LAB REPORT ON NATURAL

FREQUENCY AND RESONANCE

Harrison Still
19767954
Executive Summary
This lab report investigates the concepts of natural frequency and resonance, through 4
experiments. The first experiment (part A) was conducted to measure the stiffness of the
spring on the system, the second (part B) was conducted to obtain the natural frequency of
oscillations and investigate the effect of lumped mass correction on the accuracy of results.
The third experiment (Part C) investigated the effect of viscous damping on natural
frequency, as well as calculate the value of the damping coefficient. The fourth experiment
(Part D) focused on angular oscillations within one degree of freedom (1 D.O.F) with inertial
excitation and using the same viscous dampening from part C. All parts were done on a
Tecequipment: universal vibration apparatus.

The numerical results from each part are tabulated into the table below where possible.

Part
A Spring Stiffness (k) 916.66 ±11.24 N/m
B Spring Mass/Load mass ratio 0.065
C Damping coefficient (q) 11.8203 ±1.662 Nm/s
Timing method damped frequency (fq) 2.420 Hz
Time history graph method (fq) 2.427 Hz
D Angular Resonant
Amplitude Forcing
(A) Frequency (f)
Theoretical 0.01619 rads 2.428 Hz
Experimental 0.01615 rads 2.458 Hz

For part A the stiffness (k) of the spring in the system was determined by graphing
deflection versus load on a graph and using the method of least squares (this method
resulted in the error). The value obtained was 916.66 ±11.24 N/m. Part B was mainly
focused on whether or not to include spring mass when calculating natural frequency of
oscillations, it was found for this specific system under the conditions given it should be
included. A ratio was derived whether to include the spring mass in which spring mass/ load
mass should be lower than 0.065 to not include spring mass. Part C was mainly focused on
finding the damped frequency; however, the value of the damping coefficient (q) was found
to be 11.8203 ±1.662 Nm/s, the error calculated through an error analysis (Appendix B).
Using two different methods; timing method and time history graph method two values
were found for the damped frequency 2.42 Hz and 2.427 Hz, respectively. Due to the
difference being relatively small and both containing errors both methods were considered
viable for this objective. Part D found the forcing frequency to cause resonance in the
system, theoretically the resonant forcing frequency was 2.428 Hz with a peak amplitude of
0.01619 radians, and in practise it was found a resonant forcing frequency of 2.458 Hz
resulted in a peak angular amplitude of 0.01615 radians.

i
Errors were found for every part. In part A the error in k was found to be due to the method
of least squares method a solution to this was to use more data points. Part B had error in
the timing of oscillations of the system, the solution suggested was to either use an
electronic timer connected to the system or increase the number of timing participants. Part
C also had the same error as part B in the timing method where human reaction time
influenced the timings, for the time history graph method the error mostly stemmed from
obtaining k and errors in the measurements of the machine. Part D errors resulted in a
difference between the theoretical and experimental results, the main error most likely was
due to the use of a stroboscope which malfunctioned during one of the iterations and
human error in the measurement of peak-to-peak values. To negate this error, it was
suggested using a different speed measurement device and obtaining more data points.
Although errors were present in all parts of the experiment, the objective or focus of each
part was considered achieved and was in line with the initial theory on natural frequencies
and resonance. However, solutions were suggested in the case the same or similar
experiment was to be undertaken again.

Although not in the scope of this lab report, a part E was conducted, which focused on
whirling shafts. The results and conclusions are presented in Appendix C.

ii
Table of Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ i
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................iii
Table of Figures .....................................................................................................................................iv
Table of Tables ......................................................................................................................................iv
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Apparatus ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Part A and B Setup ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.2. Part C Setup ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Part D Setup ............................................................................................................................... 3
3. Procedure ......................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1. Part A Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 4
3.2. Part B Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 4
3.3. Part C Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 5
3.4. Part D Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 5
4. Results............................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1. Part A Results ............................................................................................................................. 5
4.2. Part B Results ............................................................................................................................. 6
4.2.2. Theoretical mass value for each period .............................................................................. 7
4.2.3. Mass of hanger and mass on hanger vs period of oscillation .............................................. 7
4.2.3. Mass of hanger, mass of spring and mass on hanger vs period of oscillation ..................... 8
4.2.4. Comparison of the three graphs ......................................................................................... 8
4.3. Part C Results ............................................................................................................................. 9
4.4. Part D Results ........................................................................................................................... 11
5. Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 13
6. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 16
7. References ...................................................................................................................................... 17
8. Appendix A: Calculations for Parts A-D ........................................................................................... 18
A.1. Part A: method of least squares calculations ........................................................................... 18
A.2. Part B: Ratio of spring mass to load mass ................................................................................ 18
A.3. Part B: Proof of equation 17 .................................................................................................... 19
A.4. Part C: Time trace history graph .............................................................................................. 19
9. Appendix B: Error Calculation for damping coefficient ................................................................... 20

iii
 B.1. K .............................................................................................................................................. 21
B.2. c and a ..................................................................................................................................... 21
B.3. FN ............................................................................................................................................. 21
B.5 yo and yn .................................................................................................................................... 21
B.6 Final calculation for dq .............................................................................................................. 22
10. Appendix C: Part E Whirling of Shafts Experiment ........................................................................ 22
10.1. Appendix C: Lab Discussion wrote up in text form ................................................................. 22

Table of Figures
Figure i: Tecequipment: universal vibration apparatus, used for parts A-D. ......................................... 2
Figure ii: Part C setup. Reproduced from Mckee (2020) ....................................................................... 3
Figure iii: Part D setup. Reproduced from Mckee (2020) ...................................................................... 3
Figure iv: Effect of force on the deflection of the spring....................................................................... 6
Figure v: Graph showing the effect of theoretical mass on period of oscillation. ................................. 7
Figure vi: Graph showing the effect of mass of hangar and load on hangar on Period of Oscillation ... 7
Figure vii: Graph showing the effect of mass of hangar, mass of spring and load on hangar on period
of oscillation ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure viii: Combining all three previous graphs onto one single graph ............................................... 9
Figure ix: Time trace of history graph of damped system ................................................................... 10
Figure x: Angular amplitude at certain forcing frequencies. ............................................................... 12

Table of Tables
Table 1: Property table for Part D ......................................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Part A results ........................................................................................................................... 5
Table 3: Results for part B ..................................................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Comparison of two methods ................................................................................................. 11
Table 5: Part D tabulated results ........................................................................................................ 11
Table 6: Comparison between theoretical and experimental values. ................................................. 13
Table 7: Part C results for the different methods ............................................................................... 15
Table 8: Comparison of theoretical and experimental results for part D ............................................ 15

iv
1. Introduction
A natural frequency is the frequency which a system tends to oscillate at without any
additional energy or damping. A common example of this is musical instrument strings, such
as a guitar, violin, or piano. The strings of the instrument have their tension adjusted to
change the natural frequencies of the strings; they are adjusted such that the natural
frequency produces a particular note (Kemp, 2020). Should the system have an applied
force such that it is applied periodically, and the frequency of this new force is close to or
equal to the natural frequency resonance will occur therefore increasing the amplitude of
the system (Tondl et al. 2000). Should the natural frequency and the forced frequency form
a ratio of 1 the system will undergo its peak amplitude, for an example where this effect
could be detrimental look to the Tacoma Narrow bridge. The Tacoma Narrows bridge was
newly built in November 1940 and suffered a catastrophic failure not 4 months after being
built. The bridge experienced a periodic wind which acted as a forcing frequency such that
this new periodic force closely matched the natural frequency of the bridge. This enabled
resonance to occur essentially swinging the middle section of the bridge side to side until
the middle section failed, this was due to the wind not absorbing the wind turbulence
(Britannica, 2021). Therefore, by studying natural frequency and the methods to obtain the
natural frequency we can better understand our systems and design our systems to avoid
failure.

To investigate the natural frequency and resonance of a system 4 experiments were

conducted, which does not an experiment on whirling of shafts. The first experiment (part
A) was conducted to measure the stiffness of the spring on the system, the second (part B)
was conducted to obtain the natural frequency of oscillations and investigate the effect of
lumped mass correction on the accuracy of results. The third experiment (Part C)
investigated the effect of viscous damping on natural frequency, as well as calculate the
value of the damping coefficient. The fourth experiment (Part D) focused on angular
oscillations within one degree of freedom (1 D.O.F) with inertial excitation and using the
same viscous dampening from part C. The final experiment (Part E) focused on whirling of
shafts, this however is not the main focus of the report and will be included in Appendix C.

1
2. Apparatus

Figure i: Tecequipment: universal vibration apparatus, used for parts A-D.

The lab equipment used for parts A through D is shown in Figure i, a Tecequipment:
universal vibration apparatus. Each part had a different setup to achieve their objectives.

2.1. Part A and B Setup

Part A and B involved the same setup as shown in Figure i, except that the dashpot with oil
was drained so the system had no dampening due to the aim of the experiments being to
measure the spring’s stiffness and natural frequency. A hangar was attached to the end of
the beam supported by the spring and 10 weights of a mass of roughly 0.4kg were supplied
to be attached to the hangar. For part A, a scale was included to measure change in spring
length.

2
2.2. Part C Setup

Figure ii: Part C setup. Reproduced from Mckee (2020)

The aim of part C was to investigate the effect viscous damping has on natural frequency, so
the dashpot which was initially empty in part A and B was filled with oil as shown in Figure ii.
A chart recorder in which essentially a pencil attached to the end of the beam drawing on a
graphed paper (being pulled constantly) was used to produce time history of the systems
damped oscillations.

2.3. Part D Setup

Figure iii: Part D setup. Reproduced from Mckee (2020)

3
Part D setup used the damping from the dashpot; however, a spinning wheel was placed on
top of the beam a mass placed on the outside of the wheel to create inertial excitation. A
laser was placed at the end of a beam and a piece of graph paper was placed 3.25m away
from the laser to calculate peak to peak value. A stroboscope was also used to calculate the
speed of the rotating disk. The measurements of the system are shown below in Table 1
Table 1: Property table for Part D

Property Value
Fixed end of beam to dashpot (a) 0.235m

Fixed end of beam to centre of rotating 0.439m

disc (b)
Fixed end of beam to spring (c) 0.652m
Distance from graph paper to laser beam 3.25m
(l)
Distance from centre of disc to centre of 0.05661m
mass (r)
Mass on disc (m’) 0.0279kg

3. Procedure
3.1. Part A Procedure
Part A measured stiffness of the spring on the system k. As mentioned in the setup 10
weights were used roughly 0.4kg, as the weights were not calibrated each mass was
measured using scales to 2 decimal points and recorded taking care to label each weight.
Once this was done the scale reading with 0kg of suspended mass was recorded, then a
weight was added on and the scale reading was recorded. This continued until all 10 weights
were added. From these results deflection and total force could be obtained and stiffness
could be calculated by graphing deflection vs force using the method of least squares.

3.2. Part B Procedure

Part B was used to calculate the natural frequency of oscillation of the system. To do this
the mass of the spring and the hangar were calculated. The same loading method used in
part A was repeated up until 6 weights in total were on the hangar. The hangar for each
load was held 10mm higher from the beam and let go to induce oscillations. To calculate the
period of each load, a piece of equipment measured the number of cycles the beam
completed, and three students timed the time it took for the beam to complete 120 cycles
for every load. The time taken was averaged and recorded for each load.

4
3.3. Part C Procedure
Part C focused on investigating the effect of viscous damping on natural frequency. First the
oil in the dashpot must be completely drained, using the same procedure in part B except
the beam is lifted 35mm, the time taken for the beam to complete 40 oscillations was
recorded by three students and averaged. The dashpot was refilled, and the chart recorder
was switched on and the oscillating arm was dropped from 35mm until roughly 20 cycles
were displayed on the chart. At the same time three students recorded the time taken for
the dampened system to complete 40 oscillations. These results were then recorded and
analysed.

3.4. Part D Procedure

Part D was done calculate angular oscillations with inertial excitation and viscous
dampening. To do this three people were required, one person controlled the rotating disks
speed, one person controlled a stroboscope measuring the flash/min of the disc, and the
final person measured the peak-to-peak value on the graph paper 3.25m away from the
beam’s end. The discs speed was increased until a noticeable peak to peak was shown,
roughly 8mm then the disc’s speed was measured by the stroboscope. Both results were
recorded. The disc speed was increased so that the peak-to-peak value changed by roughly
5mm with every step being recorded. The speed of the disc was increased until the peak-to-
peak value hit a maximum value and started to decrease in which the experiment was
concluded, and results were tabulated.

4. Results
4.1. Part A Results
The results obtained in part A are shown below in Table 2.
Table 2: Part A results

i Total Total Force Fi Scale Reading Deflection δi- Increment in

Suspension mi (N) δi (mm) δ0 (mm) deflection
(kg) (mm)
0 0 0.00 251.00 0.00 0.00
1 0.40296 3.95 255.10 4.10 4.10
2 0.80651 7.91 259.40 8.40 4.30
3 1.20517 11.82 263.90 12.90 4.50
4 1.60499 15.74 268.00 17.00 4.10
5 2.00987 19.72 272.10 21.10 4.10
6 2.41435 23.68 276.60 25.60 4.50
7 2.81162 27.58 281.00 30.00 4.40
8 3.21168 31.51 285.10 34.10 4.10
9 3.61022 35.42 289.40 38.40 4.30
10 4.01144 39.35 294.00 43.00 4.60

5
The Deflection was then graphed on ordinate and total force on the abscissa shown in
Figure iv as the blue dots.

Effect of force on deflection

50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
Deflection (mm)

25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Total Force (N)

Figure iv: Effect of force on the deflection of the spring.

To calculate stiffness the gradient of the line of best fit had to be calculated. This was done
through the method of least squares calculated in Appendix A.1, and the resulting line is
shown in orange in figure iv. The gradient/ slope is 1.0906519 mm/N, hence spring stiffness
k is 1/slope, therefore k= 916.66 N/m.

4.2. Part B Results

The results for part B are shown below in Table 3.
Table 3: Results for part B

Total Number Mean time Period of √(𝑚𝑖 + 𝑚ℎ ) 𝑚𝑠

√(𝑚𝑖 + 𝑚ℎ + )
mass of of cycles for oscillation (kg)1/2 3
weights N oscillations 𝑡 (kg)1/2
𝑇=
𝑁
on hangar t
mi (kg)
0 120 18.073 0.1506 0.6903 0.7275
0.40296 120 24.045 0.2004 0.9378 0.9655
0.80651 120 28.678 0.2390 1.1327 1.1558
1.20517 120 32.81 0.2734 1.2968 1.3170
1.60499 120 36.31 0.3026 1.4427 1.4609
2.00987 120 39.72 0.3310 1.5768 1.5935
2.41435 120 42.78 0.3565 1.7002 1.7157

The mass of hanger mh is 0.4765kg and the mass of the spring ms is 0.1584kg.

