Timeline for The demise of the Tacoma Narrows bridge was casused by aeroelastic flutter. But isn't that just a special case of resonance?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2016 at 20:47 | comment | added | Kevin Kostlan | @tpg2114 Yes, I think the input wind force depends on the bridge's position and velocity, so the frequency automatically gets set to the bridge's resonance. With the right phase-shift the wind will pump more energy in each cycle. At least in this case. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 19:53 | vote | accept | docscience | ||
| Apr 14, 2018 at 23:26 | |||||
| Mar 30, 2015 at 18:11 | comment | added | tpg2114 | I guess the only way that one could argue it is different -- there is a tight coupling between the driving force and the response in aeroelastic flutter. Contrast this with most structural resonance where the driving force is considered an input (ie. we shake the thing at X Hz and does it resonate). | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 18:09 | comment | added | tpg2114 | @docscience And I would agree -- I've never heard it explained any other way and that's why I was confused at your question. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 16:45 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Mar 30, 2015 at 16:44 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | @docscience: Yes. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 16:40 | comment | added | docscience | So then aero elastic flutter is a special case of resonance, right? The aerodynamic driving energy is at the same natural frequency as the structure. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 16:35 | history | answered | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |