Sadhana, Vol. 24, Part 3, June 1999, pp. 175-198. © Printed in India.

On the dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite

elements

J N REDDY

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M University, College

Station, TX 77843-3123, USA
e-mail: jnreddy @reddy20.tamu.edu

MS received 15 November 1998; revised 13 January 1999

Abstract. First, various finite element models of the Timoshenko beam the-
ory for static analysis are reviewed, and a novel derivation of the 4 x 4 stiff-
ness matrix (for the pure bending case) of the superconvergent finite element
model for static problems is presented using two alternative approaches: (1)
assumed-strain finite element model of the conventional Timoshenko beam
theory, and (2) assumed-displacement finite element model of a modified Tim-
oshenko beam theory. Next, dynamic versions of various finite element models
are discussed. Numerical results for natural frequencies of simply supported
beams are presented to evaluate various Timoshenko beam finite elements. It
is found that the reduced integration element predicts the natural frequencies
accurately, provided a sufficient number of elements is used.

Keywords. Timoshenko beam finite elements; superconvergent element; dy-

namic behaviour; natural frequencies; assumed strain-displacement formula-
tion; interdependent interpolation; reduced integration elements.

1. Introduction

The development of structural and finite element models of the Timoshenko beam theory
(i.e., include transverse shear deformation in the stiffness matrix) has been the subject of
numerous papers in the literature. The exact, 4 x 4 stiffness matrix of the Timoshenko
beam is derived either using the methods of structural analysis (see Gere & Weaver 1965,
Przemieniecki 1968, Reddy et al 1997) or finite element formulations (see Friedman and
Kosmatka, 1993, Reddy 1997); Most papers dealing with finite element models of the
Timoshenko beam theory focus on alleviating shear and membrane locking by select-
ing proper interpolations of the deflections and shear strain and/or the displacement or
assumed strain-displacement method. Most of these approaches did not result in the two-
node superconvergent element (i.e. element that gives exact values of the generalized
175
176 JNReddy

displacements at the nodes) with four degrees of freedom per element, as is the case with
the Euler-Bernoulli beam element.
The shear locking is due to the inconsistency of the interpolation used for w and ~b,
or equivalently, not satisfying the requirement that the shear strain Yxz = ( d w / d x ) + dp
is element-wise constant for element-wise constant values of E l . Often, the Timoshenko
finite element models are based on equal interpolation of w and q~ and use recluced-order
integration to evaluate the stiffness coefficients associated with the transverse shear strain
and full integration for all other coefficients. Others have used so-called consistent inter-
polation based on the the recovery of correct constraints in the thick beam limit (Prathap
& Bhashyam 1982; Babu & Prathap 1986; Prathap & Babu 1986; Shi & Voyiadjis 1991;
Rakowski 1991; Reddy 1993). Although such elements do not experience locking, they
do not lead to the two-node superconvergent element. Friedman & Kosmatka (1993) and
Reddy (1997) and Reddy et al (1997) have independently developed the two-node super-
convergent element using the exact solution of the homogeneous form of the Timoshenko
beam equations. Hermite cubic interpolation of w and interdependent quadratic interpo-
lation of 4, was used in developing the element that has the superconvergence character
for static problems. The mass matrices for various elements are also presented. Friedman
& Kosmatka (1993) discussed the dynamic version of the interdependent interpolation
Timoshenko beam element but did not realize that it would not represent the pure shear
frequencies accurately.
The objective of the present paper is two-fold: (1) to present alternative derivations of
the stiffness matrices associated with the reduced integration finite element and supercon-
vergent finite element, and (2) to extend the elements to the dynamic case and evaluate
their behaviour. Two separate approaches, not using the exact solution, are presented for
the development of the stiffness matrix of the superconvergent finite element. The first
one is based on the assumed strain-displacement approach, and the second one on the
two-component form of the Timoshenko beam theory. Modifications to the stiffness and
mass matrices are also suggested that yield more accurate pure shear frequencies.

2. Theoretical formulation

The displacement field of the Timoshenko beam theory for the pure bending case is

ul(x,z) = zOo(x), u2 = O, u3(x,z) = w(x), (1)

where w is the transverse deflection and q~x the rotation of a transverse normal line about
the y axis. The strains and stresses of the Timoshenko beam theory are
d~bx dw
exx = z-d-X-
x =-- ZKxx, Fxz = dpx + -~x ' Crxx = E e x x , Crxz = Gyxz. (2)

The equilibrium equations of the beam are

d E1 + GAKs ~bx + = 0 (3)

dx dx )
d [GaKs(dpx+d---~)]=q(x) (4)
dx
 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite elements 177

where q(x) is the distributed transverse load, E Young's modulus, G the shear modulus,
A the area of cross section, I the moment of inertia, and Ks the shear correction factor.

3. Displacement finite element models

3.1 The general model

The displacement finite element model of the Timoshenko beam theory is constructed
using the principle of minimum total potential energy, or equivalently, using the weak
form

O=fo L[Eld~'~dxx~X+GAKs(a+x+d'
xb
dx ~w'~(~x+~)] ~,
dw

- q(x)awdx - Va•w(Xa) - Vbt~W(Xb)

a
--MaagPx (Xa) - Mbadpx (Xb) (5)
and (see figure 1)

Va =--- Q ( x a ) = - GAKs + (bx ,

X ~X a

Ma~--M(xa) = _

dx -Ix=x° '
Vb -~ Q(xb) = GAKs [ + (bx
X~-X b
,

Mb=--M(xb)=[Eld{bx 1 . (6)
dx dX=Xb
Suppose that w and q~x are approximated as
m n
~(x) ~ E , # l ' w : , ~x(x)~ E C'®J, (7)
j=l j=l
where (Wj, ~j) are the nodal values of (w, 4}x) and ~ a ) ( x ) (c~ = 1, 2) are the associated
interpolation functions. Substitution of (7) for w and 4}x, and/~w = ~/{1) and &bx = aP[2)
into (5) yields the finite element model
IlK 1 [K 12] ] {F 1}
[K12]T [K22] J l {W} } = { {F2} , (8)

where

a dx dx,

Ki~ = [XdKsGAdlp~I)o)2) dx,

Jxa dx
178 J N Reddy

x
I
wt o -I

i= xa ~
Xb =~
~-e-th element

1 2 e e+l N N+I

hi h2 h, h~r

1 0 .....ii 0 2

v~ v~
Figure 1. Typicalfinite element with force
Secondary variables degrees of freedom.

=
zx (
a
E1 dx dx +
,,sOA2' 2') ~ dx,

F/l=
f[a
0~l)q dx --I-Val/f~l)(xa).-1- Vbl/f~l)(xb),

F2 = Ma !//}2) (Xa) + Mb ~2) (Xb). (9)

3.2 Reduced integration element (RIE)

For a linear interpolation of w and ¢x and exact evaluation of the integrals of (9), (8) takes
the form

(2EI'~ -
[63h6 l_3h
2h21 3h h2~
Wl
q~l)
0 + Ma
q(1) , (lo)
k,~--o-~] - 3h 6 3h J W2 Vb
L-3h h2~ 3h 2h21 4% Mb
where
q~l)=fx x b ~ l ) q d x , (i=1,2), (lla)
a
 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite elements 179

E1
=GAKsh2, /x0=12~2, ~=1-6~2, L=1+3~2. (llb)

In the thin beam limit, i.e., g2 --+ O, the first and third equations of (10) imply the
following relation among (W1, W2, ~1, ~2):

+ ~2
-h Wlj) = 0, (12)

which is equivalent to the Kirchhoff constraint d~x+ dw/dx = 0 (or shear strain/xz = 0).
The second and fourth equations of (10), in view of (12), yield the constraint

(~1 -- ~2)/h = 0. (13)

This is equivalent to depx/dx = 0, which is an incorrect condition to satisfy as it forces

the curvature and hence the bending energy to zero. Thus, (10), in an effort to satisfy the
constraints (12) and (13), will yield the trivial solution WI = W2 = qbl = ~ 2 = 0 (i.e.,
the element locks).
The Kirchhoff condition (12) suggests that w and ~bx be interpolated such that dw/dx
is a polynomial of the same order as ~bx. If w is approximated using a linear polynomial
(a minimum requirement), then ~bx should be a constant. Since the minimum continuity
requirement on ~bx is also linear, it follows that w be approximated using a quadratic
polynomial. This is a consistent interpolation. Unless the weak form of the Timoshenko
beam theory is modified, we have no alternative but to use a quadratic approximation of
w and linear for 4~x and use full integration to evaluate the coefficient matrices to obtain
an element that does not experience locking. However, if one approximates both w and
4~x with linear polynomials but treats q~x as a constant in the evaluation of the shear strain,
it will also yield the stiffness matrix. This procedure is known in the literature as reduced
integration of the shear stiffness. It amounts to evaluating the second term o f Ki22 in (9)
using one-point integration as opposed to two-point integration required to exactly evaluate
the integral. The element equations of the reduced integration element are

6h -3h -6 -3h WI
( 2 E l "~ - h2(1.5 + 6~) 3h h 2 ( 1 . 5 - 6f2) qbt
\~--~J - 3h 6 3h W2
b-3h h2(1.5 - 6f2) 3h h2(1.5 + 6f2) qb2

= /q/o0/
q~) + Vb
Mb
(14)

This element is designated as the reduced integration element (RIE) by Reddy (1993).
Alternate derivation of the element without using the reduced integration concepts will be
presented in the sequel. In the thin beam limit, the element equations reduce to only one
constraint, namely the Kirchhoff condition in (12). While the element does not lock, it does
not yield exact displacements at the nodes for the static problems, and often a sufficient
number of elements is needed to obtain accurate deflections.
180 JNReddy

3.3 Consistent interpolation element (CIE)

As suggested earlier, if we use a quadratic approximation of w and linear approximation

of ~ , (8) reduces to a 5 x 5 system of equations. By eliminating the mid-side degree of
freedom associated with w, we can reduce the 5 x 5 system to the following 4 x 4 system
of equations (Reddy 1993; Reddy 1999):
6 -3h W1
2El ~ -3h h2(1.5+6f2) -3h
6 h 2 ( 1-. 35 h- 6 [ 2 ) 1
/z0 h3 ,] -6 3h 6 3h WE
-3h h2(1.5 - 6f2) 3h h2(1.5 + 6f2) ~2
+ ½qc2) Va
1 .~ ( 2 ) t.
-g~c ,, + M.
-- (2) 1 _(2)
(15)
q2 + ~qc Vb
1 ,~(2) t, Mb
~t/c r~

where

q~2)= fx]bTt.(t2)qdx, (i = 1, 2, c), (16)

and ~{2) are the quadratic interpolation functions. Here the subscript c is used for the
centre node of the element. Note that the element has the same stiffness matrix as the
reduced integration element but a different load vector. The load vector is equivalent to
that of the Euler-Bernoulli beam element. In fact, for constant q, the load vector in (15)
is identical to that of the Euler-Bernoulli beam element. The elimination of the mid-side
deflection degree of freedom is not possible for the dynamic case, as will be apparent in
the sequel.

3.4 Interdependent interpolation element (liE)

The next choice of consistent interpolation is to use cubic for w and quadratic for 4'x. This
will lead to a 7 × 7 system of equations. The displacement degrees of freedom associated
with the interior nodes (three in total) can again be condensed out, for the static case,
to obtain a 4 × 4 system of equations. Here we will not consider it further. Instead, we
consider the Hermite cubic interpolation of w and a related quadratic approximation of
~bx. These sets of interpolation functions were derived by Reddy (1997) using the exact
solution of (3) and (4) for q = 0. The resulting finite element is termed the interdependent
interpolation element (IIE).
To develop the interdependent interpolation element, we assume an approximation of
the form
m n

j=l j=l
A1 = W1, A2 = ~1, A3 -~- W2, A 4 = t~2, (18)
 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite elements 181

where ~0~1) and ~o~2) are the approximation functions.

0911) = (1//z)[/z - 12f27 - (3 - 27)72],

04 I) = - ( h / / z ) [ ( 1 - 7) 2 7 + 6~2 (1 - 7) 7],
~p~l) = (1//,)[(3 - 27)72 + 12f27],
~p4
(1) = (h//z)[(1 - 7)72 + 6[2 (1 - 7) 7], (19)
~o~2) = (6/h/x)(1 - 7)7,
q~(2) = (1//z)(/z - 47 + 372 - 12f27),
~0~2) = - ( 6 / h # ) ( 1 - 7)7,
~04
(2) = (1/#)(372 - 27 + 12f27). (20)
Here 7 is the nondimensional local coordinate
7 = (x - X a ) / h , # = 1 + 1212. (21)
When f2 = 0, ~o~1) reduces to the usual Hermite interpolation functions ~oi and 09~2~ to
-d~o i/dx. Substitution of (17) into (5) yields the finite element model,
[KI{A} = {q} + {Q}, (22)
where

Kij = a
E1 dx dx -dT- ] ( } dx,
(23)
qi = qo}l)q(x) dx, (24)
a

and Q1 = Va, Q2 = Ma, Q3 : Vb, and Q4 : Mb. Equation (22) has the explicit form,
I~ h -3h -6 -3hi W1 q1 Va
(2EI'~ 2h2)~ 3h h2~ qbl = q2 + Ma (25)
\--~ ] 3h 6 3h | W2 q3 Vb
L-3h h2~ 3h 2h2)~/ qb2 q4 Mb
This element leads to the exact nodal deflections in static analyses for any distribution
of the transverse load q(x) and element-wise constant bending stiffness E1 and shear
stiffness GAKs. Therefore, the element is said to be superconvergent. In the thin beam
limit, (25) reduces to the Euler-Bemoulli beam equations, and no additional constraints
are implied by the system.

4. The assumed strain-displacement (ASD) models

4.1 General finite element model

Here we develop the finite element model based on a variational form in which the dis-
placements (w, ~bx) and strains (Kxx, Yxz) are treated as independent field variables. The
182 J N Reddy

variational statement associated with this mixed formulation is given by the stationarity of
the following functional (see Oden & Reddy 1982, p. 116, equation (4.115)):

xO xx]
_1
+[GaKs(~x +dPx ~Vxz) Yxz]--qw} dx
-Vato(Xa) - VbW(Xb) -- MadPx(Xa) -- Moq~x(Xb), (26)
where
Va = [-GAKsYxz]xa, Vb = [GAKsYxz]xb,
Ma = [-Elxxx]x,, Mb = [Elxxx]xb. (27)
The first variation of Re yields the weak forms

fxX(GAKs--~x YXz - ~w q ) dx - VaSw(Xa) - Vb6W(Xb)

a
= 0, (28)

fx?b(EId3~bxtcxx+GaKs'dPxYx~)
dx ~ (29)

Cdx Xxx)
EI3xxx \ dx dx = 0, (30)

GAKs6E~z (6
2 + Ox - Vxz) dx = 0. (31)
a

Let the variables (w, Ox, Kxx, Yxz) be approximated as

m n

j=l j=l
P q
Kxx "~ ~ "~(3)/C
vj t~j, gxz. ~ ~ ~J4)Fj, (32)
j=l j=l

where (Wj, Oj, Ej, Fj) are the nodal values of (W, Ox, Xxx, Yxz) and ~Ja)(x) (c~ =
1, 2, 3, 4) are the associated interpolation functions whose choice is yet to be made. Sub-
stituting (32) into (28)-(31), we obtain the following finite element model:
~[0] [0] [0] [A] 1 {W} {F} {V}
[ [0] [0] [B] ~C~ / {*} {0} {M}
[ [0] [B] r -[D] t,-J / {E} = {0} + {0} ' (33)
L[A]r [c] r [01 -[GIA {F} {0} {0}
where

A i j = f x S b G A K s d ~ } l ) ~ (4, dx, = [Xb E1 d~}2' # 3, dx,

J Bij JXa dx

Cij= fxSbGAKsaP(i2)~(4)dx, Dij= fxSbEI~P(i3)~(3)dx,

 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite elements 183

Gij= ix xb GAKs~.4) to! dx, Fi = ix xb q_l)to( dx,

a a
V1 = Va, Vm = Vb, Ml = Ma, Mn ~- M b . (34)
Couple of observations are in order concerning the finite element model in (33). We
note that [A] is a vector {A} when gxz is approximated as a constant, F0. In addition, the
first equation of (33) has the form
F1 Vl
o' F2 0
GAKs ; Fo = F3 (35)
+ o
1 ;m Vm
when w is interpolated using quadratic or higher-order polynomials. The nonzero entries
correspond to the deflection degrees of freedom at node 1 and node m. For linear interpo-
lation of w, we have m = 2 and (35) is alright. However, when m > 2, (35) implies that
Fi = 0 for i = 2, ---, m - 1, which, in general, is not true. Thus, either the distributed
load is zero or it is converted to generalized point forces at the end nodes through Hermite
cubic polynomials. In the latter case, the force components can be added to Va and Vb and
the moment components to Ma and Mb at nodes 1 and m respectively.

4.2 ASD-LLCC element

For linear (L) interpolation of (w, ~bx) and constant (C) representation of (Xxx, Yxz), and
for constant values of E1 and GAKs, the element equations become (m = n = 2 and
p=q=l)

[ q~l) Vb '
] (36)
h
+ GAKs-~ { 1l l F 0 = I M a l M b ' (37)

{ + ~-{1
Z
h q~2 - h F O = O'
1} {qbl} (38)

{-1 1} { (D
.2}
1
- h320 = 0. (39)

Solving (38) and (39) for E0 and F0 and substituting into (36) and (37) (i.e., condensing
out 32o and go), we arrive at the following 4 x 4 system of equations,
4 -2h -4 -2h ] { W1
GAKs -2h h2(1 + 4 f 2 ) 2h h2(1 492) qb1
4h -4 2h 4 2h W2
-2h h2(t - 4 f 2 ) 2h h2(1 + 4 ~ ) _] qb2

----- q(1)
0
//+
Mb
, (40)
184 J N Reddy

where f2 = EI/GAKsh 2. These are exactly the same equations obtained in the displace-
ment formulation with the linear interpolation of w and ~bx and using one-point Gauss
quadrature to evaluate the shear stiffnesses, i.e., the reduced integration element (RIE).
Thus, the assumed strain-displacement formulation eliminates the need for reduced inte-
gration concepts.

4.3 ASD-HQLC element

Suppose that the distributed load is represented using

q~h) = fx xb q(x)~oi(x) dx. (41)
a

A Lagrange or Hermite cubic interpolation of w, quadratic interpolation of ~bx, linear

interpolation of tCxx,and constant representation of Yxz yields the equations

lT,b }, (42)

Y 1 K~2 +-----~-- 4 F0= 0 , (43)

1

E1 -5 4 (Pc = (44)
6 -1 -4 ~2 6 K2 0 '

W2 + ~ { 1 4 1 } *c - h F 0 = 0 , (45)
q~2
where the end nodes of the element are designated as '1' and '2', and the middle node as
'c', and the interior nodal degrees of freedom associated with w are omitted as they do not
contribute to the equations. Solving (44) for {K2}and (45) for F0, substituting the result
into (42) and (43), and eliminating ~c, we obtain
2EI[6 6 6 ] { W1 } 2 E I [ - 3 h - 3 h ] {qbl } {Va/ (46)
/zh 3 - 6 W2 + ~ 3h 3h qb2 ----- P'b '

I~h3 -3h 3h W2 + - - ~ [. h2~ 2h2L *2 = !VIb "

k. lzh 3]
[6
Adding (46) and (47), we obtain

(2EI'~ -3h 2h2L

_36h 3h
3h h2~
3h J W2 =
*1
Vb
"Pla (48)

h2~ ~n 2h2~. ~2 Mb
The stiffness matrix is the same as that of the superconvergent element derived by Reddy
(1997); however, the load vector is different. It is the same when either the applied load q
is element-wise uniform or the load vector is computed using (24) with ~0i given by (19).
It should be noted that the degree of the polynomial interpolation used for w does not
enter the equations presented in all the models discussed in this section. However, the load
 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite elements 185

representation implies that w be interpolated with Hermite cubic polynomials or ¢p~1) of

(19). It can be shown that the use of the interdependent interpolations of (19) and (20) for
w and ~bx also results in (48).

5. Two-component form of the Timoshenko beam theory

5.1 Theoretical formulation

The displacement and mixed formulations of the conventional Timoshenko beam theory
yield the superconvergent stiffness matrix only when higher-order interpolations of w and
~x are used. In contrast, the Euler-Bernoulli beam element is superconvergent for the
lowest admissible interpolation, namely, the Hermite cubic interpolation. In this section,
it is shown that the superconvergent element can be developed with the lowest admis-
sible interpolation of various displacement components. This requires a reformulation
of the Timoshenko beam theory in terms of the bending and shear components of the
transverse deflection. The two-component form of the transverse deflection was discussed
by Anderson (1953), Miklowitz (1953), Huffington (1963), and Krishna Murty (1970)
for beams, and Miklowitz (1960), Chow (1971), Bhashyam & Gallagher (1984), Reddy
(1987), Lim et al (1988), and Senthilnathan et al (1988) for plates.
Assume displacement field of the form

Ul(X, z) = z - - d - Z + fix , u2 = 0, u3(x, z) = wb(x) + wS(x), (49)

where w ° and w s denote the bending and shear components, respectively, of the total
transverse deflection w (see Reddy 1999), and ~x denotes the shear rotation, in addition
to the bending rotation, of a transverse normal about the y axis. The strains and the stress-
strain relations are given by
( d~x
exx = Z \ d x
d2wb ~
-d~x2 ] ' Vxz = ( f i x + dx J' (50)
Crxx = Eexx, Crxz = Gyxz. (51)
The principle of virtual displacements yields the following Euler-Lagrange equations:
dM
8/~x : - - - + O = 0, (52)
dx
d2M
8w b : dx 2 - q, (53)

6w sdQ - q ,
• (54)
dx
where M(x) and Q(x) are bending and shear force resultants,

f ( dflx d2tob~
M = Ja CrxxZd a = E1 \ dx - -d--Z]' (55)
/

Q=Ks fA
~rxzdA = K s G A ( dwS~
f i x + dx J" (56)
186 J N Reddy

5.2 Finite element model

The finite element model of the modified Timoshenko beam theory can be developed using
the standard steps. The first step is to write the weak forms of the three equations over a
typical element. We have

+ Ks G A ( d•l/Js/ ( , x "t-
\Sflx -F dx .] dx .] J
--fx a q(Swb+SwS)dx

- M a S # x ( X a ) - MbS~x(Xb) -- VaSwS(xa) -- Vb~ws(xb) -- Q1 8tob(xa)

-Q2(dSwb)-Q38wb(xb)-Q4( " dSwb)--~ (57)
dx "Xa "g0'
where
d2wb ~ l
Ma-------M(xa) = E I \ dx

Mb =--M(xb)= [ -EI \ dx
dx2 J J x b '

Va~--Q(xa)= KsGA 3x+ dx JJx~'

d slq
V b = = - Q ( x b ) = [ - - K s G A ( ~x-t- dx /Jxb ~

Q1 ~ - = - Q ( x a ) -=- Va,
Xa

Q3-~ (62) Xb
= Q(xb) -= Vb,

Q2 -= - M ( x a ) = Ma, Q4 =- M(xb) = Mb. (58)

From the weak form (57), it is clear that fix and w s can be interpolated using the Lagrange
interpolation and w b using Hermite interpolation. The lowest admissible functions are
linear for fix and w s and cubic for w b. However, the condition that the shear force be
element-wise constant for element-wise constant values of E1 in turn requires that w s be
quadratic.
Let (fix, w b, w s) be interpolated as
m n
~x (x) ~ ~ t3ig,[1)(x), wS(x) 2wIo}2)(x),
i=l i=1
P
wb (x) "~ Z w b ~°i(x)" (59)
f=l
 Dynamic behaviour o f the Timoshenko beam finite elements 187

where 13i, W s and W~ denote the nodal values of fx, w s and w b, respectively, ~p~l) and
~p{2) are linear and quadratic interpolation functions, respectively, and ¢Pi are the Hermite
cubic interpolation functions (m = 2, n = 3, p = 4). Substituting the interpolations (59)
into the weak form (57), we obtain the following finite element model:

[B] T
[C] T
[D]
[0]
[0] /
[G] 3
{wb}
{W s }
} = {Fb}
{F s}
q" {Q}
{V}
' (60)

or simply
[KR]{A} = {FS}, (61)
where the stiffness matrix [K s ] is of the order 9 × 9.
The coefficients of various matrices and vectors in (60) are defined by

Aij = E1 + K s G A 1J}l)~) 1) dx,

a

~*Xb d~f~ 1) d2~j

Bij = - Jxa E l d x ~ x 2 dx,
doe 2)
C~j=f~bK,,GATz}l)~x dx,

fx xb d2goi d2goj
Dij =
a
E1 ~dx ~dx dx,

fr x6 K s G A dr')2' dx,
Gij = dx dx
a

q~Pi dx, Fs = qO (2) dx. (62)

a a
The element equations (60) are not suitable for practical use. The reason is that we only
know the total displacement w = w b + w s and not its bending and shear parts separately.
This is also true about the total rotation (4~x = -Wbx + fix). Hence, it is necessary to recast
the element equations (60) in terms of the physical nodal variables.

5.3 Reduction of equations

Here we select specific interpolation functions and evaluate the element matrices. For the
choice of linear interpolation functions for Vz{l), quadratic interpolation functions for ~z!2),
and Hermite cubic interpolations functions for ~i (the minimum polynomials required by
the weak form), we obtain (see figure 2)
\ n t.--
(E~f-/[)1 1 ]+
-1 6 [21 12]){B1]
__KsGAh
B2
+ E1 [-11 -1
1
]1 wb /
+---~KsGA[-1-5 4 1]{W~]{/Ma
(63)
--4 5 W~" = Mb '
188 J N Reddy
/12 /is Q2, q~ Q4, q4

. } h.
Ztl~- o-e -~A4 Q1, qll- ~ Q3,qa
Primary deg. of freedom Secondary deg. of freedom

(a)

Wzb W~ B1 B2

Primary variables Primary variables

associated with wb associated with w*
and [3
(b)
Figure 2. Force and displacement degrees of freedom. (a) Total degrees of freedom. (b)
Displacement degrees of freedom associated with wb, ws, and ft.

12EI 1 -1 Wb 6EI
h3 ( - 1 1 ] { w b } + - - ~ - I - 1 1 1 1 ] { WbW
b}
={01
Qg } q- { q~h)
q~h)}, (64)
6EI 2EI

El_h[_11 ll]{/3'}={Q2}+lq!
h , } 1Q43 2 q(h) , (65,

KsGA I - 4 -511 {/3l} __KsGAI~8 -816-811 {W{

}Wc
s
6 /32 + 3h -8 7 W~
{Va}ql (2)}
= O.c + q(2) (66)
Vb q2(2)

where
Fb = q~h)(i = 1, 2, 3, 4), Fs = q~2) (i = 1, 2, c). (67)
 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite elements 189

Wcs denotes the value of w s and O.c is the specified transverse load at the centre node of
the element. Note that the finite element equations associated with the second equation in
(60) is split into a pair of equations for convenience.
As noted earlier, it is necessary to combine the two components of the transverse de-
flection as well as the rotation into total deflection and rotation. This amounts to rewrit-
ing the algebraic equations (60) to obtain a model solely in terms of the total deflection
w = w b + w s and rotation 4~x = --wb,x + fix at the element nodes. First we condense out
Wcs using the second equation of (66). We have

6h /5c + ( W I + W 2 ) + h ( CI)2- (I)1) (68)

Wc = 3 2 G A K s 2 -8 '

where F_c = @2) + Qc- Substituting (68) into (63) and (66), we obtain

12f2 h -1 1]{
1 21
A4 + -~ I,1 1 /32

+>_[_1 1
W~
Ma
Mb 8
{~
-- })
'
(69,
6EI -1 -1 12EI
[:l -1 ]/ w~/
= 1292 ({ Va } { q~2)+ lqc(2)}) (70)
Vb -}- q~2) + 1@2) '

where Ai denote the total generalized displacements,

dw b )
a~ =_ w(x.) = w~ + w~. A2---- - - - - + ]~ = w2b + B1,
dx Xa

A 3 =- II)(Xb) = W b -}- W~, A4 ~ ----~x -+-/~x = W2 +- B2. (71)

Xb

Adding (64) to (70) and (65) to (69), we find

(2EI~ 2EI -3h
h3 ] [ - 6
6
66]{A 1
A3 } + - - ~ [ 3 ? ~4}
ql 2) + 21-@2) ]
q~2) + 1@2) ' (72)
Q3 q3
__
2 E I [ 3h
_3h
3h
3h]lAl}+
2EI
[ 2h2)~
h2~
h3 A4}
=(l+12fa){Q2 } { q2(h) } { } _h_(2)
gqc
Q4 + q(4h) + 12f2 h,,(21 " (73)
guc
190 JNReddy

Now combining (72) and (73), we arrive at

6 -3h -6 -3h A1 al
2EI -3h 2h2)~ = Q2
/xh 3 -6 3h 6 A3 Q3
-3h h2~ 3h 2h2~..] A4 Q4
q~2) + lqc(2)

+--
tx
1
I q(h)
q~h)
q (4h)
+ 12 f2
/z
h _(2)
-- gt/c
q2(2) + ½qc(2)
h ~(2)
g,/c
, (74)

where
E1
~.=1+372, ~=1-692, /~=1+12~2, ~2= K s G A h 2 . (75)

Equation (74) is the same as (25) (see Reddy 1999).

6. Finite e l e m e n t m o d e l s for d y n a m i c a n a l y s i s

6.1 Weak forms and finite element models

For the dynamic case, the weak forms in (5), (28) and (29), and (57) (which correspond to
the displacement and mixed finite element models of the conventional Timoshenko beam
theory and the displacement model of the modified Timoshenko beam theory) must be
modified to read

0211) 02(9x 1
-- qaw + loaw--~-~- + Iza4~x--07- j dx - Va aW(Xa, t)

- Vb 8W(Xb, t) -- Ma aCPx(Xa, t) -- Mb 3cPx(Xb, t), (76)

0= GAKs-zZ--yx z + IoSw--~-2 - 8w q dx
a

- VaSw(Xa, t) - VbSW(Xb, t), (77)

0= ~xo[Xb( e i O~x
Ox Kxx + °2~x .~
GaKs~Oxyxz + 128Ox-swidx
--Ma 8dpx(Xa, t) - Mb 8dpx(Xb, t), (78)

0=dX
of E I \ ax

(
+ K s G A \8~x +
~x 2 ]

°sw~]
Ox ]
(~x +
Ox
0ws)_
ff-~x2 ]

Ox ]
q(Sw~ + 8w').
 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite elements 191

O~wb
+12 - - g ; + ~x ----"[-8flx)q-Io((i3b-l-ws)(~wb-~ t- all)S)] dx
Ox
-Ma,S~x(Xa, t) - Mb,5 ~x(Xb, t) -- Vat~wS(xa, t) - VbawS (xo, t)
08wb ~
--Q18wb(xa, t) -- Q2
7Xlx a
--Q38wb(xb, t) -- Q4 (79)
OX ]Xb '
respectively, where

Io= fA p d a = pa, 12= fA pz 2 d A - pAh2

~ , (80)

p being the mass density of the material.

For the dynamic case, the finite element models in (8), (33), and (60) take the following
forms.

Reduced integration element (RIE):

[M 1] [0] ] {ff'] [ [Kll]_ [KI2] ] {F 1}
[ K 2 2 ] j { {{a']
W } ] = l l { F 2} (81)
[o] [MZZ]J { {/~)} + L[K'2] '

Interdependent interpolation element (liE):

[M]{A] + [K]{A] = {q} + {Q}. (82)

Assumed strain-displacement model (ASD):

[M 11] [0] [o] [o]7 (~1 [o1 [01 [01 [A]
[0] [M 22] [ol [o]/ {~'1 + [o] [0] [B] [C]
[o] [o] [o] [o]1 ~) [o] [B] T -[D] [01
[o] [o] [o] [o]A {r} [A] T [C] T [0] -[G]
{w]
{a,] {M}
× {lc} = (83)
{o1 + {o1
{r} {o1 {o1

Two-component theory displacement finite element model:

_[MZ]T [M 3] [M 4] {wb} + /[B]r [D] [0]

{B} }
{ w b}

=
[0]
{,o,]
{F b}
[M4]T

+ {Q}
[MS]

,
{WS} [_[Cl r [ol [a! { w s}

(84)
{F s } {V}
192 J N Reddy
where

Mij-Jx~-
[Xbt~O~Oi(1)~0j(1)+ i2~o~2)~0)2))dx, (85)

= i0~(1)1)dx ' Mi22 = 12gli(2)-'-(2)lffjdx,

a

= 12~ri --~-dx,

I?
M4=fx2blo~oiq/(Z) dx, M5 = fx2b I0~p{2)#2) dx. (86)

See the previous sections for the definition of the stiffness coefficients and displace-
ment and load vectors. The specific forms of the mass matrices are given in the next
section.

6.2 Massmatrices
Because of the presence of the second time-derivative terms W and ~ , it is not possible
to algebraically manipulate the equations, as was done in the static case for CIE, ASD-
HQLC, and finite element model based on the two-component form of the Timoshenko
beam theory. Recall that for RIE (linear or quadratic), IIE, and ASD-LLCC, no algebraic
manipulations were necessary. Therefore, these elements are directly applicable to the
dynamic analysis. For the finite element model based on the two-component form of the
Timoshenko beam theory, one may select a mass matrix to go with the superconvergent
(SCE) stiffness matrix for the dynamic analysis. Additional discussion of this point will
follow. The explicit forms of the finite element equations for the three models, RIE, IIE,
and SCE are summarized below.

Reduced integrationelement (RIE): For linear interpolation of w and qSx, the finite ele-
ment equations are given by
210 0
h
g
i 0
I0
0
212

6
-3h
0
12
0

0
-3h
212 _J

h2(1.5 + 6fl)
~Pl
W2
~b2
-6
3h
2EI
-[- I,~Oh---~

-3h
h 2 ( 1 . 5 - 6f2)
] WI
x
-6
-3h
3h
h2(1.5 - 6f2)
6
3h
3h
h2(1.5 + 6 f l ) . J
W2
~2

0
q(1)
//Va/
+
Ma
Vb
(87)

0 Mb
 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beamfinite elements 193

For quadratic interpolation of both w and q~x,the element matrices are of the order 6 x 6
for pure bending case.

Interdependent interpolation element (liE): For this case, the stiffness matrix and load
vector are given in (25) [and the same as in (74)]. The mass matrix [M] of (85) consists
of several parts, as given below.

F 156 -22h
Ioh ]-22h 4h 2 -13h - 13h
3h 2
54
12
I 36 - 3 h
- 3 h 4h 2
-36-3hl
3h - h 2
[M]=~[?3 ~ -13h 156 22h +30--d-~2 - 3 6 - 3 h 36 3h
- 3 h 2 22h 4h 2 -3h-h 2 3h 4h 2

Ioh
84 - l l h
[
- l l h 2h 2 - 9 h - 2 h 2
+g2/10/z2 l 36 - 9 h 84 l l h
I2
+ ~-g
[i6 0 61
2h - 6 -
-6 0 -
9h - 2 h 2 l l h 2h 2 - 2 h - 6 2h J

f! Ioh F|-30h
+f22 ~5/x2 | 120 __ Eiooilt
6h 2 -30h -6h21 2412h
-30h 240 30h l + - - ~
20
O0
o (88)
L 30h - 6 h 2 30h 6h 2 J 10

Finite element model with superconvergent stiffness matrix (SCE): Although the super-
convergent form of the stiffness matrix can be derived using various approaches, only the
interdependentinterpolation element formulation is readily extendable to the dynamic case
(see (82) and (88)). The other formulations do not permit the algebraic manipulations with
the mass terms in place. Hence, one may choose a mass matrix to go with (48) and (74).
There are several choices: (i) use the same mass matrix as in (88), (ii) use the mass matrix
of the Euler-Bernoulli beam element, or (iii) use the mass matrix of the IIE element with
f2 = 0 (hence,/z = 1). The first choice reduces the formulation to IIE. The second and
third choices are the same because of the relationship between q)}ll, ~0~2),and q)i [see the
comment after (21)]. Thus, for the dynamic case, the finite element model in (74) takes
the form
156 -22h 54 13h
-22h 4h 2 -13h -3h2 /
54 -13h 156 22h |
13h - 3 h 2 22h 4h 2 J
-3h -36 -3hl)
I2

2EI -
I
[6
- 3 h 4h 2 3h
+3--~ - 3 6 - 3 h
- 3 h - h 2 3h
36

-3h -6 -3h
-h 2
3h
4h 2

3 h 3 h 6 ~2~ ] A2 =
2h2L
}~2
A3
2i4
A1 Q1
Q2
ql
q2
+;; ?6 A3 Q3
+
q3
(89)
[_-3h h2~ 3h 2hZ~J A 4 Q4 q4
194 JNReddy

where
q, ([ qh,
q2 1 q (2h)
+ 12~2 + • (90)
q3 = -g
q4 q (4h) h ~(2)
g'-/c
Note that when f2 is set to zero in mass as well as stiffness matrices, the equations of liE
and SCE are reduced to those of the Euler-Bernoulli beam element.

