Normal modes and system's energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between the energy of a system and the energies of its normal modes. Participants explore the mathematical foundations and implications of this relationship, including the orthogonality of mode shapes and the representation of system motion as a sum of normal modes.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the energy of a system can be expressed as the sum of the energies of its normal modes, citing examples such as the motion of a guitar string.
  • One participant explains that the orthogonality of mode shapes is a mathematical reason for this energy relationship, referencing the system's mass and stiffness matrices.
  • Another participant elaborates on the mathematical proof of orthogonality, noting that it requires linear algebra and can be demonstrated in specific cases, such as with two modes of different frequencies.
  • Participants discuss the implications of symmetric mass and stiffness matrices for the orthogonality proof, suggesting that while these assumptions simplify the proof, they are not strictly necessary.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no explicit consensus on the proof of the energy relationship, as participants present differing levels of mathematical rigor and assumptions. The discussion includes both agreement on the existence of the relationship and varying perspectives on the proof and its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the proof of orthogonality and the energy relationship may depend on specific assumptions about the system, such as the symmetry of mass and stiffness matrices. There are also references to the complexity of the mathematical proof, which may not be necessary for practical applications.

Tosh5457
Messages
130
Reaction score
28
Hi, why does the energy of the system equals the sum of the energy of the modes? The book I'm reading only states it, it doesn't prove it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The motion/excitation/configuration of a system, whatever it is (you don't say), can always be expressed as a sum of normal modes. An example: lift a guitar string at one point so the string displacement is triangular, and let go. Subsequent motion is extremely complicated, but it can be expressed as a sum of sinusoidal displacements at the fundamental and harmonic frequencies that are relatively easy to predict from a Fourier decomposition of the initial triangular excitation. Since the normal mode expansion describes the "actual" displacement, the sum of its energies equals the total energy of the system.
 
The matiematical reason is that the mode shapes are orthogonal. If ##x_i## amd ##x_j## are two different modes (## i \ne j##), then ##x_i^TMx_j = 0## and ##x_i^TKx_j = 0## where ##M## and ##K## are the system mass and stiffness matrices.

You can express any motion of the system as a linear combination of all the modes, i.e.
$$x = \sum_i a_i x_i.$$ So the total strain energy of the system is
$$x^T K x/2 = (\sum_i a_ix_i)^T K (\sum_j a_j x_j)/2
= \sum_i\sum_j (a_ia_jx_i^T K x_j)/2 = \sum_i (a^2_i x_i^T K x_i)/2$$because the only non-zero terms are when ##i = j##. The same is true for the kinetic energy.

The math proof that the modes are orthogonal requires quite a bit of linear algebra, and may be just assumed, or demonstrated by a numerical example, in a first course in dynamics. For practical engineering work, knowing the result is true is a lot more important than knowing how to prove it!
 
AlephZero said:
The math proof that the modes are orthogonal requires quite a bit of linear algebra...

It's easy to show this for the special case of two modes with different frequencies, if you assume the mass and stiffness matrices are symmetric. (None of those assumptions are necessary, but the proof without them is much harder).

For the two modes we have ##Mx_i + \omega_i^2Kx_i = 0## and ##Mx_j + \omega_j^2Kx_j = 0##.

Multiply the first equation by ##x_j^T## and the second by ##x_i^T##:
##x_j^TMx_i + \omega_i^2x_j^TKx_i = 0## and ##x_i^TMx_j + \omega_j^2x_i^TKx_j = 0##.
If M and K are symmetric, ## x_j^TMx_i = x_i^TMx_j ## and ## x_j^TKx_i = x_i^TKx_j ##.
So by subtracting the two equations we get ##(\omega_i^2 - \omega_j^2)x_i^TKx_j =0##.

If the two frequencies are different, this means that ##x_i^TKx_j = 0##, and back substituting, ##x_i^TMx_j = 0##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
645