Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Mechanism and Machine Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmt

Elastodynamic analysis of vibratory bowl feeders: Modeling and

experimental validation
Emiliano Mucchi ⁎, Raffaele Di Gregorio, Giorgio Dalpiaz
Engineering Department, University of Ferrara, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work addresses the elastodynamic modeling of vibratory bowl feeders and its experimental
Received 28 November 2011 verification. The bowl feeder mainly consists of a bowl connected to a base by three or four
Received in revised form 16 May 2012 inclined leaf springs. The springs constrain the bowl so that its vertical displacement causes a
Accepted 21 September 2012
coupled rotation around its vertical symmetry axis. The feeder is actuated by electromagnets,
Available online 18 October 2012
while rubber mounts are positioned under the base for reducing the vibration transmission to the
floor. The developed model is a linear lumped-parameter model for the prediction of the dynamic
Keywords: behavior of bowl feeders. The model has been experimentally verified by means of modal
Elastodynamic analysis
analyses and operational accelerations. Model parameters, such as the stiffness and damping of
Vibration
rubber mounts, leaf spring stiffness and time-varying excitation, have been experimentally
Vibratory feeder
Model validation estimated. The proposed model can be used for the analysis of feeder dynamics and for evaluating
the effects of changes in design and operational parameters in terms of bowl and base vibration
and dynamic forces transmitted to the floor.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Vibratory bowl feeders, see Fig. 1, are often used for conveying and feeding small spare parts in automatic assembly systems.
They consist of a bowl connected to a base by three or four inclined leaf springs. The springs constrain the bowl so that its vertical
displacement causes a coupled rotation around its vertical symmetry axis (see Fig. 2). One or more electromagnets generate the
force which drives the bowl; commonly, they are either vertically or tangentially housed between the base and the bowl. Each
electromagnet has two parts: one, fixed to the base, carries a coil supplied by an electric circuit, and the other, fixed to the bowl
support, moves with the bowl. The current in the coil generates a concatenated magnetic flux which, accordingly, causes an
interaction force between the two parts of the electromagnet. This force induces the movement of the spare parts along an inner
spiral track of the bowl. Rubber mounts are located under the base in order to isolate the feeder vibration from the floor. The
feeding velocity of the parts depends on the vibration amplitude of the bowl. Most of vibratory feeders operate at resonant or
near-resonant frequency of the mechanical system to improve feeding efficiency. Direction, amplitude and frequency of bowl's
oscillations depend on the design parameters of the feeder.
Commonly, vibratory feeders are tailored for specific applications and new designs are based on modifications of previous
designs with the whole process mainly driven by empirical criteria. A number of investigations have endeavored to improve
knowledge of vibratory bowl feeders, based on methodologies that use different perspectives. Some of these studies deal with
dynamic analysis [1–5] from a theoretical and/or experimental point of view; dynamic modeling moved from simplified
one-degree-of-freedom model [6], aiming at calculating one approximate natural frequency of the vibratory feeder, to achieve
more complex three degrees-of freedom systems, including the flexibility of the rubber mounts under the base [1,2]. The precise
estimation of the natural frequency that is excited in operational conditions is an important issue; this frequency is governed by
the leaf spring stiffness. In this regard, some authors [3,5] have estimated the leaf spring stiffness by Ritz–Rayleigh decomposition

⁎ Corresponding author at: Engineering Department in Ferrara, Via Saragat, 1 I-44122 Ferrara, Italy. Tel.: +39 0532 974913; fax: +39 0532 974870.
E-mail addresses: emiliano.mucchi@unife.it (E. Mucchi), raffaele.digregorio@unife.it (R. Di Gregorio), giorgio.dalpiaz@unife.it (G. Dalpiaz).

0094-114X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2012.09.009
 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72 61

Nomenclature

mb Base mass
mp Bowl and bowl support mass
Jb Moment of inertia of the base
Jp Moment of inertia of bowl and bowl support
km,h Averaged stiffness coefficient in horizontal direction
km,v Averaged stiffness coefficient in vertical direction
ks Leaf spring stiffness
ns Number of leaf springs
nm Number of mounts
rb Radius of leaf spring connection to the base
rp Radius of leaf spring connection to the bowl
re Radius of electromagnets
rm Radius of mounts
Fe,v, Fe,t Electromagnetic forces for BFV and BFT, respectively (amplitude)
Qi Generalized excitation force of the ith coordinate
zb Vertical displacement of the base
zp Vertical displacement of the bowl
θb Twisting of the base
θp Twisting of the bowl
Φz Leaf spring angle, relative to horizontal
Φtb Angle of attachment on the base
Φtp Angle of attachment on the bowl.
ζj Modal damping of the jth mode
ωnj Natural frequency of the jth mode
ω Frequency

Subscripts
j Denotes modes
i Denotes generalized coordinates

method in which the leaf spring deformation is approximated by the product of an assumed-mode shape function and
generalized temporal modal coordinates; the spring deformation is commonly considered along the transversal and axial
directions, and rarely on torsion [6]. Other investigations [4,7–11] have addressed the analysis of the spare parts’ motion through
numerical models and experimental analyses. The dynamic behavior of the bowl is taken into account in [12] where an
experimentally-verified finite element model of the bowl is developed. Generally, vibratory feeders are driven by sinusoidal
forces produced by electromagnet exciters. Recently several studies [3] have analyzed the possibility of using piezoelectric
actuators directly mounted on the leaf springs exploiting the fast response time, wide frequency bandwidth and accurate control
capability of such actuators. Sinusoidal excitation is usually used, but there are studies concerning non-sinusoidal excitations as

(b)
(a)
Bowl

Bowl support

Electromagnects

Leaf springs

Base
Mounts

Fig. 1. Vibratory bowl feeders: (a) with tangentially-oriented electromagnets, and (b) with vertically-oriented electromagnets.
62 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72

(a) (b)
Bowl support

Leaf springs

Base

Fig. 2. (a) Motion of the upper part with respect to the base in operational conditions for the feeder with vertically-oriented electromagnets, and (b) feeder with
tangentially-oriented electromagnets without bowl.

well [10]. The rich literature devoted, even recently, to this topic confirms, under different standpoints, the complexity
constructors and designers have to face off.
Beside a simple construction, these feeders have noise generation, and vibrations transmitted to surroundings, during
operation, as main drawbacks. In this sight, the authors have developed a general elastodynamic model of the feeder which
predicts its dynamic behavior. The model takes into account the most important parameters involved during operation: leaf
spring stiffness, base and bowl inertia, forces due to the electromagnets, stiffness of base mounts, and damping effects. All these
parameters have been experimentally evaluated on real feeders used in automatic assembly lines. The proposed model is a
lumped-parameter model with three degrees of freedom: vertical displacement and twisting of the base, with respect to the floor,
and vertical displacement of the bowl with respect to the base (bowl twisting is a dependent motion due to the constraint
imposed by leaf springs). The model has been validated by using two methodologies: experimental modal analysis and
operational acceleration measurements.
In the literature, the equations of motion which govern model dynamics were deduced by using both the Newton-Euler
formulation [1,2], and the Lagrange formulation [1,3]. Here, they are not theoretically deduced and analytically solved, but, by
considering the linearity of the model, the forced response is analytically determined in the modal domain through the modal
properties (natural frequencies, mode shapes, modal damping) of the mechanical system, and the known excitation forces. In
such a way, the forces transmitted to the floor through the mounts can be directly calculated and used in order to improve the
performance of the feeders in terms of transmitted vibration to surrounding. Moreover, the model, in the proposed formulation,
can be straightforwardly adapted to different architectures of bowl feeders: with tangentially-oriented electromagnets and with
vertically-oriented electromagnets, Fig. 1. For these feeders, the developed model has been used in order to improve their
performance. Eventually, with respect to the presented literature, a methodology for experimental validation is presented as well
as experimental methods for the estimation of model parameters such as damping and stiffness coefficients.

2. Elastodynamic modeling

A general elastodynamic model of the feeder, ideated for predicting its dynamic behavior, is described in this section.
This model enables the dynamic behavior of two architectures of bowl feeders to be estimated: one (BFT) with three
tangentially-oriented electromagnets, and the other (BFV) with two vertically-oriented electromagnets, see Fig. 1. The model,
schematically shown in Fig. 3, takes into account the most important parameters involved during operation: leaf spring stiffness,
base and bowl inertia, forces due to the electromagnets, dynamic stiffness of the base mounts. Damping effects are introduced as
modal damping in the estimation of the frequency response function, as outlined below. Globally, the proposed model is a
lumped-parameter model with three degrees of freedom: the vertical displacement of the base (zb), the twisting of the base (θb)
and the vertical displacement of the bowl (zp); the twisting of the bowl (θp) is a dependent coordinate due to the constraint
introduced by the leaf springs. The model assumes that the bowl and the base are rigid bodies. In the analysis of leaf springs and
rubber mounts, a linear behavior has been assumed and these components are considered to be massless. The rubber mounts are
located under the base in order to minimize the force transmission to the floor; they are arranged along a circumference of radius rm.
Each rubber mount has been modeled by linear spring elements along both the vertical direction and the horizontal direction;
the relative stiffness coefficients have been experimentally estimated in Section 3.3. In general, leaf springs are mounted with a
slope of Φz with respect to the horizontal plane of bowl and base, and their endings are fixed along circumferences of radius rp
and rb to bowl and base, respectively. Furthermore, the angle Φtp (Φtb) that leaf springs' cross sections form, at the attachment
points, with the radius vector of the bowl (the base) passing through their centroid (see Fig. 3a) is not zero. In the studied case, rb
is equal to rp, and Φtb is equal to Φtp; hence, in the proposed model, only rp and Φtp will be considered. The deformation of each
 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72 63

(a) (b)
Φz
zp B D
zp zb-zp
C
p bowl
rp leaf spring Φz
tp

leaf springs (x3) leaf spring

zb deformation
b base
rb mounts (x3)
Φz
rm tb zb

Fig. 3. (a) Schematic of the elastodynamic model of the feeder (BFT) and (b) leaf spring bending.

