ARTICLE IN PRESS
Structural Safety xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Structural Safety
journal homepage: www.elsevi er.com/locate/strusafe
Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach
André Teóﬁlo Beck ^{a}^{,} * , Cláudio R.A. da Silva Jr. ^{b}
^{a} Department of Structural Engineering, EESC, University of São Paulo, Brazil ^{b} Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Technology of Paraná, Brazil
article info
Article history:
Received 24 July 2009 Received in revised form 20 April 2010 Accepted 26 April 2010 Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Euler–Bernoulli beam Timoshenko beam Uncertainty propagation Parameterized stochastic processes Monte Carlo simulation Galerkin method
abstract
The selection criteria for Euler–Bernoulli or Timoshenko beam theories are generally given by means of some deterministic rule involving beam dimensions. The Euler–Bernoulli beam theory is used to model the behavior of ﬂexure-dominated (or ‘‘long”) beams. The Timoshenko theory applies for shear-domi- nated (or ‘‘short”) beams. In the mid-length range, both theories should be equivalent, and some agree- ment between them would be expected. Indeed, it is shown in the paper that, for some mid-length beams, the deterministic displacement responses for the two theories agrees very well. However, the arti- cle points out that the behavior of the two beam models is radically different in terms of uncertainty propagation. In the paper, some beam parameters are modeled as parameterized stochastic processes. The two formulations are implemented and solved via a Monte Carlo–Galerkin scheme. It is shown that, for uncertain elasticity modulus, propagation of uncertainty to the displacement response is much larger for Timoshenko beams than for Euler–Bernoulli beams. On the other hand, propagation of the uncertainty for random beam height is much larger for Euler beam displacements. Hence, any reliability or risk anal- ysis becomes completely dependent on the beam theory employed. The authors believe this is not widely acknowledged by the structural safety or stochastic mechanics communities. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This paper presents a comparison of the Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam theories, taking into account parameter uncer- tainties and uncertainty propagation. It is widely known that the Euler–Bernoulli beam theory properly models the behavior of ﬂex- ure-dominated (or ‘‘long”) beams. The Timoshenko theory is known to apply for shear-dominated (or ‘‘short”) beams. In the mid-length range, both theories should be equivalent, and some agreement between them would be expected. The stochastic beam bending problem has been studied by sev- eral authors. Vanmarcke and Grigoriu [1] studied the bending of Timoshenko beams with random shear modulus. Elishakoff et al. [2] employed the theory of mean square calculus to construct a solution to the boundary value problem of bending with stochastic bending modulus. Ghanem and Spanos [3] used the Galerkin meth- od and the Karhunem-Loeve series to represent uncertainty in the bending modulus by means of a Gaussian stochastic process. Cha- kraborty and Sarkar [4] used the Neumann series and Monte Carlo simulation to obtain statistical moments of the displacements of curved beams, with uncertainty in the elasticity modulus of the foundation.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 16 3373 9460; fax: +55 16 3373 9482. E-mail address: atbeck@sc.usp.br (A.T. Beck).
0167-4730/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.006
In this paper, it is shown that, for some mid-length beams, deterministic displacement responses for the two beam theories agree very well. In this case, the theories are generally accepted as equivalent. However, it is shown in the paper that, although the theories are equivalent when compared deterministically, their behavior is radically different in terms of uncertainty propagation. This is shown by means of some illustrative example problems. In Section 2 , formulation of the two beam theories is presented. Representation of the uncertainty in beam parameters, via param- eterized stochastic processes, is presented in Section 3 . In the numerical examples, a Galerkin–Monte Carlo scheme is used to ob- tain the random displacement ﬁelds. The Galerkin solutions are presented in Section 4 . Section 5 shows the evaluation of ﬁrst and second order moments of the Monte Carlo solution. Two example problems are shown in Section 6 , illustrating the large dif- ferences between the two formulations in terms of uncertainty propagation. Section 7 discusses the effects of these differences on reliability and risk analysis. Section 8 ﬁnishes the paper with some conclusions.
2. Euler and Timoshenko beam formulations
In this section, the strong and weak formulations of the prob- lems of stochastic bending of Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beams are presented. The strong form of the Euler–Bernoulli beam bending problem is given by:
Please cite this article in press as: Beck AT, da Silva Jr. CRA. Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach. Struct Saf (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
8
>
>
>
>
>
EI ð x; xÞ ^{d} ^{2} ^{w} ¼ f ;
d
^{2}
dx
^{2}
dx
^{2}
wð 0; xÞ ¼ 0;
<
> > wð l; xÞ ¼ 0;
>
>
>
:
dw
dx ^{} ð 0; x Þ ^{¼} dw
dx
^{} _{ð} _{l} _{;}_{x}_{Þ} ¼ 0;
A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
ð 1Þ
8ð x; xÞ2ð0 ; l Þ X;
8x 2 X;
3. Uncertainty representation
In most engineering problems, complete statistical information about uncertainties is not available. Sometimes, the ﬁrst and sec- ond moments are the only information available. The probability distribution function is deﬁned based on experience or heuristically. In order to apply Galerkin’s method, an explicit representation of the uncertainty is necessary. In this paper, uncertain parameters
are modeled as parameterized stochastic processes. These are de-
ﬁned as a linear combination of deterministic functions and ran- dom variables [9] :
where w is the transverse displacement ﬁeld, EI is the bending stiff- ness, X is a sample space and f is a load term. The strong form of the Timoshenko beam bending problem is given by:
8
>
>
> >
<
d
dx
d
dx
EI ð x; xÞ ^{d}^{/} þ GA ðx; xÞ
GAð x; xÞ
dw
dx
/ ^{} ¼ 0;
8ðx; xÞ2ð 0; lÞ X;
dx
dw
dx
/ ^{}^{} ¼ f ;
>
>
> wð 0; xÞ ¼ wðl ; xÞ ¼ 0;
: >
/ð 0; xÞ ¼ /ðl ; xÞ ¼ 0;
8x 2 X;
ð
2Þ
N
jðx; xÞ ¼ ^{X} g _{i} ð xÞ n _{i} ðxÞ ;
i¼1
ð 6Þ
where / is the angular displacement ﬁeld, GA is the shear stiffness, and the remaining symbols follow Eq. (1). The angular displace- ments stochastic process in Euler–Bernoulli theory is given by the space derivative of the transverse displacement ﬁeld. Both formula- tions are given for clamped–clamped boundary conditions. In the sequence, elasticity modulus E and beam height h will be assumed as stochastic processes. Hence, the displacement re- sponses w and / will also be stochastic processes. In order to en- sure existence and uniqueness of the solutions, the following hypotheses are required:
H1 :
8
> >
>
<
> > >
:
9a;
a
2 R ^{þ} n f 0g; j½a; a j < þ1; P ðfx 2 X : EI ðx; xÞ2½ a; a ;
8x 2 ½0; l gÞ ¼ 1;
9s; s 2 R ^{þ} n f 0g; j½s; s j < þ1; P ðfx 2 X : GAð x; xÞ2½s; s ;
8x 2 ½0; l gÞ ¼ 1;
H2 : f 2 L ^{2} ð X; F; P ; L ^{2} ð0; l ÞÞ:
ð
3Þ
Hypothesis H1 ensures that the elasticity modulus and beam height are strictly positive and uniformly limited in probability [5] . Hypothesis H2 ensures that the stochastic load process has ﬁ- nite variance. These hypotheses are necessary for application of the Lax–Milgram Lemma, which ensures existence and uniqueness of the solution, as well as continuous dependency on the data [5,6] . The abstract variational problem associated to the strong form (Eq. (1) ) of the stochastic Euler–Bernoulli beam bending problem is obtained as:
8
>
<
>
:
Find w 2 Vsuch that :
R X R
0
EI ^{d} ^{2} ^{w}
l
dx
^{2}
_{} d ^{2} v
dx
^{2}
ð x; xÞdx dP ðxÞ ¼ ^{R} _{X} ^{R} _{0} ðf v Þðx; xÞ dx dP ðxÞ ;
l
8v 2 V:
ð 4Þ
where V ¼ L ^{2} ð X ; F ; P ; U Þ with U ¼ H _{0} ^{2} ð 0; lÞ . The abstract variational problem associated to the strong form
(Eq. (2)) of the stochastic Timoshenko beam bending problem is obtained as:
8 > Find ðw; / Þ 2 W such that :
>
>
>
>
R X R
>
> R X R
>
>
>
:
l
0
l
0
GA
EI ^{d} ^{/}
dx
/ ^{} u ^{} ð x; xÞdxdP ðx Þ ¼ ^{R} _{X} ^{R} _{0} ðf u Þðx ; xÞ dxdP ðxÞ ;
_{} d t
dx dx
ðx ; xÞdxdP ð xÞ ¼ ^{R} _{X} ^{R} GA
l
0
dw
dx
dw
l
<
/ ^{} t ^{} ðx ; xÞdxdP ð xÞ;
8 ðu; t Þ 2 W;
ð5 Þ
where f g _{i} g ^{N} _{¼} _{1} are deterministic functions and variables.
i
4. Galerkin method
f n _{i} g ^{N} _{¼} _{1} are random
i
The Galerkin method and direct Monte Carlo simulation are used in this paper to obtain sample realizations of the beams ran- dom displacements, from samples of the beams random parameters. Approximated solutions for the q th realization of the transverse displacement random process, for the Euler–Bernoulli beam, are given by:
m
w ^{q} _{m} ð x; x _{q} Þ ¼ ^{X} w _{i}_{q} u _{i} ð xÞ;
i¼1
ð 7Þ
where f w _{i}_{q} g _{¼} _{1} are coefﬁcients to be determined and f u _{i} g _{¼} _{1} are interpolating functions for the q th realization. Observing that
i
i
m
m
C _{0} ^{2} ð 0; lÞ ^{H} 2
U ¼ f u _{i} g _{¼} _{1} of U [10], such that span½ U ^{U} ¼ U . Since approxi-
_{0} ð 0; l Þ, and considering a complete orthonormal set
_{0} ð 0 ; l Þ ¼ H _{2}
1
i
mated numerical solutions are derived in this paper, the solution space has ﬁnite dimensions. This implies truncation of the complete orthonormal set U , which results in U _{m} ¼ f u _{i} g _{¼} _{1} and U _{m} ¼ span½ U _{m} . The approximated variational problem associated to the Euler–Bernoulli beam is obtained by inserting Eq. (7) in Eq.
(4):
m
i
8
>
>
>
<
>
> >
:
m
For the qth realization; find f w _{i}_{q} g _{i}_{¼}_{1} 2 R ^{m} such that :
m
l
P R _{0} EI ð x; x _{q} Þ
i¼1
d ^{2} u _{i}
dx
^{2}
d ^{2} u _{j}
dx
^{2}
ð xÞdx
w iq ¼ ^{R} _{0} f ð x; x _{q} Þ u _{j} ð xÞdx ;
l
8w _{j} 2 W:
ð 8Þ
This problem can also be written in matrix form:
Find u ^{q} 2 R ^{n} such that
K ^{q} u ^{q} ¼ F ^{q} ;
ð 9Þ
where K ^{q} 2 M _{m} ð R Þ , with elements given by:
K ^{q} ¼ ½ k
q
ij ^{} m m ^{;}
^{k} ij ^{¼} Z l
q
0
EI ð x; x _{q} Þ ^{d} 2 ^{u} ^{i}
dx
^{2}
d ^{2} u _{j}
dx
^{2}
! ðxÞ dx:
ð10Þ
where W ¼ L ^{2} ðX ; F ; P ; Q Þ with Q ¼ H _{0} ð 0; l Þ H _{0} ð 0; lÞ . Eq. (5) repre- sents a system of variational equations for the coupled ﬁelds w ¼ w ðx ; x Þ and / ¼ / ð x; x Þ . Details of the formulation of stochastic Euler–Bernoulli beams are given in [7] . For stochastic Timoshenko beams, details can be found in Ref. [8] .
1
1
The loading term is given by,
F ^{q} ¼ f f g
i
q m
i¼1 ^{;}
q
^{f} i
¼ Z l f ð x; x _{q} Þ u _{i} ð xÞ dx:
0
ð
11Þ
For the q th realization of Timoshenko beam displacements, approx- imated Galerkin solutions are obtained as:
Please cite this article in press as: Beck AT, da Silva Jr. CRA. Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach. Struct Saf (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
3
8
> w ^{q} _{m} ð x; xÞ ¼ ^{P} w _{i}_{q} w _{i} ðxÞ ;
>
>
m
<
>
>
>
:
i¼1
m
/ ^{q} _{m} ðx; xÞ ¼ ^{P} / _{i}_{q} w _{i} ðxÞ ;
i¼1
ð12 Þ
where fð w _{i}_{q} ; / _{i}_{q} Þg _{¼} _{1} are coefﬁcients to be determined and f w _{i} g are interpolating functions. Let Q ¼ spanf w _{i} g _{¼} _{1} be a set generated by truncation of a complete orthonormal set W ¼ f w _{i} g _{¼} _{1} in Q , with w _{i} 2 C _{0} ð 0 ; lÞ \ C ^{1} ð 0; lÞ ; 8 i 2 N . Replacing Eq. (12) in Eq. (5), one ar- rives at the approximated variational problem for the Timoshenko beam:
i
m
i
1
i
i
¼ 1
m
m
For the qth realization; find fðw _{i}_{q} ; / _{i}_{q} Þg _{i}_{¼}_{1} 2 R ^{2} ^{} ^{m} such that;
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
9
>
m
>
<
>
h
l
_{0}
R
8
EI ð x; x _{q} Þ
h
R
l
dw _{i}
dx
w _{j} ðxÞ dx
i
w iq
i
/ iq
=
m
P
¼ ^{R} _{0} f ð x; x _{q} Þ w _{j} ðxÞ dx;
>
;
l
i¼1
:
_{0} GAð x; x _{q} Þ ð w _{i} w _{j} ÞðxÞ dx
m
>
> P R
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
:
n
l
0
h
¼ ^{P}
i¼1
i¼1
EI ð x; x _{q} Þ
m
h
l
_{0}
R
dw _{i}
dx
GA ðx; x _{q} Þ
dw _{j}
dx
ðxÞ þ GAðx; x _{q} Þ ð w _{i} w _{j} ÞðxÞ i dx
dw _{i}
dx
w _{j} ð xÞdx i w _{i}_{q} ; 8w _{j} 2 Q _{m} :
o
/
iq
ð13 Þ
The approximated variational problem consists in ﬁnding the coefﬁcients of the linear combination expressed in Eq. (13) . Using a vector–matrix representation, the system of linear algebraic equations deﬁned in Eq. (13) is written as:
8 > For the qth realization; find ðw ^{q} ; / ^{q} Þ 2 R ^{2} ^{} ^{m} such that :
<
: >
A ^{q} w ^{q} þ B ^{q} / ^{q} ¼ F ^{q} ;
C ^{q} w ^{q} ¼ D ^{q} / ^{q} ;
ð14 Þ
where A ^{q} ; B ^{q} ; C ^{q} ; D ^{q} 2 M _{m} ð R Þ . Elements of these matrices are given by:
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
A ^{q} ¼ ½ a
q
B ^{q} ¼ ½ b
C ^{q} ¼ ½ c
_{i}_{j} ^{} m m ^{;}
q
ij ^{} m m ^{;}
q
_{i}_{j} ^{} m m ^{;}
D ^{q} ¼ ½ d
q
ij ^{} m m ^{;}
^{a}
ij ^{¼} R
q
l
_{0}
EI ð x; x _{q} Þ
d
w _{i}
dx
w _{j} ð xÞ dx;
ij ^{¼} ^{} R _{0} GA ð x; x _{q} Þ ð w _{i} w _{j} Þð xÞdx ;
^{b}
^{c}
ij ^{¼} R
q
l
_{0}
GAð x; x _{q} Þ
dw _{i}
dx
w _{j} ðxÞ dx ;
q
l
^{d}
ij ^{¼} R
q
l
0
h
EI ðx; x _{q} Þ
dw _{i}
dx
dw _{j}
dx
ð xÞ þ GA ð x; x _{q} Þ ð w _{i} w _{j} ÞðxÞ i dx:
ð 15 Þ
The loading term is given by Eq. (11). Solution of the linear sys- tem in Eq. (14) is obtained as:
(
/ ^{q} ¼ ðA ^{q} C ^{q} ^{} ^{1} D ^{q} þ B ^{q} Þ ^{} ^{1} F ^{q} ;
w ^{q} ¼ C ^{q} ^{} ^{1} D ^{q} ð A ^{q} C ^{q} ^{} ^{1} D ^{q} þ B ^{q} Þ ^{} ^{1} F ^{q} :
ð16 Þ
It is important to note that conversion of the continuous prob- lem (Eq. (5) ) to the discretized form (Eq. (13)) results in de-cou- pling of the displacement ﬁelds w and / , following Eq. (16) .
5. Statistical moments and reliability problem
In the following, Monte Carlo simulation is used to study the propagation of uncertainty through the Timoshenko and Euler–
Bernoulli bending models. In order to compare the solutions, it is interesting to focus on some statistics of the results. Estimates for expected value and variance of random variables
¼ / ð x ; x Þ , for a ﬁxed point x 2 ½ 0 ; l , are ob-
tained from the set of displacement ﬁelds samples f w ð x ; x _{i} Þg ^{N}
and f / ð x ; x _{i} Þg ^{N}
w _{ð} _{x}_{Þ} ¼ w ð x ; x Þ and / _{ð} _{x} _{Þ}
i
¼ 1
i¼ 1 ^{:}
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
^
^{l} ^{w} ð x Þ ^{¼}
^
r
2
^{w} ð x Þ ^{¼}
1
N
N
N
P
i
¼ 1
wð x; x _{i} Þ ;
1
1
N
P
i¼ 1
h
wð x; x _{i} Þ
^
^{l}
^{w} ð x Þ
i
^{2} ;
^
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
^
^{l} ^{/} ð xÞ ^{¼}
r ^{2}
^
^{/} ð xÞ ^{¼}
N
_{P}
1
N
i¼ 1
/ð x; x _{i} Þ ;
N
1
1
N
P
i
¼1
h
/ð x; x _{i} Þ
^
^{l}
^{/} ð xÞ
i ^{2} :
ð 17Þ
In order to study the effects of differences in uncertainty prop-
agation in reliability or risk analysis, a simple reliability problem is
deﬁned. An admissible displacement, at mid-spam, is deﬁned as
w ADM ¼
bility of failure is given by:
P _{f} ¼ P ðBÞ ;
_{2}_{0}_{0} l , where ‘‘ l ” is the beam length. The associated proba-
ð 18Þ
where P
This can be estimated from the same set of simulated displace-
ments, by:
stands for probability and B ¼ x 2 X jw ð _{2} ; x Þ P ^{l} ^{} .
l
200
b
P f ¼
1
N
N
^{} X
i¼1
1 _{B} ð x _{i} Þ ;
ð
19Þ
where 1 _{B} : X ! f 0; 1 g with:
1 _{B} ð xÞ ¼
1;
0;
x 2 B; x R B;
ð
20Þ
is the characteristic function of set B .
6. Numerical examples
In this section, two numerical examples are presented. In the ﬁrst example, the elasticity modulus is considered a random ﬁeld. In the second example, the height of the beam’s cross-section is random. In both cases, uncertainty is modeled by parameterized stochastic processes. In both examples, the beam is clamped at both ends, the span ( l ) equals one meter, the cross-section is rect- angular with b ¼ _{3}_{0} m and h ¼ _{2}_{5} m and the beam is subject to an uniform distributed load of f ð x Þ ¼ 100 kPa = m ; 8 x 2 ½ 0 ; l . Fig. 1 shows the exact, deterministic transverse (left) and angu-
lar (right) displacement responses, obtained via Euler–Bernoulli
and Timoshenko beam theories. These results are obtained for the mean values of the parameters to be considered random in
the following. It is observed that the two theories yield very close results, with transverse mid-spam displacements agreeing within
97%. From a deterministic point of view, the two theories could
be considered equivalent, for this beam.
1
1
6.1. Random elasticity modulus
In this example, the elasticity modulus is modeled as a param- eterized stochastic process:
Eð x; xÞ ¼ l _{E} þ
p
ﬃﬃﬃ
3
r _{E}
h
n
1
ð xÞ cos
x
l
þ n ðxÞ sin
2
x
l
i ;
ð 21Þ
where l _{E} is the mean value, r _{E} is the standard deviation and f n _{1} ; n _{2} g are uniform orthogonal random variables. Numerical solutions are obtained for r _{E} ¼ ð _{1}_{0} Þ l _{E} . Results obtained via Monte Carlo simulation are shown in Figs. 2–5 . Fig. 2 shows the envelope (largest and smallest values) among the 15,000 samples obtained, for transverse (left) and angu- lar (right) beam displacements. Fig. 3 shows the mean values, and Fig. 4 shows the variance of both displacement ﬁelds, obtained for the two beam theories. Fig. 5 shows the cumulative distribution function, obtained via simulation, of the displacement ﬁelds. Results presented in Fig. 1 suggest that the Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam theories are equivalent for this problem. Now,
Figs. 2–5 make very clear that the two theories are completely dif- ferent in terms of uncertainty propagation. It is observed that the
1
Please cite this article in press as: Beck AT, da Silva Jr. CRA. Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach. Struct Saf (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Exact deterministic solutions for transverse displacements (left) and angular displacements (right).
Fig. 2. Envelope of samples for transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
Fig. 3. Mean value of transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
uncertainty in elasticity modulus propagates much more through the Timoshenko model than through the Euler–Bernoulli beam model. The explanation for this behavior can be drawn from a com- parison of Eqs. (1) and (2) . The uncertainty in elasticity modulus also represents uncertainty in the stiffness modulus G , through the relation:
E ¼ 2Gð1 þ tÞ :
ð22 Þ
where t is the Poisson coefﬁcient. The two uncertainty terms affect the coupled system of Timoshenko beam equations.
The two sets of Monte Carlo realizations, obtained for the Euler and Timoshenko beam displacements, can be written as:
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
n
E _{w} ¼ w _{x} _{i} ð xÞ 2 Rj w _{x} _{i} ðxÞ ¼ wð x; x _{i} Þ ; ð x; x _{i} Þ2½0; l fx _{i} g ^{N}
i¼1 ^{;}
^{0}^{0} w ^{0}^{0} solution of Eq :ð 1Þ :g ;
n
T _{w} ¼ w _{x} _{i} ðxÞ 2 Rj w _{x} _{i} ð xÞ ¼ wð x; x _{i} Þ; ðx; x _{i} Þ2½ 0; l fx _{i} g ^{N}
i¼1 ^{;}
^{0}^{0} w ^{0}^{0} solution of Eq :ð 2Þ :g :
ð 23Þ
Please cite this article in press as: Beck AT, da Silva Jr. CRA. Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach. Struct Saf (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
5
Fig. 4. Variance of transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
Fig. 5. Cumulative distribution functions of transverse beam displacements.
It is observed in Fig. 2 (left) that E _{w} T _{w} . Hence, there are real- izations of the Timoshenko beam displacements which are not contained in the set of realizations of Euler displacements. Results presented in Fig. 1 show no hint of this behavior.
6.2. Random cross-section height
In this example, the beam cross-section height is modeled as a parameterized random process:
hðx; xÞ ¼ l _{h} þ
p
ﬃﬃﬃ
3
r _{h}
h
n
1
ðxÞ cos
x
l
þ n ð xÞ sin
2
x
l
i ;
ð24 Þ
where l _{h} is the mean value, r _{h} ¼
and f n _{1} ; n _{2} g
Results obtained via Monte Carlo simulation are shown in Figs. 6–9 . Fig. 6 shows the envelope (largest and smallest values) among the 15,000 samples obtained, for transverse (left) and angu- lar (right) beam displacements. Fig. 7 shows the mean values, and Fig. 8 shows the variance of both displacement ﬁelds, obtained for the two beam theories. Fig. 9 shows the cumulative distribution function, obtained via simulation, of the displacement ﬁelds.
^{} l _{h} is the standard deviation
1
10
are uniform, independent random variables.
It is ﬁrst observed that the agreement between the two theories is better for this problem, although far from ideal. However, it is noted that results have opposite trends in terms of uncertainty propagation: the propagation of uncertainty in random beam
height is larger for the Euler–Bernoulli response than for the Tim- oshenko displacements. Hence, for this example, E _{w} T _{w} . To understand this result, the ﬁrst term of Eq. (1) can be written in the following form:
d
^{2}
dx
^{2}
EI ^{d}^{/} ¼ f :
dx
ð 25Þ
When this equation is solved for / , and the result is used in Eq. (2) to ﬁnd the transverse displacement w , one notes that the solu- tion is proportional to h ^{} ^{2} . For the Euler–Bernoulli beam, this dis-
placement is proportional to h ^{} ^{3} . This explains the differences in
beam height uncertainty propagation for the two beam models, and why the propagation is larger for the Euler beam.
Comparing Figs. 7 and 3 , it is observed that the agreement be-
tween the two theories is better, for this example, in comparison to the random elasticity modulus. Comparing Figs. 8 and 4 , it is ob- served that the variance is smaller for the random beam height example.
7. Effect on reliability and risk analysis
From the results presented in Section 6 , it is clear that differ- ences in uncertainty propagation will affect any reliability or risk analysis based on the Euler or Timoshenko beam theories. This is conﬁrmed in this section, and quantiﬁed for the example problems considered in the study.
Please cite this article in press as: Beck AT, da Silva Jr. CRA. Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach. Struct Saf (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
Fig. 6. Envelope of samples for transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
Fig. 7. Mean value of transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
Fig. 8. Variance of transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
Table 1 shows failure probability results obtained for the two beam theories, and for an admissible mid-spam displacement of
_{2}_{0}_{0} l (Eq. (18) ). These results were obtained via simple
Monte Carlo simulation. It is clear that the results are completely dependent on the beam theory used in the analysis. A qualitative assessment of failure probability results can be drawn from Figs. 2, 5, 6 and 9 . In Fig. 2 , it can be observed that,
w ADM ¼
for the random elasticity modulus example, E _{w} \ B ¼ Ø. This im- plies that, for the Euler beam model, the probability of event B is zero, that is, the probability of failure is zero. On the other hand, for the Timoshenko beam theory, there is some probability associ- ated to this event. This probability can be drawn from Fig. 5 , and is given in Table 1 . For the case of random beam height, it can be ob- served in Fig. 6 that E _{w} \ T _{w} \ B – Ø. Hence, the failure probabilities
Please cite this article in press as: Beck AT, da Silva Jr. CRA. Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach. Struct Saf (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
7
Fig. 9. Cumulative distribution functions of transverse beam displacements.
Table 1 Effect of beam theory on failure probability results.
Problem |
^ _{P} _{f} |
_{k} _{l} _{¼} w ADM w ð L = 2Þ ^{l} |
||||
Euler–Bernoulli |
Timoshenko |
Euler |
Timoshenko |
|||
Random E |
0.0000 |
0.2310 |
2.78 |
2.33 |
||
Random h |
0.1007 |
0.0208 |
2.70 |
2.70 |
are nonzero for both beam models. These failure probabilities can be drawn from Fig. 9 , and are given in Table 1 . Apart from the minor (3%) difference between the deterministic Euler and Timoshenko solutions of this problem, the safety coefﬁ- cient for the deterministic problem is given by:
k ¼
w ADM
w
l
2
_{¼} 0: 005
w
¼ 2: 78:
l
2
ð26 Þ
This coefﬁcient is the same for both Euler and Timoshenko beam formulations: hence, it clearly does not take into account the differences in uncertainty propagation and in failure probabil- ities. The central safety coefﬁcients, which are given in Table 1 , are also not sufﬁcient to provide uniform reliability for this problem.
8. Conclusions
In this paper, it was shown that two beam theories, which
seemed perfectly equivalent when compared in terms of determin- istic response, behave radically different in terms of uncertainty propagation. Hence, the very notion that the theories are equiva- lent is limited to the realm of determinacy, and is unfounded when uncertainty propagation is considered. Two very simple examples were presented to illustrate the is- sue, involving the Timoshenko and Euler–Bernoulli beam theories.
A mid-length beam was considered, and it was shown that deter-
ministic displacement responses obtained by the two theories agreed within 97%. However, uncertainty in the elasticity modulus propagates much largely for the Timoshenko beam, in comparison
to the Euler beam. When uncertainty in beam height is considered,
propagation to the displacement response is larger for the Euler
beam than for the Timoshenko beam. Hence, although the Timo- shenko and Euler–Bernoulli beam theories appear to be equivalent
for the mid-length beam considered, the propagation of uncer-
tainty to the beams displacement response is radically different. As a consequence, any reliability or risk analysis becomes com- pletely dependent on the theory employed. There are no pitfalls in the Timoshenko or Euler–Bernoulli beam theories presented herein. What the title of the manuscript sug- gests is that there are pitfalls in using pure deterministic judgment when comparing these formulations, in order to choose one of them for a reliability or risk analysis.
Acknowledgements
Sponsorship of this research project by the São Paulo State Foundation for Research – FAPESP (Grant No. 2008/10366-4) and by the National Council for Research and Development – CNPq (Grant No. 305120/2006-9) is greatly acknowledged.
References
[1] Vanmarcke EH, Grigoriu M. Stochastic ﬁnite element analysis of simple beams. J Eng Mech 1983;109(5):1203–14. [2] Elishakoff I, Ren YJ, Shinozuka M. Some exact solutions for the bending of beams with spatially stochastic stiffness. Int J Solids Struct 1995;32(16):
2315–27.
[3] Ghanem R, Spanos PD. Stochastic ﬁnite elements: a spectral approach. NY:
Dover; 1991. [4] Chakraborty S, Sarkar SK. Analysis of a curved beam on uncertain elastic foundation. Finite Elem Anal Des 2000;36(1):73–82. [5] Babuska I, Tempone R, Zouraris GE. Solving elliptic boundary value problems with uncertain coefﬁcients by the ﬁnite element method: the stochastic formulation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2005;194(12–16):1251–94. [6] Brenner SC, Scott LR. The mathematical theory of ﬁnite element methods. Springer-Verlag; 1994. [7] Silva Jr CRA, Beck AT, Rosa E. Solution of the stochastic beam bending problem by Galerkin method and the Askey–Wiener scheme. Lat Am J Solids Struct
2009;6:51–72.
[8] Silva Jr CRA, Beck AT. Chaos-Galerkin solution of stochastic Timoshenko bending problems. Comput Struct, submitted for publication. [9] Grigoriu M. Applied non-gaussian processes: examples, theory, simulation, linear random vibration, and matlab solutions. Prentice Hall; 1995. [10] Kreyszig EO. Introductory functional analysis with applications. Wiley; 1989.
Please cite this article in press as: Beck AT, da Silva Jr. CRA. Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach. Struct Saf (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.006
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.