You are on page 1of 10

# ENME599

Laboratory # 4 Report

Lab Group: 5c
Date: November 1 2014

Group Members:
a. Tayan Patel
b. Jonathan Patterson
c. Nik Mouwen

Question 4:
To complete section 2.1 we need to use our recorded data
fn1
fn2

7.56 Hz
43.14Hz

m1
m2

60 gr.
40 gr.

a)
Find excitation frequency:
(

## Find displacement and acceleration amplitudes:

Armature
Mid-span mass (m2)
End mass (m1)

A (mV)
3.36
6.96
19.6

A (m/s2)
0.342
0.709
2.00

)|

45.13
45.13
45.13

|Y| (mm)
0.1679
0.348
0.982

b)
Armature Mass 2 (mid-span):

## Armature Mass 1 (end mass):

NOTE: the values on the oscilloscope were not exactly zero, but they were so small in magnitude
that we can take them to be zero (as per TA instructions).

c)
Armature Mass 2 (mid-span):
( )

( )

( )

( )

Question 2:
0.9n1 = 40.617

## Waveforms of armature, excited mass 1 and 2 for 40.617

2
1.5

Acceleration (m/s2)

1
0.5
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2

Time (s)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Question 3:
From lecture slides:

( )
{

) [ ]

) [ ]

## P = External load on beam [N]

x = Distance from origin of beam to shaker [m]
x1 = Distance from the shaker to the middle mass [m]
L = Length of beam [m]
E = Youngs modulus of beam = 200 x 109 Pa
I = Moment of inertia of beam = bh3/12 m4
b = Width of beam [m]
h = Height of beam [m]
We recorded the following values:

## The compliance matrix from lecture notes:

* +

+[ ]

(
(

Substituting values:
[
Find stiffness matrix to find natural frequencies

Solve matrix:

EOM:

## Form of particular solution is:

[

Substitute values:
(*

+) [

* +

## Take the determinant for characteristic equation:

(

Solving:

Convert to Hertz:

[

][

+[

]* +

+[

]*

## Plot mode shapes:

) [(

) [(

Question 4, 5, 6:

Question 7:
It can be seen that the experimental natural frequencies found were:

Analytically however, we can see that the obtained natural frequencies were:

From these values, we can see that for the first natural frequency, we obtain an error of
approximately 17.6%, while for the second natural frequency we see a smaller 14.0% error. Both of
these errors are higher than we would ideally like to see, but are not extreme.
As our errors were both in the mid teens, we can see that our level of error is consistent throughout
both experiments. This leads us to believe that systematic errors such as human error when
reading the oscilloscope or calibration of our machines are where the blame should be placed. It is
worth noting that the masses may have came loose, but we made sure to never touch the masses so
hopefully that has no effect on our data. Since our experimental data is consistently lower than our
analytical, it leads us to believe that a simplification or assumption could be to blame when solving
for a theoretical natural frequency.
External noises and vibrations are always a factor when conducting experiments similar to this one
and as such they would have been factors in the error. When collecting data, only 15 points were
used for each mass distribution and as such, the precision would be diminished. More data points,
specifically focused around the natural frequency would generate a much smoother and accurate
curve, in turn leading to better results.
Finally, in the analytical solution, the mass of the beam was assumed negligible which in real life
would not be the case. The mass would have to be factored in to the data, and could substantially
change the final results. A damping ratio of approximately 1% was used, however as seen in
laboratory #3, we know that this is not the case. It is worth noting that our experimental data was
consistently lower than our analytical solution, so it could be surmised that the beam is acting as a
damper and lowering the natural frequency to the damped natural frequency.
Overall, this lab has a valuable teaching method, and our results obtained can be considered
dependable. Doing our post-lab analysis we would be sure to include a reasonable value for a
damping ratio in order to bring our error in to the low single digits. From this lab our knowledge
and understanding of the subject or vibrating systems was greatly improved.

## Matlab Code used:

% Given
E=200e9; % steel
b=0.02;h=0.001; % m
I=b*h^3/12;
x1=0.093; % m
L=0.2; % m
% modal damping - from experiments
zeta1=.01;
zeta2=zeta1;
% Mass matrix
M=[.05 0;0 .07]; % kg
% Compliance matrix
Lamda=[x1^3/(3*E*I) x1^2/(6*E*I)*(3*L-x1);x1^2/(6*E*I)*(3*L-x1) L^3/(3*E*I)];
K=inv(Lamda);
[V,D] = eig(K,M);
M11=V (:,2)'*M*V(:,2);
M22=V (:,1)'*M*V(:,1);
U(:,1)=1/sqrt(M11)*V(:,2);
U(:,2)=1/sqrt(M22)*V(:,1);
Cq=[2*zeta1*wn1 0; 0 2*zeta2*wn2]
C=(U^-1)'*Cq*U^-1;
kc=(K(1,1)+K(1,2));
cc=(C(1,1)+C(1,2));
Y1_YB=tf([cc*U (1,1)^2 (kc)*U (1,1)^2],[1 2*zeta1*wn1 wn1^2])+tf([cc*U (1,2)^2 (kc)*U (1,2)^2],[1
2*zeta2*wn2 wn2^2])
% Experimental For Mass 2 (Outter)
freq = [5 6.075 6.3 6.525 6.75 6.77 6.8 19.3 31.7 44.2 45 45.3 46 53 60];
trans1 = [2.23 5.02 7.16 12.66 48.4 49.23 48.7 0.33 0.28 2.05 3.27 3.62 2.8 0.25 0.08];
phase1 = [-2 -4 -5 -8 -76 -89 -107 -182 -181 -213 -246 -266 -309 -353 -356];
% Experimental For Mass 1 (Inner)
trans2 = [1.38 2.21 2.85 4.49 14.69 14.80 14.43 0.73 1.15 10.46 16.96 19.97 14.97 1.58 0.68];
phase2 = [-1 -2 -4 -7 -74 -87 -105 0 -2 -32 -65 -84 -128 -172 -177];
H=Y1_YB;
% plotting
ff=100; % [hz]
f=linspace(0,ff,10000);
[HH] =freqresp(H,2*pi*f);
HH=squeeze(HH);
figure(1); clf;zoom on;
subplot(2,1,1);
plot(f,abs(HH),freq,trans1 ,'c')
legend('Analytical', 'Experimental')

xlabel('Frequency (Hz)')
ylabel('Transmissibility')
title('Transmissibility for Outer Mass')
grid on;
subplot(2,1,2);
plot(f,unwrap (angle(HH)).*(180/pi),freq,phase1,'r');
legend('Analytical', 'Experimental')
xlabel('Frequency (Hz)')
ylabel('Phase Angle (Degrees)')
title('Phase Angle for Outer Mass')
grid on;
Y2_YB=tf([(C(2,1)+C(2,2))*U (2,1)^2 (K(2,1)+K(2,2))*U (2,1)^2],[1 2*zeta1*wn1
wn1^2])+tf([(C(2,1)+C(2,2))*U (2,2)^2 (K(2,1)+K(2,2))*U (2,2)^2],[1 2*zeta2*wn2 wn2^2])
H2=Y2_YB;
% plotting
% ff=500; % [hz]
f=linspace(0,ff,10000);
[HH] =freqresp(H2,2*pi*f);
HH=squeeze(HH);
figure(2); clf;zoom on;
subplot(2,1,1);
plot(f,abs(HH),freq,trans2 ,'m')
legend('Analytical', 'Experimental')
xlabel('Frequency (Hz)')
ylabel('Transmissibility')
title('Transmissibility for Inner Mass')
grid on;
subplot(2,1,2);
plot(f,unwrap (angle(HH)).*(-180/pi),freq,phase2,'g');
legend('Analytical', 'Experimental')
xlabel('Frequency (Hz)')
ylabel('Phase Angle (Degrees)')
title('Phase Angle for Inner Mass')
grid on;