spring is complex, because it depends on the deformation along the transversal and axial directions, and on torsion; hence, the
total deformation is the vector sum of these components. In ref. [6], the spring constant is analytically calculated neglecting the
axial deformation, while in ref. [1], the leaf spring is assumed to be in pure bending, only considering the deformation along the
thickness direction. In this paper, the approach of Silversides et al. [1] is considered, so each leaf spring is modeled by a linear
spring element with spring constant ks, experimentally estimated by a genuine flexure test, not described in this paper.
Eventually, the gravitational effect is not considered in the dynamic model because the gravitational terms [13] are constant,
and yield static deflections, which do not affect the dynamic behavior.
In this paper, the forced response is analytically determined in the modal domain through the modal properties (natural
frequencies, mode shapes, modal damping) of the mechanical system, and the known excitation forces. The undamped natural
frequencies and mode shapes were calculated by solving a generalized eigenvalue problem involving the mass and the stiffness
matrices of the mechanical system. In particular, according to the Lagrange formulation, these matrices were previously estimated
from the analytic expressions of the kinetic and the strain energies of the mechanical system while the generalized excitation
forces were obtained through their virtual work together with the measurement results. Eventually, the modal damping that was
experimentally obtained (see Section 3.1) was included.
A few geometric expressions should be deduced before the forced response expression is defined. With reference to Fig. 3b,
where Φz can be acute (as in the figure) or obtuse:

DC ¼ BC cosϕz ¼ zb −zp ð1Þ

BD ¼ BC sinϕz ð2Þ


BD ¼ θp −θb r p cosϕtp ð3Þ

Expressions (1)–(3), after some algebraic rearrangements, yield:


zb −zp
θp ¼ θb þ tanϕz ð4Þ
r p cosϕtp

The forced response is obtained in the frequency domain as the product between the vector of the exciting forces (Fe) and the
frequency response function (FRF) matrix of the system (Η) as:
0 1
zb
@ θb A ¼ ΗFe ð5Þ
zp
64 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72

Here, formula (5) is the mechanical system's model in frequency domain. In (5), generic entry Hkl of the FRF matrix Η, with
excitation in physical coordinate l and response in physical coordinate k is defined by the expression [13]:
X
3
Ψkj Ψlj =M j
Hkl ¼ ð6Þ
j¼1
ω2nj −ω2 þ 2iζ j ωnj ω

where ωnj and ζj are the natural frequency and modal damping of the jth mode, ω is the frequency, i the imaginary unit, Ψkj is the
generic element of the modal matrix collecting in each column the jth modal vector and Mj is the generic diagonal element of the
modal mass matrix. In expression (6), ωnj and Ψkj are obtained by the solution of the above-mentioned eigenvalue problem, the modal
mass matrix is obtained from the mass coefficient matrix and modal vector (Mj =ΨjTMΨj), while the modal damping of the entire
system is obtained from measurements (see Section 3.1). It is worth stressing that the symmetry of the stiffness and mass matrices
leads to a diagonal modal mass. So, the diagonal element of the modal mass matrix can be used in expression (6) for the estimation of
the FRFs. Mass and stiffness matrices have constant entries which can be straightforwardly obtained as follows [14]:
8  9 8
> d ∂T > 9 8 9
>
> >
> > ∂T > > ∂U >
>
> _ >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> dt ∂z > >
b ! > > ∂z >> 0 1 > > ∂zb >
> 0 1
>
> > > b> > >
< d ∂T > < ∂T >
= > = z€b < ∂U >
> = zb
− ¼ M @ θ € A; ¼ K @ θb A ð7Þ
_
> dt ∂θ b ! >
> > ∂θb >
> > > ∂θb >
>
b
> > > >
> z€p > >
> zp
>
> >
> >
> ∂T >
> >
> ∂U >
>
> d ∂T >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> : ; : ;
: dt ∂z_ ; ∂zp ∂zp
p

where T is the kinetic energy, U is the strain energy. The kinetic energy has the analytic expression:

1 1 1 1
m z_ þ J b θ_ b þ mp z_ p þ J p θ_ p
2 2 2 2
T¼ ð8Þ
2 b b 2 2 2

where mb and Jb (mp and, Jp) denote mass and moment of inertia around the vertical symmetry axis of the base (of the bowl),
espectively. Taking advantage of Eq. (4), the expression of the kinetic energy (Eq. (8)) can then be written in terms of the generalized
coordinates :
0
 12
1 1 _ 2 1 1 @_ z_ b −z_ p
tanϕz A
2 2
T ¼ mb z_ b þ J b θ b þ mp z_ p þ J p θ b þ ð9Þ
2 2 2 2 r p cosϕtp

The strain energy is the sum of the strain energy of the leaf springs, due to bending, and of the mounts in horizontal and
vertical directions:

1 1 2 1 2
U¼ n k CB2 þ nm km;h ðr m θb Þ þ nm km;v zb ð10Þ
2 s s 2 2

where ns and nm denote, respectively, the number of leaf springs and of mounts. Taking advantage of Eqs. (1)–(4), the expression
of the strain energy (Eq. (10)) can be written in terms of the only generalized coordinates as follows:
 
1 zb −zp 2 1 2 1 2
U¼ ns ks þ nm km;h ðr m θb Þ þ nm km;v zb ð11Þ
2 cosϕz 2 2

Expressions (9) and (11), when introduced into relationships (7), yield the following matrices of the mass and stiffness
coefficients, referred to the generalized coordinates zb, θb ,zp:
0 !2 ! !2 1
tanϕz tanϕz tanϕz
B mb þ J p J −J C
B r p cosϕtp p
r p cosϕtp p
r p cosϕtp C
B ! ! C
B C
B tanϕ tanϕ C
M¼B
B Jp z
Jb þ Jp −J p z C
C
B r p cosϕtp r p cosϕtp C
B ! ! ! C
B tanϕ
2
tanϕ tanϕ
2 C
@ −J z
−J p z
mp þ J p z A
p ð12Þ
rp cosϕtp r p cosϕtp r p cosϕtp
0 1
ns ks nk
B cos2 ϕ þ nm km;v 0 − s2s C
B z cos ϕz C
B C
K¼B 0 nm km;h r 2m 0 C
B C
@ ns ks ns ks A
− 0
cos ϕz2
cos ϕz
2
 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72 65

Once the matrices of the mass and stiffness coefficients are calculated, the natural frequencies and mode shapes can be
obtained by solving the above-mentioned eigenvalue problem. The ith generalized excitation force, Qi , can be computed from the
expression of the virtual work δL through the formula:
∂δL
Qi ¼ ð13Þ
∂δqi

where δqi is the virtual displacement of the ith generalized coordinate and

δL ¼ Q zb δzb þ Q θb δθb þ Q zp δzp ð14Þ

In this application, the only active forces are the ones due to the electromagnets. The electromagnet force has a different
formulation with respect to the typology of feeder: BFT or BFV.
Regarding the bowl feeder with tangentially-oriented electromagnets (BFT), the three electromagnets, arranged along a
circumference of radius re at the same angular distance, generate the torque Me = 3Fe,tre where Fe,t is the force due to each
electromagnet (see Section 3.4 and Table 3), and the related virtual work is:


δL ¼ Me δ θp −θb ð15Þ

which, by considering Eq. (4), becomes:

 tanϕ
z
δL ¼ 3F e;t r e δ zb −zp ð16Þ
r p cosϕtp

Regarding the bowl feeder with vertically-oriented electromagnets (BFV), it is equipped with two electromagnets, arranged at
the same angular distance and generating a vertical force of attraction between base and bowl. Let Fe,v be the force due to each
electromagnet (see Section 3.4), the related virtual work is:


δL ¼ 2F e;v δ zb −zp ð17Þ

Eqs. (13), (16), and (17) bring to conclude that the generalized-force vectors acting on our systems are:

0 1
tanϕz 0 1
B 3F r
B
e;t e
r p cosϕtp C C 2F e;v
B
Fe; t ¼ B 0 C @ A
C; Fe;v ¼ 0 ð18Þ
@ tanϕz A −2F
−3F e;t r e e;v
r p cosϕtp

3. Experimental analysis

Two bowl feeders are tested (see Fig. 1): one (BFT) with three tangentially-oriented electromagnets, and the other (BFV) with
two vertically-oriented electromagnets. Both feature a base and a bowl, even though they have different size and geometry: BFT is
greater than BFV; moreover, the leaf springs are three in the BFT and four in the BFV, and they are equally spaced (i.e., 120 degrees
and 90 degrees, respectively). Both the feeders are equipped with three mounts which isolate them from the floor. They are
actuated through quasi-sinusoidal forces induced by sinusoidal current. The experimental campaign that was carried out consists
of (i) experimental modal analyses, (ii) acceleration measurements during operation, (iii) frequency response function (FRF)
measurements on the mounts, and (iv) measurements of the dynamic forces exerted by the electromagnets. In the following
subsections, test goal, test set up and main results will be described for each measurement.

3.1. Experimental modal analysis

The modal tests were performed, for both the bowl feeders, under three different test conditions: feeder “without bowl” (see
Fig. 2b), feeder “with bowl”, and feeder “with bowl and spare parts”. In the latter test bench, the distribution of the spare parts in
the bowl was taken similar to that of steady-state operational condition, for reproducing the actual mass distribution. The goal of
these modal tests is the estimation of natural frequencies and mode shapes of the feeders to be used in the model validation
process (see Section 4). Modal damping was also estimated, and used for the calculation of the simulated frequency response
functions. The procedure used to perform the experimental modal analysis (EMA) is the conventional roving hammer method, in
which both excitation and response are measured simultaneously to obtain the Inertance, i.e. the FRF between acceleration and
66 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72

20e-3

10e-3

7e-3
6e-3
5e-3
Log 4e-3
3e-3
g/N

2e-3

1e-3
700e-6
600e-6
400e-6
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 180
Hz
Fig. 4. FRF-sum for the feeder with tangentially-oriented electromagnets in the case “bowl with spare parts”.

force. An impact hammer (PCB 068C04) was used to excite the feeder, whereas piezoelectric accelerometers (PCB 352C18 and
PCB 356B21, frequency range 1 to 10000 Hz) were used to acquire the responses. The measurement points were spread all over
the feeder, some of them on the base, on the bowl and on the bowl support (structural part directly connected to the upper part of
the leaf springs and bowl) in order to capture their dynamic behavior. The signals were acquired by using sampling frequency of
800 Hz and frequency resolution of 0.2 Hz. The input autopower-spectrum, output autopower-spectrum and cross-power spectra
were evaluated and stored for each measurement location. An exponential window for the accelerometer signals and a force
window (see [13] for details) for the force signals were used in order to reduce leakage. During the tests, the coherence function
was monitored as an on-line check of data quality. Once the experimental modal tests and analyses had been performed, natural
frequencies, modal damping and mode shapes were available for all modes in the frequency band of analysis. The chosen
frequency band of analysis for the entire modal test campaign was 0 to 180 Hz. As an example of modal analysis result, Fig. 4
reports the FRF-sum (i.e. the complex sum of FRFs of all the measured points) where the peaks corresponding to the natural
frequencies can be clearly distinguished in the frequency band of analysis. Table 1 shows the natural frequencies (fn) and modal
dampings (ζ) for the two feeders in the case “bowl with spare parts” obtained as the mean of the values coming from the Least
Square Complex Exponential (LSCE) method and the PolyMAX method [13]. LCSE and PolyMAX were used for increasing the
robustness of the solution. The analysis of the experimental modal shapes highlighted that, for both the feeders, the first two
modes involve only the rubber mounts; in particular modes at 4.8 Hz and 7.7 Hz represent a rotational motion of the feeder
around the vertical axis, while modes at 8.2 Hz and 15.3 Hz represent a translational motion along the vertical axis. The third
mode, for both the feeders, indicates the roto-translational motion of the bowl with respect to the base, as clearly depicted in the
mode shapes of Fig. 5 (the reader should consider that the upper bowls for the two feeders were not excited in the tangential
direction during the EMA, therefore the rotation of the upper bowl could not appear in the mode shapes). It is worth noting that
the BFT (Fig. 5a) exhibits a third mode shape in which the bowl support has a large rotation while the base a small displacement;
whereas, in the third mode of the BFV (Fig. 5b), a large rotation of the bowl support is combined with a base rotation, as well. Such
a different behavior is due to different ratios between mass (and inertia) of the base and upper part of the system. Eventually, the
last three modes involved only bowl deformation. Therefore, modal behavior seems uncoupled in the frequency range being
tested, that is, the low frequency range is governed only by mounts’ deformation, the medium frequency range, at about 50 Hz,
only by leaf springs’ deformation, and the high frequency range only by bowl flexibility (see Fig. 4). The EMA results concerning
the other two cases (“without bowl” and “with bowl”) are not described here, for the sake of conciseness. However, the adopted
methodology and the mode shapes were the same as in the “bowl with spare parts” case.

Table 1
Experimental natural frequencies (fn) and modal dampings (ζ) for the two feeders in the case “bowl with spare parts”.

Mode # Experimental data

fn [Hz] BFT ζ [%] BFT fn [Hz] BFV ζ [%] BFV

1 4.8 2.9 7.7 4.6

2 8.2 1.4 15.3 4.8
3 52 3.2 50.1 1.3
4 128 1.1 110 3.0
5 136 1.1 125 2.6
6 151 2.5 163 1.7
 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72 67

(a) (b)

Upper bowl

Bowl support

Base

Fig. 5. Mode shapes concerning the (a) BFT and (b) BFV at 52 Hz and 50.1 Hz, respectively; in gray lines the un-deformed systems and in color lines the deformed
ones.

3.2. Operational accelerations

The operational accelerations are required by the validation process. The experimental apparatus was constituted by three
triaxial accelerometers fixed on the feeders: one on the base, another on the bowl support, and the third on the upper part of the
bowl, see Fig. 6a. During measurements, BFT and BFV were excited at 49.3 Hz and 49 Hz, respectively, which are frequency values
close to their natural frequencies reported in Table 1. The triaxial accelerometers separately measured vertical, tangential, and
radial acceleration components at the points they are fixed to. These signals were acquired in time domain with sampling
frequency of 4096 Hz and acquisition time of 26 s. As an example of experimental results, Figs. 7 and 8 depict the time-
acceleration signals in the three measured points along the three orthogonal directions for the BFT and the BFV, respectively. The
analysis of Fig. 7 (BFT accelerations) reveals that the smallest acceleration amplitude occurs in the base (red lines), whereas the
largest one is in the upper bowl. A different behavior exhibits the BFV acceleration (Fig. 8), where the base tangential acceleration
is comparable to the upper bowl acceleration. This behavior can be justified by considering the higher mass and inertia of the base
with respect to the bowl for the BFT and the similar mass and inertia of the base with respect to the bowl for the BFV (as already
mentioned in Section 3.1). High acceleration levels of the base should be avoided, because, when they occur, a significant portion
of the energy supplied by the electromagnets is not transformed into spare parts’ kinetic energy, and the vibration transmission to
the floor is increased. Eventually, since the electromagnets actually act along tangential directions, the tangential accelerations
assume an approximately sinusoidal behavior, whereas, in the other directions, higher frequency components appear. In

(a) (b)

Upper bowl
Bowl support

Base

Fig. 6. (a) Locations of the triaxial accelerometers for the operational acceleration measurements and (b) rubber mount during the impact test for stiffness
coefficient estimation.
68 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72

Upper bowl Bowl support

(a) Base
20

10

g
-10

-20
1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05
s

(b)
5

0
g

-5

1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05

s

(c)
5

0
g

-5

1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05

s
Fig. 7. Operational accelerations in the time domain for the BFT along the (a) tangential, (b) vertical and (c) radial directions in the case “bowl with spare parts”.

particular, the higher frequency components mainly regards the upper bowl accelerations (green curves): they are due to the
contribution of the modes related to the bowl dynamics in the higher frequency range (125–170 Hz).

3.3. Stiffness of the mounts

In order to obtain mounts' stiffness coefficients to introduce into the model, an impact test was carried out on the two different
kinds of mounts, BFT and BFV are equipped with. For each mount, the stiffness coefficients are estimated along the vertical and
horizontal directions. Regarding the test bench, a specimen with known mass was fixed to the upper side of the mount (see
Fig. 6b) while the lower side was fixed to the floor. The modal behavior of such a system in vertical and horizontal directions can
be considered uncoupled. Thus, in vertical (horizontal) direction, this system can be considered as a single-DOF system with the
vertical (horizontal) displacement as generalized coordinate. With excitation and response in the vertical (horizontal) direction,
 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72 69

Upper bowl Bowl support

(a) Base
15
10

g
-10
-15
1.00 1.01 1.02 s 1.03 1.04 1.05

(b)
4.5

3
2
1
g

0
-1
-2

-3.8
1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05
s

(c)
1.5
1
g

-1
-1.4
1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05
s
Fig. 8. Operational accelerations in the time domain for the BFV along the (a) tangential, (b) vertical and (c) radial directions in the case “bowl with spare parts”.

the frequency response function along the vertical (horizontal) direction was measured and the natural frequency fn was
identified in the FRF plot; then, stiffness coefficient k was estimated by using the well-known equation k = m(2πfn) 2, where the
mass m is known. In order to improve the robustness of the results, the test was repeated with another mass and the results were
averaged with the previous one. Table 2 collects the stiffness coefficients experimentally estimated for both the feeders.

Table 2
Averaged stiffness coefficients km,v,km,h, in vertical and horizontal directions, for BFV and BFT.

Bowl feeder km,v [N/m] km,h [N/m]

BFV 1.8 × 105 5.0 × 104

BFT 1.8 × 105 4.9 × 104
70 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72

Table 3
Parameters and symbols for the bowl feeders.

Symbol Value for BFV Value for BFT

mb 39 kg 104 kg
mp 24 kg 28 kg
Jb 0.62 kg m2 2.15 kg m2
Jp 0.75 kg m2 0.7 kg m2
ks 350 N/mm 566 N/mm
ns 4 3
nm 3 3
re / 150 mm
rm 155 mm 165 mm
rp 160.5 mm 188 mm
Fe,v, Fe,t 325 N 116 N
Φz 105 deg 75 deg
Φtp 6 deg 4 deg

3.4. Electromagnetic forces

The estimation of the electromagnetic force is needed in the model in order to perform the forced analysis. This force can be
calculated by means of an analytical formula [4]:

N2e Sμ 0 V 2
Fm ¼
 ð19Þ
2R2b μa þ u
r

where Ne is the number of coil's turns, S is the cross section of the magnetic circuit, μ0 is the vacuum permeability, V is the
time-varying supply voltage, Rb is coil's resistance, a is the mean length of the magnetic circuit in the ferromagnetic kernel, μr is
the relative permeability of the ferromagnetic kernel and u is the thickness of the air gap between the two electromagnet parts.
Since the distance between the electromagnet parts (u) varies during operation, and μr is not constant due to magnetic hysteresis,
Eq. (19) cannot be directly used. Thus, a specific apparatus was devised for measuring the variable magnetic force by means of a
piezoelectric force transducer (PCB 288D01). Table 3 reports the measured amplitude of the approximately sinusoidal magnetic
force for each feeder.

4. Model validation and simulation results

In this section, simulation results, obtained with the above lumped-parameter model when applied to two real bowl feeders,
BFT and BFV, will be compared with experimental data. The simulations were carried out with the model parameters reported in
Tables 2 and 3. These parameters were preliminary evaluated on the basis of design data and experimental measurements (see
Sections 3.1, 3.3, 3.4). The validation process consists of two assessment levels. The first aimed at tuning stiffness and inertia
parameters in terms of modal parameters (natural frequencies and mode shapes); modal parameters (ωnj, Ψj) are obtained with
the proposed model by solving a generalized eigenvalue problem involving mass and stiffness matrices of the mechanical system,
expressions (12). The second level of assessment aimed at estimating the model validity in terms forced responses of the
coordinates (amplitude of the acceleration signals).
During the first level of assessment the experimental natural frequencies and mode shapes obtained in Section 3.1 for the
“without bowl” (see Fig. 2b) and “with bowl” cases are compared with the model results. The “without bowl” case aims at
verifying the dynamic behavior without the effect of bowl's mass and inertia, since a precise 3D-CAD of the bowls, for the two
feeders, was not available, and the theoretical estimation of their mass and inertia were poor. During this phase, the stiffness of
mounts and leaf springs was slightly tuned to better match experimental results. It is worth noting that the modal behavior of the
system simplifies the validation process; as specified in Section 3.1, the first two modes only refers to the rubber mount dynamics,

Table 4
Experimental and numerical (i.e., computed through the proposed model) natural frequencies (fn) for the two feeders (BFT and BFV) together with their
difference (Δ), in the case “bowl with spare parts”.

Mode # BFT BFV

Experimental fn [Hz] Numerical fn [Hz] Δ [Hz] Experimental fn [Hz] Numerical fn [Hz] Δ[Hz]

1 4.8 5.9 −1.1 7.7 8.0 −0.3

2 8.2 10 −1.8 15.3 14.1 1.2
3 52 52.6 −0.6 50.1 52.0 −1.9
 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72 71

Table 5
Numerical eigenvectors for the two feeders in the case “bowl with spare parts”.

Coordinates BFT BFV

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

zb 1 1 1 1 1 1
θb −10126 0.038 −20.5 2168 −0.22 28.4
zp 8.9 1 −3.14 5.9 1 −1.16
θp −10283 −0.0062 61.9 2283 0.047 −22.2

while the third mode refers to leaf springs’ deformation. Hence, a modification of mounts' stiffness value only yields a variation of
the first two natural frequencies and a modification of springs' stiffness value only yields a variation of the third natural frequency.
In the “with bowl” case, only the mass and inertia of the bowls were tuned, since the other model parameters were already
validated in the previous phase (“without bowl” case). Table 4 collects the natural frequencies of the feeders (BFT and BFV)
obtained by measurements (see Section 3.1) and the natural frequencies obtained by the developed model in the “bowl with
spare parts” case. In these simulations, the spare parts have been modeled as an additional mass of the bowl equal to 3.6 kg for the
BFT and 5.1 kg for the BFV. Furthermore, Table 4 shows the differences between numerical and experimental natural frequencies
which are related to the accuracy of the model. These differences are very small, always less than 2 Hz, which brings to conclude
that the model is able to capture the modal behavior of the real feeders. It has to be underlined that the developed model is less
accurate in the low frequency range, governed by the first two modes, than in the high frequency range, governed by the third
mode (see Table 4). However, this lack of accuracy is not important for the simulation in operational conditions, since the
excitation frequency of the electromagnetic force lies in the high frequency range, at about 50 Hz where the model accuracy is
good. Furthermore, Table 5 collects the eigenvectors obtained by the model, for the two feeders in the “bowl with spare parts”
case normalized with respect to the first entry; for a better understanding of the mode shapes, the values concerning dependent
coordinate θp, calculated by Eq. (4), have been added as well. For both the feeders, the first two modes refer to the only
displacement and rotation of the base, as occurs for the experimental ones; while the third mode represents the roto-traslation of
the upper part of the feeders. Concerning the 3rd mode of Table 5, it is interesting to note that for the BFV, the base rotation (θb) is
similar in value with the bowl rotation (θp), while for the BFT, θb is three times smaller than θp; similar relations exist between
vertical displacements zb and zp. This different behavior between the two feeders is mainly due to the different mass and inertia
distribution between the upper and lower part of the two feeders, as already presented in Section 3.1 (see also Table 3 for the
numerical mass and inertia values).
In the second level of assessment, the vertical and tangential acceleration of base and bowl, estimated by the model, was
compared with the same quantities obtained by measurements (see Section 3.2, Figs. 7 and 8). In particular, the numerical
amplitude of the vertical and tangential acceleration signals are obtained starting from the expressions of the forced response in
the frequency domain, in terms of displacement and rotation, Eqs. (4) and (5). Firstly, the frequency-acceleration signals are
calculated as follows:

0 1
0 1
B z€b C zb
B θ€ C
B bC 2B θb C
B z€ C ¼ −ω @ z C
B
A: ð20Þ
B pC p
@€ A θp
θ p

Then, the amplitude of the so-computed numerical accelerations is obtained.

Vertical accelerations refer to zb (zp); whereas tangential accelerations refer to the product of angular coordinate, θb (θp), and
base's (bowl's) radius. Table 6 collects the acceleration amplitude estimated by the models and the corresponding experimental
accelerations, whose values are captured from Figs. 7 and 8. Since the amplitude of the numerical accelerations is close to the
amplitude of the experimental ones, this comparison can be considered rather satisfactory. Actually, the agreement is good for the
BFT, where the relative average error is 15%, whilst, for the BFV, the relative average error is 36%; this higher error is mainly due to

Table 6
Acceleration amplitude of the two tested feeders along the vertical and tangential directions in the case “bowl with spare parts”: experimental and numerical
data.

