Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

.

25

Stability Of Structures:

Continuous Models

25–1

Lecture 25: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

252

Page

 §25.1. Introduction 25–3 §25.2. Example 1: The Euler Column 25–3 §25.2.1. Critical Load Analysis 25–4 §25.2.2. Linearization Limitations 25–5 §25.2.3. Reformulation as Eigenproblem 25–6 §25.3. The Fixed-Pinned Column 25–6 §25.3.1. Critical Load Analysis 25–6 §25.4. Elastically Restrained Column 25–8 §25.4.1. Problem Description 25–8 §25.4.2. Critical Load Analysis 25–8 §25.4.3. Equivalent Spring Constant 25–10

252

253

§25.1.

Introduction

§25.2 EXAMPLE 1: THE EULER COLUMN

This Lecture focuses on buckling analysis of continuous models of elastic systems. This process leads to ordinary or partial differential equations. Those can be solved in closed form only for simple 1D structures, such as prismatic columns treated by linearized prebuckling (LPB).

Despite limitations in terms of obtaining analytical solutions, such problems are important for displaying key intrisic features of continuous models. For example, the associated eigenproblem has an innite (but denumerable) set of eigenvalues, meaning an innite number of critical loads. (This should not be surprising, since continuous models have an innite number of degrees of freedom.) Of these, the lowest buckling load is of primary interest to designers.

We illustrate the treatment of continuous models using via several examples involving elastic columns with simple boundary conditions. All of the examples in this Lecture have closed form solutions.

§25.2.

Example 1: The Euler Column

(a)
P
A
y
x
X
L
constant EI
B
elastic
(b) P
(c)
P
A
A
y
y
x
x
X'
X X'
X
v(x)
v(x)
P
assumed
buckled shape
B
P

M(x) = P v (+ as drawn)

Figure 25.1. The Euler column: (a) problem denition; (b) FBD of whole column assuming a buckled shape v(x) with its amplitude exaggerated for visibility; (c) FBD at distance x from top.

The Euler column is shown in Figure 25.1(a). It is a homogeneous, prismatric, elastic column pinned (hinged, simply supported) at both ends A and B, and subjected to axial load P. The elastic modulus is E. Reference axes are chosen as follows: x is longitudinal, with origin at end A; z is normal to the plane of the gure and selected so that I = I zz is the minimum second order moment of inertia of the column cross section about z; nally, y lies in the plane of the gure. For example, if the cross section is a solid rectangle of width b and thickness t < b, the minimum I = I zz is b t 3 /12, and y, z will be aligned with the short and long cross-section dimensions, respectively.

It is emphasized that the minimum moment of inertia, herein called I = I zz as noted above, is the

253

Lecture 25: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

254

one that determines the buckling load.* With the axes chosen as shown, the column will buckle in the xy plane. Figure 25.1(b) pictures a buckled shape that satises the end boundary conditions. Such a curve is called a kinematically admissible buckling mode shape.

The mode shape illustrated by Figure 25.1(b) is mathematically dened by the deection curve v(x), whose determination is part of the problem. (The notation choice is not accidental, for v(x) can be interpreted as a beam deection.) This deection is inﬁnitesimal because of the linearized prebuckling (LPB) assumption. In that Figure it is drawn with exaggerated amplication for visibility.

Figure 25.1(b) also shows reactions at B, which here reduce to just P. There are no end moment reactions because the column is hinged at A and B; furthermore taking moments with respect to A and B shows that both lateral reactions (along y) vanish.

Next, do a FBD of a segment AX, with X located at a distance x from A, as shown in Figure 25.1(c). The displaced X is labeled X, and the distance from X to Xis v(x). At this cross section we will have a bending moment M z (x), which is positive as drawn in the gure (reason: a +M z (x) compresses the beam top surface, which by convention lies on the +y side.) Taking moments with respect to X, equilibrium requires M z (x) + P v(x) = 0. But according to beam deection theory, M z (x) = E I zz v (x) = E I v (x). Replacing gives

(25.1)

E I v (x) + P v(x) = 0.

This is a homogeneous, second order, linear ODE in the unknown deection v(x). For convenience in reducing (25.1) to standard (canonical) form introduce

λ def = +

P

E I ,

(25.2)

Dividing (25.1) through by E I and substituting (25.2) we get the canonical form

(25.3)

Its general solution is

(25.4)

in which A and B are determined from the kinematic boundary conditions v(0) = 0 and v(L) = 0. The rst one requires that A = 0, whence (25.4) reduces to

v (x) + λ 2 v(x) = 0,

v(x) = A cos λx + B sin λx,

v(x) = B sin λx.

(25.5)

This is called a characteristic stability equation or simply characteristic equation; the names buckling equation and critical load equation are also used. It has two possible solution types:

B

B

= 0

= 0

v(x) = 0: the column remains straight

v(x)

= 0: the column buckles with shape sin λx

(25.6)

* If the section happen to have equal bending inertia in all directions, as in the case of a circular or square section, buckling can occur in any direction. The actual buckling plane is determined by imperfections, a topic not treated in this course.

254

255

§25.2 EXAMPLE 1: THE EULER COLUMN

These two solution types are designated as trivial and nontrivial, respectively, in the literature.

The critical loads are the values of P at which nontrivial solutions are possible. These are determined

by applying the second end condition: v(L) = 0. Its solutions are λL = nπ, in which n = 1, 2,

0.

Square both sides for

convenience: λ 2 L 2 = n 2 π 2 , replace λ 2 by P/(E I ), solve for P and tag those loads as critical:

Since B

= 0 we must have sin λL

=

is a positive integer.

P cr,n = n 2 π L 2 2 E I

,

n = 1, 2,

(25.7)

As can be observed, there is an innite number of critical loads. These are the nontrivial solutions of the characteristic equation (25.5). The lowest one is associated with n = 1:

P cr,1 = P cr = π 2 L E 2 I

.

This is called the Euler critical load.

2
π
E I
4 π
2
E I
P
= P
=
P
=
cr
cr1
cr2
P
=
2
L
2
cr3
L
L/3
L/2
L
L/3
L/2
L/3
Mode shape 1
Mode shape 2
Mode shape 3
(n=1)
(n=2)
(n=3)

9 π

2

E I

L

2

(25.8)

Figure 25.2. First three buckling mode shapes for the Euler column.

The buckling mode shapes associated with the set of critical loads (25.7) are

v cr,n (x) = B sin n πx L

.

(25.9)

If n = 1 the mode shape is a half sine wave, similar to that drawn in Figure 25.1(c). If n = 2 we get

a complete sine wave, if n = 3, one-and-a-half sine wave, etc. These buckling shapes are drawn

for n = 1, 2, 3 in Figure 25.2.

§25.2.2. Linearization Limitations

The LPB assumption does yields the critical loads, but also brings about the following inconsisten- cies, some of which have an air of paradox.

255

Lecture 25: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

256

The foregoing solution says nothing about the amplitude of the buckling modes (25.8) in terms of the data. This is a consequence of the LPB assumptions, which led to a simple linear ODE but lters that information. Determination of this postbuckling behavior is quite involved, since it requires solving a nonlinear ODE in terms of elliptic functions. Such analysis shows that the buckled column continues to take up on increasing load, albeit very slowly, as long as it remains elastic.

=

Differentiating (25.7) three times gives a nonzero transverse shear load V y (x) = EI B v E I 3 /L 3 )B cosx/L). Evaluation at x = 0 or x = L gives a nonzero transverse shear force whereas Figure 25.1(b) shows zero horizontal reactions there. A similar inconsistency arises if one differentiates four times. This gives a nonzero lateral load p(x) but no such load exists. This paradoxindicates that the sine-wave result must be corrected once the buckling mode amplitude becomes nite.

The analysis does not take into account imperfections such an initially crooked column, or

axial load eccentricity. Such an analysis is beyond the level of this course, but one basic result is used in the justication of the Southwell plotexperimental procedure described in Lecture

cr 1

19.

§25.2.3. Reformulation as Eigenproblem

Lecture 17 emphasized that a discrete stability problem handled through the LPB assumptions may be presented as a matrix eigenproblem. This is also the case for the linearized continuous problem, but it requires a reformulation. For the Euler column, the two end boundary conditions v(0) = 0 and v(L) = 0 may be written conjointly as

1

cos λL

sin λL A

B

0

= 0

0 .

(25.10)

This is a matrix eigenproblem in λ = P/(E I ), but note that (unlike the discrete case) this variable does not appear linearly. For a nontrivial solution, meaning that A and B are not both zero, the determinant of the matrix on the left side must vanish. This leads to the condition

sin λL = 0

(25.11)

which agrees with that previously found from the characteristic equation (25.5). This reformulation becomes useful in more complicated cases.

§25.3.

The Fixed-Pinned Column

As second example we consider the conguration shown in Figure 25.3(a). The buckled column is drawn in Figure 25.3(b) in a deected position. The most notable difference with respect tp the Euler column of Figure 25.1(a) is the presence of additional reaction forces: the lateral reactions R A and R B , and the xed end moment M B . These are positive as shown in Figure 25.3(b).

256

257

§25.3 THE FIXED-PINNED COLUMN

Equilibrium of y forces in Figure 25.3(b) gives R A = R B . Equilibrium of moments taken with respect to either A or B yields M B = R A /L. Next consider the FBD of the portion AX shown in Figure 25.3(c). Equilibrium with respect to Xgives the non-homogeneous ODE

E I v (x) + Pv(x) = R A x =

M L

B x

.

(25.12)

The LHS is the same as in (25.1), but the RHS is no longer zero. Dividing through by E I and setting λ 2 = −P/(E I ) gives after some manipulations

(25.13)

v (x) + λ 2 v(x) = λ 2 M B x . PL

The general solution is the sum of the homogeneous solution v H (x) = A sin λx + B cos λx and the particular solution v P (x) = M B x/(P L):

v(x) = A sin λx + B cos λx + M PL

B x

.

(25.14)

The three kinemtic BCs are v A = v(0) = 0, v B (0) = v(L) = 0 and v B = v (L) = 0. These provide three equations:

B

+ M B

L

= 0,

A sin λL + B cos λL + 0,

A λl M PL

B

= 0.

(25.15)

Solving these equations simultaneously one obtains the characteristic equation

tan λL = λL .

(25.16)

The samllest roots of this transcendental equation, to 4 places, is λL = 4.493. The corresponding critical load is

(25.17)

P cr = 20.19 E I L 2

.

Since 20.19 2.05 π 2 this critical load is approximately twice that of the Euler column. Thus xing one end has substantially increased the critical load.

257

Lecture 25: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

258

(a)
P
(b)
(c)
P
P
R A
A
R A
A
y
y
y
A
x
x
x
X'
X'
R A
X
X
X
v(x)
v(x)
P
L
assumed
M(x)
(+ as drawn)
constant EI
buckled shape
M
B
B
B
R
= R
B
A
P
elastic

Figure 25.3. Column xed at one end and simply supported (hinged, pinned) at the other.

§25.4.

Elastically Restrained Column

The title conguration is of interest because it covers the three boundary condition cases tested in the Column Buckling Lab.as special cases.

§25.4.1. Problem Description

Consider the modication of the classical Euler column pictured in Figure 25.4(a). The column is simply supported (pinned) at both ends A and B, and axially loaded by P. The rotation at B is further restrained by a torsional spring with stiffness k.

Column AB has length L and constant exural rigidity E I , in which I I zz is the minimum moment of inertia of the cross section that controls buckling. (For a rectangular cross section of width b and thickness t < b, I = I zz = b t 3 /12.) The column is simply supported (pinned) at both ends A and B, and axially loaded by P. The rotation at B is further restrained by a torsional spring with stiffness k. Select x as shown and consider the buckling shape v(x) sketched in Figure A.1(b). The end rotation at B is θ B = v (L), positive CCW. The spring at B applies a restoring end moment M B = −k θ B . For convenience in obtaining dimensionless equations we dene

k

= β E I L

(25.18)

where β is a numerical coefcient. If β = 0 the problem reduces to that of the classical Euler column, whereas if β → ∞ we obtain the case of a column simply supported at A and xed (clamped) at B.

Prior to Fall 2010, this used to be Experimental Lab 3.

It is now a Lab-Homework, meaning that the results are

presented as part of an assigned Homework rather than a formal Lab Report.

258

259

(a)
P
A
y
L
k
B
x

§25.4 ELASTICALLY RESTRAINED COLUMN

(b)

P
R A
y,v
x
v(x)
M B
R
P
B

−θ

A

(c)

P
R A
x
X
P

(d)

P

A

A

beam-column

C elastic beam

B

M(x)= P v+R x

R A

= k θ

B

Figure 25.4. Column with elastic restraint: a torsional spring, at end B.

The FBD of the complete column is shown in Figure 25.4(b). Taking moments with respect to B one nds that

(25.19)

Now cut the column at section X at distance x as sketched in Figure 25.4(c). Moment equilibrium with respect to X yields the second order differential equation

R A

= M B /L = −k θ B /L = −βE I θ B /L 2 .

E

I v + P v = R A x = −kθ B

x

L = −β E I θ B x ,

L 2

(25.20)

which results from equating the bending moment M(x) = E I v to Pv + R A x. Dividing through by E I and calling λ 2 = P/E I produces the canonical form

v + λ 2 v = −β θ L 2 .

B x

(25.21)

The general solution of (25.21) is the sum of the homogeneous and particular solutions:

v(x) = C 1 sin λx + C 2 cos λx β

θ B

x

λ 2 L 2 .

(25.22)

Since v(0) = 0, C 2 = 0. The rotation is θ(x) = v (x) = C 1 λ cos λx βθ B /(λ 2 L 2 ). Evaluating this at x = L yields θ B = θ(L) = C 1 λ cos λL βθ B /(λ 2 L 2 ), from which we can solve for the end rotation:

(25.23)

Inserting this into the solution (25.22) with C 2 = 0 gives v(x) = C 1 sin λx C 1 βλx cos λL/(β + λ 2 L 2 ). Applying now the second boundary condition: v(L) = 0, furnishes the stability equation

λ 3 L 2

θ B = C 1

β

+ λ 2 L 2 cos λL .

v(L) = C 1 sin λL

βλL L 2 cos λL = 0. β + λ 2

(25.24)

259

Lecture 25: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

2510

For buckling to occur, C 1

α = λL, which is also a dimensionless variable, we obtain the trascendental equation

= 0, and the expression in parentheses in (25.24) must vanish. Calling

tan α =

α β

α 2 + β

(25.25)

For a given β 0 we seek the solution α cr > 0 of (25.25) closest to zero. If β = 0 there is no

closed form solution and it is better to proceed numerically, using for example a Newton solver. It

is easily shown that for β = [0, ], π α cr < 4.5, so α 4 is a good start point for a Newton iteration. Such a solver is implemented in Mathematica in the built-in function FindRoot. For example, the statements

beta=100;

Print["alphacr=",alpha/.FindRoot[Tan[alpha]== alpha*beta/(alpha^2+beta), {alpha,4}]];

return α cr = 4.4494 as the desired numerical solution of (25.25) for β = 100. Here is a table for selected values of β:

β α L e /L

cr

 0 1 3 10 100 1000 10000 ∞ π 3.4056 3.7264 4.1323 4.4494 4.4889 4.493 4.4934 1.0000 0.9224 0.8431 0.7602 0.7061 0.7 0.6992 0.6991

The critical load P cr and the effective length L e (tabulated above) are

cr 2 E I

L 2

=

π 2 E I

L 2

e

α cr

P cr = α

, L e =

π

L

(25.26)

This solution also applies to the buckling of a column AB rigidly connected at B to an elastic

beam BC, as illustrated in Figure 1(d). This is actually one of the congurations to be tested in

Lab 3. All that is needed is to work out the appropriate value of k = M

BC obtained from a

BC

B

B

moment-deection analysis of beam BC subjected to an applied end moment M

BC

B

= M B .

§25.4.3. Equivalent Spring Constant

Suppose the restraining elastic beam BC in Figure A.1 has length L r = L BC , modulus E r and moment of inertia I r about z. Assume a simply support condition at C. Under an end moment

M B applied as pictured in Figure 25.4(d), the restraining beam deects by v r = −M B x r (L

x

M B L r /(3E r I r ), whence the equivalent torsional spring stiffness is k = M B B is 3E r I r /L r .

Comparing with (1) shows that β = 3(L/L r )(E r I r )/(E I ). If the restraining beam is fabricated of the same material and has the same cross section dimensions of the beam-column, as is the case in Lab 3, E r = E, I r = I , and β = 3L/L r .

2

r

2

r

)/(6E r I r L r ), in which x r is the distance from C. The end rotation is θ B = (dv r /dx)| x r L r =

E. M. Popov, Engineering Mechanics of Solids, Prentice Hall, NJ, 1999, case 5 of Table 10, p. 853.

2510