1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

(Small oscillations) Finding Normal modes procedure.

  1. May 15, 2011 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    The first part of the problem is just finding the Lagrangian for a system with 2 d.o.f. and using small angle approximations to get the Lagrangian in canonical/quadratic form, not a problem. I am given numerical values for mass, spring constants, etc. and am told to find the normal modes of oscillation and the normal coordinates.
    2. Relevant equations



    3. The attempt at a solution

    I find the eigenvalues (eigenfreq, [tex]\lambda = \omega^{2}[/tex]) by diagonalizing: |V-[tex]\lambda[/tex]T| = 0. (V and T are matrices, also called M and K, they're the matrix of coefficients of the velocities and coordinates from the canonical Lagrangian respectively)

    I get 2 ugly numbers for my eigenfrequencies, approximately 0.3 and 15.7.

    Now I sub the first one into V-[tex]\lambda[/tex]T * (a11, a21) = 0
    to solve for the eigenvector (a11, a21) which are the amplitudes of oscillation of both of my 2 d.o.f.(1 and 2) for this normal mode (1).

    Question: plugging them in gives me a system of 2 equations of 2 variables. I am told that necessarily, one of the equations is a multiple of the other, but it doesn't seem to be true (using approximate values might have to do with this but I'm not sure). Is this correct?

    If I believe what I am told, I pick one of the equations (the end result depends on which one I pick!) and solve for a11 as a function of a21, then use the orthonormalization condition: (a11,a21)(transposed)*T*(a11,a21) = 1 which allows me to find one of the amplitudes, which I then use to go back and solve for the other.

    I am also very worried about approximating everything, at this stage of the problem I've already approximated decimal points on at least 3 occasions.

    Can someone PLEASE help clarify this to me? Am I on the right track?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 15, 2011 #2
    You are on the right track, but don't plug in numbers until the very end. For a 2x2 matrix, you can do everything analytically. If you are stuck, show some more of your calculations :)
     
  4. May 15, 2011 #3
    Thanks. The problem is my eigenvalues are generally irrational numbers so in order to not drag on mistakes from finding the roots, I just approximate the eigenvalues which is what my prof does and suggests doing even for 2 d.o.f. problems.

    I have a problem with the orthonormalization process, I'm never quite sure if I'm multiplying the A(transposed)TA vectors properly. Do I first calculate A(transposed)*T, giving me a column vector, which I then multiply like a scalar product with the last term A(not transposed)?
     
  5. May 15, 2011 #4
    You must have a prof with a technical background :)
    The order in which you do the multiplications doesn't matter. I prefer to first calculate T*a, which gives another vector and then take the scalar product with a transposed, but that's just because I find multiplying with a matrix from the left easier than from the right.
     
  6. May 15, 2011 #5
    Aha so its valid both ways, I can just use the "scissor fingers" rule. :)

    The prof is actually a theoretician. :P

    To get the normal coordinates, once I have the general solution both coordinates q (linear combo of normal modes), I multiply each by the inverse of the A matrix? Is this the whole matrix or just the corresponding eigenvector?
     
  7. May 15, 2011 #6
    That's the whole matrix. You can use your normalization equation to simplify things:
    [tex]\vec{N} = A^{-1} \vec{q} = A^{\mathrm{T}} T \vec{q}[/tex] since [tex]A^{\mathrm{T}} T A = 1[/tex].
     
  8. May 15, 2011 #7
    That 3rd expression you've got there... Didn't think of that. :P I'd much rather transpose and multiply 2 square matrices with a vector than invert a matrix any day! Thanks, I've learned how to do 2 things more efficiently today thanks to you. :)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar Discussions: (Small oscillations) Finding Normal modes procedure.
Loading...