Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Valembois, P. Fisette, J. Samin (1997)
Comparison of Various Techniques for Modelling Flexible Beams in Multibody DynamicsNonlinear Dynamics, 12
P. Krishnaprasad, J. Marsden (1987)
Hamiltonian structures and stability for rigid bodies with flexible attachmentsArchive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 98
A. Yigit, R. Scott, A. Ulsoy (1988)
Flexural motion of a radially rotating beam attached to a rigid bodyJournal of Sound and Vibration, 121
T. Kane, R. Ryan, A. Banerjee (1987)
Dynamics of a cantilever beam attached to a moving baseJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics, 10
Seung-bok Choi, Ho-Cheol Shin (1996)
A hybrid actuator scheme for robust position control of a flexible single‐link manipulatorJournal of Robotic Systems, 13
J. Baillieul, M. Levi (1987)
Rotational elastic dynamicsPhysica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 27
M. Giovagnoni (1993)
Linear Decoupled Models for a Slewing Beam Undergoing Large RotationsJournal of Sound and Vibration, 164
L. Meirovitch (1991)
Hybrid state equations of motion for flexible bodies in terms of quasi-coordinatesJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics, 14
In this paper, a first‐order approximation coupling (FOAC) model is investigated to analyze the dynamics of the hub‐beam system, which is based on the Hamilton theory and the finite element discretization method. The FOAC model for the hub‐beam system considers the second‐order coupling quantity of the axial displacement caused by the transverse displacement of the beam. The dynamic characteristics of the system are studied through numerical simulations under twos cases: the rotary inertia of the hub is much larger than, and is close to, that of the flexible beam. Simulation and comparison studies using both the traditional zeroth‐order approximation coupling (ZOAC) model and the FOAC model shows that when large motion of the system is unknown, possible failure exists by using the ZOAC model, whereas the FOAC model is valid. When the rotary inertia of the hub is much larger than that of the beam, the result using the ZOAC model is similar to that using the FOAC model. But when the rotary inertia of the hub is close to that of the beam, the ZOAC model may lead to a large error, while the FOAC model can still accurately describe the dynamic hub‐beam system.
Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jan 1, 2006
Keywords: Flexible hub‐beam system; Zeroth‐order approximation coupling model; First‐order approximation coupling model; KED uncoupled model
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.