×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?

Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?

Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?

(OP)
Hi all,

I need to calculate the first natural frequency of a one-step cantilever pole (in my case a 9m pole which will have a windsock but that is ignored for this calculation). I've made the assumption that the lower 3m has a diameter of 15cm and the upper 6m a diameter of 10cm. I know I can use the normal cantilever beam equation for a uniform pole but not sure how to do it with different diameters.

If anyone has an equation for this, that would be super helpful to for me to put into an excel doc for future use.

Cheers

RE: Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?

There is an analytical method called the theory of receptances which can be used to estimate or calculate the overall response of two simple systems that are joined together. Sadly that is everything I can remember about it, it has been of no use to me in my career.

Idly thinking about it, the frequency will obviously be higher than that of a 9m 10cm pole, and may be higher than that of a 9m 15cm pole. It will be lower than a 6m 10cm pole.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?


R.D Blevins Formulas for dýnamics, acoustics and vibration. Table 4.9. Alternatively one can derive an approximation using the static deflection, delta, as a f=1/(2*pi)*(g/delta)^(1/2).

RE: Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?

Quote:

There is an analytical method called the theory of receptances which can be used to estimate or calculate the overall response of two simple systems that are joined together.
Assuming receptance is the (frequency-dependent) ratio force to displacement, then I don't think this will work, because the boundary conditions in this geometry are not defined by just a force and displacement... they also include a slope and a moment. Maybe I am misunderstanding your suggested approach.

Quote:

. Alternatively one can derive an approximation using the static deflection, delta, as a f=1/(2*pi)*(g/delta)^(1/2).
As you said an approximation. It would be exact for massless beam supporting lumped mass attached at the location where we calculate the static deflection. Obviously a distributed-mass beam with no attached mass is a long way from that.

====================================================

Here's my roadmap for a solution:
Harris’ Shop and Vib Handbook 6th ed table 7.4 gives the general solution for modeshape of a distributed mass uniform beam based on Euler Bernouli model:
wi(x) = Ai * cos(Ki*x) + Bi * sin(Ki*x) + Ci * cosh(Ki*x) + Di * sinh(Ki*x)
where Ki = (rho_i*Ai*w^2/(Ei*Ii))^(1/4)

you can find the slope by differentiating (with respect to x) once, and the moment by differentiating twice with suitable factor E*I, and the shear by differentiating one more time.

There are two different regions: i=1, i=2
There are 8 coefficients:A1,B1,C1,D1,A2,B2,C2,D2
There are 9 unknowns: A1,B1,C1,D1,A2,B2,C2,D2,w

There are two boundary conditions at the fixed end (displacement=0, slope=0).
There are two boundary conditions at the free end (moment = 0, shear = 0).
There are four boundary conditions at the interface of the two (continuity of displacement, slope, moment and shear)
So we have 8 boundary conditions. It seems to be one boundary condition short...
... but actually the modeshape is only defined to within an arbitrary scaling factor. So we can arbitrarily assign one of the coefficiencts as 1.0 (a magnitude scaling factor 1.0)
That would give us the requisite 9 equations in 9 unknowns.
Good luck with the algebra to get a closed form solution, though... shadessad
It would probably be easier to solve above formulation numerically for your specific geometry and material properities. For that matter there are a large number of numerical ways to solve a problem like this.

==========================================

Blevins sounds like the way to go for an analytical solution.




=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

RE: Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?

Here's my quick attempt at numerical solution using a spreadsheet I had handy.

I used steel properties
rho = 7750.4 kg/m^3
E = 2.30974E+11 n/m^2

my results were that the first three Natural frequencies (hz) are:
1.6 7.5 18.3

I haven't double checked it.
you might want to double check it against some other method, or Greg's bounding scenarios.





=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

RE: Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?

Material ? wall thicknesses?


What is the detail of the transition from Ø15 > Ø10 cm ?
Something like this ? -
https://www.sitepro1.com/store/cart.php?m=product_...

I think any kind of an adapter "bushing" is likely to have pretty low stiffness, maybe even lower than the pipe mounts in the link above ?

RE: Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?

(OP)
Thanks for the responses!,

I should have also said, the assumed pole's density is 7800Kgm^3 so its not at risk of buckling under its own weight, and assumed elastic modlus 2x10^11 (trying to keep it simple). I'll download Strand7 and see if i can get it on there

RE: Natural Frequency of a cantilever pole?

Tmoose asked about details of the transition. I assumed rigid transition. Obviously it makes a difference.

With your new values E and rho, I calculate the first three natural frequencies in hz:
1.5 7.0 17.0
I used a transfer matrix method and Euler Bernoulli beam model.

I believe you should get the same results with any approach that uses the same assumptions and the Euler Bernoulli model. Obviously recreating similar results independently would give more confidence.


=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

White Paper – Choosing the Right Spring Loaded Connector
In today’s cost-sensitive world, designers are often driven to specify the lowest cost solution for every aspect of their designs to ensure that their solution is competitively priced and their company remains profitable. However, specifying a low-cost, low-quality connector solution can result in premature failure, considerable re-work costs and damage to reputations. Download Now
eBook – Own the Lifecycle: Sustainable Business Transformation
Increasingly, product and services companies are seeking more information and control in the operational lifecycle of their products, including service and use. Better information about the operational lifecycle, and the ability to use that information, requires more than just unstructured data flowing back from products in the field. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close