6.3 Evaluation of the elements for dynamic behaviour

To evaluate how various elements predict the natural frequencies, the free vibration of
a simply supported beam is studied. As per the Timoshenko beam theory, the natural
frequencies of the simply supported beam can be calculated from the equations

O E1 + GAKs dpx + -~x + 12 - ~ -- O, (91a)

ax
Ow 02w
0 [GAKs(q~X+~x)]+
0x I0--~- = 0 . (91b)

For periodic motion, we assume that

w(x, t) = Wo(x) exp(-icot), ~bx(x, t) = qb0(x) exp(--icot), (92)
where co denotes the frequency of natural vibration and W0 and qb0 denote the deflection
and rotation mode shapes. Substitution of (93) into (92a,b) yields the equations

d ( E1 ~ x 0 ) + G A K s ( Ckx+ ddx
W ° /t -/xcoeqb0 = 0, (93a)
dx
d GAKs ~o + - Ioco2W0 = 0. (93b)
dx dx / 3
For a simply supported beam, we assume solution of the form,
Wo(x) = W sin (mrcx/L), *0(x) = qb cos (mzrx/L), (94)
which satisfy the boundary conditions Wo(0) = 0, Wo(L) = 0, where L is the length of
the beam. Substituting (94) into (93a,b), we obtain the eigenvalue problem
L-Z-y-E1 + KsGA -/2o22 ~-KsGA • 0
-~-KsGA mZTr2 . . . . . 2 W = 0 " (95)
L---L-Z-As t ~ -- tOW
Setting the determinant of the coefficient matrix in (95) to zero, we obtain the frequency
equation

4 KsGA
12corn-- 2
12 + m27~2~ L + 1 tom+
L 2 I0 __
L4 I0 KsGA = 0,

(96)
 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite elements 195

Table 1. Comparison of the pure flexural natural frequencies (x 102) obtained by the RIE elements with
the exact frequencies of a simply supported beam.
Linear elements Quadratic elements
m N= 10 t N=20 N=40 N=5 N=10 N=20 Eq.(96)
1 0.28378 0.28121 0.28058 0.28045 0.28037 0.28036 0.28036
2 1.1234 1.0850 1.0758 1.0775 1.0730 1.0727 1.07270
3 2.4944 2.3184 2.2771 2.3078 2.2666 2.2638 2.26356
4 4.3792 3.8821 3.7693 3.9282 3.7469 3.7335 3.73259
5 6.7721 5.6986 5.4608 5.7735 5.4291 5.3874 5.38433
6 - 7.7157 7.2887 - 7.2625 7.1600 7.15239
7 - 9.9018 9.2119 - 9.2226 9.0096 8.99313
8 - 12.238 11.205 - 11.303 10.910 10.8783

t N denotes the number of elements used in the total span of the beam.

where g2I~ = E I / (G A Ks L 2). Equation (96) can be used to determine the natural frequency
corn for various values of m.
For pure shear mode, set W to zero in (95) [or I0 ~ e~z in (96)] and obtain
o9s = [(KsGa/I2)(m27r2~2 + 1)] 1/2, o~) = ( K s G A / I o ) 1/2. (97)

It is clear from (96) that both shear deformation and rotatory inertia have the effect of
reducing the frequency of natural vibration.
The first eight natural frequencies of pure flexural frequencies obtained using the reduced
integration elements (RIE), interdependent interpolation element (IIE), and superconver-
gent element (SCE) of (89) are compared with the analytical results in tables 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. The following values of the parameters were used.
E= 1.0, v-----0.25, Ks = 5, h= 10.0, A= 10.0, L= 100.0. (98)

F o r the s a m e n u m b e r o f d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , I I E p r e d i c t s m o r e a c c u r a t e r e s u l t s t h a n R I E
( c o m p a r e c o l u m n s 2,3, a n d 4 o f t a b l e 1 w i t h c o l u m n s 3,4, a n d 5 o f t a b l e 2). S u r p r i s i n g l y ,
the q u a d r a t i c R I E ( w i t h a l m o s t d o u b l e the d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m ) , y i e l d s v e r y a c c u r a t e r e s u l t s
in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h IIE. T h e s u p e r c o n v e r g e n t e l e m e n t ( S C E ) s e e m s to u n d e r p r e d i c t the
f r e q u e n c i e s (i.e., f r e q u e n c i e s c o n v e r g e to l o w e r v a l u e s t h a n the exact). T h i s m i g h t b e d u e
to the i n c o n s i s t e n c y o f the m a s s m a t r i x . It s h o u l d b e n o t e d that a c e r t a i n m i n i m u m n u m b e r
o f e l e m e n t s are n e e d e d to p r e d i c t a d e s i r e d n u m b e r o f l o w e s t f r e q u e n c i e s . In g e n e r a l , the

Table 2. Comparison of the pure flexural natural frequencies (x 102) obtained by the IIE elements with
the exact frequencies of a simply supported beam.
m N = 5 N = 10 N = 20 N = 40 Eq.(96)
1 0.28050 0.28039 0.28037 0.28037 0.28036
2 1.0801 1.0743 1.0731 1.0728 1.07270
3 2.3303 2.2783 2.2671 2.2644 2.26356
4 4.0087 3.7975 3.7483 3.7365 3.73259
5 - 5.5756 5.4310 5.3959 5.38433
6 - 7.5920 7.2610 7.1794 7.15239
7 - 9.8401 9.2082 9.0466 8.99313
8 - 12.280 11.258 10.973 10.8783
196 J N Reddy

Table 3. Comparison of the pure flexural natural frequencies (x 102) obtained by the SCE elements with
the exact frequencies of a simply supported beam.
m N = 5 N = 10 N = 20 N = 40 Eq. (97)
1 0.28040 0.28033 0.28031 0.28031 0.28036
2 1.0750 1,0708 1,0700 1.0698 1.07270
3 2.2834 2.2472 2.2399 2.2382 2.26356
4 3.7869 3.6657 3.6349 3.6275 3.73259
5 - 5.5756 5.1163 5.0957 5.38433
6 - 8.1943 6.5812 6.5377 7.15239
7 - 9.4363 7.9633 7.8876 8.99313
8 - 10.306 9.2257 9.1117 10.8783

frequencies predicted with a fixed n u m b e r o f elements will not always be pure bending
frequencies; the set m a y also contain pure shear frequencies (as is the case here when 10
linear R I E elements or 5 I I E elements are used).
Table 4contains the first ten pure shear frequencies obtained using R I E (linear elements)
and IIE. The p e r f o r m a n c e o f RIE is superior to IIE in predicting the pure shear frequencies.
liE yields frequencies which converge slowly as the m e s h is refined. The convergences o f
both RIE and IIE are not monotonic, especially for higher frequencies. Table 5 contains
results obtained using R I E with quadratic elements. The convergence is very good. The
superior performance o f RIE over liE is due to the fact that the stiffness matrix o f liE is
based on constant shear strain representation.

