Nonlinear Dyn (2016) 83:1643–1652

DOI 10.1007/s11071-015-2437-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Suppressing forced vibrations of structures using smart

vibro-impact systems
Aref Afsharfard

Received: 8 March 2015 / Accepted: 3 October 2015 / Published online: 2 November 2015
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract In the present study, forced vibration of 1 Introduction

an oscillator equipped with the tuned mass damper
and the impact damper is investigated. In the impact The mechanical systems whose elements contact with
damper system, elastic contact between masses is each other are widely investigated in mechanical engi-
described using the Hertzian contact model and the neering researches [1,2]. One of the well-known vibro-
energy loss during each contact is considered using impact systems, which can widely be used in mechan-
a viscous damper. Application of the conventional ical systems to suppress vibrations, is impact damper.
impact dampers for suppressing forced vibrations is The impact damper is a small loose mass within a main
studied with changing the mass ratio and restitution mass, which can extensively be applied to attenuate
coefficient. Furthermore, variable coefficient of restitu- the undesirable vibration of robot arms, turbine blades
tion impact dampers are used to attenuate forced vibra- and so on [3–5]. In the past few years, behavior of the
tion. To improve application of the conventional impact impact dampers has experimentally, analytically and
dampers, the barriers of these systems are equipped numerically been investigated [6–9]. It is shown that in
with the MR fluid dampers, and for convenience, this neighborhood of the first and second resonances, the
kind of impact dampers is simply named as smart impact dampers would operate more efficiently than
impact dampers. Effect of changing the input electri- classical dampers [2]. Son et al. [10] proposed active
cal current and contact speed is studied on applica- momentum exchange impact dampers to suppress the
tion of the smart impact dampers. Finally, it is shown first large peak value of the acceleration response due
that the smart impact dampers can suppress undesired to a shock load. Bapat and Sankar [11] showed that
forced vibrations stronger than their equivalent impact the coefficient of restitution has a great effect on the
dampers and tuned mass dampers. performance of impact dampers. Cheng and Xu [9]
obtained a relation between coefficient of restitution
Keywords Smart impact damper · Viscous–Hertz and impact damping ratio. They also derived expres-
contact · Forced vibration · Tuned mass damper sions for the initial displacements and state-dependent
impact damping. Furthermore, they showed that reduc-
tion in the vibration response depends on the collision
that occurs while the impact mass and the main mass
are moving toward each other. For dissipating unde-
A. Afsharfard (B)
Mechanical Engineering Department, Ferdowsi University
sired seismic energy applied to structures, Nucera et al.
of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran [12] designed a set of vibro-impact nonlinear energy
e-mail: afsharfard@um.ac.ir sinks (NESs), which are locally attached to the main

123
1644 A. Afsharfard

vibratory structure. They showed that using the vibro- pressing forced vibrations of the main vibratory mass is
impact NESs, the seismic energy can locally be dis- compared.
sipated without spreading back to the main structure.
AL-Shudeifata et al. [13] used different NES designs
based on the use of a single vibro-impact NES on the 2 Mathematical modeling of the impact damper
top floor (Design I), or a combination of a vibro-impact and the tuned mass damper
NES on the lowest floor and an NES with smooth essen-
tial stiffness nonlinearity on the top floor (Design II). 2.1 Modeling a vibratory system with impact damper
They concluded that the both designs are suitable for and tuned mass damper
structural seismic mitigation against both near-field and
far-field earthquakes of modest intensity. Furthermore, Schematic model of a vibratory system with linear stiff-
for improving application of impact dampers, MR flu- ness K , main mass M and viscous damping C, with a
ids dampers are used in barrier of impact damper of free tuned mass damper m, is shown in part (a) of Fig. 1.
vibrations [14]. It should be noted that the MR fluids Furthermore, in part (b) of this figure, the main vibra-
in mechanical systems have been extensively investi- tory system, which is equipped with an impact damper
gated [15,16]. The reason for this interest lies in the fact with gap size d, is illustrated.
that MR fluids can provide a simple and rapid response As shown in Fig. 1a, the differential equations of the
interface between electronic controls and mechanical main and secondary masses motion for the vibratory
systems [17]. system with the tuned mass damper can be given by:
Although many researchers have investigated appli- ⎧
⎪ M ẍ + C ẋ + K x + c (ẋ − ẏ) + k (x − y)
cations of impact dampers, on free vibration of struc- ⎪
⎪
⎨ = F cos (ηt) ; x(0) = X , ẋ(0) = Ẋ (1)
tures, there are still several shortcomings in this area of 0 0 0
research that should be noticed. The effect of impact ⎪
⎪ m ÿ = c (ẋ − ẏ) + k (x − y) ;
⎪
⎩
dampers on forced vibration of vibratory systems is y(0) = Y0 , ẏ(0) = Ẏ0 (2)
one of the important aspects, which needs to be fur-
ther investigated. The main goal of the present study
where η is the excitation frequency. As shown in part (b)
is to study application of the vibro-impact systems for
of Fig. 1, when |x − y| < d/2, the impact mass moves
suppressing the forced vibrations of mechanical sys-
within the main mass without causing any collision.
tems.
Therefore, it can be concluded when the impact mass
In the present study, a conventional single unit
moves between barriers, the above equations can be
impact damper (or simply “impact damper”) is pre-
used to describe the dynamic behavior of the vibratory
sented as a combination of nonlinear springs and
system with the impact damper. The above equations
viscous dampers. The nonlinear springs are used to
can be rewritten as follows:
describe the Hertzian contact between the impact mass  
and the barriers connected to the main mass. Appli- d2 x C dx c dx dy
+ +x+ −
cation of the impact dampers for attenuating forced dτ 2 MΩ dτ MΩ dτ dτ
k  η
vibrations is investigated. In doing so, effect of chang-
+ (x − y) = xst cos τ ; x(0)
ing the main parameters of constant coefficient of K Ω
restitution (CCR) impact dampers and variable coef- dx
= X 0, = X 0 (3)
ficient of restitution (VCR) impact dampers is studied. dτ τ =0
To improve ability of the impact dampers, the barri-  
d2 y c dx dy ω2
ers of these systems are equipped with the MR fluid = − + 2 (x − y) ;
dτ 2 mΩ dτ dτ 
dampers. Such modern vibro-impact systems, which
dy
briefly named as smart impact dampers, can be con- y(0) = Y0 , = Y0 (4)
trolled using the electrical input current [18]. Effects dτ τ =0
of varying the input current on the restitution coef- Note that, in the above equation xst = F0 /K , ω2 =
ficient of the smart impact damper are investigated. k/m, Ω 2 = K /M, τ = Ωt. In case of the vibro-
Finally, application of the equivalent conventional and impact system, when |x − y| ≥ d/2 the impact mass
smart impact dampers and tuned mass dampers for sup- collides with the barriers connected to the main mass.

123
Suppressing forced vibrations 1645

Fig. 1 Schematic of a (A) (B)

vibratory system with a y y
d/2 d/2
tuned mass damper (a) and K Fc Fc
an impact damper (b)
K
k c
m m c
k

C M Fcos(ηt)
0 C Fcos(ηt)
M 0

x x

During the contacts, a part of kinetic energy of masses coefficient, respectively. In these figures, it should be
converted to heat and sound. Therefore, the relative noted when the relative displacement of masses (y − x)
velocity of masses after each contact is smaller than is equal to zero, the restitution or compression speed
the relative velocity of masses before contact. Velocity (d(y − x)/dτ ) is not zero. Therefore, regarding to Eq.
of the masses after each contact can be defined using (7), the contact force (Fc ) is not equal to zero when the
the following relations: relative displacement is zero.
      To calculate the coefficient of restitution, the energy
dx 1+e dy 1−μe d x
= μ + (5) loss during each contact should be calculated. In doing
dτ ia 1+μ dτ ib 1+μ dτ ib
      so, the following relation can be used:
dy μ−e dy 1+e dx
= + (6)
dτ ia 1+μ dτ ib 1+μ dτ ib
E = Fc dz (8)
where e is the restitution coefficient and μ is the mass
ratio (μ = m/M). Furthermore, subscripts ia and ib
represent the values of variables at just after and before In the above equation, z is the relative displacement of
the ith impact, respectively. In the present study, the the masses during contact. The above relation shows
above relations will be used in the conventional impact that the energy loss is equal to the surface within the
dampers with constant coefficient of restitution. contact force loop, which is shown in Fig. 2. Therefore,
it can be concluded that unlike the Hertzian contact
stiffness, increasing ceq leads to increase the energy
2.2 The coefficient of restitution loss during each contact. Using the energy loss and the
kinetic energy concepts, the coefficient of restitution
In the present study, the contact force between masses can be calculated as follows [19]:
is described using the Hertzian contact model and the
viscous damping. In other word, the contact force is   1/2
2E 1 1
given by: e = 1− + (9)
(d (y − x)/dτ )ib
2 m M
d (y − x)
Fc = K Hz (y − x)3/2 + ceq (7) Regarding to the above equation, the restitution coeffi-
dτ
cient varies with energy loss, contact velocity and mass
where K Hz is the Hertzian contact stiffness and ceq ratio. It should be noted the energy loss in each con-
is the equivalent damping coefficient of contact. The tact is related to the equivalent damping coefficient.
above contact force, which is written based on the Variation of the coefficient of restitution with respect
Hertzian contact model and the viscous damping, is to the equivalent damping coefficient, contact velocity
simply named as viscous–Hertz contact force [6]. Vari- and mass of the main mass is depicted in Fig. 3. As
ation of the viscous–Hertz contact force versus the rel- shown in this figure, increasing the equivalent damp-
ative displacement of the collided masses is shown in ing coefficient leads to decrease in the coefficient of
Fig. 2. In this figure, parts (a) and (b) are depicted to restitution. Furthermore, it is shown that changing the
show variation of the presented contact force with the contact velocity leads to change in coefficient of restitu-
Hertzian contact stiffness and the equivalent damping tion. Therefore, it can be concluded that the coefficient

123
1646 A. Afsharfard

Fig. 2 Variation of the (A) (B) 0.03

viscous–Hertz force versus ceq=0.2N.m/s , KHz=3000N/m3/2 ceq=0.0N.m/s , KHz=3000N/m3/2
0.04 3/2
the relative displacement ceq=0.2N.m/s , KHz=6000N/m 0.025 ceq=0.2N.m/s , KHz=3000N/m3/2
with varying K Hz (a) and ceq=0.2N.m/s , KHz=9000N/m 3/2
ceq=0.4N.m/s , KHz=3000N/m3/2
0.03 0.02
ceq (b)
0.015

F (N)

F (N)
0.02 Compression
Compression

c
0.01

0.01 0.005
Restitution
Restitution
0
0
-0.005
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 1 2 3
-4 -4
y-x (m) x 10 y-x (m) x 10

(A) 0.4 (B) 0.4 1

0.9
0.9
0.85 0.3
0.3
0.8 0.8

c (N.s/m)
(N.s/m)

0.75
0.2 0.2 0.7
0.7
eq
eq

0.65 0.6
c

0.6
0.1
0.1
0.55 0.5

0 e
0 e 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
2 4 6 8 10 12
M (kg)
d(y-x)/dτ (m/s)

Fig. 3 Variation of the coefficient of restitution versus the equivalent damping, the contact velocity and (a) and the main mass (m = 50 g)

of restitution is not constant during application of an Table 1 Parameters for the vibratory system with impact damper
impact damper because the contact velocity varies in and tuned mass damper
each contact between the main and impact masses. Vibratory parameters Initial conditions
√ √
c/ km C/ KM ω/Ω d/xst X0 X 0 Y0 Y0
0.1 0.1 1.0 5 0 0 0 0
3 Forced vibration of the main vibratory system

In this section, effect of changing the main parame-

Blazejczyk-Okolewska [2], are listed in Table 1. Fur-
ters of the discussed vibratory systems is numerically
thermore, note that in numerical simulations, the step-
investigated on forced vibrations of the main oscillatory
size for changing η/Ω and plotting figures is equal to
mass without vibration absorber and when it equipped
0.005.
with:

(a) tuned mass damper

(b) impact dampers with constant coefficient of resti- 3.1 Vibration of main mass without tuned mass
tution (or simply CCR impact dampers) damper and impact damper
(c) impact damper with variable coefficient of restitu-
tion (or simply VCR impact dampers) The frequency resonance diagram of the main vibra-
tory system without the secondary mass (m) is shown
The nominal values of model parameters of the main in part (a) of Fig. 4. As shown in this figure, near the
vibratory system equipped with the impact damper natural frequency of the main vibratory system, the
and tuned mass damper, correspond to the study of dynamic response is nearly ten times bigger than the

123
Suppressing forced vibrations 1647

Fig. 4 Dimensionless (A) 12 (B) 15

response of the main η/Ω=1.000
10 10
vibratory mass versus x/x =9.850
st
dimensionless frequency 8 5

st
(a); and dimensionless

st

x/x
6

x/x
0
displacement of the main
mass versus the 4 -5
dimensionless time (b) 2 -10
0 -15
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
η /Ω τ

Fig. 5 Dimensionless 12 12
response of the main 10 10
η/Ω=0.845 η/Ω=0.835
vibratory mass versus x/xst=6.861 x/xst=7.034
8 8
dimensionless frequency
st

st
η/Ω=1.175 η/Ω=1.190
x/x

when it equipped with the 6 6

x/x
x/xst=3.666 x/xst=3.461
impact damper with the 4 4
tuned mass damper
2 2
(ω/Ω = 1)
0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η/Ω η/Ω
(μ =1/10) (μ =1/8)

12 12
10 η/Ω=0.815 10 η/Ω=0.775
x/xst=7.373 x/xst=7.780
8 8
st

6 η/Ω=1.235 st
x/x

6
x/x
x/xst=3.224 η/Ω=1.280
4 x/xst=2.891
4
2 2
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η/Ω η /Ω
(μ =1/6) (μ =1/4)

static response of the system. The time response of Furthermore, in Fig. 5 it is shown that unlike the sec-
the main vibratory mass versus the dimensionless time ond peak of vibration, the maximum response of the
when η = Ω is shown in part (b) of Fig. 4. main vibratory system increases when the mass ratio
increases.
3.2 Vibration of main mass with tuned mass damper
3.3 Vibration of main mass with CCR impact dampers
Note that the main aim of using the tuned mass dampers
and the impact damper is to suppress undesired vibra- Response of the main vibratory mass equipped with the
tion, when the excitation frequency is equal to the nat- CCR impact damper with varying the mass ratio and
ural frequency of the main vibratory systems. The fre- the coefficient of restitution is shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
quency response of the main mass equipped with the As shown in these figures, if the mass ratio decreases,
tuned mass damper is shown in Fig. 5. Effect of chang- the chaotic regions will extend toward each other and
ing the mass ratio (μ) on first and second peaks of the one chaotic region will be formed. Furthermore, it can
dimensionless vibration amplitude (x/xst ) is shown in be concluded that increasing the coefficient of restitu-
this figure. Comparison between Figs. 4 and 5 shows tion in each mass ratio leads to increase the maximum
that the tuned mass damper effectively decreases, vibra- response of the main vibratory system and maximum
tion amplitude of the main vibratory mass near the nat- vibration amplitude of the main mass decreases when
ural frequency of the main vibratory system (η = Ω). the mass ratio increases.

123
1648 A. Afsharfard

Fig. 6 Dimensionless 12 12
e=0.6 e=0.6
response of the main 10 x/xst=8.197 10 x/x =7.853
vibratory mass versus 8 8
st

dimensionless frequency

st

st
6 6

x/x

x/x
when it equipped with the x/x =3.018 x/x =3.327
st
CCR impact damper 4 4 st

(e = 0.6, ω/Ω = 1) 2 2
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η/Ω η/Ω
(μ =1/10) (μ =1/8)

12 12
e=0.6 e=0.6
10 10
x/x =7.465 x/xst=6.846
st 8
8

st
st

x/x
6 6
x/x

x/xst=3.465 x/x =3.229

4 4 st

2 2
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η /Ω η /Ω
(μ =1/6) (μ =1/4)

Fig. 7 Dimensionless 12 12
x/xst=9.762 e=0.9 e=0.9
response of the main 10 10 x/xst=8.197
vibratory mass versus 8 8
dimensionless frequency
st

st
6 6
x/x

x/x

when it equipped with the

4 x/xst=2.717 4 x/xst=3.018
CCR impact damper
(e = 0.9, ω/Ω = 1) 2 2
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η/Ω η/Ω
(μ =1/10) (μ =1/8)

12 12
x/x =9.763 e=0.9 x/x =9.215 e=0.9
st
10 10 st

8 8
st

st

6
x/x

6
x/x

4 x/x =3.012 4
st x/xst=2.654
2 2
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η /Ω η /Ω
(μ =1/6) (μ =1/4)

3.4 Vibration of main mass with VCR impact dampers 4 Smart impact damper

Oscillations of the main mass equipped with the VCR In the smart impact dampers, momentum exchange
impact damper with varying the mass are depicted in between the colliding masses (during the contact of the
Fig. 8. Regarding to this figure, increasing the mass impact mass with the barriers) can be controlled using
ratio leads to decrease in the maximum response of the the magnetorheological (MR) fluid damper [14]. The
main vibratory mass. damping force, in the smart impact dampers, is variable

123
Suppressing forced vibrations 1649

Fig. 8 Dimensionless 12
12
Response of the main 10
x/x =9.724
st
x/x =9.702
st
vibratory mass versus 10
dimensionless frequency 8 8

st

st
when it equipped with the 6

x/x
6

x/x
VCR impact damper 4
x/xst=2.995 x/xst=3.078
4
(ω/Ω = 1)
2 2
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η /Ω η /Ω
μ =1/10 μ =1/8
12 12
x/x =9.647 x/xst=8.975
10 st 10
8 8
st

st
6
x/x

x/x
x/xst=2.945 x/xst=2.671
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η /Ω η /Ω
μ =1/6 μ =1/4

Fig. 9 Schematic of the

vibratory system with the
smart impact damper (a)
and barrier of the smart
impact damper (b)

with the input current. Therefore, the damping force ing force a in the smart impact damper is given by
can be controlled externally using the input electrical [20,21]:
current regarding to the contact speed and mass ratio. Fc = K Hz (y − x)3/2 + Fd (10)
The vibratory system equipped with the smart impact  
Fd = c1 ψ̇ − ẋ + k1 (y − x) (11)
damper is schematically shown in part (a) of Fig. 9. The
impact mass, which is collided with the main vibratory where k1 is accumulator stiffness and c1 is viscous
mass, in the smart impact damper is shown in part (b) damping for force roll-off, which is more significant
of Fig. 9. at low relative velocities (d(y − x)/dt). Variable ψ can
In the present study, the modified Bouc–Wen model be calculated using the following relations [20]:
is used to simulate behavior of the MR fluid dampers,
1 [αφ + c ẏ + c ẋ + k (y − ψ)]
ψ̇ = c0 +c
which are used at constant currents. The modified 0 1 0
1
   
Bouc–Wen model is a mechanical model for the φ̇ = −γ φ ẏ − ψ̇ |φ|n−1 − β ẏ − ψ̇ |φ|n + δ ẏ − ψ̇
MR fluid dampers based on the Bouc–Wen hystere- (12)
sis model. Spencer et al. showed that the best results
for portraying the hysteretic behavior of the MR fluid In the above relation, n, γ , β, δ, α and c1 are coeffi-
dampers can be obtained using the modified Bouc– cients of the MR fluid damper model, c0 is viscous
Wen model [20]. The contact force and the damp- damping at large relative velocities and k0 is stiffness at

123
1650 A. Afsharfard

large relative velocities. In the present study, the follow- As it mentioned before, one of the main properties
ing values are selected for the fixed coefficients of the of the impact damper is the coefficient of restitution,
model: n = 2, γ = 50,000 m−2 , β = 613,000 m−2 which is variable with the contact velocity and the bar-
and δ = 30.56. Since the fluid yield stress is dependent rier parameters. It should be noted that properties of
on input current (u), parameters α, c0 , c1 and k0 can the barriers in the smart impact dampers vary with the
be assumed as a function of the input current. These input current and contact velocity. Effect of changing
parameters of the MR fluid damper, correspond to the the input current and the contact speed on the coeffi-
study of Giuclea et al. [22,23], are given in Table 2. cient of restitution in a smart impact damper is shown
in Fig. 10. As shown in this figure, in the smart impact
dampers, in each contact speed the coefficient of resti-
Table 2 Parameters of the MR fluid damper [22,23]
tution can be controlled using the input current. There-
u (A) c0 (N s/m) c1 (N s/m) α (N/m) k0 (N/m) fore, in each frequency, regarding to the relative speed
of masses and the mass ratio, the input current can be
0.02 121 10,300 2950 527
selected to have proper coefficient of restitution, which
0.06 340 8350 15300 306
leads to better application in vibration suppression.
0.10 465 13,900 23,900 22.3
Effect of using the smart impact damper to suppress
0.20 966 33,600 34,000 468
undesired vibration of the main vibratory system is
0.40 1690 83,900 58,500 988
shown in Fig. 11.
0.60 2880 93,300 89,800 1990
Variation of the dimensionless first and second max-
0.80 3220 101,800 104,900 1240
imum responses of the main vibratory mass, which
1.05 3500 107,800 114,500 1330 is equipped with the impact damper (CCR, VCR and
1.45 4730 111,600 114,400 1630 smart impact dampers) and the tuned mass damper,
1.75 4050 122,500 133,900 2010 with respect to mass ratio is illustrated in Fig. 12. As

1 0.9 1 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.8 0.8
d(y-x)/dτ (m/s)

d(y-x)/dτ (m/s)

0.7
0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4 0.4 0.5
0.4
0.2 0.2 0.4
0.3
e e
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
u(A) u(A)
μ =1/10 μ =1/8

1 1 1
0.9
0.8 0.8 0.9
0.8
d(y-x)/dτ (m/s)
d(y-x)/dτ (m/s)

0.7 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.6 0.7
0.4 0.4
0.5 0.6
0.2 0.2
0.4
0.5
e e
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
u(A) u (A)
μ =1/6 μ =1/4

Fig. 10 Variation of the coefficient of restitution with the input current and contact speed in the smart impact damper

123
Suppressing forced vibrations 1651

Fig. 11 Response diagram 12 12

of the main vibratory mass 10 10
equipped with the smart x/x =6.453
st
8 8 x/xst=6.121
impact damper (ω = Ω)

st

st
6 6

x/x

x/x
x/x =2.654 x/x =3.016
st st
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η /Ω η /Ω
( μ =1/10) ( μ =1/8)

12 12
10 10
8 x/x =5.969 8 x/x =5.424
st st
st

st
6 6
x/x

x/x
x/xst=2.936 x/x =2.599
st
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
η /Ω η /Ω
( μ =1/6) ( μ =1/4)

Fig. 12 The first peak (a) (A) (B)

and the second peak (b) of 10 4
the main mass vibration
with the presented vibration
absorbers
8
st

st
x/x

x/x

3
6

Tuned mass damper

CCR impact damper (e=0.6) Tuned mass damper
CCR impact damper (e=0.9) CCR impact damper (e=0.6)
4 CCR impact damper (e=0.9)
VCR impact damper
Smart impact damper VCR impact damper
Smart impact damper
4 6 8 10 2
1/μ 4 6 8 10
1/μ

shown in this figure, in case of conventional impact reason, applications of constant coefficient of restitu-
dampers, unlike the second peak of vibrations, the max- tion (CCR), variable coefficient of restitution (VCR)
imum response uniformly increases with decreasing the and smart impact dampers are investigated. It is shown
mass ratio (μ). The effective application of the smart that decreasing the coefficient of restitution, in the
impact damper is clearly shown in Fig. 12. As shown CCR impact dampers, leads to better application of
in this figure, the smart impact damper suppresses both the impact damper to suppress the maximum vibration
of the first and second peaks of vibration better than the amplitude. Furthermore, it is shown that increasing the
conventional impact damper and tuned mass damper. mass ratio in VCR impact dampers results in decreas-
ing the maximum amplitude of the forced vibration. To
improve application of the impact dampers, in the smart
5 Conclusion impact dampers, the barriers are equipped with the MR
fluid dampers. Subsequently, the coefficient of restitu-
Effect of using the nonlinear impact dampers to sup- tion in the smart impact dampers is controlled with the
press undesired forced vibrations is studied. For this

