Old fashioned techniques
Time for a little light relief….
One of the biggest problems that I had when I was at
university, second only to the occasional Tyrannosaurus Rex wandering past the
window, was knowing what was important and what was just included because it filled
the lecturers’ spare time.
If you are at university and trying to get a degree, then
concentrate on what your lecturers and supervisors tell you, because it will be
hard to get a decent job if you do not get a decent degree. One way to look at
it is that even if what they are teaching you is totally irrelevant, it is
still giving your mind a good workout.
If you are interested in being a practical engineer,
however, then most of what you were
taught is totally irrelevant, what is more important is understanding what is
going on with whatever you are analysing. It is asking the right questions, and
being able to understand what the answer will be before the computer spits it
out, that tells you how you are getting on.
There are a lot of ideas in university courses that may have
been used early last century but which are now not used with the widespread
availability of structural analysis software. That does not, however, make them
useless, it just means that they can be useful in other more indirect ways.
Influence lines
I always got confused by influence lines at University
(another one of my recurring themes ...). In my defence, this was possibly
because the influence line for bending on a simply supported beam is very
similar to the bending moment diagrams that result from applying point loads on
the same beam. It is also drawn in the opposite direction which might have been
a help or a hindrance to my poor overloaded mind. As usual, let us go back to
the absolute basic definition.
An influence line for an effect is a plot of how much of a
particular effect there is, at a point under consideration on a structure, from
applying a unit point load anywhere on that structure.
…. but what does this actually mean ? The clue is in the
term “Influence”. The plot shows how much influence a unit load (or action for
those whippersnappers who like Eurocodes) anywhere
on the structure has on an effect (such as bending moment, shear or reaction) at a particular point on the
structure.
Fundamental: I cannot stress this enough but an influence line
is a plot of how much effect a
series of unit loads applied individually across the entire structure has at one point only.
The effect of applying a point load of x kN to a part of the
structure that has a value of y on the influence line for bending at a
particular location is to create a moment of x,y kNm at that location.
Similarly, applying a UDL over a specific length would result in a bending
moment equal to the relevant area under the graph multiplied by UDL. These are
demonstrated in Figure 25
below.
p.s. sorry about the sign conventions but influence lines
are usually drawn up for some reason – go figure
|
Aside: although it is not a standard, by any means, I usually
teach my grads to differentiate between bending moment diagrams and influence
line diagrams by the addition of a simple vertical line at the point under
consideration, with a cryptic notation like IL BM.
The family of influence lines for bending moment on a simply
supported beam are a bit boring, if you are working with generally uniform
loads, as can be seen from Figure 26
below. Adding a load anywhere on the span will increase the bending moment at all
points on the span.
Duh, (says you) because the programme told me so – obvious
innit ?
Aside: the experienced engineer is either a) rolling his eyes at
you and making patronising noises about the yoof of today (and how they were
lucky to live in a cardboard box, and eat gravel three meals a day) or b)
preparing to slap you on the back of the head or c) sobbing quietly in a
corner.
This is actually where these simple line diagrams can help
you to be an engineer rather than a panderer to some electronic black box.
Moving the train in either direction will affect the result and this can help
you to visualise what is going on.
On the midspan case, the slopes on either side have the same
gradient, ignoring a little thing like signs (or sines – mathematical humour is
an acquired taste). Moving the axles to the right would move the first two
axles up as much as the second two axles would move downwards, the effect is
therefore neutral. The first smaller axle would move down (and the second, and
irrelevant small axle would drop off) reducing the overall effect. Moving the
axles to the left would move the first three axles (total 600 kN) down and the
second three axles (total 500 kN) up. Moving the full set to the left would
therefore also cause a reduction. Since moving either left or right causes a
reduction, then the current position is a maximum.
On the three-quarter span case, the slope to the left is
three times as steep (no poor excuses for a joke this time). Moving the loads
to the right would drop 900 kN down the gentle slope, but would move 200 kN up
a slope three times steeper: this would reduce the effect overall. Moving to
the left would move 700 kN up the gentle slope but drop 600 kN down the steep
slope. Again, any movement causes a drop and we are at a maximum.
Since the effect of a load at a point is equal to that load
multiplied by the local height of the influence line, maximising the overall
height of the loads on the influence line will maximise the effect and allows
you to directly visualise what effect any decision on positioning your load
will have.
Aside: there is a well-known special case for maximising moment
on a simply supported beam when there are two equal point loads. If the loads
are positioned anywhere astride mid span then moving the pair left or right
would move one load up and one load down, in equal amounts. Hence the
positioning of the load is not critical for moment at mid span. But mid span is
not actually the critical position for the beam. The height of the influence
line at one quarter of the axle spacing away from mid span is only slightly
lower than the one at mid span. If the axles are then set with one axle on the
peak and the other one three quarters of the spacing the other side of mid span, then the moment at the peak will be
slightly higher than the moment at mid span.
The family of influence lines for shear are more
interesting. I have highlighted the influence line for quarter span, by shading it in a tasteful mauve,
but the influence line at any point is simply drawn by following the lower
diagonal line from the left hand end down to the relevant location, going
vertically up to meet the upper diagonal line, and then following the upper
line down to the right hand end. Unlike the bending moment influence line, the
line for shear runs both above and below the line, so for any point, except at
the supports, applying load over the full span would include mainly adverse loading,
but also some relieving load. Hence to maximise shear at a point, the load
should only be applied up to that point and no further: you can maximise shear
and calculate coincident moment, or vice versa, but you cannot have a load case
that maximises shear and bending at the same time.
And that is where influence lines are so useful: they allow
you to intelligently target your load cases to achieve the maximum effect. Of
course, if you actually want to use them for doing calculations then that works
too.
Text books, like the Steel Designer’s Manual, include
influence lines for a number of standard cases, and these can be very illuminating
as a guide. Unfortunately the continuous bridge cases are all for equal spans,
and it is almost unknown to have a bridge with equal spans. This would result
in sagging moments under full length UDL that are over three times higher in
the side spans than in the middle of the main span. Normally, the side spans
will be around 80% of the main span to minimise that effect, making the
standard diagrams useful as a guide, but useless for actual calculation.
Influence lines can be very useful as a short cut for
spreadsheet calcs on simply supported beams. But if you want to calculate
influence lines for something more interesting then there are two methods that
can be used, one of which is very simple but labour intensive, and the other is
technically more challenging but only involves one operation.
The influence line plotted here is for bending at 28% of the
span (and why not ?). Forget the jumble, just concentrate on, say, the lovely
purple set, with the load on the right hand side. The aim of the influence line
is to see how much effect (influence) this has at the relevant point and to
then plot the result at the place where the load is applied. Hence the value
that is plotted at the right hand side is the point where the (solid purple)
bending moment diagram cross the black chain dotted line. The purple dotted
line runs horizontally back to where the load is applied to show the point on
the influence line at the load. This is repeated in a tasteful selection of
colours another 6 times, to give a spread of results. There are also another
two load cases being inferred, with zero moment when the unit loads are applied
to the supports.
The actual influence line, shown in solid thick red, just
joins up the dots and in this case forms a pair of straight lines.
The method can then be repeated for shear forces and for
reactions. A very simple method, that can be applied to any form of structure,
but a very time consuming one which cannot avoid a lot of calculation.
I will cheat
massively and skimp on the calculations for method 1. Consider the simplest
influence line diagram, i.e. for bending moment at mid span of a simply
supported beam of length L. If we apply a unit load at the end of the beam,
i.e. to a support, then there is no moment at mid span, so the influence line
at the end is zero. If we apply the unit load at quarter span then the moment
at mid span is L/8, and applying it at mid span moment causes a moment of L/4.
Plotting these out, and mirror imaging about the centre, gives a triangular
influence line peaking at L/4 at mid span.BUT WHY DO THINGS THE HARD WAY ??
Method 2, which can either be done accurately, or just used to sketch out general
behaviour, only involves one operation for each effect at each point. I can
never remember what the name of the particular theory is, but the method
involves modelling a distortion of a particular type at the relevant location
and then plotting out the deflected shape. I will say this now, and probably
say it again later, but the important thing to remember is that it always
involved plotting deflections and does not have anything to do with plotting
out bending moments, shear forces or reactions.
Fundamental: there is one little wrinkle that you need to get
your head around before you try this method, and that is that most computer
analysis uses something called small deflection theory, runs counter to common
sense. Imagine that you are rotating the end of a rigid beam, which is fixed to
a wall at the other end with a hinge, through a very small angle: it will cause
a small vertical deflection at the end but will not cause any deflection
sideways. Now common sense tells us that if we apply a large rotation to the hinged
end of the beam, not only will we get a large vertical deflection, we will also
get a small horizontal deflection as the tip starts to swing around. But in the
computer analysis if you apply 100 times as much load you will get 100 times
the small deflection, since it is a linear analysis. But with no horizontal
deflection under a small load, 100 times no deflection is still no deflection.
This is, of course totally fascinating, but what does it mean in practice? That
is where Figure 30
comes in.
Let us imagine that we have a straight member, of length L, that
is horizontal. If we rotate one end of the member by 0.5 radians then we know
that the other end will move down by L.sin(0.5 radians) and move sideways by L.*[1-cos(0.5
radians)]. But under small deflection theory, the above situation would be 100
times a rotation of 0.005 radians. Since 1 - cos(0.005 radians) is as near as
dammit to zero then under small
deflection theory a rotation of 0.5 radians will give a horizontal deflection of
100 x (as near as dammit to zero) = zero. But the vertical deflection will be 100
x L.sin(0.005 radians), or 0.5.L.
And so on to Method 2 (starting with the influence line for
bending moments) ….
Method 2 involves applying a 1 radian distortion at the point
under consideration so it forms a shallow inverted Vee. This is where we have
to remember the small deflection theory and not worry that the tips of the vee
would sweep inwards, and imagine that they just move downwards and are still a
distance L apart. The next stage is to fit the structure to the supports since
we know that the deflection will be zero at the supports. There is only one way
that it can fit, and that is to form a shallow vee dropping from mid span to the
supports. Due to symmetry the angles at the end will be the same and both be 0.5
radians (notice the sneaky coincidence there …). Under small deflection theory,
the deflection (not the moment or the shear force, or whatever) will be 0.5
times the length, or 0.5 x L/2 = L/4. The arms of the vee have not had to bend
to fit the supports, so they will be straight so we have a deflected shape that
is a triangle peaking at L/4 at mid span. Does that sound at all familiar ?
Method 2 is generally applicable to any structure formed
from beams. If you use an analysis package that allows for concentrated
distortions, then you can model it directly. But you can also eye it in to get
a qualitative idea of where you need to put the loads, which is how I cut down
on the amount of work that I have to do (I am soooo lazy, although at
interviews I refer to this as efficient). The way that I look at these things
is to imagine my structure floating with gravity turned off (turns on reverb - bridges in space – turns reverb
off) and then fit it to the supports, starting with two simple ones and
then cranking the structure one bit at a time, until it all fits the supports.
The deflected shape of the structure is the influence line for bending
at that point.
The method for a three span structure is shown in Figure 32.
The structure is distorted (think taking the structure, cutting it and welding
it back together with a kink in it) and it fits easily to two supports. Then it
gets bent so that the remaining two support points also fit. Note that the peak
in the middle has dropped, that the lines are now curved and that adding load
on the adjacent spans actually reduces the moment at the point under
consideration.
There is a similar system for shear calculations which uses
a slightly odd distortion, but follows the same procedure. The distortion is a
1 metre step this time. The slight twist is that the stepped ends are allowed
to rotate, but they must always remain parallel. If you want a physical
representation, then picture the two ends connected by a parallelogram linkage.
With the simply supported beam shown in Figure 34
the two sloping lines at top and bottom are parallel and 1 metre apart, so
every time that a vertical line is drawn it fits the criteria for a shear
influence line.
Figure 35
- influence line for shear for three spans
|
Please note that the selection of load patterns depends
heavily on the form of the loading. On highways (pre Eurocode anyway) the
intensity of the loading depends on the length of the load (the longer the load
the lower the intensity). The load pattern chosen depends on a combination of
the areas under the graph over the two spans, compared to the intensities. The
area under the first span is possibly 15% of the area under the second span, so
if the load intensity drops by more than 13% (1/1.15) when the loaded length
doubles (likely) then the product of intensity x area will be lower and the
loaded length would be taken over the middle span only. If you are working on a
railway analysis then the loading does not depend so much on length and the
loaded length would probably be the two spans.
FINALLY, there is also an equivalent for reaction influence
lines. This is simply the deflected shape of the structure when a support is
raised by 1m as shown in Figure 36.
Aside: my favourite ever influence line analysis was for a five
span structure with four beams throughout, with four supports at each abutment,
but only single supports at each internal support. When I applied a 1 radian
distortion for the outer beam over an internal support, to determine the
influence line for hogging moment, the shape of the deflected structure was
similar to the shape in Figure
33
but the point distortion rose up by a small amount. Hence the adverse area of
the hogging moment influence line required the area nearest to the support not
to be loaded. This seemed a bit strange until I realised that there were two
opposing effects, with central loads on the adjacent spans causing a hogging
component over the support line, but load to the side of the point support
caused the deck to twist causing a local sagging moment. Up to 15% of the span
away from the support, the twist was most important and adding load to that
area actually reduced the hogging moment.
Rather than me drawing up hundreds of influence lines to
prove my point, try looking at standard examples in the Steel Designer’s manual
and (if you squeeze the scales a bit to suit) you will always find something
that looks very much like a 1 radian distortion at every point under
consideration. Please bear in mind that the diagrams are of the DEFLECTED
SHAPES and are NOT anything to do with bending moment diagrams.
By the way, if you think of truss structures as being
similar to beams, with the chord stresses being the bending stress, and the
tensions in the diagonals representing shear on a beam, then you can eye in
influence lines for trusses in a similar way.
Moment distribution
Nobody in their right
minds would consider doing such a calculation nowadays but ….
This is a hand calculation that distributed moments around a
statically indeterminate frame (one that it is too complex to be solved by
resolution of forces) such as a continuous bridge deck. It works by assuming that the ends of each
span are fixed against rotation. The fixed end moments are worked out for each
span from standard solutions and tabulated. If the moments on either side of a joint
(a support or an intersection point for a frame) add up to zero then everything
balances and there is no tendency for the joint to rotate. If, however, there
is an imbalance then the net moment will cause the joint to rotate. Each side of the joint will rotate by the
same amount so the moment will be shared by the elements proportional to their
rotational stiffness’s, which are calculated from standard tables. The
resulting rotation will transfer half the moment to the other end of each
member and these moments are then treated in the same manner, which are then
totalled and redistibruted, around and around until all of the out of balance
moments, which halving through each cycle,
reduce to nothing.
Aside: what is scary is that I have a recent graduate, who went
to the same university as me, and it seems that the stuff that was out of date
thirty years ago is still being taught now. But all they teach is the method
and do not point out the useful bits
The method is, however, very instructive in understanding
structural behaviour. Forget about the actual method and just think about how the
ends of the members will rotate and hence how the moments will be distributed.
Consider a three span continuous bridge deck with the outer
two spans at about 80% of the middle span. The rotational stiffness’s on either
side of the inner piers are roughly equal and the fixed end moments are also
fairly equal under uniform loading so the joints will not rotate very much and
will act almost as though they are built in. This will attract a significant
amount of the moment from the middle of the span to the supports. If the side
spans were longer, or the sections smaller, then the ends of the main span would
not attract so much moment and the behaviour would be closer to that of simply
supported. Conversely, if the side spans were shorter, or of a stiffer cross
section, then the ends of the main span would attract more moment and the
behaviour would be closer to that of a fixed ended beam.
This is a simple example of how the relative stiffnesses
govern how a structure deflects and hence how the moments are distributed
around a structure. It is something that could be learnt from the moment
distribution method, but which is rarely taught.
Fundamental: this leads on to another basic idea that is often
skipped over, the free moment diagram. When a uniform load of w kN/m is applied
to a simply supported beam of span L then the moment at the middle will be wL2/8
or 0.125 wL2 (which I will refer to as 0.125M in this
section). If we apply the same load to all spans of a three even span continuous
bridge then the hogging moment at the internal supports will be -0.100M and the
midspan moment will be 0.025M. Please note that the difference is 0.125M. If
the load is applied to a single span with fixed ends, then the end moments are
-M/12 or -0.08333M. The mid span moment will be M/24 or 0.04167M: the
difference is 0.125M again. Have we spotted the pattern yet?
Regardless of the form of the loads or the structure, if the
same pattern of loads is applied to a simply supported beam of the same length
as the span under consideration, then the resulting moment is called the “Free
moment diagram”. If the moments at the supports at either end of a span, that
forms part of a larger structure, are plotted and a straight line is drawn
between, then the full moment diagram can be drawn by superimposing the zero
line of the free moment diagram onto the straight line with the rest of the
free moment diagram hanging beneath. It does not matter what the load pattern
is, the free moment diagram that results can be hung between the moments at the
end. Varying the stiffness of the adjacent spans, or applying loads on adjacent
spans, or whatever, will change the moments at the supports, which will in turn
affect the moment at midspan: it will not, however, change the difference
between the moments in the span compared to the straight line drawn between the
moments at the ends.
TO BE CONTINUED …
Apparently, following the blog might tell you when I add new section (dinosaur author please meet the modern world) which happens whenever I feel like it. Comments can also be helpful (preferably polite) since everything that I write is perfectly clear to me, but that does not mean that it is actually clear.
Apparently, following the blog might tell you when I add new section (dinosaur author please meet the modern world) which happens whenever I feel like it. Comments can also be helpful (preferably polite) since everything that I write is perfectly clear to me, but that does not mean that it is actually clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment