See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264437947

Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency estimation for

vehicles by substructure coupling based on frequency response functions

Article  in  International Journal of Vehicle Noise and Vibration · November 2010

DOI: 10.1504/IJVNV.2010.036687

CITATIONS READS

7 447

2 authors:

Hee-jin Kim Kwang-joon Kim

1 PUBLICATION   7 CITATIONS   
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
207 PUBLICATIONS   2,463 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kwang-joon Kim on 10 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Vehicle Noise and Vibration, Vol. 6, Nos. 2/3/4, 2010 215

Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural

frequency estimation for vehicles by substructure
coupling based on frequency response functions

Hee-jin Kim*
NVH Team,
Renault Samsung Motors,
YongIn-city, GyungGi-do, 446-798, Korea
Fax: 82-31-289-7958
E-mail: heejin2.kim@renaultsamsungM.com
*Corresponding author

Kwang-joon Kim
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Center for NOVIC, KAIST,
Science Town, Daejeon, Korea
Fax: 82-42-350-8220
E-mail: kjkim@.kaist.ac.kr

Abstract: In this study, a frequency response function (FRF) coupling analysis

is presented for a vehicle body and a front axle with four pair of bushings
between the two substructures. In order to investigate effects of the rotational
stiffness of bushings on the natural frequency estimation, basic formulas are
derived and confirmed by using simple beamlike structures. It is illustrated that
the natural frequencies of the coupled structure are underestimated in general
and the order of modes can be interchanged when the rotational stiffness of the
coupling elements is neglected. The results from the analysis on a real vehicle
structure reveal that neglect of the rotational stiffness of bushings causes
downshift of the natural frequencies by 11 Hz at maximum around a natural
frequency of about 100 Hz. This indicates that the effects of the rotational
stiffness of bushings can be most responsible for the possible large errors in the
mid frequency range.

Keywords: rotational stiffness of bushings; FRF coupling; underestimation of

natural frequencies; vehicle body; front axle.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kim, H-j. and Kim, K-j.
(2010) ‘Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency
estimation for vehicles by substructure coupling based on frequency response
functions’, Int. J. Vehicle Noise and Vibration, Vol. 6, Nos. 2/3/4, pp.215–229.

Biographical notes: Hee-jin Kim is an NVH Engineer at the Renault Samsung

Motors. He received his BS from A-jou University in 1997 and his MS from
KAIST in 2010, South Korea. He has been working on structure borne noise
and vibration problems of automotive vehicles since 1997. His recent interests
are the trimmed body analysis of vehicles and the substructure coupling of
vehicle subsystems by frequency response functions.

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

216 H-j. Kim and K-j. Kim

Kwang-joon Kim joined the KAIST as an Assistant Professor in 1982 after his
PhD from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. He received his BS and MS
from Seoul National University in 1976 and 1978 respectively. He has been
working on dynamics, noise and vibration problems in mechanical systems,
and structures. His recent interests are in; vehicle systems, reaction wheels
for satellites, landing gears for rotorcrafts, pneumatic tables for precision
equipments, and excitation systems for touch screen of mobile devices.

1 Introduction

One of the most important subjects of structural dynamic analysis in automotive industry
is to predict the accurate natural modes and responses to the given inputs at an earlier
stage of vehicle development. For this purpose, various methodologies have been
developed and applied. The frequency response function (FRF) coupling method is one
of the popular techniques owing to advantages such as convenience in integrating
experimental FRFs and computational FRFs.
One problem in the FRF coupling method is how to deal with rotational stiffness of
coupling components such as bushings. The difficulty gets more severe when the
problem of rotational stiffness is to be solved experimentally. So, rotational stiffness of
bushings is often neglected in the coupling analysis of a vehicle body and a front axle
when the frequency range of interest is rather low, e.g., for ride comfort analysis. The
situation, however, will be quite different as the frequency goes up to the range of
structure-borne noise. In such a case, neglect of the rotational stiffness could bring about
serious errors.
In previous researches by Duarte (1996) and Liu and Ewins (1999) dealing with a
rigid coupling of simple structures, it was shown that the correct FRFs of the coupled
structure cannot be obtained without considering the rotational degrees of freedom
(DOFs), especially when the substructures are subject to rotational motions at the
coupling coordinates. In Hur and Park (2001), a vehicle body and a front sub-frame were
coupled flexibly through bushings, but only the linear stiffness of the bushings was taken
into account. Some results of reflecting the rotational stiffness of bushings were
presented by Kim et al. (2005). However, detailed investigation or discussion was not
provided.
In this paper, the FRF coupling analysis on a vehicle body and a front axle coupled by
four pair of bushings will be presented as a practical example in the vehicle applications.
The results will be scrutinised to both quantify and qualify the errors in predicting the
natural frequency of the coupled structure caused by neglecting the rotational stiffness of
bushings.

2 Bases of FRF coupling by elastic elements

The FRF coupling is a technique to predict the FRF of the coupled structure by using the
FRFs of substructures. According to previous researches by Hur and Park (2001) and
Kim et al. (2005), the equation of coupling the compliance FRFs of two substructures by
elastic elements is given as follows:
 Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency estimation 217

⎡ H ss
A A
H sc 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ H sc A ⎤
⎢ A A
⎥ ⎢ A ⎥
⎢H H cc 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ H cc ⎥
H C = ⎢ cs −⎢
B B ⎥ B ⎥
⎢ 0 0 H cc H cs ⎥ ⎢ − H cc ⎥ (1)
⎢ B B ⎥ ⎢ B⎥
⎣ 0 0 H sc H ss ⎦ ⎣ − H sc ⎦
A
[H cc B
+ H cc + K −1 ]−1[H cs
A A
H cc B
−H cc B
−H cs ]

In equation (1), the superscripts A, B and C denote substructure A, substructure B, and

coupled structure C and the sub-matrices H’s in the right hand side are compliance FRF
matrices of the substructures A and B and K is stiffness matrix of the coupling element.
The subscripts c and s denote respectively coupling and slave coordinates. The coupling
coordinates are the coordinates or DOFs at which the two substructures are connected to
each other by the coupling elements and the slave coordinates are the DOFs which are
not involved directly in the coupling process.
When one is interested only in the FRFs among just slave coordinates after the
coupling, then equation (1) can be simplified as follows:
B ⎡ A −1 ⎤ −1
H Css = H sc B A
⎣ H cc + H cc + K ⎦ H cs (2)

However, equation (2) cannot be used as it is due to the singularity in the inversion of the
stiffness matrix when rotational stiffness of coupling components are neglected or set to
zeros. Partitioning of equation (2) with respect to translational and rotational DOFs
yields:

⎡ HC ⎤ ⎡ tt H sc
C B B ⎤⎡ AB AB ⎤ −1 ⎡ tt H cs
A A ⎤
tr H tr H sc tt H cc tr H cc tr H cs
H = ⎢ tt
C
⎥ =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ (3)
⎢⎣ rt H C C
rr H ⎥
B
⎦ ⎢⎣ rt H sc
B
rr H sc ⎥
AB
⎦ ⎢⎣ rt H cc
AB
rr H cc ⎥
⎦
A
⎢⎣ rt H cs A
rr H cs ⎥
⎦
where the kernel matrix is given by:

⎡ tt H cc
AB AB ⎤ −1 ⎡⎡ H B B ⎤ ⎡ A ⎤
tr H cc tr H cc HA tr H cc
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎢ tt cc ⎥ + ⎢ tt cc ⎥
AB AB B B A A
⎢⎣ rt H cc rr H cc ⎥
⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎢⎣ rt H cc rr H cc ⎥
⎦ ⎢⎣ rt H cc rr H cc ⎥
⎦
(4)
−1 ⎤ −1
⎡ K ⎤
tr K cc
+ ⎢ tt cc ⎥ ⎥
⎣ rt K cc K
rr cc ⎦ ⎥
⎦
and t in the left subscripts denotes the translational DOF and r the rotational DOFs. Thus,
ttH represents the translational DOF FRF sub-matrix, rrH the rotational DOF FRF
sub-matrix, and rtH and trH the cross FRF sub-matrices. When only the translational DOF
FRFs of the substructures are taken into account, simply by taking just the left top
sub-matrices in equation (4), it can be shown that the FRF matrix of the coupled structure
is given as:
C
( )
−1
B AB A
tt H = tt H sc tt H cc tt H cs (5)

AB −1
where ( tt H cc ) is expressed as follows:
218 H-j. Kim and K-j. Kim

( )
−1 −1
AB
tt H cc = ⎡⎣ tt H cc
A B
+ tt H cc + tt K −1 ⎤⎦ (6)

Derivation of equation (5) follows. When two substructures are coupled by elastic
elements, relations between force, stiffness and displacements apply at the coupling
coordinates as follows:

(
K xcB − xcA = fcA ) (7)

fcB = −fcA (8)

Partitioning of equation (7) with respect to the translational and rotational DOFs gives:

⎡ tt K ⎧ B
tr K ⎤ ⎪ t x c − t xcA ⎪⎫ ⎪⎧ t fcA ⎪⎫
⎢ K ⎥ ⎨ B ⎬=⎨ ⎬ (9)
⎣ rt rr K ⎦ ⎪
⎩ r xc − r xcA ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ r fcA ⎪⎭

Taking null matrices for trK, rtK and rrK, equation (9) is simplified to:

(
B
tt K t x c )
− t xcA = t fcA (10)

where the translational displacements at the coupling coordinates can be described in

terms of translational DOF FRFs of the substructures A and B as follows:
B B B
t xc = tt H cc t fc (11)

A A A A A
t xc = tt H cc t f c + tt H cs t f s (12)

By substituting equations (8), (11) and (12) into equation (10), one can obtain the FRF
coupling equation in which rotational stiffness of the bushings has been discarded as
follows:
C
( )
−1
B AB A
tt H = tt H sc tt H cc tt H cs (13)

3 Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency

estimation by the FRF coupling of simple beamlike substructures

The characteristics of errors in the natural frequency prediction of elastically coupled

structures due to neglect of rotational stiffness of the coupling components, i.e., bushings,
will be investigated preliminarily by using simple beamlike structures prior to actual
vehicle substructures.
An FE model of elastically coupled beamlike structure depicted in Figure 1 was
constructed such that the stiffness and range of frequency of substructures might be close
to those of real vehicle substructures. The rotational stiffness of bushings at two coupling
points was taken from one of those for real vehicles as a value of 1,628 Nm/rad.
Table 1 shows natural frequencies from FE analysis of the assembled structure as the
rotational stiffness for the bushings was reduced by halves in four steps and finally to
 Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency estimation 219

zero, where it can be seen that the first and second natural frequencies have not changed
while the third to sixth natural frequencies have shifted down with decrease of the
rotational stiffness of the bushings. So, it is confirmed that the natural frequencies of the
coupled structure shifts down in general but in different format, depending on the
magnitude of the rotational stiffness of bushings and the mode of interest.
The FRF coupling analysis of the two beamlike substructures in Figure 1 was done by
generating the FRF matrices of the substructures A and B. Dimension of the FRF matrices
A B
H cc and H cc at the two coupling points is 4 × 4 with the rotational DOF and 2 × 2
without the rotational DOF. Natural frequencies of the whole structure obtained by the
FRF coupling with and without rotational stiffness taken into account by equations (3)
and (5) respectively are presented in Table 2. The results by the FRF coupling analysis
are almost the same as those in Table 1 obtained by the direct FE analysis of the
assembled structure as expected, which confirms the validity of equations (3) and (4) for
the substructure synthesis.

Figure 1 A beamlike structure coupled by both translational and rotational stiffness (see online
version for colours)

Table 1 Natural frequencies by FE analysis on the assembled structure with bushings of

various rotational stiffness

Rational stiffness Natural frequency (Hz)

Case
(Nm/rad) Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6
1 1,628.0 4.3 5.1 24.0 72.0 144.0 202.0
2 651.2 4.3 5.1 24.0 71.1 143.0 180.9
3 325.6 4.3 5.1 24.0 71.1 140.0 162.0
4 162.8 4.3 5.1 23.8 70.2 134.1 149.0
5 81.4 4.3 5.1 23.0 69.0 121.0 146.0
6 0 4.3 5.1 22.1 66.8 98.1 144.1
220 H-j. Kim and K-j. Kim

Table 2 Natural frequencies by FRF coupling analysis of two substructures with/without

rotational stiffness taken into account in case 1

Mode no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Natural Including RDOF FRFs 4.3 5.1 24.0 72.0 144.0 202.0
frequency (Hz)
Excluding RDOF FRFs 4.3 5.1 22.1 66.8 98.1 144.0
Difference 0.0 0.0 1.9 5.0 45.9 57.9

Figure 2 Mode shapes by FRF coupling analysis with/without rotational stiffness of bushings,
(a) R-DOF stiffness included (b) free R-DOF (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

Figure 2 depicts the mode shapes of the coupled structure obtained by generating the
FRFs with and without the rotational DOF at the coupling coordinates. The shapes of the
first to fourth modes have not changed much although frequencies have shifted down
slightly for the third and fourth modes. Special attention needs to be paid on the fifth and
sixth modes. The shape of the sixth mode at 202.0 Hz obtained with the rotational
stiffness of the bushings taken into account showed up as the fifth mode at 98.1 Hz, a
frequency far lower than the previous fifth mode value of 144 Hz when the rotational
stiffness of the bushings was neglected.
 Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency estimation 221

Figure 3 Two extreme illustrations of rotational stiffness of bushings, (a) in-phase rotational
displacements (b) out-of-phase rotational displacements (see online version
for colours)

(a) (b)

Figure 4 Direction of angular displacements at two connection points in modes 5 and 6 by

FRF coupling analysis, (a) mode 5 at 144 Hz (b) mode 6 at 202 Hz (c) modal vector
at coupling coordinates (144 Hz) (d) modal vector at coupling coordinates (202 Hz)
(see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

The significant effects of excluding the rotational DOFs at the coupling coordinates as
mentioned above can be understood better by taking some extreme examples of mode
shapes as in Figure 3. When the two coupling points of the beam structure deform
in-phase in the rotational DOF as shown in Figure 3(a), role of the rotational stiffness of
the coupling elements would be insignificant and, hence, downshift of natural frequency
due to neglect of the rotational DOF at the coupling coordinates would be negligible.
When they deform out-of-phase as shown in Figure 3(b), role of the rotational stiffness of
the coupling elements would be high and, hence, downshift of the natural frequency
would not be negligible. Therefore, importance of the rotational stiffness of bushings will
increase with the frequency because more nodal points or slope changes would be
expected with increase of the frequency.
Figure 4 shows the shapes of modes 5 and 6 at 144 and 202 Hz respectively together
with the sign of slopes at the coupling coordinates of each substructure when the
rotational stiffness of the bushings was taken into account. The slopes of the two
sub-beams in the mode 5 at 144 Hz are in-phase whereas those in the mode 6 at 202 Hz
are out-of-phase. Therefore, it could be expected that neglect of the rotational stiffness
would yield far more errors in the mode 6.
222 H-j. Kim and K-j. Kim

4 Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings between front axle and body in

a vehicle system

4.1 FRF coupling of front axle and body in a vehicle system

The vehicle system under study consists of a front axle (substructure A) and a vehicle
body (substructure B) as shown in Figure 5. The substructure B includes a rear axle but it
is expressed as a vehicle body for convenience. The two substructures were coupled by
four pair of bushings of different shapes, each of which works as a translational
three-DOF and rotational three-DOF stiffness element. Both substructures were
elastically supported by tyres on the ground. That is, the coupled structure is a usual
vehicle at standstill.

