Abstract

The finite element method analyses the in-plane vibrations in the curved beam caused by a
single load moving over the beam with random velocity. The present analysis neglected the
effect of damping. Hamilton’s principle is used to obtain the governing differential equation.
The influence of various parameters like velocity, magnitude of load, and randomness in the
velocity of the moving load on the vibrations of the beam is also analyzed.

Keywords: Curved Beam, load, random velocity, Finite element method

1 Introduction

Curved beams are used widely in many places such as highway tunnels, arch bridges, blades, and
other important places. Therefore, dynamic analysis of the curved beams is very important as it
helps us to understand the effect of various loads on the curved beams under different conditions.
The complexity in the analysis of the curved beams arises due to the coupled governing differential
equation. The investigation of coupled free-vibrations of curved beams using numerical procedure
has been done for in-plane and out-of-plane vibration of the beam [1]. Free vibration analysis of
curved beams using the G/XFEM method has been done [2]. For moving loads in-plane dynamic
analysis of a horizontally curved beam using a semi-analytical method has been carried out [3].
Not only in-plane vibration but also out-of-plane vibration of the curved beams has also been
analyzed using the improved Fourier method [4]. Apart from the analytical method and numerical
method, wave theory has been used for the analysis of curved beams [5]. The finite element method
has also been used for the analysis of circular cross-section curved beam for both cracked and
uncracked cases [6].
The effect of shear deformation has been neglected in most of the works as straight beam
elements have been considered for analysis purposes but Friedman and Kosmatka [7] have
developed the curved beam element considering the effect of shear deformation. Recently, Poojary
and Roy [8, 9] developed a finite element model for a curved beam using curved beam element
and studied the in-plane vibration of it for single and multiple moving loads with constant velocity.
This work aims to analyze the in-plane vibration of a healthy curved beam by using the curved
beam element and neglecting the damping effect in the beam, under a load moving with random
velocity. Moreover, a comparative study will be performed to observe the influence of velocity,
load and random velocity on the vibrations in the curved beam.

2 Theoretical backgrounds

First order shear deformation beam theory has been used for the modeling of the curved beam.
Every node on the curved beam has three degrees of freedom (dof) - u, v and θ. The x axis is along
the beam centroid. The cross-section of the beam is assumed to be uniform throughout. The strain
(U) and kinetic energy (K) of the beam is given by:-
 1
𝐿
𝜕𝑢 2 𝜕𝑣 2 𝜕𝜃 2 (1)
𝐾 = ⁄2 ∫ [𝜌𝐴 ( ) + 𝜌𝐴 ( ) + 𝜌𝐼 ( ) ] 𝑑𝑥
0 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡

1
𝐿
𝜕𝑢 𝑣 2 𝜕𝜃 2 𝜕𝑣 𝑢 2 (2)
𝑈 = ⁄2 ∫ [𝐸𝐴 { − } + 𝐸𝐼 { } + 𝑘𝐺𝐴 { + − 𝜃} ] 𝑑𝑥
0 𝜕𝑥 𝑅 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝑅
(3)
𝐿
𝑊𝑒 = ∫0 (𝐹𝑎 𝑢 + 𝐹𝑟 𝑣 + 𝑀𝜃 𝜃)𝑑𝑥

Where, L is the curved beam length, R is curvature radius, A is cross-section area, I is area moment
of inertia and k is the shear correction factor. E and G are Young’s modulus and shear modulus,
respectively. We is work done and Fa, Fr, Mθ are distributed axial forces, radial forces and
moment, respectively. When we substitute the expressions for kinetic energy, strain energy and
work done into the Hamilton’s principle, we obtain the following 3 equations:
𝜕2𝑢 𝜕2𝑢 𝑘𝐺𝐴 𝜕𝑣 𝜃 (4)
𝜌𝐴 ( 2 ) = 𝐸𝐴 ( 2 ) − ( 2 ) 𝑢 − [(𝑘𝐺𝐴 + 𝐸𝐴)/𝑅] ( ) + 𝑘𝐺𝐴
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝑅 𝜕𝑥 𝑅
+ 𝐹𝑎
𝜕2 𝑣 𝜕𝑢 𝜕2 𝑣 𝐸𝐴𝑣 𝜕𝜃 (5)
𝜌𝐴 ( 𝜕𝑡 2 ) = [(𝑘𝐺𝐴 + 𝐸𝐴)/𝑅] (𝜕𝑥 )] + 𝑘𝐺𝐴 (𝜕𝑥 2 ) − ( 𝑅2 ) − 𝑘𝐺𝐴 𝜕𝑥 + 𝐹𝑟
𝜕2𝜃 𝑘𝐺𝐴𝑢 𝑘𝐺𝐴 𝜕𝑣 𝜕2𝜃 (6)
𝜌𝐼 ( 2 ) = ( ) + [ ] ( ) + 𝐸𝐼 ( 2 ) − 𝑘𝐺𝐴𝜃 + 𝑀𝜃
𝜕𝑡 𝑅 𝑅 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
For doing finite element analysis [10], we take reference from the research work of Friedman and
Kosmatka [7] on curved beams. By neglecting the terms of acceleration and external force from
the governing differential equation, we get the homogeneous form of the static equilibrium
equation as follows:

𝜕 2𝑢 𝑘𝐺𝐴 𝜕𝑣 𝜃 (7)
𝐸𝐴 ( 2 ) − ( 2 ) 𝑢 − [(𝑘𝐺𝐴 + 𝐸𝐴)/𝑅] ( ) + 𝑘𝐺𝐴 = 0
𝜕𝑥 𝑅 𝜕𝑥 𝑅
𝜕𝑢 𝜕2𝑣 𝐸𝐴𝑣 𝜕𝜃 (8)
[(𝑘𝐺𝐴 + 𝐸𝐴)/𝑅] (𝜕𝑥 )] + 𝑘𝐺𝐴 (𝜕𝑥 2) − ( 𝑅2 ) − 𝑘𝐺𝐴 𝜕𝑥 + 𝐹𝑟 = 0
𝑘𝐺𝐴𝑢 𝑘𝐺𝐴 𝜕𝑣 𝜕 2𝜃 (9)
( ) + [ ] ( ) + 𝐸𝐼 ( 2 ) − 𝑘𝐺𝐴𝜃 + 𝑀𝜃 = 0
𝑅 𝑅 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
Now, the general solution to above equations can be taken as

𝑢 = 𝑋𝑒 𝜆𝑥 (10)
𝜆𝑥
𝑣 = 𝑌𝑒 (11)
𝜆𝑥
𝜃 = 𝑍𝑒 (12)
On putting these assumed values in the above governing differential equation, we get equations in
the terms of the three coefficients X, Y and Z and λ, as follows:
𝑘𝐺𝐴 𝑘𝐺𝐴 + 𝐸𝐴 𝑘𝐺𝐴 (13)
[𝐸𝐴𝜆2 − 2
]𝑋 − 𝜆[ ]𝑌 + 𝑍= 0
𝑅 𝑅 𝑅
𝑘𝐺𝐴+𝐸𝐴 𝐸𝐴 (14)
𝜆 [ 𝑅 ] 𝑋 + [𝑘𝐺𝐴𝜆2 − 𝑅2 ] 𝑌 − 𝜆𝑘𝐺𝐴𝑍 = 0
(𝑘𝐺𝐴𝑋/𝑅) + 𝜆𝑘𝐺𝑌𝐴 + [𝐸𝐼𝜆2 − 𝑘𝐺𝐴]𝑍 = 0 (15)
For non-zero solutions, the coefficient matrix must be singular. It will give an equation to solve
for λ which on simplification can be expressed as follows:
1 (16)
𝜆2 ((𝜆2 ) + ( 2 ) ) = 0
𝜆
To solve this, we get two solutions for λ:
𝟏
First, the solution is 𝜆 = 0 . Second, on solving the terms within the parenthesis we get (𝑹)𝒊 as
solution, meaning that the trigonometric term in (x/R) is the solution. The general solution should
consist of both the solutions as its part. Therefore, the final general solution combining both the
above solutions is:
𝑥 𝑥
𝑢 = 𝐶1 + 𝐶2 + (𝐶3 + 𝐶4𝑥) 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝑅) + (𝐶5 + 𝐶6𝑥) 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝑅) (17)
𝑥 𝑥
𝑣 = 𝑎1 + 𝑎2 + (𝑎3 + 𝑎4𝑥) 𝑐𝑜𝑠( ) + (𝑎5 + 𝑎6𝑥) 𝑠𝑖𝑛( ) (18)
𝑅 𝑅
𝑥 𝑥 (19)
𝜃 = 𝑏1 + 𝑏2 + (𝑏3 + 𝑏4𝑥) 𝑐𝑜𝑠( ) + (𝑏5 + 𝑏6𝑥) 𝑠𝑖𝑛( )
𝑅 𝑅
Now, the above equation can be expressed in matrix form as:-

