首页> 外文会议>SAE Noise and Vibration Conference and Exhibition >Comparison of Long Bar Test Method to Oberst Bar Test Method for Damping Material Evaluation
【24h】

Comparison of Long Bar Test Method to Oberst Bar Test Method for Damping Material Evaluation

机译:长条试验方法对倾斜材料评价的烘焙杆试验方法的比较

获取原文

摘要

Several methods for evaluating damping material performance are commonly used, such as Oberst beam test, power injection method and the long bar test. Among these test methods, the Oberst beam test method has been widely used in the automotive industry and elsewhere as a standard method, allowing for slight bar dimension differences. However, questions have arisen as to whether Oberst test results reflect real applications. Therefore, the long bar test method has been introduced and used in the aerospace industry for some time. In addition to the larger size bar in the long bar test, there are a few differences between Oberst (cantilever) and long bar test (center-driven) methods. In this paper, the differences between Oberst and long bar test methods were explored both experimentally and numerically using finite element analysis plus an analytical method. Furthermore, guidelines for a long bar test method are provided.
机译:通常使用几种评估阻尼材料性能的方法,例如令人满意的光束测试,功率注入方法和长条试验。 在这些测试方法中,奥伯斯梁试验方法已广泛应用于汽车行业和其他地方作为标准方法,允许轻微的条形尺寸差异。 但是,对于奥德斯特测试结果是反映真实应用的问题。 因此,长条试验方法已经在航空航天工业中引入和使用了一段时间。 除了长杆试验中的较大尺寸栏之外,Oberst(悬臂)和长条试验(中心驱动)方法之间存在几个差异。 在本文中,使用有限元分析加上分析方法在实验和数值上探讨了OBESTER和LONG BAR测试方法的差异。 此外,提供了长条测试方法的指导。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号