This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
strojní článek č. 1585 Karel FRYDRÝŠEK* BEAM ON ELASTIC FOUNDATION WITH LONGITUDINAL CHANGES (SOLUTION VIA SBRA METHOD) NOSNÍK NA PRUŽNÉM PODKLADU S PODÉLNÝMI ZMĚNAMI (ŘEŠENÍ METODOU SBRA) Abstract This paper is focused on the solution of simple beam continually supported by elastic (Winkler's) foundation. The foundation contains possible longitudinal changes of stiffness, which can be caused by material of foundation. For the calculation of displacements and bending stresses are derived and applied some analytical procedures (approximate solution in the form of polynomial function) and probabilistic approaches (SBRA - Simulation-Based Reliability Assessment method, Monte Carlo Simulation Method, AntHill software). Probabilistic approach includes influences of real variability of load, shape and material of the beam, and also real variability of modulus of the foundation. Probabilistic approach is used for the reliability expertise of the beam and calculation of safety. Probabilistic expertise of the beam describes better the reality than the clasical deterministic expertise. Abstrakt Článek se zaměřuje na řešení jednoduchého nosníku spojitě podloženého elastickým (Winklerovým) podložím. Podloží obsahuje možné podélné změny tuhosti, které mohou být způsobeny materiálem podloží. Pro výpočty průhybů, ohybových napětí jsou odvozeny a aplikovány analytické postupy (přibližné řešení ve tvaru polynomické funkce) a pravděpodobnostní přístupy (metoda SBRA - Simulation-Based Reliability Assessment, simulace Monte Carlo, AntHill software). Pravděpodobnostní přístup zahrnuje vlivy reálné variabilityzatížení, tvaru a materiálu nosníku a také reálnou variabilitu modulu podloží. Pravděpodobnostní přístup je použitý pro pravděpodobnostní posudek spolehlivosti nosníku a výpočtu bezpečnosti. Pravděpodobnostní posudek nosníku popisuje lépe skutečnost než klasický deterministický posudek spolehlivosti.
The analysis of bending of beams on an elastic foundation is developed on the assumption that the strains are small and the reaction forces q R = q R (x ) [Nm−1 ] in the foundation are proportional at every point to the deflection v = v( x) [m] of the beam at that point, etc. (first proposed by E. Winkler, Prague 1867), see also Fig.1. External loads on the beam also evoke bending moment M o [ Nm] , axial (normal) force N [ N] and shearing force T [ N] , see Fig.1. The general problem is described by ordinary differential equation:
d 4v N d 2v β d 2q R q 1 ⎛ dm ⎞ β d 2 q α t d 2 (t 2 − t1 ) , − + + R = − ⎜q − ⎟+ 4 2 2 EJ ZT dx GA dx EJ ZT EJ ZT ⎝ dx ⎠ GA dx 2 h dx dx 2
where: E [Pa ] is modulus of elasticity in tension of the beam, J ZT = ∫ y 2 dA [m 4 ] is the major princiA
pal second moment of area A [m 2 ] of the beam cross-section, β  is shear deflection constant of the beam, G [Pa] is modulus of elasticity in torsion of the beam, q [Nm−1 ] is distributed load (inten* MSc., Ph.D., ING-PAED IGIP, Department of Mechanics of Materials, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, VŠB-TU Ostrava, 17. listopadu 15, Ostrava, CZ, tel. (+420) 597324552, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
(6) Fig. distributed couple and temperature can be neglected (or the beam is not exposed to them).sity of force). 4 dx EJ ZT (2) where (from the Winkler's theory. m [N] is distributed couple (intensity of moment).2. For more information about the derivation of eq. The beam of length L [m] with free ends is exposed to one vertical force F [N] . order: . h [m] is depth of the beam and t 2 − t1 [deg] is transversal temperature increasing in the beam. the approximate solution can be found in the form of polynomial function of 6th. see Fig. (4) can be written in the form: d 4v (K 0 + K1 x ) b + v=0 dx 4 EJ ZT . longitudinal changes in the foundation caused by properties of foundation) and b [m] is width of the beam. the differential eq. is evident that:: q R = v × k (x ) = v × b × K (x ) . Modulus of the foundation is given by linear function: K (x ) = K 0 + K L − K0 x = K 0 + K1 x . L (5) Hence. (2) can be written in the form: d 4v b K (x ) + v=0 . in this case. (1). dx 4 EJ ZT (4) 2 EXAMPLE OF GENERAL SOLUTION (DERIVATION) Let us consider the straight short beam on elastic nonlinear foundation. (1) follows: q d 4v + R =0 . Hence. distributed load. see reference . shear force. 2 Solved Example of the Beam on Elastic Foundation with Longitudinal Changes 62 The exact solution of equation (6) cannot be found. see  or ). −3 (3) and where functions: k (x ) [Pa] is stiffness of the foundation and K (x ) [Nm ] is modulus of the foundation which can be expressed as functions of variable x [m] (i.e. 1 Element of a Beam on Elastic Foundation In the most situations. Fig. Hence. from eq. the influences of force. α t [deg −1 ] is coefficient of thermal expansion of the beam. eq. However.
b1 and b6 ) can be derived via variational principles or via satisfaction of differential equation (6) at chosen points. 2) was also checked by ANSYS software (see ). Tab.e. The last two constants (i. Force equation of equilibrium must be also satisfied (i. functions of displacement v . Equation (7) must satisfy the basic boundary conditions (at the point x = 0 : M o (x = 0) = 0 . L ) d 3v F x (3 x − 2L ) ≈ 10 E J ZT x 3 xL − 2 x 2 − L2 b6 + dx 3 L2 ( ) dv x 3 10L2 − 15 xL + 6 x 2 F x 3 (4L − 3 x ) ≈ b1 + b6 + dx 6 12 E J ZT L2 ( ) See also Tab. C /N − 3m − 2 / and remaining polynomial constants ( b1 and b6 ) are derived in the Tab. bending moment M o and dx shearing force T of the beam) are written in the Tab.2. ∫ ∫ ∫ 0 0 L L ⎛ ⎜ ⎝ 6 ⎞ ⎟ ⎠ L ⎛ ⎜ ⎝ 6 ⎞ ⎟ ⎠ i=1 i 0 i=1 i where: k0 = K 0 b [Pa] is the stiffness in the foundation at the point K − K0 k1 = K1b = L b [Nm −3 ] is the slope of a given linear function k (x ) .2. For more details about it see . L . B /N 2 / . b6 [m −5 ] are unknown constants. slope dv [rad] . L. b5 as functions of two constants b1 and b6 . equation: q R dx = b (K 0 + K1 x ) ⎜ b0 + ∑ bi xi ⎟ dx = (k0 + k1 x )⎜ b0 + ∑ bi xi ⎟ dx = F ).1. The auxiliary constants A /N 2 m −1/ . T (x = 0 ) = 0 and at the point x = L : M o (x = L ) = 0 . for the situations when the length of 63 . L x=0 and From the above five conditions can be expressed constants b0 and b2 .e.e. 1 Solved Example (Auxiliary Constants and Used Polynomial Constants) k0 = K 0 b C= −− −− −− −− k1 = K1b = KL − K0 b L F −− −− −− ⎡ ⎤ b6 = −2 C ⎢840 B k1 + (21 k0 + 11 k1L )A ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ k0 = K 0 b K (x ) = K 0 + K1 x A = k0 (k0 + k1L )L3 −− −− ⎛ ⎞ 2 2 15 E J ZT L ⎜ ⎜ 560 E J ZT 6k0 (k0 + k1L ) + k1 L + 3 A (2k0 + k1L ) L ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 2 [ ] −− −− C⎡ ⎤ 2 b1 = ⎢604800 B E J ZT − 180 41 k0 k1L + 9k12 L2 + 38 k0 E J ZT L4 + (3 k0 + 2 k1L )A L5 ⎥ 6⎣ ⎦ −− ( ) B = EJ ZT (k1L + 3k0 ) −− k1 = K1b = KL − K0 b L The analytical results (i. However. see also Fig. T (x = L ) = F ). (7) where: b0 [m]. b1 [1 ].1 v ≈ b1 x + k 0 x 4 5L2 − 6 xL + 2 x 2 − 120 E J ZT L2 F k 0 x 4 (5L − 3x ) − 120 E J ZT L b6 + 12k 0 60 k 0 E J ZT L2 ( ) [ ] The accuracy of the derived results (Tab.v = v(x ) ≈ b0 + ∑ x i =1 i bi 6 i .e. M o = − E J ZT T = − E J ZT d 2v F x 2 (x − L ) 2 ≈ − 5 E J ZT x 2 (x − L ) b6 dx 2 L2 x ∈ (0 . Tab. 2 Solved Example (Results of the Beam on Elastic Foundation with Longitudinal changes). the derived results fits very well for short beams (i.
variability of material: ( E = 1. see Fig. Fig. all inputs are constant) is the elder but simple way how to get the solution of mechanical systems.125 × 1011 ± 3. 5 Histogram of Input Parameter J ZT [m4 ] Fig.16 × 10−5 ± 6.e.5 × 10−7 [m 4 ] ). see .inputs Deterministic approach (i. where n ≥ 7 . Simulation- Based Reliability Assessment (SBRA) Method).2 +77. function: v = v(x ) ≈ b0 + ∑ x i=1 i bi n i . i. But this example is solved via probabilistic approach (i.e. J ZT = 2.345 [MPa] ). variability of load ( F = 157324 . For longer beams must be used higher approximation.the beam L ≤ 1 m ).3 to 10 (i.8 × 1011 ± 9 × 109 [Pa] . However.2) includes influences of variability of “I“ shape ( b = 0.1 − 75524. 7 Histogram of Input Parameter R e [MPa] Fig.125 × 1011 ± 3.361×1011 − 43. all inputs are given by bounded (truncated) histograms) which is the modern and new trend of the solution of mechanical systems.2 ± 2 × 10−3 [m] . 3 PROBABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE BEAM . h = 0. 8 Histogram of Input Parameter F [N] 64 . Fig. 4 Histogram of Input Parameter h [m] Probability analysis (see references  and ) of the presented beam (see Fig. the deterministic approach cannot truly include the real variability of all inputs.587 +168773 .09 ± 9 × 10−4 [m] . 3 Histogram of Input Parameter b [m] Fig.2 [N] ) and also the variability of modulus of the foundation: ( K 0 = 1.  and . K L = 1. 6 Histogram of Input Parameter E [Pa] Fig.e.375 × 1010 [Nm−3 ] ). inputs for AntHill software.375 × 1010 [Nm −3 ] .e. yield stress Re = 162.
Fig.e.63 m . 9 Histogram of Input Parameter K0 [Nm−3 ] Fig. stiffness of the foundation k (x ) .OUTPUTS The values of results parameters (i. from the presented results is evident that maximal displacement is at the right end of the beam (i. 11 2D Histogram and its Sections for Output Parameter k = k ( x) Fig. at the point x = L = 0. Fig. maximal displacement vMAX = v(x = L ) .3. Hence. Results are plotted by histograms in the following Figures 11 to 14 and Tab. displacement v (x ) . 10 Histogram of Input Parameter KL [Nm−3 ] 4 PROBABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE BEAM . 12 2D Histogram and its Sections for Output Parameter v = v( x) 65 .63) = M o MAX Wo = M o MAX h 2 J ZT ) were calculated for 5 × 106 simulations by Monte Carlo Method. bending stress σ (x ) and maximal bending stress σ MAX = σ (x ≈ 0.e.9 m ) and maximal stress is at the point x ≈ 0.
(8) see also Fig.31 79. Hence.74 Maximum: 1326315441 2. the function of safety FS (reliability factor) is defined by: FS = Re − σ MAX . b) σ MAX = σ ( x ≈ 0. Hence.57 See Figures: 11 12 and 14a) 13 and 14b) Probability analysis can be also used for reliability expertise of the beam (AntHill software.31 173.62 × 10 −1 Tab.9 m) .e. 15 Histogram of Output Parameters FS [MPa] 66 . it is evident that the safe situation occurs when FS > 0 (i. SBRA Method). Fig. 14 Histograms of Output Parameters: a) vMAX = v( x = L = 0. yield stress Re is greater than maximal bending stress σ MAX ).63 m) Median: 1012476677 8.75 × 10 −1 Fig.Fig.15 and 16. 3 Solved Example (Results of AntHill Software) k (x ) [Pa] vMAX [mm] σ MAX [MPa] 39. 13 2D Histogram and its Section for Output Parameter σ = σ ( x) Output Variables: Minimum: 701718088 3.
CZ.094 % of all states will result in yielding. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering. The work has been supported by the grant project GAČR 103/07/0557. VŠB-TU Ostrava. K.. 2006. FRYDRÝŠEK. Ostrava. Nosníky a rámy na pružném podkladu 2. University of Michigan Studies. which is 99. Reliability Analysis of a Beam on Elastic Foundation. the probability that FS ≤ 0 is 9. Hence. Nosníky a rámy na pružném podkladu 1.245 67 . CZ. JANČO. the probability that the plastic deformations occurs in the beam is 0. ISBN978-80-248-1743-9  MAREK.e. Derived results were used for probabilistic analysis (SBRA method. ISBN 80-248-1244-4  FRYDRÝŠEK. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering. In other words. K.516. 9th International Scientific Conference Applied Mechanics 2007. 5 CONCLUSIONS General solution for the chosen beam on elastic foundation with longitudinal changes was derived in the form of polynomial function of 6th order. ISBN 978–80–248–1389-9 (full version also on CD)  HETÉNYI. Ostrava. VŠB-TU Ostrava. Beams on Elastic Foundation.094%. 1946.  and . Other examples of the applications of SBRA method are shown in references . Probabilistic expertise of the beam describes better the reality than the clasical deterministic expertise. Department Of Mechanics Of Materials. pp.3571 × 10− 4 ≈ 0. USA. 2008. 16 2D Histogram of Output Parameters For Calculation of FS The above function of safety FS was analyzed by AntHill software. 9. Faculty Of Mechanical Engineering. R. CZ. K. P. 2007. pp. VŠB-Technical University Of Ostrava. In: Book of Extended Abstracts. Figure 16 shows distribution of yield stress versus maximal bending stresses and calculation of safety. Monte Carlo Simulation Method.3571 × 10 − 4 (i.3571 × 10 − 4 ).. M. Ann Arbor. . the yield stress and plastic deformations will be reached with a probability of 9.159-160. pp.Fig.463. REFERENCES  FRYDRÝŠEK. Ostrava.906%. Finally. pp. Anthill software).
INC. Simulation-Based Reliability Assessment for Structural Engineers. Florida. pp. Praha. 2003. M. Slovakia 68 . Roland JANČO. Milan GUŠTAR.D. Prague. ISBN 08493-8286-6 Reviewers: Ing.. Exercises and Software. J.. P. T. ISBN 80-86246-19-1  MAREK.. ING-PAED IGIP. STU Bratislava.. Probabilistic Assessment of Structures Using Monte Carlo Simulation Background.. Ph. 1995.. GUŠTAR M. P. GUŠTAR. ARTech. CZ. MAREK. ANAGNOS. CRC PRESS. Ph. ITAM CAS.D.471. Boca Raton.365. BROZZETTI. Czech Republic Ing... USA. pp.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.