Accepted Manuscript

Impact simulation and experiment on rubber anti-vibration systems

Robert Keqi Luo

PII: S0142-9418(15)30244-0
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2016.02.001
Reference: POTE 4586

To appear in: Polymer Testing

Received Date: 1 December 2015

Revised Date: 5 January 2016
Accepted Date: 2 February 2016

Please cite this article as: R.K. Luo, Impact simulation and experiment on rubber anti-vibration systems,
Polymer Testing (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2016.02.001.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Impact simulation and experiment on rubber anti-vibration
systems
Robert Keqi Luo 1, 2*

1
Department of Engineering and Technology, Trelleborg IAVS, Leicester, LE4 2BN, UK
2*
Corresponding author: Department of Railway Engineering, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture,

PT
Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410075, China
Luo0801@gmail.com; Robert.luo@trelleborg.com

RI
Abstract: There is very limited literature regarding impact analysis on solid rubber anti-
vibration systems as the true damping characteristics of rubber materials are very complex

SC
and difficult to define. Viscoelastic approach is a usual method and has only achieved limited
success. In this article, an integrated quasi-static and impact analysis with validation on an
anti-vibration mount is presented. The Rayleigh damping has been introduced for rubber
hysteresis. The impact responses from both simulation and experiment have been compared

U
and have shown very good agreement in real time domain. In addition, it has been revealed
that real geometry and elasticity of an impact object have to be included in simulation in
AN
order to obtain an accurate response. It has been shown that the proposed approach is reliable
and can be used for an appropriate design stage to evaluate an impact/dynamic response of
rubber anti-vibration systems. The key points to use this approach are also provided.
M

Keywords: Impact; rubber damping; rubber hysteresis; solid rubber model; dynamics
D

1. Introduction
TE

Rubber springs are essential anti-vibration components for industrial applications. Rubber
components are widely used in order to minimize vibration levers generated from dynamic
environment. However, the real time-domain analysis for rubber structures under dynamic
EP

loading are not well covered, especially for solid rubber components. There are many papers
dealing with quasi-static behaviour of rubber material using hyperelastic models.
Luo et al. [1-2] predicted the load-deflection response for anti-vibration components and
C

subsequent lifespan of rubber components [3-5]. Pelc [6], Bolarinwa and Olatunbosun [7],
AC

and Ghoreishy [8] performed simulation on rubber tyres. Sharma [9] calculated responses on
an anti-vibration rubber component using three hyperelastic models. It was found that the
error for the stiffness varied about 3% to 40% between the test and the simulation and
suggested to correct the errors based on the experiment data. Verron et al. [10] predicted the
continuous volumetric change in rubber including the damage into a hyperelastic model
based on the strain energy density. Lillbacka et al. [11] evaluated strain of rubber components
using several hyperelastic models and indicated that most of models gave good prediction up
to 100% strain.
For many dynamic analyses, real rubber components have been converted into simple
individual elements in engineering applications. Magalini et al. [12] simplified rubber
components as lumped springs and dashpot elements using concentrated parameters in a

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
frequency domain. The models used were either serial or parallel linked elements to calculate
the stiffness in different directions. Grassie [13] employed a lumped system with two degrees
of freedom to evaluate the effective dynamic stiffness on a rubber pad using a resonance
apparatus and made a good comparison between a laboratory test and real rail tracks.
Thompson et al [14] considered a rubber pad a non-linear spring to obtain a noise level when
wheel sets ran through a rail track section using a continuous supported model and a discrete
point supported model. Luo et al [15-18] performed rail vehicle dynamic evaluations and
service assessments in which rubber suspensions were simulated as damping elements.

PT
For a dynamic simulation on the behaviours of a solid rubber structure, viscoelastic approach
has received intensive attention over many years. Kelvin-Voigt, Maxwell and fractional
Kelvin-Voigt models were investigated [19-23]. Busfield et al. [24] employed a free
oscillation technique to measure the dynamic storage and the loss moduli of carbon black

RI
filled natural rubber materials. These tests were performed with small oscillations that were
superimposed on a range of tensile pre-strains. It was observed that the dynamic storage and
loss moduli did not depend strongly on the pre-strain at small strains. Austrell et al. [25] used

SC
a three-layer one-dimensional model, called overlay method, to evaluate a response from a
stationary cyclic load on a rubber bush. However, the viscoelastic models have issues either
in accuracy or in complexity [22]. On the other hand, the Rayleigh damping has been widely

U
used in structure dynamics involving linear materials, including impact simulation on
composite materials [26-28]. Luo et al. [29] has tried to introduce the Rayleigh damping into
AN
a solid rubber component to perform a steady state dynamic analysis and the results were
compared with the experimental data.
Rubber anti-vibration components have many engineering applications. It is the best material
M

to reduce the dynamic response for a high-speed railway bridge [30]. Rail pads made from
rubber are widely used in railway engineering. Their material properties were studied [31, 32]
and impact to railway structures from track irregularities were investigated [33, 34]. For
D

automotive industry, rubber components are utilized as vehicle suspension systems to provide
good ride quality and comfort [35-38].
TE

There is very limited literature regarding impact analysis on solid rubber anti-vibration
components used in industries as the true damping characteristics of rubber materials are very
complex and difficult to define, especially on three-dimensional evaluations. In this impact
EP

investigation, the rubber hysteresis is expressed in the form of the Rayleigh damping
equations instead of a usual viscoelastic form. In addition, the rubber anti-vibration
component modelled is a solid three-dimensional spring, not simplified as either one-
C

dimensional spring (and/or dashpot) elements or multi-layer linked simpler elements.

In this article, we first present static and impact experiments on a rubber anti-vibration
AC

component. Then, we introduce a concept for Rayleigh damping and a hyperelastic model,
concluding with experimental validation following simulation of the component.

2. Experiment
An industrial anti-vibration spring, MDS (Multi-Directional Snubbing) mounting shown in
Fig. 1(a), was selected for experiment. The product was made from natural rubber with shear
modulus of 0.7 MPa. The main dimensions of the spring are demonstrated in Fig. 1(b). For
the quasi-static test, a Davenport Nene test machine was used, as shown in Fig. 2 (a). The
machine can measure up to 10 kN force. A controlled drop-weight rig, demonstrated in Fig. 2
(b), was employed to perform the impact test. The switch is to control the frame with a steel
block. During an impact, the block hits the stopper to achieve a required response. An LVDT
2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(Linear Variable Differential Transformers) displacement transducer with ±10mm range was
used to measure the deflection. An analogue amplifier was connected to the displacement
transducer. The signals were then captured using a MDACS (Mobile Data Analysis &
Capture System) equipment with sampling rates up to 20,000 points per second.
The MDS mounts are usually used in engine installations. This type of mountings is easy to
install based on a two-part single bolt installation. There is no requirement for radius or
chamfered installation hole and a steel flange prevents rubber wear at the bracket interface.
The bonded steel snubbing cup limits vertical movements and prevents excessive strain in

PT
rubber. The cup is encapsulated in rubber to prevent corrosion. This design is a solution to a
complex problem, achieving a higher level of sophistication in isolation, noise attenuation
and motion control, especially for vehicles. In anti-vibration system design, quasi-static load-
deflection curves are normally required. Hence, a quasi-static experiment was first performed

RI
at loading rate 10 mm per minute. The mounts were installed in a pair similar to a real engine
installation with 5 mm preload at both ends in vertical direction. A load-deflection curve up
to approximately 5 kN is presented in Fig. 3 (a). The shape of the load-deflection curve (S

SC
form) is a typical loading response from rubber material. This quasi-static experiment was
also served as a benchmark for material properties used for further impact simulation analysis
as the elastic property of the rubber material is directly linked to the spring stiffness

U
expressed in a stiffness matrix for both static and dynamic simulations (see simulation
section).
AN
In a real service environment for vehicles, geometric irregularities from the road surface
generate various dynamic events on suspensions and engine installations. The structural
components most affected by the dynamic loads are the rubber anti-vibration components.
M

To evaluate these effects correctly, an impact experiment was performed on the MDS mounts
that were bolted together and fixed in a test rig. A 250 kg mass was dropped on to the top
washer of the springs at a velocity of approximately 440 mm/s in a vertical direction. A
D

deflection response from these mounts was collected using a digital record system. A sample
of the deflection histories in one second frame is plotted in Fig. 3 (b). The maximum impact
TE

deflection is approximately 7 mm which occurred at first peak. The main response frequency
is approximately 10 Hz with some higher frequency deflections in the vicinity of the first
three rebound peaks.
EP

3. Constitutive models and simulations

C

The general dynamic equations can be written as

 +

 =


  +


AC

(1)

