BENDING MOMENT AND SHEARING FORCE DIAGRAMS 1
1 BENDING MOMENT AND SHEARING FORCE DIAGRAMS 1
1.1 Problem definition
Determinate the support pressures of a beam, which stresses by a line load.
Figure 1: Model by Timoshenko
Figure 2: Rohr2 Model
1.2 References (Timoshenko)
S. Timoshenko, Strength of Material, Part I, Elementary Theory and Problems, 3rd Edition, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1956, Chapter 3.22, pg. 85.
A profile of carbon steel stresses under an triangle- line load. The following parameters are given:
-
Triangle-line Load
-
maximum of the line load
-
Length of the structural section
Where:
Variable |
Description |
Unit |
Used Value |
Support load 0 R1 |
lbf |
48000,00 |
|
Support load 24 R2 |
lbf |
96000,00 |
|
Total length |
ft |
24,00 |
Triangle-line load |
lbf |
500,00 |
Line load 24 R2 |
lbs/ ft |
12000,00 |
|
Sum of support loads |
lbf |
144000,00 |
Table 1: Overview of the used variables
1.3 Model description (ROHR2)
One 24 ft long structural section (I100) is used. A triangle-line load (500 lbs/ ft) is applied. The boundary conditions at both ends are: The left side of the beam, where the line load increases from zero is named 0R1 (My, Mz not transmitted) and the point of maximum stress is named 24R2 (Mx, My, Mz not transmitted). In ROHR2 it is necessary to break down the entire triangle-line load into many parts of constant loads. These loads have to be chosen so that the sum under the load surface is equal to the total line load. Seven different systems were generated for this model. It should illustrate, how the results (support loads) behave, when different discretization are used. In the Load case 1 the gravitational acceleration is not considered.
Figure 4: 8 inch model
Figure 3: 6 inch model
Figure 6: 4 inch model
Figure 5: 3 inch model
Figure 8: 2 inch model
Figure 7: 1 inch model
Figure 10: W [lbf] from the Lc Dead Weight
Figure 9: 0,2 inch model with the support loads FR1, FR2
1.4 Result comparisons
Version |
Value [lbf |
Reference 0 R1 [lbf] |
Rohr2 0 R1 [lbf] |
Difference 0 R1 [%] |
Reference 24 R2 [lbf] |
Rohr2 24 R2 [lbf] |
Difference 24 R2 [%] |
|
48000 |
51266,7 |
<6,81 |
96000 |
93933,4 |
<2,3 |
|
50100,0 |
<4,38 |
95100,1 |
<0,95 |
||||
49266,7 |
<2,64 |
95933,4 |
<0,07 |
||||
48975,0 |
<2,04 |
96225,1 |
<0,24 |
||||
48766,7 |
<1,60 |
96433,4 |
<0,46 |
||||
48641,7 |
<1,34 |
96558,4 |
<0,59 |
||||
48601,7 |
<1,26 |
96598,4 |
<0,63 |
Table 2: Comparison of the support loads with the reference
Version |
Value |
Reference (Timoshenko) [lbf] |
Rohr2 [lbf] |
Difference [%] |
All seven |
144000 |
145200 |
<0,84 |
Table 3: Comparison of the sum of support loads
1.5 Conclusion
The results become more precise with every version. This accounts for the parts, which become smaller. The results approach to an ideally triangle-line load. One other condition which is given in the reference is, that the support load at the two points 0 R1 and 24 R2 reach ordained values (see table 2and table 3 ). It is to remark, that the dimensions, lengths, loads and materials are free selectable, not given by Timoshenko.
Figure 11: force curve by Timoshenko
Figure 12: force curve of 0,2 inch Model
Figure 13: moment curve by Timoshenko
Figure 14: moment curve of 0,2 inch Model
The figures also show, that the course of force- and moment-curve is exactly the same as in the reference.
1.6 Files
R007_inch.r2w
R007_mm.r2w
R2_stresses_7
SIGMA Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH www.rohr2.com