EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Fundamental Frequency
Of A Beam

Date of Experiment:
6/8/2017

Group Members:
 Yousif Alkandry
 Abdullah Alsediqi
 Ahmad Alsharhan
 Meshari Alsuwailam

1
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Table of Content:

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. p. 3
List of Symbols and Units .................................................................................................. p. 4
Theory ................................................................................................................................ p. 5
Procedure and Experimental Setup .................................................................................... p. 7
Sample Calculations and Error Analysis ........................................................................... p. 8
Results ............................................................................................................................... p. 16
Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................................... p. 20
References ......................................................................................................................... p. 22
Appendix............................................................................................................................ p. 23

2
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Abstract:
The objective of this experiment is to measure the fundamental natural frequency. This can
be done using the effective stiffness and the effective mass of a rectangular beam in three different
methods. Two of the methods are experimental, (1) by the LabView software and (2) by the strobe
light gun by using Dunkerley’s equation. (3) The third method is theoretical by using Rayleigh’s
Energy Equation. After finding Ke and me using all methods, the results are compared afterwards to
determine the accuracy of each method. Two methods were utilized, the LabView Software and the
Strobe Light Gun. The difference between the two, is that LabView records the peak frequencies of
each added disc weight and the Strobe Light Gun records the RPM of the motor causing the
vibration of the beam. The experimental values obtained by LabView of Ke and me respectively are
𝐥𝐛𝐟
𝟓𝟓𝟐𝟒. 𝟖𝟔 and 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖𝟔 𝐬𝐥𝐮𝐠𝐬. The experimental values obtained by the strobe light gun for Ke
𝐟𝐭
𝒍𝒃𝒇
and me respectively are 𝟓𝟓𝟖𝟔. 𝟓𝟗 and 𝟎. 𝟒𝟗𝟕 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔. While the values for the effective stiffness
𝒇𝒕
𝒍𝒃𝒇
and effective mass obtained theoretically are 𝟓𝟒𝟗𝟒. 𝟗𝟐𝟐 and 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗𝟑 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔 respectively. The
𝒇𝒕

data shows that the strobe light gun effective stiffness has an error of 1.68% compared to the
theoretical while the effective mass has an error of 157.51%. The effective stiffness obtained by
LabView has an error of 0.55% compared to the theoretical while the effective mass has an error of
151.8%. The data shows a very small error with the effective stiffness and a considerably large
error with the effective mass due to uncertainties of the theoretical values.

3
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

List of Symbols and Units:

Variable Name Symbol Unit
Weight w lbs
Mass m slug
Effective Mass me slug
Assembly Mass with Added M slug
Disc Weights
Spring Stiffness k lbf/ft
Effective Spring Stiffness ke lbf/ft
Damping Ratio 𝜁 ---
Natural Frequency 𝜔𝑛 Rad/s

Natural Frequency of Whole 𝜔𝑛𝑠 Rad/s

System
Natural Frequency of The 𝜔1𝑠 Rad/s
Beam Only
Damping Coefficient c lbf-sec/ft

Young’s Modulus E Psi or 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡 2

Moment of Inertia I in4/ft4
Hertz Frequency Hz Hz.

Base of Beam 𝑏 in./ft.

Height of Beam ℎ in./ft.
Length L in./ft.

4
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Theory:
In any vibrating motion, the system has a specific natural frequency that can be obtained in
different ways. For the oscillating bar in this experiment, the natural frequency can be
determined by using the following equation:
(where 𝑘𝑒 is the effective stiffness, 𝑚𝑒 is the effective mass, and M is the added mass)

𝑘𝑒
𝜔𝑛 = √ (1)
𝑚𝑒 +𝑀

Using the Rayleigh’s Energy method, the effective stiffness and the effective mass can be
obtained as follows:

48𝐸𝐼
𝑘𝑒 = (2)
L3

𝑚𝑒 = 0.4857𝑚𝑏 (3)
Where:
𝑏ℎ3
𝐼= : the second moment of inertia
12
E : Young’s Modulus
L : Length of the beam
𝑚𝑏 : mass of the beam

The natural frequency equation (equation number 1) can be written as a linear function as follows:
1 1 m𝑒
= 𝑀+
𝜔2 𝑛𝑠 k𝑒 k𝑒

And then:
1 1 1
= + (4)
𝜔2 𝑛𝑠 𝜔2 2𝑛 𝜔2 1𝑛

Where 𝜔21𝑛 is the natural frequency of the beam alone and 𝜔2 2𝑛 is the natural frequency of the
added mass M.

