Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brad Gassner
10/19/15
Abstract
Dynamic absorbers, or tuned mass dampers, may be used to attenuate vibration of a dynamic system at
a specific frequency. The vibration absorber applied in this lab is meant to simulate adding a spring,
mass, and damper to an existing one-degree-of-freedom spring-mass-damper system. By adjusting the
ratio of the added spring constant to the magnitude of the added mass, the specific attenuated
frequency of the newly created two-degree-of-freedom system may be tuned. The specific hypothesis
that will be tested in this experiment is whether we can see greater vibration amplitude attenuation
correlating positively and linearly with increasing vibration absorber mass. The response characteristics
of the original one-degree-of-freedom system to varying driving frequencies are recorded. We will see a
peak amplitude response at the system's resonant frequency. Adding a spring and mass of appropriate
size and spring constant will result in attenuation of the systems transmissibility by a large amount.
Additionally, the damped natural period of oscillation is used to experimentally determine Young's
Modulus of the added dynamic absorber beam.
Procedure
The experimental apparatus can be seen below, Figure 7.5, obtained from the Laboratory Manual [1].
Accelerometers are attached to mass M1 and to the base. The accelerometers are attached to the
supply signal conditioning and power hardware and connected through the data acquisition hardware to
the LabVIEW program.
The system's response to a wide range of frequencies is recorded and the frequency at which the system
resonates is noted. It is this peak which we will try to attenuate with the addition of the vibration
absorber to the test apparatus. The dimensionless damping constant is then estimated by finding the
half power frequencies of the resonance peak. Young's modulus is estimated for the cantilever beam
that is to be added to the apparatus by use of the Euler Bernoulli beam theory. The uncertainty in the
natural frequency of the cantilever beam is calculated, as well as the length of the beam to be used for
the addition of two different absorber masses. The absorbers are applied to the apparatus and the
systems response is noted.
Please refer to Mechanical Engineering Systems Laboratory (Lab Manual) for a step-by-step procedural
breakdown.
Results
To begin, the single degree-of-freedom system was driven at a range of frequencies between 10 and 100
Hertz. The resulting response curve may be seen in the figure below. The plot shows the magnitude of
the mass M1 acceleration and the phase shift detected between the systems vibration and the driving
force.
Measurements were taken of the systems response magnitude both at an in-phase and low-frequency
response, and at the resonant frequency. The frequencies selected as maxima and minima for the
software and hardware to sweep through were refined to be able to locate the peak of the resonance
curve more accurately.
The values recorded for the amplitude of vibration at M1, at resonant and below-resonant frequencies,
along with the peak frequency measured are presented below in Table 1.
X_Max
V_Base
f_max
194.1
1.174
27.4694
The maximum displacement transmissibility, the ratio of the peak amplitude to the lowest amplitude,
was calculated to be 165.3, indicating a large amount of the input energy being used to vibrate the mass
M1.
The dimensionless damping constant was estimated using the half-power method. In this method, we
characterize the spread of the resonance peak by finding the location of the output magnitude of
.
2
In this method, described in the lab manual section 6, the spread of the peak, bandwidth, is
related proportionally to the damping coefficient. Two half-power frequencies were found as below:
f_1
f_2
137.249
27.395
27.558
Hz
Hz
2 1
2
(1)
This approximation is particularly well-suited to small damping coefficients and was estimated to be
0.003. See below for a chart indicating the location of one of the half-power frequencies graphically.
The beam to be used for the dynamic absorber was then quantified by determining the beams damped
natural period of oscillation and calculating the modulus of elasticity. The beam was placed in a small
bench vise and to it was attached an accelerometer. The beam was placed in the vice vertically, with a
length of six inches exposed out of the top of the vise. The accelerometer was placed halfway up the
beam after a few rounds of trial and error. The beam was plucked with the tip of a finger and allowed to
ring. Data acquisition was started and the following graph was produced:
The frequency was determined by measuring the time taken between five successive peaks and was
found to be 52.2.
The measurement of the frequency as outlined immediately above is used as an approximation for the
natural frequency of the cantilevered beam. The appropriateness of this approximation is governed by
the magnitude of the damping coefficient. If the damping parameter is small, the approximation is
justified. Determination of the damping coefficient for the vibration of this cantilevered beam was
measured through the use of the logarithmic decrement method. It can be shown that for a generalized
underdamped single degree-of-freedom system, the damping coefficient may be given as a function of
the logarithmic decrement of successive peaks in a decaying oscillatory signal.
(2)
Using this method, the dimensionless damping coefficient was determined to be 0.0025 1. This
is indeed small, indicating that the use of the approximation that the damped period of oscillation is
equal to the natural period of oscillation of the beam was indeed justified.
Application of Euler-Bernoulli Small Displacement Beam Theory suggests the ability to compute an
estimate for Youngs Modulus of the beam as
(4)
The required length of the dynamic absorber, as measured from clamp to clamp, is given as
(6)
This length was calculated for both supplied beam-end masses and is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Calculated Absorber Lengths
L
L
L
L
0.036
1.428
0.030
1.180
m
in
m
in
The two correction masses and the beam were sequentially applied to the experimental apparatus. The
amplitudes of the base and tower excitation were recorded for each. Specific values may be found in the
Appendix 2: Lab Worksheet.
= [2 + 2 + 21 + 2 + 21 ]
(7)
When carried through, the combined standard uncertainties are 8.9%. See Table 4 developed
below to propagate the errors through the equation.
