.

Stability Of Structures: Continuous Models

18

181

Lecture 18: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

182

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

18.1. Example 1: The Euler Column 18.1.1. Critical Load Analysis . . 18.1.2. Linearization Limitations . . 18.1.3. Reformulation as Eigenproblem 18.2. The Fixed-Pinned Column 18.2.1. Critical Load Analysis . . . 18.3. Elastically Restrained Column 18.3.1. Problem Description . . . 18.3.2. Critical Load Analysis . . . 18.3.3. Equivalent Spring Constant .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183 184 185 186 186 186 188 188 188 1810

182

183

18.1

EXAMPLE 1: THE EULER COLUMN

This Lecture focuses on buckling analysis of continuous models of elastic systems. This process leads to ordinary or partial differential equations. Those can be solved in closed form only for simple 1D structures, such as prismatic columns treated by linearized prebuckling (LPB). Despite limitations in terms of obtaining analytical solutions, such problems are important for displaying key intrisic features of continuous models. For example, the associated eigenproblem has an innite (but denumerable) set of eigenvalues, meaning an innite number of critical loads. (This should not be surprising, since continuous models have an innite number of degrees of freedom.) Of these, the lowest buckling load is of primary interest to designers. We illustrate the treatment of continuous models using via several examples involving elastic columns with simple boundary conditions. All of the examples have closed form solutions. 18.1. Example 1: The Euler Column

(a) A
x

P
y

(b) A
x

P
y

(c) A
x

P
y X' P M(x) = P v (+ as drawn)

X v(x) elastic L constant EI

X'

X v(x)

assumed buckled shape

B P

Figure 18.1. The Euler column: (a) problem denition; (b) FBD of whole column assuming a buckled shape v(x ) with its amplitude exaggerated for visibility; (c) FBD at distance x from top.

The Euler column is shown in Figure 18.1(a). It is a homogeneous, prismatric, elastic column pinned (hinged, simply supported) at both ends A and B, and subjected to axial load P . The elastic modulus is E . Reference axes are chosen as follows: x is longitudinal, with origin at end A; z is normal to the plane of the gure and selected so that I = Izz is the minimum second order of inertia of the column cross section about z ; nally y lies in the plane of the gure. For example, if the cross section is a solid rectangle of width b and thickness t < b, the minimum I = Izz is b t 3 /12, and y , z will be aligned with the short and long cross-section dimensions, respectively. It is emphasized that the minimum moment of inertia, herein called I = Izz as noted above, is the one that determines the buckling load.* With the axes chosen as shown, the column will buckle in the
* If the section happen to have equal bending inertia in all directions, as in the case of a circular or square section, buckling can occur in any direction. The actual buckling plane is determined by imperfections, a topic not treated in this course.

183

Lecture 18: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

184

x y plane. Figure 18.1(b) pictures a buckled shape that satises the end boundary conditions. Such a curve is called a kinematically admissible buckling mode shape. The mode shape illustrated by Figure 18.1(b) is mathematically dened by the deection curve v(x ), whose determination is part of the problem. (The notation choice is not accidental, for v(x ) can be interpreted as a beam deection.) This deection is innitesimal because of the linearized prebuckling (LPB) assumption. In that Figure it is drawn with exaggerated amplication for visibility. 18.1.1. Critical Load Analysis Figure 18.1(b) also shows reactions at B, which here reduce to just P . There are no end moment reactions because the column is hinged at A and B; furthermore taking moments with respect to A and B shows that both lateral reactions (along y ) vanish. Next, do a FBD of a segment AX, with X located at a distance x from A, as shown in Figure 18.1(c). The displaced X is labeled X, and the distance from X to X is v(x ). At this cross section we will have a bending moment Mz (x ), which is positive as drawn in the gure (reason: a + Mz (x ) compresses the beam top surface, which by convention lies on the +y side.) Taking moments with respect to X , equilibrium requires Mz (x ) + P v(x ) = 0. But according to beam deection theory, Mz (x ) = E Izz v (x ) = E I v (x ). Replacing gives E I v (x ) + P v(x ) = 0. (18.1)

This is a homogeneous, second order, linear ODE in the unknown deection v(x ). For convenience in reducing (18.1) to standard (canonical) form introduce = +
def

P , EI

(18.2)

Dividing (18.1) through by E I and substituting (18.2) we get the canonical form v (x ) + 2 v(x ) = 0, Its general solution is v(x ) = A cos x + B sin x , (18.4) in which A and B are determined from the kinematic boundary conditions v(0) = 0 and v( L ) = 0. The rst one requires that A = 0, whence (18.4) reduces to v(x ) = B sin x . (18.5) (18.3)

This is called a characteristic stability equation or simply characteristic equation; the names buckling equation and critical load equation are also used. It has two possible solution types: B=0 B=0 v(x ) = 0: the column remains straight v(x ) = 0: the column buckles with shape sin x (18.6)

These two solution types are designated as trivial and nontrivial, respectively, in the literature. The critical loads are the values of P at which nontrivial solutions are possible. These are determined by applying the second end condition: v( L ) = 0. Since B = 0 we must have sin L = 0. Its solutions 184

185

18.1

EXAMPLE 1: THE EULER COLUMN

are L = n , in which n = 1, 2, . . . is a positive integer. Square both sides for convenience: 2 L 2 = n 2 2 , replace 2 by P /( E I ), solve for P and tag those loads as critical: Pcr,n = n2 2 E I , L2 n = 1, 2, . . . (18.7)

As can be observed, there is an innite number of critical loads. These are the nontrivial solutions of the characteristic equation (18.5). The lowest one is associated with n = 1: Pcr,1 = Pcr = This is called the Euler critical load.
2E I L2 L/2 L L/2

2E I . L2

(18.8)

Pcr = Pcr1 =

2 Pcr2 = 4 2E I L

2 Pcr3 = 9 2E I L

L/3 L/3 L/3

Mode shape 1 (n=1)

Mode shape 2 (n=2)

Mode shape 3 (n=3)

Figure 18.2. First three buckling mode shapes for the Euler column.

The buckling mode shapes associated with the set of critical loads (18.7) are vcr,n (x ) = B sin n x . L (18.9)

If n = 1 the mode shape is a half sine wave, similar to that drawn in Figure 18.1(c). If n = 2 we get a complete sine wave, if n = 3, one-and-a-half sine wave, etc. These buckling shapes are drawn for n = 1, 2, 3 in Figure 18.2. 18.1.2. Linearization Limitations The LPB assumption does yields the critical loads, but also brings about the following inconsistencies, some of which have an air of paradox. The foregoing solution says nothing about the amplitude of the buckling modes (18.8) in terms of the data. This is a consequence of the LPB assumptions, which led to a simple linear ODE but lters thaat information. Determination of this postbuckling behavior is quite involved, since it requires solving a nonlinear ODE in terms of elliptic functions. Such analysis shows that the 185

Lecture 18: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

186

buckled column contiinues to take up on increasing load, albeit very slowly, as long as it remains elastic. Differentiating (18.7) three times gives a nonzero transverse shear load Vy (x ) = E I B vcr 1 = E I ( 3 / L 3 ) B cos( x / L ). Evaluation at x = 0 or x = L gives a nonzero transverse shear force whereas Figure 18.1(b) shows zero horizontal reactions there. A similar inconsistency arises if one differentiates four times. This gives a nonzero lateral load p (x ) but no such load exists. This paradox indicates that the sine-wave result must be corrected once the buckling mode amplitude becomes nite. The analysis does not take into account imperfections such an initially crooked column, or axial load eccentricity. Such an analysis is beyond the level of this course, but one basic result is used in the justication of the Southwell plot experimental procedure described in Lecture 19.

18.1.3. Reformulation as Eigenproblem Lecture 17 emphasized that a discrete stability problem handled through the LPB assumptions may be presented as a matrix eigenproblem. This is also the case for the linearized continuous problem, but it requires a reformulation. For the Euler column, the two end boundary conditions v(0) = 0 and v( L ) = 0 may be written conjointly as 1 cos L 0 sin L A B = 0 . 0 (18.10)

This is a matrix eigenproblem in = P /( E I ), but note that (unlike the discrete case) this variable does not appear linearly. For a nontrivial solution, meaning that A and B are not both zero, the determinant of the matrix on the left side must vanish. This leads to the condition sin L = 0 (18.11)

which agrees with that previously found from the characteristic equation (18.5). This reformulation becomes useful in more complicated cases. 18.2. The Fixed-Pinned Column As second example we consider the conguration shown in Figure 18.3(a). The buckled column is drawn in Figure 18.3(b) in a deected position. The most notable difference with respect tp the Euler column of Figure 18.1(a) is the presence of additional reaction forces: the lateral reactions R A and R B , and the xed end moment M B . These are positive as shown in Figure 18.3(b). 18.2.1. Critical Load Analysis Equilibrium of y forces in Figure 18.3(b) gives R A = R B . Equilibrium of moments taken with respect to either A or B yields M B = R A / L . Next consider the FBD of the portion AX shown in Figure 18.3(c). Equilibrium with respect to X gives the non-homogeneous ODE E I v (x ) + P v(x ) = R A x = 186 MB x . L (18.12)

187

18.2

THE FIXED-PINNED COLUMN

(a)
A x

P
y

(b)
RA x

P
y

(c)
RA x

P
A y X'

X v(x) elastic L constant EI

X'

X v(x)

RA

assumed buckled shape MB B RB = R A

M(x) (+ as drawn)

P
Figure 18.3. Column xed at one end and simply supported (hinged, pinned) at the other.

The LHS is the same as in (18.1), but the RHS is no longer zero. Dividing through by E I and setting 2 = P /( E I ) gives after some manipulations v (x ) + 2 v(x ) = 2 M B x . PL (18.13)

The general solution is the sum of the homogeneous solution v H (x ) = A sin x + B cos x and the particular solution v P (x ) = M B x /( P L ): v(x ) = A sin x + B cos x + MB x . PL (18.14)

The three kinemtic BCs are v A = v(0) = 0, v B (0) = v( L ) = 0 and v B = v ( L ) = 0. These provide three equations: B+ MB = 0, L A sin L + B cos L + 0, A l MB = 0. PL (18.15)

Solving these equations simultaneously one obtains the characteristic equation tan L = L . (18.16)

The samllest roots of this transcendental equation, to 4 places, is L = 4.493. The corresponding critical load is 20.19 E I Pcr = . (18.17) L2 Since 20.19 2.05 2 this critical load is approximately twice that of the Euler column. Thus xing one end has substantially increased the critical load.

187

Lecture 18: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

188
(d) A

(a) A

P
y

(b) RA x

P
y,v

(c) RA x P

P
M(x)= P v+RA x X RA

beam-column

L k B x

v(x) MB = k B RA P B
Figure 18.4. Column with elastic restraint: a torsional spring, at end B .

elastic beam

18.3. Elastically Restrained Column The title conguration is of interest because it covers the three boundary condition cases tested in the Column Buckling Lab. as special cases. 18.3.1. Problem Description Consider the modication of the classical Euler column pictured in Figure 18.4(a). The column is simply supported (pinned) at both ends A and B, and axially loaded by P . The rotation at B is further restrained by a torsional spring with stiffness k . Column AB has length L and constant exural rigidity E I , in which I Izz is the minimum moment of inertia of the cross section that controls buckling. (For a rectangular cross section of width b and thickness t < b, I = Izz = b t 3 /12.) The column is simply supported (pinned) at both ends A and B , and axially loaded by P . The rotation at B is further restrained by a torsional spring with stiffness k . Select x as shown and consider the buckling shape v(x ) sketched in Figure A.1(b). The end rotation at B is B = v ( L ), positive CCW. The spring at B applies a restoring end moment M B = k B . For convenience in obtaining dimensionless equations we dene k= EI L (18.18)

where is a numerical coefcient. If = 0 the problem reduces to that of the classical Euler column, whereas if we obtain the case of a column simply supported at A and xed (clamped) at B . 18.3.2. Critical Load Analysis The FBD of the complete column is shown in Figure 18.4(b). Taking moments with respect to B one nds that (18.19) R A = M B / L = k B / L = E I B / L 2 .
Prior to Fall 2010, this used to be Experimental Lab 3. It is now a Lab-Homework, meaning that the results are presented as part of an assigned Homework rather than a formal Lab Report.

188

189

18.3

ELASTICALLY RESTRAINED COLUMN

Now cut the column at section X at distance x as sketched in Figure 18.4(c). Moment equilibrium with respect to X yields the second order differential equation E I v + P v = R A x = k B x E I B x , = L L2 (18.20)

which results from equating the bending moment M (x ) = E I v to P v + R A x . Dividing through by E I and calling 2 = P / E I produces the canonical form v + 2 v = B x . L2 B x . 2 L 2 (18.21)

The general solution of (18.21) is the sum of the homogeneous and particular solutions: v(x ) = C1 sin x + C2 cos x (18.22)

Since v(0) = 0, C2 = 0. The rotation is (x ) = v (x ) = C1 cos x B /(2 L 2 ). Evaluating this at x = L yields B = ( L ) = C1 cos L B /(2 L 2 ), from which we can solve for the end rotation: 3 L 2 B = C1 cos L . (18.23) + 2 L 2 Inserting this into the solution (18.22) with C2 = 0 gives v(x ) = C1 sin x C1 x cos L /( + 2 L 2 ). Applying now the second boundary condition: v( L ) = 0, furnishes the stability equation v( L ) = C1 sin L L cos L + 2 L 2 = 0. (18.24)

For buckling to occur, C1 = 0, and the expression in parentheses in (18.24) must vanish. Calling = L , which is also a dimensionless variable, we obtain the trascendental equation tan = 2 + (18.25)

For a given 0 we seek the solution cr > 0 of (18.25) closest to zero. If = 0 there is no closed form solution and it is better to proceed numerically, using for example a Newton solver. It is easily shown that for = [0, ], cr < 4.5, so 4 is a good start point for a Newton iteration. Such a solver is implemented in Mathematica in the built-in function FindRoot. For example, the statements beta=100; Print["alphacr=",alpha/.FindRoot[Tan[alpha]== alpha*beta/(alpha^2+beta), {alpha,4}]];

return cr = 4.4494 as the desired numerical solution of (18.25) for = 100. Here is a table for selected values of : cr L e/L 0 1.0000 1 3.4056 0.9224 3 3.7264 0.8431 10 4.1323 0.7602 189 100 4.4494 0.7061 1000 4.4889 0.7000 10000 4.4930 0.6992 4.4934 0.6991

Lecture 18: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: CONTINUOUS MODELS

1810

The critical load Pcr and the effective length L e (tabulated above) are Pcr =
2 EI cr 2E I = , L2 L2 e

Le =

L cr

(18.26)

This solution also applies to the buckling of a column AB rigidly connected at B to an elastic beam BC , as illustrated in Figure 1(d). This is actually one of the congurations to be tested in BC BC Lab 3. All that is needed is to work out the appropriate value of k = M B / B obtained from a BC moment-deection analysis of beam BC subjected to an applied end moment M B = M B . 18.3.3. Equivalent Spring Constant Suppose the restraining elastic beam BC in Figure A.1 has length L r = L BC , modulus Er and moment of inertia Ir about z . Assume a simply support condition at C . Under an end moment M B applied 2 as pictured in Figure 18.4(d), the restraining beam deects by vr = M B xr ( L r xr2 )/(6 Er Ir L r ), in which xr is the distance from C . The end rotation is B = (d vr /d x )|xr L r = M B L r /(3 Er Ir ), whence the equivalent torsional spring stiffness is k = M B / B is 3 Er Ir / L r . Comparing with (1) shows that = 3( L / L r )( Er Ir )/( E I ). If the restraining beam is fabricated of the same material and has the same cross section dimensions of the beam-column, as is the case in Lab 3, Er = E , Ir = I , and = 3 L / L r .

E. M. Popov, Engineering Mechanics of Solids, Prentice Hall, NJ, 1999, case 5 of Table 10, p. 853.

1810