Free vibration studies using Galerkins finite element method

A. KRISHNAN, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indina Institute of Technology, Madras (Chennai) 600 036, India, and GEETHA GEORGE, Tata Consultancy Services, Madras (Chennai), India. akrish@aero.iitm.ernet.in
Received 3rd November 1997 Revised 19th January 1998

An effort is made to formulate systematically the finite element method based on Galerkins principle to solve beam problems. The developed code is used to study the free vibration characteristics of stepped, spring supported and twisted beams of solid sections. Thin walled sections exhibiting bending twisting coupling (channel) and beams with unsymmetric cross section (Z section) are also analysed. Results obtained with two elements are very reasonable. NOTATION/ABBREVIATIONS A cross sectional area of the beam CC, CF, CS clampedclamped, clamped free, clamped simply supported Cn Cu DOF ey, e z EI GJ Iyy, Izz Iyz Is k K K L m M N SS
2 non dimensional frequency, Cn = L2 A EI warping constant degrees of freedom shear centre distance from centroid in y and z directions flexural rigidity torsional rigidity moments of inertia about y and z axes product of inertia moment of inertia about shear centre element stiffness matrix spring constant global stiffness matrix length of the beam element mass matrix global mass matrix shape function simply supported
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

28 T v.w

A. Krishnan and Geetha George non-dimensional spring constant = KEI L3 displacements in y and z directions Poissons ratio twist in degrees mass density torsional displacement frequency of vibration in radians/se

INTRODUCTION AND A BRIEF SURVEY OF LITERATURE Exact solution to obtain the natural frequencies of beam is limited to some ideal cases and to get them for any practical beam, it is necessary to make use of some approximate methods of solution and most popular amongst them are Rayleigh Ritz and Galerkins methods. For these methods, it is necessary to assume functions satisfying the boundary conditions. To improve the numerical values of the frequency, and also to get frequencies corresponding to the higher modes, it is necessary to take more terms in the assumed displacement function. This will be difficult for beams with some boundary conditions. With the availability of high speed computers, computer based approximate methods are very popular and amongst them, finite element method is made use of to get solution to complex problems. The most commonly used finite element method (FEM) is based on the principle of minimum total potential known as the displacement model. (This is actually a computer based Rayleigh Ritz method.) This method of solution is discussed at length in standard text books on finite element method which enables any one to get the working knowledge easily. Finite element method can also be formulated based on Galerkins principle (GFEM); but fewer details of this are available in standard text books. The focus of the present study is to formulate the Galerkins finite element method systematically and apply it to beams of different configurations. The accuracy of the code developed is checked by obtaining solutions to some typical problems for which results are available in literature. Exact, Rayleigh Ritz and/or finite element methods have been used successfully for solving beam problems and a lot of published literature is available for getting the free vibration behaviour of any type of beam. Since the focus of the present paper is to formulate the finite element model using Galerkins principle, a literature survey for solution of the chosen problems by different methods is not attempted. The literature given below pertains only to those which have used Galerkins finite element (GFEM) method for solution. Prasad and Murthy [1] have carried out torsional vibration analysis of shafts and flexural vibration of beams with various boundary conditions. Rao and Raju [2] have solved free vibration of an elastically supported beam with a tip mass and prove the capability of this method to satisfy complicated boundary conditions. Nagaraj and Shanthakumar [3] have used this method to determine the frequencies of rotating beams and report that a single element is able to give reasonable results. Nagaraj and Sahu [4] have applied both FEM and GFEM to solve torsional vibration of non-uniform pre-twisted rotor blades. Rao and Mirza [5] use the method to determine the torsional frequency of thin walled tapered cantilever I beams. Free vibration studies on spinning pre-twisted orthotropic beams are done using GFEM by Llao and Dang [6]. In all these, studies are carried out only for sections having an axis of symmetry and hence there is no coupling (between bending and/or bending twisting) present. In the present study, GFEM is made use of to obtain the natural frequencies of beams with various configurations. Formulation is given in detail and this should help a student to get a better insight as well as working knowledge of this method.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

Free vibration studies using Galerkins finite element method FORMULATION

29

To get the natural frequency of a thin walled beam with arbitrary cross section (Fig. 1), the following three coupled governing differential equations (modified from Ref. [7]) are to be solved simultaneously.

Fig. 1. A typical cross section with co-ordinate axes and shear centre (s.c.).

d dx 2 d dx 2 d dx 2

d 2 d2w 2 EI zz 2 EI zy 2 A ( ez ) = 0 dx dx d2w d 2 2 EI yy 2 EI zy 2 A ( w + ez ) = 0 dx dx d 2 d 2 2 ECu 2 GJ 2 ( I s Aez + Ae y w ) = 0 dx dx

(1)

(2)

(3)

The above are equations of force equilibrium along y and z directions and torsional equilibrium respectively. Izy terms cause bendingbending coupling since the chosen centroidal axes are not the principal axes and ey and ez (distances from the centroid to shear centre along the y and z axes respectively) result in bendingtwisting coupling. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to solve the above three equations simultaneously for any general beam problem, exactly. For getting an idea of the free vibration behaviour of the structure, any approximate method of solution can be adopted and here Galerkins method is used. For this method, approximate displacement functions for each displacement , w and are written as

( x ) = i ( x )
w( x ) = i w ( x )

(4) (5) (6)

( x ) = i ( x )

in which each i(x), wi(x) and i(x) satisfies both geometric and natural boundary conditions. When these approximate displacement functions are fed into the differential equations, there will be residues R(x), Rw(x) and R (x) each of which would contain the constants is, is and is. Galerkins method stipulates that the values of the constants should be such that the following conditions are satisfied.

0 R ( x ) i ( x ) dx = 0

(7)

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

30
L

A. Krishnan and Geetha George

0 Rw ( x ) wi ( x ) dx = 0 0 R ( x ) i ( x ) dx = 0
L

(8) (9)

Using these conditions, the natural frequencies of the beam can be obtained. GFEM is formulated based on this principle, and as in the case of FEM, the beam is divided into a number of elements. Considering y direction, for example, since the boundary/continuity conditions involve any two of ,x EI,xxEI,xxx, these are to be chosen as the degrees of freedom (subscript indicates differentiation). For problems other than those with discontinuity in geometric properties, the degrees of freedom can as well be,x ,xx ,xxx,. A seventh degree polynomial can represent the displacement within the elements in terms of the nodal degrees of freedom. This is written as

( x ) = 1 + 2 x + 3 x 2 + + 8 x 7 =

ii ( x )
i =1

(10)

The above equation in matrix form can be expressed as

( x ) = ( x )
The constant are related to the nodal degrees of freedom by,

(11)

= A
where

(12)

= i

vi , x

i, xx

i, xxx i +1 i +1, x

i +1, xx

i +1, xxx

(13)

are the nodal degrees of freedom. The matrix A in equations (12), which is of 8 8, is obtained by substituting the proper values of x in the appropriate expression (displacement or its derivative depending on the specific row) for the degree of freedom for an element. The first four rows pertain to the left end (x = 0) and the last four, to the right end (x = l). Making use of equation (12), displacement (x) within the element can be expressed in terms of nodal degrees of freedom, as

( x ) = ( x )A 1
1

(14)

( x )A can be considered equivalent to the shape function Nis used in normal finite element procedure. Displacements w(x) and (x) can be also represented in the same way and the constants associated with them are i and i respectively in place of i used to express (x). In order to get the required number of equations similar to (7), (8) and (9) to determine the values of the unknowns at the nodes, the residual elastic and inertia forces are made to do work on the assumed displacements for each element. Summing up this appropriately for all elements, and enforcing the boundary conditions will result in the required number of equations. This involves the determination of ( x )A 1 explicitly. This is difficult and to make the procedure more elegant, is, is and is can be chosen as unknowns instead of nodal degrees of freedom. Substituting the expressions for v . w and in equations (1), (2) and (3) will result in three expressions for Rv(x), Rw(x) and R(x) with unknowns is, is and is
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

Free vibration studies using Galerkins finite element method

31

and these residues are multiplied with coefficients of is, is and is appropriately to get 24 equations. The stiffness and mass matrices thus obtained will be with respect to , and . To get the stiffness and mass matrices in terms of the actual DOF, each of these matrices (which are in blocks of 8 8) is to be pre-multiplied by A1T and post multiplied by A1. The element stiffness as well as mass matrices can be arranged as follows.

(15)

1,1 1, 2 1, 3

w 2,1 2.2 2, 3 3,1 3, 2 3, 3

Each block of the stiffness matrix can be expressed as d2 K1,1 = A 1T E i 2 dx

d 2 i 1 1T 1 I zz i dx A = A CE1 A dx 2 d 2 i 1 1T 1 I zy i dx A = A CE1 A dx 2 d 2 i 1 1T 1 I zy i dx A = A CE1 A dx 2 d 2 i 1 1T 1 I yy i dx A = A CE1 A dx 2

(16)

d2 K1, 2 = A 1T E i 2 dx

(17)

d2 K 2,1 = A 1T E i 2 dx d2 K 2, 2 = A 1T E i 2 dx

(18)

(19)

d 2 d 2 K 3, 3 = A 1T E i 2 Cu 2i i dx A 1 dx dx

d 2 i + A 1T GJ i i dx A 1 dx 2

= A 1T CE1A 1 + A 1T CE3 A 1

(20)

Other blocks will be zero since there is no bendingtwisting coupling in the stiffness matrix. Similarly each block of the mass matrix can be expressed as M1,1 = A 1T

(A iii ) dx A (A iii ) dx A

= A 1T CE2 A 1
1

(21) (22) (23) (24)

M1,3 = A 1T M 2,2 = A 1T M 2,3 = A 1T

(Aez iii ) dx A
1

= A 1T CE2 A 1

= A 1T CE2 A 1
1

(Aey iii ) dx A

= A 1T CE2 A 1

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

32 M 3,1 = A 1T M 3, 2 = A 1T M 3, 3 = A 1T

A. Krishnan and Geetha George

(Aez iii ) dx A
1

= A 1T CE2 A 1

(25) (26) (27)

(Aey iii ) dx A (Is iii ) dx A

= A 1T CE2 A 1

= A 1T CE2 A 1

The remaining blocks are zero because bendingbending coupling is not present in mass matrix. CE1, CE2 and CE3 in each block vary and the variation is only on the sectional and material propertie of the element. As a specific case, in M1,1 the multiplication factor is A, where as in M1,3 it i Aez. These element stiffnes and mass matrices are assembled appropriately to get the global matrices and the boundary conditions imposed. The resulting equations will be homogeneous and can be expressed as

d2 E 2 dx

d 2 Ni A 2 Ni qi Ni dx = 0 I qi 2 dx

(28)

where qis correspond to the active global degrees of freedom. Equation (xx) will result in a set of equations which can be written in matrix form as K = 2 M which can be solved to get the natural frequencies and mode shapes. (29)

NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION E = 0.7 10 2 N mm 2 , The material properties chosen for analysis are 9 2 4 = 2.8 10 Ns mm and = 0.3 except where validation is done in which case ther corresponding material properties are used. Non-dimensional frequencies, Cns for spring 2 supported beams and Cn for stepped and twisted beams, are used to enable easy comparison with the results available in literature. Geometrical properties of bigger sections are chosen for non-dimensionalizing stepped beams. For other structures, actual frequencies are presented. The developed code is first tested for its accuracy by finding the natural frequency values of uniform beams with all classical boundary conditions and acceptable results could be obtained with two elements. Spring supported beams with clamped edges are analysed for various values of spring constants, the spring being located at midspan as well as at quarter span. Results are compared with those of Kameswara Rao [8] and found to be satisfactory and are presented in Table 1(a). For GFEM2, (GFEM2 is used to indicate Galerkins finite element method with 2 elements for brevity) the beam is divided into two equal divisions even when the spring support is at quarter span. Since it is oly necessary to find the work done by the spring, its location need not be a node. The displacement FEM model with two degrees of freedom per node is very popular and it was thought worthwhile to get the results with 8 elements (FEM8) also. These results are used as indicators for problems for which results are not readily available. Frequency values of simply supported beams, with spring at midspan and those of cantilever with spring at the free end, are given in Table 1(b). The values of GFEM2, GFEM4 and FEM8 are almost the same. Also when the spring stiffness increases, the numerical value of the fundamental frequency tends to the second frequency of
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

Free vibration studies using Galerkins finite element method Table 1(a). Frequencies of spring support CC beams BC T Mode 1 0 2 3 4 1 10 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 5000 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Ref [7].

33

CC@L 2 GFEM2 4.73004 7.85321 10.99648 14.13919 4.78843 7.85321 11.00021 14.13919 5.23055 7.85321 11.03417 14.13919 7.14759 7.85321 11.39770 14.13919 7.85321 8.79061 12.92778 14.13913 7.85387 9.47596 14.13563 15.73084 7.85321 9.47126 14.13921 15.73583 GFEM4 4.73004 7.85320 10.99560 14.13717 4.78843 4.85320 10.99932 14.13717 5.23040 7.85320 11.03310 14.13717 7.14359 7.85316 11.39346 14.13717 7.85320 8.78032 12.89494 14.13717 7.85321 9.46207 14.13715 15.71565 9.85320 9.46213 14.13718 15.71536 FEM8 GFEM2

CC@L 4 GFEM4 4.73004 7.85320 10.99560 14.13717 4.74740 7.86396 10.99914 14.13746 4.88505 7.95884 11.03150 14.14008 5.47046 8.68920 11.39689 14.16975 5.81702 9.59518 12.93409 14.43189 5.94936 9.55469 13.91941 16.93495 5.94934 9.95545 13.91941 16.93427 FEM8 4.73024 4.73004* 7.85568 11.00862 14.18119 4.74760 4.74745* 7.86645 11.01218 14.18148 4.88528 4.88537* 7.96148 11.04474 14.18415 5.47069 5.47098* 8.69296 11.41227 14.21429 5.81723 5.81740* 9.60084 12.95985 14.47978 5.94955 9.96245 13.95939 17.03274 5.94955 5.94979* 9.96245 13.95939 17.03274

4.73004 4.73024 4.73004* 7.85568 7.85321 11.00862 10.99648 14.18119 14.13919 4.74740 4.78864 4.78843* 7.86396 7.85568 11.01237 10.99999 14.18119 14.13947 5.23070 4.88520 5.23028* 7.95893 7.85568 11.04635 11.03220 14.18119 14.14203 7.14439 5.47387 7.14282* 8.69606 7.85568 11.40878 11.40033 14.18119 14.17126 7.85568 5.82387 7.85320* 9.61745 8.78261 12.91945 13.00993 14.18119 14.45986 7.85568 9.46635 14.18119 15.77888 7.85568 7.85320* 9.46635 14.18119 15.77888 5.95752 9.97772 13.94239 17.11334

100

1000

1012

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

34

A. Krishnan and Geetha George Table 1(b). Natural frequencies of spring supported SS and CF beams BC SS@L 2 GFEM2 3.14159 6.28318 9.42487 12.56656 3.29131 6.28318 9.43085 12.56656 4.13184 6.28318 9.48531 12.56656 6.28138 6.29201 10.05881 12.56656 6.28318 7.46783 11.92914 12.56656 6.28319 7.86433 12.56519 14.15646 6.28318 7.86144 12.56656 14.15769 GFEM4 3.14159 6.28318 9.42477 12.56637 3.29131 6.28318 9.43075 12.56637 4.13158 6.28318 9.48512 12.56637 6.28514 6.28606 10.05559 12.56637 6.28318 7.46060 11.90236 12.56637 6.28317 7.85432 12.56637 14.14421 6.28318 7.85443 12.56637 14.14397 FEM8 3.14161 6.28400 9.43083 12.59114 3.29134 6.28400 9.43683 12.59114 4.13164 6.28400 9.49137 12.59114 6.28400 6.28820 10.06360 12.59114 6.28400 7.46130 11.91729 12.59114 6.28400 7.85568 12.59114 14.18119 6.28400 7.85568 12.59114 14.18119 GFEM2 1.87510 4.69409 7.85477 10.99720 2.63910 4.79381 7.87568 11.00487 3.64163 5.61882 8.08522 11.07799 3.89897 6.88426 9.57779 12.00116 3.92203 7.03959 10.11612 13.13704 3.92688 7.07707 10.22756 13.38290 3.92776 7.07541 10.22709 13.39474 CF@L 4 GFEM4 1.87510 4.69409 7.85475 10.99554 2.63894 4.79377 7.87565 11.00310 3.64067 5.61635 8.08421 11.07488 3.89794 6.87732 9.55595 11.95547 3.92101 7.03341 10.09904 13.07957 3.92651 7.06937 10.21291 13.35778 3.92674 7.06948 10.21285 13.35760 FEM8 1.87510 4.69427 7.85714 11.00785 2.63893 4.79397 7.87807 11.01545 3.64059 5.61646 8.08683 11.08757 3.89787 6.87757 9.55911 11.97010 3.92094 7.03390 10.10456 13.10236 3.92668 7.07005 10.21919 13.38511 3.92668 7.07005 10.21919 13.38511

Mode 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

10

100

1000

5000

5 1012

a simply supported beam, and for cantilever it tends to that of a clamped simply supported beam; this can also be used as a check for the accuracy of the results obtained. Stepped beams are analysed using the data given in Reference [9] for five rigidity ratios with the step at midspan. There is only a marginal difference between GFEM2 and GFEM4 values and the agreement with the results from literature is very good. Typical results (for simply supported (SS) and clamped (CC) beams) are given in Table 2(a). Computation is carried out with the step at quarter span and GFEM2 solution is obtained using unequal
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

Free vibration studies using Galerkins finite element method Table 2(a). Frequencies of SS and CC stepped beams BC I2 I2 Mode 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 GFEM2 9.8696 39.4784 88.8282 157.9184 10.4128 50.6566 103.7129 195.1909 9.8780 56.0899 111.7944 207.1681 9.0746 60.1465 124.3617 213.5441 8.1369 62.3544 142.4077 216.9203 S GFEM4 9.8696 39.4784 88.8264 157.9137 10.4128 50.6565 103.7111 195.1267 9.8780 56.0898 111.7928 207.0365 9.0746 60.1463 124.3604 213.3762 8.1369 62.3542 142.4067 216.7543 Ref. [8] 9.8696 39.4784 88.8260 157.914 10.4129 50.6566 103.711 195.127 9.8781 56.0899 111.793 207.036 9.0747 60.1464 124.360 213.376 8.1369 62.3542 142.407 216.754 GFEM2 22.3732 61.6729 120.9225 199.9169 25.9591 78.1524 142.1089 245.7319 27.6807 85.3668 154.5156 259.4763 30.3212 90.2116 173.2991 267.0985 34.3251 92.5530 198.2980 273.1630 CC GFEM4 22.3732 61.6728 120.9033 199.8596 25.9591 78.1518 142.0877 245.5921 27.6807 85.3655 154.4949 259.2528 30.3212 90.2097 173.2790 267.8400 34.3251 92.5507 198.2765 273.9131

35

Ref. [8] 22.3733 61.6728 120.903 199.859 25.9591 78.1518 142.088 245.592 27.6807 85.3656 154.495 259.252 30.3213 90.2097 173.279 267.839 34.3252 92.5507 198.276 273.912

10

20

40

element lengths; hereagain, GFEM2 and GDEM4 values are nearly the same. Results for cantilever (CF) with step at midspan as well as quarter span are presented in Table 2(b). The cross section of the beams so far considered was circular having two axes of symmetry and hence the three equations (1), (2) and (3) will be decoupled since ey, ez and Iyz are zero. Also the torsional rigidity of the section is high making torsional frequency much greater than flexural frequency. Hence the values presented are all bending frequencies. Determination of natural frequencies of a beam with channel cross section is taken up next. Since this has one axis of symmetry, ez as well Iyz will be zero. Hence equations (1) and (3) will be coupled in mass-matrix which will make M13 and M31 blocks populated. Results compare well with those of Chu Mei [10] who had used the finite element model with four degrees of freedom per node and are presented in Table 3(a) for simply support beams. From the table it can be seen that both GFEM2 and GFEM4 results are very close to those of literature. FEM8 results also are very near these values. After validation, further studies are carried out on beams with two different cross sections shown in Fig. 2. Area of cross section and lengths of the beams are kept the same. The aim of studying two such beams is two fold. To check the programme for giving acceptable results for different values of coupling; also to check whether there is a change in mode
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

36

A. Krishnan and Geetha George Table 2(a). Frequencies of SS and CC stepped beams BC CF@L 2 GFEM2 3.5160 22.0344 61.6974 120.9384 2.4373 22.3335 78.5599 142.6004 2.0629 21.0942 85.6258 155.5420 1.7417 19.3669 90.1448 174.9657 1.4684 17.3856 92.1317 200.3870 GFEM4 3.5160 22.0344 61.6972 120.9019 2.4373 22.3335 78.5593 142.5716 2.0629 21.0942 85.6244 155.5150 1.7417 19.3669 90.1427 174.9403 1.4684 17.3856 92.1292 200.3618 Ref. [8] 3.5160 22.0345 61.697 120.902 2.4373 22.3335 78.559 142.572 2.0629 21.0943 85.625 155.515 1.7418 19.3670 90.143 174.940 1.4685 17.3857 92.129 200.362 GFEM2 3.5160 22.0345 61.7197 121.0517 2.6999 27.1218 77.5879 160.6109 2.3164 28.6299 83.8817 185.5454 1.9681 28.6693 92.0718 217.5110 1.6638 27.1263 103.8364 256.5573 CF@L 4 GFEM4 3.5160 22.0344 61.6972 120.9019 2.6999 27.1218 77.5751 160.4441 2.3164 28.6299 83.8730 185.3363 1.9681 28.6693 92.0650 217.2547 1.6638 27.1263 103.8299 256.5576 FEM8 3.5160 22.0362 61.7347 121.1727 2.6999 27.1233 77.6167 160.8239 2.3164 28.6313 83.9145 185.8081 1.9681 28.6704 92.1073 217.8835 1.6638 27.1269 103.8755 256.1832

I2 I2

Mode 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

10

20

40

Table 3(a). Frequencies of channel section SS GFEM2 154.334 450.835 792.723 911.251 1547.916 GFEM4 154.334 450.835 792.716 911.236 1547.875 FEM8 154.335 450.908 792.732 912.171 1553.240 Ref. [9] 153.801 449.802 792.046 909.910 1546.30

shape with boundary condition when different dimensions of the beam is changed. In addition to the frequency values, the mode of vibration lso is indicated in Table 3(b). To get an idea of the effect of coupling, uncoupled frequencies are also given. From the results it can be seen that GFEM2 and GFEM4 give almost the same results for all cases studied. These values are also near to those of FEM8. Results indicate that the fundamental mode of
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

Free vibration studies using Galerkins finite element method

37

Fig. 2. Channel sections chosen for analysis.

frequency of section A is always combined bending and twisting for all conditions and for section B, clampedclamped and clamped simply supported beams mode for fundamental frequency is bending twisting. Also the difference in the values between coupled and uncoupled frequencies is more if the numerical values of uncoupled bending and torsional frequencies are close. From eigenvectors, it is seen that the twist per unit length is very small in comparison to the bending deflection. Relatively, the value of twist per unit length is more for section B. Being wide flanged, one would expect the twist to be more for channel A. This is not seen because the bending rigidity of this section is also very small making the bending deflection higher in comparison to section B. The variations of relative displacements of these two sections are presented in Figs 3(a) and (b). Bendingbending coupling will be present if the cross-section of the beam is unsymmetrical like Z section; it could also be present even for a beam with symmetrical cross section if an initial twist is given along the span. For a beam with Z section or for a twisted beam with rectangular cross section, the shear centre coincides with the centroid making ey and ez zero. Hence equation (1) and (2) are coupled and equation (3) has only as unknown. In GFEM this is felt by the matrices K12 and K21 populated. Cantilever beams of uniform rectangular section with linearly varying twist along the length is chesen for the study. Though the section is symmetric, the direction of principal axes changes from station to station. For the analysis, the global directions chosen coincide with the principal axes of the section having no twist and the properties of all other sections are transformed appropriately. This introduces coupling through Iyz. Results are presented in Table 4 and as in the earlier cases they are reasonable even for GFEM2 and differ very little from the reference values [11]. Analysis of beams having Z section (flange width, web height and thickness are chosen the same as that of channel B) was carried out the same way as those of symmetrical sections by making use of the properties along the principal axes and also by choosing a set of centroidal orthogonal axes, one of them coinciding with the web of the section. In the second case bendingbending coupling will be present through Iyz. Results were identical as they should be. Being more general, further analysis is carried out using the second method. The results presented in Table 5 show the same pattern as seen for other cases, i.e. values obtained by GFEM2, GFEM4 and FEM8 differing only marginally.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

38

A. Krishnan and Geetha George Table 3(b). First four frequencies of the two channel sections GFEM FEM 8 200.185 335.893 595.746 959.371 285.812 295.027 836.833 912.978 330.043 761.061 761.483 1281.843 465.623 647.947 1084.466 1633.895 78.561 119.659 341.219 545.024 101.818 120.339 397.109 625.283 269.350 524.741 671.405 1165.863 384.350 446.503 947.411 1231.206 Uncoupled b t 239.927 959.708 2159.708 378.131 1512.522 3403.175 534.888 1499.247 2939.124 857.179 2362.848 4632.127 85.473 535.652 1499.840 134.708 844.199 2363.783 374.812 1214.630 2534.229 590.712 1914.285 3994.004 800.445 1727.295 2879.388 712.315 1614.450 2833.338 944.390 2030.244 3358.439 892.785 1996.245 3434.491 424.457 1344.010 2454.494 382.688 1257.743 2410.038 866.967 1869.495 3107.486 793.881 1792.306 3119.271

BC

C/S

2 200.183 335.887 595.671 959.370 285.807 295.024 836.730 912.970 329.885 760.452 761.419 1279.423 465.491 647.893 1083.815 1633.419 78.583 119.659 341.560 548.374 101.818 120.462 397.061 637.690 269.304 524.720 671.082 1174.143 384.307 446.485 947.074 1231.122

4 200.183 335.887 595.671 959.365 285.807 295.024 836.730 912.966 329.883 760.445 761.419 1279.234 465.491 647.893 1083.810 1633.662 78.583 119.659 341.558 548.374 101.818 120.462 397.061 637.690 269.304 524.720 671.078 1165.481 384.307 446.485 947.074 1231.129

Mode b, t b b, t b, t b b, t b, t b, t b, t b, t b b, t b, t b b, t b, t b, t b, t b b, t b b, t b, t b, t b, t b b, t b, t b, t b b, t b, t

(A) SS (B)

(A) CC (B)

(A) CF (B)

(A) CF (B)

CONCLUSIONS Numerical results obtained for natural frequencies of beams with different configurations indicate that GFEM is an effective method to the well known finite element formulation. Though it is necessary to have more degrees of freedom per node, the number of unknowns
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

Free vibration studies using Galerkins finite element method

39

Fig. 3. Variation of and for the two channel section indicating the relative magnitudes.

Table 4. First four frequencies for a twisted rectangular solid section (CF)

GFEM2 3.51873 16.83004 23.03062 61.06148 3.52684 15.44444 25.14023 59.33851 3.55834 12.81428 35.44517 54.27975 3.60585 10.79507 35.93253 49.53598 49.53598

GFEM4 3.51873 15.83004 23.03061 61.06118 3.52685 15.44442 25.14018 59.33801 3.55892 12.81357 30.44300 54.27888 3.61063 10.79042 35.91156 49.53604 49.53604

Ref. [10] 3.51873 16.8300 23.0306 61.0612 3.52686 15.4444 25.1402 59.3380 3.55896 12.8136 30.4429 54.2788 3.61104 10.7904 35.9105 49.5349 49.5349

15

30

60

90

finally to get acceptable results will not be more than that of the displacement model. Though it is not poible to give the element stiffness and mass matrices in compact form as can be done in the finite element displacement model with two degrees of freedom per node, generation of these matrices is straightforward.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1

40

A. Krishnan and Geetha George Table 5. Natural frequencies of uniform Z section for various boundary conditions BC GFEM2 174.242 525.227 621.178 696.969 394.987 811.266 1088.801 1190.631 62.073 187.110 336.185 389.006 272.199 706.050 820.505 882.101 GFEM4 174.242 525.227 621.178 696.969 394.987 811.265 1088.798 1190.631 62.073 187.110 336.185 389.006 272.199 706.050 820.505 882.101 FEM8 174.245 525.235 621.179 697.149 395.021 811.458 1089.486 1190.731 62.073 187.111 334.190 389.037 272.210 706.125 820.538 882.467 Mode b, b, w t b, b, t b, b, w b, b, w t b, b, t b, w b, w

SS

CC

CF

CS

REFERENCES
[1] Prasad, K. S. R. K., and Krishnamurthy, A. V., A Galerkin finite element method for vibration problems. AIAA, 11, 544546 (1973). [2] Venkateswara, Rao G., and Kanakaraju, K., A Galerkin finite element analysis of a uniform beam carrying a concentrated mass and rotary inertia with a spring hinge, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 37, 567569 (1974). [3] Nagaraj, V. T., and Shanthakumar, P., Rotor blade vibration by the Galerkin finite element method, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 43, 575577 (1975). [4] Nagaraj, V. T., and Sahu, N., Torsional vibrations of non uniform rotating blades with attachment flexibility, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 80(3), 401411 (1982). [5] Kameswara, Rao C., and Mirza, S., Free torsional vibration of tapered cantilever I beams, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 124(3), 489494 (1988). [6] Llao, C. L., and Dang, Y. H., Structural characteristics of spinning pre-twisted orthotropic beams, Computers and Structures, 45(4), 715731 (1992). [7] Krihnan, A., and Singh, V. K., Some studies on vibration of thin walled open sections, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 121(2), 207310 (1991). [8] Kameswara, Rao, C., Frequency analysis of clampedclamped uniform beams with intermediate elastic support, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 133(3`), 502509 (1989). [9] Jang, S. K., and Bert, C. W., Free vibration of stepped beams exact and numerical solutions, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 130(2), 342346 (1989). [10] Mei, C., Coupled vibration of thin walled beams of open section using the finite element method, Int. J. Mechanical Sciences, 12, 883891 (1970). [11] Downs, B., Reference frequencies for the validation of numerical solutions of transverse vibrations of non-uniform beams, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 61(1), 7178 (1978).

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 28 No 1