2DOF (Constrained):-

The mass of the Tuned Mass Damper was determined to be 0.645 kg. The values of spring
stiffness parameters k2 and k3 are 408 N/m and 100 N/m respectively. The natural frequency of
the TMD system was calculated using mat lab. The code for the calculation of the natural
frequency are shown in appendix B. The values for the natural frequency are 5.8623 Hz and
3.9223 Hz.
SDOF Frequency response:-
(Figure (1)-Appendix-B)
2DOF Frequency response (constrained) (figure (3)-Appendix-B):-
The TMD reduces the amplitude of vibration of the system. It can be observed in the
graph of SDOF system (figure (1)-Appendix-B) that the amplitude of vibration of the primary
system is 20 mm whereas the displacement of the primary system in the 2DOF unconstrained
system is 6mm. This illustrates the damping effect of the mass damper (m2) on the system.
Using the damper in this configuration reduces the amplitude and thus reduces the chance of
structural failure caused by a high amplitude. However the distance between the peaks is less,
which means that the probability of the system vibrating at those frequencies is higher and thus
more prone to vibrating at high amplitudes. Moreover, the vibration of the secondary system is
very high which may destabilize the system. Looking at the graphs it can be ascertained that the
main advantage of the constrained mass damper would be high damping effect as compared to
the unconstrained system, whereas the main disadvantage would be the low distance between
peaks for the frequency response.
In order to tackle the above problem we can make changes to the system
parameters like the spring stiffness (k), the damping coefficient (b) and also the mass (m2) of the
mass damper. Moving on to the mass of the damper m2, it is observed that increasing m2
increases the difference between the peaks of the frequency response. The following graphs
illustrate these two effects.
M=0.645 kg; k2 =408 N/m; k3 =100 N/m
(Figure (2)-Appendix-B)
M=0.9 kg; k2 =408 N/m; k3 100 N/m
(Figure (4)-Appendix-B)
It can be seen in the graph that as the m2 was increased from 0.645 kg to 0.9 kg the distance
between the peaks on the x-axis increased. In this the problem of the peak being too close can be
negated
2 DOF (Unconstrained):-
The mass of the Tuned Mass Damper was determined to be 0.645 kg. The values of spring
stiffness parameters k2 is 408 N/m The natural frequency of the TMD system was calculated
using mat lab. The code for the calculation of the natural frequency are shown in appendix B.
The values for the natural frequency are 5.5581 Hz and 3.3823 Hz
2DOF Frequency response:-
(Figure (5)-Appendix-B)
The TMD reduces the amplitude of vibration of the primary system. However, there is a side-
effect of the mass damper. It results in high amplitude of vibration for the secondary system. The
percentage reduction of amplitude by the unconstrained TMD is less than the constrained TMD.
However, the distance between the peaks of the frequency response graphs is more. Thus in this
setup the 2DOF system is less prone to vibrating at frequencies resulting in high amplitudes, but
the damping effect is reduced. Moreover the distance between the peaks is more as compared to
the constrained TMD, which means that the probability of the system vibrating at those
frequencies is lesser and thus less prone to vibrating at high amplitudes. Moreover, the vibration
of the secondary system is very high which may destabilize the system. In conclusion the main
advantage of a unconstrained damper would higher difference in peaks of the frequency response
as compared to the constrained system. However, the disadvantages this setup presents is high
amplitude of the secondary system and lower damping effect as compared to the constrained
system.
In order to tackle the above problems we can make changes to the system parameters like
the spring stiffness (k), the damping coefficient (b) and also the mass (m2) of the mass damper.
Through trial and error it was found that increasing the spring stiffness of k2 increased the peaks
of the constrained system. So in order to counteract the high amplitude of the secondary system,
the spring stiffness k2 and should be reduced. The following graphs illustrate these effects.
M=0.645 kg; k2 =408 N/m; k3 =100 N/m
(Figure (6)-Appendix-B)
M=0.9 kg; k2 =500N/m;
(Figure (7)-Appendix-B)
It can be seen from the graph that as the k2 is increased to 500 N/m from 408 N/m the peaks
shoot up. Thus for more effective damping the value of k2 should be reduced.
Investigation Results:
The TMD is preferred over a vibration absorber as TMD has a damper which negates the large
amplitude of vibration of the absorber, thus maintaining structural integrity.
From the graphs in Figure (3) and (5) in Appendix-B, it can observed that the experimental data
graphs did not represent the theoretical values well. For the constrained system, the experimental
peak frequencies were much higher than the theoretical peaks. Moreover, for the unconstrained
system both the upsweep and downsweep peaks were attained before the theoretical peaks. The
reasons for this arise from the various approximations we make about a non-linear system to
linearize it. Furthermore, the number of data points taken for the experiment may not have been
enough to represent a smooth graph.
The unconstrained TMD is good for damping out high vibrations of the primary system.
Thus applications where high damping effect is needed the unconstrained TMD should be used.
It can be seen from the experimental frequency responses of the unconstrained and constrained
TMDs, that the amplitude of the primary system was reduced from 30 mm in 1DOF system to
9.5 mm in the constrained TMD, whereas the amplitude decreased to 9 mm in the unconstrained
system. However unconstrained TMDs, do have a side effect. The amplitude of vibration of the
secondary system is pretty high, which can cause unwanted trembling of the system. This can
cause structural failure. In cases where stability of the system is given preference over damping,
the constrained TMD should be used.
The non-linear systems should not be avoided at all a costs. A non-linear has more
controllable parameters, which gives the designer more control over its response. The multiple
excitation frequencies can be leveraged makes for higher range of frequencies at which it can be
operated on. A non-linear system gives a much better approximation of the real world systems.

















