Scribd
Upload
206 views11 pages

False Position Method for Beam Deflection

The document discusses using MATLAB to analyze the deflection of a beam subjected to a linearly increasing distributed load. It uses the false position method to determine the point of maximum deflection and plots various beam properties like displacement, slope, moment, shear, and loading along the beam's length. The analysis finds that the maximum deflection of -515.1891 cm occurs at 268 cm along the beam and that the slope at this point is approximately zero. It also determines that the root of the deflection equation, where deflection equals zero, is 599.9991 cm. The relative approximate error of the maximum deflection decreases with each iteration until reaching zero.

Uploaded by

adel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
206 views11 pages

False Position Method for Beam Deflection

The document discusses using MATLAB to analyze the deflection of a beam subjected to a linearly increasing distributed load. It uses the false position method to determine the point of maximum deflection and plots various beam properties like displacement, slope, moment, shear, and loading along the beam's length. The analysis finds that the maximum deflection of -515.1891 cm occurs at 268 cm along the beam and that the slope at this point is approximately zero. It also determines that the root of the deflection equation, where deflection equals zero, is 599.9991 cm. The relative approximate error of the maximum deflection decreases with each iteration until reaching zero.

Uploaded by

adel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

SECTION 1

Introduction

The aim of this report is to discuss how a uniform beam subject to a


linearly increasing distributed load. Where the deflection y(m)=
(wo/(120*E*I*L))(-x5+2L2x3-L4x)
Where, E is the modulus of elasticity= 50000 kN/cm2, I is the moment of
inertia= 30 cm4, L is the length of the beam= 600 cm and wo= 2.5
kN/cm.
The objectives in the end of this discussion are:

 Developing a MATLAB code to determine the point of maximum


deflection by using numerical method (bisection, false position,
…..).
 Plotting the point of maximum deflection versus iteration number.
 Plotting the values of the relative approximate error of the point of
maximum deflection (Ea,x) versus iteration number.
 Plotting the following quantities versus distance along the beam:
a) Displacement (y).
b) Slope, theta(x)= dy/dx
c) Moment M(x)= EId2y/dx2
d) Shear V(x)= EId3y/dx3
e) Loading w(x)= -EId4y/dx4

The numerical method that we select is the false position method.

1
SECTION 2
Formulation of the problem in numerical
sense

In the first we endowed the values for L,E,I and wo.


Then we gave the lower and upper values of distance and we calculate
the deflection they have.
Hint: the lower and upper values in cm are x= 4:599
After that we calculated the root of the equation( the distance that give
us zero deflection) on the false position method y(x)= (wo/(120*E*I*L))
(-x5+2L2x3-L4x) = 0, and we calculated on 1000 iteration, after that
clarify x= 599.9991 cm and the deflection on this point was the
minimum y(x)= -1.6657e-08 cm.
Then we calculated the error (Ea) on 999 iteration (the first one is
forbidden because no old value) and clarify Ea in the end of these
iteration equal 1.3814e-7 % and was the minimum value.
After that we calculate the deflection on overall the distance and we
found the maximum deflection was 515.1891 cm to the negative axis on
x= 268 cm and the dy/dx on this point approximately= 0 (exactly=
3.4411e-04) .
After that we plotted the point of maximum deflection versus iteration
number figure 2.1.

2
Figure 2.1: The point of maximum deflection versus iteration number.

After that we plotted the values of the relative approximate error versus
iteration number figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: The values of the relative approximate error (RAE) versus iteration number.

3
After that we plotted displacement (y) versus distance (x) figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Displacement versus distance.

After that we plotted slope (theta(x)) versus distance (x) figure 2.4, from
this figure we can see the dy/dx on distance 268 cm at maximum
defliction= approximately zero.

Figure 2.4: Slope versus distance.

4
After that we plotted Moment (M(x)) versus distance (x) figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: Moment versus distance.

After that we plotted Shear (V(x)) versus distance (x) figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: Shear versus distance.

5
After that we plotted Loading (w(x)) versus distance (x) figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: Loading versus distance.

The code right below:


clc
clear
L=600;
E=50000;
I=30;
w=2.5;
x=4;
y=(w/(120*E*I*L))*(-(x^5)+2*(L^2)*(x^3)-(L^4)*x);
yL=y;
XL=4;
x=599;
y=(w/(120*E*I*L))*(-(x^5)+((2*(L^2))*(x^3))-(L^4)*x);
yU=y;
XU=599;
for t=1:1000
xr(t)=XL-(yL*(XU-XL)/(yU-yL));
yr(t)=(w/(120*E*I*L))*(-(xr(t)^5)+2*(L^2)*(xr(t)^3)-(L^4)*xr(t));
XU=xr(t);
yU=yr(t);
end
for t=2:1000
Ea(t)=abs((xr(t)-xr(t-1))/xr(t))*100;
end
Ea(1)=[];

6
for x=1:599
yall(x)=(w/(120*E*I*L))*(-x^5+2*(L^2)*(x^3)-(L^4)*x);
end
[ymax,I]=min(yall)
x=[1:599];
figure (1);
plot(yall,x,'--s','linewidth',2,'color',[1 0
0],'markerfaceColor','g','markersize',10);
xlabel 'displacement'
ylabel 'dictance'
shg
figure (2);
plot(ymax,I,'--s','linewidth',2,'color',[1 0
0],'markerfaceColor','g','markersize',10);
xlabel 'maximum deflection'
ylabel 'iteration number'
shg
z=[2:1000];
figure (3);
plot(Ea,z,'--s','linewidth',2,'color',[1 0
0],'markerfaceColor','g','markersize',10);
xlabel 'RAE'
ylabel 'iteration number'
shg
x=[1:599];
y=(w/(120*E*I*L))*(-(x.^5)+((2*(L^2))*(x.^3))-(L^4)*x);
theta=diff(y)./diff(x);
x=[1:598];
figure (4);
plot(theta,x,'--s','linewidth',2,'color',[1 0
0],'markerfaceColor','g','markersize',10);
xlabel 'slope'
ylabel 'dictance'
shg
moment=(diff(theta)./diff(x));
moment1=E*L*moment;
x=[1:597];
figure (5);
plot(moment1,x,'--s','linewidth',2,'color',[1 0
0],'markerfaceColor','g','markersize',10);
xlabel 'moment'
ylabel 'dictance'
shg
shear=(diff(moment)./diff(x));
shear1=E*L*shear;
x=[1:596];
figure (6);
plot(shear1,x,'--s','linewidth',2,'color',[1 0
0],'markerfaceColor','g','markersize',10);
xlabel 'shear'
ylabel 'dictance'
shg
loading=(diff(shear)./diff(x));
loading1=-E*L*loading;
x=[1:595];
figure (7);

7
plot(loading1,x,'--s','linewidth',2,'color',[1 0
0],'markerfaceColor','g','markersize',10);
xlabel 'loading'
ylabel 'dictance'
shg

8
SECTION 3
Results

 The maximum deflection point was on 268 cm from the beam


subject and equal -515.1891 cm.

 The slope on the maximum deflection point was zero.

 The root of this equation was 599.9991 cm and gave


approximately zero deflection.

 The relative approximate error was decreasing every iteration until


it arrived to zero.

9
SECTION 4
Conclusion

 Matlab software very helpful program and funnily educational.

 False position method was very good method to found the roots of
equations.

 The roots be when images are equal to zero.

10
References

Mc graw- hill. (2009), “Numerical Methods For Engineers Sixth


Edition” Steven C. Chapra and Raymond P. Canale, USA

11

Common questions

Powered by AI

The maximum deflection was determined by evaluating the deflection equation y(x)= (wo/(120*E*I*L))(-x^5 + 2L^2x^3 - L^4x) over the beam's length, identifying where the derivative dy/dx approaches zero, which is indicative of a peak or trough. By examining the numerical outputs, it was concluded that maximum deflection occurs at x = 268 cm with deflection y(x) = -515.1891 cm, verified using MATLAB through iteration and plotting .

Plotting displacement, slope, moment, shear, and loading profiles is crucial as these graphical representations provide insights into the beam's response under load. Displacement plots help identify deflection peaks and troughs; slope plots indicate changes in beam angles; moment plots show internal stresses conducive to bending; shear plots outline how load transitions along the beam; and loading plots validate the applied load profile. Together, these plots enable comprehensive understanding, aiding in design optimization, failure prediction, and ensuring that the structure adheres to safety and performance standards .

The false position method was used to determine the point of maximum deflection for the beam. It was chosen because it effectively finds roots of equations, particularly where changes in sign indicate the presence of a root. This method leverages linear approximations to iteratively converge on a solution, making it suitable for the problem given its need to approximate until a precise maximum deflection point was found .

The distribution of shear and moment along a beam is influenced by the beam's geometry, material properties, and loading conditions. For a linearly increasing distributed load, the differential equations governing shear V(x) = EId^3y/dx^3 and moment M(x) = EId^2y/dx^2 highlight how material stiffness (E), beam cross-section (I), and length (L) determine internal force distributions. Moment is maximized where deflection curvature increases, while shear represents the rate of change of moment, sensitive to variations in load along the beam's length .

The relative approximate error (RAE) decreases with every iteration in the process of finding the beam's deflection, showing a trend towards zero. This indicates convergence towards an accurate result, reflecting the efficiency of the numerical method used. Such a decrease shows the iterative method's effectiveness in minimizing error with increasing iterations, ultimately leading towards a stable point of deflection .

The slope (theta) of a beam is the first derivative of deflection with respect to distance along the beam, given by theta(x) = dy/dx. At points of maximum or minimum deflection, the slope is approximately zero, indicating a horizontal tangent to the deflection curve. This relationship helps identify points of interest such as maximum deflection, and it can describe how quickly the beam is deflecting or straightening along its length .

The study concluded that the false position method is effective for finding roots of the deflection equation, providing accurate and reproducible results through iterative processes. The method's performance was evident from the converging nature of relative approximate errors, which decreased to zero. It demonstrated the potential of numerical analysis in solving complex engineering problems where analytical solutions are challenging to obtain .

MATLAB played a crucial role in developing a computational model to study the beam's deflection, particularly through numerical methods like the false position method. The software efficiently handles iterations, calculations, and error analysis while allowing visualization of relationships such as deflection versus distance. Its ability to implement complex computations and easily present results makes it an educational and valuable tool in engineering studies .

The deflection y(m) for a uniform beam under a linearly increasing distributed load is a function of the modulus of elasticity E, the moment of inertia I, and the length L of the beam, expressed by the formula y(m) = (wo/(120*E*I*L))(-x^5 + 2L^2x^3 - L^4x). Here, E represents the stiffness of the material, I quantifies the distribution of cross-sectional area, and L is the longitudinal dimension of the beam. Therefore, changes in these properties directly influence the magnitude of deflection under applied loads .

The beam length L significantly impacts deflection, as seen in the formula y(m) = (wo/(120*E*I*L))(-x^5 + 2L^2x^3 - L^4x). Longer beams will typically show greater deflection due to the L term contributing inversely to stiffness in the denominator, thereby increasing deflection for the same load and material properties. Consequently, length increases the lever arm effect, further bending under distributed loads .

You might also like