When Should You Use Beam Theory vs. Plate Theory for Stress Calculations?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the appropriate application of beam theory versus plate theory for stress calculations in a specific plate scenario. Participants explore the conditions under which each theory should be applied, particularly in the context of a plate with certain dimensions and loading conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates the stress in a plate using beam theory and questions when to apply plate theory instead, seeking clarification on formulas for specific boundary conditions.
  • Another participant suggests treating the plate as a wide beam if uniformly loaded along the width, referencing boundary conditions from Roark's tables.
  • A participant points to a specific section in Roark's book that may be relevant to the problem, indicating a shared edition with others.
  • Concerns are raised about the stress calculated from beam theory being lower than that from plate theory, leading to confusion about which method provides a more conservative estimate.
  • One participant emphasizes that beams are typically viewed in 2-D while plates are considered in 3-D, suggesting that visualization of the problem can guide the choice of theory.
  • Another participant argues that the additional boundary conditions in plate theory can lead to different stress results, indicating that the two theories may not yield comparable outcomes.
  • A later reply critiques the initial beam theory application as incorrect due to the nature of the load, asserting that the plate theory stress is likely closer to the actual stress experienced.
  • One participant shifts the discussion to the theory of plates, asking about the application of classical versus Reissner-Mindlin theory for stiffened plates and the relevance of finite element methods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of beam versus plate theory, with no consensus reached on which method is definitively more appropriate for the given scenario. There are competing interpretations of the stress results derived from each theory.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of boundary conditions and the assumptions involved in applying each theory, highlighting that the definitions of "wide" beams and the nature of loads (concentrated vs. uniformly distributed) are critical to the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for engineers and students dealing with structural analysis, particularly in understanding the nuances of applying beam and plate theories in stress calculations.

leon25034796
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Can somebody provide some clarification:
I am calculating the stress in a plate with the following dimensions:
41" long by 30" wide and the plate is 3/8" thick. The plate is simply supported along the 41" length sides, with the short lengths free. I have calculated the stress using beam theory with a point load of 18815N at the centre of the plate as 227N/mm2.
However, I have a Roark book and I'm looking at the tables for 'formulas for flat plates with straight boundaries and constant thickness'. I can't find the exact formula I want but have used a formula for a rectangular plate simply supported at all edges with a uniform load over a central rectangular area (I've assumed this area to be as small as possible to try and best represent a point load)
My question is, when do I use plate theory and when do I use beam theory? And is there a plate theory formula for 2 simply supported sides and 2 free sides?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
If the plate is simply supported on two sides and free on the opposite two sides, then you should be able to treat it simple as a very wide beam - assuming that the plate is uniformly loaded along the width.

You'll notice that all of the cases in the Roark has boundary conditions on all, three (and in one case two adjacent) sides.
 
Did you look under the section 8.11 Beams of Relatively Great Width (pg 169 in my copy)?
 
We share the same edition apparently. Good catch,
 
Thanks for your responses. I also share the same copy.
There is one other thing that I can't get my head around:
I have treated this as a simply supported beam and calulated the stress at the centre with a point load as shown below and get 227N/mm2; this to me would be a more severe condition than all four sides simply supported??
However for peace of mind (as this is a practical situation) I used the case on Page 503 1c. i.e. Uniform load over central rectangular area. To try and simulate a point load I used the case a=1.4b and used the maximum value in this table i.e.2 (smallest ratio available of centrally loaded area to area of plate) to put back in the stress equation. This gave me a stress of 414N/mm2?? How can this be a worse stress than a simply supported beam across 2 beams?
I have read the respective section for beams of relatively great width and I can't really see how that helps me it also doesn't define what is a 'wide' beam.

Any comments would be appreciated
 
I thought that beams were just viewed as deflected members in 2-D and plates were viewed in 3-D.

So I think if you can visualize your problem in 2-D with the given constraints, you should use the beam equation.
 
But I am looking for the worst case scenario and surely the two theories should give an answer approximately the same; or as in this case I haven't got two exactly comparable formulas; so as detailed below I would still expect the beam theory stress to be the most severe case?
 
Not entirely. With plates, the additional boundary conditions can lead to odd things. They certainly won't be equal.

As said, if all of your loads and constraints are constant depthwise (which they are) then you should surely use beam-type equations. Because there is the large depth ratio, use the stiffening factors mentioned in the section that Fred referenced.
 
leon25034796: Solving your given problem as a beam the way you did in posts 1 and 5 will be incorrect and grossly unconservative, because you have a concentrated load, not a uniformly-distributed line load across the width of the plate. The simply-supported plate stress you listed in post 5 will be very close to the correct stress, as it will be only about 3.4 % below the x-direction stress in your actual plate. But what really matters is the von Mises stress in your actual plate, which will be about 7.3 % below the simply-supported plate stress you listed in post 5.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Hi guys

I'm currently reading about theory of plates, and i couldn't identify when shud i use classical theory or reissner mindlin theory for stiffened plate. Is there anything related to finite element for plate theorie and 3d calculation?.Any advise would be appreciated.Thanks
 

Similar threads

Stress Analysis of Lifting Plate With Bail
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Solving for Bending Stress and Deflection in a Cantilever Plate
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
Moment of inertia question for two plates welded together
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Can thermal expansion cause buckling in a compressed plate?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Stiffened panel - moments of inertia
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Simply supported beam with a spring support in the middle - deflection
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
What is the best beam design for my aluminum tandem axle trailer?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
Box Beam stress problem with welding
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Plate - bending moment equation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Calculating the bending stress of a simply supported beam
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K