(20)

(21)

Where

(22)

(23)

On putting the assumed general solutions of u, v and θ in the governing differential equations, we
get 12 constraint equations and 6 independent constants. Boundary conditions are applied to obtain
these 6 independent constants. These equations give some constants as 0 and we can choose any
six as independent. From Friedman and Kosmatka [7], Thus, 18 constants can reduce to more
simple form by choosing the 6 constants as shown below in vector {d}.

(24)

where,
 (25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

We substitute x = 0 for 1st node and 𝑥 = 𝐿̅ for 2nd node, where 𝐿̅ denotes the element length of
the curved beam and we get:
(29)

where,
(30)

(31)

(32)
(33)

Then, we can express {𝐝} in terms of {D’} as follows:

{𝑑} = [𝑁]{𝐷’} (35)

[𝑁’] = ( [𝑁𝑏] [𝑇] )−1 (36)

We can also express the stiffness and mass matrix of the beam element in matrix form:

(37)

(38)
where

Now we can write the work done in same way as work done by load which is distributed:
𝐿̅
𝑊𝑒 = ∫ (𝐹𝑎 𝑢 + 𝐹𝑟 𝑣 + 𝑀𝜃 𝜃)𝑑𝑥̅ (39)
0
Using Dirac Delta function, the moving load can be represented as:

𝐹𝑎 𝛿(𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑜 (𝑡))
{𝑃} = { 𝐹𝑟 𝛿(𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑜 (𝑡)) } (40)
𝑀𝜃 𝛿(𝑥̅ − 𝑥𝑜 (𝑡))
Where, Fa, Fr, Mθ are the magnitudes and xo(t) is shown in Fig. 1:
Now from the representation of work done by the load, we can identify the nodal force vector as:

(41)
As the load moves over the beam, its position changes continuously and therefore the load vector
also changes continuously. The load is applied only to those nodes of the element over which the
load is present. The load on the rest of the nodes remains zero.

Vn(t-tn)

x Fn

Node 4

Node 1 Node 6

Fig. 1. Representing moving loads in global and local coordinate systems.

The validation of the present study is done by comparing the midpoint radial displacement of the
present work and the published work of Yang and Wu [11], which is shown in Fig. 2. The
properties of the beam used for comparison are: 𝐸 = 32.2GPa, μ(poisson ratio) = 0.2, ρ =
kg
2400 (m3 ) , L = 24m, b = 1.8m, d = 5m, k = 0.8354, θ = 30°, M = 29.9t, J = 21.18m4 , V = 40m/s.
 Fig. 2. Comparison of the midpoint radial displacement of published work and present work.

From the comparison of the present work result and published work, it can be concluded that the
present finite element model is valid. Now, the comparative study of the response of the curved
beam is analyzed for different conditions. Following properties of the beam have been used in this
kg
work:E = 210GPa, μ = 0.3, ρ = 7400 (m3) , R = 35m, b = 0.1m, d = 0.4m, k = 0.8354, θ =
30°, Q r = 1000N. The beam is simply supported. Fig. 3 shows the midpoint radial displacement of
curved beam for three different constant velocities. Further, Fig. 4 shows the midpoint radial
displacement of curved beam for three different loads with constant velocity (40 m/s).

Fig. 3. Comparison of the midpoint radial displacement of curved beam for different constant
velocities.
 Fig. 4. Comparison of the midpoint radial displacement of curved beam for different loads
moving with same constant velocity.

Fig. 5, 6, and 7 show the midpoint radial displacement of curved beam for three different random
speeds with constant load (1000 N). The three random speeds have base velocities such as 40 m/s,
30 m/s and 20 m/s.

V= 40m/s
V= (40 – 50) m/s
V= (40 -45) m/s

Fig. 5. Comparison of the midpoint radial displacement of curved beam for load moving with
random velocity (base velocity = 40 m/s).

V= 30m/s
V= (30 – 35) m/s
V= (30 -40) m/s

Fig. 6. Comparison of the midpoint radial displacement of curved beam for load moving with random velocity (base velocity = 30 m/s).
 V= 20m/s
V= (20 – 25) m/s
V= (20 -30) m/s

Fig. 7. Comparison of the midpoint radial displacement of curved beam for load moving with
random velocity (base velocity = 20 m/s).
4 Conclusion

In case of different velocities, as the velocity increases the duration of the forced vibration
decreases and free vibration start early. There is very less variation in the magnitude of the
midpoint radial displacement. For different loads, the nature of the radial displacement plot
remains similar. There is sufficient change in the magnitude of the midpoint radial displacement
which is quite predictable. In case of random velocity, the displacement profile remains smooth at
higher base velocity and for lesser randomness in the velocity. At lower velocity, the profile
becomes highly disorganized and rough peaks and troughs are noticed in the plot.

References

1. Chang, CS., Hodges, DH.: Vibration characteristics of curved beams. Journal of mechanics of
materials and structures 4(4),675-692, (2009).
2. Correa, RM., Arndt, M., Machado, RD.: Free in-plane vibration analysis of curved beams by the
generalized/extended finite element method. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids
88,104244(2021).
3. Foyouzat, MA., Abdoos,H., Khaloo,AR., Mofid,M.: In-plane vibration analysis of horizontally
curved beams resting on visco-elastic foundation subjected to a moving mass. Mechanical Systems
and Signal Processing 172, 109013(2022).
4. Nie, R., Li, T., Zhu, X., Zhou, H.: A General Fourier Formulation for In-Plane and Out-of-Plane
Vibration Analysis of Curved Beams. Shock and Vibration10, 5511884(2021).
5. Lee, S., Mace, B., Brennan, M.: In-plane free vibration of curved beams. 15th International
Congress on Sound and Vibration 2008, ICSV (2008).
6. Lee, SY., Hsiao, JY.: Free in-plane vibrations of curved non-uniform beams. Acta
Mechanica155,173-189, (2002).
7. Friedman, Z., Kosmatka, JB.: An accurate two-node finite element for shear deformable curved
beams. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 41, 473-498, (1998).
8. Poojary, J., Roy, SK.: In-plane vibration of curved beams subjected to moving loads using finite
element method. 2019 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1240 012048 (2019)
9. Poojary, J., Roy, SK.: In plane radial vibration of uncracked and cracked circular curved beams
subjected to moving loads. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics 21(10),
2150146 (2021)
10. Bathe, Klaus-Jürgen. (2006). Finite element procedures.
11. Yang, YB., Wu, CM., Yau, JD.: Dynamic response of a horizontally curved beam subjected to
vertical and horizontal moving loads. Journal of Sound and Vibration 243. 519-537, (2001).