Sam Peckham Part II Acoustical Engineering

ISVR2003 Vibration & Materials Measurement of Damping Laboratory

A series of small experiments were performed to illustrate a variety of ways to measure damping on a simple structure. Measurements were taken of the input current passing through a shaker, and from an accelerometer mounted on a beam. In addition, frequency and phase were also recorded in order to plot a series of graphs relating to the accelerance of the system. Two methods were used to calculate the damping ratio of the system. Firstly, the beam was forced at varying frequency and the response and phase difference was measured. This was then used to produce FRF graphs of the system, from which the Q factor and subsequently could be approximated. This method, although lengthy, produced a satisfactory value for the damping ratio. The second method involved measuring the free vibration response of the beam and calculating the damping ratio from logarithmic decay. This method was regarded as being more accurate as it involved fewer physical measurements and was mostly performed through MATLAB.

Procedure
The experiment itself was split into two parts, each with the aim of finding the damping ratio of the structure through a particular method. Method I This sub-experiment was designed to find the damping ratio by computing a frequency response curve through forced vibration of the beam. The equipment was assembled as in Fig. 1, and the input current was set to a value of 100mA. An oscilloscope was used to determine the exact location of the beams second natural frequency; when the voltage reading from the accelerometer output was highest, this was taken to be the natural frequency. Once the natural frequency was located, it was necessary to take readings of the input force, output acceleration and phase relation at this point. These three readings were taken at suitable frequency intervals above and below the natural frequency. As a particularly sensitive response was observed close to the natural frequency, the intervals steps were made accordingly small. Method II This method aimed to compute the damping ratio by using various properties of free vibration and decay. The accelerometer was connected to a PC running MATLAB via its sound card, in order to capture a decaying waveform using MATLABs wavrecordfunction. A short script (see Appendix I) was written to specify the sampling frequency, recording time and to produce a graph. The beam was then forced at its first natural frequency for a short period of time. To simulate free vibration, the shaker was turned off at roughly the same time that the MATLAB program was started, such that the function could record free vibration of the beam only. This procedure was then repeated for the beams second natural frequency.

Fig. 1 diagram of experimental layout

Results

Input Frequency/Hz Output (acceleration)/V Phase/deg (force)/V Magnitude of accelerance 65 0.09 4 0.105 0.857142857 66 0.143 5 0.104 1.375 66.5 0.2 5 0.103 1.941747573 67 0.328 10 0.099 3.313131313 67.1 0.375 11 0.098 3.826530612 67.2 0.437 14 0.095 4.6 67.3 0.519 16 0.091 5.703296703 67.4 0.629 22 0.085 7.4 67.5 0.782 30 0.075 10.42666667 67.58 0.929 42 0.063 14.74603175 67.6 0.951 45 0.061 15.59016393 67.7 1.08 85 0.05 21.6 67.8 1.04 125 0.063 16.50793651 67.82 1.009 128 0.067 15.05970149 67.84 0.976 123 0.071 13.74647887 67.9 0.882 140 0.081 10.88888889 68 0.734 153 0.091 8.065934066 68.1 0.616 157 0.097 6.350515464 68.2 0.522 161 0.1 5.22 68.5 0.349 166 0.105 3.323809524 69 0.22 170 0.106 2.075471698 70 0.129 172 0.106 1.216981132 71 0.091 174 0.106 0.858490566 72 0.07 175 0.106 0.660377358 73 0.058 175 0.106 0.547169811 74 0.05 175 0.106 0.471698113 75 0.043 175 0.106 0.405660377 80 0.028 175 0.106 0.264150943

Fig. 2 holistic table of results from Method I

Fig. 3 magnitude of accelerance vs frequency (Method I)

Fig. 4 phase of accelerance vs frequency (Method I)

Fig. 5 real part of accelerance vs frequency (Method I)

Fig. 6 imaginary part of accelerance vs frequency (Method I)

Fig. 7 real vs imaginary parts of accelerance (Method I)

Fig. 8 free vibration of beam @ 11.05Hz (Method II)

Fig. 9 free vibration of beam @ 67.72Hz (Method II)

Data analysis

Method I: response curve @ 67.72Hz Value of A/F at f0 = 21.6 F0/2 = 10.8 (this is used to calculate f)   

Method II: decay @ 67.72Hz Initial acceleration amplitude = 0.1526 (decay time) = time taken to decay to 1/e of original signal 

So can be read from Fig. 9 where amplitude is closest to 0.0561.  



An identical procedure can be used to calculate the damping ratio when excited at 11.05Hz. This gives .

Discussion
Five graphs were generated using the frequency response function method. Figures 3 and 4 show the magnitude and phase of the accelerance respectively, plotted against frequency. At resonance, the response of the system is at a maximum and is limited only by the damping which is present. Below resonance, the system is controlled by the beams stiffness and above resonance, only mass plays a part. The phase switches from being in phase to being 180 degrees out through resonance, and the response lags the input by 90 degrees at resonance. Figure 3 was used to gain an estimate for the Q factor, which could then be used to calculate the damping ratio. Figures 5 and 6 show the real and imaginary parts of the accelerance (with phase converted to radians) plotted against frequency. It is clear first and foremost that, at resonance, the response is purely imaginary. This occurs when the input goes close to zero, and is the reason a discontinuity is formed on Fig. 5. There is a positive peak just before resonance and a negative one just below, which together correspond to the 3dB bandwidths used to calculate the Q factor. An alternative way of plotting the real and imaginary components of accelerance (Nyquist plot) is shown in Fig. 7. The point furthest removed from the others represents approximately the resonant frequency (its real part is very nearly zero while the imaginary part is at a maximum). Figs. 8 & 9 show free vibration response of the beam for its first two natural frequencies (11.05Hz and 67.72Hz respectively). The damping ratio was calculated from these graphs by using the properties of logarithmic decrement this is outlined in the data analysis section. Very similar values for were observed from both methods, which reinforces the validity of each method. Overall however, Method II was the more accurate and efficient, as it involved far fewer human measurements and thus less room for error.

Conclusion
Two experiments were performed to illustrate a ways to measure damping on a simple structure. Two methods were used to calculate the damping ratio of the system. Firstly, the beam was forced at varying frequencies, and the response and phase difference was measured along with the input. This was then used to produce accelerance magnitude and phase graphs, along with the real and imaginary pasrts plotted separately. This method produced a satisfactory value for the damping ratio despite being more prone to human error. The second method involved measuring the free vibration response of the beam and calculating the damping ratio from logarithmic decay. This method was regarded as being more accurate as it involved fewer physical measurements and was mostly performed through MATLAB.

List of figures
Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Diagram of experimental layout Table of data gathered for Method 1 Magnitude of accelerance vs frequency Phase of accelerance vs frequency Real part of accelerance vs frequency Imaginary part of accelerance vs frequency Real vs imaginary parts of accelerance Decay plot for 1st natural frequency, 11.05Hz Decay plot for 2 nd natural frequency, 67.72Hz