Asymptotic Formulas For The Eigenvalues of The Timoshenko Beam
Asymptotic Formulas For The Eigenvalues of The Timoshenko Beam
Asymptotic Formulas For The Eigenvalues of The Timoshenko Beam
Beam
1
Bruce Geist
Daimler Chrysler Corporation, 800 Chrysler Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326; [email protected]
and
1
Joyce R. McLaughlin
Department of Mathematical Sciences Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180; [email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION
Suppose a structural beam is driven by a laterally oscillating sinusoidal
force. As the frequency of this applied force is varied, the response varies.
Experimental frequencies for which the response is maximized are called
nic Institute, and was partially supported by funding from the Office of Naval Research,
grant number N00014-96-1-0349. The work of the first author was also partially sup-
ported by the Department of Education fellowship grant number 6-28069. The work
of the second author was also partially supported by the National Science Foundation,
grant number DMS-9802309.
1
2 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN
it is known that for square integrable q(z), nontrivial solutions y(z) for this
problem exist if and only if λ = µn , where
1
µn = n2 π 2 + Cq − q(z)cos(2nπz)dz + αn , (6)
0
1 ∞
Cq = 2h + 2H + q(z)dz, αn2 < ∞,
0 n=1
d(µ2 )
= G(Ŷ , Φ̂), (7)
dt
The term ṕ2 |t=0 is an eigenvalue for a beam where E, I, kG, A and
ρ = ρ0 are independent of x; i.e. ṕ2 |t=0 represents an eigenvalue for a
uniform beam. Asymptotic formulas for the eigenvalues of free-free and
clamped-clamped uniform beams are derived in Geist [8] and published in
[10]. From these uniform beam formulas, an asymptotic approximation for
the term ṕ2 |t=0 can be made. The final asymptotic eigenvalue formulas
for beams with variable density ρ(x) are obtained by replacing the term
1 1
L1 0 G(Ŷ , Φ̂)dt with an asymptotic approximation derived below, and by
replacing ṕ2 |t=0 with the appropriate uniform beam eigenvalue formulas
given in [10].
The function G depends only on E, I, kG, A, ρ and the transformed
eigenfunctions Φ̂ and Ŷ . Approximations to the square roots of eigenvalues
given in Theorem 4.3 allows us to determine Φ̂ and Ŷ and hence G to
within an error that is O(1/p). Then (8) is used to sharpen our estimates
of the eigenvalues for the Timoshenko beam. From (8) we compute the
final asymptotic formulas, which are given in Theorem 5.2. Note that the
advantage of this method over say a variational method is that we can
determine more than the first term in the eigenvalue expansion and prove
a bound in the remainder no matter how large the difference is between ρ
and ρ0 .
Lemma 2.1. Suppose ρ(x) is positive for all x ∈ [0, L] and ρxx (x) ∈
L x
L2 [0, L]. Let L1 = 0 ρ1/2 (x1 )dx1 and z(x) = L11 0 ρ1/2 (x2 )dx2 . Let β,
α, I, and p2 be constants. Then v(x) = ρ−1/4 V (z(x)) satisfies the equation
proof: Suppose v = A(x)V (z(x)), where A(x) and z(x) are as yet un-
specified smooth functions of x. Then
(αA2 z )
αv = αA(z )2 Vzz + Vz + αA V,
A
and provided α(z )2 A = 0 for x ∈ [0, L], it follows that αv + (p2 τ ρ − β)v =
f (x) if and only if
(A2 z ) A p2 τ ρ β f
Vzz + 2 2 Vz + + − V = .
A (z ) A(z )2 α(z )2 α(z )2 α(z )2 A
x
Now let A = ρ−1/4 (x) and z(x) = L11 0 ρ1/2 (x2 )dx2 . Then (A2 z ) ≡ 0,
A /A(z )2 = (ρ−1/4 )xx L21 /ρ3/4 , p2 τ ρ/(α(z )2 ) = τ L21 p2 /α, and β/(α(z )2 ) =
βL21 /αρ, so equation (9) becomes equation (10). ✷
In the next theorem, new differential equations are determined that are
related to the Timoshenko equations by the transformation indicated in
the previous lemma. Let L1 and z(x) be defined as they are in Lemma
2.1, and let µ2E = p2 L21 /E, µ2kG = p2 L21 /kG, and γ = kAG/EI. Since
ρ(x) is positive for all x ∈ [0, L], z(x) is an invertible function. Let x(z)
denote the inverse of z(x), and let ρ3 = L21 [ρ−1/4 (x(z))]xx /[ρ3/4 (x(z))] and
ρ4 = ρx (x(z))L21 /[4ρ2 (x(z))].
Theorem 2.1. Let E, kG, I, A, and p2 all be constants, let ρ(x) be
positive for all x ∈ [0, L], and let ρxx (x) ∈ L2 (0, L). Then
and
and
p2 L21 L1 F2 L21
Yzz + Y + ρ3 Y + ρ4 Φ − 1/2 Φz = . (14)
kG ρ kAGρ3/4
p2 L21 L2 γ γL1
Φzz + Φ − 1 Φ + ρ3 Φ − γρ4 Y + 1/2 Yz = 0, (15)
E ρ ρ
p2 L21 L1
Yzz + Y + ρ3 Y + ρ4 Φ − 1/2 Φz = 0, (16)
kG ρ
L1
Yz − 1/2 Φ = 0, and Φz |z=0,1 = 0, (17)
ρ z=0,1
if and only if y(x) = ρ−1/4 Y (z(x)) and Ψ(x) = ρ−1/4 Φ(z(x)) are nontrivial
solutions to the free-free Timoshenko boundary value problem (2) - (4).
The value p2 is an eigenvalue for the free-free Timoshenko boundary value
problem if and only if there exist nontrivial functions Y and Φ which satisfy
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 9
the differential equations (15) and (16) and the boundary conditions given
in (17).
3. A FREQUENCY EQUATION
Consider the following initial value problem. Let α = L1 /ρ1/2 (0). Sup-
pose that Y and Φ satisfy differential equations (15) and (16) and that
for real c and d, they also satisfy Y (0) = d, Φ(0) = c/α, Yz (0) = c, and
Φz (0) = 0. These initial conditions ensure that the boundary conditions
on Y and Φ at z = 0 given in (17) are satisfied no matter how c and d are
chosen. They are the least restrictive initial conditions on Y (z) and Φ(z)
which enforce the transformed boundary conditions at the left boundary
point z = 0. Furthermore, if nontrivial c and d can be chosen so that the
boundary conditions at z = 1 are satisfied, then by definition L21 p2 is an
eigenvalue for the transformed boundary value problem, and by Theorem
2.2, p2 is an eigenvalue for the free-free Timoshenko boundary value prob-
lem. In the next two lemmas, integral equations for Y and Φ are derived
which are equivalent to the initial value problem discussed above. These in-
tegral equations are used to determine approximate solutions to the above
initial value problem. The approximate solutions to the initial value prob-
lem make possible estimates of the values of p for which nontrivial solutions
exist to the transformed boundary value problem.
Lemma 3.1. Let µ, c and d be fixed constants, and let q(z) and f (z) be
integrable. Then w(z) is the solution to the initial value problem
c
Φ = cos µE z +
α
2
z
sin[µE (z − t)] L1 γ γL1
− ρ3 Φ + γρ4 Y − 1/2 Yt dt (21)
0 µE ρ ρ
and
c sin(µkG z)
Y = +
µkG
z
sin[µkG (z − t)] L1
d cos(µkG z) + −ρ3 Y − ρ4 Φ + 1/2 Φt dt (22)
0 µkG ρ
proof: First observe that since ρxx ∈ L2 (0, L), Theorem 2.1 shows that Y
and Φ satisfy (15) and (16) if and only if y(x) = ρ−1/4 Y (z(x)) and Ψ(x) =
ρ−1/4 Φ(z(x)) satisfy the homogeneous Timoshenko differential equations.
All coefficients in the Timoshenko equations (2) and (3) are continuously
differentiable. Since yx and Ψx must be continuous, it follows that Yz and
Ψz are also continuous.
Next, applyLemma 3.1
to the transformed differential equation (15).
Observe that L21 γ/ρ − ρ3 ∈ L2 (0, 1) and that (from the discussion of
the previous paragraph) (γρ4 Y − [γL1 /ρ1/2 ]Yz ) ∈ L2 (0, 1). Lemma 3.1
shows that the differential equation (15) and initial conditions (20) are
satisfied if and only if integral equation (20) holds. Similarly, since −ρ3
and −ρ4 Φ + [L1 /ρ1/2 ]Φz are in L2 (0, 1), Lemma 3.1 shows that (16) and
(20) hold if and only if (21) holds. ✷
We will use the integral equations of Theorem 3.1 to determine approxi-
mate solutions to the initial value problem given in (15), (16), and (20). If
c and d are allowed to vary over , the solution to this initial value problem
generates every solution to differential equations (15) and (16) that satisfies
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 11
Yz (1) − L1
ρ1/2 (1)
Φ(1) αΦz (1)
and , (23)
µkG µE
where Y and Φ are solutions to the initial value problem (15), (16), and
(20). Setting the above expressions equal to zero leads to a homogeneous
linear system for the arbitrary constants c and d. Values of the eigenvalue
parameter p which make possible nontrivial choices for c and d correspond
to the square roots of eigenvalues for the free-free Timoshenko beam. The
homogeneous linear system in c and d has nontrivial solutions if and only
if the determinant of the corresponding coefficient matrix is zero. This
determinant will define a frequency function. The objective in this section
is to determine this frequency function from estimates of the coefficients of
c and d in the expressions given in (23).
The following technical fact is used many times in the estimates that
follow.
Lemma 3.2. Suppose that fz ∈ L∞ (0, 1), and that δ is a real constant.
Then for z ∈ [0, 1],
z
f ∞ + fz ∞
sin[µ(z − t) + δ]f (t)dt < .
µ
0
proof:
z
sin[µ(z − t) + δ]f (t)dt =
0
z z
cos[µ(z − t) + δ] cos[µ(z − t) + δ]
f (t) − ft (t)dt
µ 0 0 µ
proof:
Yz = c cos(µkG z) − dµkG sin(µkG z) +
z
L1
cos[µkG (z − t)] −ρ3 (t)Y (t) − ρ4 (t)Φ(t) + 1/2 Φt (t) dt
0 ρ (t)
z
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ]
⇒ g(t)Yt dt =
0 µ
z
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ]
g(t){c cos(µkG t) − dµkG sin(µkG t)
0 µ
t
+ cos[µkG (t − s)][−ρ3 (s)Y (s) − ρ4 (s)Φ(s)]ds} dt
0
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ] t
L1
+ g(t) cos[µkG (t − s)] Φ s (s)ds dt.
µ 0 ρ1/2 (s)
Since by hypothesis hµ = µkG , a double angle formula, the assumption that
dg/dz ∈ L∞ (0, 1), and Lemma 3.2 can be used to show that the absolute
value of the first integral on the right of the above equation is bounded
above by
L1 Φ(t) L1 Φ(0)
− 1/2 cos(µkG t)
ρ1/2 (t) ρ (0)
t
L1 L1
− µkG sin[µkG (t − s)] + cos[µkG (t − s) Φds.
0 ρ1/2 (s) ρ1/2 (s) s
then the Lemma follows. After changing the order of integration, the inte-
gral above may be rewritten as
z z
sin[hµ(z − t) + δ] L1
g(t)µkG sin[µkG (t − s)] 1/2 Φ(s)dtds.
s=0 t=s µ ρ (s)
Again, using a double angle formula and the fact that g (z) ∈ L∞ (0, 1),
we apply Lemma 3.2 to find that the above integral is bounded in absolute
value by a function of the form O(1/µ) Φ ∞ . ✷
proof: The proof of Lemma 3.4 is similar to the proof of Lemma 3.3,
and is therefore omitted. ✷
In the next Theorem, we show that the infinity norms of Y and Φ remain
finite as p approaches infinity.
Lemma 3.5. Suppose E = kG, that ρxx ∈ L∞ (0, L), and that ρ(x) > 0
for all x ∈ [0, 1]. Then
Φ ∞ ≤ O(1)|c| + O(1/p)|d|
and
Y ∞ ≤ O(1/p)|c| + O(1)|d|.
proof: The integral equations for Φ and Y together with Lemma 3.3
and Lemma 3.4 imply that
and
Lemma 3.6. Suppose E = kG, that ρxx ∈ L∞ (0, L) and ρ(x) > 0 for all
x ∈ [0, L], and that α = L1 /ρ1/2 (0). Then
Y (z) − L1 Φ(z) − ρ1/2 (0)
z cos(µkG z) cos(µE z)
ρ1/2 (z) ρ1/2 (z)
− c + d sin(µ z)
kG
µkG µkG
∞
and
Φz (z) c
+ sin(µ z) ≤ O(1/p)|c| + O(1/p)|d|.
µE α
E
∞
proof: Integral equations for Yz /µkG and Φz /µE and can be determined
from the integral equations for Y and Φ. The proof follows from the integral
equations for Y and Φ and Lemmas 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. ✷
Lemma 3.6 facilitates the derivation of a frequency equation for the free-
free Timoshenko beam with variable density ρ(x).
where the functions δ1,2 (p), and δ2,1 (p) are O(1/p) and δ(p) is O(1/p2 ).
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 15
proof: We seek to determine the values of p2 for which there exist non-
trivial functions Φ and Y that solve the transformed differential equations
and all transformed boundary conditions, including those at z = 1. To de-
termine all such solutions, we seek nontrivial solutions to the initial value
problem in (15), (16), and (20) which also solve the transformed boundary
conditions at z = 1. Theorem 2.2 shows that the values of p2 which admit
nontrivial solutions when boundary conditions at z = 1 are imposed are
the eigenvalues of the free-free Timoshenko beam.
Lemma 3.6 implies that for any choice of c and d, solutions Y and Φ to
the initial value problem (15), (16), and (20) satisfy
where the δi,j are all O(1/p) functions. Equations (29) and (30) imply that
the right boundary conditions, i.e., the conditions in (20) when z = 1, may
be satisfied if and only if
δ1,1 − sin µkG − δ1,2 c 0
= .
− sin µE − δ2,1 −δ2,2 d 0
√ √
where δ1,2 and δ2,1 are O(1/p) and δ is O(1/p2 ). Let c̄ = max{ E, kg},
and suppose p is a root of the frequency function F (p). Then there exists
a root of the function sin(µkG ) sin(µE ), say p̂, such that p − p̂ = /p , where
c̄ |δ | + |δ | (|δ | + |δ |)2
sin−1
1,2 2,1 1,2 2,1
|/p | < + + |δ| .
L1 2 4
|δ|
≤ |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | + √
| sin(pL1 / E)|
√ √
⇒ sin2 (pL1 / E) < (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |) | sin(pL1 / E)| + |δ|.
√
Let s = | sin(pL1 / E)| , b = |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |, and c = |δ|. Then s > 0 and
s2 − bs − c < 0. This implies that
√
b + b2 + 4c
0<s< ,
2
and hence that,
√ |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
| sin(pL1 / E)| < + + |δ|. (33)
2 4
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 17
√
Let M be√an integer chosen such that |[L1 / E]p − M π| ≤ π/2, and let
/p = p − [ E/L1 ]M π. Then from inequality (33) it follows that
1 1 |/p |
sin pL
√ = sin L√1 /p = sin L√
E E E
|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
< + + |δ|
2 4
√
E −1 |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
⇒ |/p | < sin + + |δ| .
L1 2 4
√
Thus, there is some integer M such that p = /p + [ E/L1 ]M π where
√
E −1 |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
|/p | < sin + + |δ| .
L1 2 4
The argument above√ was carried out√under the assumption that (32) holds.
If instead | sin(pL1 / E)/ sin(pL1 / kG)| > 1, the same argument given
above holds in this case provided E and kG are interchanged. In √ either case,
it follows
√ that there exists a root of sin(µkG ) sin(µ E ), say p̂ = EM π/L1
or kGM π/L1 , such that p − p̂ = /p and
c̄ −1 |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
|/p | < sin + + |δ| . ✷
L1 2 4
Theorem 4.2. Suppose p̂ and p̃ are two adjacent roots of the function
sin(µkG ) · sin(µE ) and that p̂ is a simple root √ not√closer to any other√ root√ of
this function than it is to p̃. Let c̄ = max{ E, kG}, c = min{ E, kG}
and let p̄ be the largest root of sin(µkG ) sin(µE ) which satisfies p̄ < min{p̂, p̃}.
Let
−1 c̄ π |δ| c̄
∆p = sin supp>p̄ |δ1,2 (p)| + supp>p̄ |δ2,1 (p)| + supp>p̄ ,
c2 sin(p̄−1 ) L1
and suppose that |p̂ − p̃| > 2∆p + Lc̄1 p̄1 Then there is at least one root of the
characteristic equation (28) in the interval [p̂ − ∆p, p̂ + ∆p]. Furthermore,
this interval must contain an odd number of roots of the characteristic
equation.
Remark: The quantity ∆p defined above is O(1/p̄), since all of the δ s
appearing in its definition are O(1/p̄). Thus, the hypothesis above requires
that p̂ and p̃ be separated by a distance which is O(1/p̄).
18 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN
proof sketch: The proof follows from the basic observation that sin(µkG )·
sin(µE ) is strictly monotonic near its isolated roots, and that F = sin(µkG )·
sin(µE ) + O(1/p). For p̂ large enough, F (p) must change sign near where
sin(µkG ) sin(µE ) changes sign, i.e. in the interval [p̂ − ∆p, p̂ + ∆p]. See
Geist [8, pages 164-168] for a detailed presentation of this proof. ✷
An estimate of ∂F/∂p derived in the next lemma is an important step
toward proving that for each isolated root of sin(µE ) · sin(µkG ), there is
exactly one zero of F nearby.
