Theory of Plates

Part II: Plates in bending

Lecture Notes Winter Semester 2012/2013

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Kai-Uwe Bletzinger

Lehrstuhl fr Statik Technische Universitt Mnchen kub@bv.tum.de www.st.bv.tum.de

Many parts and figures of the present manuscript are taken from the German lecture notes on Platten by Prof. E. Ramm [10], University of Stuttgart.

Lehrstuhl fr Statik Technische Universitt Mnchen 80290 Mnchen October 2008

0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 4

2 PLATES IN BENDING................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 2.5.8 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4 2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.8 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 2.8.4 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 8 IDEALIZATION OF A PLATE .................................................................................................... 8 ASSUMPTIONS OF THE KIRCHHOFF PLATE THEORY .............................................................. 9 THE PRINCIPAL LOAD CARRYING BEHAVIOR ....................................................................... 10 THE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION OF THE KIRCHHOFF THEORY .............................................. 11 REDUCTION TO THE MID-SURFACE ...................................................................................... 11 THE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION ............................................................................................ 13 PRINCIPAL MOMENTS STRESS RESULTANTS IN ARBITRARY SECTIONS ............................. 20 THE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION OF THE PLATE WITHOUT TWIST RESISTANCE ...................... 20 VARYING TEMPERATURE LOADING AT TOP AND BOTTOM SURFACE ................................... 21 CIRCULAR PLATES ............................................................................................................... 25 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 28 THE EFFECTIVE SHEAR FORCE ............................................................................................. 28 VARIANTS OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS (TABLE 2.9.) ......................................................... 32 SOLUTION METHODS ................................................................................................................ 33 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 33 ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS .................................................................................................... 33 NUMERICAL METHODS ........................................................................................................ 47 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR ......................................................................................................... 48 POISSON RATIO ................................................................................................................. 48 ASPECT RATIO ..................................................................................................................... 50 CLAMPED EDGES ................................................................................................................. 51 FADE AWAY OF CLAMPED EDGE MOMENTS ......................................................................... 53 TWISTING STIFFNESS ........................................................................................................... 54 PLATE, SUPPORTED AT THREE EDGES .................................................................................. 57 VARYING STIFFNESS ............................................................................................................ 58 CONCENTRATED LOADS ...................................................................................................... 58 CONTINUOUS PLATES ............................................................................................................... 61 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 61 THE METHOD OF LOAD REDISTRIBUTION (BELASTUNGSUMORDNUNGSVERFAHREN) ........ 61 THE METHOD BY PIEPER/MARTENS [15]............................................................................. 64 POINT SUPPORTED PLATES .................................................................................................. 66 INFLUENCE SURFACES ............................................................................................................. 69 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 69 DEFLECTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 69 STRESS RESULTANTS ........................................................................................................... 70 EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................... 72 THE REISSNER/MINDLIN THEORY .......................................................................................... 74 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 74 KINEMATIC ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................. 74 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 76 THE KIRCHHOFF CONSTRAINT............................................................................................. 78

0 References
Books and papers in English Language: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Gould, Philipp L.: Analysis of Shells and Plates. Springer Verlag New York, 1988. Pilkey, W.D., Wunderlich, W.: Mechanics of Structure: Variational and Computational Methods. CRC Press, 1994. Reddy, J. N.:Theory and Analysis of Elastic Plates. Taylor and Francis, London, 1999. Szilard, R.: Theories and Applications of Plate Analysis. Wiley, 2004. Timoshenko, S.P., Woinoswski-Krieger, S.: Theory of Plates and Shells. McGraw-Hill, 1987. (2. Aufl.) Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L.: The Finite Element Method. Vol. 1: Basis, Vol. 2: Solid Mechanics, Vol.3 Fluid Dynamics. 6. Auflage. Elsevier Butterworth and Heinemann, 2005. Bischoff, M., Wall, W.A., Bletzinger, K.-U., Ramm, E., Models and Finite Elements for Thin-Walled Structures, in (E.Stein, R.deBorst, T.J.R. Hughes, eds.) Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics, Vol. 2, Wiley, 59-137, 2004).

[7]

Plate theory (in German): [8] [9] Girkmann, K.: Flchentragwerke. 6. Auflage. Springer-Verlag, Wien, 1963 Marguerre, K., Woernle, H.T.: Elastische Platten, BI Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim, 1975.

[10] Ramm, E.: Flchentragwerke: Platten. Vorlesungsmanuskript, Institut fr Baustatik, Universitt Stuttgart, 1995. [11] Hake, E. und Meskouris, K.: Statik der Flchentragwerke, Springer, 2001. Finite Element Method (in German): [12] Werkle, H.: Finite Elemente in der Baustatik. Vieweg Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1995. [13] Bathe, K.-J.: Finite-Element-Methoden. Springer-Verlag, 1986. [14] Link, M.: Finite Elemente in der Statik und Dynamik. Teubner-Verlag, Stuttgart, 1984. [15] Ramm, E.: Finite Elemente fr Tragwerksberechnungen. Vorlesungsmanuskript, Institut fr Baustatik, Universitt Stuttgart, 1999. Tables (in German): [16] Czerny, F.: Tafeln fr vierseitig und dreiseitig gelagerte Rechteckplatten. Betonkalender, 1987 1990, 1993 I. Teil drillsteife Platten mit Gleichlast und linear vernderlicher Last

[17] Pieper, K., Martens, P.: Durchlaufende vierseitig gesttzte Platten im Hochbau. Betonund Stahlbetonbau (1966) 6, S. 158-162, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau (1967) 6, S. 150151. [18] Pucher, A.: Einflufelder elastischer Platten. 2. Auflage. Springer-Verlag, Wien, 1958. [19] Schneider, K.-J.: Bautabellen. 7. Auflage. Werner-Verlag, Dsseldorf, 1986. [20] Schleeh, W.: Bauteile mit zweiachsigem Spannungszustand (Scheiben), Betonkalender 1978 (T2), Ernst & Sohn, Berlin. [21] Stiglat, K., Wippel, H.: Platten. 2. Auflage. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1973 Concrete Design (in German): [22] Leonhardt, F.: Vorlesungen ber Massivbau, Teil 2: Sonderflle der Bemessung. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975. [23] Leonhardt, F.: Vorlesungen ber Massivbau, 3. Teil: Grundlagen zum Bewehren im Stahlbetonbau. Springer-Verlag, 1974. [24] Schlaich, J. und Schfer, K.: Konstruieren im Stahlbetonbau. Betonkalender, 1993.

