratic algebraic equation for the mb v21 + Kz + Ko ð1Þ Ko ð 1Þ

Rðr1Þ = Rb = R
unknown v2. Solving equation (19), two real roots of Ko mr v21 + Ko b
v2 are as follows: ð21aÞ
ðKz + Ko Þmr + Ko mb mb v22 + Kz + Ko ð2Þ Ko ð 2Þ
v21 = Rðr2Þ = Rb = R
2mr mb Ko mr v22 + Ko b
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð20aÞ
½ðKo + Kz Þmr + Ko mb 2  4mr mb Kz Ko ð21bÞ

2mr mb If r1 and r2 are defined as follows:
Li et al. 7

Figure 5. Natural frequencies at each sweep frequency: (a) first order, and (b)second order.

are represented by F1 and F2, then by equation (24),

F1 and F2 can be taken as:
   
r1 r
F1 = , F2 = 2 ð25Þ
1 1

Obviously, F1 and F2 satisfy the following

equations:

KF1 = v21 MF1 , KF2 = v22 MF2 ð26Þ

F1 and F2 represent the mode shapes of the vibra-

tor. Substituting the parameters in Table 1 into equa-
tion (22), the relationship between r1 and r2 and the
sweep frequency can be obtained, as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 6. Equivalent relationship between the sweep frequency As shown in Figure 7, when the displacement of the
and natural frequencies. baseplate is 1, the displacements of the reaction mass
are completely different in the two resonances. At the
first-order resonance, the displacement of the reaction
mb v21 + Kz + Ko Ko mass is hundreds of times larger than that of the base-
r1 = = ð22aÞ plate, and the directions of their movements are the
Ko mr v21 + Ko
same. At the second-order resonance, the displacement
mb v22 + Kz + Ko Ko of the reaction mass is about thousandths of the base-
r2 = = ð22bÞ
Ko mr v22 + Ko plate, and the direction of their movements are
opposite.
then, equation (21) can be written as The mode shapes of the reaction mass and the base-
ð1Þ ð2Þ
plate indicate the vibration tendency of the system when
Rðr1Þ = r1 Rb , Rðr2Þ = r2 Rb ð23Þ resonance occurs. The vibration modes of the baseplate
So the vector R in equation (12) is written as follows: and the reaction mass are plotted as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8(a) shows the mode shape of the structure at
    the first-order resonance. The mode shape vector is
r1 ð1Þ r ð 2Þ
Rð1Þ = Rb , Rð2Þ = 2 Rb ð24Þ [465.91, 1]. The motions of the reaction mass and the
1 1
baseplate are in the same direction, and the motion
Mathematically, equation (16) represents a general- amplitude of the reaction mass is 465.91 times that of
ized eigenvalue problem. v12 and v22 are the eigenva- the baseplate. Therefore, in the start-up sweep or low
lues of the equation. If the corresponding eigenvectors frequencies, the response of the structure is dominated
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 7. The relationship between r1 and r2 and the sweep frequency.

Figure 8. The mode shapes of the reaction mass and the baseplate: (a) mode shape of first-order and (b) mode shape of second-
order.

by the reaction mass. Figure 8(b) shows the mode shape
of the structure at the second-order resonance. The
mode vector is [–0.0015, 1]. The mode shape is that the
reaction mass and the baseplate move in opposite direc-
tions, and the motion amplitude of the reaction mass is
only 0.0015 of the baseplate. So, the response of the
baseplate dominates the system. During the seismic
exploration, the overlapping of the sweep frequency
and the natural frequencies should be avoided as much
as possible to prevent the vibrator from resonating,
thereby effectively reducing the source-induced interfer-
ence caused by the resonance deformation.
Phase response of the vibrator
Phase response analysis can not only obtain the
response status of each part of the system, but also fig-
ure out the response precedence relationship between
each element. To analyze the phase response of the
vibrator, the phase response of a single frequency is
analyzed separately, then each single frequency is
aggregated to the sweep bandwidth. The dynamic equi-
librium equations of the reaction mass and the base-
plate under excitation of a single frequency can be
written as follows:
Li et al. 9


