Sunteți pe pagina 1din 123

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks go to Bahir Dar University Engineering Faculty for sponsoring my education. Also
a special thanks to the head, Solomon T/Mariam, and all the staffs of the Mechanical
Engineering Department for their kind and unforgettable collaboration during study period.

I really give thanks to my advisor, Dr. Alem Bazezew, for the inspiration and
encouragement to work on this project. I also appreciate not only for his professional,
timely and valuable advices, but also for his continuous scheduled follow up and valuable
comments during my research work. I can say that without his guidance I may not be the
one finalize this project soon enough.

It is really hard to skip many thanks to friends and family who were always with me in bliss
and despair. A special thanks goes to all my family members and friends: Korbaga Fantu,
Birhane Hagos, Seifu Admasu, Yoseph Alemu, Melkam Tegegn, Dereje Engda and all
members of Applied Mechanics stream. Also I would like to thank Nebil

Mohammed,

Fikrea and Tamrat for giving me valuable reference materials specially at the beginning of
my research.

Generally, I would like to extend my gratitude for all the above people and those who are
not mentioned here but contributed their part a lot towards the success of this research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................vii
NOTATION....................................................................................................................... viii
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................xii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................i
1.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
1.1

Overview and Objective of the thesis .....................................................................1

1.2

Literature Review ...................................................................................................3

1.3

Organization of the Thesis......................................................................................7

FORMULATION OF CRACK MODELING............................................................9


2.1

Introduction.............................................................................................................9

2.2

Modeling of Crack ................................................................................................10

2.2.1

Modes of Fracture.........................................................................................10

2.2.2

The Stress Intensity Factor ...........................................................................11

2.2.3

The J-Contour Integral..................................................................................13

2.2.4

Castiglianos Theorem ..................................................................................16

2.2.5

Crack Modeling ............................................................................................16

EULER- BERNOULLI BEAM .................................................................................21


3.1

Euler- Bernoulli Beam formulation ......................................................................21

3.2

Finite Element Method .........................................................................................22


ii

3.3

Critical load selection ...........................................................................................30

3.4

Establishment of Element Stiffness Matrix for Cracked Element ........................31

TIMOSHEKNO BEAM .............................................................................................35


4.1

Timoshenko Beam Formulation ...........................................................................35

4.2

Isoparametric Element ..........................................................................................37

4.3

Establishment of matrix for cracked beam element..............................................45

4.4

Assembly of Element Matrices and Derivation of System Equation ...................52

4.5

Algorithm of assembly procedure.........................................................................56

THE COMPUTER PROGRAMMING ....................................................................57


5.1

5.1.1

For Euler-Bernoulli.......................................................................................58

5.1.2

For Timoshenko Beam..................................................................................59

5.1.3

Program Algorithm for Graphical User Interface (GUI). .............................60

5.2
6

Program Algorithm ...............................................................................................58

The Graphic User Interface Program....................................................................61

RESULT DISCUSSIONS...........................................................................................65
6.1

Comparison of Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beams. ....................................65

6.2

Effect of crack position as a function of crack depth ratio (for Tim. Beam)........68

6.3

Effects of mass on beam .......................................................................................69

6.4

Effects of crack and mass on mode shape ............................................................72

6.5

Result comparison for Timoshenko Beam............................................................75

CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................78

FUTURE OUTLOOK ................................................................................................81

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................83
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................93
iii

Appendix I. Program For Euler-Bernoulli Beam..............................................................93


Appendix II. Program For Timoshenko Beam ..............................................................103

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 2-1 The three modes of fracture .....................................................................................11


Fig 2-2 Arbitrary contour around the tip of crack ................................................................13
Fig 2-3 Loaded beam element with transverse crack ...........................................................17
Fig 3-1 Euler-Bernoulli beam element .................................................................................21
Fig 3-2 A two node beam element........................................................................................24
Fig 3-3 Deformation of an Euler Bernoulli Beam ................................................................24
Fig 3-4 A cantilever beamwith one end clamped and a concentrated mass attached at the
other. .............................................................................................................................29
Fig 3-5 Shear force and bending moment diagram...............................................................31
Fig 3-6 Schematic representation of an element with a crack. .............................................34
Fig 4-1 Deformation of a Timoshenko Beam .......................................................................35
Fig 4-2 Two Node Linear Element. ......................................................................................38
Fig 4-3 Linear Shape Functions............................................................................................39
Fig 4-4 Linear Element in the natural Coordinate system ....................................................41
Fig 4-5 Deformation of beam including shear......................................................................46
Fig 4-6 Cross-section of a beam ...........................................................................................47
Fig 4-7 Beam with two elements. .........................................................................................53
Fig 5-1 The program algorithm for Euler-Bernoulli beam ...................................................58
Fig 5-2 The program algorithm for Timoshenko beam ........................................................59
Fig 5-3 The program algorithm for the GUI program ..........................................................60
Fig 5-4 Front page of GUI ....................................................................................................61
Fig 5-5 The input Window for Euler-Bernoulli beam. .........................................................62
v

Fig 5-6 The Output window for Euler-Bernoulli beam. .......................................................63


Fig 5-7 The input window for Timoshenko beam. ...............................................................63
Fig 5-8 The output window for Timoshenko beam ..............................................................64
Fig 6-1 Error analysis for comparison of Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beams.............67
Fig 6-2 Fundamental (first) frequency ratios for different crack positions. .........................69
Fig 6-3 The changes of the first natural frequencies as a function of the crack depth at
element seven, a) for Timoshenko beam, b) for the Euler-Bernoulli beam..................71
Fig 6-4 Mode shape graphs without mass: a) for Euler-Bernoulli beam with crack
(continuous line) and without crack (dash line), b) for Timoshenko beam with crack
(continuous line) and without crack (dash line)............................................................72
Fig 6-5 Mode shape graphs with mass: a) for Euler-Bernoulli beam with crack (continuous
line) and without crack (dash line), b) for Timoshenko beam with crack (continuous
line) and without crack (dash line). ..............................................................................73
Fig 6-6 Mode shape graphs without mass for second mode shape: a) for Euler-Bernoulli
beam with crack (continuous line) and without crack (dash line), b) for Timoshenko
beam with crack (continuous line) and without crack (dash line). ...............................73
Fig 6-7Mode shape graphs with mass for second mode shape: a) for Euler-Bernoulli beam
with crack (continuous line) and without crack (dash line), b) for Timoshenko beam
with crack (continuous line) and without crack (dash line)..........................................74
Fig 6-8 Deviation of first mode shape due to crack for Timoshenko beam without mass. ..74
Fig 6-9 Deviation of first mode shape due to crack for Euler-Bernoulli without mass........75

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 ...............................................................................................................................12
Table 6-1Geometry and Property of Timoshenko beam and Euler-Bernoulli beams ..........66
Table 6-2 Comparison of the first three natural frequencies of Timoshenko beam and EulerBernoulli for various L/h ratios. ...................................................................................66
Table 6-3 Geometry and Property of Timoshenko beam .....................................................68
Table 6-5 Determination of Natural Frequencies with different crack depth ratio at
element 7 for Timoshenko ........................................................................................70
Table 6-6 Determination of Natural Frequencies With different crack depth at
element 7 for Euler-Bernoulli beam. .......................................................................70
Table 6-7 For the First Natural Frequency at e/L=0.4..........................................................76
Table 6-8 For the Second Natural Frequency at e/L=0.4 .....................................................76
Table 6-9 For Third Natural Frequency at e/L=0.4 ..............................................................76
Table 6-10 For the First Natural Frequency at e/L=0.6........................................................76
Table 6-11 For the Second Natural Frequency at e/L=0.6 ...................................................77
Table 6-12 For the Third Natural Frequency at e/L=0.6 ......................................................77

vii

NOTATION
A

Cross sectional area

z , z1 Distance from the neutral axis to the centroid of an area

Width of beam

C0, C1, C2, and C3 Arbitrary constants


E

Modulus of elasticity for plane stress

nth element

Modulus of elasticity for plane strain

Form factor

Crack driving force.

Shear modulus

Height of beam

H1, H2 Linear shape functions for Timoshenko beam


I

Moment of inertia

Strain energy density function (SEDF).

KE

Kinetic energy

Ki

Stress intensity factor for different modes of fracture, for i=I, II, and III

Total length of the beam

Element length of beam

Bending moment

Mass per unit of beam length

Ml

Lamped mass

Number of elements for the beam

viii

nel

Total number of elements

Ni

Shape function for Euler Bernoulli beam

P1

Axial load

P2

Shear force along z-axis

P3

Shear force along y-axis

P4

Bending Moment about y-axis

P5

Bending Moment about z-axis

Pi

Applied load (force or bending moment)

First moment

q(x, t) Externally applied pressure loading.


r

Gyration radius of the cross section

Weigh residual

Arc length

sdof

Total nodal degree of freedoms

The total strain energy.

Shear forces

v(x, t) Transverse displacement


wi

Test function

Characteristic stress

An arbitrary counter-clockwise path around the crack tip of a crack

Characteristic crack dimension

Fe

Element force vector

Me

Element mass matrix for Euler Bernoulli beam

ix

Ke

Element Stiffens matrix for Euler-Bernoulli beam

Shear stress

Slop (Angular displacement)

Correction factor for shear energy

Element domain

{d }

Modal shape for Euler-Bernoulli beam

{ }

Modal shape for Timoshenko beam

Rotational angle of cross-section

Shear angle

Strain energy

U (oT ) Total strain energy for Timoshenko beam

Transverse shear strain

Vector of sdof nodal degrees of freedom

[T ]

Transfer matrix

ui

Displacement component

Mass density per length

1 , 2 Natural coordinate for Isoparametric element


M eR

Rotary Inertia

ij

Strain tensor

The angular frequency for Euler-Bernoulli beam

iT

Angular frequency in radians per second for Timoshenko beam

cij(oT )

Compliance of Timoshenko beam without crack

[kk ]

Element expanded characteristic matrix

cij

Local flexibility

Poisson ratio

[K c ]

Stiffness matrix of the cracked element for Euler Bernoulli beam

[K cT ]

Stiffness matrix of the cracked element for Timoshenko beam

cij( 0 )

Total flexibility coefficient matrix for an element without crack

cij(1)

Total flexibility coefficient matrix for cracked beam

pi

Traction load

M eT

Translating inertia

Ub

Bending strain energy

Us

Shear strain energy

K be

Stiffness matrix for bending strain energy

K se

Stiffness matrix for shear strain energy

Mass density

ij

Stress tensor

l ,m The global degree of freedom


[kk]

Assembled stiffness matrix

[mm] Assembled mass matrix

xi

ABSTRACT

Beams are widely used as machine elements and structural elements in civil, mechanical,
naval and aeronautical engineering with quite complex design features. These machine and
structural elements are designed with more care for different load conditions, with good
range of safety factors, and are inspected regularly. Still there are unexpected sudden
failures.

In order to attain the maximum reliability of machinery and structures, there is no way
except monitoring the health of susceptible critical components. This leads to continuous
gathering of information of changes in their static and/or dynamic behavior.

The main objective of this thesis is to develop a method for the investigation of cracked
beam behavior of a Timoshenko beam under different conditions such as orientation of
crack, size of crack and inclusion of additional mass. Moreover, the results have been
compared with Euler-Bernoulli beam. The methods, formulation and results obtained can
be used to understanding the behavior of a cracked beam structure.

The results obtained are compared with other published results. The comparison shows that
the method used in the thesis is eligible to investigate the behavior of cracked Timoshenko
beams under different loading conditions.

xii

ABSTRACT

Beams are widely used as machine elements and structural elements in civil, mechanical,
naval and aeronautical engineering with quite complex design features. These machine and
structural elements are designed with more care for different load conditions, with good
range of safety factors, and are inspected regularly. Still there are unexpected sudden
failures.

In order to attain the maximum reliability of machinery and structures, there is no way
except monitoring the health of susceptible critical components. This leads to continuous
gathering of information of changes in their static and/or dynamic behavior.

The main objective of this thesis is to develop a method for the investigation of cracked
beam behavior of a Timoshenko beam under different conditions such as orientation of
crack, size of crack and inclusion of additional mass. Moreover, the results have been
compared with Euler-Bernoulli beam. The methods, formulation and results obtained can
be used to understanding the behavior of a cracked beam structure.

The results obtained are compared with other published results. The comparison shows that
the method used in the thesis is eligible to investigate the behavior of cracked Timoshenko
beams under different loading conditions.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1

Overview and Objective of the thesis

Now a days sophisticated structures and machinery parts are constructed

by

using

metallic beams. Beams are widely used as structural element in civil, mechanical, naval,
aeronautical engineering. During the time leading to World War, every structure and part of
machinery were designed based on the tensile strength of a material. However, unforeseen
failure had been frequently observed. One of the major disasters of structural failure was
the sinking of Liberty Ships. These ships were participating in the war. Though they were
designed well, they collapsed without any external force. After careful investigations, the
cause of failure was determined to be fracture of components. And that was the main reason
for an introduction of fracture mechanics. Due to this new design concept, substantial
improvement the life of machinery and saving was observed.

In structures and machinery, one undesirable phenomenon is crack initiation in which the
impact cannot be seen overnight. Cracks develop gradually through time that lead finally to
catastrophic failure. Therefore, crack should be monitored regularly with more care. This
will lead to more effective preventive measure and ensure

continuous operation of the

structure and machine.

In order to investigate the behavior of cracks in structures and machinery, there are
different methods like ultrasonic inspection, X-ray inspection, experimental method, Eddy
current inspection, etc. However the above methods require high cost and time even if they
1

are easy to apply them. Moreover, most of them are limited to detection of cracks. So it is
better to establish a new method for simple geometric structures that helps to see the
behavior of cracked beam element using Finite Element Method, FEM, based on vibration
analysis. When cracks are predicted using this method, time and money will be saved.

Using FEM method based on vibration analysis we can observe the effects of inclusion and
orientation of crack on the natural frequency of the beam, since the presence of crack
reduce the system natural frequency of the beam. Most of the beams in the structures and
machinery have mass so that the effects of additional mass attachment on the cracked beam
will be investigated.

Therefore the main objective of this thesis is to develop a method for investigation of
cracked beam behavior for Timoshenko beam under different conditions such as orientation
of crack, size of crack and inclusion of additional mass. Moreover, the results have been
compared to results obtained for Euler-Bernoulli beams. The results obtained can be used
for determining behavior of cracked beams which can eventually be used for prediction of
cracks in beams

1.2

Literature Review

The tendency to monitor a structure and detect damage at the earlier stage is pervasive
throughout the civil, mechanical and aerospace engineering fields. Most currently used
damage investigation methods are included in one of the following categories: visual or
localization experimental methods such as ultrasonic method, magnetic field methods,
radiography, eddy-current method and etc. All of these experimental techniques require
that the vicinity of damage be known a priori and that the portion of the structure being
inspected be readily accessibly.

The need for quantitative global damage investigation and detection method that can be
applied to complex structure has led to the development and continued research of
methods, which examine change in static and dynamic characteristic of the structure. In this
literature review, different ways of investigation of crack behavior will be discussed.

