=Radical (unitless)
Controlled variables:
i. m
s
=Mass of the spring (kg)
ii. m
h
=Mass of the hanger, (kg)
iii.
h i
m m +
= square root of total mass on hanger and mass of hanger (kg)
1
iv.
3
s
h i
m
m m + +
= square root of total mass on hanger, hanger mass and spring
mass (kg)
v. a = Distance from point O to the dashpot (m)
vi. c = Distance from point O to the linear spring (m)
vii. Theoretical value of T (sec)
Constants:
i. g = gravity acceleration = 9.81 ms
2
1
Theory
A. Spring Stiffness
Figure 1.1: Suspended Hookean SpringMass System. (Simanek 2004)
To determine the spring stiffness, Hookes law has been employ.An object
with elastic property will deform by compression or tension when a force is applied to
it Hookes law states that the displacement of the deformation is directly proportional
to the deforming force.(Encyclopedia Britannica Online n.d.) Hence, when a force is
applied to a spring, the force exerted on the spring is proportional to the displacement
of the spring from equilibrium. In mathematical form:
kx F
(Eqn.1.1)
Where
F
= force exerted on spring (N)
k
= spring constant or stiffness of spring (N/m)
x
= displacement of the spring from equilibrium (m)
1
Figure 1.2: Typical force versus extension graph.(Deformation of Solids n.d.)
However, Hookes Law is only valid within the materials elastic range below
the limit of proportionality. Beyond the proportional limit, the linear proportionality
between the stress and strain ceases.(DiracDelta Science & Engineering Encyclopedia
n.d.)
B. Natural Frequency
Deriving differential equations for simple harmonic motion
Figure 1.2: Representation of a simple harmonic motion by a phasor. (Entwistle
2011)
Simple harmonic motion is the underlying component of most vibratory
motions. Simple harmonic motion is a reciprocating motion and can be represented
geometrically as a phasor as shown in Figure 1.3. (Entwistle2011) The orthogonal
1
projection of P on horizontal line passing O, which is point Q executes simple
harmonic. Stated mathematically by circular functions:
cos( ) x A t +
(Eqn.1.2)
Where
x
= displacement of point Q from O
A
= maximum value of
  x
known as the amplitude
= phase angle
Differentiating Equation 1.2 twice will give the differential equations that
describe simple harmonic motion:
sin( )
dx
x A t
dt
+ &
(Eqn. 1.3)
2
2 2
2
cos( )
d x
x A t x
dt
+ &&
(Eqn. 1.4)
Thus, for simple harmonic motion, the acceleration is proportional but
opposite in direction to the displacement. The standard form is given by:
2
0 x x + &&
(Eqn. 1.5)
The period, T is the time taken to complete one full revolution of OP or one
cycle. In mathematical form:
2 T
(Eqn. 1.6)
2
T
(Eqn. 1.7)
2
The frequency,
f
is the number of cycles completed in a unit time. In
mathematical form:
1
2
f
T
(Eqn. 1.8)
Deriving differential equations of motion for a onedegreeoffreedom system
executing simple harmonic motion
Since the experiment resembles a onedegreeoffreedom system executing
simple harmonic motion, a lump parameter model approach is applied. Several
assumptions are made in this approach to simplify the model, yet maintaining the core
nature of dynamics:
Mass is concentrated mainly in stiff components such as hanger and weights,
while flexibility is located mainly in the spring. Hence, a rigid mass and a
massless spring system.A rigid support frame
Motion of the system is restricted only to vertical direction, hence a one
degreeoffreedom system. Without any rotation, moments of inertia of the
mass become irrelevant in the sense that any moments tending to cause
rotation are countered by equal and opposite support reactions, allowing the
mass to be treated as a point mass. (Entwistle2011)
The spring obeys Hookes law, therefore having a directly proportional linear
forcedisplacement relationship, with spring stiffness being the proportionality
constant.
The spring adheres to similar properties in tension and compression.Small
displacements are assumed, as large extensions will result in the failure of the
linear Hookean relationship, whereas large compressions will buckle the coils.
The air offers no resistance to the motion.
A positive sense downwards is selected for displacement, velocity,
acceleration and applied forces. The initial system is assumed to have a positive
displacement, velocity and acceleration at the instant.
