Motion Lab Report

Ty Dorman
Ben Wetzel
Brian Zieverink





ME 3870
Lab: Thursday 5:30PM

2

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Experimental Procedure ................................................................................................................................ 5
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 7
Single Degree of Freedom System ............................................................................................................ 7
Two Degree of Freedom System ............................................................................................................ 13
Investigation of Results ........................................................................................................................... 15
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 16
References ................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Relevant Equations ................................................................................................................................. 19
Sample Calculations ................................................................................................................................ 20
MATLAB Code ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Description of Responsibilities ................................................................................................................ 22
Datasheets .............................................................................................................................................. 23


3

Abstract
The presence of vibrations in a mechanical system is often unavoidable. Unfortunately,
vibrations also have a good chance of damaging the mechanical system and limiting its
effectiveness. As such, lots of effort has been put into studying vibration dampening to minimize
or prevent the effects of vibration in a system. In this study, a given spring-mass-damper system
was analyzed to determine its defining characteristics with the intent of designing a vibration
damper that would eliminate vibrations at a determined resonance frequency. To achieve this
objective, the resonance frequency was determined experimentally. A spring and mass were then
selected based on how close their natural frequency was to the resonance frequency of the
system. Upon testing the vibration absorber at the resonance frequency, a reduction in vibration
amplitude of approximately 90 percent was observed. While this result does not meet the
ultimate objective of complete absorption, the results were significant enough to call the
vibration absorber effective at the systems resonance frequency.

Introduction
In any vibrating mass system, it is important to understand the relationship between the mass,
spring, and damper in the system and be able to minimize the oscillations to prevent damage to
the components in and around the system. Understanding how to determine the natural
frequency of the system and reduce the amplitude of oscillation at the natural frequency is
critical in the design of systems consisting of masses, springs, and dampers.
The ultimate goal of this experiment is to reduce the oscillation amplitude of the primary single
degree of freedom system. This will be achieved through calculation of the appropriate mass and
spring combination in order to design a vibration absorber. The physical characteristics of the
4

single degree of freedom system will be experimentally determined and then combined with the
vibration absorber to create a two degree of freedom system.
Additionally, after completion of this experiment, the user should be comfortable with writing
LabView programs for data acquisition and have the ability to know when and how to apply least
squares curve fitting.
The single degree of freedom system studied in this experiment consists of a mass and a set of
parallel springs, which are represented in Figure 1 by a spring and damper combination.

Figure 1: Single Degree of Freedom Vibrational System (Department of Mechanical Engineering 1)
This system can be represented using the equation below.
|

()|

()

In the single degree of freedom system, the damping can be estimated by allowing the system to
respond to a single impulse force, collecting position data over a period of time, and then using
the Logarithmic Decrement method between two amplitude peaks.
Once an additional mass and spring are added for vibration damping purposes, the system
becomes a two degree of freedom system as shown in Figure 2.
5


Figure 2: Two Degree of Freedom System (Department of Mechanical Engineering 3)
This system can be represented using the following equations

()

)(

) (

()

)(

) (

In this experiment, it is assumed that the system will only operate at the resonant frequency of
the primary system. If the system operates at any frequency other than the resonant frequency,
the vibration absorber will not function optimally and could cause the system to oscillate at a
frequency capable of destroying the system.
Experimental Procedure
The beginning of this experiment consisted of gathering data to define the characteristics of the
spring-mass system under analysis. The primary mass (m
1
) and the unbalanced mass (m
u
) were
measured in kilograms using a calibrated scale. The eccentricity (e) was measured in meters,
using a linear scale.
The primary spring was placed in a drill chuck that was connected to a LabView program which
measured both force and displacement. The program plotted the force against displacement as
6

the spring was compressed by the drill chuck and the slope of that plot was determined to be the
primary spring stiffness (k
1
).
Another LabView program was used to graph the free response of the spring-mass system. The
system was subjected to an impulse force and the amplitude of oscillation was plotted over time.
From this plot, the logarithmic decrement was determined and subsequently used to calculate the
damping coefficient.
A rotating unbalanced mass was placed on the primary mass as shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3
A frequency sweep was performed by using a motor to rotate the unbalanced mass at varying
frequencies between 4 and 10 Hertz. An oscilloscope was used to measure the amplitude and
frequency of the accelerometer for each input motor frequency. The frequency at which the
amplitude was the greatest was determined to be the resonance frequency.
Design of a vibration absorber began once the resonance frequency was determined. The natural
frequency of the vibration absorber, which most effectively reduced the amplitude of vibration,
was calculated and then analysis of the available masses and springs began. The masses were
measured using a scale and the spring constants were measured using the same procedure used to
determine the primary spring stiffness. The combination of springs and masses which had a
7

natural frequency nearest the desired value were chosen. The vibration absorption system was
added to the primary system as shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4
The motor was used to rotate the unbalanced mass of the modified system and the oscilloscope
again measured the amplitude and frequency of the accelerometer at varying motor frequencies.
Results and Discussion
Single Degree of Freedom System

