470 T. Kalaycıog˘lu and H.N. Özgüven 1 Exact Eq.(24) Exact Eq.(17) Exact Eq.(28) Exact Eq.(30) Exact Eq.(34) Log( I HU 22 [m/N] I ) 10-5 100 Log( I HU 22 [m/N] I ) 10-5 100 Log( I HU 22 [m/N] I ) 10-5 100 Log( I HU 22 [m/N] I ) 10-5 100 Log( I HU 22 [m/N] I ) 10-5 100 2 3 4 5 Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 FRAC = 0.99136 FRAC = 0.99816 FRAC = 0.92754 FRAC = 0.99178 FRAC = 0.98607 Fig. 46.6 Driving point FRF at the 2nd DoF of the unknown subsystem: true (solid black line), predicted using standard deviation of 15 10 5 m/N via proposed formulations: Eq. (46.24) (blue asterisks), Eq. (46.17) (magenta asterisks) and via formulations given in literature: Eq. (46.28) (cyan asterisks), Eq. (46.30) (green asterisks), Eq. (46.34) (red asterisks) When mean FRAC values given in the Table 46.3 are compared to each other, the overall performances of the proposed formulations (i.e., Eqs. (46.24) and (46.17)) are found to be better. Especially, Eq. (46.24) proved to be statistically the best performer among all formulations.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMzNzEzMQ==