Torsion of Orthotropic Bars With L-Shaped or Cruciform Cross-Section

COMMUNICATIONS IN NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING
Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:149163

Torsion of orthotropic bars with L-shaped or cruciform
cross-section
Y. Z. Chen
,1
and Kang Yong Lee
2
1
Division of Engineering Mechanics, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, Zhenjiang,
Jiangsu, 212013, Peoples Republic of China
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, South Korea
SUMMARY
For an orthotropic torsion bar with L-shaped or cruciform cross-section, the studied torsion problem can
be reduced to a boundary value problem of elliptic partial dierential equation. The studied region is
separated into several rectangular sub-regions, and the series solution is suggested to solve the problem
for the individual sub-region. By using the continuation condition for the functions on the neighbouring
sub-regions, the investigated solution is obtainable. Finally, numerical results for the torsion rigidities
of bars are given to demonstrate the inuence of the degree of orthotropy. Copyright ? 2001 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: orthotropic torsion bar; torsion rigidity
1. INTRODUCTION
With the increasing demand for lighter and stronger aerospace structures, research for the
anisotropic components has attracted considerable attention in recent years. A comprehensive
study of anisotropic elasticity was rst proposed by Lekhnitskii and Savin [1, 2]. On the other
hand, the torsion problem of an anisotropic bar has not been received much attention up to
now.
For an orthotropic torsion bar with L-shaped or cruciform cross-section, the studied torsion
problem can be reduced to a boundary value problem of elliptic partial dierential equation.
The problem is solved by dividing the original region into several rectangular sub-regions,
and assuming undetermined functions along the dividing lines. Furthermore, the Dirichlet
problems for all rectangular sub-regions can be solved, and the undetermined functions can
be determined by requiring the normal derivatives of two functions to be equal to each other
along the dividing lines. The solution so obtained satises all the governing equations of the
boundary value problem. The condition of the continuation of function leads in each case to
solve a linear algebraic equation system. After solving the Dirichlet problem, the calculation
Correspondence to: Y. Z. Chen, Division of Engineering Mechanics, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology,
Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, 212013, Peoples Republic of China
Received 4 January 1999
Copyright
?
2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 18 October 2000
150 Y. Z. CHEN AND K. Y. LEE
of torsion rigidity can be easily deduced. Finally, several numerical examples are given to
show the inuence of the orthotropy to the torsion rigidity.
2. ANALYSIS
In this paper the torsion problem for orthotropic bars with L-shaped or cruciform cross-section
is considered. In the torsion problem of an anisotropic bar, the displacements can be expressed
as
u =:,:, t =:x:, w=:(x, ,) (1)
where : is the twist angle per unit length, and (x, ,) denotes the warping function in the
torsion problem, the :-axis is in the length direction of bar, and the section of bar is on the
x, plane. Furthermore, the relations between the displacements (u, t, w), the strains (
x:
,
,:
)
and the stresses (o
x:
, o
,:
) can be expressed as [1]
x:
=
cw
cx
+
cu
c:
=:
_
, +
c
cx
_
=a
55
o
x:
,:
=
cw
c,
+
ct
c:
=:
_
x +
c
c,
_
=a
44
o
,:
(2)
where a
44
, a
55
are two elastic constants. In the following analysis, we introduce the quantities
j =(a
44
a
55
)
1}2
, [ =
2
=a
44
}a
55
(3)
Herein after, j is called the mean shear modulus of elasticity, and [ is called the degree of
orthotropy.
From (2), the compatible condition for the displacement is obtainable:
c
x:
c,

