1.

0 INTRODUCTION

Vibrational forces are among the most prominent aspects considered when designing a
mechanical component. These forces must be considered from outside sources as well
internal generation. These forces are often mathematically modeled using an array of
differential equations of motion. Equations of this type take into account a mass, spring
and damper, all of which effect the vibrational response in a different manner. In the
following document the results of both an experimental and analytical approach are
analyzed and compared for two different systems. The first system is translational while
the second is torsional.
2.0 RESULTS:

2.1 Linear and Rotary Potentiometer Curve

To gain a starting point for the analysis of the vibrational systems a calibration of the tese
stands was necessary. For the translational system the block intended to vibrate was
pulled and held at a displacement of -6.0 mm, measured from the scale on the test stand.
The corresponding voltage was then displayed using the SignalCalc software. This
procedure was replicated for displacements of -4.0, -2.0, 0.0, 2.0, 4.0 mm respectively.
The values of distance and voltage were then plotted against on another in excel to depict
the trend, which can be seen in figure 1. For the rotational system, the disk was rotated
and held at a displacement of -12.0 deg., once again measured from the scale on the test
stand. The corresponding voltage was measured using the SignalCalc software for -9.0,
-6.0, -3.0, 0.0, 3.0, 6.0, 9.0 and 12.0 deg. The results can be seen in figure 2 below.

FIGURE 1:

Voltage Vs Displacement
4

3 y =0.3707x +1.5171
Voltage(V)

1 Series1
Linear (Series1)
0

-1
-10 -5 0 5 10
Displacement(mm)
Figure 1: This graph shows the correspondence between voltage and displacement as derived from the
translational system. As seen by the curve fit, the voltage increases in a linear fashion with regards to the
displacement.
FIGURE 2:

Voltage VsDisplacement
0
-0.1
-0.2 y =-0.0258x - 0.4889
Voltage(V)

-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Series1
-0.6
-0.7 Linear (Series1)
-0.8
-0.9
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement(degrees)
Figure 2: This graph shows the correlation between voltage and displacement for torsional system. It can
easily be seen that with a greater displacement there is a more negative voltage recorded.

2.4 Acquiring Experimental Data from Test Stand

In order to display the data collected from the experimental test stands in a meaningful
manner, the SignalCalc program had to be set up appropriately. The calibration factor
from the slopes of the above curves was entered into the program and the units were
converted into meaningful values through the program. This was done for both the
translational and rotational experiments. For the translational test the mass was pulled
back to a maximum value of -6.0 mm and let go. The SignalCalc software was started
momentarily before the mass was released and the vibration was recorded. The
corresponding vibration is displayed in figure 3. For the rotational system the lever was
pulled back to a maximum value of -12.0 deg. and once again released. The experimental
data was displayed on through the software as before. This oscillation is shown in figure
4 below.
FIGURE 3:
4 FreeVibrationResponsefor theTranslational System
x10
1.5
Analytical
Horizontal Displacement [ mm ]

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time[ sec]

Figure 3: This figure shows the response of the translational system. It can be seen that it decays in an
exponential manner, which is characteristic of a system with linear viscous damping. The system then
reaches steady state at approximately 0.8 seconds.

FIGURE 4:
Free Vibration Response of the Torsional Test Stand
35

30
Angular Displacement [ deg ]

25

20

15

10

5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [ sec ]

Figure 4: This figure depicts the response of a torsional system. The response decays in a slower, more
gradual manner than the linear,which is characteristic of Friction Coloumb Damping. The system then
reaches steady state at approximately 4.5 seconds.
 2.5 Model Development Translational Test Stand

When choosing an appropriate equation to model the vibration of the Translational Test,
a second order linear differential equation was chosen. This approximation can be made
because of the linear friction damping that the system experiences. Linear friction
damping is characterized by an exponential decrease in magnitude of the peaks of
oscillation, until the system settles to a much lower steady state value. This relation can
be seen in figure 5. Also the equation clearly depicts the simple linear motion of a mass,
spring, damper system, such as was tested. In this experiment the top aluminum block in
motion is the mass. The straight metal strips attaching the mass to the base act as the
springs, allowing the mass to vibrate linearly from positive to negative values. The
damping portion of this system is the damping strips placed on the metal springs, and also
air resistance. The analytical response was plotted by entering the values calculated from
measured values using SignalCalc and Matlab. Further details on the calculations can be
found in the data sheet for week 3 and appendix 1.

