0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 017 стр.Jun 22, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 0

© All Rights Reserved

- Tensile Modulus - Modulus of Elasticity or Young's Modulus - For Some Common Materials
- Calculating Ejection Forces
- Chap 5
- Unevenly Spaced Grid
- Cee 253 Notess
- 1-Lab1 (+++)
- ansys
- i So Graded Otho
- FEA for Composite to Steel
- Ia p2 Materials Examples Paper 2
- able of Content.docx
- Force
- 1p2-2013-14-materials-examples-paper-2.pdf
- Slab Bridge
- Hybrid_and_enhanced_strain_elements.pdf
- Lec 1
- Material_Modelling.pdf
- Rotational Motion
- Mecânica do dano
- ajeassp.2015.748.766

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

of Rectangular Cross-Section Prismatic Bars

by Finite Difference Method

Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering

College of Engineering, University of the Philippines

ABSTRACT

In this paper, the formulation of the torsion problem of rectangular cross-section prismatic bars

by the Saint-Venant’s approach is presented. The resulting problem is in the form a partial

differential equation, i.e., the Laplace equation and subjected to Neumann boundary conditions.

An analytical method of solution by Fourier series developed by Danao and Cabrera (2007) is

presented to serve as reference for verification of the numerical solution. The finite difference

method (FDM) developed in Cabrera (2014) is then presented and applied in solving the same

torsion problem. The torsion stress distribution obtained by analytical and FDM solutions are

then presented in graphical form. Using the value of the maximum torsional stress per twisting

moment, the FDM solution is then verified using the results from the literature: the analytical

solution by Danao and Cabrera (2007), the power-fit model by Danao and Cabrera (2007), and

the power-fit model by Timoshenko and Goodier (1970).

1 Introduction

The general theory of torsion is very well established in literature and remains a classic in the

field of solid mechanics and elasticity. Most often, problems concerning torsion, particularly

that of prismatic bars, have great variety of engineering applications which range from analyz-

ing stresses to designing of machine members and structures. Mostly, established solutions to

torsion problems are for most cases given analytically. Only in some applications where difficul-

ties in obtaining exact solutions may arise, numerical methods of solutions are sought. These

difficulties are often a result of complexities in geometry or perhaps, the boundary conditions of

the governing partial differential equation of the machine member or structure being analyzed.

The most common of torsion problems encountered in engineering is that of circular-section

bars. Only less familiar are those of triangular, elliptical, and rectangular sections. Among

1

these geometries, analysis of rectangular-section bars is the most involved and is the main con-

cern of this study. Although already well established in literature, for instance the classic text

by Goodier and Timoshenko (1970), it still remains a subject of interest for research.

Generally, in torsion problems, two methods of approaches are known: (a) the approach

first introduced by Saint-Venant which uses displacement components and associated warping

function; and (b) the approach first introduced by Prandtl which uses the concept of membrane

analogy and associated stress function. These approaches lead to solving torsion problems in

the form of partial differential equations of either Laplace- or Poisson- type. In particular,

Saint-Venant’s approach yields Laplace’s equation while Prandtl’s approach yields Poisson’s

equation. In other words, torsion problems are generally boundary value problems (BVPs)

which can be solved either analytically or numerically.

For classical torsion problems, the material from which the prismatic bars are made of is as-

sumed to be, at the macroscopic level, homogeneous and isotropic. However, the resulting PDE

obtained from using either the Saint-Venant’s or Prandtl’s approach for torsion of rectangular

prismatic bars made of inhomogenous and orthotropic materials cannot simply be categorized

as either Laplace- or Prandtl- type, respectively. Although it can still be classified as a linear

PDE. The most recent work concerning torsion of rectangular prismatic bars made of inho-

mogenous and orthotropic materials are those by Xu et al. (2010) and Cabrera (2014). In their

work, they modeled the torsion problem for prismatic bars made of materials called functionally

graded materials (FGMs).

FGMs are a type of material whose composition and micro-structure vary smoothly in

space according to a predefined law. They are particularly interesting to study because they

exhibit inhomogeneous and, in many cases, anisotropic properties (Horgan, 2007; Koizumi,

1998; Vel, 2010). According to Birman and Byrd (2007), most FGMs are usually particulate-

type and are associated with particulate composites wherein the volume fraction of particles

varies in one or several directions. This variation of volume fraction gives FGMs an advantage

over laminated composites because it eliminates stress discontinuities and delamination-related

problems (Asemi, et al., 2013). In particular, because of the ability of FGMs to be tailored in

such a way that the transition from one material to another is in a piecewise smooth fashion,

the abrupt changes in inter-laminar stress experienced by laminated composites can be reduced

considerably. Such materials are found to have very high reliability and applications in various

fields of engineering such as aerospace, biomechanical, and biomaterials engineering. Besides

being inhomogeneous, FGMs are also orthotropic, making them amenable to orthotropic beam

vapor deposition processes. Other methods of manufacturing FGMs which have been employed

to give the gradient composition and structure are (Koizumi, 1998): powder metallurgy and

self-propagating combustion synthesis (SHS). This orthotropic behavior plus their inherent

inhomogeneity nature would endow FGMs more advantages, such as tailor-fit capabilities, over

conventional materials (e.g., metals) and laminated composites.

2 Methodology

2.1 Research Flow

The research methodology used in this study is shown schematically in Fig. 1 and outlined

here in this particular section. It should be observed in this figure, the research begins with

abstracting the reality of interest, i.e., machine or structural members (which can be compo-

nents of an engineering system) in torsion, and then proceeds with developing the conceptual

and mathematical models of the reality of interest.

2

Figure 1: The research flow chart of this study. This figure shows the flow of

development of the computational model from physical and mathematical modeling.

It also shows the process of verification of computational model.

3

The focus of this section are as follows: (a) developing the mathematical model (i.e., the

classical torsion BVP); (b) presenting the analytical solution developed in (Danao and Cabrera,

2007); and (c) presenting the numerical solution (i.e., the finite difference solution) developed

by Cabrera (2014).

In this section, the governing partial differential equation (PDE) of the classical torsion problem

is presented. Consider now an arbitrary section of a prismatic bar subjected to twisting moments

M. The configuration is such that the cross-section lies in the xy- plane while the length of

the bar is in the z- direction. The bar length must be considerably larger than cross-sectional

dimensions such that torsional edge effects can be neglected, i.e., the actual distribution of

stresses over the ends of the bar has no appreciable influence on the distribution in portions

of the bar sufficiently far removed from the ends (Sokolnikoff, 1956). Because of this, the

stresses at the ends of the bar can be freely prescribed as long as the resultant forces and

twisting moments will be the same as those given in the problem. Due to these coupled twisting

moments, a rotation per unit length θ about the center of twist of the problem domain Ω is

produced. Here, this torsion problem domain is denoted as Ω = Ω(x, y) to mean it is Cartesian,

in order to distinguish it from for curvilinear coordinate systems. The boundary of this domain

is denoted as Γ, whose perimeter is denoted as s. Figure 2 shows an arbitrary section of a

prismatic bar when it is subjected to coupled twisting moments M at both ends.

P goes to P ∗ when a coupled twisting moment M is applied; the angle of twist at

certain cross-section (lying in the xy- plane) is θz, where θ is the angle of twist per

unit length.

These twisting moments cause a point P to be displaced to some point P ∗ with both points

are in Ω. This displacement components ui = ui (x, y, z), for (i = x, y, z), in the (x, y, z)-

Cartesian coordinate system are as follows (Mindlin, 1975; Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970;

Sokolnikoff, 1956; Srinath, 2003):

uy = uy (x, y, z) = θxz (1b)

uz = uz (x, y, z) = θψ(x, y) (1c)

4

where ux and uy are known as in-plane displacements, while uz is known as the out-of-plane

displacement, or warping of cross-section. Hence, ψ = ψ(x, y) is called the warping function,

which is independent on z. This assumption follows Saint-Venant’s hypothesis, i.e., the cross-

sections are free to warp in the z- direction but the warping is same for all cross-sections over

the entire length of the bar.

Now, aside from the linear assumption of stresses and strains used here, the strains are also

assumed to be linear, i.e., infinitesimally small; hence, they should have the following form (Lai

et al., 1996; Landau and Lifshitz, 1986; Mase and Mase, 1999; Sokolnikoff, 1956; Srinath, 2003;

Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970; Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2005):

1 ∂ui ∂uj

εij = + for (i, j = x, y, z) (2)

2 ∂xj ∂xi

wherein by substituting the displacements given by Eqs. (1a) to (1c) into the strain- displace-

ment Eq. (2), the following nonvanishing strains are obtained, while noting that γij ≡ 2εij (for

i 6= j):

∂ψ

γzx = γzx (x, y) = θ −y (3a)

∂x

∂ψ

γzy = γzy (x, y) = θ x + (3b)

∂y

where it should be noted that the strains are symmetric, i.e. γzx = γxz and γzy = γyz . Also,

the vanishing strains are as follows: εxx = εyy = εzz = 0 (normal strains) and γyx = γxy = 0

(shear strains).

The above derivation of elastic strains can be found particularly in the text on mechanics

of solids by Srinath (2003) and is only presented here to make this document self-contained

(although, the derivation of the geometric part in obtaining the displacement components is

not shown here anymore). The above equations of strains are independent of the kind of

materials concerned, i.e., whether conventional (e.g., metals) or FGMs, as long as they are

linearly elastic. That is because the method used above is that of Saint-Venant which makes

a priori assumptions of the forms displacements and then substituting them into the strain-

displacement equations without considering yet stress-strain relations. It should be noted that

the above equations of strains are applicable to any cross-section but here, only the rectangular

cross-section is being considered.

Using the constitutive equations (i.e., Hooke’s law of linear elasticity), the non-vanishing

shear stresses τzx and τzy , corresponding to the non-vanishing strains are obtained as follows:

∂ψ

τzx = τzx (x, y) = Gzx θ −y (4a)

∂x

∂ψ

τzy = τzy (x, y) = Gzy θ x + (4b)

∂y

where Gzx and Gzy are the orthotropic material moduli of rigidity, which are generally inho-

mogeneous, or in other words, functions of the cross-sectional coordinates (x, y), i.e., Gzx =

Gzx (x, y) and Gzy = Gzy (x, y). However, for homogeneous and isotropic materials such as

metals, and other most commonly-used materials (except composites), these material moduli

5

have a singular, uniform value equal to Go , i.e., Gzx = Gzy = Go . In this paper, only those

materials with homogeneous and isotropic modulus of rigidity Go , are being considered.

where the stresses τzx and τzy are components of the total or resultant torsion stress τ = τ (x, y)

which can be calculated as follows:

q

2 + τ2

τ = τ (x, y) = τzx (5)

zy

It should be noted that the stress components are expressed in terms of the warping function.

This means that in order to calculate for the stresses (or collectively, the resultant stress τ =

τ (x, y)), the warping function has to be found first. It can be done by substituting the stress

equations into some equilibrium equations of elastostatics which must be satisfied by the stresses

in the domain and at the boundaries, and then solving the resulting boundary value problem,

i.e., the torsion BVP, to obtain the warping function. After which, the values of the warping

function are substituted back into the equations for the resultant stress to obtain its values

at any point in the domain Ω. The equilibrium equations for the stress components in the

problem domain Ω and on the boundary Γ are given by (Lai et al., 1996; Landau and Lifshitz,

1986; Mase and Mase, 1999; Sokolnikoff, 1956; Srinath, 2003; Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970;

Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2005) as follows:

∂τzx ∂τzy

+ = 0 in Ω(x, y) (6a)

∂x ∂y

τzx nx + τzy ny = 0 on Γ (6b)

where Eq. (6a) is the condition inside the problem domain Ω while Eq. (6b) is the condition

at the boundary Γ, wherein nx and ny are direction cosines in the x- and y- axes respectively.

If the stress components satisfy the equations of equilibrium both in the domain and at the

boundary Γ, then the problem is well-posed.

Another condition that must be satisfied by the stress components particularly at the ends

of the bar is the prescribed twisting moment M. For an infinitesimal area dA = dxdy ∈ Ω, the

infinitesimal twisting moment prescribed at each infinitesimal area is given by

which when integrated over the entire domain Ω whose area is A, yields a global form of the

prescribed twisting moment M, i.e.,

ZZ

M= (τzy x − τzx y) dA (7)

Ω

and when combined to the equation for resultant torsion stress τ (x, y), i.e., Eq. (5) (while

noting the forms of its components), constitutes the desired form: i.e., the stress per unit

twisting moment τ (x, y)/M.

Finally, to obtain the governing PDE for the classical torsion of rectangular prismatic bars,

the stress components τzx and τzy given by Eqs. (4a) and (4b) respectively, must be substituted

into the equilibrium equation in Ω given by Eq. (6a), which yields:

∂2ψ ∂2ψ

+ = 0, in Ω (8)

∂x2 ∂y 2

6

Figure 3: Problem domain of a rectangular bar in torsion. The half-length dimen-

sions in the x- and y- directions are denoted as a and b respectively; hence, the

domain Ω = {(x, y)| − a < x < a, −b < y < b} if the origin is set at (0, 0) of the

Cartesian coordinate system.

where the problem domain is defined by Ω = {(x, y)|0 < x < 2a, −b < y < b} (as shown in Fig.

3).

whereas if the same stress components are substituted into the equilibrium equation at the

boundaries (given by Eq. (6b)), the following boundary conditions (BCs) are obtained:

∂ψ

= y, on (x = −a, −b ≤ y ≤ b) [Left BC] (9a)

∂x

∂ψ

= y, on (x = a, −b ≤ y ≤ b) [Right BC] (9b)

∂x

∂ψ

= −x, on (−a ≤ x ≤ a, y = −b) [Bottom BC] (9c)

∂y

∂ψ

= −x, on (−a ≤ x ≤ a, y = b) [Top BC] (9d)

∂y

The governing PDE given by Eq. (8) and its corresponding BCs given by Eqs. (9a) → (9c)

now completes the classical torsion boundary-value problem (BVP) for rectangular prismatic

bars made of isotropic and homogeneous material with modulus of rigidity Go .

It should be noted that the analytical solution to the torsion PDE given by Eq. (8) with BCs

given by Eqs. (9a) → (9c) is only possible for simple geometry (i.e., rectangle) and simple

BCs. For more complicated problems, a numerical approach is a much better choice. The

analytical solution presented herein would serve as reference for computational verification of

the numerical solution by finite difference method (FDM) presented in the next sub-section.

To begin with the analytical solution, a new function, say ϕ = ϕ(x, y) is introduced such that

(Srinath, 2003):

7

ψ(x, y) = xy − ϕ(x, y) (10)

for which when substituted into the governing PDE given by Eq. (8), yields

∂2ϕ ∂2ϕ

+ = 0, in Ω (11)

∂x2 ∂y 2

Also, when the same relation (Eq. (10)) is substituted into the BCs given by Eqs. (9a) → (9c),

a new set of BCs are obtained as follows:

∂ψ

= 0, on (x = −a, −b ≤ y ≤ b) [Left BC] (12a)

∂x

∂ψ

= 0, on (x = a, −b ≤ y ≤ b) [Right BC] (12b)

∂x

∂ψ

= 2x, on (−a ≤ x ≤ a, y = −b) [Bottom BC] (12c)

∂y

∂ψ

= 2x, on (−a ≤ x ≤ a, y = b) [Top BC] (12d)

∂y

Applying these BCs into Eq. (11), the form of ϕ(x, y) is found to be:

∞

X

ϕ(x, y) = cn sin (κn x) sinh (κn y) (13)

n=0

where κn has the form

(2n + 1)π

κn = , ∀n (14)

2a

while the Fourier coefficients cn , ∀n, can be computed as follows (Zill, 1989):

Ra

2 x sin (κn x)dx

cn = R−a

a (15)

κn cosh (κn b) −a sin2 (κn x)dx

and performing operations yields:

32a2 (−1)n

cn = (16)

π 3 (2n + 1)3 cosh (κn b)

And then, by substituting Eqs. (13) and (16) into (10) yields the form of the warping

function which is the analytical solution of the torsion BVP being considered here:

∞

32a2 X (−1)n sin (κn x) sinh (κn y)

ψ(x, y) = xy − (17)

π3 (2n + 1)3 cosh (κn b)

n=0

and by substituting Eq. (17) into Eqs. (4a) and (4b) yields the following analytical form of the

stress components τzx and τzy :

∞

−16Go θa X (−1)n cos (κn x) sinh (κn y)

τzx (x, y) = (18a)

π2 (2n + 1)2 cosh (κn b)

n=0

∞

16Go θa X (−1)n sin (κn x) cosh (κn y)

τzy (x, y) = 2Go θx − (18b)

π2 (2n + 1)2 cosh (κn b)

n=0

8

and by substituting these stress components into Eq. (7), yields the expression of the twisting

moment M:

∞

( " X #)

1 192 a πb tanh (κn b)

M = Go θ(2a)3 (2b) 1 − 5 tanh + (19)

3 π b 2a (2n + 1)5

n=1

It is significant to recall that in order to calculate for the torsion stress τ = τ (x, y) and twisting

moment M, the classical torsion BVP, consisting of governing PDE (Eq. (8)) subjected to

boundary conditions given by Eqs. (9a) → (9d), will have to be solved first. Meaning, the

warping function ψ = ψ(x, y) should be calculated first, and then substituted back to the

equations for stress and moment to obtain τ /M. Here, it is proposed that the torsion BVP will

be numerically solved by the finite difference method (FDM) of solution. The finite difference

equations developed here are based on the Taylor’s theorem presented in Appendix A. Below

is a list of the computational procedure in calculating the approximate values of the warping

function using the proposed FDM solution:

1. First, discretize the rectangular section by letting the size of each subdivision in the x- and

y- axes be denoted as ∆x = h and ∆y = k, respectively. This will create grid such as that

shown in Fig. 4 wherein the intersection between gridlines are called nodes; in particular,

the nodes inside the domain are called interior nodes while those at the boundaries are

called boundary nodes.

2. Then, number the nodes as follows: Let i be used to denote the nodes in the x- axis

starting from left to right numbered as i = 1, 2, 3, ..., M + 1 where M is the number

of subdivisions; whereas, let j be used to denote the nodes in the y- axis starting from

bottom to top numbered as j = 1, 2, 3, ..., N + 1 where N is the number of subdivisions.

In other words, the size of the matrix of ψi,j is (M + 1) by (N + 1), which means that

the sizes of the subdivisions are as follows:

xM +1 − x1

h= (20a)

M

yN +1 − y1

k= (20b)

N

3. Next, replace the partial derivatives in the governing PDE given by Eq. (8) using some

differencing schemes. Since this PDE consists of both first-order and second-order deriva-

tives, then appropriate schemes shall be used to replace the first-order ones and second-

order ones. These differencing schemes are found in most standard text on computational

PDEs but those found in text by Li and Chen Li and Chen (2009) are used here. For the

first-order derivatives, the forward-differencing scheme is used as follows:

∂ψ ψi+1,j − ψi,j

= (21a)

∂x h

∂ψ ψi,j+1 − ψi,j

= (21b)

∂y k

9

Figure 4: The FDM model of rectangle-section bar in torsion. The nodes are

numbered from i = 1, 2, 3, ..., M + 1 and j = 1, 2, 3, ..., N + 1, where M and N are

the number of subdivisions along the x- and y- axes.

10

while for the second-order derivatives, the centered- differencing scheme is used as follows:

2

= (22a)

∂x h2

2

∂ ψ ψi,j−1 − 2ψi,j + ψi,j+1

2

= (22b)

∂y k2

And consequently, when these differencing schemes are substituted back to the governing

PDE given by Eq. (8).

4. Next, replace the partial derivatives of the boundary conditions Eqs. (9a) → (9d) by

their finite difference equivalent to calculate for the values of warping function at the

boundary nodes. Since the BCs are first-order derivatives, they will be replaced by the

forward-differencing scheme to be consistent with those at the interior nodes.

The computational procedures for both the analytical and approximate (FDM) solutions of the

conventional torsion problem are implemented in Matlab. Here, the quantity of interest is

stress per unit moment τ (x, y)/M or denoted by τ̄ (x, y) for brevity. For illustrative purpose,

only two aspect ratios (b/a) of the rectangle dimensions are considered. If the rectangle domain

is denoted as Ω = {(x, y)| − a < x < a, −b < y < b} for b ≥ a, then an aspect ratio of

b/a = 1 represents a square section while b/a = 1.5 (which was subjectively chosen) represents

a rectangle section.

From the results of classical torsion of rectangle sections from other studies (e.g. Danao

and Cabrera (2007)) and in most standard texts on classical elasticity (e.g. Timoshenko and

Goodier (1970)), it is expected that the maximum torsion stress is located at mid-wide sides

((x = ±a, y = 0)) of the rectangle cross-section. For the square section, b = a, it is expected to

be at that the middle of any side.

Indeed, for a square section, the maximum stress is located at the middle of any the sides,

whether the simulation is from the exact or approximate (FDM) solution. Although at first

glance, the stress distribution obtained from the exact solution looks almost exactly the same as

that obtained by the FDM solution, but by clear inspection, there are subtle differences between

the two solutions especially the precise value of τ̄max and its location within the domain Ω. In

particular, its average value at any side is about 0.6 for the numerical solution; however, for

the exact solution, its value at the mid- left (or right) side is slightly lesser than at the mid-

top (or bottom) side but the average value among the four sides is still about 0.6, which is the

same as the exact solution.

4 Conclusions

References

1. Arghavan, S., and Hematiyan, M. Torsion of functionally graded hollow tubes. European

Journal of Mechanics A/Solids, vol. 28 (2009), 551-559.

11

Figure 5: Distribution of stress τ̄ (x, y) in a square section (b/a = 1) over the

domain Ω under conventional torsion: Exact solution by Danao and Cabrera (2007)

versus FDM solution by Cabrera (2014).

Figure 6: Distribution of stress τ̄ (x, y) in a rectangle section (b/a = 1.5) over the

domain Ω under conventional torsion: Exact solution by Danao and Cabrera (2007)

versus FDM solution by Cabrera (2014).

12

Figure 7: Comparison of τ̄ (x, y) along the x- axis between exact and FDM solutions

of conventional torsion of a square-section evaluated at either x = −a (left) or x = a

(right) side of the square. The exact solution is denoted by the red solid line while

the FDM solution is denoted by the blue broken lines.

13

Figure 8: Convergence and comparative tests for the FDM solution of τ̄max in a

square section (b/a = 1.0) under conventional torsion. The value of τ̄max from the

present study is compared with the results of Danao and Cabrera (2007), for both

exact and power-fit solutions, as well as with the classic result of Timoshenko and

Goodier (1970).

14

2. Asemi, K., Salehi, M., and Akhlaghi, M. Three dimensional static analysis of two dimen-

sional functionally graded plates. International Journal of Recent advances in Mechanical

Engineering (IJMECH), vol. 2: no. 2 (2013), 21-32.

3. Birman, V., and Byrd, L. Modeling and analysis of functionally graded materials and

structures. ASME: Applied Mechanics Review, vol. 60 (2007), 195-216.

4. Bressan, J., and Unfer, R. Construction and validation tests of a torsion test machine.

Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 179 (2006), 23-29.

5. Danao, L., and Cabrera, R. Torsion of a rectangular prismatic bar: Solution using a power

fit model. Philippine Engineering Journal, vol. 28: no. 1 (2007), 77-98.

6. Ecsedi, I. Elliptic cross section without warping under torsion. Mechanics Research Com-

munications, vol. 31 (2004), 147-150.

7. Horgan, C. On the torsion of functionally graded anisotropic linearly elastic bars. IMA

Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 72: no. 5 (2007), 556-562.

8. Koizumi, M. FGM activities in Japan. Composites Part B, vol. 28B (1998), 1-4.

9. Lai, W., Rubin, D., and Krempel, E. Introduction to Continuum Mechanics, (3rd edition).

Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., 1996.

10. Landau, L., and Lifshitz, E. Course of Theoretical Physics, Volume 7: Theory of Elasticity,

(3rd edition). Pergamon Books Ltd., 1986.

11. Mase, G., and Mase, G. Continuum Mechanics for Engineers, (2nd edition). CRC Press,

1999.

12. Miyamoto, Y., Kaysser, W., Rabin, B., Kawasaki, A., and Ford, R. Functionally Graded

Materials: Design, Processing, and Applications, (Materials Technology Series). Kluwer

Academic Publishers, 1999.

13. Rooney, F., and Ferrari, M. Torsion and flexure of inhomogeneous elements. Composites

Engineering, vol. 5: no. 7 (1995), 901-911.

14. Sokolnikoff, I. Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, (2nd edition). McGraw-Hill Co., 1956.

16. Tarn, J., and Chang, H. Torsion of cylindrically orthotropic elastic circular bars with

radial inhomogeneity: some exact solutions and end effects. International Journal of

Solids and Structures, vol. 45 (2008), 303-319.

17. Timoshenko, S., and Goodier, J. Theory of Elasticity, (3rd edition). McGraw- Hill, 1970.

18. Tveito, A., and Winther, R. Introduction to Partial Differential Equations: A Computa-

tional Approach. Springer-Verlag Berling Heidelberg, 2005.

19. Vel, S. Exact elasticity solution for the vibration of functionally graded anisotropic cylin-

drical shells. Composite Structures, vol. 92 (2010), 2712-2727.

20. Xu, R., He, J., and Chen, W. Saint-Venant torsion of orthotropic bars with in- homoge-

neous rectangular cross section. Composite Structures, vol. 92 (2010), 1449- 1457.

15

21. Zienkiewicz, O., and Taylor, R. The Finite Element Method for Solid and Structural

Mechanics, (6th edition). Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005.

Here, the Taylor’s theorem is presented using notations which are consistent with the main body

of this document. For example, since the function of interest in this study is the torsion warping

function ψ = ψ(x, y), then it will be used to represent the function f = f (x, y) normally used

in textbooks to discuss the theorem. Also, the range of values in the x- and y- axes corresponds

to the set of values of in the torsion problem domain Ω, i.e. Ω[(−a < x < a), (−b < y < b)],

where a and b are half-length dimensions of the rectangular bar. Now, to establish the theorem,

consider first writing the function ψ in terms of x only, i.e. ψ = ψ(x), where the interval[−a, a]

are the lower and upper bounds in x, respectively. Then let x0 , a number within this interval,

be the pivot point. According to the Taylor’s theorem, for every x ∈ [−a, a], there exists a

number ξ between x0 and x such that

where

n

X (x − x0 )m dm

Pn (x) = ψ(x0 ) (24)

m! dxm

m=0

(x − x0 )n+1 dn+1

Rn (x) = ψ(ξ) (25)

(n + 1)! dxn+1

where Pn (x) is called the Taylor polynomial for m = 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., n, while Rn (x) is the remainder

or truncated error term associated with Pn (x). It should be noted that the spacing in the x-

axis is ∆x = x − x0 .

Suppose now that the interval [−a, a] in x is divided by some positive integer M such that

equally spaced subintervals are obtained with each spacing denoted by h = ∆x. This generates

M +1 points over the entire interval wherein each point is denoted by xi for i = 1, 2, 3, ..., M +1.

Hence, for a point xi+1 about the pivot point xi , there exists a number ξi+ ∈ [xi , xi+1 ] such that

n

X (xi+1 − xi )m dm (xi+1 − xi )n+1 dn+1

ψ(xi+1 ) = ψ(x i ) + ψ(ξi+ ) (26)

m! dxm (n + 1)! dxn+1

m=0

n

X hm dm hn+1 dn+1

ψ(xi+1 ) = ψ(xi ) + ψ(ξi+ ) (27)

m! dxm (n + 1)! dxn+1

m=0

Similarly, for a point xi−1 about xi , there exists a number ξi− ∈ [xi−1 , xi ] such that

n

X (xi−1 − xi )m dm (xi−1 − xi )n+1 dn+1

ψ(xi−1 ) = ψ(x i ) + ψ(ξi− )

m! dxm (n + 1)! dxn+1

m=0

16

n

X (−h)m dm (−h)n+1 dn+1

ψ(xi−1 ) = ψ(x i ) + ψ(ξi− ) (28)

m! dxm (n + 1)! dxn+1

m=0

When the spacing in x over the interval [−a, a] is very small, i.e., h → 0, the numbers

ξi+∈ [xi , xi+1 ] and ξi− ∈ [xi−1 , xi ] become indistinguishable, and can be taken as equal; hence,

can be denoted for both functions ψ(xi+1 ) and ψ(xi−1 ) as ξi ∈ [xi−1 , xi+1 ]. Hence, the above

equations ψ(xi+1 ) and ψ(xi−1 ) become

n

X (±h)m dm (±h)n+1 dn+1

ψi±1 = ψ(xi±1 ) = ψ(x i ) + ψ(ξi ) (29)

m! dxm (n + 1)! dxn+1

m=0

The above difference equations for the single-variable function ψ(x) can be easily extended

to two-variables ψ = ψ(x, y) in Ω = {(x, y)| − a < x < a, −b < y < b}. Without having to

perform the detailed derivation, the results are presented here as follows:

n

X (±h)m ∂ m (±h)n+1 ∂ n+1

ψi±1,j = ψ(xi±1 , yj ) = ψ(x i , yj ) + ψ(ξi , yj ) (30a)

m! ∂xm (n + 1)! ∂xn+1

m=0

n

X (±k)m ∂ m (±k)n+1 ∂ n+1

ψi,j±1 = ψ(xi , yj±1 ) = ψ(xi , yj ) + f (xi , ηj ) (30b)

m! ∂y m (n + 1)! ∂y n+1

m=0

where ξi ∈ [xi−1 , xi+1 ] and ηj ∈ [yj−1 , yj+1 ]. These difference equations are used to develop the

finite difference model adopted in this study.

17

- Tensile Modulus - Modulus of Elasticity or Young's Modulus - For Some Common MaterialsЗагружено:Juliano Reis Pereira
- Calculating Ejection ForcesЗагружено:Trexa Gyreue
- Chap 5Загружено:Vesna Nedeljkovic
- Unevenly Spaced GridЗагружено:Ogugua Onyejekwe
- Cee 253 NotessЗагружено:Pasha Tan
- 1-Lab1 (+++)Загружено:Pangestu Wibisono
- ansysЗагружено:nanduslns07
- i So Graded OthoЗагружено:sidyant
- FEA for Composite to SteelЗагружено:ramnadh803181
- Ia p2 Materials Examples Paper 2Загружено:Adriana Bracamonte
- able of Content.docxЗагружено:Boutlikht
- ForceЗагружено:sunsonarun3964
- 1p2-2013-14-materials-examples-paper-2.pdfЗагружено:Balaji Arumugam
- Slab BridgeЗагружено:Harry Milano
- Hybrid_and_enhanced_strain_elements.pdfЗагружено:Sadiq Sarfaraz
- Lec 1Загружено:Erich Lim
- Material_Modelling.pdfЗагружено:Mohinuddin Ahmed
- Rotational MotionЗагружено:Gaviola 018
- Mecânica do danoЗагружено:Emanuel Carvalho
- ajeassp.2015.748.766Загружено:Kashif Alam
- Som FormulasЗагружено:Anil Netha
- Materials Science_R. S. Khurmi and R. S. Sedha.pdfЗагружено:murali_330
- Pile Cap Design Calculations With CSI SAFEЗагружено:Miguel J.
- 4x7.1x8.5 Box CulvertЗагружено:Rudra Sharma
- Combat Helmets DevelopmentЗагружено:afolabi oluwadara
- slab thickness calculation with AGPAЗагружено:Mohammad Iqbal
- 47_161Загружено:Carlos Alfredo Llanos Ramirez
- BO2alHy133bA.pdfЗагружено:Black Goku
- o1988Загружено:Kamel Fedaoui
- PVP2012-78020 Comparison of Strain Rate Calculation Methods for ENV FatigueЗагружено:Otso Cronvall

- (Certex) Wire Rope - General InfoЗагружено:rossonero_pirlo21
- fbdЗагружено:Vijay Gorfad
- 4th Sem Progress ReportЗагружено:Prathiksha Rao
- Evaluation of Reactive Ion Etching Processes for Fabrication of GaAs Algaas DevicesЗагружено:Masoud Murad
- 1991_New Result on Relative Gain Array, Niederlinski Index and Decentralized Stability Condition 2 × 2 Plant CasesЗагружено:Katherine Pérez
- Introduction_to_surfactants.pptЗагружено:Aldyan Anshari
- QP1661 - Ranhill Water TechЗагружено:Noranazifah Mohd Rosli
- Quaternion Zernike MomentsЗагружено:Saasi
- T5000 Passive Terahertz Imaging System - Space Science Sees Through CriminalsЗагружено:Z106
- 2016-Chadefaux, Rao, Le Carrou, Berton, Vigouroux-JSS (1)Загружено:Matthieu Becquart
- Contact PressureЗагружено:Prantik Adhar Samanta
- CBSE X WS Physics Magnetic.effects.of.ElectricityЗагружено:kaushik247
- Kinematic Analysis and Comparison of Wheeled Locomotion Performance.pdfЗагружено:alok
- SR195Загружено:Reinhart85
- AAyob2007-Optimum Autorettage Pressure in ThickЗагружено:Hemesh Ace
- control de temperaturaЗагружено:vidal
- Theory.txtЗагружено:Dasaka Brahmendra
- Chapter 10Загружено:Beatriz Antunes
- Sugeno Integral Based On Some InequalitiesЗагружено:IOSRjournal
- Lock Cowboy Guides (Merged)Загружено:Holly Holm Champ
- Adam Christopulos Thesis (BRB Reference-BRB04)Загружено:Anant Parghi
- Tekla Structures Modeling GuideЗагружено:Param
- The Determination of Optimum Completion and Production Conditions for Sand-Free Oil ProductionЗагружено:Farisyah Melladia Utami
- 54410Загружено:Nguyễn Đức Thuận
- Interview James Session 1, 2 & 3 Apr 2008Загружено:Jedidah
- Toshiba Detector FDX 4343R EnЗагружено:Jose Quisca
- EFEITO ARCO.pdfЗагружено:Gustavo Vilela
- C373.21240Загружено:Milena Rodriguez
- Butvar_FP_Technical_BulletinЗагружено:satya123jit
- Chapter 4 Linear Impulse and MomentumЗагружено:胡宇晟

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.