Solutions of Homework #4 (ASEN5022, Spring 2004)

Problem : A beam with uncertain boundary conditions.

A group of engineers conducted vibration tests on a bridge that needs to be retrofitted with re-
inforced structural elements in order to improve earthquake vulnerability. After a careful modal
analysis based on their measured acceleration output data sets, they discovered that the funda-
mental frequency is equivalent to L = 4.25, and the peak amplitude of the corresponding mode
shape occurring at the beam span x = 0.55L. They have concluded that there is no discernable
boundary inertia effects.
4.1 Formulate the continuum equations of motion for this beam, complete with the uncertain
boundary conditions.

From Lecture Notes 13, we find (There were two terms missing in equation (11) of that lecture
notes, viz., kw1 and kw2 terms ):
 t2
{[E I w(L , t)x x ]x + kw2 w(L , t) Q 2 } w(L , t)dt
t1
 t2
+ {[E I w(0, t)x x ]x kw1 w(0, t) + Q 1 } w(0, t)dt
t1
 t2
{[E I w(L , t)x x ] + k 2 w(L , t)x M2 } w(L , t)x dt
t1 (1)
 t2
+ {[E I w(0, t)x x ] k 1 w(0, t)x + M1 } w(0, t)x dt
t1
 t2  L
{ m(x)w(x, t)tt + [E I w(x, t)x x ]x x
t1 0
f (x, t) } w(x, t) d xdt = 0

The above Hamiltons principle yields the governing equation of motion of the form

m(x) w(x, t)tt + [E I w(x, t)x x ]x x f (x, t) = 0 (2)

and the boundary conditions with Q 1 = Q 2 = 0, M1 = M2 = 0 :

{[E I w(L , t)x x ]x + kw2 w(L , t) } w(L , t) = 0

{[E I w(0, t)x x ]x kw1 w(0, t) } w(0, t) = 0
(3)
{[E I w(L , t)x x ] + k 2 w(L , t)x } w(L , t)x = 0
{[E I w(0, t)x x ] k 1 w(0, t)x } w(0, t)x = 0

Thus, the governing differential equation and the four natural boundary conditions are as follow.

1
 m(x) w(x, t)tt + [E I w(x, t)x x ]x x = 0
{[E I w(L , t)x x ]x + kw2 w(L , t) } =0
{[E I w(0, t)x x ]x kw1 w(0, t) } =0 (4)
{[E I w(L , t)x x ] + k 2 w(L , t)x } =0
{[E I w(0, t)x x ] k 1 w(0, t)x } =0

In order to formulate the beam vibration problem, first, we assume w(x, t) in the form

w(x, t) = W (x)e jt (5)

which, when substituted into (4), yields

2 m
W (x) + W (x)x x x x = 0, 0x L
EI
k
W (0)x x x w1 W (0) =0
EI
k 1
w(0)x x W (0)x =0 (6)
EI
k
W (L)x x x + w2 W (L) =0
EI
k 2
w(L)x x + W (L)x =0
EI

which gives the following characteristic equation:

0 1 0 1 c1







k 1 k 1 c

2


det =0
sin cos sinh cosh c3








sin cos sinh cosh

c4
k 2 cos +k 2 sin k 2 cosh k 2 sinh
(7)

2 sin sinh + k 1 (sin cosh cos sinh )

k 2 cos sinh + k 1 k 2 (1 cos cosh )
=0

= L , ki = ki /(E I /L)

2
After computing the first mode of the 5 ideal boundary conditions using BeamModeShapeFinder.m,
the mode and mode shape of the present problem are found to fall between the fixed-fixed and
the simply supported-simply supported beams as shown in Figure 1 below. Notice the frequency
parameter L of the problem is L = 4.25 whereas the fixed-simple support and the fixed-fixed
beams are L = 3.9266 and L = 4.73, respectively. In addition, the maximum mode shape
amplitude of the problem occurs at x/L = 0.55 which is between that of the fixed-simply supported
beam(x/L = 0.60) and of the fixed-fixed beam (x/L = 0.5).

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Mode shape

0.5 (Fixed-Fixed beam)

1-th mode beta*L = 4.7 3
0.4

0.3 (Fixed-Simply supported beam)

1-th mode beta*L = 3.9266
0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Beam span

Fig. 1 Mode and mode shapes of fixed-fixed and fixed-simple support beams

Hence, the stage is set for finding the rotational spring parameters k 1 and k 2 . A possible beam
model is shwon in Figure 2 below.

z
w

Beam with rotational boundary springs

k1 k 2
EI, m(x)
x

Fig. 2 A beam with two rotational support springs

3
4.2 Model this beam in terms of discrete springs and masses employing the discrete modeling
approaches discussed in the class. Can you have a rough estimate of the boundary springs from
your discrete model? Show your rationale as to how well your proposed discrete model can guide
you to a reasonable set of model parameters.

We will examine this in three ways.

4.2.1 A crude one-element beam with two support springs:

If one models the entire beam with one element and eliminates the vertical degrees of freedom,
w1 = w + 2 = 0, from Lecture 14 on the finite element modeling of beams as shown in Figure 2,
we obtain the following equation when weconsider only the two end rotations:

mx + kx = 0, x = [1 , 2 ]T

 
m 3 4 3
m= , m = A
420 3 4 (8)

 
EI 4 + 1 2 k 
k= , =
 2 4 + 2 EI

z
w
One FEM beam elements with rotational boundary springs

1 2
k1 k 2
x

EI, m(x)

Fig. 2 One element model with two rotational support springs

The preceding equation leads to the following eigenvalue problem:

[k 2 m]x = 0

    (9)
4 + 1 2 ( L)4 4 3 2 m
det| | = 0, 4 =
2 4 + 2 420 3 4 EI

4
 1 Search for rotational springs with 2-dof model
10

Two end rotations of a fem element and two rotational support springs

Determinant Magnitude
0
10

-1
10

-2
10
3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4
k theta 1 = k theta 2

Fig. 3 Search for 1 = 2 by one element model

In order to get an idea of an order of magnitude estimate, we set = 1 = theta2 and searched
for its value with the desired L = 4.25. The result is shown in Figure 3, which shows that for the
case of 1 = theta2 it hovers around

(1 )(2do f f em) 3.45 (10)

. Note, however, that this equal rotational springs will result in a symmetric mode shape, meaning
that the maximum mode shape amplitude will occur at x/L = 0.5.

4.2.2 A two-element beam with two support springs:

If one models the entire beam with two elements and eliminates the vertical degrees of freedom at
the supports as shown in Figure 4, we obtain the following equation when we consider only the two
end rotations:

z
w
Two FEM beam elements with rotational boundary springs

k1 0.55 L 0.45 L k 2
x

EI, m(x)

Fig. 4 Two beam elements with two rotational support springs

5
 mx + kx = 0, x = [1 , wm , m , 2 ]T
m 1 2 m 1 21

13m 1 1
1
0
105 420 140


13m 1 1 13(m 1 +m 2 ) 11(m 2 2 m 1 1 )
13m 2 2
420
m=
35 210 420
m 2
1 1 11(m 2 2 m 1 1 ) (m 2 22 +m 1 21 )

m 2 22
140 210 105 140

2 2
m 2 22 m 2 22
0 13m
420
140 105

(11)
4k1 21 + k 1 6k1 1 2k1 21 0


6k1 1 12(k1 + k2 ) 6(k1 1 k2 2 ) 6k2 2

k=

2k1 21 6(k1 1 k2 2 ) 4(k1 21 + k2 22 ) 2k2 22

0 6k2 2 2k2 22 4k2 22 + k 2

EI EI
m 1 = A1 = m1 , m 2 = A2 = m2 , k1 = , k2 =
31 32

Two-element FEM model with support rotations

(desired beta * L = 4.25)
4.5

4.4

4.3

4.2
beta*L magnitude

4.1
beta*L value without rotational spring = 3.1488
4

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Rotational spring k1 ( k2 = (0.45/0.55) *k1 ) value

Fig. 5 Two beam elements with two rotational support springs

After solving for various [1 = kE1IL , 2 = (0.45/0.55)1 ], the result is illustraated in Figure 5.
Hence, one can estimate the support spring to be:

(1 )(4do f f em) 12.0

6
4.2.3 Classical approach with two end rotational degrees of freedom: A classical approach
(i.e., assumed mode approximation) of the following form may be utilized for the present purposes:

W (x, t) = c1 (t) sin( x/L) + c2 (t) sin(2/L) (12)

This approximation satisfies the two end conditions:

w(0, t) = w(L , t) = 0 (13)

and setting (x, t) = w(x, t)x , [c1 (t), c2 (t)] can be expressed by the two end rotations, [ 1 (t) =
(0, t), 2 (t) = (L , t) ]. Therefore, the total kinetic and potential energy can be obtained by
 L
T = 1
2
m[w(x,
t)]2 d x, m = A
0
 L
(14)
V = 1
2
E I [w(x, t)x x ] d x + 2 1
k 2
2 1 1
+ 1
k 2
2 2 2
0

which is a function of [1 , 2 , 1 , 2 ].

Carrying out the necessary variational process, one finds the following homogeneous equation:

mx + kx = 0, x = [1 , 2 ]T
 
5/32 3/32
m=m
3/32 5/32
  (15)
5k/8 + k 1 3k/8
k=
3k/8 5k/8 + k 1
m = m L 3 / 2 , k = 2 E I /L

Classical rotational two-dof model with end rotations

(desired beta*L = 4.25)
4.35

beta*L value only without rotational spring = 3.1416

4.3

4.25
beta*L magnitude

4.2

4.15

4.1

4.05
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7
Rotational k1 [k2 = (0.45/0.55)*k1] value

Fig. 5 Classical assumed mode model with two rotational support springs

Figure 5 shows the L vs. 1 , which estimates the desired 1 to be around:

7
 (1 )(2do f classical) 6.4 (16)

4.3 Utilizing the technical insight you gained from the above two tasks, develop a strategy of how
you can employ the continuum model derived in problem (4.1) to arrive at the uncertain boundary
condition parameters.
An analysis for the estimation of the support rotational springs from Problem 4.2 has provided the
following:
One-element with two end rotational DOFs: 1 3.45
Two-element with one interior translation and two end rotational DOFs: 1 12.0 (17)
Classical approach with two end rotational DOFs: 1 6.4
It should be noted that the above estimates are based on the assumption that the peak amplitude of
the mode shape occurs at the beam mid-span.
Armed with these estimates, an iterative search for 1 and 2 was launched by utilizing the theoretical
(4x4)-characteristic matrix routine, CmatrixBeamGeneral.m, while varying 1 in the outer loop
and 2 in the inner loop. A limiting solution has been found if 1 = k 1 L/E I is chosen to be
excessively large, e.g.,
1 = 106
k 2 L (18)
2 = 4
EI

Solution of Two Support Rotational Springs

1

0.9

0.8 Max Mode Shape Amplitude

0.7
at x = 0.55 L

0.6
Mode shape

0.5 L = 4.25
0.4 k1/(E I /L) = 192
0.3 k2/(E I /L) =4.47

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Beam span

Fig. 6 Classical assumed mode model with two rotational support springs
A further iterative search discovered that a solution (not unique!) has been discovered as

k 1 L
1 = 192
EI (19)
k 2 L
2 = 4.35
EI

8
The mode shape of this choice is plotted in Figure 6.

{Remar k : W hat i f L = 4.0 ?

For this case one can find the following parameters:

k1 L
26.5
EI (20)
k2 L
1.95
EI

which shows that, for a drop of frequency 11 percent (note that the frequency is proportional to ( L)2 ), an appreciable
reduction of the support springs will result. In practice, the frequency drop is an indication of how much the bridge has
deteriorated, a damage indicator. It is for this reason the support spring models play a crucial role in assessing the health of
the bridge via dynamic testing. }

4.3 Discuss complementary features of both the rigorous continuum modeling approach and ruthless discrete modeling
approaches, if any. What have you learned?

The estimate of 2 = k2 L
E I by the two to four-DOF models has been proved to be fairly useful. Judging from that fact that
the peak amplitude of the mode shape occurs at x?L = 0.55, we see that the left-end rotational support spring (1 ) must
be stiffer than the right-end support spring (2 ). In using the exact continuum formula (7), we have found that in fact one
could treat the left-hand boundary condition is very close to an ideal clamped or fixed support. Therefore, if one is charged
to inspect or repair the bridge, one should carefully look into any loosened connections on the right-side of the bridge and
the right-end end condition.
Finally, with the preliminary estimate, a refined finite element model can be constructed, which can be used to study not
only the end conditions but also the many connectors in the bridge structures. For this to be meaningful, there should be
more measured data along the beam span. This subject is called structural health monitoring which has been a growing
activity around the world.