10.3.3 Material damping and complex moduli

Material damping associated with small-amplitude vibration can be analysed by making use of a result known, rather grandly, as the correspondence principle of linear viscoelasticity (see for example the textbook by Bland [1]. This principle can be described as follows. For any harmonic response problem, at a frequency ω, first solve the undamped problem. Now look to see where elastic moduli enter the solution (such as Young’s modulus E, or the plate stiffnesses D1D4 introduced in section 10.3.2). The corresponding damped problem is solved simply by replacing them with suitable complex values. So, for example, you would replace E with E(1+iηE). Naturally enough, such things are called “complex moduli”. We have already met this idea briefly, back in section 5.4.4 when we were talking about damping in strings, but now we will use it more systematically.

The result is that the resonance frequencies predicted by the analysis become complex numbers. So for example free vibration which for the undamped problem varied like eiωt might now vary like

(1)ei(ω+iΔ)t=eiωteΔt

It is clear that this has achieved the desired effect: the oscillation at frequency ω now decays exponentially at a rate determined by the imaginary part of the frequency, Δ.

If material damping is small, as it usually is in vibration problems, we can use Rayleigh’s principle together with the viscoelastic correspondence principle to find out how the damping varies from mode to mode of a system. Suppose that we know the expressions for the kinetic and potential energies of the system (without damping). Elastic moduli will usually come into the potential energy, but not into the kinetic energy. Either analytically or, more likely, numerically we calculate the first few modes of the undamped system. Now:

(i) The correspondence principle says that to solve the damped problem we replace elastic moduli in the expression for potential energy with complex moduli. For small damping these will only have small imaginary parts.

(ii) Rayleigh’s principle says that given an approximation to a mode shape we can get a rather good approximation to its natural frequency by evaluating the Rayleigh quotient. The modes of the damped system will be slightly different from the modes of the undamped system, but the undamped mode shapes will still give a good approximation. So we evaluate the Rayleigh quotient using the true expression for the potential energy, with complex moduli, but with the approximate expression for mode shape from the undamped calculation. This gives a good approximation to the complex natural frequency, and hence to the modal damping factor.

For a first example of applying this idea, think about beam vibration. We already know from section 3.3.1 that for a bending beam with displacement w(x,t), bending stiffness EI and mass per unit length m, the potential energy is

(2)V=12EI(2wx2)2dx

and the kinetic energy is

(3)T=12m(wt)2dx.

The only elastic modulus entering here is Young’s modulus E. With material damping we can replace this with E(1+iηE). The factor ηE may vary with frequency, but for the purposes of this approximate calculation we can evaluate it at the undamped natural frequency ωn corresponding to mode shape wn(x). The Rayleigh quotient, from equations (2) and (3), gives

(4)ω2E(1+iηE)IEI(2wnx2)2dxmwn2dx=(1+iηE)ωn2

because this expression apart from the factor (1+iηE) is the Rayleigh quotient for the undamped problem, which is equal to ωn2.

So the time dependence of a free vibration in this mode is

(5)eiωnteηEωnt/2.

From the definition of Q-factor, the value for this mode is

(6)Qn1ηE.

All modes of this beam will have the same Q-factor, except that the material property ηE may vary with frequency, but such variation is usually only slow. If you measure damping as well as frequency in a beam test like the ones described in section 10.3.1, that will immediately give the value of ηE for the direction aligned with your beam.

Now we can apply the approach to the damping of a wooden plate. We start from the expressions for potential and kinetic energy, from section 10.3.2:

V=12h3[D1(2wx2)2+D22wx22wy2

(7)+D3(2wy2)2+D4(2wxy)2]dxdy

and

(8)T=12ρhw2dxdy

where w(x,y) is the displacement of the plate, h is the thickness, D1D4 are the four stiffness constants and ρ is the density.

Once we introduce damping, all four of the stiffness constants become complex:

(9)DjDj(1+iηj),    j=1,2,3,4.

Now following through the same argument based on Rayleigh’s principle, we deduce that for mode n the modal damping factor, the inverse of the modal Q-factor, is a simple weighted sum of the four ηj:

(10)1QnJ1η1+J2η2+J3η3+J4η4

where the dimensionless constants J1J4 are defined as follows:

(11)J1=D1h3(2wnx2)2dxdyωn2ρhwn2dxdy

(12)J2=D1h32wnx22wny2dxdyωn2ρhwn2dxdy

(13)J3=D1h3(2wny2)2dxdyωn2ρhwn2dxdy

(14)J4=D1h3(2wnxy)2dxdyωn2ρhwn2dxdy.

It follows immediately from the Rayleigh quotient for the original, undamped plate that

(15)J1+J2+J3+J4=1.

These constants capture the partitioning of potential energy, and hence energy dissipation rate, between the four terms associated with D1, D2, D3 and D4 in equation (7).

In terms of measurement, the position is very similar to the previous discussion of stiffness. With beam samples cut along and across the grain you can determined the loss factors associated with the two Young’s moduli. With plate samples, the same three modes which gave simple estimates of D1, D3 and D4 now give direct estimates of η1, η3 and η4. The reason is that for each of those modes, one of the Jj constants is approximately equal to 1, while the other three are approximately zero. Equation (10) then says that the measured loss factor (or inverse Q-factor) is essentially equal to the corresponding ηj. We found before that D2 didn’t play a very strong role in determining frequencies: the equivalent result is that η2 seems to have very little influence on modal Q-factors, to the extent that it is usually not possible to determine a convincing value from measurements.

It is useful to see some measured values of η1, η3 and η4. We can show results for the same two spruce plates whose stiffness values were quoted in section 10.3.2. For the quarter-cut plate, the values were η1=0.0051, η3=0.0216 and η4=0.0164. The corresponding results for the plate with a ring angle close to 45 were η1=0.0074, η3=0.0212 and η4=0.0139. Note that for both plates the long-grain loss factor η1 was significantly lower than the cross-grain loss factor η3: by about a factor of 4 for the quarter-cut plate. This is in line with a very general trend across a wide range of materials: there is a negative correlation of loss factor with stiffness. Stiff materials like ceramics or hardened steel tend to have low damping, soft materials like lead or rubber tend to have high damping.

Because η1, η3 and η4 are significantly different, we can expect mode-to-mode variations in modal damping factors, governed by the values of J1, J3 and J4. As an example, the values given above for the quarter-cut spruce plate were based on measuring the Q-factors of 8 modes. These varied from 40 to 140, a range big enough to make very significant differences in sound. Only 3 modes were needed to determine the values of η1, η3 and η4, and remaining 5 measured Q-factors could be used to cross-check the theory on which this method is based. The detailed variation from mode to mode was reproduced to very satisfactory accuracy: see [2] for details.

Measuring values like the ones just quoted, for lightweight materials like spruce, is quite challenging. The reasons were discussed in section 10.3: it is difficult to support the test sample with adding significant extra damping, and it is also hard to fix any kind of sensor to measure the response without also adding extra damping. Furthermore, a sensor of some kind is needed here: we cannot use Chladni patterns to measure damping, we need some kind of quantitative response measurement in order to determine decay rates or half-power bandwidths in FFT results. A description of how the reported measurements were done is given in [2]. We will return to these issues in section 10.4, when we talk about measuring frequency response functions.


[1] D. R. Bland, “The theory of linear viscoelasticity”, Pergamon Press (1960).

[2] M. E McIntyre and J. Woodhouse, “On measuring the elastic and damping constants of orthotropic sheet materials”, Acta Metallurgica 36, 1397—1416 (1988).