Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Damping Determinations
Damping Determinations
ME06M045
Hasan G Pasha
ME06M045
mx + cx + kx = 0
The motion is termed as critically damped when the coefficient of viscous damping equals 2 m
n and it is designated by cc.
Damping ratio
Damping ratio is defined as the ratio of the coefficient of viscous damping to critical damping
coefficient. It is designated by .
Measurement of damping ratio experimentally - Logarithmic Decrement
A convenient way to measure the amount of damping present in a system is to measure the
rate of decay of free oscillations. The larger the damping, the greater is the rate of decay.
x = X e n t sin( 1 2 nt + )
Logarithmic decrement can be defined as the natural logarithm of the ration of any two
successive amplitudes.
= ln
xn 1 1 x0
= ln
xn
n xn
= n d 2
Hasan G Pasha
ME06M045
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
DESCRIPTION
The test rig consists of a rectangular cross-section, aluminum cantilever beam.
The free end of the beam is connected with a ferromagnetic disc with a pickup device below it.
This mechanism serves to trace the vibration. It is based on the laws of electro-magnetic
induction.
When the beam vibrates, the gap size changes and this causes the flux density to vary which is
calibrated and read from a voltmeter and also fed to an oscilloscope.
The gap between the ferromagnetic disc and the pickup device is adjusted such that it is not
less than 5 times the expected amplitude of vibration.
TABULATION
Beam Length
Sl
No
No of
cycles
1
2
3
10
10
10
350 mm
Scaled Amplitude
Scaled Time
Initial
mV
Final
mV
Initial
ms
Final
ms
79.71
142.7
87.5
73.4
126.6
78.1
-288
-367.2
-340.4
-51.6
-101.4
-100.8
Natural
Frequency
Hz
42.301
37.622
41.736
40.553
Logarithmic
decrement
Damping
ratio
0.0082
0.0120
0.0114
0.0013
0.0019
0.0018
0.0017
Hasan G Pasha
ME06M045
Beam Length
Sl
No
No of
cycles
1
2
3
10
10
10
450 mm
Natural
Frequency
Scaled Time
Scaled Amplitude
Initial
mV
Final
mV
Initial
ms
Final
ms
100
71.9
65.6
90.6
62.5
59.4
894
402
-475.6
1331
839.6
-36.8
Hz
22.883
22.852
22.789
22.842
Logarithmic
decrement
Damping
ratio
0.0099
0.0140
0.0099
0.0016
0.0022
0.0016
0.0018
Beam length
Sl No
Hz
m
1
2
Standard
41.00465
24.80528
0.35
0.45
Relative error %
Experimental
40.553
22.842
1.10
7.91
PROCEDURE
1. Set the beam length to 350 mm
2. Excite the aluminum cantilever beam
3. Record the output wave
4. Observe and tabulate the scaled initial and final values (of a set of 10 successive
oscillations) of the amplitude and time period
5. Repeat steps 2 through 4 for a beam length of 450 mm
6. Calculate the natural frequency and damping ratio
7. Calculate the standard value of natural frequency and compare it with the experimental
values
FORMULAE
x n 1 1 x0
= ln
xn
n xn
ln
n d 2
Hasan G Pasha
ME06M045
fn
fn
n
Hz
n 1000
final initial
n 3.52
=
2 2 l 2
bh 3
12
Hz
EI
m
Hz
m4
kg m-1
m
bh
Logarithmic decrement
X0
xn
Number of cycles
Damping ratio
Natural frequency
rad s-1
fn
Natural frequency
Hz
Pa
m-4
0.076 m
Thickness of the beam
0.0061 m
Density of the beam
kg m-3
Hasan G Pasha
ME06M045
SAMPLE CALCULATION
fn
1 x0
ln
n xn
1 100
ln
10 90.6
0.0099
0.0099
2
0.0016
Hz
d
n 1000
final initial
Hz
10 * 1000
1331 894
Hz
Hz
22.883
bh 3
12
m4
(0.076) (0.0061) 3
12
m4
1.43755 x 10-9
m4
Hasan G Pasha
ME06M045
kg m-1
m
fn
bh
1.25172
n 3.52
=
2 2 l 2
3.52
2 (0.35) 2
41.004645
EI
m
Hz
(7 x 1010 ) (1.43755 x 10 -9 )
(1.25172)
Hz
Hz
SOURCES OF ERROR
The error calculated by comparing the experimental value of the natural frequency with the
standard value is as a result of the fact that any vibration is damped to some extent. In this
case the Coulomb damping caused due to air was neglected.
Error can also be attributed to the fact that the material in the cantilever might not be uniformly
distributed in the material continuum as assumed.
RESULT
The natural frequency and damping ratio for the aluminum cantilever beam were found
experimentally. The results are tabulated below:
Beam length
Natural Frequency
m
0.35
0.45
Hz
40.553
22.842
Damping Ratio
0.0017
0.0018
The standard value of the natural frequency was calculated and compared to the
experimental value. The % of relative error was calculated as 1.10 % and 7.91 % beam
lengths of 0.35 m and 0.45 m.