Asymptotic Formulas for the Eigenvalues of the Timoshenko

Beam
1
Bruce Geist
Daimler Chrysler Corporation, 800 Chrysler Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326; bg57@daimlerchrysler.com

and
1
Joyce R. McLaughlin
Department of Mathematical Sciences Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180; mclauj@rpi.edu

Asymptotic formulas are derived for the eigenvalues of a free-ended Timo-

shenko beam which has variable mass density and constant beam parameters
otherwise. These asymptotic formulas show how the eigenvalues (and hence
how the natural frequencies) of such a beam depend on the material and geo-
metric parameters which appear as coefficients in the Timoshenko differential
equations.

Key Words: eigenvalue asymptotics, Timoshenko beam models

Subject classifications:. 34L (ordinary differential operators), 73D (wave

propagation in and vibration of solids)

1. INTRODUCTION
Suppose a structural beam is driven by a laterally oscillating sinusoidal
force. As the frequency of this applied force is varied, the response varies.
Experimental frequencies for which the response is maximized are called

1 Acknowledgment: The work of both authors was completed at Rensselaer Polytech-

nic Institute, and was partially supported by funding from the Office of Naval Research,
grant number N00014-96-1-0349. The work of the first author was also partially sup-
ported by the Department of Education fellowship grant number 6-28069. The work
of the second author was also partially supported by the National Science Foundation,
grant number DMS-9802309.
1
2 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

natural frequencies of the beam. Our goal is to address the question: if

a beam’s natural frequencies are known, what can be inferred about its
bending stiffnesses or its mass density? To answer this question we need
to know asymptotic formulas for these frequencies. Here we establish such
formulas for beams with variable mass density but otherwise constant beam
parameters. We make this assumption as a first step toward solving the
problem with both variable density and variable stiffness. We also make
this assumption because it is consistent with some applications of interest
to us. An example of an application consistent with our assumption is
an aircraft wing with struts which have been added so that there is an
appreciable change in the density and a minimal change in stiffness.
One widely used mathematical model for describing the transverse vibra-
tion of beams was developed by Stephen Timoshenko in the 1920s. This
model is chosen because it is a more accurate model than the Euler-Bernouli
beam model and because systems of Timoshenko beam models are used to
model aircraft wings. The mathematical equations that arise are two cou-
pled partial differential equations,

(EIψx )x + kAG(wx − ψ) − ρIψtt = 0,

(kAG(wx − ψ))x − ρAwtt = P (x, t).

The dependent variable w = w(x, t) represents the lateral displacement

at time t of a cross section located x units from one end of the beam.
ψ = ψ(x, t) is the cross sectional rotation due to bending. E is Young’s
modulus, i.e., the modulus of elasticity in tension and compression, and G
is the modulus of elasticity in shear. The non-uniform distribution of shear
stress over a cross section depends on cross sectional shape. The coefficient
k is introduced to account for this geometry dependent distribution of
shearing stress. I and A represent cross sectional inertia and area, ρ is the
mass density of the beam per unit length, and P (x, t) is an applied force. If
we suppose the beam is anchored so that the so called “free-free” boundary
conditions hold (i.e., shearing forces and moments are assumed to be zero
at each end of the beam), then w and ψ must satisfy the following four
boundary conditions,

wx − ψ|x=0,L = 0, ψx |x=0,L = 0. (1)

 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 3

After making a standard separation of variables argument, one finds that

the Timoshenko differential equations for w and ψ lead to a coupled system
of two second order ordinary differential equations for y(x) and ψ(x),

(EIΨx )x + kAG(yx − Ψ) + p2 IρΨ = 0, (2)

(kAG(yx − Ψ))x + p2 Aρy = 0. (3)

Here, p2 is an eigenvalue parameter. The conditions on w and ψ in (1)

imply y and Ψ must satisfy the same free-free boundary conditions. We
must have

yx − Ψ|x=0,L = 0, Ψx |x=0,L = 0. (4)

This boundary value problem for y and Ψ is self-adjoint, which implies

that the values of p2 for which nontrivial solutions to this problem exist;
the eigenvalues for this model, are real. Furthermore, it is not difficult to
show that the collection of all eigenvalues for this problem forms a discrete,
countable, unbounded set of real non-negative numbers. Moreover, it can
be shown that if σ is a natural frequency for a beam, then p2 = (2πσ)2
is one of the beam’s eigenvalues. Therefore, it is possible to determine
eigenvalues from natural frequency data obtained in an experiment like the
one indicated in the opening paragraph.
Suppose from vibration experiments we have determined a set of natural
frequencies for a beam with unknown elastic moduli and mass density, and
have constructed a sequence of eigenvalues from this data. What informa-
tion can the eigenvalues provide about these unknown material parameters?
To address this question, we must determine how eigenvalues depend on
E, I, kG, A and ρ. This determination is not easy, since the dependence
of eigenvalues on these coefficients is highly nonlinear. Another difficulty
arises because the Timoshenko boundary value problem involves two sec-
ond order differential equations. When the coefficients in these differential
equations are non-constant, the system of two second order equations can-
not be transformed into a single fourth order equation. Therefore, to make
progress in the case where coefficients are non-constant, the boundary-value
problem must be handled as a system of equations.
For a simpler, Sturm-Liouville type boundary value problem,
4 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

y

(z) + (λ − q(z))y(z) = 0, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, (5)

y
(0) − hy(0) = y
(1) + Hy(1) = 0,

it is known that for square integrable q(z), nontrivial solutions y(z) for this
problem exist if and only if λ = µn , where

 1
µn = n2 π 2 + Cq − q(z)cos(2nπz)dz + αn , (6)
0

 1 ∞

Cq = 2h + 2H + q(z)dz, αn2 < ∞,
0 n=1

(See Hald-McLaughlin [12, pp. 313-314] as well as Isaacson-Trubowitz

[14], Borg [2], and Fulton-Pruess [6, 7]; for other Sturm-Liouville equations
with, effectively, less smooth coefficients, see Coleman-McLaughlin [5].)
The importance of equation (6) is that it shows how the eigenvalues for
the Sturm-Liouville problem are related to the coefficient q(z) appearing
in (5). Algorithms for reconstructing q from spectral data rely strongly on
asymptotic formulas like the one given in (6). (For example, see Hald [11]
and Rundell-Sacks [18].)
Returning now to the Timoshenko beam equations, we ask the question:
what information is contained in the eigenvalues for the Timoshenko beam?
Given a sequence of eigenvalues, can we infer knowledge about the beam
parameters which give rise to these eigenvalues? Asymptotic formulas for
the Sturm-Liouville eigenvalues are critical to determining q from spectral
data. We expect that analogous formulas for the Timoshenko eigenvalues
will play a key role in recovering beam parameters like E, kG, or ρ from
such data. In this paper, our objective is to determine asymptotic formu-
las for the eigenvalues of the Timoshenko beam when free-free boundary
conditions are enforced and when ρ is allowed to vary. We suppose that E,
kG, A and I are constants and assume ρ is a positive function of x on [0, L]
such that 0 = ρx (0) = ρx (L) and ρxx is in L∞ (0, L). Under these assump-
tions, we derive asymptotic formulas for the eigenvalues of the free-free
Timoshenko beam.
In the next three sections, approximations are derived (accurate to within
an error that is O(1/p)) for the square roots of eigenvalues of free-free beams
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 5

with variable density. An important step in deriving these preliminary ap-

proximations of the eigenvalues is the use of a transformation (see section
1) which changes the Timoshenko differential equations (2) and (3) into a
new pair of differential equations, where in the new equations, the coeffi-
cient which contains the eigenvalue parameter p2 no longer depends on the
independent variable. The key feature of the transformed system is that
the largest terms in the new differential equations, and hence the most im-
portant terms, are multiplied by coefficients which do not depend on the
new independent variable. As the eigenvalue parameter grows, solutions to
the transformed differential equations approach the solutions of a certain
set of constant coefficient differential equations. It is therefore possible to
derive an approximate solution (accurate to within an O(1/p) error) to an
initial value problem in which initial conditions are chosen so that the left
transformed boundary conditions are enforced. In section 2, this initial
value problem is presented and its approximate solution is derived. By
applying the two remaining transformed right boundary conditions to the
approximate solution of the initial value problem, a frequency equation is
determined. In section 3, estimates of square-roots of eigenvalues are made
from this frequency equation. These estimates appear in Theorem 4.3.
Our approach to deriving the final asymptotic formulas (section 4) is
L
built from the following idea. Suppose ρ0 ≡ ( L1 0 ρ1/2 (x)dx)2 , and let
ρ̂(x; t) ≡ ρ0 + tρ̃(x), where ρ̃ = ρ − ρ0 and t is an auxiliary parameter which
we allow to vary from 0 to 1. In the Timoshenko differential equations, let
ρ(x) be replaced by ρ̂(x; t). Define ṕ2 to be an eigenvalue for a free-free
beam with mass density ρ̂ and constant material and geometric parameters
otherwise. When t = 0, ρ̂ = ρ0 and ṕ2 is an eigenvalue for a beam where E,
I, kG, A, and ρ̂ = ρ0 are all independent of x. As t increases to 1, ρ̂ goes
to ρ(x), and ṕ2 changes continuously
 L in t to an eigenvalue for a beam with
variable density ρ(x). Let L̂1 = 0 ρ̂1/2 (x; t)dx, and define µ2 ≡ L̂21 ṕ2 . We
show that there is a function G such that

d(µ2 )
= G(Ŷ , Φ̂), (7)
dt

where (Ŷ , Φ̂) is a transformed eigenfunction pair corresponding to the

eigenvalue ṕ2 of a free-free beam with material parameters E, I, kG, A,
and ρ̂. Integrating (7) formally with respect to t from 0 to 1, we find that
 1
1
ṕ2 |t=1 − ṕ2 |t=0 = G(Ŷ , Φ̂)dt. (8)
L1 0
6 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

The term ṕ2 |t=0 is an eigenvalue for a beam where E, I, kG, A and
ρ = ρ0 are independent of x; i.e. ṕ2 |t=0 represents an eigenvalue for a
uniform beam. Asymptotic formulas for the eigenvalues of free-free and
clamped-clamped uniform beams are derived in Geist [8] and published in
[10]. From these uniform beam formulas, an asymptotic approximation for
the term ṕ2 |t=0 can be made. The final asymptotic eigenvalue formulas
for beams with variable density ρ(x) are obtained by replacing the term
1 1
L1 0 G(Ŷ , Φ̂)dt with an asymptotic approximation derived below, and by
replacing ṕ2 |t=0 with the appropriate uniform beam eigenvalue formulas
given in [10].
The function G depends only on E, I, kG, A, ρ and the transformed
eigenfunctions Φ̂ and Ŷ . Approximations to the square roots of eigenvalues
given in Theorem 4.3 allows us to determine Φ̂ and Ŷ and hence G to
within an error that is O(1/p). Then (8) is used to sharpen our estimates
of the eigenvalues for the Timoshenko beam. From (8) we compute the
final asymptotic formulas, which are given in Theorem 5.2. Note that the
advantage of this method over say a variational method is that we can
determine more than the first term in the eigenvalue expansion and prove
a bound in the remainder no matter how large the difference is between ρ
and ρ0 .

