This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A b s g e a m s by p j n j t e Element Method ba
J. Thomas
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, England A. Finite Element model is developed for the stability analysis of Timoshenko beam subjected to periodic axial loads. The effect of the shear deformation on the static buckling loads is studied by finite element method. The results obtained show excellent agreement with those obtained by other analytical methods for the first three buckling loads. The effect of shear deformation and for the first time the effect of rotary inertia on the regions of dynamic instability are investigated. The elastic stiffness, geometric stiffness, and inertia matrices are developed and presented in this paper for a Timoshenko beam. The matrix equation for the dynamic stability analysis is derived and solved for hingedhinged and cantilevered Timoshenko beams and the results are presented. Values of critical loads for beams with various shear parameters are presented in a graphical form. First four regions of dynamic instability for different values of rotary inertia parameters are presented. As the rotary inertia parameter increases the regions of instability get closer to each other and the width of the regions increases thus making the beam more sensitive to periodic forces.
Introduction
The problem of dynamic stability of a simply supported bar was first investigated by Baliaev [1]. : Additional terms were introduced by Mettler [2] to take into account the inertia forces. This problem was investigated also by Bolotin [3]. As in the case of the applied theory of vibration, Bolotin [3] did not include the inertia forces associated with the rotation of the cross sections of the rod with respect to its own principal axes. The effect of shear deformation on the static buckling loads was investigated by Timoshenko [4] by solving the differential equation of the deflection curve in which the effect of shearing force was included. The finite element method was first used by Brown et al. [5] to study the dynamic stability of bars with various boundary condi' tions. In reference [5] the Euler beam theory was employed and the effects of shear deformation and rotary inertia were neglected. In this paper a finite element model is developed for the dynamic stability analysis of Timoshenko beam, taking into account the effect of shear deformation on the static buckling loads and for the first time the effects of shear deformation and rotary inertia on the regions of dynamic instability. The elastic stiffness, geometric stiffness, and inertia matrices are developed for a Timoshenko beam, and the matrix equation for
the dynamic stability analysis is solved for hingedhinged and fixedfree beams.
Theory of Dynamic Stability
The matrix equation for the free vibration of axially loaded system can be written as [M] m where \q\ [M] = [Ke] = [Kg] = generalized coordinates mass matrix elastic stiffness matrix, and geometric stiffness matrix or stability matrix which is a function of the axial load P. + [Ke] {q}  [Ks] {q} = 0 (1)
For a system subjected to a periodic force P = Po + Pt cos ut, where u> is the disturbing frequency, the static and time dependent components of the load can be represented as a fraction of the fundamental static buckling load P* hence putting P = aP* [M] {q} + [[Ke] + fSP* cosu)t e q u a t i o n (1) b e c o m e s  aP*[Ks]  f$P* coswt [K^]] {q} = 0 (2) Where the matrices [KgJ and [KgJ reflect the influence of Po and Pt respectively. Equation (2) represents a system of second order differential equation with periodic coefficients of the MathieuHill type. The boundaries between stable and unstable regions are formed by periodic solutions of period T and IT where T = 2ir/u. It has been shown that solutions with period IT are the ones of
1 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. Contributed by the Design Engineering Division and presented at the Design Engineering Technical Conference, Washington, D. C, September 1719,1975, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received at ASME Headquarters June 4,1975. Paper No. 75DET78.
Journal of Engineering for Industry Copyright © 1976 by ASME
NOVEMBER 1976
/
1145
First Mode Second Mode Third Mode
Finite Element Method Analytical Solution (4)
SHEAR DEFORMATION PARAMETER (3)
SHEAR DEFORMATION PARAMETER (S)
Fig. 1 Buckling toad parameter ratio versus shear deformation parameter for hingedhinged Timoshenko beam
Fig. 2 Buckling load parameter ratio versus shear deformation parameter for fixedfree Timoshenko beam
greatest practical importance and that as a first approximation the boundaries of the principal regions of dynamic instability can be determined from the equation: K  aP*[K ] ± ' / 2 / 3 P * K l  ^[M]]{q} =0 (3)
the expression becomes
^'/.f/S^^/^/S^
dr\ o dr\
EI n
'ML
W
i>=
TJ arr]r and
"i ,dip.
<?>'*» «
(2)
The two matrices [KgJ and [KgJ will be identical if the static and time dependent component of the loads are applied in the same manner. If [KgJ = [KgJ = [Kg] then equation (3) becomes
Assuming cubic polynomial expansions for i/ and tj> to be of the form
£ &r7f
t K ]  (a ± ' m K . l  ^ M i }
= 0
(4)
and substituting into equation (1) and replacing the coefficients ar and br (r = 0, 1, 2, 3) the strain energy expression becomes U=V!JU)TIKM
where
This equation represents solution to three related problems: (i) Free vibration with a = 0, /3 = 0, and p = «/2 the natural frequency [[KJp*[M]][q} =0 (ii) Static stability with a = 1, /3 = 0 an'd w = 0 f[KJP*[Kg]]\q\ =0 (Hi) Dynamic stability when all terms are present.
[K„] = elastic stiffness matrix 1^1 ~ geometric stiffness (or stability) matrix 504S 210S 42S 42S 504S 210S 425 ~42s 156S + 504 ^ 2 S 22S + 42 210S 54S  504 42S  1 3 S + 42 56S 0 42S 42S 14S IS iS + 56 ~4ZS 13S  42 IS  3 S  14 504S  2 1 OS  4 2 S +42S 156S + 504  ^ 2 S 22S  4 2 56S 0 4S + 56 . _ kG Af Shear Deformation P a r a m e t e r of the element
Formulations of Elastic Stiffness and Geometric Stiffness Matrices
The strain energy U of an elemental length I of a uniform Timoshenko beam subjected to an axial force P is given by
IK] •• l
420
dx where y = deflection <j>  bending slope On nondimensionalizing by substituting V and if)
'o
dx
420
504 0 42 0 504 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0  4 2 0  1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 504 0  4 2 0 0 0 0 56 0 0
{C}T = 1><<M('</» '*,• +1*1 +1 & + i ' # i +1' ]
NomenclatureA = crosssectional area of the beam B = (P*P/EI)—buckling load parameter E = modulus of elasticity G = modulus of rigidity / = second moment of area of cross section [K] = stiffness matrix [KPJ = elastic stiffness matrix [Kg] = geometric stiffness matrix [M] = Inertia matrix P* = fundamental static buckling load Q = generalized force vector R = (I/Al2)—rotary inertia parameter of an element S = (kG/E)(Afi/I)—shear deformation parameter of an element T = kinetic energy U = strain energy k = shear coefficient / = elemental length P = circular frequency of vibration a = disturbing frequency x = coordinate along the axis of the beam y = deflection of the centroid a = fraction representing static component of load (1 = fraction representing time dependent component of load ip = y/l nondimensional deflection < = bending slope E T) = x/l nondimensional coordinate {f = nodal coordinate vector X = pAl4p2/EI frequency parameter p = mass density of the material of the beam
1146
/
NOVEMBER 1976
Transactions of the ASME
P<t) = <XP* +/VP* COSult P* = 9.874 r

*—
—^^_
Fundamental Static Buckling Load Natural Frequency
ti = 9.844]^*Fundamental UJ = DJsturbing Frequency <*. = 0.5
f
1
t
s a l le tl
1
stable
1
1
stable
Fig. 3
Regions of dynamic instability for a hingedhinged TImoshenko beam
F o r m u l a t i o n of t h e I n e r t i a M a t r i x The kinetic energy T of an elemental length I of a uniform Timoshenko beam is given by
Results Results presented are obtained by using four element idealisation of the hingedhinged and fixedfree Timoshenko beams. The Effect of Shear Deformation on the Critical Loads. The developed elastic stiffness and geometric stiffness matrices T = ViPlf 4>2dx + y2PAJ y2dx are employed to solve the static stability problem. The buckling load parameters (B;, i = 1, 2, 3) are obtained for various values of where p is the mass density of the material Of the beam and I is the the shear deformation parameter (S). These results are shown in second moment of area of crosssection. Fig. (1) for a hingedhinged Timoshenko beam and in Fig. (2) for On nondimensionalising the kinetic energy expression becomes the fixedfree Timoshenko beam. The buckling load parameter ratio is the ratio of the buckling load parameter according to Ti%p!ljX^dv + %pAlzffdn (3) moshenko beam theory to the buckling load parameter according substituting for <f> and \p from equation (2) and replacing the coeffi to Euler beam theory. Timoshenko and Gere [4] obtained an analytical solution for the cients ar and br (r = 0, 1, 2, 3) by the nodal coordinates the exeffect of shear force on the static buckling loads. Their results are pression becomes also shown in Figs. (1) and (2). It is worth mentioning here that in solving the static stability T = V2pA?W[M}{Z } problem using the finite element method, the degrees of freedom where associated with ij> and <j> are eliminated by the use of the Eigenvalue Economizer Technique [6] in order to make the global geo156 0 22 0 54 0 13 0 metric stiffness matrix positive definite. 156iJ 0 22R 0 54i? 0 13R The Effects of Rotary Inertia and Shear Deformation on 4 0 13 0 3 0 the Regions of Dynamic Instability. The first four regions of 4U 0 13iJ 0 ZR [M] = dynamic instability for a hingedhinged Timoshenko beam are 420 156 Q 22 0 shown for three different values of rotary inertia parameter (R) in 156i? 0 22R Figs. (3), (4), and (5). The regions for a fixedfree beam are shown 4 0 in Figs. (6), (7), and (8). 4R R =—rji R o t a r y I n e r t i a p a r a m e t e r of t h e e l e m e n t
Pitl = otp* + fiP" c o a i ^ t P* = 8.272 J £ H  8.840lfL, ^ = D i s t u r b i n g Frequency
<* = 0.5
M a t r i x E q u a t i o n s for T i m o s h e n k o B e a m (i) Free Vibration [[Ke]  \[M]M
4 2
= 0
where X = (pAl /EI) p is the frequency parameter. (ii) Static Stability [ [ * . ]  B[KS]M
2
= 0
where B = P*l /EI is the buckling load parameter. (Hi) Dynamic Stability [[Ke]  (a ± %P}B[Ke]  ^ [M]M = 0
Fig. 4 beam Regions of dynamic instability for a hingedhinged Timoshenko
Journal of Engineering for Industry
NOVEMBER 1976
/
1147
R . 0.0256 P« = 5.567 S _
h =7.115(1,,
^ = Diaturbing Frequency «. = 0.5
stable
1
[ stable
1
I stable
Fig. 5
Regions of dynamic Instability for a hlngedhlnged Timoshenko beam
Pin P»
 «P*
+ (VP* COHiAJt
HcL 
"2467 S 5 . 5 3 5 ^ 0.5
w » D i s t u r b i n g Freque ncy
1
1 1
Stable
1
1
Stable

as
1
TO
Fig. 6
Regions of dynamic instability for a fixedfree Timoshenko beam
Pirt* rtp* + / i P * coauJt P» • 2 . 3 6 0 S
**• = D i s t u r b i n g Frequency ot * 0 . 5
Fig. 7
Regions of dynamic instability for a fixedfree Timoshenko beam
1148
/
NOVEMBER 1976
Transactions of the ASME
^
° 2.910P =
• Bisturbing Frequency
• 0.5
Fig. 8
Regions of dynamic instability for a fixedfree Timoshenko beam
Discussions
Fig. (1) shows the first three buckling load parameter ratios for different values of the shear deformation parameter for a hingedhinged Timoshenko beam. Fig. (2) shows the first three buckling load parameter ratios for different values of the shear deformation parameter for a fixedfree Timoshenko beam. These results are obtained using the finite element model developed in this analysis. The excellent agreement of these results with those obtained by Timoshenko and Gere [4] clearly demonstrate the good accuracy of the developed finite element model in representing the Timoshenko beam. From Figs. (1) and (2) it can be seen that the hingedhinged beam is more sensitive to the shear deformation variation than the fixedfree beam. It must be noted that the present analysis ignores the possibility of yielding of the material of the beam prior to the occurrence of instability. To include such a possibility, the shear deformation parameter (S) must be bounded by a minimum value which corresponds to the yield stress of the beam material. The effect of rotary inertia parameter on the regions of dynamic instability for a hingedhinged Timoshenko beam is shown in Figs. (3), (4), and (5). The value R = 0 represents the case of a classic (Euler) beam. As the value of R increases, the regions of dynamic instability are shifted closer to each other and the widths of these regions are increased, thus making the beam more sensitive to periodic forces. The first region is unchanged since the ratio ui/pn is the same for all values of R. The effect of rotary inertia parameter on the regions of dynamic instability for a fixedfree Timoshenko beam is shown in Figs. (6), (7), and (8). The shifting of the regions is clear though not as rapid as in the case of a hingedhinged beam.
References
1 Baliaev, N. M., "Stability of Prismatic Rods Subject to Variable Longitudinal Forces," Engineering Constructions and Structural Mechanics, 1924, pp. 149167. 2 Mettler, E., "Biegeschwingungen eins Stabes Unter Pulsierendre Axiallast," Mitt. Forsch.Anst. GHHKonzern 8,1940, pp. 112. 3 Bolotin, V. V., The Dynamic Stability of Elastic Systems, HoldenDay, 1964. 4 Timoshenko, S. P., and Gere, J. M., Theory of Elastic Stability, McGrawHill, New York, 1961. 5 Brown, J. E., Hutt, J. M., and Salama, A. E., "Finite Element Solution to Dynamic Stability of Bars," AIAA Journal, Vol. 6,1968, pp. 14231425. 6 Irons, B. M., "Structural Eigenvalue Problem: Elimination of Unwanted Variables," AIAA Journal, Vol. 3, 1965.
DISCUSSION. C. V. Smith, Jr. 2
This paper can be divided into three main parts: (1) presentation of dynamic stability equations, (2) development of what appears to be a new Timoshenko beam finite element, and (3) results. This discussion is concerned primarily with the second part. First, it should be pointed out that there have been many derivations of different Timoshenko beam elements presented in the literature. In particular, attention is called to a paper by Thomas, et al., 3 which contains discussion of six different Timoshenko beam elements with comparisons of convergence. The element presented by the authors has two nodes, and at each node the four degrees of freedom are: total displacement (\p), slope of the deformed reference line (i/<'), crosssection rotation (<t>), and rate of change of crosssection rotation (<!>'), for a total of eight degrees of freedom. In the terminology of Thomas, this is a complex element (more than four degrees of freedom). There are certain points concerning use of the element which are not mentioned in the paper. For example, what continuity conditions are imposed at an interior node? In principle, all that is required is continuity of \p and <j>, as shown by the expression for strain energy. However, it is common practice to
Conclusions
Due to the action of the shear forces in the beam, the static buckling loads are diminished. As the rotary inertia parameter increases, the regions of dynamic instability are shifted closer to each other and the width of these regions increases thus making the beam more sensitive to periodic forces.
• Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the scholarship award of the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Baghdad which enabled the work to be carried out at the University of Surrey.
2 Assoc. Professor, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga. 3 Thomas, D.L., Wilson, J.M., and Wilson, R.R., "Timoshenko Beam Finite Elements," Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 31, No. 3,1973, pp 315330.
Journal of Engineering for Industry
NOVEMBER 1976
/
1149