8.

1 Cartesian coordinate solutions using polynomials 165

EXAMPLE 8.3: BENDING OF A BEAM BY UNIFORM TRANSVERSE LOADING

Our final example in this section is that of a beam carrying a uniformly distributed transverse
loading w along its top surface, as shown in Figure 8.3. Again, plane stress conditions are chosen,
and we relax the boundary conditions on the ends and consider only statically equivalent effects.
Exact pointwise boundary conditions will be specified on the top and bottom surfaces, while at
the ends the resultant horizontal force and moment are set to zero and the resultant vertical force
will be specified to satisfy overall equilibrium. Thus, the boundary conditions on this problem
can be written as

sxy ðx;cÞ ¼ 0

sy ðx;cÞ ¼ 0

sy ðx;cÞ ¼ w
ðc
sx ðl;yÞdy ¼ 0 (8.1.24)
c
ðc
sx ðl;yÞydy ¼ 0
c
ðc
sxy ðl;yÞdy ¼ Hwl
c

Again, it is suggested that these conditions be verified, especially the last statement.
Using the polynomial solution format, we choose a trial Airy stress function including second-,
third-, and fifth-order terms

A23 5
f ¼ A20 x2 þ A21 x2 y þ A03 y3 þ A23 x2 y3  y (8.1.25)
5

wl wl
2c
x

y
2l

FIGURE 8.3 Beam Carrying Uniformly Transverse Loading.

166 CHAPTER 8 Two-Dimensional Problem Solution

It is noted that the fifth-order term has been generated to satisfy the biharmonic equation. The
resulting stress field from this stress function is given by
 
2 3
sx ¼ 6A03 y þ 6A23 x y  y
2
3
(8.1.26)
sy ¼ 2A20 þ 2A21 y þ 2A23 y3

sxy ¼ 2A21 x  6A23 xy2

Applying the first three boundary conditions in the set (8.1.24) gives three equations among
the unknown coefficients A20, A21, and A23. Solving this system determines these constants, giving
the result
w 3w w
A20 ¼  ; A21 ¼ ; A23 ¼  3 (8.1.27)
4 8c 8c
Using these results, it is found that the stress field will now also satisfy the fourth and sixth con-
ditions in (8.1.24). The remaining condition of vanishing end moments gives the following
   
2 w l2 2
A03 ¼ A23 l2  c2 ¼  (8.1.28)
5 8c c2 5
This completes determination of the four constants in the trial Airy stress function, and the
resulting stress field is now given by
   
3w l2 2 3w 2 2 3
sx ¼  y 3 x y y
4c c2 5 4c 3

w 3w w (8.1.29)
sy ¼  þ y  3 y3
2 4c 4c
3w 3w
sxy ¼  x þ 3 xy2
4c 4c
We again wish to compare this elasticity solution with that developed by elementary strength of
materials, and thus the elasticity stress field is rewritten in terms of the cross-sectional area moment
of inertia I ¼ 2c3/3, as
 
w2  w y3 c2 y
sx ¼ l  x2 y þ 
2I I 3 5
 
w y3 2 3 (8.1.30)
sy ¼  c yþ c
2
2I 3 3
w  
sxy ¼  x c2  y2
2I
 8.1 Cartesian coordinate solutions using polynomials 167

The corresponding results from strength of materials for this case (see Appendix D, Section D.3)
are given by
My w  2 
sx ¼ ¼ l  x2 y
I 2I
sy ¼ 0 (8.1.31)
VQ w  
sxy ¼ ¼  x c2  y2
It 2I
where the bending moment M ¼ w(l2  x2)/2, the shear force V ¼ wx, the first moment of a
sectioned cross-sectional area is Q ¼ (c2  y2)/2, and the thickness t is taken as unity.
Comparing the two theories, we see that the shear stresses are identical, while the two normal
stresses are not. The two normal stress distributions are plotted in Figures 8.4 and 8.5. The normal-
ized bending stress sx for the case x ¼ 0 is shown in Figure 8.4. Note that the elementary theory
predicts linear variation, while the elasticity solution indicates nonlinear behavior. The maximum
difference between the two theories exists at the outer fibers (top and bottom) of the beam, and the
actual difference in the stress values is simply w/5, a result independent of the beam dimensions. For
most common beam problems where l >> c, the bending stresses will be much greater than w, and
thus the differences between elasticity theory and strength of materials will be relatively small. For
example, the set of curves in Figure 8.4 for l/c ¼ 4 gives a maximum difference of about only 1%.
Figure 8.5 illustrates the behavior of the stress sy; the maximum difference between the two theories
is given by w and this occurs at the top of the beam. Again, this difference will be negligibly small
for most beam problems where l >> c. These results are generally true for beam problems with
other transverse loadings. That is, for the case with l >> c, approximate bending stresses deter-
mined from strength of materials will generally closely match those developed from theory of
elasticity.

15

10
Dimensionless Stress

0
l/c = 2

–5
l/c = 3

–10
l/c = 4 σ x /w - Elasticity
σ x /w - Strength of Materials
–15
–1 –0.5 0 0.5 1
Dimensionless Distance, y/c

FIGURE 8.4 Comparison of Bending Stress in the Beam.

168 CHAPTER 8 Two-Dimensional Problem Solution

0.1

-0.1

Dimensionless Stress
-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8
σy /w - Elasticity
-0.9 σy /w - Strength of Materials
-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Dimensionless Distance, y/c

FIGURE 8.5 Comparison of sy Stress in the Beam.

Next let us determine the displacement field for this problem. As in the previous examples, the
displacements are developed through integration of the strainedisplacement relations. Integrating
the first two normal strainedisplacement relations gives the result
   3   3 
w x3 2y 2c2 y y 2c3
u¼ l2 x  yþx  þ nx  c2 y þ þ f ðyÞ
2EI 3 3 5 3 3
(8.1.32)
 4   4 2 y2 
w y c2 y2 2c3 y 2  y 2 y c
v¼  þ þ n l  x2 þn  þ gðxÞ
2EI 12 2 3 2 6 5
where f(y) and g(x) are arbitrary functions of integration. Using these results in the shear
strainedisplacement equation gives the relation
  
w 2 x3 2c2  
l x  þ x 2y2  þ nx y2  c2 þ f 0 ðyÞ
2EI 3 5
(8.1.33)
w 0 w  2 
þ nxy þ g ðxÞ ¼ 
2
x c y 2
2EI 2mI
This result can again be rewritten in a separable form and integrated to determine the arbitrary
functions
f ðyÞ ¼ uo y þ uo
   (8.1.34)
w 4 w 2 8
gðxÞ ¼ x  l  þ n c2 x2  uo x þ vo
24EI 4EI 5
 8.2 Cartesian coordinate solutions using Fourier methods 169

Choosing the fixity conditions u(0,y) ¼ v(l,0) ¼ 0, the rigid-body motion terms are found to be
  
5wl 4 12 4 n c3
uo ¼ uo ¼ 0; vo ¼ 1þ þ (8.1.35)
24EI 5 5 2 l2

Using these results, the final form of the displacements is given by

   3   3 
w x3 2y 2c2 y y 2c3
u¼ l2 x  yþx  þ vx  c2 y þ
2EI 3 3 5 3 3
 4  2   
w y c2 y2 2c3 y 2  2 y4 c2 y2
2 y x4 l 4 n 2 2
v¼  þ þv l x þ   þ þ þ c x
2EI 12 2 3 2 6 5 12 2 5 2
  
5wl4 12 4 n c2
þ 1þ þ
24EI 5 5 2 l2
(8.1.36)
The maximum deflection of the beam axis is given by
  
5wl4 12 4 n c2
vð0;0Þ ¼ vmax ¼ 1þ þ (8.1.37)
24EI 5 5 2 l2
while the corresponding value calculated from strength of materials is
5wl4
vmax ¼ (8.1.38)
24EI
The difference between the two theories given by relations (8.1.37) and (8.1.38) is specified by
 
wl4 4 n c2
þ , and this term is caused by the presence of the shear force. For beams where l >> c,
2EI 5 2 l2
this difference is very small. Thus, we again find that for long beams, strength of materials predic-
tions match closely to theory of elasticity results. Note from equation (8.1.36) that the x component
of displacement indicates that plane sections undergo nonlinear deformation and do not remain
d 2 vðx;0Þ
plane. It can also be shown that the EulereBernoulli relation M ¼ EI used in strength
dx2
of materials theory is not satisfied by this elasticity solution. Timoshenko and Goodier (1970) pro-
vide additional discussion on such differences.

Additional rectangular beam problems of this type with different support and loading conditions can be
solved using various polynomial combinations. Several of these are given in the exercises.

8.2 Cartesian coordinate solutions using Fourier methods

A more general solution scheme for the biharmonic equation may be found by using Fourier methods.
Such techniques generally use separation of variables along with Fourier series or Fourier integrals.