Stabilization of Timoshenko beam with dissipative boundary feedback
The authors study boundary control for the Timoshenko beam, as defined by the following equations NEWLINE\[NEWLINE\rho\partial w/\partial t+ K(\partial\varphi/\partial x- \partial^2w/\partial x^2)= 0,NEWLINE\]NEWLINE and NEWLINE\[NEWLINEI_\rho\partial\varphi/\partial t- EI\partial^2\varphi/\partial x^2+ K(\varphi-\partial w/\partial x)= 0,NEWLINE\]NEWLINE with zero conditions at the clamped end of the beam and with the following feedbacks applied at the free end \(x=\ell\): NEWLINE\[NEWLINE\begin{aligned} u_1(t) &= \alpha\partial w/\partial t(\ell,t)+ \beta\partial\varphi/\partial t(\ell, t),\\ u_2(t) &= \tau\partial w/\partial t(\ell, t)+ \gamma\partial\varphi/\partial t(\ell, t).\end{aligned}NEWLINE\]NEWLINE To the uninitiated it would appear that the same form of control has been duplicated at the same location. The authors fail to explain that the physical dimensions of \(\alpha\) and \(\tau\) and of \(\beta\) and \(\gamma\), respectively are different. Thus one control represents a force, while the other one a moment.NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEThe authors prove that if the rank of the matrix \(B\) of these controls is 2 and \(B\) is positive, then they can exponentially stabilize the beam by a boundary feedback. This is an if and only if condition. They use the standard semigroup arguments, arguing that the linear evolution operator generates a \(C_0\) contraction semigroup. To simplify calculations they assume that \(\tau= \beta\) if the rank of \(B\) is 2. If the rank of \(B\) is 1, the authors derive necessary and sufficient conditions for the energy to decay to zero. The reviewer comments that \(\partial w/\partial x\) and \(\varphi\) have the same physical dimension (in fact in the static case \(\partial w/\partial x\) and \(\varphi\) have exactly the same meaning). Thus equating the coefficients of \(\partial w/\partial t\) and \(\partial\varphi/\partial t\) is not a trivial matter, which it appears to be in the authors' presentation.NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINESome of the calculations were rather ugly, and the authors quote names of colleagues who verified their validity.
- Boundary stabilization of Timoshenko beam
- Nonlinear feedback control of Timoshenko beam
- Feedback stabilization of a Timoshenko beam with an end mass
- Boundary feedback exponential stabilization of a Timoshenko beam with both ends free
- Boundary feedback stabilization of Timoshenko beam with boundary dissipation
- Asymptotic behavior of Timoshenko beam with dissipative boundary feedback
- Boundary stabilization of nonuniform Timoshenko beam
- On the stabilization of the Bresse beam with Kelvin-Voigt damping
- Boundary feedback stabilization of Kirchhoff-type Timoshenko system
- Boundary stabilization of Timoshenko beam
- Feedback stabilization of rotating Timoshenko beam with adaptive gain
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 4209719 (Why is no real title available?)
- On boundary feedback stabilisability of a viscoelastic beam
- Stabilization of a joint-leg-beam system with boundary damping
- Feedback stabilization of a Timoshenko beam with an end mass
- Stabilization of a Timoshenko Beam With Disturbance Observer‐Based Time Varying Boundary Controls
- Boundary feedback stabilization of the undamped Timoshenko beam with both ends free
This page was built for publication: Stabilization of Timoshenko beam with dissipative boundary feedback
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2745591)