7. Summary

A complete set of finite element models of the T i m o s h e n k o b e a m theory is presented using

displacement and assumed strain-displacement approaches. Alternative finite element for-
mulations o f the Timoshenko b e a m theory which give the 4 x 4 superconvergent stiffness
matrix are presented using assumed strain-displacement formulation o f the conventional
Timoshenko b e a m theory and the displacement formulation of a modified f o r m of the Tim-
oshenko b e a m theory in which the total transverse deflection is d e c o m p o s e d into bending
and shear deflections. In the latter case, the final equations were recast only in terms of the

Table 4. Comparison of the pure shear natural frequencies obtained by various elements with the exact
frequencies of a simply supported beam.
m Eq. (97) RIE(10) RIE(20) RIE(40) IIE(10) IIE(20) IIE(40)
0 0.20000 0.20000 0.20000 0.20000 0.22771 0.20801 0.20206
1 0.20245 0.20165 0.20225 0.20240 0.22789 0.21045 0.20454
2 0.20964 0.20669 0.20892 0.20946 0.22841 0.21764 0.21179
3 0.22109 0.21534 0.21976 0.22077 0.22917 0.22921 0.22341
4 0.23620 0.22797 0.23443 0.23578 0.23007 0.24465 0.23880
5 0.25431 0.24495 0.25259 0.25391 0.23099 0.26342 0.25737
6 0.27483 0.26639 0.27394 ~27466 0.23185 0.28502 0.27856
7 0.29726 0.29150 0.29824 0.29759 0.23257 0.30899 0.30194
8 0.32119 0.31742 0.32532 0.32235 0.23311 0.33492 0.32713
9 0.34633 0.33823 0.35505 0.34870 0.23344 0.36246 0.35388
 Dynamic behaviour of the Timoshenko beam finite elements 197

Table 5. Comparison of the pure shear natural frequencies obtained by various elements with the exact
frequencies of a simply supported beam.
Mesh m--0 m=l m=2 m=3 m=4 m=5 m=6 m=7
Exact 0.20000 0.20245 0.20964 0.22109 0.23620 0.25431 0.27483 0.29726
Q(5) # 0.20000 0.20242 0.20926 0.21957 0.23224 0.26458 0.27837 0.30496
Q(10) 0.20000 0.20245 0.20962 0.22101 0.23602 0.25403 0.27459 0.29735
Q(20) 0.20000 0.20245 0.20964 0.22109 0.23619 0.25429 0.27482 0.29728

total deflection and rotation at the nodes, and the resulting finite element stiffness matrix
is 4 × 4 for (bending only). The developments are then extended to the dynamic case.
Numerical results of natural frequencies indicate that the reduced integration model (RIE)
or its equivalent predict both flexural and pure shear frequencies accurately, provided a
sufficient number of elements are used. The interdependent interpolation element (liE)
predicts flexural frequencies accurately but exhibits slow convergence, and it is poor in
predicting pure shear frequencies. This is possibly due to the fact that liE is based on
approximation functions derived from a constant state of shear strain. The constant state
of shear strain is statically correct but it is incorrect for dynamic problems, as can be seen
from (91a,b) or (93a,b).

The research reported herein is supported by the Oscar S. Wyatt Endowed Chair. It is
a pleasure to acknowledge the discussions on the topic with Dr. Gangan Prathap of the
National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, India and with Professor A V Krishna Murty
of the Aerospace Engineering Department, Indian Institute o f Science, Bangalore, India.

References

Anderson R A 1953 Flexural vibrations in uniform beams according to the Timoshenko theory.
J. Appl. Mech. 20:504-510
Babu C R, Prathap G 1986 A linear thick curved beam element. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 23:
1313-1328
Bhashyam G R, Gallagher R H 1984 An approach to the inclusion of transverse shear deformation
in finite element plate bending analysis. Comput. Struct. 19:35-40
Chow T S 1971 On the propagation of flexural waves in an orthotropic laminated plate and its
response to an impulsive load. J. Composite Materials 5:306-318
Friedman Z, Kosmatka J B 1993 An improved two-node Timoshenko beam finite element. Comput.
Struct. 47:473-481
Gere J M, Weaver W Jr 1965 Analysis offramed structures (New York: Van Nostrand) pp. 428-430
Huffington N J 1963 Response of elastic columns to axial pulse loading. AIAA J. 1:2099-2104
Krishna Murty A V 1970 Vibrations of short beams. AIAA J. 8:34-38
Lim S R Lee K H, Chow S T, Senthilnathan N R 1988 Linear and nonlinear bending of shear-
deformable plates. Comput. Struct. 30:945-952
Miklowitz J 1953 Flexural wave solutions of coupled equations representing the more exact theory
of bending. J. Appl. Mech. 20:511-514
198 J N Reddy

Miklowitz J 1960 Flexural stress wave in an infinite elastic plate due to a suddenly applied
concentrated transverse load. J. Appl. Mech. 27:681-689
Oden J T, Reddy J N 1982 Variational methods in theoretical mechanics 2nd edn (Berlin: Springer-
Verlag)
Prathap G, Babu C R 1986 Field-consistent strain interpolation for the quadratic shear flexible
beam element. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 23:1973-1984
Prathap G, Bhashyam G R 1982 Reduced integration and the shear flexible beam element. Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. 18:195-210
Przemieniecki J S 1968 Theory of matrix structural analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill)
Rakowski J 1991 A critical analysis of quadratic beam finite elements. Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng. 31: 949-966
Reddy J N 1987 A small strain and moderate rotation theory of laminated anisotropic plates. J.
Appl. Mech. 54:623-626
Reddy J N 1993 An introduction to thefinite element method 2nd edn (New York: McGraw-Hill)
pp. 177-187
Reddy J N 1997 On locking-free shear deformable beam elements. Comput. MethodsAppl. Mech.
Eng. 149:113-132
ReddyJN 1999 Theory and analysis of elastic plates (Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis) pp 48 A, 493
Reddy J N, Wang C M, Lam K Y 1997 Unified finite elements based on the classical and shear
deformation theories of beams and axisymmetric circular plates. Commun. Numer. Methods
Eng. 13:495-510
Senthilnathan N R, Lira S P, Lee K H, Chow S T 1988 Vibration of laminated orthotropic plates
using a simplified higher-order deformation theory. Composite Struct. 10:211-229
Shi G, Voyiadjis G Z 1991 Simple and efficient shear flexible two-node arch/beam and four-node
cylindrical shell/plate finite elements. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 31 : 759-776