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))
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top