Act~ Meehaniea 71, 227--232 (1988)

ACTA MECHANICA
| by Springer-Verlag 1988

Notes On Minimum Weight Design of Statically Loaded Continuous Beams with Deflection Constraints
By F. Erbatur, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia With 3 Figures

(Received November 1986; revised February 3, 1987)

Summary The paper is concerned with optimum design of elastic continuous beams of solid crosssection, subjected to static loading. The deflection at a given point, along the beam, is specified. Assuming a rectangular cross-section and taking the thickness as the design variable, the thickness variation is sought as to make the weight of the beam a minimum. In the formulation, an energy concept is used. A numerical example is given fOr illustration.

1. Introduction
The p a p e r is concerned with the minimum weight design of statically loaded beams for a prescribed deflection at a specified point. The problem has been studied by several authors, [1]--[8]. The ~]]ustrative examples reported in these are mostly related to determinate and/or indeterminate sandwich beams. Here, we confine ourselves to the optimal design of indeterminate beams of solid crosssection. More specifically, the problem is, given a solid continuous beam with a rectangular cross-section and known width, to find the optimal thickness variation (thus the distribution of weight), which minimizes the weight of the beam and satisfies an equality constraint on a vertical deflection, at a given point. The only design variable is the variable thickness of the beam, on which no restriction is imposed. I n the formulation of the problem, we use the principle of stationary mutual potential energy, introduced b y Shield and Prager, [4]. The principle resembles the principle of minimum potential energy, however, it is concerned with two loading systems instead of one. Once the optimality condition is obtained, we then design an iterative algorithm for the solution of the optimal thickness variation.
15"

228

F. Erbatur:

The algorithm uses the method of finite differences as a numerical analysis tool. As an illustrative example, we obtain the thickness profile of a two span continuous beam, Fig. 2. Finally, we give some results, :Fig. 3 and conclude with some observations and remarks.

2. Problem Definition and Formulation

We consider a solid, elastic continuous beam of rectangular cross-section, b x h; where, b = width, is constant and h = thickness, is variable. The transverse deflection at a given point, G, along the beam, is prescribed to be a certain value, v0, Fig. 1. The optimization problem that we deal with is defined as: find as to min and satisfy
h(x) V = b

f h dx

(1)

vG = v0

In Eq. (1), the integral is over the total length of the beam and V = volume. The weight optimization problem is transposed to a volume optimization by assuming the specific weight of the structural material to be a constant. A sufficient condition for the optimum thickness distribution, for the problem defined in Eq. (1), can be obtained by the use of the stationary mutual potential energy principle. The principle, first given by Shield and Prager, [4], has been successfully applied to several optimum design problems of beams, disks and plates, [4]--[13]. The mutual potential energy for beams, under static loading, and for the design h, may be written as follows:

H =

h ~ dx --

(q~ + q v ) d x - -

w
i

[p(%(i) + p(%(;))]
(2)

+
i

V0

Fig. 1. Oontinuous beam with prescribed deflection at ~ given point

On Minimum Weight Design of Beams where,

o~ = E b / 1 2

229

v, ~ = transverse deflections
v, x = d v / d x ,
= - - d 2 v / d x 2,

~, x = d~/dx
~ = --d~V/dx 2

q, ~ = uniform loading p(~), p(i) = concentrated loads C (i), 0 (1) = concentrated couples and, quantities with bar and without bar correspond to the given loading and a second loading. The principle of stationary mutual potential energy is then stated as follows: the kinematically admissible deflection fields v and ~ which satisfy equilibrium and stress boundary conditions for the considered two states of loadings make the functional defined in Eq. (2), stationary. Now, if one considers a second design, in the neighbourhood of the first one, which satisfies the deflection constraint, it can be proved (through the use of the principles of stationary mutual potential energy and the virtual work) that,
3 or

T ~h2 = c

(3)

is the optimality condition for the given problem. In Eq. (3), C = constant, which, can also be shown to be,
3_PGD o

(4)

b f h dx
using the principle of virtual work and Eq. (3), when the second loading state is taken as a concentrated load, say p a , in the direction and sense of the given deflection, v0.

3. Iterative Solution
The proposed solution basically requires a numerical treatment of the beam bending problem, where the beam response is calculated at discrete points. Noting that, z ~ M / ( a h a) and ~ = M/(och3), where M and M are the bending moments for the given and the second loading states, respectively, a recurrence relation can be

230 obtained from Eq. (3),

F. Erbatur:

t~ =

vY~-~"

(5)

The iterative optimization algorithm, first assumes h~(initial) where, 'i' denotes discrete points along the beam. Then, Mi and M, are calculated numerically, and the constant, C is obtained from Eq. (4). The new values of the thickness, hi(new~ are then computed from Eq. (5). The algorithm is repeated until a predefined convergence criterion is satisfied.

4. Numerical Example The example problem is shown in Fig. 2. For the numerical calculation of the bending moments, the finite difference method with a mesh size of 0.4 m is used. Calculation of C, in Eq. (4), requires numerical integration where Simpson's rule is applied. A computer program was written to carry out the optimization algorithm. Starting with an initial constant thickness of, h = 300 mm, it took 6 iterations to find the optimal thickness distribution, Fig. 3. Computer t i m e consumed was cpu = 0.61 seconds on the King Saud University IBM 370 computer. The optimum weight (volume) was compared with the volume of a prismatic beam to yield the same deflection. I t is found that, such a beam has, h = 241 ram, and thus the gain in volume is 21~ .

20kNIm

4~'"::- .....

"'"~ ' J"~" J" J" J'~ ' ' "~ J" J"J"

Fig. 2. Example problem

200ram 100 mm

Fig. 3. Optimum profile

On Minimum Weight Design of Beams

231

5. Conclusions
One m a y draw the following conclusions from the preceeding study and the application. i. The recurrence relation, Eq. (5), clearly shows t h a t the optimum thickness is zero (suggesting an internal hinge) where bending m o m e n t is zero. This is not obtained in the o p t i m u m profile of Fig. 3, due to the employment of a numerical procedure where discrete points of fixed intervals are used. The obvious remedy not to encdunter sections with h ---- 0, is to prescribe a minimum thickness for the beam. ii. Again, according to the recurrence formula, to obtain a solution for the thickness, the bending moments of the two loading states should have the same sign at a given section of the beam. iii. The solution, in view of the drawback in (i) above, should be considered as a near minimum design, which gives the designer some clue as to the weight distribution and saving in material, for an o p t i m u m design. iv. Savings in weight will be greater for beams where the given deflection constraint governs the posed optimum design problem. The example solved in this p a p e r m a y be considered to be such a case. I f the load is applied in both spans, it is most likely t h a t less weight reduction will be obtained. On the otherhand, a cantilever loaded at the tip, m a y yield more reduction in weight, [14].

Acknowledgements
The author conveys his gratitude to research assistant N. N. Hanbali for his contribution in the computer work.

References [1] Barnett, R. L.: Minimum weight design of beams for given deflection. Transaction ASCE 28, 221--255 (1963). [2] ttaug, Jr. E. J., Kirmser, P. G. : Minimum weight design of beams with inequality constraints on stress and deflection. Journal of Applied l~Iechanics 84, 999--1004 (1967). [3] Ituang, N. C., Tang, H. T. : Minimum-weight design of elastic sandwich beams with deflection constraints. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 4, 277--298 (1969). [4] Shield, R. T., Prager, W. : Optimal structural design for given deflection. ZAMP 21, 513--523 (1970). [5] Prager, W. : Optimal thermoelastic de ~gn for given deflection. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 12, 705--709 (1970). [6] Prager, W.: Optimal design of statically determinate beams for given deflection. International Journal of l~Iechanieal Sciences 18, 893--895 (1971).

232

F. Erbatur: On Minimum Weight Design of Beams

[7] Chern, J. M. : Optimal structural design for given deflection in presence of body forces. International Journal of Solids and Structures 7, 373--382 (1971). [8] Plant, R. H.: Optimal structural design for given deflection under periodic loads. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 29, 315--318 (1971). [9] Chern, J. M., Prager, W. : Optimal design of rotating disk for given displacement of edge. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 6, 161-170 (1970). [10] Chern, J. M. : Optimal thermoelastie design for given deformation. Journal of Applied Mechanics 88, 538--540 (1971). [11] Erbatur, F., ~engi, u : On optimal design of plates for given deflection. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 21, 103--110 (1977). [12] Erbatur, F., Mengi, Y.: Thermoelastie optimal design of plates. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE 108, 649--658 (1977). [13] Erbatur, F. : Optimum design of elastic plates for a given dynamic deflection. Engineering Optimization 8, 153--159 (1985). [14] Cinquini, C.: Optimal elastic design for prescribed maximum deflection. Journal of Structural mechanics 7, 21--34 (1979). Assoc. Pro1. Dr. F. Erbatur Civil Engineering Department College o1 Engineering P.O. Box 800 King 8aucl University Riyadh, 11421 Saudi Arabia