Appendix B:-
Code for all the experimental and simulated graphs:-
cl c
cl ear
f or mat compact
%si mul at ed f r equency r esponse
%al l SI uni t s

omega=l i nspace( 0, ( 20*pi ) , 100) ;
f r eq=omega. / ( 2*pi ) ;
s=t f ( ' s' ) ;
s=1i *omega;
m1=2. 433;
m2=. 645;
k1=2*1058;
k2=408;
k3=100;
omegan=19. 53; %r ad/ s
b1=. 841;
b2=. 485;
b3=. 76;

%For 1DOF sys

t f 1= 1. / ( m1*s. ^2+b1*s+k1) ;
M1= abs( t f 1) ;
%pl ot t i ng si mul at ed f r equency r esponse f or SDOF syst em
f i gur e( 1)
pl ot ( f r eq, M1*1000) ;
t i t l e( ' Si ngl e Degr ee of Fr eedomSyst emFr equency Response' ) ;
xl abel ( ' Omega ( Hz) ' ) ;
yl abel ( ' Ampl i t ude ( mm) ' ) ;
gr i d on

%For 2DOF sys unconst r ai ned
t f 2p= ( m2*s. ^2+b2*s+k2) . / ( ( m1*s. ^2+( b1+b2) *s+k1+k2) . *( m2*s. ^2+b2*s+k2) -
( b2*s+k2) . ^2) ; %pr i mar y syst em
t f 2s=( b2. *s+k2) . / ( ( m1*s. ^2+( b1+b2) *s+k1+k2) . *( m2*s. ^2+b2*s+k2) - ( b2*s+k2) . ^2) ;
%secondar y syst em
%magni t ude
M2p=abs( t f 2p) ;
M2s=abs( t f 2s) ;
%pl ot t i ng si mul at ed f r equency r esponse f or 2DOF unconst r ai ned syst em
f i gur e( 2)
pl ot ( f r eq, M2p*1000, f r eq, M2s*1000, ' r ' ) ;
t i t l e( ' Two Degr ee of Fr eedomSyst emFr equency Response Unconst r ai ned' ) ;
xl abel ( ' Omega ( Hz) ' ) ;
yl abel ( ' Ampl i t ude ( mm) ' ) ;
gr i d on
l egend( ' Pr i mar y syst em' , ' Secondar y syst em' )

%For 2DOF sys const r ai ned
t f 3p=
( m2. *s. ^2+( b3+b2) . *s+( k3+k2) ) . / ( ( m1. *s. ^2+( b2+b1) . *s+( k2+k1) ) . *( m2. *s. ^2+( b3+
b2) . *s+k3+k2) - ( - b2. *s- k2) . ^2) ; %pr i mar y syst em
t f 3s=
( b2. *s+k2) . / ( ( m1. *s. ^2+( b2+b1) . *s+( k2+k1) ) . *( m2. *s. ^2+( b3+b2) . *s+k3+k2) - ( -
b2. *s- k2) . ^2) ; %secondar y syst em
%magni t ude
M3p= abs( t f 3p) ;
M3s=abs( t f 3s) ;
%pl ot t i ng si mul at ed f r equency r esponse f or 2DOF const r ai ned syst em
f i gur e( 3)
pl ot ( f r eq, M3p*1000, f r eq, M3s*1000, ' r ' ) ;
t i t l e( ' Two Degr ee of Fr eedomSyst emFr equency Response Const r ai ned' ) ;
xl abel ( ' Omega ( Hz) ' ) ;
yl abel ( ' Ampl i t ude ( mm) ' ) ;
gr i d on
l egend( ' Pr i mar y syst em' , ' Secondar y syst em' )

%Exper i ment al f r equency r esponse
%SDOF
x1=[ 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 48, 56, 64, 72, 80] ;
y1=[ 252. 5, 322. 5, 345, 498. 75, 656. 25, 1493. 75, 2081. 25, 1631. 25, 1305, 927. 5, 820, 757.
5, 562. 5, 472. 5, 535, 597. 5, 587. 5] ;
f i gur e( 4)
pl ot ( x1. / 8, y1*. 0137, f r eq, M1*1000, ' r ' )
t i t l e( ' Fr equency r esponse f or SDOF syst em' )
xl abel ( ' Omega ( Hz) ' ) ;
yl abel ( ' Ampl i t ude ( mm) ' ) ;
l egend( ' Exper i ment al SDOF' , ' Si mul at ed SDOF' )
gr i d on

%2DOF const r ai ned
x2=[ 0 8 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 56 64 72 80] ;
y2=[ 0 268. 275 341. 775 344. 225 351. 57 366. 275 369. 95 359. 1 280. 35 287. 7 231
215. 1 203. 275 223. 25 377. 175 500. 55 629. 2 638 596. 2 572 519. 2 550 565. 4 554. 4
525. 8 499. 4 459. 8 532. 4 506 558. 8 574. 2 552. 2 536. 8 547. 8 457. 6 495 563. 5
514. 5 455. 7] ;
f i gur e( 5)
pl ot ( x2. / 8, y2*. 0137, f r eq, M3p*1000, ' r ' )
t i t l e( ' Fr equency r esponse f or 2DOF const r ai ned syst em' )
xl abel ( ' Omega ( Hz) ' ) ;
yl abel ( ' Ampl i t ude ( mm) ' ) ;
l egend( ' Exper i ment al 2DOF const r ai ned syst em' , ' Si mul at ed 2DOF const r ai ned
syst em' )
gr i d on

%2DOF unconst r ai ned
x3=[ 0 8 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 56 64 72 80] ;
y3u=[ 0 265 380 360 365 297. 5 232. 5 250 272. 5 202. 5 197. 5 210 205 232. 5 270
242. 5 245 240 260 272. 5 325 350 372. 5 377. 5 430 512. 5 545 720 665 610 612. 5
575 592. 5 532. 5 527. 5 565 602. 5 540 517. 5] ;
y3d=[ 0 167. 5 395 420 407. 5 365 282. 5 337. 5 310 260 255 231 197 214 238 307
320 354 365 404. 4 390 515. 75 493. 75 466. 25 567. 6 587. 4 594 717. 5 730 625 620
577. 5 630 592. 5 595 502. 5 437. 5 585 492. 5] ;
f i gur e( 6)
pl ot ( x3. / 8, y3u*. 0137, x3. / 8, y3d*. 0137, ' g' , f r eq, M2p*1000, ' r ' )
t i t l e( ' Fr equency r esponse f or 2DOF unconst r ai ned syst em' )
xl abel ( ' Omega ( Hz) ' ) ;
yl abel ( ' Ampl i t ude ( mm) ' ) ;
l egend( ' Exper i ment al 2DOF unconst r ai ned syst em( upsweep) ' , ' Exper i ment al 2DOF
unconst r ai ned syst em( downsweep) ' , ' Si mul at ed 2DOF unconst r ai ned syst em' )
gr i d on


Code for calculation of natural frequencies of the constrained TMD:-
cl c
cl ear
f or mat compact
k1=2*1058
k2=439
k3=94. 9

m1=2. 43
m2=. 585

K=[ k1+k2 - k2; - k2 k2+k3]
M=[ m1 0; 0 m2]

[ U, D] =ei g( pi nv( M) *K)

l amba1=D( 1, 1) ;
l amba2=D( 2, 2) ;

omega1=sqr t ( l amba1) ;
omega2=sqr t ( l amba2) ;

f r eq1=omega1/ ( 2*pi )
f r eq2=omega2/ ( 2*pi )

Code for calculation of natural frequencies of the unconstrained TMD:-
cl c
cl ear
f or mat compact
k1=2*1058
k2=408
k3=94. 9

m1=2. 43
m2=. 645

K=[ k1+k2 - k2; - k2 k2]
M=[ m1 0; 0 m2]

[ U, D] =ei g( pi nv( M) *K)

l amba1=D( 1, 1) ;
l amba2=D( 2, 2) ;

omega1=sqr t ( l amba1) ;
omega2=sqr t ( l amba2) ;

f r eq1=omega1/ ( 2*pi )
f r eq2=omega2/ ( 2*pi )


Figure (1)


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency response for SDOF system
Omega (Hz)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)

Experimental SDOF
Simulated SDOF
Figure (2)

Figure (3)

Figure (4)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Frequency response for 2DOF constrained system
Omega (Hz)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)

Experimental 2DOF constrained system
Simulated 2DOF constrained system
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Two Degree of Freedom System Simulated Frequency Response Constrained
Omega (Hz)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)

Primary system
Secondary system

Figure (5)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Two Degree of Freedom System Simulated Frequency Response Constrained
Omega (Hz)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)

Primary system
Secondary system
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Frequency response for 2DOF unconstrained system
Omega (Hz)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)

Experimental 2DOF unconstrained system (upsweep)
Experimental 2DOF unconstrained system (downsweep)
Simulated 2DOF unconstrained system
Figure (6)


Figure (7)


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
Two Degree of Freedom System Frequency Response Unconstrained
Omega (Hz)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)

Primary system
Secondary system
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Two Degree of Freedom System Frequency Response Unconstrained
Omega (Hz)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)

Primary system
Secondary system