5
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

By rewriting the equation so that it looks like a linear function, it will help determine the value of
m𝑒 1
by finding the y-intercept and the value of by finding the slope of the line as shown in the
k𝑒 k𝑒

graph below:

For a simply supported beam with a uniform cross sectional area, the natural frequency can be
determined theoretically by the following equation:

𝐸𝐼
𝜔𝑛 = 𝜋 2 √ (5)
𝑚𝑏 𝐿 3

Another very helpful way to find the natural frequency of the system is by making the system
reaches what’s called a Resonance, which means setting the natural frequency of the system to
be equal the natural frequency of the input function which leads Resonance to occur:
𝜔𝑛 = 𝜔𝑑 (6)

The equation below is used to find the error analysis between the Theoretical and experimental
values found in the experiment:

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% = | | ∗ 100 (7)
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

6
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Procedure:
To do this experiment we need to use the beam and vibration system. Eyewear glass
protection is required for safety. After all the precautions and safety wear has been applied, only then
the lab is to be entered. For this experiment, a computer is required for the acquisition of data from
the beam and weights in the lab. The vibration in the system can be observed just by measuring
natural frequency. These steps below must be followed while the weight is placed in the beam to
allow different vibration cases, and data acquisitions.
1. First start the lab with no weight on the beam.
2. Before exciting the first vibration system, one should stand next to the computer, to
record the data from LabView.
3. Adjust the RPM of the motor until resonance is reached.
4. Resonance can be noticed once maximum vibration of the beam system is acquired.
5. You can confirm the resonance if you observe aggressive vibrations with lot of noise.
6. When resonance is acquired, screenshot the data acquired from LabView. (Graph
and Frequency)
7. At the same time, point the strobe light gun on the motor to acquire the RPM of the
motor.
8. Repeat the experiment with different weights attached to it. Start with no weight and
then add 4 lbs until reaching 16 lbs.

7
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Sample Calculations:
Mass:
𝑊
𝑚=
𝑔
4
𝑚=
32.2
𝒎 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝑺𝒍𝒖𝒈
Second Moment of Inertia:
𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12
(1 𝑖𝑛) ∗ (0.5 𝑖𝑛)3
𝐼=
12
𝑰 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟎𝟒𝟐 𝒊𝒏𝟒

Theoretical Effective Stiffness:

48𝐸𝐼
𝑘𝑒 =
L3
48 ∗ (30 ∗ 106 𝑝𝑠𝑖) ∗ (0.01042 𝑖𝑛4 )
𝑘𝑒 =
(32 in)3
457.91 𝑙𝑏𝑓 12𝑖𝑛
𝑘𝑒 = ∗
𝑖𝑛 1𝑓𝑡
𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝒌𝒆 = 𝟓𝟒𝟗𝟒. 𝟗𝟐𝟐
𝒇𝒕
Theoretical Mass:
𝑊
𝑚=
𝑔
12.804 𝑙𝑏𝑠
𝑚=
𝑓𝑡 2
32.2 𝑠

𝒎 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟗𝟕𝟔 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔
Theoretical Effective Mass:

𝑚𝑒 = 0.4857𝑚𝑏
𝑚𝑒 = 0.4857 ∗ 0.3976
𝒎𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗𝟑 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔

8
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Theoretical Natural Frequency For Simple Supported Beam:

𝐸𝐼
𝜔𝑛 = 𝜋 2 √
𝑚𝑏 𝐿3

(30 ∗ 106 𝑝𝑠𝑖) ∗ (0.01042 𝑖𝑛4 )

𝜔𝑛 = 𝜋 2 √
12 𝑖𝑛
(0.3976 𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑔) ∗ (32 𝑖𝑛)3 ∗
1 𝑓𝑡

(30 ∗ 106 𝑝𝑠𝑖) ∗ (0.01042 𝑖𝑛4 )

𝜔𝑛 = 2𝜋 ∗ 𝜋 2 √
12 𝑖𝑛
(0.3976 𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑔) ∗ (32 𝑖𝑛)3 ∗
1 𝑓𝑡

𝝎𝒏 = 𝟖𝟕. 𝟔𝟗 𝐫𝐚𝐝/𝐬𝐞𝐜

Theoretical Natural Frequency For Oscillating System Beam:

𝑘𝑒
𝜔𝑛 = √
𝑚𝑒 + 𝑀

𝑙𝑏𝑓
5494.922
√ 𝑓𝑡
𝜔𝑛 =
0.193 𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑔𝑠 + 0