mr X€1 + Co (X_ 2  X_ 1 ) + Ko (X2  X1 ) = F sin vt ð27aÞ X_ 1 = A1 v cos vt  A2 v sin vt
ð29Þ
X_ 2 = B1 v cos vt  B2 v sin vt
mb X€2 + Cz X_ 2 + Kz X2  Ko (X2  X1 )
ð27bÞ and the accelerations of the reaction mass and baseplate
 Co (X_ 2  X_ 1 ) = F sin vt are respectively as:
Assuming that the particular solutions to equation 
(27) for stable motion are as: X€ 1 = A1 v2 sinvt  A2 v2 cos vt
€ ð30Þ
X 2 = B1 v2 sin vt  B2 v2 cos vt

X1 = A1 sin vt + A2 cos vt
ð28Þ Substituting Xr, X_ r , X€r , Xb, X_ b , and X€b into equation
X2 = B1 sin vt + B2 cos vt
(27), and separating the sine function and cosine func-
so, the velocities of the reaction mass and baseplate are tion, it can be gotten as follow:
respectively as:
8
>
> (mr v2 + Ko )A1 + Ko B1 + Co vA2  Co vB2 = F
<
Co vA1 + Co vB1  (mr v2 + Ko )A2 + Ko B2 = 0
2 ð31Þ
>
> Ko A1 + (Kz  Ko  mb v )B1  Co vA2 + (Co  Cz )vB2 = F
:
Co vA1 + (Cz  Co )vB1 + Ko A2 + (Kz  Ko  mb v2 )B2 = 0

Solving equation (31), we can obtain:

A1 = (FKo Kz 2  FKo 2 Kz  FKo 2 Kz  FCo 2 Kz v2 + FCz 2 Ko v2  FCo 2 Kz v2

+ FCo 2 mb v4 + FCo 2 mb v4 + FCo 2 mr v4 + FCo 2 mr v4 + FCz 2 mr v4 + FKo 2 mb v2
+ FKo mb 2 v4 + FKo 2 mb v2 + FKo 2 mr v2 + FKo 2 mr v2 + FKz 2 mr v2 + Fmb 2 mr v6
 2FCo Cz mr v4  FCo Cz mr v4  2FKo Kz mb v2  2FKo Kz mr v2  FKo Kz mr v2
+ 2FKo mb mr v4 + FKo mb mr v4  2FKz mb mr v4 )=(Co 2 Cz 2 v4 + Co 2 Kz 2 v2
ð32aÞ
 2Co 2 Kz mb v4  2Co 2 Kz mr v4 + Co 2 mb 2 v6 + 2Co 2 mb mr v6 + Co 2 mr 2 v6
 2Co Cz mr 2 v6 + Cz 2 Ko 2 v2 + 2Cz 2 Ko mr v4 + Cz 2 mr 2 v6 + Ko 2 Kz 2  2Ko 2 Kz mb v2
 2Ko 2 Kz mr v2 + Ko 2 mb 2 v4 + 2Ko 2 mb mr v4 + Ko 2 mr 2 v4 + 2Ko Kz 2 mr v2
 4Ko Kz mb mr v4  2Ko Kz mr 2 v4 + 2Ko mb 2 mr v6 + 2Ko mb mr 2 v6 + Kz 2 mr 2 v4
 2Kz mb mr 2 v6 + mb 2 mr 2 v8 )

A2 = (FCz Ko 2 v  FCo Kz 2 v + FCz Ko 2 v  FCo Cz 2 v3 + FCo 2 Cz v3 + FCo 2 Cz v3

 FCo mb 2 v5 + 2FCo Kz mb v3  FCo Kz mr v3 + FCz Ko mr v3 + FCo mb mr v5 )
=(Co 2 Cz 2 v4 + Co 2 Kz 2 v2  2Co 2 Kz mb v4  2Co 2 Kz mr v4 + Co 2 mb 2 v6
+ 2Co 2 mb mr v6 + Co 2 mr 2 v6  2Co Cz mr 2 v6 + Cz 2 Ko 2 v2 + 2Cz 2 Ko mr v4 ð32bÞ
2 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4
+ Cz mr v + Ko Kz  2Ko Kz mb v  2Ko Kz mr v + Ko mb v
+ 2Ko 2 mb mr v4 + Ko 2 mr 2 v4 + 2Ko Kz 2 mr v2  4Ko Kz mb mr v4  2Ko Kz mr 2 v4
+ 2Ko mb 2 mr v6 + 2Ko mb mr 2 v6 + Kz 2 mr 2 v4  2Kz mb mr 2 v6 + mb 2 mr 2 v8 )

B1 = (FCo 2 mb v4  FKo 2 Kz  FCo 2 Kz v2  FCo 2 Kz v2  FKo 2 Kz + FCo 2 mb v4

+ FCo 2 mr v4 + FCo 2 mr v4 + FKo 2 mb v2 + FKo 2 mb v2 + FKo 2 mr v2 + FKo 2 mr v2
+ FKo mr 2 v4  FKz mr 2 v4 + Fmb mr 2 v6  FCo Cz mr v4  FKo Kz mr v2
 2FKo Kz mr v2 + FKo mb mr v4 + 2FKo mb mr v4 )=(Co 2 Cz 2 v4 + Co 2 Kz 2 v2
 2Co 2 Kz mb v4  2Co 2 Kz mr v4 + Co 2 mb 2 v6 + 2Co 2 mb mr v6 + Co 2 mr 2 v6 ð32cÞ
2 6 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 6 2 2 2 2
 2Co Cz mr v + Cz Ko v + 2Cz Ko mr v + Cz mr v + Ko Kz  2Ko Kz mb v
 2Ko 2 Kz mr v2 + Ko 2 mb 2 v4 + 2Ko 2 mb mr v4 + Ko 2 mr 2 v4 + 2Ko Kz 2 mr v2
 4Ko Kz mb mr v4  2Ko Kz mr 2 v4 + 2Ko mb 2 mr v6 + 2Ko mb mr 2 v6 + Kz 2 mr 2 v4
 2Kz mb mr 2 v6 + mb 2 mr 2 v8 )
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

B2 = (v(FCz Ko 2 + FCz Ko 2 + FCo 2 Cz v2 + FCo 2 Cz v2  FCo mr 2 v4

+ FCz mr 2 v4  FCo Kz mr v2 + FCz Ko mr v2 + 2FCz Ko mr v2 + FCo mb mr v4 ))
=(Co 2 Cz 2 w4 + Co 2 Kz 2 v2  2Co 2 Kz mb v4  2Co 2 Kz mr v4 + Co 2 mb 2 v6
+ 2Co 2 mb mr v6 + Co 2 mr 2 v6  2Co Cz mr 2 v6 + Cz 2 Ko 2 v2 + 2Cz 2 Ko mr v4
ð32dÞ
+ Cz 2 mr 2 v6 + Ko 2 Kz 2  2Ko 2 Kz mb v2  2Ko 2 Kz mr v2 + Ko 2 mb 2 v4
+ 2Ko 2 mb mr v4 + Ko 2 mr 2 v4 + 2Ko Kz 2 mr v2  4Ko Kz mb mr v4
 2Ko Kz mr 2 v4 + 2Ko mb 2 mr v6 + 2Ko mb mr 2 v6 + Kz 2 mr 2 v4
 2Kz mb mr 2 v6 + mb 2 mr 2 v8 )
   
A2 v2 A2
According to equation (8), the ground force can be f(v)mr = 180 arctan =p = 180 arctan =p
A1 v2 A1
written as:
ð35aÞ
   
Fg = Kz Xb + Cz X€ b B2 v2 B2
f(v)mb = 180 arctan =p = 180 arctan =p
= (B1 sin vt + B2 cos vt) + (B1 v cos vt  B2 v sin vt) B1 v2 B1
= Kz B1 sin vt + kz B2 cos vt + Cz B1 v cos vt  Cz B2 v sin vt ð35bÞ
= (Kz B1  Cz B2 v) sin vt + (Kz B2 + Cz B1 v) cos vt
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Phase reflects the real-time response relationship
= (Kz B1  Cz B2 v)2 + (Kz B2 + Cz B1 v)2 sin (vt + u1 ) between input and output. By substituting the para-
ð33Þ meters in Table 1 into equations (34) and (35), the
phase relationship between the reaction mass accelera-
where u1 = arctan ( KKzzBB21+ Cz B1 v
Cz B2 v ).
tion and the sweep frequency, the phase relationship
So, the phase equation of the ground force (the between the baseplate acceleration and the sweep fre-
phase difference between the ground force and the quency, and the phase relationship between the ground
sweep signal) can be expressed as: force and the sweep frequency can be obtained, as
  shown in Figure 9(a) to (c), respectively.
Kz B2 + Cz B1 v The phase of ground force is shown in Figure 9(a).
f(v)Fg = 180 arctan =p ð34Þ
Kz B1  Cz B2 v The ground force phase is lagging behind the sweep sig-
nal. As the frequency increases, the ground force phase
The phase equation of the reaction mass accelera- has one peak at about 26 Hz, and two troughs at about
tion and the phase equation of the baseplate accelera- 2 Hz and 50 Hz. As shown in Figure 9(b), the accelera-
tion can be expressed as: tion of the reaction mass is lagging behind the sweep
signal. In the band of 1–35 Hz, the phase of the

