Dynamics of A Truss Structure and Its Moving-Oscillator Exciter With Separation and Impact-Reattachment

Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.
org/ on January 3, 2015
Proc. R. Soc. A (2008) 464, 2517–2533

doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0057
Published online 13 May 2008
Dynamics of a truss structure and its

moving-oscillator exciter with separation
and impact–reattachment
B Y L UIS B AEZA 1 AND H UAJIANG O UYANG 2, *
1
Departamento de Ingenierı́a Mecánica, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia,
46022 Valencia, Spain
2
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UK
The dynamic response of a stationary structure excited by a moving structure is studied

in this paper. The stationary structure is in the form of a truss made of a number of
rigidly connected Timoshenko beams, while the moving structure consists of two masses
linked by a spring and a dashpot (oscillator). To facilitate the mathematical model of the
moving-load dynamics of the whole system, the frequencies and modes of the stationary
structure are first obtained by the finite-element method and then they are cast in an
analytical form within each element through the element shape functions. This is a
distinct advantage of this paper. Each component beam of the stationary structure is
meshed with an adaptable number of Timoshenko beam elements to allow efficient
modelling of the vibration of the structure for a wide range of travelling speeds of the
moving oscillator. During the horizontal travel and vertical vibration of the oscillator, it
may separate from the vibrating stationary structure and subsequently may reattach to
the stationary structure with impact. These two phenomena have been studied in only a
few papers for simple moving-load problems in the past and have never been studied for
the present problem. It is found through simulated examples that the dynamic response
at high speeds can be several times higher than the relevant static response, and
separation and reattachment with impact produce a noticeable difference in the dynamic
response. Multiple separation and impact events are possible at high speeds. It is also
interesting to observe that separation may occur at high subcritical speeds and impact at
various values of the coefficient of restitution has mild local influence on the dynamic
response after reattachment.
Keywords: dynamics; moving oscillator; truss; separation; reattachment; impact
1. Introduction
Vibration of a stationary structure excited by another structure moving on the

surface of the stationary structure is very common in engineering and science.
Various examples include vibration of a variety of bridges (Au et al. 2001),
railway tracks (Metrikine & Verichev 2001) or roads (Pesterev et al. 2002) under
travelling vehicles and vibration of the vehicles themselves (Yang et al. 2004),
* Author for correspondence (h.ouyang@liverpool.ac.uk).
Received 8 February 2008

Accepted 15 April 2008 2517 This journal is q 2008 The Royal Society
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 3, 2015
2518 L. Baeza and H. Ouyang
vibration of data storage disks (Kim et al. 2000), disc-brake squeal (Cao et al.
2004) and vibration in centrifugal atomization (Ouyang 2005). In the simplest
cases of a vehicle–bridge interaction, the moving structure may be modelled as a
constant force, a mass or an oscillator while the stationary structure may be
modelled as a single or continuous beam (Akin & Mofid 1989; Chatterjee et al.
1994a; Fryba 1999; Yang et al. 2000). Analytical solutions of simple moving-load
problems can be found in Fryba’s monograph (1999). For a moving flexible body
(Ouyang & Mottershead 2007), numerical methods must be used.
More realistic representations of real structures can be made to the moving
structure or the stationary structure or both. In the case of the moving structure,
a train was modelled as a two-axle mass–spring–damper system supporting a
rigid body in Fryba (1968) and as a system of multiple oscillators in Marchesiello
et al. (1999). As for the stationary structure, various types of bridges were
studied by a number of researchers (Chatterjee et al. 1994b; Humar & Kashif
1995; Henchi et al. 1998; Huang & Wang 1998; Wang & Lin 1998; Cheung et al.
1999; Yau & Yang 2004; Lee & Yhim 2005).
Many bridges are made from pin-connected or rigidly connected members in
various configurations. The vibration of a bridge in the form of a simple plane
frame excited by moving loads was studied by Wang & Lin (1998). A plane truss
structure excited by a moving oscillator is the subject of this paper. As shear may
be important in many cases, the Timoshenko beam theory (Géradin & Rixen
1997) is used. A mass in contact with the stationary structure and supporting
another mass through a spring and a dashpot as a simplistic representation of a
vehicle is the model for the moving structure and is referred to as a moving
oscillator. At low travelling speeds, the dynamic effect on the truss produced by
the moving oscillator is small and hence a small number of modes are excited. At
high travelling speeds, on the other hand, higher modes are excited and thus
must be involved in the dynamics of the truss. To allow efficient simulation for a
wide range of travelling speeds from low to high, each beam component of the
truss is meshed with an adaptive element mesh. Numerical modes and
frequencies of the truss are obtained using MATLAB by the finite-element (FE)
method. The modes obtained for the nodes of the mesh are then replaced by
analytical forms for mathematical convenience and numerical efficiency in
solving this moving-load problem. The equations of motion for the whole system
are solved numerically. The computing code is capable of automatically
generating a number of typical truss configurations. To the authors’ best
knowledge, dynamic interaction between a truss structure and a moving
oscillator has not been studied in the past.
Since both the stationary and moving structures vibrate vertically, the moving
structure may be bounced off the stationary structure and may then descend on
the stationary structure. An impact may result at the instant of this reattachment.
The possibility of separation in moving-load problems was mentioned by Yang
et al. (2004) and Fryba (1999) but not studied. Lee (1998) seems to be the first
researcher who studied it in the very simple problem of a mass moving on a beam.
However, he simplistically assumed that the vertical velocity of the mass took the
value of the vertical velocity of the beam at the reattachment point with no
velocity change. Cheng et al. (1999) considered separation and put forward a
sophisticated method for determining the velocity of the oscillator and the beam
after reattachment with impact. Stancioiu et al. (2008) suggested a simpler
Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

A truss structure and a moving oscillator 2519
Figure 1. The moving oscillator.
approach for dealing with reattachment with impact for a beam subjected to a
moving oscillator. Separation and reattachment with impact are investigated for
the more realistic model of a bridge as a truss structure in this paper. It should be
pointed out that the works of Lee (1998), Cheng et al. (1999) and Stancioiu et al.
(2008) seem to be the only ones that studied separation and reattachment among
hundreds of papers on moving-load problems.
2. Vertical motion of the oscillator
The equations of vertical motion of the sprung and unsprung masses of the
oscillator, as shown in figure 1, are
mz z€ Z Wz K fzy ; ð2:1Þ
my y€ Z Wy C fzy C fc ; ð2:2Þ
where
fzy Z cðz_ K yÞ
_ C kðz KyÞ; ð2:3Þ
and WzZKmzg and WyZKmyg are the weights of the two masses, in which g
is the gravitational constant. fc is the dynamic contact force at the
oscillator–truss contact point, i.e. the moving load from the oscillator acting
onto the stationary structure.
It is assumed that when the oscillator is in contact with the truss, the vertical
motion y(t) of the unsprung mass and the transverse motion w(x, t) of the beam
at the point of instantaneous contact are equal. The transverse vibration of the
beam can be expressed as a modal expansion of
wðx; tÞ Z q T ðtÞjw ðxÞ; ð2:4Þ

where jw(x) is the vector of the modes for the transverse-displacement
components, i.e. w, of the stationary structure and q(t) is the corresponding
modal coordinates. The superscript ‘T’ stands for the transpose of a vector or

Figure 2. The stationary structure in the form of a truss.
matrix. The contact condition dictates that

yðtÞ Z q T ðtÞjw ðsÞ; ð2:5Þ
and therefore
y_ Z q_ T jw C q T jw0 s;
_ ð2:6Þ
y€ Z q€ T jw C 2q_ T jw0 s_ C q T jw00 s_2 C q T jw0 s€; ð2:7Þ

where s(t) is the horizontal motion of the moving oscillator. In this paper, the
overhead dot and prime represent the derivative with respect to time t and space
coordinate x, respectively.
3. Vibration of the stationary structure
The stationary structure in the form of a truss structure made of a number of

rigidly connected Timoshenko beams, such as the one shown in figure 2, is
studied. The equation of motion for the free transverse vibration of an individual
beam is (Géradin & Rixen 1997)
" !# 9
v2 w v vw >
>
rA 2 K gGA Kq ZKfc ðtÞdðx KsÞ; >
>
>
vt vx vx =
! ! ð3:1Þ
v2 q v vq vw >
>
rI 2 K EI Kq Z 0; >
>
KgGA >
;
vt vx vx vx
where w and q are the transverse displacement and the rotation of the cross
section of the beam, respectively; r is the density; A and I are the area and the
second moment of area of the beam’s cross section, respectively; G and E are
the shear modulus and Young’s modulus, respectively; g is the shear factor; d
is the Dirac delta function; and fc is the dynamic contact force (moving load)
from the oscillator.
For a truss made of a number of Timoshenko beams as shown in figure 2, the
equations for the modes and frequencies are simultaneous transcendental
equations that are difficult to solve accurately. From this consideration, the
FE method should be used. For a moving-load problem, however, there is a
clear advantage of expressing the modes and hence the vibration of the
stationary structure in an analytical manner in that the vertical motion of
the moving structure can be easily related mathematically to the deflection

