1998
DOI: 10.1006/jsvi.1997.1388
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identifying Nodes and Anti-Nodes of Complex Structures With Virtual Elements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The second frequency has one maximum, two minima, while the third one has two maxima and three minima. These extrema correspond to the nodes and anti-nodes of the associated modes [13]. The minima and maxima approximately indicate the locations of anti-nodes and nodes respectively.…”
Section: Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The second frequency has one maximum, two minima, while the third one has two maxima and three minima. These extrema correspond to the nodes and anti-nodes of the associated modes [13]. The minima and maxima approximately indicate the locations of anti-nodes and nodes respectively.…”
Section: Numerical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This limitation is not specific to our proposed IEP solution algorithm but is instead a fairly intuitive consequence of the underlying structural mechanics. In this case, attaching a lumped mass at any point along a beam can only decrease each natural frequency of the beam . By examining the natural frequencies of the combined beam‐mass system as the lumped element mass and attachment location are varied, as shown in Figure , we observe that the natural frequencies of the combined system can range between those of the bare beam (ie, the beam without any attachments) and those of a simply supported beam with an in‐span simple support.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that replacing the lumped mass with a grounded spring will change the range of achievable natural frequencies significantly. In general, attaching a lumped mass to a beam will lower the structure's natural frequencies, while attaching a grounded translational spring will increase the structure's natural frequencies . That being said, both cases converge in the limiting case: as the mass or stiffness increases, the dynamic response of the combined system approaches that of a beam with an in‐span pin (although in the case when an attached mass is increased the structure possesses a natural frequency that approaches zero in addition to natural frequencies that approach those of a beam with an in‐span pin).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, it is relevant to be able to predict the antinode accurately, points of the maximum displacement. This is because one may want to install vibration absorbers or incorporate additional constrains to the system at this points in order to reduce the response of the system [2].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%