Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach

Abstract

The selection criteria for Euler–Bernoulli or Timoshenko beam theories are generally given by means of some deterministic rule involving beam dimensions. The Euler–Bernoulli beam theory is used to model the behavior of flexure-dominated (or “long”) beams. The Timoshenko theory applies for shear-dominated (or “short”) beams. In the mid-length range, both theories should be equivalent, and some agreement between them would be expected. Indeed, it is shown in the paper that, for some mid-length beams, the deterministic displacement responses for the two theories agrees very well. However, the article points out that the behavior of the two beam models is radically different in terms of uncertainty propagation. In the paper, some beam parameters are modeled as parameterized stochastic processes. The two formulations are implemented and solved via a Monte Carlo–Galerkin scheme. It is shown that, for uncertain elasticity modulus, propagation of uncertainty to the displacement response is much larger for Timoshenko beams than for Euler–Bernoulli beams. On the other hand, propagation of the uncertainty for random beam height is much larger for Euler beam displacements. Hence, any reliability or risk analysis becomes completely dependent on the beam theory employed. The authors believe this is not widely acknowledged by the structural safety or stochastic mechanics communities.