You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Applied Sciences
  • Article
  • Open Access

24 December 2019

Dynamics of Structures with Distributed Gyroscopes: Modal Discretization Versus Spatial Discretization

,
,
and
1
Beijing Key Laboratory of Nonlinear Vibrations and Strength of Mechanical Structures College of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
2
School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Section Acoustics and Vibrations

Abstract

In this study, two discretization numerical methods, modal discretization and spatial discretization methods, were proposed and compared when applied to the gyroscopic structures. If the distributed gyroscopes are attached, the general numerical methods should be modified to derive the natural frequencies and complex modes due to the gyroscopic effect. The modal discretization method can be used for cases where the modal functions of the base structure can be expressed in explicit forms, while the spatial discretization method can be used in irregular structures without modal functions, but cost more computational time. The convergence and efficiency of both modal and spatial discretization techniques are illustrated by an example of a beam with uniformly distributed gyroscopes. The investigation of this paper may provide useful techniques to study structures with distributed inertial components.

1. Introduction

Modern mechanical structures, especially intelligent flexible mechanical structures, are densely distributed with sensors, processors, and actuators [1]. Some transducers may apply inertial actions to the flexible structure, although they are also parts of the whole structure. In this study, structures with distributed gyroscopes will be studied, which has been verified as applicable in the control of soft structures such as space manipulation arms [2,3,4].
The gyroelastic continua have been proposed by Hughes and D’Eleuterio to describe the mathematical modeling of structures with continuously distributed gyroscopes [5,6]. The dynamics of flexible structures with distributed appendages can be investigated by modal discretization techniques such as the Galerkin method by introducing a set of trial mode functions, which are usually the modal functions of the corresponding structure without appendages [7,8,9]. Modal discretization techniques have shown powerful applications to structures with regular shapes (explicit modal functions) [10,11,12,13,14]. However, modal discretization becomes unpractical when treating structures with irregular or complicated contours. Without analytical modal functions, modal discretization loses the configuration base. Although the base modal shapes can be obtained by the finite element method and transferred to the modal discretization procedure, the manipulations are apparently cumbersome.
Spatial discretization techniques such as the finite element method could tackle the dynamics of structures with arbitrary shapes. However, the available commercial finite element software provides no general modules to treat flexible structures with distributed gyroscopes. The distributed gyroscopes introduce a new dynamic effect to the structures and the most important contribution is the gyroscopic coupling effect, which is usually neglected in low angular momentum examples. With increasing angular momentum, the gyroscopic coupling becomes dominating and varies the frequency and modal motion drastically [15,16,17,18,19,20]. Gyroscopic coupling can be employed as a mechanism of sensor to detect rotating angles, which has been discussed in the literature [21,22,23].
Although gyroscopic continua such as axially moving materials [24] and rotating components [25] have been studied widely, structures with discrete rotors have received less attention. In this study, we propose a spatial discretization technique designed to tackle flexible structures with distributed gyroscopes. The eigenfrequencies are studied and discussed. Both modal discretization and spatial discretization will be studied and compared by an example of gyroscope-distributed beam. The current study may expose the gyroscopic structures to more general numerical techniques.

2. Model Description

To validate the modal discretization and spatial discretization techniques, a beam model with uniformly distributed gyroscopes was studied and the natural frequencies and complex modes extracted and compared.
As described in Figure 1, an Euler beam supported by two hinges is distributed with N gyroscopes. The gyroscopes provide mass and angular momentum, but do not alter the deformation of the beam. The current simple model can be used directly to slender rotor systems [26,27], drill strings [28,29], and gyroscopic structures.
Figure 1. Diagram of an Euler beam with distributed gyroscopes.

4. Spatial Discretization

Spatial discretization is more adaptable than modal discretization when treating structures with complicated shapes, whose explicit mode functions cannot be obtained in a straightforward manner. In this study, we took the beam model with distributed gyroscopes to show the technique of spatial discretization. The segment of beam and segment of gyroscopes were considered as presented in Figure 3. This spatial discretization technique can also be expanded to other irregular structures.
Figure 3. The diagrams of the beam element and gyroscope element.
Every node of the beam element has six DOFs, three translational displacements (u, v, w), and three rotational displacements (θx, θy, θz) along the three coordinates x, y, and z, respectively. The transversal rotational angles are
θ y = v x , θ z = w x
The displacement vector of an arbitrary position in element e with length le is
{ Δ e ( x ) } = [ u , v , w , θ x , θ y , θ z ] T
The displacement vector can be expressed using the classical finite element cubic interpolating equation for bending deflections and linear interpolating equation for axial and torsional deflections, so that
{ Δ e ( x ) } = [ N ] { δ e }
where [N] is the shape function matrix of the three-dimensional finite element, and the nodal displacement vector is
{ δ e } = [ u 1 , v 1 , w 1 , θ x 1 , θ y 1 , θ z 1 , u 2 , v 2 , w 2 , θ x 2 , θ y 2 , θ z 2 ] T
Equation (27) can be written as
{ u ( x ) v ( x ) w ( x ) } = [ N T ] { δ e } ,   { θ y ( x ) θ z ( x ) } = [ N θ ] { δ e } { θ x ( x ) } = [ N φ ] { δ e }
where [NT], [Nθ], and [Nφ] are the translation, bending rotation, and torsional rotation shape function matrices, respectively. The shape function expressions can be found in the available references such as [28,30,31].
The element composed of a rigid gyroscope can be assumed as a distributed elastic beam with additional momentum. The ith gyroscope with finite length le, ri has the displacements
u r i = u , v r i = v , w r i = w , θ x , r i = θ x + φ , θ y , r i = θ y , θ z , r i = θ z
The gyroscope elements share the same features with beam elements except the extra gyroscope rotation angle φ. Hence, the kinetic energy an arbitrary element is
T = 1 2 0 l e j ( v b T m b v b + ω b T I b ω b ) d x + Δ i , j 1 2 0 l e , r i ( v r i T m r i v r i + ω r i T I r i ω r i ) d x
where the symbol Δi,j denotes if the gyroscope i has been installed on the position j:
Δ i , j = { 1        i = j , 0        i j .
The variables and parameters in Equation (31) are stated as follows. The mass density of the beam element and the ith gyroscope are mb and mri, respectively. The translational and angular velocity vectors of the beam and gyroscopes are
v b = [ u ˙ v ˙ w ˙ ] ,   ω b = [ θ ˙ x θ y θ ˙ z θ ˙ y θ ˙ z θ x θ ˙ z + θ ˙ y θ x ]
v r i = [ u ˙ v ˙ w ˙ ] ω r i = [ θ ˙ x + φ ˙ θ y θ ˙ z θ ˙ y cos ( θ x + φ ) θ ˙ z sin ( θ x + φ ) θ ˙ z cos ( θ x + φ ) + θ ˙ y sin ( θ x + φ ) ]
The moment of inertia of the beam element and the ith gyroscope are
I b = [ I p 0 0 0 I c 0 0 0 I c ] ,   I r i = [ I p , r i 0 0 0 I c , r i 0 0 0 I c , r i ]
Substituting Equations (33)–(35) to Equation (31), the kinetic energy can simplified as
T = 1 2 { δ ˙ e } T [ M e ] { δ ˙ e } + Δ i , j ( 1 2 { δ ˙ e } T [ M e , r i ] { δ ˙ e } Ω i { δ ˙ e } T [ G e , r i ] { δ e } )
where
[ M e ] = [ M T e ] + [ M φ e ] + [ M θ e ] , [ M T e ] = 0 l e m b [ N T ] T [ N T ] d x , [ M φ e ] = 0 l e I p [ N φ ] T [ N φ ] d x , [ M θ e ] = 0 l e I c [ N θ ] T [ N θ ] d x ,
[ M e , r i ] = [ M T e , r i ] + [ M θ e , r i ] + [ M φ e , r i ] , [ M T e , r i ] = 0 l e , r i m r i [ N T ] T [ N T ] d x , [ M θ e , r i ] = 0 l e , r i I c , r i [ N θ ] T [ N θ ] d x , [ M φ e , r i ] = 0 l e , r i I p , r i [ N φ ] T [ N φ ] d x ,
[ G e , r i ] = [ 0 l e , r i I p , r i [ N θ z ] T [ N θ y ] d x ]
The potential energy of the beam element is
U = 1 2 0 l e E A ( u x ) 2 d x + 1 2 0 l e E J y ( θ y x ) 2 d x + 1 2 0 l e E J z ( θ z x ) 2 d x + 1 2 0 l e G J ( θ x x ) 2 d x
where A is the cross-sectional area; Iy and Iz are the area of moment of inertia around the y and z axes; and the J polar area moment of inertia. It is assumed that the gyroscopes do not contribute to the total potential energy.
Substituting the kinetic energy and potential energy into Lagrange Equation
d d t ( L { δ ˙ e } ) L { δ e } = { Q e } ,   L =   U T ,  
the governing equation of the jth element is then
[ M a e ] { δ ¨ e } + Δ i , j Ω i [ G a e ] { δ ˙ e } + [ K a e ] { δ e } = { Q e }
where { Q e } is generalized active force, and
[ M a e ] = [ M e ] + Δ i , j [ M e , r i ] , [ G a e ] = [ G e , r i ] T [ G e , r i ] , [ K a e ] = [ K e ] .
When the gyroscopic term of Δi,j vanishes, the spatial discretized Equation (42) recovers to the classical one of a pure beam case.
By assembling the mass, gyroscopic and stiffness matrices of the individual elements, the global matrices of the entire structure can be obtained:
[ M ] { δ ¨ } + Δ i , j Ω i [ G ] { δ ˙ } + [ K ] { δ } = { Q }
where the N-nodes displacement vector is
{ δ } = [ u 1 , v 1 , w 1 , θ x 1 , θ y 1 , θ z 1 , u 2 , v 2 , w 2 , θ x 2 , θ y 2 , θ z 2 , u N , v N , w N , θ N , θ N , θ N ] T
Further applying the boundary conditions and neglecting the active forces, the final governing equations are
[ M o ] { δ ¨ o } + Δ i , j Ω i [ G o ] { δ ˙ o } + [ K o ] { δ o } = 0
The Δ symbol describes the position where the gyroscopes are installed and the gyroscopic effect works in the vicinity of the exact position. While all of the gyroscopes are for the modal discretization case, Equation (23) takes the gyroscopic effect on the whole system.

5. Numerical Results and Comparison

To compare the modal discretization and spatial discretization techniques, a simply supported beam with ten uniformly distributed gyroscopes was studied as a demonstrating example. The length, density, cross section radius, Young’s modulus, and shear modulus were 10   m , 1200   kg / m 3 , 0.1   m , 7.84 × 10 6   Pa , 2.667 × 10 6   Pa , respectively. The length, density, inner and outer radius for the each gyroscope were 0.082 m , 8000   kg / m 3 , 0.1 m, 0.2 m, respectively.
In Figure 4, the first four pairs of natural frequencies computed by 121 order modal discretization and 121-element spatial discretization are presented with varying angular momentum of the uniformly distributed gyroscopes. With the supplement of the gyroscopes, any one of the natural frequencies, denoting the planar modes, bifurcates into two, denoting the lower backward whirling (BW) and the higher forward whirling (FW) of three dimensional complex modes. The first four orders of the complex modes of both backward whirling and forward whirling are demonstrated in Figure 5. Similar phenomena on the frequency and complex mode appeared in [11], but the angular momentum was assumed to be continuously distributed.
Figure 4. The varying natural frequencies with increasing angular momentum. (a) The results of the modal discretization. (b) The results of the spatial discretization.
Figure 5. The vibration modes when h = 5   Nms .
The varying frequencies with zig-zag configurations are related to the veering phenomenon, which has been discussed in gyroscopic structures such as rotors, blades, and gears [17,32,33,34]. In the current study, we did not consider the veering phenomenon, but focused on the numerical methods that have the power to show the gyroscopic dynamics.
To show the convergence of the two methods, the results from the different discretization orders are listed in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, Table 15, Table 16 and Table 17. The frequency unit in all tables is expressed as ‘rad/s’. In Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9, the natural frequencies for the different momentum of gyroscopes are presented to show the accuracy with the increasing modal discretization order k. It can be found that the results are satisfactory when the discretization order k is two times higher than the maximum mode being studied. If only lower vibration modes are used, the lower discretization order can be adopted to save computation time consumption. The modal discretization method has been shown to be efficient and powerful when dealing with a regular structure whose modal functions without attachments are explicit.
Table 1. Natural frequencies via modal discretization (h = 0).
Table 2. Natural frequencies via modal discretization (h = 100 Nms).
Table 3. Natural frequencies via modal discretization (h = 200 Nms).
Table 4. Natural frequencies via modal discretization (h = 300 Nms).
Table 5. Natural frequencies via modal discretization (h = 400 Nms).
Table 6. Natural frequencies via modal discretization (h = 500 Nms).
Table 7. Natural frequencies via modal discretization (h = 1000 Nms).
Table 8. Natural frequencies via modal discretization (h = 2000 Nms).
Table 9. Natural frequencies via spatial discretization (h = 0).
Table 10. Natural frequencies via spatial discretization (h = 100 Nms).
Table 11. Natural frequencies via spatial discretization (h = 200 Nms).
Table 12. Natural frequencies via spatial discretization (h = 300 Nms).
Table 13. Natural frequencies via spatial discretization (h = 400 Nms).
Table 14. Natural frequencies via spatial discretization (h = 500 Nms).
Table 15. Natural frequencies via spatial discretization (h = 1000 Nms).
Table 16. Natural frequencies via spatial discretization (h = 2000 Nms).
Table 17. Comparison between modal and spatial discretization.
The spatial discretization method provides an efficient technique to treat irregular structures. In Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16, the natural frequencies are listed for different angular momentum to show the convergence with increasing element numbers. The power of the spatial discretization has been demonstrated by satisfactory results. With increasing element numbers, the computation time will increase. However, lower order discretization may provide data with sufficient accuracy. Compared to modal discretization, more computational cost is required. Such a drawback opens the chance to deal with structures of irregular shapes.
For both methods, the higher gyroscope momentum requires higher order discretization to ensure accuracy. In Table 17, the results of the modal discretization and spatial discretization were compared with the gyroscope momentum up to 2000 Nms, where the 240 order discretization was used. The deviations between the natural frequencies of the two methods were less than 5%, which validates the accuracy of both methods.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, modal discretization and spatial discretization methods were presented and compared in the study of a flexible structure with distributed gyroscopes. Using the gyroscopic beam example, it was found that the modal discretization was more efficient when dealing with lower order vibration modes and the spatial discretization costs more computation time. The modal discretization method requires explicit mode functions of the base structure, which is not applicable to irregular components. The spatial discretization method allows manipulations of flexible structures of any shape, although the computation cost is higher.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.-D.Y. and W.Z.; Methodology, B.-Y.X.; Software, B.-Y.X. and Q.H.; Formal analysis, X.-D.Y. and B.-Y.X.; Investigation, X.-D.Y. and W.Z.; Resources, B.-Y.X. and Q.H.; Data curation, B.-Y.X.; Writing—original draft preparation, B.-Y.X.; Writing—review and editing, X.-D.Y.; Visualization, X.-D.Y. and B.-Y.X.; Supervision, X.-D.Y. and W.Z.; Project administration, X.-D.Y.; Funding acquisition, X.-D.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project nos. 11972050, 11672007, 11832002), and the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (Project no. 3172003).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Brocato, M.; Capriz, G. Control of Beams and Chains through Distributed Gyroscopes. AIAA J. 2009, 47, 294–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Damaren, C.J.; Deleuterio, G.M.T. Optimal-Control of Large Space Structures Using Distributed Gyricity. J. Guid. Control Dynam. 1989, 12, 723–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Damaren, C.J.; Deleuterio, G.M.T. Controllability and Observability of Gyroelastic Vehicles. J. Guid. Control Dynam. 1991, 14, 886–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yamanaka, K.; Heppler, G.R.; Huseyin, K. Stability of gyroelastic beams. AIAA J. 1996, 34, 1270–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Deleuterio, G.M.T.; Hughes, P.C. Dynamics of Gyroelastic Continua. J. Appl. Mech. 1984, 51, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hughes, P.C.; D’Eleuterio, G.M. Modal parameter analysis of gyroelastic continua. J. Appl. Mech. 1986, 53, 919–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hu, Q.; Jia, Y.; Xu, S. Dynamics and vibration suppression of space structures with control moment gyroscopes. Acta Astronaut. 2014, 96, 232–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hu, Q.; Jia, Y.; Hu, H.; Xu, S.; Zhang, J. Dynamics and Modal Analysis of Gyroelastic Body with Variable Speed Control Moment Gyroscopes. J. Comput. Nonlin. Dyn. 2016, 11, 044506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hu, Q.; Guo, C.D.; Zhang, J. Singularity and steering logic for control moment gyros on flexible space structures. Acta Astronaut. 2017, 137, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ding, H.; Lu, Z.Q.; Chen, L.Q. Nonlinear isolation of transverse vibration of pre-pressure beams. J. Sound Vib. 2019, 442, 738–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hassanpour, S.; Heppler, G.R. Dynamics of 3D Timoshenko gyroelastic beams with large attitude changes for the gyros. Acta Astronaut. 2016, 118, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brake, M.R.; Wickert, J.A. Modal analysis of a continuous gyroscopic second-order system with nonlinear constraints. J. Sound Vib. 2010, 329, 893–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ding, H.; Ji, J.C.; Chen, L.Q. Nonlinear vibration isolation for fluid-conveying pipes using quasi-zero stiffness characteristics. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2019, 121, 675–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ding, H.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.W. Free and forced nonlinear vibration of a transporting belt with pulley support ends. Nonlinear Dyn. 2018, 92, 2037–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yang, X.-D.; Yang, J.-H.; Qian, Y.-J.; Zhang, W.; Melnik, R.V.N. Dynamics of a beam with both axial moving and spinning motion: An example of bi-gyroscopic continua. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 2018, 69, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carta, G.; Jones, I.S.; Movchan, N.V.; Movchan, A.B.; Nieves, M.J. Gyro-elastic beams for the vibration reduction of long flexural systems. Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2017, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cooley, C.G.; Parker, R.G. Eigenvalue sensitivity and veering in gyroscopic systems with application to high-speed planetary gears. Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 2018, 67, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Addari, D.; Aglietti, G.S.; Remedia, M. Dynamic Mass of a Reaction Wheel Including Gyroscopic Effects: An Experimental Approach. AIAA J. 2017, 55, 274–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shabana, A.A. On the definition of the natural frequency of oscillations in nonlinear large rotation problems. J. Sound Vib. 2010, 329, 3171–3181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, T.; Zhang, W.; Mao, J.J.; Zheng, Y. Nonlinear breathing vibrations of eccentric rotating composite laminated circular cylindrical shell subjected to temperature, rotating speed and external excitations. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2019, 127, 463–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Acar, C.; Shkel, A. MEMS Vibratory Gyroscopes: Structural Approaches to Improve Robustness; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dell’Olio, F.; Ciminelli, C.; Armenise, M.N. Theoretical investigation of indium phosphide buried ring resonators for new angular velocity sensors. Opt. Eng. 2013, 52, p024601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dell’Olio, F.; Tatoli, T.; Ciminelli, C.; Armenise, M.N. Recent advances in miniaturized optical gyroscopes. J. Eur. Opt. Soc. Rapid Publ. 2014, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Luo, Z.; Hutton, S.G. Formulation of a three-node traveling triangular plate element subjected to gyroscopic and in-plane forces. Comput. Struct. 2002, 80, 1935–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Özşahin, O.; Özgüven, H.N.; Budak, E. Analytical modeling of asymmetric multi-segment rotor—Bearing systems with Timoshenko beam model including gyroscopic moments. Comput. Struct. 2014, 144, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mohiuddin, M.A.; Khulief, Y.A. Modal Characteristics of Rotors Using a Conical Shaft Finite-Element. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 1994, 115, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mohiuddin, M.A.; Khulief, Y.A. Modal characteristics of cracked rotors using a conical shaft finite element. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 1998, 162, 223–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alsaffar, Y.; Sassi, S.; Baz, A. Band Gap Characteristics of Nonrotating Passive Periodic Drill String. J. Vib. Acoust. 2018, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alsaffar, Y.; Sassi, S.; Baz, A. Band gap characteristics of periodic gyroscopic systems. J. Sound Vib. 2018, 435, 301–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nelson, H.D. A Finite Rotating Shaft Element Using Timoshenko Beam Theory. J. Mech. Des. 1980, 102, 793–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bazoune, A.; Khulief, Y.A.; Stephen, N.G. Shape functions of three-dimensional Timoshenko beam element. J. Sound Vib. 2003, 259, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lin, J.; Parker, R.G. Natural frequency veering in planetary gears. Mech. Struct. Mach. 2001, 29, 411–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vidoli, S.; Vestroni, F. Veering phenomena in systems with gyroscopic coupling. J. Appl. Mech. 2005, 72, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shi, C.Z.; Parker, R.G. Vibration Modes and Natural Frequency Veering in Three-Dimensional, Cyclically Symmetric Centrifugal Pendulum Vibration Absorber Systems. J. Vib. Acoust. 2014, 136, 011014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.