Project 1

VIBRATION CHARACTERIZATION OF INERTIAL ACTUATORS FOR USE IN

ACTIVE VIBRATION ABSORPTION SYSTEMS.

CHRISTOPHER BALINO
CHRISTOPHER BRENNAN
SAM GREEN
ERIC HOLTZMAN
OLIVER QUADROS

Mechatronic Systems
Northeastern University

March 17, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 3
THEORY .................................................................................................................. 4
RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 7
ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 15
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................ 17
COMPARISON CHARTS FOR CONCLUSION ........................................................ 17
SYSTEM PARAMTERS FLOWCHARTS ................................................................. 19
EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS ....................................................... 20
SIMULINK AND MATLAB CODE ......................................................................... 21
SIMSCAPE MODEL ............................................................................................ 27

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Inertial mass actuators are used in a variety of engineering applications, most notably active
vibration control (AVC) environments1. AVC is a commonly used concept in order to control
undesirable vibration in structures (for example), and can help improve performance or prevent
damage in these structures2. The characteristics of these actuators are very important, as they
must match the application for which they will be used.
The main purpose of this project was to characterize an inertial actuator by collecting data
using an accelerometer, force transducer and Laser Doppler Vibrometer connected to a data
acquisition (DAQ) system. An inertial mass actuator essentially converts energy from electrical
to mechanical energy using current flowing in a coil in a magnetic field3. The mechanical
structure can be simplified to a mass-spring-damper system. Using this assumption, the system
can be characterized in terms of the mass, damping, and stiffness. This can be done by sending
a known signal (e.g. a sine chirp signal) to the actuator and measuring the output using the
three transducers listed above. The resonance frequency of the system must be found in the
process, and this is also an important parameter as it should be outside of the operating range
of the actuator. Furthermore, the resonance frequency of the system can be altered by
changing the inertial mass. This can be helpful as the range of the actuator can then be
changed, and it can be used in a wider variety of situations.
In order to characterize the system, the data collected had to be processed using Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT)4 in order to convert this data from the time domain to the frequency domain
(which is necessary to determine the resonance frequency). The data can then be used to
calculate the auto-power spectrum for both the input (force) and output (velocity and
acceleration). Frequency response functions (FRFs)5 are computed from the power spectrum
data, and the resonance frequency can be found graphically from these FRFs. This can then be
used to calculate the stiffness and damping characteristics of the system.

th

Cinquemani, S., Resta, F., and Monguzzi, M., Limits on the use of inertial actuators in active vibration control, 9
International Conference on Computing, Communications and Control Techniques, Orlando, Florida, USA.
2
Paulitsch, C., Gardonio, P., Elliott, S. J., Sas, P., and Boonen, R., Design of a Lightweight, Electrodynamic, Inertial
Actuator with Integrated Velocity Sensor for Active Vibration Control of a Thin Lightly-Damped Panel, ISMA2004,
239-254.
3
Winberg, M., Johansson, S., Claesson, I., Inertial Mass Actuators, Understanding and Tuning, Proceedings of the
International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV) 11, St. Petersburg (2004).
4
Avitabile, P., Basics of Spectrum Analysis/Measurements and the FFT Analyzer, University of Massachusetts
Lowell (2001).
5
Irvine, T., An Introduction to Frequency Response Functions, www.vibrationdata.com, (2000)

PARAMETER

SYMBOL

UNITS

Piezo Effective Mass

meACT

(Kg)

Inertial Mass

minertial

(Kg)

Sensor Mass

macc

(Kg)

Total Mass

(Kg)

Natural Frequency

f n o r

(Hz)

Spring Constant

ka

(N/m)

Damping Ratio

---

Damping Constant

ca

(Ns/m)

Critical Damping Constant

cc

(Ns/m)

THEORY
The active resonator absorber (ARA) becomes a passive absorber without feedback control due
to physical properties of the piezoelectric actuator. These properties can be determined
experimentally by recording the actuator vibrations upon excitation. As shown in Figure 1, a
stinger is responsible for excitation, and a laser vibrometer and accelerometer are responsible
for vibration characterization.

Figure 1: Experimental setup.

By employing the SDOF mathematical model depicted in Figure 2, the piezoelectric actuator can
be described in terms of stiffness ka and damping caby a linear, second order differential
equation given by
=

1
( )

where F represents the input force from the excitation stinger and M represents the combined
effect of the inertial mass, the accelerometer mass, and the effective mass of the piezo. From
the properties of second order systems, the natural frequency f n is readily given as
=

1
.
2

Note that the natural frequency of the actuator can be adjusted by the size of the inertial mass.
With a known resonance frequency of the structure, the stiffness ka becomes
= 2 2 .

F
Sensor
Inertial Mass

xa

ka

PZT Actuator
Rigid Structure

ca

Rigid Structure

Figure 2: The general primary structure depicted in Figure 1 (left), and the corresponding
mathematical model for a single degree of freedom (right).

