Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.

org/ on January 5, 2018

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008) 366, 811–827

doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2128
Published online 18 October 2007

Distributed friction damping of travelling

wave vibration in rods
B Y X IANGQING W. T ANGPONG 1 , J ONATHAN A. W ICKERT 2, *
3
AND A DNAN A KAY
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105, USA
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA 50011, USA
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

A ring damper can be affixed to a rotating base structure such as a gear, an automotive
brake rotor or a gas turbine’s labyrinth air seal. Depending on the frequency range,
wavenumber and level of preload, vibration of the base structure can be effectively and
passively attenuated by friction that develops along the interface between it and the
damper. The assembly is modelled as two rods that couple in longitudinal vibration
through spatially distributed hysteretic friction, with each rod having periodic boundary
conditions in a manner analogous to an unwrapped ring and disc. As is representative of
rotating machinery applications, the system is driven by a travelling wave disturbance,
and for that form of excitation, the base structure’s and the damper’s responses are
determined without the need for computationally intensive simulation. The damper’s
performance can be optimized with respect to normal preload, and its effectiveness is
insensitive to variations in preload or the excitation’s magnitude when its natural
frequency is substantially lower than the base structure’s in the absence of contact.
Keywords: friction–vibration interaction; hysteretic damping; ring damper;
rod vibration

1. Introduction

Friction damping refers to the conversion of kinetic energy associated with the
motion of vibrating surfaces to thermal energy through friction between them
(Akay 2002). Applications of friction damping range from bean-bag dampers
with granular materials to devices such as the Lanchester damper for torsional
vibration. Distributed contact friction dampers are one means to reduce the
vibration of continuous mechanical systems, including structural beams, power
transmission shafts and plates. A ring damper is one embodiment of a distributed
contact damper, and it can be used to passively control bending and in-plane
vibration. Ring dampers can be affixed to the periphery of automotive disc
* Author for correspondence (wickert@iastate.edu).
One contribution of 8 to a Theme Issue ‘Experimental nonlinear dynamics I. Solids’.

811 This journal is q 2007 The Royal Society

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

812 X. W. Tangpong et al.

(Wickert & Akay 1999) and drum (Wickert & Akay 2000) brakes to reduce
squeal noise. In gear train and power transmission applications, ring dampers
comprising a snap ring having a circular cross section are used to prevent fatigue
failure. Split ring dampers are also used to prevent excessive vibration of annular
air seals in gas turbine engines (Niemotka & Ziegert 1993).
In each of those applications, vibration of a rotating structure is excited by
forces that are applied in a stationary reference frame. From the structure’s
viewpoint, the excitation takes the form of a moving load that is periodic in both
time and space (Wildheim 1981), and that generates travelling wave response in
an axisymmetric structure. In the simplest case, the travelling wave excitation
and the ensuing response can be represented by the first term of Fourier
expansions.
Ferri (1995) explored mathematical models of friction and solution techniques
for friction–vibration interaction problems. Friction can be represented by an sgn
function (Dowell 1983; Dowell & Schwartz 1983; López et al. 2004), a hysteresis
loop (Menq et al. 1986a,b) or through displacement-dependent surface stiffness
(Whiteman & Ferri 1996, 1997). Compared to the sgn model, which is
discontinuous with respect to relative velocity between the contacting surfaces,
the hysteretic model incorporates interfacial stiffness. Microslip is an extension
that becomes important when the normal load is high or when local motions are
small (Menq et al. 1986a). The solid friction model (Dahl 1976; Bliman 1992),
originally developed in the context of rolling element bearings, is a smoothened
form of the classical piecewise-linear hysteresis loop. The alternative ‘LuGre’ (Do
et al. 2005) model exhibits very slow dynamics during the sticking phase of
interfacial contact and very fast dynamics during the slipping stage. A topic of
particular importance in the design of damper systems is the level of normal force
that maximizes dissipation. With application to turbine blades, Griffin (1980)
derived approximate expressions for the optimal load and the stress reduction
achieved by the damper, while neglecting the damper’s mass relative to the mass
of the blade. Either small normal forces (where little friction develops), or very
large ones (where the interface exhibits little slip), resulted in suboptimal
damping. Cameron et al. (1990) outlined a procedure that integrated analytical
models, finite-element models and experimental data to guide the optimization
of dampers.
Unlike conventional turbine blade dampers, a ring damper has a spatially
distributed friction interface, and such dampers are used on the wheels of some
railway vehicles to reduce the squeal noise of passing trains. López et al. (2004)
studied the behaviour of ring dampers by approximating them as either one- or
two-degree-of-freedom systems, although the level of vibration reduction in the
base structure was not explicitly addressed. In application to aircraft engine gear
trains, the ring’s weight is a key variable that can be adjusted in design to
achieve significant dissipation; an empirical relation between the weights of the
ring and gear was offered by Drago & Brown (1981), but without derivation. In
an investigation of split ring dampers on labyrinth seals in a gas turbine’s
compressor, a static model for the damper’s performance was developed and
applied in optimization (Niemotka & Ziegert 1993).
By way of motivation for what follows, figure 1 shows an experimental disc
having a ring damper that is preloaded against a groove on the disc’s outer
periphery. With proper choice of radial pressure between the ring and the disc,

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

Friction damping of longitudinal vibration 813

ring damper 4
4 20
base disc
structure

44 B
7
section A–A
A A
B impact
X hammer
88.5 accelerometer location

view B–B

Figure 1. Schematic of an experimental aluminium disc with a steel ring damper affixed to its outer
periphery. All dimensions are in millimetres.

(a) (b)
10
transfer function magnitude

8
(arb. units)

0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12 16
frequency (kHz) frequency (kHz)

Figure 2. Collocated point transfer functions measured for the in-plane vibration of (a) a disc that
incorporates a friction ring damper and (b) an identically sized disc alone. The dimensions and
materials are as specified in figure 1.

the ring effectively attenuates the disc’s bending and in-plane vibration. The
in-plane frequency response of the disc is shown in figure 2a, and it was measured in
the radial direction using an instrumented force hammer, an accelerometer and
standard modal testing methods. A similar test was performed on the disc without
the damper (figure 2b). In each case, the disc or the disc–ring system was suspended
by wires, and the accelerometer was located on the disc’s inner periphery. With the
ring damper in place, the response amplitude was reduced by an average of 89% in
the first three modes at 5.3, 12.6 and 13.1 kHz, respectively.
When a ring damper is attached to a disc or another base structure, a spatially
distributed friction interface forms, and vibration energy is dissipated through the
relative motion between the two systems. The preload and the relative mass and
stiffness of the damper and the base structure can in principle be tuned to maximize
dissipation and attenuate the base structure’s vibration. If the preload is small,
little energy is dissipated owing to the relatively small magnitude of the friction
force. Conversely, if the preload is too large, insufficient slippage occurs at the
interface, and again little energy is dissipated. An objective here is to study

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

814 X. W. Tangpong et al.

the characteristics of friction damping in the context of two simplified models,

termed mutually coupled and mono-coupled, for longitudinal vibration of an
‘unwrapped’ ring damper and disc system that responds to travelling wave
excitation. Each subsystem is viewed as a rod having periodic boundary conditions.
In the mutually coupled model, the base structure is driven by a travelling wave
force, and energy is dissipated as the responses of the base and damper rods couple
dynamically through a spatially distributed hysteretic interface. This model is
representative of situations in which the subsystems have similar masses, and
dynamic coupling between the two is significant. The reduction of the base
structure’s amplitude is described in §2. In the companion mono-coupled model of
§3, the base structure’s motion is instead specified to be a travelling wave of known
amplitude that, in turn, drives the damper’s vibration, but not vice versa. This
model is shown to be representative of situations in which the base structure is
massive when compared with the damping element. The quantity of energy that is
dissipated along the friction interface per cycle of vibration is taken as a metric of
the damper’s performance. These two viewpoints are compared in §4, and the
usefulness and limitations of the simpler approach are set forth.

2. Mutually coupled base and damper subsystems

(a ) Vibration model
The discrete model of two rods in frictional contact, representing in an analogous
viewpoint an unwrapped base disc and attached ring damper, is shown in
figure 3. The hysteretic interface between the rods is modelled by the serial
combination of tangential stiffness and dry friction. The parameters that vary
with the number of elements N used to segment each rod are
M M K pL
mb Z B ; kb Z NKB ; md Z D ; kd Z NKD ; kt Z F and p Z 0 ; ð2:1Þ
N N N N
where MB and KB are the base rod’s mass and axial stiffness, respectively; MD
and KD are the damper rod’s mass and axial stiffness, respectively; KF is the
tangential stiffness of the entire interface; and p0 is the normal preload per unit of
length. The base rod is excited by a travelling wave with known force f0 per unit
of length and frequency u. The force on the ith element of the base at mb is


f0 L 2pn
Fi ðtÞ Z cos utK ði K1Þ ; ð2:2Þ
N N
for iZ1, 2, ., N, where n is the spatial wavenumber of the excitation. Since the
base and damper rods are each axisymmetric owing to periodic conditions at iZ1
and N, and since the excitation assumes the special form of a travelling wave,
masses mb and md respond with displacements


2pn
yi ðtÞ Z Y0 cos utKbK ði K1Þ ð2:3Þ
N
and

2pn
xi ðtÞ Z X0 cos utKaK ði K 1Þ : ð2:4Þ
N

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

Friction damping of longitudinal vibration 815

kd

cd
x1 x2 xN
kd kd kd
md md ··· md damper
cd cd cd
p kt p kt p k
··· t friction
m m m interface
kb kb kb
mb mb ··· mb
cb cb cb
base
y1 y2 yN
F1 F2 FN
kb

cb

Figure 3. Discrete model for longitudinal vibration of the damper and base structure subsystems
under travelling wave force excitation.

Here a and b denote the phase difference between the damper’s and the base’s
responses relative to the excitation, respectively.
Equations (2.3) and (2.4) are exact during pure sticking motion along the interface,
and the expressions are first-term approximations in the sense of harmonic balance
when the interface responds with a combination of sticking and slipping. Over one
cycle of steady-state response, each element of the base, or damper, subsystem
exhibits the same motion, the only difference between stations being a phase shift
from one location to another. Therefore, the two (unknown) parameters Y0 and b
fully describe the base’s response, and the parameters X0 and a capture the damper’s
motion. The relative displacement along the interface becomes


2pn
ri ðtÞ Z xi ðtÞK yi ðtÞ Z R 0 cos ut KjK ði K 1Þ ð2:5Þ
N

and the equations of motion become

mb y€1 C 2kb y1 K kb ðy2 C yN Þ C 2cb y_ 1 K cb ðy_ 2 C y_ N Þ Z F1 ðtÞ C f1 ð2:6Þ

and

md x€1 C 2kd x 1 K kd ðx 2 C xN Þ C 2cd x_ 1 K cd ðx_ 2 C x_ N Þ ZKf1 : ð2:7Þ

Here, f1 denotes the friction force at station iZ1, which is a function of ri and the
response’s time history. During steady-state vibration, the interface either (i) sticks
and the response is dominated by k t or (ii) responds in a combination of sticking and
slipping. In §2b, the solutions for those two regimes are developed.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

816 X. W. Tangpong et al.

(b ) Sticking and sticking/slipping phases

When the interface sticks, the force applied to the base’s first element is

f1 Z k t ðx 1 K y1 Þ: ð2:8Þ

The model is then non-dimensionalized in terms of the quantities

9
K M K f0 mp0 >
K Z B ; M Z B ; KFD Z F ; FZ ; PZ ;>
>
KD MD KD KB KB >=
ð2:9Þ
u X Y R S >
>
hZ ; XZ 0; Y Z 0; RZ 0; SZ 0; >
>
;
UD L L L L

where L is the length of each rod (analogously, the circumference of the ring
damper). With m being the coefficient of friction, the displacement at which slip
commences is

mp mp0 L
S0 Z Z : ð2:10Þ
kt KF
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Parameter UD Z 2p KD =MD denotes the first flexible body natural frequency of
the damper rod in the absence of contact with the base rod. With periodic
boundary conditions, integer n values of the frequency ratio h correspond to the
nth natural frequency in the absence of any contact. The ffi natural frequency ratio
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
between the base and the damper becomes gZ K=M , and hZ ng corresponds
to the base’s nth natural frequency in the absence of contact.
The interface’s tangential stiffness can be estimated by the shear expression
KF Z GwL=ðh=2Þ, where G is the shear modulus; and w and h are the width
and the height of the damper’s cross section, respectively. With the expression
KD Z Ewh=L for the damper’s stiffness, where E denotes elastic modulus, the
stiffness ratio becomes

2
L 1
KFD Z ; ð2:11Þ
h 1 Cn

with n as the Poisson’s ratio of the damper’s material, taken subsequently as nZ0.3.
By substituting equations (2.2)–(2.4) and (2.8) into equations (2.6) and (2.7),
and by balancing the harmonic coefficients, the dimensionless response amplitudes
X and Y, and the phases a and b, for the sticking phase are the solutions of
2 30 1 0 1
D3 C 1 D4 K1 0 X cos a 0
6 7B C B C
6 KD4 D3 C 1 0 K1 7B X sin a C B 0 C
6 7B C ZB C; ð2:12Þ
6 K1 0 D 1 D 7 B Y cos b C B C
4 1 C 2 5@ A @ FK=KFD A
0 K1 KD2 D1 C 1 Y sin b 0

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

Friction damping of longitudinal vibration 817

i
mp
= *+ =0

t
–R0 S0 R0 ri

= = *
–mp

Figure 4. Bilinear hysteresis at the i th contact element along the interface.

with
4
D1 Z ðKN 2 sin2 ðpn=N ÞKM p2 h2 Þ; ð2:13Þ
KFD
8  
D2 Z Kzb hN 2 sin2 ðpn=N Þ ; ð2:14Þ
KFDg
4
D3 Z ðN 2 sin2 ðpn=N ÞKp2 h2 Þ ð2:15Þ
KFD
and
8
ððzd hN 2 sin2 ðpn=N ÞÞ:
D4 Z ð2:16Þ
KFD
As the number of discretization elements for the rods grows relative to the
wavenumber, N/n/N, the matrix elements admit the approximation
9
4p2 8p2 2 >
D1 z 2
ðKn KM h Þ; 2
D2 z ðKzb hn Þ; >
>
>
KFD KFD g =
ð2:17Þ
4p2 2 8p2 >
>
D3 z 2
ðn Kh Þ and D4 z ; >
>
KFD KFD ðzd hn 2 Þ ;

and the predicted response amplitude and the phase become independent of N.
Parameters zb and zd are the modal damping ratios1 for the base and the damper
subsystems, respectively. The approximations in equation (2.17) for large N/n
effectively eliminate the need for convergence analysis with respect to N.
Alternatively, when the interface at least partly slips, the harmonic balance
method (Caughey 1960; Koh et al. 2005) is useful to develop an approximate
solution for steady-state amplitude and phase. Direct numerical simulation of the
transient response for a hysteretic continuous system can be computationally
intensive, and even prohibitively so, owing to the large number of degrees of
freedom, possible states, and locations of sticking and slipping that must be
tracked during each time step (Berger & Krousgrill 2002). A detailed velocity
tracking scheme was developed to simulate the transient response of a beam
having bolted joints (Song et al. 2004), but only a single hysteresis element was
1
The proportional damping levels for the base (b) and damper (d) are taken as cb(d)Z
(2zb(d)/UB( D))k b(d), where UB is the base’s first flexible body natural frequency in the absence of
contact.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

818 X. W. Tangpong et al.

(a) (b)
103 105
P= 0.1

relative amplitude, R/S

base's amplitude, Y

0.5
1
10 0.5 50

normalized
10 1 10
P= 0 50
10 –3 50 0.1 10
10
1 10 –5
10 –6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
frequency ratio, frequency ratio,

Figure 5. (a) The base’s amplitude and (b) the relative amplitude between the base and the damper
at different levels of preload; MZ5, gZ4, nZ1, L/hZ50 and FZ1.

included in the simulation that illustrated the method. In the present case, by
virtue of stipulating axisymmetry and travelling wave excitation, an analytical
solution is obtainable for arbitrary N.
Figure 4 shows the bilinear relation between fi and ri along the interface. In a
one-term harmonic approximation, the force applied to the first element of the
base is
f~1 Z fc cos q C fs sin q; ð2:18Þ
where qZ utKj and j is the phase associated with r1 in equation (2.5). The
Fourier coefficients are
ð ð
2 p 2 p
fc Z f cos q dq and fs Z f sin q dq: ð2:19Þ
p 0 1 p 0 1
In terms of the dimensionless parameters Fc Z fc =ðkt LÞ and Fs Z fs =ðkt LÞ, the
coefficients are given by


R

4S S
Fc Z ðq K0:5 sin 2q Þ and Fs ZK 1K ; ð2:20Þ
p p R
where q
Z cos K1 ð1K2S=RÞ. By substituting equations (2.2)–(2.4), (2.18) and
(2.20) into equations (2.6) and (2.7), and by balancing the harmonics, the
equation governing relative amplitude R becomes

2 2 FK 2
ðD1 Yc K D2 Ys K Fc Þ C ðD1 Ys C D2 Yc C Fs Þ Z ; ð2:21Þ
KFD
with
F D K F c D3 F D C F s D3
Yc Z s 24 2
KR and Ys Z c 24 : ð2:22Þ
D3 C D4 D3 C D42

(c ) Preload and amplitude reduction

When the damper is lightly preloaded against the base, dissipation is low
owing to the correspondingly small value of the friction force. Likewise, when the
damper is highly preloaded, little slippage takes place along the stiffness-
dominated interface and again little dissipation develops. With a view towards

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

Friction damping of longitudinal vibration 819

1.0

amplitude ratio, Y max / Y max

ND
0.8 100

0.6
50
0.4
M = 20
0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50
force ratio, P/F

Figure 6. Maximal amplitude of the base when the damper is attached, as normalized to the
resonant amplitude of the base alone, as evaluated over a range of preload with excitation held
constant; gZ4, nZ1, and for increasing M, L/hZ200, 500 and 1000.

optimizing the contact pressure, figure 5a shows the base’s frequency response for
different levels of dimensionless preload P. The relative motion along the
interface is compared in figure 5b to the slip displacement S. In figure 5a, when
the preload is as low as 0.1, the response has one resonant peak near hZ4, and
that frequency is nearly the same as that for the base alone (PZ0).2 In figure 5b
and also for PZ0.1, R/S[1 over most of the frequency range depicted,
consistent with the interface assuming a ‘nearly pure’ slipping state. These
characteristics in Y and R suggest that under low preload, the dynamics of the
base and the damper are lightly coupled, and the base vibrates in a manner
nearly undisturbed by the damper.
As preload increases, the sticking phase dominates a greater portion of the
frequency range. For instance, the frequency corresponding to the first resonance
of Y decreases through PZ1, and then increases slightly with preload (e.g. at
PZ10 or 50). With growing preload, a second resonant peak in Y becomes
discernible at PZ0.5 in figure 5a, and its magnitude increases as P grows further.
At the largest preloads, the interface sticks over nearly the entire extent of the
frequency range as shown. In the neighbourhood of the second peak’s resonance,
the base and the damper vibrate out-of-phase from one another. With large
preload, the damper and base are strongly coupled by tangential stiffness, and the
combined system responds in a nearly linear manner. When the excitation
frequency coincides with the damper’s natural frequency in the absence of contact
(h zn z1), R/S/1 for all preloads, and slipping does not occur. Thus, to
maximize performance of such a damper, the condition hZn should be avoided.
As shown in figure 5a, the preload can be tuned to reduce the base’s maximal
response Y max, and that value is compared with the amplitude

