Formula for Natural Frequency of Cantilever Beam

AI Thread Summary
Two different equations for calculating the natural frequency of a cantilever beam are presented, leading to confusion about their correctness. The first equation includes a division by 2π, which results in frequency measured in Hertz, while the second equation does not, yielding a result in radians per second. The discussion clarifies that angular frequency (ω) is related to frequency (f) by the formula ω = 2πf. The governing differential equation for a cantilever beam with mass is also referenced, confirming the relationship between mass and stiffness in determining natural frequency. The distinction between the two equations is critical for accurate frequency calculations in engineering applications.
Oscar6330
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I found two different versions of equations to find natural frequency of a cantilever beam. I am not sure which one is right. I would appreciate if someone could make things a bit clear here


F1= k^2*sqrt(E*I/(mpl*L^4))/(2*pi) where k=1.875 for first natural freq and I= b*d^3/12;

OR is it

F1= k^2*sqrt(E*I/(mpl*L^4)) where k=1.875 for first natural freq and I= b*d^3/12;

Basically I am not sure why some equations have /(2*pi) while others do not and which one is correct
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Angular frequency , \omega radians /second = 2\pif cycles per second ?
 
Studiot said:
Angular frequency , \omega radians /second = 2\pif cycles per second ?

Thanks. So the first equation gives freq in Hz while other one gives answer in radians per second?
 
Yes the solution to the governing differential equation for say a cantilever with mass m at the end is

m\ddot x + kx = 0

which has solution

\omega = \sqrt {\frac{k}{m}}

where omega is in rads/second
 
Last edited:
Studiot said:
Yes the solution to the governing differential equation for say a cantilever with mass m at the end is

m\ddot x + kx = 0

which has solution

\omega = \sqrt {\frac{k}{m}}

where omega is in rads/second

thanks for your kind reply.

So

F1= k^2*sqrt(E*I/(mpl*L^4))/(2*pi)


w1=k^2*sqrt(E*I/(mpl*L^4))
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top