×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

(OP)
A few questions, some of which I know the answer to, others I don't.

1) Why does a tuning fork have two prongs rather than one (or I suppose three)?

2) Is the dominant resonant mode anti symmetric (cantilevers swaying in phase) or symmetric (prongs clapping)?

3) How does the tuning fork 'select' the mode from (2) as the dominant mode?

4) Does anyone have a classical tuning fork? If so could they post a good quality wav file of the complete excitation/decay cycle?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0511/Burleigh-0511.html is somewhat relevant, I know. I don't like that wav file!

5) if we were to strike just one prong why does the other prong not behave as a harmonic absorber for the first prong (this is really a more general question about symmetrical modes)?








 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

Typically we hold a tuning fork loosely.  Or if we sit it flat on a surface, it might be something like a simply supported boundary, but definitly not a clamped boundary.

Looking at the simpler case of holding it in our hands, it is a very loose support.  It cannot provide a reaction force at the high natural frequency of the tuning force.  

So the tuning fork cannot vibrate in the in-phase mode (unless perhaps you clamped the stem in a vise).  It vibrates in the out-of-phase mode.
 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

Another thing we note is that touching the vibrating blades quickly dampens the vibraiton. But touching the stem does not dampen the vibration.  Once again it tells us the stem is not vibrating.  It is just transmitting force between those two prongs which are vibrating out of phase.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

And another obvious question: why do we build tuning forks based on the out-of-phase mode?

If we used an in-phase mode, we would of course have to support the tuning fork rigidly.  That in itself is not much of a problem. But more improtantly, the resonant frequency would be very sensitive to the stiffness of the tuning fork support... not what you want for a fork that is supposed to create a repeatable frequency.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

(OP)
Yes, I agree that in practice the mode is clapping, so the handle is nodal.

I'm not really sure I agree with "So the tuning fork cannot vibrate in the in-phase mode (unless perhaps you clamped the stem in a vise).  It vibrates in the out-of-phase mode.
"

Consider a simple beam, freely suspended. I'm fairly certainly it does vibrate in the lowest frequency mode where the wavelength is twice the beam's length.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

The in-phase mode I was discussing was the one you could get if you clamped the stem in a vice.  You can't get that modewithout clamping the stem.  

You are right there certainly are other possible in-phase modes to consider - including the one you describe which is free/free condition of a beam which is not symmetric end to end. But that would not work when you put the end down on a table and prevent the end from moving.  And it would also be stopped by holding the stem.

It brings to mind a question, though.  Why is it that the tone gets louder when you put the stem on a table?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

(OP)
Ah, that one is easy.

A typical tuning fork has a size of about 0.1 m, and a radiating area of say 0.002 m^2. The wavelength of 440 Hz is around 0.7 m, so an affective radiator at that wavelength will need to have an area of about 0.7^2/10 = 0.05 m^2. If the area of tha rdaiator is less than that too much of the air (basically) slips around from the positive pressure side to the negative pressure side rather than radiating outwards.

There is another property generally called the radiation efficiency (a silly word since it can be greater than 1). This is the efficiency with which the vibrating structure couples into the air, at a given frequency. It is basically the relationship between the wavelength of the bending waves in the structure, compared with the wavelength in air at the same frequency. When they match perfectly you get a 3 dB bump in the SPL produced. Steel and aluminium in typical automotive thicknesses have a maximum radiation efficiency around 1 kHz or so - that's why engines sound thrashy, and whines are so common, even though there is far more energy available at lower frequencies.



 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

The .wav file appears to demonstrate a beat among several competing modes... which results from hitting the fork to excite it.

Our high school physics teacher (brilliantly, imho) arranged to have our introduction to sound taught by the highest ranking music teacher.  He demonstrated the discordant note produced by striking a tuning fork, and then demonstrated the pure tone produced by tapping it gently (almost rubbing it) against something softer, like a Pink Pearl.


 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

Greg - It makes good sense as you say that a wooden table would be good radiator due to the large area and the "efficiency" of wood emitting sound (like violins and guitars).  It seems a little bit at odds with the picture of the two prongs moving out of phase and the stem not moving... if stem didn't move at all, then it wouldn't excite the table.   I guess it must be a smaller vibration of the stem (maybe axially?) that allows the vibration to couple to the wooden tabletop. (?)

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

Mike - I hadn't heard that.  Was there an explanation? Striking it harder excites different mode shape? Is there some non-linear effect?   

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

Different mode shapes is how it was explained.  Gentler excitation lets it assume its own dominant mode.

 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

Is this a homework question? - Just kidding.

Here's my theory:

Let's assume we are talking about "normal" operation of a tuning fork - Holding the stem about 2/3 of the way up and striking one of the tines on something.

Assume that the fingers have the potential to add damping but negligible stiffness.

The lowest mode (symmetric) has the tines bending to an extent and to compensate for the displacement of mass of the tines, the stem moves up and down. However, it moves up and down *as a rigid body* due to symmetry. Therefore there is no strain in it so our fingers cannot add damping.

With the "in phase" mode, as the two tines bend to the right then the stem must also bend to the right. This now means that the stem is no longer a rigid body component and it has bending strain, hence the fingers will tend to damp out this mode. Hence the symmetric mode dominates.

This agrees with my experience of using tuning forks (unfortunately I don't actually own one). When you first strike it on something hard, there is a short-lived "clang" of lots of high freq modes which is audible from some distance away. These modes decay very quickly leaving just the symmetric mode which can only be heard by holding the fork to the ear. This mode persists for a long time due to lack of damping.

If you want to use a tuning fork quietly (in a performance situation), then you pinch the tines towards each other and then release. Obviously the symmetric mode will dominate and you don't get the initial clang. Another technique is to strike it on the rubber heel of your shoe. Those of you who use hammer testing for modal analysis will know that this concentrates all the energy at the low frequencies.

The fact that the symmetric mode involves the stem going up and down also explains how it transfers energy to a table when touch the stem to it.

M

--
Dr Michael F Platten

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

BTW if anyone has the inclination to do an FE model, I would be interested to see at what frequency the "in phase" mode occurs I suspect that the second bending of the tines may actually be the 2nd freq - not the in phase mode.

M

--
Dr Michael F Platten

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

(OP)
http://www.geocities.com/greglocock/gallery/gallery.htm

Top 3 links. Mesh quality is (a) disgusting (b) important (notice the change in frequencies from refining the mesh around the shouldeers) (c) as good as it is going to get. The model is free free so I've ignored the first 6 modes.

The single leg has a first mode at around 1560 Hz, the tuning fork proper has a first mode of interest at 498 Hz, symmetric, and an antisymmetric mode at 1621 Hz.

I'm a bit surprised by the (lack of) relationship between those numbers.

There's a detail you can't see from the screenshots - the first mode causes the handle to pump up and down axially, ideal for exciting a sounding board.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

The links don't work for me, Greg.

How do I claim my prize? winky smile

M

--
Dr Michael F Platten

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

The FEA link works for me.  The handle moving axially as Greg and Mike said seems like the explanation for why it works with a sounding board.

I'm not sure what the one-prong simulation is supposed to show.  I notice it still has 524 hz mode, so I assume there was some symmetry condition imposed to make it act like a 2-prong.  But the figure doesn't show the symmetry I expect for a 2-prong out-of-phase.... symmetry is not there.  Is this just a simulation of a tuning fork with one prong completely removed... and just a coincidence that the frequency comes out the same?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

(OP)
For your (and my) further confusion I've added two more models, this time clamped at the base.

Yes, I just cut one of the prongs off. I don't really understand why you don't like that as an approach.

Incidentally when you read the frequencies it is the data in the lower left corner of each window that is definitive. I haven't updated the window titles.

Mikey, is it that you can't read .png files?

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

Ah, When I use Firefox it redirects to a geocities error page. Works on IE. Could be my security settings.

M

--
Dr Michael F Platten

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

(OP)
I'll add a table of the results of primary interest, I am now reasonably confused.

So electricpete, what would you like to see as a comparison for the single prong?

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

The thing that bothered me about the single prong was that I was looking at the frequency at the window title.  So I couldn't figure out whether:
1 - You were modeling a single prong - if so why was the frequency the same.
2 - You were attempting to model a double prong by using single prong with symmetry conditions - if so why didn't the deflection shape reflect the symmetry.

Now I know it is single prong, and the frequency is not the same. I am un-confused (relatively speaking)

 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

By the way, where is the table hiding?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

I'd be curious to see the modes that are not in the major plane of symmetry.

 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

(OP)
Confession time: I used a single layer of 4 node plate elements, so an even larger pinch of salt is needed for the torsional behaviour of the system.

I'm loathe to model this properly in Hypermesh unless I have good dimensions to work to, which I've been singularly unsuccessful in finding.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

This article includes an equation, written in some ?ML that is coming up garbled in my browser:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Tuning_fork

 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

What a great discussion.  I just googled for natural modes of tuning forks and got a hit that confirms all the above.

One thing nobody has mentioned is that when you have a singing tuning fork you can presetnt it gradually to a hard surface like a table.  Hold it edge on and you'll get a buzz as the leading prong collides.  Hold it flat and you don't.

(My dad had a tuning fork.  I used to love playing with it.)

- Steve

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

The equation from MikeHalloran's link is basically the same as the one from Greg's original post:

f = k sqrt(E/p), where k = spring constant of a tine, E = modulus of elasticity of the material, and p is the density.

If I'm not mistaken, the sqrt(E/p) is the speed of sound through the material.  k would be the resistance to that movement and together, they would make the frequency of a cycle.  k should be something like AE/L where A is the cross-sectional area, E is still the modulus, and L is the length of the "beam".

So, Greg, if any of this is anywhere remotely correct, you should be able to input whatever you want and calculate the frequency based on your dimensions and material properties.

As for why the first mode would be symmetric in the "real world", I suspect it has to do with the way the fork is orignially struck.  Generally, you strike one tine against something with the other tine of the fork away from the contact point.  With that, the "free" tine would accelerate inward while the impact would push the other tine inward as well...180 degrees out of phase.

My 2 cents...OK, that was a littel wordy...maybe it was 4 cents (or it was totally worthless smile)

Garland E. Borowski, PE
Star Aviation

RE: Tuning forks, and symmetric structures

(OP)
Ah, well I think the way the mode is selected is neatly answered by the FEA. The antisymmetric mode involves lateral motion of the handle. So as you hold the handle, you damp that mode out.

Rather more exciting is what happens when you clamp the base. This obviously suppresses the lateral motion of the handle completely, and in fact radically alters the first antisymmetric bending mode, so that by constraining the system we get the usual paradoxical result (for a free free beam in bending) that the frequency drops. That is one of my favourite results from modal analysis. It drops the frequency so much that the antisymmetric mode is below the symmetric mode, which quite reasonably is scarcely affected by the base clamping.

Incidentally I've put all the results into a table on the same page.



 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources