See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356140490

Vibration of an Aircraft Model

Experiment Findings · May 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16847.61607

CITATIONS READS

0 608

1 author:

Steven Dillmann
Imperial College London
12 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aerospace Vehicle Design View project

Laboratories & Coursework View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steven Dillmann on 11 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vibration of an Aircraft Model
AERO95010: Experimental Methods

Imperial College London, Department of Aeronautics

Abstract
In this laboratory, the importance of aircraft vibration testing is explored by determining the
undamped natural frequency, ωu , and corresponding damping ratio, ζ, of a lumped-mass
aircraft model. The first mode resonant frequency is then used to evaluate the corresponding
mode shape. The experimental results are then qualitatively compared to theoretical solutions.
The experimentally obtained results are ωu = 108.46 rad/s ≈ 17.265 Hz and ζ = 0.0022. The
Nyquist, frequency and phase response plots confirm the low damping. These results and the
first mode shape mostly agree with numerical predictions. Possible sources of discrepancies are
discussed in detail.

Laboratory Report Submission

Author: Steven Dillmann
Student CID: 01518195
Academic Supervisor: Prof. Silvestre Taveira Pinho
Laboratory Demonstrator: Mr. Athanasios Giannenas
Academic Tutor: Dr. Errikos Levis
Submission Date: 24 May 2020
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
Table of Contents i

List of Figures ii

List of Tables iii

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Context & Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Experimental Procedure 2

3 Experimental Results 3
3.1 Undamped Natural Frequency & Damping Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1 Experimental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.2 Frequency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.3 Calculation of Natural Frequency & Damping Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Mode Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4 Discussion 6
4.1 Frequency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Mode Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5 Conclusion 7

References 8

Appendices 9
Appendix A - Raw data for the determination of the natural frequency ωu . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B - Nyquist plot data and calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

i
 LIST OF FIGURES

List of Figures
1 Aircraft Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Experimental Apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 MATLAB Amplitude vs Frequency plots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 MATLAB Nyquist Plots and Phase Relations between Acceleration, Velocity and Displace-
ment. Circles indicate very low damping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 MATLAB 2D and 3D Plots for the First Mode Shape of the Aircraft Model. . . . . . . . . . 6

ii
 LIST OF TABLES

List of Tables
1 Frequencies and load amplitude factors used to determine the first mode response. . . . . 2
2 Data points used to calculate ωu and ζ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 Comparison between experimental and numerical results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4 Comparison between experimental and numerical eigenvectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 Frequency, amplitude and phase angle of acceleration recorded during the experiment. . 9
6 Processed and calculated amplitude and phase angle of acceleration, velocity and dis-
placement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7 Calculated in-phase and out-of-phase components of acceleration, velocity and displace-
ment for the Nyquist plots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

iii
1 INTRODUCTION

1 Introduction
1.1 Context & Motivation
The importance of vibration analysis has been increasing analogously to the increasing desire for higher
aircraft speeds. Wing and tail vibrations result from self-induced aerodynamic forces and atmospheric
turbulence [1]. The vibration due to flow separation and the creation of a vortex trail in the wake of
a surface is called buffeting [2]. Especially at high speeds, flutter, an unstable oscillations caused by
aerodynamic forces as a result of the vibration itself [3], can lead to serious structural failure and has
led to many incidents [4]. Mechanical disturbances and propeller or engine noise can lead to personal
discomfort or failure of parts [5]. Launch-induced vibration in rocket boosters and spacecraft have to be
considered as well [6]. Solving these problems is an essential part of aerospace design.

In this experiment, a lumped-mass aircraft model is excited and its dynamic response is evaluated
using resonant frequencies and mode shapes. The experimental results are then compared to theoretical
results. Damping is difficult to be considered in theoretical calculations. Imprecise boundary conditions
and idealisation errors are further reasons for discrepancies between experiment and theory [7].

1.2 Objectives
The main purpose of this experiment is to determine the first mode dynamic response of the aircraft
model (Figure 1), by analytical and graphical measurements of:

1. the first undamped natural frequency ωu of the aircraft model.

2. the first mode damping ratio ζ of the aircraft model.

3. the first mode shape of the aircraft model.

The experimental results are then compared with numerical predictions.

(i) Aircraft model used in the experiment. [7] (ii) Illustration of the aircraft model. [7]
Figure 1: Aircraft Model.

1
2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

2 Experimental Procedure
In this experiment, the fuselage nose of a freely suspended aircraft model is attached to a steel tripod by a
cable, as shown in Figure 1(i). Two shakers, shown in Figure 2(i), are positioned at mid-span of each wing
producing a sinusoidal forcing function which oscillates the model. The response is then measured by
9 calibrated accelerometers, shown in Figure 2(ii), positioned at corresponding mass points, as outlined
in Figure 1(ii). The collected data is amplified by a power amplifier, shown in Figure2(iii), before being
given to the DT9813 data acquisition system. The Measure software calculates the relative amplitude
and the relative phase and displays the response on the software oscilloscope.

(i) Goodman vibrator (shaker) used in (ii) Accelerometer used in the (iii) Power amplifier used in the
the experiment. [7] experiment. [7] experiment. [7]

Figure 2: Experimental Apparatus.

In order to obtain the undamped natural frequency ωu and the corresponding modal damping ratio
ζ, consider the following procedure: The model is periodically loaded at frequencies close to ωu with
a constant load amplitude factor chosen such that noise is minimised and saturation is avoided, as
presented in Table 1. These are defined using the graphical interface on the computer. The response is
measured at point 9 only since it is possible to relate each ωu and ζ of the structure to the response at one
point. The desired undamped natural frequency is now determined for the first mode by identifying
the frequency at which the amplitude is a maximum.

Table 1: Frequencies and load amplitude factors used to determine the first mode response.

Frequency [Hz] 16.00 16.50 16.75 17.00 17.1 17.2 17.25 17.27
Amplitude factor 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
Frequency [Hz] 17.28 17.29 17.32 17.35 17.40 17.50 17.75 18.00
Amplitude factor 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055

By loading the aircraft model close to this frequency whilst measuring the response of each mass point
simultaneously, the first mode shape can be determined.

For further details refer to the Laboratory Handout [7].

2
3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

3 Experimental Results
3.1 Undamped Natural Frequency & Damping Ratio
3.1.1 Experimental Data
The raw experimental data is presented in Table 5 (Appendix A). The highest amplitude is found to
be at a frequency of ω = 17.27 Hz. At some frequencies, phase shifts are noticed when observing the
displayed values from the accelerometer at constant frequency. It is observed that for the first mode, the
highest vibrations occur at the wing tips and the tail of the aircraft model. Vibrations decrease from tail
to rear and from wing tips to the center of the model. The vibrations increase when approaching a the
resonant frequency.

3.1.2 Frequency Response

The natural frequency can first be estimated by eye observing maximum amplitude. The frequencies
for acceleration, velocity and displacement are shown in Figure 3(i), (ii), (iii) respectively, based on data
presented in Table 5 and 6 (Appendix A). The amplitude peaks at the same frequency for all responses
indicating low damping, as demonstrated in Figure 3(iv). For most frequencies, the vibrations are not
visible with the naked eye. Visible vibrations only occur around the natural frequency for the data points
7 to 11 in Table 5 (Appendix A).

(i) Experimentally measured acceleration response. (ii) Velocity response calculated from acceleration response.

(iii) Displacement response calculated from acceleration (iv) Comparison of the responses normalised by maximum
response. magnitude. Peak occurs at the same frequency.

Figure 3: MATLAB Amplitude vs Frequency plots.

3
3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 3.1 Undamped Natural Frequency & Damping Ratio

Using the out-of-phase and in-phase components of the amplitudes presented in Table 7 (Appendix B),
Nyquist plots are produced, as shown in Figure 4(i), (ii), (iii). All plots have a quality of fit κ > 97 %
implying high circularity and thus low damping. Refer to Appendix B for quality of fit calculations.
Determining the highest amplitude of oscillation is not very accurate. Using the Nyquist plots allows
an estimation of the model’s natural frequency by measuring a phase difference of around − π2 rad [7].
Most of the data points are within ± π2 rad from resonance (equivalent to ± π2 rad in the velocity plot).

