BUMP TEST ENHANCEMENT USING

AUTOMATED IMPACT FORCE

MUHAMMAD AKRAM BIN JAMAL AKBAR

B. ENG (HONS.) MECHANICAL

ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PAHANG

 UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PAHANG

DECLARATION OF THESIS AND COPYRIGHT

Author’s Full Name : MUHAMMAD AKRAM BIN JAMAL AKBAR

Date of Birth : 17 NOVEMBER 2000
Title : BUMP TEST ENHANCEMENT USING AUTOMATED
IMPACT FORCE
Academic Session : 2019/2020

I declare that this thesis is classified as:

☐ CONFIDENTIAL (Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

☐ RESTRICTED
☒ OPEN ACCESS
Act 1997)*
(Contains restricted information as specified by the
organization where research was done)*
I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access
(Full Text)

I acknowledge that Universiti Malaysia Pahang reserves the following rights:

1. The Thesis is the Property of Universiti Malaysia Pahang

2. The Library of Universiti Malaysia Pahang has the right to make copies of the
thesis for the purpose of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.

Certified by:

_____________________
(Student’s Signature)
_______________________
001117-11-0639 (Supervisor’s Signature)
_____________________
New IC/Passport Number
Date: 28 JUNE 2023 Dr. Che Ku Eddy Nizwan Bin
Che Ku Husin
_______________________
Name of Supervisor
Date: 10 JULY 2023

NOTE : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTIAL or RESTRICTED, please attach a thesis declaration

letter.
 THESIS DECLARATION LETTER (OPTIONAL)

Librarian,
Perpustakaan Universiti Malaysia Pahang,
Universiti Malaysia Pahang,
Lebuhraya Tun Razak,
26300, Gambang, Kuantan.

Dear Sir,

CLASSIFICATION OF THESIS AS RESTRICTED

Please be informed that the following thesis is classified as RESTRICTED for a period of three
(3) years from the date of this letter. The reasons for this classification are as listed below.
Author’s Name
Thesis Title

Reasons (i)

(ii)

(iii)

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

_____________________________
(Supervisor’s Signature)

Date: 10 JULY 2023

Stamp:

Note: This letter should be written by the supervisor, addressed to the Librarian, Perpustakaan
Universiti Malaysia Pahang with its copy attached to the thesis.
 SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION

I hereby declare that I have checked this thesis and, in my opinion, this thesis/ is adequate
in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Engineering
(Hons.) in Mechanical Engineering.

_______________________________
(Supervisor’s Signature)
Full Name : Dr. Che Ku Eddy Nizwan Bin Che Ku Husin
Position : Lecturer
Date : 10 JULY 2023

:
 STUDENT’S DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work in this thesis is based on my original work except for
quotations and citations which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that it has
not been previously or concurrently submitted for any other degree at Universiti Malaysia
Pahang or any other institutions.

_______________________________
(Student’s Signature)
Full Name : MUHAMMAD AKRAM BIN JAMAL AKBAR
ID Number : MA19099
Date : 28 JUNE 2023
 BUMP TEST ENHANCEMENT USING
AUTOMATED IMPACT FORCE TITLE

MUHAMMAD AKRAM BIN JAMAL AKBAR

Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of
B. Eng. (Hons.) Mechanical Engineering

Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering Technology

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PAHANG

JUNE 2023
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I begin this acknowledgment by expressing my heartfelt gratitude to the Almighty Allah

for blessing me with strength, wisdom, and perseverance throughout my journey in
completing my Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering. Through His guidance and grace, I
have overcome challenges and accomplished this significant milestone in my life. I am
forever indebted to Him for His countless blessings and unwavering support.

I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. Che Ku Eddy

Nizwan Bin Che Ku Husin, for his invaluable guidance, expertise, and encouragement
throughout the duration of my thesis. His insightful feedback, patience, and continuous
support have been instrumental in shaping my research and enhancing my understanding
of the subject matter. I am truly grateful for his mentorship, which has played a crucial
role in the successful completion of this thesis.

To my friends, thank you for supporting me throughout my studies. Your encouragement

and belief in me have been invaluable, especially during tough times. Our friendship has
motivated me to push myself and strive for greatness. I'm grateful that we've shared late-
night study sessions, intellectual discussions, and triumphs. It has been an honor to
journey alongside such amazing people who have been my rock and partners in my
personal growth. Thank you for making this journey unforgettable.

Finally, I cannot express how grateful I am for my family's unwavering support and love.
They have been there for me every step of the way, constantly encouraging me and
making sacrifices to help me succeed. Their belief in me has been a driving force behind
my achievements, and I am truly lucky to have them in my life. I thank them from the
bottom of my heart for being my foundation and for always being there to lift me up when
I need it most.

ii
 ABSTRAK

Tesis ini memfokuskan kepada meningkatkan teknik ujian ketukan dengan melaksanakan sistem
ketukan automatik menggunakan solenoid tolak-tarik untuk analisis modal eksperimen. Objektif
penyelidikan termasuk mereka bentuk sistem ketukan automatik, menjalankan analisis modal
eksperimen pada struktur besi menggunakan kaedah ketukan manual dan automatik, serta menilai
prestasi sistem ketukan automatik untuk analisis modal eksperimen.

Kajian ini bermula dengan mengenal pasti kelemahan ketukan manual dari penukul impak dalam
memberikan daya ketukan yang konsisten dan dipercayai disebabkan oleh perbezaan kekuatan
pengguna dalam memberi setiap ketukan dan bilangan untuk melaksanakan ayunan ketukan bagi
setiap individu. Untuk mengatasi kelemahan ini, sistem ketukan automatik dicadangkan dan
direka, dengan menggunakan solenoid tolak-tarik untuk memberikan daya ketukan secara
konsisten pada struktur besi. Pendekatan analisis modal eksperimen melibatkan teknik keluaran
bergerak ataupun “roving output”, di mana daya ketukan yang dihasilkan kekal tetap pada satu
titik sementara “accelerometer” bergerak pada titik berbeza untuk mengumpulkan data. Sistem
ketukan manual dan automatik digunakan untuk mengukur respons terhadap setiap ketukan.

Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahawa sistem ketukan automatik berfungsi sebanding dengan sistem
manual yang berfungsi sebagai penanda aras. Walau bagaimanapun, terdapat kelemahan yang
dikenal pasti sepanjang kajian. Sistem automatik gagal menyaring impak tambahan semasa
ketukan berlaku. Selain itu, kestabilan lengan penjepit meja dan konsistensi daya ketukan yang
dihasilkan oleh solenoid dorong-tarik juga menjadi cabaran ketika data dikumpulkan.

Untuk mengatasi kelemahan ini dan meningkatkan proses ujian ketukan, beberapa cadangan
diberikan. Antaranya adalah termasuk memperbaharui bahan yang diguna pakai untuk
menghasilkan lengan penjepit meja bagi mengurangkan getaran. Cadangan seterusnya adalah
dengan membangunkan satu penyusunan automatik sepenuhnya dengan kawalan tepat terhadap
parameter ujian. Eksplorasi kaedah alternatif untuk mengukur daya output solenoid tolak-tarik
dan mencari penyambung yang sesuai untuk kedudukan pengesan juga dicadangkan.

Secara kesimpulannya, tesis ini berjaya membangunkan sistem ketukan automatik menggunakan
solenoid tolak-tarik untuk meningkatkan prosedur ujian ketukan dalam analisis modal
eksperimen. Kajian ini mencapai objektifnya, tetapi terdapat kelemahan dalam penyaringan
ketukan tambahan, kestabilan lengan penjepit meja, konsistensi daya ketukan, dan kedudukan
pengesan yang dikenal pasti. Dengan melaksanakan peningkatan yang dicadangkan, ketepatan,
kecekapan, dan kebolehpercayaan proses analisis modal eksperimen boleh ditingkatkan,
menghasilkan hasil yang lebih baik.

iii
 ABSTRACT

This thesis focuses on enhancing the impact test technique by implementing an automated
knocking system using a linear solenoid for experimental modal analysis. The research objectives
include the development of an automatic knocking system, performing experimental modal
analysis on a beam structure using manual and automated impact methods, and evaluating the
performance of the automatic knocking system for experimental modal analysis.

The study begins by identifying the limitations of manual impacts from impact hammers in
delivering consistent and reliable impact forces due to variations in user strength and the need for
individual swings for each blow. To overcome these limitations, an automated knocking system
is proposed and designed, utilizing a linear solenoid to deliver impact forces on a beam structure
consistently. The experimental modal analysis approach involves a roving output technique,
where the delivered impact force remains fixed at a specific point while the accelerometer moves
to different points to collect data. Both manual and automatic knocking systems are used to
measure the response to each impact.

The results indicate that the automatic knocking system performs comparably to the manual
system, which serves as a benchmark. However, limitations are identified throughout the study.
The automatic system fails to filter out additional impacts during the knocking process.
Additionally, the stability of the table clamp arm and the consistency of the impact force
generated by the linear solenoid also pose challenges when collecting data.

To address these limitations and improve the impact test process, several recommendations are
provided. These include updating the material used for the table clamp arm to reduce vibrations
and developing a fully automated setup with precise control over the test parameters. Exploring
alternative methods for measuring the output force of the linear solenoid and finding suitable
connectors for transducer positioning are also suggested.

In conclusion, this thesis successfully develops an automatic knocking system using a linear
solenoid to enhance the impact test procedures in experimental modal analysis. The study
achieves its objectives, but limitations in filtering additional impacts, table clamp arm stability,
impact force consistency, and transducer positioning are identified. By implementing the
suggested improvements, the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of the experimental modal
analysis process can be enhanced, leading to better results.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION

TITLE PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRAK iii

ABSTRACT iv

TABLE OF CONTENT v

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF SYMBOLS x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi

LIST OF APPENDICES xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 13

1.1 Project Background 13

1.2 Problem Statement 14

1.3 Objective 14

1.4 Scope of Study 15

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 17

2.1 Introduction 17

2.2 Experimental Modal Analysis 17

2.3 Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) 18

2.4 Frequency Response Function (FRF) 19

2.5 Impact Hammer 20

2.6 Type of Solenoid 21

2.6.1 Alternating Current (AC) Laminated Solenoid 21

2.6.2 Direct Current (DC) Frame Solenoid 22

v
 2.6.3 Direct Current (DC) D-Frame Solenoid 23

2.6.4 Linear Solenoid 24

2.6.5 Rotary Solenoid 24

2.7 Mini-Shaker Vibration 25

2.8 Summary 26

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 28

3.1 Introduction 28

3.2 Project Flowchart 28

3.3 Gantt Chart 29

3.3.1 For URP 1 30

3.3.2 For URP 2 30

3.4 Sketch Design of Automatic Knocking System 31

3.4.1 Screw Connector 32

3.5 Control Box 33

3.6 Components of Automated Knocking System 33

3.6.1 Voltage Supply 33

3.6.2 Linear Solenoid with Spring Return 34

3.6.3 5-Pin Relay 35

3.6.4 Push Pull Button Switch 36

3.6.5 Plug 3 Pin 36

3.7 Automatic System Circuit 37

3.8 Method Approach 39

3.8.1 Procedure 39

3.8.2 Data Collection Process 39

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 41

vi
4.1 Introduction 41

4.2 Final Product 41

4.3 Analysis of Bump Test Results 44

4.3.1 Manual Impact Result 45

4.3.2 Automatic Impact 48

4.4 Graph Comparison between Manual and Automatic Bump Test 51

4.5 Discussion 57

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 58

5.1 Introduction 58

5.2 Limitation 58

5.3 Improvement Recommendation 58

5.4 Conclusion 59

REFERENCES 60

APPENDICES 62

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Example of Experimental Modal Analysis Setup 18

Figure 2.2: Block Diagram of FRF 20
Figure 2.3: Impact Hammer 21
Figure 2.4: Alternating Current (AC) Laminated Solenoid 22
Figure 2.5: Direct Current (DC) Frame Solenoid 23
Figure 2.6: Direct Current (DC) D-Frame Solenoid 23
Figure 2.7: Linear Solenoid 24
Figure 2.8: Rotary Solenoid 25
Figure 2.9: Mini-Shaker Vibration 26
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of the Project 29
Figure 3.2: The Gantt Chart for URP 1 30
Figure 3.3: The Gantt Chart for URP 2 31
Figure 3.4: Sketch for experimental setup 32
Figure 3.5: Design of screw connector 32
Figure 3.6: SolidWorks are used to design the box control 33
Figure 3.7: 12V AC/DC Switch Power Supply 34
Figure 3.8: Linear Push Solenoid 35
Figure 3.9: 5-Pin Relay 35
Figure 3.10: 2-pin SPST momentary linear button switch 36
Figure 3.11: Plug 3 Pin 37
Figure 3.12: Circuit Diagram for Automated Knocking System 38
Figure 3.13: Electric Circuit for Automatic Knocking System 38
Figure 4.1: Table clamp attached with Linear solenoid 41
Figure 4.2: Screw connector 42
Figure 4.3: Control box are used to control impact from Linear solenoid 43
Figure 4.4: Setup for the test 44
Figure 4.5: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 1 45
Figure 4.6: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 2 45
Figure 4.7: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 3 46
Figure 4.8: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 4 46
Figure 4.9: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 5 46
Figure 4.10: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 1 48
Figure 4.11: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 2 49

viii
Figure 4.12: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 3 49
Figure 4.13: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 4 49
Figure 4.14: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 5 50
Figure 4.15: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 1 52
Figure 4.16: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 2 53
Figure 4.17: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 3 54
Figure 4.18: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 4 55
Figure 4.19: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 5 56

ix
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

F(ω) Fourier transform of the input force

X(ω) An output response

x
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC Alternating Current
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
DAQ Data Acquisition System
DC Direct Current
EMA Experimental Modal Analysis
FFT Frequency Response Function
FRF Fast Fourier Transform
NC Normally Closed
NO Normally Open
PSU Power Supply Unit
SPST Single Pole Single Throw
URP Undergraduate Research Project

xi
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Drawing of screw connector 63

Appendix B: Drawing of control box 63
Appendix C: Laser cutting to fabricate control box 64
Appendix D: Assembly part of control box 65
Appendix E: Testing evaluation by using impact hammer 65

xii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

Experimental modal analysis (EMA), often known as modal analysis or modal

testing, is a process to determine natural frequencies, damping ratios, and mode shapes
by means of vibration testing in order to formulate a mathematical model to know its
dynamic properties.(Avitabile, 2001; Singiresu S. Rao, 2011). EMA characterises the
system's dynamic properties through analysis of input and output data. Depending on the
preferences of the user, the analysis may be performed either in the time domain or the
frequency domain.(Cunha & Caetano, 2005).

