
#1
Aug1511, 02:16 PM

P: 443

From my understanding, the equation that models the transverse vibration of a beam is (Euler Bernoulli):
[tex]u_{tt} =  \frac{EI}{A \rho} \cdot u_{xxxx} [/tex] where E is Young's modulus, I is the 2nd moment of area, A is the crosssectional area, and rho is the density of the beam. This equation, however, doesn't take axial load into account. Now, what I'm wondering is, does the following equation accurately model the beam with an axial load? [tex]u_{tt} = \frac{T}{A \rho} \cdot u_{xx}  \frac{EI}{A \rho} \cdot u_{xxxx} [/tex] The coefficient of the second spatial derivative term is straight from the 1D wave equation describing an ideal string (with T being the applied tension): [tex]u_{tt} = \frac{T}{A \rho} \cdot u_{xx} [/tex] In the case of a vibrating stiff string, is it valid to combine the two equations (EulerBernoulli and the 1D wave equation for a string) in this way? I'm using this equation to model a guitar string, and I'm fairly certain that something is wrong with the coefficients (it seems that the stiffness parameter is too large). I've gone over my math and my coding a number of times, so I'm pretty sure that there's something fundamentally wrong with my derivation of the constants rather than a little algebraic mistake. I have to admit that I'm a little bit out of my league with the beam equation, since I've only taken a 1st year statics class and done some reading in the last few days. I'm hoping someone with a little more expertise on beam mechanics can help me out. My suspicion is that there's some assumptions involved in the derivations of the two equations that make them 'incompatible,' or at least such that I can't just sum them in this way. 



#2
Aug1511, 06:09 PM

Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 6,386

Your equation looks right, but the devil is probably in the detail of the notation!
See section 4.2.3 of this, for a worked example: http://freeit.free.fr/Knovel/Structu...g/45806_04.pdf 



#3
Aug1511, 06:49 PM

P: 443

[tex]\frac{EI}{A\rho} = \frac{E_1 I_1 + E_2 I_2}{A_1 \rho_1 + A_2 \rho_2}[/tex] As I said though, this was really just educated guesswork and seeing if it reduces to the right thing in all the special cases I could think of. Though now that I think about it, I wonder if my assumption that the outer wrapping (which is really a tight helical spring) acts like a cylinder is correct. I did even go so far as to find the average 2nd moment of area and average crosssectional area of the wrapping, which did reduce the stiffness, but I'm guessing that the fact that a spring is sort of 'disjointed' allows it to bend a lot easier, and probably makes treating it as a uniform cylinder a really inaccurate assumption. 



#4
Aug1611, 12:39 PM

Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 6,386

Beam Theory Constants QuestionThe basic reason for the wrapped construction is to add mass to the string without adding any stiffness when it bends or when it is stretched. Try using the E and I values for the core on its own, and the total mass of the core plus the wrapping. 



#5
Aug1611, 02:06 PM

P: 443




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
constants of nature as determined by string theory  Beyond the Standard Model  4  
Doubt regarding constants. Elastic Beam Theory.  Classical Physics  8  
Beam theory or plate theory  Mechanical Engineering  9  
Relation between torsional and linear spring constants for a cantilever beam?  Classical Physics  9  
IBeam load capacity question, what beam for 70 tons?  General Engineering  1 