Why do unsupported beams have eigenfrequencies?

AI Thread Summary
Unsupported beams exhibit eigenfrequencies despite being free to move, with the first three frequencies being zero, representing rigid body translations and rotations. Non-zero frequencies correspond to bending vibration modes, which can occur without fixed restraints. The transition from pinned to completely free beams illustrates that vibrations can still occur in unsupported structures. Understanding these vibrations is crucial in real-world applications, such as in aircraft and spacecraft design. Eigenfrequencies are a characteristic of all materials, highlighting their significance in structural analysis.
Butters
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
I know that a beam suspended in two ends can have many modal shapes. However, when it comes to unsupported free beam its first three eigenfrequencies are 0, why? And why should it have eigenfrequencies at all if it is free to move? Is eigenfrequency characteristic of every material? Why is it important?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The zero frequencies are the rigid body translations and rotations of the structure. (If you think there are 3 rather than 6, presumably you are only considering motion in two dimensions not three).

The non-zero frequencies represent vibration modes where the beam bends. There does not have to be any fixed restraints for bending to happen. Imagine a beam pinned at the ends. Then replace suspend the beam on two ropes. Then replace the ropes with flexible cords. Then take away the cords completely (and ignore gravity!).

You can imagine a continuous progression from the pinned beam to a completely free beam, and there is no reason why vibrations would suddenly become impossible.

Real-world examples of "unsupported" structures that can vibrate (and where understanding the vibrations are important) are aircraft, rockets, spacecraft , etc.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top