c
,:
cx
=2: (4)
In the torsion problem, the equilibrium equation can be written in form
co
x:
cx
+
co
,:
c,
=0 (5)
Equation (5) is satised automatically by the following expression:
o
x:
=:j
c
c,
, o
,:
=:j
c
cx
(6)
where (x, ,) denotes the stress function.
By using the compatible condition (4) for displacements, the stress function (x, ,) should
satisfy
2
c
2
cx
2
+
c
2
c,
2
=2
_
=[
1}2
_
(7)
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:149163
TORSION OF ORTHOTROPIC BAR 151
Figure 1. An orthotropic L-shaped torsion bar.
Since the stress component o
n:
should vanish along the boundary L of the torsion bar contour
(Figure 1), this condition will lead to the following boundary condition:
|
L
=0 (8)
where L denotes the boundary of the torsion bar section (Figure 1).
From the moment equilibrium condition, we have
M =
_ _
S
_
o
,:
x o
x:
,
_
dx d, =2:j
_ _
S
(x, ,) dx d, (9)
where M is the moment applied at the ends of bar, and S denotes the section region of bar.
Equation (9) can be rewritten as
M =:jJ, J =2
_ _
S
(x, ,) dx d, (10)
where jJ denotes the torsion rigidity of bar, and J the torsion rigidity coecient of bar.
For the solution of the boundary value problem governed by Equations (7) and (8), it is
convenient to make the following substitution:
(x, ,) =(G(x, ,) ,
2
) (11)
In this case, Equations (7) and (8) are reduced to
2
c
2
G
cx
2
+
c
2
G
c,
2
=0 (12)
G|
L
=,
2
(13)
Equation (12) belongs to an elliptic partial dierential equation (PDE) [3, 4]. In addition, the
torsional rigidity coecient can be expressed by
J =2
_ _
S
_
G(x, ,) ,
2
_
dx d, (14)
3. SOLUTION IN THE CASE OF L-SHAPED CROSS-SECTION
We rst consider the torsion bar with the L-shaped cross-section (Figure 1). The L-shaped
region is divided into three rectangular regions and the function continuation technique is used
to solve the boundary value problem. Similar derivation can be found [5].
In the solution, we can let
G(x, a) = a
2
+ [(x) (06x6a)
G(a, ,) = a, + q(,) (06,6a)
(15)
and dene the following coecients of Fourier series:
[
m
=
2
a
_
a
0
[(x) sin(mx}a) dx, m=1, 2, . . .
q
m
=
2
a
_
a
0
q(,) sin(m,}a) d,, m=1, 2, . . .
(16)
We seek the solution for Equation (12) under the condition (13) in the form of three
functions G
1
(x, ,), G
2
(x, ,) and G
3
(x, ,), which are dened on the regions (06x6a, 06,6a)
(06x6a, a6,6a + c) and (a6x6a + c, 06,6a), respectively. Using the well-known
technique of separation of variables in PDE, the following solutions are obtainable [3, 4]:
G
1
(x, ,) =a, +

n=1
[
n
sinh
_
n,
a
_
sin(nx}a)
sinh(n)
+

n=1
_
q
n
sinh
_
nx
a
_
8a
2
n
(n)
3
sinh
_
n(a x)
a
__
sin(n,}a)
sinh(n})
(06x6a, 06,6a) (17)
G
2
(x, ,) =a
2
+ (2a + c)(, a) +

n=1
[
n
sinh
_
n(a + c ,)
a
_
sin(nx}a)
sinh(nc}a)
n=1
8c
2
n
(n)
3
cosh
_
n(2x a)
2c
_
sin(n(, a)}c)
cosh(na}2c)
(06x6a, a6,6a + c) (18)
G
3
(x, ,) =a, +

n=1
_
q
n
sinh
_
n(a + c x)
a
_
8a
2
n
(n)
3
sinh
_
n(x a)
a
__
sin(n,}a)
sinh(nc}a)
(a6x6a + c, 06,6a) (19)
where
n
=(1 (1)
n
)}2 (20)
From Equations (17)(19), it is easy to see that along the common intermediate boundary
GD in Figure 1 we have G
1
(x, a) =G
2
(x, a) =a
2
+ [(x), (06x6a). Similarly, along the
common intermediate boundary AD, we have G
1
(a, ,) =G
3
(a, ,) =a,+q(,), (06,6a). For
arbitrary given functions [(x) and q(,), from Equations (17), (18) and (19), the functions
G
1
(x, ,), G
2
(x, ,) and G
3
(x, ,) are obtained. These functions satisfy the governing Equation
(12). Generally, the union of the functions G
1
(x, ,), G
2
(x, ,) and G
3
(x, ,) is not a solution
of the Equation (12) on the whole original region. In order that the union of the functions
G
1
(x, ,), G
2
(x, ,) and G
3
(x, ,) be a solution Equation (12) on the whole original region
(L-section), along the common boundaries GD and AD the following continuation conditions
for the three functions G
1
(x, ,), G
2
(x, ,) and G
3
(x, ,) should be satised:
cG
1
c,
=
cG
2
c,
(06x6a, , =a) (21a)
cG
1
cx
=
cG
3
cx
(x =a, 06,6a) (21b)
for the derivation of the function continuation condition shown by Equations (21a) and (21b)
can be referred to the appendix. After substituting Equations (17)(19) into (21) and expand-
ing the both sides of equations into Fourier series, it follows
_
coth(m) + coth
_
mc
a
__
[
m
+
2
n=1
(1)
m+n+1
n
n
2
+ (m)
2
q
n
=
4a(a + c)
m
(m)
2

16a
2
4
S(m)
32c
3
4
a
S
_
mc
a
_
, m=1, 2, . . . (22)
_
coth
_
m
_
+ coth
_
mc
a
__
q
m
+
2
n=1
(1)
m+n+1
n
n
2
+ (m})
2
[
n
=
8a
2
m
(m)
3
_
1
sinh(m})
+
1
sinh(mc}a)
_
, m=1, 2, . . . (23)
where S(t) is a function dened as follows:
S(t) =

k=1, 3
1
k
2
(k
2
+ t
2
)
=
1
t
2
_
2
8

4t
tanh
_
t
2
__
(24)
Finally, by using Equations (14), (17)(19), the torsion rigidity coecient is obtainable:
J =
M
:j
=
a
3
_
a
3
+ a
2
c + c
3
_
32
2

n=1, 3
1
(n)
5
_
a
4
_
tanh
_
n
2
_
+ tanh
_
nc
2a
__
+2c
4
tanh
_
na
2c
__
+ 4a
2

n=1, 3
[
n
(n)
2
_
tanh
_
n
2
_
+ tanh
_
nc
2a
__
+4(a)
2

n=1, 3
q
n
(n)
2
_
tanh
_
n
2
_
+ tanh
_
nc
2a
__
(25)
Table I. The calculated ([, c}a) values (see Figure 1 and Equation (26)).
c}a =0.0 c}a =0.1 c}a =0.2 c}a =0.3 c}a =0.4 c}a =0.5 c}a =0.6 c}a =0.7 c}a =0.8 c}a =0.9
[ =0.2 0.107 0.155 0.210 0.269 0.331 0.395 0.462 0.531 0.602 0.676
[ =0.4 0.128 0.186 0.252 0.321 0.392 0.463 0.535 0.607 0.679 0.751
[ =0.6 0.136 0.198 0.268 0.342 0.416 0.490 0.562 0.634 0.705 0.776
[ =0.8 0.140 0.203 0.275 0.350 0.426 0.500 0.573 0.645 0.715 0.785
[ =1.0 0.141 0.204 0.277 0.352 0.428 0.502 0.575 0.647 0.718 0.787
c}a =1 c}a =2 c}a =3 c}a =4 c}a =5 c}a =6 c}a =7 c}a =8 c}a =9 c}a =10
[ =0.2 0.751 1.571 2.446 3.335 4.229 5.123 6.017 6.912 7.806 8.701
[ =0.4 0.824 1.556 2.293 3.031 3.769 4.506 5.244 5.982 6.720 7.458
[ =0.6 0.846 1.539 2.227 2.916 3.604 4.293 4.982 5.670 6.359 7.047
[ =0.8 0.854 1.530 2.202 2.872 3.543 4.214 4.885 5.556 6.227 6.898
[ =1.0 0.856 1.528 2.195 2.862 3.529 4.195 4.862 5.529 6.196 6.863
In computation, 25 terms are truncated for the coecients [
m
, q
m
in Equations (22), (23)
and (25). Finally, the calculated torsion rigidity coecients are expressed by
J =
M
:j
=([, c}a)a
4
(26)
The calculated ([, c}a) values are shown in Table I. From the calculated results we see that,
in the case of c}a61, the value will become larger if [ is larger. On the contrary, in the
case of c}a2, the value will become smaller if [ is larger.
For the particular case c}a =0, in Equation (25) we make the following substitutions:
c =0 [
n
=0, q
n
=
8a
2
(n)
3
(n =1, 3, . . .) (27)
Therefore, the torsion rigidity coecient J can be easily derived, and it follows
([, 0) =
1
3
[
1}2
64[

n=1, 3
1
(n)
5
tanh
_
n
2[
1}2
_
(28)
In addition, an approximation of the torsion rigidity coecients in the thin-walled section
case can be suggested. In fact, for the vertical portion of region, it is assumed that the function
G(x, ,) depends on the variable x only (Figure 1). Therefore, we can reduce Equation (7)
into
d
2
dx
2
=
2
(for the vertical portion of region in Figure 1) (29)

Similarly, for the horizontal portion of region, it is assumed that the function G(x, ,) depends
on the variable , only (Figure 1). Therefore, we can reduce Equation (7) into
d
2
d,
2
= 2 (for the horizontal portion of region in Figure 1) (30)
Table II. Comparison for the ([, c}a) values in the case of [ =0.6 (see Figure 1 and Equation (26)).
c}a =0.1 c}a =0.2 c}a =0.3 c}a =0.4 c}a =0.5 c}a =0.6 c}a =0.7 c}a =0.8 c}a =0.9 c}a =1
M =5 0.1978 0.2677 0.3408 0.4145 0.4877 0.5602 0.6319 0.7029 0.7734 0.8435
M =15 0.1980 0.2683 0.3418 0.4158 0.4893 0.5620 0.6339 0.7050 0.7756 0.8458
M =25 0.1980 0.2684 0.3420 0.4161 0.4896 0.5623 0.6342 0.7054 0.7760 0.8462
M =35 0.1980 0.2685 0.3420 0.4161 0.4897 0.5624 0.6343 0.7055 0.7761 0.8463
Mthe number of the terms truncated in Equations (22) and (23).

