Computers& StructuresVol. 53. No. I. pp.

209417, 1994

Pergamon

00457949(94)E0235-T

Copyright 0 1994 Elswier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights res.swd 0045-7949/94 $7.00 + 0.00

TECHNICAL

NOTE

IMPULSE RESPONSE OF CANTILEVER BEAMS WITH THICKNESS DISCONTINUITY SUBJECTED TO A POINT LOAD
A. Joseph Stanley and N. Ganesan
Machine Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras-600 036, India
(Received 26 August 1993)

Abstract-Cantilever beams with thickness discontinuity and subjected to an impulse load at a point have been analysed. The beam element with two degrees of freedom per node is used for the analysis. Three beam models are analysed for possible reduction of maximum displacement and maximum stress by choosing the discontinuity at different locations. Numerical results are presented for various step-ratios in the thickness. The weight of the beam is kept constant for various step-ratios. It has been shown that the maximum displacement and maximum stress decrease up to a step-ratio of two for certain type of thickness variations presented in this paper.

1. INTRODUXON

where {m}={l x x2 x}

Stepped beams are used in engineering to reduce the maximum displacement or stress so that the weight of the structure can be reduced. Free vibration analyses of beams are extensively available in literature [l-3]; however, not many papers are available on the impulse response of stepped beams. In [4] the dynamic response of beams with different types of thickness profiles subjected to a harmonic point load has been analysed using finite elements. In [5] the response of a beam subjected to a transient pressure wave load is analysed, by considering the pressure wave as a short duration impulse load. The dynamic response of a structure is governed by three system parameters: damping, mass and stiffness. In this present study the damping is assumed to be constant with frequency and mode of vibrations. The change in stiffness and the redistribution of mass is achieved by changing the thickness at specific locations and their influence on the amplitude and dynamic bending stress is investigated. The discontinuity in the thickness is chosen at minimum stress points so that the increase in stress due to discontinuity is less than the maximum stress coming on the beam. The study is conducted for an impulse load of duration 1% of the fundamental period and applied at a point at the tip of a cantilever beam. The analysis is done for various stepratios in the thickness of the beam. 2. FORMULATIONAND SOLUTION The analysis is carried out using the finite element method. A finite element based on Bernoulli-Euler beam theory with two nodes per element and two degrees of freedom per node is used. The degrees of freedom are: deflection (w) and slope dw/dx at each end of the beam. The displacement function is assumed to be

where x is the coordinate of any point. The coefficients {a] can be obtained in terms of nodal displacements as shown in the following expressions

ia) = W{S),
where

and w,.~ dw/dx at node j. = The displacement function {w} can now be expressed in terms of nodal displacements as w = {m}[B]-{G}. The bending strain energy U is given by (3) where I is the length of the beam, EJ, is flexural rigidity and the strain {x} = {dw/dx*}. The above expression can be represented in terms of nodal displacements in the following form (2)

where {G} is a matrix containing the derivatives of {w}. The strain {x} is expressed in terms of the nodal displacement vector {a}. 209

210

Technical Note following eigenvalue equation is obtained for the response problem

1 Hl Hz

The natural frequencies are obtained by solving the above eigenvalue problem using the inverse simultaneous iteration method. The eigenvectors give the mode shapes. The impulse response is determined using the modal superposition method [S]. Seven modes of vibration are considered for the analysis and the time step is one tenth of the period corresponding to the seventh mode.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

p-WF
blabl3

Fig. 1. Beam models. Substituting {x} in eqn (3) and the strain energy expression can be obtained in terms of nodal displacement. The bending stiffness matrix for an element can be obtained by [K] = [B]- {G}r{G} dx[B]-I, I0 (5)

where [K] is the required stiffness matrix which is obtained by well-known variational principle. The kinetic energy for the beam is given by (6) where p is the mass density of the beam material, h, is the thickness of the element and ti is the time derivative of the displacement function. In eqn (2) only nodal displacement {S} is a function of time, whereas [RI- and {m} are time invariant. {a} is expressed in terms of {S}. Substituting {ti} in eqn (6) and using the conventional variational principle, the element mass matrix can be obtained as follows: M = [S]_r&J h,{?n]r{m} dx[B]-1. I0 (7)

By assembling the stiffness and the mass matrices and applying the appropriate boundary conditions, the

The dimensions of the uniform beam used for the analysis are, length = 1000 mm, width = 10 mm, and depth= 10 mm. The material is mild steel with a Poissons ratio of 0.3 and modulus of elasticity of 210 GPa. Three types of model beams are analysed with variation in thickness as shown in Fig. 1. The weight of the beam is kept constant for various step-ratios (HI/H2) and the results obtained are compared with those obtained for the uniform thickness beam. An impulse point load of 10 N is applied at the tip of the cantilever beam. The beam is discretized into 20 elements and has 21 nodes. For comparison, the displacement is calculated at the tip of the beam and at the point of discontinuity. The stress is calculated at the support and at the point of discontinuity. The variation of displacement and stress with time for four cycles is presented in graph form for the models and for various step-ratios. Also, to show clearly the reduction in the peak values of displacement and stress, a fast Fourier transform (FFT) is used and the results are also shown in graph form. Numerical values of maximum stress amplitude and displacement amplitude are given in Table 1. For a uniform beam the maximum stress occurs at the support and hence for all the models the thickness is increased at the support and the discontinuity is chosen at 0.25L, 0.X and 0.7X, respectively for the three models. Figure 2 shows the variation of displacement and the corresponding FFT plots for model 1. The displacement at the tip is more than the displacement at the discontinuity. Table 1 shows that the maximum displacement at the tip increases marginally by 1.51% of uniform beam for a step-ratio of 2 and increases further for higher step-ratios. It is also seen from Table I that the maximum stress

Table 1. Variation of displacement and stress for the models

HllH2

W (mm)

WE (mm) 1.2044 1.2226 1.8484 2.8577 0.8954 1.2044 1.3167 2.6466 1.2044 0.9698 1.2010 1.5692

AW, (%) 0.00 1.51 53.47 137.27 -25.66 0.00 9.32 119.74 0.00 - 19.48 -0.28 30.29

(IGa) 5.3733 8.8639 12.2435 21.4551 11.2632 5.3565 18.8603 28.5489 5.7480 15.5464 26.1763 41.5344

$?a) 9.5347 7.0211 7.5449 8.4858 8.0537 5.3565 6.9126 8.2348 9.5347 8.9880 10.8456 11.2168 0.00 -26.36 - 20.87 -11.00 - 15.53 0.00 - 27.50 - 13.63 0.00 - 5.73 13.75 17.64

Load at tip, model 1, C-F 1.0 0.1733 2.0 0.0841 3.0 0.0698 4.0 0.0717 Load at tip, model 2, C-F ::: 0.2940 0.4721 3.0 4.0 0.2615 0.2724

Load at tip, model 3, C-F 1.0 0.7482 2.0 0.5143 3.0 0.5251 4.0 0.6001

W, is the maximum displacement at the discontinuity. W, is the maximum displacement at the tip. 0 is the maximum stress at the discontinuity. ua is the maximum stress at the support.

Technical Note

211

1E+007 lE+OO7 z? 2 5E+Oo6 .s 3 g ;ij a -SE+006 1 & 6 -1E+OO7 -2E+OO7 OE+OOO

)I HI/HZ=1 0 HlM2=2 KY HlIH2=3

5E+006

x 0 0

Hl/H2=1 HllH2=2 HllH2=3

zz & 9 OE+OOO * Ti!

; -5E+006 x

-2E-007 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 -2E+OO7 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25 Time

Model 1, point load at tip, C-F

0.25 0.30 0.35 Time Model 1. point load at tip, C-F

0.40

0.45

0.50

4E+OO6j__... -----

3E-006

HlM2=1 HllH2 = 2 HllH2 = 3

--_
3E+OO6: -----

Him2

HVHZ=l

Hi/HZ = 3

= 2

+ .=: zl 3 2E+006

3 L x

lE+006

OE+OOO

Frequency Model 1, point load at tip, C-F

Frequency Model 1, point load at tip, C-F

Fig. 3. Variation of stress for an impulse ioad at tip for model 1, C-F.

Technical Note

~l!nupuo~s!p le M ~uomo~qds!a

<Q t

apnvldum ~aauocmIds!a

lE+007 -T
x HlM2=1 o HI/HZ= 2 [3 Hlm2=3

1
)I Hlm2=1 0 Hlm2=2 0 Hlrn2=3

2E+007

5E+006

lE+OO7

z zl a OE+OOO 2 ;;i OE+OOO

,x .I 2 2 8 .i

t -SE+006

rz

-1E+007

t -1E+007 2 % v) -2E+007

1
A -3E+007 md

-2E+007 0.30 0.15 Model 2. point 0.20 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.10

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.25 Time load

0.30

0.35 at tip, C-F

0.40

0.45

0.50

Time at tip, C-F

Model

2, point

load

4E-006,

4E+OU6 _I

m-e

-----

Him2=i HlM2 = 2 HI/HZ= 3

3E-006 :

3E+006 1

4 e ._ Zl 1

2E+OO6 -:

: 2

lE+OO6 -

OE+OOO 10

Model

Frequency 2, point load at tip, C-F Fig. 5. Variation of stress for an impulse load at tip for model

Model 2, C-F.

Frequency 2, point load

at tip, C-F

Technical Note

EZB ...
XXX
-mm

I
I
I

apnwdme

luaura3elds!a

..

lE+OO7,
x o 0 HI/HZ=1 HI/HZ=2 Hl/H2=3

2E+007

-_

5E+OO6 1E+007 A .z .z OE+OOO 2 x 2 -lE+007 z ; -2E+007 h v) -3E+007

x o 0

HlW2=1 HlW2=2 HlW2=3

OE+OOO 2 B ;;i -5E+OO6 z e 3w & -lE+OO7 1

;: o

0.00

0.05 0.45 0.50

0.10

0.25 0.30 0.35 Time Model 3, point load at tip, C-F

0.15

0.20

0.40

0.00 0.15 0.20

0.05

0.10

0.25 Time

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Model 3, point load at tip, C-F 4E+006 ,

4E+OO6.
:_I__ HI/HZ=1 HI/HZ=2 Hl,H2 = 3

I!
3E+006 -

3E+006

.Z

a $j 2E+OO6

:: L

lE+OO6

OE+OOO 10 100 1000 Frequency Model 3. point load at tip, C-F 10,000

Frequency Model 3. point load at tip, C-F

Fig. 7. Variation of stress for an impulse load at tip for model 3, C-F.

Technical Note decreases at the support and increases at the discontinuity. However, the stress at discontinuity is still less than the stress at the support of the uniform beam by 7.03% for a step-ratio of 2. The stress at the discontinuity increases further for higher step-ratios. The stress at the discontinuity increases by 125.02% for a step-ratio of 4. Figure 3 shows the variation of the dynamic stress for model I and the corresponding FFT plots. Figure 4 shows the variation of displacement and the corresponding FFT plots for model 2. The displacement at the tip is more than the displacement at the discontinuity. Also, the FFT plot shows clearly that there is a decrease in the displacement for a step-ratio of 2. Table 1 shows that the maximum displacement at the tip decreases by 25.66% for a uniform beam with a step-ratio of 2 and increases further for higher step-ratios. It is also seen from Table 1 that the maximum stress at the support decreases and the stress at the discontinuity increases. But the stress at discontinuity is more than the stress at the support of uniform beam by 18.13% for a step-ratio of 2 and by 199.42% for a step-ratio of 4. Figure 5 shows the variation of the dynamic stress for model 2 and the corresponding FFT plots. The FFT plot shows that the stress at the discontinuity increases as the step-ratio increases. Figure 6 shows the variation of displacement and the corresponding FFT plots for model 3. The displacement at the tip is more than the displacement at the discontinuity. Also the FFT plot shows clearly that there is a decrease in the displacement for a step-ratio of 2. Table 1shows that the maximum displacement at the tip decreases by 19.48% of uniform beam for a step-ratio of 2 and increases further for higher step-ratios. It is also seen from Table 1 that the maximum stress at the support decreases and the stress at the discontinuity increases. However, the stress at discontinuity is more than the stress at the support of uniform beam by 63.05% for a step-ratio of 2 and by 335.61% for a step-ratio of 4. Figure 7 shows the variation of the dynamic stress for model 3 and the corresponding FFT plots. The FFT plot shows that the stress at the discontinuity increases as the step-ratio increases. 4.
CONCLUSIONS

217

1. For models 2 and 3 the maximum displacement decreases up to a step-ratio of 2 and then increases for higher step-ratios. 2. For models 1 and 2 the effect of discontinuity is negligible up to a step-ratio of 2. 3. For model 3 the stress at the discontinuity increases rapidly as step-ratio increases.

REFERENCES

1. C. W. Bert and A. L. Newberry,

2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

Improved finite element analysis of beam vibration. J. Sound Vibr. 105, 179-183 (1986). C. W. Bert and S. K. Jang, Free vibration of stepped beams: exact and numerical solutions. J. Sound Vibr. 130, 342-346 (1989). R. Jategaonkar and D. S. Chehil, Natural frequencies of a beam with varying sectional properties. J. Sound Vibr. 133, 303-322 (1989). P. K. Roy and N. Ganesan, Some studies in the response of a tapered beam. Comput. Struct. 45, 185-195 (1992). A. Kunow-Baumhauer, Response of a beam subjected to a transient pressure wave load. J. Sound. Vibr. 92, 491-506 (1984). S. Chonan and N. Nozawa, Impulse response of an infinitely long thick strip plate. J. Sound Vibr. 106, 481489 (1986). R. D. Cook, D. S. Malkus and M. E. Plesha, Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis. John Wiley, Singapore (1989). K. J. Bathe and E. L. Wilson, Numerical Methoak in Finite Element Analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Delhi (1987).