One of the procedures that are used in (EMA) is bump test, which is a simple and
cost-effective vibration test that was developed specifically for determining the vibration
mode and machine structure. (Pratiwi et al., 2021). Engineers use specialized equipment
such as shaker tables or shock machines to apply physical impacts or vibrations to the
device, simulating conditions it may encounter during its use. This test is widely used in
various industries such as aerospace, automotive, and defence. For example, several
studies have been conducted including Matos, who performed the bump test, which
employed an instrumented force hammer to evaluate failure detection in generator
endwindings.(Danilo da Guarda Matos, 2019).

From previous research paper, an impact hammer has been used to perform
experimental modal analysis. However, the efficiency of conventional impact hammer
has limited the effectiveness because of lack of understanding and control over the
impact. (Cheet & Chao, 2018). In order to overcome the problem, automated impact
system has been introduced to improve the effectiveness.

The aim of this project is to determine how well the automated knocking system
works for experimental modal analysis. Impact hammer will be replaced with linear

13
solenoid during the development of automated knocking system to prevent
ineffectiveness of control from occurring throughout the experiment. The manual and
automated knocking systems will execute on a beam structured with roving output
method to analyse data to evaluate how this method improves. Expected result for this
project will show that automatic knocking system has better result compared to manual
knocking system.

1.2 Problem Statement

Based on previous experiments of modal analysis, manual impact hammer was powered
by user to deliver a blow or knock to the surface or object being work on to generate
impact force. Since it relies on the strength and skill of the user, the applied force produce
was not reliable because of limitation of physical strength of the user which can be tiring
for a human to constantly deliver a blow to the surface or object for a period. Besides,
the speed of impaction is not consistent as the user must pause to swing the impact
hammer to deliver each blow individually. To achieve good coherence and avoid
unnecessary errors such as double knock, a competent user was required to induce impact
force. Because of the deficiency of the manual impact hammer, the impact resulted from
the experiments were not consistent for every knock.

To overcome the problem, the concept of an automated knocking system has been
proposed to enhance the system.

1.3 Objective

The objective of this project are:

1. To develop automatic knocking system to induce impact force using linear

solenoid.
2. To perform experimental modal analysis on a beam structure using manual and
automated impact.
3. To Evaluate the performance of automatic knocking system for
experimental modal analysis.

14
1.4 Scope of Study

The scope for this project are:

1. The design and fabrication of the automatic knocking system is focused

to use a linear solenoid to induce impact force consistently on a beam
structure.

2. The approach for bump test which the induced impact force is fixed at a
single place while the accelerometer moves to collect data.

3. The manual and automatic knocking system will be performed to measure

the response of the knocking impact.

15
16
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In this literature review, we will explore the enhancement of bump tests by using
linear solenoids in automatic knocking systems. This project aims to evaluate the
effectiveness of the automated knocking mechanism in experimental modal analysis. To
accomplish this, we will review the available literature on this system and consider its
advantages and drawbacks. This literature review will provide an overview of automatic
knocking systems techniques that are suitable to be used in this project.

2.2 Experimental Modal Analysis

Experimental Modal Analysis (EMA) is a technique used to identify a structure

or system's natural frequencies, modes of vibration, and damping ratios. It involves
collecting data on the response of a structure or system to external excitations, such as
impact or vibration, and using this data to determine the dynamic characteristics of the
structure. (Avitabile, 2001; Singiresu S. Rao, 2011). EMA is often used to analyze the
dynamic behavior of structures such as bridges, buildings, and other civil engineering
structures, as well as mechanical systems such as aircraft, ships, and vehicles. It can be
beneficial for evaluating the structural integrity and performance of structures and
systems that are subject to dynamic loading conditions. (Carne et al., 2007)

There are several different methods that can be used to conduct an EMA test,
including impact testing, shaker testing, and frequency response testing. Typical
measurement tools used for EMA include an impact hammer and an accelerometer, which
produce input and output signals that are analyzed by software (Jannifar et al., 2017).
Each of these methods utilizes measurable input and output data to provide a
characterization of the dynamic properties of a system, such as natural frequency,
damping ratio, and mode shape. The results of an EMA test can be used to identify the

17
natural frequencies and modes of vibration of the structure or system, as well as the level
of damping present. This information can be used to optimize the design of the structure
or system, to identify potential sources of vibration or noise, or to develop maintenance
and repair strategies. Figure 2.1 demonstrates the example of experimental modal
analysis.

Figure 2.1: Example of Experimental Modal Analysis Setup

Source : Gantasala et al. (2017)

The frequency response function (FRF) is a crucial measurement for experimental

modal analysis. It shows the relationship between the output response and the initial
excitation force. FFT analyzers or data-gathering systems with FFT-capable software are
typically used to obtain this measurement.

2.3 Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)

The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is a computer program that rapidly carries out
a Fourier Transform (FT) on a time-domain signal. The FT is a mathematical process that
can extract the frequency elements of a signal, which is helpful in analyzing vibrations.
The use of FFT enables quick conversion of vibration data from the time domain to the
frequency domain, helping to identify specific frequencies that may indicate a problem
with a machine or structure (Bergland, 1969). The FFT is a widely used tool in vibration
analysis and is often included in software packages for data acquisition and analysis.

18
 The FFT is a fast and efficient way to compute the discrete Fourier transform DFT
(Bergland, 1969; Charles et al. et al., 1967), making it possible to analyze signals and
data in real time or in a short amount of time. It is widely used in a variety of fields,
including signal processing, communications, and engineering, for tasks such as
spectrum analysis, filtering, and data compression. The FFT algorithm breaks down a
sequence into its separate frequency components using a set of mathematical operations.
This breakdown is done in a particular manner that enables the FFT to calculate the DFT
faster than alternative methods.

In vibration analysis, the FFT and the FRF are two ideas that are similar but not
identical. The FFT is a computational algorithm that can rapidly perform a Fourier
Transform (FT) on a time-domain signal, enabling the detection of certain frequencies
that can point to a fault with a machine or structure. The FRF, on the other hand, measures
a system's response to a sinusoidal input signal at a specific frequency and is used to
comprehend a system's dynamic behavior throughout a range of frequencies.

2.4 Frequency Response Function (FRF)

According to Schwarz & Richardson (1999), The Frequency Response Function

(FRF) is a fundamental measurement that extracts the dynamic characteristics of a
machine's experimental modal parameters, including frequency, damping, and mode
shape. These parameters are obtained from a set of FRF measurements. As can be seen
in Figure 2.2, the FRF provides a description of the input-output connection that exists
between two places on a structure as a function of the frequency. The FRF of a system
may be measured using a variety of techniques, such as frequency response testing, modal
testing, and operational modal analysis, to name just a few of the available options. A
number of research on FRF approaches have been conducted.

In a study by Golafshan et al. (2018), vibration analysis was used to assess the
condition of roller bearings. They used FRF to monitor the status of the bearings.
Similarly, Susanto et al. (2019) used the FRF method to detect bearing damage in tapper
bearings for maintenance purposes. These methods typically involve applying a
sinusoidal excitation to the system and measuring the response of the system using
sensors such as accelerometers or strain gauges. The FRF can be represented graphically,

19
with the frequency of the excitation on the x-axis and the magnitude of the response on
the y-axis. The shape of the FRF curve can reveal necessary information about the
dynamic behavior of the system, such as the presence of resonances or the level of
damping present.

Figure 2.2: Block Diagram of FRF

Source :Schwarz & Richardson, (1999)

Figure 2.2 also shows that the description of a FRF is the ratio of the Fourier
transform of an output response X(ω) divided by the Fourier transform of the input force
F(ω) that created the output. The value for this project's output response, X(ω), may be
gathered by an accelerometer, and the value for the input force, F(ω), will be created by
a transducer that is placed at the tip of the linear solenoid.

2.5 Impact Hammer

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) states that impact
hammer modal testing is a reliable and commonly used technique for identifying a
structure's natural frequencies and mode shapes. (ASTM International, 2016). The
method involves striking the structure with a small, lightweight hammer and measuring
the response at various points on the structure using accelerometers. The resulting data
create a mathematical model of the structure's dynamic behaviour.

One of the critical advantages of impact hammer modal testing is that it allows
for measuring a structure's natural frequencies and mode shapes without physically

20
attaching sensors or markers to the structure (ASTM International, 2016). This eliminates
the need for drilling or other invasive techniques, which can damage the structure.

However, Schwarz & Richardson (1999) specifically cited the inability to obtain
periodic input into the tested construction due to inconsistent impact hammer application.
Furthermore, issues often associated with multiple knocks arise because of the nature of
the impact hammer application, which is highly dependent on the operator's ability and
experience. These obstacles have jeopardized the dependability of the signals created,
which will be analyzed subsequently to get the Frequency Response Function (FRF).

Figure 2.3: Impact Hammer

2.6 Type of Solenoid

As required by the project's objectives, the suggested solution is a solenoid that

can operate as a component of an automated system. Several distinct kinds of solenoids
are most likely to be used.

2.6.1 Alternating Current (AC) Laminated Solenoid

One of the most well-known characteristics of an alternating current (AC)

laminated solenoid is the amount of force that may be produced by the device during its
first stroke. They also have the capability of using a stroke that is longer than that of a
DC solenoid. An AC laminated solenoid in figure 2.4, is a type of solenoid that uses an
alternating current AC to generate a magnetic field. It comprises of an iron core

21
constructed of a number of thin iron sheets, or "laminations," and a coil of wire wound
around it. The laminations are utilised to lower electrical resistance in the core, allowing
the solenoid to create a greater magnetic field.

An AC laminated solenoid is a kind of solenoid that may be used in a wide range

of equipment, including to medical equipment, locks, cars, industrial equipment, printers,
and even certain domestic appliances. These types of equipment demand quick response.

Figure 2.4: Alternating Current (AC) Laminated Solenoid

Source : (Dinesh Kumar, 2019)

2.6.2 Direct Current (DC) Frame Solenoid

The direct current (DC) C-Frame solenoid consists of a frame in the form of the
letter C that is wrapped around the coil as shows in figure 2.5. It is a type of solenoid that
uses a direct current DC to generate a magnetic field. It is made up of a coil of wire that
is wound around an iron core, which is often formed into the shape of a cylinder or a
frame. In contrast to an AC laminated solenoid, which has a core that is made up of tiny
layers of laminations, this kind of solenoid has a core that is made up of a single piece of
iron or steel. A DC frame solenoid operates by applying a constant DC current to the coil.
This creates a magnetic field that causes the plunger to move in or out, depending on the
polarity of the current. Although they are described as having a DC design, they may also
be utilised in equipment built for AC power.

22
Figure 2.5: Direct Current (DC) Frame Solenoid
Source : (Dinesh Kumar, 2019)

2.6.3 Direct Current (DC) D-Frame Solenoid

A direct current (DC) D-frame solenoid in figure 2.6 is a type of solenoid that
uses a direct current DC to generate a magnetic field. It is made up of a coil of wire
wrapped around a "D"-shaped iron or steel core. A DC D-frame solenoid works just like
a DC frame solenoid. A constant DC current runs through the coil to create a magnetic
field that moves the plunger in or out. The D-shaped core of the solenoid allows for a
more compact design, which can be useful in applications where space is limited.

Figure 2.6: Direct Current (DC) D-Frame Solenoid

Source : (Dinesh Kumar, 2019)

23
2.6.4 Linear Solenoid

A linear solenoid is a type of solenoid that produces a linear motion of the plunger
when activated. The vast majority of individuals have experience working with solenoids
of this kind. A linear solenoid may be used for a number of metering operations by
applying a pulling or pushing force to a mechanical device. Beside of the coil wire and
an iron core, it also consists of a plunger that moves in a straight line in and out of the
solenoid as show in figure 2.7 below. Linear solenoids are typically classified based on
the type of current used, such as direct current DC or alternating current AC. They are
also rated based on their size and the amount of force they can generate.

Figure 2.7: Linear Solenoid

Source : (Dinesh Kumar, 2019)

2.6.5 Rotary Solenoid

A rotatory solenoid is an excellent example of a mechanical force that can be

utilised in a variety of techniques to simplify an automated control process and relatively
simple to make life simpler. A rotary solenoid as show in figure 2.8 below, is an
electromechanical device that converts electrical energy into linear or rotary motion. It is
a type of solenoid, which is a coil of wire that generates a magnetic field when an electric
current is passed through it. The rotary solenoid uses this magnetic field to create a rotary
motion, typically through the use of a rotating armature or shaft.

24
 A rotary solenoid typically consists of a coil, a core, and a rotating shaft. The coil
is typically made of a wire, such as copper, that is wound around a core, which is usually
made of a magnetic material such as iron. When an electric current is passed through the
coil, it creates a magnetic field that attracts the core. As the core is attached to a rotating
shaft, the rotation of the core causes the shaft to rotate as well. They are known for their
high reliability and long service life, as well as their ability to generate high torque with
relatively low power consumption.

Figure 2.8: Rotary Solenoid

Source : (Dinesh Kumar, 2019)

2.7 Mini-Shaker Vibration

Shaker vibration refers to the mechanical movement of a device, known as a

shaker, that is used to simulate various types of vibration in a controlled laboratory
setting. A mini shaker is a small, portable version of a standard shaker used for vibration
testing. They are typically used for testing small components or devices and are often
used in lab settings for R&D and quality control testing. Mini shakers as shown in figure
2.9, are typically less powerful than full-size shakers and can generate lower levels of
vibration, but they are still capable of providing accurate and reliable test results. Some
of the benefits of mini shakers include its portability, ease of use and cost effectiveness.

25
Figure 2.9: Mini-Shaker Vibration

2.8 Summary

The literature review delves into various important topics related to vibration
analysis and experimental modal analysis. Experimental modal analysis (EMA) is
presented as a method of studying the dynamic characteristics of structures. This involves
measuring the vibrational response of a structure and extracting modal parameters such
as natural frequencies, damping ratios, and mode shapes.

The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is discussed as a commonly used technique for
analyzing vibration data. It enables the transformation of time-domain signals into
frequency-domain representations, allowing the identification of dominant frequencies
and resonant modes.

Frequency Response Function (FRF) analysis is emphasized as a crucial tool in

experimental modal analysis. It involves measuring the system's response to an excitation
force at various frequencies, enabling the determination of its dynamic behavior and
transfer functions.

The usage of an impact hammer as an excitation source in modal analysis is

explored. The impact hammer applies an impulsive force to the structure, exciting a wide
frequency range and facilitating the identification of its dynamic characteristics.

26
 Different types of solenoids are discussed about their applications in vibration
analysis. This includes alternating current (AC) laminated solenoids, direct current (DC)
frame solenoids, direct current (DC) D-frame solenoids, linear solenoids, and rotary
solenoids. Each type has its unique characteristics and suitability for specific applications.

The literature review also touches on mini-shaker vibration, which involves using
small shakers to generate controlled vibrations in structures. Mini-shakers are helpful for
experimental modal analysis, allowing researchers to study the dynamic response of
small-scale systems or components.

Overall, the literature review provides an overview of key concepts and

techniques in experimental modal analysis, including FFT analysis, FRF analysis, impact
hammer excitation, different types of solenoids, and mini-shaker vibration.

27
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, details description of methodology in developing automatic

knocking impact system will be discussed to ensure the project runs efficiently. A
suitable approach has been structured to ensure that the project's aims and objectives can
be accomplished. In addition, a process flowchart, data collection, and analysis methods,
and any ethical considerations that were considered during the study will be provided in
this chapter.

3.2 Project Flowchart

This flowchart in Figure 3.1 shows the steps involved in developing an automatic
impact system. It starts with a review of the literature and progresses to testing and
evaluation. If the testing and evaluation results are negative, the process returns to the
development stage. If they are positive, the flowchart moves on to experimental modal
analysis. After the analysis, the flowchart goes to the result and analysis. If the analysis
is unsatisfactory, the process returns to experimental modal analysis for further
investigation. However, if it is satisfactory, the process proceeds to documentation.
Finally, the flowchart ends after the documentation stage.

28
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of the Project

3.3 Gantt Chart

This Gantt chart displays the timelines and activities in the Undergraduate
Research Program (URP) 1 and URP 2. It provides a visual summary of the project
schedules, indicating the start and end dates for each task.

29
 3.3.1 For URP 1

The Gantt chart for URP 1 is presented in Figure 3.2. It starts with selecting a
topic and having meetings with the supervisor. Then, it moves on to conducting literature
research, extracting data, developing methodology, and preparing the report. Finally, it
ends with the URP 1 Presentation.

WEEK
DURATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
ACTIVITY

URP Supervisor and topic

selection

URP Briefing

Meeting with Supervisor

Research for literature review

Extracting data

Methodology

Report Preparation

URP 1 Presentation

Plan
Actual

Figure 3.2: The Gantt Chart for URP 1

3.3.2 For URP 2

In Figure 3.3, the Gantt chart for URP 2 is shown. The project begins with a
supervisor meeting and involves creating an automatic knocking system. The project then
moves on to conducting experiments, extracting data, analyzing data, and preparing a
report, and ends with the URP 2 Presentation.

30
 WEEK
DURATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
ACTIVITY

Meeting with Supervisor

Developed automatic knocking

system

Run Experiment

Extracting data

Data analysis

Report Preparation

URP 2 Presentation

Plan
Actual

Figure 3.3: The Gantt Chart for URP 2

3.4 Sketch Design of Automatic Knocking System

Figure 3.4 illustrates the experimental setup, which includes a table clamp with
an arm rod, linear solenoid, screw connector, transducer sensor, accelerometer, beam
structure (iron bar), sponge foam, and table. This sketch is intended to provide an
overview of the components needed to conduct a bump test. It provides an outline of how
the experimental setup might seem, making it easier to conduct the experiment.

31
Figure 3.4: Sketch for experimental setup

3.4.1 Screw Connector

Figure 3.5: Design of screw connector

Figure 3.5 displays the design of a screw connector that links the linear solenoid
to the transducer. The connector has two different sides. The front side has a hollow
cylinder with an internal thread size of m6, which is used to connect to the linear solenoid.
The back side has a cylinder with an external thread size of m3, which is used for
connecting to the transducer.

32
3.5 Control Box

The control box in figure 3.6 is designed with two holes: one on the front and the
other on the back. The front hole is for connecting to the linear solenoid, while the back
hole is for the voltage supply wire. On top of the box, there is a button that acts as a
switch to trigger the linear solenoid, creating an impact. To prevent overheating, the box
has an air ventilation hole on its side to ensure efficient airflow within the enclosure. This
ventilation design maintains optimal temperature for the components. The box is
designed to keep all components organized and secure, promoting safety throughout the
experimental setup.

Figure 3.6: SolidWorks are used to design the box control

3.6 Components of Automated Knocking System

3.6.1 Voltage Supply

A voltage supply device is an electronic tool that provides a consistent and

unwavering voltage to another electronic circuit or device. It can also be referred to as a
power supply unit (PSU) or voltage regulator. There are various types of voltage supply
devices, such as AC-to-DC converters, DC-to-DC converters, and battery chargers.

33
 One example of a power supply device is the AC/DC switch power supply, which
is illustrated in Figure 3.4. This device converts alternating current (AC) into direct
current (DC) using a switching regulator to transform the AC input into high-frequency
AC, which is then rectified to DC.

Figure 3.7: 12V AC/DC Switch Power Supply

3.6.2 Linear Solenoid with Spring Return

A linear solenoid with spring return is a type of electromechanical actuator that

converts electrical energy into linear motion. It consists of a cylindrical coil of wire that
surrounds a movable ferromagnetic core, a spring, and a rod. The solenoid is activated
when electrical current is passed through the coil, creating a magnetic field that attracts
the ferromagnetic core and causes it to move linearly along the rod.

The spring return feature is a mechanical mechanism that pushes the core back to
its original position when the electrical current is turned off. The spring is typically a
compression spring that is located between the ferromagnetic core and the rod. The spring
provides the force that returns the core to its original position when the current is turned
off.

34
Figure 3.8: Linear Solenoid

3.6.3 5-Pin Relay

A 5-pin relay is an electromechanical switch that is controlled by an electrical

current. It consists of an electromagnet, a set of contacts, and a spring-loaded mechanism.
The relay is activated when electrical current is passed through the electromagnet,
creating a magnetic field that attracts the spring-loaded mechanism and causes the
contacts to close or open.

Figure 3.9: 5-Pin Relay

35
3.6.4 Push Pull Button Switch

A 2-pin SPST momentary linear button switch is a type of switch that has two
pins, is single pole single throw (SPST), and is momentary, meaning that it only stays in
the on position while the button is being physically pressed. This type of switch is
commonly used in electronic devices such as toys, appliances, and control panels.

Figure 3.10: 2-pin SPST momentary linear button switch

3.6.5 Plug 3 Pin

A 3-pin plug is a type of electrical connector that is used to connect a device to a

power source. The plug features three pins, with the earth pin being slightly longer than
the other two pins. The earth pin is responsible for providing a safety ground connection,
while the other two pins are used for live and neutral connections. The 3-pin plug is
designed to fit into a corresponding 3-pin socket, which is also known as a BS 1363
socket. The plug and socket are designed to ensure a secure and safe connection, and to
prevent accidental disconnection.

36
Figure 3.11: Plug 3 Pin

3.7 Automatic System Circuit

Developing an automated impact knocking system would necessarily need the use
of an electric circuit consist of a linear solenoid as the knocker, a relay as the controller,
power supply to provide electricity, and a push pull button switch in order to make the
system functioning. The circuit was connected to a power supply using a 3-pin plug, and
the push pull button switch served as the main switch to control the flow of electric energy
that go through a relay before moving to the solenoid.

When the linear button is pressed, it sends a small electrical current to the relay's
coil, causing the coil to become energized. This in turn causes the relay's internal
mechanism to move, either closing or opening the switch contacts. In the normal state,
the normally closed (NC) contact is closed, and the normally open (NO) contact is open,
when the linear button is pressed, the current flows through the coil, activating the relay
and causing the internal mechanism to close the normally open contact and open the
normally closed contact. This in turn allows current to flow to the linear solenoid and
generate impact. When the linear button is released, the current to the coil is cut off,
deactivating the relay, and causing the internal mechanism to return to its original
position, opening the normally open contact and closing the normally closed contact,
cutting off the power to the linear solenoid.

37
Figure 3.12: Circuit Diagram for Automated Knocking System

Figure 3.9 shows the system of automated knocking system flow from power
supply to linear solenoid. In figure 3.10 below show the electric circuit of automatic
knocking system.

Push button

Relay 5 pin
Power supply

Linear
solenoid

Figure 3.13: Electric Circuit for Automatic Knocking System

38
3.8 Method Approach

3.8.1 Procedure

1. Begin by assembling all the necessary components, ensuring that they are
properly connected and ready for operation.

2. Place a sponge foam beneath the beam structure to simulate free boundary
conditions, providing an accurate representation of the system.

3. Position the linear solenoid at the end of the beam structure, ensuring it is
securely fixed in place.

4. Adjust the accelerometer to the designated marking point, starting with point
number 1.

5. Activate the linear solenoid's impact by pressing the button on the control box.
Ensure that only a single knock is induced during this process.

6. Repeat the impact test three times at the current location to obtain an average
result.

7. Move the accelerometer to the next designated point and repeat the steps from
number 5, continuing until all five points have been tested.

8. Upon completing the above steps, replace the linear solenoid with an impact
hammer and repeat the entire process to gather additional data.

3.8.2 Data Collection Process

During the data collection process, an impact is applied to the beam structure
using a linear solenoid equipped with a transducer. This impact induces vibrations in the
structure, which are then measured by an accelerometer. The accelerometer detects and
converts the vibrations into electrical signals, which are sent to a data acquisition system
(DAQ). The DAQ system digitizes the signals and prepares them for analysis. The
digitized data is then processed and visualized using Dasylab software. The software
presents the data in the form of a frequency response function (FRF) graph, which

39
illustrates the relationship between the input (impact) and output (vibration) frequencies.
This data flow enables the comprehensive analysis of the impact-induced vibrations,
providing valuable insights into the dynamic behaviour of the beam structure.

40
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the final product, an analysis of the test results, a
comparison between two methods which is automatic and manual system, and a
discussion. By incorporating these elements, this chapter provides a comprehensive
overview of the study's outcomes and insights.

4.2 Final Product

Figure 4.1: Table clamp attached with Linear solenoid

This project uses a table clamp with an arm rod, as shown in Figure 4.1. It consists
of a clamp that is securely fastened to the table and an arm rod that can be adjusted
vertically and horizontally as needed. This clamp type offers a dependable and stable

41
support structure for holding things or equipment on the table. Vertical adjustability
allows exact positioning at the desired height, while horizontal adjustability allows lateral
movement for better alignment. The table clamp with an arm rod increases efficiency and
convenience in project work by securely holding linear solenoid in place and providing
flexibility in positioning.

Screw Connector

Figure 4.2: Screw connector

In Figure 3.10, there is a screw connector that connects a linear solenoid and a
transducer. This connector is necessary because the sizes and screw grooves of these two
components are not the same. The screw connector acts as a bridge, providing compatible

42
screw grooves on both ends. Once the screws are inserted and tightened, the components
are securely attached to each other.

Figure 4.3: Control box are used to control impact from Linear solenoid

The control box comprises a voltage supply, a 5-pin relay, and a push button is
shown in figure 3.10. This control box serves multiple purposes, including organizing
and securing all the components in a tidy manner, as well as ensuring safety. It features
two holes in the front, one for connecting to the linear solenoid and another at the back
for the voltage supply wire. The button located on top of the box functions as a switch,
meaning that when pressed, it activates the linear solenoid, causing it to generate an
impact simultaneously. Additionally, the side of the box is equipped with an air
ventilation hole to facilitate air circulation within the enclosure. This ventilation ensures
that the components inside the box remain cool and prevents any potential overheating
issues.

43
 DAQ Power supply

Table clamp Control box

Beam Structure
Sponge foam

Accelerometer

Linear solenoid

Figure 4.4: Setup for the test

Figure 3.12 displays the setup for the bump test experiment, specifically focusing
on the automatic knocking system. In the manual system, the linear solenoid and table
clamp are replaced with an impact hammer. This setup allows controlled impacts to be
applied to the beam structure.

4.3 Analysis of Bump Test Results

In this analysis, I present the results of a bump test conducted on a manual and
automatic impact system to evaluate their frequency response characteristics. The
frequency response function (FRF) graphs obtained from the bump test provide valuable
insights into the dynamic behavior of these systems under impact loading. By comparing
the FRF graphs of the manual and automatic impact systems, we can identify any
significant differences in their response patterns, which may have implications for their

44
respective applications. The following sections will detail the analysis of manual and
automatic impact systems.

4.3.1 Manual Impact Result

The graph below shows the impact of manual force on five roving points. By
looking at this graph and evaluating the natural frequencies of the system, we can
understand how the impact affects the resonant behaviour of the roving points. This
information is helpful in analysing the manual impact system.

20 .0
17 .5
15 .0
12 .5
10 .0
07 .5
05 .0
02 .5
00 .0
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.5: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 1

50.
45.
40.
35.
30.
25.
20.
15.
10.
05.
00.
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.6: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 2

45
 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.7: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 3

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.8: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 4

45.
40.
35.
30.
25.
20.
15.
10.
05.
00.
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.9: FRF graph for Impact Hammer at roving point 5

46
 Every graph represents two distinct graphs each. The upper graph, represented by
a red line, illustrates the natural frequency, while the lower graph, depicted by a blue line,
functions as a verification indicator. A peak in the graph indicates the natural frequency,
and its validity is confirmed if the blue line aligns with the peak.

When the beam structure is subjected to an impact from an attached transducer-

equipped hammer, it generates a frequency response, visualized as the red line in the
upper graph. This response allows for determining the natural frequency, representing the
frequency at which the beam experiences significant vibrations due to the impact. The
natural frequency manifests as a prominent peak in the upper graph, indicating the beam's
resonance at its inherent frequency.

To verify the accuracy of the natural frequency, the upper graph is examined to
identify the peak associated with the resonance. Subsequently, the lower graph with the
blue line is analysed. If the blue line follows or aligns with the peak in the upper graph,
it confirms that the identified peak corresponds to the natural frequency of the beam
structure. The purpose of utilizing the lower graph as a verification indicator is to ensure
precise and reliable natural frequency determination. The alignment between the blue line
and the peak in the upper graph signifies a consistent and repeatable identification of the
natural frequency.

In figure 4.7 and figure 4.8, the blue line graph is used to verify the natural
frequency, but it appears irregular due to the impact hammer's nature. When the impact
hammer hits the beam structure, the resulting force is distributed in multiple directions.
However, the accelerometer used in the experiment can only measure forces in one
specific direction. Consequently, the verification graph shows an irregular line as the
accelerometer only captures the force component in the direction it is sensitive to, and
other force components in different directions are not accounted for. Therefore, the graph
deviates from a smooth pattern, which reflects the accelerometer's inability to capture the
full force magnitude caused by the impact. The irregularities in the graph are due to the
accelerometer's limitations in capturing the multidirectional force resulting from the
impact.

47
 Through conducting five impact tests and measuring the beam structure's
responses at five different locations, a consistent pattern emerged. The graphs depicting
the measured responses showed notable similarities in both form and characteristics. This
pattern provides strong evidence to support the conclusion that the impact hammer's
delivery is reliable and reproducible. This reliability is essential, especially when
considering its potential application as a baseline or benchmark for an automatic
knocking system. A reliable baseline allows for precise calibration and performance
evaluation of the automatic knocking system, ensuring its effectiveness and reliability in
various applications.

