Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

# Comparative Study of Linear and Geometric

## Nonlinear Load-Deflection Behavior of Flexural

Steel Members
Dr.U.

Riyas Moideen KK
Dept. of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Raipur, India
riyasnitraipur@gmail.com

K. Dewangan
Dept. of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Raipur, India
dewangan.umesh25@gmail.com

II.

Abstract
Beam is the most common type structure that we are using for
civil engineering construction. It will undergo bending when the load
applied transversely (flexural members). The proper analysis of
beam is important for understanding the actual behavior and
economical use of sections. For this we should consider the
nonlinear effect of members. This paper studies a comparative study
of linear and geometric nonlinear load-deflection behavior of fixed
and simply supported beams under vertical loads. In a geometrically
linear analysis, the equations of equilibrium are formulated before
the deformation state and are not updated with the deformation. This
is valid in case of small deformation only. If the load is very high or
in case of thinner section the effect can't be neglected. So it is
compulsory to use updated stiffness matrix at each load increment.
For this study we formulated three noded steel beam element for both
linear and nonlinear cases. The linear and nonlinear load-deflection
behavior is carried out using STAAD PRO. The linear behavior is
also computed by developing a finite element based MATLAB code.
Load deflection behavior is studied for simply supported beams with
thickness 30 mm, 40 mm and for fixed beam with 30 mm thickness.
Keywords finite element method; geometrical nonlinear
analysis; linear analysis; staad pro; matlab

I.

INTRODUCTION

## Beam is a structural member that is capable of taking loads

by resisting against bending. It is characterized by their profile
(shape of cross-section), their length, and their material. Beams
are traditionally descriptions of building or civil engineering
structural elements, but smaller structures such as truck or
automobile frames, machine frames, and other mechanical or
structural systems contain beam structures that are designed
and analyzed in a similar fashion. It is important to study the
real behavior of the beam against the vertical loads. Generally
for simplicity we are considering linear nature of both material
and geometry of structures. If the loads are heavy or we are
using thinner sections this assumption will not valid. Here we
should consider the nonlinear nature of structures for material
as well as geometry. This paper we are considering the effect of
geometric nonlinearity on load-deflection behavior of simply
supported and fixed beams with different thickness.

LITERATURE REVIEW

## Wood and Zienkiewicz (1977) performed geometrically

nonlinear analysis of elastic in plane oriented bodies like
beams and frames. The displacements and rotations are
unrestricted in magnitude and nonlinear equilibrium equations
are solved using the Newton-Raphson method. An incremental
total Lagrangian formulation is presented by Parisch (1978),
which allows the calculation of arbitrarily large displacements
and rotations. Bergan et al. (1978) discussed and surveyed the
principal methods for numerical solution of the nonlinear
equations. Special emphasis is placed upon the description of
an automatic load incrimination procedure with equilibrium
iterations. They suggested a simple scalar quantity denoted the
current stiffness parameter, which is used to characterize the
overall behavior of nonlinear problems.
Bathe and Bolourchi (1979) carried out an exhaustic study
on updated Lagrangian and a total Lagrangian formulation of a
three-dimensional beam element for large displacement and
large rotation analysis. They found that two formulations yield
identical element stiffness matrices and nodal point force
vectors, but updated Lagragian formulation is computationally
more effective than total lagrangian formulation. The analysis
of the geometrically nonlinear behavior of space structures,
using the modified arc length method is explained by Meek
and Hoon Swee Tan(1984). New stiffness matrix for the
analysis of thin walled beams is derived by YeongBin Yang
and William McGuire (1986).
Siu Lai Chan (1988) presented a geometric and material
non-linear analysis procedure for framed structures using a
solution algorithm of minimizing the residual displacements.
He introduced the concept of the effective tangent stiffness
matrix and it is found to be efficient, simple and logical in
handling the non-linear analysis of frames. Kashinath N. Borse
and Shailendra kumar Dubey(2013) addressed to the review of
advances, techniques and theoretical background of the nonlinear analysis of steel beam. Turgay Cosgun and Baris Sayin
(2014) investigated the geometric and material nonlinear
analysis of three-dimensional steel frames. A matrixreplacement method was used which takes into consideration
the effects of axial forces on the stiffness of the member by
using the stability functions and the effects of plastic hinges by
systematically changing the stiffness matrix in each occurrence
of the plastic hinges. Sabale et al. (2014) studied the behavior
of deep beam of various span to depth ratio by ANSYS 13.0

## under two point loading of 50 KN and also investigated the

stress distribution of deep beam.
III.

## ANALYSIS OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS

A. Linear Analysis
Linear analysis in which structure which returns into
original form after the removal of loads and there will be small
or magnitude. A linear FEA analysis is undertaken when a
structure is expected to behave linearly, i.e. obeys Hook's Law.
In linear elastic analysis, the material is assumed to be
unyielding and its properties invariable and the equations of
equilibrium are formulated on the geometry of the unloaded
structure. In this approach the primary unknowns are the joint
displacements, which are determined first by solving the
structure equation of equilibrium. Then the unknown forces
can be obtained through compatibility consideration. In
geometrically linear analysis, the equations of equilibrium are
formulated in the undeformed state and are not updated with
the deformation. This is valid in case of small deformation
only. Three node beam element is selected as the finite element
model in this study, having six degrees of freedom; one lateral
and one rotational at each node. Two nodes at each supports
and one node at the center of the beam as shown in Fig. 1
2

## load. Its geometry will changes resulting in stiffness change. If

a structure experiences large deformations, its changing
geometric configuration can cause the structure to respond
nonlinearly. Geometric nonlinearity is characterized by large
also and this stretching leads to a nonlinear relationship
between the strain and the displacement.
[K(d)] {d} = {F}
Nonlinearity is achieved by updating element stiffness
matrices with respect to nodal displacements. The element
stiffness matrix is the function of displacement. So at each load
increment the value of stiffness matrix will change. Newton
Raphson Method is used for nonlinear analysis. The force is
applied in several increments and these increments are equally
divided. At each increment the iterations are performed until
the convergence is achieved. If the iterations cannot converge,
the applied load is divided into two. The reasons for nonconvergence are either the element fails or the iterations are not
enough. Decreasing load increments solves both of these
problems. By this approach the failure load is determined.
When the applied load is solved with initial tangent stiffness ,
the applied force and the internal force are not equal to each
other. The difference is called unbalanced load and at each
iteration the unbalanced load decreases. When the unbalanced
loads are smaller than a tolerance, the solution is converged.
IV.

## The nodal variable vector is

{d }= [d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6]
where d1,d3,d5 are the lateral displacement and d2,d4,d6
are rotations at nodes one, two and three respectively. In this
work our objective to find out the deflection at center of the
beam (d4) . After selecting elements and nodal unknowns next
step in finite element analysis is to assemble element properties
for each element. These element properties are used to
assemble global properties/structure properties to get system
equations

METHODOLOGY

## To check the validity of the formulation of linear and

geometrical nonlinear load-deflection behavior of beams we
are analyzing three types of beams using software's. Linear
behavior is carried out using STAAD Pro and by a finite
element based MATLAB code and nonlinear behavior by using
STAAD Pro. For checking the effect of thickness of beam and
supporting condition for geometrical nonlinear problems we
are considering three beams :1) Simply supported steel beam with thickness 30 mm,
length 1000mm and width 50 mm shown in Fig. 2.
2) Simply supported steel beam with thickness 40 mm,
length 1000mm and width 50 mm.
3) Both end fixed steel beam with thickness 30 mm,
length 1000mm and width 50 mm.
30 kN
B

## [K] {d} = {F}

h
1000 mm

K = Global stiffness matrix
Then the boundary conditions are imposed. The solution of
these simultaneous equations give the nodal unknowns. In the
linear analysis of beams the value of stiffness matrix is
constant throughout the analysis. Deflection of beam is
calculated from the above expression.
B. Non-Linear Analysis
In order to approach the real behavior of the steel beams,
rather than the approximate solutions with linear analysis,
nonlinear analysis is preferred. In nonlinear analysis the
structure will not regain its original shape after the removal of

V.

