DYNAMICS OF CRACKED BEAMS

by Amaechi J. Anyaegbunam
A sdof system has a natural frequency given by

A crack will decrease a system’s stiffness and hence by virtue of Eq.(1) the frequency will
decrease.
Consider a crack at a point on a beam. This introduces a discontinuity in the beam’s inertia
distribution such that at the crack location there will also be a discontinuity in the beam’s slope.

Elem 1 2 3
a1 a2

1 2 3 4

L1 L2 L3

Fig. 1. Beam element with 2 cracks at nodes 2 and 3

The width of each crack has been exaggerated for the sake of clarity. Cracked beam theory revolves
around the technique for handling this slope discontinuity.
There are basically two methods of handling cracked beam dynamics, namely:
(1) The rigorous method
(2) The finite element approach
(1) THE RIGOROUS METHOD
The rigorous method is very mathematically involved and is based on forming and solving the
ODE governing the flexural modes of a cracked beam, namely:

. − =0 (1)

Where, EI the stiffness of the cracked beam is related to EoIo the stiffness of the uncracked beam by
EI = EoIo[1 – η1δ(x-x1) – η2δ(x-x2) – ……….] (2)
η1 = crack intensity parameter for the crack at x = xi; δ = the Dirac delta function with its usual
properties; m = mass per unit length of the beam; ω = beam vibration frequency and V = beam
deflection.
Substituting for EI in Eq. (1) and performing the requisite differentiation yields

EoIoViv  mω2V EoIo[η1δ(x-x1) + η2δ(x-x2)+…...]Viv2EoIo[η1δ′(x-x1) + η2δ′(x-x2)+ …...]Viii

1
  EoIo[η1δ′′(x-x1) + η2δ′′(x-x2)+…...]Vii = 0 (3)

Where Vii = d2V/dx2 , δ′′(x-x1) = the 2nd derivative of the Dirac function etc.
The appropriate integration of Eq.(3) can be observed to be a very difficult task most especially
when it is noted that that the derivatives of V are discontinuous at the crack locations. Thus, the
rigorous approach is not suitable for the routine frequency study of cracked beams. Caddemi and
Calio (2009), after making numerous assumptions, claim to have obtained the exact solution for the
dynamics of a multi-cracked beam.
THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
As was mentioned at a cracked node the slope,dv/dx = θ, will be discontinuous with its value to
the left of a crack being different from its value to the right of the crack.
Thus, each uncracked node i will have 2 degrees of freedom (vi, θi) whilst each cracked node i will
have 3 degrees of freedom (vi, θiL, θiR ).
The beam in Fig.1 can be divide naturally into 3 elements with the following degrees of
freedom shown in Fig.2.

Elem 1 2 3 h
a1 a2

1 2 3 4
(v1, θ1) (v2, θ2L, θ2R ) (v3, θ3L, θ3R ) (v4, θ4)

(d1, d2) (d3, d4, d5 ) (d6, d7, d8 ) (d9, d10)

Fig. 2 Nodal displacements for cracked beam

Also, shown are the generalized displacements di’s where a di can represent either a deflection or a
rotation, with note being taken that 2 rotations occur at each of nodes 2 and 3. The global stiffness
matrix Kg is a 10 by 10 matrix.
A FE analysis requires the correct posting of the element stiffness matrix of each element to its
correct position in the global stiffness matrix with appropriate summations being implemented.
The posting procedure is as follows:
Element 1: The stiffness coefficients will be posted to rows and columns (1, 2, 3, 4) of Kg
Element 2: The stiffness coefficients will be posted to rows and columns (3, 5, 6, 7) of Kg
Element 3: The stiffness coefficients will be posted to rows and columns (6, 8, 9, 10) of Kg
The element stiffness matrix of an Euler-Bernoulli beam is given in the Appendix.