To study the behavior of cracked beam, in the past decade researchers have used open and
closed (breathing) crack model in their studies. In 1970s, Dimarogonas and Chondros [26]
used local flexibility matrix to simulate the stiffness of the shaft system with opening crack.
Also Maiti[76], Tsai et. Al.[80] and Ostachowitwz et. Al.[84] assumed in their work that
the crack in a structural element is open and remains open during vibration. Such an
assumption give an advantage to avoid the complexities that results
characteristics presented by introduced a breathing crack.

from the non-linear

On the other hand, different researchers have implemented closed crack model in their
work for investigation of crack behavior. Among them, Chondros and Dimarogonas [29],
Rivola and White [15], Dimarogonas and Paipetis [36], and Shen[62] dealt with closed
crack model. Dimarogonas and Paipetis [36]
discussion of the dynamic

devoted almost one chapter to

the

response of structural members with variable elasticity

including for closing cracks. Also, Rivola and White analyzed the behavior of crack based
on closed crack model and they have done experimental test to show the effectiveness of
their method. Even if all the above researchers did their work on closed crack model, they
didnt show the effectiveness of their method with respect to open crack model. However,
the application

of open and closed crack models depend on different condition such as

static and dynamic load conditions.

To study the behavior of crack in the structures, vibration parameter like compliance,
mechanical impedance and damping factors have played great roll. The presence of crack
in the structure affects directly or indirectly these vibration characteristics. Specifically, the
eigen frequency and mode shape of structures are changed from their original value due to
an inclusion of a crack. That is why many researchers focus on these parameters to
investigate the behavior of crack. Pandey [13] investigated the behavior of crack related
with curvature mode shape of structure. He has shown that the absolute change in the
curvature made shapes are localized in the region of damage and hence can be

used to

analyzed the damage in the structure. He proposed an experimental method to verify his
work.
Y. Bamnios, E. Douka and A. Trochidis [89] used mechanical impedance model in order
to investigate the crack behavior and to predict the damaged zone. They investigated the
4

effect of a transverse surface crack on the mechanical impedance both analytically

and

experimentally. However, their method lacks accuracy for smaller damage.

Qian, Du and Jiang [43] have derived an element stiffens matrix of a beam with crack from
an integration of stress intensity factors and then established a finite element model of
cracked beam

even though they

didnt consider additional mass on

their model. The

results that they have obtained analytically agree quite well with the experimental data.

Several methods were used to deal with the behavior of crack in the structure. Zheng et.
al. [22] used modified Fourier series to investigate the response of natural frequencies of
cracked beam. However, their method is applied only for standard linear eigen value
equation. T.G. Chondors and Dimarogonas studied the dynamic sensitivity of structure to
cracks using Rayleight principle. As per their conclusion, the method reduced the
computational effort needed for the full eigen solution of cracked structures and gave
acceptable accuracy. Also different researchers have used Finite Element Method (FEM)
for solving the problem related with crack behavior. Among them, Pandey et. al.[13],
Sekhar et. al. [17], Qain et. al. [43], Sinha et. al.[48], Chinchalkes[68], Maiti et. al. [73],
Ostachowitcz et. al.[85], Matijaz[5], G.D. Gouanaris and C.A. Papadoulso and also A.D.
Dimarogonas [8], P. G. Nikolakopouloz, D. E. Katsreas and C.A. Papadopouloss[9]. All
of them confirmed that their results are very close to the experimental methods. Matijaz
presented a generalization of a simple mathematical model based on FEM for transverse
motion of a beam with crack. However, he didnt show the effectiveness of his method by
comparing with other methods. Moreover, mass wasnt considered on his model.

Many investigators have studied the problem of crack detection in rotating shaft in the last
three decades. A.D Dimarogonas and C.A. Papadopoulos [10], [11], [91], [92], [93], have
investigated the behavior of crack on rotating shaft. In [98], they considered the system to
be bi-linear. A de Laval rotor with an open crack was investigated by way of application of
the theory of shafts with dissimilar moment of inertia. Furthermore, they found analytical
solution for the closing crack under the assumption of large static deflection, which is a
situation common in turbomachinery. In [11], they investigate the coupling of longitudinal
and bending vibration of rotating shaft, due to an open transverse surface crack. Also in
another next work [93], the coupling of

vibration modes of vibration of a clamped-free

circular cross section of Timoshenko beam with a transverse crack was investigated.

On the Timoshenko beam, different investigators have used various approaches to


investigate the crack behavior. Among them are S.P. Lene and S.K. Maiti [73], Zhou, and
Y.K. Cheung [6], and M. Kisa, J Brandon and M Topeu [48]. S.P. and S.K. Maiti, [73],
used both method forward (determination of frequency of beam knowing the crack
parameter) and inverse (determination of crack

knowing the natural frequency). They

give numerical and experimental demonstration in order to illustrate the effectiveness of


their methods of accuracy and it is quite encouraging. Also M Kisa, J Brandon and M
Topeu analyzed the vibration characteristic of a cracked Timoshenko beam by applying
finite element method and component mode synthesis integrating together. To illustrate the
effectiveness of their approach, results had been compared with experimental data and
previous published literature. However, they didnt include additional mass to observe
effect of masseson the cracked beam behavior.

In this thesis investigation of crack behavior will be dealt by using the Finite Element
Method. In this method, the beam will be divided in to several
taking boundary conditions

the eigen frequency

elements and then

by

of the beam will be found. The great

advantage of finding natural frequency is its measurability from the machine and structure
at any single point and easily without dismantling much access requirement. In this thesis
the local flexibility of beam element model follows the approach of Dimarogonas [26, 11].
To avoid the non-linearity of the system, in this thesis work, crack will be modeled based
on open crack model and additional mass will be included. For the sake of verification the
beam model used is the cantilever beam, since many authors have analyzed the cantilever
beam and have got experimental results.

1.3

Organization of the Thesis

This thesis is organized in to eight chapters. In the first chapter, the objective and overview
of the thesis are discussed. Also a literature review is given detailing information about
investigations and methods of analysis of cracked beams and their behavior, which have
been investigated by different researchers.
In chapter two, mathematical model

is developed for cracked beams. Also related

concepts like stress intensity factors, mode of cracks, J-Integral and Castiglianos theorem
are discussed briefly.

In Chapter Three, the equation of motion for an Euler-Bernoulli beam is developed. Using
the governing equation of motion, Finite Element method is implemented for cracked and
uncracked beam elements.
7

In chapter four, Timoshenko beam is discussed. In this chapter a mathematical model is


developed based on FEM for cracked and uncracked element. Also related topics, like
isoparametric element and strain energy formulations will be discussed.

In chapter five, a computer programming is developed with the help of algorithms to study
the behavior of cracked beams for two cases: Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko beams. In
chapter six, detail discussion of results is presented. Finally, chapter seven gives conclusion
and future outlook.

2
2.1

FORMULATION OF CRACK MODELING


Introduction

Crack is a problem that society has faced for as long as there have been man-made
structures. The occurrence of crack problems may actually be worse today than in the
previous century, because more can go wrong in our complex technological society.

The cause of crack initiation in structures generally falls in to one of the following major
groups: First, negligence during design, construction or operation of the structure: and
second, application of new design or material, which produce an unexpected results. In the
first case, existing procedures are sufficient to avoid failure, but are not

followed by one

or more of the parties involved, due to human error, ignorance, or willful misconduct.
Unskillful workmanship, substandard or inappropriate materials, error in stress analysis,
and operator error are example of where the appropriate technology and experience are
available, but not applied well.

In the second case, the initiation of crack is much more difficult to prevent. For instant,
when an improved design is introduced, there are invariably factors that the designer
may not anticipate. New materials can offer tremendous advantage, but also potential
problems. Consequently, a new design or material should be placed in to service only after
extensive testing and analysis. Such an approach will reduce the frequency of failure due to
crack, but not eliminate them entirely.

To avoid or minimize the structural failure due to the above cases, there are two design
approaches. Those are the strength of material approach and the fracture mechanics
9

approach. In the first approach, the anticipated design stress is compared to the flow
properties of a candidate material; a material is assumed to be adequate if its strength is
greater than the expected applied stress. This approach may attempt to guard against brittle
fracture by imposing a safety factor on stress, combined with minimum tensile elongation
requirements on material.

In the second approach, that of fracture mechanics has three important variables: applied
stress, flow size and fracture toughness. In fracture analysis there are two approaches:
energy criterion and the stress intensity approach. In this thesis the stress intensity approach
will be discussed in detail and will be employed to investigate the behavior of cracks in
vibration analysis.

2.2

Modeling of Crack

2.2.1 Modes of Fracture

In cracked structure, the stress field near crack-tips may be one of the three modes of
fracture, Fig 2.1. The opening mode, Mode I, is associated with local displacement in
which the crack surfaces move directly apart, symmetric with respect to the x-y and x-z
plane. The edge-sliding mode, Mode II, is characterized by displacement in which the
cracked surfaces slide over one another perpendicular to the leading edge of the crack,
symmetric with respect to the x-y plane and skew-symmetric with respect to the x-z plane.
Mode III, the tearing mode, finds the crack surfaces sliding with respect to one another
parallel to the leading edge, skew-symmetric with respect to the x-y and x-z planes.

10

x
y

Mode I

Mode II

Mode III

Fig 2-1 The three modes of fracture

Even if these are the basic fracture modes, most of the time the crack growth usually takes
place in Mode I or close to it [2], especially for member like slender beams [57]. If there is
a load on the structure, due to shear force, Mode II will be considered combined with Mode
I to study the crack behavior. Therefore, Mode I and Mode II will be applied to investigate
the behavior of crack if there is a load on the beam.

2.2.2 The Stress Intensity Factor

The stress intensity factor defines the amplitude of the crack tip singularity. That is stresses
near the crack tip increase proportional to the stress intensity factor. Physically, stress
intensity factor may be regarded as the intensity of load transmittal through the crack-tip
region caused by the introduction of a crack into the body of interest.

11

Generally the stress intensity factor is given by


K I = F

2.1

where a characteristic stress

a characteristic crack dimension, and


F is a form factor, which is dimensionless constant that depend on geometry and
mode of loading.

Different researchers have got

formulas for stress intensity factor experimentally,

numerically or analytically for various cases, such as for the Center Cracked Test
Specimen, the Double Edge Notch Test Specimen, the Single Edge Notch Test Specimen
and the Pure Bending etc.

( h ) , where h is

Different authors have given different empirical relations and value for F
the height of the beam, and some of them are given in Table 2.1
Table 2-1

( h)

Person

Brown





= 1.122 1.40 + 7.33 13.0.8 + 14.0
h
h
h
h

Tada

Anderson
Papadopoulos

Accuracy
3

0.923 + 0.1991 sin

2h

2h

=
tan

2h
cos
2h
1.12

2
3

+
1
.
122
0
.
56
0
.
085
0
.
18

h
h
h

=
1
1 ( / h ) 2

12

0.2% for

0.6

Better than
0.5% for any

2.2.3 The J-Contour Integral

The J contour integral is the strain energy density function (SEDF). It has enjoyed great
success as a fracture characterizing parameter for nonlinear and linear materials.
Consider an arbitrary counter-clockwise path ( ) around the crack tip of a crack, Fig 2.2.
The J integral is given by [2].

u
J = wdy pi i ds

xi

2.2

ii

Where w = ij d ij , is the strain energy, i,j =1, 2, 3


0

ij and ij are the stress and strain tensors, respectively.


s is the arc length.
pi is the traction exerted on the boundary and the crack surface.
u i is displacement component
y

Fig 2-2 Arbitrary contour around the tip of crack

13

To implement J-integral in modeling of crack, the following argument plays a great roll.
Let represent the area enclosed by the curve in Fig 2.2 and assume that the curve is
shrunk toward the crack tip ( 0 ). Within this area the gradients are so large (toward
singularities at the crack tip) that they dominate all local derivatives with respect to the
crack length. Thus, the field within 0 will be stationary in the sense that they
mainly translate with the crack tip during a differential crack motion. Give the external
action, when the crack tip moves a small step forward, the changes observed at a fixed
location in will therefore be the same as when the observer moves the same length back
toward the stationary crack. [57]

2.4

applying to some function of x and with x measured form a fixed origin. Then the
second right-hand term of Eq. 2.2 equals

pi

u i
u
ds = pi i ds
x

2.5

which can be interpreted as the rate of work exerted per unit thickness by the outside
material on the material inside as the crack moves.

Similarly, from Eq. 2.2,

wdy

can be seen as total strain energy carried by particles in to per unit thickness and crack
advance when that region move the crack tip.. The sum J will therefore represent a net
expenditure of mechanical energy per unit crack area during virtual growth, which again

14

equals to the crack driving force. We have thus arrived at a simple relation and an
important physical interpretation of the J integral
2.6

J=G
where G is crack driving force.
For linear elastic material G will be
K i2
G=
E'
hence J =

Where i=I, II, III

2.7

K i2
E'

2.8

Where Ki is the stress intensity factor


E ' = E , or E

(1 )
2

for plane stress and plane strain respectively

E is the modulus of elasticity

is the Poisson ratio


Eq. 2.8 gives a relation between J-integral and the stress intensity factor for linear elastic.

Generally Eq. 2.8 can be given in the following form


1 n
n

J = K Ii + K IIi + m K IIi
E i =1
i =1

i =1

where j=1, 2, 3., n the load index which are applied on the structure.

15

2.9

2.2.4 Castiglianos Theorem

Due to the presence of crack in the structure additional displacement will be created. This
additional displacement will introduce strain energy. Castiglianos theorem says, When
forces act on elastic system subjected to small displacement, the displacement
corresponding to any force, collinear with the force, is equal to the partial derivative of the
total strain energy with respect to the force. Mathematically that is

ui =

U
Pi

2.10

where u i is the displacement of the point of the application of the Pi

U is the total strain energy.


Pi is the applied load (force or bending moment)

2.2.5 Crack Modeling

In order to study the behavior of crack in the beam we have to take some assumption. The
crack has been considered as open with transverse crack depth, and its depth is uniform.
Also the material has the same EI.

According to the principle of Saint-Venant, the stress field is affected only in the region
adjacent to crack. The element stiffens matrix, except for the cracked element may be
regarded under a certain limitation of element size. It is very difficult to find an appropriate
shape function to express the kinetic energy and elastic potential energy approximately,
because of the discontinuity of deformation in the cracked element. Finding of the
additional stress energy of crack, however, has been studied deeply in fracture mechanics

16

and the flexibility coefficient expressed by a stress intensity factor can be easily derived by
means of Castilianos theorem, in linear range.

Consider a beam with a given stiffness properties, dimension b h, and a transverse crack
depth of , see Fig. 2.3.

y
z
a

P
P

x
P

P
P

Fig 2-3 Loaded beam element with transverse crack

Where P1

Axial load

P2 & P3 Shear forces


P4 & P5 - bending Moments
Paris [36] give the additional displacement u i due to a crack of depth , in the i direction
as

ui =


J ( )d

Pi

2.11

where J ( ) is strain energy density function [SEDF] or J-Integral, which is found in Eq. 2.9

17

Pi is corresponding load and is the crack depth

The local flexibility due to the crack can be given as

cij =

u i
2
J ( )d
=

Pi Pi Pj

2.12

Integrating the local flexibility along the width, b, of the crack,

cij =

u i 1 2 b
=
Pi b Pi Pj 0

J ( )ddz

2.13

Since the energy density is a scalar quantity, it is permissible to integrate along tip of the
crack it being assumed that the crack depth is variable and that the stress intensity factor is
given for the element strip.


