Session 1: Roving sensor with modal shaker excitation location being fixed.

1. In this session of the experiment, we used the accelerometer to rove by fixing the shaker at
one location. The accelerometer was roving on points 5,6,7 and 8 for measuring the
response of the plate whereas the shaker exciting the plate was fixed at one location (point
11).
Location of shaker

Roving of accelerometer

a. Plot of FRF
 The plot is in log scale. The plot is for three measurements in which one of them is
the direct FRF (excitation at point 11 and response measured at point 11) and the
other two measurements are for cross FRF (responses at points 7 and 8 and excitation
at point 11).
b. The coherence
̅̅̅̅̅
|𝑆 𝑋𝐹 |
2
𝛾2 =
̅ 𝑆𝑋𝑋
𝑆𝐹𝐹 ̅
i. The direct FRF between response at point 11 and excitation at point 11
ii. For cross FRF between the response at point 7 and excitation at point 11
iii. For cross FRF between the response at point 8 and excitation at point 11
 2. Identify three modes which appear to be common:

The three modes which appear to be common (indicated at the plot by the circles) are:
ꙍ1=11.2643Hz (Rigid body mode), ꙍ2=37.5477Hz and ꙍ3=85.108Hz

For ꙍ1 =11.2643Hz, the receptance of FRF has a value of:

𝐻11 |𝜔1 = 3.12𝑥10−3 𝑚/𝑁
From half power analysis:
|𝐻11 | 3.12𝑥10−3 𝑚/𝑁
= = 2.206𝑥10−3 𝑚/𝑁
√2 √2
At this value of FRF, we have two frequency values which are:
ꙍb = 11.125Hz and ꙍa = 11.425Hz
then the loss factor can be calculated using:
𝜔𝑎 − 𝑤𝜔𝑏 11.425 − 11.125
𝜂1 = = = 0.027
𝜔1 11.2643
And the damping ratio will be:
𝜂 0.027
𝜉1 = 1 = = 0.0133
2 2
The stiffness at this mode can be calculated using the relation:
1
𝐻11 |𝜔1 =
2 ∗ 𝑘𝑞 ∗ 𝜉
Then,
 1 1
𝑘1 = = = 12.05𝑥103 𝑁/𝑚
2 ∗ 𝐻11 |𝜔1 ∗ 𝜉1 2 ∗ 3.12𝑥10−3 ∗ 0.0133
The mass of the plate at this mode will be:
𝑘𝑞
𝑚𝑞 = 2
𝜔𝑛
3
𝑘1 12.05𝑥10 12.05𝑥103
𝑚1 = 2 = = = 2.4𝑘𝑔
𝜔1 (2𝑥11.2643𝑥3.14)2 70.7762
And the damping coefficient will be:
𝐶1 = 2𝑥 𝜉1 √𝑘1 𝑚1 = 2𝑥0.0133𝑥√12.05𝑥103 𝑥2.4 = 4.52
Similarly, for ꙍ2 =37.5477Hz, the receptance of FRF has a value of:
𝐻11 |𝜔2 = 6.425𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁
From half power analysis:

|𝐻11 | 6.425𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁

= = 4.543𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁
√2 √2

At this value of FRF, we have two frequency values which are:

ꙍb = 37.375Hz and ꙍa = 37.638Hz
then the loss factor can be calculated using:
𝜔𝑎 − 𝑤𝜔𝑏 37.638 − 37.375
𝜂2 = = = 7.004𝑥10−3
𝜔1 37.5477
And the damping ratio will be:
𝜂1 7.004𝑥10−3
𝜉2 = = = 3.502𝑥10−3
2 2
The stiffness at this mode can be:
1 1
𝑘2 = = = 11.11𝑥105 𝑁/𝑚
2 ∗ 𝐻11 |𝜔2 ∗ 𝜉2 2 ∗ 6.425𝑥10 ∗ 7.004𝑥10−3
−5

The mass of the plate at this mode will be:

𝑘𝑞
𝑚𝑞 = 2
𝜔𝑛
𝑘2 11.11𝑥105
𝑚2 = 2 = = 19.96𝑘𝑔
𝜔2 (2𝑥37.5477𝑥3.14)2
And the damping coefficient will be:
𝐶2 = 2𝑥 𝜉2 √𝑘2 𝑚2 = 2𝑥3.502𝑥10−3 𝑥√11.11𝑥105 𝑥19.96 = 60.51

Then for ꙍ3 =85.108Hz, the receptance of FRF has a value of:

𝐻11 |𝜔3 = 2.82𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁
From half power analysis:

|𝐻11 | 6.425𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁

= = 1.994𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁
√2 √2

At this value of FRF, we have two frequency values which are:

ꙍb = 82.087Hz and ꙍa = 89.65Hz
then the loss factor can be calculated using:
𝜔𝑎 − 𝑤𝜔𝑏 89.65 − 82.087
𝜂3 = = = 0.088
𝜔1 85.108
And the damping ratio will be:
 𝜂1 0.88
𝜉3 = = = 0.044
2 2

The stiffness at this mode can be:

1 1
𝑘3 = = = 4.03𝑥105 𝑁/𝑚
2 ∗ 𝐻11 |3 ∗ 𝜉3 2 ∗ 2.82𝑥10 ∗ 0.044
−5

The mass of the plate at this mode will be:

𝑘𝑞
𝑚𝑞 = 2
𝜔𝑛
2 4.03𝑥105
𝑚3 = 2 = = 1.4𝑘𝑔
𝜔3 (2𝑥85.108𝑥3.14)2
And the damping coefficient will be:
𝐶3 = 2𝑥 𝜉3 √𝑘3 𝑚3 = 2𝑥0.044𝑥√4.03𝑥105 𝑥1.4 = 66.10
a. The extracted parameters for modes that are common

modes Natural Damping Modal Modal Damping

frequency (Hz) ratio stiffness (N/m) mass (kg) coefficient
1 11.26 0.0133 12.05x103 2.4 4.52
2 37.54 0.0035 11.11x105 19.96 60.51
3 85.108 0.088 4.03x105 1.4 66.10

b. The Eigenvectors (Shape) can be found by:

4
∅𝑗𝑟 ∅𝑘𝑟
𝐻𝑗𝑘 = ∑
−𝜔 2 + 𝑖2𝜉𝑟 𝜔𝑛𝑟 𝜔 + 𝜔𝑛𝑟 2
𝑟=1
Then, Our Measured
𝐻7−7 𝐻7−8 𝐻7−11 FRF
𝐻 = [ 𝐻8−7 𝐻8−8 𝐻8−11 ]
𝐻11−7 𝐻11−8 𝐻11−11
From our measured FRF data we have H7_11, H8_11 and H11_11
Then the mode shapes will have the form:
Ф7_1 Ф7_2 Ф7_3
Ф = [ Ф8_1 Ф8_2 Ф8_3 ]
Ф11_1 Ф11_2 Ф11_3
Using the relation;
∅7_1 ∅11_1 ∅7_2 ∅11_2 ∅7_3 ∅11_3
𝐻7_11 = + +
−𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉1 𝜔𝑛1 𝜔+𝜔𝑛1 2
2 −𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉2 𝜔𝑛2 𝜔+𝜔𝑛2 2
2 −𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉3 𝜔𝑛3 𝜔+𝜔𝑛3 2
2

(1.1)
∅8_1 ∅11_1 ∅8_2 ∅11_2 ∅8_3 ∅11_3
𝐻8_11 = + +
−𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉1 𝜔𝑛1 𝜔+𝜔𝑛1 2
2 −𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉2 𝜔𝑛2 𝜔+𝜔𝑛2 2
2 −𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉3 𝜔𝑛3 𝜔+𝜔𝑛3 2
2

(1.2)
and
∅11_1 2 ∅11_2 2 ∅11_3 2
𝐻11_11 = + +
−𝜔2 +𝑖2𝜉1 𝜔𝑛1 𝜔+𝜔𝑛1 2 −𝜔2 +𝑖2𝜉2 𝜔𝑛2 𝜔+𝜔𝑛2 2 −𝜔2 +𝑖2𝜉3 𝜔𝑛3 𝜔+𝜔𝑛3 2
(1.3)

When 𝜔 = 𝜔𝑛1 , 𝜔 = 𝜔𝑛2 , and 𝜔 = 𝜔𝑛3 , from equation (1.3) we have

 2
∅ ∅11_2 2
|𝐻11_11 |𝜔=𝜔 = 𝑖2𝜉11_1
𝜔 2
and |𝐻11_11 |𝜔=𝜔 =
𝑖2𝜉2 𝜔𝑛2 2
and |𝐻11_11 |𝜔=𝜔 =
1 1 𝑛1 2 3
2
∅11_3
𝑖2𝜉3 𝜔𝑛3 2
Then
∅11_1 = √𝐻11_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉1 𝜔1 2 = √3.12𝑥10−3 𝑥2𝑥0.0133𝑥11.262 =0.1025
∅11_2 = √𝐻11_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉2 𝜔2 2 = √6.449𝑥10−5 𝑥2𝑥0.0035𝑥37.542 = 0.025
∅11_3 = √𝐻11_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉3 𝜔3 2 = √2.84𝑥10−5 𝑥2𝑥0.088𝑥85.1082 = 0.1902
From equation (1.2) we have:
𝐻8_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉1 𝑥𝜔1 2 4.62𝑥10−3 𝑥2𝑥0.0133𝑥11.262
∅8_1 = = = 0.152
∅11_1 0.1025
𝐻8_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉2 𝑥𝜔2 2 7.97𝑥10−5 𝑥2𝑥0.0035𝑥37.542
∅8_2 = = = 0.031
∅11_2 0.025
𝐻8_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉2 𝑥𝜔3 2 2.48𝑥10−5 𝑥2𝑥0.088𝑥85.1082
∅8_3 = = = 0.166
∅11_3 0.1902
From equation (1.1) we have:
𝐻7_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉1 𝑥𝜔1 2 1.264𝑥10−4 𝑥2𝑥0.0133𝑥11.262
∅7_1 = = = 0.0414
∅11_1 0.1025
𝐻7_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉2 𝑥𝜔2 2 5.82𝑥10−5 𝑥2𝑥0.0035𝑥37.542
∅7_2 = = = 0.023
∅11_2 0.025
𝐻7_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉3 𝑥𝜔3 2 1.735𝑥10−5 𝑥2𝑥0.088𝑥85.1082
∅7_3 = = = 0.116
∅11_3 0.1902
Then
0.0414 0.023 0.116
Ф = [ 0.152 0.031 0.166 ]
0.1025 0.025 0.1902
 Session 2: Roving hammer with accelerometer location being fixed
1. In this session of our experiment, the hammer was roved to apply impact load on
points 5,6,7 and 8 whereas the accelerometer was fixed at one location (point 11).

Roving of hammer accelerometer

1a. Plot of measured FRFs

1b. Contrast of the FRFs of this session with session 1:

i. The contrast of FRF for response at point 7 and excitation at point 11 from session
1 with response at point 11 and excitation at point 7 from session 2

ii. The contrast of FRF for response at point 8 and excitation at point 11 from session
1with response at point 11 and excitation at point 8 from session 2
iii. The contrast of FRF for response at point 11 and excitation at point 11 from
session 1 with response at point 11 and excitation at point 11 from session 2
Comments on the difference and similarity:
From cross FRF of points 7 &11 and points 8 & 11, we can observe that there are differences
in their FRFs. This is due to the type of excitation we use for our measurement. In session 1,
we use shaker and this causes more noise in the measurement and in session 2 we have
hammer as an excitation and due to application of impact load only we have a clear FRF
graphs.
The direct FRF graphs of session 1 and session 2 has almost the same values with in the
working range of accelerometer (20Hz to 300Hz).

2. The modes that are common for the different measured FRFs:

The three modes which appear to be common (indicated at the plot by the circles) are:
ꙍ1=10.24Hz (Rigid body mode), ꙍ2=38.4Hz and ꙍ3=87.04Hz

For ꙍ1 =10.24Hz, the receptance of FRF has a value of:

𝐻11 |𝜔1 = 8.323𝑥10−4 𝑚/𝑁
From half power analysis:
|𝐻11 | 8.323𝑥10−4 𝑚/𝑁
= = 5.88𝑥10−4 𝑚/𝑁
√2 √2
At this value of FRF, we have two frequency values which are:
ꙍb = 8.455Hz and ꙍa = 12.88Hz
then the loss factor can be calculated using:
𝜔𝑎 − 𝑤𝜔𝑏 12.88 − 8.45
𝜂1 = = = 0.4326
𝜔1 10.24
And the damping ratio will be:
𝜂1 0.027
𝜉1 = = = 0.216
2 2
The stiffness at this mode can be calculated using the relation:
1
𝐻11 |𝜔1 =
2 ∗ 𝑘𝑞 ∗ 𝜉
Then,
1 1
𝑘1 = = = 2.7𝑥103 𝑁/𝑚
2 ∗ 𝐻11 |𝜔1 ∗ 𝜉1 2 ∗ 8.323𝑥10−4 𝑥0.216
The mass of the plate at this mode will be:
𝑘𝑞
𝑚𝑞 = 2
𝜔𝑛
𝑘1 2.7𝑥103 12.05𝑥103
𝑚1 = 2 = = = 0.65𝑘𝑔
𝜔1 (2𝑥10.24𝑥3.14)2 64.34
And the damping coefficient will be:
𝐶1 = 2𝑥 𝜉1 √𝑘1 𝑚1 = 2𝑥0.0133𝑥√12.05𝑥103 0.65 =23.54
Similarly, for ꙍ2 =38.4Hz, the receptance of FRF has a value of:
𝐻11 |𝜔2 = 2.00143𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁
From half power analysis:

|𝐻11 | 2.00143𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁

= = 1.415𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁
√2 √2

At this value of FRF, we have two frequency values which are:

ꙍb = 37.6Hz and ꙍa = 39.4Hz
then the loss factor can be calculated using:
𝜔𝑎 − 𝑤𝜔𝑏 39.4 − 37.6
𝜂2 = = = 0.047
𝜔1 38.4
And the damping ratio will be:
𝜂 0.047
𝜉2 = 1 = = 0.0235
2 2
The stiffness at this mode can be:
1 1
𝑘2 = = = 10.63𝑥105 𝑁/𝑚
2 ∗ 𝐻11 |𝜔2 ∗ 𝜉2 2 ∗ 2.00143𝑥10−5 ∗ 0.0235
The mass of the plate at this mode will be:
𝑘𝑞
𝑚𝑞 = 2
𝜔𝑛
𝑘2 10.63𝑥105
𝑚2 = 2 = = 18.26𝑘𝑔
𝜔2 (2𝑥38.4𝑥3.14)2
And the damping coefficient will be:
𝐶2 = 2𝑥 𝜉 √𝑘2 𝑚2 = 2𝑥0.0235𝑥 √10.63𝑥105 𝑥18.26 =
2

Then for ꙍ3 =87.04Hz, the receptance of FRF has a value of:

𝐻11 |𝜔3 = 3.12𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁
From half power analysis:

|𝐻11 | 3.12𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁

= = 2.206𝑥10−5 𝑚/𝑁
√2 √2
At this value of FRF, we have two frequency values which are:
ꙍb = 83.58Hz and ꙍa = 90.415Hz
then the loss factor can be calculated using:
𝜔𝑎 − 𝑤𝜔𝑏 90.415 − 83.58
𝜂3 = = = 0.0785
𝜔1 87.04
And the damping ratio will be:
𝜂 0.88
𝜉3 = 1 = = 0.0393
2 2

The stiffness at this mode can be:

1 1
𝑘3 = = = 4.077𝑥105 𝑁/𝑚
2 ∗ 𝐻11 3 ∗ 𝜉3
| 2 ∗ 3.12𝑥10 −5 ∗ 0.0393
The mass of the plate at this mode will be:
𝑘𝑞
𝑚𝑞 = 2
𝜔𝑛
2 4.077𝑥105
𝑚3 = 2 = = 1.36𝑘𝑔
𝜔3 (2𝑥87.04𝑥3.14)2
And the damping coefficient will be:
𝐶3 = 2𝑥𝜉3 √𝑘3 𝑚3 = 2𝑥0.044𝑥 √4.077𝑥105 𝑥1.36 = 65.5
a. The extracted parameters for modes that are common

modes Natural Damping Modal Modal Damping

frequency (Hz) ratio stiffness (N/m) mass (kg) coefficient
1
2
3

b. The Eigenvectors (Shape) can be found by:

4
∅𝑗𝑟 ∅𝑘𝑟
𝐻𝑗𝑘 = ∑
−𝜔 2 + 𝑖2𝜉𝑟 𝜔𝑛𝑟 𝜔 + 𝜔𝑛𝑟 2
𝑟=1
Then,
𝐻7−7 𝐻7−8 𝐻7−11
𝐻 = [ 𝐻8−7 𝐻8−8 𝐻8−11 ]
𝐻11−7 𝐻11−8 𝐻11−11
From our measured FRF data we have H7_11, H8_11 and H11_11
Then the mode shapes will have the form:
Ф7_1 Ф7_2 Ф7_3
Ф = [ Ф8_1 Ф8_2 Ф8_3 ]
Ф11_1 Ф11_2 Ф11_3
Using the relation;
∅7_1 ∅11_1 ∅7_2 ∅11_2 ∅7_3 ∅11_3
𝐻7_11 = + +
−𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉1 𝜔𝑛1 𝜔+𝜔𝑛1 2
2 −𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉2 𝜔𝑛2 𝜔+𝜔𝑛2 2
2 −𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉3 𝜔𝑛3 𝜔+𝜔𝑛3 2
2

(1.1)
∅8_1 ∅11_1 ∅8_2 ∅11_2 ∅8_3 ∅11_3
𝐻8_11 = + +
−𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉1 𝜔𝑛1 𝜔+𝜔𝑛1 2
2 −𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉2 𝜔𝑛2 𝜔+𝜔𝑛2 2
2 −𝜔 +𝑖2𝜉3 𝜔𝑛3 𝜔+𝜔𝑛3 2
2

(1.2)
and
∅11_1 2 ∅11_2 2 ∅11_3 2
𝐻11_11 = + +
−𝜔2 +𝑖2𝜉1 𝜔𝑛1 𝜔+𝜔𝑛1 2 −𝜔2 +𝑖2𝜉2 𝜔𝑛2 𝜔+𝜔𝑛2 2 −𝜔2 +𝑖2𝜉3 𝜔𝑛3 𝜔+𝜔𝑛3 2
(1.3)

When 𝜔 = 𝜔𝑛1 , 𝜔 = 𝜔𝑛2 , and 𝜔 = 𝜔𝑛3 , from equation (1.3) we have

∅11_1 2 ∅11_2 2
|𝐻11_11 |𝜔=𝜔 = 2
and |𝐻11_11 |𝜔=𝜔 = and |𝐻11_11 |𝜔=𝜔 =
1 𝑖2𝜉1 𝜔𝑛1 2 𝑖2𝜉2 𝜔𝑛2 2 3
∅11_3 2
𝑖2𝜉3 𝜔𝑛3 2
Then

∅11_1 = √𝐻11_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉1 𝜔1 2 = √

∅11_2 = √𝐻11_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉2 𝜔2 2 = √

∅11_3 = √𝐻11_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉3 𝜔3 2 = √

From equation (1.2) we have:
𝐻8_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉1 𝑥𝜔1 2
∅8_1 = =
∅11_1
𝐻8_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉2 𝑥𝜔2 2
∅8_2 = =
∅11_2
𝐻8_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉2 𝑥𝜔3 2
∅8_3 = =
∅11_3
From equation (1.1) we have:
𝐻7_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉1 𝑥𝜔1 2
∅7_1 = =
∅11_1
𝐻7_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉2 𝑥𝜔2 2
∅7_2 = =
∅11_2
𝐻7_11 𝑥2𝑥𝜉3 𝑥𝜔3 2
∅7_3 = =
∅11_3
Then

Ф=[ ]

Session 3: Machine tool testing using an impact hammer and an actuator

a. Testing using a modal hammer and accelerometer

We have the measured data for the time, excitation force and acceleration of the response.
Then the FRF can be computed:
𝑥(𝜔)
𝐻(𝜔) =
𝐹(𝜔)
Since the data we have are in time domain, we have to change in to frequency domain using
Fourier transform.
 b. Testing using an actuator and an accelerometer
1. Computing and plot of FRF(X/V)
𝑥(𝜔)
𝐻(𝜔) =
𝑉(𝜔)
BY using Fourier transform and plotting on MATLAB, we have the above FRF(X/V) as
follows:
Computing the Sensitivity of the actuator:

By taking the average of the ratio of (X/F) and (X/V), I found the sensitivity of actuator (Sa)
as:
𝑆𝑎 = 1.5169𝑥10−4 𝑉/𝑁 = 0.152𝑚𝑉/𝑁
 2. Plotting the FRF after computing sensitivity:

Comment on the difference:

The difference may be due to the reasons
 lack of windowing;
 personal error (excitation, calculation, etc.) or
 excitation of the structure at different locations such as at the tool holder (which is
difficult to get accurate measurement) and at the base of the structure (spendle).
Bonus part:
I used hanning window. Then the FRF Becomes:
Then the sensitivity will be:
𝑆𝑎 = 3.8700𝑥10−3 𝑚𝑉/𝑁

The FRF found after windowing helps to visualize the graph with a better comparison. The
FRF found by testing of machine tool using modal hammer and accelerometer have almost
the same shape of receptance with that of testing machine tool using actuator and
accelerometer.