Help understanding modal projection in PDE with assumed solution form

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the modal projection in partial differential equations (PDEs) with a specific focus on the derivation of coefficients in a given equation related to vibrations of plates. The original poster is attempting to replicate results from a paper and is analyzing the substitution of proposed solutions into the equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive coefficients from the equation by substituting assumed solution forms and integrating, but encounters discrepancies with the author's results. Some participants suggest identifying specific disagreements and reconsidering the approach to the calculation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging in clarifying the differences in results and exploring the methods used by the author. There is a shared interest in understanding the derivation process, and some participants express uncertainty about how the author arrived at their results. The discussion remains open without a clear consensus on the resolution of the discrepancies.

Contextual Notes

The original poster references a specific paper and its equations, indicating that the context is rooted in advanced topics of vibrations and modal analysis in PDEs. There is an emphasis on the need for clarity regarding the derivation of terms in the equation, which may involve assumptions about orthogonality conditions.

Like Tony Stark
Messages
182
Reaction score
6
Homework Statement
Obtain mass and stiffness matrices given equation of motion
Relevant Equations
[tex] A_{11e} \frac{d^2 u_1}{dx^2} + (A_{12e} + A_{66e}) \frac{d^2 v_1}{dx,dy} + A_{66e} \frac{d^2 u_1}{dy^2} + \frac{G_2}{h_2} \left( u_3 - u_1 - d \frac{dw}{dx} \right) = (\rho_p h_p + \rho_s h_s) \frac{d^2 u_1}{dt^2} [/tex]
Hello,

This is not homework but I am trying to replicate some results I found in a paper. In short, the situation is as follows. The following equation is given:

A_{11e} \frac{d^2 u_1}{dx^2} + (A_{12e} + A_{66e}) \frac{d^2 v_1}{dxdy} + A_{66e} \frac{d^2 u_1}{dy^2} + \frac{G_2}{h_2} \left( u_3 - u_1 - d \frac{dw}{dx} \right) = (\rho_p h_p + \rho_s h_s) \frac{d^2 u_1}{dt^2}

where u_1(x,y), v_1(x,y), u_3(x,y), and w(x,y) are given by:

u_1(x,y) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} U_{1mn}(t) \frac{dX(x)}{dx} Y(y)

u_3(x,y) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} U_{3mn}(t) \frac{dX(x)}{dx} Y(y)

v_1(x,y) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} V_{1mn}(t) X(x) \frac{dY(y)}{dy}

w(x,y) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} W_{mn}(t) X(x) Y(y)

with X(x) = \sin\left( \frac{m \pi x}{a} \right) and Y(y) = \sin\left( \frac{n \pi y}{b} \right).
All other quantities are constants.

As far as I understand, the author substitutes the proposed solutions and groups terms according to the temporal variable that accompanies them.
He then rewrites the equation as:

K_{11} U_{1mn} + K_{12} V_{1mn} + K_{13} U_{3mn} + K_{15} W_{mn} + M_{11} \ddot{U}_{1mn} = 0

where (according to him):

K_{11} = -A_{11e} \left( \frac{m \pi}{a} \right)^2 - A_{66e} \left( \frac{n \pi}{b} \right)^2 - \frac{G_2}{h_2}

K_{12} = -(A_{12e} + A_{66e}) \left( \frac{m \pi}{a} \right) \left( \frac{n \pi}{b} \right)

K_{13} = \frac{G_2}{h_2}

K_{15} = -\frac{G_2 d}{h_2} \left( \frac{m \pi}{a} \right)

M_{11} = -(\rho_p h_p + \rho_s h_s)

The problem is that he doesn’t explain how these elements K_{ij} and M_{ij} are obtained.
I assume he multiplied both sides by \frac{dX(x)}{dx} Y(y) and integrated over x \in [0,a] and y \in [0,b], as if applying orthogonality conditions.
However, when I do that, I only recover some of the terms:

K_{11} = -A_{11e} \left( \frac{m \pi}{a} \right)^2 - A_{66e} \left( \frac{n \pi}{b} \right)^2 - \frac{G_2}{h_2}

K_{12} = -(A_{12e} + A_{66e}) \left( \frac{n \pi}{b} \right)^2

K_{13} = \frac{G_2}{h_2}

K_{15} = -\frac{G_2 d}{h_2}

M_{11} = -(\rho_p h_p + \rho_s h_s)

I cross-checked my results with a Mathematica script, and they seem consistent.

Does anyone have an idea of what the author might be doing differently?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you identifty exactly which of your results disagree with the author's, and show you arrived at them?

The idea seems to be to arrive at a coefficient of \cos(m\pi x/a)\sin(n\pi y/b). I would suggest using that in your calculation instead of X'(x)Y(y), etc.
 
pasmith said:
Could you identifty exactly which of your results disagree with the author's, and show you arrived at them?

The idea seems to be to arrive at a coefficient of \cos(m\pi x/a)\sin(n\pi y/b). I would suggest using that in your calculation instead of X'(x)Y(y), etc.
Hi. I'm not sure if I understood your comment correctly, but in my post I wrote both the author's results and mine. We differ in K_{12} and K_{15}.

On the other hand, what you said about using \cos\left(\frac{m\pi x}{a}\right) \sin\left(\frac{n\pi y}{b}\right) instead of X'(x)Y(y) is the same, since X(x) = \sin\left(\frac{m\pi x}{a}\right).
 
Like Tony Stark said:
Does anyone have an idea of what the author might be doing differently?
I get the same results as you. I don’t see how the author could get their result.

Is the paper available online?
 
TSny said:
I get the same results as you. I don’t see how the author could get their result.

Is the paper available online?
"Newtonian and Variational Formulations of the Vibrations of Plates With Active Constrained Layer Damping" by Chul H. Park and Amr Baz. See eqs. 21, 35, 36 and appendix.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K