K I 1 = 1 F1
h


K I 4 = 4 F1
h

K I 5 = 5 F1
h
KI2 = KI3 = KI6 = 0
KI3 =

where 1 =

P1
bh

where 4 =

P4
6P
z = 42
3
h(b) 12
hb

where 5 =

6P
P5
y = 52
3
bh
bh 12

3P3 L
FI , the stress intensity due to shear force for mode I
bh 2


K II 3 = 3 FII
h
K II 1 = K II 2 = K II 4 = 0

where 3 =

And we can find for the rest of stress intensity factors.

18

P3
bh

2.14

In this thesis only bending moment about z-axis, P5, and shear force in the direction of y,
P3, are considered.

Now we can find the local flexibility of c33, c35, c55 by combining Eq. 2.9, 2.13, and 2.14,
then we will make the non-dimensional term.

u i 1 2 b
c 33 =
=
P3 b P3 P3 0

J ( )ddz
0

1
(K I 3 + K I 5 )2 + K II2 3
E'
3P LF 2
3P LF 6 P5 FI
+ 2 3 I

3 I
2
2

bh 2
bh
bh
1

2
2
E'
6 P F
P FII

+ 5 2 I + 3

bh
bh

where J ( ) =

Up on substitution Eq. 2.14 to the above equation the following result is obtain

c33 =

18FI2 L2

E' b 2 h 4

2 FII2 2
+ 2 2
b h 2

2.15

For coupled load the compliance will be

2 b 1

2
K I 3 + K I 5 ) + K II2 3 ddz
(

P3 P5 0 0 E '

1
(K I 3 + K I 5 )2 + K II2 3
where J =
E'

c35 =

Over integration

19

c35 =

18LFI2 2

2.16

E' b 2 h 4 2

And finally

u i
2 b 1
=
(K I 3 + K I 5 )2 + K II2 3 ddx

0
0
E'
P5 P5 P5

1
where J =
(K I 3 + K I 5 )2 + K II2 3
E'

c55 =

c55 =

72 FI2 2

2.17

E' b2 h4 2

In the case of this thesis I assume that the only available loads are P3 and P5, where P3 is
bending load and P5 is shear load due to mass.

20

3
3.1

EULER- BERNOULLI BEAM


Euler- Bernoulli Beam formulation

In this thesis the beam is first modeled based on the Euler- Bernoulli beam theory.
The Euler-Bernoulli assumption of elementary beam theory will be employed, namely:
a) There is an axis of the beam, which undergoes no extension or contraction. The xaxis is located along this neutral axis.
b) Cross sections perpendicular to the neutral axis in the undeformed beam remain
plane and remain perpendicular to the deformed neutral axis, that is, transverse
shear deformation is neglected.
c) The material is linearly elastic and the beam is homogenous at any crass section.
d) y and z are negligible compared to x

q(x, t)

M(x , t)

M(x + dx, t)

Fig 3-1 Euler-Bernoulli beam element

The Euler Bernoulli equation for beam bending can be written as follow

2v 2
+
t 2 x 2

2v
EI 2 = q( x, t )
x

21

3.1

where v(x, t) is the transverse displacement;

is mass density per length;


EI is the beam rigidity;
q(x, t) is the externally applied pressure loading.

3.2

Finite Element Method

We apply one of the methods of weighted residual, Galerkins method, to the beam
equation to develop the finite element formulation and the corresponding matrix equation.

The weigh residual of Eq. 3.1 gives


R=

2v 2 2v

0 t 2 + x 2 EI x 2 q wi dx = 0

3.2

Where l- is the length of the beam element


wi is a test function
The weak formulation of Eq. 3.2 is obtained from integration by parts for the second term
of the equation as follow.
n

dw
d 3v
d 3v
2
R = 2 wi dx + EIwi 3 |l0 i EI 3 dx wi q( x )dx = 0
dx
dx
x
i =1

e
e
e t

d 2 wi
d 3 v dw
2
d 2v
d 3v
R = 2 wi dx + EIwi 3 i EI 2 | l0 +
EI
dx wi q( x )dx = 0
2
3
dx
x
dx
dx
dx
i =1

e t
e
e

22

3.3

dwi
2v
2 v 2 wi

R = 2 wi dx + EI 2
qwi dx + Vwi M
2
=0
x

t
x
x

e
e
e

0
i =1

where V = EI

M = EI

3.4

3v
is shear forces
x 3

2v
is bending moment
x 2

e is the element domain


n

in number of elements for the beam

For the time being we consider shape function for special interpolation of transverse static
deflection, v, in terms of nodal variable. Interpolation in terms of time domain will be
discussed latter on. Also in Galarkins method, the shape functions are the same

as the

weight function, thus


wi=Ni
where Ni is shape function which is supposed to be found in the in the for going
discussion
Then
l

dN i
d 2 N i d 2v

e EI dx 2 dx 2 dx e N i q(x )dx + N iV M dx 0 = 0

3.5

To formulate the shape function now we consider an element, which has two nodes on each
end, Fig 3.2

23

y
v2

v1
1

Fig 3-2 A two node beam element.


The deformation of a beam must have continuous slope as well as continuous deflection at
any two neighboring beam elements.

The Euler-Bernoulli beam equation is based on the assumption that the plane normal to the
natural axis before deformation remains normal to the natural axis after deformation (see
Fig. 3.3).

Fig 3-3 Deformation of an Euler Bernoulli Beam

24

This assumption denoted =

dv
(i.e. slop is the first derivative of deflection in terms of x).
dx

Because there are four nodal variables for the beam element, we assume a cubic polynomial
function for v (x).
The elastic curve of a beam can be approximated by.
v( x ) = C 0 + C1 x + C 2 x 2 + C 3 x 3

(x ) =

3.6

dv( x )
= C1 + 2C 2 x + 3C 3 x 2
dx

3.7

At x=0, v (0)=C0=v1, C0=v1

(0)=C0=1, C0=1
At x=l, v (l)=v1 + 1l + C2l2 + C3l3=v2

(l)= 1 + 2C2l + 3C3l2 =2


From the above relations, C2 and C3 can be obtained by simplification:

2
(v1 v2 ) + 13 (1 + 2 )
3
l
l

3
2
C 2 = 2 (v 2 v1 ) 1 2
l
l
l
C3 =

By substituting the C0, C1, C2, and C3 and rearranging then we found the following results.

3x 2 2 x 3

3x 2 2 x 3
3x 2 x 3
2x 2 x3
v( x ) = 1 2 + 2 v1 + x
+ 2 1 + 2 3 v 2 + 2 + 2 2
l
l
l
l
l
l

l
l
Thus, the shape functions are:

25

3.8

3x 2 2 x 3
N 1 = 1 2 + 2
l
l

2x 2 x3
N 2 = x
+ 2
l
l

3.9

3x 2 2 x 3
N 3 = 2 3
l
l
3x 2 x 3
N 4 = 2 + 2
l
l

It is important to note two shape functions corresponding to v and are used for each.
Such types of shape function are called Hermitian shape function.

Let

N1
N
{N } = 2
N3
N 4

d 2 {N }
B=
= N1''
2
dx

N 2''

N 3''

N 4''

From interpolation rule finite element


N1
N

v( x ) = 2
N3
N 4

v1

2
T
= {N } {vi }
v
3
4

d 2 N
where {B} = 2
dx

d 2v
T
= {B} {vi }
2
dx

3.10

Substitute Eq. 3.10 in and 3.5 when concentrated moment or shear forces are absent

{B}EI {B} {v }dx + {N }q(x )dx = 0


T

[K ]{v } = {F }
e

26

[K ] =
e

{B}EI {B}T dx

3.11

The third term in Eq 3.4, results in the element force vector. For a generally distributed
pressure loading, we need to compute

{F }
e

N1
N

= e {N }q( x )dx = 2 dx

N3
N 4

3.12

In the case concentrated shear forces and moments act on a node they have to be added
after.
Integrating Eq. 3.11 we can find the stiffens matrix

[K ]
e

6l
12
6l 4l 2
EI
= 3
l 12 6l

2l l
6l

12
6l

12
6l

6l
2l 2
6l

4l 2

3.13

If we have a uniform pressure load q0 within the element force vector become

{F }
e

6l
N1

2
l
q l
N
= q0 2 dx = 0

0
12 6l
N3
l 2
N 4

3.14

In case of concentrated forces at nodes

{F }
e

6l V
2
q0 l M 1
=

+
12 6l V2
l 2 M 2

3.15

27

The last term in Eq 3.4) represents the boundary condition of shear forces and bending
moment at the two boundary points, x=0 and x=l, of the beam. If these

boundary

condition are known, the known shear forces and/or bending moment are included in the
system forces vector at the two boundary nodes. Otherwise

they remain as unknowns.

However, deflection and /or slope are known as geometric boundary conditions for this
case.

For dynamic analysis of beams the inertia forces must be included. In this case the
transverse deflection is a function of x and t. The deflection is interpolated within a beam
element as given below.
v( x, t ) = N 1 ( x)v1 (t ) + N 2 ( x) 1 (t ) + N 3 ( x)v 2 (t ) + N 4 ( x) 2 (t )

3.16

As we see Eq. 3.16 states that the shape functions are used to interpolate the deflection in
terms of the spatial domain and the nodal variation are function of time. Now the first terms
in Eq. 3.4 becomes

where [N ] = [N 1

[N ] [N ]dx{d&&e }
T

N2

N3

3.17

N4 ]

{d } is nodal degree of freedom vector


e

And the superimposed dot denote temporal derivative for Eq. 3.17 and = A , the
element mass matrix becomes

[M ] = A[N ] [N ]dx
e

3.18

28

156 22l

2
A 22l 4l
=
13l
420 54

2
13 3l

54
13l
156
22l

13l
3l 2
22l

4l 2

3.19

If we have a mass Ml at the end of cantilever, see Fig. 3.4

Ml

Fig 3-4 A cantilever beamwith one end clamped and a concentrated mass attached at the
other.

The mass matrix of an element which contain mass will be changed to

[M ] = A[N ( x)] [N ( x)]dx + M [N (l )] [N (l )]


e

3.20

Up on substitution, l in shape function we have got the following result


156 22l

2
A 22l 4l
=
13l
420 54

2
13 3l

[M ]
e

54
13l
156
22l

13l
0
0
2
3l
+ Ml
0
22l

2
4l
0

54
156 22l

2
13l
Al 22l 4l
420
=
13l 156 +
Ml
420 54
Al

13 3l 2
22l

29

13l
3l 2
22l

2
4l

0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0

0 0 0

3.21

The element stiffness matrix does not change for the dynamics analysis because the shape
function are the same for both static and dynamics analysis. However the force term may
vary as a function of time. The force vector is for the dynamic analysis

{F (t )} = q(x, t )[N ]dx


l

3.22

The mass matrix equation for a dynamic beam analysis is, after assembly of element
matrix and vectors,

[M ]{d&&}+ [k ]{d } = {F (t )}

3.23

where {d } is displacement vector


For free vibration of a beam, the eigen value problem

([K ] [M ]){d }= 0
2

3.24

Where is the angular frequency in radians per second.

{d } is the mode shape.


3.3

Critical load selection

Comparison for section critical load (mass) application

between distributed load (mass)

and concentrated load (mass) here as follow, see Fig. 3.5.

When we make comparison between the concentrated load and distributed load for cracked
beam, the shear force

in the case of distributed load

respect to length.

30

the shear force is

varied with

x
Shear Force Diagram

bending moment Diagram

Fig 3-5 Shear force and bending moment diagram

Since shear force has its impact on the behavior of cracked beam it is advisable to take
the shear forces which has uniform value through the length in order to take the critical
condition in every part of the beam, by assuming q = qo l .

3.4

Establishment of Element Stiffness Matrix for Cracked Element

In order to develop an element stiffness matrix for a cracked beam element, there are two
parts to the strain energy: The strain energy for the uncracked beam element and the
additional strain energy due to the crack. The strain energy of an element without crack is
obtained from the existing moment and load (mass). The additional strain energy due to
the crack has been

studied in chapter two, which is the cause for creation of additional

compliance in the beam.


With shear action neglected, the strain energy of an element without a crack is
U=

1
1 x

dV
=
bhdx

v
0
2
2
E
31

3.25

Where = E

3.26

dV = Adx, A = bh , A is cross-sectional area of a beam

3.27

Up on substitution Eq. 3.26 and 3.27 in Eq. 3.25 the strain energy can be given as follow
U=

bh x 2
dx
2 E 0

3.28

The stress, , in Eq.3.28 refers to the stress due to bending and the stress due to shear
force, which is

= M + P
where

3.29

M =

M
M h
y=
I
I 2

3.30

P =

P(l x)
P(l x) h
y=
I
I
2

3.31

where P is found due to concentrated load at the end


By substituting Eq. 3.30 and 3.31 in Eq. 3.28 the following equation is found.
2

bh
U=
2E

Mh P(l xh)
0 2I + 2I dx

bh
U=
2E

2
Mh 2
Mh P (l x)h P(l x)h
0 2I + 2 2 I 2I + 2I dx

3.32

Over integration the above equation, the strain energy will be

U=

3
2 EI

2
P 2l 3
2
M
l
MPl
+
+

3.33

Now, the flexibility coefficient for an element without a crack, in different load condition is

32

cij(o ) =

U (0 )
Pi Pj

Where P3 = P, P5 = M ,

i, j = 3, 5

3.34

U (0 ) = U
(0 )
=
c33

2
P32

2 EI

2
P 2l 3
2
+
+
M
l
MPl

l3
(0 )

c33
= 3
3EI
(0 )
=
c35

(0 )

c35

(0 )

c55

2
P3 P5

3.35

2 EI

2
P 2l 3
2
+
+
M
l
MPl

l2
(0 )
= c53
3
=
2 EI
2
=
P52

(0 )
c55
=

2 EI

3.36

2
P 2l 3
2
M l + MPl +

3l
EI

The total flexibility coefficient matrix for an element without a crack will be

c ( 0 )
cij( 0) = 33
(0 )
c53

(0 )

c35
(0 )
c55

3.37

The total flexibility coefficient is

cij = cij(0 ) + cij(1)

3.38

Where cij(1) is the compliance for cracked beam, which was derived in Eq. 2.15-2.17.
(1)

cij

(1)
c33
= (1)
c53

(1)

c35
(1)
c55

From the beam load condition we have the following diagram

33

P5= M
P3=P
Fig 3-6 Schematic representation of an element with a crack.

From equilibrium condition of the element, transfer of moment and shear from one node to
the other is obtained by,

Pi
T
M
Pi +1
i

= [T ]

P
i
+
1
M i +1

M i +1

1 0
l 1

Where [T ] =
1 0

0 1

, Transfer matrix

So, the stiffness matrix of the cracked element can be written as [43]

[K c ] = [T ][c]1 [T ]T
1 0
l 1
[c ]1
[K c ] =
1
0

1
0

3.39

1 l 1 0
0 1 0 1

3.40

where [c ] is the inverse matrix of compliance.


1

Once we have got the stiffness matrix for the cracked beam we can assemble it and find the
global matrix, which will be discussed in chapter four. In this case the number of elements
in the beam can be varied based on desired accuracy.

