Macaulay's method (the double integration method) is a technique used in structural analysis to determine the deflection of Euler-Bernoulli beams. Use of Macaulay's technique is very convenient for cases of discontinuous and/or discrete loading. Typically partial uniformly distributed loads (u.d.l.) and uniformly varying loads (u.v.l.) over the span and a number of concentrated loads are conveniently handled using this technique.

The first English language description of the method was by Macaulay.[1] The actual approach appears to have been developed by Clebsch in 1862.[2] Macaulay's method has been generalized for Euler-Bernoulli beams with axial compression,[3] to Timoshenko beams,[4] to elastic foundations,[5] and to problems in which the bending and shear stiffness changes discontinuously in a beam.[6]

Method

edit

The starting point is the relation from Euler-Bernoulli beam theory

 

Where   is the deflection and   is the bending moment. This equation[7] is simpler than the fourth-order beam equation and can be integrated twice to find   if the value of   as a function of   is known. For general loadings,   can be expressed in the form

 

where the quantities   represent the bending moments due to point loads and the quantity   is a Macaulay bracket defined as

 

Ordinarily, when integrating   we get

 

However, when integrating expressions containing Macaulay brackets, we have

 

with the difference between the two expressions being contained in the constant  . Using these integration rules makes the calculation of the deflection of Euler-Bernoulli beams simple in situations where there are multiple point loads and point moments. The Macaulay method predates more sophisticated concepts such as Dirac delta functions and step functions but achieves the same outcomes for beam problems.

Example: Simply supported beam with point load

edit
 
Simply supported beam with a single eccentric concentrated load.

An illustration of the Macaulay method considers a simply supported beam with a single eccentric concentrated load as shown in the adjacent figure. The first step is to find  . The reactions at the supports A and C are determined from the balance of forces and moments as

 

Therefore,   and the bending moment at a point D between A and B ( ) is given by

 

Using the moment-curvature relation and the Euler-Bernoulli expression for the bending moment, we have

 

Integrating the above equation we get, for  ,

 

At  

 

For a point D in the region BC ( ), the bending moment is

 

In Macaulay's approach we use the Macaulay bracket form of the above expression to represent the fact that a point load has been applied at location B, i.e.,

 

Therefore, the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation for this region has the form

 

Integrating the above equation, we get for  

 

At  

 

Comparing equations (iii) & (vii) and (iv) & (viii) we notice that due to continuity at point B,   and  . The above observation implies that for the two regions considered, though the equation for bending moment and hence for the curvature are different, the constants of integration got during successive integration of the equation for curvature for the two regions are the same.

The above argument holds true for any number/type of discontinuities in the equations for curvature, provided that in each case the equation retains the term for the subsequent region in the form   etc. It should be remembered that for any x, giving the quantities within the brackets, as in the above case, -ve should be neglected, and the calculations should be made considering only the quantities which give +ve sign for the terms within the brackets.

Reverting to the problem, we have

 

It is obvious that the first term only is to be considered for   and both the terms for   and the solution is

 

Note that the constants are placed immediately after the first term to indicate that they go with the first term when   and with both the terms when  . The Macaulay brackets help as a reminder that the quantity on the right is zero when considering points with  .

Boundary Conditions

edit

As   at  ,  . Also, as   at  ,

 

or,

 

Hence,

 

Maximum deflection

edit

For   to be maximum,  . Assuming that this happens for   we have

 

or

 

Clearly   cannot be a solution. Therefore, the maximum deflection is given by

 

or,

 

Deflection at load application point

edit

At  , i.e., at point B, the deflection is

 

or

 

Deflection at midpoint

edit

It is instructive to examine the ratio of  . At  

 

Therefore,

 

where   and for  . Even when the load is as near as 0.05L from the support, the error in estimating the deflection is only 2.6%. Hence in most of the cases the estimation of maximum deflection may be made fairly accurately with reasonable margin of error by working out deflection at the centre.

Special case of symmetrically applied load

edit

When  , for   to be maximum

 

and the maximum deflection is

 

References

edit
  1. ^ W. H. Macaulay, "A note on the deflection of beams", Messenger of Mathematics, 48 (1919), 129.
  2. ^ J. T. Weissenburger, ‘Integration of discontinuous expressions arising in beam theory’, AIAA Journal, 2(1) (1964), 106–108.
  3. ^ W. H. Wittrick, "A generalization of Macaulay’s method with applications in structural mechanics", AIAA Journal, 3(2) (1965), 326–330.
  4. ^ A. Yavari, S. Sarkani and J. N. Reddy, ‘On nonuniform Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beams with jump discontinuities: application of distribution theory’, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 38(46–7) (2001), 8389–8406.
  5. ^ A. Yavari, S. Sarkani and J. N. Reddy, ‘Generalised solutions of beams with jump discontinuities on elastic foundations’, Archive of Applied Mechanics, 71(9) (2001), 625–639.
  6. ^ Stephen, N. G., (2002), "Macaulay's method for a Timoshenko beam", Int. J. Mech. Engg. Education, 35(4), pp. 286-292.
  7. ^ The sign on the left hand side of the equation depends on the convention that is used. For the rest of this article we will assume that the sign convention is such that a positive sign is appropriate.

See also

edit