6
4.2.2. Theoretical mass value for each period
2𝜋
𝑇 = ( 𝑘) √𝑀 (1)
√

Using equation 1 √𝑀 the theoretical mass can be calculated and graphed, where period T
and k are known producing figure v.

Effect of Theoretical Mass on Period of Oscillation

1.90

1.70

1.50
sqrt(M)

1.30

1.10

0.90

0.70

0.50
0.1506 0.2004 0.2390 0.2734 0.3026 0.3310 0.3565
Period of Oscillation (T)

Figure v: Graph showing the effect of theoretical mass on period of oscillation.

4.2.3. Mass of hanger and mass on hanger vs period of oscillation

By graphing the mass of hanger and mass on hanger on the ordinate and period of
oscillation on the abscissa Figure vi can be produced, note that a dotted line is used as a
reference as there is no actual relationship.

Effect of mass of hangar and load on

hangar on Period of Oscillation
1.90
1.70
sqrt(mi+mh)

1.50 1.7002
1.5768
1.30
1.4427
1.10 1.2968
0.90 1.1327
0.70 0.9378
0.50 0.6903
0.1506 0.2004 0.2390 0.2734 0.3026 0.3310 0.3565
Period (T)

Figure vi: Graph showing the effect of mass of hangar and load on hangar on Period of Oscillation

7
4.2.3. Mass of hanger, mass of spring and mass on hanger vs period of
oscillation
By including the mass of spring, the following graph shown in Figure vii can be produced.

Effect of mass of hangar, mass of spring

and load on hangar on Period of
Oscillation
sqrt(mi+(ms/3) mh)

1.90

1.70
1.7157
1.50
1.5935
1.30 1.4609
1.3170
1.10
1.1558
0.90
0.9655
0.70
0.7275
0.50
0.1506 0.2004 0.2390 0.2734 0.3026 0.3310 0.3565
Period (T)

Figure vii: Graph showing the effect of mass of hangar, mass of spring and load on hangar on period of oscillation

4.2.4. Comparison of the three graphs

By combining the three graphs onto one single graph the following figure viii can be formed.

8
 Comparison of the three different graphs
1.8

1.6

1.4
Sqrt(MEquivalent)

1.2

0.8

0.6
0.1506 0.2004 0.2390 0.2734 0.3026 0.3310 0.3565
Period (T)

Figure viii: Combining all three previous graphs onto one single graph

Note that that ordinate axis has been reduced and line weight has been decreased for the
experimental values to form a better understanding of the comparison. From Figure viii, by
including spring mass the experimental mass value for each period is much closer to the
theoretical mass for the respective oscillation period. For lower oscillation periods by not
including spring mass the experimental mass deviates further from the expected theoretical
mass.

4.3. Part C Results

To calculate the undampened natural frequency for setup C firstly the period had to be
calculated which was simply the average time divided by the 40 oscillations, shown in
equation 2.
16.485𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠
𝑇 = 40 𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 = 0.412125 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 (2)

Therefore, the frequency is 1/T, then the natural frequency can be calculated shown in
equation 3 in which the value is 2.547 Hz.
1 1
𝑓𝑁 = 𝑇 = 0.412125 = 2.427 𝐻𝑧 (3)

The moment of the inertia of the arm is able to be calculated now shown in equation (4)
𝑐 2
𝐼𝑂 = (2𝜋𝑓 ) 𝑘 = 1.676kgm2 (4)
𝑁

All values are known and spring stiffness k, has been calculated in part B, therefore the
moment of inertia is 1.676 kgm2 . With the new setup a time trace of amplitude versus time
graph is created, shown below in figure ix.

9
 Figure ix: Time trace of history graph of damped system

As the time trace graph is not easy to make out the results from the graph are displayed in
Table 3 from appendix A can be created and value for y0 and y15 can be found being 10.5
and 3.15 respectively (the dimensions for these terms can be ignored) substituting into
equation 5, where n is simply 15.
𝑘 𝑐 2
( ) 𝑁𝑚
𝜋𝑓𝑁 𝑎
𝑞= = 11.8203 (5)
2 𝑠
√( 2𝜋𝑛
𝑦0 ) +1
ln( )
𝑦𝑛

As the inertia of the beam, dampening coefficient, spring stiffness as well as other basic
dimensions of the setup are known equation 6 can be calculated to provide the frequency of
the damped system.

1 𝑘𝑐 2 𝑞2 𝑎4
𝑓𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 2𝜋 √ 𝐼 (1 − 4𝑘𝐼 2 ) = 2.427 𝐻𝑧 (6)
𝑂 𝑂𝑐

Using a timer, the average time for the dampened setup to complete 40 oscillations was
16.53 seconds. Therefore, the dampened frequency of the setup using a timer was 2.420Hz.
𝑓𝑞 𝑞 2 𝑎4
𝑓𝑁
= √1 − 4𝑘𝐼 2 = √1 − 𝜁2 (7)
𝑂𝑐

Rearranging from equation 7 the damping ratio can be either, equation 8 shown below.

𝑞2 𝑎4
𝜁 = √4𝑘𝐼 2 =0.0540 (8)
𝑂𝑐

The dampening ratio is 0.054. Or using the timer method the damping ratio is 0.0537 shown
in equation 9.

𝑓𝑞 2
𝜁 = √1 − (𝑓 ) =0.0537 (9)
𝑁

The two methods to determine natural frequency can be tabulated, as shown in Table 4.

10
Table 4: Comparison of two methods

Variable Timing Method Time history graph method

Undampened natural 2.427 Hz 2.43 Hz
frequency (fN)
2.420 Hz 2.427 Hz
Dampened natural frequency
(fdamped)
0.0537 0.0540
Damping ratio (𝜻)

4.4. Part D Results

Part D used a new set up to find the angular oscillations with inertial excitation and viscous
damping as explained earlier in 3.4. Part D setup. The values obtained are tabulated in Table
5 below.
Table 5: Part D tabulated results

Flash/min Peak-Peak Peak 𝜸 (rpm) Ω (rad/s) Forcing

(mm) Amplitude frequency
(m) (Hz)
373.8 8 0.000769 114.22 11.95 1.90
410.4 11 0.001231 125.40 13.13 2.09
427.8 16 0.002000 130.72 13.68 2.18
444 19 0.002462 135.67 14.20 2.26
448.7 24 0.003231 137.10 14.35 2.29
456.7 29 0.004000 139.55 14.61 2.33
462.9 38 0.005385 141.44 14.80 2.36
465.6 43 0.006154 142.27 14.89 2.37
466.6 48 0.006923 142.57 14.92 2.38
468 56 0.008154 143.00 14.97 2.38
471.7 74 0.010923 144.13 15.09 2.40
474.1 88 0.013077 144.86 15.16 2.41
482.6 108 0.016154 147.46 15.43 2.46
492.4 48 0.006923 150.46 15.75 2.51
519.3 26 0.003538 158.68 16.61 2.64

The experimental values for amplitude and forcing frequency from Table 5 were then
graphed as shown in Figure x.

11
 Angular amplitude at certain forcing
frequencies
0.0180
0.0160
0.0140
AAngular amplitude

0.0120
0.0100
0.0080
0.0060
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
1.90 2.09 2.18 2.26 2.29 2.33 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.38 2.40 2.41 2.46 2.51 2.64
Forcing frquency (f)

Figure x: Angular amplitude at certain forcing frequencies.

Comparing Table 5 and Figure x, the peak angular amplitude is 0.016154 radians, at a forcing
frequency of 2.46Hz.

The theoretical peak angular amplitude and forcing frequency can also be calculated.
Angular amplitude can be calculated theoretically with equation 10.
2
𝑚′ 𝑏𝑟 Ω
( )
𝐼𝑂 𝜔𝑁
𝐴= (10)
2 2 4 2 2
√[1−( Ω ) ] + 𝑎2 𝑞 ( Ω )
𝜔𝑁 𝑐 𝑘𝐼𝑂 𝜔𝑁

To calculate the peak angular amplitude of the system we assume resonant conditions,
hence equation 11 is used.
Ω 2
(𝜔 ) = 1 (11)
𝑁

Substituting the equation 11 into equation 10 produces a reduced equation for the peak
amplitude shown in equation 12.
𝑚′ 𝑏𝑟
𝐼𝑂
𝐴= (12)
𝑎4 𝑞 2
√ 2
𝑐 𝑘𝐼𝑂

From section 2.3 Part D setup most values of equation 12 are known, except for m’, the
eccentric mass. As the density of the mass is 2700 kg/m^3 then the eccentric mass
calculation can be calculated as shown in equation 13.
𝜋𝑑2
𝑚′ = 2 ∙ ∙ 𝑡 ∙ 𝜌 = 0.0279𝑘𝑔 (13)
4

12
Now by substituting all known values into equation 12 the peak angular amplitude is
0.01619 radians shown in equation 14.
(0.0279)(0.439)(0.05661)
(1.676)
𝐴= = 0.01619 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑠 (14)
(0.235)4 (11.82)2
√
(0.652)2 (916.6)(1.676)
Before forcing frequency can be calculated the natural circular frequency must be calculated
first this is demonstrated in equation 15.

2
𝑐 2𝑘
𝜔𝑁 = = 232.47 (15)
𝐼𝑜
And finally theoretical forcing frequency shown in equation 16, producing a value of 2.428
Hz.
𝜔𝑁
Ω 2𝜋
𝑓= = = 2.428 𝐻𝑧 (16)
2𝜋
𝑎4 𝑞 2
√1 −
2𝑐 2 𝑘𝐼𝑜

Results between theoretical and experimental can then be compared as shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Comparison between theoretical and experimental values.

