IMPERIAL COLLEGE of Science, Technology and Medicine Department of Civil Engineering MSc,DIC Concrete Structures Supervisor: Prof. M. N.

Pavlovi

A STUDY OF RECTANGULAR PLATE UNDER COLINEAR LOAD WITH BOTH APPROXIMATE AND EXACT SOLUTION

Tsiatas George June 1998

to an angel

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to thank Professor M.N. Pavlovi for his supervision to this thesis and his important guidance and help. It was an excellent co-operation.

Contents
Page Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 General Introduction 1.2 Introduction Chapter 2: Single Fourier Series Solution 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The closed-form solution 2.3 Convergence study 2.4 y Stress distribution 2.5 x Stress distribution 2.6 xy Stress distribution 5 8 12 13 15 1 4

Chapter 3: Exact Solution 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Problem outline 3.2 The in-plane stress distribution 3.4 The arithmetic implementation Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D 20 20 21 29

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General introduction

Lam (1852) introduced the general problem of isotropic rectangular plates under inplane normal loading. He attracted the attention of scientists, on the importance of the general problem of determining the state of stress and strain within a parallellopiped, which is subjected to given forces acting through its volume and to given tractions across its surface.

Numerous attempts have been made to solve Lams problem by removing one or more faces to infinity, and thus simplifying the surface conditions. One of the earliest investigations of the application of Fourier series to the solution of two-dimensional elasticity problems was that of Mathieu. He presented an elasticity solution for Lams rectangular parallellopiped with one infinite dimension.

The solution consisted of isolating a rectangular plate and subdividing the problem into four similar problems, each being loaded on one edge only. Clearly the total solution can be obtained by adding the solutions of the four individual problems. Each of these four problems was further subdivided into two others, A and B, where the load is divided in such a way that rectangle A is compressed equally on both opposite edges whereas rectangle B is compressed on one edge and pulled (i.e. by equal and opposite surface tractions) on the other. For problem A the loading was represented by an infinite half-expansion Fourier series f ( y ) = A0 + An cos ny the volumetric
n

dilatation was expressed in a similar manner, but the coefficients were functions of

both x and y as given by = B0 + Bn E (nx) cos ny + G0 + Gm E (my ) cos mx .

n m

Convergence the Fourier coefficients was also examined by Mathieu. This solution, however, consists a very complicated expressions made of looped infinite sets of series containing trigonometric and exponential terms, which made it almost impossible for practical utilisation (at a time when hand calculation were mandatory).

Ribire (1889) used single trigonometric series to represent the stress components in a plate under transverse loading conditions. Uniform and concentrated loads were applied to the plate and it was found that, for an aspect ratio of ten or more, the longitudinal stress distribution differs very slightly from that given by the ordinary bending theory.

Lams problem was again tackled by Filon (1903), who obtained the solution for the rectangular parallellopiped under an arbitrary system of surface loading in two cases: first, when two faces are constrained to remain plane (plane-strain problem) and, secondly, when one of the dimensions is so small that stresses in that direction are negligible (plane-stress problem). The equations being of the same form in both cases (the body forces are neglected), the distribution of stresses inside the beam is clearly the same whether the above-mentioned dimension is very small or very large. General solutions to the equations of the problem were established through functions using complex variables. Fourier integrals were employed by Filon to replace the summation in the case where the longitudinal dimension increases to infinity. Infinite values of he stresses were found at the point where a concentrated load is applied. The case of a beam under two equal and opposite compressive loads was examined, and tensile stresses y (along the direction of the applied loads) were detected at some distance away from the plane of loading. Filon showed that, since there are no shearing stresses along the mid-plane of the beam transverse to the loading, one may leave out of the analysis a half of the beam, and consider it as replaced by an infinite smooth rigid plane, against which the beam is pressed by the (single) load on the top face. The tensile stresses developed along the rigid base meant that an elastic block, acted upon by a concentrated load at its upper surface, cannot have its whole base in contact with a smooth rigid plane on which it rests: at a certain distance from the load the body of the beam is lifted off the plane. However, the weight of the beam, which
2

was neglected in the analysis, may counteract this phenomenon to a certain extent, if the applied load is not too large. This phenomenon was later confirmed by Marguerre (1932), who directly studied the problem of the beam resting on a smooth rigid base under the effect of a concentrated load on its upper surface.

Goodier (1932) presented the analysis of rectangular blocks compressed by normal forces (knife-edge conditions) applied centrally to two opposite sides. Results similar to those of Filon were found for the y transverse stress distribution. In addition, Goodier pointed out that this load-concentration arrangement also results in the development of considerable tensile stresses x across the plane of loading (i.e. in the longitudinal direction).

Much later, Appl (1972) analysed the same series of rectangular plates using a singular integral superposition method and confirmed the magnitudes of the maximum tensile stresses found by Goodier.

Pickett (1944) used Fourier series to obtain exact solutions for stresses in rectangular prisms for any boundary conditions. More than one series were used as needed. Each of these series was selected so as to give a Fourier-series expression for one component of stress (or displacement) at some boundary. The coefficients of the terms in a series are determined by Fourier analysis so as to give not only the desired stress (or displacement) at the boundary for which the series was selected but also to cancel any stress (or displacement) that may have been unavoidably introduced by the other series. The case of two equal and opposite concentrated loads was also studied; the results of this analysis agree well with the x stress distribution given by Goodier (1932).

Donnell (1952) presented series made up of polynomial terms for the stress components, that satisfied equilibrium and continuity conditions of two-dimensional elasticity theory and the boundary conditions (pressure loading) on the top and bottom surfaces of a rectangular beam. The end conditions may be satisfied by superposition of self-balance load systems on these ends. It was stated that these self-equilibrating

loads are substantially independent of beam length for as long as this exceeded the depth.

Boley & Tolins (1955) calculated the stresses and deflections in rectangular beams in accordance with the two-dimensional elasticity theory by an iterative procedure previously derived by Von Krmn (1927) and Seewald (1927). The stress function was made up of a summation of individual terms i , where a recurrence equation between partial derivatives of i , i 1 and i 2 was established.

A method for the calculation of stresses in plane-elasticity problems was developed by Theocaris (1959). A field of isostatics, determined experimentally, is represented by a function with complex variables. A differential parameter h of first order is then calculated all over the field. The stress components are expressed by relations that depend on this parameter h and the boundary conditions of the problem. The method was applied to two problems of plane, elasticity, and the results were then compared with those obtained by purely analytical methods.

2.1 Introduction

The aim of this thesis is to explore the problem of a rectangular plate under colinear point loading, using both approximate and exact solution. The plate is treated as a plane-stress problem where the boundary conditions are given exclusively in term of stresses.

Firstly, the solution of the two-dimensional general problem with rectangular boundary is presented, using the approximate single Fourier series technique of the Lvy type. A convergence study is considered and the stress distribution of internal stresses is investigated with the help of a Fortran program.

Secondly, the exact solution is presented as Mathieu introduced it. Due to the limited time for this thesis a thorough investigation was not feasible. However a program in Fortran was written and results from Mathieus book were verified.

CHAPTER 2 SINGLE FOURIER SERIES SOLUTION

2.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to consider the problem of the colinear point loading of a rectangular plate, concentrating on the solution by means of the single Fourier series technique.

2.2 The closed-form solution The governing expressions for 2-D elasticity problems with constant or zero body forces reduce to the single biharmonic equation when the Airy stress function , which defines the three stress components ( x , y , xy ), is used. In the case of

rectangular boundaries, such as the plate shown in Fig. 1, the assumption that may be expressed as an SFS along one co-ordinate axis enables the reduction of the partial differential equation into a total differential form. This, in turn, leads to an algebraic equation, the roots of which define a general solution for the function along the coordinate axis. Thus, the typical mth term of the Fourier series solution (when the expansion is along the x-axis) becomes
= (C1 cosh y + C 2 sinh y + C 3 y cosh y + C 4 y sinh y ) sin x

(2.1)

where = m / a ( a being the span of the plate, which may be taken to be half the period of the period of the half-range Fourier expansion).

P X
b

P Y

Fig.1. Thin rectangular plate of length and depth b under in-plane loading (equal and opposite
colinear point loads)

The four integration constants in eqn (1) follow upon the specification of the boundary condition at the horizontal edges ( y = 0, b in Fig 1) namely, the values of

the direct ( y ) and shear ( xy ) stresses along these boundaries, once these stresses have been expressed as suitable Fourier expansions matching the relevant derivatives of . Clearly, the whole process implies the repeated solving of four simultaneous equations for each term of the series. In this work this has been avoided by solving the four equations of the boundary conditions and evaluates the four constants. The stress components are 2 = sin x[C1 2 cosh y + C 2 2 sinh y + C 3 (2 sinh y + 2 y + y cosh y ) + C 4 (2 cosh y + y sinh y )] (2.2) 2 y = 2 = 2 sin x(C1 cosh y + C 2 sinh y + C 3 y cosh y + C 4 y sinh y ) x (2.3)

x =

 xy =

2 = cos x[C1 sinh y + C 2 cosh y + C 3 (cosh y + xy + y sinh y ) + C 4 (sinh y + ay cosh y )]

(2.4) The boundary conditions are For y = 0

xy = 0
For y = b

and

y = u sin x

(2.5)

xy = 0

and

y = l sin x

(2.6)

Substituting these values in the equations (2.3) and (2.4) become

1

C1 =

(2.7)

C2 =

b + b + u l 2

(2.8)

C3 =

b + b + u + l

(2.9)

2 C4 = u l
where = 2 b 2 2 , = cosh b, = sinh b , b

(2.10)

being the plate depth, the

subscripts u and l denote upper and lower longitudinal edge (i.e. y = 0, b ) and the expansions for normal stresses at the boundaries are expressed in terms of half-range sine Fourier series, respectively.

The general expressions for the stress distribution within the plate become

x = { u cosh y [(b + b ) u (b + ) l ] 1 (sinh y + y cosh y ) +

m =1

+ ( u b l ) 1 (2 cosh y + y sinh y )} sin x

(2.11)

y = { u cosh y [(b + b ) u (b + ) l ] 1 (sinh y y cosh y ) +

m =1

+ ( u b l ) 1 y sinh y} sin x

(2.12)

xy = { u sinh y [(b + b ) u (b + ) l ] 1y sinh y +

m =1

+ ( u b l ) 1 (sinh y + y cosh y )} cos x

(2.13)

In this case of colinear point loads on either longitudinal edge (Fig. 1), u and l are given by 2( P / t ) a sin sin x a 2

u =l =

(2.14)

Where P is the total load, and t the plate thickness.

2.3 Convergence study

The convergence study is based on the problem of Fig. 1. The point loads are likely to constitute one of the most severe tests of convergence, since the other, usually distributed, loads require fewer terms for the given degree of accuracy. The study of the convergence of the y stress at the centroid of the plate reveals that the minimum necessary number of terms for any specified accuracy varies practically linearly with the aspect ratio for r > 3 . For r < 3 , fewer terms are generally needed, and a maximum of 20 to 30 terms would be sufficient for convergence to within an accuracy of four figures for y . Figure 2 shows the variation of the numbers of terms

m with the distance from the mid-surface for the mid-span location, a result that was

found to be insensitive to the x-coordinate along the length of the plate.

Fig.2. Colinear (equal and opposite) point loads: variation of the number of terms generally required
for convergence to an accuracy of four figures across the depth of the plate ( r = 5 ).

In determining the y stresses in the plate, it was found that the structure could be divided into three regions as it can be seen in Figure 3, as far as convergence of the series (by ordinary summation) is concerned. One of these (region I) refers to the locations of the concentrated loads (singularity points), their intermediate vicinities, and, indeed, a thin horizontal strip along the longitudinal edges (encompassing, of course, these boundaries), where there is no convergence. On the other hand, throughout most of the plate (region III) convergence takes place for a certain finite number of terms. In between these two regions, one can draw a transitional region (region II), in the shape of a strip adjacent to the longitudinal-edge zones of region I, where convergence is very pour and necessitates a larger number of terms than those for region III. The gradual increase in m as one move from region III, through region II, on to region I, is shown in Figure 4, which depicts the y values along the midspan section x = a / 2 . It can be seen that, whereas at y = 0.1b , about 100 terms are sufficient for convergence, closer proximity to the point load requires a rapidly increasing number of terms, which full divergence reached at the very location of the load.

Fig.3. Colinear (equal and opposite) point loads: regions of convergence throughout the plate

Fig.4. Colinear (equal and opposite) point loads: regions of convergence at various levels across the
mid-span section (plane of loading) of the plate ( r = 5 ).

In order to improve the convergence of the ordinary summation, it was concluded the selective use Fejers summability, which consists of summing up the means of consecutive partial sums of the series. This is done either to improve convergence when it is slow or to achieve convergence when this is not forthcoming by ordinary summation means. It is only the adoption of Fejers summability that enables convergence to be achieved in the intermediate region II. Even with this approach, the number of terms that required within region II might be large, although radically smaller than that which would be necessary were the ordinary summation algorithm to be used. An example of such a case is given in Figure 5(a), which depicts the convergence of y for a typical location within the transitional region II
10

( x = a / 2 0.1b, y = 0.03b) . Clearly for practical purposes, only Fejers approach will yield the correct answer, as the ordinary summation still exhibits large oscillations beyond m = 500 . Furthermore, it is exclusively Fejers method which can yield answers throughout most of region I (except, of course, at and/or very near the point load itself), a zone where mere summation leads to intermediate values (i.e. y oscillates with non-decreasing amplitude around the mean value). This is illustrated in Figure 5(b), for the point x = a / 2 0.1b, y = 0 . That is the location at the very longitudinal edge and reasonably close to the concentrated load. Of course, y at
y = 0 is a boundary condition, and hence its value ( y = 0 ) could have been obtained

by inspection; however, the sort of behaviour exhibited by the y series in Figure 5(d) is also relevant to the computation of x values along the longitudinal edges.

(a)

(b)
Fig.4. Colinear (equal and opposite) point loads: convergence at various levels across the section
(x=l/2-0.1b) of the plate ( r = 5 ). Note Fejers effect on the convergence-solid lines.

11

The convergence of y described so far is, on the whole, also typical of that for x and xy . For the latter stress component, however Fejers summability must often be employed. In fact, in the case of xy , the application of the ordinary summation procedure, in terms of the partial sums, gives a solution which oscillates around a certain value with a decreasing amplitude as m gets larger, mainly at points near the horizontal edges of the plate. As a result the shear stress resultant across half of the depth of the beam, given by

b/2

xy

t dy , and of special interest in the present work, P

also oscillates around its exact value. Although these partial sums do converge, their convergence is slow and requires many terms for the necessary accuracy in the solution to be achieved. If, instead, one adopts Fejers summability approach to, for instance, the shear stress at the end of the plate, leads to a clear improvement in the convergence of the xy series there. Thus also improving the convergence of the integral of xy over the plates depth, a parameter of special significance, as will be seen subsequently.

2.4 y Stress distribution

For a plate with aspect ratio r = 5 the variation of y along horizontal planes as one move away from the mid-surface becomes steeper, with the peek compressive stress increasingly rapidly as the singularity at y = 0 is approached, while the changeover location at y = 0 shifts towards the loaded plane. The absolute maximum tensile stress of y throughout the plate is 0.045 P / bt , and occurs in fact at the centroidal axis (at x = 0.85b ). Investigating plates with variable aspect ratio, it was found that the centroidal compressive-stress value, the maximum tensile stress, the changeover ( y = 0 ) distance, and the location where the largest tension occurs remain practically unchanged for r 2 . Thus, the stress distribution is essentially invariant with r provided this parameter exceeds 2, a limit which, therefore, may serve as one possible
12

criterion for what constitutes a long plate in this and related problems. Even the y variation that occurs below r = 2 is relatively slow, as may be seen by reference to Table 2.1.

r
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 3.0

y bt / P (centroid)
-1.919 -1.886 -1.860 -1.847 -1.840 -1.839 -1.839 -1.839

TABLE 2.1: Colinear Point-loads Case: Variation of y bt / P at the Centroid with Aspect Ratio

One interesting finding of the present parametric study concerns the limiting value
r = 1.77 , below, which the plate is wholly under compression as regards y . Tensile

stresses begin to appear near the ends of the plate only when r > 1.77 , although they are negligible compared to the maximum tensile y in long plates.

2.5 x Stress distribution

As remarked earlier, the convergence of the series for x and the same numbers of terms may also be adopted for full accuracy (i.e. to at least 0.1% of the true values) throughout most of the plate, while Fejers summability is required elsewhere. For a plate with aspect ratio r = 5 the variation of x along the length of the beam at the level of the mid-surface is tensile around the central section, compressive beyond a distance of 0.3b (measured from the vertical centre-line).

13

The variation across the depth of x in the plane of loading is of particular interest. It may be seen that practically the whole depth of the mid-span is in longitudinal tension. These tensile values increase slowly from 0.497 P / bt at the centroid to, say,
0.77 P / bt at y = 0.1b . In the very vicinity of the loads, of course, both x and y

are compressive tending to infinity as y = 0 is approached. The previous results, described on the basis of, also hold for any r > 2 , as was the case for y . This may be seen, for example, by reference to Table 2.2, where the
values of x at the centroid stabilises at 0.497 P / bt beyond r 1.8 .

r
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 3.0

x bt / P (centroid)
0.592 0.533 0.508 0.499 0.497 0.497 0.497

TABLE 2.2: Colinear Point-loads Case: Variation of x bt / P at the Centroid with Aspect Ratio

Finally, it was found that the distance along the mid-surface at which the changeover

x = 0 occurs is already a constant, at 0.3b from the load line, beyond r = 1.6 .

14

2.6 xy Stress distribution

As mentioned earlier, the simple method adopted herein does not permit the full satisfaction of free-edge conditions along the vertical boundaries and shear stresses will act at x = 0, a . It may readily be shown that under completely arbitrary transverse loading, each term of the series for xy can be split into two components. One part proportional to (C1 + C 2 ) , is symmetric with respect to the mid-surface y = b / 2 , and hence represents a set of self-equilibrating actions, the role of which is to balance the variation in y across the plate depth; clearly, such stresses have no counterpart in the simplified engineers beam theory. The second part, proportional to (C1 C 2 ) , does have a resultant, which at the ends of the beam maintains overall equilibrium. Evidently, for the case under study Figure 1, only the first, self-equilibrating, component is present at all cross-sections. Of special interest will be the distribution and magnitudes of xy at the transverse ends as, by integrating the shear stresses over half the beams depth, a natural estimate of the error inherent in the non-fulfilment of the exact boundary conditions associated with a free edge may be obtained. Thus,

A=

b/2

xy

b/2 k t dy = dy 0 P b

(2.15)

where k is the dimensionless constant for the ratio xy bt / P which defines the shear stress intensity at any point. Equation (2.15) gives directly the load ratio between the vertical edge shear over half the depth on each vertical side and the aplied load on each horizontal edge. The basis of the algorithm that computes the arithmetic values of xy and A is naturally Fejers summability. The results of Table 2.3 are based on this algorithm, and show the variation of integral A with aspect ratio for the range r > 1 . It may be seen that the shear-stress resultant over half of the depth decreases from 0.02 P for
r = 1.0 to 0.01P for r = 2.4 . At r = 3 , A becomes 0.002 P , decreasing rapidly

towards zero with further increase in aspect ratio.

15

r
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.0

A
-0.020 -0.047 -0.045 -0.040 -0.032 -0.023 -0.016 -0.010 -0.006 -0.002

TABLE 2.3: Colinear Point-loads Case: Variation of the self equilibrating shear-stress resultant at
the ends of the plate (integrated over half its depth) with varying aspect ratio ( r > 1 ).

Were one to accept a departure from the free-edge boundary conditions of the order of 2% of the apllied load (as measured in terms of A ), it follows that, once again, an aspect ratio of r > 2 can be said to constitute a long beam, in the sense that the overall effect of xy acting on the vertical sides becomes negligible for such plate geometries. What is interesting is that, even for a near-square plate, the error provided by the estimate of A is below 5%. A typical xy distribution at the vertical left-hand edge of the plate is given in Figure 5(a), corresponding to r = 1.4 . It would appear that irrespective of the aspect ratio, with the sign of xy unchanged throughout both half-depth portion and all stresses pointing away from the corners; and, indeed, this is true for all aspect ratios exceeding about 1. However, below an r corresponding approximately to a square plate, such a simple picture no longer applies. This may be seen by reference to both Table 2.4 and Figure 5(b) and (c). As r is gradually decreased from around 1, it is apparent from Table 2.4 that A becomes smaller, reaching zero at r = 0.92 and then changing sign.

16

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 -0,2 -0,15 -0,1 -0,05 0

y/b

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

xy bt / P
(a)
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 -0,1 -0,05 0 0,05

y/b

xy bt / P

0,1

(b)
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 -2 -1 0 1

y/b

xy bt / P

(c)
Fig.5. Equal and opposite colinear point loads: xy bt / P distribution along the vertical edge x = 0 .
(a) r = 1.4 , (b) r = 0.9 , (c) r = 0.3

17

At first sight, this might suggest that there exists a specific plate geometry for which the assumptionof free vertical edges is exactly fulfiled. That this is no the case becomes clear by reference to Figure 5(b) which shows that, at r = 0.9 ,the shape of the xy is such that the shear no longer acts in the same direction even within the halfdepth porion of the plate. This more complex shear-stress variation is characteristic for the range of aspect ratios between 1.07 and 0.601. Below r = 0.601 the stresses again become single-signed on either side of the mid-surface y = 0.5b , but their sense is such that they now point towards the corner, a typical distribution being shown in Figure 5(c). That the departure from the free-edge condition steadily becomes worse with dimensing r even below r 1 is clear once the definition for the error measure in equation (2.15) is altered to

A =

b/2

xy

t dy P

(2.16)

r
1.15 1.10 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

A
-0.048 -0.050 -0.020 -0.010 +0.006 +0.047 +0.105 +0.185 +0.281 +0.382 +0.494 +0.504 +0.517

A
0.048 0.050 0.025 0.025 0.031 0.058 0.108 0.185 0.281 0.382 0.494 0.504 0.517

TABLE 2.4: Colinear Point-loads Case: Variation of the self equilibrating shear-stress resultant at
the ends of the plate (integrated over half its depth) in terms of xy ( A) and also

xy ( A) with varying aspect ratio ( r < 1 ).

18

The values of A also appear in Table 2.4 (note that r 1 seems to provide a local minimum for the error, at around 2.5%). The magnitude of the self-equilibrating set of shear stresses has also been studied at different sections from the ends x = 0, a . For example, with r = 5 , it was found that the area A (no longer an error as it now refers to internal stresses) increases as one approaches the plane of the loading. It is practically nil for x b (i.e. a distance of
1.5b away from the load), making up 1% of the applied load at a length b away from

the load, increasingly rapidly to 17.2% at 0.2b from the loaded point; clearly, as the mid-span is neared, the xy stresses (and hence also A ) drop sharply to zero.

19

CHAPTER 3 EXACT SOLUTION

3.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to consider the problem of the colinear point loading of a rectangular plate, concentrating on the exact solution as it was introduced by Mathieu.

Mathieus approach to the fundamental problem of plane strain (but equally applicable to plane stress) with rectangular boundaries is extended so as to encompass completely arbitrary stress distributions acting along the four edges. The method consists in breaking up the full solution into eight basic problem types which, by appropriate superposition, can be made to describe exactly the internal stress distribution arising from any imposed force distribution throughout the boundaries.

3.2 Problem outline

Before proceeding with the solution, it will be necessary to summarise the main governing expressions of two-dimensional elasticity (in the absence of body forces), as, in common with much of 19th-century elasticity work, Mathieus notation and approach depart from current conventions. The two equilibrium equations (but also embodying compatibility and Hookes law) are

u =

1 d dx

v =

1 d dy

(3.1a,b)

where u, v are the displacements along x, y respectively, is the volumetric dilatation given by

du dv + dx dy

(3.2)

while stands for Laplaces operator. The constant is defined in terms of Lams parameters, i.e.

(3.3)

these being related to the nowadays more familiar material constants, namely Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. By operating on expressions (3.1), it is easy to show that the following requirement must always be met
= 0

(3.4)

Once the displacements u and v have been obtained, the stresses N x (direct stress along x ), N y (direct stress along y ) and N xy (shear stress in the plane x y ) follow from the relations

N x = + 2

du dv du dv , N y = + 2 , N xy = ( + ) dx dy dy dx

(3.5a-c)

3.3 The in-plane stress distribution

Consider a rectangular plate of dimensions a b with the origin of the axes x, y placed at its centre as shown in Figure 2.

First, we express the loading f ( y ) as a Fourier series

21

f ( y ) = A0 + An cos ny
n

(3.6)

X P

P
b

Fig.2 Thin rectangular plate upon by two equal and opposite colinear point loads

which is a half-range (even) expansion. We also split the dilatation into two components 1 and 2 such that

= 1 + 2
with

(3.7)

1 = B0 + Bn cosh nx cos ny , 2 = 0 + m cosh my cos mx

n m

(3.8a,b)

where

22

m=

2 p a

and

n=

2q b

(3.9a,b)

in which p, q are positive integers 1,2,3, and the summation extends over all p, q . Expressions (3.8a) and (3.8b) satisfy separately (3.4), hence their sum ( ) is an adequate dilatation function. It should be mentioned at this stage that other combinations for even 1 and 2 would not satisfy all the necessary conditions

Now consider a function F such that

1 F =

(3.10)

Such a function satisfies (3.1) and (3.2) by putting

u=

dF dF + 1dx , v = + 2 dx dx dy

(3.11a,b)

In fact, the second term in (3.11a,b) is necessary to satisfy (3.2), and for this condition to be fulfilled the constant must take on the value

+ 2

(3.12)

Just as was split 1 and 2 , F can also be divided into two components F1 and F2 such that (3.10) may be rewritten as

1 1 F1 = 1 , F2 = 2

(3.13a,b)

with the solution of these partial differential equations being expressible in terms of the series (3.8)

23

F1 =

1 1 B0 x 2 2 2

n B xe(nx) cos ny + H
n n n

E (nx) cos ny

(3.14a)

F2 =

1 1 0 y2 2 2

m
m

ye(my ) cos mx + Gm E (my ) cos mx

m

(3.14b)

where from the onwards

E ( ) = cosh ( ) , e( ) = sinh (

Using equations (3.5) and (3.11), one obtains the following expression for the stresses N x , N y and N xy

N x = + 2 1 + 2
N y = + 2 2 + 2
N xy = [2

d 2F dx 2
d 2F dy 2

(3.16a) (3.16b)

d 2F d d + 1 dx + 2 dy dxdy dy dx

(3.16c)

The two additional coefficients H n and Gm are to be determined-together with Bn and m -from the four boundary conditions that define the loading on the edges 1 1 x = + a and y = + b . (The nature of the stress function chosen for each problem 2 2 ensures the automatic satisfaction of the boundary conditions at the other two sides 1 1 x = a and y = b .) In the case of the colinear point loading, these four static 2 2 constraints are

N xy = 0

at x =

1 a 2 1 a 2

and and

N xy = 0 at y = N y = 0 at y =

1 b 2 1 b 2

(3.17a,b) (3.18a,b)

N x = f ( y ) at x =

24

Conditions (3.17a) and (3.17b) lead to the following expressions of H n and Gm

1 1 E ( na) E ( mb) a b 1 1 2 2 ] , Gm = m [ + H n = Bn [ 2 + 2n 4n e( 1 na) 2m 2 4m e( 1 mb) 2 2

(3.19a,b)

It should be noted that, to reduce expressions (3.17a) and (3.17b) so that a solution for
H n and Gm can be obtained, the choice of indices m = 2p / a and n = 2q / b was

1 1 necessary just to eliminate terms in sin ma and sin nb . By combining condition 2 2 (3.18a), together with equation (3.16a) and (3.6), one obtains

+ 21 + 2

d 2F = A0 + An cos ny dx 2 n

(3.20)

which leads to the following expression, after some algebraic manipulations

1 ( + 2 ) B0 + B0 A0 + ( + 2 ) Bn E ( na) cos ny + 2 n

m E (my ) cos ma
m

1 2

1 1 1 Bn [2 E ( na ) + nae( na)] cos ny + 2 2 2 n

1 1 1 2 H n n 2 E ( na) cos ny + m mye(my ) cos ma 2 Gm m 2 E (my ) cos ma m 2 2 2 n m = An cos ny (3.21)

n

Substituting equations (3.19) into equation (3.21), we obtain the following expression

1 1 ( + ) 1 [( + 2 ) B0 + 0 A0 ] + {Bn [ E ( na ) + na 2 2 n

An 1 ] } cos ny 1 ( + ) e( na ) 2

1 + m {E (my )[1 mb 2 m

1 E ( mb) 1 2 ] + mye(my )} cos ma = 0 1 2 e( mb) 2

(3.22)

25

In the same way, condition (3.18b) together with equation (3.16b) leads to the following expression
1 1 ( + ) 1 [( + 2 ) 0 + B0 ] + { m [ E ( mb) + mb 2 2 m An 1 ] } cos mx 1 ( + ) e( mb) 2

1 E ( na ) 1 1 + Bn {E (nx)[1 na 2 ] + nxe(mnx)} cos nb = 0 1 2 2 n e( na) 2

(3.23)

1 By multiplying by dy and integrating between + b , equation (3.22) reduces to its 2 first term, i.e.
( + ) 1 [( + 2 ) B0 + 0 A0 ]b = 0

(3.24)

1 Similarly, multiplying by dx and integrating between + a , equation (3.23) reduces 2 to its first term, i.e ( + ) 1 [( + 2 ) 0 + B0 ]a = 0

(3.25)

The solution to equations (3.24) and (3.25), therefore, leads to the following expressions for B0 and 0

B0 =

+ 2 A0 A0 , 0 = 4 ( + ) 4 ( + )

(3.26a,b)

1 Now, multiplying by cos nydy and integrating between + b , equation (3.22) lead to 2 the following expression

1 1 1 b 1 n2m 1 1 Bn b( E ( na) + na )= An 8 cos nb m 2 e( mb) cos ma 2 2 2 2 e( 1 na) 2 (m + n ) 2 2 + m 2 (3.27a)

26

1 Similarly, multiplying by cos mxdx and integrating between + a , equation (3.23) 2 lead to the following expression

1 m2n 1 1 1 1 1 m a ( E ( mb) + mb ) = 8 cos ma Bn 2 e( ma) cos nb 2 2 1 2 (m + n ) 2 2 2 2 n e( mb) 2 (3.27b)

We introduce the notations

( x ) = E ( x ) + x / e( x )

and

( x ) = e( x ) / ( x )

(3.28a,b)

Now, after recursively substituting m into Bn , and vice versa, using expressions (3.28), rearranging summations and interchanging arbitrary summations indices, one eventually obtains the following expressions for Bn and m

Bn =

An (1) q 16 4 q 2 + 2 (1) q qAn (q) ( + ) (q ) ( + ) (q ) q [1 (q, q) + 16

4 3 (q, q) + (

16

4 ) 2 5 (q, q) + ...]

(3.29a)

and (1) p 4p 2 m = (1) q qAn (q ) ( + ) ( p / ) q [ 0 ( p, q ) + 16

4 2 ( p, q ) + (

16

4 ) 2 4 ( p, q) + ...]

(3.29b)

where
= a/b

(3.30) 1 ( p + q 2 2 ) 2
2

0 ( p, q ) =

27

1 (q, q) =
p

p 3 ( p / ) q3 (q ) = 1 (q, q) ( p , q ) ; ( p , q ) 0 2 2 2 2 2 ( p 2 + 2 q 2 ) 2 q ( p + q ) p 3 ( p / ) q3 (q ) = 3 (q, q) ( p , q ) ; ( p , q ) 2 4 2 2 2 2 ( p 2 + 2 q 2 ) 2 q ( p + q ) (3.31a-e)

3 (q, q) =
p

Finally, equations (3.16) lead to the following expressions for the stress components
n n

(1) ( 2) N x = A0 + Cn cosh(nx) cos(ny ) + Cn nx sinh(nx) cos(ny )

( 3) ( 4) + Cm cosh(my ) cos(mx) + Cm my sinh(my ) cos(mx) m m

(3.32)

(5) (6) N y = Cm cosh(my ) cos(mx) + Cm my sinh(my ) cos(mx) m m n n

(7) (8) + Cn cosh(nx) cos(ny ) + Cn nx sinh( nx) cos(ny )

(3.33)

(9) (10 ) N xy = Cn sinh(nx) sin(ny ) + Cn nx cosh(nx) sin( ny ) n n

(11) (12 ) + Cm sinh(my ) sin( mx) + Cm my cosh(my ) sin( mx) m m

(3.34)

( ) ( ) and Cm are defined as follows while the twelve constants Cn

(1) (7) , Cn Cn

na na cosh 2 = + ( + ) Bn 1+ na 2 sinh 2

(3.35)

(8) ( 2) Cn , Cn = + ( + ) Bn

(3.36)

(5) ( 3) , Cm Cm

mb mb cosh 2 = +( + ) m 1+ mb 2 sinh 2

(3.37)

28

( 4) ( 6) Cm , Cm = + ( + ) m (9) (11) Cn , Cm = ( + ) RQ

(3.38) cosh Q sinh Q (3.39) (3.40)

(10 ) (12 ) , Cm = + ( + ) R Cn

The plus and minus signs in expressions (3.35) and (3.38) refer to the first and second constraints on the left-hand side respectively. On the other hand, in expressions (3.39) and (3.40) R equals Bn and Q equals na if the first constant on the left hand is 2 mb respectively. 2

being considered; otherwise R and Q denote m and

( ) ( ) and Cm do not depend on the actual plate dimension a and b but The constants Cn

only on the aspect ratio . Furthermore, the Lams constants , do not, in fact, enter our analysis since they also appear in the denominator of the expressions for Bn and m .

3.4 The arithmetic implementation

Mathieu in his book after the presentation of his method, comment on the most difficult part of his approach, the determination of the numerical values of 1 , 2 , 3 ,... .

In the case, which the rectangular plate has equal both sides (square), the equations (3.31) leads to the following expressions for = 1 q 3 (q ) p 3 ( p ) ( , ) p q , 1 (q, q ) = 2 2 2 2 ( p 2 + q 2 ) 2 ( p 2 + q 2 ) 2 q ( p + q ) p 3 ( p ) q 3 (q ) ( , ) ( , ) p q p q , 3 (q, q ) = 2 4 2 2 2 ( p 2 + q 2 ) 2 q ( p + q )

1 (q, q ) =
p

3 (q, q ) =
p

29

As it may be seen
2 ( p, q ) = 2 ( q , p ) , 3 ( p, q ) = 3 ( q, p )

The quantity ( p ) tends rapidly to the unit when p increases

( ) = 0.97343

(2 ) = 0.99991

So for convenience Mathieu let the term ( p ) =1 and calculated the numerical values of 1 , 2 , 3 ,... .

The same has been done with the aid of a Fortran program. The results for the function 1 ( p, q ) when p = 1 and q = 1,2 may be seen in the following Table 3.1 The Mathieus result for the arithmetic values of 1 (1,1) and 1 (1,2) are
1 (1,1) =0.07762 and 1 (1,2) =0.01731

The difference on the results is due to the difficulty of calculating the terms with great accuracy at a time when hand calculations were mandatory. The other arithmetic values of 1 , 2 , 3 ,... , which are in Mathieus book, have been verified with the same program and all the results were correct.

It can be seen that the convergence of the series is achieved with only 20 terms.

30

Number of terms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 (1,1)

1 (1,2)

0.06250 0.07530 0.07800 0.07877 0.07904 0.07916 0.07921 0.07924 0.07925 0.07926 0.07927 0.07927 0.07928 0.07928 0.07928 0.07928 0.07928 0.07928 0.07928 0.07928

0.01000 0.01500 0.01660 0.01715 0.01737 0.01747 0.01752 0.01754 0.01756 0.01757 0.01757 0.01758 0.01758 0.01758 0.01758 0.01758 0.01759 0.01759 0.01759 0.01759

TABLE 3.1: Variation of the arithmetic values of 1 (1,1) and 1 (1,2) with p .

31

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions about the convergence of the single Fourier series and the distribution of internal stresses have already been mentioned in Chapter 2.

One of the novel aspects of this work is the attempt of the arithmetic implementation of Mathieus approach, the exact solution. Although many attempts have been made for the solution of the problem, the limited time of this thesis did not allow the author to conclude his work. However, the determination of the numerical values of 1 , 2 , 3 ,... constitutes a crucial step to the final solution of the problem. This will allow the full understanding of the problem and it will give answers to many questions that have been unacknowledged. Unfortunately, it is a subject of future research.

Appendix A
Periodic functions frequently occur in engineering problems. Their representations in terms of simple functions, such as Fourier Sine and Cosine series, is a matter of great practical importance. Fourier, in his famous Thorie de la Chaleur in 1822, showed that unpredictable functions may be represented by trigonometric series. He gave, without proof, a rigorous definition of the convergence of these trigonometric series. Cauchy realised the necessity of such a rigorous proof which he presented to the Acadmie des Sciences, in 1826. Dirichlet, in 1829, showed that Cauchy's proofs were inexact, and proposed the problem of searching for the cases in which Fourier's series converge. Dirichlet Conditions were then presented, which are sufficient but not always necessary. The nature of the convergence of these series was later examined by Heine (1870), who showed that, if a function f ( x) is

finite and satisfies Dirichlet's conditions, a Fourier representation converges uniformly in any interval in which the function f ( x) is continuous.

Csaro, with his method of summation, which consists of the mean of the partial sums, led Fejr later on to come up with his important theorem in 1904. Fejer proposed a new method of summing Fourier series, by which he greatly extended the validity of the series to a greater number of functions (e.g. when the convergence is not uniform but oscillates). The method consists of using the arithmetic means of the partial sums themselves. The only condition the function f ( x) still has to satisfy is the natural condition that it shall be integrable in the interval of interest, if bounded, and that

f ( x)dx shall be absolutely convergent over the

same interval, if the function is unbounded. Fejr's summability approach has shown evident advantages in several problems associated with the use of Fourier series. While hundreds of terms are needed for the series xy , in the analysis of plane-stress problems under in-plane loading, to converge towards the exact value, a maximum of 20 to 30 terms were sufficient to attain this exact value by using Fejer's method. Also, Fejr's method proved very successful in removing the overshooting at points of discontinuities, a peculiarity of Fourier series, which is known as Gibbs phenomenon.

33

.1 Dirichlet conditions :

Let the function f ( x) satisfy the following conditions: 1- f ( x) is defined and single valued over the interval [ , ] 2- f ( x) has finite number of discontinuities over [ , ] 3- f ( x) is of biunded variation

A function of this type can be expanded into a convergent infinite series of the form

f ( x) = a n cos nx + bn sin nx
n =0 n =1

(A.1)

where

an =

f ( x) cos nxdx

(A.2) bn = f ( x) sin nxdx

If we substitute the expressions (A.2) for the Fourier coefficients back into the series (A.1) we obtain 1

f ( x) = =

f (t )[cos nt cos nx + sin nt sin nx]dt

n =0

f (t ) cos n(t x)dt

n =0

(A.3)

f ( x) may be written as follows

f ( x) =

f (t ) cos n(t x)dt +

n =0

( x)

(A.4)

34

= or

f (t ) cos n(t x)dt + N ( x)

n =0

f ( x) = f N ( x) + N ( x)

(A.5)

f N ( x) being the Nth partial sum of the series (A.1). For the series (A.3) (a new form of the original series) to converge it suffices to show that f N ( x) converges and N ( x) can be made arbitrarily small by choosing N high enough. The importance of this is that reduces the investigation to that of the series

K N (t x) = cos n(t x)
n =0

(A.6)

Recall
1 i ( N + ) 2 i 2 i 2 1 i ( N + ) 2 i 2

e
n =1

in

e 1 e = 1 e i

iN

e
i 2

1 e 2i

sin

(A.7)

Taking the real parts of equation (A.7), we readily obtain 1 sin( N + ) 2 cos n( ) = n =0 2 sin 2
N

(A.8)

Hence, 1 sin( N + ) 2 K N ( ) = 2 sin 2

(A.9)

35

where = t x K n ( ) is called the Dirichlet Kernel We see from expression (A.9) that the series (A.8) does not converge to any limit as N grows to infinity. This, however, does not mean that the integral 1

f N ( x) =

f (t ) K

(t x)dt

(A.10)

cannot converge. The integration has a smoothening effect on the oscillations of the function K n ( ) and may makethem convergent. K n ( ) acts as focusing power, it puts the spotlight on the immediate neighbourhood of

= 0 ( t = x , x being the point at which the Fourier representation is being sought) and blots
out everything else. In particular the following two conditions should be expected as the exact mathematical expressinons of the increasing focusing power K N ( ) = K N ( )

lim K N ( ) d = 0

(A.11)

lim K N ( ) d = 1

(A.12)

The first two conditions guarantees that the Kernel function blots out everything except the immediate neighbourhood of the point t = x . The second condition guarantees that the point t = x enters the integration with the proper weight; is assumed to be a prescribed small positive number, independent of N . However, the Dirichlet Kernel does not satisfy the first condition (A.11). the conditions 2 and 3 aim at establishing the smoothness of f ( x) , which make Dirichlets conditions, in some instances as will be seen below, unnecessarily stringent.

36

A.2 Fejrs method :

By using an ingenious modification of the summation procedure, Lipt Fejr (1904) succeeded in increasing the focusing power of the Dirichlet Kernel and thus extending the validity of the Fourier series to a much larger class of functions. The only condition is that f ( x) is absolutely integrable, i.e. would not exist either. Generally, the series (A.1) will not converge. This means that the sequence f N ( x) defined by (A.5) taken at a definite x will not approach a definite number as N increases to infinity. We will take the partial sums f N ( x) at a definite value for x and consider the sequence

f ( x) dx exists without which Fourier coefficients

f 0 , f1 , f 2 ,..., f N

(A.13)

Out of this sequence we construct a new sequence by taking the arithmetic means of the previous sequence (A.13) f 0 + f1 1 ,..., g N = 2 N
N 1 n =0

g1 = f 0 , g 2 =

(A.14)

and investigate the limit of this sequence G = lim g N . If the original limit F of the f N ( x)
N

existed, G will coincide with F and we did not lose anything. But G may exist, even F did not exist. Thus is the brilliant achievement of Fejrs method. To take the arithmetic means of the partial sums f N ( x) is obviously equivalent to replacing the function K n ( ) , in equation (A.9), by the arithmetic mean

M N ( ) =

1 [ K 0 ( ) + K 1 ( ) + ... + K N ( )] N
37

(A.15)

1 N

m =0

1 sin(m + ) 2 2 sin

2 N sin

[sin

+ sin

3 1 + ... + sin( N ) 2 2

The quantity between bracket is equal to the imaginary part of

1 3 1 ( N ) i 2

e 2 + e 2 + ... + e
1 i

e 2 (1 + e i + ... + e ( N 1) i ) =
1 i 2

1 e =e 1 e i

iN

Ni 2

sin

N 2

sin

(A.17)

Separating the imaginary parts we obtain N 2 )2

M N ( ) =

1 ( 2N

sin

sin

(A.18)

which is called Fejrs kernel, in contrast to K n ( ) , the Dirichlets kernel. Thus, we obtain 1

g N ( x) =

f (t ) M

(t x)dt

(A.19)

This new sequence has the remarkable property that it converges to a definite limit at all points at which the one-sided limits g1 = g ( x + ) and g 2 = g ( x ) exist, defined by

lim[ g ( x + ) g1 ] = 0 and lim[ g ( x ) g 2 ] = 0 ( 0)

0 0

(A.20)

38

At all such points g N ( x) converges to the arithmetic mean of the two limits (A.20). (In an ordinary point the two limits coincide, and the series simply converges to g ( x) ). Hence, g N ( x) automatically converges to a reasonable value at all points at which a reasonable answer can be expected at all. Fejrs result came about by the fact that his method is associated with the following kernel function

sin 2 ( N ) 2 KN = 2 N sin 2 ( ) 2

(A.21)

This kernel possesses the strong focusing properties expressed by the conditions (A.11) and (A.12). However, the theoretical usefulness of Fejrs method for functions of a general class should not be confounded with the practical usefulness of Fejrs method. Let us assume that f ( x) is in fact exactly equal to the sum of N Fourier terms. Then the ordinary way of summing the Fourier series gives f ( x) exactly after N steps, while Fejrs method will never get f ( x) exactly, unless the number of steps increases to infinity, which is not practical from a computational standpoint. This example shows that under ordinary circumstances the straight summing of the series may be preferable to the method of the arithmetic mean. In conclusion, both procedure the ordinary and Fejrs summability approaches should be implemented in any computational effort by automatically switching from one to theother depending on the behaviour of the series involved. This has been done to this work by using both Fortran programs and Excel worksheets in order to have an accurate result.

39

Appendix B
The following program was written in Fortran computer language, to evaluate the stress components in a rectangular plate, under in-plane loading of two equal and opposite point loads, using the single Fourier series method.
PROGRAM: Stress1
C******************************************************************** C PROGRAM Stress1 C C This program solves the problem of a rectangular plate under two C colinear point loads using the single Fourier series solution C IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,O-Z) CHARACTER*15 OUTPUTFILE C C Set the parameter N which represents the number of terms C in the summation of the Single Fourier Series C PARAMETER (N=100) C C C Read the name and open the output file C WRITE (*,'(A)')' Name of the OUTPUTFILE (max.15 characters)' READ (*,'(A)') OUTPUTFILE OPEN (1, FILE=OUTPUTFILE) C C Set the constants for the problem C C AL= the length of the plate C BL= the depth of the plate C X,Y= The coordinates of the point, which the stress C disrtibution requested C AL= BL= X=0.0 Y=0.3 C C Set zero all the summations C SX=0. SY=0. TXY=0. C C******************************************************************** C DO 10 M=1,N C PI=ACOS(-1.) C

40

A=M*PI/AL C B=DCOSH(A*BL) G=DSINH(A*BL) S=(A*BL)**2-G**2 C SU=2*BL/AL*DSIN(A*AL/2.) SL=2*BL/AL*DSIN(A*AL/2.) C C C Evaluate the terms for the stress components SSX=(SU*DCOSH(A*Y)-((A*BL+B*G)*SU-(A*BL*B+G)*SL)/S*(DSINH(A*Y)+ 1 A*Y*DCOSH(A*Y))+G*(G*SU-A*BL*SL)/S*(2*DCOSH(A*Y)+A*Y*DSINH(A*Y))) 1 *DSIN(A*X) C SSY=-(SU*DCOSH(A*Y)+((A*BL+B*G)*SU-(A*BL*B+G)*SL)/S*(DSINH(A*Y)1 A*Y*DCOSH(A*Y))+A*G*(G*SU-A*BL*SL)/S*Y*DSINH(A*Y))*DSIN(A*X) C STXY=-(SU*DSINH(A*Y)-((A*BL+B*G)*SU-(A*BL*B+G)*SL)/S*A*Y* 1 DSINH(A*Y)+G*(G*SU-A*BL*SL)/S*(DSINH(A*Y)+A*Y*DCOSH(A*Y)))* 1 DCOS(A*X) C SX=SX+SSX SY=SY+SSY TXY=TXY+STXY C C C Print the results in the output file WRITE (1,1000) SX,SY,TXY 10 CONTINUE C C******************************************************************** C 1000 FORMAT (F8.5) C END

41

Appendix C
The following program was written in Fortran computer language, to evaluate the integral of the shear stresses over half the beams depth, the natural estimate of the error inherent in the non fulfilment of the exact boundary condition, when the single Fourier series method is used..
PROGRAM: EVALA
C******************************************************************** C PROGRAM EvalA C C This program evaluate the integral of the shear stresses over half C the beam's depth, A, the natural estimate of the error inherent in C the non-fulfilment of the exact boundary conditions C IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,O-Z) CHARACTER*15 OUTPUTFILE C C Set the parameter N which represents the number of terms C in the summation of the integral C PARAMETER (N=100) C C Read the name and open the output file C WRITE (*,'(A)')' Name of the OUTPUTFILE (max.15 characters)' READ (*,'(A)') OUTPUTFILE OPEN (1, FILE=OUTPUTFILE) C C C C C C Set the constants for the problem AL= the length of the plate BL= the depth of the plate BK1,BK2= the bounds of the integral AL= BL= BK1=0. BK2=0.5 C C******************************************************************** C DO 10 M=1,N C PI=ACOS(-1.) C A=M*PI/AL C B=DCOSH(A*BL) G=DSINH(A*BL) S=(A*BL)**2-G**2 C 42

SU=2*BL/AL*DSIN(A*AL/2.) SL=2*BL/AL*DSIN(A*AL/2.) C AI1=(DCOSH(A*BK2)-DCOSH(A*BK1))/A C AI2=(BK2*DCOSH(A*BK2)-BK1*DCOSH(A*BK1))-(DSINH(A*BK2)-DSINH(A*BK1) 1 )/A C AI3=(BK2*DSINH(A*BK2)-BK1*DSINH(A*BK1))-(DCOSH(A*BK2)-DCOSH(A*BK1) 1 )/A C BA=SU C BB=((A*BL+B*G)*SU-(A*BL*B+G)*SL)/S C BC=G*(G*SU-A*BL*SL)/S C SAA=-DCOS(A*X)/BL*((BA+BC)*AI1-BB*AI2+BC*AI3) C C AA=AA+SAA C C C Print the results in the output file WRITE (1,1000) AA 10 CONTINUE C C******************************************************************** C 1000 FORMAT (F8.5) C END

43

Appendix D
The following program was written in Fortran computer language, to evaluate the stress components in a rectangular plate, under in-plane loading of two equal and opposite point loads, using the Mathieus approach.
PROGRAM: Sress2
C******************************************************************** C PROGRAM Stress2 C C This program solves the problem of a rectangular plate under two C colinear point loads using Mathieu's solution C IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,O-Z) C C Set the parameter N which represents the number of terms C in the summation C PARAMETER (N=100) C C Set the dimensions to the matrices C DIMENSION SL0(N,N),SL1(N,N),SL2(N,N) DIMENSION SL3(N,N),SL4(N,N),SL5(N,N) DIMENSION SL6(N,N),SL7(N,N) C CHARACTER*15 OUTPUTFILE C C Read the name and open the output file C WRITE (*,'(A)')' Name of the OUTPUTFILE (max.15 characters)' READ (*,'(A)') OUTPUTFILE OPEN (1, FILE=OUTPUTFILE) C C Set the constants for the problem C C AL= the length of the plate C BL= the depth of the plate C F= the aspect ratio of the plate C X,Y= The coordinates of the point, which the stress C disrtibution requested AL= BL= F=AL/BL X=0.0 Y=0.0 PI=ACOS(-1.) C C Evaluate SL0 C DO 10 J=1,30 DO 10 I=1,30

44

SL0(J,I)=1./(J**2+I**2*F**2)**2 10 CONTINUE C C C Evaluate SL1 DO 20 J=1,30 DO 20 I=1,30 C SL1(J,I)=0. DO 20 K=1,30 PSI=DSINH(K*PI/F)/(DCOSH(K*PI/F)+(K*PI/F)/DSINH(K*PI/F)) SL1(J,I)=SL1(J,I)+K**3*PSI/(K**2+F**2*I**2)**2*SL0(K,J) 20 CONTINUE C C C Evaluate SL2 DO 30 J=1,30 DO 30 I=1,30 C SL2(J,I)=0. DO 30 K=1,30 PSI=DSINH(K*PI*F)/(DCOSH(K*PI*F)+(K*PI*F)/DSINH(K*PI*F)) SL2(J,I)=SL2(J,I)+K**3*PSI/(J**2+F**2*K**2)**2*SL1(I,K) 30 CONTINUE C C C Evaluate SL3 DO 40 J=1,30 DO 40 I=1,30 C SL3(J,I)=0. DO 40 K=1,30 PSI=DSINH(K*PI/F)/(DCOSH(K*PI/F)+(K*PI/F)/DSINH(K*PI/F)) SL3(J,I)=SL3(J,I)+K**3*PSI/(K**2+F**2*I**2)**2*SL2(K,J) 40 CONTINUE C C C Evaluate SL4 DO 50 J=1,40 DO 50 I=1,40 C SL4(J,I)=0. DO 50 K=1,30 PSI=DSINH(K*PI*F)/(DCOSH(K*PI*F)+(K*PI*F)/DSINH(K*PI*F)) SL4(J,I)=SL4(J,I)+K**3*PSI/(J**2+F**2*K**2)**2*SL3(I,K) 50 CONTINUE C C C Evaluate SL5 DO 60 J=1,40 DO 60 I=1,40 C SL5(J,I)=0. DO 60 K=1,30 PSI=DSINH(K*PI/F)/(DCOSH(K*PI/F)+(K*PI/F)/DSINH(K*PI/F)) SL5(J,I)=SL5(J,I)+K**3*PSI/(K**2+F**2*I**2)**2*SL4(K,J) 60 CONTINUE C C C Evaluate SL6 DO 70 J=1,30

45

DO 70 I=1,30 C SL6(J,I)=0. DO 70 K=1,30 PSI=DSINH(K*PI*F)/(DCOSH(K*PI*F)+(K*PI*F)/DSINH(K*PI*F)) SL6(J,I)=SL6(J,I)+K**3*PSI/(J**2+F**2*K**2)**2*SL5(I,K) 70 CONTINUE C C C Evaluate SL7 DO 80 J=1,30 DO 80 I=1,30 C SL7(J,I)=0. DO 80 K=1,30 PSI=DSINH(K*PI/F)/(DCOSH(K*PI/F)+(K*PI/F)/DSINH(K*PI/F)) SL7(J,I)=SL7(J,I)+K**3*PSI/(K**2+F**2*I**2)**2*SL6(K,J) 80 CONTINUE C C C Set zero all the summations S1=0. S2=0. C CN1=0. CN2=0. CM3=0. CM4=0. CM5=0. CM6=0. CN7=0. CN8=0. CN9=0. CNA=0. CMB=0. CMC=0. C C******************************************************************** C DO 1000 J=1,30 C AM=2.*PI*J/AL AN=2.*PI*J/BL C AA0=-1. AAN=-2. C DO 2000 I=1,30 C G=I*(-1.)**I*AAN*DSINH(I*PI*F)/(DCOSH(I*PI*F)+(I*PI*F) 1 /DSINH(I*PI*F)) C SS1=SL1(J,I)+(16.*F**4/PI**2)*SL3(J,I)+(16.*F**4/PI**2)**2 1 *SL5(J,I)+(16.*F**4/PI**2)**3*SL7(J,I) SS2=SL0(J,I)+(16.*F**4/PI**2)*SL2(J,I)+(16.*F**4/PI**2)**2 1 *SL4(J,I)+(16.*F**4/PI**2)**3*SL6(J,I) C S1=S1+SS1*G S2=S2+SS2*G C

46

2000 CONTINUE C C Evaluate Bn C T2=DCOSH(J*PI*F)+(J*PI*F)/DSINH(J*PI*F) C BN=AAN/T2+16.*F**4*J**2*(-1.)**J/(PI**2*T2)*S1 C C Evaluate bm C T3=DCOSH(J*PI/F)+(J*PI/F)/DSINH(J*PI/F) C BM=-4.*F*J**2*(-1.)**J/(PI*T3)*S2 C C Evaluate the summation's terms C CN1=CN1+BN*(1.+AN*AL/2.*DCOSH(AN*AL/2.)/DSINH(AN*AL/2.)) 1 *DCOSH(AN*X)*DCOS(AN*Y) C CN2=CN2-BN*AN*X*DSINH(AN*X)*DCOS(AN*Y) C CM3=CM3+BM*(1.-AM*BL/2.*DCOSH(AM*BL/2.)/DSINH(AM*BL/2.)) 1 *DCOSH(AM*Y)*DCOS(AM*X) C CM4=CM4+BM 1 *AM*Y*DSINH(AM*Y)*DCOS(AM*X) C CM5=CM5+BM*(1.+AM*BL/2.*DCOSH(AM*BL/2.)/DSINH(AM*BL/2.)) 1 *DCOSH(AM*Y)*DCOS(AM*X) C CM6=CM6-BM 1 *AM*Y*DSINH(AM*Y)*DCOS(AM*X) C CN7=CN7+BN*(1.-AN*AL/2.*DCOSH(AN*AL/2.)/DSINH(AN*AL/2.)) 1 *DCOSH(AN*X)*DCOS(AN*Y) C CN8=CN8+BN 1 *AN*X*DSINH(AN*X)*DCOS(AN*Y) C CN9=CN9-BN*AN*AL/2.*DCOSH(AN*AL/2.)/DSINH(AN*AL/2.) 1 *DSINH(AN*X)*DSIN(AN*Y) C CNA=CNA+BN 1 *AN*X*DCOSH(AN*X)*DSIN(AN*Y) C CMB=CMB-BM*AM*BL/2.*DCOSH(AM*BL/2.)/DSINH(AM*BL/2.) 1 *DSINH(AM*Y)*DSIN(AM*X) C CMC=CMC+BM 1 *AM*Y*DCOSH(AM*Y)*DSIN(AM*X) C C******************************************************************** C 1000 CONTINUE C C SX=AA0+CN1+CN2+CM3+CM4 C SY=CM5+CM6+CN7+CN8 C TXY=CN9+CNA+CMB+CMC

47

C C C

Print the results in the output file

WRITE (1,3000) SX,SY,TXY 3000 FORMAT (3(2X,F8.5)) C END

48

REFERENCES
1. Baker, G., Pavlovi, M. N. & Tahan, N. An exact solution to the two-dimensional elasticity problem with rectangular boundaries under arbitrary edge forces Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A (1993) 343 307-336. Mathieu, E., theorie de lelasticite des corps solides. Gauthier Villars, Paris, 1890 Pavlovi, M. N. & Baker, G. Buckling of non-uniformly compressed plates Teorijska I Primenjena Mehanika, 9 (1983) 91-104 Timoshenko, S. & Goodier, J. N., Theory of Elasticity. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968 Tahan, N., Single-Fourier series for two-dimensional analysis of plates and box girders. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 1991. Tahan, N., Pavlovi, M. N. & Kotsovos, M. D. Single Fourier series solutions for rectangular plates under in-plane forces, with particular reference to the basic problem of colinear compression. Part 1: Closed-form solution and convergence study. Thin Walled Structures, 15 (1993) 291-303. Tahan, N., Pavlovi, M. N. & Kotsovos, M. D. Single Fourier series solutions for rectangular plates under in-plane forces, with particular reference to the basic problem of colinear compression. Part 2: Stress distribution. ThinWalled Structures, 17 (1993) 1-26.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

49