Você está na página 1de 3

Discussion notes -why nyquist -how natural frequencies were obtained Response locus Nyquist plot: - allows us to compute

the natural frequencies of the model - show frequency response of linear systems Natural frequencies found by 2 methods - by finding the response locus by analysing the circular response locus; the largest spacing between equally spaced frequency increments - it is also found by the peak on the amplitude vs frequency graphs (less accurate than first method) - results from both methods should correlate - confirms and validates results if correlation is present - none of the best fit curves follow the nyquist plots absolutely - modes 2,3 and 4 show biggest correlation however mode 1 shows least correlation. Compare to fit value. - reliable results as they show some correlation - shift is caused by limitation in software which causes the line of best fit to go throught the centre of the plot Interpretation of results Comparison to experimental natural frequencies to the theoretical natural frequencies. Possible reasons for error in mode 1: - compare the results on different parts of the wing etc. - Amplitude in results is very high. Problem as point mass assumptions assumes only infinitesimal displacements Amplitudes becomes large as the natural frequency is achieved. Problem as point mass assumption is only valid for infinitesimal displacements (amplitudes). Hence results become invalid - large error could be due to faulty accelerometer - does not take into account other factors; such as the dampening that is caused by air resistance which is not accounted for.

MODE SHAPES Reference 3 and 4 is from previous 3rd year project. Ref 3 was calculated using point mass model. Reference 4 was calculated using lump mass model. Ref 4 more accurate as lump mass model takes rotational inertias into account. Ref 4 more accurate. The references in the figures shown are identical. Need to compare to one set of values only. MODE 1 does not follow theoretical data closely for fuselage, does not follow parabolic theoretical trend; peak at 0, in middle of graph

peak corresponds to higher amplitude values for fuselage basic shape is the same important to note it is symmetrical as the wings on both sides are being vibrated by the same amount much lower values for wings discepencies between 0.5 and 1.5, especially between 0.5 and 1. Increase in the amplitude whereas theoretical values continually decrease. Sources of error o error in apparatus o the structure was hug from a tripod by a string and so resulted in it swinging from side to side as a pendulum would o the natural frequency was ..... o small o cant be a source of error o centre of gravity not in middle o due to the wings not in middle as figure.... shows but actually to one side. o Also affects the vibrations through the aircraft

MODE 2 MODE 3 MODE 4 The relationship between experimental and theoretical values is very similar and the same trend can be seen At 1.5m from the nose, the amplitude is much lower than the theoretical values. This again could be attributed to the damping. At 0.5 m from the centre, the amplitude is slightly higher than the experimental values. Due to both wings exhibiting the same behaviour and this error being very small, it is unlikely to be an error in the procedure. This mode shows the strongest correlation; follows the theoretical trend the most Only shifted down slightly This is due to the damping being reasonably high. Damping is 0.137 Anomaly between 1.5 m and the tail shows amplitude increases. Opposite trend to theory. Also shows amplitude at 1.5m is zero Overall trend is the same therefore can still be considered valid Much stronger correlation; behaves in the same way as the theoretical values Relate to real life Slight anomaly at 1m from the nose The experimental amplitudes are slightly smaller than the predicted values Amplitude is greatest at the nose and at the end (the tail)

Mode 3 is most accurate has largest fit value 88.824% - also has second largest damping - without this damping, would have even larger accuracy

Sources of error Point mass idealisation presumes no mass between the different points on the model - the mass between the points has an effect on the results. - moment of inertia actually varies around the model. It is not limited to certain parts of the structure and varies continually around the structure - offset between wing and fuselage positioning. - results in weights vectors acting in different directions - structure suspended by its nose - unrealistic as real life its suspended by its wings - causes structure to act as pendulum - amplitude is low. Unlikely to have an effect on the results -

Você também pode gostar