After solving the dierential equation under the relevant boundary condition, nally, the
following equation is suggested:
([, c}a)
1
6
_
1 +
2c
a
_
([
1}2
+ [
1}2
) (for 0.26[61.0 and c}a10) (31)
Since we always have ([
1}2
+ [
1}2
)2, the J value in the orthotropic case is higher than
that in the isotopic case.
For checking the convergence in the series solution, we truncate the terms in Equations
(22) and (23) from M =5, 15, 25 to 35. In the case of [ =0.6 and c}a =0.1, 0.2, . . . , 1, the
comparison results are listed in Table II. From Table II a convergence tendency in computation
has been found.
In order to examine the shear stress distribution on the section, the following analysis is
completed. Under the condition that [ =0.6, c}a =2 and M =65, the continuation condition
for shear stress along the dividing lines are studied numerically. In fact, after obtaining the
Fourier coecients [
m
, q
m
(m=1, 2, . . . , M) from the algebraic equations (22) and (23), the
functions G
1
(x, ,), G
2
(x, ,), G
3
(x, ,) are obtainable by using Equations (17), (18) and (19),
respectively. Furthermore, the shear stresses o
x:
, o
,:
can be evaluated by using Equations (6)
and (11). Along the dividing line GD (Figure 1), the calculated results are expressed by
o
x:
=:ja[
1()
(x}a) (calculated from region 1)
o
x:
=:ja[
1(+)
o
,:
=:jaq
1()
o
,:
=:jaq
1(+)
(32)
where the subscript () ( or (+)) means that the relevant results are calculated form the
region 1 (or 2), respectively. The calculated [
1()
(x}a), [
1(+)
(x}a), q
1()
(x}a), q
1(+)
(x}a)
values are listed in Table III. From Table III we see that q
1()
(x}a) =q
1(+)
(x}a) on the interval
(06x}a61). Thus, the continuation of the stress component o
,:
along the line GD is veried
(Figure 1). However, [
1()
(x}a) = [
1(+)
(x}a) in general. This is to say the stress component
o
x:
is not continuous along the line GD. This point can be explained by the following analysis.
In fact, from Equations (6) and (11), we have
o
x:
=:j
_
cG
c,
2,
_
, o
,:
= :j
cG
cx
(33)
Table III. The calculated [
1()
[
1(+)
q
1()
q
1(+)
values along the line GD (see Figure 1 and Equation (32)).
x}a =0.0 x}a =0.1 x}a =0.2 x}a =0.3 x}a =0.4 x}a =0.5 x}a =0.6 x}a =0.7 x}a =0.8 x}a =0.9 x}a =1.0
[
1()
0.005 0.021 0.024 0.024 0.032 0.018 0.031 0.084 0.149 0.338 3.182
[
1(+)
0.010 0.008 0.028 0.038 0.023 0.005 0.012 0.070 0.191 0.348 0.010
q
1()
1.256 1.002 0.753 0.535 0.076 0.315 0.076 0.149 0.360 0.640 3.879
q
1(+)
1.256 1.002 0.753 0.535 0.076 0.315 0.076 0.149 0.360 0.640 3.879
In addition, in the derivation of Equations (22) and (23), we use the following condition:
_
a
0
_
cG
1
c,
,=a
cG
2
c,
,=a
_
sin
_
mx
a
_
dx =0, (m=1, 2, . . . , M) (34)
It is seen that, the condition (21a) is only satised in a integration form, and the continu-
ation condition of the stress component o
x:
along the line GD cannot be satised exactly.
The happened discrepancy may be studied from the following view points. Except for some
simple cases in which a closed form solution is obtainable, all the numerical solutions have
some errors. They may happen in: (1) the governing equation of elasticity (2) the boundary
condition. In the present case, the continuation condition for the stress component o
x:
along
the dividing line GD is not satised exactly. However, in most case the mentioned deviation
is rather small, for example, from Table II we see that
[
1(+)
(0.4) [
1()
(0.4) = 0.009, [
1(+)
(0.9) [
1()
(0.9) = 0.010 (35)
In fact, in the middle portion of the arm of L-section, the normalized stress o
x:
}(:ja) =0.752
(see Table VI).
Similarly along the dividing line AD (Figure 1), the calculated results are expressed by
o
x:
=:ja[
2()
(,}a) (calculated from region 1)
o
x:
=:ja[
2(+)
o
,:
=:jaq
2()
o
,:
=:jaq
2(+)
(36)
where the subscript () (or (+)) means that the relevant results are calculated form the
region 1 (or 3), respectively. The calculated [
2()
(,}a), [
2(+)
(,}a), q
2()
(,}a), q
2(+)
(,}a)
values are listed in Table IV. From Table IV we see that [
2()
(,}a) =[
2(+)
(,}a) on the
interval (06,}a61). Thus, the continuation of the stress component o
x:
along the line AD
is veried (Figure 1). However, q
2()
(,}a) =q
2(+)
(,}a) in general. This is to say the stress
component o
,:
is not continuous along the line AD. As before, the mentioned violation can
be explained in the similar way.
From Tables III and IV, we nd the following results for the shear stress at the corner
point D:
o
x:, D2
}(j:a) =0.010 o
x:, D1
}(j:a) = 3.182 o
x:, D3
}(j:a) = 3.182
o
,:, D2
}(j:a) =3.879 o
,:, D1
}(j:a) =3.879 o
,:, D3
}(j:a) =0
(37)
Table IV. The calculated [
2()
[
2(+)
q
2()
q
2(+)
values along the line AD (see Figure 1 and Equation (36)).
x}a =0.0 x}a =0.1 x}a =0.2 x}a =0.3 x}a =0.4 x}a =0.5 x}a =0.6 x}a =0.7 x}a =0.8 x}a =0.9 x}a =1.0
[
2()
0.880 0.717 0.558 0.414 0.262 0.089 0.077 0.238 0.461 0.829 3.182
[
2(+)
0.880 0.717 0.558 0.414 0.262 0.089 0.077 0.238 0.461 0.829 3.182
q
2()
0.000 0.011 0.045 0.078 0.095 0.136 0.214 0.290 0.372 0.604 3.879
q
2(+)
0.000 0.029 0.039 0.060 0.108 0.154 0.190 0.273 0.427 0.617 0.000
where the subscript, for example, D2 means the stress is obtained at the point D of region
2 (Figure 1). From the present results for stress at the corner point D, we see that as if
there has some discrepancy. In fact, from general analysis of notch problem we may study
the stress eld at the vicinity of the corner point D and obtain
o
x:
=Cr
z
h
1
(0), o
,:
=Cr
z
h
2
(0) (38)
where C is the stress singularity coecient, z(0z1) is the eigenvalue in the studied
notch problem, h
1
(0) and h
2
(0) are the angular distribution function. Clearly, form boundary
condition we have
o
x:
|
0=}2
=0 (39a)
o
,:
|
0=2
=0 (39b)
Obviously, the above mentioned conditions are satised approximately or exactly, referred to
o
x:, D2
}(j:a) =0.010 and o
,:, D3
}(j:a) =0 in Equation (37). From above analysis we see that,
it is not strange to obtain the result shown by Equation (37).
A discrepancy for the stress eld is actually existing. In fact, the real shear stress is innite
when the moving point is approaching to the corner point D, and all the calculated stress
components is nite in the present study. This point may be investigated by a particular
analysis. However, since the torsional rigidity is determined by the function G(x, ,), and the
function G(x, ,) can be evaluated with sucient accuracy by using present method, thus, we
can get the torsion rigidity with higher accuracy.
A possibility for studying the shear stresses is to evaluate the stress in the arm portions of
section (regions 2 and 3). The calculated shear stress o
,:
in the region 2 (Figure 1) may be
expressed in form
o
,:
=:jaF((, a)}c, x}a) (40)
The calculated results are listed in Table V. In the long-arm case of the L-section (ac), from
Equation (29) and the boundary conditions we can get o
,:
}(:ja)= (1})= 1.291 (o
,:
}(:ja)
= (1}) =1.291) for the left-edge point (the right-edge point), respectively. For comparison,
the calculated values at the position (, a)}c =0.4 are 1.239 (1.245) respectively. This
can partly prove the validity of the present study. From Table V we see that the stress o
,:
vanishes at the position (, a)}c =1. Thus, the boundary condition is exactly satised.
Similarly, the shear stress o
x:
in the region 3 (Figure 1) may be expressed in form
o
x:
=:jaG((x a)}c, ,}a) (41)
Table V. The calculated F((, a)}c, x}a) values on region 2 (see Figure 1 and Equation (40)).
(, a)}c x}a =0.0 x}a =0.1 x}a =0.2 x}a =0.3 x}a =0.4 x}a =0.5 x}a =0.6 x}a =0.7 x}a =0.8 x}a =0.9 x}a =1.0
0.2 1.273 1.017 0.756 0.517 0.269 0.019 0.236 0.501 0.775 1.053 1.321
0.4 1.139 0.984 0.734 0.488 0.245 0.003 0.240 0.486 0.736 0.989 1.245
0.6 1.144 0.983 0.656 0.431 0.214 0.000 0.141 0.430 0.656 0.894 1.144
0.8 0.890 0.654 0.458 0.291 0.141 0.000 0.141 0.291 0.458 0.654 0.890
1.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
The calculated results are listed in Table VI. In the long-arm case of section (ac), from
Equation (30) and the boundary conditions we can get o
x:
}(:ja) = =0.775(o
x:
}(:ja) = =
0.775)) for the lower edge point (the upper edge point), respectively. For comparison, the
calculated values at the position (xa)}c =0.4 are 0.777 (0.777) respectively. This can partly
prove the validity of the present study. From Table VI we see that the stress o
,:
becomes
a rather small value at the position (x a)}c =1. Thus, the boundary condition is satised
pretty well.
4. SOLUTION IN THE CASE OF CRUCIFORM CROSS-SECTION
Secondly, we consider the torsion bar with the cruciform-shaped cross-section (Figure 2).
Clearly, the problem can be solved in a similar way as in the above-mentioned example.
In the following analysis, we let
G(x, a) =G(x, a) =a
2
+ [(x), (a6x6a)
G(a, ,) =G(a, ,) =a
2
+ q(,), (a6,6a)
(42)
and dene the following coecients of Fourier series:
[
m
=
1
a
_
a
a
[(x) sin(m(x + a)}2a) dx, m=1, 2, . . .
q
m
=
1
a
_
a
a
q(,) sin(m(, + a)}2a) d,, m=1, 2, . . .
(43)
Since there exists a symmetric condition in the boundary condition, the properties G(x, ,) =
G(x, ,) and G(x, ,) =q(x, ,) hold. Thus, we seek the solution for Equation (12) under
the condition (13) in the form of three functions G
1
(x, ,), G
2
(x, ,) and G
3
(x, ,), which are
dened on the regions (a6x6a, a6,6a), (a6x6a, a6,6a + c) and (a6x6a +
c, a6,6a), respectively. Using the well-known technique of separation of variables in
PDE, the following solutions can be deduced [3, 4]:
G
1
(x, ,) =a
2
+

n=1
[
n
cosh
_
n,
2a
_
sin(n(x + a)}2a)
cosh(n}2)
+

n=1
q
n
cosh
_
nx
2a
_
sin(n(, + a)}2a)
cosh(n}2)
(a6x6a, a6,6a) (44)
Table VI. The calculated G((x a)}c, ,}a) values on region 3 (see Figure 1 and Equation (41)).
(x a)}c ,}a =0.0 ,}a =0.1 ,}a =0.2 ,}a =0.3 ,}a =0.4 ,}a =0.5 ,}a =0.6 ,}a =0.7 ,}a =0.8 ,}a =0.9 ,}a =1.0
0.2 0.805 0.649 0.492 0.332 0.170 0.006 0.160 0.328 0.495 0.659 0.818
0.4 0.777 0.622 0.467 0.311 0.156 0.000 0.156 0.311 0.467 0.622 0.777
0.6 0.752 0.598 0.446 0.296 0.148 0.000 0.148 0.296 0.446 0.598 0.752
0.8 0.650 0.502 0.365 0.238 0.117 0.000 0.117 0.238 0.365 0.502 0.650
1.0 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005
Figure 2. An orthotropic cruciform-shaped torsion bar.
G
2
(x, ,) =a
2
+ (2a + c)(, a) +

n=1
[
n
sinh
_
n(a + c ,)
2a
_
sin(n(x + a)}2a)
sinh(nc}2a)
n=1
8c
2
n
(n)
3
cosh
_
nx
c
_
sin(n(, a)}c)
cosh(na}c)
(a6x6a, a6,6a + c) (45)
G
3
(x, ,) =a
2
+

n=1
_
q
n
sinh
_
n(a + c x)
2a
_
32a
2
n
(n)
3
sinh
_
n(x a)
2a
__
sin(n(, + a)}2a)
sinh(nc}2a)
(a6x6a + c, a6,6a) (46)
From the continuation condition along the common boundaries for the three functions G
1
(x, ,),
G
2
(x, ,) and G
3
(x, ,), we have (see the appendix)
cG
1
c,
=
cG
2
c,
(a6x6a, , =a)
cG
1
cx
=
cG
3
cx
(x =a, a6,6a)
(47)
Table VII. The calculated q([, c}2a) values (see Figure 2 and Equation (51)).
c}2a =0.0 c}2a =0.1 c}2a =0.2 c}2a =0.3 c}2a =0.4 c}2a =0.5 c}2a =0.6 c}2a =0.7 c}2a =0.8 c}2a =0.9
[ =0.2 0.107 0.216 0.356 0.514 0.682 0.858 1.040 1.225 1.413 1.603
[ =0.4 0.128 0.258 0.427 0.613 0.802 0.989 1.171 1.349 1.522 1.690
[ =0.6 0.136 0.276 0.456 0.653 0.849 1.039 1.219 1.391 1.556 1.714
[ =0.8 0.140 0.282 0.468 0.668 0.868 1.058 1.238 1.407 1.568 1.722
[ =1.0 0.141 0.284 0.470 0.672 0.872 1.063 1.242 1.411 1.571 1.724
c}2a =1 c}2a =2 c}2a =3 c}2a =4 c}2a =5 c}2a =6 c}2a =7 c}2a =8 c}2a =9 c}2a =10
[ =0.2 1.793 3.670 5.488 7.284 9.075 10.864 12.653 14.442 16.231 18.020
[ =0.4 1.855 3.400 4.886 6.363 7.839 9.315 10.790 12.266 13.742 15.218
[ =0.6 1.868 3.295 4.676 6.053 7.430 8.807 10.185 11.562 12.939 14.316
[ =0.8 1.871 3.254 4.598 5.940 7.281 8.623 9.965 11.307 12.648 13.990
[ =1.0 1.872 3.244 4.579 5.913 7.246 8.580 9.913 11.247 12.580 13.914
After substituting Equations (44)(46) into Equation (47) and expanding the both sides of
equations into Fourier series, it follows
_
tanh
_
m
2
_
+ coth
_
mc
2a
__
[
m
+
4
m
n=1
(1)
n
n
n
2
+ (m)
2
q
n
=
8a(2a + c)
m
(m)
2

16c
3
4
a
S
_
mc
2a
_
m=1, 2, . . . (48)
_
tanh
_
m
2
_
+ coth
_
mc
2a
__
q
m
+
4
m
n=1
(1)
n
n
n
2
+ (m})
2
[
n
=
32a
2
m
(m)
3
1
sh(mc}2a)
m=1, 2, . . . (49)
Finally, by using Equations (14), (44)(46), the torsion rigidity coecient is obtainable:
J =
4a
3
_
4a
3
+ 4a
2
c + c
3
_
128
2

n=1, 3
1
(n)
5
_
8a
4
tanh
_
nc
4a
_
+ c
4
tanh
_
na
c
__
+32a
2

n=1, 3
[
n
(n)
2
_
tanh
_
n
2
_
+ tanh
_
nc
4a
__
+ 32(a)
2

n=1, 3
q
n
(n)
2
_
tanh
_
n
2
_
+ tanh
_
nc
4a
__
(50)
In computation, 25 terms are truncated for the coecients [
m
, q
m
in Equations (48)(50).
As before, the calculated torsion rigidity coecients are expressed by
J =
M
:j
=q([, c}2a)(2a)
4
(51)
The calculated q([, c}2a) values are shown in Table VII. From the calculated results, similar
tendency for the [ dependence as in the previous example is found.
5. REMARKS
Physically, the function continuation technique proposed in the present study is one type of
the nite element method. However, in our case the number of the nite elements gener-
ally is very small, for example, only ve elements are used in the second example. On the
contrary, the number of used unknowns for one element generally is comparatively large,
for example, 50 unknowns are used to model the investigated solution for one element. It
has been proven that this technique is a powerful tool to solve the boundary value problem
of the elliptic partial dierential equation, if the region is composed of several rectangular
sub-regions.
APPENDIX
Derivation of the function continuation condition
In the above-mentioned analysis, we have proposed the following equation and boundary
condition
2
c
2
G
cx
2
+
c
2
G
c,
2
=0 (0) (A1)
G|
L
1
+L
2
=

G (A2)
where

G is a given function at the boundary L
1
+ L
2
of the region S =S
1
+ S
2
(Figure A1).
In addition, the following functional may be dened:
I =
1
2
_ _
S
_
2
_
cG
cx
_
2
+
_
cG
c,
_
2
_
dx d, (A3)
Obviously, the Euler equation for the functional has been shown by Equation (A1).
In order to get the continuation condition for two functions dened in two neighbouring
regions, two boundary value problems are dened below. One of them is as follows
2
c
2
G
1
cx
2
+
c
2
G
1
c,
2
=0 ((x, ,) S
1
) (A4)
G|
L
1
=

G, G|
L
c
=[(s) (A5)
Figure A1. Regions for evaluating the function continuation condition: L
1
arc ABC;
L
2
arc CDA; L
c
arc CEA; L
d
arc AEC.
where the contours L
1
, L
c
has indicated in Figure A1, and [(s) is a function given on L
c
.
Meantime, the other will be
2
c
2
G
2
cx
2
+
c
2
G
2
c,
2
=0 ((x, ,) S
2
) (A6)
G|
L
2
=

G, G|
L
c
=[(s) (A7)
where the contours L
2
, L
c
has indicated in Figure A1, and [(s) is a function given on L
c
.
Generally, if [(s) is an arbitrary function, the union of the function G
1
(x, ,), (x, ,) S
1
and
G
2
(x, ,), (x, ,) S
2
is not the same as the function G(x, ,), (x, ,) S, which is obtained from
Equations (A1) and (A2). Below, the continuation condition for two functions G
1
(x, ,) and
G
2
(x, ,) will be introduced.
For the problem composed of Equations (A4) and (A5), we dene a functional
I
1
=
1
2
_ _
S
1
_
2
_
cG
1
cx
_
2
+
_
cG
1
c,
_
2
_
dx d, (A8)
Clearly, the rst variation of I
1
with respect to G
1
will be
oI
1
=
_
L
1
+L
c
oG
1
_
2
cG
1
cx
d,
cG
1
c,
dx
_
_ _
S
1
oG
1
_
2
c
2
G
1
cx
2
c
2
G
1
c,
2
_
dx d, (A9)
Since the function G
1
(x, ,) is not subject to vary on the boundary portion L
1
(Figure A1).
Thus, oI
1
can be rewritten as
oI
1
=
_
L
c
oG
1
_
2
cG
1
cx
d,
cG
1
c,
dx
_
_ _
S
1
oG
1
_
2
c
2
G
1
cx
2
+
c
2
G
1
c,
2
_
dx d, (A10)
Similarly, for the problem composed of Equations (A6), (A7), we can dene a functional
I
2
=
1
2
_ _
S
2
_
2
_
cG
2
cx
_
2
+
_
cG
2
c,
_
2
_
dx d, (A11)
As in the previous case, we have
oI
2
=
_
L
d
oG
2
_
2
cG
2
cx
d,
cG
2
c,
dx
_
_ _
S
2
oG
2
_
2
c
2
G
2
cx
2
+
c
2
G
2
c,
2
_
dx d, (A12)
Since we make the same variation for the function [(s) dened along the adjacent boundary
L
c
or L
d
, thus, one may rewrite oG=oG
1
=oG
2
along the boundary L
c
or L
d
. Secondly, the
integration path L
d
has an opposite direction with respect to the path L
c
. Finally, we have
o(I
1
+ I
2
) =
_
L
c
oG
__
2
cG
1
cx
d,
ds

cG
1
c,
dx
ds
_
2
cG
2
cx
d,
ds

cG
2
c,
dx
ds
__
ds
_ _
S
1
oG
1
_
2
c
2
G
1
cx
2
+
c
2
G
1
c,
2
_
dx d,
_ _
S
2
oG
2
_
2
c
2
G
2
cx
2
+
c
2
G
2
c,
2
_
dx d,
(A13)
After letting o(I
1
+ I
2
) =0, we have
2
c
2
G
1
cx
2
+
c
2
G
1
c,
2
=0 (A14a)
and
2
c
2
G
2
cx
2
+
c
2
G
2
c,
2
=0 (A14b)
2
cG
1
cx
d,
ds

cG
1
c,
dx
ds
=
2
cG
2
cx
d,
ds

cG
2
c,
dx
ds
(along the inner boundary L
c
) (A15)
Clearly, Equations (A14a) and (A14b) is governing equation for the original problem. In
addition, Equation (A15) is the function continuation condition investigated.
Particularly, if the inner boundary is in a vertical position (dx}ds =0), Equation (A15) is
reduced to
cG
1
cx
=
cG
2
cx
c
) (A16)
Also, if the inner boundary is in a horizontal position (d,}ds =0), Equation (A15) is reduced
to
cG
1
c,
=
cG
2
c,
c
) (A17)
REFERENCES
1. Lekhnitskii SG. Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic Elastic Body. Holden Day: San Francisko, 1963.
2. Savin SN. Stress Concentration Around Holes. Pergamon: New York, 1969.
3. Budak BY et al. A Collection of Problems on Mathematical Physics. Pergamon: Oxford, 1964.
4. Hildebrand FB. Advanced Calculus for Applications. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey, 1976.
5. Chen YZ. Solutions of torsion crack problems of a rectangular bar by harmonic function continuation technique.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 1981; 13:193212.

Torsion of Orthotropic Bars With L-Shaped or Cruciform Cross-Section

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Torsion of Orthotropic Bars With L-Shaped or Cruciform Cross-Section

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

COMMUNICATIONS IN NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:149163

(for the vertical portion of region in Figure 1) (29)

Mthe number of the terms truncated in Equations (22) and (23).

Вам также может понравиться