2 Plates in bending

2.1

Introduction

2.1.1 Idealization of a plate The plate in bending is a plane structure. It is loaded laterally to its surface. The panel is subjected to loads acting within the systems plane.

plate in bending Fig. 2.1: Plate structures.

panel

Depending on the thickness-to-length relation several theories of plates have been developed: Table 2.1. Plate theories.
t t , lx ly

moderately thick 1 1 to 5 10

thin

very thin

with transverse shear deformation theory related beam theory Reissner, Mindlin Timoshenko

1 1 to 5 50 without transverse shear deformation, mostly used for practical applications Kirchhoff Euler Bernoulli

1 50 geometrically nonlinear, with membrane deformation < von Karman theory of second order

The displacements of very thin plates are usually so large that a geometrically non-linear theory (e.g. von Karman theory) becomes necessary which is able to consider the membrane action. On the other hand, the shear deformation of moderately thick plates has to be considered (e.g. Reissner Mindlin theory). Most of the practical applications deal with thin plates. Within the valid range of linear behavior a pure bending theory will be good enough and shear deformation can be neglected (Kirchhoff theory). The analysis of plates can be reduced to a theory of a surface. The structural behavior can be described by a bi-axial state of stresses and strains.

2.1.2 Assumptions of the Kirchhoff plate theory The assumptions are:

1.) geometrically linear: ent) rope 3.) thin plate 2.) linear material:

- small strains - small deflections (small is problem depend- linear elastic (Hooke), - in the most simple case homogeneous and isot-

The latter assumption leads to the two Bernoulli hypotheses: a) straight lines perpendicular to the mid-surface (i.e. transverse normals) before deformation remain straight after deformation. b) transverse normals rotate such that they remain perpendicular to the mid-surface after deformation

Bernoulli a) Fig. 2.2: Bernoulli hypotheses. and to a further presumption:

Bernoulli b)

c) the transverse normals do not experience elongation (i.e., they are in-extensible), i.e. z = 0 z = 0 As a consequence, the local effects of load application cannot be described by the theory. The assumptions z = 0 and z = 0 are in contradiction to materials with Poisson effect ( 0) , however, this causes no further difficulties for analysis.

Bernoulli a + b: Kirchhoff theory Bernoulli a: Reissner theory Mindlin theory

x = x =

w x w + xz x

Fig. 2.3: Comparison of Kirchhoff- and Reissner/Mindlin kinematics. Neglecting the transverse shear strains xz and yz is inconsistent with the material law:
xz = G xz yz yz { { 0 =0

( shear stress )

because of Bernoulli

a, b

Shear stresses exist because of the equilibrium of forces and stresses. Therefore, the related material equations cannot be applied within the Kirchhoff theory. This is in contrast to the Reissner/Mindlin-theory.
2.1.3 The principal load carrying behavior The load carrying behavior of a plate can be compared with that of a beam grid which is resistant to bending and torsion. The related deformations are curvatures x, y and the twist xy.

Fig. 2.4: Load carrying behavior of plates in bending. 10

2.2

The differential equation of the Kirchhoff theory

2.2.1 Reduction to the mid-surface The plate will be described by its mid-surface:

t t

real system

idealized system Fig. 2.5: Idealization.

11

The integration of the stresses over the thickness of the plate gives the stress resultants which can be divided into force (q x , q y ) and moment resultants (m x , m y , m xy ).

Fig. 2.6: Stress resultants. stress resultants / unit length:

Fig.2.6: Stress resultants. For example:

width 1 1 t 2 kNm m x = x z dz = 6 m t 2 { sec tion mod ulus
R x + t 2

2 kN q x = xz dz = M 1 t xz 3 m t
2

t 2

12

2.2.2 The differential equation We will derive the differential equation analogously to the beam theory. A direct formulation from continuum mechanics can be found in the literature [1]-[8].

The change of resultants from one edge to the other of an infinitesimal element is expressed by a Taylor series expansion: in general:

_______________ df (x 0 ) 1 d 2 f ( x 0 ) f ( x 0 + dx ) = f (x 0 ) + dx + + ... 2! dx dx 2 ________________ higher order terms are neglected Fig. 2.7: Taylor-series expansion. For example:

m x (x + dx ) = m x + Fig. 2.8: Taylor series expansion for the moment mx

m x dx x

13

The statical and geometrical equations are given for the infinitesimal element:

Fig. 2.9: Shear forces at the infinitesimal element

V = 0:

q q q x dy + q x + x dx dy q y dx + q y + y dy dx + p dx dy = 0 |: dx dy x y
q x q y + +p=0 x y

Fig. 2.10: Moments at the infinitesimal element.

= 0:

m yx m x dx dy + m yx dx m yx + m x dy + m x + dy dx q x dy dx = 0 x y

= 0:

m x + x m y + y

m yx y m xy
x

qx = 0
qy = 0

14

BEAM

PLATE

Statical equations

+ Torsion MT

V : M :

dQ +p=0 dx dM Q=0 dx

V :
M
M
y:

q x q y +p=0 + y x
m x m yx + qx = 0 x y m y y + m xy x qy = 0

5 unknowns 3 equations 2-times internally indetermined

Curvature: x = x 2w = 2 x x y 2w = 2 y = y y x 2w = y x y

Geometry d d2w = 2 dx dx + Twisting due to torsion = Table 2.2. Kirchhoff plate differential equation. 15

Twisting: change of angle x in direction y

xy =

BEAM moment-curvature-relation

PLATE moment-curvature-relation

from mx:

Material
mx = x 1 rx
m x = m x y x

1 r

A moment mx gives a curvature m x in direction x and the curvature m x in x y direction y due to the Poisson effect (shortening at the upper surface and elongation at the bottom surface) from my:

~M

x y = y y
x ~ mx my

y y

y ~ my mx

Table 2.3. Kirchhoff plate differential equation. 16

BEAM

PLATE

elastic bending stiffness: = or:

M = EI {

1 EI

1 M EI

1 12 = EI E { h3 1
width 1

x =

12 (m x m y ) E t3

y =

12 (m y m x ) E t3

or:
beam flexural stiffness

m x = K ( x + y ) m y = K ( y + x )

plate bending stiffness:

K= E t3 12(1 2 )

moment twist relation:

moment-twist-relation:

Material

elastic torsion stiffness:

with: IT = b t3 3

1 GI T b t Due to equilibrium adjacent twisting moments across the corner of the infinitesimal element are of the same magnitude. It holds: 1 2 (1 + ) 3 1 = = 3 elastic torsion stiffness: GI E { t 1 2 K (1 ) T
width 1

M T = GI T

E G= 2 (1 + )

m xy + m yx = 2 m xy

1 t

2 m xy = 2 K (1 ) xy Table 2.4. Kirchhoff plate differential equation.

17

BEAM

PLATE
2w 2w mx = K 2 + 2 x y 2 2 w w my = K 2 + 2 y x 2 (m xy + m yx ) = 2 K (1 ) w x y 4w 2m x 4w 4 + 2 2 =K x 2 x y x

differential equations: elimination of curvatures M = EI

d2w dx 2

back substitution

2 derivatives

nd

d 2M d4w = EI 4 dx 2 dx

4w 4w =K 4 + 2 2 y y x y 2 2 4 (m xy +m yx ) w = 2 K (1 ) 2 2 x y x y
2 2 2 m x (m xy + m yx ) m y = p + + y 2 x y x 2

2m y

elimination of shear forces from equilibrium conditions

elimination of moments

d 2M = p dx 2
d w p = dx 4 EI
4

4w p 4w 4w = +2 2 2 + y 4 K x y x 4 Laplace operator ( ) =

or

w=

p K

2 ( ) 2 ( ) + y 2 x 2

Table 2.5. Kirchhoff plate differential equation.

