Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Hysteretic damping of structures vibrating at resonance:

An iterative complex eigensolution method based
on damping-stress relation
George D. Gounaris, Eleftherios Antonakakis, Chris A. Papadopoulos *

Machine Design Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering Department and Aeronautics, University of Patras, 26500-Patras, Greece

Received 4 September 2006; accepted 19 February 2007

Available online 16 April 2007

Abstract

In this paper the damping is examined as an engineering property used in analysis and design of structures and machines. The design
engineer needs to know not only the stresses of his structure or machine, under steady state conditions but also the stresses under res-
onance conditions. Then the material damping, as a function of the stress of the structure, has an important role to play and ignoring the
damping the calculated stresses are far from reality. The nonlinearity here is due to the dependence of the hysteretic damping on the stress
of the structure. Specifically here two problems are investigated in the following way:
Firstly the direct problem is solved. The direct problem is to find the maximum bending stress at the resonance when the relation of
the dissipating energy (or of the hysteretic damping) vs. the bending stress is known in advance. To perform this calculation, a useful tool
for the design engineer, the structure is modelled using the continuum mechanics analytical approach or the finite elements (FE) method.
Then the eigenvalues are calculated and using an iterative procedure the real stress. The procedure presented here is called iterative com-
plex eigensolution method (ICEM). Secondly the inverse problem is solved. The inverse problem is to find the relation between the hys-
teretic damping and the bending stress. For this purpose the logarithmic decrement is experimentally measured, the eigenvalues and the
maximum bending stress of the structure, excited at the eigenvalue, when the damping is the same as the measured one, are computed
using the finite elements method. Once the bending stresses are found in each discrete element of the structure, then the mathematical
expression of the relation of the dissipating energy and the stresses can be specified by minimizing a suitably formed objective function.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hysteretic damping; Damping-stress relation; Damping at resonance; Iterative complex eigensolution method (ICEM); Damping auto-
determination; Hysteretic; Damping; Stress; Resonance; Eigensolution

1. Introduction extremely useful studying i.e. the seismic response of struc-

1.1. Hysteretic damping models
Several models for the hysteretic damping are intro-
duced last decade in order to find the response in the time
domain viscoelastic linear analysis, besides the well known
Maxwell, Kelvin–Voigt and their different combinations
such as the standard linear solid model. These models are
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 261 096 9426; fax: +30 261 099 6258.
E-mail address: chris.papadopoulos@upatras.gr (C.A. Papadopoulos).
tures in the time domain. For completeness purposes these
models are presented here.
Non causal constant hysteretic model: The constant
hysteretic model is a pathological model because it is
non-causal. This means that the model responds prior to
the application of an impulsive excitation.
x h xi
GðxÞ ¼ G1 þ iG2 sgn ¼ G1 1 þ icsgn ; ð1Þ
e e
where G1 is the frequency-independent storage modulus,
G2 sgnðx=eÞ is the loss modulus, x is the frequency variable
and e is an arbitrary positive real number with units of rad/s

0045-7949/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2007.02.026
 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868 1859

that is present to make the sign function dimensionless, sensitivity-based methods [8] solve the nonlinear eigenvalue
c ¼ G2 =G1 the material loss factor [1]. problem using iterative techniques based on the eigenfre-
Biot hysteretic model: Biot [2] since 1958 introduced the quency convergence.
hysteretic model represented in the frequency domain by Present model: iterative complex eigensolution method
the following form: (ICEM) based on damping-stress relation: The method pre-
" rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #
2c x2ffi 2c   sented here could be defined as an iterative complex eigen-
1 x solution method based on the nonlinear relation between
GðxÞ ¼ G1 1 þ ln 1 þ þ i tan : ð2Þ
p e p e damping and stress. This method is used in the frequency
domain, since from the point of view of the designer the
The Biot hysteretic damping model is also used for the
knowledge of the steady state at the resonance is the
deterministic and stochastic analysis of nonlinear systems.
subject.
More specifically Spanos et al. [3] use the Biot hysteretic
model involving an infinite collection of elements whose
1.2. Hysteretic damping-stress relation at the resonance
dynamic characteristics are specified through a probability
density-like function. The numerical results are further
It is well known that hysteretic damping affects the
used to assess the accuracy of a statistical linearization pro-
dynamic behavior of the structures in the resonance zone
cedure adopted in determining the response of the hysteret-
where maximum stress is expected. It is also known that
ically damped system to white noise.
the hysteretic damping as well as the dissipating energy
Causal hysteretic damping: The dynamic stiffness of the
are both functions of the stress in the nonlinear zone
causal hysteretic model introduced by Makris [4] can be
[10,11]. This dependency becomes clear in Fig. 1.
described by
 On the other hand, the stress (only bending stress is con-
2c x x
sidered for most of engineering problems) depends on
GðxÞ ¼ G1 1 þ ln   þ icsgn ; ð3Þ
p e e damping. As it is obvious, when designing, a dynamically
loaded structure, it is necessary to know in advance the
where c ¼ G2 =G1 a positive real number named hysteretic
maximum stress developed in the structure under various
damping coefficient, and x is the frequency variable [4].
loads. Consequently it is necessary to know the relation-
Laguerre polynomial approximation (LPA): The
ship between damping and bending stress as it was given
Laguerre polynomials are used for the state space formula-
tion of linear viscoelastic systems by Palmeri et al. [5,6]. In
these papers, a state space formulation of viscoelastic
systems with memory is proposed, which overcomes the
concept of memory by enlarging the state vector with a
number of internal variables that bear the information
about the previous history of the system. First a state space
representation of the generalized Maxwell model is shown,
then a new state space model is presented in which the
relaxation function is approximated with Laguerre polyno-
mials. This approach is extended [6] to single-degree-of-
freedom systems subjected to random, nonstationary
excitation.
Modal strain energy method (MSE): The modal strain
energy method predicts damped vibrations behaviour by
employing eigenvectors fUg of the associated undamped
structure [7,8]. If [D] and [K] are the damping and the stiff-
ness matrices of the structure then the damping loss factor
ci that corresponds to the ith vibration mode can be calcu-
lated from the ratio of the dissipated ED over the strain
energy ES:
T
ED fUgi ½DfUgi
ci ¼ ¼ : ð4Þ
ES fUgTi ½KfUgi
MSE method is also used to predict the damping in struc-
tures with constrained viscoelastic layers [9] from un-
damped normal mode results.
Complex eigensolution methods (CEM): These are meth-
ods based on the complex formulation of the eigenvalue Fig. 1. (a) Damping energy and (b) loss coefficients curves for mild steel
problem. The modified CEM as well as the complex eigen- [10] (in this figure of Lazan g instead of c is used).
1860 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868
by Lazan [10] for the mild steel. But since damping and
bending stress are interconnected, a new method, also
called auto-determination method, was proposed by Goun-
aris et al. [12,13] and is based on successive iterations using
proposed and calculated damping until the two values of
damping converge. In [13] the steady state equilibrium is
achieved by taking all possible loops of damping and
adopting the objective function to be minimized. In the
same work a method called predictor–corrector, based on
neural networks is also adopted for solving the inverse
problem. Besides this method was proved to be an intelli-
gent and fast method that minimizes the time of
calculations.
Kume et al. [14] introduced a damping-stress diagram
for a cantilever beam. When the maximum bending stress
is known, then the damping may be estimated using this
diagram. The same could be applied in each vibration
mode, under steady state equilibrium, i.e. equal input and
calculated damping. Kume et al. transformed the diagram
taken from Lazan [10] of dissipating energy vs. maximum
bending stress, to a diagram of total loss coefficient vs.
maximum bending stress. Thus the steady state equilibrium
(input damping = calculated damping) and thus maximum
stress in each element is obtained as presented in [12,13,15]
with various methods, at the resonance zone.
In these previous works the structure was excited near to
the resonance (but not exactly at the resonance). Obviously
in these previous works, the more the structure is excited
near to the resonance frequency, the better of accuracy
results are obtained. Thus the necessity to compute the pre-
cise complex eigenvalues and correlate the corresponding
response with that of the experiment at exactly the reso-
nance frequency arises.
In the present paper the complex eigenvalue is com-
puted, the excitation frequency causes the vibration of
the structure exactly at the resonance and the correspond-
ing response influenced by the converged hysteretic damp-
ing is also calculated. The experimental measurements, that
will be presented later, give good correlation with the pre-
sented method.
The method here presupposes that the relation between
dissipating energy or damping vs. bending stress is known
in advance, as taken from Lazan [10]. In this work the dia-
gram taken from the experimental work performed by
Lazan and Demer [10,16] in mild steel is given (see Fig. 1).
Since the damping depends not only on the material
quality but also on the bending stress distribution [10],
and the bending stress distribution is affected from the
stress concentration due to discontinuities like welds, rivets
etc., as referred by [13], the necessity of a new approach to
this topic, with new experiments in connection with new
theory applications, becomes now necessary.
In this direction Dovstam and Dalenbring [17] deter-
mined experimentally, by solving the inverse problem, the
material viscous damping, frequency dependent, in a plate
numerically using neural networks. Lancaster and Prells
[18] solved this inverse problem for the determination of
viscous damping theoretically and under the assumption
that the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are known.
Gounaris et al. [13] have solved the inverse problem for
the hysteretic damping, in a floating Timoshenko beam,
moving forward and excited by waves (simulating a ship).
In this work it is supposed that the bending stresses are mea-
sured near to the resonance under the excitation of the
waves and it is observed that (a) measuring of stress distri-
bution is not an easy task, especially regarding to the irreg-
ularity of wave loading and (b) Since the exciting frequency
is not at the resonance, but near to the resonance point, the
damping coefficients are different. This difference is smaller
than this obtained directly from the damping-stress dia-
gram. This is due to bad sensitivity, since small differences
in the damping of elements correspond to the same stress
distribution. The above remarks lead to the conclusions
that experiments must be done at exactly the resonance
point, to measure the total loss hysteretic damping coeffi-
cient, by measuring the logarithmic decrement in free decay
or the half power bandwidth method. In these experiments
the total loss coefficient vs. the maximum stress at the
clamped end of a cantilever beam, have to be determined,
as it was given by Kume et al. [14]. A general method must
be independent of the boundary conditions. In this direc-
tion the applicability of the method in cases with different
boundary conditions has also to be investigated.
In this work a cantilever beam is investigated experimen-
tally as will be described later. The measured loss factor
coefficients are combined with FEM codes to give the stres-
ses based on the damping measurements.
These codes are extended here in order to solve the
inverse problem. The inverse problem is defined as the
determination of the relation between dissipating energy
and bending stresses at various points of the elements,
overcoming thus the boundary condition restrictions.
The effect of the hysteretic damping is taken into
account here by assuming a complex valued modulus of
elasticity as proposed by Lazan [10] and Nashif [11]. The
eigenvalues and responses are computed with the new
method proposed here as will be explained and validated
later.
Bishop and Price [19] described the eigenvalues compu-
tation that was based on theoretical models and for viscous
damping. Using suitable software, as for example EIS-
PACK package, all eigenvalues are to be computed
whereas in this work only the eigenvalue or response of
interest is computed.
2. Mathematical model
2.1. Euler–Bernoulli formulation
The well known beam theory of Euler–Bernoulli equa-
tion (5) is used here. The hysteretic damping c is also con-
sidered and its effect is introduced by taking the modulus of
elasticity in the generalized standard complex form
 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868 1861

Eð1 þ icÞ, where E is the static modulus of elasticity and is
assume to be equal to the dynamic one.
As it is referred, this model could be also extended to
structures with nonlinear behavior. The hysteretic damping
is not frequency dependent and the complex modulus of
elasticity comprises an acceptable model for analytical pur-
poses even for nonlinear materials [10]. To explain more
this let us consider the Fig. 1 [10] where the dissipating
energy and the loss coefficient are presented for mild steel.
Lazan approximates in three segments the damping and the
damping energy as functions of stress: the region of low, of
intermediate and of high stress. In this paper our interest is
on the second region, that of intermediate stress, where the
relation between damping and stress is nonlinear.
Besides, the model used is to be experimentally con-
firmed later in this paper.
The governing equation is
4 2
o yðx; tÞ o yðx; tÞ
E I þ qA ¼ F ðx; tÞ;
ox4 ot2
where E ¼ Eð1 þ icÞ the complex modulus, I is the second-
ary moment of inertia, yðx; tÞ is the vertical displacement, q
the mass density of the material, A the area of the cross sec-
tion and F is the applied force.
By substitution of (7) and (8) into (6) the following
equation is obtained in terms of A, B, C and D:
ðA þ iBÞðC þ iDÞ þ 1 ¼ 0
or ðAC  BD þ 1Þ þ iðAD þ BCÞ ¼ 0; ð9Þ
since now above frequency equation is a complex one, for the
same reasons as explained below in Section 2.3 in the case of
FEM, at the case of resonance the value obtained by (9)
should be the minimum and those will be the eigenvalue
ðkn ¼ An þ iBn Þ [19]. But to do so, the real and the imaginary
part separately should be minimised at the same time. This
means that above Eq. (9) should now be transformed to give
the minimum at the resonance i.e. at the requested pairs of
eigenvalues Ae and Be by iterations as follows:
jAC  BD þ 1j þ jAD þ BCj ! min : ð10Þ
The results of this approach are included in Table 2, under
the title ‘‘1st method: analytical eigenvalues calculation
ð5Þ based on Eq. (10)’’. In this table the two first complex
eigenvalues are calculated in the form kn ¼ An þ iBn . The
corresponding loss factor at the steady state is also pre-
sented in the second column in connection with different
applied forces at the free end of a cantilever beam (first col-
umn of Table 2).

2.2. Free vibration problem – analytical computation of the 2.3. Finite elements complex formulation of the
eigenvalues non-homogeneous equation

By solving the Bernoulli equation (5) for a cantilever In the previous paragraph the complex eigenvalues of
beam when F ðx; tÞ ¼ 0 the following frequency equation the homogeneous form of Eq. (5) are computed for the case
is obtained [7,14]: of a cantilever beam. Using the well known finite element
rffiffiffiffiffi ! rffiffiffiffiffi ! formulation described analytically in [12] the following
ke ke
cosh L cos L ¼ 1; ð6Þ equation is obtained:
c c
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ðK  k2n MÞfYg ¼ fFg; ð11Þ
where c ¼ Eð1 þ icÞI=l, ke ¼ Ae þ iBe , with Ae the real

part and Be is the imaginary part of the complex eigenvalue where K ¼ ð1 þ icÞK is the global complex stiffness matrix,
corresponding to the e mode and L = length of the beam, M the global mass matrix, and kn ¼ An þ iBn the modal
l = linear density, and I = moment of inertia. eigenvalues where An is the nth modal damping and Bn is
Since in the above Eq. (6) the circular and hyperbolic the nth eigenvalue. The matrices K and M are given, in de-
functions have complex arguments, after algebraic substi- tails in Refs. [12,13,20,21] for Timoshenko beams. After
tutions and manipulations, solutions with real arguments substitutions and operations in Eq. (11), and by defining:
at the above circular and hyperbolic functions are obtained
in the form K1 ¼ K þ ðA2n þ B2n ÞM; and K2 ¼ 2An Bn M þ cK ð12Þ
A B
rffiffiffiffiffi ! zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{ zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{ and since {Y} is a complex, in the form Y ¼ YRe þ iYIm Eq.
ke cosðLdÞ Y 1 sinðLdÞ Y 1
cosh L ¼ ðe þ eY 1 Þ þi ðe  eY 1 Þ ¼ A þ iB (13) is obtained:
c 2 2  

 K1 K2  YRe
ð7Þ   ¼ fFg: ð13Þ
K K1  YIm
C D 2
rffiffiffiffiffi ! zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{ zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{
ke cosðLgÞ Y 2 sinðLgÞ Y 2 From Eq. (13) it seems that, resonance occurs when the
cos L ¼ ðe þ eY 2 Þ þi ðe  eY 2 Þ ¼ C þ iD;
c 2 2 respective characteristic matrices take minimum value
[19,22]. To this respect a code was written for searching
ð8Þ
p4
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi out for the minimum of the determinant in Eq. (13) for var-
where Y 1 ¼ q4 L sin u3 , Y 2 ¼ q4 L cos u3 , q4 ¼ q1 q2 l=ðEIÞ, ious eigenvalues pairs (Ai, Bi). In addition it must be
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffi
q1 ¼ q0 , q ¼ 1 þ c2 , q2 ¼ 4 q, q0 ¼ A2e þ B2e , u3 ¼ pointed out that the hysteretic damping does not influence
u1  u2 , u1 ¼ ðw þ 2epÞ=2, u2 ¼ ðu þ 2epÞ=4, tan gw ¼ the imaginary part of the eigenvalue [11] i.e. the eigenfre-
Be =Ae , tan gu ¼ 1c ffi c, g ¼ q4 sin u3 , d ¼ q4 cos u3 . quency and this is also confirmed in this work.
1862 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868

This Eq. (11) could be used in the following ways: Y ¼ Y 0 eT ðAþiBÞ ;
where e = the mode number, Y0 = the displacement at time
a. Free vibration (F = 0): The homogeneous form of Eq.
t at the free end, A þ iB is the first complex eigenvalue,
(11) is solved giving thus the complex eigenvalues of
Y = the displacement at the free end and at time t þ T ; T
the structure in the form kn ¼ An þ iBn . These eigen-
is the period of vibration. Then:
values are presented in Table 2 under the title ‘‘2nd
method: FEM eigenvalues calculation based on Eq. 1 iBT
Y ¼ Y0 e
(13)’’. eAT
b. Forced vibration (F 6¼ 0): The cantilever beam is and ignoring the complex term the following relation is
vibrating under the excitation of an applied force at obtained:
its free end. The excitation frequency is exactly the  
imaginary part of the calculated eigenvalue Bn. The Y0 Y 1 Y
Y ¼ AT () ¼ AT () AT ¼ ln :
modal response (response of the structure excited at e Y0 e Y0
the eigenfrequency) and the maximum bending stress, Since by definition it is known that the logarithmic decre-
at the steady state vibration, is calculated. At this max- ment in the period T is
imum bending stress the hysteretic damping is calcu-
lated [12,13,15] based on the knowledge of the
damping-stress relation [10]. The solution of Eq. (11)
is then repeated using the new damping values until
introduced and computed damping are equal, within
given accuracy. The method described here is called
iterative complex eigensolution method (ICEM).
The modal response, calculated for the first time, using
the ICEM when introduced and calculated damping are
(almost) equal, will serve in order to:
• Compare the difference between, maximum bending
stress when computed at the complex eigenvalues
(including damping) and at the eigenvalues (i.e. neglect-
ing damping).
• Compare the diagrams of total loss coefficients vs. the
maximum bending stress diagrams computed with those
obtained by experiments described in Section 4.1. Since
these experiments are done at the eigenmodes, the com-
putation is necessary to be done at the eigenvalues. To
this respect, such above diagrams taken by computa-
tions or experiments are valid and this is irrespective
of specimen’s dimensions [12,14].
• Solve the inverse problem when extended as will be
explained later. The solution of the inverse problem here
is referring to the fact on finding the new dissipating
energy-bending stress function for specimens of other
materials or specimens affected by stress concentrations
(welding, riveting, cracks etc.). The experimental way
for the construction of the diagram, of total loss coeffi-
cient vs. maximum bending stress, shall be described in
Section 4.1. This new proposal, for the reasons
explained in the introduction, is considered to be more
effective as easier to be done.
2.4. Closed form correlation between eigenvalues and total
loss coefficients
From the theory of Bishop and Price [19] it is known
that for the e mode, Y ¼ Y 0 eT ðAe þiBe Þ and for the 1st mode
 
Y0
d ¼ ln or AT ¼ d:
Y
And since we know that T ¼ 2p=B then d ¼ 2pA=B
which is the same equation as that given by Sekhar [23]
or A ¼ Bd=ð2pÞ and since in all above computation when
finding eigenvalues, was demonstrated in all cases that:
Bc Bd d
A¼ ¼ () c ¼ ð14Þ
2 2p p
that is also referred by other investigators. Therefore we
have found an explicit relation (14) which also gives the
real part of the eigenvalues when eigenfrequency and total
loss damping coefficient are known in advance. Thus Table
2 is completed by the ‘‘3rd method: eigenvalues calculation
based on Eq. (14)’’.
Since the eigenvalues are confirmed to have nearly the
same values for the numerical model using FEM and for
the analytical model presented in Section 2.2, having intro-
duced the damping in these computations using the com-
plex modulus of elasticity (generally suitable for linear
materials), then it should be concluded that the restriction
on the linear material damping for analytic purposes,
should not be a prerequisite for this case [10].
Since the analytical eigenvalue computation, presented
in Section 2.2, the finite elements complex formulation of
the non-homogeneous equation of Section 2.3 give the
same results as shown in Table 2 with the closed form cor-
relation of the present Section 2.4, also called as empirical
one, the new proposed methods are supposed to be
validated.
2.5. Steady state response at the eigenvalues and loss
coefficient computation
For the cantilever beam excited by a vertical force F at
the free end, Eq. (13) is solved, and the displacements,
the bending stresses and the eigenvalues are calculated, at
the last iteration when the introduced and the calculated
damping are almost the same. For the computation of
the bending stress using FEM, details are given in
[12,13,20,21].
 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868 1863

For this purposes the damping (total loss coefficient) is evaluation of the total loss factor c and the loss factor
taken by definition [11]: for each element ce.
This was done here for a beam of orthogonal section of
1 W
c¼ ; ð15Þ length L and height 2h. Employing above Eqs. (15) and
2p U
(18) the total loss factor takes the form
where W is the energy loss per cycle for the entire volume V  B22  D1
RL Rh
of the beam A1 ri y
þ C 1 hr ri y
dy dx
0 0 hrf
Z c¼ R L R h ri y 2
f
; ð20Þ
p
W ¼ f ðrs ÞdV ð16Þ E 0 0 h
dy dx
V

and U is the strain energy for cycle and the entire volume V where ri is the modulus of the maximum bending stress
of the beam at the middle of the element i and y is the distance from
Z 2 the neutral axis (A1 ¼ 6895; B22 ¼ 2:3; C 1 ¼ 41350, and
1 rs dV D1 ¼ 8Þ.
U¼ : ð17Þ
2 V E Performing appropriate integrations and accounting for
the discrete form of the structure, the loss factor gets the
The dissipating energy function f ðrs Þ is given in form:
[10,12,14] by experiment for the mild steel as
 B1  D1
rs rs
f ðrs Þ ¼ A1 þ C1 ; ð18Þ
rf rf
where rf is the fatigue limit stress of the material, whereas
A1 ¼ 6895; B1 ¼ 2; C 1 ¼ 41350 and D1 ¼ 8 (constants to
change the Unit System from English to International).
Using Eq. (18) the following two different methods are
applied to compute the first modal damping for a mild steel
cantilever beam. The total loss coefficient, calculated using
both methods for comparison purposes, at the steady state
equilibrium of the damping, with the same force F at the
free end.
In the first method proposed by Kume et al. [14] the fol-
lowing relationship for the total loss factor c is obtained
[12,14]
! of the structure has its local loss factor, it may be evaluated
rBm21 rDm21
c ¼ E A2 B22 þ C 2 D22 ; ð19Þ
rf rf
where A2 ¼ 2144:8, B21 ¼ 0:3, B22 ¼ 2:3, C 2 ¼ 8231,
D21 ¼ 6, D22 ¼ 8
In this equation, E is the dynamic modulus of elasticity
that is assumed to be constant as happens in most of engi-
neering applications. By rm the maximum bending stresses
attained at clamped end is denoted. Eq. (19) results from
analytical point of view where mode shapes and unit dissi-
pating energy function (18) are known in closed form and
appropriate integrations appearing in Eqs. (15)–(17) are
carried out analytically in order to obtain Eq. (19).
In this Eq. (19) the stress rm at the clamped end is
required at the steady state equilibrium and at the eigen-
values (first) and same is obtained by applying FEM as
explained above, or analytically.
The second method, by Gounaris–Anifantis [12], to
solve problems by FEM, with structures with complicated
geometry where was not possible to perform above integra-
tions explicitly.
The finite element piecewise approach for the analysis of
vibration problems as stated above is utilized here for the
P
n
3E
ðA3 S Bem3 þ C 3 S Dem3 Þ
p
em¼1
c¼ ; ð21Þ
P
n
r2em
em¼1
where S em ¼ rem =rf , rem is the modulus of the maximum
bending stress at the middle of the element e, n is the total
number of discretized elements, (A3 ¼ 2089:5; B3 ¼
2:3; C 3 ¼ 4595:5, and D3 ¼ 8).
Eq. (21) relates the total loss factor to the bending stres-
ses developed in the structure. This equation follows from
the definition of the total loss factor Eq. (15) assuming that
strain energy and unit dissipating energy may be approxi-
mated by summing up corresponding energies for each ele-
ment of the structure. Since it is assumed that each element
for each element accounting on individual energy levels of
each one element. Thus
3E A3 S Bem3 þ C 3 S Demn
3
ce ¼ ; ð22Þ
p r2em
ce being here the loss factor for each element alone of the
discretized structure.
The developed stresses in the structure depend on the
loss factor. The loss factor controls maximum amplitudes
of vibration and of stresses. These above Eqs. (21) and
(22) may be used for the evaluation of damping if the stres-
ses are known from the FEM. The methods used are exten-
sively explained by Gounaris et al. [12,13,15]. Here it
should be repeated that the method referred to the total
loss coefficient determination at the steady state equilib-
rium is applied at the resonance i.e. at the exact complex
eigenvalues.
In previous work [12] the steady state equilibrium was
searched at the eigenfrequency ðkn ¼ Bn Þ and not at the
complex eigenfrequency ðkn ¼ An þ iBn Þ. The results
obtained from the experiments at the resonance (Section
4.1) have to be correlated to those obtained by numerical
1864 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868

any material or (b) for any structure under stress

concentrations.
Fig. 2. Flow chart of numerical procedure.
methods at the eigenvalues. This is for solving the inverse
problem in a different way from that proposed by [12,13]
due to reasons explained above.
The technique for the evaluation of the steady state
equilibrium between inserted and calculated damping,
and thus total loss factor and stress distribution, is the
same for both above methods, the difference being in the
computation of this damping coefficient. Kume et al. [14]
use Eq. (19) while the other uses Eq. (21).
In this technique an initial guess is given for the c, and iter-
atively this value is improved, approaching its exact value.
At each iteration step, the stresses and loss factor c are eval-
uated, and compared to those found in previous step, respec-
tively. Convergence is attained when the differences between
the two last computed values are lower than some small
constant. Fig. 2 shows a flow chart of computation in accor-
dance with this iterative scheme. This simple computational
method converges to the solution of the steady state equilib-
rium problem at the resonance frequency.
Eq. (22) will be used later, for the solution of the inverse
problem, when finding the parameters of the dissipating
energy function (see Eq. (18)) for new materials or struc-
tures with strain concentration problems, etc.
3. Inverse problem
The inverse problem is defined as the determination of
the dissipating energy function. The dissipating energy
function (Eq. (18)) as given by Lazan [10] for specimens
of mild steel is, now given here with the unknown A, B,
C, D to be determined (a) for any uniform structure of
 B  D
rs rs
f ðrs Þ ¼ A þC : ð23Þ
rf rf
The fatigue limit rf is supposed to be known.
The procedure to be followed is:
• A cantilever beam is used, as it is described in Section
4.1, for the experimental determination of the loss fac-
tor. The maximum displacement at the free end and
the corresponding maximum bending stress at the
clamped end, have been recorded. Then the total loss
coefficient is taken through the measured logarithmic
decrement. Following the first eigenvalue is computed.
• Then the force F at the free end that gives the same dis-
placement, as this of the experiment, is found. Then the
maximum bending stress at the middle of each element is
computed.
• Knowing these stresses the proposed method by
Gounaris et al. [13] is applied to solve the inverse prob-
lem and to find the corresponding damping ce for each
element.
The inverse problem is a minimization problem. Here
the direct method is used where all possible combination
of the elements damping ce are used and the predictor–cor-
rector method which minimize these loops based on some
criteria, but lacks sometimes in sensitivity. The objective
function to be minimized is the sum of the absolute differ-
ence of bending stresses computed in each cycle of iteration
and known (measured) bending stresses. Thus at the mini-
mum of the objective function, the hysteretic damping of
each element ce, is now computed. During this procedure
the eigenvalues, are remaining constants and equal to those
computed.
Substituting Eq. (23) in Eq. (20), the following equation
is obtained:
 
3E A C
ce r2em ¼ S Bem þ S Dem : ð24Þ
p Bþ1 Dþ1
To solve the new inverse problem and to find the
unknown parameters A, B, C, D, the minimization referred
procedure is also applied here. The objective function to be
minimized here is the sum of the absolute differences,
between the first and the second part of the above Eq.
(24) for every element. This happens because the first part
of this equation is now known. Since the unknown here are
four, at least four discrete elements are needed.
It must be emphasized that, once the dissipating energy
function of Eq. (23) is known, then the same procedure
could be applied in order to find the stress distribution at
the designing stage and in this case for every boundary con-
dition. But in order to solve the inverse problem i.e. Eq.
(24), experimental and numerical (FEM) results have to
 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868 1865

be correlated, for the same boundary conditions, here the
cantilever beam.
This correlation could be extended also for other bound-
ary conditions. Having the diagram of the total loss coeffi-
cient vs. the maximum bending stress, at the eigenvalue, it
is easy to solve the direct problem at the designing stage.
Thus the solution of the inverse problem Eq. (24) will not
be necessary. But this has to be proven as valid for other
cases also, as it was done here for the cantilever beam.
To this respect, for the cantilever beam, both above
methods, of Kume et al. [14] and Gounaris–Anifantis
[12], as explained above are applied here and demonstrated
below (in the chapter of application) to give comparable
results.
4. Analytical, numerical and experimental validation
In this chapter the analytical, numerical and experimen-
tal validation of the above exposed methods is presented.
The geometrical and material parameters for the cantilever
beam which is used for the computations as well as for the
experiment are given in Table 1.
In Table 2 results are given of eigenvalue computations
by the above three methods. In Section 2.2 some comments
about the validation of these methods are presented. Here
the assumption that the complex modulus of elasticity is
not only restricted to linear materials is made and is also
validated from the results.
In the Table 3 the computed total loss factor vs. maxi-
mum bending stress diagrams, are given for both above
methods, presented by Gounaris–Anifantis [12] and by
Kume et al. [14].
Table 1
Geometry and material properties of the beam
Property Symbol Value
Beam height H 0.008
Beam width W 0.008
Beam length L 0.5
Modulus of elasticity E 210
Shear modulus G 79.3
Fatigue limit stress rf 186
These results are presented in Table 3 and the corre-
sponding diagrams are shown in Fig. 3 and are compared
with the available experimental data. The loss factors pre-
sented in these diagrams are in good agreement with the
experiment. Therefore, this is also considered here as a val-
idation in the response involved on the above numerical
methods in which complexity of the modulus of elasticity
is also attained.
Above results are obtained within the numerically accu-
racy of FEM computations, for mild steel material and
under the assumption that static and dynamic modulus
of elasticity are the same. In future work numerical accu-
racy has to be improved, experiments with other materials
have to be done and the change in the dynamic modulus of
elasticity has to be taken into consideration.
The maximum bending stresses are on the nonlinear
zone since they are above the 2 MPa or 250 psi (Fig. 1).
In Table 4, substantial difference is observed at the steady
state equilibrium and on resulting pairs of total loss coeffi-
cient and maximum bending stress near the clamped end
(at the middle of the first element) and at the same applied
force F. One pair corresponds to the eigenvalues and the
other at the eigenfrequency only i.e. with A = 0.
This substantial difference on these pairs (total loss coef-
ficient–bending stress) confirms the necessity of eigenvalues
computation and finding the steady state equilibrium at the
resonance i.e. at the eigenvalues and this because:
• At the design stage the maximum bending stress is
needed to be known in advance.
• At the solution of the inverse problem since results taken
from the experiments at the resonance and so the steady
state equilibrium, to which results have to be correlated,
should have to be at the resonance i.e. at the
eigenvalues.
Units
For the solution of the inverse problem, an algorithm is
m made in accordance with above Section 2.2. But in this case
m
m
the dissipating energy function representing by Eq. (18) at
GPa the first stage, is taken to be known for the mild steel same
GPa as the specimen of the experiment thus ce of each element,
MPa in Eq. (22) are computed at the steady state equilibrium

Table 2
Application of the three different methods for the calculation of the complex eigenvalues
Eigenvalues calculated by three different methods
Applied force Loss factor c at the 1st method: analytical eigenvalues 2nd method: FEM eigenvalues 3rd method: eigenvalues
at free end steady state calculation based on Eq. (10) calculation based on Eq. (13) calculation based on Eq. (14)
1st eigenvalue 2nd eigenvalue 1st eigenvalue 2nd eigenvalue 1st eigenvalue 2nd eigenvalue
A B A B A B A B A B A B
0.0002 0.0040 0.34 169.8 2.13 1064 0.34 169.8 2.12 1063 0.34 169.8 2.12 1063
0.0004 0.0060 0.51 169.8 3.19 1064 0.51 169.8 3.20 1063 0.51 169.8 3.18 1063
0.0006 0.0063 0.53 169.8 3.35 1064 0.54 169.8 3.34 1063 0.53 169.8 3.34 1063
0.0007 0.0065 0.55 169.8 3.46 1064 0.54 169.8 3.45 1063 0.55 169.8 3.45 1063
0.0008 0.0070 0.59 169.8 3.72 1064 0.60 169.8 3.73 1063 0.59 169.8 3.72 1063
0.0009 0.0072 0.61 169.8 3.83 1064 0.62 169.8 3.84 1063 0.61 169.8 3.82
1866 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868

Table 3
Comparison of the experimentally measured loss factor coefficient and the results of Refs. [12,14]
Force F at free end Max stress at clamped end, Total loss coefficient Max stress at clamped end, Total loss coefficient
in N MPa MPa
FEM, Ref. Experiment % FEM, Ref. Experiment %
[12] [14]
0.0004 25.2 0.0060 0.0065 8 19.5 0.0065 0.0050 30
0.0006 29.7 0.0063 0.0075 16 28.2 0.0075 0.0073 3
0.0007 34.1 0.0065 0.0095 32 33.0 0.0077 0.0092 16
0.0008 38.5 0.0070 0.0110 36 34.4 0.0078 0.0095 18
0.0009 43.2 0.0072 0.0120 40 42.6 0.0085 0.0108 21

4.1.1. Half power bandwidth method

Fig. 3. Comparison of the experimental results and the Refs. [12,14], in
log–log diagram.
and at the first eigenvalue. Secondly these ce now are taken as
known to the new algorithm which solves the inverse
problem on finding A, B, C, D parameters of Eq. (24). To
this respect, in all cases examined, above A, B, C, D para-
meters are confirmed to be, as was expected, the same with
Eq. (18).
Final validation of this proposed method for the solution
of the inverse problem will be given in the future with spec-
imens of different materials or with stress concentrations.
4.1. Loss factor experimental measurement in a cantilever
beam
Both methods, as explained below, give nearly the same
results, i.e. nearly the same diagrams of total loss coefficient
vs. the maximum bending stress at the clamped end.
A clamped-free beam was used in this experiment. The
beam was clamped on a harmonically vibrating table in
the vertical direction. A mechanical device, bolted on the
vibration table, was constructed to carry the vibrating
beam. A kind of bolted vice was used to support the beam.
The displacement at the free end was measured by an accel-
erometer. The experimental determination of the loss fac-
tor with this method was done in a steel axial specimen
of mild steel with same material characteristics as those
described in Table 1.
The test vibration table was so adjusted to create a sinu-
soidal excitation at the fixed end with regulated displace-
ment and exciting frequency. The exciting frequency was
at the resonant zone while the displacement was limited
so that the stresses at the fixed end to be below the fatigue
limit.
These diagrams of displacement (at free end) to exiting
frequency was done by maintaining constant the exiting
displacement at the fixed end (one other accelerometer
gives the indication) meanwhile the exciting frequency
was changed between 5% and +5% of the eigenfrequency
(with a step of 0.02 Hz). Finally the total loss coefficient c
was computed and plotted as a function of maximum dis-
placement at the free end (or maximum bending stress at
the fixed end). This drawing was made each time at differ-
ent maximum displacement at the free end, but always at
the same first eigenfrequency.
4.1.2. Logarithmic decrement method
The experimental determination of the total loss factor c
was done in a cantilever beam axle of the same as above
mild steel material and by the use of the logarithmic decre-
ment method. A heavy vice was used to realize the clamped
end of the beam and the exciting displacement was in the
direction that gives stiffer clamping, perpendicular to the

Table 4
Observed difference in bending stress and displacement when and A = 0
Applied force 1st complex eigenvalue, Incoming total loss Outcoming total loss Response
in N at the free end A + iB coefficient c coefficient c
A B, rad/s Bending stress Vertical displacement
in MPa at the free end, m
0.0009 0.61488 169.8 0.0072 0.0071 40.2 3.76 E-3
0.0009 0 169.8 0.0030 0.0028 1.8 1.69 E-4
 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868
Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental results of damping based on 3 dB method ( ) and on the logarithmic decrement ( ) in log–log scale.
claws of the vice. This setup tends to be perfect giving a
small difference between the analytical and the experimen-
tal natural frequency of the order of 3%. This was obtained
by giving an initial displacement at the free end, and then
leaving the specimen to vibrate freely. An accelerometer
measured the response at the free end, and the logarithmic
decrement d was computed. After that by using the known
relation c ¼ d=p, (see Section 2.4), the total loss coefficient
c was plotted vs. the measured logarithmic decrement d. A
diagram was made for the total loss factor c as a function
of the maximum displacement at the free end, or as a func-
tion of the equivalent maximum bending stress at the fixed
end. The loss factor depends on the current displacement
or on the equivalent bending stress [10,24]. Therefore the
experimental determination of the logarithmic decrement
d has to be applied for two consecutive cycles. By doing
this the logarithmic decrement will correspond, each time,
at the proper displacement or bending stress of each cycle.
The equivalent relation between maximum displacement
at the free end and maximum bending stress at the fixed
end was found: (a) introducing the displacement measured
at the free end and the total loss coefficient c into the FEM
algorithms the eigenvalues are computed and then, by iter-
ation of the displacement at the free end, the requested
bending stress at the clamped end is found and (b) by the
use of the following Eq. (25) taken from Kume et al.,
Rao [25] and Fertis [26].
" #
ðsinkLþsinh kLÞ
2
ðsin kx þ sinh kxÞ  ðcoskLþcosh kLÞ
 ðcos kx þ cosh kxÞ
rmax ¼ Erk y 0
ðsinkLþsinh kLÞ
ðsinkL  sinhkLÞ  ðcoskLþcosh kLÞ
 ðcos kL  cosh kLÞ
ð25Þ
where k ¼ 1:875 for the first eigenmode, E is the modulus
of elasticity, r is the distance from the neutral axis, L is
the length of the beam, y0 displacement at the free end
given by experiment, x is the distance from the clamped
end and rmax is the maximum stress at the clamped end
(i.e. at x = 0). Both above procedures have proven to give
comparable results and the results of the experiments based
1867
on both above methods, given in the Fig. 4, are in good
agreement.
5. Conclusions
A new method called iterative complex eigensolution
method (ICEM) based on the damping – stress relation is
presented in this paper. The complex eigenvalues of a can-
tilever beam taking into account the hysteretic damping are
computed with three new (because of the use of the ICEM)
different ways (analytical, numerical and empirical) and are
found to be in good agreement. Experiments, made with
two different ways, both at the resonance, give nearly the
same results for the total loss coefficient and the maximum
bending stress at the constrained end. The experimental
results have proven to be comparable with those obtained
by the two different numerical methods. The use of the
complex modulus of elasticity suitable for linear models,
in this case of nonlinearity, due to the nonlinear damp-
ing-stress relation, is proven to be not far from the reality.
The new proposed method, for solving the inverse prob-
lem i.e. finding the parameters of the dissipating energy
function, was validated for the mild steel. For structures
of other material or structures with stress concentrations,
similar dissipating energy functions have to be found in
the future and many experiments have to be repeated. In
this work a big difference, as it was expected, was found
at the response at the steady state equilibrium when this
;
(equilibrium) was obtained at the complex eigenvalue
ðkn ¼ An þ iBn Þ and at the eigenfrequency ðkn ¼ Bn Þ.
Having the diagram of total loss coefficient vs. bending
stress at the clamped end for the cantilever beam for a dif-
ferent material, as explained above, could be used to obtain
dissipating energy parameters Eq. (24) which then could be
used to solve all cases with any boundary conditions. The
Eq. (23) based on experimental measurements correlates
the dissipating energy to the bending stress, for any bound-
ary conditions but for the same material, if stress concen-
tration is not present. Otherwise if stress concentration
1868 G.D. Gounaris et al. / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 1858–1868
exists, then Eq. (23) takes effect only for exactly the same
geometry.
The future work of the authors includes the determina-
tion of Eq. (23) for other materials, with or without the
presence of stress concentration. The effect of a fatigue
crack on the damping of a structure is also to be examined.
References
[1] Makris N, Zhang J. Time-domain viscoelastic analysis of earth
structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29(6):745–68.
[2] Biot MA. Linear thermodynamics and the mechanics of solids.
Proceedings of 3rd US National Congress of Applied Mechanics,
ASME 1958:1–18.
[3] Spanos PD, Tsavachidis S. Deterministic and stochastic analyses of a
nonlinear system with a biot visco-elastic element. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dyn 2001;30(4):595–612.
[4] Makris N. Causal hysteretic element. J Eng Mech 1997;123(11):
1209–14.
[5] Palmeri A, Ricciardelli F, De Luca A. State space formulation for
linear viscoelastic dynamic systems with memory. J Eng Mech
2003;129(7):715–24.
[6] Palmeri A, Ricciardelli F, Muscolino G. Random vibration of
systems with viscoelastic memory. J Eng Mech 2004;130(9):1052–61.
[7] Dimarogonas AD. Vibration engineering. West Group 1976.
[8] Lin MR, Lim MK. Complex eigensensitivity-based characterization
of structures with viscoelastic damping. J Acoust Soc Am
1996;100(5):3182–91.
[9] Johnson Conor D, Kienholz David A. Finite element prediction of
damping in structures with constrained viscoelastic layers. AIAA J
1982;20(9):1284–90.
[10] Lazan BJ. Damping of materials and members in structural
mechanics. Pergamon Press; 1968.
[11] Nashif AD, Jones DI, Henderson JP. Vibration damping. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1985. pp. 480.
[12] Gounaris GD, Anifantis NK. Structural damping determination by
finite element approach. Comput Struct 1999/10/12; 73(1–5):445–52.
[13] Gounaris GD, Papazoglou VJ, Anifantis NK. Inverse vibration
problem solution of floating timoshenko beam. Comput Struct
[submitted for publication].
[14] Kume Y, Hashimoto F, Maeda S. Material damping of cantilever
beams. J Sound Vib 1982/1/8;80(1):1–10.
[15] Gounaris GD, Papazoglou VJ, Anifantis NK. Dynamics of fractured
timoshenko beams moving in wavy fluids. Comput Struct 2001/
2;79(4):431–39.
[16] Lazan BJ, Demer LS. Damping elasticity and fatigue properties of
temperature resistant materials. Anonymous 1951:51.
[17] Dovstam K, Dalenbring M. ER – damping function estimation based
on modal receptance models and neural nets. Comput Mech
1997;V19(4):271–86.
[18] Lancaster P, Prells U. Inverse problems for damped vibrating
systems. J Sound Vib 2005/5/20;283(3–5):891–914.
[19] Bishop RED, Price WG. Hydroelasticity of ships. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press; 1979.
[20] Gounaris G, Papazoglou VJ. Three-dimensional effects on the natural
vibrations of cracked timoshenko beams in water. Comput Struct
1992/3/3;42(5):769–79.
[21] Gounaris GD, Papadopoulos CA. Crack identification in rotating
shafts by coupled response measurements. Eng Fract Mech 2002/
2;69(3):339–52.
[22] Klein W, Pommer C, Stoustrup J. Stability of rotor systems a
complex modelling approach. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Mathe-
matik Und Physik. J Appl Math Phys 1998:644–55.
[23] Sekhar AS, Kumar Dey J. effects of cracks on rotor system
instability. Mech Mach Theory 2000/12/1;35(12):1657–74.
[24] Bovsunovsky AP. The mechanisms of energy dissipation in the non-
propagating fatigue cracks in metallic materials. Eng Fract Mech
2004/11;71(16–17):2271–81.
[25] Rao SS. Mechanical vibrations. Prentice-Hall; 1990.
[26] Fertis DG. Mechanical and structural vibration. Wiley-Interscience;
1995.