You are on page 1of 13

Dynamic Vibration Absorber Tuned Mass Damper

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.

Figure 1: Frequency Response of the Mass M1 to 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.

Figure 2: A Response Curve of Greater Accuracy

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.

Table 1: Data taken of Single-Degree-of-Freedom System

Signal measured at peak amplitude


Base amplitude signal
Drive Frequency

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:

Table 2: Half Power Frequency Location

Half Power we're looking for


Half Power frequencies

f_1
f_2

137.249
27.395
27.558

Hz
Hz

By this method, the damping coefficient can be found to be described by


=

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.

Figure 3: Locating the Half-Power Frequencies

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:

Figure 4: Free Cantilevered Beam Responding to an Impulse Signal

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)

Where is the logarithmic decrement of the amplitude over periods and


(3)

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)

In our case, the modulus was determined to be 173 .


In any data acquisition task, we must be aware of the uncertainties introduced due to the sampling
frequency. Using the time increment between consecutive samples and the uncertainty in the
determination of the time between two signal peaks, we can determine the magnitude of the
uncertainty and the fundamental frequency measurement. The uncertainty in our cantilever beams
fundamental frequency is given as
(5)

It was determined to be 0.03Hz. Therefore, the fundamental frequency is 52.19 0.03.

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

Calculated absorber length


with smaller mass
with larger mass

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.

Answers to Lab Manual Questions


1. The values of L calculated as shown in Table 3 did in fact yield the greatest reduction in
transmissibility. In fact, the magnitude of L was modified up and down from its original value by
moving the mass up and down by a few millimeters and re-measuring the system's response
amplitude. It was discovered that the response was relatively stable despite changes in L.
2. As mentioned immediately above, an increase or decrease in the length of the beam yielded
little change in the recorded amplitude for small values of L. It is inferred from this result that
the system is robust to variations in the specific placement of the mass.
3. The transmissibility reduction ratio for the smaller and larger masses was calculated to be 108.5
and 192.5 respectively. It is noted in the Lab Manual that values of over 1000 are to be
expected.
4. The larger mass did in fact use a greater reduction in the displacement transmissibility than the
smaller one. The transmissibility reduction achieved with the larger mass is approximately 77%
percent larger than the transmissibility reduction obtained with the smaller mass.
5. The value of Young's modulus for the cantilever beam that we calculated was 173 gigapascals.
The nominal published value in the lab manual is given as 200 gigapascals. The percent
difference between the two quantities is 14.5%. The extended combined uncertainties for this
calculation, as given in the procedure used in the pump experiment, is given by
1
2

= [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.

Appendix 1: Sample Calculations


Transmissibility
=

194.1
=
= 165.3

1.174

Half-Power

194.1
2

= 137.25

Damping Coefficient by Half-Power


=

2 1 27.558 27.395
=
= 0.002966
2
2 27.469

Frequency of Plucked Beam


=

2 1 0.4517 0.3559
=
= 52.19

Damping Coefficient by Logarithmic Decrement

2 + 4( 1)2 2

. 06202
. 062022

+ 4(5 1)2 2

= .002467

Modulus of Elasticity
=

484 2 12 48 7565 . 15244 52.192


=
= 1.72611
2 (1 )4
. 0015712 1.8751044

Required Length of Dynamic Absorber


3

3 3 1.72611 8.1003 1012


3

=
= 0.036
2 2
. 2067 27.4694

System Spring Constant


1 = 4 2 2 = 4 2 27.46942 .2651 = 7897.1

Appendix 2: Lab Worksheet

Dynamic Absorber Lab Worksheet - Mechanical Systems Laboratory


Step

Variable Description
Absorber Masses

Symbol
Mass 1
Mass 2

Value
116.48
206.7

Units
g
g

Signal measured at peak amplitude


Base amplitude signal
Drive Frequency

X_Max
V_Base
f_max

194.1
1.174
27.4694

Hz

Maximum Displacement Transmissability

T_dmax

165.332

f_1
f_2

137.249
27.395
27.558

Half Power we're looking for


Half Power frequencies

Hz
Hz

Zeta estimated by half power Eqn 6.72

Zeta

0.002966938

5a

Length of absorber beam

5d

Time of first zero crossing


Time of eleventh zero crossing
Time for 5 periods
Time for one period

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

Number of Peaks Measured Over


First peak amplitude
kth peak amplitude
Logarithmic decrement over k-1 periods
Zeta, dimensionless damping parameter

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

Area moment of inertia about bending axis


Young's Modulus
uncertainty in fundamental beam natural frequency
sampling frequency
number of periods

Calculated absorber length


with smaller mass

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

with larger mass

8
small
M

Base amplitude signal


M1 accelerometer signal peak

V_Base
0.84
V_acc_max 1.28

Maximum Displacement Transmissability


transmissibility reduction ratio

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

You might also like