4.3.2 Automatic Impact

The graphs show how a linear linear solenoid affects five different points. By
studying the graph and analysing the natural frequencies of the system, we can understand
how the solenoid impacts affect the resonant behaviour of these points. This information
is helpful in evaluating and studying impact systems that involve linear linear solenoids.

35.
30.
25.
20.
15.
10.
05.
00.
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.10: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 1

48
 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.11: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 2

12 5
.
10 0
.
75
.
50
.
25
.
00.
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.12: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 3

45.
40.
35.
30.
25.
20.
15.
10.
05.
00.
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.13: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 4

49
 50.
45.
40.
35.
30.
25.
20.
15.
10.
05.
00.
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz

Figure 4.14: FRF graph for Linear Solenoid at roving point 5

Figures 4.10 (point 1) and 4.11 (point 2) display the FRF graphs, highlighting the
striking similarities between them. The reason for this similarity is that these points are
located very close to where the linear solenoid hits the structure. Due to their proximity,
the accelerometers at these points captured the direct effects of the impact force with
minimal weakening or dispersion along the beam structure. Thus, the measurements
taken at these points mostly represent the primary vibrational behaviour and resonant
frequencies caused by the impact.

On the other hand, Figures 4.12 and 4.13 reveal that points 3 and 4 on the beam
structure experience a more significant impact force generated by the linear solenoid.
This is due to the fact that these points exhibit higher stiffness or reduced flexibility than
other points, causing the beam to resist bending more, resulting in higher forces
transmitted through the structure. Therefore, the higher impact forces at points 3 and 4
indicate increased stiffness or rigidity in those specific locations of the beam structure.

In Figure 4.14, the blue line graph verifies the natural frequency, but its irregular
appearance is attributed to the impact hammer's nature and the limitations of the
accelerometer used in the experiment. When the impact hammer strikes the beam
structure at point 5, the resulting force is distributed in multiple directions. However, the
accelerometer used in the study can only measure forces in one specific direction, leading
to an irregular verification graph.

50
4.4 Graph Comparison between Manual and Automatic Bump Test

The graph comparison between manual and automatic bump tests involves two
distinct components displayed on separate sides. On the left side, we have the FRF graph,
which showcases the natural frequency and the verification indicator for the natural
frequency. The natural frequency is denoted by the red line, while the verification
indicator is represented by the blue line.

On the right side, we observe the Force signal input graph. This graph illustrates
the number of knock occurrences resulting from the generated impact, indicated by the
red line. In this particular test, only one knock is required, and the blue line represents
the vibration or damping that occurs.

By comparing the two sides of the graph, we can analyse the differences between
manual and automatic bump tests. The FRF graph on the left side provides insights into
the natural frequency and its verification, indicating how the system responds to external
forces. The Force signal input graph on the right side, on the other hand, demonstrates
the impact generated and the resulting knocks, as well as the level of vibration or damping
observed.

51
 Roving Point 1

Impact Hammer
20 .0 125
17 .5 100
15 .0 75
12 .5
50
10 .0
25
07 .5
05 .0 0
02 .5 -25
00 .0 -50
200 75.
150 50
.
100
50 25
.
0 00
.
-50 -2 5
.
-100
-150 -5 0
.
-200 -7 5
.
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Linear Solenoid
35. 80
30. 70
60
25. 50
20. 40
15. 30
10. 20
10
05. 0
00. -10
200 50.
150
100 25
.
50 00
.
0
-50 -2 5
.
-100 -5 0
.
-150
-200 -7 5
.
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Figure 4.15: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 1

In Figure 4.15, the force signal input graph for the linear solenoid is shown. It
reveals an uneven transient shape in the vibration or damping graph, indicating that the
linear solenoid produces not only the desired main impact but also some additional
smaller impacts. These extra impacts may be due to variations in the solenoid's
mechanism or the dynamics of the system during the impact process. As a result, the
results obtained from the linear solenoid may exhibit slight differences compared to those
obtained from the impact hammer.

52
 Roving Point 2

Impact Hammer
50. 150
45. 125
40.
35. 100
30. 75
25.
20. 50
15. 25
10.
05. 0
00. -25
200 15 0.
150 12 5.
10 0.
100 75.
50 50.
0 25.
00.
-50 -2 5
.
-100 -5 0
.
-7 5
.
-150 -10 0.
-200 -12 5.
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Linear Solenoid
8 25 0
.
7 22 5
.
20 0
.
6 17 5
.
5 15 0
.
4 12 5
.
10 0
.
3 7 5
.
2 5 0
.
2 5
.
1 0 0
.
0 -2 5
.
200 2 0
.
150 1 5
.
100 1 0
.
50 0 5
.
0 0 0
.
-50 -0 5
.
-100 -1 0
.
-150 -1 5
.
-200 -2 0
.
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Figure 4.16: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 2

In Figure 4.16, it can be seen that the vibration or damping graph for the linear
solenoid has a slightly longer transient shape compared to the impact hammer. The reason
for this difference is the force applied by each device. The linear solenoid exerts a force
of 25 kN, while the impact hammer delivers a higher force of 150 kN. The magnitude of
force has a significant impact on the structure's transient response. The greater force
applied by the impact hammer results in a more intense and concentrated impulse, leading
to a shorter transient shape in the graph. On the other hand, the lower force generated by
the linear solenoid causes a milder impact, spreading the response over a longer period
and resulting in a comparatively longer transient shape in the vibration or damping graph.

53
 Roving Point 3

Impact Hammer
7 80
6 70
60
5 50
4 40
3 30
2 20
10
1 0
0 -10
200 4
150 3
100 2
50 1
0 0
-50 -1
-100 -2
-150 -3
-200 -4
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Linear Solenoid
12 5
. 80
70
10 0
. 60
50
75
. 40
50
. 30
20
25
. 10
0
00. -10
200 50.
150
100 25
.
50
0 00
.
-50
-100 -2 5
.
-150
-200 -5 0
.
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Figure 4.17: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 3

Although the impact force is the same as shown in figure 4.17, there are slight
differences in the FRF graph and force signal input graph between the impact hammer
and linear solenoid. The FRF graph for the impact hammer is irregular due to the
multidirectional forces generated during impact, resulting in a slightly smaller transient
shape in the vibration or damping graph compared to the linear solenoid. These
irregularities can be attributed to the nature of the impact, which involves forces acting
in multiple directions simultaneously, resulting in a more complex response and
variations in the FRF graph.

54
 Roving Point 4

Impact Hammer
7 60
6 50
5 40
30
4
20
3
10
2 0
1 -10
0 -20
200 5
150 4
100 3
50 2
1
0
0
-50 -1
-100 -2
-150 -3
-200 -4
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Linear Solenoid
30
. 15
25
. 10
20
. 5
0
15
.
-5
10
. -10
05
. -15
00. -20
200 04 .
150 03 .
100 02 .
50 01 .
0 00 .
-50 -0 1.
-100 -0 2.
-150 -0 3.
-200 -0 4.
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Figure 4.18: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 4

55
 Roving Point 5

Impact Hammer
40. 200
35. 175
30. 150
25. 125
100
20.
75
15. 50
10. 25
05. 0
00. -25
200 20
150 15
100 10
50 5
0 0
-50 -5
-100 -10
-150 -15
-200 -20
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Linear Solenoid
25 .0 45
22 .5 40
20 .0 35
17 .5 30
15 .0 25
12 .5 20
10 .0 15
07 .5 10
05 .0 5
02 .5 0
00 .0 -5
200 10 0 .
150 75 .
100 50 .
50
25 .
0
00 .
-50
-100 -2 5.
-150 -5 0.
-200 -7 5.
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 00
.0 02
.5 05
.0 07
.5 10
.0 12
.5 15
.0 17
.5
Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 Hz Y /tC ha rt0 Y /tC ha rt1 s

Figure 4.19: FRF graph and force signal input comparison at point 5

The graphs shown in figure 4.18 and figure 4.19, obtained from the impact
hammer and linear solenoid, exhibit similar patterns despite differences in the force
impact applied by each device. This suggests that force impact alone is not the
determining factor in shaping the graphs. Both devices induce vibrations in the tested
system, resulting in similarity between the graphs. However, the verification of natural
frequency on the graphs appears uneven due to multidirectional forces acting on the
system after impact. Additionally, the transient shapes displayed in both graphs are
remarkably similar, indicating that the tested system's fundamental response to vibrations
remains consistent regardless of the force impact delivered by either device.

56
4.5 Discussion

This analysis compares the performance of a linear solenoid with an impact

hammer, which is used as a benchmark in an automatic knocking system. We examine
two graphs: the FRF and the Force signal input graph. The FRF graph provides
information about natural frequencies and verification indicators, while the Force signal
input graph shows the number of knocks and damping levels.

If the FRF graph of the linear solenoid closely resembles the impact hammer, it
means that the linear solenoid can effectively follow the impact hammer's dynamic
behavior. Similarly, if the number of knocks and damping characteristics of the linear
solenoid are similar to the impact hammer in the Force signal input graph, it suggests that
the linear solenoid can generate equal force and vibrations.

After analysing the graphs, we can conclude that the linear solenoid is a
dependable alternative for impact testing in automatic knocking systems if it
demonstrates similar responses to the impact hammer. This compatibility could lead to
increased automation, improved efficiency, and potential cost savings while achieving
comparable results to traditional impact hammer methods. In summary, the analysis
supports the reliability of the linear solenoid as a substitute for the impact hammer in this
context.

57
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction

This thesis has aimed to improve the bump test technique by implementing an
automatic knocking system that utilizes a linear solenoid for experimental modal analysis
instead of the traditional impact hammer. The study has successfully accomplished the
following objectives: (1) creating an automatic knocking system that generates impact
force using a linear solenoid, (2) conducting experimental modal analysis on a beam
structure using both manual and automated impact methods, and (3) evaluating the
efficiency of the automatic knocking system for experimental modal analysis.

5.2 Limitation

However, despite achieving the stated objectives, several limitations were

encountered throughout this study. Firstly, the automatic knocking system was unable to
filter out extra knocks that occurred during impact, which affected the accuracy of the
results. Additionally, the table clamp arm used to secure the structure was not firm
enough, leading to potential vibrations that could influence the modal analysis. Moreover,
the impact force generated by the linear solenoid was inconsistent, as the output force
was not effectively measured. Furthermore, the use of a "screw connector" between the
solenoid and the transducer proved unsuitable, resulting in loose connections and non-
vertical positioning of the transducer during impacts.

5.3 Improvement Recommendation

To improve the bump test process and overcome its limitations, there are several
recommendations that can be implemented. Firstly, the table clamp arm should be
replaced with a more stable structure to reduce vibrations and improve the accuracy of
the modal analysis results. Secondly, upgrading the system to a fully automatic setup with
coding capabilities would enable precise control over test parameters, such as duration,

58
impact force, and power, resulting in a more efficient and reliable experimental modal
analysis process. Moreover, alternative methods for measuring the output force of the
linear solenoid should be explored to achieve consistent and reliable impacts. Lastly,
investigating different types of connectors or attachment mechanisms between the
solenoid and the transducer could help ensure secure and vertical positioning during the
tests.

5.4 Conclusion

In conclusion, this thesis successfully developed an automatic knocking system

using a linear solenoid for enhanced bump test procedures in experimental modal
analysis. The system achieved its objectives, resulting in advancements in the field.
However, some limitations were identified, such as the inability to filter out extra knocks,
insufficient firmness of the table clamp arm, inconsistent impact force, and improper
transducer positioning. To improve the system, it is recommended to replace the table
clamp, upgrade to a fully automatic setup, explore alternative force measurement
methods, and find suitable connectors for stable transducer positioning. These
improvements can enhance the experimental modal analysis process's accuracy,
efficiency, and reliability, leading to a better result.

59
 REFERENCES

ASTM International. (2016). Standard Test Method for Modal Testing.

Avitabile, P. (2001). Experimental Modal Analysis-A Simple Non-Mathematical Presentation

EXPERIMENTAL MODAL ANALYSIS (A Simple Non-Mathematical Presentation).

Bergland, G. D. (1969). A guided tour of the fast Fourier Transform. IEEE Spectrum, 6(7), 41–
52. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.1969.5213896

Carne, T. G., Todd Griffith, D., & Casias, M. E. (2007). The Two Degree-of-Freedom System
Support Conditions for Experimental Modal Analysis. www.SandV.com

Charles M. Rader, George C. Maling JR, William T. Cochran, & James W. Cooley. (1967).
What Is the Fast Fourier Transform? Proceedings of the IEEE, 55(10), 1664–1674.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1967.5957

Cheet, L. H., & Chao, O. Z. (2018). Development of adaptive phase control impact device for
enhancement of frequency response function in operational modal testing.

Cunha, Á., & Caetano, E. (2005). Experimental Modal Analysis of Civil Engineering
Structures.

Danilo da Guarda Matos. (2019). CATASTROPHIC FAILURE DIAGNOSIS WITH MODAL

ANALYSIS OF GENERATOR ENDWINDINGS.

Dinesh Kumar. (2019, September 26). An Introduction to Solenoids.

https://circuitdigest.com/article/what-is-solenoid-its-working-principle-and-types

Gantasala, S., Luneno, J. C., & Aidanpää, J. O. (2017). Investigating how an artificial neural
network model can be used to detect added mass on a non-rotating beam using its
natural frequencies: A possible application for wind turbine blade ice detection.
Energies, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/en10020184

Golafshan, R., Jacobs, G., Wegerhoff, M., Drichel, P., & Berroth, J. (2018). Investigation on the
Effects of Structural Dynamics on Rolling Bearing Fault Diagnosis by Means of
Multibody Simulation. International Journal of Rotating Machinery, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5159189

Jannifar, A., Zubir, M. N. M., & Kazi, S. N. (2017). Development of a new driving impact
system to be used in experimental modal analysis (EMA) under operational condition.
Sensors and Actuators, A: Physical, 263, 398–414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2017.07.010

Pratiwi, M. A., Ikhsan, M., Octavianto, R. D., Hamid, A., & Subekti, S. (2021). DYNAMIC
CHARACTERIZATION OF BALL BEARING IN TURBINE PROPELLER USING
BUMP TEST METHOD. SINERGI, 25(2), 135.

Schwarz, B. J., & Richardson, M. H. (1999). EXPERIMENTAL MODAL ANALYSIS.

Singiresu S. Rao. (2011). Mechanical vibrations Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall.

60
Susanto, A., Yusuf, S. Q., Hamid, A., Wahyudi, H., & Subekti, S. (2019).
IMPLEMENTATION OF FREQUENCY RESPONSE FUNCTION ON TAPPER
BEARING MAINTENANCE. SINERGI, 23(2), 132.
https://doi.org/10.22441/sinergi.2019.2.006

61
APPENDICES

62
Appendix A: Drawing of screw connector

Appendix B: Drawing of control box

63
Appendix C: Laser cutting to fabricate control box

64
Appendix D: Assembly part of control box

Appendix E: Testing evaluation by using impact hammer

65