Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract-Beam-like truss structures undergoing large deflections when subjected to static and dynamic
loadings are studied by using the matrix method and equivalent continuum models. For the matrix
method, an incremental procedure with equilibrium iterations are used. Equivalent continuum beam
models are derived based on the properties of a typical substructure of the truss. Solutions obtained by
using both methods are compared for a number of examples.
O[
I
U
_ 1
I
-X
1
0
0
P
P2 $ -P2 - 4J
KE = AE/L
[ Symmetric
-1p
P2
-g
3
I (10)
KG = P/L
P2 -1p
P
Symmetric
-jl*
b
p2
-P2
-h
4J
R2 1 (11
The mass matrix is obtained by lumping the mass
-X
at the joints.
(b)
SOLUTION PROCEDURE
Fig. I. Bar element (a) in the local coordinate system (b) in
the global coordinate system. For static analysis, an incremental procedure with
equilibrium iterations was used. Assuming that the
configuration at the end of increment n is known, the
After substitutions and retaining only terms up to the stiffness matrices are computed at this configuration.
second order we obtain The node1 displacements for increment n + 1 are
s
L
determined from an iterative procedure. Let the
AE(du,dx)2 dx + i, A& [; (dv,dx)] dx converged nodal displacement vector at step n be Qz,
0 and the increment in displacements between iteration
i=L i and i+l be Q=Qi:,-Q,!,, with Qi+,=Qz,
AEt(du/dx)
+
J 0
dx. (5)
then the equilibrium equations are given by
1
$_ EA,pA
1 0 -1 0
0 0
&= VEIL) _; 0 1 ; (7)
k5:61bsm
1
0 0 0 0
P (Ibs)
Geometric stiffness matrix:
0 0
0 1
0 0 (8)
0 Fig. 2. Nickells rod-spring example.
Dynamic analysis of geometrically nonlinear truss structures 493
At the beginning of each increment the KE and K. corresponding equations of motion which account
matrices are evaluated and used throughout the for large deflections are given by
iterative process to determine the deformed position
at the end of the increment. At the end of each N,, = riiii
iteration, the internal force vector is determined (15)
M,,, + (NW&, = ritri;
directly from the deformed configuration. The iter-
ative process is stopped when the maxima com-
where & is the mass per unit length and
ponent of the incremental displacement during iter-
ation is less than a prescribed fraction of the
maximum component during the first iteration. N=F;i[u,+;(w,J]
It is to be noted that with this procedure, a -
deviation from the true solution at the beginning of M = - Eiw,,.
the increment and the error stemming from the
linearization process in the derivation of the stiffness It should be noted that in eqn (15), the rotatory
matrices do not create a drift of the solution from the inertia has been neglected.
~uilibrium path. Also provided that the load in- Several authors have studied large amplitude vi-
crements are small, the iteration process, which is of bration of beams. Yang[l4] developed a method for
the Newton-Raphson type, will converge. the analysis of large displacements of beams using the
For dynamic analysis, the equations of motion matrix displacement approach. Solutions were given
read for inextensional beams and agreement with previous
results was shown to be excellent. Bathe[l2] in-
JCL bl +Vh+&)rQ =&+~r-6 vestigated the static and dynamic behavior of a
cantilever beam undergoing large displacements us-
where Q, + ht = vector of nodal point accelerations for ing isoparametric plane stress finite elements.
time f + At; Q = Qz+A,- Q, = vector of nodal point McDonald [ 161gave a series solution for a beam with
incremental displacements; and @is the lumped mass hinged end supported axially restrained, which is
matrix. subjected to a concentrated lateral force at the mid-
These equations were solved using Newmarks point of its span and released from rest at the
integration scheme with equilibrium iterations as deflected position.
described in [12]. This well known procedure has been
proven to be unconditionally stable when non- NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
linearities of material and geometrical nature are Five examples are presented in this section. The
present[l3]. first one dealing with a simple problem for which
detailed results are available shows the validity of the
CORM MODEL present formulation. The following examples dealing
To represent a truss as a continuum beam, the with planar beam-like trusses are aimed at gaining
equivalent beam properties must be evaluated first. hindsight into the behavior of such geometrically
Since only the geometrical nonlinearity is included, nonlinear structures in comparison with equivalent
the beam stiffness properties can be determined homogeneous beams.
within the scope of linear theories. For an extended
Timoshenko beam which includes extension, ben- Rod-spring system
ding, and transverse shear deformations, the linear Nickell[7] studied this classical problem using
constitutive equations are several numerical procedures to solve the governing
differential equation determined analytically. In the
present analysis, the bar (Fig. 2) was modelled as an
axial element with a lumped mass at node 2 equal to
one third of the total mass of the element. The spring
was represented by a very long massless bar element.
Table 1 shows the comparison between the present
where N = extensional force; Q = transverse shear results and those in Ref. [8]. In Fig. 3, the solid line
force; M = bending moment; u = longitudinal dis- representing the present results, shows good agree-
placement; w = transverse_displacement; $ = rotat- ment with results in [7l obtained using Newmarks
ion of the cross-section; EA = lo~tudinal rigidity; inte~ation which are represented by triangles.
GA = transverse shear rigidity; EI = bending rigid-
ity; yU= coupling coefficients; and a comma indicates Canfilever truss under a static concentrated force
partial differentiation. In this study, we assume that The IO-bay cantilever truss structure shown in Fig.
the truss is symmetrical with respect to its mid-plane, 4 has been studied in [6] for small amplitude vi-
then qii = 0, and there are three beam rigidities to be brations using both the finite element method and an
evaluated, i.e. EA, GA, EI. A procedure has been equivalent beam model. Its characteristics are given
proposed in [6] to determine these beam rigidities by by
analyzing a typical substructure (cell). A,=80x 10-6m2, L,=7Sm
If the transverse shear defo~ation is neglected, i.e.
A,=60x 10-6m2, L,=S.Om
w,, + $ = 0
(14) A,=40 x 10d6m2,
$., = - W,u E = 7.17 x 10ON/mZ
Table 1. Comparison of present results with Nickells[7]in both cases Newmarks integration method was
used with Ar =O.l s
Present Present
Time Method Nickel1 Time Method Nickel1
N-l - PRESENT SClLUTII3N The static large deflections of the truss under an
z . NICKELL horizontal force at node 22 was analyzed. The non-
- Y. dimensional displacements [(Q + ~4~)/(2L.)] and
[l - (a*, + t&/(215)] are plotted vs the non-
2
z r-
dimensional loads PL2/EI in Fig. 5, where ui and vi
i5 are the horizontal and vertical displacements at node
g WI.
i, respectively. These results are compared with those
2 given in [14] for a homogeneous Bernoulli-Euler
2 beam.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
As shown in Fig. 5, the displacements of the truss
are slightly larger than those given in Ref. [14] for an
TIME (S) homogeneous beam. This can be attributed to the
Fig. 3. Solution of Nickel13 rod-spring example. transverse shear deformation which was not ac-
counted for in [14]. Shear deformation has been
where A,, A, and Ad are the cross-sectional areas of shown to be of importance for such a truss[6], and
the longitudinal, transverse and diagonal members, Sinclair[lS] showed that the effects of shear defor-
respectively, E is the Youngs modulus and p is the mation on the large deflections of homogeneous
density. beams are similar to what is shown in Fig. 5.
As obtained in [14] the equivalent bending rigidity,
extensional rigidity, and the mass per unit length are
Cantilever trw under a static distributed load
~=7.17x107N~mz, G=1.46x107N, The same truss considered in the previous example
was subjected to a distributed load p which was
and
modelled by concentrated forces applied at each
fi = 0.875 N - sec*/m node._The nondimensional displacements vs load
(pL3/EZ) curves in Fig. 6 compare well with similar
respectively. results for homogeneous beams[l2].
Dynamic analysis of geometrically nonlinear truss structures 495
~_ 4 6 0 70
Dimensionless load
Nonlinear
0.602 0.59
Analysis
0 2
I
4
I I
6
1
8
results of the truss analysis are shown to be in good
agreement with the series solutions from f16] for the
DimensIonless load equivalent beam.
Fig. 5. Static deflections of cantilever truss (Fig. 4) under a CONCLUSION
concentrated tip toad.
A method by which geometrically nonlinear truss
structures can be analyzed has been proposed and
solutions for several beam-like trusses presented. The
Cantilever truss under a step pressure loading static and dynamic behaviors compare well with
The same cantilever truss wmden subjected to a available results for homogen~us beams, pointing
uniform pressure such that pL/EI = 2.85, varying in out the possibility of continuum model&g in the case
time as a step function. The same problem was solved of geometrically nonlinear beam-like trusses. Such
in [12] for an homogeneous beam using plane stress simple models offer the advantage of time savings and
isoparametric elements. Qualitatively, the truss re- will also allow the use of existing solutions and
sponse shown in Fig. 7 is similar to that of the beam computer programs developed for beam problems.
S. ABRATEand C. T. Suw
_ Noni~ncar anaiys~s
TIME (s)
Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations problems of beams and plates. Int. J. Solids Structures
(Edited by B. Hubbard). Academic Press, New York 9, 829-842 (1973).
(1976). 15. G. B. Sinclair, The nonlinear bending of a cantilever
13. T. J. R. Hughes, A note on the stability of Newmarks beam with shear and longitudinal deformations. ht. J.
algorithm in nonlinear structural dynamics. Int. J. Num. Nonlinear Mech. 14, 111-122 (1979).
Meth. Engng 383-386 (1975). 16. P. H. McDonald, Nonlinear dynamic coupling in a
14. T. Y. Yang, Matrix displacement solution to elastic beam vibration. J. Appl. Mech. 573-5785 (1955).