Figure 9. The relationship between phases and sweep frequency: (a) phase of ground force, (b) phase of the reaction mass
acceleration, and (c) phase of the baseplate acceleration.
Li et al.
reaction mass acceleration is rapidly decreased. In the
band of 35–120 Hz, its phase is first increased and then
decreased, but the trend is relatively flat. In Figure 9(c),
the phase of the baseplate acceleration decreases first
and then increases. Around 50 Hz, a 180° phase jump-
ing occurs.
It is worth noting that, all three phases undergo
abrupt changes at about 2 Hz and 50 Hz as the black
boxes and magenta boxes respectively show. At about
50 Hz, the phase of the baseplate acceleration changes
abruptly by 180°, and after the jumping phase, its phase
changes from lag to advance. This is consistent with the
results obtained in the field test, except that the jump-
ing frequency has some difference.35 Both 2 Hz and
50 Hz are very close to the resonant frequencies of the
structure. Therefore, resonance is the turning point of
structural response which is the key and breakthrough
in judging and analyzing vibration.
Although two methods are used, the abrupt change/
jumping frequencies of the phase are basically the same
as the natural frequencies obtained from the modal
analysis, which confirms the correctness and accuracy
of the two methods. Besides, the previous papers16,17
didn’t reflect the phase changes at natural frequencies,
but our method shows the influence of the resonance
on phase response. In the field exploration process,
because the sweep frequency does not continue to oper-
ate at the natural frequency, so the resonance response
may not be very large, or the structure may not have a
complete phase change, but the response near the natu-
ral frequency is greater than that far away from the nat-
ural frequency, and has been verified in field tests.36,37
Ideally, the phase difference between the output and
the input is 0°, so that the input and output are consis-
tent in time. However, the actual response is not the
case. The phase response of the vibrator is complex and
closely related to the frequency. Under the effect of the
sweep frequency, the phase of the structure changes
with the frequency, and the phase of each structure var-
ies greatly.
Conclusions
In this paper, a vibrator-ground coupling vibration
model is established, and the modal characteristics and
phase response of vibrator under excitation of sweep
frequency are analyzed. Results show that:
1. A model considering sweep frequency is devel-
oped based on the half-space theory, and the
comparative analysis shows that this model can
accurately describe the coupling relationship
between the vibrator and the ground through-
out the sweep frequency.
11
2. The natural frequency of the vibrator changes
as the sweep frequency changes, and resonance
may occur at 2.071 Hz and 53.12 Hz.
3. For the first-order resonance, the motions of the
reaction mass and the baseplate are in the same
direction, and the structure is dominated by the
reaction mass. For the second-order resonance,
the reaction mass and the baseplate move in
opposite directions, and the baseplate takes the
dominating position.
4. The abrupt change/jumping frequencies in the
phase analysis are basically the same as the nat-
ural frequencies obtained from the modal analy-
sis. The phases of reaction mass acceleration,
baseplate acceleration and ground force suffer
abrupt changes at about 2 Hz and 50 Hz, espe-
cially the phase of the baseplate acceleration
jumps by 180° at about 50 Hz.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work is supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 41902326) and China
National Petroleum Corporation (Grant Nos. 2018B3401 and
2018E2106).
ORCID iD
Gang Li https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9903-9121
References
1. Li G, Qi W, Ding YP, et al. Method and application of
extending seismic vibrator bandwidth toward low fre-
quency. Adv Mech Eng 2019; 11: 1–13.
2. Sallas JJ. How do hydraulic vibrators work? A look
inside the black box. Geophys Prospect 2010; 58: 3–18.
3. Wei ZH, Phillips TF and Hall M. Fundamental discus-
sions on seismic vibrators. Geophysics 2010; 75:
W13–W25.
4. Jiang JJ, Yu X, Zhang J, et al. Improving vibrator struc-
ture to eliminate vibration noise. Int J Adv Manuf Tech-
nol 2018; 96: 1741–1747.
5. Ziolkowski A. Review of vibrosies data acquisition and
processing for better amplitudes: adjusting the sweep and
deconvolving for the time-derivative of the true ground-
force. Geophys Prospect 2010; 58: 41–53.
6. Brook RA and Crew GA. Experimental analysis of
vibrator baseplate dynamics. In: 61th SEG annual meet-
ing, Houston, TX, USA, 10–14 November 1991, pp.743–
744. SEG.
12
7. Martin JE and Jack IG. The behaviour of a seismic