RESULTS

& DISCUSSIONS

## Linear Analysis is carried out using STAAD Pro and a finite

element based MATLAB code while nonlinear by STAAD
Pro. In the analysis part we considered only the point load at
the centre of the beam (30KN) and we neglected the self
weight of the beam for all cases. Load deflection behavior of

## simply supported steel beam with thickness 30 mm, simply

supported steel beam with thickness 40 mm and
both end
fixed steel beam with thickness 30 mm, are shown in Fig. 3,
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 respectively.

Fig. 5. Load vs Deflection curve for both end fixed steel beam with thickness
40 mm

Fig. 3. Load vs Deflection curve for simply supported steel beam with
thickness 30 mm

Fig. 4. Load vs Deflection curve for simply supported steel beam with
thickness 40 mm

## Load-deflection curve for simply support beam with thickness

30 mm shows its nonlinear behavior at a load level of thirty
percentage of total load (9 kN) while the beam with 40 mm
thickness shows at seventy percentage of total load (21 kN).
The thickness of beams play a significant role in geometrical
nonlinearity of structures. Beam with both end fixed shows
almost linear behavior for both cases. The STAAD value and
finite element based MATLAB code value almost coincide for
Percentage

Difference
Between
Linear &
Nonlinear

Nonlinear
analysis

Linear
analysis
using

Linear
analysis
using
matlab

10 (3)

2.706

2.717

2.71

0.011

20 (6)

5.28

5.435

5.420

0.155

30 (9)

7.512

8.152

8.130

0.640

40 (12)

9.424

10.87

10.84

1.446

50 (15)

11.078

13.587

13.55

2.509

60 (18)

12.53

16.305

16.26

3.775

70 (21)

13.823

19.022

18.97

5.199

80 (24)

14.99

21.74

21.68

6.750

90 (27)

16.056

24.457

24.39

8.401

100 (30)

17.037

27.175

27.10

10.138

## linear case for three beams. Linear and nonlinear deflection

for three beams under the point load is shown below in table 1,
table 2 and table 3.
Table 1: Deflection of 30mm thickness steel beam with simply
supported ends

Supported Ends

## Table 4: Percentage Variation of Linear and Nonlinear Deflection

of Beam with Different Thickness

Difference
Between
Linear &
Nonlinear

Percentage
Variation of Linear
And Nonlinear
(H=30mm)

Percentage
Variation of Linear
And Nonlinear
(H=40mm)

1.1433

10 (3)

0.404858

2.298

2.2866

0.014

20 (6)

2.851886

0.609230

3.486

3.447

3.4299

0.039

30 (9)

7.850834

1.131420

40 (12)

4.632

4.596

4.5732

0.036

40 (12)

13.30267

0.783290

50 (15)

5.737

5.744

5.7165

0.007

50 (15)

18.46618

0.121866

60 (18)

6.794

6.893

6.8598

0.099

60 (18)

23.15241

1.4362400

70 (21)

7.802

8.042

8.0030

0.240

70 (21)

27.33151

2.9843320

80 (24)

8.762

9.191

9.1463

0.429

80 (24)

31.04876

4.667610

90 (27)

9.675

10.34

10.290

0.665

90 (27)

34.35008

6.431335

100 (30)

10.544

11.489

11.433

0.945

100 (30)

37.30635

8.225259

Percentage

Nonline
ar
analysis

Linear
analysis
using

Linear
analysis
using
matlab

10 (3)

1.149

1.149

20 (6)

2.312

30 (9)

## Table 3: Deflection of 30mm thickness steel beam with fixed

support at both ends

Percentage

Difference
Between
Linear &
Nonlinear

Nonlinear
analysis

Linear
analysis
using

Linear
analysis
using
matlab

10 (3)

0.685

0.685

0.67751

20 (6)

1.372

1.37

1.355

0.002

30 (9)

2.069

2.055

2.0325

0.014

40 (12)

2.776

2.74

2.71

0.036

50 (15)

3.49

3.425

3.3875

0.065

60 (18)

4.201

4.11

4.065

0.091

70 (21)

4.906

4.795

4.7425

0.111

80 (24)

5.603

5.48

5.4201

0.123

90 (27)

6.291

6.165

6.0976

0.126

100 (30)

6.969

6.85

6.7751

0.119

## The difference between linear and nonlinear deflection is

more in case of simply supported beam with thickness 30 mm.
When the thickness increasing the effect of nonlinearity
decreasing. The support condition has also significant affect
on the nonlinear behavior of beams. In case of both end fixed
with thickness the effect of nonlinearity is almost negligible
Percentage variation of linear and nonlinear deflection for
beam with different thickness is shown in table 4.

## Table 5: Percentage Variation of Linear and Nonlinear Deflection

of Beam with Different End Conditions
Percentage
Variation of Linear
and Nonlinear SSB

Percentage
Variation of Linear
and Nonlinear
Fixed

10 (3)

0.404858

20 (6)

2.851886

0.145985

30 (9)

7.850834

0.681265

40 (12)

13.30267

1.313869

50 (15)

18.46618

1.89781

60 (18)

23.15241

2.214112

70 (21)

27.33151

2.314911

80 (24)

31.04876

2.244526

90 (27)

34.35008

2.043796

100 (30)

37.30635

1.737226

## The percentage variation of linear and nonlinear deflection for

different end conditions with same thickness of beam is show
in table 5. In full load condition the percentage variation of
linear and nonlinear deflection is 37.3 for thickness 30 mm
while it is only 8.22 for beam with thickness 40 mm. Hence
the size of beam is affecting the behavior of beams
significantly.

VI.

CONCLUSIONS

## In this paper we discussed about the linear and geometrical

nonlinear behavior of flexural members subjected to central
point load. The studies on Software and theoretical results
associated with them lead to the following conclusions:
1) Thickness of beams significantly affect the
geometrical nonlinearity of beams. The percentage variation
of linear and nonlinear deflection is very high for beam with
thickness 30 mm when compared with beam thickness 40 mm.
2) Support conditions affect variation of deflection
between linear and nonolinear considerably.The variation
between linear and geometrical nonlinear deflection of beam
is neglegible when the ends are fixed. same beam with simply
supported condition have variation upto 37 percentage.
3)
Linear deflection of beams that obtained from
STAAD Pro and finite element based MATLAB code are
almost same.
4)
Geometrical nonlinearity is more when the load is
very high and section is thin. At the initial stages of loading
behavior of beam is linear and it behaves nonlinear while

REFERENCES
[1]

## R.D. Wood and O.C. Zienkiewicz, Geometrically nonlinear finite

element analysis of beams, frames, arches and axisymmetric shells,
Computers & Structures Volume 7, Issue 6, December 1977, Pages 725
735.
[2] H. Parisch, " Geometrical nonlinear analysis of shells," Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering Volume 14, Issue 2,
May 1978, Pages 159-178I.
[3] P. G. Bergan,G. Horrigmoe, B. Brkeland, T. H. Sreide Solution
techniques for nonlinear finite element problems, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Volume 12, Issue 11
1978 Pages 16771696.
[4] Klaus-Jrgen Bathe and Sad Bolourchi, Large displacement analysis of
three-dimensional beam structures, International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Volume 14, Issue 7,1979 ,Pages 961986
[5] J.L. Meek and Hoon Swee Tan, Geometrically nonlinear analysis of
space frames by an incremental iterative technique, Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering Volume 47, Issue 3, December
1984, Pages 261-282.
[6] YeongBin Yang and William McGuire, " Stiffness matrix for geometric
nonlinear analysis," Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 112,
Issue 4 (April 1986).
[7] Siu Lai Chan, " Geometric and material non-linear analysis of beamcolumns and frames using the minimum residual displacement method"
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Volume 26,
Issue 12 December 1988 Pages 26572669.
[8] M.A. Crisfield," Non-linear finite element analysis of solids
and structures," volume 1: essentials, Reprinted April 2000, ISBN 0
471 92956 5 (v. I); 0 471 929964.
[9] N. Kashinath Borse and Shailendra kumar Dubey, " Geometric linear
and nonlinear Analysis Of Beam, " International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278-0181, Vol. 2 Issue 7, July
- 2013.
[10] Turgay Cosgun and Baris Sayin, " Geometric and material nonlinear
analysis of three-dimensional steel frames," International Journal of
Steel Structures March 2014, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 59-71.
[11] V. D. Sabale, M.D. Borgave and P. K Joshi, " Non-linear finite element
analysis of deep beam " International Journal of Engineering Research
& Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278-0181, Vol. 3 Issue 5, May - 2014.