Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference

IDETC/CIE 2009 Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International August Design Engineering Technical Conferences Computers and 30 - September 2, 2009, San Diego, & California, USA Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2009 August 30-September 2, 2009, San Diego, California, USA

DETC2009-87852
DETC2009/VIB-87852
DYNAMIC STIFFNESS MATRIX METHOD FOR THE FREE VIBRATION ANALYSIS OF ROTATING UNIFORM SHEAR BEAMS
Dominic R. Jackson Dynamic and Aeroelasticity Group, School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester, M60 1QD, UK S. Olutunde Oyadiji Dynamic and Aeroelasticity Group, School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester, M60 1QD, UK problem has been addressed by many researchers over decades using mainly the Bernoulli-Euler or the Timoshenko beam theories. Many solution methods have been applied to obtain the natural frequencies of vibration and also mode shapes of the rotating beam. These include exact analytical solutions and finite element or approximate methods [1]. The Bernoulli-Euler theory is accurate to model slender beams but it is less accurate than the Timoshenko theory when modelling non-slender beams and also when higher modes of vibration are considered. The difference in the two theories is that, one disregards the so-called secondary effects (rotary inertia and shear deformation) whilst the other fully accounts for them. The rotary inertia produces rotary kinetic energy due to the angular velocity of a differential element integrated along the entire length of the beam. The shear deformation takes into account the strain energy due to the shear distortion as a result of bending. Unlike the Bernoulli-Euler theory, the rotary inertia and the shear deformation effects are incorporated into the energy formulations of the Timoshenko beam. Also, in the Timoshenko beam analysis, the two effects are studied simultaneously by manipulating the ratio of the bending rigidity to that of the shear rigidity with respect to the slenderness ratio. It has been established that the shear deformation effect is more profound than the rotary inertia effect [2]. The vibration analyses of rotating uniform beams using the Bernoulli-Euler and Timoshenko theories are well covered subjects [3]. However, the application of the Shear beam theory to the rotating beam in the classical sense is not yet available in the present literature. Kausel [4], Ochoa [5] and Hodges [6] are among the very few authors who have analysed and also addressed the Shear theory in comparison to the Timoshenko theory but for non-rotating beams. The

ABSTRACT The Dynamic Stiffness Method (DSM) is used to analyse the free vibration characteristics of a rotating uniform Shear beam. Starting from the kinetic and strain energy expressions, the Hamiltons principle is used to obtain the governing differential equations of motion and the natural boundary conditions. The two equations are solved simultaneously and expressed each in terms of displacement and slope only. The Frobenius power series solution is applied to solve the equations and the resulting solutions are also expressed in terms of four independent solutions. Applying the appropriate boundary conditions, the Dynamic Stiffness Matrix is assembled. The natural frequencies of vibration using the DSM are computed by employing the in-built root finding algorithm in Mathematica as well as by implementing the Wittrick-Williams algorithm in a numerical routine in Mathematica. The results obtained using the DSM are presented in tabular and graphical forms and are compared with results obtained using the Timoshenko and the BernoulliEuler theories. Keywords: Dynamic Stiffness Method (DSM), Shear Theory, Rotating Beams, Free Vibration 1. INTRODUCTION

Helicopter rotor blades, wind turbines, compressors, gas turbines, aircraft propellers and many elements of rotating machinery are modelled as beam-like structures. Due to the rotational motion, these structures are subjected to a centrifugal force distribution which influences their bending rigidities. As a result of this, their natural frequencies of vibration also change. The solution of the rotating beam

Author for correspondence, Phone: (0044) 161-275 4348, Email: s.o.oyadiji@manchester.ac.uk.

Copyright 2009 by ASME

authors of this paper are therefore contributing to the literature by solving the free vibration problem of rotating uniform cantilever beams using the Shear Theory. The attraction of the Shear Theory lies in the fact that the equations of motion are simpler than the Timoshenko equations. Thus, the solution process is also simpler. The solution procedure employed here is based on the Dynamic Stiffness Method (DSM). The DSM is an analytic method that uses exact solutions of the governing differential equations of motion as shape functions in harmonic vibration analysis. This obviously has advantages over the Finite Element Method (FEM) that depends on interpolation functions which are rather approximate. In this paper, the free vibration problem of the rotating uniform beam is solved by accounting for the shear deformation effects only [7]. It is therefore assumed that the rotary inertia effect does not exist. It implies that, the assumption made in the Bernoulli-Euler theory that, all cross sections perpendicular to the neutral axis before deformation remain plane and perpendicular after deformation is also not valid in this case. We call this theory, the Shear beam theory. This model differs from the Timoshenko theory just for the fact that the rotary inertia contribution is assumed negligible. Thus, the rotary inertia effect is not accommodated in the energy formulations. Although these effects can be demonstrated by manipulating the ratio of the flexural and shear rigidities together with the variation of the slenderness ratio when using the Timoshenko theory, the main objective of the analysis is to explore solely the effect of the shear deformation theoretically without the simultaneous interaction of the rotary inertia in comparison with the Bernoulli-Euler and the Timoshenko theories. The idea is also to establish or identify the advantages of applying the Shear theory over the conventional Bernoulli-Euler and Timoshenko theories. 2. THEORY

It is assumed that the beam rotates in the XOY plane (global) with a uniform angular speed about an axis which coincides with the Z axis. The origin of the local coordinate system coincides with the root of the beam. The length of the beam from the root to the tip is L units and it is offset at R units (hub radius) from the Z axis. The beam performs harmonic oscillations in the ZOY plane as it rotates. As a result of the rotational motion, the beam is subjected to a compressive or tensile force depending on the position of the axis of rotation with respect to the root of the beam. If R is positive, a tensile force is always induced. However, if R is negative, but with an absolute magnitude greater than the length of the beam, then a compressive force is always induced. A combination of tensile and compressive forces may be induced if R is negative with an absolute magnitude less than the length of the beam. That is if the axis of rotation lies between the root and the tip of the beam. Using the indices 1 and 0, we can express the position vectors of r0 at the point P0 (before deformation) and r1 at the point P (after deformation) as follows: 2.1 Displacements
r0 = x 0 i + y 0 j + z 0 k r1 = x1 i + y1 j + z1 k

(1) (2)

where
x 0 = , x1 = , y 0 = R + y, z0 =

(3)
y1 = R + y + v z 0 2 , z1 = w +

2.2 Velocities Figure 1 shows the displacement of an arbitrary material point in a beam in its deformed and undeformed states. The local coordinate axis zoxy is attached to the beam and the y axis coincides with the neutral axis along the span of the beam. The velocity of a mass point r1 in the deformed configuration of the beam is also expressed generally by the following relations:
V= r r r r + ( k r ) t

(5) (6) (7)

& )k V = {(R + y + v 2 )}i ( ) j + ( w

& )2 V = {(R + y + v 2 )}2 + ( ) 2 + ( w

2.3 Strain Energy The strain energy of the rotating shear beam can be expressed in terms of engineering stresses and strains due to the flexural oscillations, the transverse shear distortion and also the axial strains as a result of the centrifugal force distribution. The following relation represents the general expression for evaluating the strain energy of the rotating Shear beam.
Figure 1. Kinematics of the deformed beam

Copyright 2009 by ASME

US = {
0

( 22 22 +12 12 + 23 23 )dd}dy
A

(8)

principle which is defined as the time variation of the Lagrangian function L.

( U K US )dt = 0

where
22 = E 22 , 12 = G 12 , 23 = G 23

(16)

(9) (10)

22 = 22 , 12 = 212 , 23 = 2 23

Substituting equations (9) and (10) in (8) and performing the required integration by parts, the strain energy can be simplified and expressed as:
US =

where is the variational operator and the expression ( U K US ) is known as the Lagrangian function. Substituting the respective expressions for UK and US from equations (11) and (15) into equation (16), applying the variational operator , and simplifying gives:
t2L

L T ( w) 2

L EI ( ) 2 L xx 2 dy + dy + GAk ( w 2 ) 2 dy 2 0 0

(11)

& w & + GAk ( w 2 )( w 2 )]dydt [Tw w + EI xx 22 Aw

t1 0

The direct strains associated with the deformation of the rotating beam can be derived from the strain tensor using the vector differentials of the position vectors r0 and r1 as follows.
d dr1 dr1 dr0 dr0 = 2d , dy, d [ ij ] dy d

(17) The governing differential equations of motion and the boundary conditions of the rotating Shear beam can now be derived by integrating equation (17) by parts and collecting terms with respect to the arbitrary parameters w and 2 as;
GAk( w 2 ) + (EI xx 2 ) = 0
&& = 0 (Tw ) + {GAk ( w 2 )} + Aw
t1

(12)

(18) (19)

It has been established from the Linear Theory of Elasticity that the transverse strains for slender beams are relatively far smaller than the dominant axial strain during flexure [8]. We therefore adopt an order of magnitude scheme to obtain the elements of the strain tensor [ ij ] in simplified form as;
11 = 12 = 13 = 33 = 0 22 = (v) 2 2 + (w) 2 2 1 2 2 + v 2 v 2 + ( 2) 2

(EIx2 )2 | = 0
t2
t1

L 0

(20)

t2

{GAk(w 2 ) + Tw }w 0| = 0

(21)

(13) Assuming the oscillations are harmonic, then

w = w( y, t ) = W ( y ) e it

w 23 = 2 + 2 2

(22)
2 = 2 ( y, t ) = 2 ( y ) e
it

2.4 Kinetic Energy The kinetic energy of the beam in the deformed state is
L V 2 UK = d d dy 2 0A

(14)

Substituting equation (22) in equations (18) and (19) and recalling the non-dimensional parameters in Appendix [B] results in the following equations:
= 0 2 + W + 2 2

(23)
s 2 2 + ri s 2 2 ri s 2 2 2 ( 24)

Substituting equation (7) in (14), a simplified expression of the kinetic energy can be obtained as shown below:
UK =

2 2W (ri s 2 2 s 2 2 )W 2 + (1 +
1 2 2 2 s )W = 0 2

L A

& )2 (w dy
2

(15)

2.5 Governing Differential Equation of Motion The governing differential equations of motion for the Shear beam can now be derived using the Hamilton's variational

Thus, the rotating uniform Shear beam model is governed by two second order linear differential equations coupled in displacement w and slope 2. The two equations can be uncoupled differentially and expressed in general form as two

Copyright 2009 by ASME

fourth order linear differential equations in terms of displacements W and slope 2 respectively as shown below:
(1 + 2 + 3 ) W + ( 4 + 5 + 6 2 ) W + ( 7 + 8 + 9 2 ) W
2

a 4[k ] =

{ (k 1)(k 2) + 5 (k 1) + 6 } { 2 (k 1) + 4 } a 3[ k ] 3 a 2 [k ] 1 (k + 3) 1 (k + 3)(k + 2)
7 (k 1) + 9 a1[k ] = 0 1(k + 3)(k + 2)(k + 1)

+ (10 + 11 + 12 2 ) W + (13 + 14 + 15 2 ) W = 0

for k = 0

( 25)

a i + 5 [k ] =

{10 (k + i) + 5 (k + i)(k + i 1) + 11} a i +1[k ] 1 (k + i + 4)(k + i + 3)(k + i + 2)(k + i + 1)

7 ( k + i) + 9 a i + 2 [k ] 1 (k + i + 4)(k + i + 3)(k + i + 2)

+ ( 4 + 5 + 6 2 ) 2 + ( 7 + 8 + 9 2 ) 2 (1 + 2 + 3 2 ) 2 + (13 + 14 + 15 2 ) 2 = 0 + (10 + 11 + 12 2 ) 2 ( 26)

{ 3 (k + i + 2)(k + i + 1) + 5 (k + i) + 6 } a i + 3 [k ] 1 (k + i + 4)(k + i + 3) (29)

where i and i are non-dimensional variable coefficients defined in the Appendix [A]. The task is not tedious for uniform beams since the cross sectional area at any point along the span of the beam does not change. However, one must note that the appropriate rules of calculus must be applied when dealing with beams with non-uniform cross sections because the area of the cross section is a function of the spatial coordinate. 2.6 Solution of the Governing Differential Equations of Motion A convenient way of using the dynamic stiffness method (DSM) requires the use of explicit expressions for the displacement, slope, bending moment and shear force. We therefore seek exact solutions of the governing differential equations of motion in the form of a Frobenius power series defined below:
W[, k ] =

{ 2 (k + i) + 4 } a i + 4 [k ] ................... for k 0 1 (k + i + 4)

The coefficients of the series solution for 2[] are the same as the above except that the is are replaced with is. The Frobenius series solution can now be expressed as a linear combination of four independent solutions as:
W[] =

k =0

A k Y[, k]
n

and

2 [] =

k =0

B k Z[, k]
n

(30)

Y[, k ] =

k =0 n

a i +1[k] k +i + a i +1[k] k +i a i +1[k] k +i

n +1 k =0 n

(31)
Z[, k ] =
k =0

bi +1[k] k +i + a i +1[k] k +i bi +1[k] k +i

n +1 k =0

a i +1[k] k +i
i =0

(27)

