Analysis of Isolated Raft Systems Using 2-DOF Nonlinear Spring-Mass Model

Frederick A. Costanzo Curtis B. Annibale John X. Przybysz, Jr. Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, UERD 9500 MacArthur Boulevard West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700 (301) 227-1650
NOMENCLATURE M1 M2 X1, 1, 1 X2, 2, 2 T K C Y FNL , b, c, d, e, f u rd rv vsf F fn Upper Mass Lower Mass Displacement of Upper Mass and its Derivatives Displacement of Lower Mass and its Derivatives Time Increment Spring Constant Viscous Damper Constant Base Input Displacement Nonlinear Mount Force Finite Difference Constants Mount Algorithm Polynomial Coefficients Mount Algorithm Coupled Variable Relative Displacement Across Mount Relative Velocity Across Mount Relative Velocity Normalization Coefficient Internal Mount Force Natural Frequency Damping Percentage (of Critical)

ABSTRACT In support of a Navy R&D Program aimed at the development of shock isolation strategies, a simple analytical tool was developed to aid in the performance of early-stage isolation system design iterations. This tool involves the idealization of an isolated raft system using a two degree-of-freedom (2DOF) spring-mass-damper system that allows for nonlinear mount characteristics to be incorporated. For this system, the governing equations of motion are derived and solved using a finite difference approximation. After an analytical benchmark is performed, the resulting general solution is then applied to specific test cases involving isolated raft proof-of-concept tests using two different types of nonlinear mounts. The numerical solutions for these test cases are then compared directly to measured responses across and above the isolation mounts and evaluations of the accuracy of this simplified analytical tool are made.

INTRODUCTION This paper documents the development of a simple analytical tool to be used in the early stages of the design of an isolation system. In the Navys shock isolation R&D Program, guidance was developed in the form of a multi-step process that ultimately leads to an isolated raft design which provides the desired mitigated environment for which Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) equipment can survive. A critical step in this process involves the isolator selection phase whereby a series of design parametric calculations are performed using a simple 2DOF representation of the raft with mounted equipment and nonlinear isolators. The details of the development of this valuable analytical tool, which enables these design iterations to be made in an efficient manner, are presented in the following sections of this paper. The overall process is summarized in the collage shown in Fig. 1 below. The overall goal is to develop an isolated raft system that meets the COTS goals and can either be installed in a particular compartment onboard ship, or, as illustrated in the lower right hand corner of Fig. 1, be placed in a test barge for proof-of-concept demonstration testing. Leading up to this point, however, are a number of steps which include analysis of a detailed finite element model of the final isolation design including a representation of the raft, installed COTS equipment items, and the isolators. Before this detailed analysis is possible, the selection of the particular isolator best suited for this isolation design must be made, which requires knowledge of the mounts dynamic force-deflection-velocity relationship. To facilitate this selection, a simple 2DOF representation of the raft, mounted equipment and mounts, as shown in the upper left hand corner of Fig.1, provides a convenient way to efficiently investigate a variety of design options in a short period of time.

Fig. 1 Illustration of Isolated Raft Design Process

Derivation of Equations of Motion for 2DOF System For a 2DOF system, the derivation of the governing equations of motions begins with a study of a schematic of the idealized system, shown in Fig. 2. Here one can see that the idealized system includes two distinct masses coupled together by a linear spring and damper, and the second mass, M 2, connected to the base through a nonlinear mount interface. This nonlinear mount can be represented either by an analytic expression, lookup table or user supplied subroutine involving complex logic describing the behavior of the particular mount. A prescribed base motion drives the 2DOF system into motion. To the right of the schematic in Fig. 2 is a free-body diagram of the idealized mount with an illustration of the forces that develop between the various elements. Notice the nonlinear force contribution indicated by the red circle. Next, either Newtons Second Law or DAlemberts Principle is applied and the governing differential equations of motion, given by Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), are derived. These equations represent a coupled set of second order differential equations that are linear, except for the contribution of the nonlinear force term. The next step is to develop a numerical solution to this coupled set of equations. The method selected was the application of Central Difference Approximations to the first and second derivatives. Central Difference approximations were selected in that they are convenient to apply, have no need for a starter method to begin the solution, and lead to a set of explicit expressions for the propagation through time and thus generation of the overall solution.

Fig. 2-Derivation of the Equations of Motion

M1 :

X1

&& & & = M 1 X 1 = K ( X 1 X 2 ) C (X 1 X 2 ) && & & M 1 X 1 + KX 1 + CX 1 = KX 2 + CX 2 Eq. (1)

M2 :

X2

&& & & = M 2 X 2 = K ( X 1 X 2 ) + C (X 1 X 2 ) FNL && & & M 2 X 2 + KX 2 + CX 2 = KX 1 + CX 1 FNL Eq. (2)

In developing the finite difference solution strategy, the Central Difference approximations for the first and second derivatives, given in Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), respectively, are substituted into the governing differential equations. This process transforms the set of coupled second order differential equations into a set of coupled algebraic equations, which can be solved explicitly for the displacements of the masses M1 and M 2, which are represented by the variables X1 and X2, respectively. This solution of the algebraic difference equations leads to recurrence relations that are used to propagate forward in time in generating the numerical solution.

& X1

1 [ X 1, j+1 + X 1, j1 ] 2 t 1 [X 1, j+1 2 X 1, j + X 1, j1 ] ( t ) 2

Eq. (3)

&& X1

Eq. (4)

The next step in this solution strategy involves the application of the initial conditions. This establishes the initial state of the variables found in the recurrence relations, thus enabling the start of the solution process. The initial conditions that apply to this problem are summarized in Eqs. (5) below.

X1(0) = 0 X1(0) = 0

X2(0) = 0 X2(0) = 0

Eqs. (5)

Upon substitution of the Central Difference expressions into the governing differential equations of motion, and application of the associated initial conditions, the recurrence relations for X2 and X1 and their initial states are completely determined as Eq. (6) through Eq. (10) below:

2M 2 M C C + K X 2, j 1 22 X 2, j +1 = X 2, j + X 1, j {K } + X 1, j 1 FNL 2 2t 2t (t ) (t ) 1 C X 2, j K + X 2, j 1 - C X 1, j 2 M 1 + K + 2 2t M 1 + C 2t (t ) (t )2 2t M C X 1, j 1 12 2t (t )

Eq. (6)

Where

1
2 C 2t M 2 + C (t )2 2t M C 1 2 + (t ) 2t

Eq. (8)

and

X 1, j +1 =

1 M1 (t )2

2M1 C -C +K X 2, j +1 + X 2, j K + X 2, j 1 X 1, j 2 C 2 t 2t (t ) + 2 t

Eq. (9)

M C X 1, j 1 12 (t ) 2t
2 C 2 t 1 + M 2 C + = 2 C (t ) 2t M 1 + 2 (t ) 2t

Eq. (7)

with initial states defined by:

X 1,0 = 0

X 2,0 = 0

X 1, 1 = 0

X 2 , 1 =

FNL0

Eqs. (10)

Notice in the expression for X 2 in Eq. (6) the presence of the nonlinear force term, FNL, which is highlighted by the red circle. Although this term doesnt appear in the expression for X1 in Eq. (7), it is implicitly present since this expression contains the most recently solved value for X 2 on the right hand side. Also, the influence of the initial nonlinear force on the starting condition can be seen in Eqs. (10). Now that these recurrence relations have been established as a straightforward set of algebraic equations, the solution of the response of this 2DOF system for any given base input motion can be determined.

ANALYTICAL BENCHMARK OF NUMERICAL SOLUTION

Prior to applying this simple analytical tool toward the solution of a specific isolated raft problem, it was first necessary and instructive to benchmark this numerical strategy against a known solution to a test problem. Such a step helps verify that the numerical approximations were implemented correctly and that resulting applications tend toward a convergent solution. This benchmark can either be performed with a closed-form solution, or as done here, with a finite element solution. For this benchmark example, the model shown in Fig. 3 was analyzed both with the numerical solution developed in this paper and with a finite element model. In this problem, the base excitation involves a sinusoidal acceleration pulse with amplitude of 100 gs and a driving frequency of 15 Hz. The base motion drives the rest of the 2DOF system through a 5 Hz linear spring. The values of M1 and M2 are 1000 lbs and 2000 lbs, respectively, and these two masses are coupled together through a 10 Hz linear spring and a linear damper providing 5% of critical damping.

X1 1000#

Max 100.0

BASE INPUT

120

90

Acceleration (g's)

60

5% 2000# Y

10 Hz X2

30

-30

linear 5 Hz Base

-60

-90

-120 0
-100. Min
NSWCCD-UERD

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (msec)
10/18/00

Fig. 3 Analytical Benchmark Problem When this problem is solved using the analytical tool developed in this paper, as well as with the finite element code, CSA/NASTRAN, the results shown in Fig. 4 were obtained. From both the comparisons of the computed responses for acceleration of M1 and the relative displacement response across the linear 5 Hz spring, it is clear that the two solutions are in exact agreement. This result gave confidence that the finite difference strategy was properly implemented, and thus at this point, this 2DOF analytical tool is now ready to be applied to an actual isolated raft problem.

