Timoshenko versus Euler beam theory: Pitfalls of a deterministic approach

Andr Telo Beck

a,
*
, Cludio R.A. da Silva Jr.
b
a
Department of Structural Engineering, EESC, University of So Paulo, Brazil
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Technology of Paran, Brazil
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 24 July 2009
Received in revised form 20 April 2010
Accepted 26 April 2010
Available online 31 May 2010
Keywords:
EulerBernoulli beam
Timoshenko beam
Uncertainty propagation
Parameterized stochastic processes
Monte Carlo simulation
Galerkin method
a b s t r a c t
The selection criteria for EulerBernoulli or Timoshenko beam theories are generally given by means of
some deterministic rule involving beam dimensions. The EulerBernoulli beam theory is used to model
the behavior of exure-dominated (or long) beams. The Timoshenko theory applies for shear-domi-
nated (or short) beams. In the mid-length range, both theories should be equivalent, and some agree-
ment 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 arti-
cle 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 CarloGalerkin scheme. It is shown that,
for uncertain elasticity modulus, propagation of uncertainty to the displacement response is much larger
for Timoshenko beams than for EulerBernoulli 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 anal-
ysis becomes completely dependent on the beam theory employed. The authors believe this is not widely
acknowledged by the structural safety or stochastic mechanics communities.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This paper presents a comparison of the EulerBernoulli and
Timoshenko beam theories, taking into account parameter uncer-
tainties and uncertainty propagation. It is widely known that the
EulerBernoulli beam theory properly models the behavior of ex-
ure-dominated (or long) beams. The Timoshenko theory is
known to apply for shear-dominated (or short) beams. In the
mid-length range, both theories should be equivalent, and some
agreement between them would be expected.
The stochastic beam bending problem has been studied by sev-
eral authors. Vanmarcke and Grigoriu [1] studied the bending of
Timoshenko beams with random shear modulus. Elishakoff et al.
[2] employed the theory of mean square calculus to construct a
solution to the boundary value problem of bending with stochastic
bending modulus. Ghanem and Spanos [3] used the Galerkin meth-
od and the Karhunem-Loeve series to represent uncertainty in the
bending modulus by means of a Gaussian stochastic process. Cha-
kraborty and Sarkar [4] used the Neumann series and Monte Carlo
simulation to obtain statistical moments of the displacements of
curved beams, with uncertainty in the elasticity modulus of the
foundation.
In this paper, it is shown that, for some mid-length beams,
deterministic displacement responses for the two beam theories
agree very well. In this case, the theories are generally accepted
as equivalent. However, it is shown in the paper that, although
the theories are equivalent when compared deterministically, their
behavior is radically different in terms of uncertainty propagation.
This is shown by means of some illustrative example problems.
In Section 2, formulation of the two beam theories is presented.
Representation of the uncertainty in beam parameters, via param-
eterized stochastic processes, is presented in Section 3. In the
numerical examples, a GalerkinMonte Carlo scheme is used to ob-
tain the random displacement elds. The Galerkin solutions are
presented in Section 4. Section 5 shows the evaluation of rst
and second order moments of the Monte Carlo solution. Two
example problems are shown in Section 6, illustrating the large dif-
ferences between the two formulations in terms of uncertainty
propagation. Section 7 discusses the effects of these differences
on reliability and risk analysis. Section 8 nishes the paper with
some conclusions.
2. Euler and Timoshenko beam formulations
In this section, the strong and weak formulations of the prob-
lems of stochastic bending of EulerBernoulli and Timoshenko
beams are presented. The strong form of the EulerBernoulli beam
bending problem is given by:
0167-4730/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.006
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 16 3373 9460; fax: +55 16 3373 9482.
E-mail address: atbeck@sc.usp.br (A.T. Beck).
Structural Safety 33 (2011) 1925
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Structural Safety
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ st r usaf e
d
2
dx
2
EI(x; x)
d
2
w
dx
2
_ _
= f ; \(x; x) (0; l) X;
w(0; x) = 0;
w(l; x) = 0;
dw
dx

(0;x)
=
dw
dx

(l;x)
= 0; \x X;
_

_
(1)
where w is the transverse displacement eld, EI is the bending stiff-
ness, Xis a sample space and f is a load term. The strong form of the
Timoshenko beam bending problem is given by:
d
dx
EI(x; x)
d/
dx
_ _
GA(x; x)
dw
dx
/
_ _
= 0;
d
dx
GA(x; x)
dw
dx
/
_ _ _ _
= f ; \(x; x) (0; l) X;
w(0; x) = w(l; x) = 0;
/(0; x) = /(l; x) = 0; \x X;
_

_
(2)
where / is the angular displacement eld, GA is the shear stiffness,
and the remaining symbols follow Eq. (1). The angular displace-
ments stochastic process in EulerBernoulli theory is given by the
space derivative of the transverse displacement eld. Both formula-
tions are given for clampedclamped boundary conditions.
In the sequence, elasticity modulus E and beam height h will be
assumed as stochastic processes. Hence, the displacement re-
sponses w and / will also be stochastic processes. In order to en-
sure existence and uniqueness of the solutions, the following
hypotheses are required:
H1 :
a;

a R

0; [[a;

a[[ < ; P(x X : EI(x; x) [a;

a[;
\x [0; l[) = 1;
s; s R

0; [[s; s[[ < ; P(x X : GA(x; x) [s; s[;

\x [0; l[) = 1;
_

_
H2 : f L
2
(X; F; P; L
2
(0; l)):
(3)
Hypothesis H1 ensures that the elasticity modulus and beam
height are strictly positive and uniformly limited in probability
[5]. Hypothesis H2 ensures that the stochastic load process has -
nite variance. These hypotheses are necessary for application of the
LaxMilgram Lemma, which ensures existence and uniqueness of
the solution, as well as continuous dependency on the data [5,6].
The abstract variational problem associated to the strong form
(Eq. (1)) of the stochastic EulerBernoulli beam bending problem
is obtained as:
Find w Vsuch that :
_
X
_
l
0
EI
d
2
w
dx
2

d
2
v
dx
2
_ _
(x; x)dxdP(x) =
_
X
_
l
0
(f v)(x; x)dxdP(x);
\v V:
_

_
(4)
where V= L
2
(X; F; P; U) with U = H
2
0
(0; l).
The abstract variational problem associated to the strong form
(Eq. (2)) of the stochastic Timoshenko beam bending problem is
obtained as:
Find (w; /) Wsuch that :
_
X
_
l
0
GA
dw
dx
/
_ _
u
_ _
(x; x)dxdP(x) =
_
X
_
l
0
(f u)(x; x)dxdP(x);
_
X
_
l
0
EI
d/
dx

dt
dx
_ _
(x; x)dxdP(x) =
_
X
_
l
0
GA
dw
dx
/
_ _
t
_ _
(x; x)dxdP(x);
\(u; t) W;
_

_
(5)
where W= L
2
(X; F; P; Q) with Q = H
1
0
(0; l) H
1
0
(0; l). Eq. (5) repre-
sents a system of variational equations for the coupled elds
w = w(x; x) and / = /(x; x) .
Details of the formulation of stochastic EulerBernoulli beams
are given in [7]. For stochastic Timoshenko beams, details can be
found in Ref. [8].
3. Uncertainty representation
In most engineering problems, complete statistical information
about uncertainties is not available. Sometimes, the rst and sec-
ond moments are the only information available. The probability
distribution function is dened based on experience or
heuristically.
In order to apply Galerkins method, an explicit representation
of the uncertainty is necessary. In this paper, uncertain parameters
are modeled as parameterized stochastic processes. These are de-
ned as a linear combination of deterministic functions and ran-
dom variables [9]:
j(x; x) =

N
i=1
g
i
(x)n
i
(x); (6)
where g
i

N
i=1
are deterministic functions and n
i

N
i=1
are random
variables.
4. Galerkin method
The Galerkin method and direct Monte Carlo simulation are
used in this paper to obtain sample realizations of the beams ran-
dom displacements, from samples of the beams random
parameters.
Approximated solutions for the qth realization of the transverse
displacement random process, for the EulerBernoulli beam, are
given by:
w
q
m
(x; x
q
) =

m
i=1
w
iq
u
i
(x); (7)
where w
iq

m
i=1
are coefcients to be determined and u
i

m
i=1
are
interpolating functions for the qth realization. Observing that
C
2
0
(0; l)
H
2
0
(0;l)
= H
2
0
(0; l), and considering a complete orthonormal set
U = u
i

i=1
of U [10], such that span[U[
U
= U
_ _
. Since approxi-
mated numerical solutions are derived in this paper, the solution
space has nite dimensions. This implies truncation of the complete
orthonormal set U, which results in U
m
= u
i

m
i=1
and
U
m
= span[U
m
[. The approximated variational problem associated
to the EulerBernoulli beam is obtained by inserting Eq. (7) in Eq.
(4):
For the qth realization; find w
iq

m
i=1
R
m
such that :

m
i=1
_
l
0
EI(x; x
q
)
d
2
u
i
dx
2

d
2
u
j
dx
2
_ _
(x)dx
_ _
w
iq
=
_
l
0
f (x; x
q
) u
j
(x)dx;
\w
j
W:
_

_
(8)
This problem can also be written in matrix form:
Find u
q
R
n
such that
K
q
u
q
= F
q
;
_
(9)
where K
q
M
m
(R), with elements given by:
K
q
= [k
q
ij
[
mm
; k
q
ij
=
_
l
0
EI(x; x
q
)
d
2
u
i
dx
2

d
2
u
j
dx
2
_ _
(x)dx: (10)
The loading term is given by,
F
q
= f
q
i

m
i=1
; f
q
i
=
_
l
0
f (x; x
q
) u
i
(x)dx: (11)
For the qth realization of Timoshenko beam displacements, approx-
imated Galerkin solutions are obtained as:
20 A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 1925
w
q
m
(x; x) =

m
i=1
w
iq
w
i
(x);
/
q
m
(x; x) =

m
i=1
/
iq
w
i
(x);
_

_
(12)
where (w
iq
; /
iq
)
m
i=1
are coefcients to be determined and w
i

m
i=1
are interpolating functions. Let Q = spanw
i

m
i=1
be a set generated
by truncation of a complete orthonormal set W = w
i

i=1
in Q, with
w
i
C
0
(0; l) C
1
(0; l); \i N. Replacing Eq. (12) in Eq. (5), one ar-
rives at the approximated variational problem for the Timoshenko
beam:
For the qth realization; find (w
iq
; /
iq
)
m
i=1
R
2m
such that;

m
i=1
_
l
0
EI(x; x
q
)
dw
i
dx
w
j
_ _
(x)dx
_ _
w
iq

_
l
0
GA(x; x
q
) (w
i
w
j
)(x)dx
_ _
/
iq
_

_
_

_
=
_
l
0
f (x; x
q
) w
j
(x)dx;

m
i=1
_
l
0
EI(x; x
q
)
dw
i
dx

dw
j
dx
_ _
(x) GA(x; x
q
) (w
i
w
j
)(x)
_ _
dx
_ _
/
iq
=

m
i=1
_
l
0
GA(x; x
q
)
dw
i
dx
w
j
_ _
(x)dx
_ _
w
iq
; \w
j
Q
m
:
_

_
(13)
The approximated variational problem consists in nding the
coefcients of the linear combination expressed in Eq. (13). Using
a vectormatrix representation, the system of linear algebraic
equations dened in Eq. (13) is written as:
For the qth realization; find (w
q
; /
q
) R
2m
such that :
A
q
w
q
B
q
/
q
= F
q
;
C
q
w
q
= D
q
/
q
;
_

_
(14)
where A
q
; B
q
; C
q
; D
q
M
m
(R). Elements of these matrices are given
by:
A
q
= [a
q
ij
[
mm
; a
q
ij
=
_
l
0
EI(x; x
q
)
dw
i
dx
w
j
_ _
(x)dx;
B
q
= [b
q
ij
[
mm
; b
q
ij
=
_
l
0
GA(x; x
q
) (w
i
w
j
)(x)dx;
C
q
= [c
q
ij
[
mm
; c
q
ij
=
_
l
0
GA(x; x
q
)
dw
i
dx
w
j
_ _
(x)dx;
D
q
= [d
q
ij
[
mm
; d
q
ij
=
_
l
0
EI(x; x
q
)
dw
i
dx

dw
j
dx
_ _
(x) GA(x; x
q
) (w
i
w
j
)(x)
_ _
dx:
_

_
(15)
The loading term is given by Eq. (11). Solution of the linear sys-
tem in Eq. (14) is obtained as:
/
q
= (A
q
C
q
1
D
q
B
q
)
1
F
q
;
w
q
= C
q
1
D
q
(A
q
C
q
1
D
q
B
q
)
1
F
q
:
_
(16)
It is important to note that conversion of the continuous prob-
lem (Eq. (5)) to the discretized form (Eq. (13)) results in de-cou-
pling of the displacement elds w and /, following Eq. (16).
5. Statistical moments and reliability problem
In the following, Monte Carlo simulation is used to study the
propagation of uncertainty through the Timoshenko and Euler
Bernoulli bending models. In order to compare the solutions, it is
interesting to focus on some statistics of the results.
Estimates for expected value and variance of random variables
w
(x)
= w(x; x) and /
(x)
= /(x; x), for a xed point x [0; l[, are ob-
tained from the set of displacement elds samples w(x; x
i
)
N
i=1
and /(x; x
i
)
N
i=1
:
^ l
w
(x)
=
1
N
_ _
N
i=1
w(x; x
i
);
^ r
2
w
(x)
=
1
N1
_ _
N
i=1
w(x; x
i
) ^ l
w
(x)
_ _
2
;
_

_
.
^ l
/
(x)
=
1
N
_ _
N
i=1
/(x; x
i
);
^ r
2
/
(x)
=
1
N1
_ _
N
i=1
/(x; x
i
) ^ l
/
(x)
_ _
2
:
_

_
(17)
In order to study the effects of differences in uncertainty prop-
agation in reliability or risk analysis, a simple reliability problem is
dened. An admissible displacement, at mid-spam, is dened as
w
ADM
=
l
200
, where l is the beam length. The associated proba-
bility of failure is given by:
P
f
= P(B); (18)
where P stands for probability and B = x X[w(
l
2
; x) P
l
200
_ _
.
This can be estimated from the same set of simulated displace-
ments, by:

P
f
=
1
N
_ _

N
i=1
1
B
(x
i
); (19)
where 1
B
: X 0; 1 with:
1
B
(x) =
1; x B;
0; x R B;
_
(20)
is the characteristic function of set B.
6. Numerical examples
In this section, two numerical examples are presented. In the
rst example, the elasticity modulus is considered a random eld.
In the second example, the height of the beams cross-section is
random. In both cases, uncertainty is modeled by parameterized
stochastic processes. In both examples, the beam is clamped at
both ends, the span (l) equals one meter, the cross-section is rect-
angular with b =
1
30
m and h =
1
25
m and the beam is subject to an
uniform distributed load of f (x) = 100 kPa=m; \x [0; l[.
Fig. 1 shows the exact, deterministic transverse (left) and angu-
lar (right) displacement responses, obtained via EulerBernoulli
and Timoshenko beam theories. These results are obtained for
the mean values of the parameters to be considered random in
the following. It is observed that the two theories yield very close
results, with transverse mid-spam displacements agreeing within
97%. From a deterministic point of view, the two theories could
be considered equivalent, for this beam.
6.1. Random elasticity modulus
In this example, the elasticity modulus is modeled as a param-
eterized stochastic process:
E(x; x) = l
E

3
_
r
E
n
1
(x) cos
x
l
_ _
n
2
(x) sin
x
l
_ _ _ _
; (21)
where l
E
is the mean value, r
E
is the standard deviation and n
1
; n
2

are uniform orthogonal random variables. Numerical solutions are

obtained for r
E
= (
1
10
) l
E
.
Results obtained via Monte Carlo simulation are shown in
Figs. 25. Fig. 2 shows the envelope (largest and smallest values)
among the 15,000 samples obtained, for transverse (left) and angu-
lar (right) beam displacements. Fig. 3 shows the mean values, and
Fig. 4 shows the variance of both displacement elds, obtained for
the two beam theories. Fig. 5 shows the cumulative distribution
function, obtained via simulation, of the displacement elds.
Results presented in Fig. 1 suggest that the EulerBernoulli and
Timoshenko beam theories are equivalent for this problem. Now,
Figs. 25 make very clear that the two theories are completely dif-
ferent in terms of uncertainty propagation. It is observed that the
A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 1925 21
uncertainty in elasticity modulus propagates much more through
the Timoshenko model than through the EulerBernoulli beam
model. The explanation for this behavior can be drawn from a com-
parison of Eqs. (1) and (2). The uncertainty in elasticity modulus
also represents uncertainty in the stiffness modulus G, through
the relation:
E = 2G(1 t): (22)
where t is the Poisson coefcient. The two uncertainty terms affect
the coupled system of Timoshenko beam equations.
The two sets of Monte Carlo realizations, obtained for the Euler
and Timoshenko beam displacements, can be written as:
E
w
= w
x
i
(x) R[w
x
i
(x) = w(x; x
i
); (x; x
i
) [0; l[ x
i

N
i=1
;
_
//
w
//
solution of Eq:(1):;
T
w
= w
x
i
(x) R[w
x
i
(x) = w(x; x
i
); (x; x
i
) [0; l[ x
i

N
i=1
;
_
//
w
//
solution of Eq:(2)::
_

_
(23)
Fig. 1. Exact deterministic solutions for transverse displacements (left) and angular displacements (right).
Fig. 2. Envelope of samples for transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
Fig. 3. Mean value of transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
22 A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 1925
It is observed in Fig. 2 (left) that E
w
T
w
. Hence, there are real-
izations of the Timoshenko beam displacements which are not
contained in the set of realizations of Euler displacements. Results
presented in Fig. 1 show no hint of this behavior.
6.2. Random cross-section height
In this example, the beam cross-section height is modeled as a
parameterized random process:
h(x; x) = l
h

3
_
r
h
n
1
(x) cos
x
l
_ _
n
2
(x) sin
x
l
_ _ _ _
; (24)
where l
h
is the mean value, r
h
=
1
10
_ _
l
h
is the standard deviation
and n
1
; n
2
are uniform, independent random variables.
Results obtained via Monte Carlo simulation are shown in
Figs. 69. Fig. 6 shows the envelope (largest and smallest values)
among the 15,000 samples obtained, for transverse (left) and angu-
lar (right) beam displacements. Fig. 7 shows the mean values, and
Fig. 8 shows the variance of both displacement elds, obtained for
the two beam theories. Fig. 9 shows the cumulative distribution
function, obtained via simulation, of the displacement elds.
It is rst observed that the agreement between the two theories
is better for this problem, although far from ideal. However, it is
noted that results have opposite trends in terms of uncertainty
propagation: the propagation of uncertainty in random beam
height is larger for the EulerBernoulli response than for the Tim-
oshenko displacements. Hence, for this example, E
w
T
w
.
To understand this result, the rst term of Eq. (1) can be written
in the following form:
d
2
dx
2
EI
d/
dx
_ _
= f : (25)
When this equation is solved for /, and the result is used in Eq.
(2) to nd the transverse displacement w, one notes that the solu-
tion is proportional to h
2
. For the EulerBernoulli beam, this dis-
placement is proportional to h
3
. This explains the differences in
beam height uncertainty propagation for the two beam models,
and why the propagation is larger for the Euler beam.
Comparing Figs. 7 and 3, it is observed that the agreement be-
tween the two theories is better, for this example, in comparison
to the random elasticity modulus. Comparing Figs. 8 and 4, it is ob-
served that the variance is smaller for the random beam height
example.
7. Effect on reliability and risk analysis
From the results presented in Section 6, it is clear that differ-
ences in uncertainty propagation will affect any reliability or risk
analysis based on the Euler or Timoshenko beam theories. This is
conrmed in this section, and quantied for the example problems
considered in the study.
Fig. 4. Variance of transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
Fig. 5. Cumulative distribution functions of transverse beam displacements.
A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 1925 23
Table 1 shows failure probability results obtained for the two
beam theories, and for an admissible mid-spam displacement of
w
ADM
=
l
200
(Eq. (18)). These results were obtained via simple
Monte Carlo simulation. It is clear that the results are completely
dependent on the beam theory used in the analysis.
A qualitative assessment of failure probability results can be
drawn from Figs. 2, 5, 6 and 9. In Fig. 2, it can be observed that,
for the random elasticity modulus example, E
w
B = . This im-
plies that, for the Euler beam model, the probability of event B is
zero, that is, the probability of failure is zero. On the other hand,
for the Timoshenko beam theory, there is some probability associ-
ated to this event. This probability can be drawn from Fig. 5, and is
given in Table 1. For the case of random beam height, it can be ob-
served in Fig. 6 that E
w
T
w
B. Hence, the failure probabilities
Fig. 6. Envelope of samples for transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
Fig. 7. Mean value of transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
Fig. 8. Variance of transverse (left) and angular (right) beam displacements.
24 A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 1925
are nonzero for both beam models. These failure probabilities can
be drawn from Fig. 9, and are given in Table 1.
Apart from the minor (3%) difference between the deterministic
Euler and Timoshenko solutions of this problem, the safety coef-
cient for the deterministic problem is given by:
k =
w
ADM
w
l
2
_ _ =
0:005
w
l
2
_ _ = 2:78: (26)
This coefcient is the same for both Euler and Timoshenko
beam formulations: hence, it clearly does not take into account
the differences in uncertainty propagation and in failure probabil-
ities. The central safety coefcients, which are given in Table 1, are
also not sufcient to provide uniform reliability for this problem.
8. Conclusions
In this paper, it was shown that two beam theories, which
seemed perfectly equivalent when compared in terms of determin-
istic response, behave radically different in terms of uncertainty
propagation. Hence, the very notion that the theories are equiva-
lent is limited to the realm of determinacy, and is unfounded when
uncertainty propagation is considered.
Two very simple examples were presented to illustrate the is-
sue, involving the Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beam theories.
A mid-length beam was considered, and it was shown that deter-
ministic displacement responses obtained by the two theories
agreed within 97%. However, uncertainty in the elasticity modulus
propagates much largely for the Timoshenko beam, in comparison
to the Euler beam. When uncertainty in beam height is considered,
propagation to the displacement response is larger for the Euler
beam than for the Timoshenko beam. Hence, although the Timo-
shenko and EulerBernoulli beam theories appear to be equivalent
for the mid-length beam considered, the propagation of uncer-
tainty to the beams displacement response is radically different.
As a consequence, any reliability or risk analysis becomes com-
pletely dependent on the theory employed.
There are no pitfalls in the Timoshenko or EulerBernoulli beam
theories presented herein. What the title of the manuscript sug-
gests is that there are pitfalls in using pure deterministic judgment
when comparing these formulations, in order to choose one of
them for a reliability or risk analysis.
Acknowledgements
Sponsorship of this research project by the So Paulo State
Foundation for Research FAPESP (Grant No. 2008/10366-4) and
by the National Council for Research and Development CNPq
(Grant No. 305120/2006-9) is greatly acknowledged.
References
[1] Vanmarcke EH, Grigoriu M. Stochastic nite element analysis of simple beams.
J Eng Mech 1983;109(5):120314.
[2] Elishakoff I, Ren YJ, Shinozuka M. Some exact solutions for the bending of
beams with spatially stochastic stiffness. Int J Solids Struct 1995;32(16):
231527.
[3] Ghanem R, Spanos PD. Stochastic nite elements: a spectral approach. NY:
Dover; 1991.
[4] Chakraborty S, Sarkar SK. Analysis of a curved beam on uncertain elastic
foundation. Finite Elem Anal Des 2000;36(1):7382.
[5] Babuska I, Tempone R, Zouraris GE. Solving elliptic boundary value problems
with uncertain coefcients by the nite element method: the stochastic
formulation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2005;194(1216):125194.
[6] Brenner SC, Scott LR. The mathematical theory of nite element
methods. Springer-Verlag; 1994.
[7] Silva Jr CRA, Beck AT, Rosa E. Solution of the stochastic beam bending problem
by Galerkin method and the AskeyWiener scheme. Lat Am J Solids Struct
2009;6:5172.
[8] Silva Jr CRA, Beck AT. Chaos-Galerkin solution of stochastic Timoshenko
bending problems. Comput Struct, submitted for publication.
[9] Grigoriu M. Applied non-gaussian processes: examples, theory, simulation,
linear random vibration, and matlab solutions. Prentice Hall; 1995.
[10] Kreyszig EO. Introductory functional analysis with applications. Wiley; 1989.
Fig. 9. Cumulative distribution functions of transverse beam displacements.
Table 1
Effect of beam theory on failure probability results.
Problem ^
P
f
kl =
wADM
l
w(L=2)
EulerBernoulli Timoshenko Euler Timoshenko
Random E 0.0000 0.2310 2.78 2.33
Random h 0.1007 0.0208 2.70 2.70
A.T. Beck, C.R.A. da Silva Jr. / Structural Safety 33 (2011) 1925 25