Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
/
_EAD INSTRUCTIONS -3EFORE CO.%PLET!INr, FORM ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIEN4T'S CATALOG NUMBER S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
12GOVT
AFIT/CI/NR 83-84T
TITLE (and Subtitle)
THESIS/(DAI5SAEWfAAAON
PERFORMING 01G, REPORT NUMBER
IT/NR 'FOH45433
MONITORING AGENCY NAME &ADDRESS(if diatetnt from Controlling Office)
December 120A
9~83
UNCLASS
Ise, DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNURADING SCH EDULE DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)
t?. OISTRIB3UTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, if differant from Report) Zrr, fo
L'.r~,1 -
If.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESP
WLAVER
Research and
It.KEY WORDS (Continue on revere sside if necessary and identify by block number)
Poesoa
eeomn
10.
ASS. RACT (Continue on reverse aide It neceesary and identify by block numbe,)
L -MR g
EJ
0ATTACHED
DD I i*
P'1
1473
IS OSSOLKTI
S84
0.~
099
UNCLASS
SECURtITY CLASSIFICATION4 0P THIS PA49 (When Vial EnIftod)
.9p
EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT
OF MATERIAL DAMPING
IN SIMULATED ZERO-G by RAYMOND LOUIS SHEEN Submitted to the Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering on December 23, 1983 in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering ABSTRACT
I..
S.A
)--An experimental apparatus for measuring the material damping properties of a beam specimen is described. The apparatus, called Tuneable Excitation Launch Mechanism_ ..... (TELM) measures the free decay of free-free beams launched into free-fall in a vacuum. Aluminum 2024-T3 specimens are tested with results following the Zener model for specimens with a fundamental free-free frequency above the relaxation frequency. However, specimens with a fundamental free-free frequency below the relaxation frequency show a high degree, . of stress dependence. Frequency range was 17 Hz to 358 Hz ,(4., and stress range was 0.5 KSI to 17 KSI. Gra ihe/epqxy.. AS1/3501-6 laminates were also tested. For 08aminates, material damping ratio of approximately .0005 -as found for frequencies vat.King from 45 Hz to 237 Hz. The-diamping was (I^ neither stress4K frequency dependent. For 1[90] alamia-iies, "the damping ratio ranged from .0055 to .0066 as--requency ranged from 42 Hz to 143 Hz. Damping ratios for 90] ....... specimens were independent of stress. Metal matrix -specimens with graphite fibers, magnesium matrix, and either titanium or magnesium foil were also tested. Damping ratios ranged from .00039 to .00099 depending upon the lay up, frequency, and possibly the stress range involved.` 7
"-
"
Thesis Supervisor:
Dr.
Edward F.
Crawley
Title:
M7
AFIT/CI/NR 83-84T AFIT RESEARCH ASSESSMENT The purpose of this questionnaire is to ascertain the value and/or contribution of research accomplished by students or faculty of the Air Force Institute of Technology (ATC). It would bo greatly appreciated if you would complete the following questionnaire and return it to: AFIT/NR Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433 Experimental Measurement of Material Damping for Space Structures in
( i. YES ( ) b. NO 2. Do ycu believe this research topic is significant enough that it would have been researched (or contracteo) by your organizatioti or another agency if AFIT had not?
()
a. YES
( ) b. NO
3. The benefits of AFIT research cun often be expressed by the equivalent value that your agency achieved/received by virtue of AFIT perforaing the research. Can you estimate what this research would have cost if it had been accomplished under contract or if it had been done in-house in terms of manpower and/or dollars? a. MAN-YEARS ( ) b. $ 4. Often it is not possible to attach equivalent dollar values to research, although the results of the research may, in fact, be important. Whether or not you were able to establish an equivalent value for this research (3. above), what is your estimate of its significance? .{ ) a. HIGHLY ( ) b. SIGNIFICANT ()c. SLIGHTLY ()d. OF NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANCE 5. AFIT welcomes any further comments you may have on the above questions, or any additional details concerning the current application, future potential, or other value of this research. Please use the bottom part of this questionnaire for your statement(s). NME " GRADE LOCATION POSITION
"ORGGANIZATION
STATEMENT(s):
"I
I,
--
. . .
--
'tl/
':'?.
)!
"!
T rs :''I.?7."2.'*
"I
J..='' '-
'R/
e,
:'."..TT
L"'
: -"'p" "
I
MAILED IN THEI UNITED STATES if
I II II
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST Wa MMIIT mOnm INMRINCTLt. IPW~A04 WIRL N PAID IT ADmIosmUI
FODI
-111"1I
IF0MILED
sinew
muumaa.
1M+M
EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT OF MATERINL DAMPING FOR SPACE STRUCTURES IN SIMULATED ZERO-G by Raymond Louis Sheen
C.aptain, USAF
at the OF TECHNOLOGY
1963
120 pages
,-':'.'-.i
For
Ii
II
,W*
[ Jl,
S""
., ..
...
It
/.O .
...
it I
Codes v*LA
Av ,-. 1. and/or
84 0
EXPERIMENTA.; MEASUREMENT OF MATERIAL DAMPING FOR SPACE STRUCTURES IN SIMULATED ZERO-G by Raymond Louis Sheen
B.S.,
VAv
Accepted by
/i
T~I
The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense of the United States Government.
I3
TABLE OF CONTENTS .Chapter I 2 INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 Description of Apparatus Specimens Data Collection and Reduction Test Procedure 10 15 15 21 24 26 28 28 29 30 32 33 33 36 38 42 48
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Validation and Configuration Tests Aluminum Tests Graphite/Epoxy Tests Metal Matrix Tests
ANALYSIS 4.1 4.2 S4,3 4.4 4.5 Theoretical Model of Damping in Metals Analysis of Damping in Aluminum Theoretical Models of Damping in Composites Analysis of Damping in Graphite/Epoxy Analysis of Damping in Metal Matrix Material
:1
( .
__*. _ _
LIST OF REFERENCES TABLES FIGURES APPENDICES A. B. C. D. Microcomputer Program Graphite/Epoxy Layering Curing Cycle Sequence and
54 56 87
__________________
5
LIST OF TABLES 'Table 2.1 2.2 2,3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 Equipment List Aluminum Specimens Graphite/Epoxy Specimens Mohr's [45]2,s Graphite/Epoxy Specimens 2 Metal Matrix Specimens Damping in Aluminum Specimens with Center Wire Attachment (Validation Tests) Summary of Damping in Aluminum Specimens with Center Wire Attached as Reported by Mohr 2 Damping of Aluminum Specimens with Node Wire Attachment Summary of Aluminum Damping Results in Validation Procedure 56 57 57 58 58 59 61
3.3 3.4
62 64
3.5 3.6
3.7
65 70
71
Damping in [0]8 Graphite/Epoxy Specimens of Different Frequencies Damping in (9018 Graphite/Epoxy Specimens at Different Frequencies Damping in [45]1s Graphite/Epoxy as Reported by Mohr Damping in Metal Matrix Specimens
74 77 79 80
/-
Table 4.1 4.2 Composite Damping of Similar Specimens of [O1g Damping Ratio of Matrix Material as
Calculated from Damping of Specimens of Similar Geometry 4.3 Damping Ratio of Matrix Material as Calculated from Damping of [0)e Specimens of Different Frequencies Damping Ratio of Matrix Material as Calculated from Damiping of [901f Specimens of Different Frequencies Dynamic Young's Modulus for Graphite/Epoxy
?Awe 83 83
84
4.4
85
4.5
86
4.6
86
.-
47
I-
page
87
2.2
88
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7
TELM Automated Cocking Mechanism TELM Automated Stroke Adjustment Current TELM Launch Sequence Specimen Configuration Unfiltered Strain Data vs. Time
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 95 96
Conceptual Damping Model of a Standard Linear Solid Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for Aluminum
Damping Ratio vs. Stress Level for Aluminum 97 Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for [0l8 Graphite/Epoxy Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for [901I Graphite/Epoxy Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for [145J2s 98 99 100
S t
i__
ii
"
Figures 4.8 Damping Ratio vs. Fiber Orientation for Graphite/Epoxy Specimens in the "Frequency Range 140Hz to .170Hz Damping of Metal Matrix Specimens vs. Frequency Program Flow Chart Interrupt Handler Flow Chart Stacking Sequence Wheatstone Bridge Circuit
Page
101
I?
At
.-
"*
*.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION To characterize the dynamic behavior of~any structure, the properties of that structure must be known. These
include not only the mass and stiffness, but' also the structure's damping characteristics. To determine the
damping of a structure, the sources of dissipation must be understood. Sources of dissipation can be divided into two External sources
include active control systems, aeroacoustic effects caused by moving through a fluid, and loss of energy at the supports through either friction or transmission into the supporting structure. Internal sources include friction
occurring within the structure and the damping characteristics of the materials used in the structure. With large flexible space structures the importance of the internal sources of damping is increased. An active.
control system will probably not be able to cont rol all of the flexible modes of a large space structure. In fact, a
closed loop control system can cause higher modes that were initially stable to become unstable; this effect is known as spillover. In the space environment the aeroacoustic and This leaves
10
in the higher modes, and prevent spillover from causing an instability in the structure. Of the forms of internal
damping, material damping will be investigated in this study. There have been man~y different techniques and geometries which have been used to measure material damping. The three most common techniques are the free
decay method, the resonant-dwell method, arid the half-power bandwidth method. 3 method. This study will use the free decay
specmen 1 0 11 12 the spcien A problem with this method is ensuring that the specimen stays perfectly fixed at the clamped end. If the specimen does not stay fixed, there
will be a damping effect caused by friction at the support. A method often used to reduce this effect is to machine the specimen and support from the same larger piece of material. V This is not practical with composite specimens.
similar difficulties exist in the double cantilever. 4 In order to eliminate fixity uncertainty at the ends, a free-free geometry is often us'3d. The obvious problem with
A I
this is supporting the free-free specimen in a gravity field. nodes. 8 Usually this is done by supporting the beam at the However, there is still some effect due to the In order to eliminate the requirements for
nodal support.
supports, a method of measuring the damping of a free-free specimen in free-fall will be used in this study report. apparatus that provides this capability exists at MIT and has already been used for previous studies in this fi4eld.*1,2 The materials selected for study were those that are used now are being developed for sp~ace applications. Aluminum was chosen since it is used in many structures. Also, since a large experimental data base already exists, it can be used to validate the apparatus.
I.*
An
strength and low mass, c~omposite materials are already in use on space structures and were therefore chosen for testing. There is a limited data base on the damping As a third
class of potential space structural materials, the damping characteristics of several metal matrix materials, composed of graphite fibers, magnesium matrix and either titanium or magnesium foil, will be examined. There has already been a significant amount of study done on aluminum by other researchers. Granick and'Stern,
who used double cantilever specimens tested in both air and vacuum, did not find material damping to be stress dependent in their vacuum results. 4 Also, their data did
show damping values slightly higher than-those given by the theoretical Zener model. However, they did not test
relaxation frequency.J
12
___________________________________________________,7
_____________,
no stress dependence
is
seen in
damping values slightly higher than the Zener curve for specimens with a frequency above the relaxation frequency. However, frequency, for a single specimen below the relaxation the value of damping did not decrease as This study will examine
aluminum specimens with frequencies below the Zener relaxatiou- frequency. Work done by other researchers with composite materials is harder to correlate since it ft repo'rted in many different ways and all the information concerning a particular composite tested is not always provided. and Tsail0 found that damping depended upon fiber Schultz
orientation and would transform as the complex part of the elastic modulus. However, their error between theory and Putter,
and Rehfield 12 showed that damping depended upon humidity, and ply orientation. Adams and
temperature,
Bacon 8 demonstrated a very strong correlation between fiber volume fraction and damping. They also showed a
relationship between beam slenderness ratio and damping, "which correlated well with their theory on composite .damping. Mohr found damping for angle ply laminates to be
13
t.
Mohr
reported reliable data only on the damping of [4512s specimens. This study will concentrate on (0
8
and [9018
graphite/epoxy specimens made from ASI/3501-6 for correlation with data gathered by Mohr.
I)
14
:K
2.1
Space Systems Laboratory (SSL) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to quantify material damping of candidate specimens for space structures. The apparatus,
called the Tuneable Excitation Launch Mechanism (TELM), lofts the specimen into free-fall. This eliminates the The
effects caused by support and excitation interactions. apparatus is contained within a seven foot tall circular vacuum chamber. effects.
The specimen to be tested is placed on a spring The launcher lofts the specimen into
the specimen to deflect. Strain gauges on the specimen measure the deflection as the specimen vibrates. The apparatus was developed by Vorlicek1 and Mohr 2 with some *additional modifications made for this study. A complete
2
At the time of Mohr's work the apparatus consisted of a spring loaded launcher that would loft the specimen into free-fall. The springs were compressed by hand and an
elcrmge
15
position.
compression was changed by turning a threaded rod that ran vertically through the launcher and had a steel plate attached to the bottom. The electromagnet held the steel The travel distance was
varied by moving a small nut up and down the threaded rod. When the electromagnet released the launcher, the springs forced the launcher up. The adjustable stopper nut would (fig 2.1)
At the same time the specimen was lofted into free-flight, a terminal block was also lofted upward. This block served as
an attachment point for strain gauge wires that came from the specimen. (fig 2.2) The entire apparatus was enclosed
4
* .biggest
problems encountered was that the chamber had to be opened up between each run to reset the launcher system. The chamber then had to be -pumped down again to the proper vacuum before the specimen could be launched. If the entire
system could be reset and the launcher settings adjusted from outside the chamber, the time between tests could be reduced. To do this four s;ubassemblies of the TELM had to
16
~Ii
be modifi~edor developed: 1. 2. 3. Tecocking mechanism was modified. The stroke adjustment mechanism was modified. A mechanism to reset the specimen on the launcher following each test was developed. 4. A mechanism to drive the terminal block on a trajectory identical to the specimen was developed. A subassembly was designed that would automatically compress the springs to recock the launcher. The
electromagnet which holds the launcher in the cocked position had previously been fixed to the bottom of the chamber. In the new modified design the electromagnet was (fig 2.3) This plate had ball nuts
mounted on a plate.
mounted on each end with worm screws running through them allowing for controlled vertical translation of the electromagnet assembly. To reset the system, a small motor
5J
electromagnet upward until it touchec the steel plate on t',he bottom of the threaded rod. The magnet would then be
energized and hold the steel plate that was connected to the
launcher by a threaded rod. The worm screw3 would be
energized, drawing the electronmagnet and launcher downward, compressing the springs. The worm screws were stopped at
17
/Now_
Another subassembly was designed that would automatically adjust the point at which the launcher would
be decelerated so as to achieve the proper launch velocity. The previous adjustment was done by turning by hand the nut that was located on the threaded rod. This nut would impact and the
the "striker plate" that was at a fixed height, launcher would stop rapidly, In the new design,
the nut now would impact a hollow shaft (fig 2.4) This shaft
could be moved up and down to set the height where the launcher way decelerated. turned the shaft. A DC motor with a gear train it would translate
vertically through the striker plate. A third subassembly was deviloped that would place the specimen back onto the launcher after a test so that it could be lofted again without the need for the operator to break the vacuum and handle the specimen. The lower section
of the plexiglas chamber was replaced by a steel section. This section had two ports through which mechanical arms could be mounted. ports. Each arm was sealed by 0-rings at the
Each arv. vtad four dagrees of freedom and a small These arms were only marginally
vacuum would constantly try to pull the arm in, claws did rot have much dexterity.
In particular,
18
: .....--
:-
--
- -.
--
'
if
the ports sealed after one of the covers for the 0-ring seals cracked and began to leak. For the remainder of the
tests, the vacuum was roleased following the test and each specimen manually reset on the launcher. Another problem encountered by Mohr was that the wires connecting the strain gauges to the terminal block often
broke.
times the magnet holding the terminal block would release prematurely, long, snapping the wires. Mohr was using 24 inch
39 gauge,
a smaller block on a wire and pulley system, driven by a DC motor. (fig 2.5) Because of th: high initial torque followed by an essentially When
lofting the lightest weight specimen with the maximum spring compression, the terminal block would be accelerated to 16.4 This is an average
19
.= -
The motor was controlled by an 8 bit microprocessor. The microprocessor would send a velocity profile to the motor controller, which then would match this profile. The
micrprocessor also would control the electromagnet that was holding the launcher down. The microprocessor gave the
I,
'Istandard
flexibility of changing initial velocity of the terminal block and allowing for a delay between terminal block
when launching at some of the higher stress settings. maximum delay used was .01 seconds.
the microprocessor program is found in Appendix A. The problem of the wire breaking was not completely solved, although strain gauge wire reliability was improved. The strain gauge wires were shortened to 18
inches and were soldered onto a four inch section of telephone cable at the terminal block end. The
20
on it.
One side of the 'plug received th4e tele*phone cable The other side to ,ck
was attached to a ten foot long telephone cable, simili' that found on a standard desk phone. As the terminal
would travel up and down, this telephone cable would be stretched then would retract. There were fewer problems Most breaks occured
when the specimen would land and bounce in the bottom of the chamber. other changes made to the apparatus were of a fairly minor nature. The vacuum plumbing was redesigned to allow A
more than one device to be run by the same vacuum pump. separate release valve was also added. Styrofoam padding
was put in the bottom of the chamber to cushion the specimen when it landed. Spacers were designed to be put under the
springs so that the amount of compression could be increased. 2.2 A complete parts list is fouqd in Table 2.1.
length from 5.3 inches to 20 inches and in thickness from .023 inches to .062 inches. approximately one inch wide. All specimens were The specimens were made of
21
composites.
graphite/epoxy and metal matrix were tested to develop a data base on damping values and to validate theoretical models. A, total of 24 specimens were tested during this study. In addition to these tests, the results of tests run by Remy Malan from June to August of 1982 will be reported. summary of Mohir's work will also be included. A
All the
specimens were instrumented with BLH FDE-25-35-ES strain gauges. These gauges were mounted on the top and bottom The gauges were
connected to the telephone wire by three 18 inch long, 39 gauge, enamel-coated wires. In an effort to reduce the effect of the strain gauge wires on the damping characteristics, a series of tests were run with the strain gauge wires mounted near the center of the specimen next to the straina gauge, and alternatively with the strain gauge wires mounted at at the location of the node of the first free-free mode shape. (fig 2.6)
Depending on the size of the specimen and the type of tests in which the specimen was used, the wires were attached at the specimen center or node as noted.
22
There were nine aluminum 2024-T3 specimens tested. dimensions of these specimens are listed in Table 2.2. specimens were chosen to represent different frequencies along the theoretical Zener curve.
The The
and cleaned prior to initial testing to relieve machining stresses. Over the course of collecting data, most of these This was due to
impacting the side of the chamber or bouncing off portions of the launcher when landing at the end of a test. Specimens Al-l, Al-2, and Al-3 were tested with both-center Specimen Al-4 was Al-6,
mounted wires and node mounted wires. tested with center mounted wires. Al-7, Al-8,
Specimens Al-5,
In addition to these tests, results of Mohr's aluminum I-ests will also be reported for comparison. There were ten graphite/epoxy specimens tested. dimensions of these specimens are listed in Table 2.3. specimens were fabricated from ASI/3501-6 pre-preg tape. The lay up sequence and curing cycle were done according to standard TELAC procedures. in Appendix B. All of the These procedures are summarized [038 specimens were cut from the The The
23
1t
/ii
:.- --
..
_ _
._
_ _
.o_ _
_ __r'
..
...
'
specimens were chosen to obtain essentially the same frequencies as those tested in the [0]8 specimens. To
minimize moisture effects, the specimens were tested within three weeks of initial fabrication and were stored in a zero-humidity chamber following fabrication and between tests. In addition to these tests, a summary of tests done The
by Mohr on [451 2 s graphite/epoxy will be included. specimens Mohr used are listed in Table 2.4. There were three metal matrix composites tested.
The
dimensions of these specimens are listed in Table 2.5. These specimens were provided for test by HR Textron. Details of fabrication are not known. 2.3 Data Collection and Reduction The general data collection and data reduction systems were the same as those used by Mohr. The strain gauges were A
complete analysis of the strain gauge bridge circuit is contained in Appendix C. The bridge voltage time history
was rec~orded on a digital oscilloscope and the data points saved on floppy discs. each test. There were 4096 points stored on
24
representation of the waveform. The data was then transfered to a computer system and digitally filtered. The digitial filter program was based
transition band was approximately the same as the mid-poit between the first free-free symmetric, frequency and the seocnd frequency. Other parameters
or third free-free,
were chosen so as to maintain approximately 75 filter coefficients. Some characteristics of the filtering are a no frequency shift, and a possible
Ssmoothness
small amplitude gain. This gain was a function of the and width of the transition band and varied from specimen to specimen. The amplitude gain was never more the Both the
unfiltered data and filtered data will be presented in this report. When there is no stress dependency, the filtered
25
.......
. ... ..
file in the SSL at MIT. The unfiltered and the filtered data was then subjected to a least-squares curve fit sinusoid u(t) = A e-40t sin (Ut + )+B
where A = amplitude
of an exponentially decaying
routine,
A,
C, w,
*,
The program,
5
called LSMARQ,
work of Marquardt.1
the MIT Information Processing Center. 2.4 Test Procedure The same test procedure was used for all specimens: a) Initial compression and stroke adjustments were
16
determined for the particular specimen and stres3 level using the procedure outlined by Crowley and Mohr. b)
The specimen was placed on the launcher and was was sitting level.
checked to ensure it
26
c)The chamber was closed and evacuated to approximately one torr. The chamber was then sealed off
d)
the steel plate attached to the launcher, avid then drawn back down until the desired compression was obtained. e) The hollow shaft going through the center of the
accelerating the. terminal block and releasing the electromagnet. The electromagnet release pulse was used
ii
j)
repeated.
k)
*
If specimen trajectory and terminal block
trajectory did not match, the compression and stroke adjustmuents were modified, or the microprocessor program constants were changed. 27
Is
3.1
and Configuration Tests series of tests were run to ensure that the in agregment with thred of the
experimental
apparatus was providing data This was done by that Mohr tested. had the strain as in testing
2
these specimens
from the
found in
-aluminum
specimens are given in Table 3.2 In an effort to reduce the possible effects of the strain gauge wires, a series of tests were conducted with but the strain gauge wires were
attached at the location of the node of the first free-free frequency. The results of these tests are found in Table 3.3. Average values for Mohr's tests and the center wire The average
value was usually lower and the standard deviation usually smaller using node wires. However, for specimen Al-i, the
average value and standard deviation were slightly higher with node wires. Following these tests, the decision was
28
all
tests,
the specimen was greater than the mass of specimen AI-i, when, the same specimen would be tested at different causing the node to shift,
frequencies, 3.2
Aluminum Tests Testing was now done on the remainder of the aluminum
specimens. All of these specimens had node wires except specimen Al-4, the twenty inch long specimen. This specimen was the heaviest specimen tested. * the longest tested, it Since this specimen was
that center mounted wires were less likely to break when the
Specimens Al-5,
AI-6,
Al-7,
presented since they did not exhibit stress dependence. Table 3.6 contains data collected by Malan using specimens Al-6 and Al-7. Mohr's procedures. This data was analyzed using
29
Iil
__
__
/ f
.-
3.3
for graphite/epoxy composite damping, experimental tests must be conducted on a variety of ply lay ups, frequencies, and stress levels. terms, To remove the effect of shear coupling
initially. However,
,8,
12
Mohr tested (018 and [14512, specimens. [018 specimens was suspect because This
study tested [018 and [90]8 specimens so that, with Mohr's [ 4 5 1 2s, damping data on three different symmetric ply lay Each specimen was tested at a variety Different frequency specimens were tested All graphite/epoxy data was filtered.
Tests were run on three different groups of specimens. SEphite/epoxy [318-1, the sar[018-2, [018-3, The first group of specimens, were tested to determine
and [018-4,
eproducibility of results.
laminate of graphite/epoxy [018 and had similar The four specimens were all tested at the same Specimen [018-4 had wires attached at the The
dimensions.
other three specimens had wires attached at the node. Results of these tests are found in Table 3.7.
30
_ _
_ _
The next group of tests were using specimens 1018-4, [Ole-S, [018-6, and 1018-7. These tests were to determine
gauge wires were also mounted near the center, since the location of the node would change each time the specimen was cut. Results of these tests are found in Table 3.8. The last group of graphite/epoxy tests were done using specimens [9018-1, [90]8-2, and [9018-3. These specimens
were manufactured at the same time as the [018 graphite/epoxy specimens. The strain gauge wires were As with the
previous group of tests, the shorter specimens were made by cutting down the longer specimen, thus changing the frequency. Also, the strain gauge wires were attached at The lengths of these specimens
were chosen so that each would vibrate at approximately the same frequency as one of the [018 specimens. The stress
level chosen for these specimens was to match the strain level of the corresponding (018 specimen's tests. Limitations of the
31
_________
___-__-_--------_
TELM prevented testing a specimen that matched the frequency of specimen Table 3.9. [018-7. Results of these tests are found in
[45]2S tests on
different frequency specimens are found in Table 3.10. These specimens were also obtained by successively cutting
specimens at different frequencies by attaching tip weights to the specimen. specimens. This was attempted with one of the
was damaged by impact with the launcher when it landed. This damage had not occurred when tip weights were not used. No further tests were made with tip weights on any of
the specimens. The met-al matrix specimen with magnesium foil had wires attached at the node. This specimen was not as stiff as the
other two specimens, therefore, it was tested over a much broader range of strain values. All of the data reported for these specimens is unfiltered. specimens. No stress values are reported for these The strain values were measured on the outer Results from
surfaces of the foil on each of the specimens. these tests are found in Table 3.11. 32
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS
In this chapter theoretical models that predict material damping for metals and composites will be examined. The experimental results from Chapter 3 will be
compared to these theoretical models to determine the validity of the theory. Aluminum results will be discussed The damping in metal
matrix specimens will be analyzed using both metal and composite models. 4.1 Theoretical Model of Damping in Metals The earliest models of material damping in metals used a dashpot in parallel with a spring. .known as a "Voight solid".
3
(fig 4.1) it
This was
, 5 However,
, 5 In particular,
high frequency oscillations was incorrect. A later model had a spring in series with the dashpot, and the two of them in parallel with another spring. 4.2) This model, known as a "standard linear solid",
5
(fig gave
would be at a peak for a frequency that was a function of the spring and dashpot values, and would decrease for
frequencies that were either greater or less than the peak frequency. 33
SiI
Zener proposed that the actual mec-hanism t~hat was occurring was heat flow in the metal. According to Zener,
when the material vibrates at low frequencies, the temperature gradient in the specimen remains approximately zero, resulting in a nearly isothermal process. When the
material vibrates at high frequencies, the strain in the material oscillates from compression to tension and back
again on a time scale shorter than that with which heat can flow through the material resulting in an adiabatic process. So at very low and very high frequencies the total However, there
I
J
applicability of this theory for any other crystal structure. However, it may be possible to extend this
theory to other crystal structures which have the same atomic packing factor. For example, hexagonal close-packed
has an atomic packing factor of .74, which is the same as for face-centered cubic.* A full mathematical development of Zener' s theory is found in Appendix D. The final equations used to predict
34
SI
2c
F.--
1 + (wT)
2----1(4.1)
where
relaxation time
h2
chkw2 where h - specimen thickness
k - thermal conductivity
(4.2)
The inverse of T is the relaxation frequency, where maximum damping will occur. predicts that damping is the yield stress is
the frequency
reached.
35
changes depending upon the thickness of the specimen. model will be used to correlate with the aluminum specimens. It will also be used in the analysis of the
This
these equations were obtained from the MIL Handbook-SC, Vol 1, September 1976.1 4.2 Analysis of Damping in Aluminum The theoretical model proposed by Zener will now be compared to the experimental results, Frequency and stress
frequencies above the relaxation frequency the average values and one standard deviation bars are shown. For
frequencies below the relaxation frequency the range of values are shown. The upper limit on these ranges should
not be considered as a maximum value of damping, but rather as the value obtained for the maximum level of stress at which the specimens were 'tested. The aluminum specimens were observed to have very different behavior depending upon whether their frequencies were above or below the relaxation frequency. All of the
36
frequency showed no stress dependence as can be seen by examining Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. The average
damping ratio of these specimens followed the Zener curve, which corresponds to results obtained by other researchers. The specimens with a frequency below thie relaxation frequency showed that damping was highly stress dependent and their damping- ratios did not follow the Zener curve. A
plot of the specimens with a frequency below the relaxation frequency is found in figure 4.4. Points shown on this plot
represent an average value of damping ratio over a range of .5 KSI for the specimen represented. This plot shows that
the damping ratio was increasing with increasing stress for all four of these specimens. However, the value of damping
The
below the relaxation frequency could be fou'nd for beams in vacuum. Granick and Stern tested specimens that had However, because of the thickness
of these specimens, all frequency vaijes were above the relaxation frequency. Mohr tested one specimen that had a The
damping ratio of this specimen was significantly greater than the predicted Zener value.
37
... .. ..
. .. .
The reason for this deviation from the Zener theory is not clear. This is the region where Zener said the
vibrations would cause isothermal heating through the specimen. Either the heat is being dissipated as it flows
from one side of the specimen to the other, phenomenon is specimen was 2024-T3 is occuring.
or another the
investigated.
42 KSI.
ratio increased for aluminum 2024-T4 when tested at stress levels above 35 KSI, but none of the specimens in the
Scurrent
4.3
Material damping of composite materials cannot be treated in the same way as metals. Composites are neither change depending and materials
isotropic nor homogeneous, upon the fiber orientation, used. For this study,
so properties
volume fraction,
:I
.graphite/epoxy
damping will be used in the analysis of damping in The results and metal matrix specimens. obtained using these methods will then be compared.
38
'
' .... -- --
........... --..
.....
"'
For this study,. three different models of composite damixing will be used in the analysis of damping in graphite/epoxy and metal matrix specimens. The results obtained using
these methods will then be compared. The first model will be a Rule of Mixtures calculation9
=
Vf f + Vm m
(4.3)
when
Vf = fiber volume fraction
In this case,
it
is
is much greater than the damping in the fibers, the damping can be approximated by
S"
(.4.4)
C This model is
damping characteristics. The second model was proposed by Hashin 7 and is upon a transformation of complex moduli. a unidirectional composite, based
axis did not need to be aligned with the specimen longitudinal axis. Hashin also assumed the fibers were
39
" ,
~.I,-ji/I|
" .. ...
brittle and therefore did not contribute to the damping. Because of this, the imaginary part cf the fiber modulus is zero. Hashin started with a Rule of Mixtures equation for
complex moduli
* =
f* Ef E Vf + Em Vm (4.4)
E11
(4.5)
Ell-
( 4.6 )
The loss tangent is defined as the imaginary part of the modulus divided by the real part of the modulus, proportional to the damping ratio. composite is then Em tan 6E E Vm and is
E V + EmR V f f m m
(4.7)
Now rearranging terms and substituting in loss tangent for the matrix
EI tan Sm
m
(-R (4.8)
40
I.
________
--
- -
..
gives the equation tan. tanm E "EfVf Em Vm Since the loss tangent is proportional to the damping ratio, we have an expression for the damping ratio of the compos ite :
SEf
+ 1
(4.9)
Vf
(4.10)
Em Vm where Cm Ef Em
vf
= the damping ratio of the matrix a Fiber axial Young's modulus - Matrix Young's modulus
v
vm
The third model was proposed by Adams and Bacon and is based upon a combination of Hashin's equation using the complex moduli and the shear stress caused by flexure.
8
L!
This model ib also restricted to unidirectional comnposites. In this model the specific d~mping capacity of a composite in the sum of the axial damping capacity, found using The shear
Hashin'sequation,
41
I"7=1
2
w dx
(4.11)
'2
fL/ 2
13,w axo
10G12 h
~L/2
fa 2W
\ax
dx
specimen
4
4.4
Ell,
axis
G1 2 - Composite shear modulus C12= Longitudinal shear damping ratio Analysis of Damping in Graphite/Epoxy When analyzing the damping in graphite/epoxy, were a series of questions to be addressed. there
question concerned the reproducibility of results. were the questions of stress, frequency, orientation dependence of damping. and fiber
All
7.
__"
The first question dealt with the reproducibility of the results. When composites are made there are often tiny
voids, broken fibers, and misaligned fibers that can possibily affect the characteristics of a specimen. 9 To
investigate the effects these non-uniformities might have on damping, four specimens were constructed to be as similar as possible, [0]8-1, (0]8-2,
These
specimens were cut from the same sheet of laminate with nearly identical dimensions. Therefore, four specimens had In all four
.specimens, the damping ratio was not dependent upon stress. The average values and the standard deviation were approximately the same for all four specimens, as can be seen in Table 4.1. Although the difference between the
highest value of damping ratio and lowest value of damping ratio is .00013, or 25% of the damping ratio; the largest standard deviation is only .00009, or 18% of the damping ratio. The next questions was to determine frequency dependence of the damping ratio in (0J8 graphite/epoxy.
-*
Specimen [0J8-4 was cut to successively shorter lengths, thereby changing the frequency but keeping the volume fraction, width, thickness, and internal -non-uniformities of the specimen constant. There was little change in the
The average value of damping ratio along with a one standard deviation bar, and the highest and lowest value obtained for figure 4.5. In each of these
each speciman are plotted in tests of [O] specimens, Putter, for their
Buchanan,
of frequency were conducted with [9018 graphite/epoxy. Again the longest specimen was cut to successively shorter lengths. As can be seen in figure 4.6, material damping the [9018 specimens. However, Increased again there
specimen.
The r
.t question was whether the damping ratio The results of the [O]8
There are
can be seen by comparing figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, there is an order of magnitude difference in damping ratios between the [018 and the other two orientations for the frequency and stress ranges tested. Notice that the stress ranges
tested in the [90J 8 specimens were set to correspond with the strain levels tested in the (018 specimens. The values
The final question was how well does theory match the
experimental results. In all three theories, the value of Unfortunately, the
manufacturer of the pre-preg tape used in the graphite/epoxy specimens did not have any information on the damping characteristics of the epoxy. In order to still test the
theoretical models in at least a limited fashion, the models were used to back calculate a value for the matrix damping, assuming the fiber contributed no damping. The values from
each specimen were then compared to each other to see if the values of matrix damping were approximately the same value. Consistent vailues of matrix damping caluculated from different teeLz in this manner would be a necessary condition for verification of the analytic model. Since
these theories are all limited to unidirectional composites, the [45128 data will not be used.
45
Applying the three theories of damping in unidirecticnal [018-2, [0]8-3, laminates to the damping values for and [018-4 yields back-calculated [018-1, values for
matrix damping
These values
be used as a reference value for comparison with other test results. Values of matrix damping can also be found from the specimens of differing frequency, as shown in Table 4.3. the (038
values obtained are all close to the reference values for the appropriate theory as derived from the specimens of
similar geometry. There is a trend in all three theories
towards slightly lower values of matrix damping with higher frequency. Finally the [90]8 frequency specimens are used to The results are
significantly different from the reference values of Table Not surprisingly the values for matrix damping are increasing with frequency just as the specimen damping 4.2. value did. The rule of mixtures method gave values that are
an order of magnitude different from the referenceaverage values. The other two theories gave values below, but the reference average values. Also, the
virtually unnoticable in these specimens. no difference in the values for the two
46
i __
__
theories using complex moduli, one which accounts for shear damping and the other which omits this effect. In an effort to determine how accurately these theories predict damping, it is interesting to compare the matrix damping back-calculated from theory with actual measured values of damping for other epoxies. Georgi quotes a matrix
damping value of .011 and Schultz and Tsai have values of .0162 and .0193 for the frequency range that was tested in their excperiments. obtained here. These values are lower than the values However, since those values are for a
different epoxy, definite conclusions can not be drawn. one other significant result is that the real part of the composite modulus is significantly below the modulus
I13
where
This is in agreement
of vibration, specimen dimensions, and mass, the real part of the modulus can be back-calculated using the relation 3 2 M L W (22.373) 21(.2 (.2
I - moment of Inertia The calculated values of the real part of the modulus are found in Table 4.5. 47
4.5
and will be
strain range involved was fairly small due to limitations of the TELM. The specimen with magnesium foil, PIOO/AZ91C/Mg,
distribution through the metal matrix is not known. Frequency dependence could not be tested for any of these specimens since only one specimen was provided, geometry could not be altered. and its
the damping ratio for all of these specimens is the same as both aluminum and [0]8 graphite/epoxy.
SThe damping ratios for all of the specimens were
compared to theoretical Zener values for magnesium AZ91C, which is the matrix being used. This was done by assuming
the specimens are made entirely of magnesium, but have the same dimensions as the ones tested. The theoretical and the
48
.1_
figure 4.9.
relaxation frequency,
predicted value.
relaxation frequency,
aluminum did.
well below
for this specimen can be at least partly attributed to the fact that this specimen was the lightest specimen tested. Therefore, any experiement interference due to the apparatus
would probably have a greater effect on this specimen than on any other. It should be noted that the Zener theory is
based on a crystal structure of body-centered cubic or face-centered cubic, packed. Therefore, and magnesium is hexagonal close
for magnesium.
To adequaCely compare the experimental'results with theoretical models for composite damping, on the specimens is required. more information volume
In particular,
manufacture of the metal matrix specimens were available, some assumptions were made. First, the only specimen used
-LI
49
tagnesiun foiL
foil,
PI00/AZ91C/Mg.
specimen with the magnesium foil was at least limited to just two materials, foil. graphite fibers and magnesium matrix and of this specimen was
estimated at
modulus E
where Ell was back-calculated
Ef Vf
Em Vm
(4.13)
vibration,
with the composite principle axis parallel to the specimen longitudinal axis. Finally, the shear modulus was assumed
for the matrix damping was the theoretical Zener value. rule of mixtures calculation is results, close to the experimental
while the complex roduli and shear effects theories This difference could be due to
50
........................................ I.
VIP!
5.1
Zener curve for frequencies above the relaxation frequency. In this region the damping is to approximately 16 KSI, 2. independent of stress level up
or '1500 us.
a strong dependence on stress levels as low as 8 KSI, 750 us, and a slight frequency dependence.
There appears to
be a lower bound in the damping that is approximately the same as the maximum value for damping that the Zener model predicts. 3. Material damping in graphite/epoxy [018 was found
to be independent of stress and independent of frequency. , Damping ratios ranged from .049% to .064% with an average of .056%. The stress range tested was from 0.3 KSI to 20 us to 775 u, and the frequency range was from
12.8 KSI,
45 Hz to 237 Hz. 4. Material damping in graphite/epoxy [9018 was independent of stress and slightly dependent on frequency,
'
51.
ranging from .55% to .66% were obtained. were from 0.009 KSI to 0.84 KSI,
frequency range was 43 Hz to 143 Hz. 5. Dynamic modulus for graphite/epoxy [018 was Dynamic
approximately 15% lower than static modulus. modulus for graphite/epoxy lower than static modulus. 6.
composites gives consistent values for matrix damping when 'applied to graphite/epoxy [O] and [90J8. No statement can
be made concerning whether the addition of shear effects is beneficial or not. 7. Damping ratio for metal matrix PlOO/AZ91C/Ti is A
9. *
52
i---
'--------.
I.......
..
An average value of .099% was found at a frequency of 138 Hz. 5.2 Recommendations
1. Further testing should be done on aluminum specimens with frequencies below the Zener relaxation frequency. Stress ranges from near zero to near yield
tested to determine whether they follow the Zener curve. 3. Further testing should be done with unidirectional
graphite/epoxy specimens that have a lower slenderness ratio to determine the validity of the use of shear effects when predicting the composite damping ratio. 4. The value of the damping ratio of the epoxy resin With this value the theories
should be determined.
involving complex moduli could be validated against experimental data. 5. A theoretical model for predicting composite
damping that is valid for othz- than urnidiractional composites should be developed.
v6.
IA
metal or those
of a composite,
S1717
,"
IMaI
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Vorlicek, P.L., "Material Damping of Aluminum and Graphite/Epoxy in a Simulated Zero-Gravity Environment," M.I.T. Space Systems Laboratory #13-81, January 1981.
2. Mohr, D.G. and Crawley, E.F., "Experimental Measurements of Material Damping of Aluminum and Graphite/Epoxy in
Free-Fall with Tuneable Excitation," Laboratory #11-82, June 1982. M.I.T. Space Systems
3. Bert, C.W., "Material Damping: An Introductory Review of Mathematical Models, Measures and Experimental Techniques," Journal of Sound and Vibration, (1973), 29(2), pps 129-153. 4. Granick, N. and Stern, J.E., "Material Damping of Aluminum by a Resonant-Dwell Technique," NASA TN D-2893, August 1965. 5. Zener, C.M., Elasticity and Anelasticity of Metals, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1948. 6. Van Vlack, L.H., Elements of Materials Science and Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, 1975. MA,
7. Hashin, Z., "Complex Moduli of Viscoelastic Composites-II. Fiber Reinforced Materials," Int. J. Solids and Structures, Vol. 6, 1970. 8. Adams, R.D. and Bacon, D.G.C., "The Dynamic Properties of Unidirectional Fibre Reinforced Composites in Flexure and Torsion," J. Composite Materials, Vol. 7, January 1973. 9. Ashton, J.E., Halpin, J.C. and Petit, P.I., Primer on Composite Materials: Analysis, Technomic Publishing Company, Westport, CT, 1969. 10, Schultz, A.B. and Tsai, S.W., "Dynamic Moduli and " JComposite Damping Ratios in Piber-Reinforced Composites," J.Copst Materials, Vol. 2, July 1963. "12. Georgi, H., "Dynamic Damping Investigations on Composites," AGARD Conference, Structurea and Material Panel 6pecialist, Meetinl on Dam ing Effects in Aerospace Steucures, Williamourg,A April 979.
54
_-__________.. ._"____,_
"
""
12,
Putter,
S.,
Buchanan,
D.L.,
Rehfield,
L.W.,
"Influence
S~Behavior
of Graphite/Epoxy Composites," in Composite Materials. Testing and Design (Sixth Conference), ASTM STP 787, I.M. Daniel, Editor, ASTM, 1982, pp 414-424. 13. Turner, M.D., "Comparison of Static and Dynamic Test Methods for Determining the Stiffness Properties of Graphite/Epoxy Laminates,"S.M. Thesis, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, June 1979. Military Standardization Handbook, Metallic Materials 14. and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures, MIL-Hdbk-5C, Vol. 1, September 1976. 15. Marquardt, D.W., "An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters," Journal of the Society for Iridustrical and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 11, No. 2, June 1963. Crowley, E.F. and Mohr, D.G., "Experimental 16. M=asurements of Material Damping in Free Fall with Tuneable Excitation," Presented at AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Paper No. 83-0858-CP, Tahoe, NV, May 1983, will be published in AIAA Journal.
i.1
TABLE 2.1
EQUIPMENT LIST Device Vacuum Pump Vacuum Gauge Microprocessor Electromagnet D. C. Motors Manufacturer Kinney Stokes S.D. Systems Edmund Scientific Globe Industries Photocircuits Barber Coleman PMI ORD, Kepco
Power/Mate Power/Mate
Model Number KD-30 276AA-Lo7 Z80 Starter Kit 71936 SO 9667 T39M4H/U6 CYQM 43210-41-5 U6T
Inc.
Heathkit Battery (for strain gauge excitation) Strain Gauges Oscilloscope Globe
GC626
FDE-25-35-ES 206
56
TABLE 2.2
S)-1-6 SAI-7
A\I-5
**14.00 **
18.94 10.00
specimens also tested by Mohr * specimens also tested by Malan tested only by Mohr *specimen
TABLE 2.3 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS SPECIMEN 108-1 [018-2 [0]8-3 [018-4 LENGTH IN 17.75 27.78 17.75 17.75 WIDTH IN 1.01 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
[0]8-
13.88
1.00
THICKNESS .IN .042 .041 .042 .043 .043 .043 .043 .041 .041
.041
1.020
5.31
57
.~1.
~4
SPECIMENS
7.331 x 10-5 slugs/in. Width (in) 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Thickness (in) .041 .041 .041 .041
[45]2s-3*
(45]2S-4*
TABLE 2.5
WIDTH
IN
THICKNESS
IN
MASS
SLUGS (10-3)
S~58
TABLE 3.1 DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH CENTER WIRE ATTACHMENT (VALIDATION TESTS) Specimen Al-i Al-i Frequency rad/sec 248.5 248.5 Damping Ratio .001222 .001226 Strain 101060 1078 Stress KSI 11.1 11.3
Al-i
248.3
Al-I Al-i Al-1 Al-i Al-I Al-I Al-1 Al-i Al-'i Al-1 Al-1 Al-1
248.3 248.3 248a2 248.4 248.2 248.2 248.0 248.2 247.9 247.9 247.9 248.9
.001191
.001210 .001201 .001257 .001273 .001264 .001184 .001293 .001282 .001094 .001241 .001210 .001235
1078
1084 1127 1144 1148 1150 1195 1215 1221 1227 1230 1282 1289
11.3
11.4 11,8 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.5 12.8 12.8 12.9 12.9 13.5 13.5
Al-i
Al--1 Al-I Al-1 Al-I Al-i Al-2 Al-2 Al-2 A1-2 Al-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 Al-2 A1-2 Al-2 A1-2 A1-2
247.7
247.7 247.8 247.4 247.5 247.6 412.3 412.2 412.2 412.3 412.2 412.3 412.3 412.3 412.2 412.3 412.1 412.2 412.2
.001323
.001203 .001227 .001145 .001183 .001245 .0009700 .0011247 ,0009872 .0009432 .0010359 .0009261 .0009631 .0011157 .0010.474 .0010089 .0011759 .0012268 .0010622
1310
1362 1368 1399 1448 1458 174 175 175 176 190 190 192 193 207 211 310 314 329
13.8
14.3 14.4 14.7 15.2 15.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.8
Al-2
A1-2 A1-2
Al-2
412.2
.0010060
341
342
3.6
348 361
A1-2
A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2
412.2
.0009992
.0011543 .0011888 .0011510 .0009927 59
371
378 384 395 403
3.9
4.0 4.0 4.1 4.2
TABLE 3.1 (Continued) DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH CENTER WIRE ATTACHMENT (VALIDATION TESTS)
Specimen A1-3
Al-3
Frequency
rad/sec
Strain
10
Stress
KSI
2247
2247
18.9
19.0 20.4 21.7
.20
.20 .21 .23
A1-3
A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3
2246 2247
.0003677
.0005095 .0005404
20.3. 22.0
22.2 24.1 26.5 31.0
.21 .23
.23 .25 .28 .33
.0002231
.0002529 .0006915 .0004535 .0005094
A1-3
A1-3
2247
2247
.0004707
.0005079
31.5
33.6
.33
.35
A1-3
A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3
2247
2247 2247 2246 2246
.0004353
.0003631 .0004720 .0003275 .0003905
35.6
37.0 40.7 44.5 48.2
.37
.39 .43 .47 .51
60
'i
--
__
TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH CENTER WIRE ATTACHED AS REPORTED BY MOHRd'
Specimen Al-1
Frequency
rad/sec
248.8
Damping Ratio
Stress
KSI
13.94 12.74 11.58 7.3 6.50 18.09 15.82 13.70 6.99 6.13 5.32 5.07 4.39 3.89 2.17 1.95 1.86 1.77 1.72 1.58 .93
.00111425
A1-2 411.4 .00112549 .00105498 .00103198 .00102788 .00101322 .00103550 .00106383 .00104420 .00106423 .00108520 .00037952 .00039311 .00029632 .00030515 .00030319 .00034681 .00025401
7.08
A1-3
2246
A-1-0
807.2
.00031441 .00031991
.89 .84
.00062533
1.08
.94
61
TABLE 3.3
DAMPING OF ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH NODE WIRE ATTACHMENT Specimen Al-I Al-I Al-i Al-I Al-i Al-i Al-1 Al-i Al-1 Al-I Al-1
Al-I
Frequency rad/sec 249.1 249.0 249.0 249.3 249.1 249.0 249.0 249.3 249.1 249.0 249.2
248.4
Damping Ratio .0012501 .0011928 .0012324 .0012643 .0012541 .0012205 .0012485 .0012421 .0013190 .0012002 .0012303
.0013093
Strain
Stress
10O
558 580 581 591 594 616 618 629 632 654 669
1160
KSI
5.9 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.9 7.0
12.2
St
SAl-2
Al-i Al-I Al-i Al-i Al-1 Al-i Al-1 Al-I Al-i Al-i Al-I Al-i Al-I Al-1 Al-I Al-i Al-I Al-I Al-i Al-i Al-i A1-2 Al-2 Al-2 Al-2 Al-2 Al-2
248.3 248.3 248.4 248.2 242.2 248.2 248.2 248.1 248.0 248.1 248.n
248.0
248.0 248.0 247.9 247.8 247.8 247.8 247.6 247.6 247.6 412.5 412.2 412.4 412.5 412.4 412.2 412.4
.0013141 .0012111 .0011969 .0012429 .0011442 .0012298 .0012851 .0011092 .0012081 .0011092 .0012300 .0012521 .0012509 .0012974 .0012129 .0012978 .0012980 .0013103 .0012151 .0011758 .0012390 .0009685 .0010852 .0009689 .0009626 .0010525 .0010565 .0010496
1103 1172 1177 1236 1237 1246 1251 1317 1324 1331 1335
1335
12.2 12.3 12.4 13.0 13.0 13.1 13.1 13.8 13.9 14.0 14.0
14.0
1349 1349 1421 1421 1439 1439 1516 1529 1533 200 208 209 213 216 226 227
14.2 14.2 14.9 14.9 15.1 15.1 15.9 16.1 16.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4
62
DAMPING OF ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH NODE WIRE ATTACHMENT Specimen Frequency Damping Ratio Stra n Stress
rad/sec 10-
KSI
A1-2
A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2
A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-3 A1-3 Al-3 Al-3 Al-3 Al-3 Al-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 AI-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-2
412.2
412.4 412.0
411.9
.0011318
.0010118 .0010596
.0011922
395
400 410
431
4.2
4.2 4.3 4.6 4.6
4.7 5.0 5.2 .17 .18 .20 .21 .22 .22 .23 .25 .28 .29 .31 .50 .51 .54 .55 .56 .58 .58 .61 .62 4.5
412.2 412.3
412.0 411.8 411.9 2249 2249 2246 2247 2248 2246 2248 2247 2247 2247 2247 2248 2248 2249 2248 2248 2250 2250 2249 2249
.0011614 .0010330
433 435
449 474 492 16.5 17.5 18.9 20.2 20.8 20.9 22.1 23.9 26.4 27.7 29.8 47.6 48.6 51.3 52.3 53.8 54.9 55.3 57.9 58.7
SA1-3
.0010996 .0012359 .0010204 .0003404 .0004235 .0001802 .0002103 .0000988 .0003704 .0001742 .0004038 .0002429 .0002188 .0001996 .0004310 .0003921 .0003920 .0003504 .0003976 .0003850 .0004083 .0004038 .0002446
2248 2249
.0003949 .0003373
59.5 59.9
.62 .63
63
ij~
J/
,'" r ;;._ ---. ' " ' "--' .... _ .. . ., " - " .. '
TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF ALUMINUM DAMPING RESULTS IN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SPECIMEN CENTER WIRES (MOHR'S Al-i Al-2 Al-3 RESULTS) CENTER WIRES (CURRENT TESTS) .00123 .00107 .000436 NODE WIRES (CURRENT TESTS) .00124 .00106 .000326
64
/.
_,
.. .
. . . -_
:Specimen
Frequency
rad/sec Ai-4 A1-4 201.5 201.4 201.5 201.4
Damping Ratio
Straiin
10
Stress
KSI 7.9 8.3 8.5 8.5
A.-4
AI-4 AI-4 AI-4 AI-4 AI-4 A1-4 AI-4 A1-4 A1-4 AI-4 A1-4 A1-4 Al-4 AI-4 AI-5 Ai-5 AI-5 AI-5 AI-5 AI-5 AI-5 A1-5 Al-5 AI-5 A1-6 AI-6 A1-6 P A1-6 Al-6
Al-4
201.4
201.3 201.4 201.4 201.3 201.2 201.0 200.9 200.8 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.6 200.6 I11.. 110.,9 110.8 120.6 110.5 110.4 110.4 110.5 110.2 109.9 110.0 203.1 203.8 204.1 203.7 203.6 203,7 203.7
.0012720
.0013179 .0013318 .0012444 .0012590 .0012302 .0012080 .01.3 .0012182 .0013018 .0012413 .0012641 .0013044 .0013012 .0012354 ,0013000 .0012353 .0023742 .0026207 .0025151 .0027838 .0030827 .0035275 .0030750 .0036301 .0037109 .0046911 .0046881 .0017529 .0014728 .0014586 .0018114 .0017429 .0016393 .0014547
820
857 861 862 897 902 907 1056
1101
8e6
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 11.1
200.9
.0013000
"AI-4 SA!-5
1106 1110 1160 1166 1169 1201 1222 1227 812 891 910 951 953 1002 1012 1021 1044 1118 1138 762 811 825 829 835 844 863
11.6 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.3 12.6 12.8 12.9 8.5 9.4
11.6
"A1-6
A1-6
9.6 10.0 10.0 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11 .7 11.9 8.0 8.5 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.9 9:1
65
/2
Frequency
rad/sec 204.0
Damping Ratio r
.0016279
Stra n
10876
Stress
KSI 9.2
203.6 203.5 203.5 203.5 203.8 203.8 203.8 203.4 203.4 203.4 203.3 203.8 203.4 203.2 203.2 203.6 203.2 203.2
.0016514 .0018751 .0018245 .0017841 .0016685 .0015918 .0016180 .0019003 .0018181 .0018255 .0019362 .0018016 .0019694 .0020630 .0020465 .0017430 .0020985 .0019965
I-,
A1-6 AI-6 AI-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 AI-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 AI-6 A1-6
A1-6
203.3
877 891 896 908 920 927 934 938 941 942 944 944 956 964 982 1016 1018 1022
.0020519
9.2 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 10.0 10-1 10.3 10.7 10.7 10.7
968
10.2
A1-6
A1-6 Al-6 Al-6 AI-6 A1-6 AI-6 AI-6
j
203.1
203.0 203.1 203.4 202.7 202.6 202.7 203.1 401.1 401.1 401.3 401.2 400.9 401.3 401.6 401.1 401.3 401.8 401.0
.0022239
.0022421 .0022816 .0018531 .0027940 .0028403 .0028035 .0021601 .0018953 .00]7787 .0016206 .0010469 .0014825 .0016050 .0017002 .0017389 .0020965 .0024713 .0014023
1023
1028 1043 1092 1129 1136 1151 1182 133 137 137 140 146 147 154 154 155 155 156
10.7
10.8 11.0 11.5 11.9 i1L9 12.1 12.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
K K
A1-7 Al-7 A1-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 A1--7 Al-7 A1-7 Al-7
A1-7
401.8
.0023094
127
1.3
66
It/
Specimean Al-7 A1-7 Al-7 Al-7 Ai-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 A1-7 A1-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 AI-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 A1-7 AI-7 A1-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 A1-7 A1-7 -Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 ,Al-8
Frequency
rad/sec
401.2 401.3 400.8
Damping Ratio
401.7
401.2 401,0 401.4 400,.9 401.2 401.8 401.6 401.6 401.5 401.2 401.5 401.6 401.5 401.3 401.4 401.4 401.2 401.4 401.3 401.6 401.3 401.2 401.3 401.5 401.4 401.2 401.4 401.2 629.8 629.8 629.1 629.4 629.6 629.9
629.1
"Al-8
.0017644 .0015503 .0015355 .0013991 .0018520 .0014520 .0014005 .0011129 .0022635 .0022209 .0013619 .0017822 .0017285 .0011245 .0012266 .0017737 .0018741 .0015076 .0012160 .0015682 .0016233 .0015185 .0022020 .0021877 .0019517 .0016583 .0021546 .0020008 .0019991 .0017519 .0019537 .0016680 .0015605 .0016412 .0016005 .0015679 .0013071 .0014613
.0016640
KSI
172
175 176 181 183 185 185 193 205 211 223 225 237 242 250 250 271 280 281 283 291 300 313 336 344 351 361 409 414 53.9 56.0 57.1 59.7 65.3 68.6
69.9
1.8
1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 *3.6 3.7 3.8 4.3 4.4 .57 .59 .60 .63 .69 .72 .76
.73
Al-8
Al-8
629.4
.0015567
72.3
67
TABLE 3.5 (Continued) MATERIAL DAMPING Specimen Al-8 Al-8 A1-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Frequency
rad/sec
Damping Ratio .0016558 .0015245 .0014057 .0C14127 .0021124 .0021001 .0017491 .0021136 .0021307 .0020656
Stress,
KSI
629.8 629.4 629.3 629.1 628.9 629.2 629.0 629.5 628.9 629.1
Al-8
Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 A1-9 Al-9
629.0
629.3 628.8 628.9 629.0
78.7 83.7 84.9 88.4 133 135 143 145 173 175
.0017661
.0019459 .0020045 .0016661 .0020501
.83 .88 .39 .93 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8
178
189 225 226 228 2V1 27.6 34.0
1.9
2.0 2.4 2.4 2.4
629.2
1124 1124
.0018178
.0010944 .0013609
2I5
.29 .36
Al-9
Al-9 A1-9 Al-9 AI-9 Al-9 A1-9 A1-9
1124
1125 1124 1124 1124 1126 1124 1124
.0012261
.0013941 .0010906 .0010744 .0013507 .0011738 .0011601 .0010941
34.6
37.4 44.6 45.1 45,4 45.4 46.2 46.1
.36
.39 .47 .47 48 ,46 .49 .49
.52
A1-9
AI-9 AI-9 A1-9 Al-9 Al-9
A -9
1124
1125 1124 1126 1124 1124
1124
.0010723
.0011617 .0011815 .0011342 .G009599 .0012332
.0012643
49.4
50.5 57.9 5b.4 59.4 60.U
60 2.
Al-9
1125 1124'
1124 1126
AI-9 AI-9 Al-9 1124 1124 1124
.0012126 .0011600
.00118'4 .001i223
.0012407 .0011329 .0011592
60.7 62.9
64.2 74.8.?
78.6 1 00.0
6
.83
68I
"_
A
",m'.
'
"...'- . O, if
B MAi , Ai
TABLE 3.5 (Continued) MATERIAL DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS Specimen Frequency Damping Ratio Strain Strpss
A1-9
A1-9
rad/sec 1124
1124
.0013650
.0012566
1082.4
84.0'
KSI .87
.88
69
V!m
TABLE 3.6 MATERIAL DAMPING IN ALUMINUM AS MEASURED BY MALAN Specitnen A1-6 A1-6 Frequency Damping Ratio .00211 .00213 Stra n
rad/sec
203.9 203.7
l0-i
927 983
Stress
KSI
10.2 10.8
A1-6
Al-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6
203.5
203.5 202.6 203.2 203.1 203.0 202.9 202.6
.00212
.00253 .00318 .00240 .00277 .00262 .00280 .00331
1048
1086 1087 1116 1168 1203 1260 1292
11.5
11.9 14.4 12.2 12.7 13.1 13.7 14.1
A1-6
AI-6
202.5
201.8
.00342
.00417
1375
1467
14.9
15.8
A1-6
A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7
201.8
201.1 200.6 200.8
.00430
.00668 .00604 .00584
1535
1603 1704 1766
16.6
17.2 18.2 18.9
402.0
402.0 402.0 402.0
.00152
.00160 .00149 .00158
303
353 388 425
1.4
3.9 4.3 4.7
A1-7
A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 AI-7 AI-7 A1-7 A1-7
401.9
401.8 401.1 401.1 400.9 400.6 400.3 400.0 399.8 398.2 398.5
.00178
.00195 .00197 .00216 .00227 .00248 .00278 .00328 .00343 .00550 .00507
469
571 634 720 804 930 1032 1105 1464 1475 1557
5.2
6.4 7.1 8.0 8.9 10.3 11.4 12.2 13.4 16.1 17.0
70
Specimen [Ol8-i [0]8-1 [0]8-1 10]8-1 [0]8-1 [018-1 [018-1 [0]8-1 [0]8-1 [018-1 [018-1 [0]8-1 [018-1 10]8-1 [018-1 [018-1 [0]8-1 [018-1 [Ol8-1 [018-1 [0]8-1 [0]8-1 [0]8-1 [0J 8 -2 [0] -2 [018-2 [018-2 [0] -2 [0]8-2 [018-2 [0]8-2 (018-2 [018-2 [0]8-2 [018-2 [018-2 [0]8-2 [018-2 [018-2 [0]8-2
Frequency rad/sec 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.4 289.4 289.4 289.4 289.4 289.0 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.8 288.8 288.8 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.2 284.2 284.2283.9 283.9 283.8 283.8 283.8 283.8
Damping Ratio .0006746 .0006908 .0006581 .0006383 .0005192 .0006757 .0006699 .0005268 .0005706 .0006261 .0006855 .0005900 .0006022 .0006111 .0006287 .0005943 .0006136 .0005931 .0005981 .0006271 .0006927 .0006322 .0005868 .0005659 .0005722 .0006285 .0006387 .0005781 .0006023 .0006418 .0006101 .0005221 .0005606 .0005584 .0004566 .0004805 .0004095 .0004794 .0004582 .0004294 71
Strain 10469 471 477 487 488 490 496 506 506 509 515 523 694 701 711 712 719 725 737 737 749 762 763 572 583 584 598 590 602 604. 609 610 623 630 748 748 764 766 768 772
Stress KS! 7.61 7.66 7.74 7.90 7.93 7.96 8.06 8.22 8.22 8.27 8.37 8.50 11.27 11.38 11.54 11.56 11.67 11.77 11.96 11.96 12.17 12.37 12.40 9.45 9.64 9.66 9.72 9.76 9.95 9.99 10.06 10.08 10.30 10.41 12.37 12.37 12.63 12.66 12.70 12.76
ii
_,-_=__ _ _--_-__ _ _ _ _ "1 _ _.
..
=,_
n..
/Il
w,,W
TABLE 3.7 (Continued) DAMPING IN Specimen (018-2 [0] GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR DIMENSIONS Damping Ratio .0005931 Strarn 101 783 Stress KS1 12.95
[0]8-2 [018-2 [018-2 [0]8-2 [0]8-2 [018-3 [0] -3 1018-3 [0]8-3 [0]8-3 [0]18-3 [0] 8-3 [0] 8-3 [0]18-3 [0] 8-3 [0] 8-3
[019-3 [018-3 01]8-3
283.8 283.7 283.7 283.7 283.6 288.-8 288.8 288.4 288.8 288.7
288.8 288.7
.0004263 .0004693 .0004251 .0004167 .0004174 .0006402 .0005773 .0006513 .0006226 .0006775
.0005936 .0005910
786 787 791 805 812 463 465 476 480 480
482 497
12.99 13.01 13.08 13.31 13.43 7.38 7.42 7.60 7.66 7.66 7.95 7.98 8.18 8.19 10.37 10.69
10.70 10.77 7.69 7.93
[018-3 [018-4 (016-4 [018-4 [018-4 [018-4 [0]8-4 [0]8-4 1018-4 []08-4 [016-4 [O]8-4
287.7 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.4 301.4 301.4 301.5 301.4 301.4 301.4 301.3
.0005372 .0007554 .0004765 .0004794 .0004072 .0005409 .0006642 .0004766 .0004315 .0005520 .0004859 .0005076 72
738 504 510 516 526 528 528 532 539 545 549 549
11.77 8.34 8.42 8.53 8.70 8.73 8.73 8.79 8.90 9.00 9.08 9.08
I!
TABLE 3.7 (Continued) DA1IPING IN [Ole GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR DIMENSIONS Specimen [018-4 [0]8-4 [0] -4 (]08-4 (0] 3-4 [0] 8-4 (01]-4 Frequency rad/sec 301.3 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.7 300.7 300.6 300.8 Damping Ratio .0005076 .0005849 .0005392 .0005009 .0005380 .0004080 .0005184 .0004884 .0005373 .0003500 .0004590 Strain 10554 732 739 750 752 754 763 776 788 791 771 Stress KSI 9.16 12.09 12.21 12.40 12.43 i12.47 12.62
[0]8-4
300.7
.0004214
774
12.79
I
SI
Ii
TABLE 3.8 ] DAMPING IN 10 1 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES Specimen [018-4 1018-4 10J-4 1018-4 [018-4 t0] 8-4 [018-4 [01]-4 [0]s-4 1018-4 [0]18-4 [018-4 [018-4 1018-4 10]8-4 10] 8-4 1018-4 [018-4 [0]8-4 (018-4 (018-4 101 8-4 [018-4 [018-5 [01 8-5 [018-5 10]8-5 [0]8-5 (0 1 8- 5 [018-5 1[08-5 [018-5 [0]8-5 S[0]18-5 [018-5 [018-5 s]0 5 [0108-5 [018-5 [018-5 Frequency rad/sec 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.4 301.4 301.4 301.5 301.4 301.4 301.4 301.3 301.3 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.7 300.7 300.7 300.6 486.0 486.0 485.9 486.1 486.0 486.0 486.1 486.0 486.0 485.7 485.8 485.8 485.7 485.7 485.8 485.7 485.6 Damping Ratio C .0007554 .0004765 .0004794 .0004072 .0005409 .0006642 .0004766 .0004315 .0005520 .0004859 .0006586 .0005076 .0005849 .C005392 .0005009 .0005380 .0004080 .0005184 .0004590 .0004214 .0004884 .0005373 .0003500 .0006693 .0006603 .0005696 .0006739 .0005622 .0005920 .0006234 .0006069 .0004088 .0006428 .0005891 .0005397 .0006047 .0005525 .0005290 .0006256 .0006859 74 Stra'n 10-9 504 510 516 526 528 528 532 539 545 549 549 554 732 739 750 752 754 763 771 774 776 788 791 96 102 104 107 108 112 113 119 120 300 313 319 319 323 331 337 339 Stress KSI 8.34 8.42 8.53 8.70 8.73 8.73 8.79 8.90 9.00 9.08 9.08 9.16 12.09 12.21 12.40 12.43 12.47 12.62 12.75 12.79 12.83 13.02 13.08 1.57 1.65 1.68 1.74 1.75 1.81 1.84 1.93 1.94 4.87 5.09 5.18 5.18 5.25 5.38 5.47 5.51
=La
'I' .... .. ... : -'... "1- . - . ; :,- -:" ' -/
-: - - '-... . - . - .
-- :
=,
TABLE 3.8
(Continued)
Specimen (0]8-5 10]8-5 1018-5 10]8-5 [0]p-6 [018-6 [018-6 [O]e-6 [018-6 [018-6 [0] 8-6
Frequency rad/sec 485.6 485.7 485.8 485.7 932.1 931.7 931,2 932.0 930.8 931.0 931.5 931.6 932.0 931.6 931.5 930.8 931.1
931.6
Damping Ratio .0006827 .0006220 .000550s .0006181 .0005031 .0005431 .0005381 .0004550 .0006058 .0004749 .0006479 .0004219 .0004223 .0005359 .0004001 .0005069 .0005960
.0004216
Stra n o0343 351 357 364 160 165 167 175 175 182 186 188 190 190 192 193 200
203
Stress KSI 5.57 5.70 5.80 5.92 2.55 2.64 2.67 2.80 2.80 2-.90 2.97 3.00 3.03 3.03 3.06 -,07 3.19
3.23
I[018-6
[018-6 [018-6 [0]8-6 [018-6 [0]8-6 [018-6 [0]8- 6 [018-6 [018-7 [01]-7
[(018-7
931.5 931.3 931.5 931.6 930.7 931.3 931.5 931.1 1492 1490
1492
.0005670 .0003783 .0004565 .000,4914 .0005875 .0004020 .0005200 .0003901 .0005272 .0007195
.0004741
205 206 207 209 216 222 228 240 16.4 19.2
21.9
3.23 3,29 3.31 3.34 3.45 3.54 3.64 3.83 0.26 0.30
0.35
[0)8-7 [018-7 [018-7 [0]8-7 [0] 8-7 [018-7 [0]8-7 [0]6-7 (018-7 [0]8-7 [0] -7
1492 1492 1491 1493 1492 1492 1491 1491 1492 1491 1492
.0006782 .0004107 0005564 .0005788 .0004750 .0005000 .0004888 .0004440 .0004098 .0007615 .0003576 75
23.0 23.4 25.9 26.5 28.2 31.1 49.3 57.3 63.9 *F8.6 72.2
0.36 0.38 0,41 C.42 0.45 0.49 0.78 0.90 1.02 1.09 1.15
tI
S.
. ...
./
DAMPING IN (018 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF DIFFERENT FREOUENCIES Specimen (018-7 [018-7 [08-7 [0]8-7 Frequency radisec 1492 1492 1491 1492 Damping Ratio C .0004627 .0005058 .0005374 .0004931 Strain 74.1 81.9 85.9 94.5 Stress KSI 1.17 1.29 1.36 1.49
*Entries for specimen 4 are the same as those found in Table 3.5
76
/ j
TABLE 3.9 DAMPING IN [9018 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS AT DIFFERENT FREOUENCIES Specimen [9018-1 [90] -1 [9018-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-1 Frequency rad/sec 267.1 266.9 267.0 267.1 267.1 267.1 Damping Ratio .0053468 .0050876 .0053947 .0055529 .0057677 .0053905 Strain 10-i 250 270 272 281 337 338 Stress MPA 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.43 0.43
[9018-1
[9018-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-1
267.2
267.2 267.0 267.0
.0052550
.0057623 .0051192 .0054131
345
346 351 364
0.44
0.44 0.45 0.46
[9018-1
[9018-1 [901 8 -1 (90]-l [90]8-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-] [90]8-1 [90] 8-1 [9018-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-1 [9018-1 [90]8-1 [9018-2 [9018-2 [9018-2 [90]8-2 [90]'-2 [901)8-2 [9018-2 (9018-2 190]18-2 [9018-2 [9C] 8 -2 (9018-2 [901e-2 [9018-2 [90]e-2
267.0
267.1 267.0 266.9 267.1 266.8 266.9 266.9 267.0 266.9 266.9 267.2 267.0 267.0 466.0 465.4 466.0 465.8 466.4 465.9 465.5 465.9 465.8 465.3 466.4 466.3 466.3 465.9 465.6 465.7
.0055037
.0054688 .0054883 .0056325 .0056554 .0057862 .0053833 .0052813 .0052863 .0055454 .0057574 .0055679 .0054131 .0056052 .0057347 .0059775 .0054839 .0055738 .0054561 .0058398 .0063127 .0068251 .0058512 .0069536 .0065889 .0055976 .0057851 .0059192 .0057376 .0062473 77
379
385 454 457 462 465 469 487 512 512 615 617 627 676 42.6 43.8 44.6 50,4 73.3 75.6 76.6 76.9 84.6 87.3 104 125 125 131 135 136
0.46
0.49 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.65 0.65 0.78 0.78 0.80 0.86 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 1.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18
"[90]8-2
L
t/
'1
[9018-2 [90]8-2 [9018-2 [90]8-2 [90]8-3 (90 8-3 [9018-3 190]8-3 [90] 8-3 [9018-3 [90]a-3 [90]8-3 [9018-3 [90]8-3 [9018-3 [9018-3 (90]8-3 [9018-3
[ 9 0 ]9-2
465.8
[90]8-3
[90]8-3
899.4
8[908-3 099.9 899.8
.0060157 .0062432 .0060565 .0060985 .00E9376 .0068057 .0063978 .0062527 .0062194 .0064791 .0062643 .0067832 .0064307 .0062533 .0074783 .0063316 .0060260 .0066946
.0058262
145
0.19
.0074402
.0068847 .3069451
194
207 208
0.26
0.27 0.27
78
/-
i.,-az7
TABLE 3.10
DAMPING IN [4512,
GRAPHITE/EPOXY
AS REPORTED BY MOHR 2
Specimen [45 J2 5 -l
0.50938
0.53829 0.53370 0.57932 0.52164
[4512s-2 29.62 0.54658
5.00
4.94 4.66 4.24 4.24
6.02
1
[i45]2s-3 !0.59543 54.16
0.55437
0.61403 0.65245 0.59023 0.65308 0.57386 0.57014 0.57035 0.55876
2.07
5.03
3.25
2.41 1.82 1.11 1,08 1.04 0.60 0.34
i[14512s-4
.0.66675
171.0,*
S0.66152 S0.65074
,]0.66334
0.66985
1.547
0.959
0.633 0.555
0.65958. 0.393 0.260
-.
-,,---.
..
.. ...--
....-
TABLE 3.11 DAMPING IN METAL MATRIX SPECIMENS Specimen Frequency Damping Ratio .0003922 .0004864 .0003400 .0003715 .0002981 .0003081 .0003472 .0003956 .0003268 .0004557 .0004371 .0002876
.0003329
Strain
rad/sec
P100/AZ91C/Ti
1016.2 18.9 27.2 29.0 30.4 30.9 32.2 32,7 33.8 34.2 36.0 36.5
36.9
"
3105 3105
"3105
3103 3106
" "o
P55/AZ91C/Ti
3102 3105
"3106
"3106 "3101
2522
"2523 "2522
"
.0003564 .0004365 .0004969 .0003689 .0003817 .0003951 .0004798 .0004060 .0003463 .0004010 .0004243 ,0002936 .0004712
.0003196
37.3 41.3 41.4 41.5 47.0 36.9 41.2 42.6 43.8 45.9 45.9 46.6 47.5
47.5
"
S2522
2523
2522
"2524
"
2522
"2522 "2522
PIOO/AZ91C/Mg 2522 2522 864.5 864.9
866.1
"11
"864.7
,0013566
55.5
80
_7-
TABLE 3.11 (Continued) DAMPING IN METAL MATRIX SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR DIMENSIONS specimen Frequency rad/sec 864.6 866.0 865.4 866.0 865.5 865.3 Damping Ratio stri 1057.7 59.5 63'.1 67.6 67.7 70.4 71.0 79.3 82.1 84.8 86.5 89.9 92.5 94.7 98.1 102.3 106.4 107.0 108.5 108.8 111.5 113.2 115.1 117.0 119.2 119.4 121.7 124.1 130.0 132.5 132.5 134.1 134.7 135.4 137.8 137.9 145.6
Pl00/AZ91C/Mg
.0004546 .0007374
r-865.4
'3865.0 *1"865.3
'I865.1
'S865.0
.0005043 .0007726 .0011916 .0006603 .0007063 .0006131 .0005553 865.2 .0012930 .0008314 865.2 .0009203 865.4 .0007139 865.5 .0010888 864.6 .0012904 865.4 .0010172 865.1 .0009475 654.0010872 865.3 .0012739 865.3 .0012971 864.9 .0012565 .0010617 .00a09967 865.4 .0012724 865.5 .0007652 864.7 .0006888 864.7 .0011913 865.4 .0010676 .0010801 865.2 .0010760 865.3 .0008469 865.3 .0011036 865.3 .0009552 .0010482 865.5 .0010371 865,1 .0011503. 865.4 .0012328
81
TABLE 3.11 (Continued) DAMPING IN METAL MATRIX SPECIMENS Specimen P100/AZ91C/Mg Frequency rad/sec 864.8 865.4 865.4 Damping Ratio .0012102 .0007924 .0010207 .0011128 .0011930 .0011327 .0010898 .0007412 .0012266 .0007903 Stra n 10151.1 152.2 158.0 161.4 161.8 162.5
162.8 164.9
2"865.3
"865.3
864.7
"
"
"
865.1 864.8
"865.7
865.3
167.9
175.7
"*1:
..,
:-
..
..
.,2"""
82
[0]8
STD 0DJVIATION
Hz
1 2 3 4 46.0 45.2 45.9 47.8
(10-)
0.622 0.512 0.642 0.514
(i0-)
0.048 0.082 0.047 0.090
.00104
0.0389
0.0384
2
3 4 AVERAGE FOR SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR GEOMETRY
I
.00085
.00107 .00086 .00096
0.0326
0.0394 0.0327 0.0359
0.0322
0.0389 0.0322 0.0354
i83
__
67,
1'
TABLE 4.3 DAMPING RATIO OF MIATRIX MATERIAL AS CALCULATED FROM DAMPING OF (08SPECIMENS OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES SPECIMEN RULE OF MIXTURES COMPLEX MODULI COMPLEX MODULI+ SHEAR .-.0322 0 0.0367 0.0291 0.0297 0.0319
.00096
0.0359
0.0354
84
TABLE 4.4 DAMPING RATIO OF MATRIX MATERIAL AS CALCULATED FROM DAMPING OF [90)8 S2ECIMENS OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES
SPECIMEN
RULE OF
MIXTURES
COMPLEX
MODULI
COMPLEX
MODULI + SHEAR .0.0268 0.0298 0.0336 0.0301
1 2 3 AVERAGE REFERENCE AVERAGE FOR SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR GEOMETRY (FROM TABLE 4.2)
.00096
0.0359
0.0354
85
TABLE 4,5 DYNAMIC YOUNG'S MODULUS FOR GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMEN VALUE DERIVED FROM IN PLANE EXTENSIONAL TESTS (GPA) VALUE FROM FLEXURAL TESTS (GPA) TURNER VALUE (GPA)
[0 8-1
[018-2
130.0
130.0
112
114
98
98
98 98 98 98
[018-7
[9018-1 19018-2 [9018-3
130.0
10.5 10.5 10.5
109
8.8 8.9 9.1
98
7.9 7.9 7.9
TABLE 4.6 DAMPING OF P100/AZ91C/Mg METAL MATRIX SPECIMEN THEORY THEORETICAL VALUE RULE OF MIXTURES COMPLEX MODULI COMPLEX MODULI + SHEAR ZENER EXPERIMENTAL AVERAGE
I.
86
,--mom
THREADED ROD
!I _ LAUNCHER
NUT -PL
~STRIKER
%TE
I:i
STEEL PLATE
S-fELE.fTRo
MAGNET
Figure 2.1 Tuned Excitation & Launch Mechanism, (TEELM) as used by Mohr Prior to Modification
87
17II
SI-
,,J
MR
z 0
~ZI
.,I,
8S
K!
""
kLAUNCHER
SPRING
>SPR
ING
WORM
WORM
SCREW
SCREW
NUT
SALL
NUT . _
STL PLATE
S-/ ALL
NUTNU
SDC
MOTOR
Figure 2.3
89
_-
"PLAT
PLATE
.,.NIUT
STEEL PLATE
Figure 2.4
90
__--. .,;
- , ,'
,-"
-- ,-r-";
',,,- -
..
--
-I I
..-...-
.......
7-'I,
-I
,
P2
911
-jw
'
SPECIMEN WITH STRAIN GAUGE WIRES "MOUNTED AT THE NODE OF FIRST FREE-FREE MODE
Figure 2.6
Specimen Configuration
92
"
S01-00
UNFILTERED
-J
0.50w& 0.00
C. -O.50 -
'41
0.00 0.02 0.o4 0.06 0.08
TIME (SEC)
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
Figure 2.7
93
1.50
18 INCH ALUMINUM
FILTERED
1 .000- .50
-J
w 0.oo00
-.
-I-J
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.14
0.6
Figure 2.8
Time
94
-.
INI
DASHPOT
r
4
DASI-POT
~~SPRING
//
~~SPRING
95
ALUMINUM
~10.
S!
0.01
0.1
w/ WR
Figure 4.3
96
... .. SI . ....
DAMPING RATIO VS. STRESS FOR SPECIMENS WITH FIRST FREE-FREE FREQUENCY BELOW ZENER RELAXTION 7 - FREQUENCY
s
5
0
a +
0 *4
IO
&
AAA
SI
08
II
2
4 6
,,
I
14
.I
is
I
ls
I
20
,0 12 STRESS (KS 1)
Figure 4.4
97
;-
GRAPHITE/EPOXY
[o]J
0.8-
S0.6 --
0Mean 0 i 1 Standard
0.2-
0.CI
0 50
I
300
I
350
* ..
Figure 4.5
98
., ."
[90]I
71
vsr
* A
Mean
-1Deviation
Extreme Values 4
25
I'S
Figure 4.6
99
DAMPING RATIO
Si
Kz
4
6:r.
-Mean Extreme
---
S~Values
2-
0
0 25
I
50 75 100 125 150 FIRST FREE- FREE FREQUENCY (HZ)
I
175
I
200
Figure 4.7
.100
6
4n
S2
S I
0
10
I
20
I
30
.I
40
I
50
,I
60
I
70
I,
80
I
90
Figure 4.8 Damping Ratio vs. Fiber Orientation for Graphite/Epoxy Specimens *in the Frequency Range 140Hz to 170Hz
.101
....
6_
/R 10.2 9.3 .9
Values
1.2
1.0-
I
10.6j
0 0.2-
0.4
I00
W/ WR
Figure 4.9
102
__
__
of the microcomputer program and along with the actual assembly Appendix. The interrupt
the language
200Hz.
~BEGIN
INITIALIZE
CONSTANTS
I.'
"INITIALIZE INTERRUPT
VECTOR TABLE
FENABLE INTERRUPTS
ICONTINUOUS
LOOP
Figure A.1
103
1
INCREMENT TIME COUNTER
SDECREMENT
MGE
REUNE RELOMITESRERELT
STATE
PROILEPROF
4ISEND
V0
TO -CONTROLLERI
-9
Figure A.2
104
SI
f
CONTROLLER
Fiyure A.2
(Continued'
I
,!
10
105
-_
_ __
VELOCITY CONTROLLER
RAY SHEEN
MACRD-80 3.37
08-Mav-SO
PAGE
C3 O09A' 00 00 00 00 00 I
VELIICITY CINfRULLER TITLE ,ZS0 SKIP 10 EXECUTAYLE COU) JP INIT NOF NOP NOP NOP HOP INTERRUPT VECTOR lABLE DO DV ow DU 0 TRAJ 0 0
RAY SHEEN
TABLE:
ARIAILE LIST EOU EOU :QU EOU EOU EOU EOU EOU 2100H 2101H 2102H 2103K 2104H 2105H 2106W 21089 ;MOITOR ZERO <82W> ;INITIAL VELOCITY <54H> (RPM/O100)t25 ;ACCELERATION TIME <40> MSh.C(200/1000) ;ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY #TIME COUNTER 200 HZ )STATE VARIABLE 116 BIT DUMMY VARIAIILE ;MAGNET RELEASE SEQUrNCER
S2105
ZERO VINIt ACCEL CONST TIME STATE IUMNYI NAG I 3A 2104 3C 32 4F 3A 3D 32 20 3E 03 3E 32 3A FE 23 ZA 2104 2108 2109 09 FF 9F 01 2108 2105 01 18 2102 I I TRAJ:
CHANNEL #1 INTERRUPT HANDLER .D Aq(TIME) INC A LII (TINE)PA LD CIA L0 ApihAG) DEC A Lb (MAG)PA JR NZIAAA LD AtOFFH OUT (?FH)tA LD Ail 1.D(MAG)PA LD AP(SIAT") CP 01H JX! ZFRUN LD Ar(ACCEL) ;SET THE TINE COUNTER IINCREMENT )SAVE THE NEW TIME i6ET MAGNET RELEASE COUNTER IDECREMENT IT ISAVE IT 1IF NOT TINE YET THEN 60 $MAGNET RELEASE ;RELEASE NAONCT IRESET COUNTER ISAVE IT SECTSTATE VARIABLE ICUMPARE IT TO 1 #IF IIS I THEN JUMP 10ET ACCEL
0010' 0013' 0014' 0017' 0018' 0013' OOIC' OO1F' 0021' 0023' 0025' 0027' 002A' 0021' 002F' 0031'
AAA!
*
S~106
10
S.
.. . .. . . .
..
,-~
VELOCITY CONTROLLER 0034' 0035' 0037' 0039' 003C' O03F' 0040' 0043' 0014' 0046' 0047' 004?' 004C' 004F' 0052' 0055' 0056' 0057' 0058' OOSA' 0013' DOW5' DOOE' 0060' 0061' 0063' 0064' 0066' 0067' 0069' 006A' 006C' 0060' 006E' 0070' 0074' 0075' 0077' 0078' 0078' 007C' 007D' of 2( 05 3E 01 32 2105 3A 2101 47 2100 3A 90 D3 9E FS ED 4D 21 2106 01 2103 11 2104 CD OCI' 7E 23 46 Cl IF Co IF CU IF Cu IF CI IF Co IF CI IF 47 CS 20 3E 38 38 30 38 36 39 33 79 06 DO
RAY SHEEN'
hACRO-90 3.37 CP C T iJ NZlLflN LD AtO1H L1V(I ATE),A LD AP(VINIT) I'i DIA LD A#(ZERO) lAsO ADD Ait OUT (YEN)vA El RETI
0H-hgi-Sh
PAGE
1--1
;CHECK A:3ACNST CURRENT TIME lIF N0l SAME THEN CUHTIPUE ISAVE THL STATE AS I ;GET INITIAL VELOCITY $SWITCH REGISTERS tGET THE MOTOR ZERO OFFSET OFFSET ISEND IT IENABLE INTERRUPTS ;RETURN IADDRESS OF MULTIPLICATION RLSULT ;ADDRESS OF CONSTANT $ADDRESS O TIRL IMULTIPLY THEN ;6E7 LOW PYTE OF RESULT ;ADDRESS OF HIGH PYTE ;SET HIGH BYTE OF RESULT
CONT;
RUN*
S0072'
LD HLPDUMYI LD ICPCONST LD DE9TIME CALL MULT LIDA(HL) INC HL LI ID(NL) DIVIDE BY 128 SRLI RRA SRLI RRA SRI I RRA SRLI RRA SRLI RRA SRIN RRA SRII RRA L BrA PIT 7r3 JR NZADDEh LID A11101OOOO9 SUB NED L IPA LI AhiVINII) ADD Art LU CiA LD Av(ZERO) ADD AIC
1SUITCH REGISTERS ICHECK IF IT'S NEGATIVE lIF NUT CHANGE IT 1158 OR 2510 IFIND THi DIFFERENICE 1SET THE 2'S COMPLEMENT ISAVE IT ;GET INITIAL VELOCITY IADD EN ISAVE IN C RIGISTER t6ET OFFSET FOR D TO A lADD OFFSET
S0080'
90 ED 44 47 3A 2101 80 4F 3A 2100 e1
ADDENI
107
RAY SHEEN
08-Nha-80
PAGE
1-2
D3 9E I
;SFND IT
SEE IF IT'S FINISHED LD Ap(VNIT) ADD Ae8 NEG CP C JR ZiSIOP EI kETI ;GET VINIT HlIOHER VELO(lfrY BECAUSE OF LAG 12'S COHPLEMENT OF VINIT ICUNPARE THEN ;IF E(UALP THEN STOP ;ENABLE INTERRUPTS ;RETURN
3A 2101 C6 44 ED 44 19 2! 03 F3 ED 4D ;
STOP IT LD A,(ZERO) OUTCIEH)tA LD AP80H OUT (9FH)PA HALT ;MOTOk ZERO ISEND IT ;MAGNET ON ;STOP IHE PROGRAM
3A 03 3E D3 76
2100 YE 30 9F
STOP;
I. 009A' 009C' OOYF' 0OA2' OOA4' OOA6' OOA ' JE 32 32 3E 03 3E 00 2104 2105 80 9F 99 INIT:
PROGRAM INITIALIZATION Lb AOOH LD (TINE)oA LD (STATE)tA LD ASBOH OUT (9FH)PA LD A910010000 1O (CONST)PA ISET TINE TO ZERO ;SET STATE VARIABLE ;MAGNET ON VALUE ITURN MAGNET ON ;SRAVITY CONSTANT -104 ISET CONST
32 2103
21 0008' 7C ED 47 7D D3 84 3E A7
SET CTC CHANNEL LI HLPTABLE ;INTERRUPI VECTOR TABLE APORLSO LIP APH 1GUT HIGH BYTE LIN IA iSTORE IT LD AtL ;UET LOW 6YTE OUT (S4HN)A ISEND 1T LD AIO1OO1111 ICONTROL WORD FOR CTC I S PIT BIT PIT BIT 7 6 5 4 ENABLE INTERRUPT USE INTERNAL CLOCK CLOCK AT 7800 HZ D!SRCGARD
BIT 3 - STAR7 COUNTING NOM BIT 2 - TIME CO, START FOLLOWS S bIT I - ZERO CHANNEL
108 ~i
..
.......
_ __
_,_
VELOCITY CONTROLLER
RAY SHEEN I
OS-hMw-80 RE I
PAGE
1-3
Da 3E D3 ED 7l
89 27 05 5E LOOP: I
ISEND IT ItME CORISTANI FOR 200 HZ REND IT ;iITERfAUPT MOVE 2 ISHNALE INIEARUPIS 160 FOREVER
18 FE
JR LOOP
S00:3'
OOCI' 00C2'
F5 C5
KULTI
ISAVE REGISTERS
D5
OA A7 IA
I
*
DOC4' COWC' OOCa' 4f OoC7' AF OOC8 57 OOCY' 15 OR COLA' Ct 40 OOCC' It 01 COCE' 00,OO' 9! C3 2F OODI'
MULT22
MULT3:
LD Ar(SC) LD 1ls. Lb A.tDE) LD CtA XUR A LD V,A LD Et5 IT Ot JR ZMULT3 SUB C SRA A
IFETCH ARC I I'ETCH kRG 2 Ct.EAR ACCULULATOR ISET LOOP COUNTER ;E'RE AT ZERO# DO WE STAY 1HRE ;IF SOv JUST SHIFT AROUND IELSE SUBTRACT ARG 2 VROK PRODUCT ISHIFI PRODUCT RIGHT IWECREMENT LOOP COUNTER IDAIL OUT 1F DONE IROTATE ARO I RIGHT lIF NEXT IT IS ZERU. BRANCH 1IF WE'RE AT I 00 WE STAY THERE IIF SD JUSI SHIFT PRODUCT IELSE ADD ARO 2 TO PRODUCT ISHIFT PRODUCT RIGHT IDECREMENT LOOP COUNWER" WAIL OUT IF DONE PROTA1E ARG I RIGHT ;Do IT AGAIN ISAVE PRODUCT
00113'
OOD1' COD6 08' OODA' OODC' OODE' OOLO' OOEl' OOE,' W 00E6' ;OE8' OOEA' OOED' OOEE'
ClIlA
RR D
DEC E JR ZiNULT! SRL I JP NCqMULT2 SIT Ot JR NZtNULT3 ADD AC SRA A RR D DEC E JR ZtHULT5 %RL I JP MULT2 Lis(HL)3 INC HL Lb (NL),A DECI. PUP BE PUP DC
MULTY4
MULT51
;RECOVER REGISTER?
FlIP
SC
109
!I
RAY SHEEN
03-NJW-9O
PACE
1-4
S~110
APPENDIX B
GRAPHITE/EPOXY
of
top plate
5. 4. 2.
2.
1.
v. 2cure
Guaranteed non-porous Peel ply Laminate Porous teflon Bleeder paper teflon
plate
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Figure B.1
Stacking Sequence
111
--
-n,
The curing cycle was as follows: Time (min.) 0 20 35 95 hio 230 250 255 Vacuum (psi) 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 0 Ext. Pressure (psi) 0 85 85 85 85 85 85 0 Total Pressure (psi) 14.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 Temp. (OF) 100 110 240 240 350 350 '160 75
112
Appendix C STRAIN LEVEL DETERMINATION Consider the Wheatstone Bridge Circuit where
AR-
initially
0.
RB R1
+ A'R
V2
Figure C.l
Rs
RB,
and RB2 can be varied to ensure the potential initially zero. (C.!) (C.2)
V0 = V1 - V2 = 0 V 1 = V2
but
V2
R 1
+R 2
(C.3)
since thenR
AR
0 + R2 V (C.4)
113
S..._......... . .
...
= ...
.--- .,., n -
:_
I-:..-
..
. . . .-
R
R1 R1 + '&P
(C.5)
so
V0I
V1
+RR 2 V _ AR ] -- -R V 1 1
(C.6)
or
V0
( C.7 )
we define R-
R2 -
so
V0
AR
.8)
of gauge
factor
AR/R GF GF=AL/L
AR re-
(C.9
A VGF 114
(C.1)
Assuming a metal behaves as according to Zener's theory, we can write the following relationship and strain. aI a + a 2 a = for stress
1 c + b 2c
(D.1)
If
Eq.
(D.1)
is
divided by al,
stants are
introduced.
a +
zTE
(+ (
+T
(D.2)
ER,
is
equivalent
to the static
stress and strain. Now suppose both c and are equal to zero, (D.2) reduces to
0 + T
then Eq.
(D.3)
115
which has
che solution
-t/T
a(t)
=
a0 e
(D.4)
if
a and
the solution to
reduces to
-t/T
C(t)
" Co e
(D.5)
Equations
(D.4)
and (D.5)
exponentially approach equilibrium conditions. Now suppose that in a very short time interval, At, a
solid receives a finite stress increment Ac, and therefore a finite strain increment Ah.
AC At Aa - At
Then Eq.
(D.2)
__
becomes
At
ER (AC At + T
At)
(D.6)
Now integrate
(D.6)
As At
approaches zero the first expression on each side of (D.6) goes to zero. The integral becomes
T
Aa - ER
Ta
AC
(D.7)
116
or,
60 u E AC (D.8)
Where Eu is
by
defined
Eu - E
(D.9)
If if
however,
or
co e it
C(t)
a CO eiWt
(D.10b)
Placing
(D.10)
(1 +
) c0 o
ER (1 + iwra)E0
(D.11)
Rearranging gives
it
I
1+ i('A o 0
I
CO
ER 1
i6T
(D.12)
117
?I
or
00 - Ec CO
(D.13)
where Ec ER
'1 +.W +i
(D.14)
Ec is defined as the complex modulus. Separating (D.14) into real and imaginary parts gives
Ec
I+
(D.13)
o2 T 2
+ W2T
ER
(D.15)
Prom Eq.
it
stress.
=-
U:,
118
lib-
CE c
Et
(I + i g)
(D.16)
Im [EEc I
tan 6 g (D.17)
9l
W IT 2 - rCag(D.18)
Jr'Define
[.
C T12 1
(D.19)
(E
ER)1/2
(D.20)
Placing Eqs.
(D.19)
and (D.20)
into (D.18)
gives
SEu
"I
(D.21)
119
"l__
Thus. we can see the relationship between damping ratio, C, and frequency.
as
=
Equation (D.21)
is presented in Chapter IV
2=
( 2 ET)
2c
2 ) 1 + W2 T2
(D.22)
where
9!
-ER E
ET
(D.23a)
TT
(D.23b)
is
See Ref.
I!-I
120
~~~~~-
..
. ..
. . ..
. . .. .
.....
--