Static calibration data was obtained by gathering displacements corresponding to applied forces.
Then, this data was used to perform a least squares fitting for the force vs. displacement. The
data for the static calibration of the spring stiffness and the curve for the least squares fitting of
the data is displayed in Figure 5.
8


Figure 5: Linear Least Squares Fit for Force vs. Displacement Data
The purpose of collecting this data was to determine the stiffness of the spring that was to be
used in the experiment. The following values were experimentally determined from the Single
Degree of Freedom System:

The primary mass was measured on a calibrated scale and k was determined from the slope of
the Least Squares Fit line. Table 1 presents the frequency data acquired from the single degree
of freedom system.


9

Table 1: Single Degree of Freedom Frequency Accelerometer Data
Motor Frequency
(Hz)
Accelerometer Frequency
(Hz)
Percent Difference
(%)
Amplitude of Accelerometer
(V)
10.000 10.000 0.00 0.6775
9.000 9.259 2.80 0.6425
8.000 7.692 4.00 0.6025
7.000 6.944 0.80 0.5525
6.000 6.098 1.60 0.6325
5.000 5.000 0.00 0.9600
4.625 4.630 0.10 2.4750
4.500 4.630 2.80 2.7688
4.375 4.630 5.50 2.8375
4.250 4.425 3.95 1.3125
4.125 4.310 4.30 0.6188
4.000 4.202 4.80 0.5850

From this table it can be seen that the frequencies for the motor speed readout almost match the
frequencies from the accelerometer readout. The percent difference between the frequencies is at
most 5.50 % which an average percent difference of 2.55%. Thus it can be concluded that the
frequencies are practically the same. Figure 6 shows the amplitude vs. frequency of the single
degree of freedom system. Represented is the experimental data and the simulated vibration data.
The MATLAB code used to create this figure can be found in the Appendix.
10


Figure 6: Amplitude vs. frequency of 1DOF system for the experimental and simulated vibrations
The amplitude for the data was originally in units of volts. From the accelerometer specification
sheet [3], it was found that a sensitivity could be used to convert from volts to units of
acceleration due to gravity, or gs. Then, units of gs was converted to

. Next the
acceleration could be divided by the frequency squared to give the amplitude in meters. The data
from Table 1, specifically the frequency of the accelerometer and the amplitude, was utilized to
create the frequency vs. amplitude plot of Figure 6.
11


Figure 7: Experimental Data of Accelerometer Frequency vs. Accelerometer Amplitude

From Table 1 and Figure 7 it is concluded that the experimental natural frequency is at 4.630 Hz.
Given this observation the experimental natural frequency

can be calculated. The

experimental natural frequency was found to be 29.09 rad/s. See Sample Calculation 2 for a
worked out solution. The free response data of the single degree of freedom system is displayed
in Figure 8. The damping ratio was calculated using logarithmic decrement. From Figure 8, two
different peaks were chosen. The peaks were spaced three time periods apart. Using Equation 7,
the damping ratio was calculated to be 0.004046. See Sample Calculation 4 for a worked out
solution.
12


Figure 8: Experimental Data from Free Response of System

The natural frequency found from the experiment would be more accurate than the one
determined theoretically. The experimental natural frequency reflects the system as it naturally
is, whereas, the theoretical natural frequency was found based off the measured spring stiffness
and the measured mass of the system. The actual mass of the system we tested was not
measured, but a similar system was weighed and used for the mass of our system. This could
result in errors of the actual mass of the system we tested. In addition, the spring stiffness was
found for a spring that was similar to the ones used in testing, but the actual springs used in
testing were not used to find their respective stiffness. There could have been slight differences
in spring stiffness, which would cause errors in the calculation of the natural frequency. Also, the
theoretical natural frequency doesnt account for fluctuations and other forces acting on the
system. Thus, it is seen that the experimental natural frequency more accurately reflects the
system than the theoretical one does.
13

Two Degree of Freedom System

A vibration absorber was designed to suppress erratic vibrations of the primary system at its
natural frequency. This was accomplished by finding a separate spring and mass that produce a
natural frequency close to the natural frequency of the single degree of freedom system. The
force vs. displacement data for the spring tested for use in the vibration absorber is shown in
Figure 9.