t
ele men
d ef o rm e d
undeformed element
Le
Figure 3. A typical beam element and its local coordinate system.
of the supporting structure (e.g. equations (2.5)–(2.7)). On the other hand, if the
vibration of the supporting structure is in a discrete form, for example, as in an
FE model, it is difficult to track the position of the moving structure and relate
its motion to that of the FE nodal displacement vector of the stationary structure
as the moving structure traverses different element domains of the discretized
stationary structure. However, in real structures such as bridges consisting of a
number of distinct components an analytical expression of their motion is either
non-existent or is exceedingly complicated. To enable investigations into the
vibration of structures more complicated than a single beam and retain the
mathematical convenience and hence computing efficiency, the stationary
structure is first discretized with finite elements to give modes and frequencies
and then an analytical form of the FE modes is obtained inside each element by
interpolation using the FE modal solution and the element shape functions.
The element mass and stiffness matrices are available in Przemieniecki (1968).
A MATLAB code is written for a truss structure with an arbitrary number of
beams and an arbitrary number of Timoshenko beam elements for each
component beam. In each beam element, the local coordinate x is defined for
the interval [K1,1] (figure 3), thus xZxiC(Le/2)(1Cx), where xi is the
x -coordinate of the l.h.s. node of the element and Le is the length of a beam
element. The nth w-mode shape function for the ith element can be expressed
through the local coordinate as follows:
jwn Z Awn C xBwn C x2 Cwn C x3 Dwn : ð3:2Þ
From the w - and q-values of the FE modes at left and right nodes of each
element, the coefficients in equation (3.2), Awn, Bwn, Cwn and Dwn can be
determined and then the analytical form of the modes of the w-components of the
stationary structure, jw(x), can be obtained. It should be pointed out that the
above methodology applies to trusses and frames of any configuration.

4. Dynamics of the whole system
The equation of motion of the truss in modal coordinates can be expressed

as follows:
q€ C diag½u2 q ZKfc ðtÞjw ðsÞ; ð4:1Þ
2
where diag[u ] is a diagonal matrix of appropriate dimension whose diagonal
elements are the natural frequencies squared of the truss structure ranked in
ascending order.
From equations (2.2) and (4.1), it follows that
q€ C diag½u2 q Z ðWy C fzy K my y€Þjw ðsÞ: ð4:2Þ
By substituting equation (2.7) into equation (4.2), one can obtain

I C my jw ðsÞjT
w ðsÞ q€ Z jw ðsÞðWy C fzy ÞKdiag½u2 q

K my jw ðsÞ 2q_ T jw0 ðsÞs_ C q T jw00 ðsÞs_2 C q T jw0 ðsÞ€
s ; ð4:3Þ
where I is the identity matrix of appropriate dimension. Equations (2.1)–(2.3)
and (4.3) are solved simultaneously to obtain the vibration of the truss and
the oscillator.
If the oscillator travels at constant speed v, equation (4.3) reduces to

I C my jw ðvtÞjT
w ðvtÞ q€ Z jw ðvtÞðWy C fzy ÞKdiag½u2 q

K my jw ðvtÞ 2q_ T jw0 ðvtÞv C q T jw00 ðvtÞv 2 : ð4:4Þ
5. Separation and reattachment
Under certain conditions, the moving oscillator may separate from the beam during
its travel and vibration. The most influential parameter seems to be the speed v
(Stancioiu et al. 2008). It is also probable that the oscillator may reattach to the
beam with an impact after separation (Cheng et al. 1999; Stancioiu et al. 2008).
Separation takes place whenever fc(t) drops to zero (it is defined as positive
when it is compressive). During the numerical integration, the value of fc(t) is
checked constantly. Once it becomes negative, the time instant goes backward by
one step and a new time step is predicted so that at the end of this new time step
fc(t) becomes zero within a small acceptable error. Then, a new set of equations
(free vibration of the oscillator and the truss) will be solved with appropriate
initial conditions. These new equations are
mz z€ Z Wz K fzy ; my y€ Z Wy C fzy ; ð5:1Þ
q€ C diag½u2 q Z 0: ð5:2Þ
After separation, y(t) and w(s, t) are monitored. When y(t)Zw(s, t), the
oscillator reattaches to the top deck of the truss. If the vertical velocity of
the oscillator is different from that of the beam at the reattachment point, there
is an impact. Cheng et al. (1999) put forward a sophisticated method for dealing
with the impact and determining the velocity after the impact. Here, the simple
approach proposed by Stancioiu et al. (2008) is used.

Suppose that the impact (reattachment) takes place at time instant t r and the
impulse is p. For that particular beam onto which the oscillator descends, the
equation of motion is
" !# 9
v2 w v vw >
>
rA 2 K gGA Kq ZKpdðtKt r Þdðx KsÞ; >
>
>
vt vx vx =
! ! ð5:3Þ
v2 q v vq vw >
>
rI 2 K EI Kq Z 0: >
>
KgGA >
;
vt vx vx vx
Using the same modal approach employed in §4, equation (5.3) may be written in
the modal coordinate vector as
q€ C diag½u2i q ZKpjw ðsðt r ÞÞdðtK t r Þ: ð5:4Þ
Integration in the time domain containing the instant of impact gives
_ C
qðt r ÞK qðt
_ K r Þ ZKpjw ðsðt r ÞÞ; ð5:5Þ
where tK
rand tC
are the instants just before and just after the impact. From
r
equations (2.4) and (5.5), one can obtain
vw vw
C K K ZKpjT w ðsðt r ÞÞjw ðsðt r ÞÞ: ð5:6Þ
vt tZt r vt tZt r
For the moving oscillator, similarly (Stancioiu et al. 2008),
p
_ C
yðt r ÞK yðt
_ K rÞZ : ð5:7Þ
my
Combination of equations (5.5) and (5.7) leads to
C
r K q_ ðt r Þ ZKmy y_ t r K y_ ðt r Þ jw ðsðt r ÞÞ:
q_ t C ð5:8Þ
K K
Two simplest types of impact, perfectly elastic and perfectly plastic, are first
studied in §5a,b. In general, an impact will be neither perfectly elastic nor
perfectly plastic, but somewhere in-between. Interested readers may refer to
Goldsmith (1960) for more general cases of impact. Next, in §5c, these general
cases are approximately represented by the coefficient of restitution.
(a ) Perfectly elastic impact

If the impact is perfectly elastic, the total energy before and after the impact
are the same. The difference between these two energy values is then
ð ( C 2 2 )
rA l vw x; t r vw ðx; tK
rÞ my n C2 2
o
DW Z K dx C y_ t r K½y_ ðtK
r Þ
2 0 vt vt 2
1 T C C my
Z q_ t r q_ t r Kq_ T ðtK
r Þq_ ðt r Þ C
K
½yðt
_ C 2
r Þ K½yðt
_ K r Þ
2
Z 0: ð5:9Þ
2 2
Please note that just before and just after the impact, the values of the beam’s
potential energy are the same and the values of the kinetic energy of the sprung
mass are the same too, and therefore these terms do not appear in equation (5.9).


Substituting equation (5.8) into equation (5.9) and solving for y_ tC r yields
K
C my j T T
w ðsðt r ÞÞjw ðsðt r ÞÞ K1 y_ ðt r Þ C 2jw ðsðt r ÞÞq_ ðt r Þ
K
y_ t r Z ; ð5:10Þ
my jT
w ðsðt r ÞÞjw ðsðt r ÞÞ C 1
and then from equation (5.8), it follows that

" #
C 2my y_ ðtK r Þjw ðsðt r ÞÞ 2my jw ðsðt r ÞÞjTw ðsðt r ÞÞ
q_ t r Z C IK q_ ðtK
r Þ:
my j T
w ðsðt r ÞÞjw ðsðt r ÞÞ C 1 my jT
w ðsðt r ÞÞjw ðsðt r ÞÞ C 1
ð5:11Þ
Therefore, the modal velocity of the truss and the vertical velocity of the
r can be calculated from the modal velocity of the truss and the
oscillator at tC
vertical velocity of the oscillator at tK
r . At the point of impact, there is usually a
velocity discontinuity (Stancioiu et al. 2008).
After a perfectly elastic impact, the oscillator (unsprung mass) bounces off the
beam at a newly gained vertical velocity yðt _ Cr Þ as its initial velocity and the
vertical motion of the unsprung mass is now governed by equation (5.1). It
should be pointed out that the displacements (motion) of the oscillator and of the
beam are each continuous throughout the entire time duration of interest, and
thus the displacements just after and just before the impact remain the same and
known. Numerical integration of equations (5.1) allows y(t) and z(t) to be found.
Whenever y(t) approaches w(s, t) again at a later time, a new impact takes place.
(b ) Perfectly plastic impact

When the impact is perfectly plastic, the oscillator sticks to the beam after the
impact, and hence acquires the same displacement and the same vertical velocity
of the beam at tC r . For the latter,

C vw vw C C C C
y_ t r Z C s_ Z jT
w s tr q_ t r C s_ j 0T
w s tr q tr : ð5:12Þ
vt vx xZsðt Cr Þ

Substituting equation (5.8) into equation (5.12) and noting that q tCr Z q ðt r ÞZ
K
qðt r Þ (displacements are always continuous) and effectively sðtCr ÞZ sðt r Þ, one
can derive
my j T T
_ w0 T ðsðt r ÞÞq ðtK
w ðsðt r ÞÞjw ðsðt r ÞÞy_ ðt r Þ C jw ðsðt r ÞÞq_ ðt r Þ C sj
K K
rÞ
y_ t C
r Z T
;
my jw ðsðt r ÞÞjw ðsðt r ÞÞ C 1
ð5:13Þ
jT K
_ w0 T ðsðt r ÞÞqðtK
w ðsðt r ÞÞq_ ðt r Þ C sj r ÞK yðt
_ K rÞ
q_ t C
r Z _
q ð tK
r ÞK m j
y w ðsðt r ÞÞ T
: ð5:14Þ
After a perfectly plastic impact, the unsprung mass attaches to the beam and
_ C
vibrates at the vertical initial velocity yðt r Þ, given in equation (5.13). Equations
(2.1)–(2.3) and (4.2) must then be solved together by numerical integration.

(c ) General impact represented by the coefficient of restitution

The coefficient of restitution for the current problem is defined as

y_ CK vw
vt tZt C
CR Z r
: ð5:15Þ
vw
vt K _
yK
K tZt r
Combining equations (5.6)–(5.8) and (5.15) after mathematical manipulation yields

K
my j T T
w ðsðt r ÞÞjw ðsðt r ÞÞK CR y_ ðt r Þ C ð1 C CR Þjw ðsðt r ÞÞqðt
_ K rÞ
y_ tC
r Z ; ð5:16Þ
my j T w ðsðt r ÞÞj w ðsðt r ÞÞ C 1
jw ðsðt r ÞÞjT
w ðsðt r ÞÞq_ ðt r ÞKjw ðsðt r ÞÞy_ ðt r Þ
K K
r Z q_ ðt r ÞK my ð1 C CR Þ
q_ t C : ð5:17Þ
K
T
It can be easily verified that equations (5.16) and (5.17) reduces to equations (5.10)
and (5.11) when CRZ1, and reduces to equations (5.13) and (5.14) when CRZ0
(except the convective term in equations (5.13) and (5.14), which is a special feature
of a moving-load formulation).
The value of fc(t) must be constantly checked for possible separation, which
occurs whenever fc(t) drops to zero. The procedure of checking separation and
reattachment was detailed in Stancioiu et al. (2008).
6. Numerical analysis and examples
The truss shown in figure 2 is analysed. It has the following material and geometric
data: EIZ9.3!10 6 N m 2 ; EAZ3.15!10 9 N; GZ8.1!10 10 Pa; gZ0.9;
rAZ1125 kg mK2; myZ100 kg; mzZ1000 kg; and LZ50 m. There are six beams
of equal length in the top deck. The height is 7.217 m. The critical speed of the
truss vcrZ35.34 m sK1, which is defined as the ratio of the fundamental frequency
in Hz (w1/2p) of the truss to the lowest wavenumber of a beam in the top deck. All
the dynamic values of the system are non-dimensionalized against the relevant
static values, as presented in figures 4–15. The impact at reattachment, if it occurs,
is treated as perfectly elastic in the examples given in figures 4–11 and 13–15,
except in figure 12a,b.
The non-dimensionalized contact force between the moving oscillator and the
truss in the case of kZ3.95!106 N mK1 and cZ25 130 N s mK1 is shown in
figure 4. Separation does not occur as fc stays positive (compressive).
When different parameter values of kZ4.93!106 N mK1 and cZ2800 N s mK1
are used (other parameter values remain the same), the non-dimensionalized
contact force becomes negative at approximately vt/LZ0.9 (figure 5), when
contact is assumed to be maintained. When separation and reattachment are
considered, the force is depicted in figure 6. Clearly, the force history is different
when separation is allowed.
Actually, separation (and possibly reattachment subsequently) may happen
at a range of parameter values. Figure 7 shows a three-dimensional plot of
the maximal and minimal values ofpffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the contact force for a range of non-
dimensionalized k-values defined as k=mz u21 . In this plot, damping c varies

2.5
truss–unsprung mass contact force,

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

non-dimensionalized time,
Figure 4. Non-dimensionalized dynamic contact force fc/jWyCWzj at v/vcrZ1.06.
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
– 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 5. Non-dimensionalized dynamic contact force fc/jWyCWzj at v/vcrZ1.06 (assuming

permanent contact).
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
such that c=2 kmz Z 0:2. Permanent contact is assumed in these results to show
that separation is possible (when the minimum values of fc are negative).
Figure 7 involves forces obtained from 810 000 simulations.
It should be interesting to know what values of c and k would allow separation
to occur. This information is provided in figure 8 that displays the minimum
velocity at which separation between the two structures is found. Frequently, this
velocity is close to the critical speed and is a function of the viscoelastic properties,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
non-dimensionalized c (defined as c=2 kmz ) and k, of the oscillator. In figure 8,
the number tagged on a curve is a value of v/vcr allowing separation to occur.

2.5
2.0

1.5
1.0
0.5
– 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 6. Non-dimensionalized dynamic contact force fc/jWyCWzj at v/vcrZ1.06 (allowing

separation and reattachment with impact).
2.5
max and min peak force
2.0
non-dimensionalized
1.5
1.0
0.5
6
0 4
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 a lized
0 2 e n sion ess
non-dimensionalized velocity -dim tiffn
non llator s
osc i
Figure 7. Profile of the dynamic contact force at various values of non-dimensionalized c and k.
It turns out that separation takes place more readily at supercritical speeds
and when there is no damping in the oscillator. Dynamic contact force and the
dynamic responses of the oscillator are given in figures 9–11 for the case of
kZ4.93!106 N mK1 and cZ0 N s mK1, where wst is the static deflection of the
top deck at the mid-span of the truss produced by the WyCWz acting at
the same location and z st is the static deflection of the sprung mass (Wz/k). The
difference between the results when separation is considered and ignored becomes

1
1.2
5.5
non-dimensionalized oscillator stiffness

5.0
0.9 1
no loss of contact region

4.5 1
1 1
1.2
1
4.0 1
1
1.
3.5
1.12
0.
9
3.0
0.8
11.12
1
2.5
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
non-dimensionalized oscillator damping
Figure 8. Contour plot of the minimum velocity ratios allowing separation as a function of
non-dimensionalized c and k.
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
– 0.5
–1.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 9. Non-dimensionalized dynamic contact force fc/jWyCWzj at v/vcrZ3: grey dashed line,
ignoring separation; black solid line, allowing separation.
greater, for example, if one compares figure 9 with figures 5 and 6. Figure 9 is
particularly interesting in that multiple events of separation and impact take
place. At each impact, much higher forces are exerted to the stationary structure

non-dimensionalized unsprung
4
mass displacement, 2
–1
–2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 10. Non-dimensionalized unsprung mass displacement y(t)/wst at v/vcrZ3: grey dashed line,
3.0
2.5
2.0
mass displacement,
1.5
1.0
0.5
– 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 11. Non-dimensionalized sprung mass displacement z(t)/z st at v/vcrZ3: grey dashed line,
within shorter time intervals (indicated by a steeper force gradient), which is

detrimental to both the stationary structure and the moving structure and would
be uncomfortable to passengers if the moving structure is a passenger vehicle.
To assess the influence of different types of impact at the reattachment, an
example of kZ4.93!106 N mK1 and cZ0 N s mK1 at three different values of CR
is simulated. As the influence is limited to the time interval shortly after the

(a)
30
and
20
10
(b)
30
and
20
10
(c)
30
and
20
10
0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93

Figure 12. Influence of three types of impact at reattachment at v/vcrZ1 ((a) CRZ0, (b) CRZ0.5
and (c) CRZ1). Solid line, y(t)/wst; dashed line, w(vt,t)/wst.
impact, the dynamic response in that interval is presented in figure 12. The
influence of various values of CR on the dynamic response seems mild and local.
Next, the attention is turned onto the vibration of the oscillator at various
speeds. Numerical results of y(t)/w st, z(t)/z st and w(L/2,t)/w st are given in
figures 13–15, respectively (kZ4.93!106 N mK1 and cZ2800 N s mK1). Owing
to the damping of the oscillator, the effect of separation is very small. However,
the dynamic effect of the moving load is noticeable. This is clear if one compares
the dynamic response of the oscillator at the speed close to the critical speed
with the static response (response at near-zero speed). It should also be pointed
out that at very high speeds, the dynamic response of the oscillator is lower than
the static response. It can be speculated that by a suitable design (adjustment of
the parameters of the oscillator), the acceleration of the sprung and unsprung
masses may be greatly reduced, which would be good for the vehicle and
comfortable to the passenger.
7. Conclusions
This paper studies the coupled dynamic response of a structure (oscillator)

moving on a stationary structure (truss). The stationary structure may have any
number of rigidly connected beams. Numerical modes are obtained by the FE
method and then converted into an analytical form by means of the element
shape functions. The equations of motion of the moving and the stationary
structures are established separately and then coupled at the contact point.
When the moving structure separates from the stationary structure, a new set of
equations of motion are given. Reattachment with impact after separation is

35
30
25
20
mass displacement,
15
10
–5
–10
–15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 13. Non-dimensionalized unsprung mass displacement y(t)/wst at various speeds (solid line,
v/vcrz0; dot-dashed line, v/vcrZ0.5; dashed line, v/vcrZ1.06; dotted line, v/vcrZ4).
10
8
non-dimensionalized sprung
6
mass displacement,
–2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 14. Non-dimensionalized sprung mass displacement z(t)/z st at various speeds (solid line,
considered. Numerical results for several examples reveal interesting dynamics.

