Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
20 AIM
The aim of the experiment was to become familiar with impact hammer testing
and experimental modal analysis techniques using Frequency Response
Functions. This was achieved by computer software called MATLAB.
30 APARATUS
• Flexible Beam
• Rigid Support
• Impact Hammer
• Accelerometer
• Computer
• Data Acquisition Card
• Tip Mass
• Matlab
10 PROCEDURE
1. Place the accelerometer on the beam at the furthest point from the
clamped end. Ensure the accelerometer and hammer are connected via
leads to the computer’s data acquisition board.
4. From the FRF, determine the natural frequencies ωn of the first few modes
of vibration. Next, for each mode, note the local maximum value H of the
peak magnitude. Then find the frequency bandwidth ∆ω of the function at
a response magnitude of Hiω2. From this, it is possible to evaluate the
damping of the mode being considered using the equation ζ≅∆ω2ωn,
while the modal constant can be estimated from A=±2ζωn2Hiω. The sign
of A is determined by the phase of the FRF at each mode i.e. ±90°→+ve
and -90°→-ve. Note that these calculations assume no windowing has
been used.
5. Move the accelerometer to positions of 14-,12- and 34- way along the
flexible beam from the clamped end as well as the tip and for each
position repeat steps 1 to 4. Plot the modal constants against the positions
along the beam at which each was measured. Compare the results with
the first three analytical mode shapes.
6. Add a mass to the tip of the beam. Perform steps 1 to 4 for the new
configuration for the first mode of vibration, using the best point for
measurement of this mode as the location of the accelerometer. From
your measurements of mode 1 natural frequency, estimate the added tip
mass and error of your estimate using Dunkerley’s and Rayleigh’s Method.
Check your estimated result with the actual tip mass.
10 THEORY
• Aliasing refers to errors caused by incorrect sampling of data from a
signal. The errors are due to non-continuous recording of data. It can be
avoided by sampling at 2 time’s fastest vibration rate.
• Leakage occurs when a non-integer number of cycles fit into the recorded
duration time. The signal is truncated at the end of the recorded duration
time which then results in glitches in the data if leakage occurs.
• Windowing refers to multiplying the data by a window function in order to
reduce the glitches in between the data segments. It streamlines and
smooths the glitches in between the data.
• Nyquist frequency is the minimum sampling frequency which ensures a
recorded signal to be free of aliasing.
• Coherence is (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
I=bh312→ρL=ρ×A=ρ×b×h→ωi=βiL2Eh212ρL4
The general solution for mode shape of a beam with fixed & free-end condition is
as follow:
Yix=coshβix-cosβix-Cisinhβix-sinβix
Beam Dimension:806mm(L)×80mm(B)×12mm(W)
ρL=2700kgm3×80mm×12mm=2.592kgm
Young's Modulus=72GPa
ωi=βiL2×27.54
ω1=1.8752×27.54=96.807rads=15.407 Hz
ω2=4.6942×27.54=606.724rads=96.563 Hz
ω3=7.8552×27.54=1699.015rads=270.407 Hz
Figure 5.0 shows the combined mode shapes of the cantilever beam.
20 EXPERIMENTAL RESULT
Figure 6.0: FRF for 0.25L
Once Frequency Response Function (FRF) was found and resonant peaks are
sufficiently separated, it is possible to estimate the modal damping coefficients
using the theory of single freedom degree. This method is also called as Half-
Power Method. Once the data is plotted, it is possible to determine the
bandwidth where the response magnitude is 12 at that resonance. The
bandwidth is related to the equation of ζ=ω2-ω12ωn.
The experimental mode shapes for mode 1, mode 2 and mode 3 without the tip
mass were plotted from modal constant against the relative distance along the
beam and they are shown in the figures below.
The table below (table 3.0), information was extracted from FRF plot with tip-
mass.
2.4DUNKERLY’S METHOD
1ω12=1ω112+1ω222+…+1ωnn2
2.5RAYLEIGH’S METHOD
∴ω2=3EIL333140ρLL+M →M=3EIωn12L3-33140ρLL
Dunkerly’s Rayleigh’s
Method Method
1.1Error Analysis
Table 6.0 below shows the error analysis of natural frequencies of theoretical and
experimental results.
From table 6.0, it was determined that experimental natural frequencies are
lower than that of theoretical natural frequencies. However experimental values
are only having errors of less than 7% altogether therefore it can be concluded
that experimental result agrees with theoretical result.
There are a number of sources where errors were generated. The experimental
values obtained from FRF plots generated by MATLAB were done by zooming into
the graph and extracting the values. This causes quite a significant error as
human eyes are never perfect. The imperfections of the cantilever beam such as
impurities embedded into the material and manufacturing imperfections could
have caused some errors as well. In addition to that, rounding errors is also a
part of error. However experimental mode shapes very well matches to
theoretical results therefore experiment can be considered to be quite well done.
Table 7.0: Error Analysis of Tip Mass
The errors associated with tip mass approximations are quite small but it is
important to note that Dunkerly’s and Rayleigh’s method do not take damping
ratios into the consideration for their respective approximation techniques. Other
human errors mentioned above apply in this case as well.
20 Conclusion
By performing this experiment, its main aim mentioned in this report earlier was
achieved very well. From the results, it was found that experimental and
theoretical data match very well indeed. However a slight shortcoming arise
from approximation technique, especially Rayleigh’s method as it should have
over-estimated however this was not the case for this experiment.
However the experimental data collected from FRF plots significantly matches
with the theoretical data with errors less than 7% altogether therefore this
experiment performed was a successful experiment.