Transfer Function of a Translational Mechanical System:
This section develops the transfer function between the applied force and the velocity output for the translational mechanical system shown in the figure.
The system contains a mass, viscous dampers, and springs. Because the diagram image does not expose readable component labels in the prompt, the derivation is presented for the standard interpretation of the figure: a mass with velocity , connected to ground through a viscous damper and spring, with an additional damper connected to the applied-force node. Let
- be the mass,
- be the damper connected to ground,
- be the damper associated with the force-input node,
- be the spring stiffness,
- be the applied force,
- be the output velocity.
A transfer function is obtained by first writing the governing differential equation and then applying the Laplace transform. For a linear mass–damper–spring system, Newton’s second law gives the familiar force balance . The force-to-displacement form is therefore .
Since velocity is the derivative of displacement,
and, under zero initial conditions,
Thus, once is known, the velocity transfer function follows by multiplying by .
Footnotes
-
The Mass-Damper-Spring System — Engineering LibreTexts - Derives Newton’s-law equation for a translational mass–damper–spring system. ↩
-
How to Find the Transfer Function of a System - Shows the derivation of . ↩
Translational Mechanical Systems: Solved Example
Physical modeling principles
The three ideal translational elements obey the following constitutive relations:
| Element | Time-domain relation | Laplace-domain relation | Mechanical impedance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass | |||
| Damper | |||
| Spring |
Here, mechanical impedance is defined as
The mass stores kinetic energy, the spring stores potential energy, and the damper dissipates energy. These roles explain why the mass contributes a factor proportional to , the damper contributes a constant, and the spring contributes when velocity is used as the system variable.
For the standard arrangement, the force balance can be expressed using the equivalent damping
The equation of motion is then
Because
the spring displacement can be written as
for zero initial displacement.
Footnotes
-
Control Systems Engineering, Chapter 2 - Presents force–velocity relationships and mechanical impedances for masses, dampers, and springs. ↩
Key modeling shortcut
If the required output is velocity, use mechanical impedance directly: mass contributes ms, damper contributes b, and spring contributes k/s.
Derivation of $\u005cfrac{V_1(s)}{F(s)}$
- 1Step 1
Take the direction of the applied force as positive and define the mass velocity in this direction as .
- 2Step 2
The applied force is opposed by the inertial, viscous, and spring forces. Therefore, , where .
- 3Step 3
Because , the Laplace-domain relation under zero initial conditions is .
- 4Step 4
Transforming the force balance gives .
- 5Step 5
Substitute to obtain .
- 6Step 6
Rearranging yields . Multiplying numerator and denominator by gives the polynomial form .
Final transfer function
With
the transfer function is
or, equivalently,
This is the required force-to-velocity transfer function for the standard translational mechanical arrangement.
The corresponding force-to-displacement transfer function is
The velocity result follows immediately:
The numerator zero at is physically meaningful: a constant force applied to a stable spring–damper system eventually produces a static displacement, but the final velocity returns to zero.
Impedance interpretation
The same result can be obtained without explicitly writing displacement.
The mass impedance is
The damper impedances add when the dampers oppose the same velocity:
The spring impedance is
Therefore, the total mechanical impedance is
Since
the admittance, or force-to-velocity transfer function, is
Contribution of Each Mechanical Element
Terms appearing in the total force-to-velocity impedance
Dimensional and physical checks
A correct transfer function should pass several checks.
1. Units
Force has units of newtons, and velocity has units of meters per second. Therefore,
For the result
each denominator term has units of after treating as having units of , so the overall units are consistent.
2. Low-frequency behavior
As ,
A constant force does not produce a permanent velocity when a restoring spring is present.
3. High-frequency behavior
As ,
At very high frequencies, inertia dominates and the system behaves approximately like a mass.
4. Pole locations
The poles satisfy
Thus,
For positive , , and , the poles lie in the left half-plane, indicating asymptotic stability for the ideal linear model.
Footnotes
-
System Poles and Zeros — Engineering LibreTexts - Discusses the characteristic polynomial and pole locations of the mass–spring–damper transfer function. ↩
Common mistakes and edge cases
Do not confuse displacement and velocity outputs
The expressions 1/(ms² + bs + k) and s/(ms² + bs + k) describe different outputs. The first is X(s)/F(s); the second is V1(s)/F(s).
Generalization to a single equivalent damper
If the diagram uses a single damper coefficient rather than two dampers, substitute
The result becomes
This is the standard mass–spring–damper force-to-velocity transfer function reported in control-system modeling references.3
If the figure labels the damping coefficients differently, the same procedure applies: identify every damper that experiences the mass velocity , add those coefficients, and substitute their sum into the denominator.
Footnotes
-
The Mass-Damper-Spring System — Engineering LibreTexts - Derives Newton’s-law equation for a translational mass–damper–spring system. ↩
-
How to Find the Transfer Function of a System - Shows the derivation of . ↩
-
Mass Spring Damper System - Provides a transfer-function formulation and state-space interpretation of the mass–spring–damper model. ↩
Mechanical-System Transfer Function Review
Knowledge Check
For a mass–spring–damper system, what is the transfer function from applied force to displacement?
References
Explore Related Topics
Paging with Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) Scheme
Differentiating Rotating Storage Media: Constant Linear Velocity (CLV) vs. Constant Angular Velocity (CAV)
Rotating storage media use either Constant Angular Velocity (CAV) or Constant Linear Velocity (CLV) to control the relationship between angular speed and linear speed on the disk.
- CAV: Fixed (e.g., 7200 RPM), rises with radius, sectors per track stay constant → lower outer‑track density, constant transfer rate, minimal seek latency.
- CLV: varies as to keep constant, giving uniform sector size, higher outer‑track capacity, but slower seeks due to motor speed changes.
- Zone Bit Recording (ZBR): Hybrid CAV that keeps constant while dividing the platter into zones with increasing sectors per track, boosting capacity and outer‑track throughput.
- Mechanical limits: Very high‑speed CLV would require inner‑edge RPM > 10 000, causing vibration and disc failure, prompting a shift to CAV or hybrid modes.
- Key formulas: and govern the trade‑offs between data density, transfer rate, and seek time.
Working Principle, Advantages, and Limitations of Hall-Effect Devices in Industrial Measurement Systems