(i) Accelerations polar, κ = 97.2%. (ii) Velocity polar, κ = 97.5%.

(iii) Displacement polar, κ = 97.7%. (iv) Phase changes by π at frequencies close to resonance.
Figure 4: MATLAB Nyquist Plots and Phase Relations between Acceleration, Velocity and Displacement. Circles
indicate very low damping.

The phase changes sharply by π at frequencies close to resonance indicating low damping [7], as shown
in Figure 4(iv). At frequencies close to resonance, fluctuations in phase angle are noticed on the graphical
interface. For example, at data point 11 of Table 5 (Appendix A), the phase angles changes between
−0.912 rad, −2.22 rad and −3.55 rad.

3.1.3 Calculation of Natural Frequency & Damping Ratio

The phase of velocity is zero at the natural frequency (θṙ = 0). Thus, the estimated natural frequency
can be extracted from Figure 4(iv) and Figure 3 giving ωue = 108.45 rad/s. For the calculation of the
undamped natural frequency and damping ratio, data point pair 7 & 8 (A & B) is chosen as the points
are very close to ωue and to tanθṙ = θṙ = 0. Therefore, they are close to being in-phase [7]. The chosen
data points are tabulated in Table 2. The final results obtained are ωu = 108.46 rad/s and ζ = 0.0022.

4
3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 3.2 Mode Shape

Table 2: Data points used to calculate ωu and ζ.

Data Point Frequency ω [rad/s] Phase Angle θṙ [rad] tanθṙ

A 108.38 -0.32 -0.33
B 108.51 0.20 0.21

The natural frequency ωu and the ratio of damping coefficient and mass c
m can be calculated using:

ωA 2 ωB tanθṙB − ωB 2 ωA tanθṙA
ωu 2 = (1)
ωB tanθṙB − ωA tanθṙA

c ωB 2 − ωA 2
= 2α = (2)
m ωB tanθṙB − ωA tanθṙA

Obtaining α from equation (2), the damping ratio ζ is calculated using:

α 1 ωB 2 − ωA 2
ζ= = · (3)
ωu 2ωu ωB tanθṙB − ωA tanθṙA

The results are summarised in Table 3 which includes a comparison to similar results when using other
data point pairs, i.e. 9 & 10 (C & D) and 8 & 9 (B & C) with a relative error of approximately 10%. For
detailed calculations refer to the Laboratory Handout [7].

Table 3: Comparison between experimental and numerical results.

Quantity A&B C&D B&C Theoretical result ErrorAB [%] ErrorCD [%] ErrorBC [%]
ωu 108.46 108.41 108.39 98.33 10.29 10.25 10.23
ζ 0.0022 0.0047 0.0054 0.0000 - - -

3.2 Mode Shape

The first mode shape is found by loading the model with a frequency close to resonant frequency and
recording the response of the aircraft model at the points 1 to 9, as shown in Figure 1(ii). It is loaded at
ω = 17.27 Hz. It is possible to measure the amplitude of acceleration instead of displacement because
their ratios of amplitudes at different points are the same. Normalising the response by the maximum
amplitude and solving the eigenvalue problem allows finding the deformed shape and hence first mode
shape, as shown in Figure 5(ii). The comparison to numerical results, including the point mass as well
as lumped mass idealisation, is shown in Table 4 as well as Figure 5(i), (iii).

Table 4: Comparison between experimental and numerical eigenvectors.

First Frequency Eigenvectors

Mode [Hz] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Point Mass 15.65 0.051 -0.054 -0.15 -0.35 -0.64 1.0 0.12 0.12 1.00
Lumped Mass 15.69 0.050 -0.055 -0.16 -0.35 -0.63 1.0 0.12 0.12 1.00
Experimental 17.26 0.035 -0.029 -0.15 -0.32 -0.58 0.99 0.12 0.10 1.00
Errorpoint [%] 9.33 31.4 45.5 13.11 10.2 9.35 0.559 2.26 13.7 0.00
Errorlumped [%] 9.10 30.0 46.5 8.02 9.73 8.63 0.559 0.285 11.5 0.00

Vibrations are visible to the naked eye, especially at the wing tips and the tail (points 6, 9, 5). The
amplitude decreases along the fuselage from point 5 to 1 and along the wings (almost symmetrically)
from point 6 to 3 and 9 to 3. As seen in Table 4, the error between experimental and numerical results is
rather small along the wing, especially at the tips (points 6 and 9). The error is higher along the fuselage
and is especially high at points 1 and 2. This may be due to the close proximity of these points to the
wire attachment.

