Estimating the damping ratio from the waveform graph

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the damping ratio and frequencies of oscillation from a given waveform graph. Participants explore methods for calculating these parameters, including the logarithmic decrement method, and share their results and concerns regarding the accuracy of their estimates.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant estimates the damping ratio ζ as 0.0356 and the damped frequency f_d as 2 kHz, using peak values from the waveform.
  • Another participant reports different values, with a natural frequency f_n of approximately 2009 Hz and a damping ratio ζ of 0.0974, suggesting a peak ratio of 1.85.
  • Concerns are raised about the relevance of the initial condition x(0) and its impact on the calculations, with one participant acknowledging a mistake in using absolute peak values instead of relative values.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the validity of their results, noting discrepancies between their calculations and simulation outcomes.
  • Another participant requests assistance in estimating the x and y-axis sensitivities from the waveform plot.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct values for the damping ratio or frequencies, with multiple competing estimates presented and some uncertainty expressed regarding the methods used.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the need for clarity on definitions and assumptions, such as the choice of peaks for calculations and the significance of the initial condition x(0). There are unresolved questions about the accuracy of the simulation compared to the theoretical estimates.

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
6K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K