- Email: [email protected]
Comment on: Post-yield behaviour of a beam with partial end fixity
In& J. rage& ~
IN~ptmon P r e ~ 1975. VoL 17, ]pp. SZ& Printed In Ore~t Britain
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Comment on: Pomt-yie]ki bcbaviour of • bemn with lmaqial mad fixity b y P. G. HODOZ, Jr., In& J . mech. S d . 16, 385 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . (Rece/ved 8 October 1974) Tree AU~OB has presented a rational analysis for the poet-yield behaviour of a simply supported b e a m with partial restraint against lateral pull-in a t the e~ds. While it is stated t h a t the analysis is valid only for a rigid-perfectly plastic material, it should be pointed out t h a t a n y a t t e m p t to a p p l y the analysis directly to t h e more practical case of a b e a m comprised of an elastic-plastic material will result in substantial error in predicting the response. This has been demonstrated b y Campbell and Charlton 1 for a b e a m with full end fixity and carrying a central point load. Test results have shown t h a t for • particular deformation the load-carrying capacity of the beam is substantially lees t h a n t h a t predicted b y the rigid-plastic analysis of H a y t h o m t h w a i t e . s This effect is duo to the elasticity of the b e a m in t h e regions between the localized plastic hinges. This has been substantiated b y a comparison of the test results with those from an elastic-plastic analysis. REFERENCES 1. T. I. C A ~ Z L L and T. M. C~A~rrJ~ON, Ir~. J . mech. ~qc/. 15, 415 (1973). 2. R. M. H A x - r a o ~ m ~ v a r r z , E ~ / n e e r / n g 188, 110 (1957).
Depar~nen¢ of Civil K.~sser~
T. I. CA~BZLL
Queen's Uni~rsi~y Kinq4CATn, Ontario K 7 L 3N6 Canada Reply to c~mment : (Received 30 October 1974) Tm~ AUTHOB wishes to tbAnir Profeseor Oaanpbell for pointing out the possible effects of considering the elasticity of the beam. The relative importanee of this effect will, of course, depend upon the beam properties and dimensions, and upon the flexibility of the support. A more complete analysis which included the elasticity of the b e a m would certainly be desirable.
1)epa~ of Aerostm~ Engineerinq and Mechanics, I07 Aeronautical En~ineerinff Buildinff, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, U.S.A.
323
pm~xp G. HODGE, JR.
IN~ptmon P r e ~ 1975. VoL 17, ]pp. SZ& Printed In Ore~t Britain
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Comment on: Pomt-yie]ki bcbaviour of • bemn with lmaqial mad fixity b y P. G. HODOZ, Jr., In& J . mech. S d . 16, 385 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . (Rece/ved 8 October 1974) Tree AU~OB has presented a rational analysis for the poet-yield behaviour of a simply supported b e a m with partial restraint against lateral pull-in a t the e~ds. While it is stated t h a t the analysis is valid only for a rigid-perfectly plastic material, it should be pointed out t h a t a n y a t t e m p t to a p p l y the analysis directly to t h e more practical case of a b e a m comprised of an elastic-plastic material will result in substantial error in predicting the response. This has been demonstrated b y Campbell and Charlton 1 for a b e a m with full end fixity and carrying a central point load. Test results have shown t h a t for • particular deformation the load-carrying capacity of the beam is substantially lees t h a n t h a t predicted b y the rigid-plastic analysis of H a y t h o m t h w a i t e . s This effect is duo to the elasticity of the b e a m in t h e regions between the localized plastic hinges. This has been substantiated b y a comparison of the test results with those from an elastic-plastic analysis. REFERENCES 1. T. I. C A ~ Z L L and T. M. C~A~rrJ~ON, Ir~. J . mech. ~qc/. 15, 415 (1973). 2. R. M. H A x - r a o ~ m ~ v a r r z , E ~ / n e e r / n g 188, 110 (1957).
Depar~nen¢ of Civil K.~sser~
T. I. CA~BZLL
Queen's Uni~rsi~y Kinq4CATn, Ontario K 7 L 3N6 Canada Reply to c~mment : (Received 30 October 1974) Tm~ AUTHOB wishes to tbAnir Profeseor Oaanpbell for pointing out the possible effects of considering the elasticity of the beam. The relative importanee of this effect will, of course, depend upon the beam properties and dimensions, and upon the flexibility of the support. A more complete analysis which included the elasticity of the b e a m would certainly be desirable.
1)epa~ of Aerostm~ Engineerinq and Mechanics, I07 Aeronautical En~ineerinff Buildinff, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, U.S.A.
323
pm~xp G. HODGE, JR.