# The Response Frequency Conversion Characteristic of a Nonlinear Curved Panel with a Centre Mass and the Sound Radiations

Authors: Y. Y. Lee
Journal: Mathematical Problems in Engineering
 (2012)

---

## Abstract

This study investigates the response frequency conversion characteristic of a nonlinear curved panel mounted with a centre mass and the sound radiations. A set of coupled governing differential equations is set up and used to generate the nonlinear vibration responses, which are used to calculate the corresponding radiated sounds. The vibration, sound levels, and the ratio of the antisymmetrical to symmetrical mode responses are plotted against the excitation level and compared with a set of experimental data. The frequency conversion characteristic is investigated from the frequency spectrums of the vibration responses.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Previous studies of various nonlinear vibration/oscillation systems have been studied over recent decades [1–15]. Some researchers particularly worked on nonlinear curved/buckled beams/plates.  Detailed discussions on the quadratic nonlinear responses of a two-degrees-of-freedom beam-mass system can be found in the work of Nayfeh and Mook [16] and Schmidt and Tondl [17]. Besides, some previous studies [18, 19] have shown that the nonlinear antisymmetric mode responses of a curved panel can be excited symmetrically due to the quadratic nonlinearity. It was found that the dominant response frequency was much lower than the excitation frequency. However, there are few research works which focus on the sound radiation of a nonlinear structure. In this study, the response frequency conversion characteristic of nonlinear curved panel vibrations and the sound radiations are further investigated in detail. In order to observe the frequency conversion characteristics, the resonant frequencies of the first symmetrical and antisymmetrical modes of the panel have to be tuned close to each other. According to the experimental experience documented in [20], adding masses on the panel surface makes easier for tuning of the resonant frequencies of a curved panel in a particular range. That is why a centre mass is considered and mounted on the panel in this study.


## 2. Methodology

Figure1 shows a simply supported curved panel mounted with a central mass that is subject to a harmonic excitation.  It is assumed that the flexural bending along the width is neglected. Thus, the structure is simplified and considered as a beamlike panel. The governing differential equation of a curved structure with a centre mass that is subject to a harmonic uniformly distributed pressure force [19] is given by
(2.1)(ρA+M)w¨+Ωw˙+EIw′′′′=EAL(w′′+w-′′)∫0L(w-′w′+12(w′)2)dx-κ(ρA+M)gsin(ωt),
where  w is the transverse displacement caused by the panel bending; w˙ and w¨ are the first and second derivatives of the transverse displacement with respect to time t;  w′,w′′, and w′′′′ are the first, second, and fourth derivatives of the transverse displacement with respect to the spatial variable x; w-=q0ϕ1 is the initial transverse displacement; q0 is the transverse displacement at the center; E is the Young’s modulus; ρ is the material density;  Ω is the damping coefficient;  A is B×h = the cross-sectional area; B is the width; h is the thickness; L is the length; M is mcδ(L/2); mc is the center mass; δ(x) is the Dirac delta function; ω is the excitation frequency; κ is the excitation parameter; g is gravity is 9.81 ms−2. The transverse displacement is expressed in terms of the mode shapes and given by
(2.2)w(x,t)=∑i=1Nqi(t)ϕi(x),
where qi  is the modal amplitude of the ith mode;  ϕi is the ith sine function mode shape (i.e. sin(iπx/L)); i is the mode number; N is the number of modes considered (only the first three modes are considered in this study). According to [21], the resonant frequency of a nonlinear isotopic simply supported beam/plate can be accurately obtained using the single-mode approach. Hence, (2.1) can be easily reduced into a Duffing equation which has been solved by various methods (e.g. the variational approach [2], Hamiltonian approach [3, 4], elliptical Integral method [8], the harmonic balance method [8], the numerical integration method [18, 19], etc.). In Appendix, the procedure to obtain the resonant frequency of the Duffing equation is shown.Figure 1
Side view of a curved panel mounted with a mass.The residual can be found by substituting (2.2) into (2.1) and then multiplied by ϕi, integrated with respect to the beam length, and set it to zero. A set of weighted residual differential equations is generated (see (2.3)-(2.4)). These differential equations can be solved using the Runge-Kutta numerical integration to obtain the modal responses
(2.3)Δ=(ρA+M)∑i=1Nq¨iϕi+ξωi∑i=1Nq˙iϕi+EI∑i=1Nqiϕi′′′′-EAL(∑i=1Nqiϕi′′+q0ϕ1′′)×(∑i=1Nq0qi∫0Lϕ1′ϕi′dx+12∑i=1N∑j=1Nqiqj∫0Lϕi′ϕj′dx)+F,(2.4)∑i=1Nq¨i(ρAαi,m0,0+mcβi,m)+∑i=1Nq˙iξωiαi,m0,0+EI∑i=1Nqiαi,m4,0-EAL×[+∑i=1Nα1,i1,1α1,m2,0q02qi+∑i=1N∑j=1N(α1,i1,1αj,m2,0+12αi,j1,1α1,m2,0)q0qiqj+12∑i=1N∑j=1N∑k=1Nαi,j1,1αk,m2,0qiqjqk]+Fm=0,
where ϕi′,ϕi′′, and ϕi′′′′ are the first, second, and fourth derivatives of the ith mode shape, respectively, and i,j,m,k are the mode numbers. ξωi=Ω, where ξ is the modal damping coefficient (2.5a)F=κ(ρA+M)gsin(ωt),(2.5b)Fm=∫0LFϕmdx,βi,m=ϕi(L2)ϕm(L2),(2.5c)αi,m0,0=∫0Lϕiϕmdx,(2.5d)αi,m2,0=∫0Lϕi′′ϕmdx,(2.5e)αi,m4,0=∫0Lϕi′′′′ϕmdx.Then, the sound power radiated from the ith mode can be calculated using the radiation efficiency formulas which have been adopted in [22, 23]. The following two formulas are the simplified version in [22] for quick calculation: (2.6a)σi=32K2BLi2π5{1-K2BL12[(1-8(iπ)2)LB+(1-8π2)BL]},forsymmetricmodes,(2.6b)σi=8K4BL3i2π5{1-K2BL20[(1-8(iπ)2)LB+(1-24π2)BL]},forantisymmetricmodes,where K=ω/Cair, Cair = sound speed in air.The experimental setup, which was the same as that in [19], contained a curved steel panel with a thickness of 0.5 mm, an arc length of 310 mm, and a breadth of 350 mm (see Figure 2). It was mounted with a centre mass of 20 g. The first symmetrical and antisymmetrical mode resonant frequencies are ωsym=101 and ωanti=50 Hz, respectively (i.e. ωsym/ωanti≈2). Note that the structure was not perfectly simply supported. The curved panel was sinusoidally excited by a shaker table. The modal vibrations of the structure and the base frame were measured using accelerometers placed at x=L/4, L/2, and 3/4L, while another accelerometer was used to monitor the dynamic response of the shaker table.Figure 2
Experimental setup.


## 3. Results and Discussions

In Figure3(a), the relative total vibration levels are plotted against the excitation parameter, κ. The dimensions of the curved panel are the same as those in the experimental setup. The modal damping coefficient is equal to ξ=0.02. The centre mass is also equal to 20 g. The ratios of the resonant frequencies of the first symmetrical and antisymmetrical modes are tuned to two by adjusting the curvature or the initial centre deflection. The vibration level in the case of (h=0.7 mm at κ=0.01) is normalized as zero. The total vibration levels are monotonically increasing for all cases. The excitation frequency is equal to the resonant frequency of the first mode. Generally, the thinner the panel is, the higher the vibration level is. Figure 3(b) shows the frequency spectrum of the point A marked in Figure 3(a). It can be seen that the response frequency of the dominant mode, which is the first antisymmetrical mode, is much lower than the excitation frequency (only one-half!). This phenomenon is described as “high-frequency excitation input-low-frequency response output.” The response frequencies of the first and second symmetrical modes are the same as the excitation frequency, but the modal vibration amplitudes of the first and second symmetrical modes are much lower than that of the first antisymmetrical mode (even though the excitation and the structure are symmetrical). In Figure 3(c), the relative total radiated sound levels of the three cases are plotted against the normalized excitation. The sound level of the solid line is exponentially deceasing and almost constant for κ>0.1. The sound level of the dotted line is exponentially deceasing for κ<0.1, bottom around κ=0.1, and slowly increasing for κ>0.1. Similarly, the sound level of the dash line is exponentially deceasing for κ<0.04, bottom around κ=0.04, and slowly increasing for κ>0.04. It is found that although the sound level of the solid line is the highest for κ<0.1, the corresponding vibration level is always the lowest; on the contrary, the sound level of the dash line is highest for κ<0.07, the corresponding vibration level is always the highest.  It is because the radiation efficiency of the first antisymmetric mode is much lower than the others, and thus the overall sound radiation is smaller.(a) Relative total vibration level(ωsym/ωanti-sym=2, ω=ωsym), (b) relative modal vibration levels of point A in (a), (c) relative total sound level (ωsym/ωanti=2, ω=ωsym).
(a)
(b)
(c)Figure4(a) shows other 3 cases in which the ratios of the resonant frequencies are not tuned to two. No centre mass is considered in these 3 cases. The vibration level of the thinnest beam is monotonically deceasing. For the other two cases in Figure 4(a), the vibration levels increase from κ=0.01 to 0.02, peak around κ=0.02 to 0.03, and decease κ=0.03 to 0.2. Figure 4(b) shows the frequency spectrum of the point B marked in Figure 4(a). It can be seen that the first antisymmetrical mode is not as dominant as the one in Figure 3(b). It is because the ratio of the resonant frequencies is not tuned to two. The vibration levels of the first symmetrical and antisymmetrical modes are almost equal and much higher than that of the second symmetrical mode. In Figure 4(c), the relative total radiated sound levels of the three cases in Figure 4(a) are plotted against the normalized excitation. The sound level of the dash line is exponentially deceasing. The sound levels of the solid and dotted lines are increasing for κ<0.03, peak around κ=0.03, and decreasing for κ>0.03.  The sound level of the solid line is lower for κ<0.03 and higher for κ>0.03 than that of dotted lines, respectively. It is found that although the sound level of the dash line is lowest for κ>0.015, the corresponding vibration level is always the highest in Figure 4(a); on the contrary, the sound levels of the dash and dotted lines are higher for κ>0.015, the corresponding vibration levels always lower than that of the solid line. Besides, the vibration level of each case in Figure 4(a) is always higher than that of the case with the same thickness in Figure 3(a). It is because the resonant frequency ratios are not tuned to two. The smaller energy transfer to antisymmetrical modes results into the higher overall vibration.(a) Relative total vibration level (ωsym/ωanti-sym=1.85, ω=ωsym), (b) relative modal vibration levels of point B in (a), (c) relative total sound level (ωsym/ωanti=1.85, ω=ωsym).
(a)
(b)
(c)Figure5 shows the ratio of the antisymmetrical mode to symmetrical mode vibration levels for various resonant frequency ratios. It can be seen that if the resonant frequency ratio is closer to two, the antisymmetrical mode vibration level is higher. When the resonant frequency ratio is equal or close to two, the antisymmetrical mode vibration level is increasing against the excitation level for κ<0.02, peaks around κ=0.02, and decreasing for κ>0.02. When the resonant frequency ratio is far from two, the antisymmetrical mode vibration level is monotonically increasing against the excitation level. The experiment data was obtained using the curved panel with a resonant frequency ratio of close to two. It is shown that that the experimental antisymmetrical mode vibration level is monotonically increasing against the excitation level; it only agrees well with the theoretical case in which the resonant ratio is 1.66.  As the panel was not perfectly simply supported and symmetrical, that would result into a smaller energy transfer to the antisymmetrical mode. Thus the experiment data look likes the case of the resonant frequency ratio not tuned to two.Figure 5
Ratio of the antisymmetrical to symmetrical responses, (dB scale).


## 4. Conclusions

The nonlinear curved panels mounted a centre mass and the sound radiations have been studied. The results indicate that if the resonant frequency ratio is more far from two and the excitation and the structure are symmetrical, a higher excitation level is required to induce the antisymmetrical mode vibration. In the frequency spectrums, it can be seen in some cases studied that the response frequency of the dominant mode, which is the first antisymmetrical mode, is much lower than the excitation frequency. This can be considered as “high-frequency excitation input-low-frequency response output.” Besides, as the radiation efficiency of the antisymmetric mode is much lower than the others, the overall sound radiation is thus much smaller.



---

*Source: 298413-2012-10-15.xml*