4.7 Article

A parametric study on the dynamic response of planar multibody systems with multiple clearance joints

期刊

NONLINEAR DYNAMICS
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 633-653

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11071-010-9676-8

关键词

Multibody dynamics; Clearance joints; Contact forces; Friction effect

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for the Science and Technology [PTDC/EME-PME/099764/2008]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/EME-PME/099764/2008] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A general methodology for dynamic modeling and analysis of multibody systems with multiple clearance joints is presented and discussed in this paper. The joint components that constitute a real joint are modeled as colliding bodies, being their behavior influenced by geometric and physical properties of the contacting surfaces. A continuous contact force model, based on the elastic Hertz theory together with a dissipative term, is used to evaluate the intrajoint contact forces. Furthermore, the incorporation of the friction phenomenon, based on the classical Coulomb's friction law, is also discussed. The suitable contact-impact force models are embedded into the dynamics of multibody systems methodologies. An elementary mechanical system is used to demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of the presented approach, and to discuss the main assumptions and procedures adopted. Different test scenarios are considered with the purpose of performing a parametric study for quantifying the influence of the clearance size, input crank speed, and number of clearance joints on the dynamic response of multibody systems with multiple clearance joints. Additionally, the total computation time consumed in each simulation is evaluated in order to test the computational accuracy and efficiency of the presented approach. From the main results obtained in this study, it can be drawn that clearance size and the operating conditions play a crucial role in predicting accurately the dynamic responses of multibody systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据