Figure 5 FE models of two substructures, (a) substructure A: front axle (b) substructure B:
vehicle body (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

Figure 6 shows coupling and slave coordinates of the front axle substructure. The
coupling coordinates are the DOFs at which the substructure A is connected to the
substructure B through bushings. The slave coordinates, described by ER:01, ER:02, and
EH:03, are the DOFs at which the external forces can be applied, e.g., by an exciter or
A
engine. For the substructure A, dimension of the FRF matrix H cc among the eight
A
coupling coordinates is 48 × 48 by 6 × 6 per each coordinate, the one of H cs between
coupling and slave coordinates is 48 × 12, and the one of H ssA among slave coordinates is
12 × 12.
The substructure B has also 48 coupling coordinates, which matches with those of
B
substructure A one by one. That is, dimension of the coupling FRF matrix H cc is 48 × 48
B
while the one of the cross FRF matrix H sc is m × 48, where m is the number of response
coordinates of concern, e.g., for mode shape generation.
All of the FRF matrices for the substructures A and B were obtained from FE model
of each substructure by using modal superposition method in Craig and Kurdila (2006).
For this, the modal parameters were calculated from the spatial model by means of
Lanczos method in Craig and Kurdila (2006), which is known as a competitive algorithm
for a large sparse matrix eigenvalue problem. In the modal superposition method, effects
of higher mode truncation were compensated in a static scheme by employing residual
vectors using MSC/NASTRAN (2005). These residual modes {ψ}t can be obtained by
the following steps.
 Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency estimation 223

Step 1 Determine base vectors from static response due to unit load.
Step 2 Remove linearly dependent vectors.

Step 3 Orthogonalise the base vectors relative to the retained modes to ensure the
diagonal mass and stiffness matrices.

Figure 6 Three slave and eight coupling coordinates of front axle (see online version for colours)

The residual modes can be attached to the modal matrix [Φ] of a given dimension,
truncated somehow, to make a new transformation matrix [T] = [Φ‫׀‬ψ]. By using this
transformation matrix, dynamic equations of motion of each substructure from the FE
model were transformed into the modal coordinates and the required FRF matrices were
obtained by transformation back to the physical coordinates.
In equation (1), the sub-matrix K in the kernel represents the stiffness of coupling
elements or bushings. Each bushing of a given geometry and material properties was
analysed by solid FE model to derive an equivalent translational three-DOF and
rotational three-DOF stiffness matrices at the geometric centre of the bushing. The
equivalent stiffness matrix of the solid bushings was obtained based on the static
reduction method found in Craig (2006), which can be represented as follows:

ˆ = TT KT = ⎡I T ⎤ ⎡ K aa K as ⎤ ⎡ I aa ⎤
K Tsa ⎦ ⎢K = K aa − K Tsa K −ss1K sa (14)
aa ⎣ aa
⎣ sa K ss ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣Tsa ⎥⎦

Here, the subscript a denotes the DOFs at the geometric centre of the bushing and s the
remaining DOFs in the FE model of a bushing and the transformation matrix T can be
represented as follows:

⎡ I ⎤ ⎡ I aa ⎤
T = ⎢ aa ⎥ = ⎢ −1 ⎥ (15)
⎣ Tsa ⎦ ⎣⎢ −K ss K sa ⎦⎥
224 H-j. Kim and K-j. Kim

Figure 7 shows a schematic diagram for the FRF coupling of two substructures by eight
bushings. Equation (1) which represents all of the FRFs was utilised for the coupling
process although the schematic diagram shows only the transfer FRFs between input and
response coordinates of substructure A and B just for simplicity.