Lemma 4.1. Let F be the frequency function defined in (28). Then
∂F L1 L1
= √ cos(µE ) · sin(µkG ) + √ cos(µkG ) · sin(µE ) + r(p), (34)
∂p E kG
L
L1
coef. ∂ Yz (1)− ρ1/21(1) Φ(1) coef. Yz (1)−
ρ1/2 (1)
Φ(1)
, ∂
of c ∂p µkG of d ∂p µkG
+ det (35)
,
coef. αΦz (1)
coef. αΦz (1)
µE , µE
of c of d
Theorem 4.3. Suppose p̂ and p̃ are two adjacent roots of the function
sin(µkG )·sin(µE ). Suppose p̂ is a simple root of sin(µkG )·sin(µE√ ) not√closer
to any other
√ √ root of this function than it is to p̃. Let c̄ = max{ E, kG},
c = min{ E, kG} and let p̄ be the largest root of sin(µkG ) · sin(µE ) which
satisfies p̄ < min{p̂, p̃}. Let
−1 c̄ π |δ| c̄
∆p = sin supp>p̄ |δ1,2 (p)| + supp>p̄ |δ2,1 (p)| + supp>p̄ ,
c2 sin(p̄−1 ) L1
c̄ |δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 | (|δ1,2 | + |δ2,1 |)2
Γ= sup sin−1 + + |δ| (36)
,
p>p̄−∆p L1 2 4
and
∂F L1 L1
r(p) = − √ cos(µE ) · sin(µkG ) − √ cos(µkG ) · sin(µE ).
∂p E kG
√
c̄ 1 c̄ π |r(p)|
max 2∆p + , tan L1 Γ + EkG π +Γ ,
L1 p̄ L1 2 c L21 2 cos (ΓL1 /c)
(37)
then there is exactly one root of the characteristic function F in the [p̂ −
Γ, p̂ + Γ].
Remark: r is O(1/p) and Γ and ∆p are O(1/p̄).
20 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN
2L2
≥ √ 1 |p̂ − pkG + p − p̂|
π EkG
2L2
≥ √ 1 [|p̂ − pkG | − |p − p̂|]
π EkG
2L2
≥ √ 1 [|p̂ − p̃| − Γ]. (39)
π EkG
√
p ∈ [p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ], p̂ a zero of tan(µE ), and ΓL1 / E < π/4 imply that
L1 L1 |r(p)|
√ tan √ Γ + =
kG E cos √LE1
Γ
L L |r(p)|
√ 1 tan √ 1 (p̂ ± Γ) + ≥
kG E L
cos √E1
(p̂ ± Γ)
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 21
L |r(p)| L1 r(p)
√ 1 | tan µE | + ≥ √ | tan µE || cos µkG | + . (40)
kG | cos µE | kG | cos µE |
Therefore, from (38), (39) and (40) it follows that
L L |r(p)|
√ 1 | sin µkG | > √ 1 | tan µE cos µkG | +
E kG | cos µE |
L1 L1
⇒ √ sin µkG cos µE > √ sin µE cos µkG + |r(p)|
E kG
∂F
⇒ (p) > 0,
∂p
as desired.
Thus, |∂F /∂p| > 0 for all p ∈ [p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ], which in turn implies
that there is at most one root of F in this interval. Since it has been
established that there is at least one root in this interval, the Theorem
follows when p̂ is a zero of sin(µE ). The proof for the case where p̂ is a
zero of sin(µkG ) is identical to the proof above, except that the role of E
and kG are interchanged. ✷
Let
1 −L̂21 γ
E 0 + ρ̂3 −γ ρ̂4
B1 = 1 , Q= ρ̂ (41)
0 kG ρ̂4 ρ̂3
0 γ
S= , and µ2 = L̂21 p2 . (42)
−1 0
Then the boundary value problem (15-17), where ρ is now replaced by ρ̂,
may be written in vector notation as
L̂1 0
Ûẑẑ + µ2 B1 Û + QÛ + 1/2 S Ûẑ = (43)
ρ̂ 0
L̂1
Ŷz − 1/2 Φ̂ = 0, and Φ̂ẑ |ẑ=0,1 = 0, (44)
ρ̂
ẑ=0,1
d(µ2 )
= G(Û (ẑ(x))).
dt
Integrating both sides of the above equation gives
1
µ |t=1 − µ |t=0 =
2 2
G(Û (ẑ(x)))dt. (47)
0
Later, we will give conditions which guarantee that assumptions i), ii) and
iii) are valid. As indicated in the discussion above, we formally differentiate
the differential equations and boundary conditions in (43-44) with respect
to ρ̂ in the direction of ρ̃. We use assumptions i), ii), and iii) from above to
obtain the differential equation and boundary conditions that dρ̂ Û [ρ̃] must
satisfy. We find that
L̂1
(dρ̂ Û [ρ̃])ẑẑ + µ2 B1 (dρ̂ Û [ρ̃]) + Q(dρ̂ Û [ρ̃]) + S(dρ̂ Û [ρ̃])ẑ =
ρ̂1/2
[(dρ̂ Ŷ [ρ̃])ẑ − (L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 )(dρ̂ Φ̂[ρ̃]) − (dρ̂ (L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 )[ρ̃])Φ̂]|ẑ=0,1 = 0,
(dρ̂ Φ̂[ρ̃])|ẑ=0,1 = 0.
When dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] exists, it follows that
Similarly, from the definitions of Q and L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 , it follows that dρ̂ Q[ρ̃] =
∂
∂Q/∂t and dρ̂ (L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 )[ρ̃] = ∂t (L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 ). Define
1/EI 0
B2 = (48)
0 1/kAG
and
ρ̂3/4 d 2 ∂ ∂ L̂1
F =− B2−1 µ B1 Û + Q Û + S Ûẑ . (49)
L̂2 dt ∂t ∂t ρ̂1/2
Now define
dρ̂ Φ̂[ρ̃] Φ̄(ẑ)
V̄ (ẑ) ≡ dρ̂ Û [ρ̃] = ≡ .
dρ̂ Ŷ [ρ̃] Ȳ (ẑ)
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 25
Then V̄ satisfies
L̂1 L̂21
V̄ẑẑ + µ2 B1 V̄ + QV̄ + 1/2
S V̄ẑ = 3/4 B2 F,
ρ̂ ρ̂
L̂1 ∂ L̂1
Ȳz̄ − 1/2 Φ̄ − = 0, (50)
ρ̂ ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0,1
and
Let v̄ be defined as
Ψ̄(x)
v̄(x) ≡ ≡ ρ̂−1/4 (x)V̄ (ẑ(x)).
