Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
(s)
(a)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
FEM
V1P1 - 2D
V2P0 - 2D
V2P1 - 2D
RPIM
V2P1 - 3D
u
y
A
(b)
u
y
A
0.015
FEM
V1P1 - 2D
V2P0 - 2D
V2P1 - 2D
RPIM
V2P1 - 3D
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
(s)
(c)
uyA
0.25
FEM
V1P1 - 2D
V2P0 - 2D
V2P1 - 2D
V2P1 - 3D
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(s)
Fig. 5.64 Displacement at point A when it is applied a the load case A, b the load case B and
c the load case C [
2
]
x
v2p
1
¼ 27
:
32 rad
=
s, x
v2p
1
¼ 27
:
31 rad
=
s and x
3
1
¼ 27
:
37 rad
=
s. The frequency
of the dynamic load used in this example is c ¼ 26 rad
=
s. In Fig.
5.64
citis
visible that the beam dynamic response obtained with the V1P1 NNRPIM
formulation differs significantly from the other presented solutions. This varia-
tion can be explained with the considerably difference between the fundamental
vibration
frequency obtained
from
the
V1P1
NNRPIM
formulation
and
the
frequency of the dynamic load used in this example.
Notice that the other numerical approaches present close fundamental fre-
quencies between each other. Therefore, as expected, the beam dynamic responses
