Estimating the damping ratio from the waveform graph

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on estimating the damping ratio (ζ) and frequencies of oscillation from a waveform graph using the logarithmic decrement method. The user Chris calculated ζ as 0.0356, the damped frequency (f_d) as 2 kHz, and the natural frequency (f_n) as 2001 Hz. However, discrepancies arose when simulating the results in PSpice, leading to a required adjustment of ζ to approximately 2.8 times the calculated value for accurate waveform matching. Another participant provided alternative estimates of ζ as 0.0974 and f_n as 2009 Hz, highlighting the importance of relative peak values in calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logarithmic decrement method for damping ratio estimation
  • Familiarity with second-order characteristic equations in control systems
  • Proficiency in using PSpice for waveform simulation
  • Knowledge of oscillation frequency concepts (damped and natural frequencies)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the logarithmic decrement method in detail to ensure accurate damping ratio calculations
  • Learn about second-order system response and characteristic equations
  • Explore advanced PSpice simulation techniques for verifying dynamic system responses
  • Research methods for estimating axis sensitivities from waveform plots
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in engineering fields, particularly those working with control systems, signal processing, or waveform analysis, will benefit from this discussion.

cjs94
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



From the waveform shown below, estimate
a) the damping ratio ζ (you may compare response with a standard chart);
b) the forced or damped frequency of oscillation; and
c) the natural or undamped frequency of oscillation.
img_0041-jpg.114478.jpg

Homework Equations



Since the waveform is under damped, I'm attempting to use the logarithmic decrement method, described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_decrement

\sigma = \frac{1}{n}\ln\frac{x(t)}{x(t + nT)}
\zeta = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + \left(\frac{2\pi}{\sigma}\right)^2}}
f_d = \frac{1}{T}
f_n = \frac{f_d}{\sqrt{1 - \zeta^2}}

The Attempt at a Solution



I have estimated the first two peaks from the graph as:
p_1 = 0.438\text{ V} \text{ at } 0.27\text{ ms}
p_2 = 0.350\text{ V} \text{ at } 0.77\text{ ms}

Using the above equations:
\begin{align}<br /> \sigma &amp;= \ln\left(\frac{p_1}{p_2}\right)\\<br /> &amp;= \ln\left(\frac{0.438}{0.350}\right)\\<br /> &amp;= 0.224\\<br /> \text{and}\\<br /> \zeta &amp;= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + \left(\frac{2\pi}{0.224}\right)^2}}\\<br /> &amp;= 0.0356\\<br /> f_d &amp;= \frac{1}{0.77 \times 10^{-3} - 0.27 \times 10^{-3}}\\<br /> &amp;= 2\text{ kHz}\\<br /> f_n &amp;= \frac{2000}{\sqrt{1 - 0.0356^2}}\\<br /> &amp;= 2001\text{ Hz}<br /> \end{align}<br />

The problem is that I'm not sure I believe the results. I'm trying to verify the results by putting them back into the second order characteristic equation:
\begin{align}<br /> \text{C.E.} &amp;= s^2 + 2\zeta{\omega}_{n}s + {\omega}_{n}^2\\<br /> &amp;= s^2 + (2 \times 0.0356 \times 2\pi \times f_n)s + (2\pi \times f_n)^2\\<br /> &amp;= s^2 + 895s + 158071624<br /> \end{align}<br />
then simulating that with a Laplace block in PSpice. However, the simulated waveform doesn't match the one above. The frequency is correct, but the damping ratio is too low -- playing about with the numbers, I find I need to increase the damping ratio to approximately ##2.8\zeta## to get the waveform looking correct.

I don't know if there is a problem in my method and the results are wrong, or if my simulation is in error (or possibly both!). Can someone please help?

Thanks,
Chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I got different results. My fn was about 2009 Hz and my ζ = 0.0974. I estimated fd = 2000 Hz and peak ratio = 1.85.

I can't check your math since you did not define n and σ. You were aware that x = 0 corresponds to 250 mV, right?

I did notice that (my ζ)/(your ζ) was about the number you thought it should be.
 
I didn't consider ##x(0)##. I guess it makes sense as the wave seems to be settling to 250 mV, but I don't see how it is relevant. As I understand the method, you estimate based on two successive positive peaks, which I have done.

Which peaks did you use and what did you estimate their coordinates to be?

In my calculations I chose the first two consecutive peaks, thus ##n = 1## (I should have been more explicit about that). Why do you say that I haven't defined ##\sigma## though? I did show my working, repeated below:
\begin{align}<br /> \sigma &amp;= \ln\left(\frac{p_1}{p_2}\right)\\<br /> &amp;= \ln\left(\frac{0.438}{0.35}\right)\\<br /> &amp;= 0.224<br /> \end{align}<br />
 
Ah! Don't worry, I've figured out where I've gone wrong, helped by your comment about ##x(0)##. I've incorrectly used the absolute peak values, rather than their relative values from ##x(0)##.

Thanks for the help!
 
Uploading waveform image again, since the link in the original post is now broken and I can't figure out how to edit the post.
IMG_0041.jpg
 
does anyone know how to estimate the x and y-axis sensitivities if you were given this plot?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K