Advanced Numerical Analysis
GENG603
SOLVING PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION OF
DEFLECTION OF BEAM UNDER MOVING LOAD USING
FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD
ABATHAR AL-HAMRANI
Qatar University
Doha, Qatar.
ABSTRACT
This paper shows the use of finite difference method
to find a solution for a partial differential equation (PDE)
problem. The problem chosen for this paper is the bridge
beam that spanning the gap between the two runways in
structural lab. This beam is carrying a moving load, as a
result of this load movement, deflection will be
generated at different times and locations. In this paper
the aim is to select a partial differential equation that
represent the problem, define the system boundaries,
divide the space and time domains into small sections,
and then apply the finite difference method to obtain the
solution for deflection.
INTRODUCTION
The overhead cranes are one of the most important
machines that are used in structural labs. Its presence in a
structural lab becomes very essential as it will move the heavy
equipment of the testing machines and help in assembling
them. It will also carry a large scale structural elements like
beams, slabs, columns and trusses that will be tested and
placed in their desired places.
The overhead crane is the most suitable candidate to
factories and laboratories as it has the
Jan 07, 2017, Doha, Qatar
Project No. 02
capacity to carry heavy loads. It consists of a runway
with a traveling bridge spanning the gap, and the lifting
component of a crane is the hoist which travels along the
bridge to transfer heavy materials from one place to
other. They are used in all types of construction;
highways, bridges, pipelines, towers...etc.
In the last 30 years, there has been a growing interest
in the dynamic analysis of structures that are under the
influence of moving loads. Olsson (1991), and
Thambiratnam & Zhuge (1996) have studied the analysis
of beam loaded with a moving load moving at constant
velocity using finite element approach. In their study,
they have investigated the span length, speed of moving
load, and the stiffness of the foundation effects on the
dynamic magnification factor, which is defined as the
ratio of maximum dynamic displacement at midpoint to
the maximum static displacement at the same point. This
interest attraction especially in the field of cranes is
owed to the criticality of the overhead cranes, which is
established from the fact that it can constitute a threat to
human life in case of any small mistake while carrying
heavy weights materials, in addition to the big losses
resulted from damaging the expensive materials, such as
the crane failure that happened in one of the
Netherland’s plants during the process of replacing the
1
rotor for a gas turbine into its housing, which cost element method, and the direct integration method.
millions of dollars. Furthermore, from analytical point of Results show that, in addition to the significance of
view, due to the loads movement, the displacement and dynamic effect in the y direction the dynamic effects in x
stresses will be higher than that at structures that are and z directions are also significant and must be
exposed only to a static loading. Zrnic et al (2013) considered.
mentioned that at very fast movement of the carried load,
the maximum deflection would occur near the ends of
the beam, this is attributed to the impact of the load that
stops at the ends after moving with a high speed.
However, at slow speeds the maximum deflection would
be shifted to near the middle of the beam, the reason
behind that is that the load will be acting as a static load.
Moreover, the moving loads can cause an intensive
vibrations as the velocity increase. Therefore, Fybra
(1999) have studied the effects of moving loads on
simply supported beam and came up with a critical speed
value to avoid excessive deflection and vibrations.
Where he founded the critical speed to occur when the
load cross the beam length in the time it takes the first
natural frequency to oscillate through one quarter of its
Figure 2: Wu's model
period. Arshad et al (2014) propose the solution of
attaching a spring at the conjunction points of beam and
In general, dealing with moving loads are of big
column, at the points where the beam is connected to the
importance for the researchers due to three main reasons:
column as shown in figure (1). Arshad and based on his
experiment founded that his proposed solution provides 1- The increase in deflection.
more rigidity to the frame, however, the addition of
springs at high and middle speed regions should be 2- The increase in stresses.
avoided, because it will produce a high dynamic
magnification factor which has already been mentioned 3- The increase in vibrations.
above.
Bartlomiej and Cezeslaw (2006) mentioned that
one of the biggest challenges that is facing bridge
structures is the increase in requirements, where
sometimes the load is increasing, resulting in excessive
deflections. In such cases there are two solutions, either
to rebuild the bridge which is not practical because of
time and cost constrains, or to provide a control system
that would treat such conditions, and will be more
practical, because it will save time and cost. Bartlomiej
Figure 1: Arshad et al's model and Cezeslaw and other researchers treated this
deflection problem using the vibration damping as a
The conventional moving load problem usually control system.
considered the dynamic response in the y- direction only.
However, this is not applicable to the real life problem, THE PROPOSED MODEL
because in overhead cranes for example, the carried load
after being carried from its initial position to the point One type of bridge structures is the overhead
where it stops, it will start swinging in the x and z crane, which implies that it is susceptible to a similar
direction as well, which are not considered in situations of growing in requirements as stated above.
conventional moving load problem. Consequently, Wu Hence, in this paper the proposed control system for an
(2004) have analyzed the three dimensional dynamic overhead crane is done by additional runway to be
responses of a moving trolley mass that is hanging a installed next to the bridge beam runway, in order to
swinging object as shown in figure (2), using finite connect a cable at the two edges of the bridge beam that

2
 will apply tensile force as shown in the plan view and
the 3-D view in figure (3) and (4) respectively. By this,
additional rigidity and support will be provided, and the
cable will contribute to reduce the deflection. This paper
will be only concentrating on the first problem among
the three problems mentioned above, which is the
deflection.
Figure 3: Plan view of the proposed overhead crane
Tension cable
Moving load
Figure 4: 3D shape of the proposed overhead crane
DEFINING THE PDE PROBLEM:
A one dimensional simply supported bridge beam
of 10m length, is subjected to a moving point load of 100
N, and a tension force located at the beam edges as
shown in figure (5).
Figure 5: Bridge beam
The aim is to calculate the beam deflection at various
times and locations as the moving point load move from
its initial position to its terminal position. The PDE
equation that describe this system was founded to be:
Where
P = The moving load
N= Tensile force
𝜌𝐴 = Mass density per length.
DEFINING THE INITIAL AND BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS:
- Initial conditions: the initial position of the load is
assumed to start from the beginning of the beam (close
to the left support), therefore, both of the deflection and
velocity at time zero will be zero, respectively.
𝜕𝑢(𝑥,0)
𝑢(𝑥, 0) = 0 , =0
𝜕𝑡
- Boundary conditions: the load will be started from the
left edge of the beam, terminated at the right edge.
Hence, at both locations the deflection will be zero.
𝑢(0, 𝑡) = 0 , 𝑢(0, 𝑙) = 0
METHODS
The approach used in this paper is choosing the
suitable finite difference method, in order to solve the
PDE problem, then validate the results by comparing
them to STAAD Pro software’s results. The FDM used
to solve the PDE is the Explicit Central Difference
Method.
3
DATA ANALYSIS It can be seen clearly that the deflection at both supports is
zero, while the maximum deflection occurs at the mid-
The PDE was solved using the Explicit Central span. The different curves represent the deflection at
Difference Method. This was done by firstly, divide the various times and locations. This fact can be seem more
domain into Mx sections, each of length ∆𝑥 = clearly in figure (7), where a wavy shape that represents
𝑥𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 −𝑥𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙
, along the x-axis, and into N sections, each the beam deflection as the point load moves from initial to
𝑀𝑥
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 −𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 terminal position was created. By trying different traveling
of length ∆𝑡 = , then the second order PDE
𝑁 times in Matlab code, it has been found that there was a
were replaced by their three point central difference direct relationship between time and deflection, whereas
approximation as: reducing the time resulted in a reduction in deflection and
𝑘
vice versa. This results are logic, because reducing the
𝑁(𝑣𝑖+1 −2𝑣𝑖𝑘 +𝑣𝑖−1
𝑘
) (𝑣𝑖𝑘+1 −2𝑣𝑖𝑘 +𝑣𝑖𝑘−1 )
− + 𝜌𝐴 =𝐹 (1) time means increasing the moving load’s speed, and by
∆𝑥 2 ∆𝑡 2
that the loading effect that causes the beam to deflect will
which leads to the explicit central method: reduced, while increasing the time means decreasing the
moving load’s speed, and as a result the loading effect that
𝐹∆𝑡 2
𝑣𝑖𝑘+1 = 𝑘
+ 𝑟(𝑣𝑖+1 𝑘
+ 𝑣𝑖−1 ) + 2(1 − 𝑟)𝑣𝑖𝑘 causes the beam to deflect will increase. In addition to
2𝜌𝐴
𝑁∆𝑡 2
that, it was noticed that as the tensile force was increased
− 𝑣𝑖𝑘−1 (2), 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑟 = ≤1 the deflection decreased.
𝜌𝐴∆𝑥 2

Now, at the initial where k = 0, we will not be able to find

𝑣𝑖1 , because of the last term in the equation which will be
𝑣𝑖−1 , therefore, the initial condition will be approximated
𝑣𝑖1 −𝑣𝑖−1
on the derivative as: = 𝑖0′ (𝑥𝑖 ) (3)
2∆𝑡

this equation will be used to remove 𝑣𝑖−1 from eq (2):

𝐹∆𝑡 2 𝑟
𝑣𝑖1 = 0
+ (𝑣𝑖+1 0
+ 𝑣𝑖−1 ) + (1 − 𝑟)𝑣𝑖0 + 𝑖0′ (𝑥𝑖 )∆𝑡 (4)
2𝜌𝐴 2

Equation (4) will be used together with the initial

conditions in order to get 𝑣𝑖1 , then by implementing
equation (2), the deflection at k = 1,2,3…….., can be
founded. Figure 7: 3-D beam deflection

To verify this method, the results that has been found

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION : in Matlab were compared with the results obtained from
STAAD Pro and it was as shown in figure (8) and (9).
The final results of deformation can be seen from
figure (6).

Figure 8: Moving load at the middle

Figure 9: Moving load at the support

4
Figure 6: Beam Deflection
Comparing STAAD results (figure 8 and figure 9) when CONCLUSION
the moving load is at the middle and when it is at the
support gives a close results to that obtained from Matlab In this paper, Matlab was used to find a solution to
in figure 6. hyperbolic PDE problem that describes the deflection at
various times and locations. The PDE was solved using
MATLAB CODE USED Explicit Central Difference . In conclusion, it is evident
that this study has shown the following:
% The matlab code for this problem were developed
in two scripts
% 1st scrpit 1- As the time of the moving load increased as the
function deflection increased.
[u,x,t]=Abathar(a,xf,T,it0,i1t0,bx0,bxf,M,N)
%InitialCondition:u(x,0)=it0(x),u_t(x,0)= i1t0(x)
% Boundary Condition: u(0,t) = bx0(t), 2- As the time of the moving load reduced as the
u(xf,t)=bxf(t)
% M = # of subintervals along x-axis deflection decreased.
% N = # of subintervals along t-axis
P=100; % tensile force
F=-100; % moving load
rho=7850; 3- The addition of the tensile forces applied by the
A=0.0187096; two cables that are connected to the edges of the
dx= xf/M; x= [0:M]'*dx;
dt= T/N; t= [0:N]*dt; bridge beam decreased the deflection.
for i=1:M+1, u(i,1)= it0(x(i)); end
for k=1:N+1
u([1 M+1],k)= [bx0(t(k)); bxf(t(k))];
end 4- Results obtained from Matlab software are
r= (a*(dt)^2*P)/(rho*A*(dx)^2); r1=r/2;
r2=2*(1-r); relatively close to that obtained by STAAD
u(2:M,2)= (F*dt^2)/(2*(rho*A))+r1*u(1:M-1,1) +(1- software, and hence we can say that Matlab in
r)*u(2:M,1)+r1*u(3:M+1,1) ...
+dt*i1t0(x(2:M));
somehow is a reliable tool to solve such types of
%defining the dirac function problems.
for k=3:N+1
for i=2:M
if i==k
u(i,k)=(F*dt^2)/(rho*A)+r*u(i-1:i(end)-
1,k-1) +r2*u(i,k-1) +r*u(i+1:i(end)+1,k-1)...
-u(i,k-2);
REFERENCES
else u(i,k)= r*u(i-1:i(end)-1,k-1)
+r2*u(i,k-1) +r*u(i+1:i(end)+1,k-1)... M. Olsson: On the fundamental moving load problem.
-u(i,k-2); Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 145 (1991)
end
end No. 2, p. 299-307.
end
Thambiratnam, D.P. & Zhuge,Y. 1996. Dynamic analysis
% 2nd script of beams on an elastic foundation subject to
%solve_Abathar
a=1; moving loads. J. Sound and vibration 198(2): 149
it0=inline('0'); i1t0=inline('0'); – 169.
bx0t=inline('0'); bxft=inline('0');
xf=10; M=10; T=5.5; N=250; Nenad, Z. Vlada, G. Srdan, B. & Momcilo, D. 2013.
[u,x,t]=Abathar(a,xf,T,it0,i1t0,bx0t,bxft,M,N);
figure(1), clf Moving Loads in Structural Dynamics of Cranes:
mesh(t,x,u) Bridging the Gap Between Theoretical and
xlabel('time in sec') Practical Researches. FME Transactions. VOL.
ylabel('Beam length in m')
zlabel('Beam deflection in m')
41, No 4, 2013, p 291-297.
figure(2), clf
for n=1:N %dynamic picture Wu, J.J.: Dynamic responses of a three-dimensional
plot(x,u(:,n)), axis([0 xf -0.35 0.35]), framework due to a moving carriage hoisting a
pause(0.2)
end swinging object, International journal for
plot(x,u) numerical methods in engineering, Vol. 59, pp.
xlabel('Beam length in m') 1679-1702, 2004.
ylabel('Beam deflection in m')

5
Fryba, L., Vibration of solids and structures under moving
loads. 3rd ed. 1999, London: Thomas Telford.
p494.

Bartlomiej, D. & Cezeslaw, B., Moving loads analytical

and numerical approaches. Theoretical
foundation of civil engineering : pp. 37 – 48,
2006.

Ayari, M. A. (2013) Lecture Notes. Applied Numerical

Analysis [Handouts], GENG603. Qatar
University.