𝝎𝒏 = 𝟏𝟔𝟖. 𝟕𝟑 𝒓𝒂𝒅/𝒔𝒆𝒄

9
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Experimental Data Reduction

a. LabView Data
b. Strobe Light Gun RPM Data
1 1 m𝑒
= 𝑀+
𝜔 2 𝑛𝑠 k𝑒 k𝑒
y = 𝑎𝑀 + b
y = 𝑎𝑀 + b

k𝑒 Presents the natural frequency

𝜔2 2𝑛 =
𝑀 of the mass M

k𝑒
𝜔21𝑛 = Presents the natural frequency
𝑚𝑒 of the beam alone
After plotting the experimental data acquired and fitting the curve with a least curve-fit, the trendline
equation can be used to equate to the equation above listed. The slope will provide the effective
stiffness, and the y-intercept will provide the effective mass.

a. LabView Data

The trendline equation: -

𝑦 = 0.000181𝑥 + 0.000088
a= 0.000181
b= 0.000088

Experimental Effective Stiffness:

a= 0.000181
1
𝑎=
𝑘𝑒
1
𝑘𝑒 =
𝑎
1
𝑘𝑒 =
0.000181
𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝒌𝒆 = 𝟓𝟓𝟐𝟒. 𝟖𝟔
𝒇𝒕

10
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Experimental Effective mass:

b= 0.000088
𝑚𝑒
𝑏=
𝑘𝑒
𝑚𝑒 = 𝑘𝑒 ∗ 𝑏
𝑚𝑒 = 5524.86 ∗ 0.000088
𝒎𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖𝟔 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔

Natural Frequency from Data Acquisition from Software:

For 0 Mass added

𝜔𝑛 = 𝐻𝑧 ∗ 2𝜋
𝜔𝑛 = 17 ∗ 2𝜋
𝝎𝒏 = 𝟏𝟎𝟔. 𝟖𝟏 𝒓𝒂𝒅/𝒔𝒆𝒄

Experimental Natural Frequency:

k𝑒
𝜔2 𝑛 =
𝑚𝑒

5524.86
𝜔𝑛 = √
0.486

𝝎𝒏 = 𝟏𝟎𝟔. 𝟔𝟐𝟏 𝒓𝒂𝒅/𝒔𝒆𝒄

b. Strobe Light Gun RPM Data

The trendline equation: -

𝑦 = 0.000179𝑥 + 0.000089
a= 0.000179
b= 0.000089

11
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Experimental Effective Stiffness:

a= 0.000179
1
𝑎=
𝑘𝑒
1
𝑘𝑒 =
𝑎
1
𝑘𝑒 =
0.000179
𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝒌𝒆 = 𝟓𝟓𝟖𝟔. 𝟓𝟗
𝒇𝒕

Experimental Effective mass:

b= 0.000089
𝑚𝑒
𝑏=
𝑘𝑒
𝑚𝑒 = 𝑘𝑒 ∗ 𝑏
𝑚𝑒 = 5586.59 ∗ 0.000089
𝒎𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟗𝟕 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔

Natural Frequency from Data Acquisition from Strobe Light Gun:

For 0 Mass added
2𝜋
𝜔𝑛 = 𝑅𝑃𝑀 ∗
60
2𝜋
𝜔𝑛 = 1020 ∗
60
𝝎𝒏 = 𝟏𝟎𝟔. 𝟖𝟏 𝒓𝒂𝒅/𝒔𝒆𝒄

Experimental Natural Frequency:

k𝑒
𝜔2 𝑛 =
𝑚𝑒

5586.59
𝜔𝑛 = √
0.497

𝝎𝒏 = 𝟏𝟎𝟔. 𝟎𝟐 𝒓𝒂𝒅/𝒔𝒆𝒄

12
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Error Analysis:

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% = | | ∗ 100
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

a. LabView

Effective Stiffness, between LabView and Theoretical:

𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ; 𝒌𝒆 = 𝟓𝟒𝟗𝟒. 𝟗𝟐𝟐
𝒇𝒕
𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 (𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤) ; 𝒌𝒆 = 𝟓𝟓𝟐𝟒. 𝟖𝟔
𝒇𝒕

5494.22 − 5524.86
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% = | | ∗ 100
5494.922

𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓% = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟓%

Effective Mass, between LabView and Theoretical:

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ; 𝒎𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗𝟑 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 (𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤) ; 𝒎𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖𝟔 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔

0.193 − 0.486
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% = | | ∗ 100
0.193

𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓% = 𝟏𝟓𝟏. 𝟖%

13
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

b. Strobe Light Gun

Effective Stiffness, between Strobe Light Gun and Theoretical:

𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ; 𝒌𝒆 = 𝟓𝟒𝟗𝟒. 𝟗𝟐𝟐
𝒇𝒕
𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 (Strobe Light Gun) ; 𝟓𝟓𝟖𝟔. 𝟓𝟗
𝒇𝒕

5494.22 − 5586.59
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% = | | ∗ 100
5494.922

𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓% = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟖%

Effective Mass, between Strobe Light Gun and Theoretical:

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ; 𝒎𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗𝟑 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 (Strobe Light Gun) ; 𝒎𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟗𝟕 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔

0.193 − 0.497
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% = | | ∗ 100
0.193

𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓% = 𝟏𝟓𝟕. 𝟓𝟏%

14
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Effective Stiffness, between Strobe Light Gun and LabView:

𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 (LabView); 𝒌𝒆 = 𝟓𝟓𝟐𝟒. 𝟖𝟔
𝒇𝒕
𝒍𝒃𝒇
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 (Strobe Light Gun); 𝟓𝟓𝟖𝟔. 𝟓𝟗
𝒇𝒕

5586.59 − 5524.86
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% = | | ∗ 100
5586.59

𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓% = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟎%

Effective Mass, between Strobe Light Gun and LabView:

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 (LabView); 𝒎𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟖𝟔 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 (Strobe Light Gun) ; 𝒎𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟗𝟕 𝒔𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔

0.486 − 0.497
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% = | | ∗ 100
0.486

𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓% = 𝟐. 𝟐𝟔%

15
 EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Results:

Added Weight = 4 lbs, Frequency = 15Hz

Added Weight = 0 lbs , Frequency = 17Hz

Added Weight = 8 lbs, Frequency = 14Hz Added Weight = 12 lbs , Frequency = 12.55Hz

Added Weight = 16 lbs ,

Frequency = 12Hz

16
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Table D1 - Raw Data

M (lbs) 0 4 8 12 16
LabView Frequency (Hz) 17 15 14 12.55 12
strobe light gun (RPM) 1020 895 840 757 720
Theory (rad/s) 168.58 131.51 111.49 98.49 89.19

Table 1 - Natural Frequency

M weight (lbs) 0 4 8 12 16
LabView Frequency (Rad/s) 106.81 94.25 87.96 78.85 75.40
strobe light gun (Rad/s) 106.81 93.72 87.96 79.27 75.40
Theory (rad/s) 168.58 131.51 111.49 98.49 89.19

Table 2 - Reciprocal Natural Frequency

Added weight (lbs) 0 4 8 12 16
Added mass (slugs) 0.000000 0.124224 0.248447 0.372671 0.496894
LabView Frequency 0.000088 0.000113 0.000129 0.000161 0.000176
Strobe light gun 0.000088 0.000114 0.000129 0.000159 0.000176
Theory 0.000035 0.000058 0.000080 0.000103 0.000126

1
Figure 1.1 - LabView - Mass vs.
𝜔𝑛2
0.000200
0.000180
0.000160
1/wn^2 (sec^2/rad^2)

0.000140
0.000120 y = 0.000181x + 0.000088
0.000100
0.000080
0.000060
0.000040
0.000020
0.000000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Added Mass to Assembly (slugs)
LabView Data Linear (LabView Data)

17
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Figure 1.2 - RPM - Mass vs. 1

𝜔𝑛2
0.000200
0.000180
0.000160
1/wn^2 (sec^2/rad^2)

0.000140
0.000120 y = 0.000179x + 0.000089
0.000100
0.000080
0.000060
0.000040
0.000020
0.000000
0.000000 0.100000 0.200000 0.300000 0.400000 0.500000 0.600000
Added Mass to Assembly (slugs)
RPM Data Linear (RPM Data)

Figure 1.3 - Theoretical - Mass vs. 1

𝜔𝑛2
0.000140

0.000120
1/wn^2 (sec^2/rad^2)

0.000100
y = 0.000182x + 0.000035
0.000080

0.000060

0.000040

0.000020

0.000000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Added Mass to Assembly (slugs)
Theoretical Data Linear (Theoretical Data)

Table 3 - Theory & Experimental Results

Method Effective Stiffness (lbf/ft) Effective Mass (slugs)
Theory 5493.120 0.193
LabView (Experimental) 5524.862 0.486
Strobe Gun Experimental) 5586.592 0.497

18
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Table 4 - Error Analysis

Effective Stiffness (lbf/ft) Effective Mass (slugs)
Theoretical vs LabView 0.55% 151.8%
Theoretical vs Strobe Gun 1.68% 157.51%
LabView vs Strobe Gun 1.10% 2.26%

19
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Discussion and Conclusion:

This experiment analyzed the fundamental aspects of the vibration system induced to a beam.
The objective of this experiment was to establish when the system undergoes resonance. Along
when resonance occurs, two characteristics were to be acquired, the effective mass and the effective
stiffness. Two methods that were implemented where the LabView data acquisition and the strobe
light gun capturing the RPM of the motor causing the vibration of the beam.

