Fundamentals of the Dynamics of

Multidegree of Freedom (MDOF) Systems

Somenath Mukherjee

Structures Division, National Aerospace Laboratories

 The Least Action Principle
Early History of Variational Calculus

Archimedes (287-212 BC)

For the first time in history the principle of virtual work (from virtual displacements) was
discovered and employed by Archimedes to derive the Lever Rule.
F1L1  F2 L2 F11  F2 ( 2 )  0 1 / L1   2 / L2 
Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665 AD)
Discovered the Principle of Least time for optical path. Derived Snell’s Law of Refraction (and
reflection) of light rays using this principle. B
dl
“Nature always acts by the shortest paths”.  v 0 1 sin 1   2 sin  2
A

Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759AD)

Defined a parameter called the Action: (Action=Path Integral of the momentum)
He postulated that Nature always behaves in a way so as to optimize (minimize) this action.
(Euler presented the mathematical proof of this postulate.) B B
I   mg.dl ;   mg.dl  0
A A
Johann Bernnoulli (1667-1748)
Presented the Brachistochrone problem (finding the path of fastest descent between two fixed
points) in Acta Eruditorum and its solution is 1682. Solutions were provided independently by
Isaac Newton, Jacob Bernoulli (elder brother of Johann) and L’ Hospital.
Archimedes’ Lever
Equilibrium of any system under given forces conforms
to the vanishing of the Net Virtual work done by these
forces traveling over the geometrically compatible
virtual displacements:
L1 δ2
δ1 L2
F1L1  F2 L2 F11  F2 ( 2 )  0 1 / L1   2 / L2 

F1 F2
Fermat’s Optical Path
From one fixed point to another, Light travels
along the path of least time joining these points.
Length a 2  (d  x) 2 b2  x2
T AB   
Speed v1 v2 A Medium 1
For the optimized path of least time
dT AB (x  d ) x
a α1
 
dx v1 a 2  (d  x) 2 v 2 b 2  x 2
dT AB (d  x) x
dx
 0
2 2

2 2
Medium 2
v1 a  (d  x) v2 b  x
sin  1 sin  2
 sin 1 sin  2 α2
v1 v2 c1
v1
 c2
v2
d B
c =speed of light in vacuum 1 sin 1   2 sin  2 
c x
v =speed of light in medium v
 sin   Consant
The Brachistochrone
The Path of Fastest Descent under gravity from one point to another.
• Given two fixed points A and B.
• What is the path for shortest time of fall from A to B?
2πR
A x

B
2R
v=√(2gy)
α
y
For the path for shortest time of fall from A to B

B
dl
 0
A
v x=R(-sin )

sin 
 k (Consant ) y=R(1-cos)
v
Speed : v  2 gy The Brachistochrone is a Cycloid
between point A and B.
Radius of generating wheel R=0.25/(k*k*g)
 Hamilton’s Principle and the Euler-Lagrange Equations
Hamilton’s Principle of Least Action:
Nature determines the path of any particle from point 1 to point 2 in a way
so as to minimize the Action I
L=Lagrangian, T=Kinetic Energy, V=Potential Energy
2
I   L(q,q , t )dt L  T V q  q (t )
1
I ( for virtual changes about any path)  I   2 I  ..

For the Action to be a minimum, any

virtual changes about the minimum point
should lead to a net increase in the Action,
i.e.
I ( for virtual changes about min)  0 .

I  0 I  0  2I  0

i.e. The first variation of the Action (δI)

should vanish for small perturbations
(virtual displacements) about the minimum point.
 2

Action I   L(qi ,q i , t ) dt L  T V qi  qi (t ) : generalised co  ordinates

1
2 2
n  L L 
First variation for the Action for any path 1-2 is I   L(qi ,q i , t )dt     qi
 qi  q i dt
1 i 1 1
q 
For the critical path,
2
I  0 Path A
n 2
 L  n 
 L 
2 2
d L  q
0    qi i  
 q  dt   i  
q  q dt
i  Critical Path
i 1   q 1 1 dt q  1
i 1 1 
n 2
 L d L  n  L 
2 1Path B
0    qi dt q i  i 
  q dt  qi  
i 1 1 i 1  qi 1


L 
2

qi (t  t1 )  qi (t  t 2 )  0 t1 t2
t
 i   0
q
 qi 1
L d L
Euler-Lagrange Equation (Conservative Systems)  0
qi dt q i

Euler-Lagrange Equation (Non-Conservative Systems)

L d L
  Qi Qi  Non  conervative generalised force
qi dt q i
n
Virtual _ Work  (Virtual _ displacement )  Physical _ Force   (qi ).Qi
i 1
 Applications of the Least Action Principle
Free Vibration of Single Degree of freedom systems

The Pendulum
1
Kinetic Energy:
1 1
T  mx 2  m l
2 2
 
2
Potential Energy: V
2
mgl (1  cos  )

Euler-Lagrange Equation (Conservative Systems) L d L

 0 L  T V
 dt 

g
Equation of Motion ml 2  mgl. sin   0    . sin   0
l

Linear Analysis (small oscillations)

g  l
    0
l
  A. sin( n t   )
Natural frequency and Time Period
g 1 g 1 l
n  (rad / sec) fn  ( Hz )   2 (sec)
l 2 l fn g
 Applications of the Least Action Principle
Free Vibration of Single Degree of freedom systems

The Spring-Mass model

1 1 2
Kinetic Energy: T  mx 2 Potential Energy: V kx
2 2

Euler-Lagrange Equation (Conservative Systems) L d L

 0 L  T V
x dt x

Equation of Motion (free vibration) mx  kx  0 k

m x(t)
Solution (free vibration) x  A. sin(nt   )
Natural frequency and Time Period

k 1 k 1 m
n  (rad / sec) fn  ( Hz )   2 (sec)
m 2 m fn k
 Applications of the Least Action Principle
Free Vibration of Two Degree of freedom systems
The Spring-Mass model
1 2 1 2
Kinetic Energy: T  m1 x1  m2 x 2
2 2 L d L
 0 L  T V
1 2 1 x1 dt x1
Potential Energy: V  k1 x1  k 2( x2  x1 ) 2
2 2 L d L
 0
Euler-Lagrange Equation (Conservative Systems) x2 dt x 2

Equation of Motion (free vibration)

m1 0   x1  k1  k 2  k 2   x1  0 k1 k2
 0 m   x     k    
k 2   x2  0
 2  2   2 m1 m2
 x1   A1 
Solution     . sin(nt   ) x2(t)
 x2   A2  x1(t)

2  m1 0   A1  k1  k 2  k 2   A1  0 k1  k 2  k2  2  m1 0

 n        det   n   0
0 m2   A2    k 2 k 2   A2  0   k2 k 2   0 m2

 A1,1   A1, 2 
Eigenvalues and Eigen-modes 12 : 1    2 2 : 2    
 A2 ,1   A2 , 2 
 Free Vibration of Two Degree of freedom systems

The Spring-Mass model (Continued)

Orthgonality of the Eigen-modes (Normal modes)

1 T [ K ] 2    2 T [ K ]1   0 1 T [ K ]1   k11  2 T [ K ] 2   k 22

1 T [ M ] 2    2 T [ M ]1   0 1 T [ M ]1   m11  2 T [ K ] 2   m22
k11 k 22
1  2 
m11 m22

 x1  q 
Modal Decoupling:    q1 (t )1  q 2 (t ) 2   1 
,  2  1 
 x2  q 2 

m11 0   q1  k11 0   q1  0

 0        
 m22  q2   0 k 22  q 2  0
 Prediction of scaled generalised stiffness
and mass for a given mode from GVT

Objective:
1. To determine generalised stiffness (and mass) from GVT data for a
given mode on
(a) Mode shape.
(b) Damping.
(c) Point Impedance (or Transfer Function).

2. Prediction of Response and Flutter (using modal superposition) from

scaled modes, generalised stiffness and mass (computed from GVT
data).

Proposed Method for characterisation from experiment:

Generalised stiffness for a given mode (scaled to unity at a reference
point P) can be obtained from the peak (resonant) Point Impedance
at P.
 Formulation
Equation of motion for n-degree of motion in the modal domain (for harmonic
excitation)
mi=generalized mass

mi  i T M i 
mi qi  ci q i  ki qi  f i (t ,  ) ki=generalized stiffness
i  1,2,3........n ki = mi ω i 2
ki  i T K i 
ci=modal damping
ci  2 ii mi
fi=generalized force
f i  i T F .sin t
{Ф}i=modal vector for ith
mode
2

 
2  
2
 
 2 i  
  
Modal Impedance
Zi i,n   ki 1    
    n,i   n,i 
     
 

 ( x  x0 ) P0 sin(t  i )i ( x  xi )
X ( x, t )   i
N
Response at x for excitation at x0:
i 1
Zi i,n 
 

Generalised stiffness for mode i: (scaled to unity at point P):

Zi (  i ) Minimum po int impedance at P (resonance )
ki  
2 i 2  Modal damping
 Experimental Modal Analysis (EMA) Theoretical Modal Analysis

Experimental data on Mode Shapes, Natural Frequencies,

Modal Damping Factors, Point Impedances at Resonant Knowledge of stiffness and mass
Frequencies. distributions available.

Scaling of the Experimental Normal Modes to unit value at Generation of Stiffness and Mass
some chosen reference point, P. Matrices, Natural Frequencies and
Mode Shapes.
Experimental determination of Resonant FRF and Impedance
Z at point P.
Modal Damping
Factors to be
used in Analysis
Modal Scaled Impedances Zi(=i) at the Resonant obtained from
Frequencies for the scaled modes are equal to the Point Experiment.
Impedances at P.

Generation of Scaled Generalized Stiffness and Generation of Scaled Generalized Stiffness and
Generalized Mass for each mode from Generalized Mass for each mode from Analysis.
Experimental data.

Computation of Generalized Forces from

Computation of Generalized Forces from Scaled Scaled Analytical Modes.
Experimental Modes.

Computation of Dynamic Response from Computation of Dynamic Response from analytical

experimental modal data. modal data.
 Data Acquisition System
Power
Computer System Amplifier

Cantilever beam
Accelerometers

Force Transducer
Shaker

Schematic diagram of the Experimental setup.

t=0.006 m

b=0.025 m
L=0.51 m

Schematic diagram of the dimension of the beam.

 Results
First mode
Mode Natural Natural Absolute Damping Generalised Generalised
(i) frequency frequency modal Coefficient stiffness mass
fn ωn ,i
Impedance i ki Mi
Z i  ω  ωi 
from ( Kg )
(Hz) (rad/sec) (N/m) experiment (N/m)