2
 The next step is to tie the rotational freedoms 4 and 5 at node 2, and also tie the rotational
freedoms 7 and 8 at node 3. These are done on the basis of the modelling of the cracked section at i
as a rotational spring with stiffness
= (4)
( )

Where = ; ai = depth of crack at i; h = beam thickness

The proposals for the compliance term C(β ) are given in the Appendix.
The derived global stiffness matrix shall then be modified as follows:
Kg(4, 4) = Kg(4, 4) + Kc2
Kg(4, 5) = Kg(5, 4) = - Kc2 (5)
Kg(5, 5) = Kg(5, 5) + Kc2

Kg(7, 7) = Kg(7 ,7) + Kc3

Kg(7, 8) = Kg(8, 7) = - Kc3 (6)
Kg(8, 8) = Kg(8, 8) + Kc3
The natural frequency of the cracked beam shall then be derived from the eigen-value determinant
equation
| Kg - Mg ω2| = 0 (7)
Mg is the global mass matrix to be evaluated in a manner similar to the global stiffness matrix
except that adjustments similar to Eqs. (5) and (6) are not implemented. The element mass matrix
for a beam with distributed mass is given below in the Appendix.
The algorithm for the iteration program to determine ω is very straight forward. Recall when
distributed mass matrix is used the consequence is a non-classical eigen-value problem.
Note of Warning: The temptation to subdivide the uncracked portions of the beam into more
elements should be resisted. As the length of a beam approaches twice its depth the beam becomes
more and more like a deep beam that cannot be modelled correctly by the Euler-Bernoulli concept

APPENDIX
ELEMENT STIFFNESS MATRIX
The element stiffness matrix of an Euler-Bernoulli beam element 1-2 of length L, based on a
displacement ordering of (v1 θ1 v2 θ2), is given by
12 6L -12L 6L
= S 4L2 -6L 2L2 (8)

Y 12L -6L
M 4L2

3
ELEMENT MASS MATRIX
The element mass matrix of an Euler-Bernoulli beam element 1-2 of length L, based on a
displacement ordering of (v1 θ1 v2 θ2), is given by
156 22L 54 -13L
= S 4L2 13L -3L2 (8)

Y 156 -22L
M 4L2

EXPRESSIONS FOR C(β)

According to Ostachowicz and Krawczuk (1991)
C(β) = 6πβ2(0.6384 - 1.035β + 3.7261β2 - 5.1773β3 + 7.553β4 - 7.332β5 + 2.4909β6)

According to Liebowitz et al. (1967) and Liebowitz and Claus (1968)

C(β) = 5.346β2(1.86 - 3.95β + 16.375β2 - 37.226β3 + 78.81β4 - 126.9β5 + 172β6 - 143.97β7 + 66.56β8)

Chandros et al. (1998) propose

C(β) = 6π(1- ν2)β2(0.6272 – 1.04533β + 4.5948β2 – 9.9736β3 + 20.2948β4 – 33.0351β5 + 47.1063β6

- 40.7556β7 + 19.6β8)

Where ν = Poisson’s ratio.

Whilst Bilello (2001) formulated

(2 − )
( )=
0.9(1 − )

REFERENCES
Bilello, C.(2001) Theoretical and Experimental Investigation on Damaged Beams under Moving
Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, Universita degli Studi di Palermo, Italy.

Caddemi, S., and Caliò, I. (2009) Exact closed-form solution for the vibration modes of the Euler–
Bernoulli beam with multiple open cracks, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 327, 473-489.
Chondros, T.J., Dimarogonas, A.D., and Yao, J.(1998) Acontinuous cracked beam vibration theory,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 215(1), 17–34.

Liebowitz, H., Vanderveldt, H. and Harris, D.W. (1967) Carrying capacity of notched column,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 3, 489–500.

Liebowitz, H., and Claus(Jr.), W.D.S. (1968) Failure of notched columns, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 1, 379–383.
Ostachowicz, W.M., and Krawczuk, C. (1991), Analysis of the effect of cracks on the natural
frequencies of a cantilever beam, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 150(2), 191–201.
4