Figure 9: Force vs. displacement data for vibration absorber spring

The slope of the best fit line in Figure 9 represents the spring stiffness. This spring was coupled
with a mass to create a natural frequency close to that of the primary system. The following
values were determined experimentally to create the vibration absorber:

The mass used with the spring was determined using Equation 2 in the Appendix. This mass was
determined to be 0.732 kg, but the closest mass that could be used in the lab was 0.720 kg. A
y = -0.6191x + 32.179
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
F
o
r
c
e

(
N
)

Displacement (mm)
14

sample calculation for

can be found in the Appendix as Sample Calculation 5. The vibration

absorber greatly reduced the amplitude of vibration around the natural frequency of the one
degree of freedom system. Figure 10 shows that around the natural frequency of the system, the
vibration amplitude decreases when the vibration absorber is added.

Figure 10: Amplitude response at different frequencies for the 1DOF and the 2DOF systems

A vibration absorber acts to reduce the amplitude of a system at its natural frequency. This can
be advantageous if the system is expected to operate at its natural frequency. The system would
fluctuate violently when operating at its natural frequency, but the vibration absorber greatly
reduces the amplitude of these vibrations. A disadvantage to having a vibration absorber would
be that there are more moving parts in the system. More moving parts means there is a greater
chance of failure in the system. Also there would be added mass to the system. This could be
problematic if there is a weight requirement for the system. One other disadvantage would be
15

that at certain frequencies the system would still vibrate erratically. This could become an issue
if the system were operating at these frequencies.

Investigation of Results

Figure 11 displays the experimental and simulated data responses of the two degree of freedom
system. The amplitude of the system was determined by converting from volts to meters. Sample
calculation 3 shows how this is done. Also the MATLAB code used to generate Figure 11 can be
found in the Appendix.

Figure 11: Amplitude vs. frequency of 2DOF system for experimental and simulated vibrations

16

The model does not seem to adequately describe the system. The experimental data looks
similar, but the simulated signal has a smaller amplitude. A two degree of freedom system has
more moving parts and other vibrations going on, and this could cause a response that would not
be expected. So the theoretical response differs from the experimental one for the reason that the
system is not acting under perfect conditions in the lab. As the frequency of operation deviates
from the natural frequency, the motion starts to become more chaotic and the accelerometer
would not know how to process such data. Thus, the accelerometer signal would look less and
less sinusoidal as the frequency moves away from the natural frequency.


Conclusion
The objective of this experiment was to define a given system in terms of mass, spring stiffness,
and damping coefficient. Upon defining the system, the resonance frequency was to be
determined and ultimately, a vibration absorber was to be designed to most effectively minimize
the amplitude of vibration at the determined resonance frequency. Measurements determined that
the system could be defined as having a mass of 2.432 kilograms, a spring stiffness of 971.7
Newtons per meter, and a dampening coefficient of 0.393 Newton-seconds per meter. Also the
resonance frequency was determined to be 4.6296 Hertz. The vibration absorber was designed to
minimize the vibration amplitude and the resonance frequency and those results were pretty well
achieved. Without the absorber, the amplitude was 2.8375 Volts, but with it, the amplitude was
0.39375 Volts. This is a significant reduction in amplitude.
There were a few issues during the duration of the experiment which likely resulted in a
reduction of accuracy in the final results. Measuring the spring stiffness of the spring for the
17

vibration absorber proved to be challenging as the spring was rather thin and long. This resulted
in deflection of the spring when the drill chuck was applying pressure to it rather than just
compression. Consequently, the calculated spring stiffness likely contains some error. Also,
when measuring the vibration amplitude of the system with the vibration absorber, the mass and
spring of the vibration absorber were not physically secured to anything. This resulted in the
mass and spring separating from the primary system temporarily when the vibrations were more
violent and likely altering the amplitude of the vibration dampening system at certain input
frequencies. This was not an issue at the resonance frequency though, so our conclusion is not
altered.


18

References

Department of Mechanical Engineering. ME3870 Discrete Vibrating Systems Lab Manual. Classroom
distribution.
19

Appendix
Relevant Equations

Single Degree of Freedom System: (Department of Mechanical Engineering 1)
|

()|

()

(1)

()

(2)

(3)
|

()|

(4)
Two Degree of Freedom System: (Department of Mechanical Engineering 3)

()

)(

)(

(5)

()

)(

)(

(6)
Logarithmic Decrement: (Department of Mechanical Engineering 25)

(7)

20

Sample Calculations

1. The natural frequency of the single degree of freedom system is determined from
equation 2. Plugging in values found experimentally, we get

)


2.

()

3.

4.
(

)
()

5.