5
4 DISCUSSION

(i) Experimental and numerical eigenvectors (ii) 3D plot of the deformed shape (iii) Experimental and numerical
along the fuselage. and first mode shape. eigenvectors along the span.

Figure 5: MATLAB 2D and 3D Plots for the First Mode Shape of the Aircraft Model.

4 Discussion
4.1 Frequency Response
The quality of fit of the Nyquist plots is very high with κ > 97% for all plots. The data points obtained
around the resonant frequency are sufficient to build the Nyquist plot. However, more data points near
the resonant frequency could improve the accuracy of these. It could also improve the calculation of
the natural frequency and damping ratio as there would be more useful data point pairs available near
the resonant frequency which would reduce the effect of different resonant modes. The damping of the
vibration is very low with ζ = 0.0022. The frequency response as well as the plot for phase relation
between acceleration, velocity and displacement strongly agree with theoretical results for very low
damping. The amplitude of all responses increases sharply at the resonant frequency as expected from
theoretical results for low damping. The phase changes sharply at the resonant frequency. At the natural
frequency, the inertial force balances the restoring force resulting in a π2 phase difference between the
driving force and the oscillation. Increasing the frequency beyond the resonant frequency, the inertial
force starts taking over the restoring force resulting in a π phase difference between the driving force
and the oscillation. The phase fluctuations near resonance can be explained by that and considering that
the software displays is a timed average of the phase.

Discrepancies between measurements and theoretical results still exist and may be due to a number
of reasons. In the real vibration, low damping is present due to viscosity and the wire attachment.
Possible non-linear behaviour has to be considered as well. In the theoretical calculations, zero viscosity
and perfect linearity are assumed and no wire attachment is taken into account. In order to determine
the natural frequency, accelerometer 9 is used which was not strongly affected by the wire attachment
and delivered reliable results, as shown in Table 4. Therefore, the wire attachment is not a significant
factor for the discrepancies in this context. External noise may have contributed to the difference by
inducing other modes and vibrations. Considering that the equipment used in the experiment is old, the
structure may have fatigued resulting in a reduction of stiffness. Other factors such as loose attachments
or temperature differences may be factors as well. Point mass and lumped mass idealisations are used in
the numerical calculations which do not perfectly represent the mass distribution in the aircraft model.
However, comparing the experimental results for the natural frequency ωu = 108.46 rad/s to either of
the idealisations used, yields very similar errors of 9.33% for the point mass idealisation and 9.10% for
the lumped mass idealisation. Hence, the added complexity of the lumped mass theoretical results is
not worth in the context of determining the natural frequency.

4.2 Mode Shape

The experimentally obtained first mode shape is close to the mode shape obtained by numerical re-
sults. The first mode involves the wings more than the fuselage because the average magnitude of the

6
5 CONCLUSION

eigenvectors along the wing is 0.59 as compared to the average magnitude of the eigenvectors along the
fuselage of 0.22, extracted from Table 4. As expected, the maximum eigenvectors are at the points 6 and
9 (wing tips) followed by the points 5 and 4 (tail). Thus, the peak responses in the structure occur at the
same points in experiment and theory. Misalignment or structural damage such as cracks may be the
reason for the not perfectly symmetric response at the wing tips. The significantly stronger response
from the wing tips compared to points 7 and 8 are due to the fact that the actuators were placed at the
tips. The increasing response along the fuselage from nose to tail are also due to the higher mass at the
tail compared to the lower mass at the nose. It is observed that when loading the model at the second
mode (ω ≈ 34.5 Hz), the response changes significantly with maximum amplitude being at point 1. The
maximum amplitude decreases for higher modes. That is why engineers are usually only interested in
the first few mode shapes. For higher resonant frequencies, vibrations cannot be seen with the naked
eye but felt by touching or heard by listening to the high frequency sound the structure emits.

