Free Vibration with Vicous Damping

  • Thread starter Thread starter febbie22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Damping Vibration
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an experiment aimed at determining the viscous damping coefficient of a dashpot, particularly focusing on how the position of the damper affects the damping observed in a vibrating beam system. Participants explore the relationship between damper position and damping effects, sharing experimental results and calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Experimental/applied, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reports that their experimental results indicate increased damping when the damper is closer to the pivot, which contradicts their initial expectation that greater distance would yield more damping.
  • Another participant suggests that the measured data appears reasonable and aligns with the idea that damping increases with distance from the pivot, questioning the calculations leading to the opposite conclusion.
  • A participant shares a detailed sample calculation for determining the damping coefficient, including the use of graph offsets and time periods from oscillation data.
  • There is a discussion about the significance of certain parameters, such as the time periods of oscillation (T1 and T2), and their relevance to calculating the damping constant.
  • One participant introduces a mathematical model for damped oscillation, providing equations and calculations to derive the modal damping coefficient and its implications for the experimental setup.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the accuracy of their damping calculations, noting discrepancies in expected values for different damper settings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between damper position and damping effects, with some supporting the idea that damping increases with distance from the pivot, while others present results that suggest the opposite. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct interpretation of the experimental data and calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various assumptions in their calculations, such as the effective mass and the relationship between the damping coefficient and the position of the damper. There are also indications of potential errors in calculations that have not been fully clarified.

febbie22
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am currently doing an experiment to determine the the viscous damping coefficient (c) of a dashpot.

Where you move the position of the damper to determine the effect of the damping

but my results show that when the damper is closer to the pivot the damping increases but i thought the futher away the damper is to the beam the more damping that gets put onto the beam.

In the attachment is my result table and the figure that shows my experiment

any help would be great

Damper Positon(L2) Damper Setting Xm/Xm+1 In(Xm/Xm+1) Td Me (mass Equivalent) Equivalent Damping ce (L2/L)2 Actual Damping c (Nm/s)
50.5cm Light 1.156 0.145 0.36 4.05 3.26 0.472 6.91
50.5cm Heavy 1.33 0.288 0.34 4.05 6.86 0.472 15.5
18.3cm Light 1.031 0.031 0.34 4.05 0.74 0.062 11.9
18.3cm Heavy 1.12 0.113 0.34 4.05 2.70 0.062 43.55

Total length of beam is 73.5mm
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
People are loath to open strange documents. Word docs can contain virii. You should post your findings so they are plainly readable.
 
i was going to but the table of my results kept duffing up
 
Use [ code ] tags:
Code: 
50.5cm Light 1.156 0.145 0.36 4.05 3.26 0.472  6.91
50.5cm Heavy 1.33  0.288 0.34 4.05 6.86 0.472 15.5
18.3cm Light 1.031 0.031 0.34 4.05 0.74 0.062 11.9
18.3cm Heavy 1.12  0.113 0.34 4.05 2.70 0.062 43.55
or upload a screen capture.


BTW, is this homework? It should be entered using the homework templates.
 

Attachments

  • table.gif
    table.gif
    13.3 KB · Views: 607
Last edited:
The measured data makes sense. The four values of X_m/X_{m+1} look reasonable and they say the vibration was more damped when the damper is further from the pivot.

You haven't said how you calculated the rest of your numbers and came to the opposite conclusion.
 
Thanks for the reply here's my sample calculation

Position 1 – 50.5 cm Damper Setting – Light

Offset on graph is 1.979mm

The offset of the graphs have to be added to the peaks

Xm = 0.751 + 1.979 = 2.73 mm Xm+1 = 0.379 + 1.979 = 2.358 mm

Xm / Xm+1 = 2.73/2.358 = 1.156

In(Xm/Xm+1) = In(1.156) = 0.145

Td = T2 – T1 = 7.16 – 6.8 = 0.36

L1 = 0.352m L = 0.735m M = 0.7 kg m = 2.1kg

Me = M.(L1/L)2 + m/3 = 7 x (0.352/0.735)2 + 2.1/3 = 2.31 kg

In(Xm/Xm+1) = (Ce x Td) / (2 x Me)

ce = (In(Xm/Xm+1) x (2 x Me)) / Td

ce = (0.145 x 4.61) / 0.36 = 1.86

( L2/L)2 = (0.505/0.735)2 = 0.472

c = ce / 0.472 = 3.26 /0.472 = 3.93 Ns/m

i just noticed that i calculated Me wrong fixed now
 
Last edited:
When i calculate (L2/L)2 for damper position 2 18.3cm i get 0.062 which means that when i divde that with the equivalent damping coefficient i get a bigger damping (c)
 
What are T1 and T2?

Are you measuring the spring stiffness by measuring the position of the beam with and without the extra mass, or something like that?
 
T1 and T2 is the time periods of two successive peaks taking from my graphs that show the oscillation to get the Td period of the damped oscillation.

The spring stiffness wasn't needed to calculate the damping constant
 
  • #10
febbie22 said:
T1 and T2 is the time periods of two successive peaks taking from my graphs that show the oscillation to get the Td period of the damped oscillation.
OK, understood.

The spring stiffness wasn't needed to calculate the damping constant
Well, you need two out of three from K, M, and Td, but it doesn't matter which two.

I don't have time to work through this right now, but I'll be back...
 
  • #11
thanks for the help much appreciated
 
  • #12
I think you have got in a tangle about exactly what quantities you are calculating, so let's go through the first case.

In mass normalized modal coordinates, the equation of motion is
\ddot\xi + 2 \beta \omega \dot\xi + \omega^2 \xi = 0

The damped oscillation solution is
\xi = e^{-\beta\omega t} e^{i\omega_D t}
where \omega_D^2 = \omega^2(1 - \beta^2).

You have the period = 0.36s and the amplitude ratio = 1.156
Assume \omega and \omega_D are near enough equal since the damping is small.
\omega_D = 2 \pi / 0.36 = 17.45 rad/s

For one complete cycle, \omega t = 2 \pi
So e^{-2 \pi \beta} = 1/1.156
\beta = (\ln1.156) / 2 \pi ) = 0.0231

So the modal damping coefficient = 0.0231.

To convert the equation of motion into physical (SI) units measured at the end of the beam, we need to multiply everything by the effective mass = 2.31 kg

So if the damper was at the end of the beam, the equaton of motion would be
2.31 \ddot x + (2.31)(2)(0.0231)(17.45) \dot x + (2.31)(17.45) x = 0
So if it was at the end of the beam the force in the dashpot would be 1.86 Ns/m

But the velocity in the actual dashpot is lower by a factor of .505/.735 = 0.687
So the force in the actual dashpot is (1.86)(0.735)/0.505 = 2.71 Ns/m

Now repeat this for the 3rd case

\omega_D = 2 \pi / 0.34 = 19.63 rad/s
\beta = (\ln1.031) / 2\pi = 0.00432
Equivalent dashpot at end of beam = (2.31)(2)(0.00432)(19.63) = 0.392 Ns/m
Dashpot at actual position = (0.392)(0.735)/(0.183) = 1.57 Ns/m

OK, 1.57 and 2.71 are not very close, but measuring small amounts of damping accurately is not easy.

For the heavy damping cases, I get 6.00 Ns/m and 6.56 Ns/m.
The difference is about 10%, which is probably as good as you are likely to get from this sort of experiment.
 
  • #13
Thank you very much Aleph
 
  • #14
Aleph i actually got the vaule for the heavy postion 2 it is actually 1.062 which makes the overall damping about 3 which is about 50% off of the light.

im not sure why its not working.