123
1652 A. Afsharfard

input electrical current. It is shown that, unlike the con- 11. Bapat, C.N., Sankar, S.: Single unit impact damper in free
ventional impact dampers, the smart impact dampers and forced vibration. J. Sound Vib. 99(1), 85–94 (1985)
12. Nucera, F., Vakakis, A.F., McFarland, D., Bergman, L., Ker-
can strongly suppress both first and second peaks of schen, G.: Targeted energy transfers in vibro-impact oscilla-
main mass vibrations. It is shown that the maximum tors for seismic mitigation. Nonlinear Dyn. 50(3), 651–677
vibration amplitude of the main mass with the smart (2007)
impact damper can be up to 30 % smaller than the main 13. Al-Shudeifat, M.A., Wierschem, N., Quinn, D.D., Vakakis,
A.F., Bergman, L.A., Spencer Jr, B.F.: Numerical and experi-
mass equipped with equivalent tuned mass damper. mental investigation of a highly effective single-sided vibro-
impact non-linear energy sink for shock mitigation. Int.
Compliance with ethical standards J. Non-Linear Mech. 52, 96–109 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.
ijnonlinmec.2013.02.004
Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no 14. Afsharfard, A., Farshidianfar, A.: Modeling and analysis of
conflict of interest. This research received no specific grant from magnetorheological inner mass single unit impact dampers.
any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 25(3), 342–351 (2014). doi:10.
sectors. 1177/1045389x13494931
15. Wereley, N.M., Choi, Y.-T., Singh, H.J.: Adaptive energy
absorbers for drop-induced shock mitigation. J. Intell.
References Mater. Syst. Struct. 22(6), 515–519 (2011). doi:10.1177/
1045389x10393767
16. Wereley, N.M., Pang, L.: Nondimensional analysis of semi-
1. de Souza, S.L.T., Caldas, I.L.: Controlling chaotic
active electrorheological and magnetorheological dampers
orbits in mechanical systems with impacts. Chaos
using approximate parallel plate models. Smart Mater.
Solitons Fractals 19(1), 171–178 (2004). doi:10.1016/
Struct. 7(5), 732 (1998)
S0960-0779(03)00129-2
17. Kordonsky, W.I.: Magnetorheological effect as a base of new
2. Blazejczyk-Okolewska, B.: Analysis of an impact damper
devices and technologies. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 122(1–3),
of vibrations. Chaos Solitons Fractals 12(11), 1983–1988
395–398 (1993). doi:10.1016/0304-8853(93)91117-p
(2001)
18. Afsharfard, A., Farshidianfar, A.: Modeling and analy-
3. Dimentberg, M.F., Iourtchenko, D.V.: Random vibrations
sis of magnetorheological inner mass single unit impact
with impacts: a review. Nonlinear Dyn. 36(2), 229–254
dampers. J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. (2013). doi:10.1177/
(2004). doi:10.1023/B:NODY.0000045510.93602.ca
1045389x13494931
4. Afsharfard, A., Farshidianfar, A.: Free vibration analysis of
19. Bauer, W., Westfall, G.: Physics for Scientists and Engineers
nonlinear resilient impact dampers. Nonlinear Dyn. 73(1–
1, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2008)
2), 155–166 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11071-013-0775-1
20. Spencer Jr, B.F., Dyke, S.J., Sain, M.K., Carlson, J.D.: Phe-
5. Zhang, D.-G., Angeles, J.: Impact dynamics of flexible-joint
nomenological model for magnetorheological dampers. J.
robots. Comput. Struct. 83(1), 25–33 (2005)
Eng. Mech. 123(3), 230–238 (1997)
6. Afsharfard, A., Farshidianfar, A.: An efficient method to
21. Wang, D.H., Liao, W.H.: Magnetorheological fluid dampers:
solve the strongly coupled nonlinear differential equations of
a review of parametric modelling. Smart Mater. Struct.
impact dampers. Arch. Appl. Mech. 82(7), 977–984 (2012).
20(2), 023001 (2011)
doi:10.1007/s00419-011-0605-1
22. Giuclea, M., Sireteanu, T., Stancioiu, D., Stammers, C.W.:
7. Afsharfard, A., Farshidianfar, A.: Design of nonlinear
Model parameter identification for vehicle vibration con-
impact dampers based on acoustic and damping behavior.
trol with magnetorheological dampers using computational
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 65(1), 125–133 (2012)
intelligence methods. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part I J.
8. Cheng, C.C., Wang, J.Y.: Free vibration analysis of a
Syst. Control Eng. 218(7), 569–581 (2004). doi:10.1177/
resilient impact damper. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 45(4), 589–604
095965180421800705
(2003)
23. Guglielmino, E.: Semi-active Suspension Control: Improved
9. Cheng, J., Xu, H.: Inner mass impact damper for attenuating
Vehicle Ride and Road Friendliness. Springer, London
structure vibration. Int. J. Solids Struct. 43(17), 5355–5369
(2008)
(2006)
10. Son, L., Hara, S., Yamada, K., Matsuhisa, H.: Experiment
of shock vibration control using active momentum exchange
impact damper. J. Vib. Control 16(1), 49–64 (2010). doi:10.
1177/1077546309102675

123