University of Jordan

School of Engineering
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Dynamics and Vibrations Lab

Mass-Spring-Damper System

Name ID
Sinan Assaid 0151566
Zeina Abdelaziz 0156297
Laith Qudah 0141398
Saeed Asha 0147566
Jebreel qasswal 0155148
 Introduction

In this lab, we are going to conduct the mass-spring-damper experiment in order to

calculate the damping coefficient of the oil damper experimentally. For that
calculation we are going to use two methods: the decaying curve method, and the
falling weight method.
Damping effect in vibratory systems may be caused by surface friction between
adjacent moving parts (dry friction), or due to plastic deformation and internal
friction between layers of the material of the part (structural damping); and these
two categories may not be eliminated perfectly, as they are uncontrollable. The
third source of damping in vibrations is the use of mechanical viscous dampers,
and this type with determinate value of damping is used to get the required
damping effect. Generally, the first two types can be ignored in the analysis of
vibrations under certain conditions, and a system under vibrations is treated as an
un-damped vibrations case unless viscous dampers are employed.
 Governing Equations

M ÿ+C ẏ+Ky=0 (1)

C C2 K

s=−
2M
±
4M 2
−
√M (2)

C
y ( t )=e
−
M
t

[ (√
A 1 sin
K
−
C2
M 4 M2 )
t+ A 2 cos (√ K
−
C2
M 4 M2)]
t
(3)

C C C
ζ= = =
C Critical 2 √ KM 2 Mω n (4)

−ζω n t 2 2
y (t )=e ( A sin ( ω √1−ζ ) t + A cos ( ω √ 1−ζ ) t )
1 n 2 n
(5)

−ζω n t o
Yo e n ζω τ
n d
= =e
Yn e
−ζωn ( t o+nτ d )
(6)

1 Y
δ= ln o
n Yn ( )
(7)

δ
ζ=
√δ +4π 2
2
(8)

K
ω n=
√ M (9)
 Gd 4
K=
8 ND 3 (10)

Part (1): Decaying curve method

Data provided and results:

The tables below include the data that was taken from the lab measurements as
showed by the pictures provided for us:

The first table shows the mechanical specifications of the Spring, and these values
will be used to calculate the spring coefficient that we will use to calculate the
undamped frequency of the system.
K = 828.6(N/m). (assuming G = 80 * 10^9 )

Parameter Value

D (mm) 43

d (mm) 3.3

N (turn) 18
 Trial disk turns n Y1(cm) Yn(cm)

1 0 2 0.7 0.15

2 1 4 1.2 0.2

3 2 5 1.8 0.3

4 3 6 2.2 0.2

Results :

M = 1.6 kg: n =…22.75…(rad/sec)

Trial disk turns   C (N.s/m)

1 0 0.770 0.121 8.808

2 1 0.448 0.071 5.168

3 2 0.358 0.056 4.076

4 3 0.399 0.063 4.586

 M = 2.6 kg: n =……17.8…(rad/sec)

Trial disk turns   C (N.s/m)

1 0 0.804 0.127 11.755

2 1 0.713 0.112 10.366

3 2 0.530 0.084 7.775

4 3 0.520 0.082 7.589

Part (2): Falling weight method

Data provided:
M = 1.6 kg

Trial disk turns X (cm) Y(cm) Vx(m/s)

1 0 5 5.8 2.079

2 1 4.2 5.9 2.079

3 2 2.5 5.1 2.079

4 3 1.7 5.4 2.079

5 4 1.5 5.6 2.079

 M = 3.6 kg

Trial disk turns X (cm) Y(cm) Vx(m/s)

1 0 1 1.9 2.079

2 1 1 2.3 2.079

3 2 0.5 3 2.079

4 3 0.5 4 2.079

5 4 0.5 3.5 2.079

Results:
M = 1.6 kg

Trial disk turns V(m/s) C(N.s/m) Error ()

1 0 2.411 6.52 25%

2 1 2.920 5.375 4%

3 2 4.241 3.701 7%

4 3 6.603 2.377 43%

5 4 7.761 2.022 N/A

 M = 3.6 kg

Trial disk turns V(m/s) C(N.s/m) Error ()

1 0 3.950 8.940 N/A

2 1 4.781 7.387 N/A

3 2 12.474 2.831 N/A

4 3 16.632 2.123 N/A

5 4 14.553 2.426 N/A

 Discussion and Conclusions:

Draw the damping coefficient C (N.s/m), versus disks spacing (turn), for the
different values of M.
- Graph from decaying method (1.6 Kg)

C values
10
9
8
7

6
5
4

3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

- Graph from decaying method (2.6 Kg)

 C- values
14

12

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Graph from falling weight (1.6 Kg)

Y-Values
7

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Graph from falling weight (3.6 Kg)

 Y-Values
10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

1) It is known that the damping coefficient for the viscous damper is

independent of the attached mass. How does this statement coincide with
eqn-11? Verify this from your results?
Equation 11 is valid as it coincides with both methods of calculating the coefficient
of damping, as mass effects the natural frequency of the system and it affects the
damping of the system.

2) In eqn-11, it was claimed that the velocity of the falling mass is constant. Is
this correct? Why? Give a proof for your answer from your results.
The constant falling velocity can be easily concluded by inspecting the falling
weight graph papers, the constant slope on being produced by the machine means
that the velocity of the mass Vy is in a constant relationship with the velocity of
the rolling sheets Vx

3) List the expected sources of errors affecting the results of the experiment?
 1- Human measurement and reading errors
2- Spring plastic deformation due to aging
3- Machine calibration errors that lead to low reproducibility of results
4) During the execution of the experiment, did the resulted decaying curve
violate the expected one shown in Figure-9.2? When? Why? And how
could you alter the situation?

Not at all, the behaviour of the system was correctly approximated by figure 9.2
and it showed how the coefficient will decrease as the spacing between the holed-
metal piece and the solid metal piece increase. The damping ratios were also
considerably representative of the system behaviour.