Direction BFT BFV

Numerical (g) Experimental (g) Numerical (g) Experimental (g)

zb 1.1 1.06 2.65 1.75

zp 3.7 4.2 3.07 4.29
θb 4.8 6.5 12.8 14.46
θp 17.2 14.5 16.9 13.8
72 E. Mucchi et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 60 (2013) 60–72

the error along vertical direction zb. The conclusion is that the developed model is able to replicate the features of the feeders in
operational conditions that are relevant for machine design.
Once the model has been validated, it can be used in a number of way. As examples of application, it was used to estimate the
forces transmitted to the floor through the mounts and to evaluate the effect of design modifications. Concerning the BFV, the
vertical and tangential forces transmitted to the floor are 138 and 169 N, respectively. The modification of the leaf spring angle
(Φz) to 100 deg determined a strong reduction of such forces: 56 and 103 N along the vertical and tangential directions,
respectively. Further, it was used to improve the performance of the BFV in operational conditions. As a matter of fact, the 3rd
mode of the BFV is rather poor from a performance standpoint, since the ratios between the entries of the rotational coordinates
(θp/θb) and between the entries of the vertical coordinates (zp/zb and) are close to one (in absolute value). On the contrary, in the
3rd mode of the BFT, these ratios are approximately equal to 3 both for the rotational as well as for the vertical coordinates. This
means that the bowl motion (and as a consequence the spare part's motion) is similar in amplitude to the base motion for the BFV,
whilst it is three times higher in the BFT. In this scenario, the developed model allowed the improvement of BFV's performance by
implementing design modifications which keep approximately constant the natural frequency of the third mode. This condition is
due to the fact that the used electromagnets, and their control system, work within a small frequency range and that the feeders are
excited near the resonance frequency. The simulation results showed that an increase of 100% of the base mass and inertia together
with an increase of 50% of the leaf spring stiffness determines a new 3rd eigenvector equal to (1 28 −2.5 −55) T, maintaining
approximately constant the 3rd natural frequency (50.8 Hz). These design changes made BFV's efficiency increase. In the modified
feeder, the motion of the bowl is amplified till making the above-mentioned ratios approximately equal to 2, both for the vertical
displacement and for the angular coordinates.

5. Conclusions

An elastodynamic model of a generic bowl feeder has been presented and validated with experimental data. The developed
model takes into account the most important parameters involved during operation: leaf spring stiffness, base and bowl inertia,
forces due to the electromagnets, damping effects and stiffness of the base mounts. The model has been experimentally assessed
by using the actual data of two kinds of bowl feeders employed in automatic assembly lines. The validation can be considered
satisfactory concerning the modeling of base, mounts and leaf springs, however the model should be improved taking into
account bowl dynamics, for example by a finite element scheme, in order to capture the higher frequency components related to
bowl flexibility. Under these limitations, the assessed model can predicts the motion of bowl and base. Such information is useful
in the design of new bowl feeders in order: (i) to reduce the forces transmitted to the floor by the rubber mounts; (ii) to increase/
improve the motion of the bowl that produces the transfer of the parts; (iii) to estimate electromagnetic force's frequency the
feeder should be excited at to work near resonance conditions.

Acknowledgments

This work has been developed within the Advanced Mechanics Laboratory (MechLav) of Ferrara Technopole, realized through
the contribution of Regione Emilia-Romagna - Assessorato Attivita' Produttive, Sviluppo Economico, Piano telematico - POR-FESR
2007-2013, Attività I.1.1.

References

[1] R. Silversides, J.S. Dai, L. Seneviratne, Force analysis of a vibratory bowl feeder for automatic assembly, Journal of Mechanical Design 127 (2005) 637–645.
[2] G.P. Maul, M.B. Thomas, A system model and simulation of the vibratory bowl feeder, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 16 (5) (1997) 309–314.
[3] P.C.P. Chao, C.Y. Shen, Dynamic modeling and experimental verification of a piezoelectric part feeder in a structure with parallel bimorph beams, Ultrasonics
46 (2007) 205–218.
[4] J.A.V. Vilan, A.S. Robleda, P.J.G. Nieto, C.C. Placer, Approximation to the dynamics of transported parts in a vibratory bowl feeder, Mechanism and Machine
Theory 44 (2009) 2217–2235.
[5] X. Ding, J.S. Dai, Characteristic equation-based dynamics analysis of vibratory bowl feeders with three spatial compliant legs, IEEE Transactions on
Automation Science and Engineering 5 (1) (2008) 164–175.
[6] S. Okabe, Y. Yokoyama, Study of vibratory feeders: calculation of natural frequency of bowl-type vibratory feeders, Journal of Mechanical Design 103 (1981) 249–256.
[7] E.M. Sloot, N.P. Kruyt, Theoretical and experimental study of the transport of granular materials by inclined vibratory conveyors, Powder Technology 87
(1996) 203–210.
[8] G.H. Lim, On the conveying velocity of a vibratory feeder, Computers and Structures 62 (1) (1997) 197–203.
[9] Cordero, A.S., “analyzing the parts behavior in a vibratory bowl feeder to predict the dynamic probability profile”, PhD Thesis, University of Puerto Rico, (2004).
[10] S. Okabe, Y. Kamiya, K. Tsujikado, Y. yokohama, Vibratory feeding by nonsinusoidal vibration — optimum wave form, Transaction of the ASME 107 (1985) 188–191.
[11] I. Han, Y. Lee, Chaotic dynamics of repeated impacts in vibratory bowl feeders, Journal of Sound and Vibration 243 (3) (2002) 529–541.
[12] S.B. Choi, D.H. Lee, Modal analysis and control of a bowl parts feeder activated by piezoceramic actuators, Journal of Sound and Vibration 275 (2004) 452–458.
[13] W. Heylen, S. Lammens, P. Sas, Modal Analysis Theory and Testing, Katholieke Univeriteit Leuven, 2003.
[14] M. Petyt, Introduction to Finite Element Vibration Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1990.