MATLAB Code

First Order System Least Squares Fit for Force vs. Displacement:
%force data obtained from lab
F=[4.719505 5.535808 6.394475 7.199403 7.854318 8.47233 9.104737
9.949089 10.941502 11.954485 12.972623 13.808779 14.783004
15.826558 16.866588 17.864217 18.604336 19.1887 19.809687 20.482891
21.086507 21.609822 22.177811 22.844989 23.51321 24.12434
24.718207 25.229854 25.713189 26.323359 26.956479 27.493068
28.01143 28.515139 29.06181 29.628513 30.292077 30.977708
31.834274 32.814811 33.715477 34.35127 35.081852 35.543399
36.387368 37.34789 38.007458 38.334788 39.041455 39.795045
40.537654 40.871394 41.424639 42.17107 43.108382 44.078473
45.050123 45.839801 46.470621 46.599919 46.641398];
%displacement data obtained from lab modified to correspond to force
x=[0.964286 1.820664 2.75478 3.602231 4.293429 4.937641 5.59209
6.480158 7.605634 8.746745 9.828209 10.755089 11.860525
13.048622 14.205898 15.327646 16.152034 16.827333 17.569835
18.350856 19.06515 19.675498 20.336571 21.063114 21.786591
22.46211 23.106473 23.687089 24.275892 24.964369 25.672222
26.256204 26.853205 27.415837 27.958124 28.509938 29.113627
29.724078 30.508578 31.377405 32.174263 32.756423 33.40761
33.823108 34.547065 35.373213 35.955761 36.265989 36.882276
37.54374 38.205337 38.50151 38.937538 39.588158 40.441064
41.26417 42.143519 42.834594 43.417694 43.580938 43.656764];
sum=0;
Ax=0;
Ay=0;
Axx=0;
21

Axy=0;
n=length(F); %number of data points
for i=1:n %calculation of Ax
Ax = Ax + x(i);
end
for i=1:n %calculation of Ay
Ay = Ay + F(i);
end
for i=1:n %calculation of Axx
sum = (x(i))^2;
Axx = Axx + sum;
end
for i=1:n %calculation of Axy
sum = x(i) * F(i);
Axy = Axy + sum;
end
m = ((n*Axy) - (Ax*Ay)) / ((n*Axx) - (Ax^2)); %calc. of slope
b = ((Axx*Ay) - (Ax*Axy)) / ((n*Axx) - (Ax^2)); %calc. of intercept
for i=1:n %store values of Force using the least squares fir method
F_ls(i) = m * x(i) + b;
end
plot(x,F,'b-')
hold on
plot(x,F_ls,'r--')
xlabel('Displacement (mm)')
ylabel('Force (N)')
legend('Static Calibration Data','Least Squares Fit')


Experimental and Simulated Signals for Amplitude vs. Frequency of the 1DOF Sysytem:
%Frequency and Amplitude data from the experiment
freq=[10.000 9.000 8.000 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.625 4.500 4.375 4.250 4.125
4.000];
amp=[0.00401 0.00443 0.00602 0.00678 0.01007 0.02272 0.06832 0.07643 0.07833
0.03966 0.01971 0.01961];

%Transfer function for simulated data
w= [0:.1:(400*(2*pi/60))];
f=w./(2*pi);
j= sqrt(-1);
s=j.*w;
y=abs((.0029.*s.^2)./((2.432.*s.^2)+(0.3933.*s)+(2*971.7)));

%Plot both experimental response and simulated response
plot(freq,amp,'b-')
hold on
plot(f,y,'r--')
xlabel('Motor Frequency (Hz)')
ylabel('Amplitude (m)')
legend('Experimental Data','Simulated Data')
hold off

22

Experimental and Simulated Signals for Amplitude vs. Frequency of the 2DOF Sysytem:
%Frequency and Amplitude data from the experiment
freq=[10.20400 9.43400 7.81250 7.14290 6.09760 5.00000 4.06500 4.50450
4.62960 4.80770];
amp=[0.00375 0.00371 0.00550 0.00742 0.01170 0.03225 0.00797 0.00973 0.01087
0.01517];

%Transfer function for simulated data
w= [0:.1:(400*(2*pi/60))];
f=w./(2*pi);
j= sqrt(-1);
s=j.*w;
m1=2.374;
m2=0.720;
b1=0.3933;
b2=5.002;
k1=2*971.7;
k2=619.1;
mu=.058;
e=.050;
F1=mu.*e.*(s.^2); %F1=mu*e*(d2A/dt)

%Using equations 7 and 8, we can find y1 and y2

y1=abs((F1.*((m2.*s.^2)+(b2.*s)+(k2)))./((((m1.*s.^2)+((b1+b2).*s)+(k1)+(k2))
.*((m2.*s.^2)+(b2.*s)+(k2)))-(((b2.*s)+k2).^2)));


%Plot both experimental response and simulated response
plot(freq,amp,'b-')
hold on
plot(f,y1,'r--')
xlabel('Accelerometer Frequency (Hz)')
ylabel('Amplitude (m)')
legend('Experimental Data','Simulated Data')
hold off


Description of Responsibilities
Ty Dorman: Experimental Procedure; Conclusion; Abstract
Ben Wetzel: Compile final report; Introduction; Relevant Equations; References
Brian Zieverink: Results and Discussion; MATLAB code; Charts and Tables

23


Datasheets
See attached Accelerometer data sheet