Experimental Investigation of Linear Particle Chain

Impact Dampers in Free-Vibration Suppression

Mohamed Gharib, A.M.ASCE 1; and Mansour Karkoub 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Impact dampers have been considered as energy dissipating mechanisms for many years, and many types have been introduced. The
latest member of the impact damper family is called the linear particle chain (LPC) impact damper, which is considered as an extension to
the commonly known single unit and multi-unit impact dampers. It consists of a linear arrangement of two sizes of freely moving
masses, constrained by two stops, and located on a primary system to be controlled. In this work, the results of an experimental study of
the performance of the LPC impact damper are presented. The first prototype of the LPC impact damper is designed, fabricated, and exper-
imentally tested. The experiments are conducted to examine the efficiency of the LPC impact damper in damping the free vibrations of a simple
structure. The damping performance of the LPC impact damper is compared with those of a single unit and multi-unit impact dampers. The
experimental results clearly show the significant effect of the LPC impact damper in attenuating the structure’s vibration. The investigations
indicate that the damping performance of the LPC impact damper depends on the mass ratio of the impacting masses, the damper clearance, and
the damper chain length. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001638. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Impact damper; Passive vibration control; Free-vibration analysis; Structural dynamics; Impact mechanics.

Introduction accelerations. Moreover, impact dampers are very durable in harsh

Vibrations are frequent, recurrent, or oscillating reactions of
mechanical or structural systems, because of an excitation that
can be easily observed and (or) felt in many routine applications.
Induced vibrations in different structures such as buildings and
bridges can be extremely dangerous and can severely affect the
structure’s health and threaten human lives. In addition, vibrations
are the main source for inaccurate operation performance and
fatigue damage in mechanical devices and machines. Researchers
are particularly interested in studying and developing control tech-
niques to suppress undesirable vibrations. These techniques are
commonly classified into active, passive, semi-active, and hybrid
damping (Housner et al. 1997; Spencer and Nagarajaiah 2003;
Saaed et al. 2015). Each of these control techniques has advantages
and disadvantages over the other ones. For example, active control
is known to lead to faster response time, whereas the passive con-
trol approaches are preferred because of their relative simplicity and
zero power consumption. One of the most common passive control
devices is called the impact damper (ID) (Sadek 1965; Bishop
1994; Egger and Caracoglia 2015). The impact damper can be
mounted on top or inside the system under control. Momentum
and energy exchange occur when the moving mass collides with
fixed stops as a result of an external excitation leading to energy
dissipation. Impact dampers are very common in the industry be-
cause of their simplicity, low cost, robustness, and effectiveness
in vibration attenuation over a vast range of frequencies and
1
Assistant Research Scientist, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Texas
A&M Univ. at Qatar, P.O. Box 23874, Doha, Qatar (corresponding author).
E-mail: mohamed.gharib@qatar.tamu.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M Univ. at
Qatar, P.O. Box 23874, Doha, Qatar. E-mail: mansour.karkoub@qatar
.tamu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 20, 2015; approved on
July 12, 2016; published online on August 24, 2016. Discussion period
open until January 24, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
environments. (Skipor and Bain 1980; Ogawa et al. 1997; Hamilton
III et al. 2000; Duffy et al. 2001; Jam and Fard 2013; Papalou and
Strepelias 2014).
For many decades, impact dampers were of interest to research-
ers whose objectives were to achieve a reasonable vibration damp-
ing with minimum associated contact forces, noise level, and high
acceleration of the masses. Several theoretical models, experimen-
tal investigations, and numerical studies have been carried out to
investigate the damper efficiency, the effect of damper parameters,
and applicability to different systems. The common types of impact
dampers include (1) single unit ID (Cheng and Xu 2006; Zahrai and
Rod 2015); (2) multi-unit ID (Masri 1967; Nayeri et al. 2007);
(3) hanging chain ID (Koss and Melbourne 1995); (4) bean-bag
ID (Popplewell and Semercigil 1989); (5) particle granular ID
(Fang and Tang 2006; Bajkowski et al. 2015); (6) resilient ID
(Cheng and Wang 2003); (7) buffered ID (Li and Darby 2008); and
(8) linear particle chain ID (Gharib and Ghani 2013; Gharib et al.
2014, 2015). Fig. 1 shows the common types of impact dampers
found in the literature with brief descriptions.
The major drawbacks of the single unit impact dampers are the
high noise level and surface fatigue after impact, because of the
high contact forces between the impact mass and the primary sys-
tem. The multi-unit impact dampers relatively reduce the contact
forces by using multiple masses instead of one large mass. The
masses in the multi-unit impact damper can be arranged in a single
container or multiple containers (Masri 1967; Nayeri et al. 2007).
Bean-bag and particle (granular) impact dampers are other forms of
the multi-unit impact damper. Introducing a subsystem that dissi-
pates the kinetic energy with minimum interaction (impacts) with
the primary system would increase the life time of the system under
control. Multi-unit impact dampers are extremely effective in cer-
tain cases if designed properly, as they have long life and require
minimal or no maintenance.
Gharib and Ghani (2013) introduced a linear particle chain
(LPC) impact damper. This damper is considered as an extension
of the multi-unit single container impact dampers. However, the
concept behind the development of the LPC impact damper is

© ASCE 04016160-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160

 Si n g l e u n it ID M u l t i - u n i t ID

It consists of a freely moving (or hanging) mass It consists of multiple masses. Each mass moves freely in a separate
constrained by two stops. container or all masses are arranged linearly in one container.

H a n g i ng C ha i n I D B ean bag ID P a r t i c l e / G ra n u l a r ID
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

It consists of a
chain of masses
hung from the top
of a tall container.
It consists of a flexible bag packed It consists of one or more cavities filled with ceramic
with small spherical particles. particles or powders with small granular sizes.

R esi lient ID Buffered ID Linear Particle Chain ID

The deformation of the stoppers of the A flexible buffer layer is added to the It consists of a linear arrangement of two
impact damper during collision is taken stops to absorb the energy of the sizes of freely moving masses, constrained by
into account. moving mass. two stops.

Fig. 1. Common types of impact dampers

based on the solution of multiple impacts problem in a linear chain
of particles (Ceanga and Hurmuzlu 2001; Gharib et al. 2011). The
LPC impact damper consists of a linear arrangement of two sizes of
spherical impact masses. The small-sized mass collides multiple
times with the larger ones upon excitation of the primary system.
This action leads to additional energy dissipation with each colli-
sion. Numerical simulations showed significant improvement of
the LPC damper in dissipating the kinetic energy of a single degree
of freedom (SDOF) structure.
In this work, an experimental investigation and validation of the
performance of the LPC impact damper to dampen out the free vi-
brations of a simple structure is conducted. The first step in this
investigation is to design and construct the LPC impact damper
and a flexible structure equipped with LASER sensors. A state-
of-the-art data acquisition system is used to collect time response
data from the structure with and without the damper. The experi-
ment is repeated using different damper designs to validate the
efficacy of the LPC impact damper.
Remark 1: A pilot study showing the preliminary results from
the experimental work and for selected cases were presented in
Gharib et al. (2014). However, in this paper, detailed experimental
investigations for all possible cases and the variation of parameters
are conducted.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: A historical
overview of the LPC impact damper is introduced first, which
leads into the new proposed designs. The prototype of the
LPC impact damper is presented, followed by a description of
the experimental setup and its various components. The
experimental results for the conventional impact damper, the
multi-unit impact damper, and the LPC impact damper are
presented next. The performance of the tested impact dampers
and the effect of the geometric parameters on the LPC impact
damper are then analyzed. Finally, a discussion and concluding
remarks are provided.
Linear Particle Chain Impact Damper Design
Historical Overview
Several studies were conducted to investigate the formation,
propagation, and resonances of the traveling waves in linear chains
of particles in contacts (Coste et al. 1997). The dynamics of the
vibro-impact and multiple impacts problems were also studied
(Nguyen and Brogliato 2014). Ceanga and Hurmuzlu (2001)
showed that trapping a small ball between two larger balls would
lead to a significant increase in the number of intermittent collisions
among the three balls. Du and Wang (2010) introduced a fine par-
ticle impact dampers by covering the surfaces of the impact mass
and container with fine particles. The particles act as a buffered
layer to dissipate the kinetic energy in the form of deformation.
Gharib et al. (2011) introduced a new energy dissipation technique
based on the dissipation of a fraction of the kinetic energy at each
inelastic collision in a chain consisting of large and small balls.
Hence, for multiple impacts, more energy is dissipated. The overall
results from the numerous impacts in the chain is a significant re-
duction in the kinetic energy delivered to the last mass in the chain.
The efficiency of the multiple impact energy absorption scheme is
quantified by defining a kinetic energy ratio.
Preliminary Theoretical Analysis
Using the same simplified model by Gharib and Ghani (2013) and
for a set of geometric parameters and initial conditions, the number
of impacts in the LPC impact damper and SDOF system is calcu-
lated for the first 5 s and shown in Fig. 2. The symbol iLjS
(i; j ¼ 0; 1; 2; : : : ) refers to the number of large (L) and small
(S) balls in the LPC impact damper, respectively. The figure depicts
the effect of placement of intermitted balls in the LPC impact
damper. It is clear that the number of intermitted impacts between
the damper masses exponentially increases as the total number of

© ASCE 04016160-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. LPC impact damper prototype (images by Mohamed Gharib):

(a) full damper; (b) small ball holder

Fig. 2. Number of impacts in the LPC impact damper (Bi refers to ball
Table 1. Properties of the Frame Structure
i; i ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; 7)
Length Width Thickness Mass
Component (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) Material
Floor plate 300 100 10 1,024.2 Aluminum
masses increases. However, the number of impacts of the primary Side plate 400 100 1 335.9 Stainless steel
system with first and last mass in the arrangement slightly increases
in case of large balls only, then slightly decreases as small balls are
inserted. Fewer impacts with the primary system lead to an increase
in its lifetime, whereas larger number of impacts among the balls
lead to rapid energy dissipation. These results introduce an addi- Table 2. Properties of the Impact Dampers
tional advantage of LPC impact dampers over conventional ones.
Stopper Bar Bar Bar
Motivated by the previously mentioned work and results, an ex- mass length diameter mass
tensive experimental study in this paper is carried out to investigate Component (g) (mm) (mm) (g) Material
the performance of LPC dampers. The LPC impact damper is
considered as an extension of the multi-unit impact damper. How- Damper 1 444.2 150 6 38.1 Stopper: mild steel
Damper 2 444.2 200 6 48.5 Bar: stainless steel
ever, the idea of changing the mass ratio of the colliding masses is
Damper 3 444.2 250 6 60.2 —
new to this type of damper.

LPC Impact Damper Prototype

Table 3. Properties of the the Spherical Balls
The objective of this work is to design and test a prototype of the
LPC impact damper. The experimental outcomes are very sensitive Diameter Mass Holder Mass
Symbol [mm (in.)] (g) mass (g) ratio Material
to the accuracy of the alignment of the small balls with the large
balls while vibrating freely in the arrangement. The challenge in the DL 38.10 (1.5) 226.8 — — Spherical ball
design is how to align the two different size balls with minimum DS1 6.35 (0.25) 1.05 4.06 44.92 Chrome steel
friction interaction with other damper components, minimal in- DS2 12.70 (0.50) 8.40 4.48 17.72 —
DS3 19.05 (0.75) 28.36 4.46 6.75 Ball holder
crease in the weight, and maintaining the spherical contact surface
DS4 25.40 (1.0) 67.21 5.60 3.08 Plastic
of the balls. Linear bearings are an option, but the manufacturabil-
ity of the damper becomes extremely difficult. This section presents
a detailed description of the ball alignment techniques, because
they are very crucial in the experiment and for any future studies lengths are fabricated to be used in the experimental and parametric
of the LPC impact damper. After considering several design ideas, study described in the following sections. The dimensions and
the most practical one—consisting of designing a holder for the materials of all components mentioned in this paper are listed in
small ball—is fabricated. Tables 1–3.
The prototype of the LPC impact damper consists of two solid
blocks (stoppers), three circular bars (guides), large (L) spherical
balls, small (S) spherical balls, and holders for the small balls. The Experimental Setup and Procedure
bars are fixed between the two blocks such that they maintain a
fixed distance (damper length, d) between them and allow free The LPC impact damper is mounted at the top of the primary
rolling of a large spherical ball [Fig. 3(a)]. The small balls are in- system to be controlled. In this paper, the system is selected to
serted at the center of a circular disk with outer diameter equal to be a one-story structure that can be modeled as a SDOF system.
that of the larger ball (DL ). The disks are made such that they allow The dimensions and materials of the frame components are listed
the small ball to collide with the bounding larger balls at the in Table 1. The structure consists of two rectangular rigid plates
common center line. The small ball with diameter Ds is press-fit (top and bottom floors) spaced by two rectangular (side) flexible
and aligned at the center of the disk. The weight of the plastic disk sheets. The bottom plate is fixed to a stationary base, whereas
is optimized to minimize its interference with the motion of the the top plate is allowed to vibrate freely. The top floor is to be
balls [Fig. 3(b)]. Four holders for four different size small balls released from an arbitrary initial position by means of a fixed
are printed, and three damper assemblies with different damper electromagnet and switch at the same level as the top floor. The

© ASCE 04016160-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Free-vibration experiment: (a) schematic; (b) setup (image by Mohamed Gharib)

electromagnet is a normally open switch. The displacement re-
sponse of the top floor is measured using a laser position sensor
mounted at the same level as the top floor, whereas the reflector
for the sensor is mounted directly at the top floor. A data acquisition
system is used to measure, calibrate, and display the signal from the
sensor on a computer screen. The signal from the laser sensor is
filtered using the moving average method to eliminate signal spikes
(resulting from noise) and smooth out the signal. Fig. 4 shows the
experimental schematic and setup with all components. Free vibra-
tion experiments are carried out by exciting the structure with an
initial position. The structure is released from rest from an initial
position of 40 mm by turning off the switch that controls the
electromagnet. The bottom floor of the structure is anchored down
to a stationary base. The experimental results presented in this
paper are selected from more than 200 conducted experiments
for all possible combinations of parameters.
Free-Vibration Analysis
The experiments are conducted to obtain the free-vibration re-
sponse of the structure resulting from an initial displacement con-
dition with and without impact dampers. Comparisons are made
among the undamped structure, the structure with conventional
(single unit) impact damper, the structure with multi-unit (single
container) impact damper, and the structure with the LPC impact
damper. Fig. 5(a) shows the geometric parameters of the LPC im-
pact damper. The main parameters that will be unified in the com-
parisons are as follows: (1) the damper length (d): the distance
between the two stoppers; (2) the chain length (dC ): the sum of
all diameters in the LPC damper arrangement; (3) the damper clear-
ance (C): the available space for the masses to move within it; and
(4) the balls’ mass ratio (μB ): the ratio of small to large balls in the
LPC impact damper.
In this work, the balls’ diameters (DL and DS ) are used as a
reference for the corresponding masses (mL and mS ). The corre-
sponding masses and mass ratios (including the holders) are listed
in Table 3. The diameters are referenced to the standard nominal
sizes (in inches) in the text and figures. The comparisons are based
on the measured displacement time response and the computed
frequency spectrum. The experiment’s numeric values, if not men-
tioned explicitly in the text, are provided in the figure captions. The
number of balls, iLjS, is used as a reference for the corresponding
chain length, in which i and j represent the number of large and
small balls, respectively, and L and S refer to the large and small
balls, respectively. The initial gaps between the balls and the damp-
er’s walls at the beginning of the experiment are shown in Fig. 5(b).
The balls are arranged with equal distances between their centers.
The same initial positions of the large balls are set in case of multi-
unit impact dampers. The damping ratio (ζ) is computed using the
half bandwidth method (Chopra 2012) and placed on each figure.
Figs. 6(a–c) show, respectively, the displacement time response
of the the uncontrolled structure (0L0S) compared with the struc-
ture with (1) conventional (single unit) impact damper (1L0S,
d ¼ 200 mm, and C ¼ 161.9 mm); (2) LPC impact damper with
the same clearance as the conventional impact damper (2L1S,
d ¼ 256 mm, C ¼ 161.9 mm); and (3) LPC impact damper with
the same damper length as the conventional impact damper (2L1S,
d ¼ 200 mm, C ¼ 117.4 mm), in which DL ¼ 38.10 mm ð1.5 in:Þ

Fig. 5. (a) Geometry of the LPC impact damper; (b) initial gap clearance

© ASCE 04016160-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Displacement response of the structure without and with: (a) conventional impact damper (1L0S); (b) LPC impact damper (2L1S with the
same clearance as 1L0S); (c) LPC impact damper (2L1S with the same damper length as 1L0S); (d) upper envelopes for all graphs

Table 4. Displacement Numerical Values and Percentage Difference

t¼5 t ¼ 10 t ¼ 15 t ¼ 20 t ¼ 25 t ¼ 30
iLjS C d X %Δ X %Δ X %Δ X %Δ X %Δ X %Δ
0L0S — — 33.68 — 28.78 — 24.87 — 21.61 — 18.49 — 16.20 —
1L0S 161.9 200 25.99 22.85 17.00 40.93 10.82 56.48 7.56 65.01 4.67 74.74 3.00 81.46
2L0S 161.9 256 16.77 50.20 11.47 60.14 7.44 70.10 5.00 76.88 2.28 87.66 1.01 93.76
2L1S 117.4 200 13.36 60.33 8.23 71.39 3.75 84.92 1.76 91.86 0.84 95.48 0.44 97.30

and DS ¼ 6.35 mm ð0.25 in:Þ in all cases. To better evaluate the per-
formance of the different types of dampers and for different param-
eters, the displacement responses will be presented in the form of the
upper bounding envelopes of the time response. Fig. 6(d) shows the
bounding envelops for the cases presented in Figs. 6(a–c). To sum-
marize and compare all of the results, Table 4 depicts the numerical
values of the displacements, X (in mm), and percentage differences,
%Δ, at specific times (in seconds) for the cases presented in
Fig. 6. The percentage difference is defined as
Δð%Þ ¼ 100 × ½X without damper − X with damper =X without damper
As depicted in Fig. 6(a), in general, the impact damper appears
to effectively reduce the response of the structure, which makes it a
good practical passive control device. Figs. 6(b and c) depict a sig-
nificant dampening effect using the LPC impact damper for sup-
pressing the free vibration of the structure compared with the
single unit impact damper. This finding is not dependent on using
the same clearance or the same damper length as the single unit
impact damper. It was necessary to unify the clearance and the
damper length once, to evaluate the LPC impact damper in all
cases. However, the effect of the clearance will be discussed in
the upcoming sections. For the rest of the paper, the comparison
will be based on a unified damper length.
It has been proven that using multiple masses is more efficient
than using one equivalent single mass (Masri 1967; Nayeri et al.
2007). Additional comparisons are conducted to evaluate the LPC
impact damper’s performance to that of single-unit, large-mass
impact dampers. The LPC impact damper consists of three balls
(2L1S, DL ¼ 38.10 mm ð1.5 in:Þ, DS ¼ 6.35 mm ð0.25 in:Þ,
d ¼ 200 mm) and a total balls’ mass of 458.71 g. The single-unit
impact damper consists of a large ball with a mass of 537.7 g
ð1Þ (1L0S, DS ¼ 50.80 mm ð2 in:Þ, and d ¼ 200 mm). The results
of the experiment and the comparison are shown in Fig. 7. The
figure shows that the LPC impact damper damped out the struc-
ture’s vibration more than the single-unit, large-mass impact
damper. The LPC impact damper is clearly more efficient than
the equivalent large-mass, single-unit impact damper. Fig. 7 shows
that the percentage difference in displacement is 48.5, 58.9, 82.1,
and 90.8% for t ¼ 5, 10, 20, and 30 s, respectively.
LPC Impact Damper as a Multi-unit Impact Damper
Multi-unit impact dampers are more favorable than single unit ones
for the following reasons (Nayeri et al. 2007): (1) They are less

© ASCE 04016160-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Displacement response of the structure without and with (a) large-mass, single-unit impact damper (1L0S); (b) LPC impact damper (2L1S)

Fig. 8. Displacement response of the structure with multi-unit impact dampers [d ¼ 200 mm, DL ¼ 38.10 mm ð1.5 in:Þ]: (a) free moving balls;
(b) with added mass (fixed balls)

Fig. 9. Comparison between LPC impact damper and multi-unit impact damper for various chain lengths [d ¼ 200 mm, DL ¼ 38.10 mm ð1.5 in:Þ,
DS ¼ 6.35 mm ð0.25 in:Þ]: (a) 2L0S and 2L1S; (b) 3L0S and 3L2S; (c) 4L0S and 4L3S

sensitive to damper clearance; (2) the impact energy is distributed
over the masses, so the impulsive forces (with the primary system)
are reduced; (3) they produce less associated noise pollution; and
(4) they are easier to manufacture, assemble, and maintain (in
large-scale applications). The LPC impact damper is considered
as an extension to the mulit-unit (single container) impact damper,
but with altered sizes. The small balls’ masses are considered
negligible compared with those of larger ones. However, they
have a significant effect on dissipating the transmitted energy.
To examine the effect of the small balls, comparisons between
the LPC impact damper and the multi-unit (single container) ones
are conducted. First, the time responses of the multi-unit impact
dampers are obtained. Fig. 8(a) shows the displacement time
response of the structure with several multi-unit impact dampers
(2L0S, 3L0S, and 4L0S). It is clear that the multi-unit impact
damper provides a high level of attenuation compared with the
single unit damper. In addition, the vibration attenuation level
is proportional to the chain length. To make sure that the ob-
tained damping is not caused by the effect of added masses,
the experiment is conducted for the same arrangements, keeping
all of the masses are fixed. Fig. 8(b) depicts the added mass’s
effect on the damping of the structure. Hence, it can be con-
cluded that the longer the chain length is, the better damping
is achieved.
Fig. 9 shows the displacement time response of the structure
with the LPC impact damper and a multi-unit impact damper.

© ASCE 04016160-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Variation of the chain length in the LPC impact damper [d ¼ 200 mm, DL ¼ 38.10 mm ð1.5 in:Þ, DS ¼ 6.35 mm ð0.25 in:Þ]: (a) time
response; (b) frequency spectrum

The figure clearly demonstrates the efficacy of placing the small
ball between the larger balls. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the LPC impact dampers suppress the vibration of the structure
better than the multi-unit ones.
Effect of Parametric Variations on the Damper
Performance in Free-Vibration Mode
Although the LPC impact damper performed better than the con-
ventional ones, the effect of a few design parameters on its perfor-
mance is investigated for further improvement. In general, the
impact dampers are sensitive to the type of excitation and geometric
and physical parameters. In this section, the effect of three main
parameters will be investigated, namely, the LPC damper chain
length, the LPC damper mass ratio, and the LPC damper clearance.
The other damper parameters have either been studied before or
been determined based on the application in which the impact
damper is to be used. Some of these parameters include the damper
to system mass ratio, the balls material (coefficient of restitution),
the excitation amplitude, the initial position of the colliding masses,
and friction.
Damper Chain Length
Additional experiments were conducted using LPC impact dampers
with different chain lengths. In this paper, the chain length refers to
the number of large and small balls in the damper (iLjS). Fig. 10
shows the displacement time response of the structure with several
LPC impact dampers (2L1S, 3L2S, and 4L3S). Longer chains
appear to lead to more impacts and, hence, more energy dissipation.
Therefore, further reduction in the amplitude and settling time of
the structure response is achieved. The amplitude and width of the
frequency spectrum also depicts the increase of attenuation as the
chain length is increased.
Damper Mass Ratio
In this study, four different mass ratios are used. The mass of the
larger ball is kept constant while the variation is in the mass of the
small ball and its holder. The results are labeled with the small-ball
diameter. Table 3 lists the small-ball sizes used in the experiment
and their corresponding mass ratios, including the holders. Fig. 11
depicts the effect of varying the mass ratio for four small balls
[diameter = 6.35 mm (0.25 in.), 12.70 mm (0.5 in.), 19.05 mm
(0.75 in.), and 25.40 mm (1.0 in.)] and for three arrangements
(2L1S, 3L2S, and 4L3S). The experimental results depicted in
Fig. 11 indicate that the LPC impact damper is slightly sensitive
to the mass ratio. However, the most damping occurs for larger
mass ratios. Permanent indentation and cracks may occur in the
small balls if the mass ratio is too small. This permanent damage
may prevent energy exchange between the small and large balls.
However, if the mass ratio is close to unity, the LPC impact damper
response becomes similar to that of the multi-unit impact damper.
The adverse effect of the large mass ratio is the overall weight and
size of the damper (similar to the multi-unit impact damper).
Damper Clearance
Large clearances in the LPC damper led to effects similar to that of
the single-unit impact damper, whereas very small clearances led
to a behavior similar to an added mass to the primary system.
Reasonable clearances are required to allow fast impact with the
primary system upon excitation, with enough distance to dissipate

Fig. 11. Variation of the mass ratio in the LPC impact damper [d ¼ 200 mm, DL ¼ 38.10 mm ð1.5 in:Þ]: (a) 2L1S; (b) 3L2S; (c) 4L3S

© ASCE 04016160-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Variation of the damper clearance in the LPC impact damper [DL ¼ 38.10 mm ð1.5 in:Þ and DS ¼ 12.70 mm ð0.5 in:Þ]: (a) 2L1S; (b) 3L2S;
(c) 4L3S
the gained energy through motion and friction. Experiments are
conducted on dampers with three different damper lengths while
keeping the chain length constant. Fig. 12 depicts the effect of
variation of the clearance of the LPC impact damper for three chain
lengths (150, 200, and 250 mm) and for three arrangements (2L1S,
3L2S, and 4L3S). The figures show that the LPC impact damper is
sensitive to the damper clearance. In general, smaller clearances
lead to better damping. However, in longer chains, larger clearances
lead to faster damping in the first few seconds only. Therefore, an
optimum clearance needs to be determined for an impact damper
based on other geometric parameters. Some techniques to deter-
mine the optimum clearance, which can be applied to the LPC
impact damper, can be found in Cheng and Wang (2003) and
Popplewell and Liao (1991).
Remark 2: The computed damping ratio for the uncontrolled
system in the experiment is clearly very small. However, the cor-
responding response reductions are unduly large. In real-life appli-
cations, the damping ratio of the uncontrolled system will not be as
small as that of the system under study in this paper. Hence, the
damping effects of the LPC impact dampers on the vibrating system
will not be as large as those obtained in the presented study. There
will be a need for an iterative testing in real-time application to
reach the desired damping on the vibrating system.
Discussion and Insights
The proposed LPC impact dampers constitute a set of new passive
vibration dampers with many potential applications. The objective
of the present study is to experimentally evaluate the damping
effect of these types of dampers. Therefore, the focus is on the re-
sponse of a SDOF system under free-vibration conditions to better
understand the effect of the damper parameters on the damping ef-
ficiency. It was shown experimentally that using LPC impact damp-
ers leads to 50% reduction in the displacement amplitude over the
whole time period (Table 4). The revelations of this work will help
in comparing and analyzing the behavior of impact dampers devel-
oped since the early 1930s (Sadek 1965).
Compared with other passive damping devices, impact dampers
have several advantageous features (e.g., simplicity, ruggedness,
temperature insensitivity) that make them suitable for applications
in harsh environments (e.g., offshore structures, bridges). Because
the dynamic behavior of passive devices differs from one device to
the other (e.g., tuned mass dampers, friction dampers, tuned liquid
dampers), the proposed impact damper is only compared with the
same class of impact-based dampers.
The experimental investigation conducted in this study led the
authors to conclude that impact dampers have potential applications
© ASCE 04016160-8
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160
in real engineering systems, small and large. A few design issues
related to impact dampers need to be discussed to shed the light on
the workability, efficiency, and the widespread applicability of
these devices. These include sizing and scaling, friction, noise,
and parameter optimization.
Sizing and Scaling
The simplicity of impact dampers makes them very suitable for
small and large-scale vibration systems. For small-scale applica-
tions, experiments conducted in the authors’ lab and other research
institutions led to similar results as in the real application [e.g., R.
Kellerer and H. Brandl, “Vibration damper for rotating parts
(August 30),” U.S. Patent No. 1,359,8954 (2012); Heckel et al.
2012; Skipor and Bain 1980)]. This is because the experiment op-
erating conditions are very similar to the primary system operating
conditions. For large-scale, real-life applications, such as offshore
platforms, suspended bridges and high-rise buildings, the impact
damper solution is still applicable. However, many factors have
to be studied first to design effective impact dampers, such as
the type of excitation and their amplitudes, maximum allowable
additional mass, and acceptable noise level. The focus in the pro-
posed design is on making sure that sufficient contact between the
moving masses occurs and the response of the damper is at least
as fast as that of the system to be dampened. Lu et al. (2012) con-
ducted a large-scale experiment on a 6-m frame structure under
several types of excitations. They concluded that for a specific
damper-to-structure mass ratio, a better vibration attenuation effect
can be obtained. Moreover, adding a buffered layer would lead to
better performance of the damper. Papalou et al. (2016) developed a
control methodology for large-scale model replica of an ancient
column. For proper clearance, the vibration of the column was re-
duced with even a small mass ratio. Similar solutions, such as tuned
mass dampers, have been applied successfully to large buildings. A
remarkable use of tuned mass damper in high-rise building can be
found in Kourakis (2007).
Effect of Friction
Friction in impact damper could result from (1) rolling balls and the
guides (all types of impact dampers); and (2) sliding holders and
the guides (LPC impact damper). The resulting friction forces are
minimized using high-precision slender rods for the guides and
reducing the contact surface between the balls and the guides (three
contact points). Despite attempts to reduce friction in the impact
dampers, the authors believe that friction forces should be taken
into consideration in any theoretical model for the impact damper,
which is rare in the literature. The proposed holders in this paper are
J. Struct. Eng.
 adequate for the presented small-scale experiments in which the
number of contact points and the additional weight are relatively
small. However, more practical friction-reduction solutions are
needed for the large-scale applications. The authors are currently
developing new designs of a holder that uses linear bearings or rail
and carriage mechanisms. These new designs will help to reduce
the friction that hampers the motion of the small balls.
Remark 3: For large-scale applications, the added mass of the
bearings is not significant compared with the mass ratio of the balls.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Effect of Noise
Another well-known issue with impact dampers that was apparent
during the experiments is noise. In fact, the resulting noise from
the impact event is one of the main disadvantages of the impact
dampers. In some applications, the noise level is not significant be-
cause of the nature of operation or location of the primary system
(e.g., turbine blades). However, in applications in which people are
close to or inside the primary system, the noise level is important
(e.g., buildings). Replacing the larger size masses with equivalent
multi-unit masses reduces the noise level relatively well. Another
solution is to change the mass ratio of the colliding masses. How-
ever, it is believed that adding a buffered layer to the damper con-
tainer would be the most practical solution that can be used in
all types of dampers to reduce noise pollution (Li and Darby
2006; Lu et al. 2012).
Remark 4: The authors’ research group is currently investigating
the effect of coating the moving balls with visco-elastic material as
a noise reduction, in addition to the damping technique for impact
dampers.
Effect of Parameter Variation
The parametric study in this paper showed that the LPC impact
damper performance is dependent on the chain length, the mass
ratio, and the clearance, and this was corroborated experimentally.
It was shown that better damping can be achieved by using longer
chain, smaller clearances, and a larger mass ratio; however, there is
an adverse effect for each case. An optimal combination among
these parameters would result in a high damping effect with mini-
mum counter effect. For example, shorter chain length with less
clearance would produce the same damping similar to longer chain
length with large mass ratio. The first combination is characterized
by less weight of the damper, compared with the second combina-
tion. To relate these parameters for an optimum performance and
minimum weight, a theoretical model for the LPC impact damper
would be an important next step in this study.
Remark 5: The focus of the present work is on the efficiency
and workability of the LPC damper, without emphasizing the
optimization of the system parameters. The authors are currently
developing continuous and finite-element models for the impact
dampers to systematically optimize the damper parameters. The
developed models include single and multi-degree-of-freedom
vibratory systems.
Conclusions
Vibration and noise in structural systems and machinery can cause
severe damage, failure, and potential shutdown of the operation if
not kept within allowable limits. Passive vibration control dampers
are cost-effective when compared with active and semi-active de-
vices. The LPC impact damper represents a novel approach to the
design of a new class of impact dampers. It has potential applica-
tions in the oil and gas industries (drill strings, offshore platforms),
© ASCE 04016160-9
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160
construction industries (building towers to suppress earthquake
vibration), and machine vibration (turbine and fan blades).
In this work, a newly developed passive LPC impact damper
was experimentally investigated. Free-vibration experiments were
conducted to validate the efficiency of the LPC impact damper
compared with the conventional single unit and multi-unit (single
container) impact dampers. The conclusion from the experiments’
outcomes can be summarized as follows: (1) In general, impact
dampers are very effective, practical devices for structural vibration
suppression; (2) the more impact masses (multi-unit impact damp-
ers) are used, the more damping of the structure is achieved; (3) the
LPC impact damper is more efficient in attenuating the dynamic
response of simple structures compared with the conventional
dampers, without adding a significant mass to the multi-unit impact
damper; (4) using a longer chain leads to quicker attenuation in
the structure’s time response and reduction in the amplitude of
the frequency spectrum; and (5) the chain length, the damper mass
ratio, and the damper clearance are design parameters that need to
be determined based on the application, the available space, and the
allowed extra weight on the primary system.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of Qatar National Research
Fund under the award number PDRA 1-1231-13034.
Supplemental Data
Appendix S1 (containing the most recent theoretical model devel-
oped by the authors) and Video S1 (sample experiments with and
without impact dampers) are available online in the ASCE Library
(http://www.ascelibrary.org).
References
Bajkowski, J. M., Dyniewicz, B., and Bajer, C. I. (2015). “Damping proper-
ties of a beam with vacuum-packed granular damper.” J. Sound Vibr.,
341, 74–85.
Bishop, S. R. (1994). “Impact oscillators.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A,
347(1683), 347–351.
Ceanga, V., and Hurmuzlu, Y. (2001). “A new look at an old problem:
Newton’s cradle.” J. Appl. Mech., 68(4), 575–583.
Cheng, C. C., and Wang, J. Y. (2003). “Free vibration analysis of a resilient
impact damper.” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 45(4), 589–604.
Cheng, J., and Xu, H. (2006). “Inner mass impact damper for attenuating
structure vibration.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 43(17), 5355–5369.
Chopra, A. K. (2012). Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to
earthquake engineering, Prentice Hall, New York.
Coste, C., Falcon, E., and Fauve, S. (1997). “Solitary waves in a chain of
beads under hertz contact.” Phys. Rev. E, 56(5), 6104–6117.
Du, Y., and Wang, S. (2010). “Modeling the fine particle impact damper.”
Int. J. Mech. Sci., 52(7), 1015–1022.
Duffy, K. P., Mehmed, O., and Johnson, D. (2001). “Self-tuning impact
dampers for fan and turbine blades.” Proc., 6th National Turbine
Engine High Cycle Fatigue Conf., Universal Technology Corp.,
Dayton, OH.
Egger, P., and Caracoglia, L. (2015). “Analytical and experimental
investigation on a multiple-mass-element pendulum impact damper
for vibration mitigation.” J. Sound Vibr., 353, 38–57.
Fang, X., and Tang, J. (2006). “Granular damping in forced vibration:
Qualitative and quantitative analyses.” J. Vibr. Acoust., 128(4),
489–500.
Gharib, M., Celik, A., and Hurmuzlu, Y. (2011). “Shock absorption using
linear particle chains with multiple impacts.” J. Appl. Mech., 78(3),
031005.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Gharib, M., and Ghani, S. (2013). “Free vibration analysis of linear particle
chain impact damper.” J. Sound Vibr., 332(24), 6254–6264.
Gharib, M., Karkoub, M., BinYousaf, M. T., and AlGammal, M. (2014).
“An experimental study of a novel impact damper in free vibration of
structures.” Dynamic Systems and Control Conf., ASME, New York.
Gharib, M., Karkoub, M., BinYousaf, M. T., and AlGammal, M. (2015).
“Shock vibration control using a novel impact damper.” 22nd Int.
Congress on Sound and Vibration. International Institute of Acoustics
and Vibration (IIAV), Auburn, AL.
Hamilton III, H. R., Riggs, G. S., and Puckett, J. A. (2000). “Increased
damping in cantilevered traffic signal structures.” J. Struct. Eng.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Visveswarayya College of Engineering on 05/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:4(530), 530–537.
Heckel, M., Sack, A., Kollmer, J. E., and Pöschel, T. (2012). “Granular
dampers for the reduction of vibrations of an oscillatory saw.” Phys.
A: Stat. Mech. Appl., 391(19), 4442–4447.
Housner, G. W., et al. (1997). “Structural control: Past, present, and future.”
J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1997)123:9(897), 897–971.
Jam, J. E., and Fard, A. A. (2013). “Application of single unit impact damp-
ers to reduce undesired vibration of the 3R robot arms.” Int. J. Aerosp.
Sci., 2(2), 49–54.
Koss, L. L., and Melbourne, W. H. (1995). “Chain dampers for control
of wind-induced vibration of tower and mast structures.” Eng. Struct.,
17(9), 622–625.
Kourakis, I. (2007). “Structural systems and tuned mass dampers of super-
tall buildings: Case study of Taipei 101.” Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Li, K., and Darby, A. P. (2006). “An experimental investigation into the use
of a buffered impact damper.” J. Sound Vibr., 291(3), 844–860.
Li, K., and Darby, A. P. (2008). “A buffered impact damper for multi-
degree-of-freedom structural control.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
37(13), 1491–1510.
Lu, Z., Lu, X., Lu, W., and Masri, S. F. (2012). “Shaking table test of the
effects of multi-unit particle dampers attached to an MDOF system under
earthquake excitation.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 41(5), 987–1000.
Masri, S. F. (1967). “Motion and stability of two-particle, single-container
impact dampers.” J. Appl. Mech., 34(2), 506–507.
© ASCE 04016160-10
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(2): 04016160
Nayeri, R. D., Masri, S. F., and Caffrey, J. P. (2007). “Studies of the
performance of multi-unit impact dampers under stochastic excitation.”
J. Vibr. Acoust., 129(2), 239–251.
Nguyen, N. S., and Brogliato, B. (2014). Multiple impacts in dissipative
granular chains, Springer, Berlin.
Ogawa, K., Ide, T., and Saitou, T. (1997). “Application of impact mass
damper to a cable-stayed bridge pylon.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aero
Dyn., 72, 301–312.
Papalou, A., Roubien, D., Triantafillou, T., and Strepelias, E. (2015). “A
passive control methodology for seismic safety enhancement of
monumental structures.” SPIE Smart Structures and Materials and
Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring, International
Society for Optics and Photonics, Bellingham, WA, 94312G–94312G.
Papalou, A., and Strepelias, E. (2016). “Effectiveness of particle dampers
in reducing monuments’ response under dynamic loads.” Mech. Adv.
Mater. Struct., 23(2), 128–135.
Popplewell, N., and Liao, M. (1991). “A simple design procedure for
optimum impact dampers.” J. Sound Vibr., 146(3), 519–526.
Popplewell, N., and Semercigil, S. E. (1989). “Performance of the bean bag
impact damper for a sinusoidal external force.” J. Sound Vibr., 133(2),
193–223.
Saaed, T. E., Nikolakopoulos, G., Jonasson, J.-E., and Hedlund, H. (2015).
“A state-of-the-art review of structural control systems.” J. Vibr.
Control, 21(5), 919–937.
Sadek, M. M. (1965). “The behaviour of the impact damper.” Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng., 180(1), 895–906.
Skipor, E., and Bain, L. J. (1980). “Application of impact damping to rotary
printing equipment.” J. Mech. Des., 102(2), 338–343.
Spencer, B. J., and Nagarajaiah, S. (2003). “State of the art of structural
control.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:
7(845), 845–856.
Zahrai, S., and Rod, A. F. (2015). “Shake table tests of using single-particle
impact damper to reduce seismic response.” Asian J. Civ. Eng., 16(3),
471–487.
J. Struct. Eng.