3
Figure 1.3: Free body diagram of onedegreeoffreedom system. (Entwistle2011)
Where Point A = end of unloaded spring
Point B = end of spring loaded with mass m
Point C = end of spring with mass at some instant during vibration
Based on Newtons 2
nd
Law, the differential equation of motion can be written
as:
y m F
y
y m ky k mg
static
, where
mg k
static
0 + y
m
k
y
(Eqn. 1.9)
With reference to Eqn. 1.9, the onedegreeoffreedom system is shown to be
executing simple harmonic motion. Comparing Eqn. 1.5 and Eqn. 1.9 yields:
m
k
(Eqn. 1.10)
Substituting Eqn. 1.10 into Eqn. 1.7 results in:
The natural period,
k
m
T
2
2
(Eqn. 1.11)
1
The natural frequency,
m
k
f
2
1
(Eqn. 1.12)
Note that gravity has no effect on the dynamics of the vibration but altered the
static equilibrium position of the system.
Spring mass correction for a heavy spring
As mentioned before, one assumption made was that the spring was
massless, having little effect on the dynamics of the system.If the spring mass is
significant, spring mass will need to be taken into consideration in the lump parameter
model.
An equivalent onedegree of freedom model utilising an equivalent mass,
eq
m
and a massless spring with the same spring stiffness needs to be derived.
(Entwistle2011) In order to apply Rayleighs Energy method, assumptions are made:
i. The motion is a simple harmonic motion with a natural vibration mode, which
is valid in the case of an undamped linear system executing free vibration.
ii. The maximum kinetic energy of the system equals the maximum strain energy
of the system.
iii. Mode shape is assumed.
Figure 1.4: Onedegreeoffreedom model with a heavy spring. (Entwistle2011)
3
Initially, the model is at the instance of passing through the equilibrium
position. Hence,
C
is the free length of the heavy spring and strain energy in the
spring becomes zero.Therefore, the total energy of the system is equal to the
maximum kinetic energy of the system.
The equivalence to assuming a mode shape is assuming that the variation of
local velocity along the spring is linear. (Entwistle2011)
Kinetic energy of mass =
2
2
1
mV
Kinetic energy of spring element dc =
2
2
1
v
C
dc
m
s
,
`
.

Using similar triangles,
2
2
,
`
.

C
cV
v
C
V
c
v
Hence, Kinetic energy of entire spring =
2
0
2 2
3
3 2
1
2
1
V
m
dc c V
C
m
C
s s
Total maximum kinetic energy of system = kinetic energy of mass + kinetic energy of
entire spring
=
2
3 2
1
V
m
m
s
,
`
.

+
(Eqn. 1.13)
At the instant the mass reaches maximum displacement,
X
. The total
maximum kinetic energy of the system would be completely converted into maximum
strain energy of the system. Hence, the maximum strain energy equals to the total
energy of the system while there is no kinetic energy. As the model is assumed to
execute simple harmonic motion,
( ) + t X x sin
, with maximum amplitude
X
.
3
Maximum Strain Energy =
2
2
1
kX
(Eqn. 1.14)
Total energy of system = total maximum kinetic energy of system = maximum strain
energy of system
2 2
2
1
3 2
1
kX V
m
m
s
,
`
.

+
, where maximum velocity
X x V  
( )
2 2
2
1
3 2
1
kX X
m
m
s
,
`
.

+
(Eqn. 1.15)
eq
s
m
k
m
m
k
(Eqn. 1.16)
Hence,
3
s
eq
m
m m +
(Eqn. 1.17)
Therefore, the equivalent mass can be obtained via addition of a third of spring
mass to body mass which is a good approximation for relatively short spring
oscillating at low frequencies, but at higher frequencies, the natural vibration modes
of the spring are excites causing the linear velocity mode to break down.
(Entwistle2011)
C. Viscous Damping
Every dynamics system will be subjected to damping causing the amplitude to
decay with time, and eventually brought to a halt. Therefore, some energy is lost to
other forms of energy besides the interchanging kinetic and strain energies.
5
Figure 1.5: Model of mass experiencing viscous drag. (Entwistle2011)
In the case of this experiment, viscous damping will be used. A simple model
of a mass affected by viscous drag is shown in Figure 1.5. This viscous drag is
proportional to velocity under laminar fluid flow conditions. This viscous damping is
stated mathematically as:
x q F
, for translational systems
q T
, for torsional systems
Where, q = damping coefficient(N/(ms
1
)) or (Nm/(rad.s
1
))
Firstly, the vibration apparatus set up will resemble the schematic diagram in
Figure 1.6.
Figure 1.6: Schematic diagram of vibration apparatus configuration.
1
The arm is allowed to oscillate freely by pivoting at O with a moment of
inertia of
O
I
about O. A linear dashpot acts tangentially at a distance
a
from O,
while a linear spring acts tangentially at a distance
c
from O. Displacing the arm
from its equilibrium position and allowing it to vibrate freely will result in the
execution of a damped oscillation, as shown in Figure 1.7.
Figure 1.7: Typical time history for a viscously damped oscillation.
Figure 1.8:Vibration apparatus with arm rotated through small angle about O.
In order to attain the rotational spring stiffness,
k
about O, at radius
c
, the
following approach is taken. The arm is rotated through small angle .
3
Therefore, at point where linear spring is tangentially attached, the arm will have
deflection,
c
Thus, incremental tension in spring =
kc
The moment generated by the tension about O,
c kc M
Hence, the equivalent torsional stiffness of the configuration,
2
kc
M
O O
I M
O
I qa kc
2 2
0
2 2
+ +
O O
I
kc
I
qa
(Eqn. 1.18)
Compare Eqn. 1.18 with the standard form,
0 2
2
+ +
N N
:
2 4
2
2
4
O
q a
c I k
(Eqn. 1.19)
O
N
I
kc
2
(Eqn. 1.20)
The frequency of damped vibration will be,
3
,
`
.

2
4 2 2
2
4
1
2
1
1
c kI
a q
I
kc
f f
O O
undamped damped
(Eqn. 1.21)
Recalling the logarithmic decrement,
1
1
2
2
2
ln
1
2
,
`
.

n
o
y
y
n
Solve for
,
( )
2
1
2
1
ln 2 / 2
o n
n
y y
]
+
]
]
(Eqn. 1.22)
Substitute Eqn. 1.22 into Eqn. 1.19,
( )
k I c
a q
y y
n O
n o
2
4 2
2
4
1
2 / 2 ln
2
1
+
]
]
]
( )
1
2 / 2 ln
2
2
2 2
+
]
]
]
n o
O
y y
n
kI
a
c
q
(Eqn. 1.23)
Where
o
y 2
and
n
y 2
are measured from a record of the damped oscillation taken at a
convenient position along the arm in tangential direction, as shown in Figure 1.6.
If
0 q
, Eqn. 1.22 becomes,
O
N
I
k c
f
2
(Eqn. 1.24)
k
f
c
I
N
O
2
2
,
`
.

(Eqn. 1.25)
Substitute Eqn. 1.25 into Eqn. 1.23,
3
( )
2
2
2
1
ln 2 / 2
N
o n
k c
f a
q
n
y y
 `
. ,
]
+
]
]
(Eqn. 1.26)
5
Procedure
A. Spring Stiffness
1. The mass of the10 weights were measured on an electronic digital weighing
scale and recorded in the measured order. The mass displayed was in grams
(g) and was converted to kilograms (kg) during recording.
2. An appropriate mass increment of approximately 0.4 kg and a number of 10
increments has been selected.
3. For the spring in an initial state, the initial length,
o
, of the unloaded spring
was measured with a Vernier Linear Scaleand recorded in millimetres (mm).
4. The first weight measured was loaded onto the spring and the consequent
length,
i
, of the spring was measured with a Vernier Linear Scaleand recorded
in millimetres (mm). The difference between the consequent length and initial
length,
i

o
, will give the deflection of the spring.
5. Subsequent 9 weights corresponding to the measured order was loaded onto
the spring incrementally, while measuring the consequent length between
loadings in similar manner.
6. The recorded data was tabulated and an accurate graph of total force versus
deflection was plotted.
B. Natural Frequency
1. The mass of the spring, m
s
, and the mass of the hanger, m
h
, were measured on
an electronic digital weighing scale and recorded.The mass displayed was in
grams (g) and was converted to kilograms (kg) during recording.
2. The load hanger guide was removed and the digital counter was set up.
3. The first weight measured was loaded onto the spring.
4. Vertical oscillations were induced with amplitude of about 10 mm and the
corresponding 120 cyclesspecifiedin Table 2.2was timed.
5. This method is repeated 6 more times with incrementing weights and the
corresponding number of cycles as stipulated in Table 2.2.
6. The recorded data was tabulated and three sets of data were plotted on the
same axis for a graph of T versus
m
with appropriate scales to have clear
visual of any differences between lines:
1
a. The theoretical relationship which is given by
m
k
T
,
`
.

2
. Using
the spring stiffness, k determined from part A, the slope
,
`
.

k
2
can be
determined. Therefore, the accurate value of T for every value of
m
is known. A continuous line was plotted for the Theoretical Line.
b. The experimental data points, T versus
h i
m m +
was plotted as
Experimental Line 1.
c. The experimental data points, T versus
3
s
h i
m
m m + +
was plotted as
Experimental Line 2.
C. Viscous Damping
1. The vibration apparatus was set up as shown schematically in Figure 1.6 with
oil filled in the dashpot.
2. The distance of
a
and
c
, as shown in Figure1.6 were measured to the nearest
mm using a metric ruler.
3. Oil from the dashpot was drained and the free end of the oscillating arm was
disturbed from the equilibrium position and four stopwatches were used to
measure the time taken for 40 oscillations and 3 of the best times were used
for averaging.
4. The recorded data was tabulated and natural frequency was calculated.
5. Moment of inertia about pivot O,
O
I
was calculated from Eqn. 1.25, using
values for undamped system for 40 cycles.
1
6. The dashpot is refilled and the end of the arm disturbed again about 35mm
from equilibrium and released. A time trace of this oscillation where the
amplitude y verses time for 20 cycles is taken.
7. Damping coefficient, q was calculated from Eqn. 1.26, using values for
damped system for 20 cycles.
15 n
was used for good accuracy.
8. The frequency of the damped free oscillations, f
q
was determined using the
values of k, I
O
, and q.
1
Results
A. Spring Stiffness
i
Total
suspende
d mass,
m
i
(kg)
Total
force, F
i
= m
i
g
(N)
Scale
reading
,
i
(mm)
Deflection
,
Incremen
t in
deflectio
n
i
o
(mm)
mm
0 0 0 25.37 0 0
1 0.39886
3.91281
7
25.47 0.1 0.1
2 0.39728
3.89730
6
25.56 0.19 0.09
3 0.3976
3.90042
9
25.66 0.29 0.1
4 0.40316
3.95497
6
25.76 0.39 0.1
5 0.40281
3.95159
7
25.85 0.48 0.09
6 0.40503
3.97337
2
25.95 0.58 0.1
7 0.40041
3.92797
3
26.05 0.68 0.1
8 0.4014
3.93773
8
26.14 0.77 0.09
9 0.40008
3.92479
9
26.24 0.87 0.1
1
0
0.39963
3.92037
1
26.34 0.97 0.1
Table 2.1:Results for effect of total increment loading of suspended mass on spring
deflection.
Figure 2.1: Plot of force versus deflection. (Refer to Appendix A)
B. Natural Frequency
Total mass of
weights on
hanger, m
i
(kg)
Number of
Cycles, N
Mean time, Period of Oscillation
1
(sec)
0 120 9.5150 0.0793
0.4 90 8.9400 0.0993
0.8 80 9.2275 0.1153
1.2 70 9.2525 0.1322
1.6 60 8.6525 0.1442
2.0 55 8.6325 0.1570
2.4 50 8.3525 0.1671
Table 2.2:Results of time and period for the corresponding masses and cycles.
Mass of the
spring, m
s
(kg)
Mass of the
hanger, m
h
(kg)
k determined in
stiffness test
(N/m)
0.37775 0.47648 4064.41
Total mass of
weights on
hanger, m
i
(kg)
Number of
Cycles, N
Theoretical value
of T (sec)
h i
m m +
(kg)
3
s
h i
m
m m + +
(kg)
0 120 0.0000 0.690 0.776
0.4 90 0.0623 0.936 1.001
0.8 80 0.0882 1.130 1.184
1.2 70 0.1080 1.295 1.343
1.6 60 0.1247 1.441 1.484
2.0 55 0.1394 1.574 1.613
2.4 50 0.1527 1.696 1.733
Table 2.3:Results ofrecorded masses, theoretical values of T and lumped masses for
corresponding values of masses and cycles.
Total mass
of weights
on hanger,
m
i
(kg)
Number
of
Cycles,
N
Period of
oscillation,
N
t
T
(sec)
Theoretical
value of T
(sec)
h i
m m +
(kg)
3
s
h i
m
m m + +
(kg)
0 120 0.0793 0.0000 0.690 0.776
0.4 90 0.0993 0.0623 0.936 1.001
0.8 80 0.1153 0.0882 1.130 1.184
1
(sec)
1.2 70 0.1322 0.1080 1.295 1.343
1.6 60 0.1442 0.1247 1.441 1.484
2.0 55 0.1570 0.1394
1.574 1.613
2.4 50 0.1671 0.1527
1.696 1.733
Table 2.4:Relevant calculated results derived from recorded results.
Figure 2.2: Plot of T versus m. (Refer to Appendix A)
C. Viscous Damping
Number
of
Cycles,
N
Time frequency
, (Hz)
Undampe
d system
40 7.96s 7.796
Damped
System
40 7.
Table 2.5:Results of time, period and frequency for corresponding cycles for damped
and undamped systems.
a (m) c (m)
0.234 0.651
2y
n
(m)
2y0 0.036
2y6 0.011
Table 2.6:Measured distances and maximum & minimum amplitude with
corresponding peak to peak values for cycles along the time trace.
1
Summary of Results
A. Spring Stiffness
By observing the tabulated data in Table 2.1, an obvious trend can be noticed.
The deflection of the spring, (
i
o
) increases as the total suspended mass, m
i
was
incremented.
Furthermore, based on Eqn. 1.1 and the data distribution on the graph, the plot
of force versus deflection, shown in Figure 2.1, reveals that the deflection of the
spring, (
i
o
) is directly proportional to the force applied by the total suspended
mass, F
i
. The slope of the plot is the spring stiffness, k.
B. Natural Frequency
The mean time,
t
is seen to be decreasing as the total mass of weights on
hanger increases and the number of cycles decreases. However, the mean time,
t
for
the first row of data is less than the following mean time,
t
. This is probably due to
the effect of the combination of the total mass of weights on hanger and number of
cycles selected.
From Table 2.2, the period for one complete oscillation, T increases as the
total mass of weights on hanger, m
i
increases. From Table 2.3, the theoretical period
for one oscillation, T increases with increasing total mass of weights on hanger, m
i
as
well.
The last two columns of Table 2.3 depicts the square root of the equivalent
mass for the relevant apparatuses, so it can be applied to Eqn. 1.11 which is derived
from a lump parameter model analysis. This allows the graph of T against
m
to be
plotted based on the theoretical relationship,
m
k
T
,
`
.

2
which is Eqn. 1.11.
1
Table 2.4 is the tabulation of all relevant calculated results obtained from
Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 required for the analysis and discussion for the experiment.
From Figure 2.2, based on Eqn. 1.11, the theoretical and both experimental
data distribution exhibit a linear relationship, with the period of oscillation, T varying
in a directly proportional manner to square root of equivalent mass,
m
.
The slopes for all three trend lines seemalmost comparable. However,
Experimental Line 2 better reflects the theoretical relationship, which deviates
fromthat of the Theoretical Line by0.41%. The slope of Experimental Line 1 has a
larger deviation from the Theoretical Line of 3.73%.
C. Viscous Damping
The damping coefficient, q is found to be 25.06N/(ms
1
). The moment of
inertia has been calculated as 1.72 kgm
2
, while the calculation of the value of the
damping ratio, is 0.00029.