Max 53.97

Payload Response

60

Max 19.10

Mount Response

20

Acceleration (g's)

30

Relative Displacement (in)

10

-30

-10

-60

-20

-90 0
-60.1 Min

-30 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (msec)
Shock Mount NASTRAN
10/18/00

-20.3 Min

Time (msec)
Shock Mount NASTRAN
10/18/00

NSWC/CD-UERD

NSWC/CD-UERD

Fig. 4 Response Comparisons for Acceleration of M1 and for Relative Displacement Across 5 Hz Spring

SPECIFIC NONLINEAR MOUNT MODELS

The next step is the application of this tool to a real problem. Two candidate mounts will be analyzed for the illustration in this paper. However, this method has been applied with numerous algorithms from the existing mount database at UERD. The top half of Fig. 5 contains photographs of both mount Type A and mount Type B. Both of these isolators have undergone detailed characterization tests involving a large test mass installed on a floating shock platform, subjected to underwater explosion (UNDEX) testing. The bottom half of Fig. 5 illustrates the mount characterization test mass installed on the inner bottom of a floating shock platform for one of the tests. During a series of UNDEX tests, dynamic response measurements were made below, above and across these mounts. From a comprehensive analysis of this data performed the Navy, the dynamic response characteristics of these mounts were identified and cast into the form of convenient algorithms for describing their responses under dynamic motions. One of the initial steps in the mount characterization effort was to determine the linear stiffness and damping trends of the candidate isolators. This step results in useful insight as to the degree of linearity associated with these particular isolators, as well as provides linearized forms of the respective mount algorithms that subsequently can be used for a first cut analysis using a linear analysis tool. In order to determine these linear trends, regression planes are determined through statistical analyses of the mount characterization data, and from these identified planes the linear stiffness and damping can be readily determined from the respective slopes of these curves. Fig. 6 illustrates the identification of such linear trends for mount Type A. However, in most cases a detailed nonlinear characterization of isolators is required and thus a more detailed analysis of the characterization data is necessary. Generally, nonlinear mount characterization algorithms can be found in the form of functional descriptions, lookup tables, or a combination of analytic functions with nested logic in a user defined subroutine. For mount Types A and B discussed here, the functional form which best suited the characterization was that of a fifth degree polynomial. This representation is based on an independent variable, u, which is a linear combination of the relative displacement and relative velocity across the mount. The functional form and best-fit coefficients for mounts Type A and Type B for both the axial and transverse directions are presented in Fig. 7.

Fig. 5 Mount Characterization Approach

Type A, All Three Masses, Axial

Type A, All Three Masses, Axial

Fig. 6 Example of Linear Stiffness/Damping Factor Trend

F b*u + c*u2 + d*u3 + e*u4 + f*u5 u = rd + (rv/vsf)

Coefficient/Parameter Type A axial b c d e f vsf Limits of Validity rd_lim_comp (inches) rd_lim_tens (inches) rv_lim_comp (inches/second) rv_lim_tens (inches/second) -1.9 1.4 -160 60 -4 3 -150 70 -1.8 1.1 -115 70 -2.1 1.4 -150 70 5465.75 631.39 993.37 -79.01 -78.44 135 90.64 Type A transverse 1216.65 39.81 62.76 -2.42 Type B axial 10477.1 663.31 -1918.24 -309.66 271.63 184.7 Type B transverse 9387.9 -186.88 -684.21 206.89 261.22 331.9

Fig. 7 Nonlinear Mount Algorithms for Mounts Type A and Type B

One important point that must be made is that when applying numerical algorithms to shock isolation problems, one must be aware of the limits of validity of these algorithms. Such limits as determined for the Type A and Type B mounts are presented in Fig. 7 for both the axial and radial directions. The ranges of application of the algorithms must be kept within these limits to ensure reasonable accuracy and to avoid the generation of erroneous results. The limits of validity are related to the goodness of fit of the selected functional form, as well as to the ranges at which the mounts were exercised during their characterization testing. For the applications of this 2DOF tool to actual isolated raft responses, only the analyses involving these two isolators for the vertical direction will be presented in this paper. For this direction, the limits of validity for relative displacement for the Type A and Type B mounts are 1.9 in. and 1.8 in. respectively. APPLICATION OF 2DOF MODEL TO AN ISOLATED RAFT PROBLEM In order to demonstrate the value and usefulness of the 2DOF analysis tools, application of this tool will now be made to an isolated raft system. The specific system for this demonstration involves a prototype raft fashioned for an actual shipboard space, as part of a Navy R&D Program proof-of-concept demonstration testing effort. This raft and simulated equipment arrangement are illustrated in Fig.8 below.

Fig. 8 Raft and Simulated Equipment Arrangement

The next step is to characterize the raft with a two-degree of freedom model. This idealization is performed according to the steps outlined in the Navys draft design guidance. The sketches in Fig. 9 illustrate how this is accomplished for the particular raft under consideration. First of all, the total mass of the raft structure, supported equipment items, and half the weight of the mounts are computed to be 14,240 lbs., as noted in the figure. This total mass is supported by four mounts located near the corners of the raft. For this application, the assumption is made that this mass is evenly distributed amongst the four mounts. This quartering of the total mass is illustrated by the region shaded in green in Fig. 9, and amounts to 3,560 lbs. per mount. A further partitioning of this mass is achieved by determining, usually from an accompanying finite element model of the entire raft system, the fundamental mode of flexural vibration and associated modal effective weight. For this raft system, the fundamental vibration frequency (1st mode vertical bending) was determined to be 13.5 Hz, and the associated modal effective weight was 2,206 lbs.

From this information, the 2DOF spring-mass-damper model shown on the right hand side of Fig. 9 is assembled. For this model, M 1, which equals the modal effective weight of the fundamental mode, represents the response of the raft at points near its center. The other mass, M 2, takes on the value of the balance of the mass distributed to the mount, which in this case is 1354 lbs. M2 represents the raft motions in the vicinity of the mount locations. The 2% of critical damping is added, based on the analysis of previous testing data from isolated raft responses. Finally, to complete the idealization, the appropriate nonlinear mathematical mount algorithm is supplied between the base and lower mass, M 2. At this point, the idealized raft system is ready for analysis for specific UNDEX induced base motions.

Fig. 9 - Idealization of Isolated Raft into Equivalent 2DOF System The first case studied involves the Navy R&D raft mounted on a test fixture in a floating shock barge with Type A mounts. Fig. 10 illustrates the isolated raft with indicated positions of two accelerometers located above the mounts on the raft. One of the sensors is located near a mount location and the other is located near the center of the raft. In addition, a third accelerometer is indicated at its position at the base of one of the mounts on the surface of the test fixture. A schematic showing the raft, test fixture and floating shock barge configuration is also shown in the figure. The base input motion used in the 2DOF analysis is the measured acceleration-time history from this below-mount gage indicated by the green dot, and is shown in Fig. 11, along with the idealized 2DOF system with the Type A mount.

Floating Shock Barge

Fig. 10 Measurement Positions on Raft and on Test Fixture Below Mounts

A7001V Test Fixture Input

Type A Mount

Fig. 11- Base Input Motion and Idealized 2DOF System With Type A Mount Comparisons of the computed responses for the position on the raft near the mount location (M 2) are summarized by the series of plots presented in Fig. 12. The upper left hand plot shows the computed acceleration for M 2 (red curve) compared with the corresponding measured acceleration (blue curve) for this location during the test. This comparison indicates that the 2DOF system correlates fairly well with the overall variation of acceleration in time, but misses some of the measured peak values. The associated velocity histories, obtained through integration of these respective accelerations, are shown in the upper right hand curve and indicate a much more favorable comparison. The corresponding computed and measured shock response spectra are also in close agreement and are shown in the lower figure along with a notional COTS threshold, developed from a half-sine pulse. From this plot, one would draw the same conclusion from both the measured and computed curves that the isolated environment at the raft position directly above the mount falls below this threshold. Similar comparisons for this same idealized system with the Type A mount, but at a position near the center of the raft corresponding to M1, are presented in Fig. 13. Here it can be seen that the 2DOF model correlates very well in both the acceleration and velocity domains, tracking extremely well with the peaks and time variation in both cases. In addition, the corresponding shock response spectra also agree well, and both the measured and computed spectra for this mid-raft location fall below the notional COTS threshold. The measured and computed nonlinear mount force-displacement histories are compared for the Type A mount in Fig. 14. From the shapes and extents of these respective hysteresis curves it is observed that the mount algorithm for the Type A mount, in conjunction with this 2DOF idealization, produces a reliable representation of the across-mount dynamic response characteristics. Also, from this plot, it can be seen that the maximum excursion across the Type A mount is approximately 1.7 in., which falls within the earlier stated range of applicability for the mathematical algorithm developed for this mount. Next, a similar set of comparisons is made for calculations performed for the Type B mount. The base input motion used in the 2DOF analysis for this mount is shown in Fig. 15, along with the idealized 2DOF system with the Type B mount. Comparisons of the computed responses for the position on the raft near the mount location (M2) are illustrated in Fig. 16 for this mount. As was the case for the Type A mount, this comparison for the Type B mount indicates that the 2DOF system also correlates well with the overall variation of acceleration in time, but underestimates some of the measured peak values. The associated velocity histories are shown in the upper right hand curve and indicate a much better agreement. The corresponding computed and measured shock response spectra are also in close agreement and are shown in the lower figure along with a

