P. 1
ty

ty

|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by gheinba
rtyuity u
rtyuity u

More info:

Published by: gheinba on Jan 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/30/2013

pdf

text

original

connection for research and other day to day academic activity.

Although a route r is present for the purpose, faulty LAN cable creating A TIMOSHENKO BEAM ELEMEN T? R. DAVIS. R. D. HENSHELL AND G. B. WARBURTON De to be that of the cross section of the beam, i.e. the rotation of the neutral ax is plus the shearing angle. With this it is possible to impose the correct boundary conditions at say a clamped or free end of a beam. Bending and shearing deformations were considered separately by Kapur [9] for de riving stiffness and consistent mass matrices for a Timoshenko beam. A cubic displaceme nt function beams are not collinear, complications arise with Kapur s element in coupling up f orces and displacements, and each node must be treated specially. Kapur s frequencies co nverged t Presented at the British Acoustical Society meeting on Finite element techniques in structural vib rations , at the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, Eng land, on 24 to 25 March 1971. 30 475 476 R. DAVIS, R. D. HENSHELL AND G. B. WARBURTON much more rapidly than some other answers obtained with a finite element Timoshe nko beam published by Archer [lo]. Kapur wrote that Archer s element could not represe nt the exact boundary conditions at a clamped or free end of a beam. Mid-side nodes were used in the work reported in reference [l l] to improve the rate of convergence of a beam with shear deformation and rotary inertia. The respective authors of both reference [ ll] and reference [12] (who have also published stiffness and mass matrices for a Timosh enko beam) do not state which rotations were used in formulating their matrices. In the ppartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nottingham, Notto of the depth of the beam to the wavential equations of an infinitesimal element in static equilibrium is presented. Stiffness and co nsistent mass matrices are derived. Convergence tests are performed for a simply-supported bea m and a cantilever. The effect of the shear coefficient on frequencies is discussed an d a study is made of the accuracy obtained when analysing frameworks with beams. 1. INTRODUCTION In the Bernoulli-Euler theory of flexural vibrations of beams only the transvers e inertia and elastic forces due to bending deflections are considered. As the ratielength of vibration increases the Bernoulli-Euler equation tends to overestimate the frequency. The applicability of this equation can be extended b y including the effects of the shear deformation and rotary inertia of the beam. The equatio n which

wher e all various boundary conditions have been published [3-51.and three -dimensional frameworks comprised of Bernoulli-Euler or Timoshenko beams. it is important to be clear whic h rotation is to be used at the ends of the finite element model.and three -dimensional frameworks comprised of Bernoulli-Euler or Timoshenko beams. A similar assumption was made for shear deformati ons. also allowing a translational and rotational displacement at each node. England (Received 20 March 1972) A Timoshenko beam finite element which is based upon the exact differwas assumed for the bending deformation (the displacements at each node being one translation and one rotation). Their analysis was based on the ex . in general structures. The dynamic stiffness mat rix method has been used [6. The authors have chosen this rotationresent paper the matrices for a Timoshenko ingham NG7 2RD. 21 and solutions of it for various boundary conditions have been published [3-51. The dynamic stiffne ss matrix method has been used [6. The stiffness and mass matrices for the simple beam finite element were publishe d in 1963 by Leckie and Lindberg [8]. The resulting element matrices were of order 8 x 8 and no stiffness coupling was permitted between ben ding and shear deformations. However.includes these secondary effects was derived by Timoshenko [I. In the present paper Leckie and Lindberg s work is extended to include shear deformation and rotary inertia in the analysis . The results presented by Kapur agreed very well with exact f requencies for simply-supported beams and cantilevers. 71 for studying the dynamic behaviour of two. When these secondary effects are taken into account. The stiffness and mass matrices for the simple beam finite element were publishe d in 1963 by Leckie and Lindberg [8]. Their analysis was based on the exact different ial equations of an infXtesima1 element in static equilibrium. 71 for studying the dynamic behaviour of two.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->