Scribd
Upload
47 views13 pages

Buckling and Dynamic Analysis

This document describes methods for deriving the critical buckling load of beam columns using finite element analysis. It discusses: 1) Developing the stiffness and geometric stiffness matrices for beam elements and applying them in a buckling analysis using Castigliano's theorem. 2) Performing nonlinear buckling analyses for different end conditions like fixed-fixed, pinned-pinned, and pinned-fixed columns. 3) Using alternative methods like Galerkin's approach to satisfy boundary conditions and obtain more accurate critical buckling loads compared to assuming end curvature.

Uploaded by

Prashant Thapa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views13 pages

Buckling and Dynamic Analysis

This document describes methods for deriving the critical buckling load of beam columns using finite element analysis. It discusses: 1) Developing the stiffness and geometric stiffness matrices for beam elements and applying them in a buckling analysis using Castigliano's theorem. 2) Performing nonlinear buckling analyses for different end conditions like fixed-fixed, pinned-pinned, and pinned-fixed columns. 3) Using alternative methods like Galerkin's approach to satisfy boundary conditions and obtain more accurate critical buckling loads compared to assuming end curvature.

Uploaded by

Prashant Thapa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 13

Pcr

Derivation of non linear Analysis of beam column buckling in FEM

To Derive that Fictitious force

We already know, that F

1 L
U *  Mx 2 dx
2
2 EI 0
L
EI
U  y  d2y
,,
dx Mx  EI 2
2 0 dx
and work done by critical force and work done by critical force

W  Pcr 
where ,   difference of geometrical Length during buckling

If considered small element as shown in figure

=dx

2
 dy  1 1
 dx    dy 
2 2
d   1    dx  1  y ,2  .... 1  y ,2
 dx  2 2
L L
 1  1
  L    1  y ,2 dx   y ,2 dx
0
2  0
2
L
P
W  cr y
,2
dx
2 0

Shape function relation

 y1 
 
f ( y,  )  N1 y1  N 21  N 3 y2  N 4 2   N1 N2 N3 N 4   1   N .d
 y2 
 
 2 

then use of shape function lead


L 2 L
EI Pcr 1 L T P
  d .N "T EI N " d  dx  cr d T .N 'T N '  d  dx
L
 U  W  dx  y dx   
,, ,2
y
2 0
2 0
2 0 2 0

Applying Castigliano’s theorem

then use of shape function lead


 L L
F   .N "T EIN " dxd  Pcr  .N 'T N ' dxd  K s d  Pcr .K G d  0
d 0 0

K s  Stiffness matrix of beam element


K G  Geometric Stiffness matrix of beam element

where,
L

N
''T
EI .N '' dx  K s.known as flexural stiffness matrix due to bending and
Where , 0

N .Ndx  K G  stiffness matrix due to Geometric  nonlinearity


'T

Finally we Get

K s  P.K G  0 put P  

K s   .K G  0
K s  .K G  0
Two end fixed buckling approach of column using nonlinear Analysis by FEM

The nonlinear analysis should be performed as curvature during buckling is not linear .

As both ends fixed the boundary condition will lead vanish the stiffness matrix as Null matrix.

So create symmetry to find actual critical force . as seen symmetry in column we get 3 BC vanish.

, EI
Recalling the problem for fixed- fixed beam

We may write

K s  Pcr .K G  0

, EI
After applying BC

We get

96 EI Pcr 72

L3 30 L
40 EI
Pcr  2
L

Comparing with Euler’s formula

 2 EI 39.478EI
Pcr    Pcr ( FEM )
0.52 L2 L2

L
Or you could check , if sliding supported beam of Length 2

Comparing with Euler’s formula

 2 EI 39.478EI
Pcr    P C  S cr ( FEM ) Here,
0.52 L2 L2
C  S s tan ds for clamped  sliding
so, both condition are proved

The

Case 2 Pinned –Pinned column buckling


Adopt same logic to develope Ks and Kg as in fixed

To use ,

, EI

After applying BC

We get

K s  Pcr .K G  0 see Math – CAD format here , below


9.94 EI 9.94EI
PcrFEM  
L2 L2

Comparing with Euler’s formula

 2 EI 9.87EI
Pcr  2   Pcr ( FEM )
L L2

Note : Use of symmetry will give nearer result as the curvature will be not be assumed by FEM process
if we take BC at top of the column . try it by giving you should get the vale as 15. 51 EI/ L 2
Alternative method , we use

Galerkin’s approach for take such initial shape function which will satisfy fixed boundary condition , i.e

v1  0, M 1  0 at bottom \
v2  0, M 2  0 at top \

 x x3 x 4 
y( x )  a1 ( x)  a1   2 3  4   Where a1 Galerkin ' s weighted residual cons tan t
L L L 
 x x3 x 4 
 ( x)    2 3  4  differentiating .....
L L L 
1 x 2 4 x3 
y ' ( x)  a1  2  6 3  4 
L L L 
 x 12 x 2 
y '' ( x)  a1  12 3  4 
 L L 

As stated by Galerkin,

 R ( x)dx  0, where R  EIy  Pcr y


''

0 here y- is transverse displacement of buckling of beam

  EIy  Pcr y   ( x)dx  0


''

0
Same results

Case 3 Pinned – fixed

If you will not consider curvature giving top and bottom BC considering b scheme between 2
then,

EI Pcr 30 EI
4  4 L  Pcr  2 high fluctuation in result
L 30 L
as curvature has not been considered .
Remembering the maximum deflection occurs the place take the considered length and do
same process, Solve it by using Galerkin method or Ritz ,

You might also like