vibrator using different phase control methods and drive
levels. First Break 1990; 8: 404–414.
8. Lebedev AV and Beresnev I. Radiation from flexural
vibrations of the baseplate and their effect on the accu-
racy of traveltime measurements. Geophys Prospect
2005;53: 43–55
9. Lebedev AV, Beresnev IA and Vermeer PL. Model para-
meters of the nonlinear stiffness of the vibrator-ground
contact determined by inversion of vibrator acceler-
ometer data. Geophysics 2006; 71: H25–H32.
10. Ley R, Adolfs W, Bridle R, et al. Ground viscosity and
stiffness measurements for near surface seismic velocity.
Geophys Prospect 2006; 54: 751–762.
11. Tinkle A and Rowse SL. Toward a simplified model of
vibrator seismic source performance: preliminary results.
In: 80th SEG annual meeting, Denver, Colorado, USA,
17–22 October 2010, pp.17–22. SEG.
12. Dean T, Vermeer PL, Laycock M, et al. The complexity
of vibrator baseplate-ground interaction measured with a
thin-film pressure pad and a downhole tool. In: 77th
EAGE conference and exhibition, Madrid, Spain, 1–4
June 2015, pp.1–5. Houten: EAGE.
13. Noorlandt R and Drijkoningen G. On the mechanical
vibrator-earth contact geometry and its dynamics. Geo-
physics 2016; 81: 23–31.
14. Huang ZQ, Li G and Hao L. Study on dynamics of vibra-
tor baseplate at low and high frequencies. J Vibroengi-
neering 2017; 19: 2413–2426.
15. Chen Z, Huang ZQ, Jing S, et al. The fatigue behavior
and fatigue reliability analysis of vibroseis baseplates
based on fracture mechanics. Proc Inst Mech Eng O J
Risk Reliab 2017; 231: 732–749.
16. Liu J, Huang ZQ, Li G, et al. Dynamic characteristics
analysis of a seismic vibrator-ground coupling system.
Shock Vib 2017; 2017: 1–12.
17. Huang ZQ, Peng X and Li G. Optimization of the
dynamic stiffness of the seismic vibrator. Adv Mech Eng
2018; 10: 1–11.
18. Sallas JJ. Seismic vibrator control and the downgoing P-
wave. Geophysics 1984; 49: 732–740.
19. Wei ZH. How good is the weighted-sum estimate of the
vibrator ground force? Leading Edge 2009; 28: 960–965.
20. Saragiotis C, Scholtz P and Bagaini C. On the accuracy
of the ground force estimated in vibroseis acquisition.
Geophys Prospect 2010; 58: 69–80.
21. Rowse SL and Tinkle A. Vibroseis evolution: may the
ground force be with you. First Break 2016; 34: 61–67.
22. Rademacker TR, Miller RD, Xia J, et al. Enhancing the
vibroseis technique through equipment noise reduction
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
and optimizing the weighted sum signal. In: 75th SEG
Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, 6–11 November
2005, pp.33–36. SEG.
23. Wei ZH and Phillips TF. Seismic data filtering based on
vibrator-coupled ground model. Patent 8909480, USA.
2014.
24. Boucard D and Ollivrin G. Developments in vibrator
control. Geophys Prospect 2010; 58: 33–40.
25. Huang ZQ, Peng X, Li G, et al. Response of a two-
degree-of-freedom vibration system with rough contact
interfaces. Shock Vib 2019; 2019; 1–12.
26. Lou M, Wang H, Chen X, et al. Structure-soil-structure
interaction: literature review. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2011; 31: 1724–1731.
27. Yang YB and Yau JD. An iterative interacting method
for dynamic analysis of the maglev train-guideway/foun
dation-soil system. Eng Struct 2011; 33: 1013–1024.
28. Juarez M and Aviles J. Effective eccentricity due to the
effects of structural asymmetry and wave passage. Eng
Struct 2008; 30: 831–844.
29. Hamidzadeh-Eraghi HR and Grootenhuis P. The
dynamics of a rigid foundation on the surface of an elas-
tic half-space. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1981; 9:
501–515.
30. Li G, Huang ZQ, Lian ZH, et al. A model for the
vibrator-ground coupling vibration and the dynamic
responses under excitation of sweep signal. Adv Struct
Eng 2019; 22: 1855–1866.
31. Li G, Qi W, Huang ZQ, et al. Modeling of energy trans-
fer and parameter effects on it of a vibrator ground sys-
tem. Adv Struct Eng 2020; 23: 1–12.
32. McNeill SI and Zimmerman DC. Relating independent
components to free-vibration modal responses. Shock Vib
2010; 17: 161–170.
33. Tufano D and Sotoudeh Z. Overview of coupling loss
factors for damped and undamped simple oscillators. J
Sound Vib 2016; 372: 223–238.
34. Austrian Institute of Technology. Guidelines for optimal
design of force vibration method. Seventh Framework
Programme, EC project number: 262330, https://www.or
feus-eu.org/other/projects/nera/NERA_D6.3.pdf (2014,
accessed 22 August 2020).
35. Baeten GJM, Fokkema JT and Ziolkowski AM. Seismic
vibrator modelling. Geophys Prospect 2010; 36: 22–65.
36. Wei Z. Modelling and modal analysis of seismic vibrator
baseplate. Geophys Prospect 2010; 58: 19–32.
37. Wei Z and Phillips TF. Integrated analysis of the
vibrator-ground system at high frequencies. First Break
2013; 31: 89–96.