Experimental Theoretical
Peak angular 0.01615 0.01619
amplitude (radians) Difference 0.25%
Forcing Frequency 2.458 2.428
(Hz) Difference 1.22%

When the external forcing frequency over natural circular frequency squared is equal to one
resonance occurs, so by substituting values into equation 17 (proved in appendix A.3), 1
should be produced.

Ω 2 1
( ) = = 1.000355 (17)
𝜔𝑁 𝑎4 𝑞 2
1− 2
2𝑐 𝑘𝐼𝑂
As 1.000355 is close to 1 we can assume that the system has resonant conditions, and that
the values for peak angular amplitude and forcing frequency are true.

5. Discussion
For Part A measuring the spring stiffness, the deflection and the total force were graphed
then using the least squares method to obtain a slope value obtained a value for 1/k. The

13
stiffness of the spring (k) was then 916.66 N/m. Although this part had little problems, using
the least squares method introduced error into the value of k, due to the method
approximating the relationship between deflection and total force. Whilst calculating the
error in q the damping coefficient the error in k had to be calculated, it was found (section
B.1. K) that k had an error of around ±11.24 N/m. An error of around 1.23%, although this is
minimal this would have affected all following parts due to their use of k. To reduce this
error more data could be collected to produce a closer approximation to the relationship
between deflection and total force.

Part B focused on the natural frequency of oscillation with and without lumped mass
correction. Three graphs in total were created, one for the theoretical relationship where
the spring mass is assumed massless, then a graph without spring mass and one with. The
three graphs were overlayed as shown in Figure viii, and it was found by including lumped
mass correction that the experimental result data point aligned closer to the theoretical
data points. The inclusion of the spring mass helped to align the experimental values over
the theoretical values as shown in figure X, therefore it helped to improve the predicted
oscillation period.

𝑘
𝜔=√ 𝑚 (18)
𝑚 + 3𝑠

Equation 18 (Mckee, 2018) uses Rayleigh’s energy method which assumes that motion is a
simple harmonic (undampened), max kinetic energy equals maximum strain energy and
mode shape is assumed. The inaccuracy from this equation comes from that energy is
assumed to be conserved which is not always true in real world situations and that no
dampening occurs which although the dashpot was drained leftover oil could contribute to a
small amount of dampening. Should spring mass be extremely small when compared to the
mass on the hanger (almost negligible) it would be unnecessary to make this correction. To
determine when the spring mass should be used in order to predict oscillation period
calculations, this was calculated in section A.2. Part B: Ratio of spring mass to load mass.
Where it was determined that the ratio of mass spring over mass of weight on hanger
should be less than 0.065 to consider the spring mass negligible. Which in our experiment
the ratio was not less than 0.065 and therefore spring mass should not be ignored. Errors
had a high possibility of occurring in this part due to the requirement for time to complete
40 oscillations being measured by humans, therefore human reaction time would affect
results. This error could be negated through the use of an electronic timer or through using
even more people to measure the time taken to complete the oscillations.

Part C examined the effect viscous damping had on the natural frequency of the system. A
method using a time history graph and theoretical calculations was used as well as a simple
timing method, the results table is reproduced below in Table 7.

14
Table 7: Part C results for the different methods

Variable Timing Method Time history graph method

Undampened natural 2.427 Hz 2.43 Hz
frequency (fN)
2.420 Hz 2.427 Hz
Dampened natural frequency
(fdamped)
0.0537 0.0540
Damping ratio (𝜻)

Both methods had roughly the same undampened natural frequency with a difference of
roughly 0.03Hz (0.12%), however, for the dampened natural frequency there was a
difference of 0.07Hz (0.3%) a much larger difference.
The dampening ratio for the timing and time history graph method is 0.0537 and 0.054
respectively, this confirms the prediction in which the dampening ratio is much less than
one which allows for natural frequencies to be estimated. The timed damping frequency
over the timed natural frequency is simply 0.997 which is very close to one therefore the
small damping has little effect on the frequency of the system.
The error in the damping coefficient q can be calculated, the full process is shown in
Appendix B. The dampening coefficient q has an error of ±1.662Nm/s which is quite high
relative to the value of q (11.82 Nm/s), the exact error being 14.06%. The damping
coefficient is used throughout the equations used to calculate the frequencies for the time
history graph method most notably in equation 6. To reduce this error in q and the
dampened frequency more accurate measuring devices would have to be used as well as
using the suggestions to reduce error for k. Similar to Part B, the timing method would have
been influenced by human reaction time (0.25seconds) possibly contributing to the error in
both frequency values for the timing method. As mentioned before by using a digital timer
or more people this error could be negated.

The final part, D, was on the angular oscillations with inertial excitation and viscous
damping. The main focus was on the peak amplitude and forcing frequency on the system,
this was calculated theoretically and experimentally. It should be noted the theoretical
calculations contained variables which had been calculated experimentally in earlier parts,
such as k and q. Therefore, there was error present in the theoretical calculations. Table 8
shown below is a comparison of the results and is reproduced from part D’s result section.
Table 8: Comparison of theoretical and experimental results for part D

Experimental Theoretical
Peak angular 0.01615 0.01619
amplitude (radians) Difference 0.25%
Forcing Frequency 2.458 2.428
(Hz) Difference 1.22%

15
The difference between the peak angular amplitude was 0.25% with the theoretical having
the highest angular amplitude of 0.01619 radians at a forcing frequency of 2.428 Hz.
Whereas the experimental peak angular amplitude was 0.01615 radians with at a forcing
frequency of around 2.458. The theoretical values contained error due to the values in the
equations used to calculate the peak amplitude containing variables with error such as q.
The error in the theoretical results can be reduced using the same techniques mentioned
earlier such as using more accurate measuring devices and increasing the amount of data
points collected.
The experimental values were affected by use of a stroboscope and human error. The
stroboscope heavily relied upon the user to determine the flash/minute of the rotating disc,
during the experiment near the largest peak-peak value the stroboscope was unable to find
the speed of the disc resulting in disc speed having to be increased. The peak-to-peak values
were measured manually with rough lines being made where the laser on the graph paper
peaked, this was not accurate and could result in an error of around 1mm to the peak-to-
peak results. These errors could be reduced by using a more effective and accurate device
to measure the disc speed, the peak-to-peak value could also be more accurate by repeating
the measurement multiple times and averaging the result.

6. Conclusion
The objective of this experiment was to achieve the objectives for parts A-D these being, part
A to measure the stiffness of the spring on the system, part B to obtain the natural frequency
of oscillations and investigate the effect of lumped mass correction on the accuracy of results.
Part C to investigate the effect of viscous damping on natural frequency, as well as calculate
the value of the damping coefficient. Part D to investigate angular oscillations within one
degree of freedom (1 D.O.F) with inertial excitation and using the same viscous dampening
from part C.

The spring stiffness of the system was found to be k= 916.66 ±11.24 N/m by graphing the
deflection of the spring under different loading conditions and using the least squares
method. The natural frequency of the oscillations was obtained using theoretical relationship
(spring is massless) then the relationship between the period of oscillation and the loaded
mass with and without spring mass was shown. It was found to align experimental data with
theoretical data it was best to include spring mass when the ratio of spring mass on loaded
mass was 0.065. The damping coefficient q was calculated to be 11.8203 ±1.662 Nm/s, and
the time history graph method and timing method resulted in the damped frequency being

16
2.427Hz and 2.420Hz, respectively. When the beam had undergone inertial excitation and
damping the theoretical peak angular amplitude was 0.01619 radians at a forcing frequency
of 2.428Hz the experimental peak angular amplitude was 0.01615 radians at a forcing
frequency of 2.458Hz.

The sources of error possibly contributing to error in all parts were identified and solutions to
avoid these errors in future undertakings of these or similar experiments.

Therefore, the experiments each achieved their individual objectives set out initially, as well
as, successfully validating the initial theory outlined in the introduction.

7. References
• Britannica, T. 2021. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Tacoma Narrows
Bridge." Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tacoma-
Narrows-Bridge.
• Kemp, Jonathan A. 2020. “On inharmonicity in bass guitar strings with application
to tapered and lumped constructions” SN Applied Sciences 2(653): 1-3.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s42452-020-2391-2.pdf.
• Mckee, Kristoffer. 2018. “INTRODUCTION TO MECHANICAL VIBRATIONS”. PDF.
https://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_
108023_1&content_id=_8347525_1.
• Mckee, Kristoffer. 2020. “MCEN3005: Fundamentals of Mechanical Vibration. Lab
document”. Curtin University.
• Tondl, Aleš., Thijs Ruijgrok, Ferdinand Verhulst, and Radoslav Nabergoj. 2000.
Autoparametric Resonance in Mechanical Systems. Cambridge UK. Cambridge
University.
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521650798.

17
8. Appendix A: Calculations for Parts A-D
A.1. Part A: method of least squares calculations
Load Deflection Load^2 load*deflection

0.00 0.00 0.00 0

3.95 4.10 15.63 16.207454

7.91 8.40 62.60 66.45965

11.82 12.90 139.78 152.51306

15.74 17.00 247.90 267.66418

19.72 21.10 388.75 416.025

23.68 25.60 560.97 606.3302

27.58 30.00 760.77 827.45977

31.51 34.10 992.66 1074.3744

35.42 38.40 1254.31 1359.9843

39.35 43.00 1548.60 1692.1457

216.69 234.60 5971.97 6479.16

Table 1: Method of least square variables taken from the original part A table.

The values from Table 1 are used to calculate m and b using excel. Shown in Table 2.

m b

-
1.0906519 0.1576992

Table 2: calculation of gradient using excel

Note that b should be 0 as the line should start at 0,0.

A.2. Part B: Ratio of spring mass to load mass

Most noticeable difference in this experiment is when there is a difference of sqrt(0.01), let the mass
of the hanger be 0, due to the answer being a ratio it does not affect results. Using datum point 2
and letting masses equal each other.

𝑚𝑠
√𝑀 = √𝑚𝑖 +
3
0.93 = 0.94
Squaring both sides and using simple algebra ms= 0.0561.

18
 𝑚𝑠
Therefore, the ratio should be less than =0.065 for the mass of spring to be considered negligible
𝑚𝑖
in this case.

A.3. Part B: Proof of equation 17

It is known resonant forcing frequency is given by,
𝜔𝑁
Ω 2𝜋
𝑓= =
2𝜋
𝑎4 𝑞 2
√1 −
2𝑐 2 𝑘𝐼𝑜

Therefore, we can calculate the forced frequency over natural frequency squared form this
equation.

First the top part of fraction is moved over containing the natural frequency.
Ω
2𝜋 = 1
𝜔𝑁
2𝜋 𝑎4 𝑞 2
√1 −
2𝑐 2 𝑘𝐼𝑜

The 2 Pi cancels out, then by simply squaring both sides it happens that
Ω 1
=
𝜔𝑁 𝑎4 𝑞 2
1− 2
2𝑐 𝑘𝐼𝑜
Which gives equation 17.

A.4. Part C: Time trace history graph

To make time trace history graph easier to read Table 3 was created.

19
Table 3: Time trace history graph tabulated

9. Appendix B: Error Calculation for damping coefficient

Using the original excel document for part a, the uncertainty in k could be calculated, due k
being calculated through a slope a compliance formula had to be used shown in equation 1.
𝑛
𝜎compliance = 𝜎𝑦 √𝑛∑𝑥2 −(∑𝑥 )2 (1)
𝑖 𝑖

Where sigma y is simply the uncertainty in y values

1 1 2
𝜎𝑦 = √𝑛−2 ∑ (𝑦𝑖 − [𝑘] 𝑥𝑖 − 𝑏) (2)

20
Figure 1: Excel table and spreadsheet to calculate uncertainty in k

Then by using figure X and the formulas above the uncertainty of k is ±11.24Nm.

Now the uncertainty of k is established the uncertainties for the following equation 3 need
to be established.
𝑘 𝑐 2
( )
𝜋𝑓𝑁 𝑎
𝑞= (3)
2
2𝜋𝑛
√( 2𝑦 ] +1
ln(2𝑦 𝑜 )
𝑛

B.1. K
dk was found earlier to be ±11.24 N/m

B.2. c and a
As this is error from using a tape measure an error of ±1mm was attributed to dc and da.

B.3. FN
Human reaction time is roughly 0.25 seconds therefore the un dampened system time had
an error of ±0.25 seconds.
𝑑𝑓𝑁 = ±{|80t −2 ∙ 𝑑𝑡|} = ±0.074Hz (4)

B.5 yo and yn
2𝜋𝑛
By letting 2𝑦𝑜 = 𝑥 we can estimate the uncertainty for x which will simplify finding the
ln( )
2𝑦𝑛

uncertainty for q. An error of ±0.2 was attributed to both y15 and yo. Resulting in dx being.
30𝜋 30𝜋
𝑑𝑥 = ± {|− 𝑦 (0.2)| + | (0.2)|} = ±4.95 (5)
𝑜 (ln (𝑦𝑜 )−𝑙𝑛(𝑦15 ))2 𝑦15 (ln (𝑦15 )−𝑙𝑛(𝑦𝑜 ))2

21
B.6 Final calculation for dq
Finally, the uncertainty for the dampening coefficient q, can be calculated through the
equation below. Note that q is simply equation 6 to simplify the equation all derivations
were done in wolfram to eliminate human error.
𝑑𝑞 = ±{|q ∙ dk| + |q ∙ df𝑁 | + |q ∙ dc| + |q ∙ da| + |q ∙ dx|} (6)
Substituting known values.
𝑑𝑞 = ±{|0.012 ∙ 11.24| + |4.87 ∙ 0.074| + |318.8 ∙ 0.001| + |100.5 ∙ 0.001| +
|0.151 ∙ 4.96|} = ±1.662.

Therefore, the value of dq (uncertainty) is ±1.662.

10. Appendix C: Part E Whirling of Shafts Experiment

10.1. Appendix C: Lab Discussion wrote up in text form
𝜔1
For the speed ratio the theoretical value obtained was 0.25, the experimental value
𝜔2
𝜔
obtained was 0.27, a difference of 0.02. For the 𝜔3 speed ratio the theoretical value
4
obtained was 0.68, and the experimental value obtained was 0.67, a difference of 0.01.
These errors/ differences can be attributed to the whirling speeds for cases 2 and 4, where
the desired speed could not be reached as the required speed would bend the bar too much
and would be unsafe for the lab participants. Another possible error could be attributed to
the use of a stroboscope, where the machine’s values could be influenced by human error.
𝜔 𝜔
However, the speed ratios were marginal for speed ratio 𝜔3 (1.47%), but speed ratio 𝜔1
4 2
difference between experimental and theoretical could be considered quite large roughly
7.41%. Therefore, this method to calculate speed ratios can be considered somewhat
accurate, however the larger speeds must be reached in order to achieve similar
experimental and theoretical results.

22