This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

0045-7949(94)0059%8

Contpurrrr & Snu~rurcs Vol. 57. No I. pp. 141-149. 1995 Copyright 1995 Elsevier Scmm Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0045.7949195 $9.50 + 0.00

c

AN IMPROVED TWO-NODE FINITE ELEMENT STABILITY AND NATURAL FREQUENCIES AXIAL-LOADED TIMOSHENKO BEAMS

J. B. Kosmatka

Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Science, University La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A. (Received 31 March 1994) of California,

FOR OF

San Diego,

Abstract-The linear flexural stiffness, incremental stiffness, mass, and consistent force matrices for a simple two-node Timoshenko beam element are developed based upon Hamilton’s principle, where interdependent cubic and quadratic polynomials are used for the transverse and rotational displacements, respectively. The resulting linear flexural stiffness matrix is in agreement with the exact 2-node Timoshenko beam stiffness matrix. Numerical results are presented to show that the current element can accurately predict the buckling load and natural frequencies of axially-loaded isotropic and composite beams for a wide variety of beam-lengths and boundary conditions. The current element consistently outperforms the existing finite element approaches in studies involving the buckling or vibration behavior of axially-loaded short beams.

INTRODUCTION

Axially-loaded beam-type structural components can be found in almost all aerospace, civil, and mechanical systems. The presence of a tensile axial load is well known to increase all of the bending natural frequencies of the beam member, whereas a compressive axial load will decrease all of the bending natural frequencies. The magnitude of the compressive axial load can only be increased up to the point where the first bending frequency goes to zero, then the motion of the beam member becomes unstable (i.e. buckling occurs). This vibration and stability behavior has been studied analytically using a Bernoulli-Euler theory for long slender uniform beam columns [I, 21 and using the Timoshenko beam theory [3,4] for short uniform beam columns [5], where the latter approach can be used to study beams composed of advanced composite materials because the effects of shear deformation and rotatory inertia are included. For complex structural systems (i.e. aircraft fuselages with stringers and skins), the above simple analytical solutions are generally not applicable and thus one uses the finite element method to study the vibration and stability behavior. Most researchers and almost all developers of commercial finite element computer programs (MSC/NASTRAN, ANSYS, etc.) use a 2-node (4 DOF) finite element. For long slender beams, the linear flexural stiffness, the mass, and the incremental (or geometric) stiffness matrices are developed in a consistent manner using a cubic Hermitian polynomial for the transverse displacement and the Bernoulli-Euler form of the beam strain energy, the kinetic energy, and the

141

potential energy associated with the axial loads, respectively. For short thick or composite beams, a different approach is used. The linear flexural stiffness matrix is developed using force equilibrium relations (not a displacement formulation) so that the resulting matrix form is in agreement with the exact 2-node Timoshenko stiffness matrix developed by Przemieniecki [6]. But the mass matrix and incremental stiffand altered. Accuracy matrix are not ness convergence problems are known to occur when one attempts to study the vibration and/or stability of axially-loaded short or composite beams using finite elements because of the inconsistencies in the development of the flexural stiffness matrix (force equilibrium) with the mass and incremental stiffness matrices (displacement formulation). Recently, Friedman and Kosmatka [7] developed a set of interdependent cubic and quadratic shape functions for the transverse and rotational displacements of the beam, respectively, which exactly satisfy the homogeneous differential equations associated with Timoshenko’s beam theory. The stiffness. mass, and consistent force matrices for a two-node beam element with (4 DOF) were developed based upon Hamilton’s principle, where the resulting linear flexural stiffness matrix is in agreement with the aforementioned exact 2-node Timoshenko stiffness matrix developed by Przemieniecki [6]. Published results showed that the elements exactly predicts the transverse displacements of short beams subjected to complex distributed loadings using only one element, and predicts shear and moment resultants and natural frequencies better than any existing 2-node Timoshenko beam-type finite element. In the current

respectively. The potential energy of the beam associated with an initial axial tension load (P) is given as (4c) The kinetic energy of the beam is given as: t).142 J. B. u is the time-dependent ment of the centroidal axis and dent relation of the cross-section z-axis (see Fig. where.y. w(x. (4c).y. of length L.. the kinematic displacement distributions can be written as: u(x. y. REVIEW OF TIMOSHENKO BEAM EQUATIONS ss oL A {v)‘{c} dA dx (4a) and can be rewritten. t) = -yQ(x. and integrating over the cross-section. 6 V. Y> z. y. and the work of external forces. Beam elemenl (7x b) . = -“(.)dt s II =0 (3) where q and m are the distributed forces and moments along the length of the beam. t) = c(x. with k being a shear coefficient that is dependent upon the material definition and cross-section geometry [8]. and (6) into eqn (3) and integrating by parts where 6U. having a general homogeneous cross-section of area A. these interdependent shape functions are used to develop an incremental stiffness matrix. (Sb). the beam material constitutive relations. The strain energy is given as paper..” $y+ __L Fig. 6T and 6 Weare the variations of the strain energy. by making use of eqns (2a and b). respectively. A Cartesian coordinate system (x.x. which is fully compatible with the exact linear flexural stiffness matrix and thus accuracy and convergence problems which occur in stability and vibration calculations of axially-loaded short or composite beams can be eliminated. 1). the kinetic energy. tJ(x. b) where p is the mass density. z. It is assumed that the centroidal axis is concident with the elastic axis so that bending-torsion coupling is negligible.. the work of The equations principle of motion are derived via Hamilton’s an= (6) “@U+61. = W-4 transverse displace0 is the time depenabout the positive strain components of eqns (1 a-c) as (5a) and is rewritten using eqns (2a and b) and integrating over the cross-section as 1‘ c:X 0. the potential energy associated with f Y. t). (2a. (4b) where EI and kGA are flexural rigidity and the shear rigidity. The two differential equations of motion and associated boundary conditions are obtained by substituting eqns (4b). Limiting our discussion to transverse displacements in the -u-.-6T-6W. z) is defined on the beam where the x-axis is coincident with the centroidal axis and y and I are coincident with the principal axes of the root crosssection. external forces is given as Finally. Numerical results are presented to show that the current element can accurately predict the buckling load and natural frequencies of axially-loaded isotropic and composite beams better than existing commercially available finite element programs. Kosmatka initial stress. as We begin by considering a prismatic isotropic beam. I.f)=O.r plane only.z. The nonzero the beam are determined using a0 Et.

) and four of the (bii) coefficients can be determined in terms of the remaining 12 coefficients by enforcing that (v(x = L) = v2) and (0(x = L) = 0. Four of the (ai. The resulting explicit form of the two shape functions are given as: We begin by assuming a general cubic shape function for (u) and a quadratic shape function UW where &){(gy+.b) where (t’.)) _ &{(i>‘-(1 -Z)(pi(5)) _ (1Ob) [No I’ = . (v. respectively.=kG. FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION The above partial differential equations of motion are transformed to a two-node finite element based discrete set of differential equations using “newly” developed shape functions for (v) and (0). 1) and (a.Improved finite element for axial-loaded Timoshenko beams where the two geometric and natural boundary ditions that must be specified at the beam (X = 0.)(.).4(&D)+P(~). (e.)(:)} [N. ~(EI~)+kGA(~--tl)=O. X : alI aI2 aI3 a32 a42 a23 a33 a4) 0 (7c) I Pa.). (8a. The remaining coefficients are determined by substituting the shape functions into the eqns (8a and b) and solving.) are the nodal displacements and rotations at the beam end nodes (1) and (2).) are unknown coefficients.).]'= -&&)) -J(t)2 -(. 0 a3 0 4.) and (bi. (see Fig.). These functions are developed so that they exactly satisfy the homogeneous form of both of the static equations of equilibrium of an unstressed uniform Timoshenko beam b) &(kGA($3))=0. .y+(‘+.. (0. L) include Geometric Natural I V 143 conends for (0) of the form: 0 a21 a2.

] reduces to the derivative of [N.8 1 Fig. (or geometric) t4 1 the unit incremental given as stiffness matrix is I d_u (11~) and the consistent force array is given as (W Fig. Variation of the rotational displacement function with (4).4 wu 0. shape The matrices are integrated exactly and the resulting explicit coefficients of the stiffness matrix...] with respect to (x). the polynomials are uniquely defined for a specific value of (4). k}. where the mass matrix is given as (lla) tK1= JI dx (tlb) X EI 0 0 kGA . 3.6 0. O. the stiffness matrix r is given as 7r shape WI{& + [WI + Wxll{A) = i F). Moreover.1 W. 2. Kosmatka to the (104 and the array of nodal displacements given as and rotations is {A}’ = {c. Cl@) It is interesting to note the dependency the shape functions have upon (c#J). incremental stiffness matrix. as well as the constant strain mode.which is a ratio of the beam bending stiffness to the shear stiffness (see Figs 2 and 3)...144 (4) is the ratio of the beam bending shear stiffness given by stiffness J. The current stiffness matrix is in complete agreement with the exact Timoshenko stiffness matrix developed in Ref. Variation of the transverse displacement function with (4). 9.. For long slender beams (4 = 0). and the distributed force array for either a uniform load or a linear varying distributed load (q(y) = yI (I -. Q.l f. [N.. IN. mass matrix. the current stiffness element will reduce to the stiffness matrix associated . whereas for short or composite beams.X/L) + q?(s/L)) are given in the Appendix.] reduces to the cubic Hermitian polynomial and [N. [6] and it contains the requisite rigid body displacement and rotation modes. The finite element representation of the equations of motion is developed by substituting the displacement distribution [eqn (lOa)] into Hamilton’s principle (eqn 3) and carrying out the integration over the beam-length SI 0 02 0.

incremental stiffness. G = 0. 6. the stability (or buckling) and vibration behavior of the axially-loaded beams is studied using the current two-node element. . In Fig. Beam boundary conditions.057 Ib/in3). v = 0. classic incremental stiffness). pg = 0.098 lb/in)) and a composite material (high-strength graphite-epoxy. MSCINASTRAN Finite Element 145 ai’ 0. In Fig.851).0 x IO6 Ib/in2. (b) fixed-fixed. where comparison is made with exact solutions[5.333. which correctly account for the effects of shear deformation.. can p. MSC/NASTRAN). whereas the ANSYS and MSC/NASTRAN solutions converge to a value approximately 5% less than the exact value and the Bernoulli-Euler element converges to a value nearly I 15% higher than the exact value. MSUNASTRAN 2 4 6 8 n 10 12 14 16 Fig. the percentage error in the calculated buckling load (PC. The current element again quickly converges to the exact solution of eqn (13). and consistent force matrices depend upon (4). it is assumed that the cross-section is square (h x h) with a shear correction factor (k = 0. The current calculated solutions where (L. since [JV~] and [No] depend upon (4). quickly converge to the exact solution for this long slender beam with no evidence of “shear-locking”.. 4.) and the corresponding eigenvector is the deformed shape of the buckled beam. It is observed that the current element. = $ eK (13) The determination of the magnitude of a static compressive axial load that will produce beam buckling is studied by recognizing that the static homogeneous form of eqn (I la) is an eigenvalue problem where the lowest positive eigenvalue is the magnitude of the compressive buckling load (i = PC. Stability analysis be compared to the following exact beam-column solutions [9]. The mass.) with the above exact solution is presented for a slender pinned-pinned isotropic beam of length (L/h = 100) as a function of element discretization. (a) pinned-pinned. E = 21.Improved finite element for axial-loaded Timoshenko beams with a Bernoulli-Euler beam for (4 = 0. pg = 0. 6. a Bernoulli-Euler based finite element solution. and the approach used in ANSYS. fixed-fixed) and two different engineering materials: an material isotropic (aluminum. = L/2).) is presented for a composite fixed-fixed beam (L/h = IO). Element convergence studies are presented for a variety of beam-lengths using two different boundary conditions (Fig. as well as the Bernoulli-Euler element and the approach used in most commercial programs (ANSYS.70 x lo6 lb/in2.) is the effective beam-length. Percent error in the calculated load as a function of element discretization for a fixed-fixed composite beam (L/h = IO). long slender beams) and thus the current element is free of “shear-locking”.9].25 Fig. and all of these matrices reduce to the classic Bernoulli-Euler based form by setting (4 = 0). the percentage error in the calculated buckling load (PC. E = 10. pinned-pinned. and Fig. For the following analyses.75 05 Current Finlte Element & ANSYS.e. 5.0 x IO6 Ib/in2. exact Timoshenko 2-node flexural stiffness. The above solution reduces to the classic beam+olumn relation when the effects of shear deformation are neglected. Percent error in the calculated load as a function of element discretization for a pinned-pinned isotropic beam (L/h = loo). MSQNASTRAN. 5. Bernoulli-Euler T L e 0 0. For pinned-pinned beams (LeR = L) and for fixed-fixed beams (L. NUMERICAL RESULTS In this section. and most commercially available finite element programs (i.. The converged 5% error in the two existing commercial programs is a ANSYS. 4.

The current element is able to predict the buckling load over the complete range of beamlength aspect ratios.01) and thus the existing finite element approach is adequate. Finite Element / ANSYS. whereas the last two studies addressed axial-loaded beam vibrations so that the presence of the incremental stiffness matrix on the beam vibration predictions could be studied. The large error associated with the Bernoulli~Euler element is a result of not including the effects of shear deformation. Kosmatka of using the classic incremental stiffness matrix.o” Solution with (P) being positive tive number) (m th) mode.. Clearly for composite beams the current element should be used...’ Four studies were performed to assess the capabilities of the current element to predict the free vibration behavior of unloaded and axial-loaded isotropic and composite beams. 9. 7..moshenkoSol”t. 7. In Fig. /E < 0.--pinned composite beam (L//I = IO).03) and thus a short composite column will undergo elastic buckling before material yielding._ . Closedform solutions [5] for the natural frequencies are 0 03 \ . _. For most isotropic engineering materials. Vibration analysis Fig. Percent error in the calculated first bending natural frequency as a function of element discretizdtion for an unloaded pinned. and the symbols are finite element results obtained using a I6 element (n = 16) discretization. MSQNASTRAN Fig./E < 0.... available for simply-supported axially-loaded beams that include both the effects of shear deformation and rotatory inertia where the first term represents the mth natural frequency for a long slender (Bernoulli-Euler type) pinned-pinned beam w (14b) deformation.P. the material compressive strength-stiffness ratio is (0.) is the magnitude for a tension axial force and of the buckling load (negathat causes the beam to buckle into its In the first two studies. and axial load KY=/=> (‘4c) and the third term is a correction axial load that accounts for 4 = J- P I . 8.‘&t) as a function of beam-length aspect ratio for a fixed-fixed composite beam (n = 16).Bernoull~~Euler \I/j-T. the second term accounts for shear rotatory inertia.146 result since J. . whereas the solutions obtained using most commercial finite element programs (ANSYS. (PC. Percent error in the calculated frequency as a function of element unloaded pinned-pinned isotropic first bending natural discretization for an beam (L/h = 20). both the current element and the existing approach have the same linear flexural stiffness matrix. since the approach used in existing commercially available finite element programs is inadequate. such as graphite-epoxy and S-glass-epoxy.. MSCNASTRAN) are accurate as long as the beam-length aspect ratio is greater than 50. where the thin solid line represents the classic Bernoulli-Euler without shear deformation. B. Beam axial buckling stress to material stiffness ratio (f. But for advanced composite materials. The first two studies involved unloaded beams so that the quality of the mass matrix could be assessed./A) to the material stiffness (E) is presented for a fixeddfixed composite beam as a function of beam-length aspect ratio (LJA /I). the first (m = I) bending natural frequencies of an unloaded (P = 0) isotropic beam (L/h = 20) and a composite beam (L/h = IO) were calculated using the different finite element IS- Bernoulli-Euler . the material strength-stiffness ratio is typically (0. This converged error for the existing approach can be much larger than 10% for short composite beams (L/h z 5). Fig. the heavy solid line represents the exact solution when the effects of shear deformation are included. since a short isotropic beam-column will generally fail by compressive material yielding before elastic buckling. the ratio of the beam axial stress at buckling (m = P.01 < 0.

In Fig. In addition it is observed that these two linear relations (solid and dashed lines) are nearly parallel for a given natural frequency. that shear deformation has a greater effect on the higher natural frequencies than the lower ones. as expected. where interdependent cubic and quadratic polynomials are used for the transverse and rotational displacements. if one knows the slope of the line based upon a Bernoulli-Euler approach (dashed line) and the reduction in the buckling load (BP. (a) (w/c+. then one can easily calculate the reduction in the square of the first natural frequency (AU’) due to the effect of shear deformation. respectively. The presented results are normalized to the buckling load of the Timoshenko beams 147 lb) 20 Second Bendmg WC. the first (m = I) bending natural frequency of a composite beam (L/h = 10) subjected to large compressive loads (P = 0. The current element converges to the exact solution. the current element converges quickly to the exact solution while the solutions obtained using the Bernoulli-Euler element or the approach found in most commercial programs converge to values that are very close. where the solid line represents the exact solution including shear deformation effects. beam (P. where this discrepancy can be traced to the use of the classic incremental stiffness matrix...e. where it can be easily observed. 8.) for a pinned-pinned composite beam (L/h = lo). The BernoulliEuler prediction converged to a 95% error value as a result of neglecting shear deformation. consistent displacement formulation).. and the symbols are the current finite element results obtained using a refined (n = 32) element discretization.. again the current element converges to the exact solution. In Fig. The current finite element clearly predicts the exact behavior over a broad range of applied compressive and tension axial loads.) Fig.). 10 as a function of element discretization.~~ Classic Bernoulli&Euler based solution without shear deformation. so that the inclusion of the effects of shear deformation alters both the buckling load and the squares of the natural frequency in a linearly proportional manner. 9. rotatory inertia.) calculated using eqn (13) and to the unloaded first bending natural frequency (0”) of the beam calculated using eqn (14a). whereas the ANSYS and MSCNASTRAN solutions converge to a value which is in 0.) due to the inclusion of shear deformation effects.. whereas the large 14% error is a result of not including shear deformation. I I).. incremental stiffness. 10. and consistent force matrices for a simple two-node Timoshenko beam element are developed based upon Hamilton’s principle.).. (15) CONCLUSIONS 2 4 8 n 16 32 Fig. In the final study (Fig.)’ vs applied axial load (P/P. Percent error in the calculated first bending natural frequency as a function of element discretization for a pinned-pinned composite beam (L/h = IO) subjected to a large compressive load (P = 0.). and (b) (W/U. using Aw2 = (slope)(AP.9OP. In Fig..3% error and the Bernoulli-Euler element converges to a value that has close to a 14% error. Numerical results are presented that show that: (1) the current element is in agreement with the . In the third study. (-Timoshenko-based solution including shear deformation. the dashed line is the results associated with a classic Bernoulli-Euler approach (no shear deformation). was calculated based upon eqn (I la) using the different finite element approaches and the resulting percent error is presented in Fig. 2) of a composite beam (L/h = 10) are presented as a function of axial load. The solutions obtained from ANSYS and MSCNASTRAN converged to a solution that was nearly 5% less than the exact value. mass. the first two bending natural frequencies (WI = I.9OP.2&3%) are associated with differences in the formulation of the mass matrix (i.). one can see the well known linear relationship between the squares of the natural frequencies and magnitude of the applied axial load. The slight errors (0. . 0 current model using 32 elements). Thus.. which was expected since the incremental stiffness matrix and the mass matrix both exhibited excellent convergence characteristics in the previous studies. 1I b.Improved finite element for axial-loaded approaches and the resulting percentage error is presented in Figs 8 and 9 as a function of element discretization. The linear flexural stiffness. Il.

Oxford University Press.. Sound Vihr.I. Timoshenko. and (3) the inclusion of shear deformation lowers the buckling load and the square of the first natural frequency in a linearly proportional manner. 3.s/L) f q?(r/L)) is found to be equal to (A4) The integrated form of the consistent mass matrix can be written in two parts as (AS) tM1 = [M. New York (1968). Cotnput. 70-82. (2) the current element accurately predicted both the buckling load and natural frequencies of composite beams. pp. 33. Phil. Phi{.- (354’ -I. 8. Natural frequencies compressive axial loads. McGraw-Hiil. 5. J. H. 481498 (1990). REFERENCES I. P. Mm. 41.474 . R. Timoshenko. (First Edn). 12% I3 1 (1922). Struct. Kosmatka 2. APPENDiX The integrated stiffness matrix is equal to r 12 6L (4+d)L’ -12 -6L 12 6L (2-(p)L’ -6L (4+&L’] 1 (Ai) i symmetric The incremental (or geometric) stiffness matrix is found 3L (4 + 54 + 2. 8. 744-746 (19211.. Sound Vihr.5Qt’)LZ 1 (36 + 604 + 3&f?) (AZ) (m) is (A3) and the force vector for a linearly varying distributed load (Y(X) = q..148 J. 4. uppl. J. S.54l)L’ -3L (4 + 5# + 2.1474 + 78) 146 +h)$ + 774 + 44). (742 f 144 + 8) ‘. J.56.6341 + 26) f (70&L i. Przcmieniecki. 183 189 (1992).i’ (A6) . S. ASME J. of beams V&r. 473 481 (1993). where there is no hint of any type of “shear-locking” effects.s. On the correction for shear of the differential equation for transverse vibrations of prismatic beams. An immoved twonode Timoshenko beam finite element. J.. The shear coefficient in Timoshenko’s beam theory. 157(l).I + &‘. 6.“)L’ symmetric The consistent load vector for the uniform distributed force (q) and moment to be -(36 (36 + 604 f 304 *) K1 ____-^ = 3OL( 1 + #)? + 604 + 304’) -3L -(I 3L + 54 t-2. under 49 -65 9. P. Cedolin.(I . B. A. Cowper. pp. exact results for long slender isotropic beams. New York (1991). 126(l). 7. Friedman and J. Natural frequencies of Timoshenko beams under compressive loads. +27) -(35Cn’+63@ -(7#J’+ -(35#” +26)f. Natural frequencies of beams under tensile axial loads. P. Stability ofStructures. Bokaian.j (74’ + 1446 + 8) . Sound (1988). S. Kosmatka. 142(5). Bazant and L. MSC/NASTRAN) predicted buckling loads and natural frequencies that were significantly lower than the exact. Theory of Matrix Structurul Anul~si. Mech. Abramovich. On the Transverse vibraiions bf bars of uniform cross-section.*) (354’+774 +44)-t 7 (35&?+636. G. symmetric . Z. where the first-part is associated with t~nslational inertia [(70@+ . Msg. 43.335-340 (1966). whereas most commercially available solutions (ANSYS. Bokaian.+. 47(3). Z. A. 30-35.

3)L 1 647) 1 .1)L’ (154 -3)L (10@‘+5C#J +4)L’ symmetric .3)L -36 (154 -3)L 36 -(I54 .Improved the second part is associated finite element inertia for axial-loaded Timoshenko beams 149 with rotatory r Pf.l = 36 -(lS$ .o(l& I (lOf#GfSC#J f4)L’ (SC#J-5C$ ...

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- timoshenko Beam
- 2010 SS Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory Pitfalls of a deterministic approach
- TimoshenkoJournal
- Timoshenko Beam Shape Function Matrix
- Jacobian Matrix and Determinant_line Integral
- Timoshenko Beam Theory
- Structural Analysis Timoshenko Beam Theory
- Timoshenko beam theory
- 3D Timoshenko Beam
- MATLAB Project Assembling the Global Stiffness Matrix
- finite element programming with MATLAB
- loikk
- beam
- Abaqus Benchmarks
- Lab 3 Report - Louis Larios
- A Strain Gradient Timoshenko Beam Element Application to Mems
- Finite Element Analysis Notes on One Dimensional Structural Analysis-libre
- 1152_ftp
- robotic manipulator
- Theory of Elasticity - TIMOSHENKO
- Euler Bernoulli 3 d
- lecture 9
- IREME_2007
- Stress Analysis of Short Beams
- Beam Calculation
- 1298867_634616592982133135
- Summerprojectreport( Sriram.G IITKanpur)
- 10CV33_Dec2012
- Aircraft Structures - 2 Basic Field - PPT
- 6656_chap03
- Loaded Timoshenko Beam