Derivation of resonance fixed-fixed beam

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the resonance frequencies for a fixed-fixed beam, contrasting with existing references for fixed-free and simply-supported beams. The user has established the differential equation and boundary conditions for a fixed-fixed beam but struggles to simplify the resulting expressions for the coefficients. The boundary conditions require both displacement and slope to be zero at the ends of the beam, which is standard for clamped beams. Despite obtaining lengthy expressions for the coefficients, the user seeks assistance in verifying their equations and progressing with the derivation. Expert input is requested to clarify the derivation process and boundary conditions.
DePurpereWolf
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to derive the resonance frequencies for a simple fixed-fixed beam, as opposed to a simply-supported beam.

I'm working off the following references:
1. http://emweb.unl.edu/Mechanics-Pages/Scott-Whitney/325hweb/Beams.htm
But this is for a fixed-free cantilever beam.

And
2. alrafidain.engineering-coll-mosul.com/files/132.pdf

But this is for a simply-supported (or 'pinned') beam.

Both sources follow the same derivation steps.
If we write the differntial equation as follows:
EI\frac{\partial^{4}z(x,t)}{\partial x^{4}} = \rho A \frac{\partial^{2}z(x,t)}{\partial t^{2}}
Than for my application I would like to state the following boundary conditions:
1, z(0,t) = 0
2, z'(0,t) = 0
3, z(L,t) = 0
4, z'(L,t) = 0
For a fixed - fixed beam.

However, I can't seem to derive this to a manageable equation.

The general solution is in the form of:
z(x,t) = (A \cos(\omega t)+ B \sin(\omega t)) \cdot ( C_1 \sin(\alpha x) + C_2 \cos(\alpha x) + C_3 sinh(\alpha x) + C_4 cosh(\alpha x))

Assuming the time term is not zero.
Boundary Condition 1 gives:
C_2 + C_4 = 0
BC 2:
C_1 + C_3 = 0
BC 3:
C_1 sin(\alpha L) + C_2 cos(\alpha L) -C_1 sinh(\alpha L) - C_2 cosh(\alpha L) = 0
BC 4:
C_1 cos(\alpha L) - C_2 sin(\alpha L) -C_1 cosh(\alpha L) - C_2 sinh(\alpha L) = 0

I can get an expression for C1 to C4 but it's incredibly long and I'm not sure what to do with it next. It doesn't derive to a nice equation as in the references.

Could someone with expertise have a look and see if I'm stating my equations correctly. And maybe help me along with the derivations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Look again at your boundary conditions.

I agree z(0) = z(L) = 0

but why is

z'(0) = z'(L) = 0
 
Standard conditions for a beam problem. The beam is clamped at the ends, so both the displacement and the slope must be zero there.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top