ME306: DESIGN LAB - II

Experiment - 1

BY GROUP C3 (WEDNESDAY)

Ankur Bharali – 2020MEB1267

Apeksha – 2020MEB1268
Arun Kumar – 2020MEB1269
Aryan Prajapati – 2020MEB1270
Ashish Jagarwar – 2020MEB1271
Aim
• To measure the natural frequency of multi degree freedom system i.e., continuous systems
i.e., cantilever beam using data acquisition (DAQ)
• To verify the result analytically and using simulation by ABAQUS.

Experimental setup
• Cantilever beam
• Sensors, Sensor cables
• LabVIEW, DAQ
• Filters
• ABAQUS
• Excel

Procedure
Measurement using sensors and DAQ
• Properly fix the cantilever beam in place.
• Connect the sensor cables to the USB port.
• Open the LabVIEW and make VI to acquire the data from the sensors.
• Hit the beam with an impulse to leave it to freely vibrate.
• Acquire the time domain data and plot the Amplitude-Time graph using Excel.
• Do the FFT on the data and obtain the first three natural frequencies.
Measurement using ABAQUS simulation and by analytical method
• Model and simulate the beam in Abaqus for mode shape and natural frequency validation
with experimental results.
• Using the analytical relation, calculate the first three natural frequencies.
Plots/Simulations
Following is the Amplitude-Time plot and its FFT.

• Amplitude-Time plot

• FFT plot

1st natural frequency: 33.4 Hz

Following are the results of ABAQUS simulation.
• 1st natural frequency

Frequency: 36.365 Hz
ABAQUS simulation
• 2nd natural frequency

Frequency: 227.76 Hz
ABAQUS simulation

• 3rd natural frequency

Frequency: 637.75 Hz
ABAQUS simulation
Results (Aryan Prajapati (2020MEB1270)
The natural frequency of multi degree freedom system i.e., continuous systems i.e., cantilever
beam is measured using three different methods. The results from different methods are
summarized below in the tabular form.

Method Results
1st natural frequency 2nd natural frequency 3rd natural frequency
Analytical method 36.101 Hz 226.259 Hz 633.596 Hz
DAQ and sensors 33.4 Hz Not found Not found
ABAQUS Simulation 36.365 Hz 227.76 Hz 637.75 Hz

The result from analytical method can be taken as reference and the error in results from other two
methods is calculated by taking result from analytical method as correct value.
Error calculation
• DAQ and sensors

o First Natural frequency

|𝑓1,𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑓1,𝐷𝐴𝑄 |
Δ𝑓1 = × 100
𝑓1,𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
|36.101 − 33.4|
Δ𝑓1 = × 100
36.101

Δ𝑓1 = 7.48 %

We can not calculate for second and third natural frequency as the DAQ system calculated
the results wrong (Error out of bounds).

• ABAQUS Simulation

o First Natural frequency

|𝑓1,𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑓1,𝐴𝐵𝐴𝑄𝑈𝑆 |
Δ𝑓1 = × 100
𝑓1,𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
|36.101 − 36.365|
Δ𝑓1 = × 100
36.101

Δ𝑓1 = 0.731 %
 o Second Natural frequency

|𝑓2,𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑓2,𝐴𝐵𝐴𝑄𝑈𝑆 |
Δ𝑓2 = × 100
𝑓2,𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
|226.259 − 227.76|
Δ𝑓2 = × 100
226.259

Δ𝑓2 = 0.663 %

o Third Natural frequency

|𝑓3,𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑓3,𝐴𝐵𝐴𝑄𝑈𝑆 |
Δ𝑓3 = × 100
𝑓3,𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
|633.596 − 637.75|
Δ𝑓3 = × 100
633.596

Δ𝑓3 = 0.655 %

The following table summaries error we get, through different method.