Again, from the properties of second order systems, the damping constant ca can be expressed
as
= 2
or with appropriate substitutions from equation # above as
= 2
where is the damping ratio. The damping ratio and fundamental frequency can both be
experimentally determined by analyzing the frequency response of the structure (this process is
described in more detail below). Once the fundamental frequency and damping ratio are
determined and can be calculated using equations # and #. With and at hand, a
second order linear system can be simulated using Simulink. The Simulink model used is
included in Figure 3.

Figure 3: A Simulink Model of the general primary structure.

In order to experimentally determine the resonance frequency of the structure an active

piezoelectric actuator was used to input a linear sine chirp from 0-500 Hz and force, velocity,
and acceleration data were recorded. The recorded data was then analyzed using MATLABs
Fast Fourier Transform algorithm and used to calculate the autopower spectra. The four
autopower spectra were calculated using equations # through # as given here:
=
=
=
=
where denotes the input FFT (force data), denotes the output FFT (velocity or acceleration
data) and * denotes the complex conjugate.
The calculated autopower spectra were then used to calculate the frequency response
functions given by equations # and # here:
1 =

2 =

The coherence was then determined with equation #:

1
2

The frequency response functions were used to determine the resonance frequency of the
structure. Both 1 and 2 were graphed and the most intense peak within the usable range of
frequency data was taken as the resonance frequency of the structure. The damping ratio was
then determined using the half-power bandwidth method around the fundamental frequency.
The damping ration is given by:
=

2 1
2

where2 and 1 were taken as the 3db frequency values on the positive and negative side of
the fundamental frequency ( ), respectively.

RESULTS

Experimental Data: Velocity and Acceleration vs. Time

Velocity (10 4*m/sec)

Acceleration (g)

0.8

Acceleration (g) & Velocity (104 *m/sec)

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

time(s)

Figure 4: Raw data collected from DAQ of velocity and acceleration

Figure 4 displays the raw experimental data recorded by the accelerometer and laser
vibrometer with a sampling frequency of 4 kHz. The structure was subjected to 40 input linear
sine chirps lasting 1.25 seconds each. Accordingly, the recorded data was windowed into 40
blocks as seen by the dashed rectangles in Figure 1.Figure 5 displays a single block of recorded
data. During analysis, each block was analyzed individually. First the data was windowed using
the MATLAB flat top window algorithm and a fast fourier transform was performed. The
frequency data was then used to calculate the cross-power spectra for each block. The
calculated cross-power spectras were then averaged for all blocks and used to calculate the
Frequency Response Functions given by equations ##s.

Experimental Data: Velocity and Acceleration vs. Time

Velocity (10 4*m/sec)
Acceleration (g)

0.8

Acceleration (g) & Velocity (104 *m/sec)

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

time(s)

Figure 5: Randomly chosen window from raw data

The coherence was calculated for the frequency response formulas and is displayed in Figure 6.
The coherence is near one within the range of 100 to 500 Hz showing that this data can be
accurately represented by a single input single output linear system with constant parameters.
For this reason all remaining analysis was restricted to this range.

Figure 6:Coherence of the Experimental Data

Figure 7: Experimental Velocity FRF Magnitudes

Figure 8: Experimental Acceleration FRF Magnitudes

Figure 7 displays the magnitude of the frequency response function calculated from the
experimental velocity data. Figure 8 displays the same information calculated from the
experimental acceleration data. The frequency response function phase data is displayed in
Figure 9 and Figure 10 for the experimental velocity and acceleration data respectively.
Experimental Data: Velocity Phase H

Phase (rads)

-1

-2

-3

-4
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

frequency(Hz)

Figure 9: Experimental Velocity FRF Phase

Experimental Data: Acceleration Phase H

Phase (rads)

-1

-2

-3

-4
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

frequency(Hz)

Figure 10: Experimental Acceleration FRF Phase

Figure 7 and 8 above were used to determine the resonance frequency and damping ratio of
the structure which were in turn used to calculate values of and as described in the
Theory section above. The resonance frequency was found to be = 178 and the damping

ratio was found to be = 0.111. The spring constant was calculated to be = 2.89 105
and the damping constant was found to be = 57.2

The simulation data was then analyzed using the same procedures in MATLAB as the
experimental data. Figure 10 displays the single block of simulated velocity and acceleration
data recorded in time.

Simulation Data: Velocity and Acceleration vs. Time

Velocity (10 4*m/sec)

Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g) & Velocity (104 *m/sec)

1.5

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

time(s)

Figure 10: Simulated velocity and acceleration data recorded in time

Figure 11 displays the simulated velocity data FRF magnitude and Figure 12 displays the
simulated acceleration data FRF magnitude. The simulated resonance frequency was found to
be = 179.6 for the acceleration data and = 177.6 for the velocity data. This
results in an average simulated resonance frequency of = 178.6 . Figure 13 displays the
simulated velocity FRF phase data. Figure 14 displays the simulated acceleration FRF phase
data.

Simulation Data: Velocity Magnitude H

0.018

H1
H2

0.016

0.014

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

frequency(Hz)

Figure 11: Simulated Velocity FRF Magnitude

Simulation Data: Acceleration Magnitude H

25

H1
H2

20

15

m/sec 2 /N

m/sec /N

0.012

10

0
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

frequency(Hz)

Figure 12: Simulated Acceleration FRF Magnitude

450

500

Simulation Data: Velocity Phase H

1.5

0.5

Phase (rads)

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

frequency(Hz)

Figure 13: Experimental vs. simulated velocity phase

Simulation Data: Acceleration Phase H

3.5

2.5

Phase (rads)

1.5

0.5

-0.5
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

frequency(Hz)

Figure 14 Experimental vs. simulated acceleration phase

450

500

ANALYSIS
Shown in the Appendix, Figures 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 represent side-by-side charts from comparing
experimental and theoretical data.Figure A1 plots acceleration and velocity in the time domain
for one block of response data. While the velocity plots have a similar shape, the experimental
data shows more noise and a much quicker decline in amplitude after the natural frequency
was reached. The acceleration data is similar in shape as well starting with a smaller constant
amplitude region, increasing in amplitude near the natural frequency, and then decreasing to a
smaller constant amplitude region. Looking at the end of each figure, the differences between
theoretical and real-world experimental systems can be seen. After the signal chirp stops (1.25
s) in the experimental response of Figure A1, the vibration response falls to almost to zero very
quickly. The theoretical vibrational response dissipates at a much slower rate. This clear
difference is due to external factors such as excess damping in other parts of the system
orunexpected flexibility.
Analyzing coherence plots can give better insight to the relationship and similarities of data sets
or functions. In this experiment, the transfer function representing the systems is calculated
two different ways, using the power spectra and FFTs. Shown in Figure A2 the coherence
between the functions for both velocity and acceleration data, is approximately 1 for the range
of 100-500 Hz. This means that the FRF functions found for the experimental data, best
represent the system in this range. Any data taken in frequencies less than 100 Hz can be
skewed based on low frequency external factors. Also, data taken in frequencies higher than
500 Hz can be impacted by noise and any other factors. This region correlates to the
experimental set-up because the signal chirp varies from 0-500 Hz. Any frequency data at
greater than 500 Hz is not due to the excitation of the system making the coherence very poor
and that data range should not considered as noise.
Creating FFT plots will allow for identification of natural frequencies of a system. By looking at
Figures A3 and A4 in the Appendix, the locations and intensities of the natural frequencies
between experimental and theoretical data can be compared. All FFTs are limited to a
frequency range of 100-500 Hz which was determined to be the range of most coherent data.
Graphically, both the experimental and theoretical data sets have a natural frequency of 178
Hz. The intensities of each peak are much different due to the plethora of noise measured in
the experimental data. Not seen in the FFTs for experimental data are the large peaks in the
noise frequency range of 500-2000 Hz. Because of all noise, the counts of natural frequencies
is much lower than in the theoretical data set leading to a less intense peak. However, when
the noise is ignored and the graph is scaled to the natural frequency peak, the graphs look very
similar. The other peak at the beginning of the experimental velocity graph, Figure A3, at (~125
Hz), can be assumed to be noise data because it does not correlate to the acceleration data.
This gives only one natural frequency, 178 Hz, of the system in the frequency range of 100-500
Hz.

Phase plots can also be an important tool in comparing theoretical and experimental system
data. The two phase plot comparisons are labeled as Figures A4 and A5 in the Appendix. A
noticeable difference between the two system types are the orientation of the phase plots. The
experimental values given an increase both velocity and acceleration phase across the natural
frequency of 178 Hz. The theoretical simulation shows a decrease in phase change in the similar
region. This change could be due to a sign difference in the initial force vector which would
simply flip the slope of the phase plot. However, the transient region of phase change does
have the same location at the natural frequency of 178 Hz, regardless of the measurement
(velocity and acceleration), or the system type (experimental or theoretical).

CONCLUSION
Often times, oversimplification in modelling can cause variations between experimental and
theoretical values. Assuming a linear system, the experiment can more simply be modelled to
produce theoretical data. By calculating the experiment damping coefficient , the values for
spring constant k and damping constant c can be calculated for both the acceleration and
velocity data sets. These values can be implemented into the MATLAB script and Simulink
model,Table A2and Figure A7 respectively, to create a theoretical system. Overall, the
theoretical model, assuming linear and one input, was an acceptable simulation for this
experiment. There were many differences mainly lack of noise, orientations, and intensities
between the two experiments. However, for the purpose of this experiment, the model proved
similar finding natural frequency and general shapes of some of the graphs. The coherence of
the experimental data also proved to be acceptable in the region of 100-500 Hz. Because any
further analysis of data and plots were done in this range, the experimental results can be
taken as valid.

APPENDIX
COMPARISON CHARTS FOR CONCLUSION
Experimental Data: Velocity and Acceleration vs. Time

Simulation Data: Velocity and Acceleration vs. Time

2
4

Velocity (10 4*m/sec)

Acceleration (g)

Velocity (10 *m/sec)

Acceleration (g)

0.8

1.5

Acceleration (g) & Velocity (104 *m/sec)

Acceleration (g) & Velocity (104 *m/sec)

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

0.5

-0.5

-1

-0.6

-1.5

-0.8

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

time(s)

1.6

1.8

-2
0

0.5

1.5

time(s)

Figure A1: Response over time comparison of experimental (left) and simulation (right) data.

Figure A2: Coherence plot repeated for reference in analysis section.

2.5

Simulation Data: Velocity Magnitude H

0.018

H1
H2

0.016

0.014

m/sec /N

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

frequency(Hz)

Figure A3: Velocity FFT comparison of experimental (left) and simulation (right) data.

Simulation Data: Acceleration Magnitude H

25

H1
H2

20

m/sec 2 /N

15

10

0
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

frequency(Hz)

Figure A4: Acceleration FFT comparison of experimental (left) and simulation (right) data.

450

500

Experimental Data: Velocity Phase H

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-2

-1.5

-2

-3

-4
100

Simulation Data: Velocity Phase H

1.5

Phase (rads)

Phase (rads)

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

-2.5
100

500

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

frequency(Hz)

frequency(Hz)

Figure A5: Velocity phase plot comparison of experimental (left) and simulation (right) data.
Experimental Data: Acceleration Phase H

Simulation Data: Acceleration Phase H

3.5

2.5

Phase (rads)

Phase (rads)

-1

1.5

1
-2

0.5
-3

0
-4
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

frequency(Hz)

500

-0.5
100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

frequency(Hz)

Figure A6: Acceleration phase plot comparison of experimental (left) and simulation (right) data.

SYSTEM PARAMTERS FLOWCHARTS

Table A1: Physical parameters for all equipment used
T r a n s d u c e r / Ac t u a t o r
Im p e d a n c e H e a d - Ac c e l
- Force
Laser Doppler Vibromet er
Piezoactuator (passive, larger Dia)
Piezoactuator (active, smaller Dia)

Model
PCB 288D01

P o l yt e c C L V - 2 5 3 4
P C B 7 1 2 A0 2
P C B 7 1 2 A0 1

S/N
772

552
554

Sensitivity
98.2 mV/g
98.57 mV/lbf
2 mm/s/V
-

Mass
19.2 g
12.14 g (effective)
7.199 g (effective)

500

Figure A6: System gain flowchart.

EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

2 1
2
+ +

= =
=
=

= 2

1
= 2
2

(A1)
(A2)

(A3)

= = 2
2 2 = 4

(A4)

For Velocity
= 177.6355 []
21 = 200.6882, 22 = 200.7284
21 + 22
2 =
= 200.7083 []
2

11 = 161.2840, 12 = 161.2505
11 + 12
1 =
= 161.2673 []
2
2 1
=
= .111017
2
= 200 + 19.2 + 12.14 103 = .231354 []

= 2 2 = 2.882 105

= 4 = 57.32

*Note: A second set of values for 1 , 2 , , , was calculated using

acceleration data and then averaged to get the values used in the
simulation. These are discussed in the results section.

SIMULINK AND MATLAB CODE

Figure A7: Simulink model used to run simulation data with MATLAB code from table A2

Table A2: MATLAB code for analyzing experimental data, calculating parameters, and running theoretical
simulation.
%Scr ipt to An aly z e ex per ime nta l D a ta a nd Run Si mul a tion to ve rif y
%Exp eri men tal Da t a. I ncl ude s A D -H O C An aly sis an d C o mmen ted No tes
%%
clea r;
clos e a ll ;
A=im por tda ta( 'pr o j1_d ata set _ED IT. c sv' ) ;
Time =A. dat a(: ,1) ;
Chir p=A .da ta( :,2 ) ;
Acce ler ome ter =A. d ata( :,3 );
Tran sdu cer =A. dat a (:,4 );

Lase rVi bro met er= A .dat a(: ,5) ;

