This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/147093852/AnApproximateTheoryFortransverseShearDeformationandRotatoryInertiaEffectsinVibratingBeams
05/19/2014
text
original
CONTRACTOR
REPORT
A N APPROXIMATE THEORY FOR TRANSVERSE SHEAR DEFORMATION AND ROTATORY INERTIA EFFECTS I N VIBRATING BEAMS
by De M , Egle
Prepared by
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
Norman, Okla.
for Langley Research Center
\
i i Li
NATIONA ALE R O N A U T I C ASNSD PAC AED M I N I S T R A T I O N
W A S H I N G T O N , D. C.
MAY 1969
r
TECH LIBRARY KAPB, NY
NASA CR1317
AN APPROXIMATE THEORY FOR TRANSVERSE SHEAR DEFORMATION AND ROTATORY INERTIA EFFECTS IN VIBRATING BEAMS ByD. M. Egle
Distribution of this report is provided in the interest of informationexchange.Responsibility for thecontents resides in the author o r organization that prepared it.
Prepared under Grant No. NGR 37003035 by UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Norman, Okla. for Langley Research Center
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
For s a l e by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical lnformotion Springfield, Virginia 22151 CFSTI price $3.00

P 
.
Egle Professor Aerospace and Engineering of Oklahoma Oklahoma Abstract A beam theory. Assistant School of Mechanical University Norman. This is accamplished by neglecting the coupling between the transverse shear deformation and the rotatory inertia. is developed in this paper. which includes effects the of transverse kinetic and and whose shear deformation and rotatory inertia potential energy may be written in terms a single of dependent variable. Comparisons of natural frequencies calculated by this theory with those of the Timoshenko theory show that this coupling is indeed negligible. Dynamic Loads Division.John L. . Sewall. This simplification will reduce the computational effort required in the analysis of complex beams or structures composed a number of of beams.NGR ' T h i s work was sponsored 003035.AN APPROXIMATE THEORY FOR TRANSVERSE SHEAR INERTIA DEFORMATION AND ROTATORY EFFECTS IN VIBRATING BEAMS' D. by NASA under Research Grant 37. with Mr.M. Langley Research Center acting as technical monitor.
the Timoshenko theory. In ex change for the accuracy of t h i s theory as compared to the classical BernoulliEuler beam theory. which includes the effects of transverse shear deformation and rotatory inertia andwhich may be written in terms of a single dependent variable. While theaddition of this variable is not of serious consequence i n many of the simpler beam problems. it is necessary t o neglect the coupling bemeen the transverse shear deformation and the rotatory inertia. the energy expressions f o r a beam theory. it canbe a considerable disadvantage i f an approximate solution by the methodsof R i t z o r Galerkin i s being sought f o r a canplex beam o r a structure ccarrpased of a number of beams. i t is necessary t o introduce an additional dependent variable. To accomplish this.Introduction T h e ' Ti~noshenkotheory of vibrating b.because it is simple t o formulate and its r e s u l t s compare very well with those obtainable by l i n e a r e l a s t i c i t y theory [2.3] .eams 1112. implying that the neglect of this coupling h e r s i n brackets designate references a t the end of the paper. In this paper. 2 .are developed. thus complicating thesolution. I t has beenused extensively. The natural fre quencies of a simply supported and a cantilevered beam calculated with. this theory compare very well t o those determined by. has been t h e b a s i s of a large number'of investigations into t h e effects of transverse shear deformation and rotatory inertia on the dynamics of beams.
is justified. A beam crosssectional area Young's . 3. 2.modulus E G shear modulus depth of rectangular beam moment of i n e r t i a of beam cross section about the yaxis transverse shear coefficient length of beam bending moment vibration mode (1.) time kinetic energy shear force total deflection of neutral axis deflection due t o bending moment deflection due t o shear force E1k /G A h I k R M n t T v W " b W S a V wavelength of vibration density of beam material P w 6 .tw0 components. t h a t due t o the bending momentand 3 that due to transverse shear . Namemlature. etc. see Figure 1. 'This deflection may be divided into. frequency @ 2 Theory Development Let w be the total deflection of the beam's neutral axis.
equations (1. for example. ws. Thus w = Wb + ws (1) The shear deflection. may be related to the shear strain in the beam in several ways (see reference [4] for example)and the value of the transverse shear coefficient relationship. 6) which gives energy expressions which are functions of two variables. f o r ourpurposes. The bending moment is given by However. is dependent on t h i s it is onlynecessary t o The s t r a i n energy due to the bending moment and force is the shear u = 1/2 1R c.deformation. state that where k is the appropriate transverse shear coefficient. the rotatory i n e r t i a is negligible. the shbar deflection.M2 0 + V2 m l dx and the translational and rotatory kinetic energy is where the dot above a variable denotes differentation with respect t o time. 4) are substituted into equations (5.hence. for the purpose of determining the shear force and. then V = 4 . If it is assumed that. w and wb. 3. In the energy formulation of the Timoshenko theory.
4 .the rotatory.6) the bending deflection.111 The end conditions are taken.l 2 + A 12 . it w i l l be that it may be deleted from equation (9) with the understanding added t o w b (or w) t o satisfy the end conditions.Thus.= + c (t) = (9) C(t) is determined f r o m the end conditions.between andhence.inertia and the transverse shear force. Equation (8) may be integrated t o determine the shear deflection W = . The energy expressions (5. Note t h a t the rotatory inertia has not been neglected altogether as it still appears in the second term of equatzon (6). In fact.a W S b.end condi t i o n s for which the forces andmoments a t the end do nowork) are either 5 .. . tihe transverse shear deflection. = m a y now be written i n tenns of U = (1/2) /: E1 C W ~ . the shear force is related t o the hending moment just as it is in s t a t i c beam theory. and 7) . 'The natural end conditions(those.x =crw b. w where a = . c. influences the energy only through the sum w However.  b! Gb..= EI/M.. has been omitted. only'the coupling . Ccrmbhiig equations (3..A.to be similar t o those of the Timoshenko theory. because C(t) wb + ws. + a ~ w2 1 dx (10) T = (1/2). 1 : p A I[+. w b Thus b.
the natural frequencies may be calmlated by Rayleigh's method where wl = 2 . R if The end conditions (12a. natural frequencies of the simply BernoulliEuler beam supported The ratio a€bending be deflection to total deflection may be shown to Figure 2 ccnnpares the frequencies calculated with the 6 .x and. 11.= =o (12c) (12d) Application toa Uniform SimplySupported Beam 0.d) are satisfied x =at wb = A sin nrx/a sin (13) wt With equations (10./$ .M=EIw b. either (12b) V = or  E1 w b.= or = o (12a) w =o b. and 13).
The 1 are less than 1. For the rectangular beam. where h = depth v = of the beam 2a/n. The values of (w/w~) calculated by the Timoshenko theory were slightly lower than those of equation (14). due to bending moment to the total beam is shown 3.4. for example.. wavelength The range of (h/v) in Figures 3.25% for 5 differences for values 5of < 1 and The ratio for of the deflection simply 5 > 1 .85 as recommended by 4 ] Cowper [ The 3 which . 5 is from 0. 3 . frequencies are of plotted aover wide depth of range the of the to variable the wavelength the beam is a measure the vibration. the agreement between the two theories is excellent up to 5 = 10.06 to 1. As is seen in Figure 2. The shear coefficient.8.25%. of However.5 which correspond deflections but is still not excessive to a depth to wavelength ratio of 0. the upper limit was selected to show the wide range of agreement betw the present analysis and the Timoshenko theory.the upper limit being much higher than one would expect to encounter in determining the first few frequencies a beam. k was taken to be 0. the maximum difference being about 1. in Figure deflection supported The discrepancy between two the theories is more apparent in the 3 if 0. aboutBecause the present 7 .present analysis to those of the Timoshenko theory (see Appendix) for a rectangular bar of material with Poisson's 0 ratio . 4.
= an/&. As would be expected. equations (10. The bending deflection is taken in the form wb = n=l 1 An [Xn(x) + a : X (0) 3 sin ut (x) are the BernoulliEuler eigenfunctions for the where the Xn clampedfree beam[5] and theX . d) at x=O and (lZa. it will yield values for the shear deflection which are too large.analysis underestimates the bending deflection.18. the agreement between the present approximation and Timoshenko beam theory is much worse for the shear force than the natural frequencies.1 or if the hedght to wavelength ratio is less than 10% if than 0. clamped at x = 0 .c) X=R. Equation (16) satisfies the end conditions (12b. 8 . (10. at The maximum kinetic and potential energies may be calculated with eqs. 1 6 ) . 11) to obtain a n approximate solution for the natural frequencies of a uniform beam of length R. but the error is less 5 < 0. Application a Uniform to Cantilevered Beam The RayleighRitz method is applied to the energy expressions. This is verified supported in Figure 4 which shows by the shear force a simplyin beam normalized which is the shear force corresponding to the BernoulliEuler theory and is equal to the shear force predicted by the present theory. 11.
. r e s u l t s i n n=l 1 (Kin  x Min) An = 0 i = 1. 2. 9 .18) with the aid of the beam eigenfunction integrals tabulated by Felgar [6] .. (17.. ( X ) ) ’ + a (n=l An ‘:X 1 (x))~} dx (18) Applying the RayleighRitztechnique t ! o eqs.m m ‘max = 1 / 2 E1 /’0 C (n1 = l An X . .
(19) t o values given by the Timoshenko theory i n Seven terms were used i n equation(19). Equations (19) may be solved approximately . The problem is then a the standard linear eigenvalue problem and m a y be solved anyof numerical techniques. w h i c h w a s sufficient for 3place accuracy in the f i f t h lowest frequency whencompared t o a tenterm series.by considering only the first few t e r n i n the.series.Numerical values of an and Bn are given i n reference [SI. Table 1 compares the five lowest frequencies of a clampedfree uniform beam for four gemetrical configurations calculated with equation reference [7]. the frequency equation is where 10 . neglect the If w e consider only a single term i n (19)and a2 tern in Min.
natural frequency of ~ r n o u l l i . lated with a tentern series Figure 5 shows thefrequenciescalcu i n equation (19) plotted as a vibration.w 2 = Bi E. i n the of the bending deflec Equation (20) w i l l givevalues (19)and the of the frequency larger than those calculated with error w i l l increase as yn increases. i n presenting equation (20) is that it suggests the use of yn as a s i m i l a r i w parameter in plottingthefrequencies.~ l e r clampedfree beam The termwhich was neglected i n a r r i v i n g a t equation (20) can be shown t o be the contribution of the shear deflection to the translational kinetic energy and the terms remaining dencnninator of (20) are the contributions tion.however. 11 . and the rotatory inertia. I t is function of yn f o r the f i r s t four modes of apparent that yn serves reasonably well as a similarity parameter since the values tend t o l i e on a single curve. The point to bemade.
A study has been initiated t o do this and it w i l l be interesting t o see i f this w i l l agree as well with the Mindlin theory.. i n which the present theory is embodied. reference agrees with the Timoshenko theory.I t is evident.. because they are functions of a single dependent variable. a considerable fication in the solution w i l l result. 11). ignoring the coupling between the transverse shear rotatory inertia. that the neglect of t h e caupling between the rotatory inertia and the transverse shear justified. (8).. are slightly morecomplex than those of the Timoshenko theory. . shtpli t o problems t o which they are applied The concept used t o develop this theory. 'The energy expressionsequations deformation is (10. f r o m the excellent agreementhetween the natural frequencies calculated with this analysis and those of fhe Tmoshenko theory. that is. but. as the present analysis 12 . wouldseem shells as well deformation and the t o be applicable t o plates and as beams.
125131 (1922). Felgar. vol. Mindlin." Circular 14.P. R. 335340 (1966). 4.. pp. S." Journal Applied Mechanics . Timoshenko... "New Tables of Eigenfunctions Representing in Normal Modes of Vibration of Timoshenko Beams.R. 3. Texas. "Tables of Characteristic Functions Representing Normal Modes of Vibration a Beam. "A Critical Study of the Hopkinson Pressure Bar. Elastic Piates".S. University of of Engineering Research (1950).. University of Texas (July 1949). Bureau hang. Journal of Applied Mechanics." Philo.P. R. 73. pp. S. T.P. D. sophical Magazine. Davies. 6. Timoshenko. vol.REFERENCES 1.. 41 744746 (1921) 2. 1. Kung. pp. 7.P. vol.C. 375457 (1948) . 13 . Jr.. "On the Transverse Vibrations of Bars of Uniform CrossSection. Jr. vol. "Formulas for Integrals Containing Characteristic Functions of a Vibrating Beam. "The Shear Coefficient i n Timoshenko's Beam Theory.M. R. and Felgar." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (A). vol. G. 240. 33 . 43.'' of Publication 4913.. "Influence of Rotatory Inertia and Shear on Flexural Motions of Isotropic.. R.D. Cowper. 5971 (1962). pp. 8. "On the Correction for Shear of the Differential Equation for Transverse Vibrations of Prismatic Bars. 3138 (1951)." Developments Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. pp. vol. . and C." Philosophical Magazine. 5. Transactions ASME.. pp. Young.
r r x / k sin ut wb = sin Cz Substitution of equations (A5.6) &to (A1.= V.x = pAG V = PI Mpx + wb.4) eventually leads to where V1 = .6 ) For the simply supported beam. the deflections of are the form w = C1 sin wt nvx/R sin n .w ) b .x .= 14 .APPENDIX The equations governing the motion of a Timoshenko beam are v = kGA (w.x M=EIw b.x (A4) (A5) (A.E1 w b.
98447 .79640 .7461 2 3 4 5 f L 1 \U1' b .61175 2 3 4 5 (% a1 E/kG = 1.25.654 .99081 93881 86758 77710 .696 b .81901 .98854 .~ n 1 a .92504 .go112 .58030 .78. theory "" ~ E/kG = 4.92540 . Ccanparison of the natural frequencies of a uniform Tab1 cantilevered beam calculated w i t h the present to those of the Timoshenko Theory.e 1.98671 . I/h2 = ~xIO~ n (W) W1 1 2 3 4 5 a .91398 .79609 .99080 .7128 b .81909 .74514 .68318 .86773 .84144 . I / h 2 = 4x10~ n 1 a .90121 .98671 .98447 .69535 4 E/kG = 6. 7 terms Nuation (19) bTimoshenko theory.71254 . 7 8 .612 .91421 . I / h 2 = ~ x I O .98854 .84116 .6843 .93925 .582 b .65205 E/kG = 2 . reference [7 1 15 .7824 . I / h 2 = 4x10m4 n (L)2 W 1 1 2 3 4 5 a ..
16 .I THEORY  ($ PRESENT THEORY  Eqn. Coordinates and Notation TI MOSHENKO 0.. I Figure 2.x dx Figure 1.dx V + V. 1 . 0 Effect of Shear Deformation and Rotatory Inertia on the Natural Frequency of a Simply supported B e a m .0 I 0.0 0. 1 4 E = 3.06 KG \ 10.
Simply Supported B E = 3. 0.06 KG 0.3. I I ~ I I I I 111.01 Figure 3.1 .0 I F i g u n 4.I 1 0 .1  W " KG E .1 1 . 17 .06 2  OD I 0. 07   PRESENT THEORY TIMOSHEN KO THEORY 3 0. 0 IQO Effect of Shear Deformation and Rotatory Inertia on the Shear Force in a Simply Supported Beam. 0 Effectof Shear Deformation and Rotatory Inertia on the Deflection due t o Bending Mment in a e a m .1 ~ ~~ I I I Ill L O I 1 1 I 1 I l l 0.
70 I I a a0 a a o 0. 1969 .32 CR1317 .14 0.16 0.20 Effect of Shear D e f m a t i o n and Rotatory Inertia on the Natural Frequency of a Cantilevered B e a m .08 0.o n = l 0 n = 4 " E KG  3.12 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.50 T 0 7.80  0.60 a 0 a 0.18 0.04 Figure 5. 0. 18 NASALangley. I I I I I I I I 0.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?