Date: October 28, 2019

To: Saptarshi Biswas

Lab Partners: Jeremy Mcgovern, Jaykumar Patel, Chenyu Wang & Michael Allan
Group: S-03
From: Edouard Buisson
Subject: Effects of Forced Oscillation on an Aluminum Beam

Introduction
The purpose of this experiment was to experimentally determine the resonance caused by the transverse
vibrations of a of a fixed-free aluminum beam. In order to investigate this, parameters such as natural
frequency, node locations, and damping ratios were measured and calculated to characterize certain modes
of the beam. Natural frequency was found by using an oscilloscope and white noise both with and without
tip mass (piezoelectric accelerometer). The results from the experiment was compared to predicted
calculations from the Euler-Bernoulli Beam Theory.
This lab experiment is important to aerospace structures due to the large number of different vibrational
loads that aerospace components experience. Such vibrations can affect the life-span and stability of an
aircraft. One way to reduce the effects of vibrations is through damping which can also reduce noise in an
aircraft.

Experimental Procedure
It was predicted before the lab that natural frequency of the beam would change with the number of nodes.
The natural frequency of a beam in transverse vibration is defined by Equation 1 below.
𝐸𝐼
⍵𝑛 = ꞵ2𝑛 𝐿2 √𝜌𝐴𝐿4 Equation 1

Since the root values for each node was known, this along with stiffness, mass density, length, and cross-
sectional area of the beam was used to calculate the theoretical natural frequency at each node.

Table 1: Theoretical Natural Frequency

Mode Root Value (𝛽𝑛 𝐿𝑛 ) Natural Frequency (Hz)

1 1.8751 12

2 4.6541 68

3 7.8548 240

4 10.7955 432
These values were then used in the experiment to have an overall range of where to find the natural
frequency when testing each node from the function generator.

Figure 1: Labeled Experimental Equipment

A laser doppler vibrometer was used to measure velocity along the beam with the vibrometer controller
projecting the strength of its signal. Acceleration of the beam was measured with a single axis accelerometer
which also served as a tip mass for damping. A piezoelectric strain gauge was used at the root of the
specimen to measure base acceleration where the Vibration Exciter applied a forced vibration onto the
beam. The Oscilloscope was used to find maximum amplitude for when finding natural frequency at each
mode with the Function Generator. The Oscilloscope also projected the velocity as the LDV was moved
along the beam. This helped in finding where each node was when there was zero velocity. The mode
number determines the number of nodes present on the specimen by using Equation 2.
𝑛 = 𝑚−1 Equation 2
The measured parameters from the LDV and accelerometers were inputted into LabVIEW.
LDV (with & without tip mass):
The LDV was positioned pointing at the tip of the specimen. The beam was then vibrated using the exciter
and the Oscilloscope was used to find the sine waves by manually adjusting the frequency. Resonance
frequency was found when the ratio of response to input was maximum on the Oscilloscope. The LDV was
moved along the beam to locate the node locations where there was no velocity. The natural frequency for
every mode was read off of the Oscilloscope.
Afterwards, the LDV was kept at the tip of the beam to calculate damping ratio. In order to calculate
damping ratio, the beam would be vibrated at a low amplitude for each mode of resonance. The amplifier
would then be turned off, and the group would continue recording the measured parameters for the beam
until the specimen response decayed to zero. The log decrement method would then be used to find the
damping ratio at each mode. The damping ratio was found by inputting two amplitudes that were next to
each other during the frequency decay into the following relation in Equation 3.
𝐴
𝑙𝑛( 1 )
𝐴2
𝜁= 𝐴
Equation 3
√(2𝜋𝑓𝑇)2 +𝑙𝑛(𝐴1 )2
2

White noise (with & without tip mass):

The natural frequency at each mode could also be found by applying a white noise vibration on the beam.
The white noise would be produced from the white noise function generator. The DAQ system was switched
from log decrement to frequency response. The white noise spectrum would show four peak FRF magnitude
frequencies which corresponded to the natural frequencies of the aluminum specimen. This was an alternate
and simpler way of measuring for resonance frequency.

Results and Discussion

Figure 2: White Noise Spectrum w/ Tip Mass Figure 3: White Noise w/ No Tip Mass

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the peaks indicating the natural frequencies on the white noise magnitude
spectrum with and without tip mass. It can be seen that each maximum peak value for both cases is always
greater than zero which can help in finding which peaks define resonance frequency.
Table 2 shows the natural frequency, node locations, and damping ratios for each mode that was obtained
with the Oscilloscope while there was tip mass. The natural frequencies for each mode was found by
analyzing at what frequency the LDV peaked in the white noise spectrum.

Table 2: Natural Frequency, Node Location, and Damping Ratio w/ Tip Mass

Mode Natural 1st Node 2nd Node 3rd Node Damping

Frequency Location (in) Location (in) Location (in) Ratio
(Hz)

1 11.98 NA NA NA 0.0362

2 68.8 13.8125 NA NA 0.0293

3 218.81 13.375 8.75 NA 0.0233

4 415.51 15.875 11.1875 6.1875 0.0149

Table 3 shows the natural frequency, node locations, and damping ratios for each mode that was obtained
with the Oscilloscope while there was no tip mass. The natural frequencies for each mode was found by
analyzing at what frequency the LDV peaked in the white noise spectrum.
 Table 3: Natural Frequency, Node Location, and Damping Ratio w/ No Tip Mass

Mode Natural 1st Node 2nd Node 3rd Node Damping

Frequency Location (in) Location (in) Location (in) Ratio
(Hz)

1 12.81 NA NA NA 0.0274

2 71.69 12.25 NA NA 0.0248

3 225.01 14.9375 8.5625 NA 0.0191

4 432.04 15.5625 10.875 6 0.0141

Figure 4: Critical Damping Response

It was determined from Figure 4 that as the mode number increases, its damping ratio would decrease. It
can also be seen that the damping ratio response is always lower with no tip mass than with a tip mass at
the same mode.
 Table 5: Percent Error

Experimental Predicted Percent Error Experimental Predicted Percent Error

Natural Natural (%) w/ Tip Natural Natural (%) wo/ Tip
Frequency Frequency Mass Frequency Frequency Mass
(Hz) w/ Tip (Hz) w/ Tip (Hz) wo/ Tip (Hz) wo/ Tip
Mass Mass Mass Mass

11.98 13.32 10.06 % 12.81 14.47 7.81 %

68.8 73.78 6.75 % 71.69 76.83 6.69 %

218.81 234.49 6.68 % 225.01 240.66 6.50 %

415.51 430.05 3.38 % 432.04 470.51 8.18 %

Table 4 compares the measured resonance frequency to the predicted natural frequency values with and
without the tip mass. It can be seen from the table that natural frequency increases with the addition of a tip
mass. The margin of error made between the predicted and experimental values can be addressed to several
and errors made throughout the calculations and experiment. Some of these errors include the predictions
not accounting for the damping at the tip of the beam and not using exact property values such as width,
thickness, mass density, and Young’s Modulus of the beam for when calculating natural frequency. As for
experimental errors, a variety of conditions such as the beam not being secured tightly enough into the
amplifier could affect this data.

Conclusion
This experiment was successful in obtaining the node locations, resonance frequencies, and damping ratios
for all four different mode values of a thin aluminum beam through forced transverse vibrations. During
the experiment, applying white noise and a specific natural frequency on the beam with the use of the
oscilloscope to red frequency would be done to help find resonance frequency, node location, and damping
ratio. These parameters were tested with and without an accelerometer at the tip of the specimen to compare
damping response. The experiments and results came out as expected based off the predictions made
beforehand with the use of a Euler-Bernoulli Beam Theory equation. Natural frequency would always be
greater without the tip mass at the same mode while damping ratio would always be lower with a tip mass
present due to the accelerometer’s damping effects on the beam.
A variety of errors during the experiment and calculations could have been made due to the fact that the
results had a maximum 10.06% percent error difference from the group’s predictions. Some of these errors
could include the calculated predictions not accounting for the damping mass at the tip of the beam. Another
error that could have been made during theoretical calculations is the use of slightly inaccurate values that
define the characteristics of the beam such as width, thickness, mass density, and Young’s Modulus for
when calculating natural frequency. As for experimental errors, a variety of conditions such as the beam
not being secured tightly enough into the amplifier could affect this data. Another case for experimental
errors could be vibrations in the surroundings of the lab that could influence the data recorded. Vibration
fatigue could also be a potential source of error due to the use of the same beam during each experiment
done in the past. Even though, this error is minimal, using a new specimen would completely eliminate this
source of error.