Table 1 presents the natural frequency of the beam as more weight discs were added using
three methods, the theoretical, LabView, and the Strobe Light Gun. The natural frequencies of the
system between the LabView and the Strobe Light Gun methods is very minimal, almost identical. A
trend is noticed as more weight discs are added, the natural frequency to reach resonance of the
system decreases. The theoretical natural frequency was higher than those of the experimental data
calculated. The experimental natural frequencies for zero weight added was 106.81 rad/s, while the
theoretical natural frequency is 168.58 rad/s. As more weight discs are added, the experimental
natural frequency and theoretical natural frequency come to converge together. After 16 lbs of discs
were added, the experimental natural frequency is 75.4 rad/s, while the theoretical natural frequency
is 89.19 rad/s.

Table 3 presents the experimental values of the effective stiffness, and effective mass
measured from LabView and the Strobe Light Gun. Between the two methods there was a marginal
error of 2.26% in the experimental data. The LabView Software resulted in an effective stiffness of
5524.86 lbf/ft and an effective mass of 0.486 slugs. The Strobe Light Gun resulted in an effective
stiffness of 5586.59 lbf/ft and an effective mass of 0.497 slugs. Although the two methods result in
similar values, one of the two values in both cases vary extremely with the theoretical value. In value
in question is the effective mass.

Table 4 shows the error analysis results of the experimental data vs theoretical data. The
experimental effective stiffness and the theoretical effective stiffness were very similar with a 0.55%
error from LabView, and 1.68% error from the Strobe Light Gun. The experimental effective mass
and the theoretical effective mass were extremely far from reasonable values with a 151.8% error

20
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

from LabView, and 157.51% error from the Strobe Light Gun. The error between the LabView and
Strobe Light Gun was very minimal with 2.26% maximum error.

Table 2 represents the data used to plot Figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. the Figures represent 1/𝜔𝑛2 of
the vibration system along the weight discs being added. The plots were then used to determine the
experimental effective stiffness and the experimental effective mass, for both methods LabView
(Figure 1.1) and Strobe Gun (Figure 1.2). A trend in all the plots presents itself, an increasing linear
trend of 1/𝜔𝑛2 .

The values taken from LabView and the strobe light gun are extremely similar with an error
of 1.10% for the effective stiffness and an error of 2.26% for the effective mass, as can be seen in
table 4. Even though the effective stiffness and the effective mass have a minor error, the data
collected by LabView is more accurate than the strobe light gun since LabView is a computer based
data-analysis device while the strobe light gun is exposed to more sources of error such that the
results were fluctuating while taking the readings. Also, hand movements could affect the data
collected from the strobe light gun.

Major sources of error in this experiment could be due to the uncertain mass of the beam and
motor combination. This can be shown in table 4 where the error regarding the mass is much larger
than the error values related to the effective stiffness. This behavior can be exhibited in table 1 where
the natural frequency converges and gets closer to the values taken experimentally when the weights
were added. Since the weight of the added weights is started to overcome the mass of the unknown
weight of the beam and motor combination.

To conclude, the theoretical values of effective stiffness and experimental had minimal error,
however the effective mass had a major error percentage due to uncertainties of the mass of the
motor with the beam assembly. Resonance was reached when maximum vibration of the beam was
in effect by finding the ideal motor speed. LabView presented a graph illustrating the peak frequency
of system, while the strobe gun measured the RPM of the motor which gave the natural frequency.
When resonance occurs, the natural frequency is equal to the forcing frequency.

21
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

References:
Fundamental Frequency of a Beam pdf Manual

22
EGME 476A Fundamental Frequency of a Beam

Appendix:

Table D1 - Raw Data

M (lbs) 0 4 8 12 16
LabView Frequency (Hz) 17 15 14 12.55 12
strobe light gun (RPM) 1020 895 840 757 720
Theory (rad/s) 168.58 131.51 111.49 98.49 89.19

23