Simply supported beam with a spring support in the middle - deflection

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the maximum deflection of a simply supported beam with a spring support in the middle under a uniformly distributed load (UDL). Participants explore various methods and formulas to derive the deflection, comparing analytical results with finite element analysis (FEA) outcomes.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation for maximum deflection using a known formula for a simply supported beam without a spring, leading to a calculated deflection of 6.1928 mm, which differs from an FEA result of 5.1796 mm.
  • Another participant suggests that the approach used for concentrated forces may not directly apply to UDLs, raising questions about the conversion of load types.
  • Some participants propose using standard methods for statically indeterminate beams but express uncertainty about how to incorporate the spring support into their calculations.
  • One participant asserts that the maximum deflection should be less with a spring support, noting that the spring force is proportional to deflection.
  • A later reply provides an alternative approach, yielding a deflection of 8.9705 mm and a rearranged formula for deflection that incorporates spring stiffness.
  • Another participant shares a system of equations to solve for deflection and reactions, suggesting that evaluating these equations could lead to a solution.
  • One participant reports an algebra error in their calculations, which they correct, finding agreement with a previously stated result.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of certain methods for calculating deflection, particularly regarding UDL versus concentrated loads. There is no consensus on the correct approach or final deflection value, as multiple competing views and methods are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in their approaches, including the treatment of the spring support and the assumptions made in deriving formulas. Some calculations depend on specific definitions and conditions that remain unresolved.

FEAnalyst
Messages
348
Reaction score
149
TL;DR
How to calculate the maximum deflection of a simply supported beam with spring support in the middle when it's subjected to uniformly distributed load ?
Hi,

I'd like to calculate the maximum deflection of a simply supported beam with spring support in the middle and UDL (uniformly distributed load) acting on the whole beam:

beam scheme.JPG


Here's my derivation, starting from the known formula for maximum deflection of a simply supported beam with UDL and no spring: $$\delta_{b}=\frac{5 \left( \frac{F}{L} \right) L^{4}}{384EI}$$ $$k_{b}=\frac{F}{\delta_{b}}=\frac{384EI}{5L^{3}}$$ $$k_{t}=k_{b}+k_{s}=\frac{384EI}{5L^{3}}+k_{s}$$ $$\delta_{t}=\frac{F}{k_{t}}=\frac{5FL^{3}}{384EI+5kL^{3}}$$

The problem is that when I substitute the data: ##F=2000 \ N##, ##L=500 \ mm##, ##E=210 \ GPa##, ##I=\frac{a^{4}}{12}=\frac{12^{4}}{12}=1728 \ mm^{4}##, ##k=100 \ \frac{N}{mm}##

the result is: $$\delta_{t}=\frac{5 \cdot 2000 \cdot 500^{3}}{384 \cdot 210000 \cdot 1728+5 \cdot 100 \cdot 500^{3}}=6.1928 \ mm$$

while from FEA, I get: ##5.1796 \ mm## and I believe this result is correct. What's wrong with my formula ?

Interestingly, I got a very good agreement for the same case with a concentrated force in the middle instead of UDL (using the same approach, just a different base formula for the deflection of the beam). Does it mean that the ##q=\frac{F}{L}## conversion is incorrect here ? How should I treat it then ?
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Well, I guess that I could use one of the standard methods to calculate the deflection of this statically indeterminate beam from scratch but I don’t know how to treat the spring. Also, the aforementioned simple approach based on the known formula for the deflection of a beam without a spring works well for the case with concentrated force in the middle so it seems that it’s just a matter of properly accounting for the UDL. Unless this simplified approach won’t work with UDL but I hope it’s not the case.
 
Lnewqban said:
Would this approach to a different situation be useful to yours?

https://mathalino.com/reviewer/strength-materials/problem-709-propped-beam-spring-support
Thank you very much. Using this approach, I get: $$\delta=\frac{5qL^{4}}{384EI}=8.9705 \ mm$$ $$\delta - \delta_{s}=\delta_{R}$$ $$8.9705- \frac{R}{k}=\frac{RL^{3}}{48EI}$$ $$8.9705- \frac{R}{100}=\frac{R \cdot 500^{3}}{48 \cdot 210000 \cdot 1728}$$ $$R=522.26 \ N$$ $$\delta_{s}=\frac{R}{k}=\frac{522.26}{100}=5.2226 \ mm$$ so pretty close to the simulation result. I also substituted everything and rearranged the equation to get a single formula: $$\delta_{s}=\frac{5qL^{4}}{384EI+8kL^{3}}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban and jack action
You should have 4 equations to work with:

$$ \uparrow^+ \sum F = R_A - wL -k y|_{x=L/2}+R_B = 0 $$

$$ \circlearrowright^+ \sum_{A} M = k y|_{x=L/2} \frac{L}{2}+ wL \frac{L}{2} - R_BL = 0 $$

Elastic Eqn's:
$$ EI \theta = \frac{R_A x^2 }{2} -\frac{w x^3}{6} + C_{\theta} \tag{slope}$$

$$ EI y = \frac{R_A x^3 }{6} -\frac{w x^4}{24} + C_{\theta}x + C_y \tag{deflection}$$

with conditions:

##y|_{x=0} = 0##

##\theta|_{x=L/2} = 0 ##

by evaluating ## y|_{x=L/2}## I believe you can combine all these to solve the system.
 
Last edited:
When I solve the system I get:

$$y_c=−\frac{5}{8}\left( \frac{wL^4}{ 48EI+kL^3} \right) \approx−5.22~ \rm{mm} $$

$$ R_A=R_B=\frac{1}{2}(ky_c+wL) \approx 738.9 ~\rm{N} $$

$$ Fc=−ky_c \approx 522.2 ~\rm{N} $$

EDIT: I found an algebra error. I see this agrees with the result in #5
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K