Dual harmonic oscillators connected by shear spring

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the modeling of an earthquake simulator using dual harmonic oscillators connected by shear springs. The focus is on the theoretical and numerical modeling aspects, particularly the forces acting on the system and the incorporation of damping effects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster describes a model involving interconnected masses and springs, seeking guidance on the formulation of forces and the meaning of certain variables.
  • Some participants suggest that additional components, such as dampers, are necessary to accurately model the system due to friction losses.
  • One participant recommends consulting with an acoustics expert, indicating that similar systems are commonly studied in that field.
  • Another participant advises looking into the seismology and rheology communities, suggesting that existing research may provide insights into the proposed modeling approach.
  • The original poster acknowledges the need for damping in their model and expresses a desire to understand the foundational aspects of the loading before incorporating frictional resistance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for damping in the model, but there are differing views on the specifics of the modeling approach and the necessary components. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact formulation and implementation of the proposed system.

Contextual Notes

There are uncertainties regarding the definitions of variables such as \(\Delta L_1\) and \(\Delta L_2\), and the original poster is unsure about the correct formulation of the shear spring's contribution to the system. The discussion highlights the complexity of modeling such systems and the potential need for interdisciplinary collaboration.

samu0034
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone, looking around I have faith that the members of this forum will be able to point me in the right direction, and I apologize if it's more basic than I'm giving it credit for.

I'm an experimental researcher in rock mechanics, but I've always been fascinated by elasto-dymamic numerical modelling of earthquake rupture nucleation and propagation. To that end, I'm trying to build an earthquake simulator, which in my vision is basically an inter-connected sheet of spring-sliders, each connected to the one ahead/behind it with a spring of stiffness equivalent to the Young's Modulus, and the the slider on either side by a spring equivalent to the Shear Modulus. Not being a master of this sort of thing though, I'm starting from first principles, and this problem which I've posed to myself has me stumped… Below is a diagram of what I'd like to model, and below that is a brief description of my own progress on the whole thing. A point in the right direction is what I'm hoping for.

Also, please feel free to move this thread if this is the incorrect place to pose such a question.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/593/screenshot20130612at411.png/
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

If I sum up the forces on the left mass (m1), I get...

m_1 a_1 = m_1 g - K_1 (\Delta L_1 + x_1) - \gamma (\frac{dx_1}{dt}) + K_3 ((\Delta L_2 + x_2) - (\Delta L_1 + x_1))

Where the...
  • 1st term right of the equal sign is the acceleration of m_1 due to gravity
  • 2nd term is the resistance of the spring K_1 due to the stretch of the added mass and any additional displacement
  • 3rd term is a viscous damping term (which I'm happy to ignore as once everything else is solved I presume it'd be trivial to add this back in)
  • 4th term is the additional loading supplied by the shear spring due to the differential between the position of m_1 and m_2 (I'm not at all certain this is formulated correctly)

And there would be a similar equation for the acceleration of m_2. I can solve the above equation for a_1, and I get...

a_1 = \frac{d^2 x_1}{dt^2} = \frac{m_1 g - K_1 (\Delta L_1 + x_1) - \gamma (\frac{dx_1}{dt}) + K_3 ((\Delta L_2 + x_2) - (\Delta L_1 + x_1))}{m_1}
= g - \frac{K_1}{m_1} (\Delta L_1 + x_1) - \frac{\gamma}{m_1} (\frac{dx_1}{dt}) + \frac{K_3}{m_1} ((\Delta L_2 + x_2) - (\Delta L_1 + x_1))

Which, grand scheme of things, is pretty easy to solve numerically. Except that I don't know what \Delta L_1 and \Delta L_2 are.

My research group isn't really focused on this sort of thing, so I don't have anyone to bounce questions like this off of. Any help this community can provide will be greatly appreciated. Maybe I'm over thinking this, maybe I'm missing something entirely. I feel like it's a bit of both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Masses and springs are not enough. You need to add dampers (dashpots) to account for the friction losses (viscosity).
Find an acoustics expert; they deal with systems like this all the time.
 
Hi Alfred,

Yeah, I know that in order to make it into my "earthquake simulator" I will have to add in some sort of damping term to account for friction, but since this isn't really my area of expertise I'm REALLY starting from first principles. Modeling simple harmonic motion, modeling a "simple" 2 mass - 2 springs-in-series system, and now I'm trying to model this shear loaded springs-in-parallel system. This is all just so I understand how all of the loading works when I add in some sort of frictional resistance.

I do appreciate the advice of seeking out an acoustics expert, that seems like a sound recommendation.

[EDIT] Holy crap, I didn't even notice that pun... terrible... I'm ashamed.
 
Last edited:
I love your pun. Take credit for it even if it was unconscious.
 
Suggest you look in the seismology/rheology community. I'd be very surprised if what you are attempting hasn't already been done. Search under 'finite element analysis'
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K