max F
YND Z ; ð2:23Þ
8zb p2 n3
2
With gZ4 and nZ1, hZ4 corresponds to the base’s natural frequency in the absence of contact
with the damper.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

820 X. W. Tangpong et al.

(a) (b)
10 4 105
base's amplitude, Y(YND )

F =10 F =10

relative amplitude, R/S

1
1

normalized
1 1

10 – 4 0.01
0.01
10–5
10 –8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
frequency ratio, frequency ratio,

Figure 7. (a) The base’s amplitude and (b) the relative amplitude between the base and the
damper, as compared with the slip displacement at different levels of excitation; MZ5, gZ4, nZ1,
L/hZ50 and PZ1. Here YND (dashed lines) and Y (solid lines) are shown.

20
maximum response, Y max/P

15
normalized

10

5 M=100
50
20
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
force ratio, F/P

Figure 8. Maximal amplitude of the base over a range of the excitation’s magnitude for constant
preload; gZ4, nZ1, and for increasing M, L/hZ200, 500 and 1000. The natural frequency ratio
between the damper and the base is held constant.

that develops in the damper’s absence. Figure 6 shows the manner in which Y max
changes with preload for various M. Under large preload, the base is nearly
pinned at each contact point with the damper. For such a nearly linear combined
system, the value of Y max is set primarily by mass and stiffness, and Y max is
relatively insensitive to preload, as for PO40 and MZ100 in figure 6. When M is
smaller, and the damper rod is heavier and stiffer, the damper is more effective at
controlling the base’s maximal response, and over a wide variation in P.

(d ) Excitation amplitude
Figure 7a shows the base’s frequency response for different levels of excitation.
The relative displacement along the interface is compared with the slip
displacement for the same conditions in figure 7b. Transitions from nearly pure
sticking (e.g. at FZ0.01), to a combination of sticking and slipping (FZ1), and
eventually to nearly pure slipping (FZ10) develop as the excitation’s amplitude

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

Friction damping of longitudinal vibration 821

(a) (b)
1.0 30
=1

normalized maximum
0.8 25 =1

response, Y max/P
amplitude ratio,
Y max/ Y max
ND

2 20
0.6
15
0.4
3 10 2
0.2 4 5 3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0.5 1.0 1.5
force ratio, P/F force ratio, F/P

Figure 9. (a) Maximal amplitude of the base’s motion when the damper is attached, as compared
with the resonant amplitude of the base alone over a range of preload with excitation held
constant. (b) Maximal amplitude of the base when the damper is attached over a range of
excitation magnitude with the preload held constant. Here KZ800, nZ1 and L/hZ40.

is increased. When FZ0.01, for instance, Y max is only slightly smaller than YND
max
,
and two resonances are present over the frequency range shown. The base and the
damper couple strongly at that low excitation level, and the system behaves in a
nearly linear fashion. At the larger excitation level of FZ10, on the other hand,
the interface responds with nearly pure slipping in the neighbourhood of
resonance, and any reduction in the base’s amplitude is minimal. The damper is
effective in controlling the base’s vibration over a range of excitation amplitude
when the interface experiences a combination of sticking and slipping motions.
Pure sticking occurs at the conditions hZn in each case, implying that the
damper’s natural frequency in the absence of contact is preferentially designed to
be away from the excitation’s frequency. Figure 8 summarizes the manner in
which Y max changes with the excitation’s amplitude. When F is either very small
or very large, the base’s response is nearly linear, and little friction damping
develops. The relatively flat portion of each curve in figure 8 corresponds to a
combination of sticking and slipping motions, and a heavier and stiffer damper is
evidently most effective in controlling the base’s response over a wide range of
excitation amplitude.

(e ) Natural frequency and mass ratios

In an alternative viewpoint, given the same levels of preload and excitation, the
damper’s effectiveness varies with the natural frequency ratio g between the base
and damper subsystems.3 Figure 9a shows the manner in which the normalized
Y max changes with preload and frequency ratio; conversely, figure 9b represents
the results for constant preload. A damper with a natural frequency which is
much lower than that of the base (namely, a system with larger g) is most
effective in controlling the base’s response over a range of preload given the same
excitation, or over a wider range of excitation amplitude given the same preload.
When g z1, the damper is least effective in controlling the base’s response, and
that condition is preferentially avoided when designing the damper.
3
For simplicity, the stiffness ratio K is held constant, and M is illustratively varied to generate
different g.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

822 X. W. Tangpong et al.

kd

cd
x1 x2 xN
kd kd kd
md md ··· md damper
cd cd cd
p kt p kt p kt
··· friction
m m m interface
base
y1 y2 yN

Figure 10. Discrete model for longitudinal vibration of a damper rod having periodic boundary
conditions, a hysteretic friction interface and a base that moves with prescribed travelling
wave motion.

3. Mono-coupled base and damper subsystems

(a ) Damper’s vibration model and response

When the excitation frequency is away from ng, the base’s response is influenced
little by the damper’s motion so long as the damper is light (M[1). With a low-
mass damper attached, the base’s amplitude is insensitive to preload at
frequencies away from ng. In that event, mutual coupling between the base
and the damper can be neglected, and the mono-coupled system model, in which
the base’s motion drives the damper’s but not vice versa, provides a simpler
approximation for the problem at hand. The discrete representation of the
damper rod under base excitation is shown in figure 10. The base is specified to
vibrate in the steady state at constant amplitude in response to its travelling
wave excitation, and that motion serves as base excitation—through the friction
interface—to the damper subsystem. At each contact point with the damper, the
base’s displacement is specified to be


2pn
yi ðtÞ Z Y0 cos utK ði K 1Þ ð3:1Þ
N
and the damper responds with the displacements


2pn
xi ðtÞ Z X0 cos utKfK ði K1Þ ; ð3:2Þ
N
where f denotes the phase difference between motions of the damper and the base.
The damper’s equation of motion is given by equation (2.7). When the
interface is in the sticking phase, the damper’s amplitude and phase are
determined from
" # ! !
D5 C KFD D6 X cos f KFD Y
Z ; ð3:3Þ
KD6 D5 C KFD X sin f 0
with
D5 Z 4N 2 sin2 ðpn=N ÞK4p2 h2 z4p2 ðn 2 Kh2 Þ ð3:4Þ

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

Friction damping of longitudinal vibration 823

0.10

energy dissipation per cycle, Ed

=4
0.08

0.06
3
0.04

0.02 2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
preload, P

Figure 11. Energy dissipation of the damper per oscillation cycle as a function of preload; YZ0.01,
nZ1 and L/hZ40.

and
D6 Z 8zd hN 2 sin2 ðpn=N Þ z8zd hp2 n 2 ; ð3:5Þ
where approximations similar to those in equation (2.17) are made in the limit
N/n/N. When the interface is instead in the sticking/slipping regime, the
friction force applied to a damper mass md at station iZ1 is approximated by
equation (2.18). By balancing the harmonic coefficients in equation (2.7),
" # ! !
D5 KD6 Y cos j KKFD Fc K D5 R
Z ; ð3:6Þ
D6 D5 Y sin j KFD Fs K D6 R
from which the relative amplitude R and its phase j can be determined.
As the interface slips, energy is dissipated based on the area enclosed by
trajectories in the hysteresis loop. The energy dissipated per cycle of vibration
across the entire interface is given by
ed Z 4mp0 LðR0 K S0 Þ ð3:7Þ
and by
e
Ed Z d 2 Z 4PðRKSÞ; ð3:8Þ
KD L
in terms of the non-dimensional preload P Z mp0 =KD , which is taken as a measure
of the damper’s performance.

(b ) Preload and energy dissipation

For each excitation frequency, an optimal preload exists at which dissipation
is maximized. In figure 11, at the higher values of h, the maximum energy
dissipation that can be achieved is greater than the dissipation at lower-
frequency ratios. Likewise, as h increases, the damper locks up at ever higher
preloads. By designing the damper’s natural frequency to be much lower than the
excitation frequency, the damper’s sensitivity to preload can be reduced. At each
excitation frequency, the maximum dissipation that can be achieved, E max d , is
opt
shown in figure 12a, together with the corresponding optimal preload value,P ,

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

824 X. W. Tangpong et al.

(a) (b)
dissipation per cycle, Edmax 0.8 25

optimal preload, P opt

20
0.6
maximum energy

15
0.4
10
0.2
5

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
frequency ratio, frequency ratio,

Figure 12. (a) Maximal energy dissipation of the damper per oscillation cycle and (b) optimal
preload evaluated over a range of excitation frequency; YZ0.01, nZ1 and L/hZ40.

(a) (b)
0.4 4
energy dissipation

0.3 3
per cycle, Ed

3
angle,

0.2 2 1.5
=0.5
3
0.1 1
1.5
=0.5

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
excitation amplitude, Y excitation amplitude, Y

Figure 13. (a) Energy dissipation per oscillation cycle and (b) angle q
in the bilinear hysteresis
loop evaluated over a range of excitation amplitude; P Z 1, nZ1 and L/hZ40.

in figure 12b. Both quantities increase for hO1. At h zn z1, little energy is
dissipated for any value of preload. When it is excited at the nth natural
frequency, the damper follows the base with nearly identical amplitude. If the
frequency range of the base’s vibration is known, P can be chosen appropriately
to provide dissipation over the entire range. By designing the damper’s natural
frequency to be well below the base’s excitation frequency, energy dissipation can
be maximized. This conclusion is consistent with the finding of López et al.
(2004) in their analysis of a one-degree-of-freedom ring damper model.

(c ) Excitation amplitude
Figure 13a shows the influence of Y on dissipation at different excitation
frequencies. The corresponding changes in q
shown in figure 13b identify the
transitions from pure sticking (in which case q
Zp), to a combination of sticking
and slipping (0!q
!p), and ultimately to nearly pure slipping (q
z0) as Y
increases. When the base vibrates with small amplitude at low frequencies, the
relative amplitude between it and the damper is also small, and the interface

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

Friction damping of longitudinal vibration 825

(a) (b)
0.035 3
= 2.2 4
0.030 5 M=2
energy dissipation

0.025 1.5
per cycle, Ed

0.020 1.9
0.015
20 50
0.010 2
0.005

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

preload, P preload, P

Figure 14. Energy dissipation per oscillation cycle as a function of preload as predicted by the two
models: the mono-coupled model with YZ0.01 (dashed lines) and the mutually coupled model
(solid lines) with (a) gZ4, F Z 9:476, 23.69, 94.76 and 236.9 and (b) MZ50, F Z 34:54, 7.698, 0.016,
16.58, 98.70 and 236.87. Here hZ2, nZ1 and L/hZ40.

sticks. A threshold value of Y exists at each frequency below which no energy is

dissipated. When the combination of sticking and slipping motions commences,
Ed increases nonlinearly with Y. At a critical amplitude, q
rapidly approaches
zero, the condition of nearly pure slipping motion along the interface. Beyond
that point, the dependence of Ed on Y is almost linear; however, q
does not
precisely vanish owing to the interface’s finite tangential stiffness.

4. Comparisons

The mono-coupled model provides a good approximation to the behaviour of the

base and damper subsystems when the mass of the latter is relatively small. At a
representative excitation frequency, figure 14a compares the dissipation per cycle
as predicted by the mutually coupled and the mono-coupled vibration models.4
As lighter damper designs are considered, the value of Ed as predicted by the
mutually coupled model approaches the limit as estimated by the simpler mono-
coupled model. With MZ50, for instance, the two models are in very close
agreement, and the mono-coupled model reproduces the energy dissipation
characteristics of the mutually coupled base and damper subsystems.
However, since the mono-coupled model does not consider the base’s physical
properties, no direct comparison can be made with respect to excitation
frequency and the base’s natural frequency in the absence of contact (UB). With
M being held constant and g varied, the predictions of Ed over a range of preload
are shown in figure 14b. When the excitation frequency coincides with UB
(namely, when hZng), the levels of dissipation predicted by the two models
differ significantly. However, as ng shifts away from the excitation’s frequency,
4
Different values of M are taken in evaluating Ed through the mutually coupled model while
maintaining the same natural frequency ratio. The base’s amplitude is specified to be YZ0.01 in
the mono-coupled model. In the mutually coupled model, the excitation’s amplitude, F Z f0 =KD , is
adjusted for each M to realize YNDZ0.01.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

826 X. W. Tangpong et al.

either above or below it, Ed as predicted by the mutually coupled model

approaches the mono-coupled model’s estimate. In fact, the further separated ng
is from the excitation’s frequency, the closer are the two models’ predictions.

5. Summary

The longitudinal vibration of a base rod and an attached damper rod, each
having periodic boundary conditions, is examined as the two couple through a
spatially distributed hysteretic friction interface. The system is an analogue, in
the first approximation, for the use of a ring damper in attenuating vibration of a
disc-like structure that is subjected to travelling wave excitation by virtue of its
rotation. The dissipation characteristics of the base–damper system are studied
in the context of two simplified models: the mutually coupled model which
considers dynamic interaction between the base and the damper, and the mono-
coupled model which stipulates that, aside from dissipation, the base’s motion is
undisturbed by the damper. The rotational periodicity of the damper and the
base and the form of excitation facilitate the analytical solution of nonlinear
continuous system models having spatially distributed friction. Even for
arbitrary degree of freedom in the rod models, the analysis reduces to a set of
either four (in the mutually coupled model) or two (in the mono-coupled model)
algebraic equations. Usage of the mutually coupled model is appropriate for
situations where the base and the damper have similar masses. In order for the
damper to be insensitive to variations in either the preload or the excitation’s
magnitude, its natural frequency in the absence of contact is preferentially much
lower than that of the base. When the damper is significantly lighter than the
base, and the excitation frequency is well separated from the base’s natural
frequency in the absence of contact, the simpler mono-coupled model provides a
good approximation to the coupled base–damper system’s response.
The research described in this manuscript is based upon work conducted while one of the authors
(A.A.) served at the National Science Foundation. The authors wish to thank Prof. Jerry Griffin
and Prof. Stephen Garoff for their valuable discussions and suggestions on the subject of
friction damping.

References
Akay, A. 2002 Acoustics of friction. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 1525–1548. (doi:10.1121/1.1456514)
Berger, E. J. & Krousgrill, C. M. 2002 On friction damping modeling using bilinear hysteresis
elements. ASME J. Vib. Acoust. 124, 367–375. (doi:10.1115/1.1473831)
Bliman, P.-A. J. 1992 Mathematical study of the Dahl’s friction model. Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 11,
835–848.
Cameron, T. M., Griffin, J. H., Kielb, R. E. & Hoosac, T. M. 1990 An integrated approach for
friction damper design. J. Vib. Acoust. Stress, Reliab. Design 112, 175–182.
Caughey, T. K. 1960 Sinusoidal excitation of a system with bilinear hysteresis. ASME J. Appl.
Mech. 27, 640–643.
Dahl, P. R. 1976 Solid friction damping of mechanical vibrations. AIAA J. 14, 1675–1682.
Do, N. B., Ferri, A. A. & Bauchau, O. 2005 Efficient simulation of a dynamic system with lugre
friction. In ASME Proc. IDETC/CIE, Long Beach, CA, 24–28 September 2005, paper no.
DETC2005-85339. New York, NY: ASME.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)

 Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on January 5, 2018

Friction damping of longitudinal vibration 827

Dowell, E. H. 1983 The behavior of a linear, damped modal system with a non-linear spring–mass–
dry friction damper system attached. J. Sound Vib. 89, 65–84. (doi:10.1016/0022-
460X(83)90911-2)
Dowell, E. H. & Schwartz, H. B. 1983 Forced response of a cantilever beam with a dry friction
damper attached, part I: theory. J. Sound Vib. 91, 255–267. (doi:10.1016/0022-460X(83)90901-X)
Drago, R. J. & Brown, F. W. 1981 The analytical and experimental evaluation of resonant
response in high-speed, lightweight, highly loaded gearing. ASME J. Mech. Des. 103, 346–356.
Ferri, A. A. 1995 Friction damping and isolation systems. ASME J. Mech. Des. 117, 196–206.
Griffin, J. H. 1980 Friction damping of resonant stresses in gas turbine engine airfoils. ASME
J. Eng. Power 102, 329–333.
Koh, K.-H., Griffin, J. H., Filippi, S. & Akay, A. 2005 Characterization of turbine blade friction
dampers. ASME J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power 127, 856–862. (doi:10.1115/1.1926312)
López, I., Busturia, J. M. & Nijmeijer, H. 2004 Energy dissipation of a friction damper. J. Sound
Vib. 278, 539–561. (doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2003.10.051)
Menq, C. H., Bielak, J. & Griffin, J. H. 1986a The influence of microslip on vibratory response, part
I: a new microslip model. J. Sound Vib. 107, 279–293. (doi:10.1016/0022-460X(86)90238-5)
Menq, C. H., Griffin, J. H. & Bielak, J. 1986b The influence of a variable normal load on the forced
vibration of a frictionally damped structure. ASME J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power 108, 300–305.
Niemotka, M. A. & Ziegert, J. C. 1993 Optimal design of split ring dampers for gas turbine engines.
In ASME Int. Gas Turbine Aeroengine Cong. Expo., Cincinnati, OH, 24–27 May 1993, paper
no. 93-GT-116. New York, NY: ASME.
Song, Y., Hartwigsen, C. J., McFarland, D. M., Vakakis, A. F. & Bergman, L. A. 2004 Simulation
of dynamics of beam structures with bolted joints using adjusted Iwan beam elements. J. Sound
Vib. 273, 249–276. (doi:10.1016/S0022-460X(03)00499-1)
Whiteman, W. E. & Ferri, A. A. 1996 Displacement-dependent dry friction damping of a beam-like
structure. J. Sound Vib. 198, 313–329. (doi:10.1006/jsvi.1996.0572)
Whiteman, W. E. & Ferri, A. A. 1997 Multi-mode analysis of beam-like structures subjected to
displacement-dependent dry friction damping. J. Sound Vib. 207, 403–418. (doi:10.1006/jsvi.
1997.1140)
Wickert, J. A. & Akay, A. 1999 Damper for brake noise reduction. US patent no. 5,855,257.
Wickert, J. A. & Akay, A. 2000 Damper for brake noise reduction-brake drums. US patent
no. 6,112,865.
Wildheim, J. 1981 Excitation of rotating circumferentially periodic structures. J. Sound Vib. 75,
397–416. (doi:10.1016/0022-460X(81)90386-2)

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2008)