Mechanical Engineering 4P03 (2014-15): Modal Analysis Lab

Teaching Assistant: Emma Badowski

McMaster University

M ODAL A NALYSIS OF A S IMPLE S TRUCTURE

Umer Javed
0942243javedu3@mcmaster.caC01/G3

March 4, 2015

Contents
1 Introduction

2 Experimental-procedure

3 Results & discussion

3.1 Static-tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Dynamic-tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Effect of test-conditions on the dampingratio () . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Effect of damping on the natural frequency
(fn ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Beating-phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6 Effect of stiffness on the deflection-ratio
(X/ST ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7 Notes on selecting damping & stiffness for
structure-design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8 Experimental limitations & sources of errors

2
2
2

4 Conclusion

Appendix A Sample calculations

A.1 Static-compliance (SC) . . . .
A.2 Logarithmic-decrement () . .
A.3 Damping-ratio () . . . . . . .
A.4 Amplitude-ratio (X/ST ) . . .
A.5 Compliance-ratio (CR) . . . .
A.6 Steady-state deflection at 10N
load at fn . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
fluctuating
. . . . . . .

static and dynamic properties. This lab studies these

properties of a simple structure through a series of
tests with the systems mass, damping and stiffness
[1].
The results of these experiments are presented,
below, and interpretations are made to connect
these results with real-life behaviour and expectations.

3
3

Experimental-procedure

There are seven different tests carried out in this

lab:

1. Static and dynamic tests of the standard simplestructure.

2. A dynamic test with added mass.
3. A dynamic test with added damping (sandbag).
4. A dynamic test with external load applied.
5. Static and dynamic tests with gussets added.
6. Static and dynamic tests with gussets and 2
cross-braces added.
7. Static and dynamic tests with gussets and 4
cross-braces added.

4
4

5
5
5
5
6
6

Data for the static tests is recorded from a dial

displacement-gauge, as the displacement of the system, in response to the added mass. The recordings
for the dynamic tests are made via two accelerometers (one on the experimental structure, and the
other built-in the impact-hammer). This data is processed in an adjacent workstation, using LabView.
Each dynamic-test is carried out four times.

Introduction

Modal analysis is a fundamental process for designing and creating structures whose real-life behaviour can be reliably modelled based on their
1

ME4P03, 2014-15

Modal Analysis Lab

Ten-seconds of response data is recorded, for the

dynamic tests, however, a discrepancy was noted in
this particular labs data. There were missing values, in all seven dynamic tests. The normal procedure requires developing an average-spectrum from
the four trials, for each test. This was not possible,
given the inconsistent data, therefore, for propertyderivations, only the highest-quality (least-noisy)
data was used. Acquired data is plotted in Excel
for further analysis and the derivation of the relevant static and dynamic properties of the structure,
under various experimental conditions.

Deflection, D (m)

Simple-structure D/L = 2.35

Structure with gussets-only D/L = 0.593
With gussets and two cross-braces D/L = 0.151
With gussets and four cross-braces D/L = 0.112

400

200

Results & discussion

0

3.1

Static-tests

50

200

Figure 1: Plot of deflection at various loads, for the structure

with four different configurations. The static-compliance (gradient) decreases as the equivalent-stiffness of the system increases.
These values are listed in the legend, by the respective configuration, and in the

Dynamic-tests

As listed, earlier, the four-trials for each of the seven

tests did not have an equal number of data, and
was unsuitable for developing a reliable averagespectrum of the these tests. Based on the least-noisy
data, table-1 lists the systems properties, for each
impact-test.

0.030
Damping-ratio,

3.3

150

Applied load, L (N )

The results from all four static-tests are illustrated

in figure-1. The gradient of each test-case is equal
to the static-compliance of that particular configuration.

3.2

100

Effect of test-conditions on the

damping-ratio ()

0.025

0.020

0.015

Figure-2 illustrates the damping ratio for the first

four test-conditions. The most significant peak is at
test-3, where a sandbag was placed on top of the
system. As expected, the systems equivalent damping increasedroughly twice as high as the other
four tests.
Mechanical Engineering

Test #
Figure 2: Variation of the damping ratio for the first four tests.
Test-3 introduced the sandbag.

McMaster University

Modal Analysis Lab

Test-7
86.4
1.65105
4.03103
0.112
5.37102
8.54103
58.5
3.58102
4.03102

3.4

Test-6
90.8
2.57105
7.24105
0.151
1.33101
2.11102
23.7
4.81104
7.24104
Test-5
49.1
2.91106
6.08105
0.593
3.31101
5.27102
9.49
1.02104
6.08104

d = n

1 2

Test-4
24.4
7.39106
3.66104
2.35
1.04101
1.65102
30.2
1.56104
3.66103

For the given precision of the data, in table-1,

there is no change in the natural frequency, with the
respective damping.

Test-3
22.3
1.22105
6.52104
2.35
1.93101
3.07102
16.3
2.78104
6.52103

3.5

Beating-phenomenon

Test-2
21.6
2.14105
1.16103
2.35
9.35102
1.49102
33.6
4.94104
1.16102

Beat, or beating, phenomenon is the presence of a

modulated-decay, instead of a simple exponential
decay, in the time-response of a structure [2]. This
is visible in figure-3, which is the response of the
systems acceleration over-time, for test-5. This test
had the most prominent beating pattern, compared
to tests 6 and 7 (which were the only three where
this phenomenon was noted).
Prima facie, this is triggered in the three tests with
the gussets added to the corners of the frame. As
the amount of bracing is increased, from tests 6 to
7, the beatings effect on the acceleration amplitude
decreases but its frequency increases. The added
bracing increases the equivalent stiffness of the system and it may contribute to the systems resilience
against modulation.
Beating in this apparatus may be related to the
nature of the coupling [2]. Without the gussets,
the structure is simply supported by the solid legs.
These solid legs have a rigid connection with the
base. The addition of the gussets increases the complexity of this connection by adding another coupling that is not as rigid as the solid-legs, on their
own.

Test-1
24.8
4.52105
4.03103
2.35
9.90102
1.58102
31.7
1.72103
4.03102

Mechanical Engineering

Effect of damping on the natural

frequency (fn )

In this experiment, the damping values are significantly low; even with the added sandbag, the
damping-ratio is still three-times lower than 0.1,
the lower threshold of the damping-ratio (underdamped). Therefore, the damping has an insignificant effect on fn . For considerable damping, the
damped natural frequency (in radians/second) is
determined by:

Property
Natural frequency, fn (Hz)
Acceleration/Force at fn
Dynamic-compliance at fn
Static-compliance
Log-decrement,
Damping-ratio,
Amplitude-ratio, X/ST
Compliance-ratio
Deflection at 10N load (m)

Table 1: Dynamic properties derived from the seven impact tests, under various configurations. Detailed sample calculations of some of these derivations are
in appendix-A. The table also includes the steady-state deflection of the structure at a 10N fluctuating-load at the natural-frequency.

ME4P03, 2014-15

McMaster University

Acceleration, a (m/s2 )

ME4P03, 2014-15

Modal Analysis Lab

getary perspectives. A detailed analysis of the system and its anticipated excitation frequencies would
allow for a suitable damper to avoid resonance.

2
1

3.8

The experimental apparatus is seldom perfect and

immune from errors and discrepancies. This is clear
with the initial observation of incorrect number of
entries for the measurements that are collected (see
section-2). In addition to that, the following may
play a role in decreasing the accuracy and precision
of this experiment:

1
2
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Time, t (s)
Figure 3: Acceleration of the structure, after the impact, for
test-5. The sinusoidal, modulated-decay, instead of a pure
exponential-decay, is known as the beat phenomenon.

3.6

Improper orientation of the impact hammer: Impact is required to be reasonably perpendicular

to the side of the top-plate, to only excite the
bending mode. A strike that is not perpendicular would also excite the structure, torsionally,
decreasing the accuracy of the measurements
on the response.
Insufficient settling of the apparatus: The base
of the apparatus is struck with a soft-mallet,
multiple-times, to settle any stresses and increase the overall rigidity of the structure. Lack
of proper settling introduces unwanted damping into the system, which would decrease the
accuracy of the measurements on the response.
Electromagnetic-noise in the data-logging circuit:
Significant noise is detected in the initial part
of most of the test-results. Since the data is collected for a few seconds, the overall impact of
this is diminished, as cleaner data is available
for review. If, however, data is collected for
much shorter time-periods, this noise reduces
the usability of the measurements.
Inaccurate data retreival from the measurements: Table-1 shows a decrease in the natural
frequency between test 6 and 7, while it should
increase, as the systems overall stiffness is increased with the added brace. It is possible this
is because of improper determination of the fn
value, from data (which was post-processed in
Excel). The fn value may have been for a point
adjacent to the fn peak.

Effect of stiffness on the deflectionratio (X/ST )

Experimentally, only tests 1 and 4 are ideal for

comparing the effect of increasing stiffness, on the
amplitude-ratio. Only that pair has comparable
damping-ratios (tests 5, 6 and 7 would also have
been good candiates for studying the effects of increasing stiffness, from the braces, but their damping ratios are significantly different, in each test).
As stiffness was increased, through the external
load, in test-4, its amplitude-ratio decreased by
about 5%.

3.7

Notes on selecting damping & stiffness for structure-design

An increase in the stiffness will increase the natural frequency of the system. In structure-design,
this may appear to increase the safety of the structure, however, it only shifts the frequency. A poorlyanalyzed frequency-shift may even bring fn closer
to other excitation frequencies on the system, exacerbating the resonance on the structure.
Therefore, a safer procedure would involve improving the damping of the system. An overdamped
system may not be ideal, from operational and budMechanical Engineering

Experimental limitations & sources

of errors

McMaster University

ME4P03, 2014-15

Modal Analysis Lab

Conclusion

A structures static and dynamic properties and behavior can be studied by analyzing its response to
impact loads, under varying operating conditions
and configurations. Altering the equivalent-mass,
stiffness, and damping of the system leads to different responses and changes the properties of the
structure, namely the natural-frequency.
Real structures can be designed and adequately
tested in this form to increase their safety and stability. While this apparatus is made simple, to aid
the short analysis, in this lab, improvements in the
structure and the underlying assumptions could be
made to increase the comparability to a larger, more
complex structure.
The results, tabulated in table-1, offer a quick
rundown of how the systems dynamics change, under different test configurations. The changes in the
systems damping-ratio and natural-frequency are
obvious, as test-conditions are changed.
There are some errors, noted in this lab, which are
listed as well, to assist in improving future iterations
of this experiment.

Sample calculations

From table-1, only fn , the acceleration/force at

fn , and the dynamic-compliance at fn , were determined from the experimental measurements. All remaining properties were derived from those initial
measurements, based on the theory outlined in the
lab handout.

A.1

Static-compliance (SC)

The following equation calculates the SC for the

simple-structure with a 44.448N (10 lb) load.
Deflection
Static-load
100m
=
44.488N
= 2.25

SC =

For the experimental calculations, the gradient of

the best-fit line was used, to determine the staticcomplianace; these two derivations are about 3%
different.

References
[1] McMaster University, Mech Eng 4P03Composite Laboratory, Experiment (M.A.): Modal Analysis, 2015.

A.2

Logarithmic-decrement ()

[2] S. K. Yalla and A. Kareem, Beat phenomenon in combined structure-liquid damper systems, Engineering Structures, no. 23, p. 622.

The logarithmic-decrement is determined using the

acceleration values at two points (x1 and xn+1 ) of
known spacing (n). The following equation is used
to determine for test-1:


1
x1
= ln
n
xn+1


1
2.5658
= ln
6
1.4166
= 9.9 102

A.3

Damping-ratio ()

The damping ratio (for test-1) is derived using the

values of :
Mechanical Engineering

McMaster University

ME4P03, 2014-15

Modal Analysis Lab

=
2
9.9
102

=
2

= 1.58 102

A.4

Deflection = (Deflection at fn ) (Load)

= (4.03 103 )(10)
= 4.03 102 m

Amplitude-ratio (X/ST )

The amplitude ratio (for test-1) is derived from

the following expression, for systems with lowdamping:
X
1
=
ST
2
1
2(1.58 102 )
= 31.7
=

A.5

Compliance-ratio (CR)

The compliance ratio is the ratio of the dynamic and

static-compliance values. For test-1:
Dynamic-compliance at fn
Static-compliance
4.03 103
=
2.35
= 1.72 103

CR =

A.6

Steady-state deflection at 10N fluctuating load at fn

Experimental measurements included the Fourier

transform of the displacement signal (displacement/force, of units m/N ). To determine the deflection at 10N fluctuating load at the systems fn ,
the displacement/force value, from the signal-graph
(also listed in table-1, was multiplied by 10N. For
test-1:
Mechanical Engineering

McMaster University