3

While working with some formulas on cantilever in mechanical engineering , in some places it assumes that

$\frac{1}{R} =\kappa = \frac{d^{2} y}{d x^{2}}$

But I know That $k=\frac{y^{\prime \prime}}{(1+y^{\prime 2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}$

So It Is Very Counterintuitive to me , So Someone please help me

  • I don't have the full context, but maybe their use of the second derivative to measure curvature was a local approximation to be used when $y'\approx 0.$ – Golden_Ratio Jan 16 '22 at 04:34
  • In fact, I also see wiki talks about this approximation...I'll write it as an answer – Golden_Ratio Jan 16 '22 at 04:35
  • it depends on the parametrization: if the parametrization is by arc-length then it coincides with the second derivative of the parametrization –  Jan 16 '22 at 04:45
  • This is the very first first question I believe every student learning Strength Analysis should ask: $\to +1$ – Darshan P. Jan 17 '22 at 08:41

2 Answers2

4

Quoting from wiki:

When the slope of the graph... is small, the signed curvature is well approximated by the second derivative. More precisely, using big O notation, one has $$k(x)=y''(1+O(y'^2)).$$ It is common in physics and engineering to approximate the curvature with the second derivative, for example, in beam theory or for deriving wave equation of a tense string, and other applications where small slopes are involved. This often allows systems that are otherwise nonlinear to be considered as linear.

Golden_Ratio
  • 12,834
2

So, In cantilever there is a catch: In ideal condition you can consider $\frac {dy}{dx} \neq 0$. However, in reality, the bend (the slope of tangent) to a cantilever beam is very very small and the square of that is almost zero so this works

You can neglect $\left(\frac {dy}{dx}\right)^2$

But you should NOT neglect $\color{red}{\frac {d^2y}{dx^2}}$ Why?

Because, $$\frac {d^2y}{dx^2} = \frac {\text{difference of slopes of tangents}}{\text{small value of x}}= \frac {\frac {dy}{dx}_{2} - \frac {dy}{dx}_1}{\delta x} \implies \frac {\text{small}_2 - {small}_1}{\text{small}} \ne \text{ small } or \text { may have significantly big value}$$

If your question is why the radius curvature is as the formula says then this might help you understand how we can use mathematics in real-life applications.


It was a time when I didn't know about the radius of curvature so I can say I coined this term as Instantaneous Radius of Curve:

I wanted to find the instantaneous radius of any curve so I defined it as

  • Theory: At the first, We find two normals $(N_1$ & $ N_2)$ to a curve and then the intersection of these normals; If these straight lines(normals) tend to be the same then their point of intersection will be the point of instantaneous radius and the distance as the Instantaneous radius

$$\begin{align} m_1 = -{\left(\frac {dy}{dx}\right)}^{-1}_{p1} \text{ and } m_2 = -{\left(\frac {dy}{dx}\right)}^{-1}_{p2}\\ \end{align}$$ $$a = \frac {dy}{dx} \text{ and } b = \frac {d^2y}{dx^2}$$

Now, $$m_1\times t_1 = -1 \text{ and } m_2\times t_2 = -1$$

$$y-m_1 \times x = y_1 - m_1 x_1 \text{ ..................equation of normal 1}$$

$$y-m_2 \times x = y_2 - m_2 x_2 \text{ ..................equation of normal 2}$$

$$\begin{align} y = & \frac {(m_2y_1 - m_1y_2)+(x_2-x1)\times m_1 \times m_2}{(m_2-m_1)}\\ & = \frac {\left(y_2t_2 - y_1t_1 + \Delta x\right)/ \Delta x}{\Delta t/\Delta x}\\ & = \left[\frac {1+ G(x)}{f''(x)}\right] where, \int G(x)dx = y.f'(x) \end{align}$$

Similarly, By changing the frame of axes, we find an equation in terms of $\frac {d^2x}{dy^2}$

$$\begin{align} \text { and thus, get } \frac {x_1b- a - a^3}{b} = x \end{align}$$ and also using the below formula(used to find the 2nd derivative of x in terms of the derivates of y ) $${\frac {d^2x}{dy^2} = -\left(\frac{dy}{dx}\right)^{-3}\times {\frac {d^2y}{dx^2}}}$$

$$\begin{align} \left(l(R)\right)^2 & = (x-x_1)^2 + (y - y_1)^2\\ & = \frac {(a+a^3)^2 + (1+a^2)^2}{b^2}\\ & = \frac {(a^2 + 1)^3}{b^2}\\ \implies R = \frac {\left(1+\left(\frac {dy}{dx}\right)^2\right)^{\frac 32}}{\left(\frac {d^2y}{dx^2}\right)} \end{align}$$


@GaneshKhadanga in reply to your comment:

  • Why I'm solving for the value of $y$?: I'm looking for the $y$-coordinate of the point of intersection of the normals.

$$\begin{align} y = & \frac {(m_2y_1 - m_1y_2)+(x_2-x1)\times m_1 \times m_2}{(m_2-m_1)}\\ & = \frac {\left(\frac{y_1}{m_1} - \frac {y_2}{m_2}\right) + (x_2 - x_1)}{\frac 1{m_1} - \frac 1{m_2}}\\ &\text { As, } m_1\times t_1 = -1 \text{ and } m_2\times t_2 = -1 \\ &\text {The product of slope of tangent and normal is negative one}\\ &\text{Here, by } \Delta t \text { I mean the difference of slopes of tangents }\\ & = \frac {\left(y_2t_2 - y_1t_1 + \Delta x\right)/ \Delta x}{\Delta t/\Delta x}\\ & = \left[\frac {1+ G(x)}{f''(x)}\right] where, \int G(x)dx = y.f'(x) \end{align}$$

Also, Why $\frac {\Delta t}{\Delta x} = f''(x)$ Here, I consider as if $\Delta x \to 0$ and it means what is the rate of change of the slopes of tangents e.i the rate of change of $\frac {dy}{dx}$

$\frac d{dx}\frac {dy}{dx} = \frac {d^2y}{dx^2}$

Darshan P.
  • 1,201
  • 4
  • 14
  • Can you please explain how you reached this step from equation 1 and 2 and solved it (please give some hints or deatails)$\begin{align} y = & \frac {(m_2y_1 - m_1y_2)+(x_2-x1)\times m_1 \times m_2}{(m_2-m_1)}\ & = \frac {\left(y_2t_2 - y_1t_1 + \Delta x\right)/ \Delta x}{\Delta t/\Delta x}\ & = \left[\frac {1+ G(x)}{f''(x)}\right] where, \int G(x)dx = y.f'(x) \end{align}$ – Ganesh Khadanga Jan 16 '22 at 16:46
  • @GaneshKhadanga I would request you to please give me a few days as I'm very sick and cannot expose my eyes to the laptop Please!! Though I can give you hint: I used the equation of Normals. Did you check this? – Darshan P. Jan 17 '22 at 08:35
  • Yes I checked that , but I am not so good in calculation so I can't understand it properly , so a bit more details will be helpful ,,,, all though thenks for response and get well soon – Ganesh Khadanga Jan 17 '22 at 11:38
  • @GaneshKhadanga I believe you can do that you just need to divide with products of slopes. That is divide with $m_1m_2$ or else I'll try to update by tomorrow for sure – Darshan P. Jan 17 '22 at 15:43
  • @GaneshKhadanga I just updated the answer hope, Hope you'll enjoy it with intuition. I wanted to work on the intuition behind the proof so this might take time to understand or else you can take any standard book(Would suggest Dennis Zill's Engineering Mathematics) for your better understanding and for the strength of materials, you can use S. Timoshenko's – Darshan P. Jan 20 '22 at 08:00