正常模式
振动
模态分析
情态动词
流离失所(心理学)
加速度计
声学
模态试验
应变计
拉伤
结构工程
压电
固有频率
规范化(社会学)
工程类
计算机科学
物理
材料科学
医学
操作系统
内科学
社会学
高分子化学
人类学
心理治疗师
心理学
作者
Tadej Kranjc,Janko Slavič,Miha Boltežar
标识
DOI:10.1177/1077546314533137
摘要
This research is focused on a comparison of classic and strain experimental modal analysis (EMA). The modal parameters (the natural frequencies, the displacement mode shapes (DMSs) and the damping) of real structures are usually identified with classic EMA, where the responses are measured with motion sensors (e.g. accelerometers). Strain EMA is a special approach in the field of EMA, where the responses are measured with strain sensors. Classic EMA is the preferred method, but strain EMA offers advantages that are important for particular applications: for example, the direct identification of strain mode shapes (SMSs), which is important in the vibration-fatigue and damage-identification models. The next advantage is that strain EMA can sometimes be used, for experimental/geometrical reasons, where classic EMA cannot. There are also drawbacks: for example with strain EMA only, the mass-normalization of the DMSs and SMSs cannot be performed. This study researches the theoretical similarities and differences of both EMA approaches. Furthermore, the accuracy of both approaches for the case of a free–free supported beam and a free–free supported plate is investigated. Classic and strain EMA were performed with a piezoelectric accelerometer and the piezoelectric strain gauges, respectively. The results show that the accuracy of strain EMA results (the natural frequencies, DMSs and the damping) is comparable to the accuracy of classic EMA.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI