You are on page 1of 10

# Purpose

The purpose of this experiment was to familiarize us with some basic instruments used in vibrations. The main focus in this lab was to learn to calibrate an accelerometer, to get familiarize with the dynamic signal analyzer, and to make some fundamental measurements.

Introduction
In this experiment, three different lengths of both steel and aluminum were attached to a clamp on one end. On the other end, the dynamic frequency analyzer was attached and it was connected to the computer. At the end where the frequency analyzer was attached, a shake was given and the damping frequency graph was observed on the computer. The measurements taken off the computer were written down in tables B and C and the calculations were performed. Firstly, the actual frequency and the actual time period of all the six configurations were written down separately. Then to find the theoretical frequency, the following formula was used: (( Where, E is the elastic modulus I is the mass moment of inertia m is the mass density L is the length of the beam ) ) (Eq. 1)

Elastic Modulus was found from the table A. Mass moment of inertia (I) was found from the following formula where base (b) and height (h) were found from the table A: (Eq. 2) Mass density (m) was found from the following formula where mb is the mass of the beam and L is the length of the beam: (Eq. 3) And finally, the value 3.56 in (Eq. 1) was found from the derivation of the mass effective (m eff.) that was incorporated in formula.

In the second part of the lab, we were asked to find the damping coefficient: (Eq. 4) where is the damping ratio and is the critical damping coefficient.

Now to find the damping ratio, the following formula must be used:
( )

(Eq. 5) ( )

Where

## is the logarithmic decrement that can be found by

Also to find the critical damping the following formula must be used: (Eq. 6) Where m is the mass effective and is the frequency.

Table A

Beam Type
Properties Width [in] Height [in] Elastic Modulus [lb/in2] Density [lb/in3]

STEEL
1 0.25 3.0E+07 0.284

ALUMINUM
1 0.25 1.0E+07 0.098

STEEL
Table B Beam type Steel Length (in) Frequency (Hz) Amplitude 1 (g) Amplitude 2 (g) 12 48 0.2594 0.2450 24 12 0.7478 0.6888 36 5.6 1.092 1.073

((

((

)]

## For Length 24 in: Actual values: fn = 12 Hz T = 1/fn = 0.04167 s Theoretical Values: ( )

( For length 36 in: Actual values: fn = 5.6 Hz T = 1/fn = 0.1786 s Theoretical values: ( )

There was an average error of about 14% when compared with the values of Tables A and B with the theoretical calculated values. One of the reasons for this discrepancy would be the standing waves. Since the steel beam was of only one length from which the three lengths were measured and clamped at those lengths, there was the remaining length that went behind the clamp. When a pulse was given to the one end of the steel beam, the wave may have passed through the clamp to the other side of the beam and may have created the standing waves. Another reason for this discrepancy could be that the clamp would not have been rigidly attached to the table. The loose attachment of the clamp to the table may have let the entire table vibrate when the pulse was given to one end of the beam.

ALUMINUM
Table C Length (in) Frequency (Hz) Amplitude 1 (g) Amplitude 2 (g) Beam type Aluminum 12 24 56 12.4 0.1513 1.024 0.1196 0.9726 36 6 1.277 1.245

## For Length 12 in: Actual Values: fn = 56 Hz T = 1/fn = 0.01786 s Theoretical Values: ( ( ) ( ) ) ( )( )( )

((

((

)]

For Length 24 in: Actual values: fn = 12.4 Hz T = 1/fn = 0.08064 s Theoretical Values: ( )

## ( For length 36 in: Actual values: fn = 6 Hz T = 1/fn = 0.1667 s Theoretical values: ( )

As for the Aluminum, there was an average error of about 8%. This discrepancy may have caused due to the same reasons as for the steel beam.

## Frequency (Hz) vs. Length (in) graph for Steel

70 60 Frequency (Hz) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 Length (in) 30 40 Actual Theoretical Linear (Actual) Linear (Theoretical)

## Time Period (s) vs. Length (in) graph for Steel

0.2 0.18 0.16 Time Period (s) 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 10 20 Length (in) 30 40 Actual Theoretical Linear (Actual) Linear (Theoretical)

As clearly seen in the graph, the relationship for the frequency graph is non-linear and the time period graph is (almost) linear. These graphs are non-linear because of the equations of the line that they follow. Let us first observe the frequency graph first. The equation of this graph has a final value with unit 1/s. This shows that the graph of this equation would be a hyperbola and this can be seen clearly in the frequency vs length graph. As for time period vs length graph, the equation for time period is the inverse of the frequency equation which makes the graph linear. This can be clearly seen in the actual values. The theoretical value graph of time period is non-linear because of the discrepancies discussed in the previous discussion of actual and theoretical frequencies.

## Frequency (Hz) vs. Length (in) graph for Aluminum

60 50 Frequency (Hz) 40 30 20 10 0 0 -10 10 20 Length (in) 30 40 Actual Theoretical Linear (Actual) Linear (Theoretical)

## Time Period (s) vs. Length (in) graph for Aluminum

0.18 0.16 0.14 Time Period (s) 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 10 20 Length (in) 30 40 Actual Theoretical Linear (Actual) Linear (Theoretical)

As discussed for frequency and time period graphs of steel, the same reasons are valid for the both graphs of aluminum. The only difference is its time period versus length graph. In this time period graph the actual graph line and the theoretical graph line is almost on top of each other. This simply implies that the experiment performed for aluminum achieved maximum accuracy.

For 12 in steel: Logarithmic decrement Damping ratio Mass effective Critical Damping Coefficient Damping Coefficient For 24 in steel: ( ) ( ) (

For 36 in Steel: ( )

For 12 in Aluminum: ( )

For 24 in Aluminum: ( )

For 36 in Aluminum: ( )