Stabilization of Beams with Nonlinear Feedback (Q4785677)

The author studies a simplified form of the dynamic Euler-Bernoulli beam equation for coupled beams: \(y''+\partial^4y/\partial x=0\), where \(y''\) stands for \(\partial^2y/\partial t^2\), \(t>0\), \(x\in(0,a)\cup (a,1)\), with a coupling point at \(x=a\). It is simply supported at \(x=0\), with shear hinge condition at \(x=1\) in model \(\#1\), it is hinged at both ends in model \(\#2\), with point moment (derivative of Dirac delta) at the ends of the actuator. In model \(\#3\) the actuator occupies some length of the beam, instead of being concentrated at a single point, as other authors have assumed. The main purpose of this paper is the determination of feedback stabilization of the proposed set up. This is a paper containing a variety of results, concerning well-posedness, regularity, stabilization, effects of piezoelectric actuators, computation of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. The author falls into the trap into which several excellent mathematicians have been lured by, assuming that all data concerning the physical properties, like \(E\) -- Young's modulus, \(I\) -- the moment of inertia of the beam's cross-section about the neutral axis of bending, \(A\) -- the area of cross-section, and so on, consist of exact numbers. All these numbers have been condensed into a non-dimensional form, then finishing with a change of units, which allows the combination of all of the above to be replaced by a single number ``one'': \(y''+1\times\partial^4y/ \partial x=0\). And like some authors before him, this author found that the estimates of stabilization of his system and exact controllability depend on the position of an actuator. But that position in turn depends on a diophantine relation, which is satisfied only if a crucial number \(\theta\) is rational. This is a theme that has appeared in several papers concerning the Euler-Bernoulli beams. Mathematically all this is correct. It is good mathematics. But it has absolutely nothing in common with engineering attempts to stabilize vibrations of a beam. My recommendation to mathematicians writing on engineering subjects is to visit an appropriate engineering class at a convenient reputable university, such as a class in the theory of measurements, so that they may discover that no physical property can be measured exactly, and each measurement of that property must be accompanied by something called tolerance. If our writings are to be of value to the engineers, or physicists, we must first decide how close to reality our mathematical model is, and something that mathematicians perhaps will learn in the future is: what are the tolerances and maximal errors arising from an accepted but inexact mathematical model. The very statement that for example Young's modulus is a rational number is utterly ridiculous (and with probability one it is not rational).