Where [M] is the system’s mass, [C] is the system’s damping, [K] is the system’s stiffness,

 is the deflection vector,

  is the system’s velocity vector,   is the system’s
acceleration vector, and
 is the external force vector.
Equation (1) can be used on both linear and non-linear conditions. For rubber structures,
equation (1) concerns on non-linear dynamics. The Hilber-Hughes-Taylor time integration
method was utilized to solve equation (1). The stiffness matrix [K] was inverted and a set of
simultaneous nonlinear dynamic equilibrium equations were solved at each time increment.
This solution is done iteratively using Newton's method .More details can be seen in
reference [39].For quasi-static analysis, the system’s mass matrix [M] and the system’s

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
damping matrix [C] can be ignored. The system’s stiffness matrix [K] is formed from the
elastic part of the rubber material that is usually modelled using a hyper-elastic expression of
strain energy density. The finite element software Abaqus [39] is used to perform the analysis.

3.1 Rubber material model and quasi-static simulation

In order to predict the quasi-static response of the rubber component, an appropriate material
model should be used. There are several hyper-elastic models are used to describe rubber

PT
material based on the strain energy density [40-41]. These hyperelastic models can be
expressed in a general form:

RI
 =   ̅ +    (2)

SC
Where   ̅ is the deviatoric part of the strain energy density of the primary material
response and    is the volumetric part of the strain energy density.

 ̅ can be further expanded into ̅ and ̅ , which are the first and second deviatoric strain
invariants defined as
U
AN
I1 = λ 1 + λ 2 + λ 3 and
2 2 2
(3)
M

−2 −2 −2
I 2 = λ1 + λ 2 + λ 3 , (4)

Where λ i are the deviatoric stretches.

D

J el is the elastic volume ratio.

TE

For this quasi-static analysis on the MDS mounts, a polynomial form of strain energy density
is used:
EP

 =  ̅ − 3 +  ̅ − 3 +  ̅ − 3 +  ̅ − 3̅ − 3 +  ̅ − 3
+  ̅ − 3 +  ̅ − 3 ̅ − 3 +  ̅ − 3̅ − 3 +  ̅
1 1 1
− 3 +  − 1 +  − 1# +  − 1$
C

" " "

AC

(5)
Where Cij and Di are material parameters.
The material data for equation (5), which are typically either gathered by a given company or
externally contracted, were obtained from the manufacturer’s database, whose accuracy and
suitability for our engineering design and applications have been verified. To verify these
material data, a number of different deformed modes were utilized. The material tests
included uniaxial, equibiaxial, planar and volumetric experiments. The prediction of material
behaviour under different deformation modes must also be compared against the actual
product experimental data.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The finite element model of the rubber spring in pairs is shown in Fig. 4. Two materials have
been included in the component, one is mild steel (modelled as a linear material) and the
other is rubber. Three-dimensional finite elements with full integration and constant pressure
(C3D8H) were used for rubber and standard brick elements (C3D8) were used for mild steel.
The total degrees of freedom for the model is approximately 0.4 million.
A quasi-static simulation provides insights into the elastic behaviour of the rubber structure.
The response of a system subjected to a quasi-static load can be expressed by the following
equation

PT


 =
 (6)
Quasi-static simulation result and comparison with experimental data is shown in Fig. 5.

RI
The two results are agreed well, which has confirmed the suitability of the rubber elastic
model and the stiffness matrix [K]. Hence, further impact analysis can be carried out based

SC
on the verification of this quasi-static simulation.

3.2 Damping consideration and impact simulation

U
For impact simulation, both elastic characteristics and damping effect of the rubber material
AN
are considered. Rayleigh method is employed to include the damping characteristics.
The damping [C] can be expressed as a function of mass [M] and stiffness [K] based on
Rayleigh assumption:
M

 = %
 + &
 (7)

Where α and β are constants related to two free vibration modes of the rubber springs. Let '
D

and ' be the two specific natural frequencies of the modes, ( and ( are the damping ratio
TE

associated with ' and ' . The relations between them can be expressed in the following
equations:
% , , ' −' (
)& * = 2 ,.-/,.. 0 12 3
EP

/
- −' '/ (
(8)
.

In real practice it can be assumed that the same damping ratio is applied to both 'and ' .
C

The equations (8) can then be simplified to

% 4 ' '
)& * = , 5 , )   *
AC

1
(9)
- .

The damping ratio ( can be obtained in several ways in an experiment [41], e.g. free-
vibration decay method, resonant amplification method and half-power method et al. ' can
be chosen as the lowest frequency and ' as the highest frequency over the range of interest
frequencies.
Free vibration analysis should be performed before an impact analysis. The main objective is
to obtain free vibration modes, which are not dependent on external loading, and the
corresponding frequencies for determination of the damping coefficients.
The equations of motion for the free-vibration of a system without damping can be written as

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

  +

 =
0 (10)

where 0 is a zero vector.

The preloading condition is the same as the quasi-static experimental settings with an
additional 250 kg impact mass. To determine the conditions under which equation (4) allows
motions to occur, the Lanczos method was used.
Fig. 6 shows the first five vibration modes. The first mode (Fig. 6 (a)) is a vertical vibrating
shape in Y direction with frequency of 10.21 Hz, which is the same mode as the impact

PT
loading. The second one (Fig. 6 (b)) is a shear shape in X direction and the third one (Fig. 6
(c)) is also a shear mode in –X direction. Their frequencies are the same value (54.78 Hz),
which indicates that they are conjugate mode shapes. For the same reason, the fourth and the

RI
fifth mode shapes (Fig. 6 (d) and (e)) are also conjugate mode shapes. For the free vibration
analysis, there is no significant changes on the natural frequency of the system if the
geometrical profile has not been changed considerably. However, changing the bonded steel

SC
characteristics, e.g., its thickness, can play a role in the overall frequency characteristics of
the system as both the stiffness and the mass of the system have been altered.
The impact on the MDS mounts is along the vertical direction and the response should be

U
dominated in this direction. Hence, the first mode is selected as a response base and the
second one is selected for possible additional higher frequency response. For the rubber
AN
material of the MDS mounts, damping ratio ξ was measured in the laboratory using free-
vibration decay method and the value was 0.04. Therefore, based on equation (9) and using
mode frequencies ' = 10.26 HZ and ' = 54.78 Hz , we can obtain α = 0.69 and β
M

=0.0012.
For an impact analysis, the finite element model, used for free vibration evaluation has been
D

modified to an axisymmetric model for cost-savings as a large number of time steps are
required. Fig. 7 shows the simulation result and the comparison with the experimental data
TE

using the axisymmetric model with the point impact mass. The first peak response from the
impact is correctly predicted in both magnitude and time scale. The magnitudes of the
predicted curve are also agreed well with the experimental ones. However, the response curve
simulated is so smooth without having any higher frequency interferences in the vicinity of
EP

first three rebound peaks. It is not clear whether these interferences were generated by the
real impact or from the environmental noise. In addition, there are some differences on time
scales between the predicted response and the tested one from the first rebound peak. Further
C

investigation was conducted in order to ascertain the cause of these differences. The impact
object is a deformed body made from steel and has both dimensions and elasticity. Hence, a
AC

new finite element model, including the impact block with real dimensions and elasticity, the
link rod and the supporting washer, is created. The impact block is a circular plate with a ring;
the total thickness is 100 mm with maximum 700 mm in diameter. The new finite element
model is shown in Fig. 8. The comparison between the simulated result and the experimental
data is shown in Fig. 9. The predicted deflection is nearly identical to those observed from the
experiment except a small amplitude difference in the first rebound peak region and slight
time delay after the 7th cycle response. This comparison explains the phenomena of the
higher frequency disturbance in the vicinity of the rebound peaks and the time difference
between the predicted result and the experimental data using the simplified point mass
method for impact simulation. It is evident that the effect of the flexibility of the impact body
needs to be taken into consideration to obtain the accurate response. However, the simplified

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
point mass method may be used for a quick impact assessment as the calculated result from
this method is good enough to provide a reference for design engineers.
In dynamic analysis, stability and accuracy are the key control points to obtain reliable results.
To exam the accuracy of the simulation results from the view of the numerical integration
aspect, different allowable time increments are evaluated. Fig. 10 demonstrates this effect
using three maximum allowable time increments, i.e. 0.1, 0.01 and 0.001 second. All three
simulations are stable with different accuracies. The smaller time increments tend to give
shorter response time than the larger increments. In the first rebound peak region, some

PT
predicted responses from the higher frequency impacts are missed using the larger time
increments. An impact response is also obtained using a maximum time increment 0.0001
second. The result obtained from 0.0001 second is the same as that from 0.001 second. Hence,
maximum 0.001 second is used to obtain the impact response.

RI
SC
4. Conclusions
An integrated quasi-static and impact analysis with validation on the solid anti-vibration
spring has been presented. This engineering approach is different from usual viscoelastic

U
based approach. Rayleigh method is seldom utilized in solid rubber anti-vibration
components for impact analysis. This approach is simple, reliable and cost effective. There is
AN
no need to perform a complex fitting process in Rayleigh approach. In visco-elastic approach,
it is necessary to find suitable parameters’ values from the experimental data. In addition,
results on the same analysis could still be different using various visco-elastic models even if
M

their parameters have been properly derived from the time-consuming fitting process. There
is no universal model in a visco-elastic approach that would be the best one for impact
analysis.
D

This article has also revealed that real geometry and elasticity of an impact object have to be
included in simulation in order to obtain an accurate response. The key points to use
TE

Rayleigh approach are:

A. A proper quasi-static analysis is needed to make sure that the elastic properties of the
EP

material are correctly defined.

B. Proper damping coefficients should be carefully selected based on the free vibration
evaluations on the rubber spring and the external dynamic loadings.
C. A quick impact assessment could be performed using a simplified point mass for the
C

impact objects.
D. To obtain detailed evaluation accurately, the real geometry of the impact body with its
AC

elastic properties needs to be included even though it would take much longer time.

In dealing with large deformation with rubber structures, the finite element analysis may have
important limitations. The first issue is the convergence of the contact solution of the
interfaces between the rubber parts and the metal plates. Their behaviours were simulated
using the finite sliding contact [39]. The mesh should be carefully arranged to avoid the
converging problems when the impact load reached its maximum. The second issue is the
CPU time usage. Generally speaking, dynamic/impact analysis needs many small time steps
to obtain a final solution. The finite element model should be carefully optimized to consider
both accuracy and time available.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
This proposed approach may be suitable for solid rubber anti-vibration systems. The detailed
deformation and strain (stress) profiles of the components can be obtained and optimised at
an appropriate design stage. It is suggested that this methodology could be used for dynamic
design of rubber components in industrial applications. More engineering cases may also be
needed to further verify this approach.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Mr. Andrea and Mr. Simpson in Trelleborg IAVS for their
technical discussions. The reviewers’ helpful comments are also greatly appreciated.

PT
RI
REFERENCES
1. R. K. Luo, W. X. Wu & W. J. Mortel, Plastics, Rubber & Composites, 2000, 2(29),88-91
2. R. K. Luo, W. X. Wu & W. J. Mortel, Journal of Materials: Design & Applications, Vol.

SC
217, No.4, 2003, 287-290
3. R. K. Luo, W. X. Wu, P. W. Cook, & W. J. Mortel, Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit,
218, No.2, 2004,173-177

U
4. R. K. Luo and W. X. Wu, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2006,110-116
AN
5. R. K. Luo, W. J. Mortel & X. P. Wu, Vol. 16, No.5, 2009,1366-1378
6. J Pelc, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of
Automobile Engineering September 1, 2002 vol. 216 (9) 709-716
M

7. E O Bolarinwa and O A Olatunbosun, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering November 1, 2004, vol. 218 (11)
1251-1258
D

8. M H R Ghoreishy, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D:

Journal of Automobile Engineering, June 1, 2006; vol. 220 (6): pp. 713-721
TE

9. Sharma S. In Constitutive Models for Rubber III (Eds J.J.C. Busfield, A.H. Muhr), 2003,
pp. 161-167 (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands).
10. Verron E., Chagnon G. and J.-B. Le Cam, In Constitutive Models for Rubber VI (Eds G.
EP

Heinrich et al.), 2010, pp. 279-284 (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands).
11. Lillbacka R., Johnson E. and Bellander M. In Constitutive Models for Rubber VI (Eds G.
Heinrich et al.), 2010, pp. 241-248 (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands).
C

12. Magalini A. et al. In Constitutive Models for Rubber III (Eds J.J.C. Busfield, A.H. Muhr),
2003, pp. 365-372 (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands).
AC

13. Grassie S. L. Resilient railpads their dynamic behaviour in the laboratory and on track.
Proc Insln Mech Engrs, 2007 203, 25-32
14. Thompson D. J., Jones C. J. C., Wu T. X. and France G. D. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, 1999,
213, 233-241
15. R. K. Luo, B. L. Gabbitas & B. V. Brickle, Vehicle System Dynamics, 25(s1), 1996,
438-449
16. R. K. Luo, B. L. Gabbitas & B. V. Brickle, Engineering Failure Analysis, 1(3), 1996, 53-
64
17. R. K. Luo, B. L. Gabbitas & B. V. Brickle, Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit,208, 1994,
123-132

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
18. R. K. Luo, B. L. Gabbitas & B. V. Brickle, Vehicle System Dynamics,23, 1994,334-345
19. Knothe, K.L. and Grassie, S.L. Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 22, 1993, 209–262.
20. Enelund, M. and Olsson, P. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1999, Vol. 36,
939–970.
21. Gil-Negrete, N., Vinolas, J. and Kari, L. In Constitutive Models for Rubber IV (Eds P. –E.
Austrell, L. Kari), 2005, pp. 479-485 (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands).
22. Garcia Tarrago M.J., Gil-Negrete N. and Vinolas J. Int. J. Vehicle Design, 2009, 49(4),
303-317.

PT
23. Stefano Bruni & Andrea Collina , Vehicle System Dynamics: International Journal of
Vehicle Mechanics and Mobility, pages 283-301
24. Busfield J.J.C., Deeprasertkul C. & Thomas A.G. In Constitutive Models for Rubber

RI
(Eds Al Dorfmann and A. Muhr), 1999, pp. 87-93 (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands).

SC
25. Austrell P.-E., Olsson A.K. and Jonsson M. In Constitutive Models for Rubber II (Eds D.
Besdo et al.), 2001, pp. 231-236 (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands).
26. R.K. Luo, E.R. Green, C.J. Morrison, Journal of composite part B: Engineering, Vol. 32,

U
No.1 2001, 513-520
27. R. K. Luo, Composites Science and Technology, 2000, 60, No.1, 49-58
AN
28. R. K. Luo, E. R. Green & C. J. Morrison, International Journal of Impact Engineering,
1999, 4(22), 435-448
29. R. K. Luo, X.P. Wu and W. J. Mortel, J Rail and Rapid Transit 227(1),2013, 103–112
M

30. J W Kwark, W J Chin, J R Cho, J W Lee, B S Kim, and K C Lee. Proc. IMechE Vol. 226,
Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, 2012, 174-186
31. S L Grassie, Proc. IMechE Vol. 203, Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, 1989, 25-32
D

32. A.Fenander, Proc. IMechE Vol. 211, Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, 1997, 51-62
33. S L Grassie, Proc. IMechE Vol. 199 No. 2, Part D: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, 1985, 123-
TE

136
34. Lundqvist and T Dahlberg, Proc. IMechE Vol. 219, Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit,
2004, 67-77
EP

35. D Mundo, P Mas, and D Clausi. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering April 1, 2006 vol. 220 (4) 425-434
36. F Chang and Z-H Lu, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D:
C

Journal of Automobile Engineering October 1, 2008 vol. 222 no. 10 1813-1825

AC

37. Sh Azadi and F Forouzesh, Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering,
2011, No. 8, 1023-1032
38. Di Tan, Chao Lu and Chuanbo Ren, Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering
2015, Vol. 229(6) 758–769
39. Dassult Systems. Abaqus user manual, 2014 (Dassult Systems, USA).
40. Ogden, R. W. Non-linear Elastic Deformations, 1984 (Ellis Horwood, Chichester).
41. Ray W. Clough and Joseph Penzien, Dynamics of structures, 1993, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2015-p3-2-Figures

PT
RI
U SC
AN
(a) MDS mount
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

(b) Main dimensions of the MDS mount

Figure 1 MDS mount and its main dimensions

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

(a) Test machine for quasi-static experiment

D
TE
C EP
AC

(b) The layout of the controlled drop-weight rig for impact experiment

Figure 2 Test machine for quasi-static experiment and the layout of the controlled drop-weight

rig for impact experiment

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
(a) Static load-deflection curve of the MDS mounts

RI
U SC
AN
M

(b) Impact response of the MDS mounts

Figure 3 Experimental results for the MDS mounts (static and impact)
D
TE
C EP
AC

Figure 4 Finite element model of the MDS mounts (a pair)

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Figure 5 Static simulation and comparison with experimental data

U SC
AN
M
D
TE

(a) The first mode shape with frequency =10.21 Hz

C EP
AC

(b) The second mode shape with frequency =54.78 Hz

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
(c) The third mode shape with frequency =54.78 Hz

U
AN
M
D
TE

(d) The forth mode shape with frequency =55.60 Hz

C EP
AC

(e) The fifth mode shape with frequency =55.64 Hz

Figure 6 First five mode shapes

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Figure 7 Impact histories of the simulation and the experiment using point mass method

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Figure 8 Finite element model with real impact body

C EP
AC

Figure 9 Impact histories of the simulation and the experiment using real mass model

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
Figure 10 Simulation results with different maximum time increment using real impact body

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC