IINCI A-cSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Dat* Fniec,vd)

/
_EAD INSTRUCTIONS -3EFORE CO.%PLET!INr, FORM ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIEN4T'S CATALOG NUMBER S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT NUMBER

12GOVT

AFIT/CI/NR 83-84T
TITLE (and Subtitle)

Experimental Measurement of Material Damping For Space Structures in Simulated Zero-G

6.
AU THOR(s)

THESIS/(DAI5SAEWfAAAON
PERFORMING 01G, REPORT NUMBER

S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)

Raymond Louis Sheen

PERFORMING ORGANIZA-TION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROjECT, TASK AREA a WORK UNIT NUMBERS

'IT STUDENT AT:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

12. REPORT DATE

CONTROLLING OFFICE N4AME AND ADDRESS

IT/NR 'FOH45433
MONITORING AGENCY NAME &ADDRESS(if diatetnt from Controlling Office)

13. NUMBER OF PAGES 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

December 120A

9~83

UNCLASS
Ise, DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNURADING SCH EDULE DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

t?. OISTRIB3UTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, if differant from Report) Zrr, fo
L'.r~,1 -

T X7: TAW 7Y21 S1O17.

flt~ DI opmcnt

If.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESP

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE:

IAW AFR 190-17

Dea fr

WLAVER
Research and

It.KEY WORDS (Continue on revere sside if necessary and identify by block number)

Poesoa

eeomn

10.

ASS. RACT (Continue on reverse aide It neceesary and identify by block numbe,)

L -MR g

EJ

0ATTACHED

DD I i*

P'1

1473

EDITION Olt IN.OV 65

IS OSSOLKTI

S84

0.~

099

UNCLASS
SECURtITY CLASSIFICATION4 0P THIS PA49 (When Vial EnIftod)
.9p

EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT

OF MATERIAL DAMPING

FOR SPACE STRUCTURES

IN SIMULATED ZERO-G by RAYMOND LOUIS SHEEN Submitted to the Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering on December 23, 1983 in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering ABSTRACT

I..

S.A

)--An experimental apparatus for measuring the material damping properties of a beam specimen is described. The apparatus, called Tuneable Excitation Launch Mechanism_ ..... (TELM) measures the free decay of free-free beams launched into free-fall in a vacuum. Aluminum 2024-T3 specimens are tested with results following the Zener model for specimens with a fundamental free-free frequency above the relaxation frequency. However, specimens with a fundamental free-free frequency below the relaxation frequency show a high degree, . of stress dependence. Frequency range was 17 Hz to 358 Hz ,(4., and stress range was 0.5 KSI to 17 KSI. Gra ihe/epqxy.. AS1/3501-6 laminates were also tested. For 08aminates, material damping ratio of approximately .0005 -as found for frequencies vat.King from 45 Hz to 237 Hz. The-diamping was (I^ neither stress4K frequency dependent. For 1[90] alamia-iies, "the damping ratio ranged from .0055 to .0066 as--requency ranged from 42 Hz to 143 Hz. Damping ratios for 90] ....... specimens were independent of stress. Metal matrix -specimens with graphite fibers, magnesium matrix, and either titanium or magnesium foil were also tested. Damping ratios ranged from .00039 to .00099 depending upon the lay up, frequency, and possibly the stress range involved.` 7
"-

"

Thesis Supervisor:

Dr.

Edward F.

Crawley

Title:

Boeing Assistant Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics

M7

AFIT/CI/NR 83-84T AFIT RESEARCH ASSESSMENT The purpose of this questionnaire is to ascertain the value and/or contribution of research accomplished by students or faculty of the Air Force Institute of Technology (ATC). It would bo greatly appreciated if you would complete the following questionnaire and return it to: AFIT/NR Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433 Experimental Measurement of Material Damping for Space Structures in

RESEARCH TZILE: AUTHOR"

Si.mul ai.ed Zero-G

Ritymond Louis Sheen RESFARCH ASSESiMENT QUESTIONS: 1. Did tnis research contribute to a current Air Force project?

( i. YES ( ) b. NO 2. Do ycu believe this research topic is significant enough that it would have been researched (or contracteo) by your organizatioti or another agency if AFIT had not?

()

a. YES

( ) b. NO

3. The benefits of AFIT research cun often be expressed by the equivalent value that your agency achieved/received by virtue of AFIT perforaing the research. Can you estimate what this research would have cost if it had been accomplished under contract or if it had been done in-house in terms of manpower and/or dollars? a. MAN-YEARS ( ) b. $ 4. Often it is not possible to attach equivalent dollar values to research, although the results of the research may, in fact, be important. Whether or not you were able to establish an equivalent value for this research (3. above), what is your estimate of its significance? .{ ) a. HIGHLY ( ) b. SIGNIFICANT ()c. SLIGHTLY ()d. OF NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANCE 5. AFIT welcomes any further comments you may have on the above questions, or any additional details concerning the current application, future potential, or other value of this research. Please use the bottom part of this questionnaire for your statement(s). NME " GRADE LOCATION POSITION

"ORGGANIZATION
STATEMENT(s):

"I

I,

--

. . .

--

'tl/

':'?.

)!

"!

T rs :''I.?7."2.'*

"I

J..='' '-

'R/

e,

:'."..TT

L"'

: -"'p" "

FOLD DOWN ON OUTSIDE

SEAL WITH TAPE

I
MAILED IN THEI UNITED STATES if

OPP cIAL mUmmI PKNALI'Y FOR PRIIVAT1 M.ll 9"I0]

I II II
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST Wa MMIIT mOnm INMRINCTLt. IPW~A04 WIRL N PAID IT ADmIosmUI

Wrght.Patterlo AFB OH 45435

FODI

-111"1I

IF0MILED

sinew

muumaa.

1M+M

EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT OF MATERINL DAMPING FOR SPACE STRUCTURES IN SIMULATED ZERO-G by Raymond Louis Sheen

C.aptain, USAF

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

at the OF TECHNOLOGY

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Decemnber

1963

120 pages

,-':'.'-.i

For

Ii
II

,W*

[ Jl,

S""

., ..

...

It

/.O .

...

it I

Codes v*LA

Av ,-. 1. and/or

84 0

EXPERIMENTA.; MEASUREMENT OF MATERIAL DAMPING FOR SPACE STRUCTURES IN SIMULATED ZERO-G by Raymond Louis Sheen

B.S.,

United States Air Forco Academy (1977)

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY December 1983 @Massachusetts Signature of Author

DepaLrtment of Aeronaut andAtronaulticl si

Institute of Technology 1983 i

ngleer3n

Dec mber 23, 1983

Certified by
_

VAv

Pro essor Idw~ard F. Crawley esis supervisor

Accepted by

Professor Harold Y. Wachman Chairman, Departmental Graduate Committee

/i

T~I

The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense of the United States Government.

I3

TABLE OF CONTENTS .Chapter I 2 INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 Description of Apparatus Specimens Data Collection and Reduction Test Procedure 10 15 15 21 24 26 28 28 29 30 32 33 33 36 38 42 48

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Validation and Configuration Tests Aluminum Tests Graphite/Epoxy Tests Metal Matrix Tests

ANALYSIS 4.1 4.2 S4,3 4.4 4.5 Theoretical Model of Damping in Metals Analysis of Damping in Aluminum Theoretical Models of Damping in Composites Analysis of Damping in Graphite/Epoxy Analysis of Damping in Metal Matrix Material

:1

( .

__*. _ _

Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions 5.2 Recomnendations 51 51 53

LIST OF REFERENCES TABLES FIGURES APPENDICES A. B. C. D. Microcomputer Program Graphite/Epoxy Layering Curing Cycle Sequence and

54 56 87

103 iii 113 115

Strain Level Determination Derivation of Zener Equation

__________________
5

LIST OF TABLES 'Table 2.1 2.2 2,3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 Equipment List Aluminum Specimens Graphite/Epoxy Specimens Mohr's [45]2,s Graphite/Epoxy Specimens 2 Metal Matrix Specimens Damping in Aluminum Specimens with Center Wire Attachment (Validation Tests) Summary of Damping in Aluminum Specimens with Center Wire Attached as Reported by Mohr 2 Damping of Aluminum Specimens with Node Wire Attachment Summary of Aluminum Damping Results in Validation Procedure 56 57 57 58 58 59 61

3.3 3.4

62 64

3.5 3.6
3.7

Material Damping in Aluminum Specimens Material Damping in Aluminum as Measured

by Malan Damping in [0]8 Graphite/Epoxy Specimens of Similar Dimensions

65 70
71

3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11

Damping in [0]8 Graphite/Epoxy Specimens of Different Frequencies Damping in (9018 Graphite/Epoxy Specimens at Different Frequencies Damping in [45]1s Graphite/Epoxy as Reported by Mohr Damping in Metal Matrix Specimens

74 77 79 80

/-

Table 4.1 4.2 Composite Damping of Similar Specimens of [O1g Damping Ratio of Matrix Material as
Calculated from Damping of Specimens of Similar Geometry 4.3 Damping Ratio of Matrix Material as Calculated from Damping of [0)e Specimens of Different Frequencies Damping Ratio of Matrix Material as Calculated from Damiping of [901f Specimens of Different Frequencies Dynamic Young's Modulus for Graphite/Epoxy

?Awe 83 83

84

4.4

85

4.5

86

4.6

Damping of PlOO/AZ9lC/Mg Metal Matrix Specimen

86

.-

47

I-

LIST OF FIGURES Figure

2.1 Tuned Excitation & Launch Mechanism, (TELM) as used by Mohr Prior to Modification

page
87

2.2

TELM Launch Sequence Prior to

Modification

88

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

TELM Automated Cocking Mechanism TELM Automated Stroke Adjustment Current TELM Launch Sequence Specimen Configuration Unfiltered Strain Data vs. Time

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 95 96

Filtered Strain Data vs. Time Conceptual Damping Model of a Voight

Solid

Conceptual Damping Model of a Standard Linear Solid Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for Aluminum

Damping Ratio vs. Stress Level for Aluminum 97 Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for [0l8 Graphite/Epoxy Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for [901I Graphite/Epoxy Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for [145J2s 98 99 100

S t

i__

ii

"

Figures 4.8 Damping Ratio vs. Fiber Orientation for Graphite/Epoxy Specimens in the "Frequency Range 140Hz to .170Hz Damping of Metal Matrix Specimens vs. Frequency Program Flow Chart Interrupt Handler Flow Chart Stacking Sequence Wheatstone Bridge Circuit

Page
101

4.9 A.1 A.2 B.1 C.1

102 103 104 ill 113

I?

At

.-

"*

*.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION To characterize the dynamic behavior of~any structure, the properties of that structure must be known. These

include not only the mass and stiffness, but' also the structure's damping characteristics. To determine the

damping of a structure, the sources of dissipation must be understood. Sources of dissipation can be divided into two External sources

broad categories, external and internal.

include active control systems, aeroacoustic effects caused by moving through a fluid, and loss of energy at the supports through either friction or transmission into the supporting structure. Internal sources include friction

occurring within the structure and the damping characteristics of the materials used in the structure. With large flexible space structures the importance of the internal sources of damping is increased. An active.

control system will probably not be able to cont rol all of the flexible modes of a large space structure. In fact, a

closed loop control system can cause higher modes that were initially stable to become unstable; this effect is known as spillover. In the space environment the aeroacoustic and This leaves

support dissipation mechanisms do not exist.

only the internal forms of damping to dissipate disturbances

10

in the higher modes, and prevent spillover from causing an instability in the structure. Of the forms of internal

damping, material damping will be investigated in this study. There have been man~y different techniques and geometries which have been used to measure material damping. The three most common techniques are the free

decay method, the resonant-dwell method, arid the half-power bandwidth method. 3 method. This study will use the free decay

of the different geometries, each has certain One geometry is to cantilever

advantages and disadvantages.

specmen 1 0 11 12 the spcien A problem with this method is ensuring that the specimen stays perfectly fixed at the clamped end. If the specimen does not stay fixed, there

will be a damping effect caused by friction at the support. A method often used to reduce this effect is to machine the specimen and support from the same larger piece of material. V This is not practical with composite specimens.

similar difficulties exist in the double cantilever. 4 In order to eliminate fixity uncertainty at the ends, a free-free geometry is often us'3d. The obvious problem with

A I

this is supporting the free-free specimen in a gravity field. nodes. 8 Usually this is done by supporting the beam at the However, there is still some effect due to the In order to eliminate the requirements for

nodal support.

supports, a method of measuring the damping of a free-free specimen in free-fall will be used in this study report. apparatus that provides this capability exists at MIT and has already been used for previous studies in this fi4eld.*1,2 The materials selected for study were those that are used now are being developed for sp~ace applications. Aluminum was chosen since it is used in many structures. Also, since a large experimental data base already exists, it can be used to validate the apparatus.
I.*

An

Due to the high

strength and low mass, c~omposite materials are already in use on space structures and were therefore chosen for testing. There is a limited data base on the damping As a third

characteristics of composite materials.

class of potential space structural materials, the damping characteristics of several metal matrix materials, composed of graphite fibers, magnesium matrix and either titanium or magnesium foil, will be examined. There has already been a significant amount of study done on aluminum by other researchers. Granick and'Stern,

who used double cantilever specimens tested in both air and vacuum, did not find material damping to be stress dependent in their vacuum results. 4 Also, their data did

show damping values slightly higher than-those given by the theoretical Zener model. However, they did not test

specimens with natural frequencies below the Zener

relaxation frequency.J
12

___________________________________________________,7
_____________,

Substantiating this trend,

no stress dependence

is

seen in

the data taken by Mohr.

Like Granick and Stern, Mohr found

damping values slightly higher than the Zener curve for specimens with a frequency above the relaxation frequency. However, frequency, for a single specimen below the relaxation the value of damping did not decrease as This study will examine

suggested by the Zener model. K

aluminum specimens with frequencies below the Zener relaxatiou- frequency. Work done by other researchers with composite materials is harder to correlate since it ft repo'rted in many different ways and all the information concerning a particular composite tested is not always provided. and Tsail0 found that damping depended upon fiber Schultz

orientation and would transform as the complex part of the elastic modulus. However, their error between theory and Putter,

experimental results ranged from 14% to 37%. Buchanan,

and Rehfield 12 showed that damping depended upon humidity, and ply orientation. Adams and

temperature,

Bacon 8 demonstrated a very strong correlation between fiber volume fraction and damping. They also showed a

relationship between beam slenderness ratio and damping, "which correlated well with their theory on composite .damping. Mohr found damping for angle ply laminates to be

13

t.

only slightly dependent on stress and frequency.

Mohr

reported reliable data only on the damping of [4512s specimens. This study will concentrate on (0
8

and [9018

graphite/epoxy specimens made from ASI/3501-6 for correlation with data gathered by Mohr.

I)

14

:K

CHAPTER 2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

2.1

Descr12tion of Apparatus An experimental apparatus has been developed in the

Space Systems Laboratory (SSL) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to quantify material damping of candidate specimens for space structures. The apparatus,

called the Tuneable Excitation Launch Mechanism (TELM), lofts the specimen into free-fall. This eliminates the The

effects caused by support and excitation interactions. apparatus is contained within a seven foot tall circular vacuum chamber. effects.

The vacuum eliminates any aerodynamic drag

The specimen to be tested is placed on a spring The launcher lofts the specimen into

loaded launcher. free-fall.

During the launch, the acceleration forces cause

the specimen to deflect. Strain gauges on the specimen measure the deflection as the specimen vibrates. The apparatus was developed by Vorlicek1 and Mohr 2 with some *additional modifications made for this study. A complete
2

~analysis of the launch dynamics was done by Mohr.2

At the time of Mohr's work the apparatus consisted of a spring loaded launcher that would loft the specimen into free-fall. The springs were compressed by hand and an

elcrmge

maintained telauncher ina"okd

15

position.

The amount of compression in the springs and the The

distance the launcher could travel could be varied.

compression was changed by turning a threaded rod that ran vertically through the launcher and had a steel plate attached to the bottom. The electromagnet held the steel The travel distance was

plate when the launcher was cocked.

varied by moving a small nut up and down the threaded rod. When the electromagnet released the launcher, the springs forced the launcher up. The adjustable stopper nut would (fig 2.1)

impact a "striker plate" and stop the launcher.

At the same time the specimen was lofted into free-flight, a terminal block was also lofted upward. This block served as

an attachment point for strain gauge wires that came from the specimen. (fig 2.2) The entire apparatus was enclosed

by a six foot tall circular vacuum chamber made of plexiglas

4
* .biggest

with an inside diameter of two feet.

Based upon the experiences of Mohr, a number of changes

were made in the design of the apparatus. one of the

problems encountered was that the chamber had to be opened up between each run to reset the launcher system. The chamber then had to be -pumped down again to the proper vacuum before the specimen could be launched. If the entire

system could be reset and the launcher settings adjusted from outside the chamber, the time between tests could be reduced. To do this four s;ubassemblies of the TELM had to

16

~Ii

be modifi~edor developed: 1. 2. 3. Tecocking mechanism was modified. The stroke adjustment mechanism was modified. A mechanism to reset the specimen on the launcher following each test was developed. 4. A mechanism to drive the terminal block on a trajectory identical to the specimen was developed. A subassembly was designed that would automatically compress the springs to recock the launcher. The

electromagnet which holds the launcher in the cocked position had previously been fixed to the bottom of the chamber. In the new modified design the electromagnet was (fig 2.3) This plate had ball nuts

mounted on a plate.

mounted on each end with worm screws running through them allowing for controlled vertical translation of the electromagnet assembly. To reset the system, a small motor

would turn the set of worm screws and translate the

5J

electromagnet upward until it touchec the steel plate on t',he bottom of the threaded rod. The magnet would then be

energized and hold the steel plate that was connected to the
launcher by a threaded rod. The worm screw3 would be

energized, drawing the electronmagnet and launcher downward, compressing the springs. The worm screws were stopped at

the point when the proper compression was achieved.

17

/Now_

Another subassembly was designed that would automatically adjust the point at which the launcher would

be decelerated so as to achieve the proper launch velocity. The previous adjustment was done by turning by hand the nut that was located on the threaded rod. This nut would impact and the

the "striker plate" that was at a fixed height, launcher would stop rapidly, In the new design,

lofting the specimen upward.

the nut now would impact a hollow shaft (fig 2.4) This shaft

that is set in the striker plate.

could be moved up and down to set the height where the launcher way decelerated. turned the shaft. A DC motor with a gear train it would translate

As the shaft turned,

vertically through the striker plate. A third subassembly was deviloped that would place the specimen back onto the launcher after a test so that it could be lofted again without the need for the operator to break the vacuum and handle the specimen. The lower section

of the plexiglas chamber was replaced by a steel section. This section had two ports through which mechanical arms could be mounted. ports. Each arm was sealed by 0-rings at the

Each arv. vtad four dagrees of freedom and a small These arms were only marginally

claw on the end. effective.

The arm was difficult to control since the and the

vacuum would constantly try to pull the arm in, claws did rot have much dexterity.

In particular,

18

: .....--

:-

--

- -.

--

'

if

the specimen. became entangled in it.

the strain gauge wires

the arms could not untangle

The arms were removed and

the ports sealed after one of the covers for the 0-ring seals cracked and began to leak. For the remainder of the

tests, the vacuum was roleased following the test and each specimen manually reset on the launcher. Another problem encountered by Mohr was that the wires connecting the strain gauges to the terminal block often

broke.

These breaks were usually caused by the terminal

At other

block not matching the trajectory of the specimen.

times the magnet holding the terminal block would release prematurely, long, snapping the wires. Mohr was using 24 inch

39 gauge,

enamel coated wire leading from the terminal

block to the specimen.

To solve the problem of the terminal block not matching the trajectory of the specimen, designed. a fourth new subassembly was

This subassembly replaced the terminal block with

a smaller block on a wire and pulley system, driven by a DC motor. (fig 2.5) Because of th: high initial torque followed by an essentially When

required to accelerate the block, free-wheeling system,

a special motor was needed.

lofting the lightest weight specimen with the maximum spring compression, the terminal block would be accelerated to 16.4 This is an average

feet per second in 13.86 milliseconds.

19
.= -

ac,.*leration of 36.8 "G~s".

The motor had to have an

electrical and mechanical time constant below 13.86

milliseconds, and sufficient torque to accelerate the

terminal block pulley system with the required force. printed circuit pancake motor was chosen that met the performance requirements of the system.
r

The motor was controlled by an 8 bit microprocessor. The microprocessor would send a velocity profile to the motor controller, which then would match this profile. The

micrprocessor also would control the electromagnet that was holding the launcher down. The microprocessor gave the

I,
'Istandard

flexibility of changing initial velocity of the terminal block and allowing for a delay between terminal block

acceleration and magnet release.

This delay was necessary

The

when launching at some of the higher stress settings. maximum delay used was .01 seconds.

A flowchart and copy of

the microprocessor program is found in Appendix A. The problem of the wire breaking was not completely solved, although strain gauge wire reliability was improved. The strain gauge wires were shortened to 18

inches and were soldered onto a four inch section of telephone cable at the terminal block end. The

terminal block had a two-way female telephone plug mounted

20

on it.

One side of the 'plug received th4e tele*phone cable The other side to ,ck

with the strain gauge wires mounted on it..

was attached to a ten foot long telephone cable, simili' that found on a standard desk phone. As the terminal

would travel up and down, this telephone cable would be stretched then would retract. There were fewer problems Most breaks occured

with wires breaking with this setup.

when the specimen would land and bounce in the bottom of the chamber. other changes made to the apparatus were of a fairly minor nature. The vacuum plumbing was redesigned to allow A

more than one device to be run by the same vacuum pump. separate release valve was also added. Styrofoam padding

was put in the bottom of the chamber to cushion the specimen when it landed. Spacers were designed to be put under the

springs so that the amount of compression could be increased. 2.2 A complete parts list is fouqd in Table 2.1.

Specimens The specimens tested were small beams. They varied in

length from 5.3 inches to 20 inches and in thickness from .023 inches to .062 inches. approximately one inch wide. All specimens were The specimens were made of

aluminum, graphite/epoxy composites, or metal matrix

21

composites.

Aluminum was tested to validate the system and The

to validata, a theoretical model of material damping.

graphite/epoxy and metal matrix were tested to develop a data base on damping values and to validate theoretical models. A, total of 24 specimens were tested during this study. In addition to these tests, the results of tests run by Remy Malan from June to August of 1982 will be reported. summary of Mohir's work will also be included. A

All the

specimens were instrumented with BLH FDE-25-35-ES strain gauges. These gauges were mounted on the top and bottom The gauges were

surfaces of the specimen at the midpoint.

connected to the telephone wire by three 18 inch long, 39 gauge, enamel-coated wires. In an effort to reduce the effect of the strain gauge wires on the damping characteristics, a series of tests were run with the strain gauge wires mounted near the center of the specimen next to the straina gauge, and alternatively with the strain gauge wires mounted at at the location of the node of the first free-free mode shape. (fig 2.6)

Depending on the size of the specimen and the type of tests in which the specimen was used, the wires were attached at the specimen center or node as noted.

22

There were nine aluminum 2024-T3 specimens tested. dimensions of these specimens are listed in Table 2.2. specimens were chosen to represent different frequencies along the theoretical Zener curve.

The The

The surfaces were sanded

and cleaned prior to initial testing to relieve machining stresses. Over the course of collecting data, most of these This was due to

specimens became slightly scratched.

impacting the side of the chamber or bouncing off portions of the launcher when landing at the end of a test. Specimens Al-l, Al-2, and Al-3 were tested with both-center Specimen Al-4 was Al-6,

mounted wires and node mounted wires. tested with center mounted wires. Al-7, Al-8,

Specimens Al-5,

and Al-9 were tested with node mounted wires.

In addition to these tests, results of Mohr's aluminum I-ests will also be reported for comparison. There were ten graphite/epoxy specimens tested. dimensions of these specimens are listed in Table 2.3. specimens were fabricated from ASI/3501-6 pre-preg tape. The lay up sequence and curing cycle were done according to standard TELAC procedures. in Appendix B. All of the These procedures are summarized [038 specimens were cut from the The The

same laminate sheet.

One of these specimens was then cut to One

successively shorter lengths to vary the frequency.

[90]8 specimen was used and cut to successively shorter

23

1t
/ii

:.- --

..

_ _

._

_ _

.o_ _

_ __r'

..

...

'

lengths to vary the frequency.

The lengths for the [90]8

specimens were chosen to obtain essentially the same frequencies as those tested in the [0]8 specimens. To

minimize moisture effects, the specimens were tested within three weeks of initial fabrication and were stored in a zero-humidity chamber following fabrication and between tests. In addition to these tests, a summary of tests done The

by Mohr on [451 2 s graphite/epoxy will be included. specimens Mohr used are listed in Table 2.4. There were three metal matrix composites tested.

The

dimensions of these specimens are listed in Table 2.5. These specimens were provided for test by HR Textron. Details of fabrication are not known. 2.3 Data Collection and Reduction The general data collection and data reduction systems were the same as those used by Mohr. The strain gauges were A

mounted on the top and bottom surfaces of each specimen.

I,

complete analysis of the strain gauge bridge circuit is contained in Appendix C. The bridge voltage time history

was rec~orded on a digital oscilloscope and the data points saved on floppy discs. each test. There were 4096 points stored on

The time interval between points varied A minimum of

depending upon the frequency of vibration.

twenty points per cycle was used to insure accurate digital

24

representation of the waveform. The data was then transfered to a computer system and digitally filtered. The digitial filter program was based

upon an equal ripple routine.

The filter was used as a low The

pass filter to remove higher modes and system noise. filter

parameters were chosen so that the mid-point of the

transition band was approximately the same as the mid-poit between the first free-free symmetric, frequency and the seocnd frequency. Other parameters

or third free-free,

were chosen so as to maintain approximately 75 filter coefficients. Some characteristics of the filtering are a no frequency shift, and a possible

significant phase shift,

Ssmoothness

small amplitude gain. This gain was a function of the and width of the transition band and varied from specimen to specimen. The amplitude gain was never more the Both the

7% of the amplitude and normally less than 2%.

unfiltered data and filtered data will be presented in this report. When there is no stress dependency, the filtered

data will be used for analysis since it

usually provides a When there

smaller standard deviation in damping results. is a stress dependency, examined.

the unfiltered data will be

A comparison of a typical data file that is

unfiltered and the same file filtered are found in figures

25

.......

. ... ..

2.7 and 2.8,

A copy of this digital filter program is o,

file in the SSL at MIT. The unfiltered and the filtered data was then subjected to a least-squares curve fit sinusoid u(t) = A e-40t sin (Ut + )+B
where A = amplitude

of an exponentially decaying

4= damping ratio c/ccr w = frequency

S= phase angle B = DC offset

In the fit parameters.

routine,

A,

C, w,

*,

and B are all free is based on the

The program,
5

called LSMARQ,

work of Marquardt.1

A copy of the program is on file 3t

the MIT Information Processing Center. 2.4 Test Procedure The same test procedure was used for all specimens: a) Initial compression and stroke adjustments were
16

determined for the particular specimen and stres3 level using the procedure outlined by Crowley and Mohr. b)

The specimen was placed on the launcher and was was sitting level.

checked to ensure it

26

c)The chamber was closed and evacuated to approximately one torr. The chamber was then sealed off

from the pump.

d)

The plate with the electromagnet was drawn up to

the steel plate attached to the launcher, avid then drawn back down until the desired compression was obtained. e) The hollow shaft going through the center of the

striker plate was adjusted for the proper stroke.

f) The microprocessor was initialized for the desired1I

rigid body velocity and the desired delay between theA terminal block acceleration and magnet release. g) h) The oscilloscope was set to collect data. The microprocessor program was executed,

accelerating the. terminal block and releasing the electromagnet. The electromagnet release pulse was used

ii

as the trigger pulse for the oscilloscope.

i) The data was visually inspected on the

oscilloscope, and if no problems were noted (broken wires, specimen hitting side of chamber) the data was stored on floppy disc.

j)
repeated.
k)

The atmosphere was readmitted and the procedure was

*
If specimen trajectory and terminal block

trajectory did not match, the compression and stroke adjustmuents were modified, or the microprocessor program constants were changed. 27

Is

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

3.1

Validation The first

and Configuration Tests series of tests were run to ensure that the in agregment with thred of the

experimental

apparatus was providing data This was done by that Mohr tested. had the strain as in testing
2

previous results. aluminum specimens tests,

During these gauge wires attached Mohr's work. The

these specimens

at the center of the specimen, values filtered for Al-I, data

Al-2 and Al-3 obtained are Table 3.1.

from the

found in

Mohr's values for these

-aluminum

specimens are given in Table 3.2 In an effort to reduce the possible effects of the strain gauge wires, a series of tests were conducted with but the strain gauge wires were

the same three specimens,

attached at the location of the node of the first free-free frequency. The results of these tests are found in Table 3.3. Average values for Mohr's tests and the center wire The average

and node wire tests are compared in Table 2.4.

value was usually lower and the standard deviation usually smaller using node wires. However, for specimen Al-i, the

average value and standard deviation were slightly higher with node wires. Following these tests, the decision was

28

made to use node wires in

all

tests,

except when the mass of or

the specimen was greater than the mass of specimen AI-i, when, the same specimen would be tested at different causing the node to shift,

frequencies, 3.2

Aluminum Tests Testing was now done on the remainder of the aluminum

specimens. All of these specimens had node wires except specimen Al-4, the twenty inch long specimen. This specimen was the heaviest specimen tested. * the longest tested, it Since this specimen was

was most likely to hit the side of Experience showed

the chamber during flight and tumble.

that center mounted wires were less likely to break when the

specimen tumbled than node mounted wires.

This was also a

factor in deciding to use center mounted wires with specimen

A1-4. The results of these tests are found in Table 3.5.

Specimens Al-5,

AI-6,

Al-7,

and Al-8 have only unfiltered

data presented because of the high degree of stress

dependence. Specimens Al-4 and AI-9 have filtered data

presented since they did not exhibit stress dependence. Table 3.6 contains data collected by Malan using specimens Al-6 and Al-7. Mohr's procedures. This data was analyzed using

This data will be used with the data in

Table 3.5 for the analysis of the aluminum specimens.

29

Iil

__

__

/ f

.-

3.3

Graphite/Epoxy Tests To develop a data base and validate theoretical models

for graphite/epoxy composite damping, experimental tests must be conducted on a variety of ply lay ups, frequencies, and stress levels. terms, To remove the effect of shear coupling

only symmetric lay ups have been tested

2

initially. However,

,8,

12

Mohr tested (018 and [14512, specimens. [018 specimens was suspect because This

his data for the

of specimens curvature and strain gauge debonding.

study tested [018 and [90]8 specimens so that, with Mohr's [ 4 5 1 2s, damping data on three different symmetric ply lay Each specimen was tested at a variety Different frequency specimens were tested All graphite/epoxy data was filtered.

ups were available. of stress levels. with each lay up.

Tests were run on three different groups of specimens. SEphite/epoxy [318-1, the sar[018-2, [018-3, The first group of specimens, were tested to determine

and [018-4,

eproducibility of results.

They were all cut from the

laminate of graphite/epoxy [018 and had similar The four specimens were all tested at the same Specimen [018-4 had wires attached at the The

dimensions.

stress levels. center, since it

was used for frequency tests later.

other three specimens had wires attached at the node. Results of these tests are found in Table 3.7.

30

_ _

_ _

The next group of tests were using specimens 1018-4, [Ole-S, [018-6, and 1018-7. These tests were to determine

the frequency dependence of the graphite/epoxy [01e.

Specimens [018-4, [018-5, (018-6, and (018-7 were formed byI

cutting specimen to successivcly shorter lengths. which increased the frequency of vibration. cut from each end~of the specimen. An equal amount was

This left the strain Strain

gauges still mounted at the center of the specimen.

gauge wires were also mounted near the center, since the location of the node would change each time the specimen was cut. Results of these tests are found in Table 3.8. The last group of graphite/epoxy tests were done using specimens [9018-1, [90]8-2, and [9018-3. These specimens

were manufactured at the same time as the [018 graphite/epoxy specimens. The strain gauge wires were As with the

attached at the center of each specimen.

previous group of tests, the shorter specimens were made by cutting down the longer specimen, thus changing the frequency. Also, the strain gauge wires were attached at The lengths of these specimens

the center of each specimen.

were chosen so that each would vibrate at approximately the same frequency as one of the [018 specimens. The stress

level chosen for these specimens was to match the strain level of the corresponding (018 specimen's tests. Limitations of the

31

_________

___-__-_--------_

TELM prevented testing a specimen that matched the frequency of specimen Table 3.9. [018-7. Results of these tests are found in
[45]2S tests on

The results of Mohr's

different frequency specimens are found in Table 3.10. These specimens were also obtained by successively cutting

down the longest [4512s specimen.

3.4 Metal Matrix Tests The two metal matrix specimens with titanium foil, Pl00/AZ9lC/Ti and P55/AZ9lC/Ti, were tested with center wires attached. The original plan was to test these.

specimens at different frequencies by attaching tip weights to the specimen. specimens. This was attempted with one of the

However, due to its increased mass, the specimen

was damaged by impact with the launcher when it landed. This damage had not occurred when tip weights were not used. No further tests were made with tip weights on any of

the specimens. The met-al matrix specimen with magnesium foil had wires attached at the node. This specimen was not as stiff as the

other two specimens, therefore, it was tested over a much broader range of strain values. All of the data reported for these specimens is unfiltered. specimens. No stress values are reported for these The strain values were measured on the outer Results from

surfaces of the foil on each of the specimens. these tests are found in Table 3.11. 32

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS

In this chapter theoretical models that predict material damping for metals and composites will be examined. The experimental results from Chapter 3 will be

compared to these theoretical models to determine the validity of the theory. Aluminum results will be discussed The damping in metal

first followed by graphite/epoxy.

matrix specimens will be analyzed using both metal and composite models. 4.1 Theoretical Model of Damping in Metals The earliest models of material damping in metals used a dashpot in parallel with a spring. .known as a "Voight solid".
3

(fig 4.1) it

This was

, 5 However,

was found that

this model did not adequately predict the experimental results.

3

, 5 In particular,

the response of the system at

high frequency oscillations was incorrect. A later model had a spring in series with the dashpot, and the two of them in parallel with another spring. 4.2) This model, known as a "standard linear solid",
5

(fig gave

much better results. 3 '

This model predicted the damping

would be at a peak for a frequency that was a function of the spring and dashpot values, and would decrease for

frequencies that were either greater or less than the peak frequency. 33

SiI

Zener proposed that the actual mec-hanism t~hat was occurring was heat flow in the metal. According to Zener,

when the material vibrates at low frequencies, the temperature gradient in the specimen remains approximately zero, resulting in a nearly isothermal process. When the

material vibrates at high frequencies, the strain in the material oscillates from compression to tension and back

again on a time scale shorter than that with which heat can flow through the material resulting in an adiabatic process. So at very low and very high frequencies the total However, there

heat flow in the material approaches zero.

is an intermediate range of frequencies where heat flows

I
J

through the material.

This heating is a form of energy loss

and is a mechanism that- causes material damping in metals.

The frequency at which maximum heating occurs corresponds to

maximum damping and is known as the relaxation frequency. Zener's development was for body-centered cubic and face-centered cubic materials.5 He did not address the

applicability of this theory for any other crystal structure. However, it may be possible to extend this

theory to other crystal structures which have the same atomic packing factor. For example, hexagonal close-packed

has an atomic packing factor of .74, which is the same as for face-centered cubic.* A full mathematical development of Zener' s theory is found in Appendix D. The final equations used to predict

34

SI

material damping are presented below. of this theory is that it

One of the advantages

can predict the material damping According to Zoner,

based upon known material properties.

the damping ratio can be expressed by

a 2 ET

2c

F.--

1 + (wT)

2----1(4.1)

where

C - damping factor a - coefficient of thermal expansion

E = Young's modulus

T - absolute temperature c - specific heat/unit volume w - frequency of vibration

relaxation time

and the relaxation time can be found by:

h2
chkw2 where h - specimen thickness
k - thermal conductivity

(4.2)

The inverse of T is the relaxation frequency, where maximum damping will occur. predicts that damping is the yield stress is

the frequency

Notice that this theory

independent of stress level until Also, the relaxation frequency

reached.

35

changes depending upon the thickness of the specimen. model will be used to correlate with the aluminum specimens. It will also be used in the analysis of the

This

metal matrix composites.

The material constants used in

these equations were obtained from the MIL Handbook-SC, Vol 1, September 1976.1 4.2 Analysis of Damping in Aluminum The theoretical model proposed by Zener will now be compared to the experimental results, Frequency and stress

dependence will be examined.

Finally, possible explanations

for discrepancies between the theory and experimental

results will be discussed.

A plot of all the aluminum specimen's damping ratio as a function of frequency are found in figure 4.3. For

frequencies above the relaxation frequency the average values and one standard deviation bars are shown. For

frequencies below the relaxation frequency the range of values are shown. The upper limit on these ranges should

not be considered as a maximum value of damping, but rather as the value obtained for the maximum level of stress at which the specimens were 'tested. The aluminum specimens were observed to have very different behavior depending upon whether their frequencies were above or below the relaxation frequency. All of the

specimens tested with a frequency above the relaxation

36

frequency showed no stress dependence as can be seen by examining Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. The average

damping ratio of these specimens followed the Zener curve, which corresponds to results obtained by other researchers. The specimens with a frequency below thie relaxation frequency showed that damping was highly stress dependent and their damping- ratios did not follow the Zener curve. A

plot of the specimens with a frequency below the relaxation frequency is found in figure 4.4. Points shown on this plot

represent an average value of damping ratio over a range of .5 KSI for the specimen represented. This plot shows that

the damping ratio was increasing with increasing stress for all four of these specimens. However, the value of damping

at very low stresses may be the same for all specimens.

damping ratio is constant or slightly increasing until approximately 8 KSI when the damping begins to increase rapidly with stress. No research conducted on specimens with a frequency

The

below the relaxation frequency could be fou'nd for beams in vacuum. Granick and Stern tested specimens that had However, because of the thickness

frequency as low as 15Hz. V ~

of these specimens, all frequency vaijes were above the relaxation frequency. Mohr tested one specimen that had a The

frequency slightly below the relaxation frequency.

damping ratio of this specimen was significantly greater than the predicted Zener value.

37

... .. ..

. .. .

The reason for this deviation from the Zener theory is not clear. This is the region where Zener said the

vibrations would cause isothermal heating through the specimen. Either the heat is being dissipated as it flows

from one side of the specimen to the other, phenomenon is specimen was 2024-T3 is occuring.

or another the

The possibility of yielding in Yield stress for aluminum

investigated.

42 KSI.

Granick and Stern found that damping

ratio increased for aluminum 2024-T4 when tested at stress levels above 35 KSI, but none of the specimens in the

Scurrent
4.3

investigation were tested above 20 KSI. Theoretical Models of Damping in Composites

Material damping of composite materials cannot be treated in the same way as metals. Composites are neither change depending and materials

isotropic nor homogeneous, upon the fiber orientation, used. For this study,

so properties

volume fraction,

three different models of composite

:I

.graphite/epoxy

damping will be used in the analysis of damping in The results and metal matrix specimens. obtained using these methods will then be compared.

38

'

' .... -- --

~~~~~~.. . ...... ''.-.......g--i. ..

..

........... --..

.....

"'

For this study,. three different models of composite damixing will be used in the analysis of damping in graphite/epoxy and metal matrix specimens. The results obtained using

these methods will then be compared. The first model will be a Rule of Mixtures calculation9
=

Vf f + Vm m

(4.3)

when
Vf = fiber volume fraction

Vm = matrix volume fraction

Cf = fiber damping ratio Cm = matrix damping ratio

In this case,

it

is

assumed that the damping in the matrix therefore,

is much greater than the damping in the fibers, the damping can be approximated by
S"

(.4.4)

C This model is

independent of fiber orientation and fiber

damping characteristics. The second model was proposed by Hashin 7 and is upon a transformation of complex moduli. a unidirectional composite, based

This model assumed

although the composite principle

axis did not need to be aligned with the specimen longitudinal axis. Hashin also assumed the fibers were

39

" ,

'""-"' :-' '""

~.I,-ji/I|

" .. ...

brittle and therefore did not contribute to the damping. Because of this, the imaginary part cf the fiber modulus is zero. Hashin started with a Rule of Mixtures equation for

complex moduli
* =

f* Ef E Vf + Em Vm (4.4)

E11

He then separated this into real and imaginary parts

ER
= Ef Vf + EmR Vm

(4.5)

Ell-

( 4.6 )

The loss tangent is defined as the imaginary part of the modulus divided by the real part of the modulus, proportional to the damping ratio. composite is then Em tan 6E E Vm and is

The loss tangent for tte

E V + EmR V f f m m

(4.7)

Now rearranging terms and substituting in loss tangent for the matrix

the value of the

EI tan Sm
m

(-R (4.8)

40

I.

________

--

- -

..

gives the equation tan. tanm E "EfVf Em Vm Since the loss tangent is proportional to the damping ratio, we have an expression for the damping ratio of the compos ite :
SEf

+ 1

(4.9)

Vf

(4.10)

Em Vm where Cm Ef Em
vf

= the damping ratio of the matrix a Fiber axial Young's modulus - Matrix Young's modulus
v

fiber volume fraction

vm

= matrix volume fraction

The third model was proposed by Adams and Bacon and is based upon a combination of Hashin's equation using the complex moduli and the shear stress caused by flexure.
8

L!

This model ib also restricted to unidirectional comnposites. In this model the specific d~mping capacity of a composite in the sum of the axial damping capacity, found using The shear

Hashin'sequation,

and the shear damping capacity.

damping capacity is the result of the energy dissipated in

C

each cycle because of shear. shear damping capacity is arnd Bacon 8 .

A complete derivation of this

found in the reference by Adams

41

I"7=1

The damping capacity is

proportional to the damping

ratio, so the equation for the shear damping ratio is: 3

S= 412 f O/
3

2
w dx

(4.11)

'2

fL/ 2

13,w axo

10G12 h

~L/2

fa 2W
\ax

dx

w =.mode shape h = specimen thickness length

specimen

4
4.4

Ell,

Composite Young's modulus along primary

axis
G1 2 - Composite shear modulus C12= Longitudinal shear damping ratio Analysis of Damping in Graphite/Epoxy When analyzing the damping in graphite/epoxy, were a series of questions to be addressed. there

The first Next

question concerned the reproducibility of results. were the questions of stress, frequency, orientation dependence of damping. and fiber

Finally the validity of Each of these the

the theoretical models was to be checked. questions will be discussed,

and where applicable,

resultswill be compared to that of other researchers.

tests were performed at roce. temperature and near zero

All

moisture content to remove any dependence of damping on these factors. 42

7.
__"

The first question dealt with the reproducibility of the results. When composites are made there are often tiny

voids, broken fibers, and misaligned fibers that can possibily affect the characteristics of a specimen. 9 To

investigate the effects these non-uniformities might have on damping, four specimens were constructed to be as similar as possible, [0]8-1, (0]8-2,

1018-3, and [0J8-4.

These

specimens were cut from the same sheet of laminate with nearly identical dimensions. Therefore, four specimens had In all four

nearly the same frequency of vibration.

.specimens, the damping ratio was not dependent upon stress. The average values and the standard deviation were approximately the same for all four specimens, as can be seen in Table 4.1. Although the difference between the

highest value of damping ratio and lowest value of damping ratio is .00013, or 25% of the damping ratio; the largest standard deviation is only .00009, or 18% of the damping ratio. The next questions was to determine frequency dependence of the damping ratio in (0J8 graphite/epoxy.
-*

Specimen [0J8-4 was cut to successively shorter lengths, thereby changing the frequency but keeping the volume fraction, width, thickness, and internal -non-uniformities of the specimen constant. There was little change in the

damping ratio with frequency as can be seen in Figure 4.5. 43

The average value of damping ratio along with a one standard deviation bar, and the highest and lowest value obtained for figure 4.5. In each of these

each speciman are plotted in tests of [O] specimens, Putter, for their

damping ratio was independent of and Rehfield found a value

stress level. of C = .00062

Buchanan,

[0]12 specimens of graphite/epoxy

12

which compares very well with these values. Another set of

tests of material damping as a function

of frequency were conducted with [9018 graphite/epoxy. Again the longest specimen was cut to successively shorter lengths. As can be seen in figure 4.6, material damping the [9018 specimens. However, Increased again there

does depend on frequency in frequency

leads to increased damping.

was no stress dependence particular frequency

for the damping ratio of a

specimen.

The r

.t question was whether the damping ratio The results of the [O]8

depended on fiber orientation.

tests and the

(9018 tests will be used along with tests

2

conducted by Mohr on [4512s specimens.

4

There are

currently few theories that predict damping for other than a

unidirectional co-oosite. Schultz and Tsai had studied the

relaticohilp c' fiber orientation, unidirectional lay ups.

but limited themselves to

By using Mohr's.[4512s data, A plot of As

this study will b- '"ing symmetric lay ups. Mohr's data is

fW' ,d in figure 4.7 for four frequencies.

44

can be seen by comparing figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, there is an order of magnitude difference in damping ratios between the [018 and the other two orientations for the frequency and stress ranges tested. Notice that the stress ranges

tested in the [90J 8 specimens were set to correspond with the strain levels tested in the (018 specimens. The values

for three fiber orientations at approximately the same

frequency are shown in figure 4.8.

The final question was how well does theory match the
experimental results. In all three theories, the value of Unfortunately, the

damping for the matrix iz needed.

manufacturer of the pre-preg tape used in the graphite/epoxy specimens did not have any information on the damping characteristics of the epoxy. In order to still test the

theoretical models in at least a limited fashion, the models were used to back calculate a value for the matrix damping, assuming the fiber contributed no damping. The values from

each specimen were then compared to each other to see if the values of matrix damping were approximately the same value. Consistent vailues of matrix damping caluculated from different teeLz in this manner would be a necessary condition for verification of the analytic model. Since

these theories are all limited to unidirectional composites, the [45128 data will not be used.

45

Applying the three theories of damping in unidirecticnal [018-2, [0]8-3, laminates to the damping values for and [018-4 yields back-calculated [018-1, values for

matrix damping

for each specimen and theory. Table 4.2

These values

and their average are found in

The average will

be used as a reference value for comparison with other test results. Values of matrix damping can also be found from the specimens of differing frequency, as shown in Table 4.3. the (038

When applying the three theories for composite damping,

values obtained are all close to the reference values for the appropriate theory as derived from the specimens of
similar geometry. There is a trend in all three theories

towards slightly lower values of matrix damping with higher frequency. Finally the [90]8 frequency specimens are used to The results are

obtain matrix damping values (Table 4.4).

significantly different from the reference values of Table Not surprisingly the values for matrix damping are increasing with frequency just as the specimen damping 4.2. value did. The rule of mixtures method gave values that are

an order of magnitude different from the referenceaverage values. The other two theories gave values below, but the reference average values. Also, the

within 20% of,

effect of shear is Therefore there is

virtually unnoticable in these specimens. no difference in the values for the two

46

i __

__

theories using complex moduli, one which accounts for shear damping and the other which omits this effect. In an effort to determine how accurately these theories predict damping, it is interesting to compare the matrix damping back-calculated from theory with actual measured values of damping for other epoxies. Georgi quotes a matrix

damping value of .011 and Schultz and Tsai have values of .0162 and .0193 for the frequency range that was tested in their excperiments. obtained here. These values are lower than the values However, since those values are for a

different epoxy, definite conclusions can not be drawn. one other significant result is that the real part of the composite modulus is significantly below the modulus

I13
where

obtained from static tensile testing. with results obtained by Turner1 3

This is in agreement

By using the frequency

of vibration, specimen dimensions, and mass, the real part of the modulus can be back-calculated using the relation 3 2 M L W (22.373) 21(.2 (.2

M =mass L - length Wfrequency of first free-free mode

I - moment of Inertia The calculated values of the real part of the modulus are found in Table 4.5. 47

4.5

Analysis of Damping of Metal Matrix Material

The data for damping in metal matrix material will be

examined to determine what trends are evident,

and will be

compared with the theoretical models discussed in this

reports The data for the two specimens with titanium foil, PlOO/AZ91C/Ti and P55/AZ91C/Ti, dependency. This is showed no stress level However, the

shown in Table 3.11.

strain range involved was fairly small due to limitations of the TELM. The specimen with magnesium foil, PIOO/AZ91C/Mg,

showed a very slight stress dependence.

This was over a

strain range of 36 us to 176 us as shown in Table 3.11.

Stress values are not reported because the stress

distribution through the metal matrix is not known. Frequency dependence could not be tested for any of these specimens since only one specimen was provided, geometry could not be altered. and its

The order of magnitude of

the damping ratio for all of these specimens is the same as both aluminum and [0]8 graphite/epoxy.
SThe damping ratios for all of the specimens were

compared to theoretical Zener values for magnesium AZ91C, which is the matrix being used. This was done by assuming

the specimens are made entirely of magnesium, but have the same dimensions as the ones tested. The theoretical and the

actual damping ratios for each specimen are plotted in

48

.1_

figure 4.9.

The two specimens with a frequency above the

relaxation frequency,

PlOO/AZ9lC/Ti and P55/AZ9lC/Ti,

that aluminum showed. That

exhibit the same characteristics is no strain dependence,

and a value slightly above Zener's

predicted value.

The specimen with a frequency below the PlOO/AZ91C/Mg,

is

relaxation frequency,
aluminum did.

does not behave the way

slightly below the

The average value

predicted Zener value, the Zener model value.

but the lowest extreme is

well below

The much larger standard deviation

for this specimen can be at least partly attributed to the fact that this specimen was the lightest specimen tested. Therefore, any experiement interference due to the apparatus

would probably have a greater effect on this specimen than on any other. It should be noted that the Zener theory is

based on a crystal structure of body-centered cubic or face-centered cubic, packed. Therefore, and magnesium is hexagonal close

the Zener model may not be appropriate

for magnesium.

To adequaCely compare the experimental'results with theoretical models for composite damping, on the specimens is required. more information volume

In particular,

fraction and shear modulus are needed, foil must be determined.

and the effect of the

Since no details on the

manufacture of the metal matrix specimens were available, some assumptions were made. First, the only specimen used

for theoretical validation was the specimen with the

-LI

49

tagnesiun foiL

foil,

PI00/AZ91C/Mg.

The specimens with titanium whereas the

involved too many unknown quantities,

specimen with the magnesium foil was at least limited to just two materials, foil. graphite fibers and magnesium matrix and of this specimen was

The fiber volume fraction .15

estimated at

using a rule of mixtures calculation on the

modulus E
where Ell was back-calculated

Ef Vf

Em Vm

(4.13)

from the frequency of

vibration,

The specimen was assumed to be unidirectional

with the composite principle axis parallel to the specimen longitudinal axis. Finally, the shear modulus was assumed

equal to that of the magnesium shear modulus.

The results of using the theoretical models of composite damping are found in Table 4.6. The value used The

for the matrix damping was the theoretical Zener value. rule of mixtures calculation is results, close to the experimental

while the complex roduli and shear effects theories This difference could be due to

are significantly greater.

the theory leaving out some effect, damping being wrong,

the value for magnesium

or characteristics of the composite

assumed for the calculations being in error.

50

........................................ I.

VIP!

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1

Conclusions The experimental data leads to the following

conclusions: 1. Material-damping in aluminum 2024-T3 follows the

Zener curve for frequencies above the relaxation frequency. In this region the damping is to approximately 16 KSI, 2. independent of stress level up

or '1500 us.

For frequencies below the relaxation frequency, There is or

aluminum 2024-T3 does not follow the Zener curve.

a strong dependence on stress levels as low as 8 KSI, 750 us, and a slight frequency dependence.

There appears to

be a lower bound in the damping that is approximately the same as the maximum value for damping that the Zener model predicts. 3. Material damping in graphite/epoxy [018 was found

to be independent of stress and independent of frequency. , Damping ratios ranged from .049% to .064% with an average of .056%. The stress range tested was from 0.3 KSI to 20 us to 775 u, and the frequency range was from

12.8 KSI,

45 Hz to 237 Hz. 4. Material damping in graphite/epoxy [9018 was independent of stress and slightly dependent on frequency,

'

51.

increasing with increasing frequency.

Damping ratios The stress ranges

ranging from .55% to .66% were obtained. were from 0.009 KSI to 0.84 KSI,

7 us to 675 ps, and the

frequency range was 43 Hz to 143 Hz. 5. Dynamic modulus for graphite/epoxy [018 was Dynamic

approximately 15% lower than static modulus. modulus for graphite/epoxy lower than static modulus. 6.

[9018 was also approximately 15%

Hashin's theory for damping in unidirectional

composites gives consistent values for matrix damping when 'applied to graphite/epoxy [O] and [90J8. No statement can

be made concerning whether the addition of shear effects is beneficial or not. 7. Damping ratio for metal matrix PlOO/AZ91C/Ti is A

independent of strain over the range 17 us to 47 us.

value of .039% damping ratio was found at a frequency of 494

!

Hz. 8. Damping ratio for metal matrix P55/AZ91C/Ti is A

independent of strain over the range 37 us to 61 us.

value cf .039% damping ratio was found at a frequency of 401

Hz.

9. *

Damping ratio for metal matrix PlOO/AZ91C/Mg may be

slightly dependent on strain over the range 36 us to 176 us

52

i---

'--------.

I.......

..

An average value of .099% was found at a frequency of 138 Hz. 5.2 Recommendations

1. Further testing should be done on aluminum specimens with frequencies below the Zener relaxation frequency. Stress ranges from near zero to near yield

should be investigated. 2. Other metals with cubic crystal structure should be

tested to determine whether they follow the Zener curve. 3. Further testing should be done with unidirectional

graphite/epoxy specimens that have a lower slenderness ratio to determine the validity of the use of shear effects when predicting the composite damping ratio. 4. The value of the damping ratio of the epoxy resin With this value the theories

should be determined.

involving complex moduli could be validated against experimental data. 5. A theoretical model for predicting composite

damping that is valid for othz- than urnidiractional composites should be developed.
v6.

Further study of metal matrix compo3ites should be tha

done to increase the data base and to d.tarmine if damping character'stic

should be modeled as those uf P pure <4

IA

metal or those

of a composite,

S1717

,"

IMaI

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Vorlicek, P.L., "Material Damping of Aluminum and Graphite/Epoxy in a Simulated Zero-Gravity Environment," M.I.T. Space Systems Laboratory #13-81, January 1981.

2. Mohr, D.G. and Crawley, E.F., "Experimental Measurements of Material Damping of Aluminum and Graphite/Epoxy in
Free-Fall with Tuneable Excitation," Laboratory #11-82, June 1982. M.I.T. Space Systems

3. Bert, C.W., "Material Damping: An Introductory Review of Mathematical Models, Measures and Experimental Techniques," Journal of Sound and Vibration, (1973), 29(2), pps 129-153. 4. Granick, N. and Stern, J.E., "Material Damping of Aluminum by a Resonant-Dwell Technique," NASA TN D-2893, August 1965. 5. Zener, C.M., Elasticity and Anelasticity of Metals, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1948. 6. Van Vlack, L.H., Elements of Materials Science and Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, 1975. MA,

7. Hashin, Z., "Complex Moduli of Viscoelastic Composites-II. Fiber Reinforced Materials," Int. J. Solids and Structures, Vol. 6, 1970. 8. Adams, R.D. and Bacon, D.G.C., "The Dynamic Properties of Unidirectional Fibre Reinforced Composites in Flexure and Torsion," J. Composite Materials, Vol. 7, January 1973. 9. Ashton, J.E., Halpin, J.C. and Petit, P.I., Primer on Composite Materials: Analysis, Technomic Publishing Company, Westport, CT, 1969. 10, Schultz, A.B. and Tsai, S.W., "Dynamic Moduli and " JComposite Damping Ratios in Piber-Reinforced Composites," J.Copst Materials, Vol. 2, July 1963. "12. Georgi, H., "Dynamic Damping Investigations on Composites," AGARD Conference, Structurea and Material Panel 6pecialist, Meetinl on Dam ing Effects in Aerospace Steucures, Williamourg,A April 979.

54

_-__________.. ._"____,_

"

""

of Frequency and Environmental Conditions on Dynamic

12,

Putter,

S.,

Buchanan,

D.L.,

Rehfield,

L.W.,

"Influence

S~Behavior

of Graphite/Epoxy Composites," in Composite Materials. Testing and Design (Sixth Conference), ASTM STP 787, I.M. Daniel, Editor, ASTM, 1982, pp 414-424. 13. Turner, M.D., "Comparison of Static and Dynamic Test Methods for Determining the Stiffness Properties of Graphite/Epoxy Laminates,"S.M. Thesis, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, June 1979. Military Standardization Handbook, Metallic Materials 14. and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures, MIL-Hdbk-5C, Vol. 1, September 1976. 15. Marquardt, D.W., "An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters," Journal of the Society for Iridustrical and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 11, No. 2, June 1963. Crowley, E.F. and Mohr, D.G., "Experimental 16. M=asurements of Material Damping in Free Fall with Tuneable Excitation," Presented at AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Paper No. 83-0858-CP, Tahoe, NV, May 1983, will be published in AIAA Journal.

i.1

Jmma,,.,,.L 4 .. ..... ... .... .. . - I' .... ' .

1' " ....

TABLE 2.1

EQUIPMENT LIST Device Vacuum Pump Vacuum Gauge Microprocessor Electromagnet D. C. Motors Manufacturer Kinney Stokes S.D. Systems Edmund Scientific Globe Industries Photocircuits Barber Coleman PMI ORD, Kepco
Power/Mate Power/Mate

Model Number KD-30 276AA-Lo7 Z80 Starter Kit 71936 SO 9667 T39M4H/U6 CYQM 43210-41-5 U6T

Tachometer Controller Power Supplies

Inc.

MP-l ABC 15-1 M

PT - 15A BPA - 10 D

Heathkit Battery (for strain gauge excitation) Strain Gauges Oscilloscope Globe

GC626

BLH Electronics Nicolet Instruments

FDE-25-35-ES 206

56

TABLE 2.2

ALUMINUM SPECIMENS SPECIMEN Al-I * Al-2

Al1-3 A1-4
*

LENGTH IN 18.00 14.00

.00 20.00

WIDTH IN 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

THICKNESS IN .062 .062

.062 .062

MASS SLUGS (10-3) 3.409 2.652

1.136 3.789

S)-1-6 SAI-7

A\I-5

**14.00 **

18.94 10.00

1.00 1.00 1.00

.031 .031 .031

.031 .031 .061

1+.794 1'. 326 0.947

0.758 0.568 1.894

A1-8 A1-9 A1-10***

8.00 6.00 10.00

1.00 1.00 1.00

specimens also tested by Mohr * specimens also tested by Malan tested only by Mohr *specimen

TABLE 2.3 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS SPECIMEN 108-1 [018-2 [0]8-3 [018-4 LENGTH IN 17.75 27.78 17.75 17.75 WIDTH IN 1.01 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00

[0]8-

(018-6 * (o]i-7 * [9018-1 (9018-2 ** [9018-3 **

13.88

10.00 7.88 9.66

7.34

1.00

THICKNESS .IN .042 .041 .042 .043 .043 .043 .043 .041 .041
.041

MASS SLUGS (10-) 1.297 1.245 1.291 1.301

1.020

0.735 0.579 0.683

0.519 0.375

5.31

specimen [018-4 cut to a shorter length

specimen [9018-1 cut to a shorter length

57

.~1.

~4

TABLE 2.4 MOHR'S (451]2 GRAPHITE/EPOXY

-

SPECIMENS

mass/unit length Specimen [4 5 ]2s-l [45J2s-2*

7.331 x 10-5 slugs/in. Width (in) 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Thickness (in) .041 .041 .041 .041

Length (in) 18.00 14.12 10.00 5.97

[45]2s-3*
(45]2S-4*

*Specimen [45I2s-1 cut to a shorter length

TABLE 2.5

METAL MATRIX SPECIMENS SPECIMEN P100/AZ91C/Ti P55/AZ91C/Ti P100/AZ91C/Mg LENGTH

IN

WIDTH
IN

THICKNESS
IN

MASS
SLUGS (10-3)

6.00 6.10 8.00

1.00 1.00 0.96 5

.044 .045 .023

0.624 0.630 0.363

S~58

TABLE 3.1 DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH CENTER WIRE ATTACHMENT (VALIDATION TESTS) Specimen Al-i Al-i Frequency rad/sec 248.5 248.5 Damping Ratio .001222 .001226 Strain 101060 1078 Stress KSI 11.1 11.3

Al-i

248.3

Al-I Al-i Al-1 Al-i Al-I Al-I Al-1 Al-i Al-'i Al-1 Al-1 Al-1

248.3 248.3 248a2 248.4 248.2 248.2 248.0 248.2 247.9 247.9 247.9 248.9

.001191

.001210 .001201 .001257 .001273 .001264 .001184 .001293 .001282 .001094 .001241 .001210 .001235

1078

1084 1127 1144 1148 1150 1195 1215 1221 1227 1230 1282 1289

11.3

11.4 11,8 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.5 12.8 12.8 12.9 12.9 13.5 13.5

Al-i
Al--1 Al-I Al-1 Al-I Al-i Al-2 Al-2 Al-2 A1-2 Al-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 Al-2 A1-2 Al-2 A1-2 A1-2

247.7
247.7 247.8 247.4 247.5 247.6 412.3 412.2 412.2 412.3 412.2 412.3 412.3 412.3 412.2 412.3 412.1 412.2 412.2

.001323
.001203 .001227 .001145 .001183 .001245 .0009700 .0011247 ,0009872 .0009432 .0010359 .0009261 .0009631 .0011157 .0010.474 .0010089 .0011759 .0012268 .0010622

1310
1362 1368 1399 1448 1458 174 175 175 176 190 190 192 193 207 211 310 314 329

13.8
14.3 14.4 14.7 15.2 15.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.8

Al-2
A1-2 A1-2

Al-2

412.2

412.1 412.2 412.2

.0010060

.0011863 .0011916 .0010756

341
342

3.6

348 361

A1-2
A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2

412.2

.0009992
.0011543 .0011888 .0011510 .0009927 59

371
378 384 395 403

3.9
4.0 4.0 4.1 4.2

412.1 412.2 412.2 412.2

TABLE 3.1 (Continued) DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH CENTER WIRE ATTACHMENT (VALIDATION TESTS)

Specimen A1-3
Al-3

Frequency
rad/sec

Damping Ratio .0004349

.0004690

Strain
10

Stress
KSI

2247
2247

18.9
19.0 20.4 21.7

.20
.20 .21 .23

A1-3
A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3

2246 2247

.0003677
.0005095 .0005404

20.3. 22.0
22.2 24.1 26.5 31.0

.21 .23
.23 .25 .28 .33

2246 2246 2246 2246 2247 2247

.0002231
.0002529 .0006915 .0004535 .0005094

A1-3
A1-3

2247
2247

.0004707
.0005079

31.5
33.6

.33
.35

A1-3
A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3

2247
2247 2247 2246 2246

.0004353
.0003631 .0004720 .0003275 .0003905

35.6
37.0 40.7 44.5 48.2

.37
.39 .43 .47 .51

60

'i
--

__

TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH CENTER WIRE ATTACHED AS REPORTED BY MOHRd'

Specimen Al-1

Frequency

rad/sec
248.8

Damping Ratio

Stress

KSI
13.94 12.74 11.58 7.3 6.50 18.09 15.82 13.70 6.99 6.13 5.32 5.07 4.39 3.89 2.17 1.95 1.86 1.77 1.72 1.58 .93

.00120209 .00111602 .00118282 .00111504

.00111425
A1-2 411.4 .00112549 .00105498 .00103198 .00102788 .00101322 .00103550 .00106383 .00104420 .00106423 .00108520 .00037952 .00039311 .00029632 .00030515 .00030319 .00034681 .00025401

7.08

A1-3

2246

A-1-0

807.2

.00069232 .00065044 .00063527 .00059834 .00063423 .00067457

.00069104 .00062124

.00031441 .00031991

9.03 7.62 6.54 3.71 3.25 2.85

1.26

.89 .84

.00062533

1.08
.94

61

TABLE 3.3

DAMPING OF ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH NODE WIRE ATTACHMENT Specimen Al-I Al-I Al-i Al-I Al-i Al-i Al-1 Al-i Al-1 Al-I Al-1
Al-I

Frequency rad/sec 249.1 249.0 249.0 249.3 249.1 249.0 249.0 249.3 249.1 249.0 249.2
248.4

Damping Ratio .0012501 .0011928 .0012324 .0012643 .0012541 .0012205 .0012485 .0012421 .0013190 .0012002 .0012303
.0013093

Strain

Stress

10O
558 580 581 591 594 616 618 629 632 654 669
1160

KSI
5.9 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.9 7.0
12.2

St

SAl-2

Al-i Al-I Al-i Al-i Al-1 Al-i Al-1 Al-I Al-i Al-i Al-I Al-i Al-I Al-1 Al-I Al-i Al-I Al-I Al-i Al-i Al-i A1-2 Al-2 Al-2 Al-2 Al-2 Al-2

248.3 248.3 248.4 248.2 242.2 248.2 248.2 248.1 248.0 248.1 248.n

248.0

248.0 248.0 247.9 247.8 247.8 247.8 247.6 247.6 247.6 412.5 412.2 412.4 412.5 412.4 412.2 412.4

.0013141 .0012111 .0011969 .0012429 .0011442 .0012298 .0012851 .0011092 .0012081 .0011092 .0012300 .0012521 .0012509 .0012974 .0012129 .0012978 .0012980 .0013103 .0012151 .0011758 .0012390 .0009685 .0010852 .0009689 .0009626 .0010525 .0010565 .0010496

1103 1172 1177 1236 1237 1246 1251 1317 1324 1331 1335

1335

12.2 12.3 12.4 13.0 13.0 13.1 13.1 13.8 13.9 14.0 14.0

14.0

1349 1349 1421 1421 1439 1439 1516 1529 1533 200 208 209 213 216 226 227

14.2 14.2 14.9 14.9 15.1 15.1 15.9 16.1 16.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4

62

TABLE 3.3 (Continued)

DAMPING OF ALUMINUM SPECIMENS WITH NODE WIRE ATTACHMENT Specimen Frequency Damping Ratio Stra n Stress
rad/sec 10-

A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2

KSI

A1-2
A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-2
A1-2 A1-2 A1-2 A1-3 A1-3 Al-3 Al-3 Al-3 Al-3 Al-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 AI-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-3 A1-2

412.4 412.2 412.4 412.5 412.3 412.4 411.9

.0010013 .0010300 .0011030 .0010279 .0011055 .0010733 .0011006

412.2
412.4 412.0
411.9

.0011318
.0010118 .0010596
.0011922

235 246 246 250 360 368 393

2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.8 3.9 4.1

395
400 410
431

4.2
4.2 4.3 4.6 4.6
4.7 5.0 5.2 .17 .18 .20 .21 .22 .22 .23 .25 .28 .29 .31 .50 .51 .54 .55 .56 .58 .58 .61 .62 4.5

412.2 412.3
412.0 411.8 411.9 2249 2249 2246 2247 2248 2246 2248 2247 2247 2247 2247 2248 2248 2249 2248 2248 2250 2250 2249 2249

.0011614 .0010330

433 435
449 474 492 16.5 17.5 18.9 20.2 20.8 20.9 22.1 23.9 26.4 27.7 29.8 47.6 48.6 51.3 52.3 53.8 54.9 55.3 57.9 58.7

SA1-3

.0010996 .0012359 .0010204 .0003404 .0004235 .0001802 .0002103 .0000988 .0003704 .0001742 .0004038 .0002429 .0002188 .0001996 .0004310 .0003921 .0003920 .0003504 .0003976 .0003850 .0004083 .0004038 .0002446

"A1-3 A1-3 Al-3

2248 2249

.0003949 .0003373

59.5 59.9

.62 .63

63

ij~
J/
,'" r ;;._ ---. ' " ' "--' .... _ .. . ., " - " .. '

TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF ALUMINUM DAMPING RESULTS IN VALIDATION PROCEDURE SPECIMEN CENTER WIRES (MOHR'S Al-i Al-2 Al-3 RESULTS) CENTER WIRES (CURRENT TESTS) .00123 .00107 .000436 NODE WIRES (CURRENT TESTS) .00124 .00106 .000326

.00114 .00105 .000324

64

/.

_,

.. .

. . . -_

TABLE 3.5 MATERIAL DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS

:Specimen

Frequency
rad/sec Ai-4 A1-4 201.5 201.4 201.5 201.4

Damping Ratio

Straiin
10

Stress
KSI 7.9 8.3 8.5 8.5

A.-4
AI-4 AI-4 AI-4 AI-4 AI-4 A1-4 AI-4 A1-4 A1-4 AI-4 A1-4 A1-4 Al-4 AI-4 AI-5 Ai-5 AI-5 AI-5 AI-5 AI-5 AI-5 A1-5 Al-5 AI-5 A1-6 AI-6 A1-6 P A1-6 Al-6
Al-4

201.4
201.3 201.4 201.4 201.3 201.2 201.0 200.9 200.8 200.8 200.8 200.7 200.7 200.6 200.6 I11.. 110.,9 110.8 120.6 110.5 110.4 110.4 110.5 110.2 109.9 110.0 203.1 203.8 204.1 203.7 203.6 203,7 203.7

.0013330 .AI-4 0010496 .0012644 .0012506 .A]-4

.0012720
.0013179 .0013318 .0012444 .0012590 .0012302 .0012080 .01.3 .0012182 .0013018 .0012413 .0012641 .0013044 .0013012 .0012354 ,0013000 .0012353 .0023742 .0026207 .0025151 .0027838 .0030827 .0035275 .0030750 .0036301 .0037109 .0046911 .0046881 .0017529 .0014728 .0014586 .0018114 .0017429 .0016393 .0014547

748 786 807 813

820
857 861 862 897 902 907 1056
1101

8e6
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 11.1

200.9

.0013000

"AI-4 SA!-5

1106 1110 1160 1166 1169 1201 1222 1227 812 891 910 951 953 1002 1012 1021 1044 1118 1138 762 811 825 829 835 844 863

11.6 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.3 12.6 12.8 12.9 8.5 9.4

11.6

"A1-6
A1-6

9.6 10.0 10.0 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11 .7 11.9 8.0 8.5 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.9 9:1

65

/2

TABLE 3.5 (Continued) MATERIAL DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS Specimen'

A1-6 A1-6

Frequency
rad/sec 204.0

Damping Ratio r
.0016279

Stra n
10876

Stress
KSI 9.2

203.6 203.5 203.5 203.5 203.8 203.8 203.8 203.4 203.4 203.4 203.3 203.8 203.4 203.2 203.2 203.6 203.2 203.2

.0016514 .0018751 .0018245 .0017841 .0016685 .0015918 .0016180 .0019003 .0018181 .0018255 .0019362 .0018016 .0019694 .0020630 .0020465 .0017430 .0020985 .0019965

I-,

A1-6 AI-6 AI-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 AI-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 AI-6 A1-6
A1-6

203.3

877 891 896 908 920 927 934 938 941 942 944 944 956 964 982 1016 1018 1022

.0020519

9.2 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 10.0 10-1 10.3 10.7 10.7 10.7

968

10.2

A1-6
A1-6 Al-6 Al-6 AI-6 A1-6 AI-6 AI-6
j

203.1
203.0 203.1 203.4 202.7 202.6 202.7 203.1 401.1 401.1 401.3 401.2 400.9 401.3 401.6 401.1 401.3 401.8 401.0

.0022239
.0022421 .0022816 .0018531 .0027940 .0028403 .0028035 .0021601 .0018953 .00]7787 .0016206 .0010469 .0014825 .0016050 .0017002 .0017389 .0020965 .0024713 .0014023

1023
1028 1043 1092 1129 1136 1151 1182 133 137 137 140 146 147 154 154 155 155 156

10.7
10.8 11.0 11.5 11.9 i1L9 12.1 12.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

K K

A1-7 Al-7 A1-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 A1--7 Al-7 A1-7 Al-7

A1-7

401.8

.0023094

127

1.3

66

It/

TABLE 3.5 (Continued) MATERIAL DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS

Specimean Al-7 A1-7 Al-7 Al-7 Ai-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 A1-7 A1-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 AI-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 A1-7 AI-7 A1-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 A1-7 A1-7 -Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-7 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 ,Al-8

Frequency

rad/sec
401.2 401.3 400.8

Damping Ratio

Strain I0"r 157 164 165

Stress KSI 1.6 1.7 1.7

401.7
401.2 401,0 401.4 400,.9 401.2 401.8 401.6 401.6 401.5 401.2 401.5 401.6 401.5 401.3 401.4 401.4 401.2 401.4 401.3 401.6 401.3 401.2 401.3 401.5 401.4 401.2 401.4 401.2 629.8 629.8 629.1 629.4 629.6 629.9
629.1

"Al-8

.0017644 .0015503 .0015355 .0013991 .0018520 .0014520 .0014005 .0011129 .0022635 .0022209 .0013619 .0017822 .0017285 .0011245 .0012266 .0017737 .0018741 .0015076 .0012160 .0015682 .0016233 .0015185 .0022020 .0021877 .0019517 .0016583 .0021546 .0020008 .0019991 .0017519 .0019537 .0016680 .0015605 .0016412 .0016005 .0015679 .0013071 .0014613
.0016640

KSI

172
175 176 181 183 185 185 193 205 211 223 225 237 242 250 250 271 280 281 283 291 300 313 336 344 351 361 409 414 53.9 56.0 57.1 59.7 65.3 68.6
69.9

1.8
1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 *3.6 3.7 3.8 4.3 4.4 .57 .59 .60 .63 .69 .72 .76
.73

Al-8

Al-8

629.4

.0015567

72.3

67

TABLE 3.5 (Continued) MATERIAL DAMPING Specimen Al-8 Al-8 A1-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Frequency
rad/sec

IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS Strain

10-

Damping Ratio .0016558 .0015245 .0014057 .0C14127 .0021124 .0021001 .0017491 .0021136 .0021307 .0020656

Stress,
KSI

629.8 629.4 629.3 629.1 628.9 629.2 629.0 629.5 628.9 629.1

Al-8
Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 Al-8 A1-9 Al-9

629.0
629.3 628.8 628.9 629.0

78.7 83.7 84.9 88.4 133 135 143 145 173 175

.0017661
.0019459 .0020045 .0016661 .0020501

.83 .88 .39 .93 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8

178
189 225 226 228 2V1 27.6 34.0

1.9
2.0 2.4 2.4 2.4

629.2
1124 1124

.0018178
.0010944 .0013609

2I5
.29 .36

Al-9
Al-9 A1-9 Al-9 AI-9 Al-9 A1-9 A1-9

1124
1125 1124 1124 1124 1126 1124 1124

.0012261
.0013941 .0010906 .0010744 .0013507 .0011738 .0011601 .0010941

34.6
37.4 44.6 45.1 45,4 45.4 46.2 46.1

.36
.39 .47 .47 48 ,46 .49 .49
.52

A1-9
AI-9 AI-9 A1-9 Al-9 Al-9
A -9

1124
1125 1124 1126 1124 1124
1124

.0010723
.0011617 .0011815 .0011342 .G009599 .0012332
.0012643

49.4
50.5 57.9 5b.4 59.4 60.U
60 2.

153 .61 .I .62 63 .64 .66

SAI-9 AI-9 SAI-9

Al-9

1125 1124'

1124 1126
AI-9 AI-9 Al-9 1124 1124 1124

.0012126 .0011600

.00118'4 .001i223
.0012407 .0011329 .0011592

60.7 62.9

64.2 74.8.?
78.6 1 00.0

6
.83

68I
"_
A

",m'.

'

"...'- . O, if

B MAi , Ai

TABLE 3.5 (Continued) MATERIAL DAMPING IN ALUMINUM SPECIMENS Specimen Frequency Damping Ratio Strain Strpss

A1-9
A1-9

rad/sec 1124
1124

.0013650
.0012566

1082.4
84.0'

KSI .87
.88

A1-9 A1-9 A1-9

1124 1125 1125

.0014108 .0013116 .0014539

84.1 M0? 116.1

.88 1.07 1.22

69

V!m

TABLE 3.6 MATERIAL DAMPING IN ALUMINUM AS MEASURED BY MALAN Specitnen A1-6 A1-6 Frequency Damping Ratio .00211 .00213 Stra n

rad/sec
203.9 203.7

l0-i
927 983

Stress

KSI
10.2 10.8

A1-6
Al-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-6

203.5
203.5 202.6 203.2 203.1 203.0 202.9 202.6

.00212
.00253 .00318 .00240 .00277 .00262 .00280 .00331

1048
1086 1087 1116 1168 1203 1260 1292

11.5
11.9 14.4 12.2 12.7 13.1 13.7 14.1

A1-6
AI-6

202.5
201.8

.00342
.00417

1375
1467

14.9
15.8

A1-6
A1-6 A1-6 A1-6 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7

201.8
201.1 200.6 200.8

.00430
.00668 .00604 .00584

1535
1603 1704 1766

16.6
17.2 18.2 18.9

402.0
402.0 402.0 402.0

.00152
.00160 .00149 .00158

303
353 388 425

1.4
3.9 4.3 4.7

A1-7
A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 A1-7 AI-7 AI-7 A1-7 A1-7

401.9
401.8 401.1 401.1 400.9 400.6 400.3 400.0 399.8 398.2 398.5

.00178
.00195 .00197 .00216 .00227 .00248 .00278 .00328 .00343 .00550 .00507

469
571 634 720 804 930 1032 1105 1464 1475 1557

5.2
6.4 7.1 8.0 8.9 10.3 11.4 12.2 13.4 16.1 17.0

70

TABLE 3.7 DAMPING IN [0]8 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR DIMENSIONS

Specimen [Ol8-i [0]8-1 [0]8-1 10]8-1 [0]8-1 [018-1 [018-1 [0]8-1 [0]8-1 [018-1 [018-1 [0]8-1 [018-1 10]8-1 [018-1 [018-1 [0]8-1 [018-1 [Ol8-1 [018-1 [0]8-1 [0]8-1 [0]8-1 [0J 8 -2 [0] -2 [018-2 [018-2 [0] -2 [0]8-2 [018-2 [0]8-2 (018-2 [018-2 [0]8-2 [018-2 [018-2 [0]8-2 [018-2 [018-2 [0]8-2

Frequency rad/sec 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.5 289.4 289.4 289.4 289.4 289.4 289.0 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.9 288.8 288.8 288.8 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.3 284.2 284.2 284.2283.9 283.9 283.8 283.8 283.8 283.8

Damping Ratio .0006746 .0006908 .0006581 .0006383 .0005192 .0006757 .0006699 .0005268 .0005706 .0006261 .0006855 .0005900 .0006022 .0006111 .0006287 .0005943 .0006136 .0005931 .0005981 .0006271 .0006927 .0006322 .0005868 .0005659 .0005722 .0006285 .0006387 .0005781 .0006023 .0006418 .0006101 .0005221 .0005606 .0005584 .0004566 .0004805 .0004095 .0004794 .0004582 .0004294 71

Strain 10469 471 477 487 488 490 496 506 506 509 515 523 694 701 711 712 719 725 737 737 749 762 763 572 583 584 598 590 602 604. 609 610 623 630 748 748 764 766 768 772

Stress KS! 7.61 7.66 7.74 7.90 7.93 7.96 8.06 8.22 8.22 8.27 8.37 8.50 11.27 11.38 11.54 11.56 11.67 11.77 11.96 11.96 12.17 12.37 12.40 9.45 9.64 9.66 9.72 9.76 9.95 9.99 10.06 10.08 10.30 10.41 12.37 12.37 12.63 12.66 12.70 12.76

ii
_,-_=__ _ _--_-__ _ _ _ _ "1 _ _.

..

=,_

n..

/Il

w,,W

TABLE 3.7 (Continued) DAMPING IN Specimen (018-2 [0] GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR DIMENSIONS Damping Ratio .0005931 Strarn 101 783 Stress KS1 12.95

Frequency rad/sec 283.7

[0]8-2 [018-2 [018-2 [0]8-2 [0]8-2 [018-3 [0] -3 1018-3 [0]8-3 [0]8-3 [0]18-3 [0] 8-3 [0] 8-3 [0]18-3 [0] 8-3 [0] 8-3
[019-3 [018-3 01]8-3

283.8 283.7 283.7 283.7 283.6 288.-8 288.8 288.4 288.8 288.7
288.8 288.7

.0004263 .0004693 .0004251 .0004167 .0004174 .0006402 .0005773 .0006513 .0006226 .0006775
.0005936 .0005910

786 787 791 805 812 463 465 476 480 480
482 497

12.99 13.01 13.08 13.31 13.43 7.38 7.42 7.60 7.66 7.66 7.95 7.98 8.18 8.19 10.37 10.69
10.70 10.77 7.69 7.93

288.7 288.7 288.3 288.7 287.9 287.9

287.9

.0006091 .0006904 .0006107 .0005900 .0006509 .0006406

.0006959

498 500 513 514 650 670

671

[0 18-3 [018-3 [0]8-3 [018-3

(018-3 [018-3 [018-3 [018-3

287.8 287.7 287.7 287.7

287.8 287.8 287.6 287.7

.0006649 .0006829 .0005809 .0007025

.0007065 .0007397 .0006286 .0006561

675 682 694 696

698 7i0 722 726

10.88 11.06 11.11

11.14 11.32 11.51 11.59

[018-3 [018-4 (016-4 [018-4 [018-4 [018-4 [0]8-4 [0]8-4 1018-4 []08-4 [016-4 [O]8-4

287.7 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.4 301.4 301.4 301.5 301.4 301.4 301.4 301.3

.0005372 .0007554 .0004765 .0004794 .0004072 .0005409 .0006642 .0004766 .0004315 .0005520 .0004859 .0005076 72

738 504 510 516 526 528 528 532 539 545 549 549

11.77 8.34 8.42 8.53 8.70 8.73 8.73 8.79 8.90 9.00 9.08 9.08

I!
TABLE 3.7 (Continued) DA1IPING IN [Ole GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR DIMENSIONS Specimen [018-4 [0]8-4 [0] -4 (]08-4 (0] 3-4 [0] 8-4 (01]-4 Frequency rad/sec 301.3 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.7 300.7 300.6 300.8 Damping Ratio .0005076 .0005849 .0005392 .0005009 .0005380 .0004080 .0005184 .0004884 .0005373 .0003500 .0004590 Strain 10554 732 739 750 752 754 763 776 788 791 771 Stress KSI 9.16 12.09 12.21 12.40 12.43 i12.47 12.62

[0]8-4

[018-4 1018-4 [Ol8-4 [018-4

300.7

.0004214

774

12.79

12.83 13.02 13.08 12.75

I
SI
Ii

TABLE 3.8 ] DAMPING IN 10 1 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES Specimen [018-4 1018-4 10J-4 1018-4 [018-4 t0] 8-4 [018-4 [01]-4 [0]s-4 1018-4 [0]18-4 [018-4 [018-4 1018-4 10]8-4 10] 8-4 1018-4 [018-4 [0]8-4 (018-4 (018-4 101 8-4 [018-4 [018-5 [01 8-5 [018-5 10]8-5 [0]8-5 (0 1 8- 5 [018-5 1[08-5 [018-5 [0]8-5 S[0]18-5 [018-5 [018-5 s]0 5 [0108-5 [018-5 [018-5 Frequency rad/sec 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.4 301.4 301.4 301.5 301.4 301.4 301.4 301.3 301.3 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.8 300.7 300.7 300.7 300.6 486.0 486.0 485.9 486.1 486.0 486.0 486.1 486.0 486.0 485.7 485.8 485.8 485.7 485.7 485.8 485.7 485.6 Damping Ratio C .0007554 .0004765 .0004794 .0004072 .0005409 .0006642 .0004766 .0004315 .0005520 .0004859 .0006586 .0005076 .0005849 .C005392 .0005009 .0005380 .0004080 .0005184 .0004590 .0004214 .0004884 .0005373 .0003500 .0006693 .0006603 .0005696 .0006739 .0005622 .0005920 .0006234 .0006069 .0004088 .0006428 .0005891 .0005397 .0006047 .0005525 .0005290 .0006256 .0006859 74 Stra'n 10-9 504 510 516 526 528 528 532 539 545 549 549 554 732 739 750 752 754 763 771 774 776 788 791 96 102 104 107 108 112 113 119 120 300 313 319 319 323 331 337 339 Stress KSI 8.34 8.42 8.53 8.70 8.73 8.73 8.79 8.90 9.00 9.08 9.08 9.16 12.09 12.21 12.40 12.43 12.47 12.62 12.75 12.79 12.83 13.02 13.08 1.57 1.65 1.68 1.74 1.75 1.81 1.84 1.93 1.94 4.87 5.09 5.18 5.18 5.25 5.38 5.47 5.51

=La
'I' .... .. ... : -'... "1- . - . ; :,- -:" ' -/

-: - - '-... . - . - .

-- :

=,

TABLE 3.8

(Continued)

DAMPING IN M0e8 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES

Specimen (0]8-5 10]8-5 1018-5 10]8-5 [0]p-6 [018-6 [018-6 [O]e-6 [018-6 [018-6 [0] 8-6

Frequency rad/sec 485.6 485.7 485.8 485.7 932.1 931.7 931,2 932.0 930.8 931.0 931.5 931.6 932.0 931.6 931.5 930.8 931.1
931.6

Damping Ratio .0006827 .0006220 .000550s .0006181 .0005031 .0005431 .0005381 .0004550 .0006058 .0004749 .0006479 .0004219 .0004223 .0005359 .0004001 .0005069 .0005960
.0004216

Stra n o0343 351 357 364 160 165 167 175 175 182 186 188 190 190 192 193 200
203

Stress KSI 5.57 5.70 5.80 5.92 2.55 2.64 2.67 2.80 2.80 2-.90 2.97 3.00 3.03 3.03 3.06 -,07 3.19
3.23

[018-6 (018-6 [018-6 [018-6 [018-6

(018-6

I[018-6
[018-6 [018-6 [0]8-6 [018-6 [0]8-6 [018-6 [0]8- 6 [018-6 [018-7 [01]-7
[(018-7

931.5 931.3 931.5 931.6 930.7 931.3 931.5 931.1 1492 1490
1492

.0005670 .0003783 .0004565 .000,4914 .0005875 .0004020 .0005200 .0003901 .0005272 .0007195
.0004741

205 206 207 209 216 222 228 240 16.4 19.2
21.9

3.23 3,29 3.31 3.34 3.45 3.54 3.64 3.83 0.26 0.30
0.35

[0)8-7 [018-7 [018-7 [0]8-7 [0] 8-7 [018-7 [0]8-7 [0]6-7 (018-7 [0]8-7 [0] -7

1492 1492 1491 1493 1492 1492 1491 1491 1492 1491 1492

.0006782 .0004107 0005564 .0005788 .0004750 .0005000 .0004888 .0004440 .0004098 .0007615 .0003576 75

23.0 23.4 25.9 26.5 28.2 31.1 49.3 57.3 63.9 *F8.6 72.2

0.36 0.38 0,41 C.42 0.45 0.49 0.78 0.90 1.02 1.09 1.15

tI

S.

. ...

./

TABLE 3.8 (Continued)

DAMPING IN (018 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS OF DIFFERENT FREOUENCIES Specimen (018-7 [018-7 [08-7 [0]8-7 Frequency radisec 1492 1492 1491 1492 Damping Ratio C .0004627 .0005058 .0005374 .0004931 Strain 74.1 81.9 85.9 94.5 Stress KSI 1.17 1.29 1.36 1.49

*Entries for specimen 4 are the same as those found in Table 3.5

76

/ j

TABLE 3.9 DAMPING IN [9018 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS AT DIFFERENT FREOUENCIES Specimen [9018-1 [90] -1 [9018-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-1 Frequency rad/sec 267.1 266.9 267.0 267.1 267.1 267.1 Damping Ratio .0053468 .0050876 .0053947 .0055529 .0057677 .0053905 Strain 10-i 250 270 272 281 337 338 Stress MPA 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.43 0.43

[9018-1
[9018-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-1

267.2
267.2 267.0 267.0

.0052550
.0057623 .0051192 .0054131

345
346 351 364

0.44
0.44 0.45 0.46

[9018-1
[9018-1 [901 8 -1 (90]-l [90]8-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-] [90]8-1 [90] 8-1 [9018-1 [90]8-1 [90]8-1 [9018-1 [90]8-1 [9018-2 [9018-2 [9018-2 [90]8-2 [90]'-2 [901)8-2 [9018-2 (9018-2 190]18-2 [9018-2 [9C] 8 -2 (9018-2 [901e-2 [9018-2 [90]e-2

267.0
267.1 267.0 266.9 267.1 266.8 266.9 266.9 267.0 266.9 266.9 267.2 267.0 267.0 466.0 465.4 466.0 465.8 466.4 465.9 465.5 465.9 465.8 465.3 466.4 466.3 466.3 465.9 465.6 465.7

.0055037
.0054688 .0054883 .0056325 .0056554 .0057862 .0053833 .0052813 .0052863 .0055454 .0057574 .0055679 .0054131 .0056052 .0057347 .0059775 .0054839 .0055738 .0054561 .0058398 .0063127 .0068251 .0058512 .0069536 .0065889 .0055976 .0057851 .0059192 .0057376 .0062473 77

379
385 454 457 462 465 469 487 512 512 615 617 627 676 42.6 43.8 44.6 50,4 73.3 75.6 76.6 76.9 84.6 87.3 104 125 125 131 135 136

0.46
0.49 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.65 0.65 0.78 0.78 0.80 0.86 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 1.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18

"[90]8-2

L
t/

'1

TABLE 3.9 (Continued)

DAMPING IN [90J8 GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMENS AT DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES Specimen Frequency rad/sec 4S6.0 46.2 466.4 466.7 900.7 899.7 900.3 900.2 900,0 900.3 898.3 899.8 900.5 :00.2 900.3 899.6 897.8 899.9 Damping Ratio Strain 10-H 159 187 213 215 6.6 16.3 19.5 20.7 20.9 23.3 23.5 56.9 59.6 65.3 65.7 69.9 71.0 190 Stress PA 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.25

[9018-2 [90]8-2 [9018-2 [90]8-2 [90]8-3 (90 8-3 [9018-3 190]8-3 [90] 8-3 [9018-3 [90]a-3 [90]8-3 [9018-3 [90]8-3 [9018-3 [9018-3 (90]8-3 [9018-3

[ 9 0 ]9-2

465.8

[90]8-3
[90]8-3

899.4
8[908-3 099.9 899.8

.0060157 .0062432 .0060565 .0060985 .00E9376 .0068057 .0063978 .0062527 .0062194 .0064791 .0062643 .0067832 .0064307 .0062533 .0074783 .0063316 .0060260 .0066946

.0058262

145

0.19

.0074402
.0068847 .3069451

194
207 208

0.26
0.27 0.27

78

/-

i.,-az7

TABLE 3.10

DAMPING IN [4512,

GRAPHITE/EPOXY

AS REPORTED BY MOHR 2

Specimen [45 J2 5 -l

Frequency rad/sec 17.95

Damping Ratio 0.56106 0.56141 0.52858

Stress KSI 6.33 5.75 5.39

0.50938
0.53829 0.53370 0.57932 0.52164
[4512s-2 29.62 0.54658

5.00
4.94 4.66 4.24 4.24
6.02

1
[i45]2s-3 !0.59543 54.16

0.54771 0.56623 0.53853 0.54965 0.58294 0.54304 0.54768

5.25 4.50 3.87 3.61 3.35 2.94 2.73

0.55437
0.61403 0.65245 0.59023 0.65308 0.57386 0.57014 0.57035 0.55876

2.07
5.03

3.25
2.41 1.82 1.11 1,08 1.04 0.60 0.34

i[14512s-4
.0.66675

171.0,*
S0.66152 S0.65074
,]0.66334

0.66985

1.547
0.959

0.633 0.555
0.65958. 0.393 0.260

0.64098 0.65802 0.65043 79

0.239 0.160 0.106

-.

-,,---.

..

.. ...--

....-

TABLE 3.11 DAMPING IN METAL MATRIX SPECIMENS Specimen Frequency Damping Ratio .0003922 .0004864 .0003400 .0003715 .0002981 .0003081 .0003472 .0003956 .0003268 .0004557 .0004371 .0002876
.0003329

Strain

rad/sec
P100/AZ91C/Ti

1016.2 18.9 27.2 29.0 30.4 30.9 32.2 32,7 33.8 34.2 36.0 36.5
36.9

"

3105 3105

"3106 "3103 ""3106 " "

3106 "

"3105
3103 3106

"3106 "3105 "3103

"
3106

" "o
P55/AZ91C/Ti

3102 3105

"3106

"3106 "3101
2522

"2522 "2522 "2523

2523 2522

"2523 "2522
"

.0003564 .0004365 .0004969 .0003689 .0003817 .0003951 .0004798 .0004060 .0003463 .0004010 .0004243 ,0002936 .0004712
.0003196

37.3 41.3 41.4 41.5 47.0 36.9 41.2 42.6 43.8 45.9 45.9 46.6 47.5
47.5

"
S2522

2523

2522

"2524
"

.0002406 .0004589 .0004058

.0004049

49.4 50.8 51.1

51.4

2522

"2522 "2522
PIOO/AZ91C/Mg 2522 2522 864.5 864.9
866.1

"11

.0003764 .0003479 .0004131 .0004416 .0007114 .0011479

.0007313.

53.0 55.4 58.7 60.1 36.0 42.9

52.5

"864.7

,0013566

55.5

80

_7-

TABLE 3.11 (Continued) DAMPING IN METAL MATRIX SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR DIMENSIONS specimen Frequency rad/sec 864.6 866.0 865.4 866.0 865.5 865.3 Damping Ratio stri 1057.7 59.5 63'.1 67.6 67.7 70.4 71.0 79.3 82.1 84.8 86.5 89.9 92.5 94.7 98.1 102.3 106.4 107.0 108.5 108.8 111.5 113.2 115.1 117.0 119.2 119.4 121.7 124.1 130.0 132.5 132.5 134.1 134.7 135.4 137.8 137.9 145.6

Pl00/AZ91C/Mg

.0004546 .0007374

'I865.5 I,865.4 .3865.6

r-865.4

'3865.0 *1"865.3

'I865.1

'S865.0

.0005043 .0007726 .0011916 .0006603 .0007063 .0006131 .0005553 865.2 .0012930 .0008314 865.2 .0009203 865.4 .0007139 865.5 .0010888 864.6 .0012904 865.4 .0010172 865.1 .0009475 654.0010872 865.3 .0012739 865.3 .0012971 864.9 .0012565 .0010617 .00a09967 865.4 .0012724 865.5 .0007652 864.7 .0006888 864.7 .0011913 865.4 .0010676 .0010801 865.2 .0010760 865.3 .0008469 865.3 .0011036 865.3 .0009552 .0010482 865.5 .0010371 865,1 .0011503. 865.4 .0012328

81

TABLE 3.11 (Continued) DAMPING IN METAL MATRIX SPECIMENS Specimen P100/AZ91C/Mg Frequency rad/sec 864.8 865.4 865.4 Damping Ratio .0012102 .0007924 .0010207 .0011128 .0011930 .0011327 .0010898 .0007412 .0012266 .0007903 Stra n 10151.1 152.2 158.0 161.4 161.8 162.5
162.8 164.9

2"865.3

"865.3
864.7
"

"
"

865.1 864.8

"865.7
865.3

167.9
175.7

"*1:

..,

:-

..

..

.,2"""

82

TABLE 4.1 COMPOSITE DAMPING OF SIMILAR SPECIMENS OF

SPECIMEN FREQUENCY DAMPINg .RATIO

[0]8

STD 0DJVIATION

Hz
1 2 3 4 46.0 45.2 45.9 47.8

(10-)
0.622 0.512 0.642 0.514

(i0-)
0.048 0.082 0.047 0.090

TABLE 4.2 DAMPING RATIO OF MATRIX MATERIAL AS CALCULATED

FROM DAMPING OF SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR GEOMETRY SPECIMEN RULE OF MIXTURES COMPLEX MODULI COMPLEX MODULI + SHEAR

.00104

0.0389

0.0384

2
3 4 AVERAGE FOR SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR GEOMETRY
I

.00085
.00107 .00086 .00096

0.0326
0.0394 0.0327 0.0359

0.0322
0.0389 0.0322 0.0354

i83

__

67,

1'

TABLE 4.3 DAMPING RATIO OF MIATRIX MATERIAL AS CALCULATED FROM DAMPING OF (08SPECIMENS OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES SPECIMEN RULE OF MIXTURES COMPLEX MODULI COMPLEX MODULI+ SHEAR .-.0322 0 0.0367 0.0291 0.0297 0.0319

4 5 6 7 AVERAGE REFERENCE AVERAGE FOR SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR GEOMETRY

.00086 .00100 .00082 .00087 .00089

0.0327 0.0375 0.0303 0.0317 0.0331

.00096

0.0359

0.0354

(FROM TABLE 4.2)

84

TABLE 4.4 DAMPING RATIO OF MATRIX MATERIAL AS CALCULATED FROM DAMPING OF [90)8 S2ECIMENS OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES

SPECIMEN

RULE OF
MIXTURES

COMPLEX
MODULI

COMPLEX
MODULI + SHEAR .0.0268 0.0298 0.0336 0.0301

1 2 3 AVERAGE REFERENCE AVERAGE FOR SPECIMENS OF SIMILAR GEOMETRY (FROM TABLE 4.2)

.00913 .01001 .01103 .01006

0.0268 0.0298 0.0336 0.0301

.00096

0.0359

0.0354

85

TABLE 4,5 DYNAMIC YOUNG'S MODULUS FOR GRAPHITE/EPOXY SPECIMEN VALUE DERIVED FROM IN PLANE EXTENSIONAL TESTS (GPA) VALUE FROM FLEXURAL TESTS (GPA) TURNER VALUE (GPA)

[0 8-1
[018-2

130.0
130.0

112
114

98
98

[0 8-3 [018-4 [018-5 [018-6

130.0 130.0 130.0 1.30.0

110 114 112 110

98 98 98 98

[018-7
[9018-1 19018-2 [9018-3

130.0
10.5 10.5 10.5

109
8.8 8.9 9.1

98
7.9 7.9 7.9

TABLE 4.6 DAMPING OF P100/AZ91C/Mg METAL MATRIX SPECIMEN THEORY THEORETICAL VALUE RULE OF MIXTURES COMPLEX MODULI COMPLEX MODULI + SHEAR ZENER EXPERIMENTAL AVERAGE
I.

% DIFFERENCE FROM EXPERIMENTAL VALUE -10.1 175.8 175.8 6.1 0.0

.00089 .00273 .00273 .00105 .00099

86

,--mom

THREADED ROD

!I _ LAUNCHER

NUT -PL

~STRIKER

%TE

I:i
STEEL PLATE

S-fELE.fTRo

MAGNET

Figure 2.1 Tuned Excitation & Launch Mechanism, (TEELM) as used by Mohr Prior to Modification

87

17II

SI-

,,J

MR

z 0

~ZI

.,I,

Figure 2.2 TELM Launch Sequence Prior to Modification

8S

FRONT VIEW TELM

K!

""

kLAUNCHER

SPRING

>SPR

ING

WORM

WORM

SCREW

SCREW

NUT
SALL

NUT . _

STL PLATE
S-/ ALL

NUTNU

SDC

MOTOR

Figure 2.3

TELM Automated Cocking Mechanism

89

_-

SIDE VIEW TELM

LAUNCHER

THRE.ADED -ROD HOLLOW SHAFT

"PLAT
PLATE

.,.NIUT

STEEL PLATE

Figure 2.4

TELM Automated Stroke

A.djustment

90

__--. .,;

- , ,'

,-"

-- ,-r-";

',,,- -

..

--

-I I

..-...-

.......

7-'I,

-I

,
P2

911

-jw

'

SPECIMEN WITH STRAIN GAUGE WIRES

MOUNTED AT THE CENTER

SPECIMEN WITH STRAIN GAUGE WIRES "MOUNTED AT THE NODE OF FIRST FREE-FREE MODE

Figure 2.6

Specimen Configuration

92

"

1"50[ 18 INCH ALUMINUk4

S01-00

UNFILTERED

-J
0.50w& 0.00

C. -O.50 -

'41
0.00 0.02 0.o4 0.06 0.08
TIME (SEC)

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Figure 2.7

Unfiltered Strain Oata vs. Time

93

1.50

18 INCH ALUMINUM

FILTERED

1 .000- .50
-J

w 0.oo00

-.

-I-J

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.0o 0.10 TIME (SEC)

0.12

0.14

0.6

Figure 2.8

Filtered Strain Data vs.

Time

94

-.

INI

DASHPOT

r
4

~SPRING Figure 4.1 Conceptual Damping Model of a Voight Solid

DASI-POT
~~SPRING

//

~~SPRING

Figure 4.2 Conceptual Danping Model of a S-tandard Linear Solid

95

ALUMINUM

2024-T3 0 Rang , of values

~ Mean and Standard

Deviation

~10.

S!

0.01

0.1

w/ WR

Figure 4.3

Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for Aluminum

96

... .. SI . ....

DAMPING RATIO VS. STRESS FOR SPECIMENS WITH FIRST FREE-FREE FREQUENCY BELOW ZENER RELAXTION 7 - FREQUENCY

s
5

0
a +

SPECIMEN FREQUENCY AI-5 100Hz AI-6 64 Hz AI-? 32Hz Al-S 18-6 1 +

0 *4

IO

&

AAA

SI
08

II
2
4 6

,,

I
14

.I
is

I
ls

I
20

,0 12 STRESS (KS 1)

Figure 4.4

Damping Ratio vs, Stress Level for Aluminum

97

;-

GRAPHITE/EPOXY

[o]J

0.8-

S0.6 --

0Mean 0 i 1 Standard

" 0.4 -0.4-

Deviation Extreme Valu

0.2-

0.CI
0 50

I
300

I
350

100 150 200 250 FIRST FREE FREQUENCY (HZ)

* ..

Figure 4.5

Damping Ratio vs. Frequency for E0] Graphite/Epoxy 8

98

., ."

GRAPH ITE /EPOX Y

[90]I

71
vsr

* A

Mean

-1Deviation

Extreme Values 4

25

50 75 100 125 150 FIRST FREE- FREE FREQUENCY (HZ)

I'S

Figure 4.6

Damping Ratio vs. Freguency for [90)8 Graphite/Epoxy

99

DAMPING RATIO

VS. V FIRST FREE-FREE FREQUENCY [145]2$

Si

Kz
4

6:r.

-Mean Extreme

---

S~Values

2-

0
0 25

I
50 75 100 125 150 FIRST FREE- FREE FREQUENCY (HZ)

I
175

I
200

Figure 4.7

Damping Ratio vrs. FrequenCy for [+45s

Graphite/Epoxy
-2

.100

DAMPING RATIO VS. FIBER ORIENTATION

8"-

6
4n

S2

S I
0
10

I
20

I
30

.I
40

I
50

,I
60

I
70

I,
80

I
90

-[:8]$ FIBER ORIENTATION

Figure 4.8 Damping Ratio vs. Fiber Orientation for Graphite/Epoxy Specimens *in the Frequency Range 140Hz to 170Hz

.101

....

6_

Specimen P100/AZ91C/Ti P55/AZ91C/Ti P100/AZ91C/Mg

/R 10.2 9.3 .9

Zener Curve for Mg AZ91C 0jMean 1 Standard Deviation

-Extreme

Values

1.2

1.0-

I
10.6j
0 0.2-

0.4

I00

W/ WR

Figure 4.9

Damping of Metal Matrix Specimens vs. Frequencl

102

__

__

APPENDIX A MICROCOMPUTER PROGRAM

A flow chart interrupt listing at handler, are in this

of the microcomputer program and along with the actual assembly Appendix. The interrupt

the language

handler was run

200Hz.

~BEGIN

INITIALIZE
CONSTANTS

I.'

"INITIALIZE INTERRUPT

VECTOR TABLE
FENABLE INTERRUPTS

ICONTINUOUS

LOOP

Figure A.1

Program Flow Chart

103

1
INCREMENT TIME COUNTER

SDECREMENT

MAGNET RELEASE COUNTER

COUTE SEND ER mNO V TOZCROLLERN -

MGE

REUNE RELOMITESRERELT

STATE

CEKYES TIME STA;E ERO

PROILEPROF

VELOCITY ILE STATE -ONE

4ISEND

V0

TO -CONTROLLERI

[,RETURN FROM INTERRUPTJ

-9

Figure A.2

Interrupt Handler Flow Chart

104

SI

f
CONTROLLER

RETURN FROM INTERRLLT

Fiyure A.2

Interrupt Handler Flow Chart

(Continued'

I
,!

10

105

-_

_ __

VELOCITY CONTROLLER

RAY SHEEN

MACRD-80 3.37

08-Mav-SO

PAGE

0000' 0003' 0004' 0005' 00)6' 0007'

C3 O09A' 00 00 00 00 00 I

VELIICITY CINfRULLER TITLE ,ZS0 SKIP 10 EXECUTAYLE COU) JP INIT NOF NOP NOP NOP HOP INTERRUPT VECTOR lABLE DO DV ow DU 0 TRAJ 0 0

RAY SHEEN

0009' O00A' 000C' OOOE'

0000 0010' 0000 0000

TABLE:

iNOT USED $CHANHEL I INrERRUPT HANDLER INOT USED 10OT USED

I 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2106 2108

ARIAILE LIST EOU EOU :QU EOU EOU EOU EOU EOU 2100H 2101H 2102H 2103K 2104H 2105H 2106W 21089 ;MOITOR ZERO <82W> ;INITIAL VELOCITY <54H> (RPM/O100)t25 ;ACCELERATION TIME <40> MSh.C(200/1000) ;ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY #TIME COUNTER 200 HZ )STATE VARIABLE 116 BIT DUMMY VARIAIILE ;MAGNET RELEASE SEQUrNCER

S2105

ZERO VINIt ACCEL CONST TIME STATE IUMNYI NAG I 3A 2104 3C 32 4F 3A 3D 32 20 3E 03 3E 32 3A FE 23 ZA 2104 2108 2109 09 FF 9F 01 2108 2105 01 18 2102 I I TRAJ:

CHANNEL #1 INTERRUPT HANDLER .D Aq(TIME) INC A LII (TINE)PA LD CIA L0 ApihAG) DEC A Lb (MAG)PA JR NZIAAA LD AtOFFH OUT (?FH)tA LD Ail 1.D(MAG)PA LD AP(SIAT") CP 01H JX! ZFRUN LD Ar(ACCEL) ;SET THE TINE COUNTER IINCREMENT )SAVE THE NEW TIME i6ET MAGNET RELEASE COUNTER IDECREMENT IT ISAVE IT 1IF NOT TINE YET THEN 60 $MAGNET RELEASE ;RELEASE NAONCT IRESET COUNTER ISAVE IT SECTSTATE VARIABLE ICUMPARE IT TO 1 #IF IIS I THEN JUMP 10ET ACCEL

0010' 0013' 0014' 0017' 0018' 0013' OOIC' OO1F' 0021' 0023' 0025' 0027' 002A' 0021' 002F' 0031'

AAA!

*
S~106

10

S.

.. . .. . . .

..

,-~

VELOCITY CONTROLLER 0034' 0035' 0037' 0039' 003C' O03F' 0040' 0043' 0014' 0046' 0047' 004?' 004C' 004F' 0052' 0055' 0056' 0057' 0058' OOSA' 0013' DOW5' DOOE' 0060' 0061' 0063' 0064' 0066' 0067' 0069' 006A' 006C' 0060' 006E' 0070' 0074' 0075' 0077' 0078' 0078' 007C' 007D' of 2( 05 3E 01 32 2105 3A 2101 47 2100 3A 90 D3 9E FS ED 4D 21 2106 01 2103 11 2104 CD OCI' 7E 23 46 Cl IF Co IF CU IF Cu IF CI IF Co IF CI IF 47 CS 20 3E 38 38 30 38 36 39 33 79 06 DO

RAY SHEEN'

hACRO-90 3.37 CP C T iJ NZlLflN LD AtO1H L1V(I ATE),A LD AP(VINIT) I'i DIA LD A#(ZERO) lAsO ADD Ait OUT (YEN)vA El RETI

0H-hgi-Sh

PAGE

1--1

;CHECK A:3ACNST CURRENT TIME lIF N0l SAME THEN CUHTIPUE ISAVE THL STATE AS I ;GET INITIAL VELOCITY $SWITCH REGISTERS tGET THE MOTOR ZERO OFFSET OFFSET ISEND IT IENABLE INTERRUPTS ;RETURN IADDRESS OF MULTIPLICATION RLSULT ;ADDRESS OF CONSTANT $ADDRESS O TIRL IMULTIPLY THEN ;6E7 LOW PYTE OF RESULT ;ADDRESS OF HIGH PYTE ;SET HIGH BYTE OF RESULT

CONT;

RUN*

S0072'

LD HLPDUMYI LD ICPCONST LD DE9TIME CALL MULT LIDA(HL) INC HL LI ID(NL) DIVIDE BY 128 SRLI RRA SRLI RRA SRI I RRA SRLI RRA SRLI RRA SRIN RRA SRII RRA L BrA PIT 7r3 JR NZADDEh LID A11101OOOO9 SUB NED L IPA LI AhiVINII) ADD Art LU CiA LD Av(ZERO) ADD AIC

1SUITCH REGISTERS ICHECK IF IT'S NEGATIVE lIF NUT CHANGE IT 1158 OR 2510 IFIND THi DIFFERENICE 1SET THE 2'S COMPLEMENT ISAVE IT ;GET INITIAL VELOCITY IADD EN ISAVE IN C RIGISTER t6ET OFFSET FOR D TO A lADD OFFSET

S0080'

90 ED 44 47 3A 2101 80 4F 3A 2100 e1

ADDENI

107

VELOCIrY CONTROLLER 0081'

RAY SHEEN

HACRO-8o 3,37 OUT (9EH)tA

08-Nha-80

PAGE

1-2

D3 9E I

;SFND IT

SEE IF IT'S FINISHED LD Ap(VNIT) ADD Ae8 NEG CP C JR ZiSIOP EI kETI ;GET VINIT HlIOHER VELO(lfrY BECAUSE OF LAG 12'S COHPLEMENT OF VINIT ICUNPARE THEN ;IF E(UALP THEN STOP ;ENABLE INTERRUPTS ;RETURN

0083' 0086' 0098' OOSA, 0093' 0BO' COSE'

3A 2101 C6 44 ED 44 19 2! 03 F3 ED 4D ;

STOP IT LD A,(ZERO) OUTCIEH)tA LD AP80H OUT (9FH)PA HALT ;MOTOk ZERO ISEND IT ;MAGNET ON ;STOP IHE PROGRAM

0090' 0093' 0095' 0097' 009?'

3A 03 3E D3 76

2100 YE 30 9F

STOP;

I. 009A' 009C' OOYF' 0OA2' OOA4' OOA6' OOA ' JE 32 32 3E 03 3E 00 2104 2105 80 9F 99 INIT:

PROGRAM INITIALIZATION Lb AOOH LD (TINE)oA LD (STATE)tA LD ASBOH OUT (9FH)PA LD A910010000 1O (CONST)PA ISET TINE TO ZERO ;SET STATE VARIABLE ;MAGNET ON VALUE ITURN MAGNET ON ;SRAVITY CONSTANT -104 ISET CONST

32 2103

OOAl' OOAE' OOAF' 0031' OO2' 0064'

21 0008' 7C ED 47 7D D3 84 3E A7

SET CTC CHANNEL LI HLPTABLE ;INTERRUPI VECTOR TABLE APORLSO LIP APH 1GUT HIGH BYTE LIN IA iSTORE IT LD AtL ;UET LOW 6YTE OUT (S4HN)A ISEND 1T LD AIO1OO1111 ICONTROL WORD FOR CTC I S PIT BIT PIT BIT 7 6 5 4 ENABLE INTERRUPT USE INTERNAL CLOCK CLOCK AT 7800 HZ D!SRCGARD

BIT 3 - STAR7 COUNTING NOM BIT 2 - TIME CO, START FOLLOWS S bIT I - ZERO CHANNEL

108 ~i

..

.......

_ __

_,_

VELOCITY CONTROLLER

RAY SHEEN I

RACRO-80 3.37 PIT 0 -HUT OUT (8$H)vA Lb Ay3Y OUT (8$H)tA IN 2 El

OS-hMw-80 RE I

PAGE

1-3

CO06W 0638' COWA OCOC' 0O0E' O0'

Da 3E D3 ED 7l

89 27 05 5E LOOP: I

ISEND IT ItME CORISTANI FOR 200 HZ REND IT ;iITERfAUPT MOVE 2 ISHNALE INIEARUPIS 160 FOREVER

18 FE

JR LOOP

MULTIPLICATION SUBROUTINE PUSH AF PUSH vC

PUSH
lE

S00:3'

OOCI' 00C2'

F5 C5

KULTI

ISAVE REGISTERS

D5
OA A7 IA

I
*

DOC4' COWC' OOCa' 4f OoC7' AF OOC8 57 OOCY' 15 OR COLA' Ct 40 OOCC' It 01 COCE' 00,OO' 9! C3 2F OODI'

MULT22

MULT3:

LD Ar(SC) LD 1ls. Lb A.tDE) LD CtA XUR A LD V,A LD Et5 IT Ot JR ZMULT3 SUB C SRA A

IFETCH ARC I I'ETCH kRG 2 Ct.EAR ACCULULATOR ISET LOOP COUNTER ;E'RE AT ZERO# DO WE STAY 1HRE ;IF SOv JUST SHIFT AROUND IELSE SUBTRACT ARG 2 VROK PRODUCT ISHIFI PRODUCT RIGHT IWECREMENT LOOP COUNTER IDAIL OUT 1F DONE IROTATE ARO I RIGHT lIF NEXT IT IS ZERU. BRANCH 1IF WE'RE AT I 00 WE STAY THERE IIF SD JUSI SHIFT PRODUCT IELSE ADD ARO 2 TO PRODUCT ISHIFT PRODUCT RIGHT IDECREMENT LOOP COUNWER" WAIL OUT IF DONE PROTA1E ARG I RIGHT ;Do IT AGAIN ISAVE PRODUCT

00113'
OOD1' COD6 08' OODA' OODC' OODE' OOLO' OOEl' OOE,' W 00E6' ;OE8' OOEA' OOED' OOEE'

ClIlA

RR D
DEC E JR ZiNULT! SRL I JP NCqMULT2 SIT Ot JR NZtNULT3 ADD AC SRA A RR D DEC E JR ZtHULT5 %RL I JP MULT2 Lis(HL)3 INC HL Lb (NL),A DECI. PUP BE PUP DC

13 28 15 Ca 31 30 FO Co 40 20 F1 31 Cl 2F Co IA II' ID 20 05 C? 36 Ci CMC' 72 23 "D0WF 21 0070OF'77 OOF1' D2 01 OOF2' Cl 0072'

MULTY4

MULT51

;RECOVER REGISTER?

FlIP

SC

109
!I

YELUCI rYCONTROLLER 00F3' 00F4' Fl Cf

RAY SHEEN

MACRO-80 JJ7 POPr 6F RET I THAI'S ALL FOLKS END

03-NJW-9O

PACE

1-4

S~110

APPENDIX B

GRAPHITE/EPOXY

LAYERING SEQUENCE AND CURING CYCLE

The stacking sequence graphite/epoxy' laminates is

for the curing cycle shown below:

of

top plate

5. 4. 2.

2.

1.

v. 2cure
Guaranteed non-porous Peel ply Laminate Porous teflon Bleeder paper teflon

plate

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Figure B.1

Stacking Sequence

111

--

-n,

The curing cycle was as follows: Time (min.) 0 20 35 95 hio 230 250 255 Vacuum (psi) 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 0 Ext. Pressure (psi) 0 85 85 85 85 85 85 0 Total Pressure (psi) 14.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 Temp. (OF) 100 110 240 240 350 350 '160 75

112

Appendix C STRAIN LEVEL DETERMINATION Consider the Wheatstone Bridge Circuit where
AR-

initially

0.
RB R1

+ A'R

V2

Figure C.l

Wheatstone Bridge Circuit

Rs

RB,

and RB2 can be varied to ensure the potential initially zero. (C.!) (C.2)

between nodes 1 and 2 is so therefore

iv

V0 = V1 - V2 = 0 V 1 = V2

but

V2

R 1

+R 2

(C.3)

since thenR

AR

0 + R2 V (C.4)

113

S..._......... . .

...

= ...

.--- .,., n -

:_

I-:..-

..

. . . .-

Now as AR becomes non zero

R + AR

R
R1 R1 + '&P

(C.5)

so

V0I

V1

+RR 2 V _ AR ] -- -R V 1 1

(C.6)

or

V0

( C.7 )

we define R-

R2 -

so

V0

AR

.8)

From tha definition

of gauge

factor

AR/R GF GF=AL/L

AR re-

(C.9

where c is the strain le el.

Substituting equation C.9 into equation C.8 gives GF-7V (C.10)

amplifier] by a gain, Vamp and the strain level, c if V0 is

A, the relationship between is

A VGF 114

(C.1)

A!?PENDIX D DERIVATION OF IENER EQUATION

Assuming a metal behaves as according to Zener's theory, we can write the following relationship and strain. aI a + a 2 a = for stress

1 c + b 2c

(D.1)

If

Eq.

(D.1)

is

divided by al,

three new independent con-

stants are

introduced.

a +

zTE

(+ (

+T

(D.2)

Where the relaxed modulus, Young's Modulus, E.

ER,

is

equivalent

to the static

The T's are the relaxation times for

stress and strain. Now suppose both c and are equal to zero, (D.2) reduces to
0 + T

then Eq.

(D.3)

115

which has

che solution

-t/T
a(t)
=

a0 e

(D.4)

Similarly, Eq. (D.2)

if

a and

are set equal to zero,

the solution to

reduces to
-t/T

C(t)

" Co e

(D.5)

Equations

(D.4)

and (D.5)

show that stress and strain

exponentially approach equilibrium conditions. Now suppose that in a very short time interval, At, a

solid receives a finite stress increment Ac, and therefore a finite strain increment Ah.
AC At Aa - At

Then Eq.

(D.2)
__

becomes
At

ER (AC At + T

At)

(D.6)

Now integrate

(D.6)

and let At approach zero.

As At

approaches zero the first expression on each side of (D.6) goes to zero. The integral becomes
T

Aa - ER

Ta

AC

(D.7)

116

or,
60 u E AC (D.8)

Where Eu is
by

called the unrelaxed elastic modulus,

defined

Eu - E

(D.9)

If if

however,

stress and strain &re cyclically loaded, then

(D.10a)

or

the solid is undergoing free vibration,

O(t)
-

co e it

C(t)

a CO eiWt

(D.10b)

Placing

(D.10)

into (D.2) gives

iW

(1 +

) c0 o

ER (1 + iwra)E0

(D.11)

Rearranging gives

it
I

1+ i('A o 0

I
CO

ER 1

i6T

(D.12)

117

?I

or
00 - Ec CO

(D.13)

where Ec ER

'1 +.W +i

(D.14)

Ec is defined as the complex modulus. Separating (D.14) into real and imaginary parts gives

Ec

I+
(D.13)

o2 T 2

+ W2T

ER

(D.15)

Prom Eq.

it

can be shown that strain lags behind and the

stress.

This lag is a function of frequency,

T

relaxation coefficients T. and

The angle which The tangent of 6

strain lags behind stress is defined as 6. is called the damping factor, g,

and is equal to the The damping ratio,

imaginary part of the complex modulus.

C, is one half the value of g.

=-

U:,

118
lib-

CE c

Et

(I + i g)

(D.16)

Im [EEc I
tan 6 g (D.17)

9l

W IT 2 - rCag(D.18)

Jr'Define

12 TT as the geometric mean of the two relaxation times,

[.

C T12 1

(D.19)

Define E as the geometric mean of the two moduli Eu and ER.

=

(E

ER)1/2

(D.20)

Placing Eqs.

(D.19)

and (D.20)

into (D.18)

gives

SEu
"I

(D.21)

119

"l__

Thus. we can see the relationship between damping ratio, C, and frequency.
as
=

Equation (D.21)

is presented in Chapter IV

2=

( 2 ET)

2c

2 ) 1 + W2 T2

(D.22)

where

9!

-ER E

ET

(D.23a)

TT

(D.23b)

Equation (D.23a) properties of metals. equation.

is

derived using thermodynamic 5 for the derivation of this

See Ref.

I!-I

120

~~~~~-

..

. ..

. . ..

. . .. .

.....

--