22-Mec-A2 Kinematics and Dynamics of Machines · December 2018
Question 7 of 7: Stiffening a beam–mass system with a spring
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Reference texts (subject). R. L. Norton, Design of Machinery, 6th ed. (number synthesis & mobility Ch. 2, position/velocity Ch. 4–6, cam design Ch. 8, epicyclic trains §9.6–9.9, balancing Ch. 13); J. J. Uicker, G. R. Pennock & J. E. Shigley, Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, 5th ed.; C. E. Wilson & J. P. Sadler, Kinematics and Dynamics of Machinery, 3rd ed.; S. S. Rao, Mechanical Vibrations, 6th ed. (Part B: single-DOF transient Ch. 2–4, multi-DOF Ch. 5–6). Open-book exam; everyone answers Q1, then any three of Part A (Q2–Q5) and one of Part B (Q6–Q7). Every question is solved here.
Question 7 (Part B): Stiffening a beam–mass system with a spring (20 marks)
Given. Clamped–clamped beam of span $3L=0.90$ m, circular section $d=30$ mm, $E=200$ GPa; two equal point masses at the third-points ($x=L$ and $x=2L$); a spring $k=500$ N/m from the midpoint to ground.
Find. the percentage increase of each of the two natural frequencies caused by the spring.
Clamped-clamped beam (span $3L$) with equal masses at $L$ and $2L$ and a spring $k$ at the midpoint. The spring only stiffens the symmetric mode (midpoint displaces); the antisymmetric mode has a node at the midpoint and is unaffected.
Approach. Model the beam as two mass DOFs (displacements at $L$ and $2L$) plus a massless midpoint DOF carrying the spring. Build the clamped–clamped stiffness (Euler–Bernoulli), condense out the massless DOFs, and compare the two eigenvalues with and without the spring — a ratio in which the (unspecified) mass cancels.
Section and beam stiffness. $I=\pi d^4/64=\pi(0.030)^4/64=3.98\times10^{-8}\ \text{m}^4$, so $EI=200\times10^9\times3.98\times10^{-8}=7.95\times10^{3}\ \text{N}\cdot\text{m}^2$. A point stiffness of this stiff, short span is of order $EI/L^3\sim3\times10^5$ N/m — far larger than $k=500$ N/m.
Two natural modes. By symmetry the modes are a symmetric mode (both masses move the same way; the midpoint deflects) and an antisymmetric mode (masses move oppositely; the midpoint is a node). The mass value $m$ is not given, but each $\omega\propto1/\sqrt m$, so the percentage change is independent of $m$.
Spring acts only on the symmetric mode. The antisymmetric mode has a node at the midpoint, so the spring stores no energy there — its frequency is unchanged (0% increase). The spring adds stiffness only where the symmetric mode deflects (the midpoint).
Percentage increases. Condensing the massless midpoint (with and without $k$) and comparing eigenvalues gives
$$\boxed{\ \text{symmetric mode: }+0.011\%\ ,\qquad \text{antisymmetric mode: }0\%\ }.$$
The stiffening is essentially negligible: a $500$ N/m spring is a tiny fraction of the beam’s own $\sim2$ MN/m midpoint stiffness (fixed–fixed point stiffness $192EI/(3L)^3\approx2.1\times10^6$ N/m), so it barely raises even the mode it does affect.
Check: the point-mass value $m$ is not printed, but the requested quantity is a frequency ratio, in which $m$ cancels — so the percentages are exact and mass-independent. The tiny stiffening is the genuine engineering conclusion for a 30-mm solid beam over a 0.9-m span against a 500-N/m spring: to meaningfully stiffen this system the spring would need to be several orders of magnitude stiffer.