SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

Year 3 Laboratories

VI
Vibration

Technical Note

Surname (Family Name): Murphy Other Names: Peter

Student ID Number: 201510652

Programme: Civil Engineering (BEng/MEng) Tutor: Ping Dong

Demonstrator’s Name: Ahmed Al-Irhayim

Lab group number: C10 Date of experiment (DD/MM/YYYY):

28/10/2022
 VI Technical Note // ENGG301

STUDENT DECLARATION:

I confirm that I have:

 Read and understood the University’s Academic Integrity Policy. (Students should familiarise
themselves with Appendix L of the University’s Code of Practice on Assessment which also
provides the definitions of academic malpractice and the policies and procedures that apply to
the investigation of alleged incidents.);
 Acted honestly, ethically and professionally in conduct leading to this assessment;
 Not copied material from another source, nor committed plagiarism, nor fabricated data when
completing this work;
 Not colluded with any other student in the preparation and production of this work.

Students found to have committed academic malpractice are liable to receive a mark of zero for
the assessment or the module concerned. Unfair and dishonest academic practice will attract
more severe penalties, including possible suspension or termination of studies.
 VI Technical Note // ENGG301

Introduction

Experiments were purposefully carried out to fulfil the pre-set objectives of the tests;

- To understand the difference between free response and harmonic forced response for
an oscillating system.
- To understand how the application of different damping levels affects a mechanism.
- Use experimental results to identify parameters of a dynamic system.

For all tests, a computer program was used to measure amplitude and phase due to frequency
meters being very inaccurate. A free response was simulated by releasing mass from an initial
deflection within an oscillating rig, the response is recorded via the computer. This allows the
time period and natural frequency to be found. This experiment is then repeated using a
damper set to its lowest level, this allows the damping ratio to be calculated from the
logarithmic decrement. The sinusoidal response was obtained by determining the amplitude
and phase for an increasing frequency, this was repeated as an underdamped, overdamped
and critically damped system. This data could then be used to construct amplitude and phase
curves.

An average value of 16.646 rad/s was found to be the natural frequency of the mechanism
and the damping ratio at the lowest damping level was calculated to be 0.12. Multiple
correlations were observed when creating plots, mainly that the amplitude of oscillation
increases with frequency until natural frequency is reached, increasing the frequency further
causes a decrease in amplitude. The amplitude can be further increased by reducing the levels
of damping, higher damping reduced the peak amplitude.

It is important to understand how damping affects simple oscillating systems and how it is
possible to obtain the properties of the system such as natural frequency and damping ratio. It
is often vitally important to understand the natural frequency of any mechanism or structure,
if oscillation is required to be minimal then the natural frequency must be obtained and
avoided. There are of course situations in which oscillating at the natural frequency is
beneficial to the function of a system, for these cases it is just as important to understand the
parameters of what is happening.

1
 VI Technical Note // ENGG301

Results and Calculations

Table 1 – Free response for natural frequency

Run
Number T1 (s) T2 (s) Tn (s) ω (rad/s)
1 0.136 0.512 0.376 16.711
2 0.084 0.464 0.38 16.535
3 0.268 0.652 0.384 16.362
4 0.112 0.496 0.384 16.362
5 0.336 0.7 0.364 17.261
Average ω (rad/s) 16.646

Table 2 – Free response for lowest damping ratio

Run
Number A0 (mm) A1 (mm) A0/A1
1 7.67 3.44 2.229651163
2 -12.96 -2.38 5.445378151
3 8.2 3.17 2.586750789
4 8.2 2.65 3.094339623
5 8.2 2.91 2.817869416
Average A0/A1 3.234797828
Damping Ratio 0.081

Table 3 – Sinusoidal response of the lowest damping ratio

Run Input Frequency ω Input Frequency ω Amplitude B Phase (rad) ϕ

Number (Hz) (rad/s) (ω) (ω)
1 1.5 9.42477795 8.5 -0.375
2 2.8 17.59291884 11.7 -1.842
3 2.3 14.45132619 13.3 -1.148
4 2 12.5663706 11.1 -0.672
5 1.5 9.42477795 8.7 -0.385
6 2.6 16.33628178 12.8 -1.609
7 2.2 13.82300766 13 -0.957
8 1.6 10.05309648 9 -0.429
9 1.5 9.42477795 8.5 -0.362
10 1.4 8.79645942 8.2 -0.302
11 2.3 14.45132619 13.3 -1.009

2
 VI Technical Note // ENGG301

Table 4 – Sinusoidal response of critical damping ratio

Run Input Frequency ω Input Frequency ω Amplitude B Phase (rad) ϕ

Number (Hz) (rad/s) (ω) (ω)
1 2 12.5663706 4.8 -1.258
2 2.8 17.59291884 3.8 -1.644
3 2.6 16.33628178 4.1 -1.589
4 2.5 15.70796325 4.3 -1.497
5 2.3 14.45132619 4.7 -1.328
6 2.1 13.19468913 5 -1.299
7 1.9 11.93805207 5.2 -1.181
8 1.7 10.68141501 5.7 -0.994
9 1.5 9.42477795 5.7 -0.871
10 2.7 16.96460031 4.2 -1.622
11 2.5 15.70796325 4.3 -1.532
12 2.3 14.45132619 4.7 -1.419
13 1.5 9.42477795 5.7 -0.897

Table 5 – Sinusoidal response of intermediate damping ratio

Run Input Frequency ω Input Frequency ω Amplitude B Phase (rad) ϕ

Number (Hz) (rad/s) (ω) (ω)
1 2.8 17.59291884 7.3 -1.763
2 2.7 16.96460031 7.6 -1.738
3 2.6 16.33628178 8.2 -1.591
4 2.4 15.07964472 8.9 -1.392
5 2.4 15.07964472 9.2 -1.31
6 2.3 14.45132619 9.1 -1.281
7 2.1 13.19468913 9 -1.071
8 1.9 11.93805207 8.8 -0.866
9 1.8 11.30973354 8.8 -0.807
10 1.7 10.68141501 8.7 -0.716
11 1.6 10.05309648 8.2 -0.615
12 1.5 9.42477795 7.8 -0.531
13 1.4 8.79645942 7.4 -0.496

3
 VI Technical Note // ENGG301

Plot 1-Amplitude versus Input Frequency

14

12

10 Critically Damped
Amplitude (ω)

Polynomial (Critically Damped)

8
Overdamped
6 Polynomial (Overdamped)
Underdampedd
4 Polynomial (Underdampedd)

0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Input Frequency (rad/s)

Plot 2-Phase versus Input Frequency

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Phase (rad) ϕ (ω)

-0.8 Critically Damped

Power (Critically Damped)
-1
Overdamped
-1.2 Underdampedd
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
-2

Input Frequency (rad/s)

5

Natural Frequency:
Natural frequency estimation for the lowest damping ratio– Phase (pi/2) =16.34 rad/s

Average estimated natural frequency at pi/2 – (16.34+16.34+16.34)/3 = 16.34 rad/s

Natural frequency determined from the free response = 16.646 rad/s

4
 VI Technical Note // ENGG301

Damping Ratio:

Estimation via logarithmic decrement - log ( AA 01 )= √21−ζ

πζ
2

1
ζ=

√
4 π2
Rearrange to find +1
( )
log
A0
A1

Input values to find ζ = 0.081

Estimation via bandwidth approximation= 15-10 = 2 ζ ω n

5
¿
2∗16.646

¿ 0.15

Average ζ value = (0.081+0.15)/2

= 0.12

Discussion

Assessing results shows a slight disparity between the expected theory and practical results.
Experiment 1 allowed the natural frequency to be accurately obtained with reliable results
showing a minor 2.7% uncertainty, possibly due to the oscillating rig not performing
perfectly as some rigs would skip oscillations and not act as intended. The latter experiments
(3, 4 and 5) all produced the expected plots when focusing on amplitude.

Amplitude versus input frequency shows a correlation between the two variables leading to a
peak underdamped amplitude of around 16 rad/s, this is the natural frequency of the
mechanism. This peak shifts to a slightly lower frequency for overdamping, and then again
for critical damping. The peak amplitude increases as damping is reduced, if zero damping
were attainable there would be no peak as an asymptote would form around the natural
frequency. Phase plots all had similarly unexpected results for each damping level, there was
no intersection between the curves and they do not fit the predicted trends. Due to all three
levels of damping producing similar error, it is possible that there was a systematic error
occurring throughout the tests. This was most likely an error with the oscillating rig as there
was little source for error when recording the data via computer.

When calculating damping ratio, there was a large variation between results when using data
from different experiments. It is likely that the damping ratio obtained from the free response
experiment is more reliable due to minimal sources of error occurring. When estimating the

5
 VI Technical Note // ENGG301

damping ratio via bandwidth approximation, the small data range did not allow for accurate
readings.

The oscillating system used throughout the experiment is often applicable to real life
mechanisms. Car speedometers are critically damped to ensure that when the car accelerates
the speedometer quickly changes and it doesn’t oscillate between different speeds.
Overdamping is also useful in situations where it is desirable that a mechanism returns to
equilibrium position slowly without oscillation, this is often used on large doors or toilet
seats. Light/underdamped systems are almost all mechanisms ‘without’ damping, in the
practical world it is impossible to obtain zero damping due to air resistance, friction, noise
etc.

Conclusion

- Damped plots and free response experiments show the natural frequency of the
system to average around 16.646 rad/s, there is a tolerable uncertainty of +-2.7%
ensuring the results are reliable.
- An average damping ratio was calculated to be 0.12 which is to be expected from the
least damped system.
- The amplitude of oscillation increases with frequency until natural frequency is
reached, increasing the frequency beyond this point results in a decrease in amplitude.
The amplitude can be further increased by reducing the levels of damping, higher
damping reduced the peak amplitude as expected.
- Due to the nature of the Phase-Input Frequency plot, it is difficult to conclude a final
trend as it opposes the expected theoretical results.