Why am I not getting the correct natural frequency?

  • #1
EastWindBreaks
128
3

Homework Statement


upload_2017-11-23_1-5-6.png

To find the natural frequency of a uniform cantilever beam, the area moment of inertia, cross-sectional area and density are not given, everything else is given by the lab, our group got a theoretical natural frequency( it might be angular frequency) of 27.44 Hz from lab's computer with the same mass, dimensions and Young's modulus. however, when I try to solve it manually using the natural frequency equation, I got 1.195 as the natural frequency and 7.51 for the angular frequency. which is way off from 27.44, but I should be getting the same value. can someone confirm if my calculation is correct base on the data? I have tried countless times and its driving me crazy. our experimental natural frequency is 24.94, I am not sure how am I gona justify the huge error for the lab report.
2. Relevant equation
upload_2017-11-23_1-5-34.png

ξi=3.516 for Mode 1

upload_2017-11-23_1-8-37.png

I=bh^3/12

The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-11-23_1-5-6.png
    upload_2017-11-23_1-5-6.png
    4 KB · Views: 1,082
  • upload_2017-11-23_1-5-34.png
    upload_2017-11-23_1-5-34.png
    1.7 KB · Views: 894
  • upload_2017-11-23_1-8-37.png
    upload_2017-11-23_1-8-37.png
    674 bytes · Views: 935
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
EastWindBreaks said:

Homework Statement


View attachment 215477
To find the natural frequency of a uniform cantilever beam, the area moment of inertia, cross-sectional area and density are not given, everything else is given by the lab, our group got a theoretical natural frequency( it might be angular frequency) of 27.44 Hz from lab's computer with the same mass, dimensions and Young's modulus. however, when I try to solve it manually using the natural frequency equation, I got 1.195 as the natural frequency and 7.51 for the angular frequency. which is way off from 27.44, but I should be getting the same value. can someone confirm if my calculation is correct base on the data? I have tried countless times and its driving me crazy. our experimental natural frequency is 24.94, I am not sure how am I gona justify the huge error for the lab report.
2. Relevant equation
View attachment 215478
ξi=3.516 for Mode 1

View attachment 215479
I=bh^3/12

The Attempt at a Solution

Please post your whole calculation.
 
  • Like
Likes EastWindBreaks
  • #3
haruspex said:
Please post your whole calculation.

angular frequency of mode 1= (3.516/12.4^2)* sqrt((1*10^7)*(0.000183)/42.86/0.13)
ω= (3.516/12.4^2) * sqrt(328.44)
ω= 0.02287* 18.1229
ω=0.4144

where 0.000183 is the area moment of inertia which came from (bh^3)/12, (1)(0.13^3)/12=0.000183
density=mass/volume=148/(0.13*1*26.56)=42.86

I forgot to square root when I initially post the thread, however, this time, the angular frequency is even smaller.
 
  • #4
EastWindBreaks said:
angular frequency of mode 1= (3.516/12.4^2)* sqrt((1*10^7)*(0.000183)/42.86/0.13)
ω= (3.516/12.4^2) * sqrt(328.44)
ω= 0.02287* 18.1229
ω=0.4144

where 0.000183 is the area moment of inertia which came from (bh^3)/12, (1)(0.13^3)/12=0.000183
density=mass/volume=148/(0.13*1*26.56)=42.86

I forgot to square root when I initially post the thread, however, this time, the angular frequency is even smaller.
I do not see any units conversion. All the distances are in inches, so that's ok, but you have force in pounds weight and density using grams.
 
  • Like
Likes EastWindBreaks
  • #5
haruspex said:
I do not see any units conversion. All the distances are in inches, so that's ok, but you have force in pounds weight and density using grams.
oh wow, yeah, I didnt do units conversion because they were all in inches but I totally forgot about grams and lbs. ok so this time, the mass is 0.3263 pound, density= 0.3263/(0.13*1*26.56)= 0.0945 lb/in^3, the new angular frequency I got using this new density is 8.828 Hz, which is still way off...
 
  • #6
EastWindBreaks said:
the mass is 0.3263 pound,
In E, it is pounds weight, i.e. a force. That has dimension MLT-2. To be consistent, that L needs to be in inches, so you need a factor g in in/s2.
(Why does anyone use a system other than MKS?)
 
  • Like
Likes EastWindBreaks
  • #7
haruspex said:
In E, it is pounds weight, i.e. a force. That has dimension MLT-2. To be consistent, that L needs to be in inches, so you need a factor g in in/s2.
(Why does anyone use a system other than MKS?)
oh right, you mean convert gram to slug right? so, mass= 0.0101412 slug, density = 0.0101412/(0.13*26.56*1)=0.003016 slug/in^3
and I got 49.4 Hz for angular frequency, 7.86 for the natural frequency. still off from 27.44...
yeah, I wish the world can use a single unit system...we have the U.S unit system, SI, and British unit system..
 
  • #8
EastWindBreaks said:
convert gram to slug right? so, mass= 0.0101412 slug,
I don't think that quite fixes it. The ratio of slug to pound mass, 32 roughly, is based on the value of g when expressed in ft/s2. Your change is equivalent to multiplying the E value by 32, which would be right for converting from pounds weight /sq into lb ft s-2in-2. But everywhere else in your calculation distance are in inches, so you need E in lb s-2 in-1. I.e. rather than express the density in slugs multiply E by 32 x 12.
 
  • Like
Likes EastWindBreaks
  • #9
Thank you very much! I finally got it, I sometimes completely forgot which unit system is which...the pound force, pound mass, slug are so confusing and unfriendly for students.
upload_2017-11-24_3-11-8.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-11-24_3-11-8.png
    upload_2017-11-24_3-11-8.png
    8.1 KB · Views: 431
Back
Top