Sie sind auf Seite 1von 61

CIVIL ENGINEERING STUDIES

STRUCTURAL RESEARCH SERIES NO. 51

"i" THE RESPONSE OF SIMPLE STRUCTURES


6 TO DYNAMIC LOADS

By
NANCY BRAZELL BROOKS
and
N. M. NEWMARK

Technical Report
to
OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH
Contract N6ori-071(06), Task Order VI
Project NR-064-183

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
URBANA, ILLINOIS

mI
THE RESPONSE OF SIMPLE STRUCTURES

TO DYNAMIC LOADS

by

Nancy Brazell Brooks and N. M. Newmark

Technical Report

to

Office of Naval Research

Contract N6ori-07106, Task Order VI


Project Kh-Oo04-ld5

April 1953

University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois
i.

CONTENTS

Page

uIST )F FIGURES

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Introductory Statement ...... .................i... 1

B. Notation ............ ........................ 2

II. RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE

A. Definition of the Problem .... ................. 4

B. Solution for Response ......... ............... 6

III. SENSITIVITY OF THE RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE

A. Determination of Sensitivity ....... ............ 9

B. Use of Influence Factors ..... ............... ... 11

C. Significance of Results ...... ................ .. 11

IV. SU*MARY OF RESULTS ....... ......................... 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......... ....................... ... 14

APPENDIX

A. Analytic Expressions for Maximum Response and Influence

Factors ........ ........................... 15

B. Approximate Expressions for Maximum Response ..... .. 23

C. Error Introduced by Finite Changes in Parameters . . 25


ii.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page

1. Single-Degree-of-Freedom System .... ............. ... 26

2. Spring Force-Displacement Function ... ........... ... 26

3. Forcing Functions ....... .................... ... 27

4. Maximum Response to Step Pulse .... ............. ... 28

5. Maximum Response to Initial-Peak Triangular Pulse, a = 0. 32

6. Maximum Response to Terminal-Peak Triangular Pulse,a = 1.O 36

7. Maximum Response to Intermediate-Peak Triangular Pulse,

a=1/2 ........ ....................... .... 37

8. Comparison of Responses to Different Pulses in Impulse

Region ......... ........................... 38

9. Comparison of Responses to Different Pulses in Long-

Duration Region ........ .................. ... 39

10. Comparison of Approximate Response and True Response to

Step-Pulse in Impulse Region ...... .......... . 40

11. Comparison of Approximate Response and True Response to

Initial-Peak Triangular Pulse in Long-Duration Region 41

12. Average Load and Yield Load Influence Factors for

Step-Pulse ......... ..................... 42

13. Mass, Stiffness, and Duration Influence Factors for

Step-Pulse ....... ........................ 44


iii.

Figure No. Page

14. Average Load and Yield Load Influence Factors for

Initial-Peak Triangular Pulse ....... .......... 46


15. Mass, Stiffness, and Duration Influence Factors for

Initial-Peak Triangular Pulse ..... ............ 48


iv.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This investigation has been in part supported by the Mechanics

Branch Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy, in connection

with a research program entitled "Numerical and Approximate Methods of

Stress Analysis" in progress in the Structural Research Laboratory of

the Department of Civil Engineering, and in the Engineering Experiment

Station of the University of Illinois, under Contract N6ori-07106, Task

Order VI. Preliminary studies in this investigation were made by Mr.

J. G. Sutherland, Research Assistant in Civil Engineering. The investi-

gation was carried on under the supervision of Professor N. M. Newmark,

Research Professor of Structural Engineering, and Mr. A. S. Veletsos,

Research Associate, in the Department of Civil Engineering.


THE RESPONSE OF SIMPLE STRUCTURES TO DYNAMIC LOADS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

The response of an engineering structure to a dynamic disturbance de-

pends upon the characteristics of the impulsive excitation and upon the physical

properties of the structure itself. If the accuracy of the results is to be in

keeping with the accuracy of the analytical procedure, the use of rigorous

methods of analysis in calculating responses requires precise data describing

the load and the structure involved. However, there are always certain in-

accuracies present in estimating the load on a structure. Additional uncertainty

exists in determining the magnitude and distribution of the mass of a structure

and the load-deformation characteristics of the material from which the structure

is made. No matter how "exact" is the analytic procedure for determining re-

sponse, these inaccuracies in the parameters lead to an unreliable prediction

of the behavior of the structure.

In order to interpret the significance of calculated responses, it

is necessary to ascertain to what extent variations in these factors affect

the response of the system. A broad understanding of the response of a struc-

ture to various patterns of impulsive load is required before one can investi-

gate the effect on the response of deviations in the forcing function parameters

and in the properties of the structure. The objectives of this investigation

are to study the response of a simple structure to dynamic disturbances and to


2.

determine the effect on that response of variations in the parameters of load

and in the characteristics of the structure.

For this fundamental study the force functions and the structure con-

sidered are ones which can be defined by simple mathematical expressions. The

impulsive load patters include those blast and impact disturbances described

by a step-pulse function or a triangular-pulse function. The structure under

study is one which can be represented by an undamped, single-degree-of-freedom

system with elasto-plastic resistance to motion.

The descriptions of the load and the structure involve a number of

parameters. For a specific impulse pattern the average applied force and the

duration of the load are the force parameters considered. The mass of the

structure, the rigidity, and the elasto-plastic properties of the material from

which the structure is made comprise the characteristics of the structure. Com-

plete investigation of the problem requires consideration of the entire range

of these parameters. To this end, the results of the analysis used are pre-

sented in dimensionless form.

The problem described lends itself to classical methods of analysis.

To avoid errors introduced by numerical procedures, an analytic procedure is

employed for determining the response of the system, its maximum response, and

the influence of the problem parameters on that maximum response.

B. NOTATION

The terms used are defined when they first appear in the text. They

are assembled here for convenience in reference.

K = spring stiffness

M = mass
Xm

X = displacement of mass

Xm = maximum displacement of mass

X s = "static" displacement of mass = P/K


X1 = P 1 /K

Xy = yield displacement of spring =Qy/K

X = velocity of mass = dX/dt


It

X = acceleration of mass = d2 X/dt2

Q(X) = spring force-displacement function

= yield strength of spring

T = period of system = 2A M/K

w= circular frequency of system = /M =2

P(t) = force-time function

P1 = average applied load

Pa = maximum applied load

t = time

tI = duration of applied load

at 1 = time of peak load

tm = time of maximum displacement

ty = time of first yielding

= ratio of yield strength to average applied load =Qy/P

4Xm/Xm = relative change in maximum displacement

AK/K = relative change in spring stiffness

&M/M = relative change in mass

&tl/t I = relative change in duration of load

AP1/P 1 = relative change in average applied load


4.
A QylQy = relative change in yield strength
CK, CM, Ct, CP, CQ = influence factors

II. RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE

A. DEFINITION OF PROBLEM

1. Governing equation of motion.

Physically, the undamped, single-degree-of-freedom system represents

a mass supported by a spring which has no mass as shown in Fig. 1. When sub-

jected to a dynamic disturbance, the structure behaves according the equation

of motion:
it

MX + Q(X) = P(t), (1)


1,

where M is the mass; X, the acceleration of the mass; X, the displacement of

the mass; Q(X), the resisting force in the spring; and P(t), the impulsive

load function. In this study the mass is considered to be at rest with no

initial displacement when the load is applied:

at t = 0, X X= , (2)

where t denotes time and X is the velocity of the mass.

2. Resistance of structure to motion.

The spring of the structure has "ideal" elasto-plastic characteristics:

an initial linear resistance to motion before yielding, followed by a constant

resistance until maximum displacement is reached. (Fig. 2). The elastic re-

sisting force of the spring is directly proportional to the displacement:

Q(X) = KX for X S Xy) (3-a)


where K is a constant spring stiffness and X Y is the yield displacement of the

spring. When the response is greater than the yield deflection, the spring

resistance is constant:

Q(X) =KXy=Q . forX Xy * (3-b)

3. Forcing functions.

The response of the system to several patterns of impulsive loads is

investigated. In order to compare the response of a particular structure to

different types of exciting forces, the total impulse is held constant:

ot P(t) dt =Ptl , (4)

P1 being the average applied load and tl, the duration of the applied load.

First, study is made of the response due to a step-pulse function:

P(t) =P 1 , for o tt ; (5-a)

P(t) = 0 , for t I S t (5-b)

(Fig. 3-a). Next, consideration is given to the response of the system to

a triangular forcing function with an initial peak force:

P(t) = 2P1 (1 - t/tl) , for o C t t I ; (6-a)

P(t) = 0 , for t I A t. (6-b)

(Fig. 3-b). In addition to these two impulse patterns, the triangular forc-

ing functions with a terminal and an intermediate maximum force are considered.

(Figs. 3-c and 3-d). The terminal-peak exciting force is defined:

P(t) = 2P1 (t/tl) , for o z t S.tI (7-a)

P(t) = 0 , for t l t. (7-b)


6.
The intermediate-peak impulsive load represents the general triangular forc-

ing function:

P(t) = 2P1 (t/atl) , for o!tSat1 ; (8-a)

P(t) = 2P, (tI - t) / (1 - a) t1 , for atlgt~tl; (8-b)

P(t) = 0 , for tlst; (8-c)

where at I defines the time at which the maximum load occurs (0azl). The

patterns of force described above are considered to represent simplified

blast and impact disturbances normally encountered.

B. SOLUTION FOR RESPONSE

1. General response.

With the analytic procedure the general solution to the governing

differential equation of motion (equation 1) is found:

X/Xy = Acoscut + Bsinwt + P(t)/ P 1 , for XSXy and P(t) linear; (9-a)

X/Xy = (t)/P 1 dt -l/a02 t2 + Cwt + D, for Xy4X ; (9-b)

where A, B, C, and D denote constants of integration determined from the

initial conditions of velocity and displacement, c represents the circular

frequency of the system, and P is the ratio of the yield strength to the

average applied load:

CU = K /M(10)
13 = y/PI (11)

The solution appears in dimensionless form. The quantities w, tl, and


7.
together with the pattern of the forcing function are sufficient to determine

the behavior of a range of structures with respect to the yield deflection.

2. Maximum response.

By setting the velocity of the mass equal to zero, the time, tm, at

which the response is a maximum is found. Substitution of tm in the response

equation yields an expression for maximum deflection in terms of the yield

displacement. These analytic formulae of maximum deflection for each type

of load considered appear in the appendix.

The graphs (Figs. 4-7 inclusive) which represent the maximum re-

sponse furnish a better picture of the system's behavior. For various ratios

of yield strength to average applied load, 0, the maximum response with re-

spect to the yield deflection, X m/Xy, is given in terms of the duration of

load and the period of the structure, tl/T. These charts show the relations

between the duration of the load, tl, the time to attain yielding, ty, and

the time of maximum deflection, tm, An accurate estimate of the maximum re-

sponse of a simple structure to specific types of load is directly obtain-

able from these response graphs provided the forcing function and the

characteristics of the structure are known.

The type of impulsive excitation may, or may not, affect the maximum

response of the structure. In the so-called impulse region when the duration

of load is short in comparison with the period of the structure, it is of

interest to note that the pattern of load does not significantly affect the

maximum response, other things being equal. (Fig. 8). In contrast to this,

the impulse pattern may greatly influence the maximum deflection when the

load is applied very slowly relative to the system's period. (Fig. 9).
8.
Of the forcing functions studied, the triangular pulse with an initial peak

force produces the most critical response in the long-duration region; the

response to a step-pulse function is the smallest in magnitude.

The maximum displacement curves pictured in the graphs also illustrate

to what extent a change in one parameter, the duration of load t1 for instance,

affects the maximum response. In Fig. 5-a, which represents the response of

the structure to an initial peak force, for P equal to 1.0 a twenty percent

change in tI from 0.5T to 0.6T produces a thirty percent change in maximum

response from 3.85 Xy to 5.00 Xy. It is not unreasonable to expect an error

in certain parameters to result in an error three or more times as large in

the maximum response.

3. Approximate maximum response.

In addition to the "exact" expressions for response it is desirable

to obtain approximate solutions for the behavior of the system. Generally,

there are two cases of particular interest: one in which the duration of the

applied load is less than the time at which the maximum response occurs; the

other in which the load terminates long after the maximum response is attained.

The spring in the first case responds inelastically early in the

history of the system's behavior before the velocity of the mass is appre-

ciable. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the elastic response of the

structure is negligible; that is, the spring has an initial displacement

equal to the yield deflection, and the mass is at rest when the load is applied:

at t = 0 Q(X) = 1y= Qy ; (3-b)

X = Xy ; (2-a)

x =o. (2)
9.
The general solution to this problem is of the form of equation (9-b), where,

as before, the constants C and D are determined from the initial conditions

for velocity and displacement. The maximum response is found in the same

manner as previously described for the more rigorous solution. These ex-

pressions for maximum response are included in the appendix. How closely

this approximate response agrees with the actual response in the impulse

region is illustrated in Fig. 10, for the case of the step-pulse function.

Similarly, for the various triangular forcing functions the agreement be-

tween approximate and exact maximum responses is quite good.

When the maximum deflection occurs long before the load ceases, the

time at which the response is a maximum may not significantly exceed the

time at which the spring first yields. For this reason, neglecting the elastic

response of the system is not an accurate assumption for this case. A better

approach to determining the approximate response is to take the limit of the

"exact" solutions for maximum displacement allowing the duration of the load,

tl, to go to infinity. The expressions which result define the maximum re-

sponse for a duration of load which is long in comparison with the period of

the structure. The approximate solutions thus obtained are exact for the

step-pulse function but, at best, are only indicative of the magnitude of

the maximum response for the triangular pulse functions as shown in Fig. 11.

III. SENSITIVITY OF THE RESPONSE OF THE STRUCTURE

A. DETERMINATION OF SENSITIVITY

The analytic expressions for maximum response are used to determine

the influence of the problem parameters on that response. This influence


10.

may be defined as the change in maximum response due to a change in the para-

meter considered. If the deviation in that parameter is reduced to an

infinitesimal, the partial derivative of the maximum displacement with respect

to that parameter represents the influence factor sought. Then the summed

effect of changes in every parameter on the maximum response is the total

differential of the maximum displacement:


6X AM AKXm+Xm (12)
Xm = P AP 1 + 04y AQy + At l + K + AM.

Dividing this expression by the maximum displacement, Xm, gives the dimen-

sionless relation:

Xm
-y= C AP1 + CQQy + Ct A l +
CK--K- + C1-4 (12-a)

where Cp, CQ, Ct., CK, dnd CM are a measure of the sensitivity of the response

of the structure:

0= 6Xm Pl (13)
F1 Xm'

and similarly for the other parameters. These influence factors are charted

in Figs. 12-15 for the step-pulse function and the initial-peak triangular

forcing function. For each type of impulse pattern studied the analytic

expressions for the influence factors are included in the appendix. Because of

the dimensionless form of the formulae for maximum response, certain relations

exist between the influence factors:


Cp = 1 -cQ (14-a)
CK = 1/2 Ct - 1 ; (14-b)

CM = -1/2 Ct . (14 -c)

This allows the influence factors Cp, CK, and CM to be defined in terms of

CQ and Ct .
11.

B. USE OF INFLUENCE FACTORS

The influence factors represented in the graphs and in the analytic

expressions given in the appendix may be used to find the change in maximum

response, & Xm/Xm, due to a change in each parameter. For a particular

structure and a specified forcing function the magnitudes of the maximum

response and the corresponding influence factors are obtained either from

the graphs or from the analytic expressions. When substituted into equation

(12-a), these quantities and the magnitudes of the relative changes whose

effect is to be examined yield the change in the maximum response.

Although this procedure is exact for only infinitesimal changes in

the parameters, equation (12-a) may be used with a certain degree of accuracy

for finite changes in the parameters. It can be shown that the error in-

volved by considering finite variations is of a higher order than those

variations. A discussion on the limitations of the magnitude of the change

taken in the parameters is reserved to the appendix. Generally speaking, the

error involved is not significant provided the relative variations in the

parameters are kept in the neighborhood of ten percent absolute. Larger

changes than these can be made step-wise without introducing appreciable

error; that is, by considering the variations in ten percent steps, or less,

and replacing the old structure by the new at each step, the change in maxi-

mum response due to large changes in the parameters is found.

C. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The graphs for the influence factors illustrate the order of impor-
tance of the changes in the various parameters. In the impulse region the
average applied load is generally the most critical in its effect on the
12.

maximum response with the duration of load second in importance. The average

applied load again has the greatest influence on the maximum response in the

long-duration region; there the yield strength is second in importance.

That an error in a parameter may result in an error in the maximum

response several times as large is demonstrated by the graphs representing

the influence factors. In the long-duration region the influence factor for

average load, for instance, may be as high as 8 or more. Then too, a varia-

tion in a parameter may have little or no effect on the maximum response.

The duration of load, for example, has little effect in the long-duration

regions for 0 greater than 5.0. The range over which the influence factors

may vary accounts for some of the discrepancies observed in practice.

IV. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

To justify using rigorous methods of analysis for elasto-plastic

structures subjected to dynamic loads, it is necessary to determine accurately

the magnitudes of the characteristics of the structure and the forcing

function parameters. If these quantities are not precisely known, the effect

of an error in a parameter on the maximum response may be determined by the

method previously described.

Presented in graphical form, the results of the solution for the

maximum response of a simple structure to dynamic loads may be used in

practice for predicting the behavior of structures. The approximate ex-

pressions for maximum response given in the appendix are accurate for

estimating purpose in the impulse region only. In certain cases the re-

sponse in the first mode of a multi-degree-of-freedom system can be estimated


13.
from the results here presented. It must be kept in mind, however, that while

these exact and approximate results are accurate for a single-degree-of-freedom

system, the extension of their use to application to other structural systems

is, at best, approximate.

In design and analysis the magnitude of some of the parameters is

often a matter of arbitrary selection. When this condition exists, the use

of a rigorous method of analysis in predicting the behavior of the structure

is meaningless. The results of this investigation give support to the belief

that in such a case it is more appropriate to employ numerical or other approxi-

mate procedures which are in keeping with the quality of the data available.
14.

1. J. M. Frankland, "Effects on Impact of Simple Elastic Structures",

Taylor Model Basin Report No. 481, April, 1942.

2. C. R. Freberg and E. N. Kember, "Tables and Charts Aid in Beam

Vibration Problems", Machine Design, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1945,

p. 159.

3. R. D. Mindlin, "Dynamics of Package Cushioning", Bell System

Technical Journal, Vol. 24, July-Oct., 1945, pp. 353-461.

4. M. Levenson and B. Sussholz, "The Response of a System with a

Single Degree of Freedom to a Blast Load", Taylor Model Basin

Report No. 572, Dec., 1947.

5. V. Rojansky, "Gyrograms for Simple Hormonic Systems Subjected

to External Forces" Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 19,

March 1948, pp. 297-301.


APPENDIX

A. ANALYTIC EXPRESSIONS FOR MAXIMUM RESPONSE AND INFLUENCE FACTORS

1. Step pulse.

(A0. o$ tn to 6i.

(M). si ,
wi.m= 0.(e.a)tr
cq ni , ..
C t /.
(4). xm X, o. iain'lz

(). C a.

(4). CCs

i(I). Ceo$, ,-.0t,)


1 = Co. i'f 6

(4). -(4)

y
!1 (0.e +Im.= .
16.

Si-

(4). C ,6-I
i6;i, 6r -.

(U.aos et - -6

o).m wt + sin oil- (,--/) t, .

(4).CX -,+ _ -

m ct 4,;,-,,,.).

2. Initial-peak triangular pulse.


(A. o 4,
*r, , 1C , .

(). CQ:o.

( o *
4). + 4 fay
17.

(M). Cq:o

W. C : _ - des coi
( ). XmX : m (.mo)

QXm /X
('). Cg . -
-- -L (cot
,f,aa J, s4- 1i-no,,,1,).
(5) . Cq mI.
.g .

,-xdo
t. sca)..~t

1 4l no +

().C , ,
*().
04isI. 4 1 i - n r.
0).eI- iz- oSinct
18.

(i). X/Xe~:
.,-f. - c4~ta,

(5) -ct 1 . _L YL (alm -Wf)'L


S +4 'A(d ,-a f4 .c sa i +i+
1- * *

5.Terminal-peak triangular pulse.

(W. 1 Is/A
(9). CM IZ

0f)- eat,,

(4)ct: cit +o@tgI C.0uW~t,wt)~nu


19.

(1C. got = wt I sin.cd, wt,".(tsdt)

(4). Cq:6i -IA (ct~ 1 L.

(S5) ct % -I
xm + A idokA12,+ 1-ccscatTJ

Se) + CCAtW)%l4t J*m

(0. p o)* - sin wt~

Q &I,

IIIntermediate-peak triangular pulse.


(a). 20.

(Z).C ,w 0.

(4). C. L~

(B). o% 4 c.2% r . -

1.tc + Ott (Id-a~sWA

(). 2. L14)/ 45%e,+

pC-,x I"1 1 I I3,Is'%, * I


m(i-t~t)

m~~S ot%-O aow

(91). CqO II,+444A)Ii 204 -d

(4). 4t *+ j ~ ~si .gwi - sitrt + a.in ti.404 1

(0). ('-4)l sr~'A


+* (wt,,, -..&A ~ w,.~,)-(-~ i
21.

(4) Cq:A (e in wt 4m)L.

(5) 1 t. 0 4- + flmt- 3tflE.t,+%(fl(I-A)dj

(I). ~. 1 : ocoic4I
.~(i-Oi~g~ - i-s(1 co1~t
1

(5). Xr' /x4Ir-~)_lwl"a~ttf-OAA


(4). C~ T

N-K /X 4

M(5)<.C< It -e .1%L

evein(vh

( S). Xv%/ + f 4+-dtI L(01,ko

"~w+ +v J_ (Wr--a.Jtv)" (1
jb.&+'a 'V (t.A -od/ 4)I a +

(0) Gin~
at, 4l' cot1
22.

I+~ I&6Kc t,-eP *I/)(v4j"


ic Sin

(4). Cq'dl

an. Ct Vi (a tol

0+ 4.4 r J

+ 'AL
-41. ctIA-e

I / + II.AC(.c~)

(41 Ct OI=

+ (' -1f.m (eAj/-(a.j))cj


1

(D.~c.4 t,4 6i
%4t i I i W
(I)
23.

(Z). X,/X. 44,-wt-"


- 8,i-i-Y
+,

-+ C("t,-
j(4).t i- .ol i t o t
j''I

B. APPROXIMATE EXPRESSIONS FOR MAXIMUM RESPONSE.

1. Step pulse.
(A). Impulse region.

(2.). Xm/ 1 : I + ,c4ii -'I. &, .

(;B). L.og-duation region.

Xr,,x + II
2. Intal-peac triangular pulse.

(A). Impulse region.


Cw). -"ar
*
24.

(B), Long-duration region.

3. Terminal-peak triangular pulse.

(A). Impulse region.

(M. (O*A wi,

We.. 4vn/xl ~ + wt,.' i a..


(B). Long-duration region.

(a). Xei/X
1 ' )[edtI )J

4. Intermediate-peak triangular pulse.

(A). Impulse region.


(i). sot .w,'

(B). Long-duration region.

Ct). %m/t1 ' + J. (f.y)'sa,"(.-m)


25.

C. ERROR INTRODUCED BY FINITE CHANGES IN PARAMETERS

If the error in an influence factor due to a finite change in a

parameter is defined as:

error - C p (1)
Cp

where Cp
Axm p

and C = lin
C p#O ap In

the bounds may be set on that error such that:

a e b . for a a b

Cp
or a a 1 b

a+l b +l (16)
Cp

This restriction limits the magnitude of the change in the parameter under

consideration to:

a+ 1 . a ,,/x/< b+l , (16-a)

where a and b define the desired accuracy, Cp is the value for the influence

factor in the region under study, and AXm/Xm is the allowable relative

change in maximum deflection. For example, if b - - a - 0.1, C' - 1.8, and

Ax 3/1 3 I 0.2, then:


o.1 - .R
-r - 0.1222222
26.

__________ P(t)

P (t)

FIG. I SINGLE-DEGREE- OF-FREEDOM SYSTEM

xyx Xm X

FIG.2 SPRING FORCE- DISPLACEMENT FUNCION


27.

P,

aSTEP-PULSE

P
I P,

b. INITIAL-PEAK

ti

2 1P -- -- -- -

cTERMINAL-PEAK

d. INTERMEDIATE -PEAK

FIG. 3 FORCING FUNCTIONS


A t ~tjlip

14-

to -

NN

d0a4t,/T 0.6 03 1.0

F)G. 4-a MAXIMUM RESPONSE TO STEP-PULSE


- -0

40

0 0

002Q4 / 0.L

FI.4b MXMMRSOS OSE-US


- - --. -30 .-

'J -it7-it
li X1 i I --

110Ii
I- - --

pop -
g/As

-~~ 14t'
~

Nie-

Mr0.

/lox
MNO
-4 -

6r*.- 16P -

FIG. - RSO I"A OVU w9

T-MUA PU-LSE
-0 ------ - -

300

-~~ -_4 --

--- 00

400

000

0.00

TRIANG! R PULSE /
-34.

ic:. I CL

-- I-
.---- I~ V t-it

- - -- - - t--~ -~ - jC-

- - -- -- - - - -. ~-- -- -CI

- ,- - - > ~ - , E\

-h I {4.-
-K,- -

IX* -4-a.-
-1-l

CL

C.

*iK-u I

do

qu
A X/ w
-UT-.- -- ~1* --

- - - - - - - ~ .-.-...s~--.- -- - - -

- - -~-.~4~.---4.~-.-- .~ j.--4 - - - -

21 111 IIZ:
-- - - .-.-.

7ff

- - - - - ---. ~ * -. +~---- -

-- - -- - ---.-. -.-.-- .-- 4

1~~

- i----. * * -K
-~ j- 0
-- - -- *-................1~~ 4
- i.bt.L4- ~ -*. -

- - - --- ~ -- ~- -. ,.-.---- . .- -- .-. - --I


-~ - - - - -~----,---.-----........-- -.t -

I,, ________
-i- -i-I -

- -
* -- -,----~

*7~i~~ --
-

~ ~~-{.........-
-~
hi
I-

- .~.----&--4- *--.---.~ ...--.----.


-

-.
*~ -

. -I - -

- - II-,

- hi

I - -

.L2
- .4 ~..*...
-

-*-**t--.-~ - - - - -
0
2
C

- -~--~-~ ---- r---- 1


- - t - I

2
-- - 37.

O.-.

-- - 4 --.- ~-Ink.S

.4 44Mom

(I - - I0

4 - -- --.-- +-.- - - i0
-~~ ~~~~
- -~~~ - -4 -O -- - - --.- 4.
I E

so --- - AV4S,-
-- 7 010

70----

60 _ _1 ~ ~ -

so- - -

- -4I i-- Itv-


- - - -~-------i-I-000

(o/

00 0.1 0.2 0.35 t/ . 0.5

FIG 8 COMIKRISON OF RESPONSE TO DIFFERENT PULSES


- IN IMPULSE REGION
39.

'II
J-1B

I~ 0

Z 4)

CL
w0

0 c0

o~ ta 0
60 0

TO

40

0 0.1 0.2 ft/T 0.3 0.4 0.5

FIG. 10 COMPARISON OF APPROXIMATE AND TRUE RESPONSE


TO STEP PULSE IN IMPULSE REGION
IN1

i'~ ttI

IZ C
I ~ I-- S--------- .C

1
7. ....
....

x /OX
4---

/100

f 4-

co 0K .4.
FW 12 o-
70.T
AVRG
0 .4 t. 0.
LODAN
.4 1.0I
ILDLA
INFUEC R FO TP ./C IUS
- - - - - I

- -~ -. ~3.
I - ---- ~~ -

--- .----- - ------. - - -- 4-- ~ hi

- ~*-h--+----I-*-
- - - - --
-. -- r- em

0
h.
-i--- v.

-A----
-

.- - -- ------4--

-- -4 'mm
6 -- - I
................................................................................-.

e __~.~ .~. w
. -J
- - - .~. . ~ Ba.
2
I ___

- - -t .4..~. -~ - -.

- .. ~.......- .... 6.8

- - ... 4......................----.- hi

I
-ma

.~ I .. 4

* a -
I I

S. 5 5 .4 -u ~
410 03.

:1.

-3 .51.0

.44 A

0 1.0 0w
l 0.4 fO/A06a LO
CM CK c, ,T0. .

FIG. 13-0 MASS, STIFFNESS9AND DURATION INFWUENOE


FACTORS FOR STEP PULSE
I 'A I
-AT.,.

-i~~ zZ~~ 1.~7N6


. pW6
~
0.

.4.
-1.

4 .1.4. 0

5.0 0
Os 96 0T 10
M1 14-0 AVERAGE LOAD AM6 YIELD LOAD INFLUENCE
FACTOR FOR NTL#U. PEAK TWAOILM PULSE
* - - .- - - - _ _ _ _

- Si.
I: -LO.0 _______

0_

-. 3 .7 .6 _ _ _ _

.8 . .4

0 1.0 00 *04 .
0~~~I 6L -. -.

cm Cot 04 #I/ T

FIG. I5-a MASS, TIff-NESS, AND DURATION INFLUENCE


FACTORS FOR INITIAL-PEN( TRIANGULAR PULSE
49.

w
0
I-
U

IL

U)

-M

0)

IW
L

0)
.j9 n

IRI
a.

DISTRIBUTION LIST - PRoOJECT i. 061,-183

Administrative, Reference and Liaison Activities

Chief of Naval Research Commanding Officer


Department of the Navy Office of Naval Research
Washington 25, D.C. Branch Office,
ATTN: Code 438 (2) 801 Donahue Street
: Code 432 (1) San Francisco 24, California (1)

Director, Naval Research Laboratory Commanding Officer


Washington 25, D.C. Office of Naval Research
ATTN: Tech* Info. Officer (9) Branch Office
: Technical Library (1) 1030 Green Stcoet
: Mechanics Division (2) Pasadena, California (1)

Conmanding Officer Contract Adinistrator, SE Area


Office of Naval Research Office of Naval Research
Branch Office Department of the Navy
495 Summer Street Washingtoi 25, D.C.
Boston 10, Massachusetts (1) ATTN: R. Fo Lynch (1)

Commanding Officer Officer in Charge


Office of Naval Research Office of Naval Research
Branch Office Branch Office, London
346 Broadway I-avy No. 100
New York City 13, New York (1) FPO, New York City, New York (5)

Office of Naval Research Library of Congress


The John Crerar Library Bldg. Washington 25, D.C.
Tenth Floor, 86 East Randolph St. ATTN: Navy Research Section (2)
Chicago 1, Illinois (2)
Cormmnder
Commander U.S.' Naval Crdnance Test Station
U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station Pasadena Annex
Inyokern, China Lake, California 35202 East Foothill Blvd.
ATTN: Code 501 (1) Pasadena 8, California
ATTN: Code P8087 (1)
Comnnder
U.S. Naval Proving Grounds
Dahlgren, Virginia (1)
b.

Department of Defense
Other Interested Government Activities
GEINRAL

Research and Development Board Engineering Research and


Department of Defense Developnent Laboratory
Pentagon Building Fort Belvoir, Virginia
Washington 25, D.C. ATTN: Structures Branch (1)
ATTN: Library (Code 3D-1O75) (1)

Armed I'orces Special Weapons Project The Cormanding General


P.O. Box 2610 Sandia Base, P.O. Box 5100
Washington, D.C. Albuquerque, New Mexico
ATTN: Col. G. F. 2lunda (1) ATTIU: Col. Canterbury (1)

Operation Research Officer


Department of the Army
Ft. Lesley J. McNair
Washington 25, D.C.
ATTN: Ioward Brackney (1)

ARI-I

Chief of Staff Office of Chief of Ordnance


Department of the Army Research and Development Service
I~esearch and Development Division Department of the Army
Washington 25, D.C. The Pentagon
ATTN: Chief of Res. and Dev. (1) Washington 25, D.C.
ATTI: OR:DT D (2)
Office of the Chief of Engineers
Assistant Chief for Public Works Ballistic Research Laboratory
Department of the Army Aberdeen Proving Ground
3ldg. T-7, Gravelly Point Aberdeen, Maryland
Washington 25, D.C. ATTB: Dr. C. W, Lampson (1)
ATTN: Structural Branch
(R. L. Bloor) (1) Cor nanding Cfficer
Watertowm Arsenal
Office of the Chief of Engineers Waterown, liassachusetts
Asst. Chief for Military Const. ATTiI: Laboratory Division (1)
Department of the Army
Bldg. T-7, Gravelly Point Conmanding Officer
Washington 25, D.C. Franrford Arsenal
ATTN: Structures Branch (1) Philadelphia, Pa.
(11. F. Carey) ATTN: Laboratory Division (1)
Protective Construction
Branch (I. 0. Thorley) (1) Commanding Officer
Squiei, Signal Laboratory
Office of the Chief of Engineers Fort Mlonmiouth, New Jersey
Asst. Chief for Military Operations ATTN: Components and Materials
Department of the Army Branch (1)
Bldg. T-7, Gravelly Point
Washington 25, D.C.
ATTN: Structures Dev. Brch.(W.F, Woollard) (1)
Co

Other Interested Government Activities

NAVY

Chief of Bureau of Ships Chief of i3ureou, w:f Aeronautics


Navy Department Navy Departme3nt
Washington 25, D.C. Washington 25, D.!.
ATTN: Director of Research (2) ATTN: TD-41, Tec~niical Library (1)
: Code 449 (1) : DE-22, C. W. Hurley (I)
: Code 430 (1) : DE-23, E. M. Ryan (i)
: Code 421 (i)
Naval Air Experimental Station
Director Naval Air Material Center
David Taylor Model Basin Naval Base
Washington 7, D.C. Philadelphia 12, Pa.
ATTN: Structural Mechanics ATTN: Head, Aeronautical Materials
Division (2) Laboratory (1)
Director Chief of' Bureau of Yards and Docks
Naval Engr. Experiment Station Navy Department
Annapolis, Maryland (1) Washington 25, D.C.
ATTN: Code P-314 (1
: Code C-313
Director
Materials Laboratory Officer in Charge
New York Naval Shipyard Naval Civil Engr. Research and
Brooklyn l, New York (1) Eval. Lab, Naval Station
Port Hueneme, California (1)
Chief of Bureau of Ordnance
Navy Department Superintendent
Washington 25, D.C. Post Graduate School
ATTN: Ad-3, Technical Library (1) U. S. Naval Academy
: Rec., T. N. Girauard (1) Monterey, California (1)

Superintendent AIR FORCES


Naval Gun Factory Cormanding General
Washington 25, D.C. (1) U. S. Air Forces
The Pentagon
Naval Ordnance Laboratory Washington 25, D.C.
White Oak, Maryland ATTN: Research and Development
RFD l, Silver Spring, Maryland Division (1)
ATTN: Mechanics Division (2)
Commanding General
Naval Ordnance Test Station Air Material Command
Inyokern, California Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
ATTN: Scientific Officer (1) Dayton, Ohio
ATTN: I4CAIDS (2)
Naval Ordnance Test Station
Underwater Ordnance Division Office of Air Research
Pasadena, California Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
ATTN: Structures Division (1) Dayton, Ohio
ATTN: Chief, Applied Mechanics
Group (i)
d.

TI'H
R GOVE Z AGENCIE S

U. So Atomic Energy Commission National Advisory Committee for


Division of Research Aeronautics
Washington, D.C. (1) 1724 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. (1)
Argonne National Laboratory
P.O. Box 5207 National Advisory Committee for
Chicago 80, Illinois (1) Aeronautics
Langley Field, Virginia
Director, ATTN: Mr. E. Lundquist (1)
National Bureau of Standards
Washington, D.C. National Advisory Committee for
ATTN: Dr. W. H. Ramberg (2) Aeronautics
Cleveland Municipal Airport
U. S. Coast Guard Cleveland, Ohio
1300 E Street, N.W. ATTN: J. H. Collins, Jr. (1)
Washington, D.C.
ATTN: Chief, Testing and U. S. Maritine Commission
Development Division (1) Technical Bureau
Washington, D.C.
Forest Products Laboratory ATTN: Mr. V. Russo (1)
Madison, Wisconsin
ATTN- L. J. Markwardt (1)

C0nTRACTORS AND OTIHER INVESTIGATORS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN RELATED RESEARCH

Professor Jesse Ormendroyd Professor M. A. Sadowsky


University of Michigan Illinois Institute of Technology
Ann Arbor, Michigan (1) Technology Center
Chicago 16, Illinois (1)
Dr. N. J. Hoff, Head
Department of Aeronautical Dr. W. Osgood
Engineering and Applied Mechanics Armour Research Institute
Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn Technology Center
99 Livingston Street Chicago, Illinois (1)
Brooklyn 2, New York (1)
Professor R. L. Bisplinghoff
Dr, J. N. Goodier Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.
School of Engineering Cambridge 39, Massachusetts (1)
Stanford University
Stanford, California (1) Professor B. Fried
Washington State College
Professor F. K. Teichmann Pullman, Washington (1)
Department of Aeronautical Engr.
New York University Professor E. Reissner
University Heights, Bronx Department of Mathematics
New York City, New York (1) Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.
Cambridge 39, MassachusettL, (1)
Professor C. T. Wang
Department of Aeronautical Engr. Dr. A. Phillips
New York University School of Engineering
University Heights, Bronx Stanford University
New York City, New York (1) Stanford, California (1)
e.

GONTRACTORS AID OTHER INVESTIGATORS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN RELATED RESEARCH


Professor E. Sternberg Professor L. S. Jacobsen
Illinois Institute of Technology Stanford University
Technology Center Stanford, California (1)
Chicago 16, Illinois (1)
Professor A. C. Eringen
Dr. W. Prager Illinois Institute of Technology
Grad. Div. Applied Mathematics Technology Center
Brown University Chicago 16, Illinois (1)
Providence, Rhode Island (1)
Professor B. J. Lazan
Dr. W. H. Hoppmann Engineering Experiment Station
Department of Applied Mathematics University of Minnesota
Johns Hopkins University Minneapolis 14, Minnesota (1)
Baltimore, Maryland (1)
Professor W. K. Krefeld Commander
College of Engineering U. S. N.O.T.S.
Columbia University China Lake. California (i)
New York City, New York (1)

Professor R. M. Hermes ATTN: Code 505


University of Santa Clara Professor George Lee
Santa Clara, California (1) Dept. of Mechanics
Rensselaer Polytechnical Inst.
Dr. W. A. McNair Troy, New York (1)
Vice President, Research
Sandia Corporation Professor Lloyd Donnell
Sandia Base Department of Mechanics
Albuquerque, New Mexico (1) Illinois Institute of Technology
Technology Center
Dr. R. J. Hansen Chicago 16, Illinois (1)
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology
Cambridge 39, Massachusetts (1) Professor Lynn Beedle
Fritz Engineering Laboratory
Dr. Francis H. Clauser Lehigh University
Chairman, Dept. of Aeronautics Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (1)
The Johns Hopkins University
School of Engineering Dr. Bruce Johnston
Baltimore 18, Maryland (1) 301 West Engineering Bldg.
University of Michigan
Dr. G. E. Uhlenbeck Ann Arbor, Michigan
Engineering Research Institute
University of Michigan Dr. Walter Bleakney
Ann Arbor, Michigan (1) Department of Physics
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey (1)
i.

Library Engineering Foundation Dr. C. B. Smith


29 West 39th Street Department of Mathematics
New York City, New York (1) Walker Hall, University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida (1)
Professor N. M. Newmark
Department of Civil Engineering Dean. R. E. Johnson
University of Illinois Graduate College
Urbana, Illinois (2) University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois (1)
Dean W. L. Everitt
College of Engineering Professor W. C. Huntington, Head
University of Illinois Department of Civil Engineering
Urbana, Illinois (1) University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois (1)
Professor T. J. Dolan
Dept. of Theoretical and Applied Professor A. E. Green
Mechanics Kings College
University of Illinois Newcastle on Tyne, 1
Urbana, Illinois (2) England (1)

Dr. L. Fox
TASK VI PROJECT - C. E. RESEARCH STAFF Mathematics Division
National Physical Laboratory
W. H. Munse Teddington, Middlesex
England (1)
J. E. Stallmeyer
Professor W. J. Duncan, Head
R. J. Mosborg Dept. of Aerodynamics
College of Aeronautics
W. J. Austin Cranfield, Bletchley
Backs, England (1)
L. E. Goodman
Professor R. V. Southwell
C. P. Siess Imperial College of Science
and Technology
Research Assistants (10) Prince Consort Road
South Kensington
Files (5) London S.W. 7, England (1)

Reserve (20)

AV

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen