Redesign Techniques For Improved Structural Dynamics PDF

INFO RM ATIO N TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality o f the material submitted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or

notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. I f it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an

indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note w ill appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed,
a definite method o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer o f a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary,
sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic

means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.
liversitv
Micrdnlms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8309013
Starkey, John Mark
REDESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVED STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Michigan State University PhJD. 1982
University
Microfilms
international 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106
REDESIGN TECHNIQUES
FOR
IMPROVED STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
By
John Mark Starkey
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Mechanical Engineering
1982
ABSTRACT
REDESIGN TECHNIQUES
FOR
IMPROVED STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
By
John Mark Stazkey
This thesis presents a method for synthesizing design changes which
improve the dynamic characteristics of structures by removing natural
frequencies from bands where excitations are likely to occur. The
procedure, which is less restrictive than traditional techniques,
minimizes a penalty function which is large when undesirable frequencies
exist, and when design changes are large. A trade-off is found between
improved dynamics and undesirably large changes. An example is included
in which engine mounts are redesigned to avoid idle speed resonances.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author vould like to acknowledge all those who have contributed
to the success of this thesis. Special thanks are extended to Dr.
James Bernard, not only for his expert guidance of this research, but
also for his sincere friendship and encouragement. Also, Dr. Albert
Andry, Dr. Clark Radcliffe, Dr. Ronald Rosenburg, and Dr. William
Symes have each made valuable suggestions which have improved the thesis
measurably. In addition. Chuck Spiekermann's help, and the use of his
software for engine dynamics simulation is greatly appreciated. And
finally, a great debt is owed to my wife, Carolyn, for her continuous
support and encouragement.
The author would also like to thank the staff of the Case Center
for Computer-Aided Design at Michigan State University for financial
support and for the use of the computing facilities.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 CONTENTS O F THE THESIS 1
CHAPTER II - PROBLEM DEFINITION 4
2.1 THE DESIGN PROCESS 4

2.2 STEPS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS 5
2.2.1 Preliminary Design 5
2.2.2 Intermediate design 5
2.2.3 Detail Design 6
2.2.4 Iteration 6
2.3 ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS 7
2.4 REDESIGN SYNTHESIS FOR STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS 7
CHAPTER III - LITERATURE REVIEW 9
3.1 SUBSTRUCTURING 10
3.1.1 Definition of Snbstructuring 10
3.1.2 Advantages of Subsfracturing 11
3.2 PREDICTION 11
3.2.1 Prediction by Rayleigh Quotient and Taylor Series 12
3.2.2 Prediction by Receptance Methods 14
3.2.3 Prediction by Assumed Modes Method 16
3.3 SPECIFICATION 19
3.3.1 Specification of Global Properties 20
3.3.2 Specification by Rayleigh Quotient and Taylor 20
3.3.3 Specification by Assumed Modes 21
3.3.4 Specification b y Receptance Methods 23
3.3.5 Pole Placement 24
3.3.6 Specification by Optimal Design Techniques 25
CHAPTER IV - FREQUENCY SPECIFICATION B Y PENALTY FUNCTIONS 29
4.1 PENALTY FUNCTIONS 30

4.1.1 Characteristics of the Frequency Content 30
iii
4.1.2 Characteristics of the Size-of-Change 33
4.1.3 Characteristics of the Total Penalty Function 36
4.2 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PENALTY FUNCTIONS 37
4.2.1 A Class of Desirable Frequency-Content 37
4.2.2 A Class of Desirable Size-of-Change 38
4.2.3 The Total Penalty Function 40
4.2.4 The u(e) Function 40
4.3 MINIMIZATION OF THE PENALTY FUNCTION 41
4.3.1 Existence of a Minimum 42
4.3.2 Uniqneness of Minimums - One Undesirable Frequency 44
4.3.3 Uniqneness of Minimnms - More Than One 49
4.3.4 Sensitivity of Solutions to A^ 51
CHAPTER V - EXAMPLE PROBLEM 56
5.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION 56

5.2 INITIAL DESIGN CONFIGURATION 57
5.2.1 Engine Confignration 59
5.2.2 Mount Configuration 59
5.2.3 The Initial Design 62
5.2.4 Modeling Design Changes 62
5.3 PENALTY FUNCTIONS 63
5.3.1 The Frequency-Content Penalty Function 63
5.3.2 The (e) Relationship 66
5.3.3 The Size-of-Change Penalty Function 67
5.3.4 The Total Penalty Function 67
5.4 PENALTY FUNCTION PROCEDURE 68
5.5 MOUNT STIFFNESS STUDY 69
5.5.1 Definition of Mount Stiffness Design Variables 69
5.5.2 Results of Mount Stiffness Study 70
5.5.3 Accuracy of the Solutions 70
5.6 MOUNT ORIENTATION STUDY 72
5.6.1 Definition of Mount Orientation Design Variables 72
5.6.2 Results of the Mount Orientation Study 72
5.6.3 Accuracy of the Solutions 74
5.7 MOUNT ATTACHMENT LOCATION STUDY 75
5.7.1 Definition of Mount Attachment-Location Design 75
5.7.2 Results of the Mount Attachment Location Study 77
5.7.3 Accuracy of Solutions 77
5.8 COMBINED STUDY 78
5.7 SUMMARY 81
CHAPTER VI - CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 82
6.1 FUTURE WORK 83

6.1.1 Specialization of the Penalty Functions 83
6.1.2 Improved <o(e) Relationship 83
APPENDIX 85
LIST OF REFERENCES 91
iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE S.l Engine Inertial Properties 61
TABLE 5.1 Initial Mount Data 61
TABLE 5.3 Original Natnral Frequencies and Mode Shapes

Normalized so that UjMU^ = 1 . 0 61
TABLE 5.4 New Mount Stiffness for a Unit design Change

(e^ = 1 means 10% reduction in stiffness) 71
TABLE 5.5 Solutions for the Stiffness Study 71
TABLE 5.6 Design Variables Used to Study Mount Orientation

Angles 73
TABLE 5.7 Solutions for Mount Orientation Study 73
TABLE 5.8 Solutions for Mount Orientation Study Using

the 5 Most Effective Design Variables
(ie. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 11) 76
TABLE 5.9 Changes Used in Mount Location Study 76
TABLE 5.10 Solutions for Mount Attachment Location Study.

Starting Values for ej = 0.0 76
TABLE 5.11 Solutions for Mount Attachment Location

Study. Starting Values for ej = 1.0. 79
TABLE 5.12 Solution for Combined study when Starting

Values For Design Variables = 0.0 79
TABLE 5.13 Solution for Combined Study when Starting

Values For Design Variables = 1 . 0 80
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 4. 1 Typical Frequency-Content Penalty Function 32
FIGURE 4. 1 Analogous Frequency-Content Penalty F u n c t i o n

for Traditional Constrained Optimization 34
FIGURE 4. 3 Typical Size-of-Change Penalty Function 35
FIGURE 4. 4 Frequency Content Penalty Function That M a y

Introduce Several Local Minimums 39
FIGURE 4. 5 Example Penalty Functions For One Undesirable

Frequency and One Design Variable Showing
One Minimum 47
FIGURE 4. 6 Example Penalty Factions For One Undesirable

Frequency and One design Variable Showing
Two Minimums 48
FIGURE 4. 7 Example Penalty Fuctions For Two Undesirable

Frequencies and One Design Variable Showing
Three Minimums 50
FIGURE 4. 3 Two Size-of-Change Penalty Fuctions Which

Preserve the Ordering of ej and e^
Independent of Scale Parameter A 54
FIGURE 4. 9 Two Size-of-Change Penalty Functions V h i c h D o

Not Preserve the Ordering of ej and e^
Independent of Scale Parameter A 55
FIGURE 5. 1 Engine Mounted in Elastic Mounts 58
FIGURE 5. 2 Engine Mounts Used in the Example Problem 60
FIGURE 5. 3 Frequency-Content Penalty Function Used in the

Example Problem 65
FIGURE A. 1 Rigid Body Model of Engine and Mounts 86
VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The demand for high performance designs has increased the need to
consider the dynamic characteristics of structures. High-speed,
low-cost computers and test equipment have made it more economical to do
so. Consequently, interest in experimental and analytical vibration
analysis has increased dramatically and new techniques are being
developed.
This thesis presents a method for synthesizing design changes which
will improve the dynamic characteristics of structures by removing
natural frequencies from bands where excitations are likely to occur.
The computations involved are not burdensome, and the method is
sufficiently interactive to take advantage of engineering judgement. It
is also flexible enough to allow frequencies to move in the directions
which cost the least in terms of needed design changes.
1.1 CONTENTS OF THE THESIS
The chapters which follow present a review of the recent literature
in structural dynamics modification, a detailed presentation of the new
procedure and how it differs from other methods, an example problem
illustrating the procedure, and some concluding remarks concerning
2
future work.
Chapter 2 motivates the need for this thesis. It begins by
defining the engineering design process and pointing out the need for
iteration and redesign. It then indicates that vibration analysis is
becoming a necessary part of the design process, and that techniques for
synthesizing design changes are needed.
The contributions of other authors are reviewed in Chapter 3. Much
of the work can be classified as prediction techniques (predicting the
new frequencies which result from design changes), or specification
techniques (specifying natural frequencies and determining the needed
design changes). The concepts of pole placement from the controls
literature, and frequency-constrained structural optimization are also
reviewed.
A new approach to the problem is presented in Chapter 4. Penalty
functions which become smaller as the design improves are minimized to
find the optimal design. The penalty function includes terms which are
large when natural frequencies are near excitation frequencies, and
terms which are large when design changes become costly. Natural
frequencies and design changes are related by Taylor series which are
functions of the design variables.
An example problem in Chapter 5 illustrates the procedure. A set
of engine mounts are redesigned to remove all the natural frequencies of
the engine-mount system from the idle speed frequency range. Mount
stiffnesses, orientation angles, and attachment locations on the engine
block are the design variables.
The filial chapter. Chapter 6, presents some concluding remarks
concerning extensions and additional applications of the technique.
CHAPTER II
PROBLEM DEFINITION
This chapter presents a qualitative description of the design
process, vith the purpose of motivating the need for the redesign
techniques which are presented in this thesis.
2.1 THE DESIGN PROCESS
Design is a process whereby a plan is sought which meets
predetermined requirements and achieves a goal. In engineering design,
the goal is to perform one or more function such as mass transport,
energy conversion, or energy transmission. The requirements may be time
limitations, special constraints, cost limitations, and others. The
plan is called the design, and it is often composed of many parts, each
an individual design problem.
Consider, for example, an automobile. Its primary function is to
transport mass. Some design limitations and constraints are size, cost,
performance, and esthetics. The plan or design of an automobile
certainly is composed of many groups of parts, each treated as a
seperate design problem which must integrate with the whole. The engine
generates power, subject to size, cost, performance, weight,
reliability, manufacturablity, and many other constraints. The engine
5
too is composed of sub-assemblies, each designed to perform functions
and meet requirements.
2.2 STEPS IN T H E DESIGN PROCESS
The design process as defined above can be organized into three
phases: preliminary design, intermediate design, and detail design.
2.2.1 Preliminary Design
Preliminary design includes the tasks performed in the selection of
the general plan vhich meets the given requirements. Preliminary design
of an automobile involves such decisions as type of power source
(electric motors, gasoline or deisel engine, hybrid, etc.), selection of
power transmission devices, packaging of passengers, cargo, and
power-plant areas, etc. This process requires several alternatives to
be proposed (synthesized) and then evaluated (analyzed). Iteration
through systhesis and analysis is common, resulting in a set of
requirements for the major components of the design.
2.2.2 Intermediate design
Once the global decisions have been made to select a general plan
for the design, it is subdivided into components which are designed in
more detail. To continue with the example of the automobile, if a
gasoline engine were chosen as the power generation device, then weight,,
power, and size are specifications which may result from the gêliminary
design phase and which constrain the design of the engine. Again,
design changes are synthesized and analyzed to try to find the best
6
design possible. This iteration may lead the designer back to
preliminary design phases again to readjust the overall plan and modify
the constraints on the components. During intermediate design, such
questions as piston sizes and transmission ratios might be addressed.
2.2.3 Detail Design
The detailed design phase deals with the parts which need not be
subdivided further. Such parts are called monoliths, and include, in
the engine example, the crankshaft, pistons, connecting rods, and
valves. Each serves very specific and well known functions. The
requirements for each part are dictated by the results of the
intermediate design, and are used in repeated analysis and synthesis for
each part. A connecting rod, for example, transmits force, restrains
the motion of the piston, and may also transmit lubricant. It would
likely have constraints on shape, size, strength, and weight.
2.2.4 Iteration
The design process described above is certainly an iterative one.
For example, not only is there repeated analysis and synthesis of the
connecting rod to find the best shape to transmit the loads, but some of
its design requirements may depend on the design of other parts such as
the piston and the crankshaft. And unforseen aspects of the design may
force changes to be made, and re-iteration through previous design
phases.
7
2.3 ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS
The design process is one in vhich a plan is created, or
synthesized, based on judgement, experience, or some other means, and
then tested and analyzed to determine itsmerit relative to other
designs. Analysis, then, determines the performance of a given design,
whereas synthesis seeks a design which meets given standards of
performance.
Synthesis is inherently more difficnlt than analysis, because at
its base is creativity, and thus it is less well suited to automation
and computers. Of course, a design once synthesized is usually tested
through analysis, and the analysis generally produces aunique solution,
a measure of that design. But the process of design synthesis generally
can lead to many acceptable designs, some better than others.
2.4 REDESIGN SYNTHESIS FOR STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
This thesis is motivated by the need to modify an existing design
to improve its dynamic characteristics. The nature of the best
modification is not known, but performance requirements are given.
The particular problem of interest here is this: given a design
with its inherent frequency spectrum, synthesize a design with a more
desirable spectrum. Others have presented methods for predicting the
new natural frequencies of modified structures, and for finding design
changes which force the system to have certain given natural
frequencies. These methods are discussed in Chapter 3. In contrast,
the methods presented in Chapter 4 and illustrated in Chapter 5, are
less restrictive. They only require that (1) a frequency range be
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
specified for which the designer desires no natural frequencies to be
present, and (2) the designer synthesize the general characteristics of
a potential design improvement. The method will then aid the designer
in finding a specific design which clears unwanted frequencies from the
undesirable range, driving individual frequencies up or down, whichever
produces the less costly design change.
CHAPTER III
LITERATURE REVIEW
It can be shown1* that the vibrations of lightly damped structures
can be modeled by linear equations of the form
Mx + Ex = F (3.1)
or
My + Ey = UTF (3.2)
where M and K are global (n x n) mass and stiffness matrices of the
structure, x is the (n x 1) vector of the spacial coordinates, M and E
are diagonal (m x m) matrices of modal masses and modal stiffnesses
respectively, y is the (m x 1) vector of modal coordinates, U isthe (n
x m) matrix of undamped eigenvectors of the structure which relate x to
y, and F is the (n x 1) vector of externally applied forces. Note that
n and m are not necessarily equal. In fact, m can be much less than n,
when Equation (3.2) contains only the modes of the structure which are
in a limited frequency band. The matrix U then contains information
about m eigenvectors of the system at n degrees-of-freedom.
* Superscripts indicate references at the end of the thesis.
10
The literature indicates that these math models can he used to
predict the dynamics which result from a design change, that is a change
in H and/or K. Further, they can be used as the basis for procedures
whereby design changes may be found which will produce desired dynamic
characteristics. This chapter is a review of this literature.
3.1 SUB STRU CTDRING
If the H and K matrices of the unmodified system are known, the
eigenvalue problem which results from perturbing M and K with proposed
changes, H and K, can be solved directly for the dynamics of the new
system. That is, solve
[[K + AK] - £ [M + AM]] Uj, = 0 (3.3)
where and are the new eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the changed
system. When n is large, or when many re-solutions are needed, however,
this can become numerically burdensome, and other techniques may become
useful. Substructuring is one such technique.
3.1.1 Definition of Substructuring
Substructuring, or modal synthesis, is a technique which has been
successfully applied to large degree-cf-freedcm systems3 - 3 1 . It takes
advantage of the fact that computers are often able to solve many small
problems faster than one large problem. Thus, the large system model is
separated into several small substructures which are connected at the
interface degrees-of-freedom. A model is developed for each
substructure, and the constraint equations which apply at the boundaries
11
couple their dynamic effects. The size of the combined system model is
often reduced by eliminating the higher modes of each substructure, or
by developing transformations that reduce the sparsity of the complete
system model.
H o n 23, Benfield and H r u d a 3 3 , Hurty3 4 , Hurty, Collins, and Hart35,
Benfield, Bodley, and Mors o 3 *, and Kuhar and Stahle37 review modal
20 29
synthesis techniques. Vang, Palazzolo, and Pilkey , and Arora ,
review static and dynamic re-analysis techniques.
3.1.2 Advantages of Substructuring
There are three advantages of substructuring. First, it reduces
the computing burden associated with the original problem. In addition,
it is often the case that different parts of a structure are designed by
different groups of people. Substructuring allows these groups to work
independently, later combining their results to obtain dynamic
characteristics of the complete system. Finally, substructuring can
save computation time in the redesign process, since only the effected
substructure of the system may need reanalysis.
3.2 PREDICTION
Much effort has bee n applied toward solving the prediction problem,
that is, to predict the effects of a design change on the dynamics of
the system. This section, and the remaining sections of this chapter,
present, in some detail, key contributions toward solving the prediction
problem, and the specification problem (Section 3.3). Vang, Palazzolo,
and Pilkey3* also present a good review of some of the literature which
12
addresses these problems.
3.2.1 Prediction by Rayleigh Quotient and Taylor Series
Heirovitch1 presents the Rayleigh quotient as an approximate method
for computing a nev eigenvalue vhich results from given changes M and K.
The Rayleigh quotient for the modified system is
<0? = [uj (K + A K ^ / t u T (M + AM)!^] (3.4)
or
a,* = (kj + u j A K U ^ / C m j + u Ta M D j ) (3.5)
til
vhere is the eigenvector associated with the i natural frequency
£. Note that the original H and K matrices need not be known, since
modal mass m^ and modal stiffness kj can be obtained from tests*0 , a i .
The Rayleigh quotient assumes that the original eigenvector is a good
til
approximation to the i L eigenvector of the modified system as veil.
This assumption will introduce error when A H and AK have entries vhich
cause changes in the eigenvectors U^.
Fox and Kapoor*1 present equations for first and second derivatives
of eigenvalues with respect to design variables. These derivatives are
used to obtain estimates for nev eigenvalues in terms of a Taylor series
expansion about the eigenvalues of the original system. For undamped
symmetric systems, the first derivative is
aQj/dej = ujfdK/aej - o] a M / a e J U j / m j (3.6)
where e^ is the i design variable, and Qj is the original j natural
13
frequency. If the change is represented by
M = M0 + (3.7)
and
K = K0 + J.ejAKj (3.7)
then
flM/dej = A M £ (3.9)
and
dK/dei = AZa (3.10)
The new eigenvalue is then
“j = °j + j ! o ° j / 3e i)ei (3.11)
where s is the total number of proposed changes. Clearly the first
derivative formulation contains the eigenvector of the original system,
but no derivatives of that eigenvector. (The second derivative
formulation contains first derivatives of the eigenvectors of the
original system31-38.) Thus one would expect that the Taylor series
truncated to first order terms only should give the same results as the
Rayleigh quotient techniques. This is, in fact, true, since the
Rayleigh quotient for one change can be written
to? = (kj + e ujAKDj)/(mj + e ujAMUj) (3.12)
which may be rearranged to yield
14
<Uj - Qj)/e = UJ[AK - tOjAMJuj/mj (3.13)
which in the limit, as e approaches zero, becomes the expression
obtained by Fox and Kapoor for the first derivative. Note that as e
approaches zero, Wj approaches 0j , the original eigenvalue used in the
right hand side of Fox and Kapoor's result.
It should be pointed out again that both the Rayleigh quotient and
first-derivative-only Taylor series techniques assume that the
eigenvector Uj remains unchanged. T h i s limits the range of changes for
which the formulation is accurate.
3.2.2 Prediction by Receptance M ethods
Receptance methods, first p r o p o s e d by Hirai and Yoshimura34, take
advantage of the fact that design changes often directly effect only a
small subset of the degrees-of-freedom of the original system.* This
sparsity leads to a determinant of small dimension which, when set equal
to zero, yields the characteristic e q u a t i o n for the modified system.
For undamped symmetric systems, the receptance matrix, or dynamic
flexibility matrix, G(u), is defined as
[K - id* M) x = F (3.14)
x = [K - w* M]-1 F (3.15)
or
x = G(b>) F (3.16)
The ij**1 entry of G(<o), G-j(<o), is a coefficient which relates response
at degree-of-freedom i due to a u n i t sinusoidal force of frequency u
15
applied at degree-of-freedom j. It can be calculated without explicit
knowledge of M and K as
jk]/[n>k(Qk - w*)] «oa jfe o£ (3.16)
where m is the number of modes for which information is available, is
the k**1 modal mass, Ujk and Ujk are the i**1 and j**1 entries respectively
i.1.
in the eigenvector associated with mode k, and 0^ is the k eigenvalue
of the original system. The assumption is made that <oa £ o£, that is,
the system is not being forced at resonance.
Hirai and Yoshimura show that a sparse change represented by A H and
AK can be included in the forcing term F as
F = [AK - coa AM] x - . (3.17)
F = S(b>) x (3.18)
so that
x = G(u>) S(a>) x (3.19)
[I - G(w) S(w)] x = 0 (3.20)
Thus
det[l - G(to) S(b>)J = 0 (3.21)
represents the new system's characteristic equation, where det
represents determinant. The formulation for G^jta) can also be slightly
20
rearranged to include stiffness effects of higher modes .
Receptance methods take advantage of the fact that S(b>) frequently
has many null rows and columns to reduce the size of the above
16
determinant. The characteristic equation is of order m, however, where
m is the number of original modes considered in 6(). However,
Wilkinson1 *'**, and Parlett17 indicate that solving for the roots of the
characteristic equation is not always a reliable way to find eigenvalues
since the roots of a polynomial can be strongly effected by small errors
introduced into the coefficients of the polynomial by previous
computation.
Hirai and Y o s h i m u r a 's original work included only undamped
symmetric systems with symmetric mass and stiffness modifications.
Wang, Palazzolo, and Pilke y 21 extended the technique to include
proportional viscous damping in the original system, with general
damping in the modifications. Related references are K r o n 11, Simpson*,
and Youseffi1 9 .
3.2.3 Prediction by Assumed Modes Method
It was noted earlier that the Rayleigh quotient was restricted by
the assumption that the eigenvectors of the original system do not
change. The assumed modes method is a generalization of the Rayleigh
quotient method in that it allows the eigenvectors of the new system to
be any linear combination of those of the original system. Thus,
accuracy is limited only by the extent that the eigenvectors of the
original system do not span the subspace spanned by the eigenvectors of
the modified system.
The assumed modes method will now be presented in its general form,
for symmetric AM and AK matrices. White and Maytum40 have discussed
this method using energy formulations.
17
The original system in modal coordinates. Equation (3.2), is
M y + Ey = UTF (3.22)
Recall that M and K are diagonal (m z m) matrices of modal masses and
modal stiffnesses respectively, and that m can he much less than n,
vhere n is the dimension of the M and E matrices in Equation (3.1).
Also note again that U is the (n x m) matrix containing m eigenvectors
of the system at n discrete degrees of freedom. Suppose a modification
is represented by the (n x n) matrices A M and AE. The force exerted on
the original system by this modification can be written as
F = -[AEx - AMx] (3.23)
But the transformation from special coordinates, x, into modal
coordinates, y, is
U y (3.24)
so that
(3.25)
Thus, the new equations of motion are
[m + UTAMU] y + [k + UTAEU] y = 0 (3.26)
This is a new (m x m) eigenvalue problem, which has eigenvectors V such
that
y V z (3.27)
18
The eigenvalues of the new system are
<■>? = [v T(K + ^ A K O V J / l v T t M + U TAMU)V, (3.28)

J J J J J
The eigenvectors, U n e v , of the modified system are found by Equations
(3.24) and (3.27) as
u = U V (3.29)
"new
where V is a matrix of coefficients which define the new eigenvectors as
linear combinations of the original eigenvectors. It is important to
note that a small, (m x m ) , eigenvalue problem was solved to predict the
effects of the design change.
Weissenburger41 '74 showed that for rank-one modifications of the
form
AK = k p p^ = (3.30)
or
0|
.1
T
m .!
AM = m q q = .1 (3.31)
.1
.1
ol
where p and q are (n x 1) vectors defining the location of a spring
element, k, or mass element, m, respectively, a simple relationship can
be generated to find the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the
19
modified system, eliminating the need for solving the m z m eigenvalue
problem. For a mass or stiffness change given by e p p^- , the
characteristic equation of the modified system is
1/ e = [ct-/(<4 ~ 0 ’)] (3.32)
where is the i**1 entry in the matriz-vector product U p, and e is the
value of the mass or spring element that was added. Algebraic closed
form equations for new eigenvectors and modal masses are also presented.
Since any symmetric A M or AK matriz can be represented as a linear
combination of these rank-one modification matrices, general changes can
be made by repeatedly applying Weissenburger's technique. Palazzolo,
however, claims that this can lead to ezcessive round-off errors4 2 .
Pomazal and Snyder43 eztended Weissenburger's work to include
general viscous damping in both the original system and the
modifications. Hallquist and Snyder44 combined subsystems using
rank-one modification elements to represent the properties of the
subsystem interfaces.
3.3 SPECIFICATION
Prediction methods as presented in Section 3.2 are analysis tools;
given the modifications, they predict the new mode shapes and natural
frequencies of the system. The inverse of prediction, that is the
determination of design changes to a system which will yield specified
natural frequencies and mode shapes, is inherently more difficult.
20
3.3.1 Specification of Global Properties

t *
Given symmetric (n x n) H and K matrices witb non-repeated
eigenvalues, there exist n unique eigenvectors Uj, eigenvalues and
modal masses m^. Conversely, if n eigenvectors, eigenvalues, and modal
masses of a system are given, Lancaster45 has shown that it is possible
to find unique M and K matrices as
(3.33)
K (3.34)
Vang, Palazzolo, and Pilkey** have shown that these are valid in a
simple (n = 2) example. For complicated structures, the topology of the
physical structure that is accurately modeled by this set of H and K
matrices may not be evident.
3.3.2 Specification by Rayleigh Quotient and Taylor Series
Statson and Palma46 present a technique for specifying natural
frequencies using linear combinations of rank-one modification matrices
in Rayleigh's quotient. The scale parameters in the linear combination
are the unknowns, and for a unique solution to exist, the number of
frequencies to be specified must equal the number of unknowns to be
determined. For example, suppose the changes were stiffness elements
such that
(3.35)
i.1.
where p^ is the (n x 1) vector which defines the location of the i l“
21
spring, as in Equation (3.30). Then Rayleigh's quotient gives
(3.36)
or
(3.37)
where j ranges from 1 to s. Specifying s frequencies w- allows solution

«!
for the s unknowns e^ in these linear equations.
White47 presents a method for using Taylor's series to modify an
existing analytical model to agree with experimental modal test results.
His formulation requires that the number of unknown parameters be less
than or equal to the number of test points on the structure. Taylor4*
presents an extension to White's work which allows the number of unknown
parameters to be up to the number of structural elements, that is
springs and masses, in the (n x n) system model of Equation (3.1).
Bugeat49 used derivatives of the eigenvalues to find the needed changes
to make analytical models match experimental results. Their technique
locates areas in the M and K matrix which are most effective in
improving correlation, reducing the size of the final specification
problem.
These Rayleigh quotient and Taylor series techniques are limited to
small changes since they assume that the eigenvectors remain constant.
3.3.3 Specification by Assumed Hodes
White and Maytum 40 present a method for specifying a frequency and
its associated mode shape, that is, the m linear combination
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
coefficients that define the new mode shape in terms of the m original
mode shapes, and solving for m unknown design variables. A set of m
linear equations in the m unknowns results.
Let the modal analysis results be represented as Equation (3.1),
that is,
[I - (i>* M] y = UTF (3.38)
and let the effect of the i**1 design variable be (considering stiffness
changes only) eÂK^, where e^ is an unknown scale parameter to be
determined, and AK^ is the stiffness matrix associated with that
particular design change. AK^ need not be a rank-one modification
matrix of the type shown in Equation (3.30). Then
(3.39)
(3.40)
so that
[K - w* M] y = e A Dj y (3.41)
The right hand side of this equation can be written as
[K - o>* M] y = Ej (da ,....dn )T (3.42)
where the k**1 column of the (m x m) matrix Ej is
(3.43)
This is a linear equation in the unknowns, d, which can be solved given
(>)■ and its associated eigenvector y,. The solution will be unique if
J J
23
there are m unknowns. Leest squares or least effort solutions can he
applied if there are less than, or more than m unknowns respectively.
Garba and W a d a 50 used White's method to correlate an analytical
modal with experimental results.
Weissenburger's technique presented in Section 3.2.3 can be used to
specify frequencies as well as predict them. His characteristic
equation has one unknown design variable, which can be uniquely
determined by specifying a frequency in Equation (3.32). Many
frequencies can be specified sequentially using this technique, but
frequencies specified earlier may change as later ones are specified.
Formenti51 uses Weissenburger's technique in a beam example, and shows
that experimental modal analysis data can be used as inputs. Hallquist
and F e n g 52 have expanded Weissenburger's technique, obtaining a set of
nonlinear equations to be solved for unknown amounts of rank-one
modification matrices, that is, solve for the e^'s of Equation (3.35),
which will cause the modified system to have specified frequencies.
3.3.4 Specification by Receptance Methods
28
Wang, Palazzolo, and Pilkey present a technique for using
receptance methods with rank-one modification matrices to specify
desired frequencies. A set of linear equations equal in number to the
number of unknown scale parameters (one for each rank-one matrix) are to
be solved for the needed change. Their method includes static
deflection terms which help account for the higher modes that were
neglected.
24
3.3.5 Pole Placement
The controls literature has addressed the specification problem
from a different point of view51-5*. To illustrate this, the second
order formulation for the eigenvalue problem is recast in first order
form. Equation (3.1), with viscous damping included, can be written
MS + Cx + Kx = F (3.44)
Let
P = x (3.45)
then
M* 4 + K* q = F* (3.46)
where
q. = (3.47)
F* = M (3.48)
M* = [M O'] (3.49)
[0 -Kj
K*
!*
=
■ M
fC Kl (3.50)
If M is positive definite, then let
A = (3.51)
B = M*-1 (3.52)
so that
25
q = A q + B F* (3.53)
which is the standard open-loop state variable form. Modifying the
system then amounts to feeding back the state variable, q, so let
F* = D q (3.54)
where D contains the unknown modifications which are to be made to
specify the poles of the system. Then
q = [A + BD] q (3.55)
and the goal is to find D such that the new system matrix [A + BD] has
the desired eigenvalues. P o r t e r 57, Won h a m 5 4 , M o o r e 55, Shaw5 *,
Srinathkumar53, and others have addressed this problem. Their
techniques, however, do not provide sufficient control over the types of
D matrices that result, so that it is not clear, in a mechanical
context, how to proceed once D is known. That is, it may be easier to
construct electronic control schemes that produce the necessary D matrix
than to fabricate the required mechanical parts.
3.3.6 Specification by Optimal Design Techniques
The specification techniques presented in this chapter have one
common characteristic. They all attempt to find the amounts and types
of changes that will force one or more natural frequencies to be at
given values. This is often unnecessarily restrictive, since typically
the designer is more concerned that the natural frequencies are not in a
given range than in specifying what values they should take on.
Likewise, it is unnecessarily costly to force the design to have a given
26
mode shape, when a similar mode shape might be acceptable and require
less structural change. It will be useful, then, to develop less
restrictive methods. Structural optimization techniques have been
developed which are a step in this direction.
Optimal structural design techniques efficiently search the set of
feasible designs for the one that best meets a previously defined
objective, usually minimum weight or cost. The designs are all
characterized in terms of a set of design variables, which may be
continuous functions of spacial coordinates, such as the cross-sectional
area of a beam, or lumped scalar parameters. Feasible designs are those
which satisfy geometric constraints, that is they do not exceed size
limitations or violate shape restrictions, and also satisfy behavioral
constraints, such as restrictions on static deflection, stresses,
strains, fatigue life, natural frequencies, mode shapes, or dynamic
response. Such behavioral constraints typically add a significant
computational burden to the minimization routines since the functional
relationship between the design variables and the structural behavior is
complicated.
The fundamentals of optimization are reviewed by Hoe59, and the
optimal structural design literature is reviewed by Wasiutynski and
Brandt*0 , Sheu and Prager*1, and Venkayyal**. Pierson6*, R a o 64, and
Olhoff65 view the structural optimization literature which specifically
addresses dynamically constrained problems. Hundreds of papers are
cited in these review articles which cover the period from 1637 to 1978.
A good text on this subject is Applied Optimal Design by Haug and
Arora6 * .
•V
27
Optimal structural design techniques can be classified according to
the math model used to relate the design variables to the objective.
When the structure is represented by a continuous model, usually in the
form of partial differential equations, variational calculus may be used
to generate optimality criterion, in the form of ordinary differential
equations, which must be met for the design to be optimal. The
continuous functions which solve the ordinary differential equations
define the optimal design. This approach is useful for obtaining
qualitative insight into the design problem at hand, but the mathematics
become unmanageable for all but simple structures such as beams, plates,
and shells. When the structure is represented by a lumped parameter
model, iterative mathematical programing techniques can be applied to
arrive at a nearly optimal solution for complicated structures. These
discrete techniques with natural frequency constraints are of primary
interest here.
The majority of the research in frequency constrained optimization
of lumped parameter structural models applies equality or inequality
constraints on the fundamental frequency of the structure. See, for
example, Sheu67, Rub i n 6*, de Silva6*, and Romstad7 0 . Fox and Kapoor71,
de Silva72, and Lin, Che, and Y u 73, present techniques for constraining
several frequencies, or linear combinations of frequencies. The primary
computational burden in these techniques is the repeated solution of an
eigenvalue problem which relates the design variables to the natural
frequencies and/or mode shapes which are constrained.
The techniques which allow inequality constraints on natural
frequencies allow more flexibility of design than those which force
28
equality constraints. However, the method presented in the following
chapters allows much more interactive control of the cost/benefit
trade-offs in design, and is computationally less burdensome.
CHAPTER IV
FREQUENCY SPECIFICATION BY
PENALTY FUNCTIONS
Engineers are often more concerned with specifying that natural
frequencies are not in given ranges than in specifying what values they
should take on, and the boundaries of these undesirable ranges for
natural frequencies are rarely strictly defined. Thus, a variety of
compromises may be used to attain a desirable system. In this
situation, the traditional methods for specifying dynamic
characteristics presented in Section 3.3 can be unnecessarily
restrictive because they seek structural changes that will force natural
frequencies and/or mode shapes to take on particular values.
This chapter presents new techniques for determining the amounts of
several proposed changes which will best remove unwanted natural
frequencies from critical frequency bands. The procedure is less
restrictive than the methods of Chapter 3, which force the designer to
choose new frequencies and/or mode shapes. A specific example
illustrating the procedure is presented in Chapter 5.
29
30
4.1 PENALTY FUNCTIONS
The procedure seeks to minimize a penalty function which becomes
smaller as the design improves. The penalty function, P(<o,e), is of the
form
P(«o,e) = H( F(w) , S(e) ) (4.1)
where u is an (m z 1) vector of natural frequencies of the modified
system, F(o>) is a penalty which is large when natural frequencies are in
undesirable ranges, e is an (s z 1) vector of design variables, and S(e)
is a size-of-change penalty which becomes large when design changes
begin to ezceed prescribed limits. H is a function which combines the
effects of the two penalties. The goal is to find the design, as
described by the vector e, which minimizes the penalty function P(,e).
More traditional optimization methods seek to minimize an objective
function, such as weight or cost, subject to geometric and/or behavioral
constraints, such as natural frequencies, on the design. In contrast to
the traditional optimization problem, the procedure here places the
natural frequency and size constraints in the role of the objective
function. In this way, strict inequality constraints on geometry and
behavior can be replaced by smooth, continuous functions - a more
accurate representation of the trade-offs in many design problems.
4.1.1 Characteristics of the Frequency Content Penalty Function
Every structure has characteristic frequencies, and changes to the
system alter these frequencies. These changes can range from the simple
modification of stiffness or mass affecting only one location on the
31
structure, that is, one degree-of-freedom of the mathematical model, to
a complicated change affecting mass and stiffness at many locations.
The frequency content penalty function, F(u), assigns a value of
penalty to each natural frequency of the system. Natural frequencies
which lie in undesirable frequency bands are assigned penalties, those
outside the undesirable bands are assigned no penalty. The penalty
associated with a given design, then, is a combination of the penalties
assigned to each natural frequency of the system.
Figure 4.1 shows a frequency content penalty function which has
several desirable attributes. First, it penalizes natural frequencies
near the center of the undesirable band more than those near the edges,
since presumably the center of the band is the most critical frequency,
possibly an expected excitation frequency for the system. Consequently,
as natural frequencies move away from the most critical frequency at the
center of the band, the penalty is reduced, indicating an improved
design. A natural frequency which is removed from the undesirable band
contributes no penalty.
In addition to assigning larger penalties to natural frequencies in
the center of the undesirable band, the penalty function shown in Figure
4.1 provides diminishing gains as the boundaries are approached. As a
natural frequency moves closer to the boundaries, it gains less
improvement in the total penalty for that design. Since it may require
an increasingly costly design change to move the natural frequency,
eventually the increase in cost associated with moving the natural
frequency further will not be justified by the corresponding improvement
in the spectrum. This diminishing-returns aspect of the penalty
32
Undesirable
Band
Figure 4.1 Typical Frequency-Content Penalty Function
:V
33
function quantifies the cost/benefit trade-offs of a design.
The analogous penalty function implied by traditional constrained
optimization is shown in Figure 4.2 for comparison. It implies that no
frequencies within the undesirable band are acceptable at any cost, when
in fact, ones close to the boundaries may be a cost-affective design
alternative.
4.1.2 Characteristics of the Size-of-Change Penalty Function
Traditional optimal design techniques allow equality or inequality
constraints on design variables in addition to those on natural
frequencies. However, the dividing line between acceptable design
variables and unacceptable ones is usually not distinct. Thus, in
addition to the frequency content penalty function, a penalty function
for undesirable values of design variables is included in this
procedure.
As with the frequency content penalty function, the size-of-change
penalty function should have certain characteristics which are
illustrated in Figure 4.3. Its shape should reflect the relative
desirability of all values that the design variable can take on. That
is, the most desirable values of each design variable should be assigned
a small penalty, and less desirable values should be assigned larger
penalties.
Since the most economical change to make is no change at all, it is
reasonable that the size-of-change penalty function be zero when the
design variables are zero. Also, there are usually upper and lower
limits beyond which the design variables should contribute large
34
F(w)
Undesirable
Band
Figure 4. 2 Analogous Frequency-Content Penalty

Function for Traditional Unconstrained
Optimization
t; ■»
35
S(e)
Figure 4.3 Typical Size-of-Change Penalty Function
36
penalties. Beyond these limits the penalty function should he large.
4.1.3 Characteristics of the Total Penalty Function
Of all the possible combinations of the design variables, some will
be more affective in moving the natural frequencies out of the
undesirable ranges, and some will minimize the size-of-change penalty
function. But in general, a set of design changes which minimizes the
frequency content penalty alone will not also minimize the
size-of-change penalty. Thus, the total penalty for a given set of
design changes is a combination of the frequency content penalty and the
size-of-change penalty.
As the minimization of the total penalty takes place, values of the
design variables, e^, are changed. Trends which have favorable effects
on the frequencies of the system will continue, until either the
frequencies are removed from the undesirable bands, or the design
variables begin to contribute a significant size-of-change penalty by
violating the prescribed limits. Generally, a design point will be
reached such that changing the design variables further will add more to
the total penalty by the size-of-change penalty than will be gained frcm
the frequency content penalty. This set of design variables is a
compromise between what the designer has defined as the cost of the
modification and the benefit that can be achieved in the natural
frequency content of the system.
37
4.2 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PENALTY FUNCTIONS
The features of the penalty functions described in Section 4.1 can
be described mathematically. A general class of functions that meet the
requirements set forth will be presented here, along with a discussion
of the numbers and types of solutions that can be expected from these
functions.
4.2.1 A Class of Desirable Frequency-Content Penalty-Functions
A desirable frequency-content penalty-function was shown in Figure
4.1. It has the following characteristics:
(1) F(<o) = 0 (i>1 a and o> 2 b (4.2)
(2) dF/db)(b>) continuous for all (4.3)
(3) dF/dco((i>) = 0 only at (o = (a, ST, and b) (4.4)
(4) 8 3F/8w*(w) < 0 (4.5)
(5) d aF/8<i)*(<o) monotonically increasing on (u 1 u 1 b) (4.6)
monotonically decreasing on (a i w i <3)
where a and b axe the lower and upper limits of the undesirable band
respectively, and 3 is the extreme point of the penalty function,
possibly an expected excitation frequency. Condition (1) assures that
frequencies outside the undesirable band will not be assigned a penalty.
Condition (2) is necessary for the numerical solution process that will
38
be applied, but places no great limitation on tbe class of useful
functions from an engineering point of view. Conditions (3) and (4)
combine to force tbe function to bave one extreme point in tbe
undesirable range, and tbat extreme point is a maximum. Condition (5)
eliminates penalty functions sucb as tbat sbovn in Figure 4.4 wbicb can
produce unwanted local minimums of P(<o,e), as will be explained later.
4.2.2 A Class of Desirable Size-of-Cbange Penalty Functions
A size-of-cbange penalty, sucb as tbat sbown in Figure 4.3, is
assigned to eacb design variable. A class of sucb functions is
described by:
(1) SÔ) = 0 (4.7)
(2) a s . / a e i (o) = 0 (4.8)
( 3) a ^ /a e ? > o (4.9)
(4) dS^/de^ continuous for all ej (4.10)
Condition (1) is imposed so tbat zero penalty will be assigned to a
design change of zero, tbe most desirable of all changes. Conditions
(2) and (3) combine to assure tbat S^(e^) will have only one minimum,
occuring at e^ = 0, and tbat the function will become large for large
negative or positive e^'s. Slope continuity condition (4) is imposed,
as with tbe frequency-content penalty, to expedite tbe solution
procedure.
39
Undesirable
Band
a to b
Figure 4.4 Frequency-Content Penalty Function That

May Introduce Several Local Minimums
40
4.2.3 The Total Penalty Function
The total penalty function is a combination of the size-of-change
penalty function and the frequency-content penalty function as indicated
in Equation (4.1). A useful form for the function H is linear
combination, that is,
(4.11)
where S^(ej) assigns penalties to each of the s design variables, F-^m)
assigns penalties to each natural frequency in the i ^ of t undesirable
frequency bands, and is a factor which not only weights the
importance of each frequency band relative to the others, but also
weights the frequency penalty with respect to the size-of-change
penalty.
4.2.4 The u(e) Function
Before the penalty function. Equation (4.2), can be minimized, a
relationship between u, the (mxl) vector of new natural frequencies, and
e, the (szl) vector of design variables, must be established. Two
possible alternatives are: (1) a Taylor series expansion of <i)(e) about
e = 0, the initial design, such as
(4.12)
where (o-0 is the j**1 original frequency, and u, is the j**1 new
J J
frequency, or (2) a reduced eigenvalue problem of the form
(4.13)
41
where U is the (nxm) matrix of original eigenvectors, AK- and AMj are
(nxn) stiffness and mass matrices respectively of the changes, H is the
diagonal (mxm) matrix of modal masses, and K is the diagonal (mxm)
matrix with j**1 diagonal entry the product of the j**1 modal mass and the
j**1 original eigenvalue (See Section 3.2.3.). Recall that m is the
number of modes included in the model of the original system, n is the
number of degrees of freedom in the system model, and that m can be less
than n.
Thus, having a relationship (e), Equation (4.11) can be written
P(e) = ^ S i (ei) + ^ A iF i («»(e)) (4.14)
4.3 MINIMIZATION OF THE PENALTY FUNCTION
Minimization of Equation (4.14) requires the solution of the
equations that result from application of the necessary conditions,
namely that
3P/aek = 0 k = 1,...,s (4.15)
That is,
3Sk /3ek + ^ A i O F j / a a O O w / d e v ) = 0 k = l,...,s (4.16)
In general, these are s nonlinear equations in s unknowns, which can
have more than one solution. The solutions of these equations yield the
extreme points of Equation (4.14), that is, minimums, maximums, and
inflection points. The sufficient conditions must be applied to each
solution of Equations (4.16) to determine which are minimums. For a
42
solution to Equation (4.16) to be a minimum, the matrix of second
derivatives, D, with ij4*1 entry
= a^/dejaej
(4.17)
must be positive definite.
Since the total penalty function is nonlinear, analytical solutions
to Equation (4.16) are very difficult to obtain. Thus, numerical
minimization algorithms are used to locate minimums of Equation (4.14).
Using numerical techniques offers the advantage of solving this
problem for a vide variety of functions, but one can only be assured of
finding local minimums. Consequently, the questions of existence of
minimums and number of minimums arises, typically, when there is more
than one minimum, the minimum which is found numerically is a function
of the starting values for the independent variables, e^.
4.3.1 Existence of a Minimum
For the class of penalty functions defined in Section 4.2, positive
second derivatives of the size-of-change penalty and boundedness of the
frequency penalties assure the existence of at least one minimum for the
total penalty function. Arguments supporting this claim follow.
Assume that the penalty function is of the form given in Equation
(4.11), with the restrictions on S^(e^) and F-^ta) given in Section 4.2.
Select a set of design variables, e, such that llell is large, where ||*||
is a vector norm. For any e such that llell > Hell, there exists a scalar
S so that
43
> S (4,18)
and since F ^ w ) 1 0 for all e, then
P(e) > S (4.19)
for all Hell > lie'll.But for e = 0, we have
P(0) = ÂjFô)) (4.20)
or
P(0) 1 5 j W i . « . x , F„„ (4.21)
where p £ >max is the largest penalty assigned to any frequency in the i**1
band, m^ is the number of frequencies in the i ^ band, and is the
scale factor for the i ^ band.
By choosing "e such that
S > Ffflax (4.22)
then since P is a continuous function of e, there must exist an e0
within the sphere defined by Ile|| so that
P(e) 1 P ( e 0) for llell < llell (4.23)
That is, there must be a minimum in the sphere of e's defined by llell.
This guarantees the existence of a minimum within this sphere.
Furthermore, the global minimum to the function must also be within this
sphere, since for llell > llell, the size-of-change penalty increases
monotonically.
44
4.3.2 Uniqueness of Minimums - One Undesirable Frequency
Having established the existence of at least one minimum to the
general penalty function, it is desirable to investigate the uniqueness
of this minimum. Consider first the case of one undesirable frequency
band containing one natural frequency, with s design variables. Then
the penalty function becomes
p (e) = ^ Ssi (ei> + A F ( « ( e > > (4.24)
and the necessary conditions for a minimum are
ap /3ek = d S k / d e k + A ( d F / d u ) (8<a/dek ) = 0 , k = l,...,s (4.25)
From these s nonlinear equations, ve seek a one-to-one relationship
among the e's, taking advantage of the monotonicity of the 3Sk /3ek
functions.
Assume at this point that w(e) can be satisfactorily approximated
by the linear Taylor series relationship. If the change ev affects u,

<
then d ( o / d e k A 0 , thus
- O S k /aek )/(au)/9ek ) = A(3F/3(o) k = l,...,s (4.26)
Since the right side of Equation (4.26) is the same for all s equations
in the set, it follows that
(3Sk /aek ) / O u / a e k ) = OSj/flej) / O m / a e j ) (4.27)
for any pair ej and ek at a minimum. Given ej at a minimum, this
defines exactly one dS-/de* since this function is monotonically

J «J
increasing. But dSk /dek * s also monotonically increasing, and therefore
has only one ek which satisfies Equation (4.27). Thus, when the
eigenvalue derivatives are non-zero, there is a one-to-one map between
and ek , k = l,...,s at a minimum.
But note that when 0m/de^ is zero, then Equation (4.16) reduces to
0 S^/0 6^ “ 0 (4.28)
which requires ek = 0, since by definition the Sk function only becomes
zero when ek = 0.
Given the value for ej at a minimum, all other design variables are
uniquely defined by a one-to-one function, say
ek = Gj. (ej ) k = 1 (4.29)
With this relationship, the set of Equations (4.25) can be written
0Sj/06j + A (0F/0O)) (0(l>/06j ) 0 (4.30a)
(4.30b)
where Equation (4.30a) is a function of e* only. Then the number of

J
solutions possible for Equations (4.25) will be the same as for Equation
(4.30a).
To investigate the number of solutions that are possible in
Equation (4.30a), we need to investigate the nature of the Gj. functions.
The functions Gk are monotonic since the first derivatives of Sk are.
The Taylor series can now be written
u(ej) = ii)0 + O(o/06j)ej + ^ (0a>/0ej)Gj(ej) (4.31)
where u is a function of ej only. Note that each Gk function can be
46
either monotonically increasing or decreasing, depending on whether
du/de^ and dm/dej have the same or differing signs. But clearly all the
individual products ( d u / d e ^ G ^ are like-signed. In other words, since
there is only one frequency in the band, all the e's will move in the
direction that moves <■> down-hill on the frequency penalty curve. Thus,
co(e>) is a monotonic function.

J
Equation (4.31) represents a coordinate transformation for the
frequency-content penalty function. When the functions are linear,
that is, e^. = afcej» where a^ is a scalar, then Equation (4.31) is a
linear coordinate transformation which preserves the essential shape of
the frequency penalty function.
Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate the solution of Equation (4.30a) as
indicated by the intersection points. The figures show that since dS/de
is monotonically increasing, it can intersect A(dF/d<j>) (dm/de•) in at

J
most three places, and must intersect in at least one place. By
considering the second derivatives (sufficiency conditions), it is clear
that there must be at most two and at least one minimum. Given the one
or possibly two values of e- which satisfy (4.30a) as minimums, all

J
other ej. are defined uniquely b y Equation (4.30b). Note also that the
two curves in these Figures can have two solutions by intersecting in
one place and being tangent in another, in which case the intersection
is a minimum, and the tangent point is an inflection point.
When the G^ are nonlinear functions, then A(0F/0u)(du/dej) can be
non-convez on the intervals (a,u>) and ((o,b). This can allow more than
two minimums to occur, since the functions shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6
would not then be limited to three intersection points. This same
47
3F
minimum
e
minimum
Figure 4.5 Example Penalty Functions For One Undesirable

Frequency and One Design Variable Showing
One Minimum
48
3P
de
as
de
3 aP
3e*
minimum
Figure 4 . 6 Example Penalty Functions For One Undesirable

Frequency And One Design Variable Showing
Two Minimums
49
reasoning lead to Condition (5) in Section 4.2.1.
4.3.3 Uniqueness of Minimums - More Than One Undesirable Frequency
Thus far, it has been established that regardless of the number of
design variables, when only one undesirable frequency exists, w hen the
relationship between the j**1 design change and the undesirable frequency
is linear, and when the Taylor series is a reasonable approximation,
there are at most two and at least one minimum. The uniqueness question
is more complex when more frequencies are in the undesirable band, when
more undesirable bands are included, and when the functions are
nonlinear.
Consider, for example, a case in which one undesirable band
contains two frequencies. Suppose that there is only one design
variable, and the Taylor series is again used to relate frequencies to
design variables. Then the necessary condition requires that
0S/3e + OF/a( o1) O u 1/ a e ) + (aF/acoJOi^/ae) = 0 (4.32)
Figure 4.7 shows that there could be up to five solutions to this
equation. Depending on the size and sign of derivatives, original
location of the frequencies in the band, limits of the band, and
relative steepness of the size-of-change curve, it is possible to have
one, two, or three minimums for this class of problem.
Clearly, when more frequencies are included within undesirable
bands, more minimums become possible. This allows the designer to
explore several alternatives, each a local 'best' design, to determine
which of these is the most desirable overall.
50
0P
de
minimum
minimum
Figure 4.7 Example Penalty Functions For Two Undesirable

Frequencies And One Design Variable Showing
Three Minimums
51
4.3.4 Sensitivity of Solutions to A^
The scaling parameter, Aj, was included in E q u a t i o n (4.2) to weight
frequency hands with respect to each other, and to scale the frequency
penalty with respect to the size-of-change penalty. T h i s parameter is,
to an extent, arbitrary, and therefore its effects o n the number and
types of solutions should be investigated.
To consider the effects of A^ on the solutions, it is instructive
to consider the penalty functions that result from allowing A^ to be
extremely large or extremely small. From Equation (4.16), as the Aj
approach 0 for all i.
ask/9®k = 0 k = 1 (4.33)
which, because of the conditions in Section 4.2.2, has the unique
solution
k l,«.«,s (4.34)
Clearly, when no frequency penalty is included, no m o t i v a t i o n exists to
drive design variables up the cost curves. However, as the A^ increase,
the design variables move in the directions which are beneficial to the
frequency penalty.
To investigate the nature of the solutions as the A ^ becomes very
large, consider the case where only undesirable b a n d exists. Then,
Equation (4.16) becomes
^ (dF/aufHattj/set) = o k = i s (4.35)
MeQ l i t
where
52
Q = {i I a i o>£ ibj (4.36)
Assume the set Q contains then Equations (4.35) can be
written
E f 0 (4.37)
where E is the (mxm) matrix with i j ^ entry
3o)j/8ej (4.38)
and f is'the (mxl) vector with i**1 entry
fj = dF/du>i (4.39)
Clearly, all vectors f in the null space of E define possible
solutions to Equations (4.35). When E is non-singular. Equation (4.35)
has the solution
3F/9<0j = 0 i = 1 m (4.40)
which, due to the class of functions F defined in Section 4.2.1. is true
only when
(4.41)
where <o = to represents a maximum. Thus, when A is very large, the
frequencies either leave the undesirable bands, or stay at u, the
unlikely situation given a minimization algorithm that can discern the
difference between a maximum and a minimum.
As will become evident in Chapter 5, the penalty function procedure
is useful for finding the most affective of a group of design variables.
53
Variables which progress the furthest up the size-of-chauge penalties
can only do so by making strong reductions in the frequency penalty, and
are thereby defined as affective. An important question, then, is
whether the choice of the scale parameter A can alter the group found to
be most affective. In other words, is it possible that there is a
minimum with ej > e^ for A = A x , and ej < ej for A a £ A a .
For the class of problems discussed in Section 4.3.2, that is,
those having one undesirable frequency. Equation (4.27) indicates that
at the minimum, the ratio of slopes on the size-of-change curves must
equal the ratio of the frequency derivatives for those design variables.
Conditions that will guarantee a unique ordering of ek and ej at a
mnimum are
l « S k /aek )/(3(i>/3ek ) | 1 |O S j / S e j )/ O w / S e j ) I (4.42)
or
|(3Sk /3fck )/(3m/3ek )i 1 I(3Sj /3ej )/(3u/3ej )I (4.43)
Figure 4.8 shows two functions which satisfy these conditions, and
Figure 4.9 shows two which do not. Note in Figure 4.9, that when e- <
J
♦ 4
e , then ek > ej, but when ej > e , then ej > ek . Thus, any change in
scale parameter A which moves an e- solution from below e* to above it,

J
will reorder the size of ej and ek . Functions shown in Figure 4.8
preserve the order independent of e-.

•I
The example problem which follows in Chapter 5 illustrates the
points discussed in this chapter, and shows the power and flexibility of
the penalty function procedure.
>v
54
as
ae as
Figure 4.8 Two Size-of-Change Penalty Functions Which

Preserve The Ordering Of ej and Independent
Of Scale Parameter A
55
as
as
de^
Figure 4.9 Two Size-of-Change Penalty Functions Which Do

Not Preserve The Ordering Of ej and e^
Independent Of Scale Parameter A
CHAPTER V
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
Procedures presented in Chapter 4 allow the engineer to find
reasonable des i g n changes which remove natural frequencies from
undesirable frequency bands in a cost-affective way, using a penalty
function which becomes smaller as the design improves. As an example,
these techniques are applied here to the design of an engine mounting
system which will remove natural frequencies of the engine/mount elastic
system from the idle speed frequency range.
5.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION
Engines are typically connected to the structure of an automobile
by rubber mounts which limit the transmission of engine vibrations to
the rest of the automobile and the passengers. The rubber mounts have
nonlinear stiffness as well as viscosity and structural damping, but for
this example problem, they will be modeled as linear elastic elements.
This is a reasonable exercise since the amplitudes under consideration
are small and since small amounts of dissipation have little affect on
natural frequencies.
Research conducted at Michigan State University delt with the
design of engine mounting systems to reduce the dynamic response of the
56
•V
57
vehicle due to forces transmitted through the m o u n t s 7* ' 77. In one phase
of the research, a rigid body model of the engine mounted in elastic
mounts tied to ground was developed7*. An interactive software package,
ENGSIM, was developed for this simulation which, for given engine
inertias and mount parameters, predicts engine natural frequencies, mode
shapes, and other characteristics of concern to engine mount designers.
This software was used in this example problem to obtain mass and
stiffness matrices for given mounting systems, and also to solve the
associated eigenvalue problem.
Figure 5.1, generated by the ENGS I M p r o g r a m 7*, shows a diagram of
this engine. The goal is to find the engine mount configuration,
subject to design limitations, that will remove the natural frequencies
of the engine/mount system from the frequency range that corresponds to
engine idle speed, which we will assume to be 675 rpm, or 11.25 Hz.
Variations in mount stiffness, orientation, and attachment location will
be studied.
5.2 INITIAL DESIGN CONFIGURATION
Natural frequencies, mode shapes, and modal masses of the original
system are required inputs for the redesign techniques presented in
Chapter 4. For thas example, global (6x6) mass and stiffness matrices
can be obtained given engine inertias, mount stiffnesses, mount
attachment locations, and mount orientations. The solution of the
resulting (6x6) eigenvalue problem gives the modal parameters needed to
define the dynamics of the original system.
58
Figure 5.1 Engine Mounted On Elastic Mounts
59
Since the global stiffness matrix can be obtained as a function of
the mount parameters, the effect of altered mount parameters on global
stiffness can be obtained using finite difference techniques.
5.2.1 Engine Configuration
The engine is assumed to be a rigid lumped mass with three
translational and three rotational degrees of freedom. Since its
inertial properties, which arepresented in Table 5.1, are not to be
subject to change, the mass matrix of the system will not be affected by
design changes. The engine is mounted to a fixed frame by four mounts
attached near the lower four corners of the engine.
5.2.2 Mount Configuration
Each engine mount is assumed to be a linear-elastic spring with
independent stiffnesses in three directions: axial stiffness along the
axis of the mount, and lateral and fore/aft stiffness perpendicular to
the axis of the mount as shown in Figure 5.2. The mounts are fastened
near the lower four corners of the engine and oriented as defined by
three rotation angles: 0 X about the 1-axis, © y about the T-axis, and 0 Z
about the Z-axis. To define the orientation of a mount, begin with the
mount axis shown in Figure 5.2 alligned with theengine body-fixed
coordinates X, Y, and Z. This corresponds to 0_

x. = 0_
y
= 0_
&
= 0.0. Then
rotate the mount first about X, then Y, then Z.
fore/aft
Mount
lateral
x»
axial
Figure 5.2 Engine Mounts Used In The Example Problem
61
TABLE 5.1 Engine Inertial Properties

7•
Mass (Eg) Rotational inertias (N-M-S2 )

*xx *yy Izz Ixy *xz *yz
276.7 15.8 11.64 IS.69 0.8 0.9 3.2
TABLE 5.2 Initial Mount D a t a 7*
Mount
1 2 3 4
Location x -.2246 .3614 -.1946 .2934

With Resp. y -.3093 -.2823 .1407 .1667
To CG (M) z -.1990 -.2510 -.2290 -.2450
Orient. ©x 0 0 0 0
Angle ©y -45 -39 -75 -45
(degrees) ©z 0 180 0 180
Stiffness Axial 223667 170167 217167 232167

(N/M) Lateral 44733 126050 434334 464334
Fore/Aft 44733 48619 108583 116083
TABLE 5.3 Original Natural Frequencies and Mode Shapes

Normalized so that UplU^ = 1 . 0 7*
Mode
1 2 3 4 5 6
Natural
Frequencies 4.47 5.97 7.48 9.87 12.26 16.4<
(Hz)
.012 .052 -.008 -.021 .014 .003

Mode -.046 .014 .003 -.004 -.021 .029
Shapes .004 .006 .059 -.001 .005 .001
Normalized .152 -.028 -.001 -.031 -.111 .164
u Tm d , = 1 .025 .125 .001 .228 -.129 -.080
.003 .025 .014 .089 .181 .162
5.2.3 The Initial Design
The initial design for the engine and mounts consists of the
inertias shown in Table 5.1, and the set of mounts described in Table
5.2. From these, the ENGSIM program assembles the (6x6) eigenvalue
problem.
(K - w? M) U A = 0 (5.1)
where K and H are the stiffness and mass matrices respectively, <t>£ is
the i**1 natural frequency of the system, and is the associated mode
shape (See the Appendix for details of how K and M are assembled.).
ENGSIM solves for the natural frequencies and mode shapes shown in Table
5.3. Here the mode shapes are scaled so that
1 (5.2)
5.2.4 Modeling Design Changes
The design changes in this example are changes in mount
stiffnesses, mount orientations, and mount attachment locations on the
engine block. Assume that the new stiffness matrix, K, for the system
can be written
(5.3)
where e^ is the unknown amount of the i ^ change, AKj is the stiffness
model for the i^ change, and K0 is the stiffness matrix for the
original mount configuration.
63
The AE. may be computed using finite difference techniques. For
example, suppose the i^ design change is a 10% decrease in the axial
stiffness of mount 1. Then the equations in Appendix A would be used
with the original mount data for all the mounts except mount 1, whose
axial stiffness would be decreased by 10%. These equations would define
a stiffness matrix, Ej, which includes the altered mount. Then the AEj
associated with this change is
AKj = - E0 (5.4)
Stiffness matrices for the other changes are found in a similar way.
Thus, when a solution for the e^ is reached, say ej = 2.5, this
indicates that the needed i**1 change must be 2.5 times that chosen for
the calculation of AE^. Continuing our example of mount 1, = 2.5
would indicate that the mount should be softened axially by 25%.
5.3 PENALTY FUNCTIONS
The characteristics of the penalty functions described in Chapter 4
can be captured in simple mathematical functions which can be minimized
by available computer software71. Recall that the immediate goal of
this technique is to minimize a penalty function, P(e), of the form of
Equation (4.14), which contains functions penalizing undesirable
frequencies and functions penalizing undesirable design changes.
5.3.1 The Frequency-Content Penalty Function
The shape of the frequency-content penalty function was discussed
in detail in Chapter 4, where it was noted that the function should
64
penalize frequencies near the middle of each undesirable band the most,
should have continuous first derivatives for numerical stability, and
should provide diminishing benefit as the boundaries of each undesirable
frequency band are approached. For this engine mount problem, there is
only one undesirable band. A function which satisfies these conditions
is
F(<d ) = ^ ("l-cos[2n(«i-a)/(b-a)]l (5.5)

îeQL 1 J
where
Q = ti I a 4 wj i b) i = l,...,m (5.6)
where a and b are the lower and upper bounds of the undesirable
frequency range respectively, m is the number of modes in the math

i.1.
model, and is the i new natural frequency of the modified system.
Observe that when two or more frequencies are within the
undesirable range, it is possible for one or more of them to climb,
apparently uphill, and cross over the peak of the penalty function.
This is true not only for the function shown in Equation (5.5), but for
the general frequency content function as well. Natural frequencies on
one side of the critical excitation frequency could pass through it to
the other side when a combination of changes is found which gains more
benefit from moving some frequencies away from the center of the band
than is lost by moving others toward the center. Consider, for example,
a change which moves <o2 , u>,, and o>4 to the left in Figure 5.3. The
reduction in penalty associated with moving u 2 and u 3 could offset the
increase in penalty associated with moving <o4 , which would actually move
65
F(w)
Undesirable
Band
Figure 5.3 Frequency-Content Penalty F u n ction Used in the

Example Problem
66
toward the center of the undesirable band, and eventually to the lower
limit a. Thus, changes which very strongly improve some natnral
frequencies are not prevented from doing so if the overall design
improves.
5.3.2 The (e) Relationship
As discussed in Section 4.2.4, natnral frequencies must be related
to design variables so that the total penalty function will be a
function of e only. Section 4.2.4 presented the Taylor series and the
reduced eigenvalue problem as two possible relationships. The Taylor
series will be used here so that
“ i = “ io + ej (5.7)
J
i.1
where to* and ti>£0 are the new and original i frequencies respectively,
and 9(i)?/3ej is the rate of change of the i**1 frequency with respect to
the j**1 design variable. This derivative can be computed using the
methods of Fox and Kapoor®0 as
3<4/0e . = (uTAKjU^/CuTMUi) (5.8)
It is interesting to note that if experimental modal data is used
for b>£, V^, and UjMU^, then there are alternative ways to obtain the
eigenvalue derivatives. It may be desirable to test the original
structure for its new spectrum wh e n each unit-sized design change is
imposed. From such tests, which need to measure only new natural
frequencies and not eigenvectors, the eigenvalue derivatives can be
approximated from
67
3a>£/3ej a (o>? - <o?0 )/ej i = j = 1 s (5.9)
where e- is the size assigned to the specific modification used in the

•I
test. The final solution will find the combination of such changes that
best removes the unwanted natural frequencies. On the other hand, if
the change itself can be modeled, this will be sufficient for the
purposes of Equation (5.8).
5.3.3 The Size-of-Change Penalty Function
Desirable characteristics for the size-of-change penalty function
were also described in Chapter 4. It was noted that the function should
have continuous first derivatives for numerical stability, and its shape
should conform to the conditions set forth in Section 4.2.2, The
size-of-change penalties used in this example problem are quadratic,
that is
S(e) (5.10)
Note that since all S-ê^) functions are the same, the parameter A
discussed in Section 4.3.4 will not influence the relative strengths of
the design variables which minimize the total penalty when one frequency
lies in the penalty band.
5.3.4 The Total Penalty Function
The total penalty associated with a given design can be represented
as a weighted sum of the individual penalties for frequency content and
size-of-change, as indicated in Equation (4.24). The total penalty
function used in this example is
68
P(e) = S(e) + A F(co(e)) (5.11)
where F(o>(e)) is defined in Equations (5.5) through (5.9), and S(e) is
defined in Equation (5.10). The relative importance of the
size-of-change constraints versus the frequency-content constraints are
scaled by the constant A as discussed in Section 4.3.4.
5.4 PENALTY FUNCTION PROCEDURE
For this example problem, the effects of mount stiffness,
orientation, and attachment location are studied, first separately, then
combined. In each of the studies, an optimal design is sought according
to the following procedure:
1. Obtain the dynamic characteristics of the original system in

the form of natural frequencies, mode shape vectors, and modal
masses.
2. Generate lumped parameter models for the proposed design

changes in the form of (6x6) AK^ matrices as discussed in
Section 5.2.4.
3. Calculate eigenvalue derivatives using Equation (5.8). Use the

Taylor series relationship, Equation (5.7), for w(e).
4. Input the scaling parameter, A, frequency band limits, and

starting values for the design variables.
5. Minimize the total penalty function, P(e), as defined by

Equation (5.11).
6. Check the accuracy of the Taylor series approximation by making

the called-for changes in the mounts, and re-solving the
eigenvalue problem (Equation (5.1)).
69
5.5 MOUNT STIFFNESS STUDY
For this part of the example, the set of new mount stiffnesses is
sought such that no frequencies are near 11,25 Hz, which corresponds to
675 rpm. The lower and upper limits of the undesirable range were set
at 7.75 and 15.25 Hz respectively to assure that frequencies will move
well away from the expected idle speed of 675 rpm. Note that the
expected excitation frequency is below the midpoint of the limits set
for the undesirable band. This will tend to keep frequencies that are
above idle speeds, which must be passed through during engine speed-up,
well out of the undesirable range.
5.5.1 Definition of Mount Stiffness Design Variables
Each mount is characterized by three orthogonal stiffness values,
giving 12 total stiffness values for the four mounts. For this example,
however, we assume that the ratio of axial stiffness to lateral
stiffness, and axial stiffness to fore/aft stiffness remains constant
for each mount, so that one design variable controls the three
stiffnesses of each mount. Thus, a 10% decrease in mount stiffness
causes the axial, lateral, and fore/aft stiffnesses of that mount to
decrease by 10%.
The design variables used in the example are 10% reductions in each
mount stiffness, so that the new mount stiffness for each design
variable are as shown in Table 5.4. Equation (5.4) was used to find the
associated with these four design variables.
70
5.5.2 Results of Mount Stiffness Stndy
Using the penalty function defined by Equations (5.5) through
(5.11), with A = 50 and zero starting values for all 4 design variables,
the solution shown in Table 5.5 was found. This solution indicates that
by increasing three stiffnesses by up to 32% and reducing one by 42%,
the fifth frequency can be moved well above the 11.25 Hz forcing
frequency, while keeping the lower frequencies well below.
5.5.3 Accuracy of the Solutions
The solutions indicated in Table 5.5 were used in the equations in
Appendix A, and the new eigenvalue problem solved to check the accuracy
of these solutions. Table 5.5 also compares the predicted new
frequencies from the minimizer, designated 'Taylor Series Frequencies'
in the Table, and new frequencies from Equation (5.1) with the altered
mounts, designated 'Exact Frequencies'. Agreement within 1.8% for the
high modes is indicated. Mode 2 is in error by 6.8%.
The first-order Taylor series, which was used to relate design
changes to new frequencies. Equations (5.7) and (5.8), introduces two
sources of error. First, Equation (5.7), which was used to calculate
the first derivatives of natural frequencies with respect to design
variables, uses the original eigenvectors of the system. But, as the
design changes, the eigenvectors also change, so that du^/dej is in fact
a function of e-.
«J
The second potential source of error is that the stiffness matrix
is assumed in Equation (5.2) to be a linear function of the design,
variables. Although for this example the stiffness matrix is, in fact,
71
TABLE 5.4 N e w Mount Stiffness for a Unit Design Change

(e^ = 1 means 10% reduction in stiffness)
Design Mount New Stiffness (N/M)

Variable Effected Axial Lateral Fore/aft
Number
1 1 201300 40260 40260

2 2 153150 113445 43754
3 3 195450 390901 97725
4 4 208950 417901 104475
TABLE 5 .5 Solutions; for the Stiffness Study
Mount
Number Original Change Taylor
or Freq Needed Series Exact Percent
Freq (Hz) (%chg) Freq Freq Error *
Number (Hz) (Hz)
1 4.47 -29.2 4.77 4.69 -1.6

2 5.97 - 7.2 6.13 5.74 -6.8
3 7.48 -32.9 7.67 7.83 2.1
4 9.87 41.7 9.68 9.71 .3
5 12.26 13.80 13.59 -1.5
6 16.46 14.56 14.82 1.8
* Exact - Taylor Series

% error = ----- * 100
Exact
72
a linear function of the design variables, this is not always the case,
as, for example, when mount orientation angles are the design variables.
5.6 MOUNT ORIENTATION STUDY
The goal of this part of the example is to find the mount
orientations that move the natural frequencies of the engine/mount
elastic system away from idle speed forcing frequencies.
5.6.1 Definition of Mount Orientation Design Variables
Three angles define the orientation of each of the four mounts,
giving a total of 12 possible design variables as defined in Table 5.6.
The stiffness models for these design changes are found by the
techniques described in Section 5.2.4. In particular, the AE^
associated with a five degree increase in each orientation angle is
found using Equation (5.4). Then if the minimized penalty function
calls for e^ = 2 . 1 , this means that the i**1 orientation angle must be
increased by 10.5 degrees from its original value.
5.6.2 Results of the Mount Orientation Study
Table 5.7 shows the solution found for the mount orientation study
using zero starting values for the design variables, and A = 100. It
indicates that angle changes varying between plus and minus 20° for the
12 angles chosen move the fifth and sixth modes well above the forcing
frequency while keeping others well below.
It is interesting to note that some of the 12 angles have very
little affect on system dynamics. The penalty function procedure for
73
TABLE 5.6 Design Variables Used to Study Mount

Orientation Angles
Design Mount Angle Change Associated

Variable Effected Effected With e = 1
(degrees)
1 1 5
6v
2 2 © y 5
3 3 © y 5
4 4 © y 5
5 1 5
6 2 ©Z 5
7 3 ©Z 5
8 4 ©Z 5
9 1 exr^ 5
10 2 ©x 5
11 3 ©x 5
12 4 5
Gx
TABLE 5.7 Solutions for Mount Orientation Study
Chg Mount Chg Orig Taylor Exact % Err<

or Number Needed Freq Series Freq *
Freq Changed (deg) (Hz) Freq (Hz)
(Hz)
v 1 1 y+19.6 4.47 3.98 3.82 -4.3

2 2 y+10.6 5.97 5.39 5.40 0.4
3 3 y- 1.5 7.48 7.04 7.11 1.0
4 4 y- 1.6 9.87 8.29 8.72 4.9
5 1 z-19.2 12.27 14.09 14.09 0.0
6 2 z- 2.0 16.46 16.83 16.87 0.2
7 3 z+14.2
8 4 z- 3.2
9 1 x- 0.0
10 2 x- 3.4
11 3 x+17.6
12 4 x- 4.5
* See Table 5.5
74
modifying system dynamics can be used to select the most affective
design changes among a group. By minimizing the total penalty function
for the frequency range of interest, the most affective design variables
are those which are pushed furthest beyond their size-of-change limits,
since the size-of-change penalties are the same for each variable. For
those variables, the benefit obtained by reducing the frequency penalty
is offset by the increasing cost from the size-of-change penalty.
This technique was used here to find the most affective orientation
angles. Note in Table 5.7 that many of the design variables, such as 4
and 8, exceeded the limits only slightly, whereas 1 and 5 are evidently
more affective design variables, since they exceded the size-of-change
limits farther. Thus, design variables 1, 2, 5, 7, and 11 in Table 5.6
were chosen as the most affective.
Table 5.8 shows the results of using the same penalty function that
was used for the study that included all 12 angles with the five
strongest design variables of that group. Nearly the same new
orientation angles were found and nearly the same new frequencies
result, verifying that the other seven design changes are not effective
in moving frequencies away from 11.25 Hz.
5.6.3 Accuracy of the Solutions
As with the stiffness study, the new mount orientations indicated
in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 were used in Equation (5.1) and the exact
frequencies resulting from these changes are also shown in Tables 5.7
and 5.8 Errors up to 5.8% are indicated. Note that, in this case, K is
a non-linear function of the design variables. This, combined with the
75
fact that the eigenvectors change with the design variables, contributes
error to the Taylor series approximation (See Section 5.5.3).
5.7 MOUNT ATTACHMENT LOCATION STUDY
In the original design, each monnt is fastened near one of the
lower four corners of the engine. The goal here is to find the
adjustments of these positions that will best move natural frequencies
away from the 11.25 Hz excitation frequency.
5.7.1 Definition of Mount Attachment-Location Design
There are three coordinates which define the location of each mount
with respect to the center-of-gravity of the engine. If all three of
these coordinates were permitted to vary without restraint, it is
possible that attachment locations inside the engine would minimize the
penalty function. To restrict the analysis to useful solutions, only
two mount location coordinates corresponding to the engine's surface are
allowed to vary, and the third is held fixed. Thus, the mount location
can vary only over a plane.
The eight design variables selected for the mount location study
are shown in Table 5.9, and, as before, the stiffness models are found
using Equation (5.4), with a unit design change of 2 cm in directions
indicated in Table 5.9. These directions are chosen so that positive
values of the design variables move the mounts away from the edges of
the engine.
76
TABLE 5.8 Solutions for Mount Orientation Study

Using the 5 Most Effective Design
Variables (i 1, 2 , 5 , 7,, and 11)
Chg Mount Chg Orig Taylor Exact % Err

Freq Changed (deg) (Hz) Freq (Hz)
(Hz)
1 1 y+19.4 4.47 4.02 3.80 -5.8

2 2 y + 1 0 .2 5.97 5.37 5.42 0.9
3 1 z-18.0 7.48 7.05 7.11 0.9
4 3 z+16.9 9.87 8.42 8.70 3.2
5 3 x+20.9 12.27 14.11 14.27 1.1
6 16.46 16.58 16.63 0.3
TABLE 5.9 Changes Used in Mount Location Study
Change Mount Change Change

Number Effected Direction Amount
1 1 +y 0.02
2 2 +y 0.02
3 3 -y 0.02
4 4 -y 0.02
5 1 +z 0.02
6 2 +z 0.02
7 3 +x 0.02
8 4 +z 0.02

Study. Starting Values for e^ = 0.0.
Chg Mount Chg Orig Taylor Exact % Err

Freq Changed (cm) (Hz) Freq (Hz)
(Hz)
1 1 y-7.0 4.47 5.01 5.01 0.0

2 2 y-4.4 5.97 6.26 6.29 0.5
3 3 y-1.2 7.48 7.51 7.58 0.9
4 4 y-6.1 9.87 9.46 9.75 0.9
5 1 z-4.8 12.26 14.10 13.81 -2.1
6 2 z-0.1 16.46 15.01 15.74 4.6
7 3 x-6.8
8 4 z+9.3
* See Table 5.5
77
5.7.2 Results of the Mount Attachment Location Study
Table 5.10 shows the solution found for A = 100, and all starting
values of the design variables set to 0.0. These results indicate that
by altering mount locations by amounts which vary from -7.0 cm to 9.2
cm, the fifth frequency moves further above the forcing frequency, and
the lower frequencies stay well below it.
Table 5.11 shows the solution found for the same penalty function
with starting values set to 1.0. It is clearly different, having only
mode six above the undesirable range and all others below, whereas the
previous solution (Table 5.10) had modes five and six above the hand.
Also note that this solution calls for changes in the design variables
which move the new mount attachment locations away from the edges of the
engine as discussed in Section 5.7.1. This may simplify the attachment
of the mounts to the engine, and may therefore be a desirable design.
5.7.3 Accuracy of Solutions
Tables 5.10 and 5.11 also compare the frequencies found by the
minimization techniques using the Taylor series only, and those found by
re-solving the eigenvalue problem using the indicated final mount
locations. The worst errors are 4.6% for the design started at e^ =
0.0, and 13.3% for the design started at e^ = 1.0. The former has less
error because smaller changes are called for.
As with the orientation study, Section 5.6.3, errors here are due
to the Taylor series terms. The global stiffness matrix is a non-linear
function of mount attachment locations (the stiffness matrix has some
distance-squared terms) and the eigenvectors are functions of design
78
variables.
5.8 COMBINED STUDY
So far, the effects of mount stiffness, orientation, and attachment
location have been studied separately. In this section, all 24 of the
design variables are allowed to vary simultaneously, to try to move
natural frequencies away from 11.25 Hz.
Table 5.12 shows the solution when design variables are started at
0.0 with A = 10. Table 5.13 shows the solution of the same penalty
function with design variables started at 1.0. The same trends that
were evident in the individual studies are also evident here, but now,
since all the changes are acting together, their effects combine
favorably, so that less of each change is needed. Note also that, as
indicated in Chapter 4, there is more than one minimum, and an
additional minimum was found by altering only starting values of the
design variables. This gives the designer the ability to investigate
several alternative designs.
Tables 5.12 and 5.13 also show the accuracy of these solutions,
compared with solutions of Equation (5.1), the eigenvalue problem, using
these altered mounts. The errors are less than 0.8% for the first
solution, and 2.8% for the second. These small errors are to be
expected, since the design variables are smaller, and the Taylor series
is therefore more accurate.
79

Study. Starting Values for ej <= 1.0.
Chg Mount Chg Orig Taylor Exact % Error

Freq Changed (cm) (Hz) Freq (Hz)
(Hz)
1 1 y+ 6.3 4.47 4.02 3.89 -3.4

2 2 y+ 2.1 5.97 5.63 5.47 -3.0
3 3 y- 1.7 7. 4 8 7.46 7.36 -1.4
4 4 y- 0.7 9.87 8.61 8.63 0.2
5 1 z+ 3.7 12.26 8.71 10.04 13.3
6 2 z+ 1.6 16.46 16.43 16.66 1.4
7 3 x+15.8
8 4 z+ 3.1
TABLE 5.12 Solution for Co m bined Study when

Starting Values For Design Variables = 0.0
Chg Mnt Change Orig Taylor Exact % Err

or Chgd Needed Freq Series Freq *
Freq (Hz) Fre q (Hz)
(Hz)
1 1 K+ 7.3% 4.47 4.57 4.55 -0.4

2 2 K+ 2.4% 5.97 5.99 5.98 -0.2
3 3 K+ 9.8% 7.48 7.52 7.50 -0.3
4 4 K- 7.1% 9.87 9.39 9.47 -0.8
5 1 y-i .4cm 12.27 13.59 13.70 -0.8
6 2 y-0>.7cm 16.46 16.23 16.20 -0.2
7 3 y—o i.0cm
8 4 y-0 .7cm
9 1 z-0 .9cm
10 2 z-0 .1cm
11 3 x-2 .0cm
12 4 z+0 .9cm
13
14
1
2
V 4.0°
e y+ 2.0°
15 3
ey+ 0.1°
16
17
4
1
ey- 1.1°
e z ~ 3.3°
18 -2
V 0.7°
19 3
V 4.8°
20
21
4
1
V 2.3°
0.0°
9x+
22 2
Gx" 1.1°
23
24
3
4
V 5.6°
3.2°
Ox-
* See Table 5.5
80
TABLE 5.13 Solution for Combined Study when

Starting Values For Design Variables = 1.0
Chg
or Hnt Change Orig Taylor Exact % Err
Freq Chgd Needed Freq Series Freq *
(Hz) Freq (Hz)
(Hz)
1 1 K+10.6% 4.47 4.15 4.12 -0.7

2 2 K+ 6.4% 5.97 5.62 5.61 -0.2
3 3 K+21.7% 7.48 7.10 7.09 -0.2
4 4 K+ 5.8% 9.87 8.93 9.03 1.1
5 1 y+1.6cm 12.27 10.10 10.39 2.8
6 2 y+0.6cm 16.46 15.98 15.93 -0.3
7 3 y-0.4cm
8 4 y-0.0cm
9 1 z+0.9cm
10 2 z+0.4cm
11 3 x+3.7cm
12 4 z+0.5cm
13 1 ©y- 3.4deg
14 2 ©y- 2.1deg
15 3 © y+ 0.7deg
16 4 ©y- 0.6deg
17 1 © 2 + 4.0deg
18 2 © z+ O.Odeg
19 3 © z- 0.3deg
20 4 © z- 1.4deg
21 1 © x+ O.Odeg
22 2 © x+ O.ldeg
23 3 © x- l.Odeg
24 4 ©x- 1.9deg
* See Table 5.5
81
5.9 SUMMARY
The general penalty functions described in Chapter 4 have been
specialized in this chapter and applied to find the optimal engine monnt
stiffnesses, orientations, and attachment locations on the engine block,
such that the engine/mount elastic system vill not have natnral
frequencies near the excitation frequency expected at idle. The example
demonstrates that practical adjustments of these engine mount parameters
can be found so that no natural frequencies are near the excitation
frequency.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The procedures presented in this thesis have been shown to fill a
need in the design process. The penalty function technique is an
effective tool fordetermining needed design changes which will remove
natural frequencies from undesirable bands in a cost effective way.
The procedure offers several advantages. First, only modal
information is needed to characterize the original system. Thus,
experimental results can be used to define the original design, without
the need for the original system mass and stiffness matrices, provided
that models for the changes are available, or frequency derivatives can
be measured. Also, the technique is interactive and allows engineering
judgement to influence the trade-offs between the cost of design
changes, and the benefit from improved dynamics. Further, the procedure
does not force the new natural frequencies to take on certain values, or
even to move in predetermined directions. Rather, it allows them to
move in the directions most desired by the design changes. Finally, the
procedure can be an effective tool for determining which design changes
among a group are the most cost-effective.
82
83
6.1 FUTURE WORK
The penalty function procedure used in the example problem
presented in Chapter 5 illustrates the basic capabilities of the
technique. There is potential for further development.
6.1.1 Specialization of the Penalty Functions
The class of functions studied in Chapter 4 was specialized in
Chapter 5 to meet the needs of the particular problem, namely penalize
frequencies within an undesirable band, and large design changes. Thus,
the selection of desirable functions which reflect appropriate penalties
is a topic for further study. For example, in the example problem, in
addition to penalizing changes on the basis of size only, combinations
of changes which produce large static deflections and poor torque
carrying capacity could be penalized.
The frequency content penalty could also be specialized to include
the effects of large eigenvector entries. The eigenvector entries could
be used to indicate which frequencies near the excitation frequencies
are most easily excited, and should therefore be penalized more. In the
example, one would like to penalize more heavily those frequencies which
are most susceptible to the excitation, that is, those whose
eigenvectors have a large entry for rotation about the axis of the
crankshaft.
6.1.2 Improved w(e) Relationship
The penalty function procedure requires that the natural
frequencies of the system be related to design changes. A first-order
84
Taylor series, which was used in the engine mount problem introduces
errors, particularly for large design changes. Of course, these errors
can be removed by re-solving the eigenvalue problem for each change, or
by using a hybrid version of the procedure that uses the Taylor series
for most of the design steps, but periodically solves the reduced
eigenvalue problem to update the Taylor series derivatives.
The hybrid procedure is useful when the number of modes of interest
is small. But for large problems, it may be desirable to use higher
order derivatives in the Taylor series to increase the range of
v alidity79'*0 .
APPENDIX
EQUATIONS OF MOTION F OR
RIGID BO D Y ENGINE DYNAMICS
The equations of motion of a six degree-of-freedom rigid body
fastened to a rigid foundation through elastic mounts have been
presented in Reference xx. Motions of the body in Figure A.l are
defined in terms of an inertial coordinate system X, Y, Z, and a
body-fixed coordinate system X, Y, Z. When the body is at rest and in
equilibrium, the coordinate systems are coincident, and have their
origins at the center-of-mass.
Translations of the center-of-mass in the X, Y, and Z directions
are denoted x, y, z, and rotations of the X, Y, Z system with respect to
the X, Y, Z system are defined by the angles a, 0, and y. Only small
motions are considered here, so that the rotations are commutative, and
the defining angles of rotation can be applied about either the inertial
or the body-fixed coordinate systems.
For mounts fastened to the rigid body at location a_, a_, a_ in the
Z y Z
body fixed X, Y, Z coordinate system, with axial, lateral, and fore/aft
stiffness K ft, Kj, K^, respectively, the equations of motion are,
85
86
Z,Z
c
1 y
engine
mount
mount
X,X
mount
Figure A.l Rigid-Body Model of Engine and Mounts
87
MS + } a x x ) x + } a X 7 ) y + J(Kx z )z
+ 5 (Kx x V Kx y 8z >Q + 2 (Kx x az - Kx z 8x ) P
+ ^ K x y ax~^xxay ^7 = F x (A.la)
“ y + 5 (Kx y )x + 5 CKy y )y + 5 (Ky z )z
+ ]|^yzBy"”^yyazâ + 5^xyaz"’^yzax^P
+ ^ K y y Bx-Kxy ayîr = F y (A.lb)
MZ + I (Kx z )x + J (Ky z )y + K z )x
+ 5 ^ z z ay_^yzazâ + /j^xz8z-^zzax^P
(A.lc)
+ ^ K y z V ' x z V * = Fz
*xx5 " JxyP " Txz? + 5 (Kx z V Kxyaz)x
+ ^ ^ y z ay-^ y y az^y + ^ ^ z z ay“^ y z az^z
+ ^ * S y azaz+^zzay ay“^ y z ay azâ (A.Id)
+ ^ ^x z ay8z+Zyzaxaz"”^zzaxay’"^xyaz8z^P
+ 5^xy8yaz+^yz8xayyaxaz”^xzayay ^ = ^x
*yyg " *xy5 " W + ^ K xxaz"K xzax )x
+ I (Kxyaz-Kyzax)y + 5 (KxzaZ-Kzzax)z (A.le)
+ ^ ^ x z ay az+^yzax az~^zzax ay"’^ x y az 8zâ
+ I (Kxx8z8z+Kzzaxax-2Kxzaxaz)P
+ ^ ^ x y axaz+Z'xzaxay‘’^xxayaz_^yzaxax^y _
zz’ xz yzH ‘ £'“xy“x “xx“y
+ ^ ^ y y ax~^xyay ^ + ^ ^ y z ax~^xzay ^ z (A.if)
+ $ ^ x y ayaz+^yzaxay“^yyaxaz”^xzayayâ
+ ^ ^ x y ax az+^ x z ax ay-^ x x ay az“^yzax ax ^
+ J (KxSay ay+Kyyax8x-2Kxy8xay )T = Mz
where the summations include a term for each mount, and w h e r e
Kzz - K, L*, + Kj L*t + Kf Lit <A -2«>
Kyy = K,Lja + Kx L^j + Kf Ljf (A.2M
Kzz * K.Lz. + *1 ^ 1 + % L’f (A.2c)
K Xy = K a L xa L ya + Kj Lx j Lyj + Kf L x £ Lyf (A.2d)
Kxz = K aL xa L za + K 1 Lxl L zl + K f Lxf L zf (A.2e)
*yz ~ K a L ya L za + K1 **1 L zl + K f L yf L zf (A.2f)
The L's are the cosines of the angles between the mount axis directions
and the X, Y, Z coordinate directions. That is, L__ is the cosine of

XU
the angle between the axial direction on the mount and the X-axis. The
notation X JLyx can be interpreted as the force of the m o u n t exerted in
the Y-direction when subjected to displacement in only the X-direction.
The mass of the engine in these equations is M and the moments and
products of inertia are Ix x , IXy, etc.
89
Mount orientations were defined in terms of angles 0 , 0 , and 0_,

y **
applied in that order, abont the X, Y, and Z axes of either coordinate
system. The direction cosines in Equations (A.2) are computed from
these defining angles as,
Lxa = COS(02)COS(0y) (A.3a)
Lya = SIN(0z)COS(0y ) (A.3b)
L za = -SIN(Oy) (A.3c)
Lxl = -SIN(0Z)COS(0X )+ COS(0z)SIN(0y)SIN(0x ) (A.3d)
Lyl = COS(0Z)COS(0X )+ SIN(0z)SIN(0y )SIN(0x ) (A.3e)
L zl = COS(0y )SIN(0x ) (A.3f)
Lxf = SIN(0z)SIN(0x )+ COS(0z)SIN(0y )COS(0x ) (A.3g)
Lyf = -COS(0Z)SIN(0X )+ SIN(0z)SIN(0y)COS(0x ) <A.3h)
L zf = COS(0y)COS(0x ) (A.3i)
Rewriting the equations of motion (A.l), in matrix form, gives
M0 P + K0 P = F (A.4)
where M 0 and K 0 are the global (6x6) mass and stiffness matrices, P is
90
the (6x1) vector of displacements and rotations
(A.5)
and F is the (6x1) vector of externally applied forces and moments
Ihe eigenvalue problem associated wit h Equation (A.4) is
<K0 ~ M 0) U A = 0 (A.7)
where is the i ^ natural frequency of the system, and is the
associated mode shape.
Equations (A.l) through (A.7) are contained in an engine simulation
program called E N G S I M 7®, which was used in the example problem to find K
as a function of mount parameters, and to solve the resulting eigenvalue
problem. Thus, given engine inertial properties, mount stiffnesses,
attachment locations, and orientations, the natural frequencies and mode
shapes can be determined from Equation (A.7).
REFERENCES
1. Meirovitch, L. Analytical Methods in V i brations. MacMillan Company,

New York, 1967.
2. Argyris, J. H . , and Eelsey, S., Energy Theorems and Structural

Analysis. Butterworths Scientific Publications, Ltd., London, 1960.
3. Turner, M. J., Clough, R. W . , Martin, H. C., and Topp, L. J.,

"Stiffness and Deflection Analysis of Complex Structures," Journal of
Aeronautical Science, 23, pp. 805-824, 1956.
4. Przemieniecki, J. S., "Matrix Structural Analysis of Substructures,"

AIAA Journal, Vol 1, No. 1, pp. 138-147, Jan, 1963.
5. Hurty, V. C. "Dynamic Analysis of Structural Systems Using

Component Modes," AIA A Journal, Vol 3, No. 4, pp. 678, 1965.
6. Simpson, A., and Tabarrok, B . , "On E r o n ’s Eigenvalue Procedure and

Related Methods of Frequency Analysis," Quarterly Journal of
Mechanics and Applied Math, Vol 21, Pt 1, pp. 1-39, 1968.
7. Craig, Roy R . , and Bampton, M. C., "Coupling of Substructures for

Dynamic Analyses," AIAA Journal, Vol 6, No. 7, pp. 1313-1319, 1968.
8. Berman, A., "Vibration Analysis of Structural Systems Using Virtual

Substructures," Shock and Vibration Bulletin, No. 43, Part 2, 1973.
9. Berman, A., and Giansante, N . , "Chianti - Computer Programs for

Parametric Variation in Dynamic Substructure Analysis," Shock and
Vibration Bulletin, No. 47, Part 4, pp.217-225, 1977.
10. Euhar, E. J., "Selected System Modes Using the Dynamic

Transformation with Modal Synthesis," Shock and Vibration Bulletin,
No. 44, Part 2, PP 91-102, 1973/74.
11. Mahalingam, S., "The Synthesis of Vibrating Systems by Use of

Internal Harmonic Receptances," Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol.
40, No. 3, pp. 337-350, 1975.
12. Hallquist, J. 0., and Snyder, V. W . , "On the Connection of

Viscously Damped Continuous Vibratory Systems," Journal of Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 131-142, 1974.
91
92
13. Mahalingam, S.. and Bishop, R. E. D., "On the Modification of

Subsystems in Strnctural Dynamics," Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Science, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 323-329, 1975.
14. Szu, C. "Vibration Analysis of Structures Using Fixed-Interface

Component Modes," Shock and Vibration Bulletin, No 46, Part 5, pp.
239-251, 1975/76.
15. Cromer, J. C., and Lalanne, M . , "Dynamic Behavior of Complex

Structures, Using Part Experiment, Part Theory," Shock and Vibration
Bulletin, No. 46, Part 5, pp. 177-185, 1975/76.
16. Volff, F. H . , and Molnar, A. J . , "Reduced System Models Using Modal

Oscillators for Subsystems (Rationally Normalized Modes)," Shock and
Vibration Bulletin, No. 48, Part 1, pp. 111-118, 1978.
17. Cromer, J. C., Lalanne, M . , Bonnecase, D., and Gaudriot, L . , "A

Building Block Approach to the Dynamic Behavior of Complex Structures
Using Experimental and Analytical Modal Modeling Techniques," Shock
and Vibration Bulletin, No. 48, Part 1, pp. 77-91, 1978.
18. Hruda, R. F., and Jones, P. J., "Load Transformation Development

Consistant with Modal Synthesis Techniques," Shock and Vibration
Bulletin, No. 48, Part 1, pp. 103-109, 1978.
19. ____ , "Traditional Dynamic Substructuring Methods for Arbitrary and

Repetitive Substructures," University Of California Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, No. 18-24, pp. 58-71, 1980.
20. Coale, C. V., and White, M. R . , "Modification of Flight Vehicle

Vibration Modes to Account for Design Changes," Shock and Vibration
Bulletin, No. 50, Part 3, pp. 163-177, 1980.
21. Klostennan, A. L . , "On the Experimental Determination and Use of

Modal Representations of Dynamic Characteristics," Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Cincinnati, 1971.
22. Hou, S. N . , "Review of Modal Synthesis Techniques and a New

Approach," Shock and Vibration Bulletin, No. 40, Part 4, pp. 25-39,
Dec. 1969.
23. Benfield, W. A., and Hruda, R. R . , "Vibration Analysis of

Structures by Component Mode Substitution," AIAA Journal, Vol. 9,
No. 7, pp. 1255-1261, July 1971.
24. Hurty, W. C., "Introduction to Modal Synthesis Techniques,"

Synthesis of Vibrating Systems Colloquium, ASME 1971 Winter Annual
Meeting, Washington D. C., pp. 1-13, Nov. 1971.
25. Hurty, W. C., Collins, J. D., and Hart, G. C., "Dynamic Analysis
of Large Structures by Modal Synthesis Techniques," Computers and
Structures, Vol. 1, pp. 535-563, 1971.
93
26. Benfield, V. A., Bodley, C. W . , and Moroso, G . , "Nodal Synthesis

Methods," Symposium on Snbstrnctnre Testing and Synthesis, National
Aeronautic and Space Administration, Marshal Space Flight Center,
August 30, 1972.
27. Kuhar, E. J., and Stahle, C. V . , "Dynamic Transformation Method for

Modal Synthesis," AIAA Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 672-678, 1974.
28. Vang, B. P., Palazzolo, A. B . , and Pilkey, V. D., "Reanalysis,

Modal Synthesis, and Dynamic Design," ASME Publication State of the
Art Survey of Finite Element M e thods. Chapter 8. (Also contained in
Reference 42.)
29. Arora, J. S., "Survey of Structural Reanalysis Techniques," ASCE,

Journal of the Structural Division, pp. 783-802, 1976.
30. ____ , Advanced Trouble-Shooting Seminar Notes, Structural Dynamics

Research Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, Nov. 1980.
31. Fox, R. L . , and Kapoor, M. P., "Rates of Change of Eigenvalues and

Eigenvectors," A I A A Journal, Vol. 6, No. 12, pp. 2426-2429, 1968.
32. Brogan, W. L . , Modern Control T h e o r y . First Edition, Quantum, New

York, 1974.
33. Rudisill, C. S., "Derivatives of Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors for a

General Matrix," AIAA Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 721-722, May
1974.
34. Hirai, I., Yashimura, T . , and Takamura, K., "On a Direst Eigenvalue
Analysis for Locally Modified Structures," International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 441-442, 1973.
35. Wilkinson, J. H . , The Algebraic Eigenvalue Pr o b l e m . Clarendon Press,

Oxford, pp. 432-484, 1965.
36. Vilkinson, J. H . , Rounding Errors in Algebraic Processes.

Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963.
37. Parlett, B. N., The Symmetric Eigenvalue problem. Prentice-Hall

Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1980.
38. Kron, G . , D i a k o n t i c s . MacDonald, 1963.
39. Youseffi, A., "On the Complex Normal Mode Analysis of Large Complex
Systems U s i n g Step-by-Step Interconnection of Subsystems," Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1977.
40. White, C. W . , and Maytum, B. D., "Eigensolution Sensitivity to

Parametric Mod e l Perturbations," Shock and Vibration Bulletin, No.
46, Part 5, pp. 123-133, 1976.
94
41. Weissenburger, J. T . , "Effect of Local Modifications of the

Vibration Characteristics of Linear Systems," Jonrnal of Applied
Mechanics, pp. 327-332, June 1968.
42. Palazzolo, A. B . , "Vibrations of Locally Modified Mechanical and

Structural Systems," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Virginia, 198i.
43. Pomazal, R. J., and Snyder, V. V., "Local Modifications of Damped

Linear Systems," AIAA Journal, Vol. 9, No. 11, pp. 2216-2221, Nov.
1971.
44. Hallquist, J., and Snyder, V. W . , "Synthesis of Two Discrete

Vibratory Systems Using Eigenvalue Modification," A I A A Journal Vol.
11, No. 2, pp. 247-249, 1973.
45. Lancaster, P., Lambda-Matrices in Vibratory Systems. First Edition,

Pergamon Press, Toronto, 1966.
46. Statson, K. A., and Palma, 6. E . , "Inversion of First Order

Perturbation Theory and its Application to Structural Design," AIAA
Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 454-460, April 1976.
47. White, C. W., "Dynamic Test Reflected Structural Model Methodology

Report," Skylab Program, Payload Integration Technical Report,
ED-2002-1577, December 1972.
48. Taylor, J. E . , "Scaling a Discrete Structural Model to Match

Measured Modal Frequencies," AIAA Journal, Vol. 5, No. 11, pp.
1647-1649, Nov. 1977.
49. Bugeat, L . , Fillod, R . , Lallement, G . , and Pironda, J., "Adjustment

of a Conservative Non-Gyroscopic Mathematical Model from
Measurement," Shock and Vibration Bulletin, No. 48, Part 3, pp.
71-81, 1978.
50. Garba, J. A., and Wada, B. K . , "Application of Perturbation Methods

to Improve Analytical Model Correlation with Test Data," No. 770959,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Contract No. NAS 7-100.
51. Formenti, D., and Welaratna, S., "Structural Dynamics Modification -

an Extension to Modal Analysis," SAE Paper No. 811043, Aerospace
Congress and Exposition, Anaheim California, October 5-8, 1981.
52. Hallquist, J. 0., and Feng, W. W., "On the Specification of

Eigenvalues in Vibratory Systems," Journal of Applied Mechanics, pp.
359-360, June 1976.
53. Spinathkumar, S., and Rhoten, R. "Eigenvalue/Eigenvector Assignment

for Multivariable Systems," Electronic Letters, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp.
124-125, March 20, 1975.
95
54. Wonham, V. M . , "On Pole Assignment in Multi-Inpnt Controllable

Linear Systems," IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, pp.
6 6 0 - 6 6 5 . December 1967.
55. Kimura, H . , "Pole Assignment by Gain Output Feedback," IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, pp. 509-516, August 1975.
56. Moore, B. C., "On the Flexibility Offered by State Feedback in

Multi-variable Systems Beyond Closed Loop Eigenvalue Assignment,"
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, pp.689-692, October 1976.
57. Porter, B., Synthesis of Dynamical Systems. Barnes and Noble

Incorporated, New Tork, 1969.
58. Shah, S. L., Fisher, D. G., and Seborg, D. E.,

"Eigenvalue/Eigenvector Assignment for Multi-variable Systems and
Further Results for Output Feedback Control," Electronic Letters,
Vol. 11, No. 16, pp. 388-389, August 1975.
59. Moe, J., "Fundamentals of Optimization," Computers and Structures,

Vol. 4, pp. 95-113, 1974.
60. Wasiutynski, Z., and Brandt, A., "The Present State of Knowledge in
the Field of Optimum Design of Structures," Applied Mechanics
Reviews, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 341-350, May 1963.
61. Sheu, C. Y., and Prager, V., "Recent Developments in Optimal

Structural Design," Applied Mechanics Reviews, Vol. 21, No. 10, pp.
985-992, October 1968.
62. Venkayya, V. B., "Structural Optimization: A Review and Some

Recommendations," International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, Vol. 13, pp. 203-228, 1978.
63. Pierson, B. L., "A Survey of Optimal Structural Design Under Dynamic
Constraints," International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 491-499, 1972.
64. Rao, S. S., "Optimum Design of Structures Under Shock and Vibration
Environment," Shock and Vibration Digest, Vol. 7, pp. 61-70,
December 1975.
65. Olhoff, N . , "A Survey of the Optimal Design of Vibrating Structural

Elements PART I: Theory," Shock and Vibration Digest, Vol. 8, pp.
3-10, August 1976. "PART II: Applications," Vol. 9, pp. 3-10,
September 1976.
66. Haug, E., and Arora, J., Applied. Optimal Design. John Whiley and
Sons, New York, 1979.
67. Sheu, C. Y., "Elastic Minimum Weight Design for Specified

Fundamental Frequency," International Journal of Solids and
Structures, Vol. 4, pp. 953-958, 1968.
96
6 8. Rubin, C. P., "Minimum Weight Design of Complex Structures Subject

to a Frequency Constraint," AIAA Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 923-927,
1970.
69. de Silva, B. M. E . , "Minimum Weight Design of Disks Using a

Frequency Constraint," AS M E Transactions, Journal of Engineering for
Industry, Vol 91, pp. 1091-1099, 1969.
70. Romstad, K. M., "Optimal Design for Dynamic Response," Paper No.
A.2 in Symposium of Structural Dynamics, vol. 1, pp. A.2.1-A.2.18,
1970.
71. Fox, R. L.,and Kapoor, M. P., "Structural Optimization in the

Dynamic Response Regime: A Computational Approach," AIAA Journal,
Vol. 8, pp. 1798-1804, 1970.
72. de Silva, B. M. E . , "Optimal Vibration Modes of a Disk," Seventh

International Symposium on Mathematical Programing, The Hague, 1970.
73. Lin, J. H . , Che, W. Y., and Yu, Y. S., "Structural Optimization on

Geometrical Configuration and Element Sizing with Statical And
Dynamical Constraints," Procedings of the International Symposium on
Optimal Structural Design, University of Arizona, Tucson Arizona,
October 19-22, 1981.
74. Weissenburger, J. T . , "The Effect of Local Modifications on the

Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors of Linear Systems," Ph.D. Thesis,
Washington University Sever Institute of Technology, St. Louis
Missouri, 1966.
75. Fletcher, R . , "Fortran Subroutines for Minimization by Quasi-Newton

Methods," Report R7125 AERE, Harwell, England, June, 1972.
76. Radcliffe, C., et. al., "Analysis of the Transmission of Engine

Vibrations to an Automobile Structure," Progress Reports 1 and 2, for
Oldsmobile, October 1981 and 1982, Michigan State University.
77. Radcliffe, C., Pickleman, M . , Spiekermann, C., and Hine, D.,

"Simulation of Engine Idle Shake Vibration," SAE Paper to be
presented at SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit,
Michigan, Feb. 1983.
78. Spiekermann, C., "Simulating Rigid Body Engine Dynamics," M.S.

Thesis, Michigan State University, 1982.
79. Whitesell, J. E . , "Design Sensitivity in Mechanical Systems," Ph.D.

Thesis, Michigan State University, 1980.
80. Rizai, M. N . , and Bernard, J. E . , "An Efficient Method for

Predicting the Dynamic Effects of Redesign," First International
Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando Florida, November 8-10, 1982.

Redesign Techniques For Improved Structural Dynamics PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Redesign Techniques For Improved Structural Dynamics PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFO RM ATIO N TO USERS

The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic

Starkey, John Mark

REDESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVED STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Michigan State University PhJD. 1982

IMPROVED STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

John Mark Starkey

Department of Mechanical Engineering

IMPROVED STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

John Mark Stazkey

This thesis presents a method for synthesizing design changes which

improve the dynamic characteristics of structures by removing natural

frequencies from bands where excitations are likely to occur. The

procedure, which is less restrictive than traditional techniques,

minimizes a penalty function which is large when undesirable frequencies

improved dynamics and undesirably large changes. An example is included

in which engine mounts are redesigned to avoid idle speed resonances.

to the success of this thesis. Special thanks are extended to Dr.

measurably. In addition. Chuck Spiekermann's help, and the use of his

software for engine dynamics simulation is greatly appreciated. And

finally, a great debt is owed to my wife, Carolyn, for her continuous

support and encouragement.

for Computer-Aided Design at Michigan State University for financial

support and for the use of the computing facilities.

1.1 CONTENTS O F THE THESIS 1

CHAPTER II - PROBLEM DEFINITION 4

2.1 THE DESIGN PROCESS 4

CHAPTER III - LITERATURE REVIEW 9

CHAPTER IV - FREQUENCY SPECIFICATION B Y PENALTY FUNCTIONS 29

4.1 PENALTY FUNCTIONS 30

CHAPTER V - EXAMPLE PROBLEM 56

5.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION 56

CHAPTER VI - CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 82

6.1 FUTURE WORK 83

TABLE S.l Engine Inertial Properties 61

TABLE 5.1 Initial Mount Data 61

TABLE 5.3 Original Natnral Frequencies and Mode Shapes

TABLE 5.4 New Mount Stiffness for a Unit design Change

TABLE 5.5 Solutions for the Stiffness Study 71

TABLE 5.6 Design Variables Used to Study Mount Orientation

TABLE 5.7 Solutions for Mount Orientation Study 73

TABLE 5.8 Solutions for Mount Orientation Study Using

TABLE 5.9 Changes Used in Mount Location Study 76

TABLE 5.10 Solutions for Mount Attachment Location Study.

TABLE 5.11 Solutions for Mount Attachment Location

TABLE 5.12 Solution for Combined study when Starting

TABLE 5.13 Solution for Combined Study when Starting

FIGURE 4. 1 Typical Frequency-Content Penalty Function 32

FIGURE 4. 1 Analogous Frequency-Content Penalty F u n c t i o n

FIGURE 4. 3 Typical Size-of-Change Penalty Function 35

FIGURE 4. 4 Frequency Content Penalty Function That M a y

FIGURE 4. 5 Example Penalty Functions For One Undesirable

FIGURE 4. 6 Example Penalty Factions For One Undesirable

FIGURE 4. 7 Example Penalty Fuctions For Two Undesirable

FIGURE 4. 3 Two Size-of-Change Penalty Fuctions Which

FIGURE 4. 9 Two Size-of-Change Penalty Functions V h i c h D o

FIGURE 5. 1 Engine Mounted in Elastic Mounts 58

FIGURE 5. 2 Engine Mounts Used in the Example Problem 60

FIGURE 5. 3 Frequency-Content Penalty Function Used in the

FIGURE A. 1 Rigid Body Model of Engine and Mounts 86

consider the dynamic characteristics of structures. High-speed,