18

q x q y +p=0 + y x statical equations m x m yx qx = 0 + y x m y y + m xy x qy = 0

2 2 2 m x (m xy + m yx ) m y + + = p x y y 2 x 2

3w 3w qx = K 3 + x x y 2
3w 3w + qy = K 3 x 2 y y

pde: of 4th order inhomogeneous, linear

2w x = x 2 geometrical equations y = 2w y 2 2w x y
constitutive equations

4w 4w 4w p +2 2 2 + = K x 4 x y y 4 p or w = K

xy = yx =

2w 2w mx = K 2 + 2 x y 2w 2w my = K 2 + 2 y x

solution w

m x = K ( x + y ) material equations m y = K ( y + x )
m xy + m yx = = 2 K (1 ) xy

m yx

2w = K (1 ) x y 2 2 = 2 + 2 y x 4 4 4 + 4 +2 2 x y 2 y x 4

stress resultants qx , qy m x , m y , m xy

Laplace-operator:

bipotential-operator: = Table 2.6. Kirchhoff PDE construction scheme. 19

2.2.3 Principal moments stress resultants in arbitrary sections

out of plane Fig. 2.11: Stress resultants in arbitrary section

into plane

The internal forces are determined from the equilibrium conditions: m n dt = m x cos dy + m y sin dx + m xy sin dy + m yx cos dx
m n = m x cos 2 + m y sin 2 + m xy sin 2 m t = m x sin 2 + m y cos 2 m xy sin 2 1 (m y m x ) sin 2 + m xy cos 2 2 q n = q x cos + q y sin m nt = m tn = q t = q x sin + q y cos

Principal moments from the condition mnt = 0: m I, II = 1 (m x + m y ) 1 2 2

(m

my ) + 4 m2 xy
2

where: mI mII

The angle which is related to the first principal moment mI is tan =

(m

my ) +

2 m xy

(m

my ) + 4 m2 xy
2

2.2.4 The differential equation of the plate without twist resistance The theoretical model of a plate without twist resistance and, therefore, without twisting moments can be developed. This is very close to the real behavior of ribbed plates (Rippenplatte) or coffered ceilings (Kassettendecken) made from reinforced concrete.

20

Fig. 2.12: Infinitesimal plate element without twisting moments

2w 2w mx = K 2 + 2 x y 2w 2w my = K 2 + 2 y x m xy = 0

Together with the statical equations it follows: 4w 4w p = + K y 4 x 4

2.2.5 Varying temperature loading at top and bottom surface It is assumed that the temperature distribution is linear through the plate thickness. Since we are interested in the bending behavior of plates we assume further that the change of temperature at the mid surface vanishes, because this results in pure membrane stresses which are not of interest at this print of discussion. With the abbreviations:

d)
e) f)

T [1 / C]

temperature coefficient

Tu = Tu (x , y ) To = To (x, y )

temperature at bottom surface temperature at top surface

and the definition of curvature due to temperature expansion: T = T (Tu To ) t

we get the differential equation for the deflection w:

2 T 2 T w = (1 + ) x 2 + y 2 = (1 + ) T

21

equilibrium

q x q y =0 + y x m x m yx qx = 0 + y x m y m xy qy = 0 + x y

2 2 2 m x (m xy + m yx ) m y + + =0 y 2 x 2 x y

4w 4w 4w + +2 2 2 + y 4 x y x 4

geometry

2w x = 2 x 2w y = 2 y 2w xy = yx = x y
m x = K ( x + y (1 + ) T )

2 w 2 w + (1 + ) T 2 + y 2 x 2 2 w w + (1 + ) T qy = K 2 + y x y 2 qx = K x

2 (1 + ) T 2 (1 + ) T =0 + + y 2 x 2 resp. 2 T 2 T w = (1 + ) x 2 + y 2 resp. w = (1 + ) T

2w 2w + (1 + ) T mx = K 2 + 2 y x 2w 2w + (1 + ) T my = K 2 + 2 x y 2 w m xy = K (1 ) x y

solution w

material

m y = K ( y + x (1 + ) T ) m xy = + K (1 ) xy

stress resultants qx , qy
m x , m y , m xy

Table 2.7. Differential equation for temperature loading

control : total curvature = temperature curvature ( x = y = T ) m x = m y = m xy = 0 (vanishing resul tan ts ) (Tu To ) T = T t

22

The special case of equal temperature distribution at any point of the plate leads to: T = 2T 2 T =0 + y 2 x 2 w = 0

Considering a plate which is fully clamped at all edges we choose w(x, y) = 0 as a possible solution. The differential equation w = 0 and the boundary conditions are satisfied:

w ( x =0) = 0 w ( y=0) = 0 w ( x = 0 ) x w ( y = 0 ) y =0 =0

for all for all for all for all

0 y ly 0 x lx 0 y ly 0 x lx

Although the plate does not deflect there exist stresses and resultants: m x = m y K (1 + ) T m xy = 0 qx = qy = 0 The analogous result is known for the clamped beam subjected to a linear temperature distribution through the thickness:

M jk = El T

M ki = + M jk

Tu To t

Fig. 2.13: Clamped beam subjected to varying temperature distribution through thickness.

24

2.2.6 Circular plates For convenience polar coordinates are chosen in the following

Fig. 2.14: Infinitesimal element of a circular plate.

25

Differential equation:

w ( r , ) =
=

p(r, ) K

using the operator: stress resultants:

2 1 1 2 + + 2 r 2 r r r 2

2w 1 2 w 1 w mr = K 2 + 2 r 2 + r r r
2 w 1 2 w 1 w + m = K 2 + 2 r 2 r r r

m r = m r = K (1 ) qr = K
q = K

1 w r

(w ) r
1 (w ) r

In the case of rotational symmetry the derivatives with respect to vanish: ( ) = d2 1 d + dr 2 r dr

d 4 w 2 d 3 w 1 d 2 w 1 dw p (r ) + 2 + 3 = r dr 3 K dr 4 r dr 2 r dr The resultants remain to be:

d2w 1 dw mr = K 2 + r dr dr d 2 w 1 dw m = K 2 + r dr dr

m r = m r = 0
q r = K
2 3 2 d 3 ( w ) = K d d w + 1 dw = K d w + 1 d w 12 dw dr dr dr dr 2 r dr r dr 2 r dr

q = 0
26

27

2.3

Boundary Conditions

2.3.1 The effective shear force

2.3.1.1 The reason As an effect of the Bernoulli hypotheses (plane cross section and normal condition ) the plate differential equation is of fourth order. Consequently, in the solution there exist four integration constants for each direction, i.e. two at each edge. However at the edges there are three independent resultants or displacements defined, respectively. I.e., they cannot be independent from each other.

Fig. 2.15: Stress resultants and displacements at an edge. From the Bernoulli hypotheses it follows that the rotations are equal to the negative gradient w of deflection, e.g.: y = . That means, that if the displacements w(y) at the edge x = lx y are given, the rotations y are also known. Therefore, and also with respect to energetic reasons, only two independent resultants can be defined. Consequently, shear force and twisting moment are combined to the effective shear force q . reduction of displacements x x y w w reduction of resultants mx mx m xy effective shear force q qx x

Table 2.8. Reduction of edge degrees of freedom, Kirchhoff plate theory 2.3.1.2 Illustrative argumentation The effective shear force can be directly developed from an energy principle. However, we choose an illustrative approach. The twisting moment is now replaced by a couple of forces. Due to the principle of St.-Venant this modification at the edge does not affect the plate behavior at the inner region. 28

a)

Portion of the twisting moment

resultant force at element interface

b) Portion of the shear force

Addition of a) and b)

Sum:

distributed on dy effective shear force

qx = q x +

m xy y

Fig. 2.16: Effective shear force definition.

29

Fig. 2.17: Effective shear forces.

qx = qx + m xy 3w 3w 3w (1 ) K = K 3 + x y x y 2 x y 2

3w 3w q x = K 3 + (2 ) x y 2 x 3w 3w q y = K 3 + (2 ) 2 x y y

Remarks: support forces ( = effective shear forces) and shear forces at edges are not identical if twisting moments exist At free edges the effective shear forces vanish ( q = 0); however, in general the two components do not vanish. I.e., at free edges shear forces and twisting moments may exist. The approximation takes effect only in a small layer near the boundary (boundary layer).

2.3.1.3 Concentrated corner force A well anchored plate subjected to lateral load will develop tension support forces near the corners. On the other hand, a plate without anchors will lift off the supports. The Kirchhoff plate theory accumulates all tension forces near the corner to one concentrated tension force at the corner.

Fig. 2.18: Corner force and support forces distribution.

30

2.3.2 Variants of boundary conditions (Table 2.9.)

Type
x

boundary conditions
y

consequences
w =0 y 2w = 0 m xy = 0 sup port forces = q x x y
w =0 y 2w 2w = 0; =0 x 2 y 2

w=0 w =0 x
x

clamped

simple supported

w=0 mx = 0
x

w 2w 0; 0 m xy 0 sup port forces = q x x x y

free edge

qx = 0 mx = 0
x

both components qx and

m xy y

cancel each other

y f

w = f qx mx = 0
x

often coupled elastic foundation, e.g. plate with edge beam

elastic
fM y

w=0 w = f M mx x

if edge beam is eccentric than membrane and bending actions in the plate have to be considered

32

2.4

Solution methods

2.4.1 Overview The problem is to solve the differential equation while the boundary conditions have to be considered. There exist only very few special cases where both demands can be satisfied exactly. Mostly, the problem can be solved only approximately using numerical techniques.

exact solutions

approximate solutions

analytical closed solutions series expansions Fig. 2.19: Solution methods.

numerical finite differences finite elements

For practical applications the methods are prepared for rules-of-thumb, diagrams, tables and computer programs.
2.4.2 Analytical solutions

2.4.2.1 Circular plate Considering the special case of rotational symmetrical loading, we have (compare paragraph 2.2.6): p(r ) d 2 w 1 dw where w = 2 + PDE: w = K r dr dr 4 3 2 d w 2 d w 1 d w 1 dw p(r ) + 2 + 3 = r dr 3 K r dr 2 r dr dr 4 2 1 1 p(r ) d( ) or: =( ) w IV + w 2 w + 3 w = where r r r K dr

Fig. 2.20: Circular plate with rotational symmetrical loading. 33

The solution of the differential equation is:

w = w p + C1 + C 2 2 + C3 2 ln + C 4 ln

w = w p + C 2 w = w p + C 2

2 1 + C3 (2 ln + 1) + C 4 a a a

2 1 (2 ln + 3) C 4 21 2 + C3 2 a a2 a 2 a
3

w = w p + C 3 where: =

+ C4

2 a 3
3

r and particular solution wp. a

The integration constants Ci allow to satisfy the 2 x 2 boundary conditions at both edges of a circular plate. The stress resultants are: 1 m r = K w + w r 1 m = K w + w r 1 1 q r = K w + w 2 w r r m r = m r = q = 0 Fig. 2.21: Stress resultants of a plate with rotational symmetrical loading a) Circular plate with constant loading

Fig. 2.22: Clamped circular plate with constant loading. boundary conditions: plate center = 0: w' = 0 clamped edge

= 1: w = 0 w' = 0 qr = pa 2

( w finite) particular solution: p r4 wp = 64 K 34

From the condition w = 0 at the plate center ( = 0) the integration constant C4 is determined to be C4 = 0. Otherwise w would be singular. From qr = - p a/2 at the edge we get C3 = 0. Using the conditions w = w = 0 at the edge the constants C1 and C2 can be determined: C1 = solution: C2 p a 4 = 2 64 K 2 p w= a2 r2 64 K p w = r3 a 2 r 16 K p w = 3 r2 a2 16 K 3 w = pr 8K

where: w center =

p a4 64 K

) )
) ]

stress resultants:

p a2 (3 + ) 1 2 2 16 p a2 (1 + 3 ) (1 2 ) 2 m = 16 pa qr = 2 mr =

Setting Poissons ratio = 0 we get the following distributions for deflection w, moments mr and m and shear force qr. For comparison the results for the simply supported plate are also given. In contrast to a beam the deflections and moments are reduced by the factor 3/8 because of the 2-dimensional load carrying behavior of the plate.

Fig. 2.23: Constant loaded circular plate (Poisson ratio = 0). 35

b) Circular plate with concentrated load of plate center

Fig. 2.24: Simply supported circular plate. bondary conditions: edge = 1: mr = 0 qr = particular solution: wp = 0 w = C1 + C 2 2 + C3 2 ln + C 4 ln Using w = 0 at the plate center, we get: C4 = 0 and q r = P 2a at the edge = 1 yields: P a2 8K P 2a w=0 plate center = 0: w = 0

C3 = Finally, the remaining conditions give:

C1 = C 2 =

P a 2 (3 + ) 16 K (1 + )

Back substituting the constants gives the following expressions for the deflection:
P a2 w= 16 K
3 + (1 2 ) + 2 2 ln 1 +

and stress resultants: mr = P (1 + ) ln 4 36

m = qr =

P [(1 + ) (1 + ) ln ] 4

P 2a

Evaluating the expressions, we recognize at the plate center a finite deflection, however, singular values of the stress resultants.

Fig. 2.25: Concentrated load at center of a circular plate (Poisson ratio = 0). More solutions for circular and annular plates are given in e.g. [3], Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. and Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.. 2.4.2.2 Rectangular plates By means of series expansion the partial differential equation w(x,y) = p(x,y)/K can be decoupled into ordinary differential equations. It depends on whether one or both directions are expanded that it is called single or double series expansion. As an example we shall deal with the single series expansion in the following. The single series expansion uses an ansatz which satifies the Navier conditions (w = 0 and w = 0) of two opposite edges. Therefore, it can only be applied for plates which are simply supported at two opposite edges. The support conditions of the remaining edges can be chosen arbitrarily. a) Plate strip Load distribution and deflection are constant in y-direction. The differential equation further reduces to: 37

d 4 w (x ) p(x ) = K dx 4 This is equivalent to the differential equation of a beam except for the Poisson ratio which contributes to the plate stiffness K. Load p and deflection w are expanded by a Fourier series. The expansion can be reduced to the odd components (p(x) = - p(-x)) with the period L = 2 a:

Fig. 2.26: Plate strip. It follows for the load expansion p(x ) = p n sin
n

2nx = p n sin n x L n

where pn are the Fourier coefficients and n = 2n n = L a

Multiplying by sin m x and integrating yields:

sin (a x ) p(x ) dx = sin (a x ) p

m m 0 0 n

sin ( n x ) dx 14444 244444 4 3

n

=0 = pn a 2

for m n for m = n

The Fourier coefficient for the n-th series component is:

38

2 p n = p(x ) sin ( n x ) dx a 0

Analogously, the deflection w(x) is represented by: w (x ) = w n sin ( n x )

n

which implies the Navier conditions (w = 0 and w = 0) at both edges Inserting load and deflections into the differential equation:

4 n

w n sin ( n x ) =

1 K

sin ( n x )

Comparison of coefficients yields:

wn = pn 4 K n

and the general solution: w (x ) = a4 K 4

n
n

pn
4

sin ( n x )

n a n = 1, 2, 3, ... n =

Back substitution gives the stress resultants: mx = K d2w dx 2

my = mx qx = K d3w dx 3

The deflection w(x) converges very fast because of n4 in the denominator. The stress resultants converges not as good because of the factors 1/n2 and 1/n for moments and shear force, respectively. The special case of constant area load yields:
2 4p p n = p sin ( n x ) dx = a 0 n
a

n = 1, 3, 5, ...

w (x ) =

4pa2 K 5

1
5

sin ( n x )

n = 1, 3, 5, ...

39

The load is approximated as:

real load

approximation by one series component n = 1 p= 4p sin x a

approximation by two series components n = 1, 3 p= Fig. 2.27: Approximation of loading. 4p 3 1 x sin x + sin a 3 a

The even series components n = 2, 4, 6, ... are neglected since they would cause antisymmetric distributions.

exact deflection w
p a4 K

1 series component (N = 1)
0.013071 p a4 K

2 series components (n = 1, n = 3) p a4 K p a4 0.000054 K p a4 = 0.013017 K 0.013071 0.129006 p a 2 0.004778 p a 2 = 0.124228 p a 2

0.013021

moment m

0.125 p a 2

0.129001 p a 2

Table 2.10. Comparison exact solution series expansion at position x = a For constant distributed load even one series component gives sufficient accuracy as the comparison with the exact solution shows. More varying load distributions require more series components, respectively.

40

b) Rectangular plate with two opposite Navier supported edges The homogenous differential equation: 4w 4w 4w =0 + +2 2 y 4 x y 2 x 4 is solved by the ansatz in product form: w h = Fn (y ) sin ( n x ) ; n = n a

which implicitly satisfies the Navier conditions. The ansatz represents the function wn by a sin-expansion in x-direction and by a function F(y) which is dependent on y only.

arbitrary boundary conditions

Fig. 2.28: Rectangular plate and boundary conditions. By the product form of the ansatz the partial differential equation decouples into a system of 4th order differential equations:
d 4 Fn (y ) d 2 Fn (y ) 2 2 + 4 Fn (y ) sin n = 0 n n 2 dy 4 444444 2dy 444444 1 3 1 4 4 3 2 =0 0 A possible solution is given by making use of the e y function: Fn (y ) = 1 (A n cosh n y + n y Bn sinh n y + C n sinh n y + a2 n + n y D n cosh n y ) ; And, therefore:
wh =
n

n =

n a

C n sinh n y + n y D n cosh n y ) sin n x 14444444 244444444 4 3 Fn y

1 (A n cosh n y + n y Bn sinh n y + 2 n

41

The 4 integration constants allow to satisfy 4 boundary conditions in y-direction, i.e. 2 at each edge particular solution:

As particular solution the plate strip is chosen which is simply supported at the edges x = 0 and x = a, respectively total solution:

Superposition of homogenous and particular solutions yields: 4 w= K 4

n
n

pn
4

sin n x +
n

1 (A n cosh n y Bn sinh n y + 2 n

+ C n sinh n y + n y D n cosh n y ) sin n x

With constant distributed load p = constant:

w=

4p Ka

a
n

1
5 n

sin n x +
n

1 (A n cosh n y + n y Bn sinh n y + a2 n

+ C n sinh n y + n y D n cosh n y ) sin n x

The following types of plates are covered by this solutions

Fig. 2.29: Rectangular plates with two opposite Navier-supported edges. It is assumed that p = p(x) or p = constant. For arbitrary distributed load p = p(x,y) only the particular solution has to be replaced.

42

c) Some examples The following examples, which had been determined by series expansions, are taken from tables [16], [17]. Among others there exist tables for various types of support conditions under constant load, triangular and trapezoidal load which approximates the distribution of soil pressure. Mostly the Poisson ratio = 0 is used for the generation of table values.

Fig. 2.30: Choice of boundary conditions and loads as found in tables ( 1.0 ly/lx 2.0 )

43

Fig. 2.31: Example from Czerny, Betonkalender 1987 44

rectangular plates under constant area load simple supported

rectangular plate under triangular area load simple supported

rectangular plate simple supported at three edges

Fig. 2.32: Stress resultant distributions from Czerny: Plattentafeln, Betonkalender, 1987 45

Fig. 2.33: Example from Stiglat/Wippel: Platten

46

2.4.3 Numerical methods

2.4.3.1 Introduction Numerical methods discretize either the differential equation (local or strong formulation) or an energy expression (global or weak formulation). The continuous problem is transferred into a system with a finite number of degrees of freedom. Among many other techniques we restrict ourselves to mention the finite difference method, the finite element method, and the boundary element method. The finite difference method is very effective for plates of regular geometry, however, had been replaced by the finite element method almost entirely. The finite element method is a little bit more expensive, but much more flexible for general problems. The boundary element method requires the solution of the differential equation and discretizes only the edge of the plate. Therefore, the method can be superior to the finite element method. On the other hand, however, it looses its advantages if many information about the interior of the plate region is to be determined. In the following we will concentrate on the finite element method. 2.4.3.2 The finite element method (FEM) a short overview A characteristic feature of the method is that the structure is divided into many elements of finite size. The originally continuously distributed stresses and displacements are represented by discrete values which are defined at the nodes of the elements (discretization). By these nodes adjacent elements are coupled and can be composed to the complete structure. Proper shape functions on element level insure that common edges of adjacent elements do not gape during deformation. The accuracy of a finite element calculation depends on how good the mechanical behavior of the whole structure can be approximated by the local shape functions on element level.

real system

finite element model

deflections: wFE < w Fig. 2.34: Discretization by finite elements, using linear displacement interpolation A coarse discretization usually gives too stiff results, i.e. too small displacements. The results can be improved either by a finer discretization or by higher order interpolation functions (linear quadratic cubic ...) on element level. 47

