Stream: Civil Engineering and Architecture

Area: Structural Dynamics

EXPERIMENTAL MODAL TESTING FOR ESTIMATING THE

DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF A CANTILEVER BEAM
Authors: Shibabrat Naik1, Wrik Mallik1
1

Undergraduate Students, Department of Civil Engineering

Jadavpur University, Kolkata-700 032

ABSTRACT
Of substantial importance in compliant structures, nowadays, are the dynamic parameters such as
the modal frequencies and damping constant of their components. These parameters are the
essential technical information required in engineering analysis and design. In addition, this
information is needed for numerical simulations and finite element modeling to predict the
response of the structures to a variety of dynamic loadings. In this work, experimental modal
testing of a cantilever beam has been performed to obtain the mode shapes, modal frequencies
and the damping parameters. A Fast Fourier Transform Analyzer, PULSE lab shop was used to
obtain the Frequency Response Functions and subsequent extraction of modal data was
performed using MEscope. These modal parameters were then checked using finite element
analysis software, ANSYS which were found to comply with the experimental results. The range
of applications for modal data is vast and includes checking modal frequencies, forming
qualitative descriptions of the mode shapes-as an aid to understanding dynamic structural
behavior for trouble-shooting, verifying and improving analytical models. It is with this objective
that the experimental method was standardized and thus the mathematical model can be updated
further.
The experimental methods include obtaining the FRF plots from a cantilever beam and then
using the MEscope to obtain the various parts of the FRF plots like the magnitude, phase, real,
imaginary. Then the modal data was analyzed to obtain different parameters which were further
compared with the model developed in ANSYS.

1. INTRODUCTION
In the past two decades, modal analysis has become a major technology in the quest for
determining, improving and optimizing dynamic characteristics of engineering structures. Not
only has it been recognized in mechanical and aeronautical engineering, but modal analysis has
also discovered profound applications for civil and building structures, biomechanical problems,
space structures, acoustical instruments, transportation and nuclear plants.
As the significance of dynamic behavior of engineering structures is better appreciated, it
becomes important to design them with proper consideration of dynamics. Finite element
analysis as a computer modeling approach has provided engineers with a versatile design tool,
especially when dynamic properties need to be perused. This numerical analysis requires
rigorous theoretical guidance to ascertain meaningful outcomes in relation to structural
dynamics. An important part of dynamic finite element analysis is modal analysis. Computer
modeling alone cannot determine completely the dynamic behavior of structures, because certain
structural properties such as damping and nonlinearity do not conform to traditional modeling
treatment. There are also boundary condition uncertainties which modeling needs additional help
to work. Substantial advances in experimental techniques have complemented modeling with the
experimental determination of structural properties. A milestone of this endeavor is the advent of
digital Fourier transform analyzers. The experimental techniques are nurtured by the theory of
modal analysis and in turn provide new impetus to it.
It is well known that (mechanical) structures can resonate, i.e. that small forces can result in
important deformation, and possibly, damage can be induced in the structure. The majority of
structures can be made to resonate, i.e. to vibrate with excessive oscillatory motion. Resonant
vibration is mainly caused by an interaction between the inertial and elastic properties of the
materials within a structure. Resonance is often the cause of, or at least a contributing factor to
many of the vibration and noise related problems that occur in structures and operating
machinery. To better understand any structural vibration problem, the resonant frequencies of a
structure need to be identified and quantified. Today, modal analysis has become a widespread
means of finding the modes of vibration of a machine or structure. In every development of a
new or improved mechanical product, structural dynamics testing on product prototypes is used
to assess its real dynamic behavior.

In a nutshell, we could say that modal analysis is a process whereby we describe a structure in
terms of its natural characteristics which are the frequency, damping and mode shapes - it's
dynamic properties.
The frequency response function is very simply the ratio of the output response of a structure due
to an applied force. We measure both the applied force and the response of the structure due to
the applied force simultaneously. (The response can be measured as displacement, velocity or
acceleration.) Now the measured time data is transformed from the time domain to the frequency
domain using a Fast Fourier Transform algorithm found in any signal processing analyzer and
computer software packages. Due to this transformation, the functions end up being complex
valued numbers; the functions contain real and imaginary components or magnitude and phase
components to describe the function.

2. OBJECTIVE
Both theoretical and experimental modal analysis ultimately arrives at the modal model of a
dynamic system. Compared with the FRF or the vibration response, the modal model explicitly
portrays the dynamic characteristics of a system. Therefore, applications of modal analysis are
closely related to utilizing the derived modal model in design, problem solving and analysis.
Before embarking on the discussion of applications, it is important to refresh the two different
paths from which a modal model is derived. Theoretical modal analysis relies on the description
of physical properties of a system to derive the modal model. Such a description usually contains
the mass, stiffness and damping matrices of the system. Thus, it is a path from spatial data to
modal model. Experimental modal analysis obtains the modal model from measured FRF data or
measured free vibration response data. Thus, it is a path from response data to modal model.
Once the modal model is derived, a number of applications can be instigated. Some applications
of modal analysis involve direct use of modal data from measurement while others use these data
for further analysis.
Troubleshooting using experimental modal analysis is to gain an insight into a dynamic structure
which is problematic. This is a most popular application of experimental modal analysis since its
emergence. It also often heralds further applications of modal analysis. Troubleshooting relies on
experimentally derived natural frequencies, damping factors and mode shapes of the structure.

These data provide a fundamental understanding of the structural characteristics and often reveal
the root of dynamic problems encountered in real life.
Many applications of structural dynamics rely their success entirely upon having an accurate
mathematical model for a dynamic structure. Such a model can be derived from the finite
element modeling. The resultant FE model, which is in the form of mass and stiffness matrices,
can be essential for further applications such as sensitivity analysis and prediction due to
proposed structural changes. However, owing to the complexity and uncertainty of the structure,
it is unrealistic to expect such an FE model to be faithfully representative. An essential approach
is to take a measurement of the structure, derive its modal model and use it to correlate with the
existing FE model in order to update it. The philosophy behind this model correlation is that the
modal model derived from measurement, though incomplete due to lack of sufficient numbers of
vibration modes and measured locations, truly represents the structures dynamic behavior. Thus,
it can be used to correct the FE model, should any discrepancies occur between them.
Structural modification analysis, sensitivity analysis, reduction of mathematical model, force
identification, response prediction, substructure coupling, structural damage detection and active
vibration control are the other applications of modal parameters and the derived model from
thereof.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
a. Equipments used:

Modal hammer Brel&Kjr (8206-003)

Accelerometer Brel&Kjr (4507)

Brel&Kjr PULSE Labshop version 10.1

Brel&Kjr FFT Analyzer (3560-B-020)

Connectors Model no :: AO 0087D

Specimen: Aluminum bar of dimensions

Display Unit. (Dell laptop)

MEscope modal analyzer

2.5 cm

0.6 cm

b. Measurement procedure:
1.

Aluminum beam of length

was used as the cantilever beam. The fixed

support was made by clamping the beam with the help of

two wrench type clampers with a steel frame in the
Structure Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department,
Jadavpur University.
2.

The connections of the FFT analyzer, laptop,

transducers and modal hammer along with the requisite

power connections were made.
3.

The Accelerometer Brel&Kjr (4507) type

was fixed by both sided tape to the cantilever beam at

the test node among all the nodal points on the beam.
4.

The Modal hammer Brel&Kjr (8206-003)

was kept ready to excite the beam at the singular points.

5.

Then at the modal hammer was struck once at the

2nd node and the amplitude Vs frequency plot was

obtained from graphical user interface.

6. The FFT analyzer and the accelerometer are the interface to convert the time domain
response to frequency domain. Hence the frequency response spectrumH1 (response, force)
was obtained.
7. The measurement was checked by observing the time domain plots of the input signal 1
(excitation) and the input signal 2 (response). A correct FRF plot can only be ascertained
only if the plots resemble as that shown in figure no.1.
8. At the time of the striking with modal hammer to the singular point precautions were taken
whether the striking should have been perpendicular to the aluminum beam surface.
9. The above procedure is repeated for all the nodal points.
10. The FRF plots were saved as ASCII files after assigning the direction and the position of
extracted data from the nodal points.

11. These plots were then used as input files in the MEscope for extracting the modal
parameters.
12. The values (i.e., natural frequencies and resonant frequencies) obtained from the modal
analysis was compared with respect to the FEM analysis.

Figure 1 Time domain plot of response

Figure 2 Imaginary part of the FRF from a nodal point as obtained from ME'scope

3.1 Experimental setup

The accelerometer was connected to the patches, seven in number, on the cantilever beam
specimen and the excitation was imparted on the 2nd patch as shown

Figure 3 Test Set up

Figure 4 Figure showing the data acquisition points

3.2

Frequency Response Function Measurement

The measurement for experimental modal analysis is to acquire frequency response function data
from a test structure. Experimental modal analysis is a system identification endeavor. The
structure is a black box that needs to be deciphered. The traditional approach is to provide the
black box with a known input, measure the output and proceed with the identification. For our

measurement, we use force input so that the FRF can be derived directly from the force and
response information. The excitation force can be random, sinusoidal, and periodic or impact
ones. Theoretically, the type of force does not matter as the FRF is defined as the ratio between
the response and force. In practice, whenever practical we want to use a force that has sufficient
energy and frequency components to excite all vibration modes of interest and to allow minimum
errors in signal processing, leading to the formation of accurate FRF data. We are also limited by
the capacities of the hardware available for measurement.

The frequency response function measured was the acceleration (accelerance). As the cantilever
beam setup was excited with the hammer manually the response of the structure was measured in
the form of acceleration. For this a piezoelectric accelerometer was attached to the beam at the
desired locations. Both the excitation and response signal were sent to the Dual-Channel FFT
Analyzer. The frequency response functions were observed as complex valued curves in the
software Pulse Labshop.

Pulse Labshop:
Pulse Labshop is the fast fourier transform analyzer which receives digital signal from the
hammer and the accelerometer and converts it
The various parameters checked with the Pulse Labshop software were:
1. Frequency Response Function
2. Coherence
3. Time weighting signals
All these values were checked for the different locations where the excitation forces were
provided. The coherence value was 1 when the results were reasonable. The time weighting
signals for impulse and damping were checked before saving the frequency response functions.

3.3 Data acquisition from Frequency Response Functions

The Frequency Response Functions obtained from the Pulse Datashop were further analyzed in
the MEScope software in order to find out the real and imaginary values of the complex valued
response functions.

MEScope:

Using the imaginary values obtained from MEScope we joined the peaks of imaginary values at
the resonant frequencies or modal frequencies. The curve joining these peaks is supposed to give
the deformed shape of the cantilever beam under dynamic loading at the different modes. Curve
fitting techniques were used to minimize the errors during the experiment.

4. Results:
The MEscope generated imaginary parts of the FRF measurements and then we used
MATLAB to plot the first four mode shapes of the cantilever beam which are shown along
with frequencies.

Modal frequency
The modal frequencies were estimated as the frequencies where we received
maximum gain in the frequency response function plots in Pulse Labshop.The results
are in good compliance with those obtained from ANSYS.

The modal frequencies as compared are:

Mode shape

Modal frequencies (ANSYS)

1st

38.078

Modal frequencies
(Experiment)
32.000

2nd

238.56

208.000

3rd

667.78

664.000

4th

1308.5

1312.000

Mode shapes

Mode shape at 32.00 Hz

20
dis1
cubic
0

-20

-60

-80

-100

-120

-140

4
Position of nodal points

Mode shape at 208 Hz

1200

dis2(1,1:5)
cubic

1000

800

600

Displacement

Displacement

-40

400

200

-200

-400

1.5

2.5

3
Position of nodal points

3.5

4.5

Mode shape at 664 Hz

40
20

Displacement

0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120

4
5
Position of nodal points

Mode shape at 1312 Hz

20
dis4(1,1:7)
shape-preserving

10

Displacement

0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60

5
4
3
Position of nodal points

5. References:
1. Modal Analysis, by Jimin He & Zhi-Fang Fu
2. Experimental modal analysis by Peter Avitabile, Modal Analysis and Control Laboratory,
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, USA.
3. Vibration analysis of structures, A thesis by Govardhana Rao, Civil Engineering
Department, NIT, Rourkela.