FIGURE 5:
4 Free Vibration Response for the Translational System
x 10
1.5
Analytical
Experimental
1
Horizontal Displacement [ mm ]

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Time [ sec ])

Figure 5: This figure shows the accuracy with which the analytical solution of the differential equation
models the experimental data. It can be seen that although the results differ somewhat a second order linear
differential equation portrays this motion in an accurate manner.
2.6 Model Development Torsional Test Stand

For the system a second order non-linear differential equation was chosen to model the
motion of the mass. In this test the mass oscillated in a rotational manner making the
simple linear differential equation inadequate to properly portray it. Equations of this
nature are difficult to solve and require the use of technologies such as MatLab and
Simulink to resolve. This system experienced Coulomb Damping which displays a more
uniform, gradual decay in oscillation magnitudes as compared to linear damping. This is
seen in figure 6. In this system the mass is modeled by the steel disk which is in motion.
The long metal rod connecting the disk to the base acts as the spring, forcing the mass to
waver between positive and negative values when excited. And the bearing, which
connects the disk to the rod acts as the damper by limiting the oscillations. Once again
the values of m, c and k were calculated from know values and are accurately shown in
the data sheet from week 5 and appendix 3. this being a rotational system these values
had to be converted in the appropriate values of mass moment of inertia(J), Friction
moment(F) and Spring constant(K), also shown in the calculations. The value of the
spring contant had to be adjusted to better model the actual and will be discussed in
greater detail later. The plot of the analytical data was created using SignalCalc and
Matlab as well.

FIGURE 6:
Free Vibration Response of the Torsional Test Stand
15
Simulated
Experimental

10
Angular Displacement [ deg ]

-5

-10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Time [ sec ]

Figure 6: This figure shows the relationship between the analytical and experimental data for the torsional
system. As can be seen, the chosen equation, a second order non-linear differential equation replicates the
actual motion of the system in an acucrate manner. But as stated above some alterations were made to the
values to perfect this correlation.
3.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

3.1 Modeling Assumptions

In this experiment a variety of modeling assumption have been made in order to simplify
the system so that the equations depict the experimental station more accuratly. In the
translational system it was assumed that all of the damping was of the linear viscous type
which allowed a second order linera differential equation to be used to model the motion.
By dissmissing the possibility of a small amount of Coloumb damping, the results was
easily obtained analytically without affecting anything to a great degree as is seen by the
close match of paths created by the response in figure 5. the system was also assumed to
be ideal with a ridgid mass, and linear, massless springs.

For the torsional system the damping was assumed to be entirely Coloumb Friction,
which once again simplified the equation, although numerical methods were still required
to solve. It was also assumed that the system worked properly with no uneven wear on
the mechanisms. The mass, spring and damper were also considered to be ideal and the
shaft acted like a torsional spring. Once again these assumptions were made to simplify a
fairly complex system so that it could be modeled by a second order non-linear
differential equation.

3.2 Model and Experimental Correlation and Assesment

The linear system was very acuratly portrayed using the calculated values for m, c and k.
These values were found using the measured values of mass and and those taken from the
experimental figure as a starting point. The necessary calculations for these values can be
found in appendix 1. The calculated damping and stiffness ratio need to be accurate
because these two factors strongly effect the rate of decay and the period of ocillation.
The greater the damping ratio, the quicker the system will reach steady state and the
higher the stiffness the faster the system will occillate, which in effect will cause the
response to die out quicker. As is seen in figure 5 the calculated values were extremely
close the the actual for the majority of the response. The only point where the model
strays is near the end where the system exibits Coloumb friction instead of linear viscous.

The calculated values for the rotational system differed slightly from the experimental
results. These values needed adjustment to produce the trace found in figure 6. Although
the graph differed slightly it still had the characteristic appearance of a system
undergoing Coloumb Friction damping. It decayed linearly throughout and only became
out of phase near the end which is attributed to a system that is not completely ideal.

3.3 Validity of Model Parameters

With regards to the translational system the model parameters that were most uncertain
was the damping ratio. This value was altered due to wear on the machine and the friction
associated from the measuring device. When comparing the experimental and analytical
results it was clear that this was biggest factor in the traces not being identical. The
translational analytical results differed a far greater amount from the experimental. This
was due to the wear on the system from overuse which caused the frictional moment to
be much lower than the expected value. With this lower than expected value for the
frictional moment, the system oscillated for a greater amount than the analytical result.
With an adjustment to this value the analytical trace became almost identical to the
experimental value with little other changes.