System Modelling Lab Report

Student Name
Demonstrator: E. Henslee
SMOR: N. Rockliff
Group: B2
Work carried out on: 1st April 2014
Report completed: 17 May 2014

Abstract
This lab experiment looks at two second-order systems: one electrical and one
mechanical and explores the analogous nature of the components of each system. The
mechanical system featured a mass suspended on a spring attached to a damper and
displacement transducer. The electrical system had in series a resistor, capacitor and
inductor, with ELVISmx providing a square wave input. The analogous features arising
from theory were confirmed by the results, including resistance to damping, inductance
to mass, and capacitance to the inverse of spring stiffness. The theoretical natural
frequency of the MSD system was found to be 32.55rads/sec, while the experimental
result was 29.75rads/sec, producing a relative error of 8.6%. The natural frequency and
damping ratios of 8 RLC circuits were found also, yielding higher errors especially for
varying capacitance. Overall the experiment successfully demonstrated how two
physically different systems can be mathematically analogous to one another and how
the output of each system confirms theoretical values for each.

Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Theory ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Equipment: ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Procedure: .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Results ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 11
References .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Introduction
Understanding the nature of how a system will behave is fundamental to engineering,
finding the performance of a system is required to aid analysis and design. A
mathematical model relating the output and input to a system must first be obtained,
similar models in mathematical form can describe widely differing systems. By doing so,
seemingly unrelated components in systems become analogous to one another, whether
as part of a fluid, mechanical or electrical setup.
The Laplace transformation is used to take linear ordinary differential equations, such
as those describing a system, from the time (t) to frequency domain (s), rearrange for the
subject using basic algebra, and using an inverse Laplace transformation take the
equation back into the time domain. The simplicity of this method drastically reduces
the time taken for solving the differential equation by obtaining the particular integral
and homogenous equation in a single process (Farid Golnaraghi, 2010).
This aims of this report will be to demonstrate the validity of the theoretical models and
derived values and observe and compare the analogous physical properties of two second
order systems.

Theory
Both of the systems analysed in this experiment were second order, the first being a
Mass-Spring-Damper (MSD) setup, the second comprised of a Resistor-Inductor-
Capacitor (RLC) circuit. The desired output of the MSD system is the displacement of
the mass, whereas voltage measured across the capacitor is wanted for the RLC circuit.
For each setup, a governing differential equation can be formed, and subsequently a
Laplace transform used to solve in the frequency domain.
The MSD system, as seen in Figure 1, with c the viscous damping co-efficient (N s/m), k
the spring stiffness (N/m), f(t) applied input (N) and x(t) the displacement of the mass
(m).

Figure 1 Mass Spring Damper setup (Henslee, 2014)

Resolution of forces acting on the mass yields the differential Equation 1:

(= )

)(
)(
+
+ )(

(1)

By applying the Laplace transform to (1), the transfer function of this system can be
shown to be Equation 2, (Henslee, 2014):

)(
1/
=

()
+ +

(2)

Without any external input, for which f(s) = 0, and an initial condition of x0 as the
hanging mass will cause an extension in the spring, the result of Equation (3) is
obtained, (Henslee, 2014):

= )(

+ +

(3)

The RLC circuit as seen in Figure 2, when analysed yields a similar result, where vi(t) is
the input voltage, vR(t) the voltage across the resistor, vL(t) across the inductor and vC(t)
across the capacitor.

Figure 2 RLC series circuit (Henslee, 2014)

By application of Kirchhoffs second law, the voltage across the resistor, capacitor and
inductor can be related to the input, (Henslee, 2014):

( = ) ( )+ ( )+ ( )

(4)

Again taking the Laplace transform of (4), the transfer function of the RLC circuit can
be shown to be (Henslee, 2014):
()
1/
=

1
()
+ +

(5)

As can be seen by comparing Equation (2) and (5), both second order systems, yield
transfer functions almost identical in mathematical form, and the analogous
components become obvious. The general form of a second order system is shown in
Equation (6), where n is the natural frequency, K the input amplitude and the
damping ratio, (Henslee, 2014):
( = ) )(+ 2

)( )(
+

(6)

For the RLC circuit, the Laplace transform with zero initial conditions results in
Equation (7), whereas for the MSD setup;

()

= 0, y(0) = y0, and no external input is

applied as initial conditions, Equation (8), (Henslee, 2014):

 = )(
= )(

+ 2 +

(7)

( + 2 )

+ 2 +

(8)

By comparing the coefficients of the general form Equation (7) and system specific (5),
the electrical system parameters shown in (9) are obtained, (Henslee, 2014):
(9)

. =
. = . = 1
2

Performing the same operation for the MSD setup, comparing co-efficients in (8) and (3),
(Henslee, 2014):
(10)

1
. = . =
. =

2
From (9) and (10) it can be shown that L is analogous to m, R to c, and 1/C to k.

To prove validity of these models, experimental values of the natural frequency and
damping factor must be extracted from output data. The equations in (11) are used,
where y1 and y2 are positions of consecutive oscillation peaks and d is the damped
frequency of oscillation and Td is the period of 1 oscillation, (Smith, 2013):
a. =

(())

. =

(11)

Equipment:
Cylindrical block 0.161kg
Spring
Dashpot damper
Displacement transducer
NI ELVIS 2 breadboard
Inductors (104mH, 22mH, 470H)
5HVLVWRUVN.7NN
Capacitors (0.001F, 0.0047F, 0.01F, 0.00022F)
ELVISmx Instruments software package
x Scope Time series data of incoming waveform
x Function generator Various waveforms can be outputted to
connected circuitry, such as triangle, square or sine.
10V DC power supply

Procedure:
For the MSD system the mass was suspended vertically on a spring and dashpot
damper, constrained to move in a vertical motion only. The displacement transducer
was connected to the 10V power supply and the ELVIS input such that the motion of the
mass could be captured. The scope function of ELVISmx was set to a time interval of 200
micro seconds, and the start button pressed. Then the mass was displaced prior to
release. When the mass had come to a rest and oscillations stopped, the stop button of
the scope was pressed, finally the captured waveform was saved.
With the RLC circuit, the output was taken to be the voltage drop across the capacitor
again recorded with the scope tool, and input was provided via the function generator in
ELVISmx. The selected input was a square wave of 75Hz frequency and 2V peak to peak
with a 1V offset. The resistor, capacitor and inductor were changed separately, to give a
total of 8 combinations, values of which are shown in Table 1:

Table 1 Combinations of RLC setup

Setup
RLC1
RLC2
RLC3
RLC4
RLC5
RLC6
RLC7
RLC8

Z
2.7
5.6
1.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7

/,
104
104
104
22
0.47
104
104
104

&
1
1
1
1
1
4.7
10
0.22

The circuits were all created with the same order of components, with the same step
input. The recorded waveform was obtained by connecting the oscilloscope across the
capacitor.

Results
The data captured by ELVIS was imported into excel as a series of voltages recorded at
an interval of 200 microseconds for both systems. A graphical representation of the MSD
system can be seen in Figure 3. The transducer had a gain value of 0.182 volts per mm,
so the outputted voltages were divided by this to convert back into mm.
60.00

Displacement (mm)

40.00

20.00

0.00
0.75

0.85

0.95

1.05

1.15

1.25

1.35

1.45

1.55

1.65

1.75

-20.00

-40.00

-60.00

Time (s)

Figure 3 Mass Spring Damper Displacement vs Time

Using Figure 3, it was possible to extract information about the system using Equations
(11). The results of which are Table 2.
Table 2 Extraction of Results from MSD Plot

Maxima 1
(mm)

Maxima 2
(mm)

Td (s)

d
(rads/s)

n
(rads/s)

-21.08

-30.75

1.459

0.0599

0.212

29.638

29.745

Using provided values of the displacement of the spring for a given mass, the theoretical
spring stiffness was found to be 170.55N/m, as shown in appendix 1. The theoretical
natural frequency using Equation (10.a) was found to be 32.55rads/sec. With the
experimentally obtained damping factor and theoretical value of spring stiffness, the
damping value was found to be 0.628Pa.s via (10.b). Rearranging (10.a) for k, the
experimental spring stiffness was found to be 142.45N/m, yielding a damping value of
0.574Pa.s with (10.b).
The first RLC circuit, RLC1 was tested first and used as a benchmark to which
comparisons of the subsequent setups were made. Figure 4 shows the effects of varying

the resistance, inductance and capacitance were fixed. As the inputted square wave had
an offset of 1V, each value had 1V subtracted to account for this.
2
2
1

1
RLC1
0
0.0000

0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

0.0005

0.0006

0.0007

0.0008

RLC2
RLC3

-1
-1
-2
-2

d

Figure 4 RLC circuit with varying Resistance

The second part of this experiment involved changing the inductance with fixed
resistance and capacitance, the resistor was returned to the value used in RLC1, as
shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 is the captured waveforms for a varying capacitance.
1.50
1.00

0.50
0.00
0.0000

0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

-0.50

0.0005

RLC1
RLC5
RLC4

-1.00
-1.50
-2.00

d

Figure 5 RLC circuit with varying Inductance

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
s

RLC1
0.00
0.0000

RLC7
0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

0.0005

-0.50

RLC6
RLC8

-1.00
-1.50
-2.00

d

Figure 6 RLC circuit with varying Capacitance

Using Equation (11), data can be extracted from these graphs of the RLC circuit in the
same was as with the MSD setup. The results of which are presented in Table 3:
Table 3 Extraction of Results from RLC Plots

Setup
RLC1
RLC2
RLC3
RLC4
RLC5
RLC6
RLC7
RLC8

Maxima
1
1.17
0.688
1.55
0.623

Maxima
2
0.432
0.0867
1
0.0592

R
0.369
0.126
0.645
0.095

0.157
0.313
0.070
0.351

Td (sec)
6.80E-05
6.40E-05
6.60E-05
3.20E-05

d (rads/sec)
92399.78
98174.77
95199.78
196349.54

n (rads/sec)
94723.17
108844.19
95662.94
223901.00

0.712
0.389
1.38

0.0916
0.0065
0.762

0.129
0.017
0.552

0.310
0.546
0.094

1.37E-04
2.32E-04
4.00E-05

45862.67
27082.70
157079.63

50747.85
38568.36
158483.01

The plot of RLC5 shows the voltage increasing exponentially to 0v with no overshoot or
oscillations, this means that the logarithmic decrement method cannot be used to
calculate damping ratio or natural frequency. However by means of Equations (9) it can
be calculated theoretically, as displayed in Table 4:

Table 4 Theoretical Calculations of Damping Ratio and Natural Frequency

Setup
RLC1
RLC2
RLC3
RLC4
RLC5
RLC6
RLC7
RLC8

n (104)
(rads/sec)
9.806
9.806
9.806
21.320
145.865
4.523
3.101
20.906

0.132
0.275
0.049
0.288
1.969
0.287
0.419
0.062

Discussion
It was suggested in the theory behind this experiment that there are analogous components in
mechanical and electrical systems. Firstly that resistance is analogous to damping co-efficient.
As can be seen in Figure 4, with an increase in resistance the amplitude of waveform is reduced
and time taken reach a steady state value decreased, frequency remains constant. With the MSD
setup, if the damping was to be increased, the distance which the mass travels would be reduced,
and a similar graph would be produced. Figure 5 displays the effect of varying inductance, the
graph show that as inductance is reduced the amplitude, number of oscillations and time take to
reach a steady state value is reduced, while frequency increased and vice versa. The same effect
would be observed when changing masses on a spring, a large mass would travel further with a
lower frequency, with any damping having a small effect, whereas a small mass would oscillate
at a higher frequency, displace less and damping would cause it to settle faster than a bigger
mass. Finally Figure 6 shows that an increasing capacitance has the effect of reducing the
number of oscillations, yet retains the same time taken to reach a steady state. This is opposite to
the MSD system where increasing the spring stiffness will increase the natural frequency of the
system and number of oscillations to a steady state will increase, the time taken is dependent on
the damping.
The experimental natural frequency of the MSD system was found to 29.745rads/sec, while the
theoretical value 32.55, yielding a relative error of 8.6%. The damping values were found to be
0.574Pa.s experimentally and 0.628Pa.s theoretically, again yielding an 8.6% error. These large
errors suggest that something in the measurement of k is incorrect.
Table 5 Relative errors of RLC circuit (%)

Setup
RLC1
RLC2
RLC3
RLC4
RLC5
RLC6
RLC7
RLC8

n
-3.40
10.99
-2.44
5.02
-100
12.19
24.38
-24.19

18.31
14.03
41.91
21.88
-100
8.11
30.36
51.55
10

Table 5 shows the relative errors calculated from experimental and theoretical values natural
frequency and damping ratio. The value for RLC5 can be largely ignored as an experimental
value wasnt obtained.

Conclusion
This lab has calculated the natural frequency and damping ratio for a MSD system, and
theoretically found values for spring stiffness, natural frequency and damping. However large
errors have occurred in the calculation of spring stiffness, affecting further results. The
theoretical method of calculating k does not take into account all data points, taking the gradient
of force against extension would use all data and hopefully yield a better result.
The errors found in the RLC circuit are significantly higher, a maximum of 51.6%. The
recordings were only taken once, so repetitions of the process would hopefully reduce these. From
observation and comparison to the graphs, they are of the correct magnitude, for example RLC5
has a damping ratio of 1.969 meaning the system is heavily over damped and as we can see from
Figure 5, this is confirmed by the lack of over shoot or oscillations.
Despite all of these large errors, the analogous properties of the systems have been identified
theoretically and the captured data supports this for all components, where resistance has been
shown to be analogous to damping, inductance to mass and capacitance to the inverse of spring
stiffness.

References

Farid Golnaraghi, B. K., 2010. Automatic Control Systems. 9th ed. Illinois: Wiley.
Henslee, W., 2014. Numerical and Experimental Methods: Background Documents and Methods.
Surrey: University of Surrey.
Smith, P., 2013. Dynamics Lecture, ENG2088 Solid Mechanics 2.. University of Surrey: s.n.

11

Appendix 1

Table 6 Calculation of Spring Stiffness

Mass (g)
0
50
150
250
350
450
550

Spring Displacement
(mm)
0
2.6
7.6
14.1
21.2
28.4
35.8

Force (N)
Spring Stiffness (N/m)
0
-
490
188.46
1470
193.42
2450
173.76
3430
161.79
4410
155.28
5390
150.56
Average 170.55

12