ȳ(x)
From Theorem 2.1, we know that v̄ must satisfy the vector differential
equation
∂ ∂
∂x EI ∂x + (p2 I ρ̂ − kAG) ∂
kAG ∂x
∂ ∂ ∂ 2 v̄(x) = F. (52)
∂x kAG ∂x kAG ∂x + p Aρ̂
The boundary conditions (50) and (51) may also be rewritten in terms
of Ψ̄ and ȳ. By multiplying (50) through by ρ̂1/4 /L̂1 and noting that
ρ̂x (0) = ρ̂x (L) = 0, we find that
L̂1 ∂ L̂1
Ȳẑ − 1/2 Φ̄ − Φ̂ =0
ρ̂ ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0,1
ρ̂1/4 ∂
L̂1
⇔ ȳx (x) − Ψ̄(x) − Φ̂(ẑ(x)) =0 (53)
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
x=0,L
In the next lemma, we show that if the boundary value problem for v̄(x) is
to have a solution when p2 is an eigenvalue for the boundary value problem
(45)-(46), then the right hand side of the differential equation (52) must
satisfy a certain orthogonality condition.
26 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN
and
Ψ̂(x)
and boundary conditions (53)-(54). Suppose û(x) = = ρ̂−1/4 Û (ẑ(x))
ŷ(x)
solves the homogeneous
Timoshenko
boundary value problem given in (45)
F1
and (46). Then F = must satisfy
F2
1
−1/4 kAG ∂ L̂1
(F(x), û(x)) = (F, ρ̂ Û (ẑ(x))) = Φ̂Ŷ .
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0
(In the last equation, (·, ·) denotes the standard inner product in L2 (0, L).)
proof:
L
(F(x), û(x)) = (EI Ψ̄xx ψ̂ + kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ψ̂ + p2 I ρ̂Ψ̄ψ̂
0
L
= (EI Ψ̄ψ̂xx + kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ψ̂ − kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ŷx
0
+p2 I ρ̂Ψ̄ψ̂ + p2 Aρ̂ȳ ŷ)dx + kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ŷ|L
z=0
L
= [EI Ψ̄ψ̂xx − kAG(ŷx − ψ̂)(ȳx − Ψ̄) + p2 I ρ̂Ψ̄ψ̂ + p2 Aρ̂ȳ ŷ]dx
0
+kAG(ȳx − Ψ̄)ŷ|L
x=0
L
= {[EI ψ̂xx + kAG(ŷx − ψ̂) + p2 I ρ̂ψ̂]Ψ̄
0
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 27
1
ρ̂1/4
∂ L̂1 −1/4
= kAG Φ̂ρ̂ Ŷ .
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0
1
kAG ∂ L̂1
⇒ (F(x), û(x)) = Φ̂Ŷ . ✷
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0
1
kAG ∂ L̂1
= Φ̂Ŷ
L̂1 ∂t ρ̂1/2
ẑ=0
1
− ρ̂1/2
B2−1 ( ∂t
∂
Q)Û ,Û − ρ̂1/2 ∂ L̂1
B2−1 S Ûẑ ,Û − kAG ∂t
∂ L̂1
Φ̂Ŷ
∂t ρ̂1/2 ρ̂1/2
L̂1 L̂1
⇔ d 2
dt µ = ẑ=0
.
ρ̂1/2
B2−1 B1 Û ,Û
L̂1
Next we show that the third term in the numerator above, the boundary
term, may be combined with the second term so that all terms in the
28 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN
1 1
∂ L̂1 ∂ L̂1
= 2kAG Ŷẑ Φ̂dẑ − kAG (Φ̂Ŷ )ẑ dẑ
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2 0 ∂t ρ̂1/2
1
1
∂ L̂1 ∂ L̂1
= 2kAG Ŷẑ Φ̂dẑ −kAGŶ Φ̂
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0
1
∂2 L̂1
+ kAG Φ̂Ŷ dẑ
0 ∂t∂ ẑ ρ̂1/2
1
1
∂ L̂1 ∂ L̂1
⇒− Û T B2−1 S Ûẑ dẑ − kAGŶ Φ̂ =
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0
1 1
∂ L̂1 ∂2 L̂1
−2kAG Ŷẑ Φ̂dẑ − kAG Φ̂Ŷ dẑ.
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2 0 ∂t∂ ẑ ρ̂1/2
Therefore,
d 2
µ =
dt
1 1 1
∂2
Û T B2−1 ( ∂t
L̂1 L̂1
− ∂
Q)Û dẑ−2kAG ∂
∂t Ŷẑ Φ̂dẑ−kAG Φ̂Ŷ ∂t∂ ẑ dẑ
ρ̂1/2 ρ̂1/2
0
01 0
(58)
.
Û T B2−1 B1 Û dẑ
0
The formula above for dµ2 /dt holds so long as assumptions i) - iii) hold. In
the following theorem, conditions are given which guarantee the validity of
these assumptions, and hence show when dµ2 /dt may be calculated using
the last formula given above.
proof: The proof follows from the discussion preceding this theorem,
provided we show assumptions i) - iii) are valid. We observe that û(x) =
ρ̂−1/4 (x)Û (ẑ(x)), where û(x) satisfies (45) and (46). The differential equa-
tion for the vector û(x) may be written as a system of four first order linear
scalar equations in which the parameter t appears linearly. This implies
that for each x, û, ûx , and ûxx must be analytic in t. See Coddington and
Levinson [4, page 37]. This in turn implies that for each ẑ, Û (ẑ), Ûẑ (ẑ) ,
and Ûẑẑ (ẑ) must also be analytic in t when t ∈ [0, 1]. When ẑ = 0 and t
is any value between 0 and 1, both components of Û (0) cannot simultane-
ously be zero. (If they were both zero, boundary conditions at ẑ = 0 would
imply Û (ẑ) must be identically zero.) From the scalar differential equa-
tions for the components of Û (ẑ), we conclude that µ2 must be analytic
in t. We have shown already that dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] = dµ2 /dt; hence, assumption i),
that dρ̂ µ2 [ρ̃] exits, is valid.