COTS Threshold

A4022V

2DOF Raft

Fig. 12 Comparison of Measured and Computed Responses (Type A Mount) Near Mount Location

COTS Threshold

A4004V

2DOF Payload

Fig. 13 Comparisons of Measured and Computed Responses (Type A Mount) Near Center of Raft

Fig. 14 Type A Mount Nonlinear Mount Performance Computed vs. Measured

Type B Mount
A7001V Test Fixture Input

Fig. 15 Base Input Motion and Idealized 2DOF System With Type B Mount

COTS Threshold

A4022V

2DOF Raft

Fig. 16 Comparisons Between Measured and Computed Responses (Type B Mount) Near Mount Location

notional COTS threshold. Again, as with the Type A comparisons one would draw the same conclusion from both the measured and computed Type B response curves that the isolated environment at the raft position directly above the mount falls below this threshold at a location near the mount location. Comparisons for this same idealized system with the Type B mount at a position near the center of the raft corresponding to M1, are presented in Fig. 17. Here excellent correlation between the measured responses and those computed with this simple 2DOF model are observed for both the acceleration and velocity domains. This agreement holds true for both the comparisons of the peaks and time variations. In addition, the corresponding shock response spectra also agree well, and both the measured and computed spectra for this mid-raft location for the Type B mount fall below the notional COTS threshold at all frequencies, except for a slight violation at the mount natural frequency. The measured and computed nonlinear mount force-displacement histories for the Type B mount are presented in Fig. 18. Again good agreement is observed for both the extents and shapes of these respective hysteresis curves, and, as was the case for the Type A mount, it is concluded here that a simple 2DOF model produces a reliable representation of the across-mount dynamic response characteristics for the Type B mount. Also, from this plot, it can be seen that the maximum excursion across the Type B mount is approximately 1.5 in., which falls in the earlier stated range of applicability for the mathematical algorithm developed for this mount.

COTS Threshold

A4004V

2DOF Payload

Fig. 17- Comparisons Between Measured and Computed Responses (Type B Mount) Near Center of Raft

Fig. 18 Type B Mount Nonlinear Mount Performance Computed vs. Measured

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This paper documents the derivation of the equations of motion for a simple 2DOF nonlinear analytical tool for computing the response of isolated raft systems to UNDEX excitations. A solution to these equations using Central Difference approximations was developed, and the resulting 2DOF model was then successfully applied to an analytical benchmark problem. Next, specific nonlinear mount algorithms for the Type A and Type B mounts were presented and incorporated separately into the 2DOF tool. This tool was then applied to an isolated raft test series using a prototype raft fashioned for an actual shipboard space that was tested under a Navy R&D Program, and comparisons were made for both the Type A and Type B isolators. From the comparisons made between the measured results and results computed using the 2DOF idealization of the isolated raft, it was observed that good agreement was obtained for both Type A and Type B mounts, and that the correlation was best at the center of the raft. Also, from the degree of correlation obtained it appears that the respective mount algorithms provided an accurate representation of each mounts dynamic response characteristics. The use of Central Difference approximations proved to be sufficient in these applications to bring about accurate simulations. However, in applications not discussed here where the base input was more severe resulting in greater relative displacements across the mounts, the mounts become more highly nonlinear. In such cases these mount nonlinearities may warrant a higher ordered finite difference approximation. In conclusion, the simulation results indicate that a 2DOF system, when adequately fashioned in idealizing an isolated raft structure, produces reliable results that can be used in the initial design of isolation systems.