Method Results
1st natural frequency 2nd natural frequency 3rd natural frequency
ABAQUS Simulation 0.731% 0.663% 0.655%
DAQ and sensors 7.48% NA NA

Discussions (Aryan Prajapati (2020MEB1270)

Using Analytical method, we found the three natural frequencies of Cantilever Beam system.
However, using DAQ and sensors, we found only the first natural frequency of Cantilever Beam
system. We did not observe the other two peaks of natural frequencies of Cantilever Beak system
indicating the
o Faulty Sensors present
o Cantilever beam may not be fixed to the support.
The error of 7.48 % is acceptable considering all the irregularities in the experimental setup.
Using ABAQUS Simulation method, we found all the three natural frequencies of the system. We
find all the natural frequencies and error is less that 1 % in all the three cases, indication of a
successful simulation. Sources of errors include:
o Mesh not converged.
o Simulation was done on only one mesh size and one mesh type.
Analytical Calculation and Results (Apeksha-2020MEB1268)
A cantilever beam which is subjected to free vibrations can be considered as continuous system
whose equation of motion is given as follows:
(After balancing all the forces, we get)
𝜕2 𝜕 2𝑢 𝜕 2𝑢
{𝐸𝐼(𝑥) } + 𝑚(𝑥) =0
𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑡 2

Where, E is the modulus of rigidity of beam material, I is moment of inertia of the beam cross-
section, u(x) is the displacement in y direction at distance x from the fixed end, m(x) is mass per
unit length, m(x) = ρ.A(x) , ρ is the material density, x is the distance measured from the fixed
end.
Now, we will assume that,
u(x, t) = X(x) × T(t)
Using the equation for u(x,t) in the above equation, we get
1 𝜕2 𝜕 2𝑋 𝜕 2𝑇
× {𝐸𝐼(𝑥) 2 } × 𝑇(𝑡) + 𝑋(𝑥) 2 = 0
𝑚(𝑥) 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑡

1 𝜕2 𝜕 2𝑋 1 1 𝜕 2𝑇
× 2 {𝐸𝐼(𝑥) 2 } × = − × 2 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 (𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝜔2 )
𝑚(𝑥) 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝑋 𝑇 𝜕𝑡
1 𝜕2 𝜕2𝑋
So, the equation is: 𝑚(𝑥) × 𝜕𝑥 2 {𝐸𝐼(𝑥) 𝜕𝑥 2 } − 𝜔2 𝑋(𝑥) = 0

Now, the boundary conditions for the cantilever beam is:

𝑑𝑋(𝑥)
at x = 0, X(x) = 0, =0
𝑑𝑥
𝑑 2 𝑋(𝑥) 𝑑 3 𝑋(𝑥)
at x = l, = 0, =0
𝑑𝑥 2 𝑑𝑥 3
Using the above boundary conditions in the final equation, we get
𝑑 4 𝑋(𝑥) 4 4
𝜔2 𝑚
− 𝛽 𝑋(𝑥) = 0, with 𝛽 =
𝑑𝑥 4 𝐸𝐼
Now, solving the final equation, we get the mode shapes for the cantilever beam as:
𝑓𝑛 (𝑥) = 𝐴𝑛 {(sin 𝛽𝑛 𝐿 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ𝛽𝑛 𝐿)(sin 𝛽𝑛 𝑥 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ𝛽𝑛 𝑥) + (cos 𝛽𝑛 𝐿
− 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ𝛽𝑛 𝐿)(cos 𝛽𝑛 𝑥 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ𝛽𝑛 𝑥) }
Where, n = 1,2,3, … . ∞ and 𝛽𝑛 𝐿 = 𝑛𝜋
Now, the natural frequency for the above motion and boundary equations is given by:
𝐸𝐼 𝐸𝐼
𝜔𝑛𝑓 = 𝛼𝑛2 √ 4
= 𝛼𝑛2 √
𝑚𝐿 𝜌𝐴𝐿4
where, 𝛼𝑛 = 1.875, 4.694, 7.885, ….

(a): A cantilever beam

(b): The beam under free vibration

Fig.(a) shows a cantilever beam with rectangular cross-section and (b) depicts cantilever beam
under the free vibration.

Now,
The first natural frequency will be given by
𝐸𝐼
𝜔1 = 1.8752 √
𝜌𝐴𝐿4
The second natural frequency will be given by
𝐸𝐼
𝜔2 = 4.6942 √
𝜌𝐴𝐿4
The third natural frequency will be given by
𝐸𝐼
𝜔3 = 7.8552 √
𝜌𝐴𝐿4
We know that the cantilever beam is of aluminium with the following properties:
Modulus of rigidity, E = 70 GPa
Length, L = 270 mm = 0.27 m
Width, b = 25 mm = 0.025 m
Thickness, d = 3.2 mm = 0.0032 m
Density, 𝜌 = 2700 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
Damping ratio, µ = 0.3
𝑏𝑑3
The moment of Inertia is given by, 𝐼 = 12
After putting all the values in the above formula, we get
ω1 = 226.832 s-1, ω2 = 1421.629 s-1, ω3 = 3981.0021 s-1
The first three natural frequencies are given by:
𝜔
𝑓= 𝐻𝑧
2𝜋
So, f1 = 36.101 Hz
f2 = 226.259 Hz
f3 = 633.596 Hz

The different modes observed in beam are as follows:

So, as a result we calculated the first three natural frequencies of the cantilever beam under free
vibrations using analytical method and the obtained values are very close to the values that we
analyzed using ABAQUS software. The errors found in each case are less than 1% (shown in the
previous result).
Also, Using the amplitude-time plot, we can find logarithmic decrement as:
2𝜋𝜇
𝛿= , 𝜇 = 𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 0.3
√1 − 𝜇 2
𝑋
So, 𝛿 = ln (𝑋1) = 0.0532
2

𝑋1
= 𝑒 0.0532 = 7.2136 ≈ 7
𝑋2
For this ratio of amplitudes, we have to calculate Td
We know that, 𝛿 = 𝜇𝜔𝑛 𝑇𝑑
𝛿
So, 𝜔𝑛 = 𝜇𝑇𝑑

Discussion (Apeksha – 2020MEB1268)

We expect from our analytical results that there will be one, two and three nodes (including the
one at the fixed boundary) in the first, second and third natural frequency, respectively. The nodes
are depicted by N1 and N2 notations and one node will be at the fixed end of the beam. Also, the
blue region depicted in the ABAQUS software simulations also denotes the nodes which is totally
aligning with what we expected. Thus, taking tetragonal shaped mesh is justified as it measures
and takes into account the deflection much better than brick shaped mesh.
The value of natural frequency can’t be calculated using logarithmic decrement method because
the plot contains amplitude variation due to noise due to which Td can’t be accurately calculated
and as a result, there will be error in calculating natural frequency.
Thus, by doing all the analysis, we come to know about the different modes of vibration in
cantilever beam when allowed to vibrate freely and how the beam will be deflected and the position
of nodes. Also, we find that analysis done using ABAQUS software is much more accurate and is
very close to the analytical or theoretical results.
From the analysis, we can also conclude that the force or impulse applied on the cantilever beams
should be such that it doesn’t match with the natural frequencies of the freely vibrating cantilever
beam because if matched, the resonance will take place and beam will vibrate with grater amplitude
and thus can break also causing failure of the structures.
Result and Discussion (Arun – 2020MEB1269)
In this experiment we determined the natural frequency of the cantilever beam using Analytical
method, Abaqus and using DAQ and sensors. In the DAQ and sensor process we only get the first
natural frequency peak, other frequencies are not shown in the plot because of sensor error and not
a proper object provided to hit the beam. Our experiment shows readings close to the analytical
method with the error of 7.48%

Result and Discussion (Ashish Jagarwar – 2020MEB1271)

In this experiment, we measured the natural frequency of a multi-DOF system using a beam and
then simulated the system in Abaqus for modal analysis to confirm the natural frequencies with
our experimental results. We discovered that the natural frequency was roughly the same. We
created an FFT plot.Vibration was free in nature, different modes of vibration were easy to
visualize,and experimental results were consistent with theoretical counterparts.