Theradical
2
4 2
4
1
c kI
a q
O
2
2
x x n
y x xy n
M
Where, x = Deflection,
i
o
(m)
y = Total force, F
i
= m
i
g (N)
x y xy x
2
(10
5
)
0 0 0 0
0.001 3.912817 0.003913 0.000001
0.0019 7.806209 0.014832 3.61E06
0.0029 11.70274 0.033938 8.41E06
0.0039 15.65382 0.06105 1.52E05
0.0048 19.60146 0.094087 2.3E05
0.0058 23.57088 0.136711 3.36E05
0.0068 27.49488 0.186965 4.62E05
0.0077 31.42869 0.242001 5.93E05
0.0087 35.34955 0.307541 7.57E05
0.0097 39.266 0.38088 9.41E05
sum 0.0532 215.787 1.461918 0.00036
Table 3.1: Summation of x, y, xy, and x
2
.
1
Substitute appropriate values into the expression to find M:
( ) ( ) ( )
m N M / 08 . 4073
) 0532 . 0 ( 00036 . 0 * 11
787 . 215 * 0532 . 0 461918 . 1 * 11
2
The value calculated is relatively close to the one obtained by plotting on Excel,
4064.4. Hence, it is safe to say that the slope from Excel is reliable as it just deviates
as much as 0.23% from the calculated slope, M. In addition, the least square method
does not take into account the zero yintercept as described by Hookes Law.
According to Eqn. 1.14, larger spring stiffness means a larger capacity to store
strain energy compared to smaller spring stiffness for the same displacement. Based
on Eqn. 1.12, larger spring stiffness contributes to an increase in the frequency of the
system.
It should be noted that although the masses have been measured individually,
there is actually another preferable technique in recording the masses. The masses
could have been lumped together incrementally on the electronic digital weighing
scale in order to reduce the collective error of the individual mass during addition.
B. Natural Frequency
According to Eqn. 1.11, if the equivalent rigid mass, m is increased, the period
of oscillation, T increases as well as shown in Table 2.2, wherethe period of
oscillation, T was increasing with incrementing total mass on hanger. Likewise the
linear relationship from Eqn. 1.11 is reflected in the graph in Figure 2.2 as well.
Mass of the spring has been measured to be almost as large as the mass of the
hanger. Hence, the mass of the spring was significant and the spring can be
considered to be heavy.From the graph in Figure 2.2, by visually analysing the lines
plotted and by comparing the value of the slope, it can be deduced that Experimental
Line 2 which possess the spring mass correction is quite similar compared to the
Theoretical Line.
It is obvious that the spring mass correction skews the plotted line towards a
more favourable result. Therefore, it is imperative that the mass of a heavy spring
should be taken into account in order to obtain a more precise lump parameter model,
which better represents the system dynamics. However, the spring mass correction is
only a viable approximation for a relatively short spring undergoing low frequency
oscillations. (Entwistle2011)
3
The experimental value of T is a good approximation relative to the theoretical
values of T with the largest as can be seen from the results. To improve the
experimental readings taken for time for N oscillations, an electronic digital timer can
be connected to the digital counter to start and stop at an instant,instead of using stop
watches.
During the experiment, the spring performed slight rotations and slight
horizontal oscillations, although a device was installed into the apparatus set up to
limit the degrees of freedom to just vertical oscillations. Hence, not all the energy
initially imparted into the spring was conveyed to the vertical oscillations but some of
the energy was given to produce these other motions. The system is therefore not
restricted to a onedegreeoffreedom. However, the results show that the assumption
of a onedegreeoffreedom model does not affect the overall result much compared to
the spring mass.
C. Viscous Damping
The damping coefficient supplied by the viscosity of the dashpot is 25.06N/
(ms
1
).
This implies that the damping ratio, is smaller than 1, which was verified by
the calculation as 0.00029.
An error analysis was performed on the damping coefficient, q. Firstly, the
measured quantities and the corresponding uncertainties are listed:
i. m= 0.00001kg
ii. io= 0.0002m
iii. t = 0.0005 sec
iv.
m c 001 . 0 651 . 0 t
v.
m a 001 . 0 234 . 0 t
vi.
m y 0001 . 0 036 . 0 2
0
t
vii.
m y 0001 . 0 0011 . 0 2
15
t
3
From the list above, the second (ii.), third (iii.), sixth (vi.) and seventh (vii.)
quantities have undergone their respective additions of uncertainties. For the fourth
(iv.) and fifth (v.) quantities, usually, the uncertainty is taken to half of the smallest
reading on the scale, but due to measuring circumstances, it is safer to assume a larger
uncertainty.
Other values taken into account are:
viii.
2
81 . 9
ms g
ix. N= 40
x.
15 n
The general form to determine the error is written:
'
'
t
) 2 (
) 2 (
) 2 (
) 2 (
) (
) (
15
15
0
0
y d
y
q
y d
y
q
da
a
q
dc
c
q
t d
t
q
d
q
dm
m
q
dq
o i
o i
Performing the differentiations and calculations on maple outputs a result of 3.90N/
(ms
1
). Hence,
1
) /( N 90 . 3 06 . 25
t ms q
.This is a rather large error of 15.5%.
Improvement could be done to increase the accuracy of theexperiment and
decrease the uncertainty associated with the measured quantities such as measuring
the mass by lumps instead of individually and using an electronic digital timer.
Also, viscosity of the oil in the dashpot might be slightly affected by the
energy received from the oscillating system, which will heat it up slightly, and lower
the viscosity. It is also possible that the spring was undergoing hysteretic damping due
to the internal friction when strained. This means that energy was lost as heat for
every oscillating cycle.
It should be noted that although the motion for the damped system was
oscillatory, it was not periodic due to changing amplitudes. The frequency of the
3
damped system was reduced by a factor
2
1
due to the viscous damping effect
provided by the dashpot.
2
Conclusion
Through the implementation of a static deflection test while keeping within
the limit of proportionality of the Hookean helical spring, the spring stiffness, k given
by the slope of the plot in Figure 2.1 was established to be 4064.41 N/m. Through
further utilisation of the method of least square, it can be confirmed that that the
spring stiffness obtained is of valid accuracy.
The mass of the spring in this experiment was relatively heavy when. Hence,
the spring mass should be taken into consideration when modelling a vibrating system
with a heavy spring, using the spring mass correction. This spring mass correction
skews the period of oscillation or frequency attained towards a more precise
description of the real system dynamics.
The damping coefficient, q of the dashpot filled with oil was determined as
25.06N/(ms
1
) with a uncertainty of 3.15N/(ms
1
). The dashpot provided a light
damping effect to the vibrating system, decreasing the amplitude of the motion over a
period of time until the motion stops completely. This implies that the damping ratio,
is smaller than 1, which was verified by the calculation as 0.00029.
The viscous damping of the dashpot has virtually insignificant effects on the
frequency of free oscillations. Hence, if the damping effects on frequency is ignored
when modelling a vibrating system, a relatively reliable result will still be obtained.
However, damping will affect the motion of the oscillation and is important in
controlling resonance peak.
In conclusion, the experiment has shown that the theoretical equations derived
from modelling gives a decent idea of the behaviour of the operating dynamics within
a certain system. Moreover, this shows that the assumptions made during modelling
did not compromise the dynamic nature of the system, but simplified the analysis, as
well as producing straightforward and comprehensible equations.
1
References
Deformation of Solids n.d. Retrieved April 4, 2011 from http://www.ngfl
cymru.org.uk/vtc/ngfl/science/58/solids_under_stress/hookes_law.doc
DiracDelta Science & Engineering Encyclopedian.d. Retrieved April2, 2011 from
http://www.diracdelta.co.uk/science/source/p/r/proportional%20limit/source.html
Encyclopedia Britannica Online n.d.Retireved April3, 2011 from
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article9040985/Hookeslaw
LeastSquares Line, Efunda: Engineering Fundamentals n.d. Retrieved from April 01,
2011 from http://www.efunda.com/math/leastsquares/lstsqr1dcurve.cfm
Dynamic Systems, Entwistle 2011.RetrievedApril2, 2011 from
http://lms.curtin.edu.au/
M6 Hookes Law, Simanek 2004. Retrieved April4, 2011 from
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/labman1/h ooke.htm
1
1
Appendix A: Graphs
Figure 3.1: Plot of force versus deflection.
Figure 3.2: Plot of T versus m.
2
3
Appendix C: Maple Calculations for Error Analysis of Damping
Coefficient
>
4