Scribd
Upload
194 views6 pages

MAE 376 Project

This document summarizes the modeling and analysis of a two-degree of freedom dynamic system performed by a student. The equations of motion for the system were derived and represented in Simulink. The position of the two masses was simulated and graphed for different connection stiffness values. Modal analysis was also conducted to determine the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the system.

Uploaded by

Jenna Hagen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
194 views6 pages

MAE 376 Project

This document summarizes the modeling and analysis of a two-degree of freedom dynamic system performed by a student. The equations of motion for the system were derived and represented in Simulink. The position of the two masses was simulated and graphed for different connection stiffness values. Modal analysis was also conducted to determine the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the system.

Uploaded by

Jenna Hagen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

California State University, Long Beach

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

MAE 376 Section 02


Modeling & Analysis of Dynamic Systems
Final Project
Spring 2018

Submitted by:

Jenna Hagen
ID: 013715856

Submitted to:

Dr. Allen Teagle-Hernandez


Equations of Motion for 2-DOF System

Modeling and analysis was performed on a two-degree of freedom dynamic system. The
equations of motion were derived from the free body diagrams of each mass using Newton’s
second law of motion, shown below.

m1 x1 ′′ + c1 x1 ′ + (k 1 + k 2 )x1 − k 2 x2 = 0
m2 x2 ′′ + c3 x2 ′ + (k 2 + k 3 )x2 − k 2 x1 = 0

Simulink Block Diagram

These equations of motion were then represented by a block diagram, which was modeled
using Simulink in MATLAB. The block diagram of the system is shown in the figure below.
In the MATLAB command window the variables are defined as

>> m1 = 5; m2 = 7; k1 = 2000; k3 = 3000; k2 = 4000; % k2 varies by case


>> zeta1 = 0.1; zeta3 = 0.1;
>> omega1 = sqrt(k1/m1); omega3 = sqrt(k3/m2);
>> c1 = m1*2*zeta1*omega1; c3 = m2*2*zeta3*omega3;

Where k​2​ will vary for two cases: (1) tight connection between the masses (k​2​ = 4000 N/m) and
(2) loose connection between the masses (k​2​ = 50 N/m). After the simulations runs, the scope
data is stored in the MATLAB workspace which allows for position graphs to be generated.

State Space Representation

The same graphs can be generated to confirm the position of the masses using state space
representation. The state variables are determined from the equations of motion, followed by
the state variable equations. A block diagram is used to represent the system, which can then
be used to graph results after simulation.

The state space system is decoupled in MATLAB so that the

>> A = [0 0 1 0;0 0 0 1;-(k1+k2)/m1 k2/m1 -c1/m1 0; k2/m2 -(k2+k3)/m2 0 -c3/m2];


>> B = zeros(4,2);
>> C = [1 0 0 0;0 1 0 0]; D = zeros(2,2);
>> sys = ss(A,B,C,D); % Coupled state space representation
>> [V, Dtilda] = eig(A);
>> Btilda = V\B; Ctilda = C*V;
>> dec_sys = ss(Dtilda,Btilda,Ctilda,D); % Decoupled state space representation
For cases (1) and (2) the position of the masses with respect to time are shown below, using the
block diagram and state space Simulink models. Note that the initial displacement of m​2​ was 0.1
m, or x​2​(0) = 0.1, which is seen in the graphs below.
It is observed in the graphs from case (1) that the position of m​1 varies much more, due to the
tight connection between the masses. In the graphs from case (2) the position of m​1 varies
much less due to the loose connection between the masses. The position of each mass is
dependent on the motion of the other mass due to their coupling, which explains these
responses in each case. A tighter connection between the two evokes a stronger response in
the other mass, whereas a looser connection yields a weaker response.
Modal Analysis

Modal analysis was performed on the system disregarding damping. The following function was
created to determine the natural frequencies of the system, as well as the corresponding mode
shapes.

function [freq, modes] = freq_comp(k1,k2,k3,m1,m2)


M = [m1 0;0 m2];
K = [k1+k2 -k2;-k2 k2+k3];
[V,D] = eig(K,M); % Determine eigenvalues and eigenvectors
freq = zeros(2,1);
for i = 1:2
freq(i) = sqrt(D(i,i)); % Natural frequencies
end
modes = V; % Mode shapes
end

For case 1:
>> [freq, modes] = freq_comp(2000,4000,3000,5,7)

freq =
20.4089
42.2313

modes =
-0.2922 -0.3386
-0.2861 0.2469

In mode 1, both masses oscillate with a frequency of 20.4089 and displace in the same direction
whereas in mode 2, both masses oscillate with a frequency of 42.2313 and displace in opposite
directions.

For case 2:
>> [freq, modes] = freq_comp(2000,50,3000,5,7)

freq =
20.1859
20.9343

modes =
-0.4284 -0.1282
-0.1084 0.3621

In mode 1, both masses oscillate with a frequency of 20.1859 and displace in the same direction
whereas in mode 2, both masses oscillate with a frequency of 20.9343 and displace in opposite
directions.

You might also like