Acce l=A cce ler ome t er*( 1/. 982 ); %Ac c eler ati on in g
Forc e=T ran sdu cer * (1/. 002 216 ); %Fo r ce i n N
Velo c=L ase rVi bro m eter *(. 000 2); %V e loci ty in %.2 fo r mm/ sec %. 000 2
for m/s ec
n=40 ; % num ber of data bl ock s
FLen gth =si ze( For c e(:, 1), 1); %T ake leng th of For ce D ata
Fblk _si ze= (fl oor ( FLen gth /(n ))) ; % D ivid e F orc e d ata in to bl ock s
Fblk _si ze= Fbl k_s i ze -m od( Fbl k_s ize - 1,2) ; % Mak e b loc k s od d
sf=4 000 ; % sam pli n g fr equ enc y
f=li nsp ace ( -s f/2 , sf/2 ,Fb lk_ siz e)' ; %es tab lis h f req u ency ve cto r
% De ter min e t he i ndex of th e z ero freq uen cy
zero ind ex= fin d(f == m edi an( f)) ;
% Ap ply fl at top wind ow to eac h b l ock, ca lcu lat e F F T an d p owe r
spec tra
win= fla tto pwi n(F b lk_s ize ); %ha nn % flat top win
fori =1: n;
% FF T o f i npu t
X(: ,i) =ff tsh i ft(f ft( win .*F orc e (Fbl k_s ize *(i 1)+1 :Fb lk_ siz e*i , 1))) ;
% FF T o f o utp ut f or V ELO CIT Y
YVe loc (:, i)= f ftsh ift (ff t(w in. * Velo c(F blk _si ze* ( i 1)+1 :Fb lk_ siz e*i , 1))) ;
% In put -ou tpu t c r ossp owe r s pec tra for eac h d ata bl o ck
GXYV elo c(: ,i) =X( : ,i). *co nj( YVe loc ( :,i) );
% Ou tpu t -i npu t c r ossp owe r s pec tra for eac h d ata bl o ck
GYXV elo c(: ,i) =YV e loc( :,i ).* con j(X ( :,i) );
% In put au top owe r spe ctr a f or eac h dat a b loc k
GXXV elo c(: ,i) =X( : ,i). *co nj( X(: ,i) ) ;
% Ou tpu t a uto pow e r sp ect ra for ea c h da ta blo ck
GYYV elo c(: ,i) =YV e loc( :,i ).* con j(Y V eloc (:, i)) ;
% FF T o f o utp ut f or A CCE LER ATI ON
YAc cel (:, i)= f ftsh ift ( ff t(w in. * Acce l(F blk _si ze* ( i 1)+1 :Fb lk_ siz e*i , 1))) ;
% In put -ou tpu t c r ossp owe r s pec tra for eac h d ata bl o ck
GXYA cce l(: ,i) =X( : ,i). *co nj( YAc cel ( :,i) );
% Ou tpu t -i npu t c r ossp owe r s pec tra for eac h d ata bl o ck
GYXA cce l(: ,i) =YA c cel( :,i ).* con j(X ( :,i) );
% In put au t op owe r spe ctr a f or eac h dat a b loc k
GXXA cce l(: ,i) =X( : ,i). *co nj( X(: ,i) ) ;
% Ou tpu t a uto pow e r sp ect ra for ea c h da ta blo ck
GYYA cce l(: ,i) =YA c cel( :,i ).* con j(Y A ccel (:, i)) ;
end
% Av era ge cro ssp o wer and au top owe r spe ctr a f or VEL O CITY
GXYV elo c =m ean (GX Y Velo c,2 );
GYXV elo c=m ean (GY X Velo c,2 );
GXXV elo c=m ean (GX X Velo c,2 );
GYYV elo c=m ean (GY Y Velo c,2 );
% Av era ge cro ssp o wer and au top owe r spe ctr a f or ACC E LERA TIO N
GXYA cce l=m ean (GX Y Acce l,2 );
GYXA cce l=m ean (GY X Acce l,2 );
GXXA cce l=m ean (GX X Acce l,2 );
GYYA cce l=m ean ( GY Y Acce l,2 );
% Ca lcu lat e F RF f or V ELO CIT Y
H1Ve loc =GY XVe loc . /GXX Vel oc;
H2Ve loc =GY YVe loc . /GXY Vel oc;

