4.5 Article

Comparison of Dynamic Performance of an All-Metallic Vibration Isolator by Elliptic Method and Frequency Sweeping Method

期刊

SYMMETRY-BASEL
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym14102017

关键词

dynamic stiffness; loss factor; inertial force effect; force transmissibility

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [12272094]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2022J01541]
  3. Key Project of National Defence Innovation Zone of Science and Technology Commission of CMC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a horizontally symmetric all-metallic vibration isolator (AM-VI) was proposed and analyzed using the elliptic method and the frequency sweeping method. The results showed that the choice of test method significantly affected the calculation of dynamic stiffness and loss factor. Evaluation of vibration isolation performance using mechanical impedance and force transmissibility demonstrated that the AM-VI achieved excellent performance over a wide frequency range.
A horizontally symmetric all-metallic vibration isolator (AM-VI) is proposed to further investigate the dynamic mechanical performance. The novel AM-VI was constructed by combining hat-shaped metal rubber and oblique springs, which were connected in parallel. The springs were arranged symmetrically relative to the support. The elliptic method and the frequency sweeping method were used to compare the dynamic stiffness and the loss factor of the AM-VI. The results demonstrated that the dynamic stiffness and the loss factor calculated by two distinct test methodologies were considerably different, indicating that the inertial force effect of the dynamic testing equipment should be taken into count when adopting the elliptic method. Furthermore, when the vibration isolation performance was evaluated by utilizing mechanical impedance and force transmissibility, the AM-VI achieved excellent vibration isolation performance within a broad frequency range.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据