The experimental eigenvectors are on average 13.3% lower compared to the point mass eigenvectors
and 12.8% lower compared to the lumped mass eigenvectors. These errors are fairly similar. There-
fore, the added complexity of the lumped mass theoretical results is still not worth in the context of
determining the first mode shape of the aircraft model. It is very important to notice that the errors
for eigenvectors 1 and 2 are significantly higher than the average error. This is because both points
are strongly affected by the damping effect of the wire attachment due to their close proximities to it.
Hence, the wire attachment has to be taken into account as an important factor for the discrepancies
between measurements and theoretical results. The structure is loaded at the frequency ω = 17.27 Hz.
Even though this is a first estimation of the natural frequency, it is very close to the calculated natural
frequency of ωu = 108.46 rad/s ≈ 17.265 Hz. The effect of different modes is lower than it would be if the
structure was loaded further away from the resonant frequency. Thus, the effect of different modes is
not significant. The experimental errors described previously have to be taken into account in this case
too. In summary, the theory uses certain assumptions and neglects the attachment. The errors between
theoretical and experimental results is due to a combination of both [7].

5 Conclusion
The first natural frequency and damping ratio are determined successfully, considering that the freely
suspended aircraft model has low damping. Determining the first mode shape and deflected shape of
the aircraft model proved to be successful too. The key finding regarding the objectives are:

1. The first undamped natural frequency of the aircraft model is determined to be ωu = 108.46 rad/s
with an error of 9.33% compared to the point mass idealisation.

2. The first mode damping ratio of the aircraft model is determined to be ζ = 0.0022. The low
damping is confirmed by the high quality of fit of the Nyquist plots and the phase vs frequency
plots.

3. The first mode shape of the aircraft model is determined and plotted with an error of approximately
13% when compared to numerical results.

Differences between experimental and numerical results arise from the wire attachment, the low number
of measurements near the resonant frequency, non-linear behavior, mass idealisations and experimental
errors. The differences between point and lumped mass idealisation results are small such that the
latter’s added complexity may not be worth. Improvements can be made by increasing the number of
measurements near the resonant frequency. Non-linear behaviour could be estimated using the POD
(Proper Orthogonal Decomposition) method [8]. Increasing the number of accelerometers and exciters
would improve the quality of the mode shape determination. Carrying out the experiment in a low
noise environment and replacing the old experimental apparatus with more precise instruments would
reduce experimental errors.

7
 REFERENCES

References
[1] R. L. Pastel and J. E. Caruthers. Airplane Wing Vibrations Due to Atmospheric Turbulence. NASA
Contractor Report 3431. Marshall Space Flight Center, 1981.

[2] A. S. Pototzky and R. W. Moses. A Method to Analyze Tail Buffet Loads of Aircraft. NASA Langley
Research Center, 2005.

[3] R. H. Scalan and R. Rosenbaum. Introduction to the study of Aircraft Vibration and Flutter. The
Macmillian Company, 1951.

[4] Michael W. Kehoe. A Historical Overview of Flight Flutter Testing. NASA Technical Memorandum
4720. NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, 1995.

[5] C. R. Freberg and E. N. Kemler. Aircraft Vibration and Flutter. John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1944.

[6] Unknown. Vibration Testing. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/639713main_

Vibration_Testing_FTI.pdf. Accessed: 2019-11-11.

[7] Prof. S. T. Pinho. Vibration of an aircraft model. Laboratory Handout. Imperial College London,
Department of Aeronautics, 2019.

[8] S. Giclais and C. Stephan. Aircraft Ground Vibration Testing at ONERA. http://www.
aerospacelab-journal.org/sites/www.aerospacelab-journal.org/files/AL12-05_0.pdf. Ac-
cessed: 2019-11-14.

8
 APPENDICES

Appendices
Appendix A - Data used for the determination of the natural frequency ωu and plots
The accelerometer data recorded during the experiment is listed in Table 4. Note that a load factor
of 0.055 is used. Further calculations leads to corresponding values for the velocity and displacement
presented in Table 6.

Table 5: Frequency, amplitude and phase angle of acceleration recorded during the experiment.

Data point Frequency ωu [Hz] Frequency ωu [rad/s] Amplitude [V] Phase Angle θr̈ [rad]
1 16.00 100.53 0.29 -3.28
2 16.50 103.67 0.58 -3.10
3 16.75 105.24 0.91 -3.04
4 17.00 106.81 1.74 -2.94
5 17.10 107.44 2.58 -2.84
6 17.20 108.07 5.10 -2.52
7 17.25 108.38 8.36 -1.89
8 17.27 108.51 8.68 -1.37
9 17.28 108.57 8.52 -1.27
10 17.29 108.64 8.18 -1.16
11 17.32 108.82 7.27 -0.91
12 17.35 109.01 6.62 -0.81
13 17.40 109.33 5.17 -0.56
14 17.50 109.96 3.62 -0.34
15 17.75 111.53 1.89 -0.13
16 18.00 113.10 1.32 -0.06

Table 6: Processed and calculated amplitude and phase angle of acceleration, velocity and displacement.

Amplitude Phase Angle

Data point
Acceleration Velocity Displacement Acceleration Velocity Displacement
1 0.29 0.041 0.00 -3.28 -1.70 -0.13
2 0.58 0.08 0.00 -3.10 -1.53 0.04
3 0.91 0.12 0.00 -3.04 -1.47 0.10
4 1.74 0.23 0.00 -2.94 -1.37 0.21
5 2.58 0.34 0.00 -2.84 -1.27 0.30
6 5.10 0.67 0.00 -2.52 -0.95 0.62
7 8.36 1.10 0.01 -1.89 -0.32 1.26
8 8.68 1.14 0.01 -1.37 0.20 1.77
9 8.52 1.12 0.01 -1.27 0.30 1.87
10 8.18 1.08 0.01 -1.16 0.41 1.98
11 7.27 0.96 0.01 -0.91 0.66 2.23
12 6.62 0.87 0.01 -0.81 0.76 2.33
13 5.17 0.68 0.01 -0.56 1.01 2.58
14 3.62 0.47 0.00 -0.34 1.23 2.88
15 1.89 0.24 0.00 -0.13 1.44 3.01
16 1.32 0.17 0.00 -0.06 1.52 3.09

9
REFERENCES REFERENCES

Appendix B - Nyquist plot data and calculations

From the phase angles presented in Table 6 (Appendix A), in-phase and out-of-phase components are
calculated which are used to plot the Nyquist plots for acceleration, velocity and displacement.

Table 7: Calculated in-phase and out-of-phase components of acceleration, velocity and displacement for the Nyquist
plots.

Acceleration Velocity Displacement

Data point
In-Phase Out-of-Phase In-Phase Out-of-Phase In-Phase Out-of-Phase
1 -4.120 0.553 -0.006 -0.041 0.000 0.000
2 -8.294 -0.316 0.003 -0.080 0.001 0.000
3 -12.876 -1.313 0.013 -0.122 0.001 0.000
4 -24.351 -5.060 0.047 -0.228 0.002 0.000
5 -35.241 -10.940 0.102 -0.328 0.003 0.001
6 -59.325 -42.244 0.391 -0.549 0.005 0.004
7 -37.113 -113.471 1.047 -0.342 0.003 0.010
8 24.962 -121.520 1.120 0.230 -0.002 0.010
9 36.297 -116.146 1.070 0.334 -0.003 0.010
10 46.714 -107.129 0.986 0.430 -0.004 0.010
11 63.604 -82.157 0.755 0.584 -0.005 0.007
12 65.270 -68.358 0.627 0.599 -0.005 0.006
13 62.565 -39.330 0.360 0.572 -0.005 0.003
14 48.627 -17.431 0.159 0.442 -0.004 0.001
15 26.730 -3.492 0.031 0.240 -0.002 0.000
16 18.771 -1.050 0.093 0.166 -0.001 0.000

The quality of fit, κ, is calculated using the "average" distance of n data points (xi , yi ) to the circular fit,
, normalised by the radius, ρ:

κ=1− (4)
ρ2 n
Pn
where  = i=1 |(xi − ρ)2 + y2i − ρ2 |.

10
View publication stats