Experiment * 17.335 108.8984 1179.6492 0.003247 181652.17 12.7959

F.E.M
16.8835 106.0821 184116.95 16.4722
Nastran*

F.E.M
(In-house
1 16.9481 106.4886 183697.76 16.1993
code)*

Analytical ** 17.2256 108.2318 168541.74 14.3879

* Masses of the 10 accelerometers (each of 4 grams) have been lumped at nodes

** Total mass of the accelerometers, equal to 40 grams, have been smeared as equivalent additional distributed
mass
 First mode
Node Distance Experimental Experimental Corrected Corrected F.E.M Nastran Analytical
number from the mode shape mode shape Experimental Experimental
clamped ( Raw data ) scaled to unit mode shape * mode shape
end value at the scaled to unit
excited node (2) value at the
excited node (2)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0.051 1.05E-04 0.3547 1.05E-04 0.3547 0.2613 0.2626
2 0.102 2.96E-04 1 2.96E-04 1 1 1
3 0.153 6.12E-04 2.0675 6.12E-04 2.0675 2.1380 2.1368
4 0.204 8.34E-04 2.8175 1.0133E-03 3.423 3.6035 3.5992
5 0.255 1.50E-03 5.0675 1.50E-03 5.0675 5.3261 5.3157
6 0.306 2.06E-03 6.9594 2.06E-03 6.9594 7.2396 7.2197
7 0.357 2.74E-03 9.2567 2.74E-03 9.2567 9.2844 9.2511
8 0.408 3.31E-03 11.1824 3.31E-03 11.1824 11.4092 11.3585
9 0.459 3.82E-03 12.9054 3.879E-03 13.1057 13.5741 13.5022
10 0.510 4.48E-03 15.1351 4.449E-03 15.0304 15.7523 15.6565
* Corrected experimental mode shape at node 4 by quadratic interpolation and at nodes 9 and 10 by
linear extrapolation
 First mode
First mode shape scaled to unit value at the excited node(2)
20
Raw mode
16 shapes
Corrected
12
Mode shape

mode shapes
F.E.M Nastran
8
Analytical
4

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Node num ber
( Length of the beam =0.510 m )
 Second mode
Mode Natural Natural Absolute Damping Generalised Generalised
(i) frequency frequency modal Coefficient stiffness mass
fn,i Impedance i ki (N/m) mi
ωn ,i ( Kg )
Z i  ω  ωi  from
(Hz) experiment
(rad / sec) (N/m)

Experiment * 103.131 647.8689 3919.952 0.00649 301999.38 0.7195

F.E.M
104.7025 657.8651 324517.59 0.7549
Nastran*
F.E.M 2
(In-house 106.0798 666.5195 323105.81 0.7273
code)*

Analytical ** 107.9516 678.2803 299561.69 0.6511

* Masses of the 10 accelerometers (each of 4 grams) have been lumped at nodes

** Total mass of the accelerometers, equal to 40 grams, have been smeared as equivalent additional distributed
mass
 Second mode
Node Distance Experimental Experimental Corrected Corrected F.E.M Analytical
numbe from the mode shape mode shape Experimental Experimental Nastran
r clamped (Raw data) scaled to unit mode shape * mode shape
end value at the scaled to unit
exited node value at excited
node (2)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0.051 3.65E-04 0.3613 3.65E-04 0.3613 0.30694 0.30768
2 0.102 1.01E-03 1 1.01E-03 1 1 1.00000
3 0.153 1.70E-03 1.6831 1.70E-03 1.6831 1.75631 1.74763
4 0.204 2.35E-03 2.3267 2.35E-03 2.3267 2.29918 2.27024
5 0.255 2.21E-03 2.1881 2.464E-03 2.4396 2.43054 2.37054
6 0.306 1.83E-03 1.8118 2.068E-03 2.0475 2.05425 1.95803
7 0.357 1.14E-03 1.1287 1.14E-03 1.1287 1.18141 1.05313
8 0.408 -2.4E-04 -0.2376 -2.4E-04 -0.2376 -0.08375 -0.2326
9 0.459 -1.51E-3 -1.4950 -1.51E-3 -1.4950 -1.59806 -1.7397
10 0.510 -2.65E-3 -2.6237 -2.7798E-3 -2.75227 -3.20605 -3.3216

* Corrected at node 5 and 6 by quadratic interpolation and at 10 linear extrapolation

 Second mode

Second mode shape scaled to unit value at the excited

node(2)
3

Experiment raw
2
mode shape
Mode shape

0 Experimental
corrected mode
-1
shape
-2
F.E.M Nastran
-3

-4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Analytical
Node numbers
(Length of the beam =0.510 (m)
 Third mode
Mode Natural Natural Absolute Damping Generalised Generalised
(i) frequency circular modal Coefficient stiffness mass
fn frequency Impedance i ki mi
Z i  ω  ωi  from (N/m)
ωn ,i experiment
( kg )
(Hz)
( rad / sec ) (N/m)

Experiment * 283.425 1780.475 15944.43 0.01305 610897.70 0.1927

F.E.M Nastran
290.4806 1825.143 619541.59 0.18726
*

F.E.M 3
(In-house 296.74701 1864.516 622388.29 0.17903
code)*

Analytical ** 302.2676 1899.203 585221.91 0.16224

* Masses of the 10 accelerometers (each of 4 grams) have been lumped at nodes

** Total mass of the accelerometers, equal to 40 grams, have been smeared as equivalent additional distributed
mass
 Third mode

Node Distance Experimental Experimental mode F.E.M Nastran Analytical

number from the mode shape shape
clamped (Raw data) scaled to unit value at
end the excited node
0 0 0 0 0.00E+00 0
1 0.051 6.17E-4 4.36E-01 3.74E-01 0.37728
2 0.102 1.42E-3 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1
3 0.153 1.61E-3 1.14E+00 1.28E+00 1.25100
4 0.204 1.06E-3 7.49E-01 9.37E-01 0.87000
5 0.255 1.32E-4 9.34E-02 1.22E-01 0.03256
6 0.306 -1.18E-3 -8.33E-01 -7.21E-01 -0.7837
7 0.357 -1.5E-4 -1.06E+00 -1.10E+00 -1.0875
8 0.408 -9.77E-4 -6.91E-01 -7.67E-01 -0.6532
9 0.459 4.12E-4 2.91E-01 2.04E-01 0.3780
10 0.510 1.93E-03 1.37E+00 1.49E+00 1.6542
 Third mode

Third mode shape scaled to unit value at the excited node(2)

2.00E+00

1.50E+00

1.00E+00
F.E.M Nastran
Mode shape

5.00E-01
Analytical
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 2.00E+00 4.00E+00 6.00E+00 8.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.20E+01 Experiment
-5.00E-01

-1.00E+00

-1.50E+00
Node number
( Length of the beam = 0.510 m )
Response results with first three modes due to harmonic excitation of unit amplitude
(F=1.sin t (N)) at the nodal position x L =0.102 m (a) Amplitude of response at the
loading position xR=0.102 m (b) Phase Lag  of response w.r.t Load.
Response results at the free end x R=0.51 m with superposition first three mode alone due
to harmonic excitation of unit amplitude (F=1.sin t (N)) at the nodal position xL =0.102
m (a) Amplitude of response (b) Phase Lag  of response w.r.t. Load.
 F(t) N Response at xR =xL=0.102 m

F(t)
Excitation point xL=0.102 m
xL
Fo=1 N
L=0.510 m

t (sec)
T=0.5 sec

Time history of the load and transient response (EMA) at the loading point
xL=0.102m of the cantilever beam using the first four modes.
 Proposed Method for Flutter Analysis
Equation for Flutter Analysis by Modal Superposition

   2     T A   0
Experimental Scaled Generalized Stiffness Matrix (Diagonal):     T K  
Experimental Scaled Generalized Mass Matrix (Diagonal) :     T M  
Experimental Scaled Modal Matrix:    [{1},{ 2}.....{n}]
Theoretical Aerodynamic Force Matrix (Unsymmetric): A
At some critical aerodynamic parameter  (depending on the dynamic
pressure or flow velocity) the Realpart of turns positive (unstable) from
negative values.

This critical value of the flow speed is the flutter speed of the
structure which is to be determined.
 Future Work
Extension of the method to flat plates for predicting generalised stiffness and
mass (scaled to unit modal displacement at reference point) for both torsion and
bending modes.

Prediction of Flutter Boundary of a flat plate using experimental modal data

and computed generalised stiffness and mass. Suitable aerodynamic models will
be used for the purpose.

Extension to more complex structures; HANSA

Prediction of Flutter Boundary of prototype aircraft of known configuration (HANSA).
Results to be benchmarked with actual FE models with detailed properties.

Extension to predict flutter of aircraft of unknown properties (MIG, SUKHOI

etc.)