首页> 外文学位 >Evaluation of Loss Factor Estimation Techniques For Free Hanging Flat Panels Excited Mechanically.
【24h】

Evaluation of Loss Factor Estimation Techniques For Free Hanging Flat Panels Excited Mechanically.

机译:机械悬挂的自由悬挂平板的损耗因子估算技术评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

To establish the "best" technique to estimate a damping loss factor for mechanically-excited panels, three loss factor estimation techniques—PIM, IRDM, and RDT—are compared. In experimental and computational analyses, panels with two damping levels and three sizes were tested. The loss factor estimates from each of the three techniques are then evaluated in four distinct frequency bands centered at one-third octave frequencies of 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz and 4000 Hz (for computational analysis only).;Unlike IRDM and RDT, the quality of PIM-based loss factor estimates have presented a strong correlation between the region of response measurement and it is distance from the excitation location. PIM-based loss factors were significantly underestimated when responses are measured inside the direct field. PIM-based loss factors are relatively accurate only if the measurements are made from wide-spread response locations.;For a lightly damped panel, loss factor estimates using PIM, IRDM and RDT with direct averaging agree within reasonable accuracy. For intermediately to highly damped panels, IRDM and RDT with direct averaging under-predicted the loss factor; RDT with an autocorrelation function averaging approach slightly over-predicted the loss factor. Both RDT approaches might be used to set a bound on panel loss factor. Even when significantly fewer response locations are considered, it is evident that loss factor estimates from RDT are as reliable as IRDM and more reliable than PIM especially for highly damped panels.;For the analysis of freely hanging plates, excitation "close to an edge", especially for PIM, is not recommended. When analyzing the panel loss factor, arbitrary or central excitation is acceptable.
机译:为了建立“最佳”技术来估算机械激励板的阻尼损耗因子,比较了三种损耗因子估算技术-PIM,IRDM和RDT。在实验和计算分析中,测试了具有两个阻尼水平和三种尺寸的面板。然后,在以500 Hz,1000 Hz,2000 Hz和4000 Hz的三分之一倍频程为中心的四个不同频带(分别用于计算分析)中评估三种技术中每种技术的损耗因子估算值;与IRDM和RDT不同,基于PIM的损耗因子估计的质量已在响应测量区域与距激励位置的距离之间显示出很强的相关性。当在直接场内测量响应时,基于PIM的损耗因子被大大低估了。仅当在广泛的响应位置进行测量时,基于PIM的损耗因子才相对准确。对于轻阻尼面板,使用PIM,IRDM和RDT进行直接平均的损耗因子估计在合理的精度范围内。对于中高阻尼面板,直接平均的IRDM和RDT预测损耗因子不足;具有自相关函数平均方法的RDT稍微高估了损耗因子。两种RDT方法都可以用来设置面板损耗因子的界限。即使考虑的响应位置明显减少,也很明显,RDT的损耗因子估算值与IRDM一样可靠,并且比PIM更可靠,尤其是对于高阻尼面板。;对于自由悬挂的平板,分析“靠近边缘”不推荐使用,尤其是对于PIM。分析面板损耗因子时,可以接受任意激励或集中激励。

著录项

  • 作者

    Dande, Himanshu Amol.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Kansas.;

  • 授予单位 University of Kansas.;
  • 学科 Engineering Aerospace.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2013
  • 页码 203 p.
  • 总页数 203
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:41:04

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