Fig 1.
Simplified structure of horizontal oil inlet vibrator.
Fig 2.
The ideal reaction mass movement path.
Fig 3.
Motion disturbances of the reaction mass.
Fig 4.
A mechanical fluid model of the hydraulic oil flow passage (left) and its meshed model (right).
(A) fluid model (B) meshed model.
Fig 5.
Piston rod geometry and grid model.
(A) Piston rod model (B) Grid meshing.
Fig 6.
Connections between the reaction mass chambers and hydraulic oil passages.
Fig 7.
Rotation torque around the X-, Y-, and Z-axis.
(A)X (B)Y (C)Z.
Fig 8.
The maximum deformation curve of the piston rod in the X-direction and the deformation nephogram.
Fig 9.
The maximum deformation curve of the piston rod in the Y-direction and the deformation nephogram.
Fig 10.
The maximum deformation curve of the piston rod in the Z-direction and the deformation nephogram.
Fig 11.
Simple structure of the vertical passageway vibrator.
Fig 12.
Fluid domain model of the vertical oil passageway.
Fig 13.
Meshing.
Fig 14.
Geometric model of piston rod.
Fig 15.
Boundary condition of the piston rod.
Fig 16.
Comparison of two passageway rotation torque.
(A) X-axis (B) Y-axis (C) Z-axis.
Fig 17.
Comparison of piston rod X-direction deformation.
(A) Direction of +X (B) Direction of -X.
Fig 18.
Comparison of piston rod Y-direction deformation.
(A) Direction of +Y (B) Direction of -Y.
Fig 19.
Layout of the testing points for the reaction mass.
Fig 20.
Excitation control box.
Fig 21.
A reaction mass point actual movement path of vertical passageway.
Fig 22.
Comparison of the disturbance intensity between the horizontal and vertical oil passageways.
(A) Disturbance intensity of the X-axis (B) Disturbance intensity of the Y-axis.
Table 1.
Comparative analysis of disturbance amplitude with two oil inlet methods.