2. THE TRANSFORMED PROBLEM

To begin, the free-free Timoshenko boundary value problem is proved
equivalent to a certain transformed boundary value problem derived below.
This equivalency holds when ρ depends on x; all other beam parameters
are assumed constant. A key feature of the transformed problem is that
the coefficient containing the eigenvalue parameter no longer depends on
the independent variable.
To derive this equivalent problem, a lemma is proved which applies to
single second order equations. We will use this lemma to prove Theorem
2.1, in which the Timoshenko system of differential equations is transformed
to a new pair of equations.

Lemma 2.1. Suppose ρ(x) is positive for all x ∈ [0, L] and ρxx (x) ∈
L x
L2 [0, L]. Let L1 = 0 ρ1/2 (x1 )dx1 and z(x) = L11 0 ρ1/2 (x2 )dx2 . Let β,
α, I, and p2 be constants. Then v(x) = ρ−1/4 V (z(x)) satisfies the equation

αv

+ (p2 τ ρ − β)v = f (9)

 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 7

if and only if V (z) satisfies

 
(ρ−1/4 )xx L21 τ L21 p2 βL21 f L21
Vzz + + − V = . (10)
ρ3/4 α αρ αρ3/4

proof: Suppose v = A(x)V (z(x)), where A(x) and z(x) are as yet un-
specified smooth functions of x. Then

(αA2 z
)

αv

= αA(z
)2 Vzz + Vz + αA

V,
A
and provided α(z
)2 A = 0 for x ∈ [0, L], it follows that αv

+ (p2 τ ρ − β)v =
f (x) if and only if
 
(A2 z
)
A

p2 τ ρ β f
Vzz + 2
2 Vz + + − V = .
A (z ) A(z
)2 α(z
)2 α(z
)2 α(z
)2 A
x
Now let A = ρ−1/4 (x) and z(x) = L11 0 ρ1/2 (x2 )dx2 . Then (A2 z
)
≡ 0,
A

/A(z
)2 = (ρ−1/4 )xx L21 /ρ3/4 , p2 τ ρ/(α(z
)2 ) = τ L21 p2 /α, and β/(α(z
)2 ) =
βL21 /αρ, so equation (9) becomes equation (10). ✷
In the next theorem, new differential equations are determined that are
related to the Timoshenko equations by the transformation indicated in
the previous lemma. Let L1 and z(x) be defined as they are in Lemma
2.1, and let µ2E = p2 L21 /E, µ2kG = p2 L21 /kG, and γ = kAG/EI. Since
ρ(x) is positive for all x ∈ [0, L], z(x) is an invertible function. Let x(z)
denote the inverse of z(x), and let ρ3 = L21 [ρ−1/4 (x(z))]xx /[ρ3/4 (x(z))] and
ρ4 = ρx (x(z))L21 /[4ρ2 (x(z))].
Theorem 2.1. Let E, kG, I, A, and p2 all be constants, let ρ(x) be
positive for all x ∈ [0, L], and let ρxx (x) ∈ L2 (0, L). Then

y(x) = ρ−1/4 Y (z(x)) and Ψ(x) = ρ−1/4 Φ(z(x))

satisfy the equations

EIΨxx + (p2 Iρ − kAG)Ψ = −kAGyx + F1 , (11)

and

kAGyxx + p2 Aρy = kAGΨx + F2 (12)

if and only if Φ and Y satisfy

8 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

p2 L21 L2 γ γL1 F1 L21

Φzz + Φ − 1 Φ + ρ3 Φ − γρ4 Y + 1/2 Yz = , (13)
E ρ ρ EIρ3/4

and

p2 L21 L1 F2 L21
Yzz + Y + ρ3 Y + ρ4 Φ − 1/2 Φz = . (14)
kG ρ kAGρ3/4

proof: This Theorem is an immediate consequence of Lemma 2.1. ✷

Theorem 2.1 shows how to transform the original Timoshenko differential
equations into new equations so that in the new equations, coefficients
involving p2 are constant with respect to the new independent variable
z. Equations (11) - (14) include generic “right hand side” terms so that
Theorem 2.1 is general enough that it applies to differential equations that
arise in the next section. In the case where F1 = F2 ≡ 0, equations (11)
and (12) are the homogeneous Timoshenko differential equations (2) and
(3).

Theorem 2.2. Suppose ρ(x) is a positive function of x such that ρxx ∈

L2 (0, L) and ρx (0) = ρx (L) = 0. Let E, kG, A, I and p2 be positive
constants. Then nontrivial Y and Φ are solutions to the boundary value
problem

p2 L21 L2 γ γL1
Φzz + Φ − 1 Φ + ρ3 Φ − γρ4 Y + 1/2 Yz = 0, (15)
E ρ ρ

p2 L21 L1
Yzz + Y + ρ3 Y + ρ4 Φ − 1/2 Φz = 0, (16)
kG ρ

 
L1
Yz − 1/2 Φ = 0, and Φz |z=0,1 = 0, (17)
ρ z=0,1

if and only if y(x) = ρ−1/4 Y (z(x)) and Ψ(x) = ρ−1/4 Φ(z(x)) are nontrivial
solutions to the free-free Timoshenko boundary value problem (2) - (4).
The value p2 is an eigenvalue for the free-free Timoshenko boundary value
problem if and only if there exist nontrivial functions Y and Φ which satisfy
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 9

the differential equations (15) and (16) and the boundary conditions given
in (17).

proof: This theorem is an easy consequence of Theorem 2.1 and the

fact that when ρx |x=0,L = 0, (yx − ψ)|x=0,L = 0 if and only if (Yz −
L1 Φ/ρ1/2 )|z=0,1 = 0 and ψx |x=0,L = 0 if and only if Ψz |z=0,1 = 0. ✷

3. A FREQUENCY EQUATION
Consider the following initial value problem. Let α = L1 /ρ1/2 (0). Sup-
pose that Y and Φ satisfy differential equations (15) and (16) and that
for real c and d, they also satisfy Y (0) = d, Φ(0) = c/α, Yz (0) = c, and
Φz (0) = 0. These initial conditions ensure that the boundary conditions
on Y and Φ at z = 0 given in (17) are satisfied no matter how c and d are
chosen. They are the least restrictive initial conditions on Y (z) and Φ(z)
which enforce the transformed boundary conditions at the left boundary
point z = 0. Furthermore, if nontrivial c and d can be chosen so that the
boundary conditions at z = 1 are satisfied, then by definition L21 p2 is an
eigenvalue for the transformed boundary value problem, and by Theorem
2.2, p2 is an eigenvalue for the free-free Timoshenko boundary value prob-
lem. In the next two lemmas, integral equations for Y and Φ are derived
which are equivalent to the initial value problem discussed above. These in-
tegral equations are used to determine approximate solutions to the above
initial value problem. The approximate solutions to the initial value prob-
lem make possible estimates of the values of p for which nontrivial solutions
exist to the transformed boundary value problem.

Lemma 3.1. Let µ, c and d be fixed constants, and let q(z) and f (z) be
integrable. Then w(z) is the solution to the initial value problem

w

+ µ2 w = q(z)w + f (z),

(18)
w
(0) = c, and w(0) = d,

if and only if w satisfies the integral equation

 z
sin(µz) sin[µ(z − t)]
w(z) = c + d cos µz + [q(t)w(t) + f (t)]dt. (19)
µ 0 µ

proof: The elementary proof is based on the well known technique of

variation of parameters, and is omitted. ✷
10 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

Theorem 3.1. Suppose ρ(x) is a positive function of x such that ρxx ∈

L2 (0, L) and ρx (0) = ρx (L) = 0. Let E, kG, A, I and p2 be positive con-
stants, let α = L1 /ρ1/2 (0) and let c and d be arbitrary but fixed constants.
Then Φ(z) and Y (z) satisfy the differential equations (15) and (16) and
the initial conditions

Y (0) = d, Φ(0) = c/α, Yz (0) = c, Φz (0) = 0 (20)

if and only if Φ and Y also satisfy the integral equations

c
Φ = cos µE z +
α 
2  
 z
sin[µE (z − t)] L1 γ γL1
− ρ3 Φ + γρ4 Y − 1/2 Yt dt (21)
0 µE ρ ρ

and

c sin(µkG z)
Y = +
µkG
 z  
sin[µkG (z − t)] L1
d cos(µkG z) + −ρ3 Y − ρ4 Φ + 1/2 Φt dt (22)
0 µkG ρ

proof: First observe that since ρxx ∈ L2 (0, L), Theorem 2.1 shows that Y
and Φ satisfy (15) and (16) if and only if y(x) = ρ−1/4 Y (z(x)) and Ψ(x) =
ρ−1/4 Φ(z(x)) satisfy the homogeneous Timoshenko differential equations.
All coefficients in the Timoshenko equations (2) and (3) are continuously
differentiable. Since yx and Ψx must be continuous, it follows that Yz and
Ψz are also continuous.
Next, applyLemma 3.1 to the transformed differential equation (15).
Observe that L21 γ/ρ − ρ3 ∈ L2 (0, 1) and that (from the discussion of
the previous paragraph) (γρ4 Y − [γL1 /ρ1/2 ]Yz ) ∈ L2 (0, 1). Lemma 3.1
shows that the differential equation (15) and initial conditions (20) are
satisfied if and only if integral equation (20) holds. Similarly, since −ρ3
and −ρ4 Φ + [L1 /ρ1/2 ]Φz are in L2 (0, 1), Lemma 3.1 shows that (16) and
(20) hold if and only if (21) holds. ✷
We will use the integral equations of Theorem 3.1 to determine approxi-
mate solutions to the initial value problem given in (15), (16), and (20). If
c and d are allowed to vary over , the solution to this initial value problem
generates every solution to differential equations (15) and (16) that satisfies
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 11

the left boundary conditions at z = 0. Consider the boundary terms

Yz (1) − L1
ρ1/2 (1)
Φ(1) αΦz (1)
and , (23)
µkG µE

where Y and Φ are solutions to the initial value problem (15), (16), and
(20). Setting the above expressions equal to zero leads to a homogeneous
linear system for the arbitrary constants c and d. Values of the eigenvalue
parameter p which make possible nontrivial choices for c and d correspond
to the square roots of eigenvalues for the free-free Timoshenko beam. The
homogeneous linear system in c and d has nontrivial solutions if and only
if the determinant of the corresponding coefficient matrix is zero. This
determinant will define a frequency function. The objective in this section
is to determine this frequency function from estimates of the coefficients of
c and d in the expressions given in (23).
The following technical fact is used many times in the estimates that
follow.
Lemma 3.2. Suppose that fz ∈ L∞ (0, 1), and that δ is a real constant.
Then for z ∈ [0, 1],
 z
f ∞ + fz ∞
sin[µ(z − t) + δ]f (t)dt < .
µ
0

proof:
 z
sin[µ(z − t) + δ]f (t)dt =
0
z  z
cos[µ(z − t) + δ] cos[µ(z − t) + δ]
f (t) − ft (t)dt
µ 0 0 µ

This implies the result. ✷

Lemma 3.3. √ Suppose h and δ are real constants and that h is not equal
to 0 or L1 / kG. Let dg/dz and ρxx (x(z)) ∈ L∞ (0, 1), and let ρ(x) > 0
when x ∈ [0, L]. Then
 z
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ]
g(t)Yt dt < O(1/µ) Y ∞ + O(1/µ) Φ ∞
µ
0
+ O(1/µ)|c| + O(1/µ)|d|.
12 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

proof:
Yz = c cos(µkG z) − dµkG sin(µkG z) +
 z  
L1
cos[µkG (z − t)] −ρ3 (t)Y (t) − ρ4 (t)Φ(t) + 1/2 Φt (t) dt
0 ρ (t)
 z
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ]
⇒ g(t)Yt dt =
0 µ
 z
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ]
g(t){c cos(µkG t) − dµkG sin(µkG t)
0 µ
 t 
+ cos[µkG (t − s)][−ρ3 (s)Y (s) − ρ4 (s)Φ(s)]ds} dt
0

 
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ] t
L1
+ g(t) cos[µkG (t − s)] Φ s (s)ds dt.
µ 0 ρ1/2 (s)
Since by hypothesis hµ = µkG , a double angle formula, the assumption that
dg/dz ∈ L∞ (0, 1), and Lemma 3.2 can be used to show that the absolute
value of the first integral on the right of the above equation is bounded
above by

O(1/µ) Y ∞ + O(1/µ) Φ ∞ + O(1/µ)|c| + O(1/µ)|d|.

To demonstrate a similar result for the second integral on the right of

the above equation, first note that
 t
L1
cos[µkG (t − s)] Φs (s)ds =
0 ρ1/2 (s)

L1 Φ(t) L1 Φ(0)
− 1/2 cos(µkG t)
ρ1/2 (t) ρ (0)
 t
 
L1 L1
− µkG sin[µkG (t − s)] + cos[µkG (t − s) Φds.
0 ρ1/2 (s) ρ1/2 (s) s

Therefore, if we show that

  

z
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ] t
L1 1
g(t) µkG sin[µkG (t − s)] 1/2 Φ(s)ds dt < O ,
µ ρ (s) µ
0 0
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 13

then the Lemma follows. After changing the order of integration, the inte-
gral above may be rewritten as
 
z z
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ] L1
g(t)µkG sin[µkG (t − s)] 1/2 Φ(s)dtds.
s=0 t=s µ ρ (s)

Again, using a double angle formula and the fact that g
(z) ∈ L∞ (0, 1),
we apply Lemma 3.2 to find that the above integral is bounded in absolute
value by a function of the form O(1/µ) Φ ∞ . ✷

√ Suppose h and δ are real constants and that h is not equal

Lemma 3.4.
to 0 or L1 / E. Let dg/dz and ρxx (x(z)) ∈ L∞ (0, 1), and let ρ(x) > 0
when x ∈ [0, L]. Then

z
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ]
g(t)Φt dt < O(1/µ) Y ∞ + O(1/µ) Φ ∞
µ
0
+ O(1/µ)|c| + O(1/µ)|d|.

proof: The proof of Lemma 3.4 is similar to the proof of Lemma 3.3,
and is therefore omitted. ✷
In the next Theorem, we show that the infinity norms of Y and Φ remain
finite as p approaches infinity.

Lemma 3.5. Suppose E = kG, that ρxx ∈ L∞ (0, L), and that ρ(x) > 0
for all x ∈ [0, 1]. Then

Φ ∞ ≤ O(1)|c| + O(1/p)|d|

and

Y ∞ ≤ O(1/p)|c| + O(1)|d|.

proof: The integral equations for Φ and Y together with Lemma 3.3
and Lemma 3.4 imply that

Φ ∞ ≤ O(1)|c| + O(1/p)|d| + O(1/p) Φ ∞ + O(1/p) Y ∞ (24)

and

Y ∞ ≤ O(1/p)|c| + O(1)|d| + O(1/p) Φ ∞ + O(1/p) Y ∞ . (25)

14 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

Inequality (24) implies that

(1 − O(1/p)) Φ ∞ ≤ O(1)|c| + O(1/p)|d| + O(1/p) Y ∞ .

For p large enough, this inequality implies that

Φ ∞ ≤ O(1)|c| + O(1/p)|d| + O(1/p) Y ∞ . (26)

Similarly, from inequality (25), we find that for p large enough

Y ∞ ≤ O(1/p)|c| + O(1)|d| + O(1/p) Φ ∞ . (27)

The Theorem follows from inequalities (26) and (27). ✷

In the next Theorem, we calculate estimates of the coefficients of c and
d in the functions and (Yz − ΦL1 /ρ1/2 (z))/µkG and αΦz /µE .

Lemma 3.6. Suppose E = kG, that ρxx ∈ L∞ (0, L) and ρ(x) > 0 for all
x ∈ [0, L], and that α = L1 /ρ1/2 (0). Then
 
 Y (z) − L1 Φ(z) − ρ1/2 (0) 
 z cos(µkG z) cos(µE z) 
 
ρ1/2 (z) ρ1/2 (z)
 − c + d sin(µ z)
kG 
 µkG µkG 
∞

and
 
 Φz (z) c 
 + sin(µ z) ≤ O(1/p)|c| + O(1/p)|d|.
 µE α
E 
∞

proof: Integral equations for Yz /µkG and Φz /µE and can be determined
from the integral equations for Y and Φ. The proof follows from the integral
equations for Y and Φ and Lemmas 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. ✷
Lemma 3.6 facilitates the derivation of a frequency equation for the free-
free Timoshenko beam with variable density ρ(x).

Theorem 3.2. Let E, kG, A and I be positive constants such that E =

kG. Let ρ(x) > 0 for all x ∈ [0, L], let ρx (0) = ρx (L) = 0, and suppose
ρxx (x) ∈ L∞ (0, L). Then p2 is an eigenvalue for the free-free Timoshenko
beam if and only if

F (p) ≡ sin µkG sin µE + sin(µE )δ1,2 + sin(µkG )δ2,1 + δ = 0, (28)

where the functions δ1,2 (p), and δ2,1 (p) are O(1/p) and δ(p) is O(1/p2 ).
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 15

proof: We seek to determine the values of p2 for which there exist non-
trivial functions Φ and Y that solve the transformed differential equations
and all transformed boundary conditions, including those at z = 1. To de-
termine all such solutions, we seek nontrivial solutions to the initial value
problem in (15), (16), and (20) which also solve the transformed boundary
conditions at z = 1. Theorem 2.2 shows that the values of p2 which admit
nontrivial solutions when boundary conditions at z = 1 are imposed are
the eigenvalues of the free-free Timoshenko beam.
Lemma 3.6 implies that for any choice of c and d, solutions Y and Φ to
the initial value problem (15), (16), and (20) satisfy

Yz (1) − [L1 /ρ1/2 (1)] Φ(1)

= δ1,1 c + [sin(µkG ) − δ1,2 ]d (29)
µkG
and
αΦz
= [− sin µE − δ2,1 ]c − δ2,2 d (30)
µE

where the δi,j are all O(1/p) functions. Equations (29) and (30) imply that
the right boundary conditions, i.e., the conditions in (20) when z = 1, may
be satisfied if and only if
 


δ1,1 − sin µkG − δ1,2 c 0
= .
− sin µE − δ2,1 −δ2,2 d 0

This linear system can be non-trivially solved if and only if

sin µkG sin µE + sin(µE )δ1,2 + sin(µkG )δ2,1 + O(1/p2 ) = 0. ✷

4. ROOTS OF THE FREQUENCY FUNCTION

In this section, four results are presented. Theorem 4.1 shows that
all roots of the frequency equation F must occur near roots of sin(µE ) ·
sin(µkG ). Theorem 4.2 shows that near each root of sin(µE )·sin(µkG ) which
is isolated from neighboring roots, there must exist at least one root of F .
In Lemma 4.1, an approximation for ∂F/∂p is calculated. Theorems 4.1,
4.2 and Lemma 4.1 facilitate the proof of Theorem 4.3, in which it is shown
that exactly one root of F occurs near isolated roots of sin(µE ) · sin(µkG ).
Theorem 4.1. Let

F (p) ≡ sin µkG sin µE + sin(µE )δ1,2 + sin(µkG )δ2,1 + δ

16 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

√ √
where δ1,2 and δ2,1 are O(1/p) and δ is O(1/p2 ). Let c̄ = max{ E, kg},
and suppose p is a root of the frequency function F (p). Then there exists
a root of the function sin(µkG ) sin(µE ), say p̂, such that p − p̂ = /p , where
  
c̄ |δ | + |δ | (|δ | + |δ |)2
sin−1
1,2 2,1 1,2 2,1
|/p | < + + |δ| .
L1 2 4

(Thus, |/p | is O(1/p).)

proof: If p is a root of the frequency equation F , then





pL1 pL1 pL1 pL1
sin √ sin √ = − sin √ δ1,2 − sin √ δ2,1 − δ.(31)
kG E E kG
√ √
If either sin(pL1 / kG) or√sin(pL1 / E) are √ zero, then the result follows.
Suppose neither sin(pL1 / kG) nor sin(pL1 / E) is zero. Assume for now
that

sin(pL /√E)
1
√ ≤ 1, (32)
sin(pL1 / kG)
√
and divide both sides of equation (31) above by sin(pL1 / kG). It follows
that
√
√
sin(pL1 / E) δ
| sin(pL1 / E)| = δ1,2 √ + δ2,1 + √
sin(pL1 / kG) sin(pL1 / kG)

|δ|
≤ |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | + √
| sin(pL1 / E)|
√ √
⇒ sin2 (pL1 / E) < (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |) | sin(pL1 / E)| + |δ|.
√
Let s = | sin(pL1 / E)| , b = |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |, and c = |δ|. Then s > 0 and
s2 − bs − c < 0. This implies that
√
b + b2 + 4c
0<s< ,
2
and hence that,

√ |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
| sin(pL1 / E)| < + + |δ|. (33)
2 4
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 17

√
Let M be√an integer chosen such that |[L1 / E]p − M π| ≤ π/2, and let
/p = p − [ E/L1 ]M π. Then from inequality (33) it follows that




1 1 |/p |
sin pL
√ = sin L√1 /p = sin L√
E E E

|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
< + + |δ|
2 4
√   
E −1 |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
⇒ |/p | < sin + + |δ| .
L1 2 4
√
Thus, there is some integer M such that p = /p + [ E/L1 ]M π where
√   
E −1 |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
|/p | < sin + + |δ| .
L1 2 4

The argument above√ was carried out√under the assumption that (32) holds.
If instead | sin(pL1 / E)/ sin(pL1 / kG)| > 1, the same argument given
above holds in this case provided E and kG are interchanged. In √ either case,
it follows
√ that there exists a root of sin(µkG ) sin(µ E ), say p̂ = EM π/L1
or kGM π/L1 , such that p − p̂ = /p and
  
c̄ −1 |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
|/p | < sin + + |δ| . ✷
L1 2 4

Theorem 4.2. Suppose p̂ and p̃ are two adjacent roots of the function
sin(µkG ) · sin(µE ) and that p̂ is a simple root √ not√closer to any other√ root√ of
this function than it is to p̃. Let c̄ = max{ E, kG}, c = min{ E, kG}
and let p̄ be the largest root of sin(µkG ) sin(µE ) which satisfies p̄ < min{p̂, p̃}.
Let
 
−1 c̄ π |δ| c̄
∆p = sin supp>p̄ |δ1,2 (p)| + supp>p̄ |δ2,1 (p)| + supp>p̄ ,
c2 sin(p̄−1 ) L1

and suppose that |p̂ − p̃| > 2∆p + Lc̄1 p̄1 Then there is at least one root of the
characteristic equation (28) in the interval [p̂ − ∆p, p̂ + ∆p]. Furthermore,
this interval must contain an odd number of roots of the characteristic
equation.
Remark: The quantity ∆p defined above is O(1/p̄), since all of the δ s
appearing in its definition are O(1/p̄). Thus, the hypothesis above requires
that p̂ and p̃ be separated by a distance which is O(1/p̄).
18 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

proof sketch: The proof follows from the basic observation that sin(µkG )·
sin(µE ) is strictly monotonic near its isolated roots, and that F = sin(µkG )·
sin(µE ) + O(1/p). For p̂ large enough, F (p) must change sign near where
sin(µkG ) sin(µE ) changes sign, i.e. in the interval [p̂ − ∆p, p̂ + ∆p]. See
Geist [8, pages 164-168] for a detailed presentation of this proof. ✷
An estimate of ∂F/∂p derived in the next lemma is an important step
toward proving that for each isolated root of sin(µE ) · sin(µkG ), there is
exactly one zero of F nearby.
Lemma 4.1. Let F be the frequency function defined in (28). Then

∂F L1 L1
= √ cos(µE ) · sin(µkG ) + √ cos(µkG ) · sin(µE ) + r(p), (34)
∂p E kG

where r(p) = O(1/p).

proof sketch: If δ, δ1,2 and δ2,1 were all known exactly, it might be possi-
ble to calculate ∂F/∂p by direct differentiation. Unfortunately, only order
estimates for the δ s are known; δ, δ1,2 and δ2,1 are not known explicitly.
However, ∂F/∂p can be estimated using the formula
  L
  L

coef. Yz (1)− ρ1/21(1) Φ(1) coef. Yz (1)− ρ1/21(1) Φ(1)
 , 
∂F  of c µkG of d µkG 
− = det  
∂p  coef. ∂  αΦz (1)  coef. ∂  αΦz (1)  
,
of c ∂p µE of d ∂p µE

  L
  L1

coef. ∂ Yz (1)− ρ1/21(1) Φ(1) coef. Yz (1)−
ρ1/2 (1)
Φ(1)
 , ∂

 of c ∂p µkG of d ∂p µkG 
+ det  (35)
,
 coef.  αΦz (1)   
coef. αΦz (1) 
µE , µE
of c of d

where in the expression above each entry in each matrix is a coefficient

of either c or d. Let “·” denote differentiation with respect to p. Integral
equations for Ẏz , Φ̇, and Φ̇z can be determined from the integral equa-
tions for Y and Φ. (It follows from Theorem 2.2 that Y and Φ, which
satisfy the initial value problem (15), (16), and (20) may be written as
Y (z) = [ρ(x(z))]1/4 y(x(z)) and Φ(z) = [ρ(x(z))]1/4 Ψ(x(z)), where y(x)
and Ψ(x) satisfy the original Timoshenko differential equations (2) and
(3) and the initial conditions y(0) = ρ−1/4 (0)d, yx (0) = [ρ1/4 (0)/L1 ]c,
Ψ(0) = [ρ1/4 (0)/L1 ]c, and Ψx (0) = 0. For each x ∈ [0, L], y, yx , Ψ and
Ψx are analytic functions of p. See [4, page 37]. This implies that for each
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 19

z ∈ [0, 1], Yz , Φz and Φ are analytic functions of p, and so differentiation

with respect to the eigenvalue parameter p is allowed.) Estimates for Ẏz ,
Φ̇, and Φ̇z can be obtained by first showing that the infinity norms of these
functions are bounded. Once this is demonstrated, one can generate esti-
mates for Ẏz , Φ̇, and Φ̇z accurate to within an error that is O(1/p) in the
same way that estimates for Y , Yz , and Φz were produced in section 3.
Then, estimates for ∂F/∂p can be calculated using equation (35). For the
details of this calculation, see Geist [8, pages 173 -189]. ✷
We focus now on proving that for each isolated root of sin(µE ) · sin(µkG ),
there is exactly one zero of F nearby. In particular, we demonstrate that
|∂F/∂p| > 0 near roots of sin(µE ) · sin(µkG ) that are not too close to one
another.

Theorem 4.3. Suppose p̂ and p̃ are two adjacent roots of the function
sin(µkG )·sin(µE ). Suppose p̂ is a simple root of sin(µkG )·sin(µE√ ) not√closer
to any other
√ √ root of this function than it is to p̃. Let c̄ = max{ E, kG},
c = min{ E, kG} and let p̄ be the largest root of sin(µkG ) · sin(µE ) which
satisfies p̄ < min{p̂, p̃}. Let
 
−1 c̄ π |δ| c̄
∆p = sin supp>p̄ |δ1,2 (p)| + supp>p̄ |δ2,1 (p)| + supp>p̄ ,
c2 sin(p̄−1 ) L1

   
c̄ |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
Γ= sup sin−1 + + |δ| (36)
,
p>p̄−∆p L1 2 4
and
∂F L1 L1
r(p) = − √ cos(µE ) · sin(µkG ) − √ cos(µkG ) · sin(µE ).
∂p E kG

Let p̂ be large enough so that Γ < cπ/[4L1 ]. If for p ∈ [p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ]

|p̂ − p̃| >


 √ 
c̄ 1 c̄ π |r(p)|
max 2∆p + , tan L1 Γ + EkG π +Γ ,
L1 p̄ L1 2 c L21 2 cos (ΓL1 /c)
(37)
then there is exactly one root of the characteristic function F in the [p̂ −
Γ, p̂ + Γ].
Remark: r is O(1/p) and Γ and ∆p are O(1/p̄).
20 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

proof: Theorem 4.1 demonstrates that all roots of F occur an O(1/p)

distance from the zeros of sin(µkG ) sin(µE ). In particular, it follows from
Theorem 4.1 that any root of F nearer to p̂ than it is to any other root of
sin(µkG ) sin(µE ) must occur in the narrow interval [p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ]. Theorem
4.2 guarantees that in this interval, there is at least one root of F . We
prove now that |∂F/∂p| > 0 throughout [p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ] when the hypotheses
of this theorem hold.
Lemma 4.1 shows that
∂F L1 L1
= √ cos(µE ) · sin(µkG ) + √ cos(µkG ) · sin(µE ) + r(p),
∂p E kG

where r(p) is an O(1/p) function. Let p ∈ [p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ]. Without loss of

generality, suppose p̂ is a zero of sin(µE ). Hypothesis (37) implies that


2L21 L1 L1 |r(p)|
√ [|p̂ − p̃| − Γ] > √ tan √ Γ +  . (38)
π EkG kG E cos √LE1
Γ

Let pkG be a zero of sin(µkG ) at least as√near to p as is any other root of

sin(µE ). This implies that |(p − pkG )L1 / kG| ≤ π/2, and hence that


L1 L1 L1 L 2 L
√ | sin(µkG )| = √ sin √ (p − pkG ) ≥ √ 1 √ 1 |p − pkG |
E E kG E π kG

2L2
≥ √ 1 |p̂ − pkG + p − p̂|
π EkG

2L2
≥ √ 1 [|p̂ − pkG | − |p − p̂|]
π EkG

2L2
≥ √ 1 [|p̂ − p̃| − Γ]. (39)
π EkG
√
p ∈ [p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ], p̂ a zero of tan(µE ), and ΓL1 / E < π/4 imply that


L1 L1 |r(p)|
√ tan √ Γ +  =
kG E cos √LE1
Γ


L L |r(p)|
√ 1 tan √ 1 (p̂ ± Γ) +  ≥
kG E L
cos √E1
(p̂ ± Γ)
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 21

L |r(p)| L1 r(p)
√ 1 | tan µE | + ≥ √ | tan µE || cos µkG | + . (40)
kG | cos µE | kG | cos µE |
Therefore, from (38), (39) and (40) it follows that

L L |r(p)|
√ 1 | sin µkG | > √ 1 | tan µE cos µkG | +
E kG | cos µE |

L1 L1

⇒ √ sin µkG cos µE > √ sin µE cos µkG + |r(p)|
E kG

∂F

⇒ (p) > 0,
∂p
as desired.
Thus, |∂F /∂p| > 0 for all p ∈ [p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ], which in turn implies
that there is at most one root of F in this interval. Since it has been
established that there is at least one root in this interval, the Theorem
follows when p̂ is a zero of sin(µE ). The proof for the case where p̂ is a
zero of sin(µkG ) is identical to the proof above, except that the role of E
and kG are interchanged. ✷

5. THE ASYMPTOTIC FORMULAS

We carry out the following steps in order to sharpen our estimates of the
eigenvalues.
 First, we define a new density function ρ̂ in terms of ρ. Let
1 L 1/2
ρ0 = [ L 0 ρ (x)dx]2 and ρ̃ = ρ(x) − ρ0 ; then define ρ̂ = ρ0 + tρ̃, where t
is an auxiliary parameter which is allowed to vary from 0 to 1. Note that
when t = 0, ρ̂ is the constant ρ0 , and when t = 1, ρ̂ ≡ ρ(x). Let Φ̂ and Ŷ be
solutions to the boundary value problem given in (15-17), except z, ρ, ρ3 , ρ4
and L1 are replaced by ẑ, ρ̂, ρ̂3 , ρ̂4 , and L̂1 , respectively, where ẑ, ρ̂3 , ρ̂4 and
the constant L̂1 are defined as are z, ρ3 , ρ4 and L1 except that ρ̂ replaces
ρ in their definitions. The resulting boundary value problem for Φ̂ and
Ŷ corresponds to the transformed boundary value problem (see Theorem
2.2) one obtains from the original Timoshenko differential equations and
boundary conditions when ρ(x) is taken to be ρ̂(x; t).
It will prove useful to view the transformed differential equations for Φ̂
and Ŷ as a single vector equation. Define


Φ̂(ẑ)
Û (ẑ) = .
Ŷ (ẑ)
22 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

Let

  
1 −L̂21 γ
E 0 + ρ̂3 −γ ρ̂4
B1 = 1 , Q= ρ̂ (41)
0 kG ρ̂4 ρ̂3


0 γ
S= , and µ2 = L̂21 p2 . (42)
−1 0

Then the boundary value problem (15-17), where ρ is now replaced by ρ̂,
may be written in vector notation as


L̂1 0
Ûẑẑ + µ2 B1 Û + QÛ + 1/2 S Ûẑ = (43)
ρ̂ 0
 

L̂1
Ŷz − 1/2 Φ̂ = 0, and Φ̂ẑ |ẑ=0,1 = 0, (44)
ρ̂
ẑ=0,1

Suppose the transformed eigenvalue parameter, µ2 = L̂21 p2 , is chosen so

that a nontrivial solution Û (ẑ) exists to the above boundary value problem.
Then by Theorem 2.2, if û is defined as



Ψ̂(x) −1/4 −1/4 Φ̂(ẑ(x))
û(x) ≡ = ρ̂ Û (ẑ(x)) = ρ̂ (x) ,
ŷ(x) Ŷ (ẑ(x))

then û must satisfy

∂ 
∂x EI ∂x + (p I ρ̂ − kAG)
∂ 2 ∂
kAG ∂x
∂ ∂ ∂ 2 û(x) = 80 (45)
∂x kAG ∂x kAG ∂x + p Aρ̂

[ŷx − Ψ̂]|x=0,L = 0, Ψ̂|x=0,L = 0. (46)

Thus, ifL̂21 p2 2
= µ is an eigenvalue for the transformed boundary value
problem (43-44) and Û (ẑ) is the corresponding eigenfunction, then p2 is an
eigenvalue and û(x) = ρ̂−1/4 Û (ẑ(x)) is the corresponding eigenfunction for
the free-free Timoshenko beam with density ρ̂.
Our method for sharpening the estimates of the eigenvalues of the Tim-
oshenko beam will rely on determining the derivative of µ2 with respect to
the auxiliary parameter t, introduced in the definition of ρ̂. The approach
may be summarized as follows. Let µ2 be an eigenvalue for the trans-
formed boundary value problem (43-44) and let Û (ẑ) be a corresponding
eigenfunction. The differential equation and boundary conditions for Û (ẑ)
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 23

are differentiated with respect to ρ̂ in the direction of ρ̃. This differen-

tiation of (43-44) will lead to a new, non-homogeneous boundary value
problem. The right hand side of this new boundary value problem will
contain dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃], which we will show is equal to dµ2 /dt. Since the new
boundary value problem comes from differentiating the differential equa-
tions and boundary conditions (43-44), a boundary value problem with
a known solution Û (ẑ) ≡ / 0, it follows that a nontrivial solution to the
new, non-homogeneous problem exists, and must be equal to dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃]. Us-
ing Theorem 2.1, the new non-homogeneous boundary value problem for
dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] may be written as a non-homogeneous Timoshenko boundary value
problem which must also have a nontrivial solution. The fact that the
non-homogeneous Timoshenko boundary value problem has a nontrivial
solution implies that the right hand side of the non-homogeneous problem
must satisfy a certain orthogonality requirement (see Lemma 5.1 below).
This orthogonality condition allows us to determine dµ2 /dt = dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] in
terms of the transformed eigenfunction Û (ẑ); i.e., from the orthogonality
condition it follows that

d(µ2 )
= G(Û (ẑ(x))).
dt
Integrating both sides of the above equation gives
 1
µ |t=1 − µ |t=0 =
2 2
G(Û (ẑ(x)))dt. (47)
0

Sharp estimates of µ2 |t=0 can be obtained by applying formulas from Geist-

McLaughlin [10]. In particular, when t = 0, ρ̂ is ρ0 , a constant. Therefore
µ2 |t=0 may be determined from the formulas for the eigenvalues of the
uniform Timoshenko beam. From results in the previous five sections,
G(Û (ẑ(x))) can be determined to within an error that converges to zero as
µ (and p) get large. Thus, equation (47) provides a means for obtaining
sharp estimates for µ2 when t = 1. From these estimates of µ2 , we will
obtain asymptotic formulas for the free-free Timoshenko eigenvalues when
mass density is ρ(x).
Our next goal then is to calculate an expression for dµ2 /dt. Suppose
ρxx ∈ L∞ [0, L]. For these calculations, we first assume that for all such ρ,

i) dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] exists, that

ii) dρ̂ Û [ρ̃], dρ̂ (Ûẑ )[ρ̃], dρ̂ (Ûẑẑ )[ρ̃] all exist, and that
iii) (dρ̂ Û [ρ̃])ẑẑ = dρ̂ (Ûẑẑ )[ρ̃] and (dρ̂ Û [ρ̃])ẑ = dρ̂ (Ûẑ )[ρ̃].
24 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

Later, we will give conditions which guarantee that assumptions i), ii) and
iii) are valid. As indicated in the discussion above, we formally differentiate
the differential equations and boundary conditions in (43-44) with respect
to ρ̂ in the direction of ρ̃. We use assumptions i), ii), and iii) from above to
obtain the differential equation and boundary conditions that dρ̂ Û [ρ̃] must
satisfy. We find that

L̂1
(dρ̂ Û [ρ̃])ẑẑ + µ2 B1 (dρ̂ Û [ρ̃]) + Q(dρ̂ Û [ρ̃]) + S(dρ̂ Û [ρ̃])ẑ =
ρ̂1/2

−(dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃])B1 Û − (dρ̂ Q[ρ̃])Û − dρ̂ (L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 )[ρ̃]S Ûẑ ,

and that

[(dρ̂ Ŷ [ρ̃])ẑ − (L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 )(dρ̂ Φ̂[ρ̃]) − (dρ̂ (L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 )[ρ̃])Φ̂]|ẑ=0,1 = 0,

(dρ̂ Φ̂[ρ̃])|ẑ=0,1 = 0.
When dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] exists, it follows that

µ2 (ρ̂ + /ρ̃) − µ2 (ρ̂)

dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] = lim
→0 /
µ2 (ρ0 + (t + /)ρ̃) − µ2 (ρ0 + tρ̃)
= lim
→0 /
dµ2
= .
dt

Similarly, from the definitions of Q and L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 , it follows that dρ̂ Q[ρ̃] =
∂
∂Q/∂t and dρ̂ (L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 )[ρ̃] = ∂t (L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 ). Define


1/EI 0
B2 = (48)
0 1/kAG

and


   
ρ̂3/4 d 2 ∂ ∂ L̂1
F =− B2−1 µ B1 Û + Q Û + S Ûẑ . (49)
L̂2 dt ∂t ∂t ρ̂1/2

Now define



dρ̂ Φ̂[ρ̃] Φ̄(ẑ)
V̄ (ẑ) ≡ dρ̂ Û [ρ̃] = ≡ .
dρ̂ Ŷ [ρ̃] Ȳ (ẑ)
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 25

Then V̄ satisfies

L̂1 L̂21
V̄ẑẑ + µ2 B1 V̄ + QV̄ + 1/2
S V̄ẑ = 3/4 B2 F,
ρ̂ ρ̂

  

L̂1 ∂ L̂1
Ȳz̄ − 1/2 Φ̄ − = 0, (50)
ρ̂ ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0,1

and

Φ̄z̄ |ẑ=0,1 = 0. (51)

Let v̄ be defined as


Ψ̄(x)
v̄(x) ≡ ≡ ρ̂−1/4 (x)V̄ (ẑ(x)).
ȳ(x)

From Theorem 2.1, we know that v̄ must satisfy the vector differential
equation


∂ ∂
∂x EI ∂x + (p2 I ρ̂ − kAG) ∂
kAG ∂x
∂ ∂ ∂ 2 v̄(x) = F. (52)
∂x kAG ∂x kAG ∂x + p Aρ̂

The boundary conditions (50) and (51) may also be rewritten in terms
of Ψ̄ and ȳ. By multiplying (50) through by ρ̂1/4 /L̂1 and noting that
ρ̂x (0) = ρ̂x (L) = 0, we find that
   

L̂1 ∂ L̂1
Ȳẑ − 1/2 Φ̄ − Φ̂ =0
ρ̂ ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0,1

   
ρ̂1/4 ∂
L̂1
⇔ ȳx (x) − Ψ̄(x) − Φ̂(ẑ(x)) =0 (53)
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
x=0,L

Similarly, from (51) we have Φ̄ẑ |ẑ=0,1 = 0

⇔ Ψ̄x |x=0,L = 0. (54)

In the next lemma, we show that if the boundary value problem for v̄(x) is
to have a solution when p2 is an eigenvalue for the boundary value problem
(45)-(46), then the right hand side of the differential equation (52) must
satisfy a certain orthogonality condition.
26 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

Lemma 5.1. Let E, I, kG and A be positive constants,

and let ρ̂ be a
Ψ̄(x)
positive function such that ρ̂xx ∈ L∞ (0, L). Suppose v̄ = satisfies
ȳ(x)
the non-homogeneous differential equations

EI Ψ̄xx + kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄) + p2 I ρ̂Ψ̄ = F1 , (55)

and

kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)x + p2 Aρ̂ȳ = F2 , (56)



Ψ̂(x)
and boundary conditions (53)-(54). Suppose û(x) = = ρ̂−1/4 Û (ẑ(x))
ŷ(x)
solves the homogeneous

Timoshenko
 boundary value problem given in (45)
F1
and (46). Then F = must satisfy
F2
  1

−1/4 kAG ∂ L̂1
(F(x), û(x)) = (F, ρ̂ Û (ẑ(x))) = Φ̂Ŷ .
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0

(In the last equation, (·, ·) denotes the standard inner product in L2 (0, L).)
proof:
 L
(F(x), û(x)) = (EI Ψ̄xx ψ̂ + kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ψ̂ + p2 I ρ̂Ψ̄ψ̂
0

+ kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)x )ŷ + p2 Aρ̂ȳ ŷ)dx

 L
= (EI Ψ̄ψ̂xx + kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ψ̂ − kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ŷx
0
+p2 I ρ̂Ψ̄ψ̂ + p2 Aρ̂ȳ ŷ)dx + kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ŷ|L
z=0

 L
= [EI Ψ̄ψ̂xx − kAG(ŷx − ψ̂)(ȳx − Ψ̄) + p2 I ρ̂Ψ̄ψ̂ + p2 Aρ̂ȳ ŷ]dx
0

+kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ŷ|L
x=0

 L
= {[EI ψ̂xx + kAG(ŷx − ψ̂) + p2 I ρ̂ψ̂]Ψ̄
0
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 27

+[kAG(ŷx − ψ̂)x + p2 Aρ̂ŷ]ȳ}dx + kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ŷ|L

x=0

  1
ρ̂1/4
∂ L̂1 −1/4
= kAG Φ̂ρ̂ Ŷ .
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0

  1

kAG ∂ L̂1
⇒ (F(x), û(x)) = Φ̂Ŷ . ✷
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0

Returning now to (52)-(54), assumptions i) - iii) above imply that

v̄ = ρ̂−1/4 V̄ (ẑ(x)) = ρ̂−1/4 (dρ̂ Û [ρ̃](ẑ)) ≡

/0

is a nontrivial solution to this boundary value problem. Lemma 5.1 implies

that
  1

−1/4 kAG ∂ L̂1
⇒ (F(x), ρ̂ Û (x)) = Φ̂ Ŷ . (57)
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0

Equation (57) holds if and only if

 

    
ρ̂3/4 d 2 ∂ ∂ L̂1
− B2−1 µ B1 Û + Q Û + S Ûẑ , ρ̂ −1/4
Û
L̂2 dt ∂t ∂t ρ̂1/2

  1

kAG ∂ L̂1
= Φ̂Ŷ
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0

        1
− ρ̂1/2
B2−1 ( ∂t
∂
Q)Û ,Û − ρ̂1/2 ∂ L̂1
B2−1 S Ûẑ ,Û − kAG ∂t
∂ L̂1
Φ̂Ŷ
∂t ρ̂1/2 ρ̂1/2
 
L̂1 L̂1
⇔ d 2
dt µ = ẑ=0
.
ρ̂1/2
B2−1 B1 Û ,Û
L̂1

The inner products above involve an integration with respect to x. Since

ρ̂1/2
L̂1
dx = dẑ, all of the above inner products may be rewritten as integra-
tions with respect to ẑ. Thus,
1 1     1
− Û T B2−1 ( ∂t
∂
Q)Û dẑ− ∂ L̂1
Û T B2−1 S Ûẑ dẑ− kAG ∂t
∂ L̂1
Φ̂Ŷ
∂t ρ̂1/2 ρ̂1/2
1
0 0
d 2
dt µ = ẑ=0
Û T B2−1 B1 Û dẑ
0

Next we show that the third term in the numerator above, the boundary
term, may be combined with the second term so that all terms in the
28 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

numerator are integrals. From the definitions of B2 and S, we find that

 1    1  
∂ L̂1 T −1 ∂ L̂1
Û B2 SUẑ dẑ = kAG (Ŷẑ Φ̂ − Φ̂ẑ Ŷ )dẑ
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2 0 ∂t ρ̂1/2

     
1 1
∂ L̂1 ∂ L̂1
= 2kAG Ŷẑ Φ̂dẑ − kAG (Φ̂Ŷ )ẑ dẑ
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2 0 ∂t ρ̂1/2

     1
1
∂ L̂1 ∂ L̂1
= 2kAG Ŷẑ Φ̂dẑ −kAGŶ Φ̂
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0

  
1
∂2 L̂1
+ kAG Φ̂Ŷ dẑ
0 ∂t∂ ẑ ρ̂1/2


   1
1
∂ L̂1 ∂ L̂1
⇒− Û T B2−1 S Ûẑ dẑ − kAGŶ Φ̂ =
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0

     
1 1
∂ L̂1 ∂2 L̂1
−2kAG Ŷẑ Φ̂dẑ − kAG Φ̂Ŷ dẑ.
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2 0 ∂t∂ ẑ ρ̂1/2
Therefore,
d 2
µ =
dt
1 1   1  
∂2
Û T B2−1 ( ∂t
L̂1 L̂1
− ∂
Q)Û dẑ−2kAG ∂
∂t Ŷẑ Φ̂dẑ−kAG Φ̂Ŷ ∂t∂ ẑ dẑ
ρ̂1/2 ρ̂1/2
0
 01 0
(58)
.
Û T B2−1 B1 Û dẑ
0

The formula above for dµ2 /dt holds so long as assumptions i) - iii) hold. In
the following theorem, conditions are given which guarantee the validity of
these assumptions, and hence show when dµ2 /dt may be calculated using
the last formula given above.

Theorem 5.1. Suppose ρ(x) is a positive function such that ρx (0) =

L
ρx (L) = 0 and ρxx (x) ∈ L∞ (0, L). Let ρ0 = [(1/L) 0 ρ1/2 (x)dx]2 , ρ̃ ≡
 L 1/2
ρ(x) − ρ0 , and ρ̂(x, t) = ρ0 + tρ̃(x). Let L̂1 = 0 ρ̂ (x; t)dx, and let
µ2 (t) = L̂21 ṕ2 be an eigenvalue for the transformed boundary value problem
(43-44). Then dµ2 /dt satisfies (7), where Û is an eigenfunction of (43-
44) corresponding to the eigenvalue µ2 , and Q, B1 and B2 are the 2 × 2
matrices defined in (41) and in (48).
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 29

proof: The proof follows from the discussion preceding this theorem,
provided we show assumptions i) - iii) are valid. We observe that û(x) =
ρ̂−1/4 (x)Û (ẑ(x)), where û(x) satisfies (45) and (46). The differential equa-
tion for the vector û(x) may be written as a system of four first order linear
scalar equations in which the parameter t appears linearly. This implies
that for each x, û, ûx , and ûxx must be analytic in t. See Coddington and
Levinson [4, page 37]. This in turn implies that for each ẑ, Û (ẑ), Ûẑ (ẑ) ,
and Ûẑẑ (ẑ) must also be analytic in t when t ∈ [0, 1]. When ẑ = 0 and t
is any value between 0 and 1, both components of Û (0) cannot simultane-
ously be zero. (If they were both zero, boundary conditions at ẑ = 0 would
imply Û (ẑ) must be identically zero.) From the scalar differential equa-
tions for the components of Û (ẑ), we conclude that µ2 must be analytic
in t. We have shown already that dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] = dµ2 /dt; hence, assumption i),
that dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] exits, is valid.
∂ ∂
Next, we observe that dρ̂ Û [ρ̃] = ∂t Û , dρ̂ Ûẑ [ρ̃] = ∂t Ûẑ , and dρ̂ Ûẑẑ [ρ̃] =
∂
∂t Ûẑ ẑ . From this we conclude that dρ̂ Û [ρ̃], dρ̂ Ûẑ [ρ̃], and dρ̂ Ûẑ ẑ [ρ̃] all exist,
since Û , Ûẑ , and Ûẑẑ are all analytic in t. This proves assumption ii).
To demonstrate that assumption iii) holds under the stated hypotheses,
observe that the components of Û satisfy the integral equations (20) and
(21) when ρ is taken to be ρ̂. When ρxx (x) is continuous, it follows from
these integral equations that Ûẑẑt and Ûtẑẑ are continuous functions of ẑ
and t. This implies that when ρ(x) ∈ C2 [0, L], Ûẑẑt = Ûtẑẑ . Furthermore,
from the integral equations, it follows that Ûẑẑt and Ûtẑẑ are continuous in ρ
with respect to the standard Sobelev norm of order 2. They are continuous
maps which take ρ(x) ∈ H2 (0, L) to an element of L2 (0, 1). Since C2 [0, L] is
dense in H2 (0, L), it follows that Ûẑẑt = Ûtẑẑ when ρ(x) ∈ H2 (0, L). Since
H2 (0, L) contains the set of all ρ such that ρxx ∈ L∞ (0, L), assumption iii)
must hold when ρxx ∈ L∞ (0, L), as desired. ✷
In the next three lemmas, our goal is to determine the constants c and d
which appear in the integral equations (20) and (21). Theorem 4.1 shows
2
that if p√ is a large enough√ eigenvalue, then p must lie near a root of
sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E). We √ will show that√provided p is not near
more than one root of sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E), then p must be a
simple eigenvalue, and the vector ( c, d )T must be a multiple of either
( 1, O(1/p)√)T or ( O(1/p), 1 )T√, depending upon whether p is near a zero
of sin(L̂1 p/ kG) or of sin(L̂1 p/ E). This result will be used to calculate
an estimate of dµ2 /dt.
In the next Lemma, we show that if p̂ is large enough and satisfies either
(59) or (60) below, then the square root of the nearest eigenvalue to p̂ is
well separated from square roots of other eigenvalues.
30 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

Lemma√5.2. Let e ∈ √(0, 1) and suppose p̂ is a root of the function

sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E) such that either
√ √
sin(L̂1 p̂/ kG) = 0 and | sin(L̂1 p̂/ E)| > e (59)

or
√ √
sin(L̂1 p̂/ E) = 0 and | sin(L̂1 p̂/ kG)| > e. (60)

Then there exists an M > 0 such that when p̂ > M , exactly one eigenvalue
2
of the free-free Timoshenko beam  with√ density√ρ̂, say ṕ , is such that its
e c e c
square root ṕ lies in the interval p̂ − 2L̂ , p̂ + 2L̂ . Furthermore, |ṕ− p̂| <
1 1
O(1/ṕ).

proof: It is not difficult to show√ that when that √ when (59) or (60) hold,
and when p̃ is a root of sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E) as near to p̂ as is any
√
other root of this function, then |p̂ − p̃| > e c/L̂1 , where c = min E, kG.
Let Γ be defined as it is in the hypothesis of Theorem 4.3. Let M be chosen
large enough so that p̂ > M implies that hypothesis (37) of Theorem 4.3
√
is satisfied and that |Γ| < e c/[2L̂1 ]. Theorem 4.1  shows that if there
 is
√ √
e c e c
a root ṕ of the frequency equation such that ṕ ∈ p̂ − + 2L̂ , then
2L̂1
, p̂
1
ṕ must be contained in the narrower interval (p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ). On the other
hand, Theorem 4.3 shows that there is exactly one zero of the frequency
function in the interval (p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ). Together, Theorem 4.1 and Theorem
4.3 imply that√there is√exactly
 one root of the frequency function in the
e c e c
interval p̂ − 2L̂ , p̂ + 2L̂ . ✷
1 1
√ √
Lemma 5.3. Let e ∈ (0, 1), and suppose p̂ is a root of sin(L̂1 p/ kG·sin(L̂1 p/ E)
such that either (59) or (60) holds. For p̂ large enough, let ṕ2 be the unique
eigenvalue of the free-free
 beam
√
with √density
 ρ̂ whose square root ṕ is con-
e c e c
tained in the interval p̂ − 2L̂ , p̂ + 2L̂ . If (59) holds, then for the eigen-
1 1

value ṕ2 , the vector ( c, d )T (where c and d are the constants appearing
in (20) and (21)) must satisfy



c O(1/ṕ)
= constant .
d 1

If (60) holds,



c 1
= constant .
d O(1/ṕ)
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 31

In either case, whether (59) holds or (60) holds, ṕ2 must be a simple eigen-
value.

proof: ṕ2 is an eigenvalue if and only if nontrivial solutions exist to a

linear system of the form

  

0 O(1/ṕ) − sin( √ṕL̂kG
1
) − O(1/ṕ) c
= (61)
0 − sin( ṕ√L̂E1 ) − O(1/ṕ) −O(1/ṕ) d

(see Theorem 2.15). The conclusion is immediate. ✷

Our next goal is to use formula (58) in Theorem 5.1 to calculate an
estimate for dµ2 /dt. We make √ an estimate dµ
2
√ /dt in the case where ṕ
lies near a root p̂ of sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E) which for an arbitrary
but fixed e ∈ (0, 1) satisfies either (59) or (60). A ṕ which meets this
criterion gives rise to an eigenvalue which we will refer to as being “well-
separated” from its neighboring eigenvalues. The estimate of dµ2 /dt is used
to calculate asymptotic formulas for these eigenvalues.
In the next lemma, we calculate estimates for one of the terms appearing
in the numerator of the right hand side of (58).

Lemma 5.4. Let Û and µ2 = L̂21 ṕ2 be an eigenfunction and corre-

sponding eigenvalue for the transformed boundary value problem (43-44).
Then ṕ2 is an eigenvalue for the free-free Timoshenko beam with density
ρ̂. Let e√be a fixed but arbitrary
√ number in (0, 1), and let p̂ be a root of
sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E) as near to ṕ as is any other root of this func-
tion. If p̂ satisfies either (59) or (60), then
  
1
∂ L̂1
−2kAG Ŷs Φ̂ds =
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2

   
1
   
c 2 2A kAG L̂1 ∂ L̂1
−d ds + O(1/ṕ).
kG − 1
α I E ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0

proof: Theorem 2.2 shows that ṕ2 is an eigenvalue for the free-free
Timoshenko beam when L21 ṕ2 is an eigenvalue for the transformed problem.
√1 ṕ and µ̂kG = √
Let µ̂E = L̂ E
L̂1 ṕ
kG
. Then Theorem 3.1 shows that

Ŷẑ = c cos(µ̂kG ẑ) − dµ̂kG sin(µ̂kG ẑ)+

32 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

  
ẑ
L̂1
cos[µ̂kG (ẑ − s)] −ρ̂3 (s)Ŷ (s) − ρ̂4 (s)Φ̂(s) + 1/2 Φ̂s (s) ds
0 ρ̂ (s)

and

c cos(µ̂E ẑ) ẑ
sin[µ̂E (ẑ − s)]
Φ̂ = +
α 0 µ̂E
 
L̂21 γ γ L̂1
· −ρ̂3 (s)Φ̂(s) + Φ̂(s) + γ ρ̂4 (s)Ŷ (s) − 1/2 Ŷ (s) ds.
ρ̂(s) ρ̂ (s)
 
Let f (ẑ) ≡ 2kAG ∂t∂ L̂1
ρ̂1/2
. Then

 1
f (ẑ)Ŷẑ (ẑ)Φ̂(ẑ)dẑ =
0

 1  
c2 cd
f cos(µ̂kG ẑ) cos(µ̂E ẑ) − µ̂kG sin(µ̂kG ẑ) cos(µ̂E ẑ) dẑ
0 α α

   
1 ẑ
µ̂kG L̂2 γ L̂1 γ
−d f (ẑ) sin(µ̂kG ẑ) sin[µ̂E (ẑ−s)] −ρ̂3 Φ̂ + 1 Φ̂ + γ ρ̂4 Ŷ − 1/2 Ŷs ds dẑ
µ̂E 0 0 ρ̂ ρ̂

   

1 ẑ
c L̂1 1
f (ẑ) cos(µ̂E ẑ) cos[µ̂kG (ẑ−s)] −ρ̂3 Ŷ − ρ̂4 Φ̂ + 1/2 Φ̂s ds dẑ+O .
0 α 0 ρ̂ ṕ

By Lemma 5.3, when p̂ satisfies (59) or (60), then cd c

α µ̂kG and α must both
be O(1) or smaller. Since µ̂E = µ̂kG by assumption (otherwise neither (59)
nor (60) could hold), the first integral on the right of the above equation
must be O(1/ṕ).
Let

µ̂kG 1
I1 = −d f (ẑ) sin(µ̂kG ẑ)
µ̂E 0
   
ẑ
L̂2 γ γ L̂1
· sin[µ̂E (ẑ − s)] −ρ̂3 Φ̂ + 1 Φ̂ + γ ρ̂4 Ŷ − 1/2 Ŷs ds dẑ.
0 ρ̂ ρ̂

By switching the order of integration, we find that

 1  1
µ̂kG
I1 = −d f (ẑ) sin(µ̂kG ẑ) sin[µ̂E (ẑ − s)]
µ̂E 0 s
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 33

 
L̂21 γ γ L̂1
· −ρ̂3 (s)Φ̂(s) + Φ̂(s) + γ ρ̂4 (s)Ŷ (s) − 1/2 Ŷs (s) dẑ ds
ρ̂(s) ρ̂ (s)

  
1
µ̂kG L̂2 γ γ L̂1
= −d −ρ̂3 Φ̂ + 1 Φ̂ + γ ρ̂4 Ŷ − 1/2 Ŷs
µ̂E 0 ρ̂ ρ̂
 1 
f (ẑ)
· {cos[(µ̂kG − µ̂E )ẑ + µ̂E s] − cos[(µ̂kG + µ̂E )ẑ − µ̂E s]}dẑ ds.
s 2
Now f

∈ L∞ (0, 1) because ρ̂xx ∈ L∞ (0, L). Therefore we may integrate
the square bracketed term above by parts with respect to ẑ, and apply
Lemmas 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 to show that
  
µ̂kG 1 L̂21 γ γ L̂1
I1 = −d −ρ̂3 Φ̂ + Φ̂ + γ ρ̂4 Ŷ − 1/2 Ŷs
µ̂E 0 ρ̂ ρ̂

 
f 1 1
· − sin(µ̂kG s)ds + O(1/ṕ)
2 µ̂kG + µ̂E µ̂kG − µ̂E
 1
µ̂kG γ L̂1 f 2µ̂E
= −d sin(µ̂kG s)Ŷs ds + O(1/ṕ).
µ̂E 0 ρ̂1/2 2 µ̂2kG − µ̂2E
From the integral equation for Ŷẑ , it follows that Ŷẑ = −dµ̂kG sin(µ̂kG ẑ) +
O(1). Substituting this expression for Ŷẑ into the last expression for I1 , we
find that
 1
2 µ̂kG γ L̂1 µ̂kG µ̂E
I1 = d f sin2 (µ̂kG s)ds + O(1/ṕ)
µ̂E 0 ρ̂1/2 µ̂2kG − µ̂2E

   
1
2A 1 L̂1 ∂ L̂1
= d kAG ds + O(1/ṕ).
kG − 1
I E ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0

Using a similar argument as was used to derive the estimate of I1 , it is

possible to show that
 1  ẑ  
c L̂1
I2 = f (ẑ) cos(µ̂E ẑ) cos[µ̂kG (ẑ−s)] −ρ̂3 Ŷ − ρ̂4 Φ̂ + 1/2 Φ̂s ds dẑ
0 α 0 ρ̂

   
 c 2 1 1
L̂1 ∂ L̂1
=− kAG ds + O(1/ṕ).
kG − 1
α E ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0
34 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

Since
  
1
∂ L̂1
2kAG Ŷs Φ̂ds = I1 + I2 + O(1/ṕ),
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2
the lemma follows. ✷
In the next theorem, we make estimates for transformed eigenfunctions
Û (ẑ) associated with well separated eigenvalues for the untransformed Tim-
oshenko beam with density ρ̂. We will use these estimates for Û to calculate
an estimate for dµ2 /dt.

Lemma 5.5. Suppose ṕ is an eigenvalue for the free-free Timoshenko

L
beam with density ρ̂ = ρ0 + tρ̃(x), where ρ0 = ([1/L] 0 ρ1/2 (x)dx)2 and
ρ̃(x) = ρ(x)−ρ0 . Suppose ρ(x) is a positive function on [0, L], that ρxx (x) ∈
L∞ (0, L), and that ρx (0) = ρx (L) = 0. Assume also√that E, I, kG,√and
A are positive constants. Let p̂ be a root of sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E)
as near to ṕ as is any other root of this function. Let e be an arbitrary but
fixed√ constant between 0 and 1. If (59) holds, then for some integer n, p̂ =
nπ kG/L̂1 , and µ2 = L̂21 ṕ2 , Û (ẑ) = ( cos(nπẑ) + O(1/n), O(1/n) )T is
an eigenvalue-eigenfunction pair for √ (43-44). Similarly, if p̂ satisfies (60),
then for some integer n, p̂ = nπ E/L̂1 and an eigenvalue-eigenfunction
pair for (43-44) is µ2 = L̂21 ṕ2 , Û (ẑ) = ( O(1/n), cos(nπẑ) + O(1/n) )T .

√1 ṕ
L̂ L̂1 ṕ
√
proof: If µ̂E = E
and µ̂kG = kG
, then Theorem 3.1 shows that for a
nontrivial choice of the constants c and d and for α̂ = L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 (0),

c cos(µ̂E ẑ)
Φ̂ =
α̂

  
ẑ
sin[µ̂E (ẑ − s)] L̂2 γ γ L̂1
−ρ̂3 Φ̂ + 1 + γ ρ̂4 Ŷ − 1/2 Ŷs ds (62)
0 µ̂E ρ̂ ρ̂
and
c sin(µ̂kG ẑ)
Ŷ = + d cos(µ̂kG ẑ)
µ̂kG
  
ẑ
sin[µ̂kG (ẑ − s)] L̂1
−ρ̂3 Ŷ − ρ̂4 Φ̂ + 1/2 Φ̂s ds. (63)
0 µ̂kG ρ̂

For fixed c and d, Lemmas 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 show that all terms in (62) and
(63) under the integral sign are O(1/ṕ). If (59) holds,√then by Lemma 5.3
and Theorem 4.1 we find that ṕ = p̂+O(1/p̂) = nπ L̂1 / kG+O(1/n). This
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 35

implies that Û (ẑ) = ( O(1/n), cos(nπẑ) + O(1/n) )T . Similarly, when (60)

holds, Û (ẑ) = ( cos(nπẑ) + O(1/n), O(1/n) )T . ✷
The next Lemma gives an estimate of dµ2 /dt.

Lemma 5.6. Suppose e is an arbitrary but fixed real number between

0 and 1. Suppose ṕ2 is an eigenvalue for the free-free Timoshenko √ beam
with density ρ̂(x; t) and that p̂ is a root of the function sin(L̂1 p/√ kG) ·
√
sin(L̂1 p/ E) nearest ṕ. Let µ2 = L̂21 ṕ2 . If (59) holds, then p̂ = nπL̂ kG for
1
some integer n, and
 1
dµ2
= −kG {(ρ̂3 )t [1 + cos(2nπz)]}dz
dt 0

  
1
2kAG L̂1 ∂ L̂1
− E dz + O(1/n). (64)
I kG − 1 0 ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
√
nπ E
On the other hand, if (60) holds, then p̂ = L̂1
for some integer n, and

   
1
dµ2 L̂21 γ
=E − ρ̂3 − cos(2nπz)(ρ̂3 )t dz
dt 0 ρ̂
t

  
1
2kAG L̂1 ∂ L̂1
+ E dz + O(1/n). (65)
I kG − 1 0 ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2

proof: The proof follows from Theorem 5.1 and Lemmas 5.4 and 5.5. ✷
Finally, for eigenvalues which are well separated from neighboring eigen-
values, we prove the following asymptotic formulas.

Theorem 5.2. Let A, I, E and kG be positive constants. Suppose that

ρ(x) > 0 for all x ∈ [0, L], that ρx (0) = ρx (L) = 0, and that ρxx ∈ L∞ [0, L].
L
Let ρ0 = ([1/L] 0 ρ1/2 (x)dx)2 , and define
   
1/2 1/2
pLρ0 pLρ0
E(p) = sin √ sin √ .
E kG

Let e be a fixed but arbitrary real number between 0 and 1, and let
√
ni π E
pn i ≡ 1/2
, i = 1, , 2, . . . ,
Lρ0
36 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

be a sequence of roots of E(p) such that

 
1/2
pni Lρ0
sin √ > e.
kG

Suppose each pni is large enough that exactly one simple eigenvalue p̌ of
the Timoshenko beam lies in the interval
 √ √ 
c c
pn i − 1/2
e, pni + 1/2
e ,
2Lρ0 2Lρ0

where c = min{E, kG}. Then

 1
n2i π 2 E E
p̌2 = 2
− 2 ρ3 (x) cos(2ni πz)dz + CE + O(1/ni ), (66)
L ρ0 L ρ0 0
x
where x(z) is the inverse of the function z(x) = [1/L1 ] 0
ρ1/2 (s)ds and
  1

A kG E ρ0
CE = − 1 dz
I ρ0 E − kG 0 ρ(x)

 1

E A kG kG + E
− 2 ρ3 (x)dz + 1− . (67)
L ρ0 0 I ρ0 2(E − kG)
Let
√
mi π kG
pmi ≡ 1/2
, i = 1, , 2, . . . ,
Lρ0
be a sequence of roots of E(p) such that
 
1/2
pmi Lρ0
sin √ > e.
E

Suppose each pmi is large enough that there is exactly one simple eigenvalue
p̌2 of the Timoshenko beam satisfying
 √ √ 
c c
p̌ ∈ pmi − 1/2
e, pmi + 1/2
e .
2Lρ0 2Lρ0

In this case,
 1
m2i π 2 kG kG
p̌2 = − 2 ρ3 (x) cos(2mi πz)dz + CkG + O(1/mi ), (68)
L2 ρ0 L ρ0 0
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 37

where
  1

A kG kG ρ0
CkG =− − 1 dz
I ρ0 E − kG 0 ρ(x)
 1

kG A kG kG + E
− 2 ρ3 (x)dz + 1+ . (69)
L ρ0 0 I ρ0 2(E − kG)

proof: To prove formula (66) let µ2 = L̂21 ṕ2 where ṕ2 is an eigenvalue for
a beam with density ρ̂(x; t). Define p̌2 = ṕ2 |t=1 and p̄2 = ṕ2 |t=0 . Because
L̂21 |t=1 = L̂21 |t=0 = L2 ρ0 = L21 , as t changes from 0 to 1, µ2 /[L2 ρ0 ] will
change continuously in t from p̄2 , an eigenvalue for a uniform beam with
constant density ρ0 , to ρ̌2 , and eigenvalue for a beam with density ρ(x).
Furthermore, Lemma 5.6 shows that dµ2 /dt satisfies (65). This implies
that
 1
 
1 1
L2 ρ0 (p̌2 − p̄2 ) = E L21 γ − − ρ3 − cos(2nπz)ρ3 dz
0 ρ ρ0

 1  
L2 kAG ρ0
+ E − 1 dz + O(1/ni ) (70)
I kG − 1 0 ρ
where L2 ρ0 p̌2 = µ2 |t=1 is an eigenvalue for the transformed problem with
density ρ(x) and L2 ρ0 p̄2 = µ2 |t=0 is an eigenvalue for the transformed
problem with constant density ρ0 . Dividing through by L2 ρ0 = L21 , we find
that
 1
  1
1 1 E
p̌ − p̄ = E
2 2
γ − dz − 2 ρ3 dz
0 ρ ρ0 L ρ0 0
 1
  1

kAG 1 1 E 1
+ E − dz − 2 cos(2ni πz)ρ3 dz + O (71)
I kG − 1 0 ρ ρ0 L ρ0 0 ni
From Geist-McLaughlin [10], it follows that



n2i π 2 E 1 kG + E A kG 1
2
p̄ = 2 + 1− +O .
L ρ0 2 kG − E I ρ0 ni

Formula (66) follows from the last equation and (71).

A similar argument proves formulas (68) and (69). For eigenvalues that
are close to the pmi s, dµ2 /dt satisfies (64) (instead of (65)), and the formula
for p̄2 becomes (see [10])



m2 π 2 kG 1 kG + E A kG 1
p̄2 = i 2 + 1+ +O .✷
L ρ0 2 kG − E I ρ0 mi
38 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN

REFERENCES
1. George Bachman and Lawerence Narici. Functional Analysis. Academic Press, New
York, 1966.
2. G. Borg. Eine umkehrung der Sturm-Liouvilleschen eigenwertaufgabe. Acta Math.,
78:1–96, 1946.
3. William E. Boyce and Richard C. Diprima. Elementary Differential Equations and
Boundary Value Problems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 5th edition, 1992.
4. E. A. Coddington and N. Levinson. Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1955.
5. C. F. Coleman and J. R. McLaughlin. Solution of the inverse spectral problem for
an impedance with integrable derivative, part I, II. Comm. Pure and Appl. Math.,
XLVI:145–212, 1993.
6. C. T. Fulton and S. A. Pruess. Eigenvalue and eigenfunction asymptotics for regular
Sturm-Liouville problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 188:227–340, 1994.
7. C. T. Fulton and S. A. Pruess. Erratum. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 189:313–314, 1995.
8. Bruce Geist. The asymptotic expansion of the eigenvalues of the Timoshenko beam.
Ph.D. dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institue, Troy, N.Y., 1994.
9. Bruce Geist and J. R. McLaughlin. Double eigenvalues for the uniform Timoshenko
beam. Applied Mathematics Letters, 10(3):129–134, 1997.
10. Bruce Geist and J. R. McLaughlin. Eigenvalue formulas for the uniform Timoshenko
beam: The free-free problem. Electronic Research Announcement AMS, 4, 1998.
11. O. H. Hald. The inverse Sturm-Liouville problem with symmetric potentials. Acta
Math., 141:263–291, 1978.
12. O. H. Hald and J. R. McLaughlin. Solutions of inverse nodal problems. Inverse
Problems, 5:307–347, 1989.
13. T. C. Huang. The effect of rotatory inertia and of shear deformation on the frequency
and normal mode equations of uniform beams with simple end conditions. Journal
of Applied Mechanics, 28:579–584, 1961.
14. E. L. Isaacson and E. Trubowitz. The inverse Sturm-Liouville problem, I. Comm.
Pure and Appl. Math., XXXVI:767–783, 1983.
15. Edwin T. Kruszewski. Effect of transverse shear and rotary inertia on the natural
frequency of a uniform beam. In National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,
Technical Note no. 1909, July 1949.
16. Ben Noble and James W. Daniel. Applied Linear Algebra. Prentice-Hall, Inc., En-
glewood Cliffs, N.J., 2nd edition, 1977.
17. Jurgen Poschel and Eugene Trubowitz. Inverse Spectral Theory. Academic Press,
New York, 1987.
18. W. Rundell and P. Sacks. Reconstruction techniques for classical inverse Sturm-
Liouville problems. Math. Comp., 58(197):161–183, 1992.
19. Charles R. Steele. Application of the WKB method in solid mechanics. Mechanics
Today, 3:243–295, 1976.
20. William T. Thomson. Vibration Theory and Applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1965.
 EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 39

21. Stephen Timoshenko. On the correction for shear of the differential equation for
transverse vibrations of prismatic bars. Philisophical Magazine, 41:744–746, 1921.
22. Stephen Timoshenko. On the transverse vibrations of bars of uniform cross-section.
Philisophical Magazine, 43:125–131, 1922.
23. Stephen Timoshenko. Strength of Materials: Elementary Theory and Problems. D.
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York, 2nd edition, 1940.
24. R. W. Trail-Nash and A. R. Collar. The effects of shear flexibility and rotatory
inertia on the bending vibrations of beams. Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and
Applied Mathematics, VI(2):186–222, 1953.