34

4
4.1

TIMOSHEKNO BEAM
Timoshenko Beam Formulation

In the case of Timoshenko beam, a plane normal to the beam axis before deformation does
not remain normal to the axis after deformation. Thus the effects of rotary inertia and
transverse shear deformation have to be included in the analysis of a Timoshenko beam.

g
j v

j v

j x

j x

y, v

x, u

Fig 4-1 Deformation of a Timoshenko Beam

Let u and v be the axial and transverse displacement of a beam, respectively. Because of
transverse shear deformation, the slope of the beam is different from

slope equals

dv
. Instead, the
dx

dv
where is the transverse shear strain. As result, the displacement
dx

fields in the Timoshenko beam can be written as

u ( x, y ) = y ( x )

4.1

v( x ) = v

4.2

35

Where the x-axis is located along the neutral axis of the beam and the beam is not subjected
to an axial load such that the neutral axis does not have the axial strain. From Eq. 4.1 and
4.2, the axial and shear strain are
d
dx

= y

= +

4.3

dv
dx

4.4

The element stiffness matrix can be obtained from the strain energy expression for an
element. The strain energy for an element of length , l, is
l h 2

b
b
U = T E dy dx +
2 0 h 2
2

l h2

G dy dx

4.5

0 h 2

The first term in Eq. 4.5 is the bending strain energy and the second term is the shear strain
energy. b and h are the width and height of the beams respectively, and is the correction
factor for shear energy where value is normally

5
. [1]
6

Substitute Eq. 4.3 and Eq. 4.4 into Eq. 4.5 and taking integration with respect to y gives
T

1 d

dv
dv
d

U =
dx + + GA + dx
EI
2 0 dx
2 0
dx
dx
dx

4.6

where I and A are the moment of inertia and area of the beam cross-section.

To derive the element stiffness matrix for the Timoshenko beam, the variables v and
need to be interpolated within each element. As it has been observed form Eq. 4.6, v and
are independent variables. That is, we can interpolate them independently using proper
shape functions. This results in the satisfaction of inter-element compatibility, i.e continuity
36

of both the transverse displacement v and slope between two neighboring elements. As a
result, any kind of C0 shape function can be used for the present elements. Shape function
of order C0 are much easier to construct than shape functions of order C1. It is especially
very difficult to construct shape function of order C1 for two-dimensional and threedimensional analysis such as the classical plate theory. C1 means both v and

v
continuous
x

between two neighboring elements. In general, Cn type continuity means the shape function
have continuity up to the nth order derivative between two neighboring element elements
To derive the stiffness matrix we use the simple linear shape function for both variables.
That is,
v = [H 1

v
H 2 ] 1
v

4.7

= [H 1


H 2 ] 1
2

4.8

where H1 and H2 are linear shape functions for Timoshenko beam. The linear element looks
like that in Fig 3.2, but the shape functions used are totally different from those for the
Hermitian beam element in Euler Bernoulli beam. To develop the stiffness matrices using
linear shape function for Timoshenko beam, the concept of isoparametric mapping will be
applied.

4.2

Isoparametric Element

Isoparametric elements use mathematical mapping from one coordinate system to another
coordinate system. The former coordinate system is called the natural coordinate system
while the latter is called the physical coordinate system.

37

To derive the isoparametric element shape functions, the shape functions with respect to
physical coordinate should be derived, first. Consider a subdomain or a finite element
shown in Fig. 4.2. The element has two nodes, one at each end. At each node, the
coordinate value (x1 or x2) and the nodal variable (u1 or u2) are assigned. Let us assume the
unknown trial function to be

u = c1 x + c 2

4.9

where u is unknown trial function


c1 and c2 are constants

x
x2
u2

x1
u1
Fig 4-2 Two Node Linear Element.

Eq. 4.9 will be express in terms of nodal variables. In other word, c1 and c2 need to be
replaced by u1 and u2. To this end, u will be evaluated at x=x1 and x=x2. Then

u ( x1 ) = c1 x1 + c 2 = u1

4.10

u ( x 2 ) = c1 x 2 + c 2 = u 2

4.11

Now solving Eq. 4.10 and 4.11 simultaneously for c1 and c2 gives

c1 =

u 2 + u1
x 2 x1

4.12

c1 =

u1 x 2 u 2 x1
x 2 x1

4.13

38

Substitution of Eq. 4.12 and 4.13 into Eq. 4.9 and rearrangement of the resultant expression
result in

u = H 1 ( x )u1 + H 2 ( x )u 2

4.14

H 1 (x ) =

x2 x
l

4.15

H 2 (x ) =

x x1
l

4.16

where

l = x 2 x1

4.17

Equation 4.14 gives an expression for the variable u in terms of nodal variables, and Eq.15
and Eq. 16 are called linear shape functions. The shape functions are plotted in Fig. 4.3.

H1 (x)

x1

H2 (x)

x2

Fig 4-3 Linear Shape Functions

These functions have the following properties:


1. The shape function associated with node 1 has a unit value at node 1 and vanishes
at other nodes. That is,

39

H 1 ( x1 ) = 1, H 1 ( x 2 ) = 0, H 2 ( x1 ) = 0, H 2 ( x 2 ) = 0, H 2 ( x 2 ) = 1

4.18

2. The sum of all shape functions is unity.


2

H (x ) = 1

4.19

These are important properties for shape functions. The first property, Eq. 4.18, states that
the variable u must be equal to the corresponding nodal variable at each node (i.e. u(x1)=u1
and u(x2)=u2 as enforced in Eq. 4.10 and 4.11. The second property, Eq. 4.19, says that the
variable u can represent a uniform solution within the element.

Once the shape function for physical coordinate system is developed, the shape function for
isoparametric element will be given in terms of the natural coordinate system as seen in Fig
4.4. The two nodes are located at 1 = 1.0 and 2 = 1.0 , originally, which were x1 and x2 in
physical coordinate system. These nodal positions are arbitrary but the proposed selection
is very useful for numerical integration because the element in the natural coordinate
system is normalized between 1 and 1. The shape function can be written as [1]
H 1 ( ) =

1
(1 )
2

4.20

H 2 ( ) =

1
(1 + )
2

4.21

40

node 1

node 2
x

x 1

Fig 4-4 Linear Element in the natural Coordinate system

Any point between 1 = 1 and 2 = 1 in the natural coordinate system can be mapped onto
a point between x1 and x 2 in the physical coordinate system using the shape function
defined in Eqs. 4.20 and 4.21.

x = H 1 ( )x1 + H 2 ( )x 2

4.22

The same shape functions are also used to interpolate the variables u and v with in the
element

u = H 1 ( )u1 + H 2 ( )u 2

4.23

v = H 1 ( )v1 + H 2 ( )v 2

4.24

If the same shape functions are used for the geometric mapping as well as nodal variable
interpolation, such as Eq. 4.22, 4.23 and 4.24, the element is called the isoparametric
element.

In order to compute

dv
, which is necessary in Eq. 4.6 to compute element matrix for
dx

Timoshenko beam, we use the chain rule such that


41

dH 2 ( )
dv dH 1 ( )
=
v1 +
v2
dx
dx
dx

dH 1 ( ) d
dH 2 ( ) d
v1 +
v2
d dx
d dx

where the expression requires

4.25

d
dx
, which is the inverse of
. The latter can be computed
dx
d

from Eq. 4.22.


dH 2 ( )
1
dx dH 1 ( )
x1 +
x 2 = ( x 2 x1 )
=
2
d
d
d

4.26

Substituting Eq 4.26 into Eq. 4.25 yields


1
1
dv
=
v1 +
v2 ,
dx
x 2 x1
x 2 x1
dv
1
1
= v1 + v 2
dx
l
l

4.27

where l = x 2 x1 is the element size


In matrix form, Eq. 4.27 can be written as follow

dv 1 1 v1
=
dx l l v 2

4.28

With the same idea we can have an equation for

dv 1 1 v1
=
dx l l v 2

d
as follow
dx

4.29

Also Eq. 4.8 can be expressed in terms of isoparametric element by substituting Eq. 4.20
and 4.21.

42


1
1
(1 + ) 1
H 2 ] 1 = (1 )
2
2
2 2

= [H 1

4.30

Now using Eq. 4.7-4.30 along with the strain energy expression Eq. 4.6 yields the
following stiffness matrix for the Timoshenko beam.

Stiffness matrix for bending strain energy:

From Eq. 4.6 the bending strain is taken as follow

[K ]
e
b

1 d
d
=
dx
EI
2 0 dx
dx
l

4.31

Derivate with respect to x and substitute in to Eq. 4.31 yields the following result.

[K ]
e
b

0 0

EI 0 1
=
l 0 0

0 1

0
0 1
0 0

0 1
0

4.32

Stiffness matrix for shear strain energy:

Also for shear strain energy an equation will be taken from Eq. 4.6.

[K ]
e
s

dv
dv

= + GA + dx
2 0
dx
dx

4.33

Using the concept of isoparametric mapping discussed previously the stiffness matrix for
shear will be derived as follow.
43

Substituting Eq. 4.29 and 4.30 in to Eq.4.33 also changing the limit of integration of
physical coordinate x 2 and x1 to natural coordinate system, 1 and 1, then

[K ]

1l

GA (1 )
=
2 1 1 l

(1 + )

[K ]

2l
4
2l
l2
GA
=
4l 4 2l

l2
2l

e
s

e
s

where dx =

l
d ,
2

2 1
1

l
2

2
4
2l

4
2l

2l
l 2
2l

l2

1
1+ l

d
2 2
l

4.34

4.35

see Eq. 4.26

At this point one thing to be noted is that the bending stiffness term, Eq. 4.32, is obtained
using the exact integration of the bending strain energy but the shear stiffness term, Eq.
4.35, is obtained using one point Gauss quadrature rule. The major reason is if the beam
thickness becomes so small compared to its length, the shear energy dominates over the
bending energy. As we have seen Eq. 4.32 and Eq. 4.35, the bending stiffness is
proportional to h 3 l while the transverse shear stiffness is proportional to hl, where h and l
are the thickness and length of beam element, respectively. Hence, as h l becomes smaller
for a very thin beam, the bending term become negligible compared to the shear term. This
is not correct in the physical sense. As the beam becomes thinner, the bending strain energy
is more significant than the shear energy. This phenomenon is called shear locking. In
order to avoid shear locking, the shear strain energy is under-integration. Because of the

44

under-integration the presence beam stiffness matrix is rank deficient. That is, it contains
some fictitious rigid body mode (i.e. zero energy modes).

4.3

Establishment of matrix for cracked beam element

In the case of Euler-Bernoulli beam, by neglecting the shear action, the strain energy
without crack is derived. But in the case of Timoshenko beam the shear action will be
included to model the crack entirely.

The strain energy of an element without a crack is given for two cases as follows.
For bending strain energy,
bh
Ub =
2E

2
Mh 2
Mh P(l x)h P (l xh
0 2 I + 2 2I 2I + 2 I dx , from Eq. 3.32

P 2l 3
3 2
2
Ub =

M l + MPl +
2 EI
3

4.36

The shear strain energy can be expressed [3]


l

Us =

1
Adx
2 0

4.37

where the shear coefficient which is equal to =5/6 for rectangular beam.[1, 3]
A is cross-section of beam

is the shear angle, see Fig 4.5

is shear stress
=

v
x

, where is the rotation of cross-section

45

4.38

dv/dx

x
Fig 4-5 Deformation of beam including shear

Eq. 4.37 can be written as follow

Us =

1

Adx

2 0 G

Us =

1
2
Adx

2 0 G

where =

4.39

, G is the shear modulus

4.40

Once the equation of shear strain energy is determiend, it can be evaluated by substituting
the shear stress value in to Eq. 4.39.

(PQ / Ib) Adx


1
Us =
G
20
l

where =

4.41

PQ
Ib

4.42

46

P is the shear force at the section.


I is the moment of Inertia about the neutral axis
b is the width of the section
Q is the first moment with respect to the neutral axis of the area below the point

at which the shear stress is derived.

Q = zdA = A' z

4.43

where A is the area of that part of the section below the point desired.
z is the distance from the neutral axis to the centroid of A.

For beam of uniform cross section the maximum shear stress occurs at the section having
the greatest shear force, P. In the case of this thesis the shear force is uniform through the
length of the beam.

neutral axis

A'

b
Fig 4-6 Cross-section of a beam

If the shear stress is desired at level z1 of the rectangular cross section, Fig 4.6, Q must be
calculated for the shaded area

47

h 2 z1

h
Q = A' z = b z1 z1 +

b h2
Q = z12
2 4

4.44

It follows from Eq. 4.42 that the shear stresses vary according to

P h2
z12
2I 4

4.45

Eq. 4.45 shows that the shear stress varies parabolically with z1. For modeling of crack the
maximum value of shear will be taken for z1=0, at the natural axis.

Ph 2 3P 3P
=
=
8I
2bh 2 A

4.46

In general, the shear strain energy can be express in the form of


h
1 2 P
U s =
2 0 G h 2I
2
l

h
2

z1 bdz1 dx

However, for this thesis the maximum shear stress will be taken to get the shear strain
energy,
Us =

9 P 2 l
8 GA

4.46

The total strain energy will be the summation of strain energy due to bending and the strain
energy due to shear, by adding Eq. 4.36 Eq. 4.46.
U (oT ) = U b + U s

U (oT ) =

3
2 EI

2
P 2 l 3 9 P 2 l
2
+
+
M
l
MPl
+

3 8 GA

We can find the flexibility coefficient for an element without a crack.


48

4.47

cij(oT ) =

(oT )

c33

2
=
P32

(oT )
c33
=

(oT )

c35

U (oT )
Pi Pj

where P3=P, P=M, i, j=3,5

3 2
P 2 l 3 9 P 2 l
2

M l + MPl +
+
3 8 GA
2 EI

l2
15l
+
,
EI 8GA

2
=
P3 P5

where A=bh

2
P52

(oT )
=
c55

3l
2 EI

4.49

3 2
P 2 l 3 9 P 2 l
2

M l + MPl +
+
3 8 GA
2 EI

l2
(oT )
(oT )
= 3 = c53
c35
EI
(oT )
=
c55

4.48

2 EI

4.50

2
P 2 l 3 9 P 2 l
2
+
+
M
l
MPl

+
3 8 GA

4.51

The flexible coefficient matrix for a uniform beam will be

c (oT )
cij( oT ) = 33
(oT )
c53

(oT )

c35
(oT )
c55

4.52

The total flexible coefficient will be

cij = cij(oT ) + cij(1)

4.53

49

where cij(oT ) is the compliance of beam without crack

cij(1) is the compliance of beam with crack , from Eq. 3.38


Now the stiffness matrix of the cracked element can be written as [43]

[K cT ] = [T ][c]1 [T ]T
Once we get the stiffness matrix for the cracked Timoshenko beam element we can
assemble it and find the global matrix. In this case the number of elements in the beam can
be varied based on desired accuracy of results.

The consistent mass matrix for the Timoshenko beam is computed from the equation of
kinetic energy.
l

KE =

1
u& 2 + v& 2 dAdx

2 0 A( x )

4.54

By substituting Eq. 4.1 the following equation will be found,


l

KE =

1
y 2& 2 + v& 2 dAdx

2 0 A( x )
l

4.55

1
1
KE = I& 2 dx + Av& 2 dx
20
20
where I ( x ) =

4.56

dA , is the geometric moment of inertia of the cross section

Now, by defining
m = A the mass per unit of beam length

r2 =

I
where r is the gyration radius of the cross section
A

we obtain the following expression for the kinetic energy.

50

1
1
KE = mv& 2 dx + mr 2& 2 dx
20
20

4.57

The first term on the right hand side of Eq. 4.57 is translating inertia and the second term is
the rotary inertia.
By taking the shape function from Eq. 4.7 and 4.8 substituting in Eq. 4.57, then the mass
matrix for translation will be

M eT = mH T Hdx

4.58

and the mass matrix for rotary inertia will be


l

eR

mr

H T H dx

4.59

As we have seen from Eq. 4.58 and Eq. 4.59, the beam element mass matrix has two
components: Transverse and rotary component.

Eq. 4.58 and 4.59 result in

M eT

ml 0
=
6 1

0 1 0
0 0 0
0 2 0

0 0 0

And

4.60
1

mr 0
=
l 1

0
2

M eR

0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1 0

0 0 0

51

Once the mass matrix and stiffness matrix are found, the system characteristic equation can
be found for free vibration as follow

([K ] [M ]){&&} = 0
2

Where

4.61

[K] is the sum of component of bending and shear stiffness matrices


[M] is the sum of component of rotary and transverse mass matrices

is the angular frequency in radians per second.

{ } is
4.4

the modal shape.

Assembly of Element Matrices and Derivation of System Equation

Once the element characteristics, namely, the element matrices stiffness and element mass
matrices are found in common global coordinate system, the next step is to construct the
overall or system equation. The procedure for constructing the system equation from the
element characteristic is the same regardless of the type of problem and the number and
type of elements used.

The procedure of assembling the element matrices is based on the requirement of


compatibility at the element nodes. This means that at the nodes where elements are
connected, the value(s) of the unknown nodal degree(s) of freedom or variable(s) is (are)
the same for all the elements joining at that node.

52

Let nel and sdof denote the total number of elements and nodal degree of freedom
(including the boundary and restrained degrees of freedom), respectively. Let q denote the
vector of sdof nodal degrees of freedom and [kk] the assembled system characteristics
matrix of order sdof x sdof. Since the element characteristic matrix [Ke] is order of 4x4, it
can be expressed to order of sdof x sdof by including zeros in the remaining locations. Thus
the global characteristics matrix can be obtained by algebraic addition as
nel

kk
=
kk e

e =1

[ ]

4.62

[ ]

where kk e is the expanded characteristic matrix of element e (of order sdof x sdof).

In actual computation, the expansion of the element matrix [Ke] to the size of the overall
[kk] is not necessary. [kk] can be generated by identifying the elements of [Ke] in [kk] and
adding them to the existing values as e changes from 1 to nel.

This procedure is shown with reference to the assemblage of beam elements as shown in
Fig. 4.7.

Fig 4-7 Beam with two elements.

53

For assembling [Ke], we consider the elements one after another. For e=1, the element
stiffness matrix [K1] can be written as shown below.

Local d .o. f

Global d .o. f 1

k111
1
k 21
1
k 31
1
k 41

k121

k131

1
k 22

1
k 23

1
k 32

1
k 33

1
k 42

1
k 43

[K ] = 23

4.63

k141
1
k 24

1
k 34
1
k 44

The location of (raw ll and column ml) of any component K ij1 in the global stiffness matrix
[kk] is identified by the global degree of freedom ll and ml corresponding to the local
degree of freedom i(1) and i(2 ) respectively for i=1 to 4 and j=1 to 4. The corresponding
between ll and i(1) , and ml and i(1) is also shown already in Eq. 4.63. Thus the location
of the components K ij1 in [kk] will be show in Eq. 4.64.

Local d .o. f

4 5

Global d .o. f 1

4 5

k111
1
k 21
1
k 31
1
k 41
0

k121
1
k 22
1
k 32
1
k 42

k131
1
k 23
1
k 33
1
k 43

k141
1
k 24
1
k 34
1
k 44

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
2
kk 1 = 3
4
5
6

1
2
3
4
5
6

[ ]

0
0
0
0
0
0

4.64

0
0
0

0
0

For, the element stiffness matrix [K(2)] can be written as shown in Eq. 4.65 below

Local d .o. f

Global d .o. f 3
1

[K ( ) ] = 23

4
5

k11(2 )
(2 )
k 21
k 31(2 )
(2 )
k 41

k12(2 )

k13(2 )

k14(2 )
(2 )
k 24

(2 )
k 34
(2 )
k 44

(2 )
k 22

k 32(2 )

(2 )
k 42

54

(2 )
k 23

k 33(2 )

(2 )
k 43

4.65

As in the case of e=1, the location of the element K ij(2 ) for i=1 to 4 and j=1 to 4 in global
stiffness matrix [kk] can be identified. Hence these elements would be placed in [kk] at
appropriate location as shown in Eq. 4.66.
Global d .o. f 1
1
2

[kk ] =

3
4
5
6

k111
1
k 21
1
k 31
1
k 41
0

k121

k131

1
k14

1
k 22

1
k 23

1
k 24

0
k14(2 )
(2 )
k 24

k 34(2 )

(2 )
k 44

k + k11
(2 )
k + k 21

(2 )
k + k12 k13
(2 ) k (2 )
k + k 22
23

k 31(2 )

k 32(2 )

k 33(2 )

(2 )
k 41

(2 )
k 42

(2 )
k 43

k
k

1
32
1
42

1
33
1
43

(2 )

1
34
1
44

(2 )

Eq. 4.66 is the global assembled stiffness matrix of total number of elements.
The same procedure applies for the mass matrix.

55

4.66

4.5

Algorithm of assembly procedure

The assembly procedure outline in the previous sector will be show in the Fig. 4.8 n the
form of flow chart.

Initialized the system characteristic matrix [kk], i.e set [kk]=[0]

Set element number e=1

Compute [Ke] in local coordinate system

Are the local and global coordinate same for this


element?
No

Yes

Transfer [K ] to a common (global) coordinate


system and obtain [kke]

Set [kke]=[Ke]

From a knowledge of the global degree of freedom ll and ml that correspond to the local
degree of freedom i and j, add the element

K ije of [kke] to the current value of Kllml of [kk]

Next element
Set e= e+1

No

Are all
elements
assembled?

Yes

Fig. 4.8 Program algorithm for assembly procedure

56

THE COMPUTER PROGRAMMING

In chapter three and chapter four Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko beams have been
discussed in detail by considering the crack in the beam elements. In order to study the
behavior of cracked beams, mathematical models are derived as show Eq. 3.24 and Eq.
4.61 based on FEM. However, to analyze the behavior of cracked beams with given input
variables, computer programming has been implemented using MATLAB to develop
Graphic User Interface and analysis, respectively.

In this chapter, the program algorithms for two cases, Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko
beam will be presented. For the Euler-Bernoulli beam the program algorithm is shown Fig.
5.1, and for the Timoshenko beam the algorithm is shown in Fig 5.2. To make easy use of
the program for users, the graphic user interface algorithm has been has been developed,
shown in Fig. 5.3. The first two algorithms are addressed to the stiffness of the beam.
Similarly, for mass matrix the stiffness algorithm can be taken as a base.

Finally, by using the above three algorithms five graphics windows will be discussed in this
chapter. The detail program analysis will be presented in appendices.

57

5.1

Program Algorithm

5.1.1 For Euler-Bernoulli

Start

Input: Geometries and material data of beam (tleng, b, h, , E)


Compute: Area and moment of Inertia of beam (A,I)
Initialized the system characteristic matrix [kk], i.e set [kk]=[0]
Set element number e=1

Is the nth element is cracked?


Yes

No
Compute [Ke] in local coordinate system

Compute Kc in local coordinate

Net element

Are the local and global coordinates same for this


element?
Yes

No
e

Set [kk ]= [K ]

Transfer [K ] to a common (global)


coordinate system and obtain [kke]

From a knowledge of the global degree of freedom ll and ml that correspond to the local degree of
freedom i and j, add the element

K ije of [kke] to the current value of Kllml of [kk]


Set e= e+1

No

Are all elements


assembled?
Yes

Desire [kk] in global system will be obtain


Compute the natural frequencies of beam and
plot the mode shapes.

Fig 5-1 The program algorithm for Euler-Bernoulli beam


58

5.1.2 For Timoshenko Beam


Start

Input: Geometries and material data of beam (tleng, b, h, , E, G)


Compute: Area and moment of Inertia of beam (A,I)
Initialized the system characteristic matrix [kk], i.e set [kk]=[0]
Set element number e=1

Is the nth element is cracked?


Yes

No
Compute [Ke] in local coordinate system

Compute KcT in local coordinate

Net element

Are the local and global coordinates same for this


element?
Yes

No
Set [kke]= [Ke]

Transfer [Ke] to a common (global)


coordinate system and obtain [kke]

From a knowledge of the global degree of freedom ll and ml that correspond to the local degree of
freedom i and j, add the element

K ije of [kke] to the current value of Kllml of [kk]


Set e= e+1

No

Are all elements


assembled?
Yes

Desire [kk] in global system will be obtain


Compute the natural frequencies of beam and
plot the mode shapes.

Fig 5-2 The program algorithm for Timoshenko beam

59

5.1.3 Program Algorithm for Graphical User Interface (GUI).


Start

Display front window, Fig 5.4

Euler Bernoulli

Select weather EulerBernoulli or


Timoshenko

Timoshenko

Display: Input window


That is in Fig 5.5

Display: Input window


That is in Fig 5.7

Analysis:
The steps of the EulerBernoulli beam algorithm that
is shown in Fig. 5.1 will be
done.

Analysis:
The steps of the
Timoshenko beam
algorithm that is
shown in Fig. 5.2 will
be done.

Display: Output window


For Euler-Bernoulli beam,
Fig. 5.6

Display: Output
window for
Timoshenko beam,
Fig. 5.8

Fig 5-3 The program algorithm for the GUI program

60

5.2

The Graphic User Interface Program

To ease the use of the program for studying the behavior of cracked Euler-Bernoulli and
Timoshenko beams, five programs are developed. The first program, gui1, dealt with the
front page of GUI to choose either Euler Bernoulli or Timoshenko beam for investigation,
as shown in Fig. 5.4.

Fig 5-4 Front page of GUI

The second program, GUI2, is data entry window for Euler-Bernoulli beam, as shown in
Fig. 5.5. In this window geometric and material properties of the beam are input for
analysis. Also, in this window an option for inclusion and position of a crack in the beam is
available. In addition, the window provides the possibility to entry data to analyze the
behavior of the beam with or without mass. Finally the program gives a choice to go back

61

to the front window, gui1, or to continue to the output display window, GUI4, by analyzing
and saving Euler-Bernoulli beam results.

Fig 5-5 The input Window for Euler-Bernoulli beam.


The third program, GUI4, deal with the output of Euler Bernoulli beam, as shown in
Fig.5.6. In this case, the input variables that are calculated and saved in GUI2 will be
displayed in Fig.5.7. In Fig.5.7, three first natural frequencies for uncracked beam and
cracked beam will be displayed when the Show results button is clicked. Also the mode
shape of cracked beam and uncracked beam will be displayed when the Plot the mode
shape button is clicked. If the user wants to go back to input window, GUI2, the Back
button will be clicked and any desire input variable can be modified. Also, if the user wants
to exit from the program, Exit button will be clicked.

62

Fig 5-6 The Output window for Euler-Bernoulli beam.


Similar procedure to that of the Bernoulli beam analysis is followed to enter data and obtain
results for the Timoshenko beam.

Fig 5-7 The input window for Timoshenko beam.


63

Fig 5-8 The output window for Timoshenko beam

64

RESULT DISCUSSIONS

In order to make detail discussion on the behavior of crack in beam, a number of


assumptions were introduced. The crack is assumed to affect only the stiffness of the
cracked element in the beam, K c will replace the stiffness matrix of the element prior to
cracking to result in global [kk], for the case of Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam.
Thus the eigen frequencies and mode shape are obtained by solving the eigen value
problem from

[kk ] 2 [mm] = 0 ,

[ ]

and kk 2 [mm] = 0 , for uncracked and cracked

system, respectively.

The eigen value analysis has been carried out for undamped and stationary beam with mass
and without mass. Also the crack has been treated as open, and hence, the stiffness matrix,

[K ] , of the cracked element replaces the uncracked beam element in the global stiffness
c , cT

[ ]

matrix, kk , of the equation of motion.

6.1

Comparison of Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beams.

In chapter three and four Euler Bernoulli and Timoshenko beams have been discussed
briefly. Euler Bernoulli beam is modeled by ignoring the rotary inertia and the shear
deformation where as Timoshenko beam considered these two factors, rotary inertia and
shear effect. To observe the

difference of these two models and identify on what

circumstance should be applied, the following discussion gives some clue. Comparisons of

65

the first three natural frequencies are shown in Table 6.2. and error analysis is shown in
Fig. 6.1.

Table 6-1Geometry and Property of Timoshenko beam and Euler-Bernoulli beams


For Euler-Bernoulli beam For Timoshenko beam
Height (h)
0.04m

0.04m

0.04m

0.04m

10

10

7850Kg/m^3

7580Kg/m^3

216*10^9N/m^2

216*10^9N/m^2

90*10^9N/m^2

Width (W)
Total number of element
Mass density( )
Elastic Youngs Modules(E)
Shear Modules(G)

Table 6-2 Comparison of the first three natural frequencies of Timoshenko beam and
Euler-Bernoulli for various L/h ratios.

L/h
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

First Natural
Frequency (Hz)

Second Natural
Frequency (Hz)

For
Tim. (1T

For Tim.
For
For Tim. For
( 2T ) EB ( 2 ) ( 3T ) EB ( 3 )

25623.9
12427.8
7244.46
4721.94
3314.56
2452.16
1886.45
1495.72

For
EB (1 )
29187.8
13228.3
7510.4
4833.07
3368.49
2481.2
1903.35
1506.14

88440.2
53491.3
34879.7
24209.9
17657.4
13392.4
10479.9
8410.97

Third Natural
Frequency (Hz)

163732
74888.7
42738.1
27595.4
19278.9
14225.9
10927.7
8656.67

66

177247
126680
91302.9
67507.6
51325.6
40045.8
31966.3
26026.9

514292
242505
138487
89141.3
62073.6
45674.6
35002.5
27673.7

Error for Error for Error for


First
second third
Natural Natural Natural
frequency frequency frequency
(%)
(%)
(%)

(1T 1 ) ( 2T 2 ) (3T 3 )
1

12.21024
6.05142
3.540957
2.299367
1.601014
1.170401
0.887908
0.691835

45.98478
28.57227
18.38734
12.26835
8.41075
5.859032
4.097843
2.838274

65.53573
47.7619
34.07114
24.269
17.31493
12.3237
8.674238
5.950776

60
50
%Error

40
Error for first mode
30

Error for Second mode

20

Error for third mode

10
0
0

10

L/h

Fig 6-1 Error analysis for comparison of Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beams.

For given geometries and properties data, as given in Table 6.1, Timoshenko beam and
Euler-Bernoulli models give results which are shown in Table 6.2 for various L h ratio.

For shorter beams (lower L h ratios), the difference between the results obtained by the
Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam is higher. This shows the effects of rotational inertia
and shear deformation. Timoshenko beam model predicts the first natural frequency with
the higher accuracy than the Euler-Bernoulli results beam. The error decreases as the

L h ratio increases, as shown in Fig.6.1. Thus, for slender beams the Euler-Bernoulli and
Timoshenko beam gives more or less similar results and the beam can be modeled easily by
Euler-Bernoulli.

67

6.2

Effect of crack position as a function of crack depth ratio (for Tim. Beam).

The beam exhibits variation of natural frequency with respect to crack position and crack
depth ratio. Fig. 6.2 shows a plot of the ratio of the first natural frequency of the cracked
beam to that of uncracked beam as a function of crack depth ratio / h for several crack
positions. The natural frequencies of the cracked beam are lower than the natural
frequencies of the corresponding beam without crack. These differences increase as the
depth of the crack is increased. Due to the bending moment along the beam, which is
concentrated at the fixed end, a crack near the free end will have a smaller effect on the
fundamental frequency than a crack closer to fixed end and it can be said that the variation
in the natural frequency will be less in the case of crack location towards the free-end.

Table 6-3 Geometry and Property of Timoshenko beam


Height (h)
0.0078m

Width (W)
0.025m

Overall length (L)


0.2m

Mass density( )
7850Kg/m^3

Elastic Youngs Modules(E)


216*10^9N/m^2

Shear Modules(G)
90*10^9N/m^2

68

Frequency ratio (cracked/Intact)

1.2
1
0.8

Crack at element two

0.6

crack at element four

0.4

crack at element six

0.2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Crack depth ratio

Fig 6-2 Fundamental (first) frequency ratios for different crack positions.

6.3

Effects of mass on beam

The effect of an attached mass at the free-end on the first three natural frequencies of the
cantilever beam with a crack is given in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 for a given geometry
of L = 0.6m, h = 0.0125m and W = 0.0125m . The attached mass has a magnitude of 1Kg.

69

Table 6-4 Determination of Natural Frequencies with different crack depth ratio at element 7 for Timoshenko

Crack
Depth
ratio
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

First Natural Frequency


Second Natural Frequency
Third Natural Frequency
Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with
crack
crack
no crack no crack with crack crack
no crack no crack
crack
crack
no crack no crack
and
and a
and a
and
and a
and
and with a
and
and
and with a
and
and with a
without mass at without
mass at without mass at without mass at without mass at without
mass at
mass
the tip
the tip
mass
the tip
mass
the tip
mass
mass
the tip
mass
the tip
262.68
94.72
262.68
94.72
1680.38 1213.64 1680.38 1213.64 4904.77 4007.33 4904.77 4007.33
259.044
91.64
262.68
94.72
1464.60 1050.47 1680.38 1213.64 4344.60 3764.75 4904.77 4007.33
258.920
91.54
262.68
94.72
1458.40 1046.09 1680.38 1213.64 4333.10 3759.96 4904.77 4007.33
258.666
91.32
262.68
94.72
1445.98 1037.29 1680.38 1213.64 4310.32 3750.44 4904.77 4007.33
258.154
90.90
262.68
94.72
1421.89 1020.40 1680.38 1213.64 4260.13 3732.64 4904.77 4007.33
257.034
90.00
262.68
94.72
1373.17 986.86 1680.38 1213.64 4189.75 3699.05 4904.77 4007.33
254.311
87.87
262.68
94.72
1273.19 920.38 1680.38 1213.64 4053.40 3638.70 4904.77 4007.33
247.271
82.81
262.68
94.72
1094.50 808.28 1680.38 1213.64 3870.20 3553.30 4904.77 4007.33
229.839
72.35
262.68
94.72
867.83
676.28 1680.38 1213.64 3711.51 3473.96 4904.77 4007.33

Table 6-5 Determination of Natural Frequencies With different crack depth at element 7 for Euler-Bernoulli beam.

Crack
Depth
ratio
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

First Natural Frequency


Second Natural Frequency
Third Natural Frequency
Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with Beam with
crack
crack
no crack no crack
crack
crack
no crack no crack
crack
crack
no crack no crack
and
and a
and
and with a
and
and a
and
and with a
and
and a
and
and with a
mass at
mass at
mass at
without
mass at
without
without
mass at
without
without
mass at
without
the tip
the tip
the tip
mass
the tip
mass
mass
the tip
mass
mass
the tip
mass
262.47
94.63
262.47
94.63
1645.02 1191.01 1645.02 1191.01 4607.13 3774.57 4607.13 3774.57
258.95
91.57
262.47
94.63
1436.90 1032.49 1645.02 1191.01 4080.28 3557.44 4607.13 3774.57
258.82
91.47
262.47
94.63
1430.91 1028.22 1645.02 1191.01 4069.28 3552.09 4607.13 3774.57
258.57
91.26
262.47
94.63
1418.81 1019.64 1645.02 1191.01 4047.56 3543.90 4607.13 3774.57
258.07
90.84
262.47
94.63
1395.32 1003.15 1645.02 1191.01 4007.26 3527.05 4607.13 3774.57
256.97
89.93
262.47
94.63
1347.75
970.38
1645.02 1191.01 3932.42 3495.18 4607.13 3774.57
254.29
87.81
262.47
94.63
1246.79
905.38
1645.02 1191.01 3802.39 3437.84 4607.13 3774.57
247.37
82.77
262.47
94.63
1074.21
795.38
1645.02 1191.01 3628.31 3356.36 4607.13 3774.57
230.11
72.33
262.47
94.63
850.85
665.63
1645.02 1191.01 3478.39 3280.57 4607.13 3774.57

70

300
First natural frequencies

250
Crack without mass
for Timoshenko beam

200
150

Crack with mass for


Timoshenko beam

100
50
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Crack depth ratio

a)

First natural frequencies

300
250

Crack without mass for


Euler-Bernoulli beam

200
150

Crack with mass for EulerBernoulli beam

100
50
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Crack depth ratio


b)

Fig 6-3 The changes of the first natural frequencies as a function of the crack depth at
element seven, a) for Timoshenko beam, b) for the Euler-Bernoulli beam.

Results show that the inclusion of mass on the both models, Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beam, gives the same response by reducing the first three natural frequencies,

71

as shown in Table 6.4, Table 6.5, Fig 6.3. Also, the presence of crack in the Timoshenko
and Euler-Bernoulli beams will reduce the first three natural frequencies for both cases,
with mass and without mass.

6.4

Effects of crack and mass on mode shape

For given geometries of L = 0.6m, h = 0.05m and W = 0.06m , the mode shapes of cracked
Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beams are shown in Fig.6.4, where the position of crack is
at the center (element five). Fig. 6.8 and Fig. 6.9 show the numerical deviation of
fundamental mode shapes of the cracked and ucracked beams. The deviation of the
fundamental mode shape sharply changes at the crack for both cases.

a)

b)

Fig 6-4 Mode shape graphs without mass: a) for Euler-Bernoulli beam with crack
(continuous line) and without crack (dash line), b) for Timoshenko beam with crack
(continuous line) and without crack (dash line).

72

a)

b)

Fig 6-5 Mode shape graphs with mass: a) for Euler-Bernoulli beam with crack (continuous
line) and without crack (dash line), b) for Timoshenko beam with crack (continuous line)
and without crack (dash line).

a)

b)

Fig 6-6 Mode shape graphs without mass for second mode shape: a) for Euler-Bernoulli
beam with crack (continuous line) and without crack (dash line), b) for Timoshenko beam
with crack (continuous line) and without crack (dash line).

73

a)

b)

Fig 6-7Mode shape graphs with mass for second mode shape: a) for Euler-Bernoulli beam
with crack (continuous line) and without crack (dash line), b) for Timoshenko beam with
crack (continuous line) and without crack (dash line).

Fig 6-8 Deviation of first mode shape due to crack for Timoshenko beam without mass.

74

Fig 6-9 Deviation of first mode shape due to crack for Euler-Bernoulli without mass.

From the mode shapes shown in Fig. 6.4-6.7 it can be observed very clearly the changes in
slopes and deviations are due to the cracks in the mode shapes at crack position element
five in the beam (at the center of the beam).

6.5

Result comparison for Timoshenko Beam

To observe the effectiveness of this paper, the results obtained in this paper are comparing
with Kisa [58].

Kisa [58] has dealt with the vibration characteristics of cracked

Timoshenko beam. It integrates the finite element method and component mode synthesis.

75

The above geometries and material properties, Table 6.3, are used for the two cases. The
crack is assumed to be located at different locations with different crack depth ratios.
Tables 6.6 to Table 6.11 give comparison of the first three natural frequencies of the
proposed model with the results of Kisa [58], as shown below.

Table 6-6 For the First Natural Frequency at e/L=0.4


For Crack depth
ratio

Proposed Method

Reference [73]

Error for first natural


frequency (%)

0.2

932.251

1030.095

9.498541

0.4

904.336

1006.856

10.18219

Table 6-7 For the Second Natural Frequency at e/L=0.4


For Crack depth
ratio
0.2
0.4

Proposed Method
6139.89
6039.28

Reference [73]
6389.394
6174.539

Error for second natural


frequency (%)
3.90497127
2.19059269

Table 6-8 For Third Natural Frequency at e/L=0.4


For Crack depth
ratio
0.2
0.4

Proposed Method
17283
16967

Reference [73]
17844.86
17499.83

Error for third natural


frequency (%)
3.14858172
3.04477243

Table 6-9 For the First Natural Frequency at e/L=0.6


Crack depth ratio Proposed Method
0.2
1003.04
0.4
992.38

Reference [73]
1035.284
1029.262

76

Error for first natural


frequency (%)
3.11450771
3.58334418

Table 6-10 For the Second Natural Frequency at e/L=0.6


Crack depth ratio Proposed Method
0.2
5565.02
0.4
5337.38

Reference [73]
6365.914
6071.655

Error for second


natural frequency (%)
12.5809742
12.0934902

Table 6-11 For the Third Natural Frequency at e/L=0.6


Crack depth ratio Proposed Method
0.2
18543
0.4
18467

Reference [73]
17807.94
17359.27

77

Error for third natural


frequency (%)
4.1277093
6.3812015

CONCLUSION

In this thesis the behavior of cracked Timoshenko beam has been analyzed for different
conditions compared with Euler-Bernoulli beam. The presence of crack

shows how the

first three natural frequencies and mode shapes of the beam are altered. Also an inclusion of
mass on the beam shows change in natural frequencies and mode shapes of the beam for
both cases, Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beams.

As we have seen from the results shown in Table 6.2 and Fig. 6.1 the variation of the first
three natural frequencies for the corresponding model, cracked Timoshenko and Euler
Bernoulli beams, the difference will be reduced as the length of beam longer and longer.
For shorter, L h , the error between Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli is gone up to 12.21%
for the first natural frequency. This error will be insignificant for L h = 9 , which is 0.692%.
This indicates that for shorter beam, up to L h = 6 for this specific case, the effects of
rotary inertia and shear deformation are very pronounced. This imply that for shorter beam
Timoshenko beam should be taken as a model where as for longer beam Euler-Bernoulli
beam model can be taken since the error between them is very insignificant. Also for both
models inclusion of crack reduces the system natural frequencies, as expected.

From Fig. 6.2 as we have seen for different crack location, from the fixed end towards the
free end, the system natural frequencies increased. This implies that the presence of crack
near the fixed end more sensitive for changing of system natural frequencies and
consequently for failure of structure. Also as we have seen from Fig. 6.2 for different crack
location variation of crack depth ratio makes the first three natural frequencies vary. If the
78

crack depth ratio is increasing for a given crack location, the system natural frequencies
will be lower and lower. So, from this we can conclude that the crack depth ratio and
location of crack will affect the system natural frequencies.

Inclusion of additional mass at free end of cantilever beam makes change of system natural
frequencies and mode shapes, as shown in Table 6.4, Table 6.5, Fig. 6.3, Fig 6.4 and Fig.
6.5. For Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beams obviously as we know from the equation
of = K M , if the global mass matrix increased, the system natural frequencies will be
reduced. This idea is confirmed by the results obtained from Table 6.4, Table 6.5 and Fig.
6.3. Also the beams, with mass and without mass, exhibit reduction of natural frequencies
as a function of crack depth ratio, as shown in Fig. 6.3 for both Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli. This implies that inclusion of crack for both cases, beams with and without mass,
have the same effect that reduces system natural frequencies.

As we have seen from Fig. 6.4 and Fig. 6.5 the presence of crack makes some change on
the mode shapes for cases, Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beams. From the deviation of
the fundamental mode shapes of cracked and uncracked beams we can conclude that the
position of crack can be identify easily since the deviation is sharply changed at the cracked
element, as show in Fig. 6.6 and Fig. 6.7.

To see the validity of this work, results of the first three natural frequencies are compared
with Kisas [58] results for deferent crack location. As we have seen from Table 6.6
through Table 6.11. the proposed model gives results with range of 2.19% to 3.9% error for

79

second and third natural frequencies. Where as, for first natural frequencies the error goes
to 10.18% for crack depth ratio of 0.4. The natural frequencies obtained by the proposed
method are lower than the natural frequencies obtained by Kisa [58], for the specific crack
depth of 0.4. This indicates that the proposed method more sensitive for presence of crack.
The error may arise due to the shear modulus, which is not given specifically in Kisa [58].
Also the model of crack in Kisa [58], which is spring model, makes some variation of
results with the proposed model that implement transfer matrix method to obtain the
stiffness matrix of cracked element. Generally, from this discussion we can conclude that
the proposed method can be an alternative way of investigating the behavior of cracked
Timoshenko beam.

80

FUTURE OUTLOOK

In this thesis the behavior of single edge crack for Timoshenko cantilever beam is studied
with comparison of Euler-Bernoulli cantilever. Also the effects of mass on both beams with
and without crack also have been discussed. So this work is restricted to the specified cases.
However, this paper can be extended to other situation listed below.

In this thesis the beam is modeled based on cantilever, however this type of beam can be
extended to other model for further study by considering the boundary conditions like,
simply supported at both end, fixed-fixed and fixed-simply supported condition.

Beam is considered as a uniform cross-sectional area through out the length with uniform
crack depth. However, the beam can be analyzed with variation of cross-sectional area
along the length like taper or stepped beam. Also the crack depth can be varied along the
width.

The crack in this thesis is modeled as a single edge crack. However this model can be
extended to multiple edge cracks that are located at different positions. Also, the crack
might be closed rather than open crack. And also the transverse crack, which is applied here
in this thesis, might be extended to included crack for future work.

Therefore, this thesis can be extended to different cases like to different boundary
conditions, closed crack model, multiple edge crack model. Also it might be extended to
non-uniform beam like taper or stepped beam and to included crack model. Moreover, to

81

make more practical the model, dead load or live load can be added for different boundary
condition by considering free damped vibration analysis.

82

REFERENCES

[1]

Young W. Kwon and Hyochoong Bang, The Finite Element Using MATLAB,
Second edition, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, 2000.

[2]

Fracture Mechanics, Text

[3]

Walter D. Pikely and Orrin H. Pilkes, Mechanics of Solids, Quantum Publishers


Inc., 1992.

[4]

Vahit Mermertas and Haluk Erol, Effects of Mass Attachment on The free Vibration
of Cracked Beam, The 8th International congress on Sound and Vibration,2-6 July
2001, Hong Kong, China.

[5]

Matjaz Skrinar, A Simple FEM Beam Element with an Arbitrary Number of


Cracks, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Maribor, Slovenia.

[6]

D. Zhou and Y. K. Cheung, Vibration of Tapered Timoshenko Beam inTerms of


Static Timoshenko Beam Function, Journal of Transaction of the ASME, Vol. 68,
July 2001.

[7]

Frederic A. Just Agosto, Damage Detection Based on the Geometric Interpretation


of the Eigenvalue problem, Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Dec. 1997.

[8]

D. Gounaries, C. A. Papadopoulos and A. D. Dimarogonas, Crack Identification in


Beam by Coupled Response Measurements, Journal of Computer & Structure, Vol.
58, No. 2. pp. 299-305, 1996.

[9]

P. G. Nikolakopoulos, D.E. Katsareas and C.A. Papadoulose, Crack Identification in


Structure, CIVIL-COMP Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1994.

83

[10] D. Dimarogonas and C. A. Papadopuolos, Stability of Cracked Rotors in The


Coupled Vibration Mode, Journal of Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 110, July
1968.
[11] D. Dimarogonas and C. A. Papadopuolos, Coupled Longitudinal And Bending
Vibrations of A Rotating Shaft with An Open Crack, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 117, pp 81-93, 1986.
[12] A.C Ugural and S.K Fenster, Advanced Strength and Elasticity, Second Edition,
PTR Prentic Hall, New Jersy, USA, 1987.
[13] A. K. Pandey, M. Biswas and M. M. Samman, Damage Deflection from changes in
Curvature Mode Shapes, Journal of sound and Vibration, Vol. 145,No.2, PP 321332, 1991.
[14]

A. P. Bovsunovskt and V. V. Mateev, Analytical Approach to The Determination


of Dynamic Characteristics of A Beam with A closing crack, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 235, No. 3, PP 415-434, 2000.

[15] A. Rivo;a and P. R. White, Bisectral Analysis of The Bilinear Oscillator with
Application to The Detection of Fatigue Cracks, Journal of Sound and Vibration,
Vol. 216, No.5 PP 889-910, 1998.
[16] A. S. Sekhar and P. Balaji Prasad, Crack Identification in A cantilever Beam using
Coupled response Measurements, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power, Vol. 120, PP 775-777, 1998.
[17] A. S. Sekhar and P. Balaji Prasad, Vibration Characteristics of A Cracked Rotor
with Two Open Cracks, Journalof sound and Vibration, Vol. 223, No.4, PP 497512, 1999.

84

[18] B. E. Noltingk, Instrument Technology, 1 mechanical Measurements, Butterworth


and Co. Publishers Ltd, 1985.
[19] B. Y. Tongue , The Indeterminate beam, Butterworth and Co. (Publishers) Ltd,
London, 1972.
[20] C. G. Gutafson, The Stress Intensity Factors for Cyclic Reversed Bending of Single
Edge Cracked Strip Including Crack Surface Interference, International Journal of
Fracture, Vol. 12, PP 460-461, 1976.
[21] D. J. Hatter, Matrix Computer Methods of Vibration Analysis, Butterworth and Co.
Limited, London, 1973.
[22] D. Y. Zheng and S. C. Fan, Natural Frequencies of A Non- Uniform Beam with
Multiple cracks Via Modified Fourier Series, Journal of Sound and Vibrations, Vol.
242, No. 4, PP 701-717, 2001. John Wiley and Sons Inc, Canada, 19
[23] Demeter G. Fertis, Mechanical and Structural Vibrations, John Wiley and Sons
Inc, Canada, 1995.
[24] Dimarogonas A. D., S. D. Panteliou, V. C. Argyrakis and T. G. Chondros, Damping
Factor as An Indicator of Crack Severity, Journal of Sound and Vibration. Vol. 241,
No. 2, PP 235-245, 2001.
[25] Dimarogonas A. D. and N. Anifantis, Stability of Columns with A single Crack
Subjected to Follower and Vertical Loads, International Journal of Solid and
Structures, Vol. 19, No, 4, PP 281-291, 1983.
[26] Dimarogonas A. D. and T. G. Chondros, Dynamic Sensitivity of Structures to
Cracks, Journal of vibration Acoustics, Vol. 111, PP 251-256, July 1989.

85

[27] Dimarogonas A. D. and T. G., Identification of Cracks In Welded Joints of


Complex Structures", Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 69, No. 4, PP 531-538,
1980.
[28] Dimarogonas A. D. and T. G. Chondros, Identification of Cracks in Circular Plates
Welded at The Contour, Presented In ASME designs Engineering Technical
Conference, St. Louis, Mo., September 10-12, 1979.
[29] Dimarogonas A. D. and T. G. Chondros, Vibration of Beam with A Breathing
Crack, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 239, No. 1, PP 57-67, 2001.
[30] Dimarogonas A. D. and T. G. Chondros, Vibration of A Cracked Cantilever Beam,
Journal of Acoustics, Vol. 120, PP 742-746, July 1998.
[31] Dimarogonas A. D. and T. G. Chondros and J. Yao, A Consistent Bar Vibration
Theory, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 200, No. 3, PP 303-313, 1997.
[32] Dimarogonas A. D. and T. G. Chondros and J. Yao, A Continuous Cracked Beam
Vibration Theory, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 215, No. 1, PP 17-34, 1998.
[33] Dimarogonas A. D. and T. G. Chondros and J. Yao, Longitudinal Vibration of A
Bar with A Breathing Crack, Engineering Fructure Mechanics, Vol. 61, PP 503518, 1998.
[34] Dimarogonas A. D. and T. G. Chondros and J. Yao, Longitudinal Vibration of A
Continuous Cracked Bar, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 61, PP 593-606,
1998.
[35] Dimarogonas A. D. and Sam Haddad, Vibration for Engineers, Prentice-Hall, USA,
1992.
[36] Dimarogonas A. D. and Stephen A. Paipetis, Analytical Methods in Rotor Dynamics,
Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1983.
86

[37] Dimarogonas A. D., Vibration Engineering, West Publishing Company, USA, 1976.
[38] Dimarogonas A. D., Vibration Of Cracked Structures, A State of the Art Review,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 55, No.5, PP 831-857, 1996.
[39] Dimarogonas A. D., P. F. Rizos and N. Aspragathos, Identification of Crack Location
and Magnitude in A Cantilever Beam from The Vibration Modes, Journal of Sound
And Vibration, Vol. 138, No. 3, PP 381-388, 1990.
[40] Eduard C. Pestel and Frederick A Leckie, Matrix Methods in Elasto-Mechanics,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, USA, 1963.
[41] F. Ismail, A. Ibrahim and H. R. Martin, Identification of Fatigue Cracks From
Vibration Testing, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 140, No. 2, PP 305-317,
1990.
[42] G. C. Sih, Mechanics of Fracture 1, Methods of Analysis and Solution of Crack
Problems, Noordhoff International Publishing Leyden, Netherlands. 1973.
[43] G. -L. Qian, S. N and J. S. Jiang, The Dynamic Behavior and Crack Detection of A
Beam With A Crack, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 138, No. 2, PP 233-243,
1990.
[44] H. Liebowiz and W. D. Claus. Jr., Failure Of Notched Columns, Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, Vol.1, PP 379-383, 1968.
[45] H. Liebowiz, Hiroyuki Okamur, H. W. Liu and Chong-Shin Chu, A Cracked Column
Under Compression, Engineering Fracture Mechanics. Vol. 1, PP 547-564, 1969.
[46] Hroshi Tada, Paul C. Paris and George R. Irwin, Analysis of Crack Handbook, Third
Edition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2000.
[47] Irwin, G.R., Fracture Mechanics, In Structural Mechanical (Eds. J. N. Goodier and
N. J. Hoff), Pergamon Press Oxford, 1960.
87

[48] J. K. Sinha, M. I. Friswell and S. Edwards, Simplified Model for The Location of
Cracks In Beam Structures Using Measurement Vibration Data, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 251, No. 1, PP 13-38, 2002.
[49] J. R Rice and N. Levy, The Part-Through Surface Crack in An Elastic Plate, Journal
of Applied Mechanics, PP 185-193, 1972.
[50] J. S. Roa, Advanced Theory of Vibration (Nonlinear Vibration and One Dimensional
Structures), Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi, India, 1992.
[51] J. S. Rao and K. Gupta, Introductory Course on Theory and Practice of Mechanical
Vibration, Second Edition, new Age International (P) Limited, Publishers, India,
1999.
[52] J. S. Rao, Rotor Dynamics, Second Edtion, Wiley Eastern Limited, New-Delhi,
India, 1991
[53] Jialou Hu Robert Y. Liang, An Integrate Approach to Detection of Cracks Using
Vibration Characteristics, Journal of Franklin Institute, Vol. 330, No. 5, PP 841-853,
1993.
[54] Jorg Wauer, On The Dynamic of Cracked Rotors: A Litreture Survaey, Journal of
Applied Mechanics, Vol. 43, No. 1. PP 13-17, 1990.
[55] Joseph E, Shigley and Charles R. Mischke, Mechanical Engineering Design, Sixth
Edition, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2001.
[56] K R Y Simha, Fracture Mechanics For Modern Engineering Design, University
Press, India, 2001.
[57] Kare Hellen, Introduction to Fracture Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Company, Norway,
1984.

88

[58] M. Kisa, J. Brandon and M. Tipcu, Free Vibration Analysis of Cracked Beam By A
Ombination of Finite Elements and Component Mode Synthesis Methods, Computers
and Structures, Vol. 67, PP 215-223, 1998.
[59] M. Boltzer,B. Strancar and A. Kuhelj, Identification of Transverse Crack Location in
Flexural Vibrations of Free-Free Beams, Journal of Sound and Vibration , Vol. 211,
No. 5, PP 729-734,1998.
[60] M. D. Rajab and Al-Sabeeh, Vibration Characteristics of Cracked Shafts, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, Vol. 147, No. 3, PP 465-473, 1990.
[61] M. H. H. Shen and C. Pierre, Natural Modes of Bernoulli-Euler Beam with Symmetric
Cracks", Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 138, No. 1, PP 115-134, 1990.
[62] M. H. H. Shen and Y. C. Chu, Vibration of A Cracked Beam, Computer And
Structures, Vol. 45, No. 1, PP 79-93, 1992.
[63] M. N. Cerri and F. Vestroni, Detection of Damage in Beam Subjected to Diffuse
Cracking, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 234, No. 2, PP 259-276, 2000.
[64] Mohamed A. Mohmoud, Mohamed Abu Zaid and Shabeeb Al Harashani, Numerical
Frquency Analysis of Uniform Beam With A transverse Crack, Communication In
Numerical Methods Engineering, Vol. 15, PP 709-715, 1999.
[65] Moshe F. Rubunstein, Matrix Computer Analysis of Structure, Prentice Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966.
[66] R. Ruotolo and C. Surace, Damage Assessment of Multiple Crack Beams: Numerical
results and Excremental Validation", Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 206, No. 4,
PP 567-588, 1997.

89

[67] Robert Y. Liang, Fred K. Choy and Jialou Hu, Detection of crack In Beam Structures
Using Measurements Frequencies, Journal of Franklin Institute, Vol. 328, No. 4, P
505-518, 1991.
[68] S. Chinchalkar, Determination of Location in Beam Using Natural Frequencies,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 247, No. 3, PP 417-429, 2001.
[69] S. H. Farghaly, Comments and Further Results On Analysis of the Effects of Crack on
The Natural Frequencies of A Cantilever Beam, Journal of Sound and Vibration , Vol.
169, No. 5, PP 704-708, 1994.
[70] S. K Maiti and B. P. Nandwana, Detection of The Location and Size of Crack in
Stepped Cantilever Beams based on measurements of Natural Frequencies, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, Vol. 203, No. 3, PP 435-446, 1997.
[71] S. K Maiti and B. P. Nandwana, Modeling of Vibration of Beam in Presence of
Inclined Edge of Internal Crack for Its Possible Detection based on Frequency
Measurements, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 58, No, PP 193-205, 1997.
[72] S. K. Maiti and N. V. Medheker, Derivative Procedure For BEM Based Computation
of Change in Natural Frequency with Crack Size, International Journal of Fracture,
Vol. 115, PP L23-L27, 2002.
[73] S. K. Maiti and S. P. Lele, Modeling of transverse Vibration of Short Beam for Crack
Detection and measurement of Crack Extension, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol.
257, No. 3, PP 559-583, 2002.
[74] S. K. Maiti and T. D. Chaudhari, A Study of Vibration of Geometrically Segmented
Beams with and without crack, International Journal of Solid s and Structures, Vol.
37, PP 761-779, 2000.

90

[75] S. K. Maiti and T. D. Chaudhri, Experimental Verification of A method of Detection


of Crack in Taper and Segmented Beams Based on Modeling of Transverse Vibration,
International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 102, PP L33-L38, 2000.
[76] S. K. Maiti and T. D. Chaudhari, Modeling of Transverse Vibration of Beam of
Linearly Variable Depth with Edge Crack, Engineering Fracture mechanics, Vol. 63,
PP 425-445, 1999.
[77] Satya N. Atluri, Computational methods in The Mechanics of Fracture, Elsevier
Science Publishers, Netherlands, 1986.
[78] Scott W. Doedling, Charles R. Farrar and Michael B. Prime, Summary, Review of
Vibration Based on Damage Identification Method, The Shock and Vibration Digest,
Vol. 30, No. 2, PP 91-105, March 1998.
[79] Singiresu S. Rao, Mechanical Vibrations, Third Edition, Addison Wesley Publishing
Company, USA, 1995.
[80] T. C. Tsai and Y. Z. Wang, Vibration Analysis and Diagnosis of Cracked Shaft,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 192, No. 3 PP 607-620, 1996.
[81] T. G. Chondros, In Memorandum A. D. Dimarogonas (1938-2000), Journal of Sound
and Vibration, Vol. 192, No. 3, PP 607-620, 1996.
[82] T. G. Chondros, The Continuous Crack Flexibility Model for Crack Identification,
Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater. Struct, Vol. 24, PP 643-650,
2001.
[83] T. L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press
Inc., USA, 1991.

91

[84] W. M. Ostachowicz and M. Krawczuk, Analysis of The Effect of Cracks on The


Natural Frequencies of A Cantilever Bear, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 150,
No. 2, PP 191-201, 1991.
[85] W. M. Ostachowicz and M. Krawczuk, Transverse Natural Vibrations of A Cracked
beam Loaded with A Constant Axial Force, Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, Vol.
115, PP 525-529, October 1993.
[86] W. M. Ostachowicz and M. Krawczuk, Vibration Analysis of A Cracked Beam,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 36, 245-250, 1990.
[87] Walter C. Hurtty and Moshe F. Rublnstein, Dynamics of Structure, Prentice Hall Inc,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1964.
[88] William T. Thomson, Theory of Vibration with Applications, Second Edition,
Prentice- Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, new Jersey. USA, 1981.
[89] Y. Bamnios, E. Douka and A. Trochidis, Crack Identification in Beam Structure
Using Mechanical Impedance, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 256, No. 6, PP
287-297, 2002.
[90] Y. Narkis, Identification of Crack Location in Vibrating Simple Supported Beams,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 172, No. 4, PP 549-558, 1994.
[91] A. D. Dimarogonas and C. A. Papadopuolos, Vibration of Cracked Shafts In
Bending, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 94, PP 583-593, 1983.
[92] A. D. Dimarogonas and C. A. Papadopuolos, Crack Detection In Turbine Rotors,
The Second International Symposium on Transport Phenomena., Dynanics nas Design
of Rotating Machinery, Vol. 2, Dynamics, April, 1988
[93] A. D. Dimarogonas and C. A. Papadopuolos, Coupled Vibration of Cracked Shafts,
Journal of Sound and Acoustics, Vol. 114, 461-467, 1992
92

APPENDICES
Appendix I. Program For Euler-Bernoulli Beam
%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%
% This program is developed for Euler-Bernoulli Beam to find the natural %
% frequencies

and

mode shapes using Hermitian beam elements

% Problem description

% The main objective of this program is to find the natural frequencies

% and mode shapes of a cracked beam of length tleng.

