Transverse Vibrational Analysis of A Simply Supported Beam
Transverse Vibrational Analysis of A Simply Supported Beam
Date:
Prof. H.ROY Dept. of Mechanical Engineering National Institute of Technology Rourkela 769008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my profound gratitude and indebtedness to Prof. H.ROY, Department of Mechanical Engineering , NIT-Rourkela for introducing the present topic and for their inspiring guidance , constructive criticism and valuable suggestion throughout the project work. Last but not least, my sincere thanks to all our friends who have patiently extended all sorts of help for accomplishing this undertaking.
ANKIT SINGH(108ME063) Dept. of Mechanical Engineering National Institute of Technology Rourkela 769008
Page 2
Page 3
ABSTRACT
The bending phenomenon is common in simply supported beams as the beams are subjected to flexural loading in design considerations. In this paper, the effect of free vibration of the hinged beam was investigated using a finite element method and the basic understanding of the influence of applied force on natural frequencies of cantilever beam is presented . Hamiltons principle applied to the Lagrangian function is used to derive the equations of motion. In addition other factors affecting the vibration of beams are discussed. The variables of the hinged beam are:
1. Slenderness ratio 2. Shearing consideration
The numerical results for free vibration of beam are presented. These results are compared with the results obtained using MATLAB R2010a to plot the modal natural frequency of simply supported beam. The module frequencies can be highly useful for the vibration analysis and the resonance in a structure. So, the beam is taken and its module natural frequencies are computed.
Page 4
CHAPTER~1
Page 5
1. INTRODUCTION
Beam is a Horizontal or inclined structural member spanning a distance between one or more supports, and carrying vertical loads across (transverse to) its longitudinal axis, as a girder,purlin, or rafter. Three basic types of beams are: (1) Simple span, supported at both ends (2) Continuous, supported at more than two points (3) Cantilever, supported at one end with the other end overhanging and free. Generally there are two types of beams Euler-Bernoullis beam and Timoshenko beam. By the classical theory of Euler-Bernoullis beam it assumes that 1. Cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the axis of the beam remain plane after deformation. 2. The deformed cross-sectional plane is still perpendicular to the axis after deformation. 3. The classical theory of beam neglect the transverse shearing deformation, where the transverse shear is determined by the equation of equilibrium. In Euler Bernoulli beam theory, shear deformations and rotation effects are neglected, and plane sections remain plane and normal to the longitudinal axis. In the Timoshenko beam theory, plane sections still remain plane but are no longer normal to the longitudinal axis. 1.2 Objective and Scope of work In this paper, we are using Finite Element Method to formulate the equations of motion of a homogeneous hinged-hinged type beam. The natural frequency of the homogeneous beam will be found out at different variables of beam using MATLAB R2010 . The results will be compared with the results found by finite element method. Using these results, frequency and beam variables will be correlated.
Page 6
CHAPTER~2
Page 7
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
An exact formulation of the beam problem was first investigated in terms of general elasticity equations by Pochhammer (1876) and Chree (1889) . They derived the equations that describe a vibrating solid cylinder. However, it is not practical to solve the full problem because it yields more information than usually needed in applications. Therefore, approximate solutions for transverse displacement are sufficient. The beam theories under consideration all yield the transverse displacement as a solution. It was recognized by the early researchers that the bending effect is the single most important factor in a transversely vibrating beam. The Euler Bernoulli model includes the strain energy due to the bending and the kinetic energy due to the lateral displacement. The Euler Bernoulli model dates back to the 18th century. Jacob Bernoulli (1654-1705) first discovered that the curvature of an elastic beam at any point is proportional to the bending moment at that point. Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782), nephew of Jacob, was the first one who formulated the differential equation of motion of a vibrating beam. Later, Jacob Bernoulli's theory was accepted by Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) in his investigation of the shape of elastic beams under various loading conditions. Many advances on the elastic curves were made by Euler . The Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, sometimes called the classical beam theory, Euler beam theory, Bernoulli beam theory, or Bernoulli and Euler beam theory, is the most commonly used because it is simple and provides reasonable engineering approximations for many problems. However, the Euler Bernoulli model tends to slightly overestimate the natural frequencies. This problem is exacerbated for the natural frequencies of the higher modes. Also, the prediction is better for slender beams than non-slender beams.
Timoshenko (1921, 1922) proposed a beam theory which adds the effect of shear as well as the effect of rotation to the Euler-Bernoulli beam. The Timoshenko model is a major improvement for non-slender beams and for high-frequency responses where shear or rotary effects are not negligible. Following Timoshenko, several authors have obtained the frequency equations and the mode shapes for various boundary conditions. Some are Kruszewski (1949) , Traill-Nash and Collar (1953) , Dolph (1954) , and Huang (1961) .
Page 8
Page 9
CHAPTER~3
Page 10
Fig: (a) Simply supported beam subjected to arbitrary (negative) distributed load.(b) Deflected beam element.
(c) Sign convention for shear force and bending moment. The bending strain is:
Page 11
therefore :
I=
Considering the given four boundary conditions and the one-dimensional nature of the given problem in terms of the independent variable, we assume the displacement function in the form:
Page 12
Fig: Bending moment diagram for a flexure element. Sign convention per the MOS
theory.
where N1, N2, N3, and N4 are the shape functions that describe the distribution of displacement in terms of the nodal values in nodal displacement vector {}:
We get
Applying the first theorem of Castigliano to the strain energy function with respect to nodal displacement v1 gives the transverse force at node 1 as
while application of the given theorem with respect to the rotational displacement results to moment as
Similarly we obtain
,
The above 4 equations can be represented in the form:
Mechanical Engineering Department, N.I.T. Rourkela Page 14
By comparison of coefficients:
Page 15
(a)nodal load positive convention(b)mechanics of solids positive convention theory For mass matrix of the Euler-Bernoulli beam:
Page 17
We have:
Under the assumptions of constant elastic modulus E and moment of inertia Iz, the governing equation becomes:
The consistent mass matrix for a two-dimensional beam element is given by:
Page 18
Combining the mass matrix with previously obtained results for the stiffness matrix and force vector, the finite element equations of motion for a beam element are:
Timoshenko beam:
The shearing effect in Timoshenko beam element:
Consider an infinitesimal element of beam of length x and flexural rigidity El. The element is in static equilibrium under the forces shown in Figure
Page 19
Fig: Forces and displacements on infinitesimal element of beam. The shear angle, , is measured as positive in an anticlockwise direction from the normal to the midsurface to the outer face of the beam.
;
The rotation of the cross section in an anticlockwise direction is:
F=1
Mechanical Engineering Department, N.I.T. Rourkela Page 20
M=1x+2
The rotations at the ends of the beam, 2 and 4 can be expressed as rotations of the cross section by using equation (4). The displacements 1 to 4 can be related to the constants 1 to 4 through: for i=1,2,3,4
{Pi}=[Y]{i}
Page 21
and the elements of (Pi} are defined in Figure 2. Substituting for {i} from equation (10) in equation (11) gives =[S]{i}
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
CHAPTER ~4
Page 26
function SSbeam(~) % SSbeam.m Simply-supported or Pinned-pinned beam evaluations % This script computes mode shapes and corresponding natural % frequencies of the simply-supported beam by user specified mechanical % properties and size of the beam. % Prepare the following data: % - Material properties of the beam, i.e. density (Ro), Young's modulus (E) % - Specify a cross section of the beam, i.e. square,rectangular, circular % - Geometry parameters of the beam, i.e. Length, width, thickness % - How many natural frequencies and mode shapes to evaluate.
clear all; clc; close all; display('What is the cross-section of the beam?') disp('If circular cross-section, enter 1; If square, enter 2;'); disp('If rectangle enter 3'); disp('If your beam"s cross-section is not listed here, enter 4'); disp('To see example #2, enter 5'); CS=input(' Enter your choice:');
if isempty(CS) || CS==0 disp('Example #1. Rectangular cross-section Aluminum beam') disp('Length=0.321 [m], Width=0.05 [m], Thickness=0.006 [m];') disp('E=69.9*1e9 [Pa]; Ro=2770 [kg/m^3]') L=.321; W=.05; Th=.006; A=W*Th; Ix=(1/12)*W*Th^3; E=69.90e+9; Ro=2770; elseif CS==1 R=input('Enter Radius of the cross-section: '); L=input('Enter Length: '); Ix=(1/4)*pi*R^4; A=pi*R^2; disp('Material proprties of the beam'); display('Do you know your beam"s material properties, viz. Young"s modulus and density ?'); YA=input('Enter 1, if you do;; enter 0, if you don"t: '); if YA==1
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
CHAPTER~5
Page 32
What is the cross-section of the beam? If circular cross-section, enter 1; If square, enter 2; If rectangle, enter 3; If your beams cross-section is not listed here, enter 4 To see example #2, enter 5 Enter your choice: 1 Enter Radius of the cross-section: 25 Enter Length: 350 Material properties of the beam Do you know your beams material properties, i.e. Youngs modulus and density ? Enter 1, if you do; enter 0, if you don"t: 0 Steel: E=2.1e+11 [Pa]; Ro=7850 [Kg/m^3] Copper: E=1.2e+11 [Pa]; Ro=8933 [Kg/m^3] Aluminum: E=0.69e+11 [Pa]; Ro=2700 [Kg/m^3] Mechanical Engineering Department, N.I.T. Rourkela Page 33
Page 35
Page 36
CHAPTER~6
Page 37
6. Conclusion
In this report, we examined four approximate models for a transversely vibrating beam: the Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko models .The equation of motion and the boundary conditions were obtained and the frequency equations for four boundary conditions were obtained. The circular cross section of a simply supported beam was analysed and the modal shapes and natural frequencies were calculated . The slight structural consideration will show that the amplitude of beam at resonance will be maximum and the problem of failure will arise. So,in design considerations the beams taken should be such that there is no resonance for the stability of a structure.
Page 38
7.References
1. SEON M. HAN, HAYM BENAROYA AND TIMOTHY WEI, DYNAMICS OF TRANSVERSELY VIBRATING BEAMS USING FOUR ENGINEERING THEORIES: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey,Piscataway, NJ 08854, ;.S.A. Journal of Sound and vibration (1999) 225(5), 935}988 2. Majkut, Leszek FREE AND FORCED VIBRATIONS OF TIMOSHENKO BEAMS DESCRIBED BY SINGLE DIFFERENCE EQUATION AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, Cracow, Poland JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL AND APPLIED MECHANICS 47, 1, pp. 193-210, Warsaw 2009 3.R. DAVIS. R. D. HENSHELL AND G. B. WARBURTON A TIMOSHENKO BEAM ELEMENT Department of Mechanical Engineering,University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England(Received 20 March 1972) Journal of Sound and Vibration (1972) 22 (4), 475-487 4. Sampaio ,Rubens ;Cataldo,Edson Timoshenko Beam with Uncertainty on the Boundary Conditions Paper accepted September, 2008. 5. Henri P. Gavin STRUCTURAL ELEMENT STIFFNESS MATRICES AND MASS MATRICES Duke University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering CE 283. Structural Dynamics Spring, 2010 6. G. Falsone, D. Settineri An EulerBernoulli-like finite element method for Timoshenko beams Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Universit di Messina, C.da Di Dio, 98166 Messina, Italy Mechanics Research Communications 38 (2011) 1216
7. Bazoune,A.;Khulief,Y.A. Shape function of Three-Dimensional Timoshenko beam element Journal of sound and vibration(2003)259(2),473-480
Page 39
9.Hamid Sheikh,Abdul;Mukhopadhyay,Madhujit Matrix an finite element analysis of structures,2004 10.Jr.,William Weaver Analysis of framed structures1969
Page 40