Beam calculation of a simply supported tube

Consider a simply supported beam with an evenly distributed load (fig. 65). The cross-section of
the beam is circular (fig. 66). The load is self-weight p [kN/m²].
In a handbook we find the moment of inertia I   a3t .
From figure 66 we derive the distributed line load q  2 a p [kN/m].
Elementary mechanics gives us the moment in the middle M  1 ql 2 ,
8
Ma
the stress at the bottom   ,
I
ql 4
and the deflection in the middle w  5 .
384 EI
p l2 pl4
Substitution in the last two equations gives   and w  5 .
4at 192 a 2 E t

q t
p a

Figure 65. Simply supported beam Figure 66. Cross-section of the beam

Shell calculation of a simply supported tube

Consider the simply supported beam (fig. 65). The coordinate system is shown in figure 67. We
see that
1
k xx  0, k yy   , k xy  0,  x  1,  y  1
a
v v
px  0, p y  p sin , pz   p cos .
a a

At both ends u  1 l and u   1 l the tube is closed by a thin diaphragm. This diaphragm can
2 2
carry membrane forces without buckling but it cannot carry bending moments. The middles of the
diaphragms are fixed.

The boundary conditions are

u  1l uz  0 1
2
uy  0 2
nxx  0 3
u0 ux  0 4
nxy  0 5

45
Most boundary conditions are obvious. Only boundary condition 5 is explained (fig. 68). The
shell and the loading are symmetrical. Symmetry and equilibrium have opposite requirements for
the directions of the stresses at u = 0. Therefore, the only possible stress is zero stress.

z z
a v
u
v
 pz py
nxx
ux
nxy
n yy a p
uy uz
l

Figure 67. Local coordinate system of the tube

nxy nxy
Figure 68. Shear stresses in the middle section due to symmetry (left) and equilibrium (right)

Shell calculation of the stresses

In this section the stresses in the tube are calculated using the shell membrane equations (p. 36).
n yy v v
Eq. 1 simplifies to   p cos  0 from which we solve n yy   p a cos .
a a a
v n xy v v
Eq. 3 simplifies to p sin   p sin  0 from which we solve nxy  2 p u sin  C1 .
a x a a
Boundary condition nxy (0, v)  0 gives C1  0 .

nxx 2 pu v p u2 v
Eq. 2 simplifies to  cos  0  0 from which we solve nxx  cos  C2 .
x a a a a
p( 1 l )2 v
Boundary condition nxx ( 1 l , v)  0 gives C2   2 cos .
2 a a
For steel tubes the Von Mises stress (p. 99) in the middle bottom (u , v)  (0,  a) is important.
2  n n  n2  3n2
n VM  nxx xx yy yy xy

n VM pl 2 a2 a4
Using VM  this can be evaluated to VM max  1 4  16 .
t 4 at l2 l4

We see that for long tubes (l  a ) the shell result is the same as the beam result (see beam
calculation p. 44). For a short tube of l  6a the shell result is 5% smaller than the beam result.

46
Statically determinate
In the previous section, the stresses everywhere in the tube are calculated using just the
equilibrium equations. Therefore, the tube is a statically determinate structure. This is typical for
shell structures:

If the support is statically determinate, than the membrane stresses are statically determinate.1

Tube shear stress

The shear force V in the tube cross-section is (fig. 69)

2a

 nxy sin a dy  2 a pu .

v
V
v 0

The largest shear stress in the tube cross-sections is

nxy (u , 1 a ) 2 p u
max  2  .
t t

Expressed in shear force V and cross-section area A it becomes 8

V
max  .
1A
2

Shell calculation of the tube deformation

In this section the deformation of a simply supported tube is calculated using the shell membrane
equations (p. 36). The solutions of nxx , n yy and nxy are substituted in Eq. 4, 5 and 6.

Eq. 7 simplifies to
p
aEt
  v u
u 2  1 l 2  a 2 cos  x from which we solve
4 a x

ux 
aEt 3 
pu 1 2 1 2
4
v
u  l  a 2 cos  C3 .
a

Boundary condition 4 gives C3  0 .

Eq. 9 simplifies to 
4 pu
Et
v pu
  v u
1    sin   2 13 u 2  14 l 2  a 2 sin  y from which we
a a Et a x

solve u y 
p u2
2
a Et 12 2 8 a

1 u 2  1 a 2 (4  3)  1 l 2 sin v  C
4

pl2  5 2 1 2 3 2  v
Boundary condition 2 gives C4   192 l  2 a   a  sin .
a Et 
2 8  a

1 Being statically determinate is a model property. A more advanced model of the same structure can be statically
indetermined.

47
Eq. 8 simplifies to
p
aEt
 4  v p u2 1 2 1 2
 u 2  a 2  1  l 2 cos 
a a3 E t 12
 v
u  a (4  3)  1 l 2 cos 
2 8 a

pl2  5 2 1 2 3 2  v uz
  192 l  2 a   a  cos  from which we solve
a Et 
3 8  a a

  1 u 4  1 a 2 (4u 2  l 2 )(4   )  1 u 2l 2  a 4  5 l 4  cos

p v
uz 
a 2 E t 12 8 8 192 a
The deflection of the middle bottom (u , v)  (0,  a) is important.

pl4  5 4 a2 a4 
u z max     
a E t  192
2 8 l2 l 4 

For long tubes (l  a ) the shell result is the same as the beam result (see beam calculation of a
simply supported tube p. 44). The second term is caused by shear deformation. The last term is
caused by ovalization of the cross-section. For a tube of l  20a the shell result is 5% larger than
the beam result. For a short tube of l  6a the shell result is 90% larger than the beam result.

Bernoulli's hypothesis
Jacob Bernoulli’s hypothesis is: Plane cross-sections remain plane during bending.2 It is the
starting point for deriving section moments in beams, plates and shells. We can test this
hypothesis for tubes using the shell solution.3 The deformation in the x direction is

ux 
aEt 3 
pu 1 2 1 2
4
v
u  l  a 2 cos .
a

This can be written as

ux  C d ,

where C 
2
a Et

pu 1 2 1 2
3
u  l  a 2
4  and d  a cos av .
Factor d is the distance of the considered material point to the neutral axis. It is a function of v.
Please note the difference between  (Poisson’s ratio) and v (curvilinear coordinate). Factor C is
not a function of v and it depends on the considered cross-section. Therefore, u x is linear in d and
Bernoulli’s hypothesis is true for tubular sections despite the presence of shear forces. For tubular
sections it should be called Bernoulli’s theorem.4

2 Jacob Bernoulli (1654-1705) was a professor of mathematics at the University of Basel in Switzerland.

3Note that in this section Bernoulli’s hypothesis is applied to a beam with a thin-wall circular cross-section.
Here, it is not applied to the thin shell wall.
4For other cross-sections Bernoulli’s hypothesis is not true due to shear and torsion deformation.
Fortunately, the linear distribution of normal stresses due to bending – which follows from Bernoulli’s
hypothesis – is true for all cross-sections of slender beams.

48
Shear stiffness
Shear stiffness is defined as

V
GAs  ,


where V is the shear force and  is the shear deformation of a slice of a beam (fig. 69). For the
considered tube we obtain

2a

 nxy sin a dy  2 a pu

v
V
v 0
u y u (u , a )  u x (u ,0) 4 p u (1  )
 (u, 1  a)  x 
x 2 2a Et
V 2 a pu E 1
  2 at  1 GA
 4 pu (1   ) 2(1  ) 2 2
Et
So,

GAs  1 GA .5
2
z z
v
u v
a
nxy u x (u,0)

u y (u, 1 a)
2
u y
x

u x (u, a)

Figure 69. Shear deformation of a tube slice. Bernoulli’s hypothesis (p. 48) has not been used.

Gap
Boundary condition 1 has not been used. Here it is checked if this boundary condition is fulfilled.
The displacement in the radial direction is

t
5 For thick wall tubes the shear stiffness is GAs  ( 1  3 )GA and the largest shear stress is
2 4a

t V
max  (2  ) . This has been derived from finite element analysis using volume elements [17].
a A

49
   1 u 4  1 a 2 (4u 2  l 2 )(4   )  1 u 2l 2  a 4  5 l 4  cos
p v
uz 
a 2 E t 12 8 8 192 a

a 2 p v
At u   1 l this simplifies to u z  cos which is not zero.
2 Et a

Therefore, boundary condition 1 is not fulfilled. There is a gap between the diaphragm and the
shell (fig. 70). To close the gap the shell needs to bend. This deformation is not part of the
membrane equations. To fulfil all boundary conditions the membrane equations need to be
extended with bending (see Sanders-Koiter equations p. 53). The phenomenon of strong bending
close to edges is called edge disturbance (p. 14, p. 65). It is typical for all thin shell structures.

Figure 70. Boundary condition 1 is not fulfilled

Monocoque
The first airplane structures were a frame of wood or steel covered with a skin of cotton fabric. In
1912 a racing plane was built with a skin of three glued layers of wood veneer in total 4 mm thick
(fig. 71). This skin was also the load bearing structure, so a frame was not applied. The French
company that build these planes was founded by Armand Deperdussin.6 The plane was called the
Deperdussin monocoque (Pronounce mo-no-coke without emphasis. Monos is alone in Greek;
coquille is shell in French) [18]. To us it looks like a normal plane but in those days its shape was
different from any other plane, for example, it had one set of main wings instead of two above
each other. The plane won several races and set the world speed record. Ever since, the word
monocoque is used for structures that are fast and derive a large part of their strength from their
skin. Examples are racing cars, rockets and army tanks.

6 Armand Deperdussin (1860–1924) was a French business man [Wikipedia].

50
 Figure 71 Deperdussin monocoque airplane

Literature

17 P.C.J. Hoogenboom, R. Spaan, “Shear Stiffness and Maximum Shear Stress of Round Tubular
Members”, 15th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE-2005), Seoul,
June 19-24, 2005, Vol. 4, pp. 316-319
18 Wikipedia "Deperdussin Monocoque", retrieved 4 June 2013,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deperdussin_Monocoque

51