Fig. 2.35: Mesh refinement and higher order elements The FEM is suited for computer application only since by the discretization procedure very large systems of equations are generated with a very large number of unknowns. In practice, the FEM appeared to be successful. During the last years increasingly powerful and comfortable programs have been developed which assist usage by graphical interfaces for pre- and post-processing as well as by links to CAD- and design packages. The application of the FEM affords a careful choice of suitable elements and discretization. Reentrant corners, point supports, concentrated loads, and the modeling of the boundary conditions required special considerations. Convergence studies on the accuracy and error analyses can give valuable information. For reading see [6], [12]-[15] and FEM-manuscript.
2.5 Structural behavior The structural behavior of plates is very much different from that of plane frames. Some of the most important parameters will, therefore, be discussed in the sequel. 2.5.1 Poisson ratio The basic plate theory presumes homogeneous and isotropic cross sections. For reinforced concrete this approximately applies only for the uncracked state (Zustand I). However, the structure is designed for the cracked state (Zustand II). In the cracked tension zone, where all forces are carried by the steel, exists no lateral contraction effect any more. Bittner Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. has shown that tension reinforcement in RC plates should be designed for = 0. However, it should be noted that the compression forces will be underestimated by this simplification. DIN 1045 allows to assume = 0.2 for the evaluation of the stresses. For simplification = 0.0 can also be taken.

The influence of the Poisson effect is obvious for the infinitely long, simply supported plate strip under constant load. In addition to the moment, which already is known from the beam theory, an additional moment in the lateral direction occurs which depends on the Poisson effect. By this effect the displacements of the plate strip are less than those of the equivalent beam.

48

beam

quadratic plate ( = 0)

moments displacement

M= w=

pl 8

p l2 mx = 8 my = mx w= 5 p l4 5 p l4 = (1 2 ) 384 K 384 EI

5 p l4 384 EI

Fig. 2.36: Comparison beam plate strip Using the formulas which are given in Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. the resultants for different Poisson ratios can be calculated.

49

2.5.2 Aspect ratio The load carrying behavior of plates is mainly determined by the geometry of the plate. The aspect ratio ly/lx is the most important parameter of rectangular plates. The load is carried identically in both directions for quadratic plates (mx = my). With increasing ratio ly/lx the load is carried more and more across the shorter span lx. From the ratio ly/lx 2 on the oneaxial behavior of plate strips (mx, my = mx) can be assumed.

Fig. 2.37: Influence of the aspect ratio ly/lx on the field moments mx, my of the simple supported rectangular plate, from Czerny-tables, = 0.

50

2.5.3 Clamped edges Compared to the beam, clamped edges have much less effect on the field moments.

beam

quadratic plate ( = 0)

simple supported

clamped

ratio of field moments

p l2 8 p l2 24

= 3

p l2 27.2 2 p l2 56.8

Fig. 2.38: Influence of clamped suports of quadratic plates and beams The reason are the twisting moments myx = mxy. For the clamped plate they not only vanish at the axes of symmetry but also at the edges. Therefore, the favorable influence of the center term of the differential equation disappears. Or, in other words, the simple supported plate is still clamped along the diagonals by the twisting action.

51

simple supported

clamped

Fig. 2.39: Twisting moments of the quadratic plate. The next example shows the influence of the aspect ratio of a rectangular plate which is clamped at one long edge.
Plate Beam

_____

all edges simple supported

________

one long edge clamped

field moments

support moments

Fig. 2.40: Influence of aspect ratio on the effect of clamped supports.

52

The influence of the relatively large clamped edge moment mxem reduces the field moments only with increasing aspect ratio ly/lx when the structural behavior becomes one-axial anyhow. Next, for a plate of given aspect ratio ly/lx the effect of additional clamped supports on field and support moments is demonstrated.

Fig. 2.41: Effect of different combinations of clamped and simple supported edges on fieldand support moments. It is obvious that the support moments mxr and myr are comparatively large, the field moments, however, do not reduce by the same factors.
2.5.4 Fade away of clamped edge moments Bending moments fade away very fast from the clamped edge to the interior of the plate. Their effect on the field moments and on the edge moments at the opposite edge is restricted.

On the other hand the improvement of plate stiffness by additional adjacent fields is limited.

53

Fig. 2.42: Moment transmission for beam and plate

2.5.5 Twisting stiffness The twisting stiffness of a plate is its ability to react on principle moments which are not parallel to the edges. The amount of the twisting moments is a measure of how much the directions of the principle moments deviate from the edge parallel directions x and y.

The so called coffered ceilings (Kassettendecken) are exceptions which cannot resist twisting moments because of their design, or prefabricated plates with additional on site concrete layer (Fertigplatten mit statisch mitwirkender Ortbetonschicht), which with reference to DIN 1045 must be analyzed disregarding the twisting stiffness. 2.5.5.1 Twisting resistant plate The simple supported, not anchored plate is mainly supported at the inner edge regions. The corners lift off. The lift off can be omitted by extra load or anchors at the corners. As reaction negative principal moments m1 develop near the corners with tension at the plate top surface and in lateral direction positive principal moments m2 with tension at the bottom. The directions of the principal moments change at the corner by 45 which is caused by twisting moments mxy of the same absolute value as m1 and m2. The corner anchor force is A = 2mxy. extra load at corner without anchorage at the corner m1 = m2 = |mxy|

A = 2 m xy corner force

with anchorage Fig. 2.43: Twisting resistant square plate.

54

twisting moments

principal moments along diagonal

principal directions

Fig. 2.43 (cont.): Twisting resistant square plate. If the corners are not anchored, or the reinforcement at the corner is insufficient, or there are relative large openings near the corner the twisting resistance is reduced. Consequently the field moments increase. Regarding Heft 240, DafStb, the field moments which have been evaluated considering full twisting resistance have to be enlarged by the factors mentioned there.

1 2 Mx My

for field moments evaluated without Poisson effect ( = 0.0) for field moments evaluated with ( = 0.2) produces stresses in xdirection produces stresses in ydirection

Fig. 2.44: Field moment enlargement factors for the simply supported plate with reduced twisting resistance w.r.t. Heft 240, DafStb Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.

55

2.5.5.2 Plate without twisting resistance Regarding DIN 1045 no twisting resistance is allowed to be considered for pre-fabricated plates or for two axial ribbed plates (compare section 2.4). Consequently, the field moments increase considerably as can be seen in comparison to the twisting resistant plate for several aspect ratios

Fig. 2.45: Comparison of field moments of not twist resistant and twist resistant rectangular plates (Czerny tables [16]; Stiglat/Wippel: [21]) It can be seen that mx increases even beyond the beam value 18 (p l 2 ) . This is possible bex cause the group of beams (2) in one direction is elastically supported by the beams (1) in the other direction. It, therefore effects as additional load.

56

Fig. 2.46: Increased field moments larger than beam values.

2.5.6 Plate, supported at three edges The principal moment direction and the load carrying behavior extremely depend on the aspect ratio ly/lx.

x y

at corners: m1 positiv m2 negativ

Fig. 2.47: Principal moment directions of plates simply supported at three edges. The moment trajectories show: ly lx: ly lx loads are transferred to the corners m1 and m2 are almost as large as mxfrm (moment in x-direction at free edge) if ly < 0.5 lx than m1, m2 > mxfrm one axial load carrying behavior near the free edge the plate is still heavily twisted at regions far from the free edge y ly

57

2.5.7 Varying stiffness Although stiffness attracts forces the stresses decrease.

system and load

stress resultants

moment scale maximum stresses

m1:3 y m1:1 y

y =
= 1.48

my 6 h2
1:3 y 1:1 y = 0.16

Fig. 2.48: Plate with varying stiffness compared to plate of constant thickness
2.5.8 Concentrated loads Concentrated loads on plates induce the largest stresses at the loading point. The theory gives even singular solutions. This is shown very obviously by means of the influence surface of a bending moment (compare paragraph 7).

58

Fig. 2.49: Influence surface for mx at field center of a simply supported plate strip, [18] If the points of loading and bending moment deviate only a little the volume of the influence surface below the load, i.e. the moments value, decreases very rapidly. In the close vicinity of the loading point the stress state is almost rotational symmetrical.

section in x-axis section in y-axis Fig. 2.50: Moment distributions in a plate strip under concentrated loads. a) Field moments The maximum field moments always appear at the loading point. The absolute value of the moments are mainly influenced by the ratio of loading area to span width. Because of the fading behavior of stress resultants (Fig. 2.50) the load position, aspect ratio, and boundary conditions are less important. 59

Therefore, the moment under the load decreases much more slower compared to the beam if the load position is moved towards the support. It can also be seen from the mx-influence surface that for most cases several different concentrated loads do not effect each other. Consequently, dimensioning of plates is very much dominated by the concentrated load and its vicinity rather than by the whole structure. b) Support moments The load position dominates the amount of the support moments. Concentrated loads near clamped edges result in large support moments. It is recommended to evaluate influence surfaces for heavy loads.

Fig. 2.51: Influence of load position on the support moment of a strip [21], Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. compared to the beam.

60

2.6

Continuous plates

2.6.1 Introduction Continuous plates exist in multiple combinations, e.g. see fig 6.1.

Fig. 2.52: Examples of continuous plates The maximum stress resultants of those plate systems can be approximated by methods which are based on the solution of single plates and which are discussed in the sequel. We presume that (1) the edge supports are vertically fixed, i.e. supporting beams are infinitely rigid, (2) that the plate structure freely rotates on the supports, and (3) that the loading can be represented by field wise combinations of uniform loading patterns. More precise results can be obtained by numerical methods (FEM, BEM, FDM) especially for plate systems of general geometry.
2.6.2 The method of load redistribution (Belastungsumordnungsverfahren) The assumptions are:

regular grid of plates, difference of spare width in one direction max 25 % simply supported peripheral edges constant thickness everywhere in the plate system field wise constant distributed load

61

2.6.2.1 Field moments To determine the minimum and maximum field moments the plate system is uniformly loaded by the dead load g and in a checkerboard manner by the life load p.

i max. moment k min. moment g uniformly distributed p checkerboard

Fig. 2.53: Load distribution for min/max field moment. In the next step the load is re-distributed and is split into a symmetrical and an antisymmetrical portion.

q = g +

p 2

(uniformly distributed)

q =

p 2

(checkerboard)

Fig. 2.54: Load re-distribution. The maximum field moments for both load parts q and q are taken from the tables by Czerny and are superposed. It is ignored that the maximum moments occur at different positions. The boundary conditions for the single one span plates are: load case q: all continuity edges clamped load case q: all edges simply supported

62

max./min. field moment

p p g + max m = l 2 2 2 x min F mf ' mf "

2.6.2.2 Support moments The maximum support moment at the common edge of two adjacent plate fields is due to loading of both adjacent fields by g and p. In the remaining fields p is distributed in a checkerboard pattern.
max. support moment at common edge of fields i , k

g (uniformly distributed

p (checkerboard modified)

Fig. 2.55: Load combination for maximum support moment.

q = g +

p (uniformly distributed) 2

q =

p 2

(checkerboard)

Fig. 2.56: Load re-distribution for maximum support moment 63

Again, the support moments are taken from Czernys tables. The boundary conditions are: load case q: all continuity edges clamped load case q: the considered edge clamped, all others simply supported

The mean value of both adjacent fields is taken.

Max. support moment:

p p p p g + 2 g + 2 2 + 2 + 2 + l 2 ,k l x ,i x m,i m,k m , k s s m , i s s 144 244 3 144 244 3 4 4 4 4 field i field k

1 ms = 2

2.6.3 The method by Pieper/Martens [17] The authors had studied many practical plate systems of different spans, aspect ratios, and combinations of field wise constant loading (p 2/3 q) and had evaluated how large field and support moments really are. From the results they derived rules for a simple and fast approximated calculation.

They found that in general field moments can be determined as the mean value of the field moments for a simply supported plate and those of a plate which is clamped at the interior continuity edges. The mean values are listed in tables for several types of plates. Those cases where after two small fields the third is larger need extra considerations.

q l2 x mean values (listed in tables) m f = f Fig. 2.57: Field moments regarding Pieper/Martens The support moments are determined as the mean value of the clamped edge support moments of both adjacent plate fields but not less than 75 % of the larger clamped edge moment (ratio of spans smaller than 5 : 1). If the ratio of spans is larger than 5 : 1 the clamped edge moment of the larger field has to be taken.

64

Fig. 2.58: Support moments regarding Pieper/Martens

Fig. 2.59: Method by Pieper/Martens [17] taken from Schneider Bautabellen [19]

65

2.6.4 Point supported plates Roof slabs (Flachdecken) are often point wise supported by columns.

The method of re-distributed loads can be used to determine the min/max stress resultants and support reactions. Analogously to paragraph 6.2 the dead load g is equally distributed over the entire plate structure where the life load p is circularly arranged (Fig. 2.60 2.63).

i max V hatched fields loaded k min V white fields loaded Fig. 2.60: Load arrangement for min./max. support force V

66

i max ms k min ms Fig. 2.61: Load arrangement for min./max. support moment ms

i max mF,G k min mF,G Fig. 2.62: Load arrangement for min./max. field moment mF,G in column axis (Gurt)

67

i max mF,F k min mF,F Fig. 2.63: Load arrangement for min./max. field moment at field center

68

2.7

Influence surfaces

2.7.1 Introduction Influence surfaces are analogous to influence lines of beam structures. The influence surface represents the influence of a moving concentrated load P(x,y) = 1 at position x,y on displacement or stress resultants at control point A(u,v). It is used for detailing, especially for concentrated loads, moving loads, or extreme local area loads. The influence surface is a spatial function z(x,y). Usually it is represented by contour lines projected on the ground-plan. Influence surfaces are numerically evaluated. 2.7.2 Deflections Using Betti-Maxwell proposition the influence surface is identical to the deflection surface due to a concentrated load P = 1 at control point A(u,v).

a) Beams

w(u;x) location cause

Betti Maxwell

w(x;u)

location cause w w(x;u)

Fig. 2.64: Influence line for the deflection w The influence line for the deflection w at control point A due to a moving load at P(x) is identical to the deflection due to a Load 1 at control point A(u). b) Plate:

w(u,v;x,y) location cause

Betti w(x,y;u,v) Maxwell location cause

w w(x,y;u,v) Fig. 2.65: Influence surface for deflection w 69

The influence surface for the deflection w at control point A(u,v) due to a moving load at P(x,y) is identical to the deflection surface due to a load 1 at control point A(u,v).

2.7.3 Stress resultants The kinematical method used to evaluate influence lines for beams cannot be applied for plates. An alternative approach makes use of the deflection influence line or surface.

a) Beams

curvature at position u

Fig. 2.66: Influence line for Mu at control point A due to a load at P. The influence line of a stress resultant due to a moving local P(x) is identical to the corresponding derivative of the deflection influence line with respect to the coordinate u of the control point A.

Fig. 2.67: Influence line for M at A due to a moving load P(x)

70

b) Plate It is assumed that the influence surface for the deflection w = w(x,y;u,v) is known. The influence surfaces for curvature and twisting can be determined by second order derivatives with respect to the coordinates of the control point, e.g.: "u " = Then, the moment influence surface is:
2 " w" 2 " w" + " m u " = K (" u " + " ") = K u 2 v 2

2 " w" u 2

The influence surfaces of other resultants are determined analogously The influence surfaces of resultants are determined by the related differentiation of the deflection influence surface (i.e. the deflection surface under a concentrated unit load) with respect to the control point coordinates. The following figure shows the influence surface for moment mx at the center of a rectangular simply supported plate. It is represented by contour lines and an isometric map.

Fig. 2.68: Bending moment influence surface. The surface approaches infinity over the control point.

71

Fig. 2.68 (cont.): Bending moment influence surface. The surface approaches infinity over the control point. (plot is arbitrarily truncated)
2.7.4 Evaluation A resultant at control point A(u,v) is the sum of all products of load value and influence coordinate , e.g. for a bending moment m:

m(u , v ) = p F (x , y ) " m(x , y )" dx dy + p L (s ) " m(s )" ds + Pi " m i " { 1 24 4 3 1 3 2 concentrated load area load line load For constant area load pF the integration reduces to the evaluation of the influence surface volume above the loaded area.

Fig. 2.69: Evaluation of an influence surface

72

Numerical methods can be used for integration, e.g. Simpsons rule. Influence values which tend towards infinity at the control point, can be exactly integrated and be used as correction of the numerical results. In many tables correction values are given. See [18] for influence surfaces and their application. Often it is possible to approximate distributed loads by equivalent concentrated loads and to use these for evaluation.

73

2.8

The Reissner/Mindlin Theory

2.8.1 Introduction A relaxation of Kirchhoff assumptions was made by Reissner in 1945 and in a slightly different manner by Mindlin in 1951. These modified theories extend the field of application of the theory to thick plates. 2.8.2 Kinematic assumptions As in Kirchhoffs theory cross sections are assumed to stay plane during deformation, however, they are allowed to change the angle relative to the mid plane. That means that the total state of deformation can be described by the displacement w0 and the rotations x and y of the mid plane. The local displacements at any point in the directions of x and z are taken as (Fig. 1):

w(x,y,z) = w0(x,y) and u(x,y,z) = z x(x,y) v(x,y,z) = z y(x,y) x, u

P

x xz

w x

w(x) = w0(x)

z, w

u(x) = z x(x) Fig. 2.70: Plate deformation (section parallel x z plane) The strains are:
x = u =z x x x y v =z y y

y =

z =

w =0 z 74

 xz = yz =

u w w + = x + z x x v w w + = y + z y y

xy =

y u v + =z x + y y x x

Together with the plane stress assumption (z = 0): E 1 x x = 2 y 1 1 y the stress resultants are obtained:
n x = x dz = 0 ; n y = 0
t 2 t 2

and

ij = G ij

membrane forces
xy

n xy =

t 2 t 2

t 2

dz = 0

qx =

t 2
t 2

xz

w dz = G t x + ; x

shear correction factor = 5/6

qy =

t 2

yz

w dz = Gt y + y

y = K ( x + y ) m x = y z dz = K x + x y t
2

t 2

y x m y = y z dz = K y + x = K ( y + x ) t
2 t 2

t 2

m xy = xy z dz =
t 2

1 x y 1 = (1 ) K xy + Gt 3 x + y = K y x x 12 2 y 75

Since we allow shear deformation the rotations x and y are independent from the derivatives of w. That means, that the stress resultants are expressed as functions of three independent kinematical variables: w, x , y . The relations between x , y and curvatures and twisting are:
x = x x y = y y xy = 1 x y + 2 y x

2.8.3 Boundary conditions At an edge the number of statical and kinematical variables are balanced. E.g. at an edge x = const.:

3 statical variables: 3 kinematical variables:

mx, mxy, qx x , y , w

Note, even if w = 0 (no deflection) the rotation normal to the edge may exist. The introduction of effective shear forces is unnecessary. Examples: Combinations of boundary conditions at edge x = const. boundary conditions comment
x y

free

mx = 0 mxy = 0 qx = 0
x

no problem with interpretation of effective shear

clamped

x = 0 y = 0 w=0 as with Kirchhoff

simple soft support

y SS

mx = 0 m xy = 0 w=0 mx = 0
HS

Shear forces are equivalent to Kirchhoff effective shear shear forces are equivalent to Kirchhoff shear

simple hard support

y = 0 w=0

The additional twisting degree of freedom makes it possible to separate the effects of clamped twist and vertical support. With the Kirchhoff theory they are coupled and result in effective 76

shear forces. Hard support is difficult to construct (clamped twisting). Simple soft support gives either tension support forces near the corners or lift off. The following figure illustrates the differences of soft- and hard support: the problem square plate, uniform area load, l/t = 10, simple supported
A z B x y A B

moments mxy
2.01

shear force qx
section A-A
-6.60

hard support

167.00 1.49 152.20

2.71

soft support

13.88

148.90

-9.55

The consequences for the design are: take twisting moment and shear forces from hard support take support forces from soft support

77

section B-B

1.49

section A-A

section B-B

2.8.4 The Kirchhoff constraint The Kirchhoff theory assumes no shear deformation, i.e.

xz = x + yz = y +

w =0 x w =0 y

x = y =

w x w y

which means an explicit coupling of rotations and displacement. Considering the Reissner/Mindlin theory the shear resistance increases with decreasing plate thickness. At the limit the shear deformation vanishes as the thickness approaches zero. De facto rotations and displacements are coupled again: the so called Kirchhoff constraint applies. As a consequence numerical problems with the Reissner/Mindlin theory occur for thin plates because the partitions of shear and bending stiffness are unbalanced (shear locking). Those problems can be overcome by several procedures (see FEM). Consequently, the curvatures and the twist approach at the Kirchhoff limit t 0 the values: x 2w = 2 x x 2w y = y = 2 y y x = 2w xy = 1 x + y = 2 x x y y

78