% Ca lcu lat e F RF f or A CCE LER ATI ON

H1Ac cel =GY XAc cel . /GXX Acc el;
H2Ac cel =GY YAc cel . /GXY Acc el;
% Ca lcu lat e c ohe r ence fo r V ELO CIT Y
COHV elo c=H 1Ve loc . /H2V elo c;
% Ca lcu lat e c ohe r ence fo r A CCE LER A TION
COHA cce l=H 1Ac cel . /H2A cce l;
% Co nve rt to one - side d s pec tru m f o r VE LOC ITY
fVel oc= f(z ero ind e x:en d);
H1Ve loc =H1 Vel oc( z eroi nde x:e nd) ;
H2Ve loc =H2 Vel oc( z eroi nde x:e nd) ;
COHV elo c=C OHV elo c (zer oin dex :en d);
% Co nve rt to one - side d s pec tru m f o r AC CEL ERA TIO N
fAcc el= f(z ero ind e x:en d);
H1Ac cel =H1 Acc el( z eroi nde x:e nd) ;
H2Ac cel =H2 Acc el( z eroi nde x:e nd) ;
COHA cce l=C OHA cce l (zer oin dex :en d);
%% A D H OC ANA LYS I S to de ter min e c and k
%Vel oci ty (de ter m ined gr aph ica lly ) :
%fla tto pwi n r es. freq . 1 /2= 177 .63 5 5
%han n r es. fr eq. 1/2= 177 .63 55
%Acc ele rat ion (d e term ine d g rap hic a lly) :
%fla tto pwi n r es. freq . 3 /4= 178 .03 5 6
%han n r es. fr eq. 3/4= 178 .43 57
%{
%USE D F OR AD - HOC ANAL YSI S T O F IND THE MAX IMU M A ND I NTER CEP TS OF
THE
%SPE CTR AL PEA KS F OR T H E HAL F -P OWE R BAN DWI DTH ME THO D
I=fi nd( fVe loc <17 7 .635 5);
i=le ngt h(I )+1 ;
z=on es( len gth (fV e loc) ,1) ;
z=z. *(H 1Ve loc (i) / sqrt (2) );
figu re (10 ); %Ve l ocit y
plot (fV elo c,a bs( H 1Vel oc) ,fV elo c,a b s(H2 Vel oc) ,fV elo c ,z)
lege nd( 'H1 Ve loc Mag' ,'H 2 V elo cMa g ','i nte rce pt' )
I=fi nd( fVe loc <17 8 .035 6);
i=le ngt h(I )+1 ;
z=on es( len gth (fV e loc) ,1) ;
z=z. *(H 1Ve loc (i) / sqrt (2) );
figu re (11 ); %Ac c eler ati on
plot (fV elo c,a bs( H 1Vel oc) ,fV elo c,a b s(H2 Vel oc) ,fV elo c ,z)
lege nd( 'H1 Ve loc Mag' ,'H 2 V elo cMa g ','i nte rce pt' )
%}
%Cal cul ate d w ith Flat to p w ind ow:
%Vel oci ty
%w2= 200 .68 82 & 2 0 0.72 84
%w1= 161 .28 40 & 1 6 1.25 05
%Acc ele rat ion
%w2= 200 .54 98 & 2 0 0.59 06
%w1= 161 .38 25 & 1 6 1.35 04
w2V= (20 0.6 882 +20 0 .728 4)/ 2;
w1V= (16 1.2 840 +16 1 .250 5)/ 2;

Damp ing V=( (w2 V) - ( w1V) )/( 2*1 77. 635 5 );

w2A= (20 0.5 498 +20 0 .590 6)/ 2;
w1A= (16 1.3 825 +16 1 .350 4)/ 2;
Damp ing A=( w2A -w1 A )/(2 *17 8.0 356 );
m=(2 00+ 19. 2+1 2.1 4 )*10 ^ -3 ;
kV=( (17 7.6 355 *2* p i)^2 )*m ;
kA=( (17 8.0 356 *2* p i)^2 )*m ;
k=(k V+k A)/ 2;
cV=2 *Da mpi ngV *2* p i*17 7.6 355 *m;
cA=2 *Da mpi ngA *2* p i*17 8.0 356 *m;
c=(c V+c A)/ 2;
%% P lot Ex per ime n tal Res ult s
figu re( 1); %p lot velo cit y a nd acc e lera tio n i n t ime doma in
plot (Ti me, 100 00* V eloc ,Ti me, Acc el) ; %10 000 us ed to s cale ou tpu t f or
visu al ple asu re
lege nd( 'Ve loc ity (10^ 4*m /se c)' ,'A c cele rat ion (g )' ) ;
titl e( ' Exp eri men t al D ata : V elo cit y and Ac cel era tio n vs . Ti me' );
xlab el( 'ti me( s)' ) ;
ylab el( 'Ac cel era t ion (g) & Vel oci t y (1 0^4 *m/ sec )' ) ;
figu re( 2); %p lot cohe ren ce
plot (fV elo c,a bs( C OHVe loc ),f Acc el, a bs(C OHA cce l))
lege nd( 'Ve loc ity Data ' ,' Acc ele rat i on D ata ' );
titl e( ' Exp eri men t al D ata : C ohe ren c e' );
xlab el( 'fr equ enc y (Hz) ' );
ylab el( '\g amm a^2 ' );
figu re( 3); %P lot H fo r v elo cit y
plot (fV elo c(2 51: 1 250) ,ab s(H 1Ve loc ( 251: 125 0)) ,fV elo c (251 :12 50) ,ab s(
H2Ve loc (25 1:1 250 ) ), '- -')
lege nd( 'H1 ' ,' H2' ) ;
titl e( ' Exp eri men t al D ata : V elo cit y Mag nit ude H' );
xlab el( 'fr equ enc y (Hz) ' );
ylab el( 'm/ sec /N ' );
figu re( 4); %p lot H fo r a cce ler ati o n
plot (fA cce l(2 51: 1 250) ,ab s(H 1Ac cel ( 251: 125 0)) ,fA cce l (251 :12 50) ,ab s(
H2Ac cel (25 1:1 250 ) ), '- -')
lege nd( 'H1 ' ,' H2' ) ;
titl e( ' Exp eri men t al D ata : A cce ler a tion Ma gni tud e H ' );
xlab el( 'fr equ enc y (Hz) ' );
ylab el( 'm/ sec ^2 / N' );
figu re( 5); %p lot phas e o f H fo r v e loci ty
plot (fV elo c(2 51: 1 250) ,an gle (H1 Vel o c(25 1:1 250 )))
titl e( ' Exp eri men t al D ata : V elo cit y Pha se H' ) ;
xlab el( 'fr equ enc y (Hz) ' );
ylab el( 'Ph ase (r a ds)' );
figu re( 6); %p lot phas e o f H fo r a c cele rat ion
plot (fA cce l (2 51: 1 250) ,an gle (H1 Acc e l(25 1:1 250 )))
titl e( ' Exp eri men t al D ata : A cce ler a tion Ph ase H' );
xlab el( 'fr equ enc y (Hz) ' );
ylab el( 'Ph ase (r a ds)' );
%% R un Sim ula tio n wit h c an d k
sim( 'ME 537 4_P roj e ct1_ Sim uli nk' );
%% A nal yze Si mul a tion Da ta in the same wa y a s E xpe r imen tal Da ta

SimT ime =Si mul ink V eloc ity Dat a.t ime ( :,1) ;
SimV elo c=S imu lin k Velo cit yDa ta. sig n als. val ues (:, 1);
SimF orc e=S imu lin k Forc eDa ta. sig nal s .val ues (:, 1);
SimA cce l=S imu lin k Acce ler ati onD ata . sign als .va lue s(: , 1);
SimF Len gth =si ze( S imFo rce (:, 1), 1); %Tak e l e ng th of F orce Da ta
SimF blk _si ze= (fl o or(S imF Len gth )); %Div ide Fo rce da t a in to blo cks
SimF blk _si ze= Sim F blk_ siz e -m od( Sim F blk_ siz e -1 ,2) ; % M ake blo cks od d
tsf= 400 0; %sa mpl i ng f req uen cy
g=li nsp ace ( -t sf/ 2 ,tsf /2, Sim Fbl k_s i ze)' ; % est abl ish freq uen cy
vect or
% De ter min e t he i ndex of th e z ero freq uen cy
zero ind ex= fin d(g == m edi an( g)) ;
% Ap ply fl at top wind ow to eac h b l ock, ca lcu lat e F F T an d p owe r
spec tra
win= fla tto pwi n(S i mFbl k_s ize ); %fl a ttop win
a=1;
fori =1: a;
% FF T o f i npu t
Sim X(: ,i) =ff t shif t(f ft( win .*S i mFor ce( Sim Fbl k_s i ze*( i 1)+1 :Si mFb lk_ siz e *i,1 ))) ;
% FF T o f o utp ut f or V ELO CIT Y
Sim YVe loc (:, i )=ff tsh ift (ff t(w i n.*S imV elo c(S imF b lk_s ize *(i 1)+1 :Si mFb lk_ siz e *i,1 ))) ;
% In put -ou tpu t c r ossp owe r s pec tra for eac h d ata bl o ck
SimG XYV elo c(: ,i) = SimX (:, i). *co nj( S imYV elo c(: ,i) );
% Ou tpu t -i npu t c r ossp owe r s pec tra for eac h d ata bl o ck
SimG YXV elo c(: ,i) = SimY Vel oc( :,i ).* c onj( Sim X(: ,i) );
% In put au top owe r spe ctr a f or eac h dat a b loc k
SimG XXV elo c(: ,i) = SimX (:, i). *co nj( S imX( :,i ));
% Ou tpu t a uto pow e r sp ect ra for ea c h da ta blo ck
SimG YYV elo c(: ,i) = SimY Vel oc( :,i ).* c onj( Sim YVe loc (:, i ));
% FF T o f o utp ut f or A CCE LER ATI ON
Sim YAc cel (:, i )=ff tsh ift (ff t(w i n.*S imA cce l(S imF b lk_s ize *(i 1)+1 :Si mFb lk_ siz e *i,1 ))) ;
% In put -ou tpu t c r ossp owe r s pec tra for eac h d ata bl o ck
SimG XYA cce l(: ,i) = SimX (:, i). *co nj( S imYA cce l(: ,i) );
% Ou tpu t -i npu t c r ossp owe r s pec tra for eac h d ata bl o ck
SimG YXA cce l(: ,i) = SimY Acc el( :,i ).* c onj( Sim X(: ,i) );
% In put au top owe r spe ctr a f or eac h dat a b loc k
SimG XXA cce l(: ,i) = Si mX (:, i). *co nj( S imX( :,i ));
% Ou tpu t a uto pow e r sp ect ra for ea c h da ta blo ck
SimG YYA cce l(: ,i) = SimY Acc el( :,i ).* c onj( Sim YAc cel (:, i ));
end
% Av era ge cro ssp o wer and au top owe r spe ctr a f or VEL O CITY
SimG XYV elo c=m ean ( SimG XYV elo c,2 );
SimG YXV elo c=m ean ( SimG YXV elo c,2 );
SimG XXV elo c=m ean ( SimG XXV elo c,2 );
SimG YYV elo c=m ean ( SimG YYV elo c,2 );
% Av era ge cro ssp o wer and au top owe r spe ctr a f or ACC E LERA TIO N
SimG XYA cce l=m ean ( SimG XYA cce l,2 );
SimG YXA cce l=m ean ( SimG YXA cce l,2 );
SimG XXA cce l=m ean ( SimG XXA cce l,2 );
SimG YYA cce l=m ean ( SimG YYA cce l,2 );
% Ca lcu lat e F RF f or V ELO CIT Y
SimH 1Ve loc =Si mGY X Velo c./ Sim GXX Vel o c;
SimH 2Ve loc =Si mGY Y Velo c./ Sim GXY Vel o c;

% Ca lcu lat e F RF f or A CCE LER ATI ON

SimH 1Ac cel =Si mGY X Acce l./ Sim GXX Acc e l;
SimH 2Ac cel =Si mGY Y Acce l./ Sim GXY Acc e l;
% Ca lcu lat e c ohe r ence fo r V ELO CIT Y
SimC OHV elo c=S imH 1 Velo c./ Sim H2V elo c ;
% Ca lcu lat e c ohe r ence fo r A CCE LER A TION
SimC OHA cce l=S imH 1 Acce l./ Sim H2A cce l ;
% Co nve rt to one - side d s pec tru m f o r VE LOC ITY
Simg Vel oc= g(z ero i ndex :en d);
SimH 1Ve loc =Si mH1 V eloc (ze roi nde x:e n d);
SimH 2Ve loc =Si mH2 V eloc ( ze roi nde x:e n d);
SimC OHV elo c=S imC O HVel oc( zer oin dex : end) ;
% Co nve rt to one - side d s pec tru m f o r AC CEL ERA TIO N
Simg Acc el= g(z ero i ndex :en d);
SimH 1Ac cel =Si mH1 A ccel (ze roi nde x:e n d);
SimH 2Ac cel =Si mH2 A ccel (ze roi nde x:e n d);
SimC OHA cce l=S imC O HAcc el( zer oin dex : end) ;
%% P lot Si mul ati o n Da ta
figu re( 7); %P lot with re spe ct to t ime
plot (Si mTi me, 100 0 0*Si mVe loc ,Si mTi m e,Si mAc cel );
lege nd( 'Ve loc ity (10^ 4*m /se c)' ,'A c cele rat ion (g )' ) ;
titl e( ' Sim ula tio n Dat a: Vel oci ty a nd A cce ler ati on v s. T ime ' );
xlab el( 'ti me( s)' ) ;
ylab el( 'Ac cel era t ion (g) & Vel oci t y (1 0^4 *m/ sec )' ) ;
figu re( 8); %P lot Velo cit y H
plot (Si mgV elo c(2 5 1:12 51) ,ab s(S imH 1 Velo c(2 51: 125 1)) , Simg Vel oc( 251 :1
251) ,ab s(S imH 2Ve l oc(2 51: 125 1)) , '- - ')
lege nd( 'H1 ' ,' H2' ) ;
titl e( ' Sim ula tio n Dat a: Vel oci ty M agni tud e H ' );
xlab el( 'fr equ enc y (Hz) ' );
ylab el( 'm/ sec /N ' );
figu re( 9); %P lot Acce ler ati on H
plot (Si mgA cce l(2 5 1:12 51) ,ab s(S imH 1 Acce l(2 51: 125 1)) , Simg Acc el( 251 :1
251) ,ab s(S imH 2Ac c el(2 51: 125 1)) , '- - ')
lege nd( 'H1 ' ,' H2' ) ;
titl e( ' Sim ula tio n Dat a: Acc ele rat i on M agn itu de H' ) ;
xlab el( 'fr equ enc y (Hz) ' );
ylab el( 'm/ sec ^2 / N' );
figu re( 10) ; % PLo t vel oci ty Pha se H
plot (Si mgV elo c(2 5 1:12 51) ,an gle (Si m H1Ve loc (25 1:1 251 ) ))
titl e( ' Sim ula tio n Dat a: Vel oci ty P hase H' );
xlab el( 'fr equ enc y (Hz) ' );
ylab el( 'Ph ase (r a ds)' );
figu re( 11) ; % Plo t acc ele rat ion ph a se h
plot (Si mgA c ce l(2 5 1:12 51) ,an gle (Si m H1Ac cel (25 1:1 251 ) ));
titl e( ' Sim ula tio n Dat a: Acc ele rat i on P has e H ' );
xlab el( 'fr equ enc y (Hz) ' );
ylab el( 'Ph ase (r a ds)' );

SIMSCAPE MODEL

Figure A8: Simscape model for testing effectiveness of system design.