Figure 7 Diagram for FRF coupling analysis of vehicle body and front axle with four pair of
bushings between two substructures (see online version for colours)

4.2 Effects of bushings’ rotational stiffness on natural frequencies of coupled

structure
Figure 8 shows coordinates or locations of the inputs and outputs on the front axle in the
FRF estimations by the coupling analysis. One or a few FRFs might suffice to investigate
effects of excluding the RDOF at the coupling coordinates on the errors in the natural
frequency prediction when the underlying system is a very simple and the frequency
range of interest is very low. As we could see even in the relatively simple example of the
beamlike structure, it is not easy to tell how much the downshift in the natural frequency
estimates are without looking into the associated mode shapes together. As the mode
shape becomes more complicated, identification of relevant modes just by looking at the
mode shapes with eyes becomes more difficult. Therefore, the modal assurance criterion
 Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency estimation 225

(MAC) in Maia and Silva (1997), which can unveil similarity of two relevant modes, was
computed between the mode shapes with and without the rotational stiffness of bushings.

Figure 8 Wire frame model of front axle with input and response points (see online version
for colours)

Notes: • • – response points and • – input points

Table 3 shows the MAC values of 20 mode shapes between the two different treatments
of the rotational stiffness of the eight bushings, where it can be seen how much the
downshift of a mode in its natural frequency occurred by neglecting the rotational
stiffness of bushings based on comparison between a pair of modes of highest MAC
value. The natural frequencies of 88.0, 98.8, 115.9, and 195.9 Hz have shifted down to
83.1, 88.0, 111.4, and 187.2 Hz respectively. The modes at 130.4, 135.5, 138.4, 144.6,
152.5, 158.8, and 160.0 Hz show negligible downshifts less than 0.5 Hz.
Table 4 summarises four largest downshifts in the natural frequencies from 99, 196,
116, and 88 Hz by 11, 9, 5, and 5 Hz respectively, which can be an approximate guide
line in effects of neglecting the rotational stiffness of bushings on the underestimation of
the natural frequencies for a passenger vehicle.
Subsequently, contribution of each bushing to the natural frequency underestimation
was investigated to determine the order of experimental investment onto actual
measurements of the rotational stiffness of bushings. For this purpose, the rotational
stiffness of four pairs of bushings was neglected one pair by one pair in the natural
frequency estimations. The results for the most serious four modes in Table 4 are shown
in Table 5, where it is seen that A_BUSH located on the node FE:13/14 of the front axle
shown in Figure 6 contributed most significantly to the underestimation of all of the four
natural frequencies 88, 99, 116, and 196 Hz. The D_BUSH located on the node FE:05/06
in Figure 6 affected the 88 and 116 Hz to a less extent and the L_BUSH and S_BUSH
located on the nodes FE:05/06 and FE:07/08 respectively did not contributed at all
practically to the inaccurate estimation of the natural frequencies. Therefore, priority in
the experimental measurements of the rotational stiffness could be given to the A_BUSH
and then to the D_BUSH.
226 H-j. Kim and K-j. Kim

Table 3 MAC Values between modes with/without rotational stiffness of bushings (in %)
 Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency estimation 227

Table 4 Natural frequencies with largest errors due to exclusion of rotational stiffness
of bushings

Natural frequency (Hz)

Including RDOF FRFs Excluding RDOF FRFs Difference
88 83 –5
99 88 –11
116 111 –5
196 187 –9

Table 5 Effects of rotational stiffness of each bushing in underestimation of natural

frequencies

Natural frequency (Hz)

88 99 116 196
Effect of L_BUSH 0 0 0 0
each bushing S_BUSH 0 0 0 0
A_BUSH –5 –6 –11 –10
D_BUSH –2 0 –2 0

Mode shapes of the front axle part in the coupled structure are shown in Figures 9–12 for
the four modes of concern which are most sensitive to the rotational stiffness of bushing.
Although it is not easy to tell what the differences are between the two shapes with and
without the rotational stiffness taken into account especially because the shapes in print
are at standstill, the differences could be very critical if structures of the vehicle are to be
modified to improve noise and vibration characteristics of the vehicle during the
development process. That is, inaccurate mode shapes resulting from excluding rotational
stiffness of the bushings may lead to wrong structural modifications in spite of cost and
time.

Figure 9 Mode shapes of front axle part of vehicle after FRF coupling, (a) 83 Hz, coupled
without RDOF FRFs (b) 88 Hz, coupled with RDOF FRFs (see online version
for colours)

(a) (b)
228 H-j. Kim and K-j. Kim

Figure 10 Mode shapes of front axle part after FRF coupling, (a) 88 Hz, coupled without RDOF
FRFs (b) 99 Hz, coupled with RDOF FRFs (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

Figure 11 Mode shapes of front axle part after FRF coupling, (a) 111 Hz, coupled without RDOF
FRFs (b) 116 Hz, Including RDOF FRFs (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

Figure 12 Mode shapes of front axle part after FRF coupling, (a) 187 Hz, coupled without RDOF
FRFs (b) 196 Hz, coupled with RDOF FRFs (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

5 Conclusions

This study dealt with effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency
estimations by the FRF coupling analysis for vehicle applications. Basic formulations for
the coupling analysis have been presented and their validity confirmed by comparative
study on a beamlike structure based on the direct FE analysis of the full structure. Then
the technique was applied to a real vehicle consisting of a front axle and a vehicle body,
from which some conclusions are made as follows:
 Effects of rotational stiffness of bushings on natural frequency estimation 229

1 Natural frequencies of the coupled structure shift down in general as the rotational
stiffness of bushings installed between two substructures is not reflected properly in
the FRF coupling analysis. The extent of downshift depends highly on the mode
shapes and increases with the increase of frequency.
2 The results from a passenger vehicle illustrate that maximum underestimation of the
natural frequency caused by neglect of rotational stiffness of eight bushings was
11 Hz around 100 Hz. Although such an estimation may include uncertainty due to
approximation of the rotational stiffness of bushings and other factors, it could be a
valuable guide to search for a clue of mismatch between prediction and measurement
in the mid frequency range.
3 When rotational stiffness of bushings is to be measured actually considering high
uncertainty in the prediction of dynamic stiffness for rubber bushings, necessity or
order of experimental investment for the various bushings can be determined by
analysis on the contribution of each bushing.

References
Craig, R.R., Jr. and Kurdila, A.J. (2006) Fundamentals of Structural Dynamics, 2nd ed.,
pp.325–498, John Willey & Sons.
Duarte, M. (1996) ‘Experimentally-derived structural models for use in further dynamic analysis’,
PhD thesis, Imperial College.
Hur, D.J. and Park, T.W. (2001) ‘Vehicle interior noise analysis using frequency response function
based substructural method’, Transactions of the Korea Society for Noise and Vibration
Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.5–12.
Kim, H.S., De-Kerdrel, T., Kim, H.J. and Cho, H.J. (2005) ‘Robust design of vehicle interior noise
using Taguchi method and substructure synthesis method’, Proceedings of the KSNVE Annual
Autumn Conference (vehicle transportation), pp.134–139.
Liu, W. and Ewins, D. (1999) ‘The importance assessment of RDOF in FRF coupling analysis’,
International Modal Analysis Conference.
Maia, N.M.M. and Silva, J.M.M. (1997) Theoretical and Experimental Modal Analysis,
pp.349–352, Research Studio Press LTD.
MSC/NASTRAN Dynamic User’s Guided (2005).

View publication stats