2 [, k ] =

bi +1[k] k + i
i =0

(28)

The first four coefficients ai[k] and the recurrence relationship ai+5[k] for i 0 for the equations are given below:
a1[ k ] = 1 for 0 k 3 a 2 [k ] = 2 ( k 3) + 4 a1[ k ] = 0 for 0 k 2 1 ( k + 1) 2 ( k 2) + 4 ( k 2)( k 3) + 6 a 2 [k ] 3 a1[ k ] = 0 1 ( k + 2) 1 ( k + 2)( k + 1)

The scalars Ak and Bk are determined by the boundary conditions imposed. Theoretically, an infinite number of terms of the series would converge to the exact analytical solution. However, a finite number "n" is required for computation with sufficient accuracy. Thus, the second terms in equation (31) can be assumed to be negligible. To completely solve the problem, the relationship between the two scalars must be established. To do so, we substitute equation (30) and (31) in equations (23) and (24) and collect terms with respect to the powers of . The resulting equation can be in expressed in matrix form as follows:
0 0 A 0 / L b11 b12 a 2 [0] a1[1] 2 a [ 0 ] 2 a [ 1 ] 2 a [ 2 ] 0 A1 / L b 21 b 22 3 2 1 = 3a 4 [0] 3a 3 [1] 3a 2 [2] 3a1[3] A 2 / L b 31 b 32 b 41 b 42 A 3 / L 4a 5 [0] 4a 4 [1] 4a 3 [2] 4a 2 [3] b13 b14 B0 b 23 b 24 B1 b 33 b 34 B 2 b 43 b 44 B3

(32) where the elements bij are given in the Appendix C. The relationship between the two scalars is finally obtained by premultiplying equation (32) by the inverse of the matrix on the left hand side. This allows us to express Ak in terms of some coefficient Ck multiplied by Bk as shown below:
A k = L C k Bk

a 3[ k ] =

for 0 k 1

(33)

Copyright 2009 by ASME

2.7 Dynamic Stiffness Matrix The dynamic stiffness matrix can now be assembled by substituting equation (33) in equation (30). Then, imposing the boundary conditions, a paired system of equations can be formulated for the displacements, slopes, bending moments and shear forces as follows: 2.7.1
3

{P} = [D] {A}

(43)

Displacements

where [B] and [D] are matrices of displacements and forces respectively and {A} are unknown scalars which can be determined from the boundary conditions. The dynamic stiffness matrix can be assembled by solving equations (42) and (43) by eliminating {A}. This is done by pre-multiplying equation (42) by the inverse of the matrix [B] and substituting the resulting expression in equation (43) as follows:

W[] =

k =0

A k Y[, k] = L C k Bk Y[, k]
k =0

(34)

{P} = [D] [B]-1 {} = [] {}

(44)

W[0] = C 0 B 0 Y[0,0] + C1B1 Y[0,1] + C 2 B 2 Y[0,2] + C 3 B 3 Y[0,3]

(35)
W[1] = C 0 B 0 Y[1,0] + C1B1 Y[1,1] + C 2 B 2 Y[1,2] + C 3 B3 Y[1,3]

2.7.2
2 [] =

Bending slopes

The matrix [K] is now the dynamic stiffness matrix which relates harmonically varying forces to harmonically varying displacements [7]. This matrix can be used to compute all the natural frequencies for all boundary conditions accurately. The assembling procedure when using the (DSM) is similar to that in the Finite Element Method (FEM). One of the key advantages of the DSM application over other methods especially the approximate methods including the FEM is the accuracy. For example, for a single element of a structure, the number of elements used does not influence the frequencies. This implies that the DSM can be used to predict many modes of vibration in the exact sense using just a few degrees of freedom [9]. In contrast to that, results obtained using the FEM depend on the discretization. Also, whereas the finite element stiffness matrix leads to a linear eigenvalue problem, the DSM stiffness matrix leads to a non-linear eigenvalue problem. The functions are of transcendental nature and require an efficient numerical algorithm to solve them. For this purpose, the well known Wittrick-Williams (W-W) algorithm which is cited in many publications is recommended. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

k =0

Bk Z[, k]

(36)

2 [0] = B0 Z [0,0] + B1 Z [0,1] + B2 Z [0,2] + B3 Z [0,3]

(37)
2 [1] = B0 Z [1,0] + B1 Z [1,1] + B2 Z [1,2] + B3 Z [1,3]

2.7.3
M [ ] =

Bending Moments
EI xx L2
EI x0 L2 EI x0 L2

(2 [ ])

(38)

M [ 0] =

(2 [0])

(39)
M [1] = (2 [1])

2.7.4
Q[ ] =

Shear Forces
EI xx T [ ]W [ ] L3 W [ ] L3 2 [ ] + GAk 3 L EI L EI xx xx L EI x0 T [0]W [0] L3 W [0] L3 2 [0] + GAk 3 L EI L EI x 0 x0 L

(40)

Q[0] =

(41)
EI T [1]W [1] L3 W [1] L3 2[1] + Q[1] = x0 GAk 3 L EI x0 L EI x 0 L

In this paper, the Wittrick-Williams (W-W) algorithm [10] is implemented in a numerical code in Mathematica to evaluate the natural frequencies of vibration. The W-W algorithm can be used to compute the frequencies of vibration of a structure as a single element or as an assemblage of elements. The use of the algorithm requires the local stiffness matrices of each element in the structure to be known. The key advantage of using the W-W algorithm is that one can converge to the number of frequencies below any trial frequency accurately without a miss. For a detailed explanation of the use of the (W-W) algorithm, readers are referred to references [10, 11]. In Table 1, the natural frequencies of vibration of a rotating Shear beam as a function of slenderness ratio (rx) using DSM are presented in comparison with Finite Elements (FE) results obtained using the Abaqus FE program and Timoshenko results using DSM. The first five natural frequencies of a nonrotating Bernoulli-Euler beam are also given in the last row of the table for comparison. As expected, the results obtained using the Shear theory are slightly higher than the results obtained using the Timoshenko theory and both of them are lower than the Bernoulli-Euler frequencies. It can be seen

The system of equations (35), (37) and also, equations (39) and (41) can be combined and written in matrix form. These matrix equations derived respectively for the displacements {} and forces {P} can also be expressed as follows: {}= [B] {A} (42)

Copyright 2009 by ASME

from the table that as the beam becomes slenderer (rx ), the relative deviation between the Shear and Timoshenko frequencies from the Bernoulli-Euler converges to a finitely small value. It is also obvious that, the relative deviation of the Shear frequencies from the Timoshenko is quite small in comparison to the deviation from the Bernoulli-Euler frequencies.
Table 1 Non-dimensional frequencies (i) of a rotating uniform Shear beam as a function of slenderness ratio rx with s = 0, ri = 0 and E/kG = 3.059. Frequencies obtained using FE (Abaqus), Shear (DSM) and Timoshenko (DSM) are presented in rows one, two and three respectively. The Bernoulli-Euler results are shown at the bottom of the table.
1/rx 10
1 3.27595 3.28807 3.23091 3.46445 3.45500 3.43643 3.49993 3.48854 3.47984 3.51110 3.50049 3.49550 3.51554 3.50606 3.50284 3.51915 3.51212 3.51085 3.51944 3.51352 3.51270 3.51883 3.51539 3.51519 3.51836 3.51574 3.51565 3.51788 3.51586 3.51581 3.51761 3.51592 3.51588 3.51710 3.51599 3.51598 3.51602 2 14.68886 15.62211 14.53073 19.28809 19.71551 19.13900 20.70850 20.90953 20.58916 21.28000 21.38074 21.18372 21.55788 21.60958 21.47787 21.86415 21.86566 21.81164 21.93393 21.92601 21.89103 22.02197 22.00723 21.99834 22.03480 22.02236 22.01840 22.038357 22.02767 22.02544 22.03940 22.03012 22.02870 22.03994 22.03340 22.03304 22.03449 3 32.00595 34.35386 31.67018 47.12567 49.00490 46.75059 53.66966 54.91807 53.33981 56.77850 57.59080 56.50236 58.43095 58.97183 58.19782 60.39951 60.58807 60.24592 60.87988 60.98043 60.75476 61.52238 61.51566 61.45687 61.63521 61.61632 61.58999 61.67474 61.65167 61.63682 61.68930 61.66806 61.65854 61.70636 61.68992 61.68754 61.69721 4 48.62449 53.67422 48.22714 79.91930 84.01477 79.23827 95.91976 99.28607 95.27812 104.62900 107.17069 104.06715 109.66247 111.54876 109.17948 116.14653 116.97312 115.82168 117.82854 118.34287 117.56404 120.17289 120.24663 120.03633 120.60878 120.60936 120.51451 120.75646 120.73710 120.68346 120.82905 120.79635 120.76195 120.90811 120.88417 120.86687 120.90190 5 62.47248 73.07956 68.45044 115.37351 121.79795 114.32641 144.18526 150.36768 143.12783 161.61800 166.88800 160.65290 172.48460 176.75067 171.63285 187.59655 189.78264 187.01387 191.77412 193.23121 191.29994 197.83983 198.13856 197.59270 199.00626 199.08914 198.84069 199.41519 199.09536 199.28415 199.59702 199.58116 199.49061 199.83778 177.68577 199.76707 199.85950

In Table 3, the variation of the natural frequencies of a rotating Shear beam with respect to the non-dimensional rotational speed parameter from s = 0 to s = 10 and s = 15 are presented. The fundamental natural frequencies of a rotating Timoshenko beam obtained using Differential Transformation Method (DTM) from reference [12] are included in the first column for comparison. The percentage deviation between Shear frequencies for the first mode and the frequencies from reference [12] are between 0.2 % for rotational speed s = 0 and 0.4% for s = 10. As expected, the natural frequencies of the rotating Shear beam increase as the rotational speed increases.
Table 2 Non-dimensional frequencies (i) of a rotating uniform Shear beam as a function of slenderness ratio rx with s = 10, ri = 0 and E/kG = 4
1/rx 10 20 30 40 50 80 100 200 300 400 500 1000
1 10.66343 10.39627 10.96522 10.88338 11.07840 11.03912 11.12794 11.10512 11.15318 11.13834 11.18243 11.17652 11.18948 11.18569 11.19908 11.19813 11.20088 11.20046 11.20151 11.20165 11.20181 11.20165 11.20220 11.20216 11.20233 2 28.87131 25.65862 31.42686 30.37088 32.46486 31.90533 32.93058 32.58893 33.17012 32.94192 33.44941 33.35568 33.51703 33.45630 33.60915 33.59371 33.62646 33.61958 33.63254 33.63287 33.63535 33.63287 33.63911 33.63849 33.64037 3 52.32425 45.80275 62.42821 59.49755 67.57709 65.63973 70.19904 68.86445 71.63620 70.68154 73.39396 72.96653 73.83340 73.55034 74.44102 74.36682 74.55637 74.52309 74.59695 74.60374 74.61577 74.60374 74.64091 74.63789 74.64929 4 76.46420 71.22703 98.45930 93.17947 111.87699 107.71228 119.64633 116.39664 124.25468 121.73530 130.28380 129.02112 131.86487 131.00228 134.10279 133.86628 134.53458 134.42757 134.68705 134.71897 134.75785 134.71897 134.85249 134.84274 134.88410 4 100.57779 99.22437 136.356328 128.679193 161.408597 154.578391 177.543532 171.596418 187.871213 182.880713 202.427147 199.594673 206.465919 204.457296 212.355221 211.772259 213.515706 213.248886 213.927383 214.021379 214.118912 214.021379 214.375257 214.350715 214.460953

20

30

40

50

80

100

200

300

B-E

400

500

Table 3 Non-dimensional frequencies (i) of a rotating uniform Shear beam as a function of rotational speed parameter s with ri = 0, E/kG = 3.059 and rx = 1/30
s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 Ref [12] 1 3.4798 3.6445 4.0971 4.7516 5.5314 6.3858
-

1000

Natural frequencies of rotating Shear beams

1 3.48854 2 20.90953 3 54.91807 4 99.28607

B-E

In Table 2, the first five natural frequencies of a rotating Shear beam are given for rotational speed parameter s = 10 with respect to slenderness ratio rx for E/kG = 4. The natural frequencies of a similar rotating Bernoulli-Euler beam are given at the bottom of the table for comparison. The table shows a similar trend in the variation of the Shear frequencies in comparison to the Timoshenko frequencies. As expected, the relative errors between the Shear and the Timoshenko frequencies are smaller than that between the Shear and the Bernoulli-Euler frequencies. In both cases in Tables 1 and 2, these values converge to the B-E frequencies as the beam becomes slenderer.

3.65426 4.10954 4.76752 5.55109 6.40923 7.31159 8.24058 9.18597 10.14174 11.10425 15.96334

21.06137 21.51043 22.23845 23.21868 24.41988 25.80998 27.35873 29.03922 30.82840 32.70706 42.98492

55.07857 55.55688 56.34369 57.42442 58.78039 60.39019 62.23103 64.27986 66.51434 68.91341 82.76616

99.46717 100.00809 100.90183 102.13717 103.69932 105.57065 107.73153 110.16112 112.83815 115.74148 132.97604

11.0643 -

Copyright 2009 by ASME

Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 show the variation of the natural frequencies of vibration of the rotating Shear beam as a function of the rotational speed parameters in comparison with the frequencies based on the Timoshenko and Bernoulli Euler theories. It is clear from the graphs that, the frequencies disperse as the mode number increases.
i
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 S B-E T Mode 1

when using the Bernoulli-Euler theory in comparison to the Shear or Timoshenko theories. Figure 6 represents the percentage error between the Bernoulli-Euler theory and the Shear theory with respect to the rotational speed parameter s. For the first mode, the error variation is very small and is almost constant with a slight tendency to increase as s increases. As the mode number increases the errors increase and tend to reduce with the increase in the rotational speed.

i
73

B-E

Mode 3

68

63
4 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

s
58

Figure 2. Variation of the fundamental natural frequencies with respect to the rotational speed parameter s. ri = 0, E/kG = 3.059 rx = 1/30

53 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

i
34

B-E

Mode 2

Figure 4. Variation of the third natural frequencies with respect to the rotational speed parameter s with ri = 0, E/kG = 3.059 rx = 1/30

.
32
135

i
130

B-E

Mode 4

30

28
125

26
120

24

115 110

22

20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

105 100 95 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 3. Variation of the second natural frequencies with respect to the rotational speed parameter s with ri = 0, E/kG = 3.059 rx = 1/30

In figure 2, the percentage difference between the Shear, Timoshenko and Bernoulli Euler theories is very small. As the mode number increases, figures 2 and 3 show that the Bernoulli-Euler frequencies diverge from the Timoshenko frequencies at a higher rate than the Shear frequencies. Thus, the higher the mode number, the greater the errors incurred

Figure 5. Variation of the fourth natural frequencies with respect to the rotational speed parameter s with ri = 0, E/kG = 3.059 rx = 1/30

In figure 7, the relative deviation x of the natural frequencies between the Bernoulli-Euler, the Shear frequencies and Finite Elements (FE) results obtained using the Abaqus FE program are presented with respect to the slenderness ratio rx. The

Copyright 2009 by ASME

relative deviation of the Bernoulli theory from the Shear, Timoshenko and FE generally increase distinctively as the mode number increases. The errors become less distinct as rx decreases and their magnitudes drops significantly. Figure 8 also represents the relative error between the Bernoulli-Euler, the Shear and the Timoshenko theories with respect to the slenderness ratio rx at a rotational speed s = 10 and E/kG = 4.
22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4

Timoshenko

Shear

FE (Abaqus)

2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6

5

1.4
4

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6

3

0.4 0.2

2 1

0.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

rx

50

10

Figure 6 Percentage deviation of natural frequencies between the Shear and Bernoulli theory with respect to the rotational speed parameter s at rx = 1/30

Figure 7. Percentage deviation of natural frequencies between Bernoulli theory, Shear and Timoshenko theories x with respect to the slenderness ratio rx, s = 0 and E/kG = 3.059.
Timoshenko Shear

x
1.2

CONCLUSIONS

1.1

The dynamic stiffness method (DSM) has been used to evaluate the natural frequencies of vibration of a rotating uniform beam using the Shear beam theory. The results obtained are compared to results obtained by other exact analytical methods available in the literature based on the Timoshenko and the Bernoulli-Euler theories. It has been established from the analysis that the Shear beam theory, which only accounts for the transverse shear deformation, gives better results over a wide speed range in comparison to the Bernoulli-Euler theory when the aspect ratio of the beam is low. The results are presented in tabular and graphical form to demonstrate the reliability and application of the theory. A numerical model was also developed in the Finite Element (FE) package Abaqus to validate some of the results which are not in the present literature and the results were quite satisfactory. This concludes that, the Shear beam theory performs better than the Bernoulli Euler theory. Considering the use of the Shear theory based on the Dynamic Stiffness Method (DSM), it is more reliable, accurate and less time consuming in comparison with the Finite Element Method. Technically, it can also be used in place of the Timoshenko theory for certain applications where the Timoshenko may be too complicated to implement.

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

3
0.4

0.3

0.2

2 1

0.1

0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

rx
140

Figure 8. Percentage deviation of natural frequencies between Bernoulli theory, Shear and Timoshenko theories x with respect to the slenderness ratio rx, s = 10 and E/kG = 4.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The award of a scholarship award to D R Jackson by the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering is gratefully acknowledged.

Copyright 2009 by ASME

6 1

REFERENCES Lee, S.Y. and Kuo, Y.H., 1993, Bending frequency of a rotating Timoshenko beam with general elastically restrained root, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 162, pp. 243-50. Du, H., Lim, M.K. and Liew, K.M., 1994, A power series solution for vibrations of a rotating Timoshenko beam,Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 175 No. 4, pp. 505-23. Bazoune, A. Khulief, Y.A. and Stephen, N.G., 1999, Further results for modal characteristics of rotating tapered Timoshenko beams, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 219, pp. 157-74. Kausel, E., 2002, Non-Classical Modes of Unrestrained Shear Beams. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol 128, No 6. Arristizabal-Ochoa J.D., 2004, Timoshenko Beam Column with generalized End conditions and Nonclassical Modes of Vibration of Shear Beams Vol 130, No 10. Hodges, D.H., 2007, Asymptotic Derivation of Shear Beam Theory from Timoshenko Theory, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, v 133, n 8, p 957-961 Han, S.M., Benaroya, H. and Wei, T., 1999, Dynamics of transversely vibrating beams Using four engineering theories, Journal of Sound and Vibration 225(5), 935988 Hodges, D. H. and Dowell, E. H, 1974 Nonlinear equations of motion for the elastic bending and torsion of twisted non-uniform rotor blades, NASA-TN-D-7818. Banerjee, J.R., 1997, Dynamic stiffness formulation for structural elements: A general approach, Computers and Structures, v 63, n 1, p 101-103. Wittrick, W.H. and Williams, F.W., 1971, A General Algorithm for Computing Natural Frequencies of Elastic Structures, Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 24, pp. 263-284. Banerjee, J.R. and Williams, F.W., 1985, Exact Bernoulli-Euler static stiffness matrix for a range of tapered beam columns, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 23, 1615-1628. Kaya, M.O., 2006, Free vibration analysis of a rotating Timoshenko beam by differential transform method, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, v 78, n 3, p 194-203.

7 A.

APPENDICES Coefficients i and i

s2 4 1 = 2 + + ri s2 4 2 2 = ri s2 4 1 3 = s2 4 2 4 = 3 ri s2 4 5 = s2 4 6 = 0 1 7 = s2 2 ri s2 2 + s2 4 + 2 4 2 8 = ri s2 2 1 2 2 s 9 = 2 10 = ri s2 2 11 = s2 2 12 = 0 13 = 2 2 14 = 0 15 = 0

10

11

s2 4 ri s2 4 2 2 = ri s2 4 1 2 4 s 3 = 2 4 = 2 ri s2 4 5 = 0 6 = 0 s2 2 7 = + ri s2 2 s2 4 2 4 2 8 = ri s2 2 1 9 = s2 2 2 10 = 2 ri s2 2 11 = 0 12 = 0 13 = s2 2 + 2 2 14 = 0 15 = 0

1 = 2

B. 12

Non-dimensional Parameters

A 2 L4 2 Ao 2 L4 F L2 y R , ri = , 2 = o ,s = , p2 = 0 L L EI x 0 EI x 0 EI x 0 i ( BE ) i ( S ,T ) EI A , 2 = x0 , x = 2 kAG i ( S ,T ) I x0 L

r2 =

Copyright 2009 by ASME

C.

Elements of the matrix b4x4 in equation (32)

b12 = 22b2[1], b13 = 22b1[2], b14 = 0

b11 = (b1[0] + 22b3[0]), b21 = (b2[0] + 62b4[0]),

b22 = (b1[1] + 62b3[1]), b23 = 62b2[2], b24 =122b2[3]

b31 = (b3[0] +122b5[0]), b32 = (b2[1] +122b4[1]), b33 = (b1[2] +122b3[2]), b34 =122b2[3], b41 = (b4[0] + 202b6[0]), b42 = (b3[1] + 202b5[1]), b43 = (b2[2] + 202b4[2]), b44 = (b1[3] + 202b3[3])

L T dy m ri s w UK US y i rx Ixx

D.

Nomenclature

total length of the beam centrifugal force length of a beam element mass per unit length hub radius parameter non-dimensional rotational speed parameter transverse displacement of the beam kinetic energy strain energy distance of a differential element measured from the root of the beam rotational speed in rad/sec variational operator non-dimensional natural frequency rotary inertia parameter second moment of area about the x axis

EIxx bending rigidity F0 out-board force

10

Copyright 2009 by ASME