Rayleigh-Ritz procedure for determination of the critical load of tapered columns

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliana Marques ◽  
Luis Simoes Da Silva ◽  
Carlos Rebelo
2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaidotas Špalas ◽  
Audronis Kazimieras Kvedaras

In this paper, theoretical analysis of tapered column's bearing capacity is presented. A slender axially loaded column loses stability, when it achieves critical load (1). Critical load for uniform column can be calculated using L. Euler's formula (3). But this formula is only for uniform members. When we have non-uniform member, column's moment of inertia about strong axis (Fig 3) chances according to law (4). A. N. Dinik [4] suggested a differential equation (6) for non-uniform axially loaded member. So the critical load of tapered column can be calculated as for uniform member with additional factor K using (7) formula. Factor Kdepends only on the moments of inertia ratio (5) of column ends. In this paper, critical load of tapered column was calculated using FE program COSMOS/M. A lot of simulation were carried out with a wide range of moments of inertia ratio. From these simulations factor K was calculated (Fig 4 and Table 1) for axially loaded pin-end column. By computer simulation it was determined that factor K for pin-end column can also be used for other types of column support. After determining critical load, column slenderness (10) can be calculated using column's smallest cross-section A 1. Tapered column must satisfy (12) condition. A couple of examples (Table 2) with various moments of inertia ratio was solved. Three calculation methods were used: the author's suggested (Fig 5 curve 1): using [1, 2] method as for uniform member with the smallest column's cross-section geometrical characteristics (Fig 5 curve 2); and using [1, 2] method as for uniform member with average column's cross-section geometrical characteristics (Fig 5 curve 3). From Fig 5 we see that calculation of tapered column using methods for uniform members with average cross-section geometrical characteristics is not safe.


2002 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. S149 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Marangon ◽  
C A. Gobatto ◽  
M A. R. de Mello ◽  
E Kokubun

1993 ◽  
Vol 28 (3-5) ◽  
pp. 183-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. S. Jeffries ◽  
D. C. L. Lam

The operational definition of the “critical” load for wet SO4 deposition is that which does not increase the regional percent of lakes having pH≤6 for the portion of the population that historically had pH>6. Reviews of the effects of acidic deposition on aquatic biota show that the pH=6 threshold used to determine the critical load is sufficient to protect most organisms. It is inappropriate to specify a single critical load for the whole of eastern Canada due to variability in terrain sensitivity. The Atlantic provinces and easterr Quebec generally have very low critical loads (<8 kg. ha−1.yr−1). The terrain characteristics of this area dictate a critical load very close to background deposition. Lakes in southwestern Quebec and Ontario have critical loads of <8 to >20 kg.ha−1.yr−1 reflecting the wide range in terrain sensitivities that exist in each province.


2017 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 00050
Author(s):  
Evgeniy Galagurya ◽  
Maksym Kovalov ◽  
Larisa Kravtsiv ◽  
Igor Bychenok
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document