It is found that separation can occur at high subcritical speeds and easily occurs
at supercritical speeds, and when there is no damping in the moving oscillator. It
is also found that the dynamic deflection of the truss can be several times higher
than the maximum static deflection and the moving load (dynamic contact force)
can also be a few times greater than the static force (self-weight of the oscillator).

truss displacement at the middle span,

3
–1
–2
–3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 15. Non-dimensionalized mid-span displacement w(L/2,t)/wst at various speeds (solid line,
More importantly, there is a considerable difference between the results when

separation is ignored and those when separation is considered. This suggests that
the neglect of separation (and subsequent possible reattachment) in most past
studies of moving-load problems can lead to serious errors in many situations, in
particular at high speeds. On the other hand, different types of impact
represented by different values of the coefficient of restitution have only mild
local influence on the dynamic response after reattachment. Finally, multiple
events of separation and impact (reattachment) can happen at high speeds (still
well below the record speed of a fast train) and are detrimental to the stationary
and moving structures.
This research is conducted at the Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool and is
sponsored by the RSB funding of the Department and EPSRC of the UK (Ref. EP/D057671/01:
moving-load distributions in structural dynamics). L.B. is sponsored by projects T79/2006
(Ministerio de Fomento–Metro de Madrid–CDM) and TRA2007-67167 (Ministerio de Educación y
Ciencia–FEDER).
References
Akin, J. E. & Mofid, M. 1989 Numerical solution for response of beams with moving mass. ASCE
J. Struct. Eng. 115, 120–131.
Au, F. T. K., Cheng, Y. S. & Cheung, Y. K. 2001 Vibration analysis of bridges under moving
vehicles and trains: an overview. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 3, 299–304. (doi:10.1002/pse.89)
Cao, Q., Ouyang, H., Friswell, M. I. & Mottershead, J. E. 2004 Linear eigenvalue analysis of the
disc–brake squeal problem. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 61, 1546–1563. (doi:10.1002/nme.1127)
Chatterjee, P. K., Datta, T. K. & Surana, C. S. 1994a Vibration of continuous bridges under
moving vehicles. J. Sound Vib. 169, 619–632. (doi:10.1006/jsvi.1994.1037)
Chatterjee, P. K., Data, T. K. & Surana, C. S. 1994b Vibration of suspension bridges under vehicular
movement. J. Struct. Eng. 120, 681–703. (doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:3(681))

Cheng, Y. S., Au, F. T. K., Cheung, Y. K. & Zheng, D. Y. 1999 On the separation between the
moving vehicle and bridge. J. Sound Vib. 222, 781–801. (doi:10.1006/jsvi.1998.2134)
Cheung, Y. K., Au, F. T. K., Zheng, D. Y. & Cheng, Y. S. 1999 Vibration of multi-span non-
uniform bridges under moving vehicles and trains using modified beam vibration functions.
J. Sound Vib. 228, 611–628. (doi:10.1006/jsvi.1999.2423)
Fryba, L. 1968 Impacts of two-axle system traversing a beam. Int. J. Solid Struct. 4, 1107–1123.
(doi:10.1016/0020-7683(68)90026-7)
Fryba, L. 1999 Vibrations of the solids and structures under moving loads. Cambridge, UK: Thomas
Telford Publishing House.
Géradin, M. & Rixen, D. 1997 Mechanical vibrations: theory and application to structural
dynamics. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Goldsmith, W. 1960 Impact—the theory and physical behaviour of colliding solids. London, UK:
Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.
Henchi, K., Fafard, M., Talbort, M. & Dhatti, G. 1998 An efficient algorithm for dynamic analysis
of bridge under moving vehicles using coupled modal and physical components approach.
Huang, D. Z. & Wang, T. L. 1998 Vibration of highway steel bridges with longitudinal grades.
Comput. Struct. 69, 235–245. (doi:10.1016/S0045-7949(98)00007-8)
Humar, J. L. & Kashif, A. H. 1995 Dynamic response analysis of slab-type bridges. J. Struct. Eng.
121, 48–62. (doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:1(48))
Kim, B. C., Raman, A. & Mote Jr, C. D. 2000 Prediction of aeroelastic flutter in a hard disk drive.
Lee, U. 1998 Separation between the flexible structure and the moving mass sliding on it. J. Sound
Vib. 209, 867–877. (doi:10.1006/jsvi.1997.1287)
Lee, S.-Y. & Yhim, S.-S. 2005 Dynamic behavior of long-span box girder bridges subjected to
moving loads: numerical analysis and experimental verification. Int. J. Solids Struct. 42,
5021–5035. (doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.02.020)
Marchesiello, S., Fasana, A., Garibaldi, L. & Piombo, B. A. D. 1999 Dynamics of multi-span
continuous straight bridges subject to multi-degrees of freedom moving vehicle excitation.
Metrikine, A. V. & Verichev, S. N. 2001 Instability of vibrations of a moving two-mass oscillator
on a flexibly supported Timoshenko beam. Arch. Appl. Mech. 71, 613–624. (doi:10.1007/
s004190100177)
Ouyang, H. 2005 Vibration of an atomising disc subjected to a growing distributed mass. J. Mech.
Phys. Solids 53, 1000–1014. (doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2005.01.001)
Ouyang, H. & Mottershead, J. E. 2007 A numerical–analytical combined method for vibration of a
beam excited by a moving flexible body. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 72, 1181–1191. (doi:10.
1002/nme.2052)
Pesterev, A. V., Bergman, L. A. & Tan, C. A. 2002 Pothole-induced contact forces in a simple
vehicle model. J. Sound Vib. 256, 565–572. (doi:10.1006/jsvi.2001.4220)
Przemieniecki, J. S. 1968 Theory of matrix structural analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Stancioiu, D., Ouyang, H. & Mottershead, J. E. 2008 Vibration of a beam excited by a moving
oscillator considering separation and reattachment. J. Sound Vib. 310, 1128–1140. (doi:10.1016/
j.jsv.2007.08.019)
Wang, R. T. & Lin, J. S. 1998 Vibration of multi-span Timoshenko frames due to moving loads.
Yang, B., Tan, C. A. & Bergman, L. A. 2000 Direct numerical procedure for solution of moving
oscillator problems. ASCE J. Eng. Mech. 126, 462–469. (doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)
126:5(462))
Yang, Y. B., Yau, J. D. & Wu, Y. S. 2004 Vehicle–bridge interaction dynamics. Singapore: World
Scientific Publishing Co.
Yau, J. D. & Yang, Y. B. 2004 Vibration reduction for cable-stayed bridges traveled by high-speed
trains. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 40, 341–359. (doi:10.1016/S0168-874X(03)00051-9)

Dynamics of A Truss Structure and Its Moving-Oscillator Exciter With Separation and Impact-Reattachment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamics of A Truss Structure and Its Moving-Oscillator Exciter With Separation and Impact-Reattachment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Dynamics of A Truss Structure and Its Moving-Oscillator Exciter With Separation and Impact-Reattachment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.

org/ on January 3, 2015

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008) 464, 2517–2533

Dynamics of a truss structure and its

The dynamic response of a stationary structure excited by a moving structure is studied

Vibration of a stationary structure excited by another structure moving on the

Received 8 February 2008

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

Figure 1. The moving oscillator.

2. Vertical motion of the oscillator

wðx; tÞ Z q T ðtÞjw ðxÞ; ð2:4Þ

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

Figure 2. The stationary structure in the form of a truss.

matrix. The contact condition dictates that

y€ Z q€ T jw C 2q_ T jw0 s_ C q T jw00 s_2 C q T jw0 s€; ð2:7Þ

3. Vibration of the stationary structure

The stationary structure in the form of a truss structure made of a number of

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

Figure 3. A typical beam element and its local coordinate system.

jwn Z Awn C xBwn C x2 Cwn C x3 Dwn : ð3:2Þ

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

4. Dynamics of the whole system

The equation of motion of the truss in modal coordinates can be expressed

5. Separation and reattachment

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

(a ) Perfectly elastic impact

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

and then from equation (5.8), it follows that

(b ) Perfectly plastic impact

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

(c ) General impact represented by the coefﬁcient of restitution

Combining equations (5.6)–(5.8) and (5.15) after mathematical manipulation yields

6. Numerical analysis and examples

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

truss–unsprung mass contact force,

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Figure 4. Non-dimensionalized dynamic contact force fc/jWyCWzj at v/vcrZ1.06.

Figure 5. Non-dimensionalized dynamic contact force fc/jWyCWzj at v/vcrZ1.06 (assuming

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

truss–unsprung mass contact force,

Figure 6. Non-dimensionalized dynamic contact force fc/jWyCWzj at v/vcrZ1.06 (allowing

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

non-dimensionalized oscillator stiffness

no loss of contact region

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

within shorter time intervals (indicated by a steeper force gradient), which is

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93

This paper studies the coupled dynamic response of a structure (oscillator)

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

considered. Numerical results for several examples reveal interesting dynamics.

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

truss displacement at the middle span,

More importantly, there is a considerable difference between the results when

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

Proc. R. Soc. A (2008)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.