Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Current research in vibration-based energy harvesting and in microelectromechanical system technology has focused renewed attention on the vibration of beams with end masses. This paper shows that the commonly accepted and frequently quoted fundamental natural frequency formula for a beam with identical end masses is incorrect. It is also shown that the higher mode frequency expressions suggested in the referred work (Haener, J., 1958, “Formulas for the Frequencies Including Higher Frequencies of Uniform Cantilever and Free-Free Beams With Additional Masses at the Ends,” ASME J. Appl. Mech. 25, pp. 412) are also incorrect. The correct characteristic (frequency) equation is derived and nondimensional comparisons are made between the results of the previously published formula and the corrected formulation using Euler–Bernoulli beam assumptions. The previous formula is shown to be accurate only for the extreme case of very large end mass to beam mass ratios. Curve fitting is used to report alternative first order and second order polynomial ratio expressions for the first natural frequency, as well as for the frequencies of some higher modes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ertürk et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: