Advertisement

Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 253–264 | Cite as

Similitude design for the vibration problems of plates and shells: A review

  • Yunpeng Zhu
  • You Wang
  • Zhong Luo
  • Qingkai Han
  • Deyou Wang
Review Article

Abstract

Similitude design plays a vital role in the analysis of vibration and shock problems encountered in large engineering equipment. Similitude design, including dimensional analysis and governing equation method, is founded on the dynamic similitude theory. This study reviews the application of similitude design methods in engineering practice and summarizes the major achievements of the dynamic similitude theory in structural vibration and shock problems in different fields, including marine structures, civil engineering structures, and large power equipment. This study also reviews the dynamic similitude design methods for thin-walled and composite material plates and shells, including the most recent work published by the authors. Structure sensitivity analysis is used to evaluate the scaling factors to attain accurate distorted scaling laws. Finally, this study discusses the existing problems and the potential of the dynamic similitude theory for the analysis of vibration and shock problems of structures.

Keywords

review dynamic similitude vibration model test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11572082), the Excellent Talents Support Program in Institutions of Higher Learning in Liaoning Province of China (Grant No. LJQ2015038), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Grant Nos. N150304004 and N140301001), and the Key Laboratory for Precision & Non-traditional Machining of Ministry of Education, Dalian University of Technology (Grant No. JMTZ201602).

References

  1. 1.
    Harris H G, Sabnis G. Structural Modeling and Experimental Techniques. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramu M, Prabhu R V, Thyla P R. Development of structural similitude and scaling laws for elastic models. Thematic Orientation of the Journal Manufacturing Engineering, 2011, 67–69Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simitses G J, Starnes J H, Rezaeepazhand J. Structural similitude and scaling laws for plates and shells: A review. In: Durban D, Givoli D, Simmonds J G, eds. Advances in the Mechanics of Plates and Shells. Springer Netherlands, 2001, 295–310Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bažant Z P. Size effect on structural strength: A review. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 1999, 69(9–10): 703–725zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bažant Z P. Size effect. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2000, 37(1–2): 69–80MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galilei G, Weston J. Mathematical Discourses Concerning Two New Sciences Relating to Mechanicks and Local Motion: In Four Dialogues. Printed for John Hooke, at the Flower-de-Luce Against St. Dunstan’s Church in Fleet-Street. London, 1730Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckingham E. On physically similar systems, illustrations of the use of dimensional equations. Physical Review, 1914, 4(4): 345–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dieterich J S. Scale Models in Engineering Fundamental and Applications. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Birkhoff G. Mathematics for engineers—III: Dimensional analysis of partial differential equations. Electrical Engineering, 1948, 67(12): 1185–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Langhaar H L. Dimensional Analysis and Theory of Models. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1951zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buckingham E. The principle of similitude. Nature, 1915, 96: 396–397CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodier J N. Dimensional Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1950, 1035–1045Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wissmann J W. Dynamic Stability of Space Vehicles Structural Dynamics Model Testing. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Technical Report NASA CR-1195. 1968Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macagno E O. Historico-critical review of dimensional analysis. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 1971, 292(6): 391–402MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Szues E. Similitude and Modeling. Elsevier, 2012Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    David F W, Butterworths N H. Experimental Modeling in Engineering. Elsevier, 2013Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wissmann J W. Dynamic Stability of Space Vehicles Structural Dynamics Model Testing. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Technical Report NASA CR-1195. 1968Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krayterman B, Sabnis G M. Similitude theory: Plates and shells analysis. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1984, 110(9): 1247–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Torkamani S, Jafari A A, Navazi H M. Scaled down models for free vibration analysis of orthogonally stiffened cylindrical shells using similitude theory. In: Proceedings of 26th Congress of International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences. 2008Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torkamani S, Navazi H M, Jafari A A, et al. Structural similitude in free vibration of orthogonally stiffened cylindrical shells. Thinwalled Structures, 2009, 47(11): 1316–1330Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramu M, Prabhu Raja V, Thyla P R. Establishment of structural similitude for elastic models and validation of scaling laws. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2013, 17(1): 139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kline S J. Similitude and Approximation Theory. New York: McGraW-Hill, 1965Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szücs E. Fundamental Studies in Engineering (II), Similitude and Modeling. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1980, 138Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu J J. Dynamic analysis of a rectangular plate under a moving line load using scale-beams and scaling laws. Composite Structures, 2005, 83(19–20): 1646–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morton J. Scaling of impact loaded carbon-fibre composites. AIAA Journal, 1988, 26(8): 989–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simitses G J, Rezaeepazhand J. Structural Similitude and Scaling Laws for Laminated Beam-plates. NASA Technical Report NASACR-190585. 1992Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kure K. Model tests with ocean structures. Applied Ocean Research, 1981, 3(4): 171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adrezin R, Bar-Avi P, Benaroya H. Dynamic response of compliant offshore structures—Review. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 1996, 9(4): 114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vassalos D. Physical modelling and similitude of marine structures. Ocean Engineering, 1998, 26(2): 111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winsor F. Evaluation of methods to remove inertial force from measured model wave impact force signals. Ocean Engineering, 2003, 30(1): 47–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Asgarian B, Mohebbinejad A, Soltani R H. Simplified method to assess dynamic response of jacket type offshore platforms subjected to wave loading. In: Proceedings of ASME 2004 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Vancouver, 2004, 685–692Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ou J, Long X, Li Q, et al. Vibration control of steel jacket offshore platform structures with damping isolation systems. Engineering Structures, 2007, 29(7): 1525–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elshafey A A, Haddara M R, Marzouk H. Dynamic response of offshore jacket structures under random loads. Marine Structures, 2009, 22(3): 504–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sutherland L S, Guedes Soares C. Scaling of impact on low fibrevolume glass-polyester laminates. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2007, 38(2): 307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bachynski E E, Motley M R, Young Y L. Dynamic hydroelastic scaling of the underwater shock response of composite marine structures. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 2012, 79(1): 014501–014507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aguiar de Souza V, Kirkayak L, Suzuki K, et al. Experimental and numerical analysis of container stack dynamics using a scaled model test. Ocean Engineering, 2012, 39: 24–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang S, Yang D, Liu N. Investigation of acoustic scale effects and boundary effects for the similitude model of underwater complex shell-structure. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 2007, 6(1): 31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sato J A, Vecchio F J, Andre H M. Scale-model testing of reinforced concrete under impact loading conditions. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1989, 16(4): 459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kim N S, Lee J H, Chang S P. Equivalent multi-phase similitude law for pseudo-dynamic test on small scale reinforced concrete models. Engineering Structures, 2009, 31(4): 834–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pototzky A S. Scaling laws applied to a modal formulation of the aero servo elastic equations. In: Proceedings of 43rd AIAA/ASME/ ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference. Denver, 20021–11Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jordan T L, Hutchinson M A, Watkins V E, et al. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center’s design criteria for small unmanned aerial vehicle development. 200. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD = ADA478628Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hunt G K. Similarity Requirements for Aero-elastic Models of Helicopter Rotors. Aeronautical Research Council CP 1245. 1973Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ghee T A, Kelley H L. Exploratory Flow Visualization Investigation of Mast-mounted Sights in Presence of a Rotor. NASA Technical Report NASA-TM-4634. 1995Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wereley N M, Kamath G M. Bringing relevance to freshman aerospace engineering: Demonstration of a model scale Comanche helicopter lag mode damper. International Journal of Engineering Education, 1997, 13(5): 369–375Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Singleton J D, Yeager W T. Important scaling parameters for testing model-scale helicopter rotors. Journal of Aircraft, 2000, 37(3): 396–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mixson J S, Catherine J J. Comparison of Experimental Vibration Characteristics Obtained from a 1/5-scale Model and from a Fullscale Saturn sa-1. NASA Technical Report NASA-TN-D-2215. 1964Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kunz P J. Aerodynamics and design for ultra-low Reynolds number flight. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Palo Alto: Stanford University, 2003Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cagliostro D J, Florence A L, Abrahamson G R. Scale modelling in LMFBR safety. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1979, 55(2): 235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Quercetti T, Müller K, Schubert S. Comparison of experimental results from drop testing of spent fuel package design using full scale prototype model and reduced scale model. Packaging, Transport, Storage & Security of Radioactive Material, 2008, 19(4): 197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Aquaro D, Zaccari N, Di Prinzio M, et al. Numerical and experimental analysis of the impact of a nuclear spent fuel cask. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2010, 240(4): 706–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Torkamani S, Navazi H M, Jafari A A, et al. Structural similitude in free vibration of orthogonally stiffened cylindrical shells. Thinwalled Structures, 2009, 47(11): 1316–1330Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Simitses G J. Buckling of moderately thick laminated cylindrical shells: A review. Composites Part B: Engineering, 1996, 27(6): 581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rezaeepazhand J, Simitses G J. Use of scaled-down models for predicting vibration response of laminated plates. Composite Structures, 1995, 30(4): 419–426CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Simitses G J. Structural similitude for flat laminated surfaces. Composite Structures, 2001, 51(2): 191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Simitses G J, Rezaeepazhand J. Structural similitude and scaling laws for buckling of cross-ply laminated plates. Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 1995, 8(3): 240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Singhatanadgid P, Ungbhakorn V. Scaling laws for vibration response of anti-symmetrically laminated plates. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2002, 14(3): 345–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ungbhakorn V, Singhatanadgid P. Similitude invariants and scaling laws for buckling experiments on anti-symmetrically laminated plates subjected to biaxial loading. Composite Structures, 2003, 59(4): 455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rezaeepazhand J, Wisnom M R. Scaled models for predicting buckling of delaminated orthotropic beam-plates. Composite Structures, 2009, 90(1): 87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rezaeepazhand J, Yazdi A A. Similitude requirements and scaling laws for flutter prediction of angle-ply composite plates. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2011, 42(1): 51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yazdi A A, Rezaeepazhand J. Structural similitude for flutter of delaminated composite beam-plates. Composite Structures, 2011, 93(7): 1918–1922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Singhatanadgid P, Ungbhakorn V. Scaling laws for vibration response of anti-symmetrically laminated plates. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2002, 14(3): 345–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wu J J. The complete-similitude scale models for predicting the vibration characteristics of the elastically restrained flat plates subjected to dynamic loads. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2003, 268(5): 1041–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wu J J. Prediction of the dynamic characteristics of an elastically supported full-size flat plate from those of its complete-similitude scale model. Composite Structures, 2006, 84(3–4): 102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Frostig Y, Simitses G J. Similitude of sandwich panels with a ‘soft’ core in buckling. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2004, 35(6–8): 599–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Shokrieh M M, Askari A. Similitude study of impacted composite laminates under buckling loading. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2013, 139(10): 1334–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rezaeepazhand J, Simitses G J, Starnes J H Jr. Scale models for laminated cylindrical shells subjected to axial compression. Composite Structures, 1996, 34(4): 371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rezaeepazhand J, Simitses G J. Design of scaled down models for predicting shell vibration response. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1996, 195(2): 301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rezaeepazhand J, Simitses G J. Structural similitude for vibration response of laminated cylindrical shells with double curvature. Composites Part B: Engineering, 1997, 28(3): 195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ungbhakorn V, Singhatanadgid P. Similitude and physical modeling for buckling and vibration of symmetric cross-ply laminated circular cylindrical shells. Journal of Composite Materials, 2003, 37(19): 1697–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ungbhakorn V, Wattanasakulpong N. Structural similitude and scaling laws of anti-symmetric cross-ply laminated cylindrical shells for buckling and vibration experiments. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 2007, 07(04): 609–627MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chouchaoui C S, Ochoa O O. Similitude study for a laminated cylindrical tube under tension, torsion, bending, internal and external pressure. Part I: Governing equations. Composite Structures, 1999, 44(4): 221–229Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Chouchaoui C S, Parks P, Ochoa O O. Similitude study for a laminated cylindrical tube under tension, torsion, bending, internal and external pressure. Part II: Scale models. Composite Structures, 1999, 44(4): 231–236Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Derisi B, Hoa S, Hojjati M. Similitude study on bending stiffness and behavior of composite tubes. Journal of Composite Materials, 2012, 46(21): 2695–2710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yazdi A A. Prediction flutter boundaries of laminated cylindrical shells using scaling laws. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2014, 27(1): 86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Qin G, Duan H, Luo Z, et al. Similitude analysis on mechanical parameters of thin walled shells. Advanced Engineering Forum, 2011, 2–3: 936–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wen H M, Jones N. Experimental investigation of the scaling laws for metal plates struck by large masses. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1993, 13(3): 485–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Drazetic P, Ravalard Y, Dacheux F, et al. Applying non-direct similitude technique to the dynamic bending collapse of rectangular section tubes. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1994, 15(6): 797–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Oshiro R E, Alves M. Scaling impacted structures. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 2004, 74(1–2): 130–145CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Alves M, Oshiro R E. Scaling impacted structures when the prototype and the model are made of different materials. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2006, 43(9): 2744–2760CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Oshiro R E, Alves M. Scaling of cylindrical shells under axial impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2007, 34(1): 89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Oshiro R E, Alves M. Predicting the behaviour of structures under impact loads using geometrically distorted scaled models. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 2012, 60(7): 1330–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Trimiño L F, Cronin D S. Non-direct similitude technique applied to the dynamic axial impact of bonded crush tubes. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2014, 64: 39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Luo Z, Zhu Y, Zhao X, et al. Determination method of dynamic distorted scaling laws and applicable structure size intervals of a rotating thin-wall short cylindrical shell. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 2015, 229(5): 806–817Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Luo Z, Wang Y, Zhu Y, et al. The dynamic similitude design method of thin walled structures and experimental validation. Shock and Vibration, 2016, 2016(2016): 1–11Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Luo Z, Zhu Y, Chen X, et al. Determination method of the structure size intervals of dynamic distorted model of elastic cantilever thin plate. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 2014, 6(8): 203–212Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Luo Z, Zhang K, Han Q, et al. Similarity design method of test model of thin-walled short cylindrical shell with complex annular labyrinth. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 49(21): 132–139 (in Chinese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Luo Z, Zhu Y, Wang Y, et al. Study of the structure size interval of incomplete geometrically similitude model of the elastic thin plates. Journal of Measurements in Engineering, 2013, 1(4): 207–218Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Luo Z, Zhu Y, Chen X, et al. Study of the structure size interval of similar test model of the laminated composite plate. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 33(6): 870–874 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Luo Z, Zhao X, Zhu Y, et al. Determination method of the structure size interval of dynamic similar models for predicting vibration characteristics of the isotropic sandwich plates. Journal of Vibroengineering, 2014, 16(2): 608–622Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Zhu Y, Luo Z, Zhao X, et al. Determination method of the structure size interval of dynamic similar models for predicting vibration characteristics of the coated thin plates. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 2015, 229(1): 59–68Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Luo Z, Wang Y, Zhu Y, et al. The similitude design method of thinwalled annular plates and determination of structural size intervals. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 2016, 230(13): 2158–2168Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Luo Z, Wang Y, Zhai J, et al. Accurate prediction approach of dynamic characteristics for a rotating thin walled annular plate considering the centrifugal stress requirement. Journal of Vibroengineering, 2016, 18(5): 3104–3116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Luo Z, Zhu Y, Liu H, et al. Dynamic similitude design method of the distorted model on variable thickness cantilever plates. Applied Sciences, 2016, 6(8): 228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yunpeng Zhu
    • 1
  • You Wang
    • 2
  • Zhong Luo
    • 2
  • Qingkai Han
    • 3
  • Deyou Wang
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Automatic Control and System EngineeringSheffield UniversitySheffieldUK
  2. 2.School of Mechanical Engineering and AutomationNortheastern UniversityShenyangChina
  3. 3.School of Mechanical EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  4. 4.AECC Shenyang Aero-engine InstituteShenyangChina

Personalised recommendations