Dynamics and Structures of

Machines
Vibration of a SDOF System
Song Ling Leng
130198123

SUMMARY
This Report is made of two parts, the first being the physical
experiment in which data from free vibration and forced vibration of
the beam is collected. The second part of the report consists of
Numerical Studies on the simulation of free vibration response of
SDOF systems using MATLAB. In the laboratory, the physical
experiment aims to measure the free vibrating response following
an impulse and the steady state frequency response of a system
excited by a rotating balance. There is a comparison between the
natural frequency and damping ratio between the oil and empty
damper with both free and forced vibrations. Using MATLAB, the
relationship between the steady state and impulse response is
investigated. Time domain calculation methods of discrete
convolution integral and central difference method are also
compared using MATLAB simulations. Their performance is judged
by the time taken to carry out calculations and the RMS error. All
data is recorded in the results below.

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System

Lab Results
Peak
Numbe
r

Time, s

Period,
s

0
1
2
3
4
5

0.434
0.495
0.557
0.617
0.677
0.737

0.061
0.062
0.06
0.06
0.06

0
1
2
3
4
5

0.391
0.452
0.512
0.572
0.632
0.692

0.061
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06

0
1
2
3
4
5

0.562
0.622
0.682
0.742
0.802
0.861

0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.059

Averag
e
S.
Deviati
on

Accelera Log
tion, ms-2 Decrem
ent
Test 1
4.627
3.982
3.307
2.692
2.385
1.915
Test 2
3.662
3.065
2.497
2.012
1.711
1.309
Test 3
3.642
3.035
2.533
2.122
1.741
1.281
Final

Dampin Natural
g Ratio Freque
ncy,
Rads-1

0.1501
0.1857
0.2058
0.1211
0.2195

0.0239
0.0296
0.0327
0.0193
0.0349

104.40
104.42
104.43
104.39
104.44

0.1780
0.2050
0.2160
0.1621
0.2678

0.0283
0.0326
0.0344
0.0258
0.0426

104.41
104.43
104.43
104.41
104.47

0.1823
0.1808
0.1770
0.1979
0.3068

0.0290
0.0288
0.0282
0.0315
0.0488

104.42
104.42
104.41
104.42
104.50

0.1971

0.0314

104.42

0.0452

0.0072

0.03

Table 1: Results of Free Vibration with Oil Damper

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System
Peak
Number

Time, s

Period,
s

0
1
2
3
4
5

0.236
0.296
0.355
0.415
0.475
0.533

0.06
0.059
0.06
0.06
0.058

0
1
2
3
4
5

0.5
0.562
0.623
0.685
0.746
0.808

0.062
0.061
0.062
0.061
0.062

0
1
2
3
4
5

0.483
0.546
0.607
0.669
0.731
0.79

0.063
0.061
0.062
0.062
0.059

Accelerat
ion, ms-2

Log
Decrem
ent

Test 1
2.533
2.329
2.228
1.952
1.847
1.622
Test 2
11.116
9.751
8.549
7.494
6.776
5.898
Test 3
10.466
9.315
8.097
7.204
6.341
5.67
Final

Dampin
g Ratio

Natural
Freque
ncy,
Rads-1

0.0840
0.0443
0.1322
0.0553
0.1299

0.0134
0.0071
0.0210
0.0088
0.0207

103.35
103.34
103.36
103.35
103.36

0.1310
0.1316
0.1317
0.1007
0.1388

0.0209
0.0209
0.0210
0.0160
0.0221

103.36
103.36
103.36
103.36
103.37

0.1165
0.1401
0.1169
0.1276
0.1118

0.0185
0.0223
0.0186
0.0203
0.0178

103.36
103.37
103.36
103.36
103.36

Average
0.1128
0.0180
S.
0.0297
0.0047
Deviation
Table 2: Results of Free Vibration with Empty Damper

103.36
0.01

Speed,
Rpm

Hz

Frequency
Rads-1

Accelera
tion, ms2

830
13.82
86.9
0.641
882
14.71
92.4
1.307
922
15.37
96.6
2.655
984
16.4
103.1
8.882
1032
17.21
108.1
5.792
1083
18.05
113.4
3.852
1139
18.98
119.3
2.811
Table 3: Results of Forced Vibration with

Displace
ment,
mm
0.0849
0.1531
0.2845
0.8356
0.4957
0.2995
0.1975
Oil Damper

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System
Speed,
Rpm

Frequency
Hz
Rads

Accelera
tion, ms-

Displace
ment,
2
mm
827
13.78
86.6
0.702
0.0936
846
14.1
88.7
0.745
0.0947
884
14.73
92.6
1.385
0.1615
923
15.39
96.7
2.875
0.3075
966
16.1
101.2
11.719
1.1443
974
16.24
102
13.454
1.2932
981
16.36
102.8
13.577
1.2847
989
16.49
103.6
13.553
1.2627
996
16.6
104.3
12.582
1.1566
1000
16.67
104.8
9.988
1.0865
1002
16.71
105
11.213
1.0171
1041
17.35
109
5.886
0.4954
1079
17.99
113
4.371
0.3423
1137
18.96
119.1
3.152
0.2222
Table 4: Results of Forced Vibration with Empty Damper
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
Displacement Amplitude, mm
Oil Damper

0.6

Empty Damper

0.4
0.2
0
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Frequency, Hz

Graph 1: Displacement Amplitude against Frequency

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System
0.9000
0.8500
0.8000
0.7500
0.7000
Displacement Amplitude, mm
Response

0.6500
0.6000

Half Power Line

0.5500
0.5000
0.4500
0.4000
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Frequency, Hz

Graph 2: Half Power Method to find Damping Ratio for Oil Damper
Damping Ratio,

17.0015.85
2 16.4

0.0351
Natural Frequency

16.4 10.03512
16.39 Hz
102.98 rads-1

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
Displacement Amplitude, mm
Response

1
0.9

Half Power Line

0.8
0.7
0.6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Frequency, Hz

Graph 3: Half Power Method to find Damping Ratio for Empty

Damper
Damping Ratio,

16.915.9
2 16.4

0.0305
16.4 10.0305 2

Natural Frequency

16.39 Hz
102.98 rads-1

Natural
Frequency
Damping
Ratio

Free vibration
Forced Vibration
Empty
Oil
Empty
Oil
103.36
104.42
102.98
102.98
0.01
0.03
5.15
5.15
0.0180
0.0314
0.0305
0.0351
0.0047
0.0072
0.0015
0.0018
Table 5: Comparison of Results

From these values, we can calculate the Damping Coefficient for

both the empty and oil dampers. An average value can be obtained
from using both free and forced vibrations.
For Free Vibration,
Estimated Empty Damping Coefficient

0.018 2 4.5 103.36

16.74
For Forced Vibration,

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System
Estimated Empty Damping Coefficient

0.0305 2 4.5 102.98

28.27
Taking the average,
Empty Damping Coefficient, c

16.74 +28.27
2

22.51 Ns-1
For Free Vibration,
Estimated Oil Damping Coefficient

0.0314 2 4.5 104.42

29.5

For Forced Vibration,

Estimated Oil Damping Coefficient

0.0351 2 4.5 102.98

32.53

Taking the average,

Oil Damping Coefficient, c

29.5+32.53
2

31.02 Ns-1
As a result, the Damping Coefficient has increased by 8.51Ns-1 due
to the oil.

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System

Matlab Results

Graph 4: Steady State Responses showing the Effects of Changing

Mass and Damping on the Phase Change

Graph 5: Fourier Transform of a Force Impulse

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System

Graph 6: Comparison of Steady State Frequency Response with the

Fourier Transform of the Response divided by the Fourier Transform
of the Force Signal

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System

Gra
ph 7: Comparison between the Exact Method and Discrete
Convolution Integral

Graph 8: Peaks of Graph 7

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System

10

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System
Sampli
ng
Rate, s-

Calculation Time,
RMS Error
s
Conv.
Cent.
Conv. Int
Cent. Diff
1
Int
Diff
4096
0.251
0.0184
0.118
0.796
1024
0.0339
0.0134
0.119
3.67
256
0.0175
0.0145
0.541
23
Table 6: Performance Comparison between the Discrete Convolution
Intergral and Central Difference Method

Discussion
In the Physical Experiment, damping causes the displacement
amplitude to decrease significantly at resonance and frequencies
near resonance (Graph 1). However, displacement amplitudes
further away from the resonance frequency remain unchanged.
These statements also holds true in the simulated results (Graph 4).
Furthermore, changing the mass will also shift the graph either left
or right, where increasing the mass will reduce the resonance
frequency value and vice versa (Graph 4). Physical properties play
an important role in the outcome of the response. For example, if
the length of the beam is increased, the stiffness will reduce but the
mass will increase. As the natural frequency squared is the stiffness
divided by the mass, the natural frequency will reduce if the length
of the beam is increased.
Uncertainties in the physical experiment also prove to be important
when displaying results. In the free vibration experiment, the
experiment is repeated three times due to the nature of the
procedure using an impulse created by human force. The standard
deviation of the results is key to justifying the average result
obtained. As for the forced vibration experiment, the damping ratio
is less than 0.1 and the calculations using the formulas provided will
give an accuracy of 5%. It must also be highlighted that the change
in damping coefficient between oiled and empty dampers in both
the free and forced vibrations differ by a great amount. This
difference could have arisen from the differences in human forces
when carrying out the free vibration experiment.
Time domain responses display the variations of amplitude with
time. As a result, Fourier Transform can be used to show the same
graph with frequency instead of time. This is crucial as responses
can be composed of different frequencies at different levels of
excitation.
Comparing the two time domain solvers, the central difference
method proves to be quicker than the convolution integral method.
However, the speed comes at the expense of accuracy, with the
convolution integral method providing a more accurate result. The

11

130198123
MEC 201
Vibration of a SDOF System
sampling rate also affects the speed and accuracy of the results
provided, with 1024s-1 being the quickest sampling rate to use.
However, the higher the sampling rate, the more accurate the
results will be.

12