Table 4: Error Propagation
Varying
Parameter
rho
l
f_1
h
B_1*L
E
1.726E+11
1.726E+11
1.726E+11
1.726E+11
1.726E+11
One Sided
Two-Sided
Error
E + error (one-sided)
Error
Error
Squared
1.738E+11
1.187E+09
2.375E+09
5.640E+18
1.799E+11
7.304E+09
1.461E+10
2.134E+20
1.728E+11
1.985E+08
3.969E+08
1.576E+17
1.704E+11
-2.237E+09
-4.473E+09
2.001E+19
1.726E+11
-1.841E+04
-3.682E+04
1.355E+09
Sum of the Squares
2.392E+20
Square Root
1.547E+10
Error Fraction of Whole
0.0896
6. The characteristic spring parameter k may be derived from Equation 6.4 from [1]:
Or
= 4 2 2 = 7897/
(8)
Conclusion
This laboratory served as a brief introduction to the field of vibrations analysis and the concepts of
tuned mass dampers. The experimental apparatus was designed to provide a lumped-parameter
reasonable facsimile model of a structure such as a building. Single degree-of-freedom systems and a
double degree-of-freedom system are explored as are their equations of motion. The parameters of
spring stiffness, point mass magnitudes, and damping coefficient are investigated for further
understanding into lightly damped resonant systems. The response of a two-degree-of-freedom
resonant system to a sinusoidal driving force was investigated. It was shown that the transmissibility
between the driving force and the amplitude of the resonant mass was a function of the driving
frequency. Phase lag between driving force and driven dynamic system was plotted and shown to be a
function of driving frequency. A brief aside in to Euler-Bernoulli beam theory was completed to
determine the modulus of elasticity for a vibrating cantilever beam.
Two methods for determining the dimensionless damping coefficient were discussed and performed. In
the first, we used the half power method to quantify the band width of a resonant peak of a 2 degreeof-freedom system. It was shown that the width of this band is proportional to the damping coefficient
.
In the second method to determine the magnitude of the damping coefficient, the fixed-free cantilever
beam was struck with an impulse force and the resulting oscillation was recorded. By using the
logarithmic decrement method, the damping coefficient was shown to be a function of the logarithm of
the ratio of two amplitude peak magnitudes.
Finally, the length of the cantilever spring was calculated and the beam and mass were applied to the
apparatus. The resulting two degree-of-freedom system was shown to have an anti-resonance peak at
the previous resonance peak, indicating that we have successfully split the resonance of the system into
two smaller peaks. In addition, a short review of error propagation was completed.
The use of a tuned mass damper is a viable dynamic vibration absorber was successfully explored.
Conservation of energy predicts a greater vibration amplitude attenuation with increasing mass, as
discussed in the lab manual. It was indeed shown that the larger mass produced a much greater
transmissibility reduction ratio. Certainly, the model and associated approximation used in the
performance of this lab are just that: approximations. The treatment of masses as point masses and
other such simplifications will certainly decrease the accuracy of this analysis. However, judicious use of
scale models would be infinitely helpful when implementing such a system in the real world.
Reference
Mechanical Engineering Systems Laboratory (Lab Manual). Stutts, Daniel S. et al., Missouri University of
Science and Technology. 2015. Obtained from
http://web.mst.edu/~stutts/ME242/LABMANUAL/ME242Text.pdf . Accessed September 2015.
194.1
=
= 165.3
1.174
Half-Power
194.1
2
= 137.25
2 1 27.558 27.395
=
= 0.002966
2
2 27.469
2 1 0.4517 0.3559
=
= 52.19
2 + 4( 1)2 2
. 06202
. 062022
+ 4(5 1)2 2
= .002467
Modulus of Elasticity
=
=
= 0.036
2 2
. 2067 27.4694
Variable Description
Absorber Masses
Symbol
Mass 1
Mass 2
Value
116.48
206.7
Units
g
g
X_Max
V_Base
f_max
194.1
1.174
27.4694
Hz
T_dmax
165.332
f_1
f_2
137.249
27.395
27.558
Hz
Hz
Zeta
0.002966938
5a
5d
L
L
L
t_0_1
t_0_2
t5
T_d1
f_d1
6
152.4
0.1524
0.3559
0.4517
0.0958
0.01916
52.19206681
inches
mm
m
s
s
s
s
Hz
k
x_1
x_k
delta_k
Zeta_1
5
2.09043
1.96472
0.062020045
0.002467692
peaks
Table 7.1
M_1
b
b
h
h
0.2651
25.07
0.02507
1.571
0.001571
kg
mm
m
mm
m
5e
rho
beta_1*L
I
E
7565
1.875104
8.10031E-12
1.72601E+11
kg/m^3
f_s
n
u_f
10000
5
0.030182717
Hz
L
L
L
L
0.036
1.428
0.030
1.180
m
in
m
in
8
small
M
V_Base
0.84
V_acc_max 1.28
T_dmax
Rt
9
Base amplitude signal
Large M1 accelerometer signal peak
M
Hz
1.523809524
108.4992547
V_Base
0.78
V_acc_max 0.67
Appendix 3:
Table of Tables
Table 1: Data taken of Single-Degree-of-Freedom System........................................................................... 4
Table 2: Half Power Frequency Location ...................................................................................................... 4
Table 3: Calculated Absorber Lengths .......................................................................................................... 7
Table 4: Error Propagation ............................................................................................................................ 8
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Frequency Response of the Mass M1 to the Driving Force ........................................................... 3
Figure 2: A Response Curve of Greater Accuracy ......................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Locating the Half-Power Frequencies ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 4: Free Cantilevered Beam Responding to an Impulse Signal ........................................................... 5