9 Stresses: Beams in Bending The organization of this chapter mimics that of the last chapter on torsion of cir-cular shafts but the story about stresses in beams is longer, covers more territory, and is a bit more complex. In torsion of a circular shaft, the action was all shear; contiguous cross sections sheared over one another in their rotation about the axis of the shaft. Here, the major stresses induced due to bending are normal stresses of tension and compression. But the state of stress within the beam includes shear stresses due to the shear force in addition to the major normal stresses due to bending although the former are generally of smaller order when compared to the latter. Still, in some contexts shear components of stress must be considered if failure is to be avoided. Our study of the deflections of a shaft in torsion produced a relationship between the applied torque and the angular rotation of one end of the shaft about its longitudinal axis relative to the other end of the shaft. This had the form of a stiffness equation for a linear spring, or truss member loaded in tension, i.e., MT = ( GJ ⁄ L) φ ⋅ is like F = ( AE ⁄ L) δ ⋅ Similarly, the rate of rotation of circular cross sections was a constant along the shaft just as the rate of displacement if you like, ∂ u , the extensional strain ∂ x was constant along the truss member loaded solely at its ends. We will construct a similar relationship between the moment and the radius of curvature of the beam in bending as a step along the path to fixing the normal stress distribution. We must go further if we wish to determine the transverse dis-placement and slope of the beam’s longitudinal axis. The deflected shape will gen-erally vary as we move along the axis of the beam, and how it varies will depend upon how the loading is distributed over the span Note that we could have consid-ered a torque per unit length distributed over the shaft in torsion and made our life more complex – the rate of rotation, the dφ /dz would then not be constant along the shaft. In subsequent chapters, we derive and solve a differential equation for the transverse displacement as a function of position along the beam. Our exploration of the behavior of beams will include a look at how they might buckle. Buckling is a mode of failure that can occur when member loads are well below the yield or fracture strength. Our prediction of critical buckling loads will again come from a study of the deflections of the beam, but now we must consider the possibility of relatively large deflections.236 Chapter 9 In this chapter we construct relations for the normal and shear stress compo-nents at any point within the the beam’s cross-section. To do so, to resolve the indeterminacy we confronted back in chapter 3, we must first consider the defor-mation of the beam. 9.1 Compatibility of Deformation We consider first the deformations and displacements of a beam in pure bending. Pure bending is said to take place over a finite portion of a span when the bending moment is a constant over that portion. Alternatively, a portion of a beam is said to be in a state of pure bending when the shear force over that portion is zero. The equivalence of these two statements is embodied in the differential equilibrium relationship dMb = –Vx d Using symmetry arguments, we will be able to construct a displacement field from which we deduce a compatible state of strain at every point within the beam. The constitutive relations then give us a corresponding stress state. With this in hand we pick up where we left off in section 3.2 and relate the displacement field to the (constant) bending moment requiring that the stress distribution over a cross section be equivalent to the bending moment. This produces a moment-curvature relationship, a stiffness relationship which, when we move to the more general case of varying bending moment, can be read as a differential equation for the transverse displacement. P x y P P x V Mb P V y Px Mb Pa beam in pure bending, plane cross sections remain plane and perpendicular to the lon-xWe have already worked up a pure bending problem; the four point bending of the simply supported beam in an earlier chapter. Over the midspan, L/4 < x < 3L/4, the bending moment is constant, the shear force is zero, the beam is in pure bending. We cut out a section of the beam and consider how it might deform. In this, we take it as given that we have a beam showing a cross section symmetric with respect to the plane defined by z=0 and whose shape does not change as we move along the span. We will claim, on the basis of symmetry that for a237 Stresses: Beams in Bending gitudinal axis. For example, postulate that the cross section CD on the right does not remain plane but bulges out. MbMb A B D C Mb Mb Now run around to the other side of the page and look at the section AB. The moment looks the same so section AB too must bulge out. Now come back and consider the portion of the beam to the right of section CD; its cross section too would be bulged out. But then we could not put the section back without gaps along the beam. This is an incompatible state of deformation. Any other deformation out of plane, for example, if the top half of the section dished in while the bottom half bulged out, can be shown to be incompatible with our requirement that the beam remain all together in one continuous piece. Plane cross sections must remain plane. That cross sections remain perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the beam follows again from symmetry – demanding that the same cause produces the same effect. 180 Mb MbMb Mb Mb Mb A B D C The two alternative deformation patterns shown above are equally plausible – there is no reason why one should occur rather than the other. But rotating either about the vertical axis shown by 180 degrees produces a contradiction. Hence they are both impossible. Plane cross sections remain perpendicular to the longitu-dinal axis of the beam.238 Chapter 9 The deformation pattern of a differential element of a beam in pure bending below is the one that prevails. Here we show the plane cross sections remaining plane and per-pendicular to the longitudinal axis. We show the longitudinal differen-tial