⚙️

Mechanical Resonance Frequency Tool

Calculate natural and damped resonance frequencies for spring-mass systems, cantilever beams, and simply-supported beams. Includes damping ratio, quality factor, peak magnification, and a live frequency-response plot of the magnification curve.

Input

N/m
kg
0 (undamped)0.50.99
Presets

Result

Natural frequency f₀
Damped frequency f_d
Period T
Quality factor Q
Peak magnification M_max
Angular frequency ω₀
Formulas
Spring-mass: ω₀ = √(k/m), f₀ = ω₀ / 2π
Beams: ω_n = (β_n·L)² · √(EI / (ρA·L⁴)), f_n = ω_n / 2π
Cantilever β_n·L = {1.8751, 4.6941, 7.8548, 10.9955, 14.1372}
Simply-supported β_n·L = n · π
Damped: f_d = f₀ · √(1 − ζ²), Q = 1 / (2ζ), M_max = 1 / (2ζ·√(1 − ζ²))
Frequency response — magnification M vs frequency ratio r = ω / ω₀

About Mechanical Resonance

Every elastic structure — a guitar string, a car suspension, a steel bridge, a skyscraper — has at least one natural frequency at which it prefers to vibrate. When driven by an external force at that frequency, vibration amplitude can grow dramatically — that's resonance. This tool calculates resonance for three classic system families that cover the majority of textbook and engineering cases.

Spring-mass system (single degree of freedom)

The simplest oscillator: a mass m attached to a spring of stiffness k. The undamped natural angular frequency is ω₀ = √(k/m), and the frequency in Hz is f₀ = ω₀ / (2π). A car suspension typically has k ≈ 30 kN/m and m ≈ 350 kg per corner, giving f₀ ≈ 1.5 Hz — comfortably below the 4–8 Hz range where human bodies become sensitive to vertical motion. A typical hand-wound spring with k = 100 N/m holding a 0.5 kg mass resonates at f₀ ≈ 2.25 Hz.

Cantilever beam (one end fixed, one end free)

The classic "diving board" geometry. Resonance frequencies are f_n = (β_n·L)² · √(EI / (ρA·L⁴)) / (2π), where β_n·L takes specific values (1.8751, 4.6941, 7.8548 for the first three modes). The fundamental is roughly 0.56 · √(EI / (m·L³)) where m is the total beam mass. Note that the modes are not simple integer multiples — f₂ ≈ 6.27·f₁, f₃ ≈ 17.55·f₁. This is why a vibrating ruler held at the edge of a desk doesn't sound like a pitched musical instrument.

Simply-supported beam (both ends pinned)

A bridge span or piano string approximation. Here β_n·L = n·π exactly, so f_n = (n·π)² · √(EI / (ρA·L⁴)) / (2π) = n²/2 · √(EI / (μL⁴)) where μ = ρA. The mode ratios are square integers: f₂ = 4·f₁, f₃ = 9·f₁, f₄ = 16·f₁. A piano string's harmonics are close to (but slightly above) these ratios — the small discrepancy is called inharmonicity and is responsible for the characteristic "stretched" tuning of a piano.

Damping ratio ζ — how peaky is the resonance?

Damping ratio ζ (zeta) controls how sharply the system responds at resonance. ζ = 0: no damping, the magnification at resonance is infinite (the system would amplify forever — Tacoma Narrows territory). ζ < 1: underdamped, oscillates with decreasing amplitude after a transient. ζ = 1: critically damped, returns to rest as fast as possible without overshooting. ζ > 1: overdamped, sluggish return without oscillation. Practical values: a tuning fork ζ ≈ 0.0001 (Q ≈ 5000), a car suspension ζ ≈ 0.3 (Q ≈ 1.7), a damped door closer ζ ≈ 1.

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between f₀ and f_d?
f₀ is the undamped natural frequency — what the system would oscillate at if all damping were removed. f_d is the actual damped frequency, slightly lower: f_d = f₀·√(1−ζ²). For typical damping (ζ < 0.1), the difference is under 0.5% — usually negligible. For heavily damped systems (ζ approaching 1), f_d drops noticeably below f₀ and the oscillation decays so quickly that "frequency" becomes a fuzzy concept.
What is Q-factor and how does it relate to ζ?
Q (quality factor) is the inverse of double the damping ratio: Q = 1/(2ζ). It also equals the peak magnification at resonance for lightly damped systems. A high-Q system (Q > 100) has a sharp narrow resonance peak; a low-Q system (Q < 5) has a broad shallow peak. Quartz crystal oscillators have Q ≈ 10,000–100,000 — extraordinarily sharp resonance. Car suspensions deliberately have Q ≈ 1.5 to avoid bouncy ride.
Why don't cantilever beam modes follow integer ratios?
The boundary conditions (one fixed, one free) require solutions where cos(βL)·cosh(βL) = −1. This transcendental equation has roots at βL = 1.875, 4.694, 7.855, … — not at integer multiples. Frequency scales as (βL)², so f₂/f₁ ≈ 6.27, f₃/f₁ ≈ 17.55. That's why a tuning fork's overtones aren't harmonic — fork prongs are cantilevers, so the second mode is roughly 6× the fundamental, not 2× like a string.
Why does increasing damping reduce the resonance peak?
Damping dissipates energy each cycle as heat (or radiation). At resonance, the driving force pumps energy in at exactly the rate the system can absorb it — without damping, energy accumulates indefinitely. Damping creates a balance: input power equals dissipation power at a finite amplitude. Doubling ζ roughly halves the peak amplitude. This is why shock absorbers (high damping) prevent your car from bouncing forever at the spring resonance frequency.
What is the "frequency response curve" showing?
It plots M(r) = 1/√((1−r²)² + (2ζr)²) against the frequency ratio r = ω/ω₀. M is the steady-state amplitude ratio — how much the system amplifies an input vibration at frequency ω relative to the same force applied statically (r=0). At r=1 (resonance) and low ζ, the peak rises sharply. At very high frequencies (r → ∞), M → 0 — the system can't keep up with fast driving. The dashed line at M=1 marks "unity response" — input passes through unchanged.
Are these formulas accurate for real beams?
They're the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory predictions, accurate when the beam is slender (length much larger than cross-section dimensions, say L/h > 10). For stubby beams, shear deformation and rotary inertia become important — use Timoshenko beam theory instead. End conditions also need to be ideal: a "fixed" end must truly clamp rigidly, a "pinned" end must rotate freely. Real bolted/welded supports are partially compliant, lowering the actual frequencies by a few percent.