Euler–Bernoulli beam theory
Euler–Bernoulli beam theory
Euler–Bernoulli beam theory (also known as engineer's beam theory or classical beam theory)[2] is a simplification of the linear theory of elasticity which provides a means of calculating the load-carrying and deflection characteristics of beams. It covers the case for small deflections of a beam that are subjected to lateral loads only. It is thus a special case of Timoshenko beam theory. It was first enunciated circa 1750,[3] but was not applied on a large scale until the development of the Eiffel Tower and the Ferris wheel in the late 19th century. Following these successful demonstrations, it quickly became a cornerstone of engineering and an enabler of the Second Industrial Revolution.
Additional analysis tools have been developed such as plate theory and finite element analysis, but the simplicity of beam theory makes it an important tool in the sciences, especially structural and mechanical engineering.
History
Prevailing consensus is that Galileo Galilei made the first attempts at developing a theory of beams, but recent studies argue that Leonardo da Vinci was the first to make the crucial observations. Da Vinci lacked Hooke's law and calculus to complete the theory, whereas Galileo was held back by an incorrect assumption he made.[4]
The Bernoulli beam is named after Jacob Bernoulli, who made the significant discoveries. Leonhard Euler and Daniel Bernoulli were the first to put together a useful theory circa 1750.[5] At the time, science and engineering were generally seen as very distinct fields, and there was considerable doubt that a mathematical product of academia could be trusted for practical safety applications. Bridges and buildings continued to be designed by precedent until the late 19th century, when the Eiffel Tower and Ferris wheel demonstrated the validity of the theory on large scales.
Static beam equation
The Euler–Bernoulli equation describes the relationship between the beam's deflection and the applied load:[6]
where it is assumed that the centroid of the cross-section occurs at y = z = 0.
is the bending moment in the beam, and
is the shear force in the beam.
The stresses in a beam can be calculated from the above expressions after the deflection due to a given load has been determined.
Derivation of bending moment equation
Dynamic beam equation
The dynamic beam equation is the Euler–Lagrange equation for the following action
Derivation of Euler–Lagrange equation for beams |
---|
Since theLagrangianis |
Free vibration
The general solution of the above equation is
Example: Cantilevered beam
The corresponding natural frequencies of vibration are
The boundary conditions can also be used to determine the mode shapes from the solution for the displacement:
Example: unsupported (free-free) beam
A free-free beam is a beam without any supports.[7] The boundary conditions for a free beam of length L extending from x=0 to x=L is given by:
This nonlinear equation can be solved numerically. The first few roots are β1 L/π = 1.50562..., β2 L/π = 2.49975..., β3 L/π = 3.50001..., β4 L/π = 4.50000...
The corresponding natural frequencies of vibration are:
The boundary conditions can also be used to determine the mode shapes from the solution for the displacement:
Stress
Besides deflection, the beam equation describes forces and moments and can thus be used to describe stresses. For this reason, the Euler–Bernoulli beam equation is widely used in engineering, especially civil and mechanical, to determine the strength (as well as deflection) of beams under bending.
Both the bending moment and the shear force cause stresses in the beam. The stress due to shear force is maximum along the neutral axis of the beam (when the width of the beam, t, is constant along the cross section of the beam; otherwise an integral involving the first moment and the beam's width needs to be evaluated for the particular cross section), and the maximum tensile stress is at either the top or bottom surfaces. Thus the maximum principal stress in the beam may be neither at the surface nor at the center but in some general area. However, shear force stresses are negligible in comparison to bending moment stresses in all but the stockiest of beams as well as the fact that stress concentrations commonly occur at surfaces, meaning that the maximum stress in a beam is likely to be at the surface.
Simple or symmetrical bending
For beam cross-sections that are symmetrical about a plane perpendicular to the neutral plane, it can be shown that the tensile stress experienced by the beam may be expressed as:
Maximum stresses at a cross-section
Strain in an Euler–Bernoulli beam
Relation between curvature and beam deflection
Hence the strain in the beam may be expressed as
Stress-strain relations
Note that the above relation, when compared with the relation between the axial stress and the bending moment, leads to
Boundary considerations
As an example consider a cantilever beam that is built-in at one end and free at the other as shown in the adjacent figure. At the built-in end of the beam there cannot be any displacement or rotation of the beam. This means that at the left end both deflection and slope are zero. Since no external bending moment is applied at the free end of the beam, the bending moment at that location is zero. In addition, if there is no external force applied to the beam, the shear force at the free end is also zero.
Boundary | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Clamp | ||||
Simple support | ||||
Point force | ||||
Point torque | ||||
Free end | ||||
Clamp at end | fixed | fixed | ||
Simply supported end | fixed | |||
Point force at end | ||||
Point torque at end |
Note that in the first cases, in which the point forces and torques are located between two segments, there are four boundary conditions, two for the lower segment, and two for the upper. When forces and torques are applied to one end of the beam, there are two boundary conditions given which apply at that end. The sign of the point forces and torques at an end will be positive for the lower end, negative for the upper end.
Loading considerations
Alternatively we can represent the point load as a distribution using the Dirac function. In that case the equation and boundary conditions are
Note that shear force boundary condition (third derivative) is removed, otherwise there would be a contradiction. These are equivalent boundary value problems, and both yield the solution
Dynamic phenomena can also be modeled using the static beam equation by choosing appropriate forms of the load distribution. As an example, the free vibration of a beam can be accounted for by using the load function:
Examples
Three-point bending
Cantilever beams
Solutions for several other commonly encountered configurations are readily available in textbooks on mechanics of materials and engineering handbooks.
Statically indeterminate beams
The bending moments and shear forces in Euler–Bernoulli beams can often be determined directly using static balance of forces and moments. However, for certain boundary conditions, the number of reactions can exceed the number of independent equilibrium equations.[6] Such beams are called statically indeterminate.
The built-in beams shown in the figure below are statically indeterminate. To determine the stresses and deflections of such beams, the most direct method is to solve the Euler–Bernoulli beam equation with appropriate boundary conditions. But direct analytical solutions of the beam equation are possible only for the simplest cases. Therefore, additional techniques such as linear superposition are often used to solve statically indeterminate beam problems.
The superposition method involves adding the solutions of a number of statically determinate problems which are chosen such that the boundary conditions for the sum of the individual problems add up to those of the original problem.
Another commonly encountered statically indeterminate beam problem is the cantilevered beam with the free end supported on a roller.[6] The bending moments, shear forces, and deflections of such a beam are listed below:
Extensions
The kinematic assumptions upon which the Euler–Bernoulli beam theory is founded allow it to be extended to more advanced analysis. Simple superposition allows for three-dimensional transverse loading. Using alternative constitutive equations can allow for viscoelastic or plastic beam deformation. Euler–Bernoulli beam theory can also be extended to the analysis of curved beams, beam buckling, composite beams, and geometrically nonlinear beam deflection.
Euler–Bernoulli beam theory does not account for the effects of transverse shear strain. As a result, it underpredicts deflections and overpredicts natural frequencies. For thin beams (beam length to thickness ratios of the order 20 or more) these effects are of minor importance. For thick beams, however, these effects can be significant. More advanced beam theories such as the Timoshenko beam theory (developed by the Russian-born scientist Stephen Timoshenko) have been developed to account for these effects.
Large deflections
The original Euler–Bernoulli theory is valid only for infinitesimal strains and small rotations. The theory can be extended in a straightforward manner to problems involving moderately large rotations provided that the strain remains small by using the von Kármán strains.[8]
The Euler–Bernoulli hypotheses that plane sections remain plane and normal to the axis of the beam lead to displacements of the form
Using the definition of the Lagrangian Green strain from finite strain theory, we can find the von Karman strains for the beam that are valid for large rotations but small strains. These strains have the form
From the principle of virtual work, the balance of forces and moments in the beams gives us the equilibrium equations
To close the system of equations we need the constitutive equations that relate stresses to strains (and hence stresses to displacements). For large rotations and small strains these relations are
where
For the situation where the beam has a uniform cross-section and no axial load, the governing equation for a large-rotation Euler–Bernoulli beam is
See also
Applied mechanics
Bending
Bending moment
Buckling
Flexural rigidity
Generalised beam theory
Plate theory
Sandwich theory
Shear and moment diagram
Singularity function
Strain (materials science)
Timoshenko beam theory
Theorem of three moments (Clapeyron's theorem)
Three point flexural test