What is the most general solution for a 2-DOF system?

  • Thread starter Thread starter boeing_737
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Systems Vibration
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equations of motion for a 2-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) vibrating system, specifically addressing why the same frequency is assumed for all components of the generalized coordinates. It is explained that assuming a single frequency for all components ensures that the entire system exhibits periodic motion, which is essential for defining vibration. If different frequencies were used, the resulting motion would not appear periodic unless the frequencies were in a simple ratio. The conversation also touches on the mathematical approach to solving the equations of motion, highlighting that the eigenvalue problem leads to a general solution that incorporates multiple modes of vibration. Ultimately, it is established that this method is the most comprehensive way to address the dynamics of the system.
boeing_737
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I have a question about Multi DOF vibrating systems. For free vibration of undamped MDOF systems, we have the equations of motion as :

M \ddot{q} + K {q} = {0} (1)

Where,
M - n x n mass matrix
K - n x n stiffness matrix
{q} - n x 1 vector of generalized coordinates

Most vibrations book try to obtain the eigenvalue problem by assuming the solution to (1) as
{q} = {Q} e^{j \omega t} (2)

For a 2-DOF system, (2) is
q_{1} = Q_{1} e^{j \omega t} (scalar eqn, 1st component of {q})
q_{2} = Q_{2} e^{j \omega t} (scalar eqn, 2nd component of {q})

My question is why do we assume the same exponent for all components of {q}? Why not assume (for a 2 DOF system) the solution as
q_{1} = Q_{1} e^{j \omega_{1} t}
q_{1} = Q_{1} e^{j \omega_{2} t}

ie, {q} = W Q, where W is a diagonal matrix containing the exponent terms?

Thanks,
yogesh
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason is that the idea of "vibration" means that the whole object keeps repeating exactly the same motion in each cycle of vibration. If the frequencies of different parts of the object were different, that would not happen.

Of course the actual motion of the system can be a linear combination of all the possible modes of vibration, but that would mean you were assuming a motion like
q_1 = Q_{11}e^{j\omega_1 t} + Q_{12}e^{j\omega_2 t}
q_2 = Q_{21}e^{j\omega_1 t} + Q_{22}e^{j\omega_2 t}
which isn't very useful if you want to find \omega_1 and \omega_2.
 
^AlephZero,
Thanks for the reply. Does that mean if I give random initial displacements (and/or velocities) to both the masses and let go, and trace out q_{1} and q_{2}, we will see periodic variations in the response?
 
The motion would be a combination of both vibration modes. Unless the two frequencies are in a simple ratio like 2:1 or 3:2 the motion will not look "periodic". For example a graph like \cos(t) + 0.5 \cos(\sqrt2 t) shows the sort of motion you would get in the general case.
 
Agree with what you said. Let's say we didn't know about modes and we want to solve the EOM for a 2-DOF system. If we want to assume a solution to the equations, how would you proceed? What would prompt us to use the same frequency for both the masses?
 
If you forget about physics and just consider this as a math problem, the EOM is a linear 2nd order differential equation.

If the EOM had 1 DOF, the standard solution method is to assume a solution x = A e^{pt}, substitute into the equation, and get a quadratic equation for p. You then find the corresponding values of A from the initial conditions x(0) and \dot x(0).

For a matrix equation the same method works, if you take x and A as vectors. The equation for p is now an eigenvalue equation (K + p^2M)A = 0. For each eigenvalue p_i there is a corresponding eigvenvector A_i (multiplied by an arbitrary scaliing factor). The general solution is then
\sum_i c_i A_i e^{p_i t}
where as before the constants c_i are determined by the intial conditions.

Each separate solution A_i e^{p_i t} looks like a "vibrating mode shape" of the structure.

Of course all the p's are pure imaginary numbers, so we write p_i = j \omega_i and the eigenvalue equation is usually written as (K - \omega^2M)A = 0, but I'm are pretending I don't know any physics here!

It is possible to prove mathematically that this really is the most general solution of the EOM.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top