∂ ∂
Next, we observe that dρ̂ Û [ρ̃] = ∂t Û , dρ̂ Ûẑ [ρ̃] = ∂t Ûẑ , and dρ̂ Ûẑẑ [ρ̃] =
∂
∂t Ûẑ ẑ . From this we conclude that dρ̂ Û [ρ̃], dρ̂ Ûẑ [ρ̃], and dρ̂ Ûẑ ẑ [ρ̃] all exist,
since Û , Ûẑ , and Ûẑẑ are all analytic in t. This proves assumption ii).
To demonstrate that assumption iii) holds under the stated hypotheses,
observe that the components of Û satisfy the integral equations (20) and
(21) when ρ is taken to be ρ̂. When ρxx (x) is continuous, it follows from
these integral equations that Ûẑẑt and Ûtẑẑ are continuous functions of ẑ
and t. This implies that when ρ(x) ∈ C2 [0, L], Ûẑẑt = Ûtẑẑ . Furthermore,
from the integral equations, it follows that Ûẑẑt and Ûtẑẑ are continuous in ρ
with respect to the standard Sobelev norm of order 2. They are continuous
maps which take ρ(x) ∈ H2 (0, L) to an element of L2 (0, 1). Since C2 [0, L] is
dense in H2 (0, L), it follows that Ûẑẑt = Ûtẑẑ when ρ(x) ∈ H2 (0, L). Since
H2 (0, L) contains the set of all ρ such that ρxx ∈ L∞ (0, L), assumption iii)
must hold when ρxx ∈ L∞ (0, L), as desired. ✷
In the next three lemmas, our goal is to determine the constants c and d
which appear in the integral equations (20) and (21). Theorem 4.1 shows
2
that if p√ is a large enough√ eigenvalue, then p must lie near a root of
sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E). We √ will show that√provided p is not near
more than one root of sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E), then p must be a
simple eigenvalue, and the vector ( c, d )T must be a multiple of either
( 1, O(1/p)√)T or ( O(1/p), 1 )T√, depending upon whether p is near a zero
of sin(L̂1 p/ kG) or of sin(L̂1 p/ E). This result will be used to calculate
an estimate of dµ2 /dt.
In the next Lemma, we show that if p̂ is large enough and satisfies either
(59) or (60) below, then the square root of the nearest eigenvalue to p̂ is
well separated from square roots of other eigenvalues.
30 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN
or
√ √
sin(L̂1 p̂/ E) = 0 and | sin(L̂1 p̂/ kG)| > e. (60)
Then there exists an M > 0 such that when p̂ > M , exactly one eigenvalue
2
of the free-free Timoshenko beam with√ density√ρ̂, say ṕ , is such that its
e c e c
square root ṕ lies in the interval p̂ − 2L̂ , p̂ + 2L̂ . Furthermore, |ṕ− p̂| <
1 1
O(1/ṕ).
proof: It is not difficult to show√ that when that √ when (59) or (60) hold,
and when p̃ is a root of sin(L̂1 p/ kG) · sin(L̂1 p/ E) as near to p̂ as is any
√
other root of this function, then |p̂ − p̃| > e c/L̂1 , where c = min E, kG.
Let Γ be defined as it is in the hypothesis of Theorem 4.3. Let M be chosen
large enough so that p̂ > M implies that hypothesis (37) of Theorem 4.3
√
is satisfied and that |Γ| < e c/[2L̂1 ]. Theorem 4.1 shows that if there
is
√ √
e c e c
a root ṕ of the frequency equation such that ṕ ∈ p̂ − + 2L̂ , then
2L̂1
, p̂
1
ṕ must be contained in the narrower interval (p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ). On the other
hand, Theorem 4.3 shows that there is exactly one zero of the frequency
function in the interval (p̂ − Γ, p̂ + Γ). Together, Theorem 4.1 and Theorem
4.3 imply that√there is√exactly
one root of the frequency function in the
e c e c
interval p̂ − 2L̂ , p̂ + 2L̂ . ✷
1 1
√ √
Lemma 5.3. Let e ∈ (0, 1), and suppose p̂ is a root of sin(L̂1 p/ kG·sin(L̂1 p/ E)
such that either (59) or (60) holds. For p̂ large enough, let ṕ2 be the unique
eigenvalue of the free-free
beam
√
with √density
ρ̂ whose square root ṕ is con-
e c e c
tained in the interval p̂ − 2L̂ , p̂ + 2L̂ . If (59) holds, then for the eigen-
1 1
value ṕ2 , the vector ( c, d )T (where c and d are the constants appearing
in (20) and (21)) must satisfy
c O(1/ṕ)
= constant .
d 1
If (60) holds,
c 1
= constant .
d O(1/ṕ)
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 31
In either case, whether (59) holds or (60) holds, ṕ2 must be a simple eigen-
value.
0 O(1/ṕ) − sin( √ṕL̂kG
1
) − O(1/ṕ) c
= (61)
0 − sin( ṕ√L̂E1 ) − O(1/ṕ) −O(1/ṕ) d
1
c 2 2A kAG L̂1 ∂ L̂1
−d ds + O(1/ṕ).
kG − 1
α I E ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0
proof: Theorem 2.2 shows that ṕ2 is an eigenvalue for the free-free
Timoshenko beam when L21 ṕ2 is an eigenvalue for the transformed problem.
√1 ṕ and µ̂kG = √
Let µ̂E = L̂ E
L̂1 ṕ
kG
. Then Theorem 3.1 shows that
ẑ
L̂1
cos[µ̂kG (ẑ − s)] −ρ̂3 (s)Ŷ (s) − ρ̂4 (s)Φ̂(s) + 1/2 Φ̂s (s) ds
0 ρ̂ (s)
and
c cos(µ̂E ẑ) ẑ
sin[µ̂E (ẑ − s)]
Φ̂ = +
α 0 µ̂E
L̂21 γ γ L̂1
· −ρ̂3 (s)Φ̂(s) + Φ̂(s) + γ ρ̂4 (s)Ŷ (s) − 1/2 Ŷ (s) ds.
ρ̂(s) ρ̂ (s)
Let f (ẑ) ≡ 2kAG ∂t∂ L̂1
ρ̂1/2
. Then
1
f (ẑ)Ŷẑ (ẑ)Φ̂(ẑ)dẑ =
0
1
c2 cd
f cos(µ̂kG ẑ) cos(µ̂E ẑ) − µ̂kG sin(µ̂kG ẑ) cos(µ̂E ẑ) dẑ
0 α α
1 ẑ
µ̂kG L̂2 γ L̂1 γ
−d f (ẑ) sin(µ̂kG ẑ) sin[µ̂E (ẑ−s)] −ρ̂3 Φ̂ + 1 Φ̂ + γ ρ̂4 Ŷ − 1/2 Ŷs ds dẑ
µ̂E 0 0 ρ̂ ρ̂
1 ẑ
c L̂1 1
f (ẑ) cos(µ̂E ẑ) cos[µ̂kG (ẑ−s)] −ρ̂3 Ŷ − ρ̂4 Φ̂ + 1/2 Φ̂s ds dẑ+O .
0 α 0 ρ̂ ṕ
L̂21 γ γ L̂1
· −ρ̂3 (s)Φ̂(s) + Φ̂(s) + γ ρ̂4 (s)Ŷ (s) − 1/2 Ŷs (s) dẑ ds
ρ̂(s) ρ̂ (s)
1
µ̂kG L̂2 γ γ L̂1
= −d −ρ̂3 Φ̂ + 1 Φ̂ + γ ρ̂4 Ŷ − 1/2 Ŷs
µ̂E 0 ρ̂ ρ̂
1
f (ẑ)
· {cos[(µ̂kG − µ̂E )ẑ + µ̂E s] − cos[(µ̂kG + µ̂E )ẑ − µ̂E s]}dẑ ds.
s 2
Now f ∈ L∞ (0, 1) because ρ̂xx ∈ L∞ (0, L). Therefore we may integrate
the square bracketed term above by parts with respect to ẑ, and apply
Lemmas 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 to show that
µ̂kG 1 L̂21 γ γ L̂1
I1 = −d −ρ̂3 Φ̂ + Φ̂ + γ ρ̂4 Ŷ − 1/2 Ŷs
µ̂E 0 ρ̂ ρ̂
f 1 1
· − sin(µ̂kG s)ds + O(1/ṕ)
2 µ̂kG + µ̂E µ̂kG − µ̂E
1
µ̂kG γ L̂1 f 2µ̂E
= −d sin(µ̂kG s)Ŷs ds + O(1/ṕ).
µ̂E 0 ρ̂1/2 2 µ̂2kG − µ̂2E
From the integral equation for Ŷẑ , it follows that Ŷẑ = −dµ̂kG sin(µ̂kG ẑ) +
O(1). Substituting this expression for Ŷẑ into the last expression for I1 , we
find that
1
2 µ̂kG γ L̂1 µ̂kG µ̂E
I1 = d f sin2 (µ̂kG s)ds + O(1/ṕ)
µ̂E 0 ρ̂1/2 µ̂2kG − µ̂2E
1
2A 1 L̂1 ∂ L̂1
= d kAG ds + O(1/ṕ).
kG − 1
I E ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0
c 2 1 1
L̂1 ∂ L̂1
=− kAG ds + O(1/ṕ).
kG − 1
α E ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
0
34 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN
Since
1
∂ L̂1
2kAG Ŷs Φ̂ds = I1 + I2 + O(1/ṕ),
0 ∂t ρ̂1/2
the lemma follows. ✷
In the next theorem, we make estimates for transformed eigenfunctions
Û (ẑ) associated with well separated eigenvalues for the untransformed Tim-
oshenko beam with density ρ̂. We will use these estimates for Û to calculate
an estimate for dµ2 /dt.
√1 ṕ
L̂ L̂1 ṕ
√
proof: If µ̂E = E
and µ̂kG = kG
, then Theorem 3.1 shows that for a
nontrivial choice of the constants c and d and for α̂ = L̂1 /ρ̂1/2 (0),
c cos(µ̂E ẑ)
Φ̂ =
α̂
ẑ
sin[µ̂E (ẑ − s)] L̂2 γ γ L̂1
−ρ̂3 Φ̂ + 1 + γ ρ̂4 Ŷ − 1/2 Ŷs ds (62)
0 µ̂E ρ̂ ρ̂
and
c sin(µ̂kG ẑ)
Ŷ = + d cos(µ̂kG ẑ)
µ̂kG
ẑ
sin[µ̂kG (ẑ − s)] L̂1
−ρ̂3 Ŷ − ρ̂4 Φ̂ + 1/2 Φ̂s ds. (63)
0 µ̂kG ρ̂
For fixed c and d, Lemmas 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 show that all terms in (62) and
(63) under the integral sign are O(1/ṕ). If (59) holds,√then by Lemma 5.3
and Theorem 4.1 we find that ṕ = p̂+O(1/p̂) = nπ L̂1 / kG+O(1/n). This
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 35
1
2kAG L̂1 ∂ L̂1
− E
dz + O(1/n). (64)
I kG − 1 0 ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
√
nπ E
On the other hand, if (60) holds, then p̂ = L̂1
for some integer n, and
1
dµ2 L̂21 γ
=E − ρ̂3 − cos(2nπz)(ρ̂3 )t dz
dt 0 ρ̂
t
1
2kAG L̂1 ∂ L̂1
+ E
dz + O(1/n). (65)
I kG − 1 0 ρ̂1/2 ∂t ρ̂1/2
proof: The proof follows from Theorem 5.1 and Lemmas 5.4 and 5.5. ✷
Finally, for eigenvalues which are well separated from neighboring eigen-
values, we prove the following asymptotic formulas.
Let e be a fixed but arbitrary real number between 0 and 1, and let
√
ni π E
pn i ≡ 1/2
, i = 1, , 2, . . . ,
Lρ0
36 GEIST AND MCLAUGHLIN
Suppose each pni is large enough that exactly one simple eigenvalue p̌ of
the Timoshenko beam lies in the interval
√ √
c c
pn i − 1/2
e, pni + 1/2
e ,
2Lρ0 2Lρ0
1
E A kG kG + E
− 2 ρ3 (x)dz + 1− . (67)
L ρ0 0 I ρ0 2(E − kG)
Let
√
mi π kG
pmi ≡ 1/2
, i = 1, , 2, . . . ,
Lρ0
be a sequence of roots of E(p) such that
1/2
pmi Lρ0
sin √ > e.
E
Suppose each pmi is large enough that there is exactly one simple eigenvalue
p̌2 of the Timoshenko beam satisfying
√ √
c c
p̌ ∈ pmi − 1/2
e, pmi + 1/2
e .
2Lρ0 2Lρ0
In this case,
1
m2i π 2 kG kG
p̌2 = − 2 ρ3 (x) cos(2mi πz)dz + CkG + O(1/mi ), (68)
L2 ρ0 L ρ0 0
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 37
where
1
A kG kG ρ0
CkG =− − 1 dz
I ρ0 E − kG 0 ρ(x)
1
kG A kG kG + E
− 2 ρ3 (x)dz + 1+ . (69)
L ρ0 0 I ρ0 2(E − kG)
proof: To prove formula (66) let µ2 = L̂21 ṕ2 where ṕ2 is an eigenvalue for
a beam with density ρ̂(x; t). Define p̌2 = ṕ2 |t=1 and p̄2 = ṕ2 |t=0 . Because
L̂21 |t=1 = L̂21 |t=0 = L2 ρ0 = L21 , as t changes from 0 to 1, µ2 /[L2 ρ0 ] will
change continuously in t from p̄2 , an eigenvalue for a uniform beam with
constant density ρ0 , to ρ̌2 , and eigenvalue for a beam with density ρ(x).
Furthermore, Lemma 5.6 shows that dµ2 /dt satisfies (65). This implies
that
1
1 1
L2 ρ0 (p̌2 − p̄2 ) = E L21 γ − − ρ3 − cos(2nπz)ρ3 dz
0 ρ ρ0
1
L2 kAG ρ0
+ E
− 1 dz + O(1/ni ) (70)
I kG − 1 0 ρ
where L2 ρ0 p̌2 = µ2 |t=1 is an eigenvalue for the transformed problem with
density ρ(x) and L2 ρ0 p̄2 = µ2 |t=0 is an eigenvalue for the transformed
problem with constant density ρ0 . Dividing through by L2 ρ0 = L21 , we find
that
1
1
1 1 E
p̌ − p̄ = E
2 2
γ − dz − 2 ρ3 dz
0 ρ ρ0 L ρ0 0
1
1
kAG 1 1 E 1
+ E
− dz − 2 cos(2ni πz)ρ3 dz + O (71)
I kG − 1 0 ρ ρ0 L ρ0 0 ni
From Geist-McLaughlin [10], it follows that
n2i π 2 E 1 kG + E A kG 1
2
p̄ = 2 + 1− +O .
L ρ0 2 kG − E I ρ0 ni
REFERENCES
1. George Bachman and Lawerence Narici. Functional Analysis. Academic Press, New
York, 1966.
2. G. Borg. Eine umkehrung der Sturm-Liouvilleschen eigenwertaufgabe. Acta Math.,
78:1–96, 1946.
3. William E. Boyce and Richard C. Diprima. Elementary Differential Equations and
Boundary Value Problems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 5th edition, 1992.
4. E. A. Coddington and N. Levinson. Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1955.
5. C. F. Coleman and J. R. McLaughlin. Solution of the inverse spectral problem for
an impedance with integrable derivative, part I, II. Comm. Pure and Appl. Math.,
XLVI:145–212, 1993.
6. C. T. Fulton and S. A. Pruess. Eigenvalue and eigenfunction asymptotics for regular
Sturm-Liouville problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 188:227–340, 1994.
7. C. T. Fulton and S. A. Pruess. Erratum. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 189:313–314, 1995.
8. Bruce Geist. The asymptotic expansion of the eigenvalues of the Timoshenko beam.
Ph.D. dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institue, Troy, N.Y., 1994.
9. Bruce Geist and J. R. McLaughlin. Double eigenvalues for the uniform Timoshenko
beam. Applied Mathematics Letters, 10(3):129–134, 1997.
10. Bruce Geist and J. R. McLaughlin. Eigenvalue formulas for the uniform Timoshenko
beam: The free-free problem. Electronic Research Announcement AMS, 4, 1998.
11. O. H. Hald. The inverse Sturm-Liouville problem with symmetric potentials. Acta
Math., 141:263–291, 1978.
12. O. H. Hald and J. R. McLaughlin. Solutions of inverse nodal problems. Inverse
Problems, 5:307–347, 1989.
13. T. C. Huang. The effect of rotatory inertia and of shear deformation on the frequency
and normal mode equations of uniform beams with simple end conditions. Journal
of Applied Mechanics, 28:579–584, 1961.
14. E. L. Isaacson and E. Trubowitz. The inverse Sturm-Liouville problem, I. Comm.
Pure and Appl. Math., XXXVI:767–783, 1983.
15. Edwin T. Kruszewski. Effect of transverse shear and rotary inertia on the natural
frequency of a uniform beam. In National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,
Technical Note no. 1909, July 1949.
16. Ben Noble and James W. Daniel. Applied Linear Algebra. Prentice-Hall, Inc., En-
glewood Cliffs, N.J., 2nd edition, 1977.
17. Jurgen Poschel and Eugene Trubowitz. Inverse Spectral Theory. Academic Press,
New York, 1987.
18. W. Rundell and P. Sacks. Reconstruction techniques for classical inverse Sturm-
Liouville problems. Math. Comp., 58(197):161–183, 1992.
19. Charles R. Steele. Application of the WKB method in solid mechanics. Mechanics
Today, 3:243–295, 1976.
20. William T. Thomson. Vibration Theory and Applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1965.
EIGENVALUES OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM 39
21. Stephen Timoshenko. On the correction for shear of the differential equation for
transverse vibrations of prismatic bars. Philisophical Magazine, 41:744–746, 1921.
22. Stephen Timoshenko. On the transverse vibrations of bars of uniform cross-section.
Philisophical Magazine, 43:125–131, 1922.
23. Stephen Timoshenko. Strength of Materials: Elementary Theory and Problems. D.
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York, 2nd edition, 1940.
24. R. W. Trail-Nash and A. R. Collar. The effects of shear flexibility and rotatory
inertia on the bending vibrations of beams. Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and
Applied Mathematics, VI(2):186–222, 1953.