It has a cross-section h by W and it has also mass density of rho.

% The elastic modulus of the beam is ell.

% Use 10 elements to model the whole beam such that nonsymmetric

% mode shapes can be included. Use also consistent mass matrices.

% Variable descriptions

% k,k1 = element stiffness matrixes

% KC=element stiffness matrix of cracked element

% m = element mass matrix

% kk = system stiffness matrix

% mm = system mass matrix

% index = a vector containing system dofs associated with each element %


% bcdof = a vector containing dofs associated with boundary conditions %
% bcval = a vector containing boundary condition values associated with %
%

the dofs in 'bcdof'

% Output parameters - Omega - Natural frequency (rad/sec) in ascending order %

93

%
%

Phi - Modal matrix with each column corresponding


to the eigenvector.

%
%

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %
% clear
%nel=input('give no. of element=');

% number of elements

%pce=input('give position of cracked element=');


%pam=input('give position of additional mass=');
%mode=input('find the nth mode shape=');
nnel=2;

% number of nodes per element

ndof=2;

% number of dofs per node

nnode=(nnel-1)*nel+1; % total number of nodes in system


sdof=nnode*ndof; % total system dofs

%b;

% width of a beam

%h ;

% height of a beam

%el;

% elastic modulus

xi=(b*h^3)*(1/12); % moment of inertia of cross-section


%rho;

% mass density

%tleng;

% total length of the beam

l=tleng/nel;

% uniform mesh (equal size of elements)

leng=l;
area=b*h;

% cross-sectional area

bcdof(1)=1;

% first dof (deflection at left end) is constrained


94

bcval(1)=0;

% whose described value is 0

bcdof(2)=2;

% 2nd dof is constrained

bcval(2)=0;

% whose described value is 0

ell=el/(1-0.2.8^2); %elastic modulus for for plane strain

c=ell*xi/(leng^3);
mmi=rho*area*leng/420;
k1=c*[12

6*leng

-12

6*leng;...

6*leng 4*leng^2 -6*leng 2*leng^2;...


-12

-6*leng

12

-6*leng;...

6*leng 2*leng^2 -6*leng 4*leng^2];


m1=mmi*[156

22*leng 54

-13*leng;...

22*leng 4*leng^2 13*leng -3*leng^2;...


54

13*leng

156

-22*leng;...

-13*leng -3*leng^2 -22*leng 4*leng^2];

kk=zeros(sdof,sdof);

% initialization of system stiffness matrix

mm=zeros(sdof,sdof);

% initialization of system mass matrix

index=zeros(nel*ndof,1);% initialization of index vector


nnode=(nnel-1)*nel+1; % total number of nodes in system
sdof=nnode*ndof;
M=1;

% total system dofs

%lamped mass which is located in nth element

c=el*xi/(leng^3);
95

k1=c*[12

6*leng -12

6*leng;...

6*leng 4*leng^2 -6*leng

2*leng^2;...

-12

-6*leng;...

-6*leng

12

6*leng 2*leng^2 -6*leng

4*leng^2]

% Compliance for uncracked beam


c1=3*[leng^3/(3*el*xi) leng^2/(2*el*xi);
leng^2/(2*el*xi) leng/(el*xi)]
% Calculating additional Compliance due to crack
% FI and FII are form factors

FI=1.122-1.4*(ch)+7.33*(ch)^2-13.08*(ch)^3+14.0*(ch)^4 ;
FII=(1.122-0.561*(ch/2)+0.085*(ch/2)^2+0.18*(ch/2)^3)/(1-(ch))^0.5;
c2=((3.14*ch^2)/(ell*b*h^2))*[(9*leng^2*FI^2+(FII^2*h^2)) 18*leng*FI^2;
18*leng*FI^2

36*FI^2];

% Transfer matrix in cracked element


T=[-1 0;
-l -1;
1 0;
0 1];
%The total compliance of the cracked beam

C=c1 + c2; % where cl is compliance an element due to strain energy of


%

uncracked beam and


96

c2 is the of additional strain energy due to crack in

cracked element

% The stiffness matrix of cracked beam element, KC, will be found as follow
KC=T*inv(C)*(T)';
% Consistent mass matrix
mmi=rho*area*leng/420;
m=mmi*[156

22*leng 54

-13*leng;...

22*leng 4*leng^2 13*leng -3*leng^2;...


54

13*leng 156

-22*leng;...

-13*leng -3*leng^2 -22*leng 4*leng^2];


% Consitent mass matrix of an element with additional mass

Mp=mmi*[156

22*leng 54

22*leng 4*leng^2 13*leng


54

-13*leng;...
-3*leng^2;...

13*leng 156+(M/mmi) -22*leng;...

-13*leng -3*leng^2 -22*leng

for iel=1:nel

4*leng^2];

% loop for the total number of elements

if iel==pce
k=KC;
elseif iel==0
k=k1;
97

else
k=k1;
end
if iel==pam
m=Mp;
elseif iel==0
m=m1;
else
m=m1;
end
index=feeldof1(iel,nnel,ndof);% extract system dofs associated with element
kk=feasmbl1(kk,k,index);

% assemble element stiffness matrices into


% system matrix

mm=feasmbl1(mm,m,index); %assemble element mass matrices into system matrix

end
kk;
mm;
for i=1:2

% Imposing boundary conditions

kk(1,:)=[];
kk(:,1)=[];
mm(1,:)=[];
mm(:,1)=[];
end
98

kk
mm;

[n,n]=size(mm)
[V,D]=eig(kk,mm);
[lambda,s]=sort(diag(D)); % Sort the eigenvaules and eigenvectors in ascending order
V=V(:,s);
VV=V(n:s);
Factor=diag(V'*mm*V);
Phi=V*inv(sqrt(diag(Factor)))

% Eigenvectors are normailzed

Omega=diag(sqrt(Phi'*kk*Phi)); % Natural frequency in ascending order


Omega=real(Omega)
cc=length(V);
e=V(1:2:cc,:);
E=length(e);
p=[zeros(1,E);e]; % transverse displacement Eigen vectors

xp=[0:tleng/nel:tleng];
for np=mode
for n=1:(sdof/2)
xxxxx(n)=xp(n); % xxxxx is positon of nodes along the x-direction
ppp(n)=p(n,np);
end
plot(xxxxx,-ppp,'-r','LineWidth',2.5,...
99

'MarkerEdgeColor','k',...
'MarkerFaceColor','g',...
'MarkerSize',5);
hold on
grid on
end
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%

function [index]=feeldof1(iel,nnel,ndof)
%---------------------------------------------------------% Purpose:
%

Compute system dofs associated with each element in one-

dimensional problem

%
% Synopsis:
%

[index]=feeldof1(iel,nnel,ndof)

% Variable Description:
%

index - system dof vector associated with element "iel"

iel - element number whose system dofs are to be determined

nnel - number of nodes per element

ndof - number of dofs per node

%----------------------------------------------------------edof = nnel*ndof;
start = (iel-1)*(nnel-1)*ndof;
100

for i=1:edof
index(i)=start+i;
end
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%

function [kk]=feasmbl1(kk,k,index)
%---------------------------------------------------------% Purpose:
%

Assembly of element matrices into the system matrix

%
% Synopsis:
%

[kk]=feasmbl1(kk,k,index)

%
% Variable Description:
%

kk - system matrix

k - element matri

index - d.o.f. vector associated with an element

%-----------------------------------------------------------

edof = length(index);
for i=1:edof
ii=index(i);
101

for j=1:edof
jj=index(j);
kk(ii,jj)=kk(ii,jj)+k(i,j);
end
end
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%

102

Appendix II. Program For Timoshenko Beam


%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%
% This program is developed for Timoshenko Beam to find the natural
% frequencies

and

mode shapes using Isoparametric beam elements %

% Problem description

% The main objective of this program is to find the natural frequencies

% and mode shapes of a cracked beam of length tleng.

It has a cross-section h by W and it has also mass density of rho.

% The elastic modulus of the beam is ell.

% Use 10 elements to model the whole beam such that nonsymmetric

% mode shapes can be included. Use also consistent mass matrices.

% Variable descriptions

% k, k1 = element stiffness matrixes

% KTC=element stiffness matrix of cracked element

% m = element mass matrix

% kk = system stiffness matrix

% mm = system mass matrix

% index = a vector containing system dofs associated with each element %


% bcdof = a vector containing dofs associated with boundary conditions %
% bcval = a vector containing boundary condition values associated with %
%

the dofs in 'bcdof'

% Output parameters - Omega - Natural frequency(rad/sec) in ascending order

Phi - Modal matrix with each column corresponding

103

to the eigenvector.

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% clc
% clear
% nel=input('give no. of element=');

% number of elements

% pce=input('give position of cracked element=');


% pam=input('give position of additional mass=');
% mode=input('find the nth mode shape=');

nnel=2;

% number of nodes per element

ndof=2;

% number of dofs per node

nnode=(nnel-1)*nel+1; % total number of nodes in system


sdof=nnode*ndof; % total system dofs
xi=(b*h^3)*(1/12);
%tleng

% moment of inertia of cross-section

% total length of the beam

l=tleng/nel; % uniform mesh (equal size of elements)


leng=l;
area=b*h;

% cross-sectional area

bcdof(1)=1;

% first dof (deflection at left end) is constrained

bcval(1)=0;

% whose described value is 0

bcdof(2)=2;

% 2nd dof is constrained

bcval(2)=0;

% whose described value is 0

ell=el/(1-0.3^2); %elastic modulus for for plane strain


104

c=el*xi/leng;
d=(5/6)*sh*area/(4*leng);
k1= [ 4*d

2*d*leng

-4*d

2*d*leng;...

2*d*leng c+d*leng^2 -2*d*leng -c+d*leng^2;...


-4*d

-2*d*leng

4*d

-2*d*leng;...

2*d*leng -c+d*leng^2 -2*d*leng c+d*leng^2];


mmt=rho*area*leng/6;
mt=mmt*[2 0 1 0;...
0 0 0 0;...
1 0 2 0;...
0 0 0 0];
mr=rho*xi/leng*[1 0 -1 0;...
0 0 0 0;...
-1 0 1 0;...
0 0 0 0];
m=mt+mr; % Total element stiffness mass matrix
kk=zeros(sdof,sdof);

% initialization of system stiffness matrix

mm=zeros(sdof,sdof);

% initialization of system mass matrix

index=zeros(nel*ndof,1); % initialization of index vector

M=1;
k1= [ 4*d

%lamped mass which is located in nth element


2*d*leng

-4*d

2*d*leng;...

2*d*leng c+d*leng^2 -2*d*leng -c+d*leng^2;...


-4*d

-2*d*leng

4*d

-2*d*leng;...
105

2*d*leng -c+d*leng^2 -2*d*leng c+d*leng^2];


mmt=rho*area*leng/6;
mt=mmt*[2 0 1 0;...

% Transverse component of Mass matrix

0 0 0 0;...
1 0 2 0;...
0 0 0 0];
mr=rho*xi/leng*[1 0 -1 0;...

%Rotary component of Mass matrix

0 0 0 0;...
-1 0 1 0;...
0 0 0 0];
m1=mt+mr;
%Compliance for uncracked beam
c1=3*[leng^3/(3*el*xi) leng^2/(2*el*xi);
leng^2/(2*el*xi) leng/(el*xi)]
% Calculating aditional Compliance due to crack
% FI and FII are form factors
FI=1.122-1.4*(ch)+7.33*(ch)^2-13.08*(ch)^3+14.0*(ch)^4 ;
FII=(1.122-0.561*(ch/2)+0.085*(ch/2)^2+0.18*(ch/2)^3)/(1-(ch))^0.5;
c2=((3.14*ch^2)/(ell*b*h^2))*[(9*leng^2*FI^2+(FII^2*h^2)) 18*leng*FI^2;
18*leng*FI^2
% Transfer matrix in cracked element
T=[-1 0;
-l -1;
1 0;
106

36*FI^2];

0 1];
%The total compliance of the cracked beam
C=c1 + c2; % where cl is compliance an element due to strain energy of uncracked
beam and
%

c2 is the of additional strain energy due to crack in cracked element

% The stiffenss matrix of cracked beam element,KC, will be found as follow


KTC=T*inv(C)*(T)';
% Consistent mass matrix
mmt=rho*area*leng/6;
mt=mmt*[2 0 1 0;...

% Transverse component of Mass matrix

0 0 0 0;...
1 0 2 0;...
0 0 0 0];
mr=rho*xi/leng*[1 0 -1 0;...

%Rotary component of Mass matrix

0 0 0 0;...
-1 0 1 0;...
0 0 0 0];
m=mt+mr;

Ma=[0 0 0 0;...
0 0 0 0;...
0 0 1 0;...
0 0 0 0];
Mp=m+Ma;
107

% Consitent mass matrix of an element with additional mass


for iel=1:nel

% loop for the total number of elements

if iel==pce
k=KTC;
elseif iel==0
k=k1;
else
k=k1;
end
if iel==pam
m=Mp;
elseif iel==0
m=m1;
else
m=m1;
end

index=feeldof1(iel,nnel,ndof); % extract system dofs associated with element


kk=feasmbl1(kk,k,index); % assemble element stiffness matrices into system matrix

mm=feasmbl1(mm,m,index); %assemble element mass matrices into system matrix


end
kk;
108

mm;
for i=1:2

% Imposing boundary conditions

kk(1,:)=[];
kk(:,1)=[];
mm(1,:)=[];
mm(:,1)=[];
end
kk
mm;
[n,n]=size(mm)
[V,D]=eig(kk,mm);
[lambda,s]=sort(diag(D)); % Sort the eigenvaules and eigenvectors in ascending order
V=V(:,s);
VV=V(n:s);
Factor=diag(V'*mm*V);
Phi=V*inv(sqrt(diag(Factor)))

% Eigenvectors are normailzed

OmegaT=diag(sqrt(Phi'*kk*Phi)); % Natural frequency in ascending order


OmegaT=real(OmegaT);
OmegaT=sort(OmegaT)
OmegaT(1,1)
OmegaT(2,1)
OmegaT(3,1)
cc=length(V);
e=V(1:2:cc,:);
109

E=length(e);
p=[zeros(1,E);e]; % transverse displacement Eigen vectors
xp=[0:tleng/nel:tleng];
for np=mode
for n=1:(sdof/2)
xxxxx(n)=xp(n); % xxxxx is positon of nodes along the x-direction
ppp(n)=p(n,np);
end
plot(xxxxx,ppp,'--r','LineWidth',2,...
'MarkerEdgeColor','k',...
'MarkerFaceColor','g',...
'MarkerSize',5)

%'red'

hold on
grid on
end
%-------------------------------

110