Dimension analysis problem for Vibration Experiment

DARK_STALKER
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
1.I am busy with an assignment based on a Vibration experiment in a Mechanical Engineering degree program The procedure is documented in the lab handout and one part is to compare the measured natural frequency to the calculated natural frequency The formula given in the handout for natural frequency is given by wn = sqrroot of (K theta / I)

2.This is where I am getting confused as I know omega is supposed to be in Rad/s but if I do dimensional analysis on this formula i get it in 1/s which is = Hz. The lecturer tells me my analysis is incorrect which it probably is but could someone please explain where i am going wrong. He is saying the result of the equation is in Rad/s and must be divided by 2 Pi still to get to Hz

3. I have attached a Jpeg of my attempt at his problem
 

Attachments

  • Inertia calc.jpg
    Inertia calc.jpg
    2.9 KB · Views: 455
  • Torsional Stiffnes Calc.jpg
    Torsional Stiffnes Calc.jpg
    7 KB · Views: 483
  • nautrual frequency calc.jpg
    nautrual frequency calc.jpg
    7.6 KB · Views: 481
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi DARK_STALKER! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(have an omega: ω and a pi: π and a theta: θ :wink:)
DARK_STALKER said:
… I know omega is supposed to be in Rad/s but if I do dimensional analysis on this formula i get it in 1/s which is = Hz.

radians are dimensionless

1 rad/s does have dimensions of 1/T. :wink:
 
Thanks tiny-tim... I see the are no units in the numerator of my dimension analysis and of course Radians are dimensionless was only thinking of units of Hz /s.

Is my analysis correct though as I got 1/s

I know rads*1 = rads

How do the rads get into the result or is it the fact that because the numerator is one you could really apply it to anything /s

Thanks
 
Hi DARK_STALKER! :wink:
DARK_STALKER said:
Is my analysis correct though as I got 1/s

Yes. :smile:

I'm afraid dimensional analysis doesn't solve everything, and radians just don't show up on the "radar"! :biggrin:
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top