EMCH362 Mechanical Engineering Laboratory II, Fall 2017

Laboratory IV

BEAM VIBRATIONS LABORATORY – STUDY OF NATURAL FREQUENCIES AND

MODE SHAPES OF A BEAM

Mark Ablonczy
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
December 4, 2017

ABSTRACT look like with each mode having n+1 number of nodal positions.

The objective of this experiment was to test whether a given

aluminum bar was best described by a “free-free” or cantilever
beam model. This was done by comparing theoretically
calculated values of node positions to the experimentally
determined nodal positions. The percent errors for both sets of
data show that there was significant error in both models, 13.5% Fig.1 Formula for calculating frequency [1]
in the “free-free” and 9% in the cantilever. This error can largely
be explained by equipment uncertainty and procedural
inefficiency. In conclusion, the cantilever beam model seems to
be slightly more accurate with a lower error but both models
Fig.2 Linear position of vertical deflection – “free-free” beam [1]
work and are verified by this experiment.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this lab experiment was to determine if a

given aluminum bar was best described by a “free-free” or
cantilever beam model. Additionally, by performing the
procedure necessary for this process it could be determined how
much error is involved in measuring node positions
experimentally as opposed to theoretically. The results of this
experiment should prove that the theoretical equation for
measuring frequency and node positions are viable and
consistent with actual findings.
The theoretical frequency for both “free-free” and cantilever Fig. 3 Roots – “free-free” beam [1]
beams can be calculated using the equation in Fig. 1 with the
roots being found in Fig.3 and all other dimensions being
constants measured before the lab. The theoretical nodal
positions for a “free-free” beam can be calculated using the
equation in Fig.2 by substituting the root and then graphing to
find the y-intercepts. Fig.4 shows examples of what these graphs

1 Mechanical Engineering, USC

 The damping is calculated using the relations in Fig.8 where x 0
is the x-value at the first peak and xn is the x-value at the next
peak.

Fig. 4 “free-free” beam mode shapes [1]

Fig. 8 Damping Equations [1]
The cantilever nodal positions can be calculated using Fig.5 and
Based on the theoretical values of frequencies and node
substituting L/2 for L. Examples of graphs for the first three
positions it is hypothesized that the given beam is best described
modes shapes are shown in Fig. 7. This beam model has n-1
by a “free-free” beam model. This is because the frequencies of
nodal positions.
the “free-free” model are lower than that of the cantilever model
and the node positions being determined by hand can be done so
more accurately at low frequencies. This should result in less
error overall in the “free-free” beam model.
Fig. 5 Linear position of vertical deflection – cantilever beam [1]

PROCEDURE

1. Material Properties
The material considered in this study is an aluminum 6061
beam. The beam dimensions and properties can be seen in Table
1. Aluminum 6061 is a common alloy for aluminum that exhibits
high strength and resistance to corrosion, and is easy to work
with. It was pinned at the middle so that both ends were free.
When considered for the cantilever model, half the length of the
beam was taken as the length.

Fig. 6 Roots – cantilever beam [1]

Fig. 9 Aluminum 6061 beam [1]

Table 1. Beam Dimensions and Properties

Fig. 7 Cantilever beam mode shapes 2. Measurement Instruments

2 Mechanical Engineering, USC

 The instrument used to create waves based on input
frequencies was the 4012A Function Generator. The fine tuner
could be used to reach approximately the desired frequency give
or take 5%. The shaker, Fig.10, was used as the output of the
frequency to the beam, causing vibrations. It has a usable
frequency range of 5-9,000Hz. Since the beam was pinned at the
middle where the shaker was placed, there was uncertainty in
determining nodal positions directly near the shaker itself.
The errors are also much less variable; ranging from 18.8% to
5%. There is also no error for the n=1 mode shape as there are
no nodal positions for that mode shape. The average error for the
cantilever beam model is 9%. This is significantly less than that
of the “free-free” model indicating that the cantilever model is
more fitting to this specific beam. It seems that at least some of
this error can be explained by the error in input frequency which
was difficult to fine tune better than +/- 5%. Still the error is
higher than 5% so some error is caused by difficulty correctly
defining the nodal points by hand. There was a lot of noise in the
vibrations so there was definitely potential for error there. To
reduce this error it would be ideal to use an instrument
specifically designed for detecting vibration instead of a simple
pencil. Fig. 11 shows the damping behavior of a cantilever beam.
When this graph is analyzed using the equations in Fig. 8. The
damping is found to be .208.

Fig. 10 V100-V400 metric series shaker [1]

3. Method
First, the sample dimensions of height, width, and length of
the beam are measured. These dimensions are controlled
variables and they will not change through the experiment. Then,
the theoretical frequencies for the “free-free” and cantilever
beams are calculated using the equation in Fig. 1. L/2 is used for
L when calculating the frequencies of the cantilever beam model.
The frequency is the independent variable here as it does not
respond to change in any other variable. Next, the theoretical
node positions are calculated using the equations in Fig. 2 and Table 2. Free-Free Beam Node Positions
Fig. 5. These equations are graphed to find the y-intercepts which
represent the node positions. Next, the function generator is set
to the calculated frequencies for the “free-free” beam model. At
each frequency a pencil is used to determine the nodal points
along the beam. These are measured simply using a tape
measure. This process is then repeated for the cantilever beam
using only half of the beam this time. The nodal positions are the
dependent variable in this experiment as they respond to change
in the frequency. Finally to finish off the lab, a LabVIEW
program is used to chart the damping behavior of the cantilever
beam. For this experiment it is assumed that the moment and
shear stress at both ends of the beam are zero and that damping Table 3. Cantilever Beam Node Positions
can be ignored for the general calculations of frequency and
nodal positions. Fig. 11 shows the damping behavior of a cantilever beam.
When this graph is analyzed using the equations in Fig. 8. The
damping is found to be .208.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Found in Table 2 are the frequencies and nodal positions of

the “free-free” beam model. The percent errors between the
theoretical and experimental values of nodal positions are also
included. The error is as high as 46.6% and as low as .5%
indicating a high variance. The average error of these nodal
positions is 13.5%. The results for the cantilever beam can be
found in Table 3. It is immediately noticeable that the
frequencies are higher than those of the “free-free” beam model.

3 Mechanical Engineering, USC

Fig. 11 Damping Behavior of a Cantilever Beam

CONCLUSIONS

This experiment was conducted to determine if the

theoretical equations describing frequency and nodal positions
held up in an experimental setting. This was tested by finding
both theoretical and experimental values of node positions with
given frequencies and comparing these values to find error. It
was learned that both beam models can be used to describe this
beam and that the bar behaved as expected. With the “free-free”
beam model average error at 13.5% and the cantilever beam
model average error at 9% it can be concluded that the cantilever
beam model may be a more accurate descriptor of the beam.

REFERENCES
[1] Sockalingam, Subramani. (2017), Beam Vibration Theory,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, Nov. 13, 2017.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Professor Sockalingam and the very helpful TAs who made

this lab easy and understandable.

4 Mechanical Engineering, USC