This article was downloaded by: [Washington University in St Louis]

On: 25 December 2014, At: 02:50

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Mechanics Based Design of

Structures and Machines: An
International Journal
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lmbd20

Generalized Elasticity Method

for Curved Beam Stress
Analysis: Analytical and
Numerical Comparisons for a
Lifting Hook
a a
A. Sloboda & P. Honarmandi
a
University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Published online: 02 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: A. Sloboda & P. Honarmandi (2007) Generalized Elasticity Method
for Curved Beam Stress Analysis: Analytical and Numerical Comparisons for a Lifting
Hook , Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines: An International Journal,
35:3, 319-332, DOI: 10.1080/15397730701473820

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15397730701473820

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
 and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014
 Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines, 35: 319–332, 2007
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN 1539-7734 print/1539-7742 online
DOI: 10.1080/15397730701473820
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

Generalized Elasticity Method for Curved Beam

Stress Analysis: Analytical and Numerical
Comparisons for a Lifting Hook#

A. Sloboda and P. Honarmandi

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Abstract: Elasticity analysis of curved beams was formerly limited to structures

having rectangular cross-sections. Recently an elasticity-based approach to
stress analysis for several specific, non-rectangular cross-section shapes was
reported; this paper generalizes that work, presenting a formulation that allows
beams of any cross-sectional shape to be analyzed. A lifting hook with a
double-trapezoidal cross-section is studied using this extended elasticity method.
Mechanics of materials approximations and finite element analysis are also
applied to the same hook. Comparisons of the stresses predicted by these
different approaches allow the accuracy and utility of the elasticity-based
analysis to be evaluated.

Keywords: Cross-section; Curved beam; Elasticity; Finite element analysis;

Lifting hook; Plane stress; Variable thickness; Winkler’s theory.

1. INTRODUCTION

Lifting hooks have traditionally been analyzed as a subset of curved

beams. Prior to the widespread use of the computer, two methods
were available for curved beam circumferential stress analysis: a plane
elasticity formulation (Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970) and Winkler’s
theory (Oden and Ripperger, 1981). Timoshenko’s elasticity approach
is more accurate and mathematically rigorous; in fact, it has served as

Received February 12, 2007; Accepted May 10, 2007

#
Communicated by Z. Mroz.
Correspondence: A. Sloboda, Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King’s College Road, Toronto, Ontario,
M5S 3G8, Canada; E-mail: asloboda@mie.utoronto.ca
 320 Sloboda and Honarmandi

the standard of comparison for attempted modifications of Winkler’s

theory (Cook, 1992). However, Winkler’s theory has long been the
primary means of curved beam analysis in engineering practice. This
is because it is applicable to cross-sections of any shape, whereas
the traditional elasticity approach is only applicable to rectangular
sections. The literature chronicles several unique methods of applying
and attempts at improving Winkler’s theory (Brock, 1971; Perkins, 1931;
Wahl, 1946; Winslow and Edmonds, 1926; Wright, 1953). Today, the
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

theory is so foundational it is found in many mechanics of materials

undergraduate texts (Boresi and Schmidt, 2003).
Development of finite element analysis (FEA) in the 1960s
made numerical study of hook stresses possible, without any of the
assumptions implicit in the earlier analytic methods. FEA allows
three-dimensional geometries and complicated stress distributions to be
analyzed, making it the preferred tool for final design. However, since
FEA provides no explicit formulas for stresses, it can be a cumbersome
method for early design that is focused on finding an optimum cross-
section. Thus, the pre-computer, classical methods are still valuable as
they provide what FEA lacks: easily manipulated equations that can
be used for initial design work. Consider, as an example, a recent
paper by Dragoni (2001) which uses Winkler’s theory as a basis for
optimizing curved beams so that the inner and outer radii experience
equal magnitude stresses.
The goal of this paper is to provide another means of analysis
suitable for early design and optimization. It extends work by Bagci
(1993), who presented an elasticity-based stress analysis method for
non-rectangular cross-sections. Whereas Bagci only presented analytic
solutions for exponential and t-sections, here the authors present
formulations that can be used to predict stresses across sections of
arbitrary shape.
A lifting hook, with a double-trapezoidal cross-section typical of
industrial hooks, is analyzed using this elasticity approach. Winkler’s
theory, several modifications proposed by Cook (1992), and FEA are
also employed. FEA is performed for both the case of a linearly
elastic material and the case of an elastic-plastic material which deforms
according to a bilinear kinematic model. The accuracy and utility of the
elasticity-based analysis is evaluated based on comparisons of the stresses
predicted for the example hook.

2. METHODOLOGY AND MODELING

2.1. Elasticity

Previously, elasticity solutions have only been available for curved

beams with rectangular (uniform-thickness) cross-sections. Recently,
 Elasticity Method for Curved Beam Stress Analysis 321

Bagci (1993) reformulated the plane stress/polar elasticity analysis and

extended the elasticity solution to curved beams having non-uniform
cross-sections.
We develop this work into a form that allows for numerical solution
of the stress distribution in curved beams of constant radius and a single,
arbitrary cross-section. This is accomplished by variable substitutions
which transform the compatibility equation and its boundary conditions
into a system soluble regardless of how the section thickness changes
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

with the radius. Both pure force and pure moment loading situations
are considered. When both force and moment loading are present
simultaneously, these loads can be considered independently and the
resulting stresses superimposed to arrive at the true stress state.

2.1.1. Moment Loading

For the case of moment loading only, the stress function is assumed to be

r = tr · rr (1)

where r is the radius of interest, t is the section thickness at the radius of

interest (depending only on r), and r is the radial stress. The complete
stress distribution is then given by

1 d

r =   =  r = 0 (2)
rt t dr
where  and r and are the circumferential and shear stresses,
respectively. These stresses are derived by balancing forces in both
the radial and tangential directions for a polar stress element. The
compatibility equation, once the stresses in Eq. (2) are substituted, is the
ordinary differential equation (ODE)



2 





2 2t

2t t

2−v
1

+
− +
− − t − 2
r t t2 t rt r






1 t 2v
vt
+
3 + 2 − 2t2 + =0 (3)
r r t rt rt
where  is Poisson’s ratio and the
superscript indicates the total
derivative with respect to r. The compatibility equation is subject to the
boundary conditions (BCs)
 
r ro  = r ri  = 0  rtdr + M = 0  tdr = 0 (4)

where M is the applied moment. The last of these conditions is

redundant; satisfying the first two conditions ensures the last condition
will be satisfied.
 322 Sloboda and Honarmandi

For an arbitrary section, the first two BCs are readily applied as they
can be rewritten

ro  =
ri  = 0 (5)

However, the second BC, when integrated by parts, leaves


ro  − ri  = M where =
dr (6)
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

This necessitates making a substitution in the original ODE Eq. (3).

Thus, we introduce the auxiliary variable y, with the condition
= y
.
Rewriting the system in terms of this new variable, the relevant ODE
and BCs from (3) and (4) are then



2 
2 2t
2t t

2−v
1
y4 + y


− + y

2 − − t − 2
r t t t rt r






1 t 2v
vt
+ y
3 + 2 − 2 t 2 + =0 (7)
r r t rt rt
y
ro  = y
ri  = 0 yro  − yri  = M (8)

Since we are interested in y
and not y when computing the stress

distribution, we can also introduce one additional, arbitrary BC so that
the fourth order ODE Eq. (7) is soluble, namely

yro  = c (9)

where c is an arbitrary constant. At this point the system yields solutions,

although for some numerical solvers the mixed BC may cause problems.
To overcome this, we introduce a new function a(r) and break the mixed
BC into one new ODE and two new BCs (Asher et al., 1988). Replacing
the second relation in Eq. (8), we then have

yro  − aro  = M ari  − yri  = 0 a
= 0 (10)

2.1.2. Force Loading

For the case of force loading only, the stress function is assumed to be

r  = fr sin  (11)

where fr is an unknown function (depending only on r), and  is the

angle from the loaded plane. The complete stress distribution is given by
 
f 1
f f
r = sin   = f + sin  r = − cos  (12)
rt t r rt
 Elasticity Method for Curved Beam Stress Analysis 323

where  and r are the circumferential and shear stresses. These stresses
can again be derived by balancing the forces on a stress element in both
the radial and tangential directions. The compatibility equation, with the
stresses in Eq. (12) substituted, is the ODE



2 





3 t

2t t

4−v
3
f +f −2 +f − − t − 2
r t t2 t rt r


2



3+v
2t t
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

+f t + 1 − v − =0 (13)
r 2t rt2 rt
It is subject to the following BCs

r ro  = r ri  = r ro  = r ri  = 0

  (14)
r tdr + P cos  = 0  rtdr = 0

where P is the applied force acting through the center of curvature.

r r = 0 implies that r r = 0, so that only any two of the first set of
conditions need to be considered. As in the case of moment loading, the
last BC is satisfied automatically when the first two BCs are fulfilled.
When we attempt to solve for an arbitrary section, the first set of
boundary conditions in Eq. (14) are immediately useful

fro  = fri  = 0 (15)

The third BC becomes

 fr
dr = P (16)
r
This BC cannot be handled using integration by parts, as it involves an
unknown function of r divided by r; therefore, the auxiliary variable z is
necessary, defined by
fr
z
r = (17)
r
Rewriting the system in terms of this new variable, the relevant ODE
and BCs from (13) and Eq. (14) are then


3 t

3z


+ rz4  + 2z

+ rz


 −2
r t


2






2t t 4−v
3
+ z + rz  2 − − t − 2
t t rt r


2



3+v
2t t
+ rz
t + 1 − v − =0 (18)
r 2t rt2 rt
z
ro  = z
ri  = 0 zro  − zri  = P zri  = c (19)
 324 Sloboda and Honarmandi

The mixed BC can be handled in the same way as for the moment
loading case.
The double-trapezoidal hook we consider as our example is loaded
through the center of its radius of curvature and therefore only the force
loading solution needs to be considered. We reiterate that for a hook
loaded eccentrically, both the force and moment solutions would have
to be considered separately and then added to obtain the hook’s stress
state.
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

Two different algorithms were used to perform the numerical

integration required to solve the system (Eqs. (18)–(19) and arrive at the
stress distribution for our example hook. One algorithm was based on an
Adams method and the other on a Runge-Kutta method (Chapra and
Canale, 2002); the results were identical using either procedure.

2.2. Winkler’s Theory and Variations

Referring to Fig. 1, Winkler’s theory for curved beam circumferential

stresses can be written
F Mrn − r
 = + (20)
A ArR − rn 
where F is the normal force on the loaded cross-section, M is the
moment on the cross-section, A is the cross-sectional area, R is the
section centroid, and rn is the neutral axis. These are defined by

 −1
1 1 1
R= rdA rn = dA 
A A r
F = P sin  M = M0 + PR sin  (21)

Figure 1. Loading and geometry of a curved beam.

 Elasticity Method for Curved Beam Stress Analysis 325

This classic mechanics of materials solution assumes that the state of

stress is uniaxial and that plane cross-sections remain plane. As a result
of this last assumption, the stress induced by the normal component of
the load force, represented by F , is uniform across the section.
This uniform stress component, although satisfying the static
equilibrium of the beam, was shown by Cook (1992) to introduce a
considerable error when compared to the Timoshenko elasticity solution
for rectangular sections. The resulting underestimate of the circumferential
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

stress becomes more significant as the ratio ro /ri becomes large.

Cook proposed several alternate versions of Winkler’s theory in
trying to overcome the perceived deficiency of the direct stress term.
First, he made the additional semi-empirical assumption that the normal
strain varies as c/r, where c is a constant. This results in the direct stress
term F/A becoming Frn /Ar so that the circumferential stress is

Frn Mrn − r
 = + (22)
Ar ArR − rn 

This solution, although in much better agreement with the elasticity

solution, results in a moment imbalance, since it locates the centroid
of the direct stress at the neutral axis rather than the centroidal axis.
Cook corrected this problem by adding a term which varies linearly with
centroidal distance; the resulting solution is


F AR − rn  rn Mrn − r
 = r − R + + (23)
A I r ArR − rn 

where I is the section’s centroidal moment of inertia. Cook went on to

further simplify this last case for slender beams. After comparing these
various formulations, he concluded that the initial adjustment, which
resulted in moment imbalance, was the simplest and most accurate for
a wide range of cases. Schmidt, in corresponding with Cook (1992),
suggested that Cook’s adapted formulas could be easily replaced by a
stress concentration factor, but this would not be possible for arbitrary
cross-sections.

2.3. Finite Element Analysis

Modeling and FEA of the hook was performed using a commercial

package. The hook was represented in both a geometrically complex
and a geometrically simple form. The complex form, which included
all physical details, such as the hook neck and eyelets, is shown in
Fig. 2. The simple form consisted of only the curved beam portion of
the geometry. Each structure was meshed with a tetrahedral element
and convergence studies were performed. Boundary constraints were
 326 Sloboda and Honarmandi
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

Figure 2. The geometrically complex FEA model.

considered by fixing one end of the beam in the geometrically simple

case and by fixing the eyelets in the more complex case; symmetry was
taken advantage of in both cases. Loading was generally applied as a
pressure over a specified portion of the hook surface so that unrealistic
local deformation was avoided. Both linear elastic and nonlinear elastic-
plastic analyses were carried out.

3. SIMULATION AND RESULTS

The hook chosen as the example for analysis has the profile specified in
Fig. 3. This double-trapezoidal cross-section shape was selected because
it is typical of small diameter lifting hooks. The hook has a working load
of 12000 lb (53.4 kN) at its center of curvature. It is made of alloy steel
with a yield strength of about 166 ksi (1.14 GPa) and an ultimate strength
of 200 ksi (1.38 GPa).
Under the working load, the simple FEA model predicts a critical
stress of about 121 ksi (834 MPa) at ri while the complex model predicts
about 132 ksi (910 MPa). These are reliable values, because as the number
of elements is increased, either uniformly across the entire model or
selectively via mesh refinement in the highest stress areas, convergence
occurs. This convergence is evident in Fig. 4, where the maximum stress
 Elasticity Method for Curved Beam Stress Analysis 327
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

Figure 3. The cross-section dimensions of the example lifting hook.

predicted by the complex hook model is plotted for different numbers of

elements.
For the same working load, the stress at selected radii for each of the
mechanics of materials formulations is given in Table 1. Winkler’s theory
slightly under-predicts the critical stress seen by either FEA model.
Cook’s two adjusted equations are in very close agreement with each
other (differing most significantly at ro by less than 1%). They suggest a
higher critical stress at ri than the traditional Winkler’s formulation; this
prediction is within 3% of the complex FEA model result.
The stress predictions obtained using the extended elasticity
formulation agree with the Winkler-based results over much of the

Figure 4. The predicted maximum stress as the number of elements in the FEA
model is increased.
 328 Sloboda and Honarmandi

Table 1. The stresses predicted by the non-FEA approaches

Radius (in) Circumferential stress (ksi)

Winkler’s Extended
theory Cook’s 1st Cook’s 2nd elasticity
(Eq. (20)) Adj (Eq. (22)) Adj (Eq. (23)) (Eq. (18)/(19))

0.325 (ri ) 117

8 134
4 134 166
8
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

0.497 57
9 65
3 65
1 54
2
0.669 28
9 31
8 31
7 23
8
0.842 11
7 12
0 11
9 10
2
1.014 0
3 −1
12 −1
12 0
984
1.186 −7
7 −10
4 −10
4 −6
36
1.358 −13
7 −17
3 −17
2 −12
5
1.531 −18
3 −22
7 −22
5 −17
5
1.703 −22
0 −27
0 −26
8 −21
9
1.875 (ro ) −25
1 −30
5 −30
2 −26
1

Radius (mm) Circumferential stress (MPa)

Winkler’s Extended
theory Cook’s 1st Cook’s 2nd elasticity
(Eq. (20)) Adj (Eq. (22)) Adj (Eq. (23)) (Eq. (18)/(19))

8.25 (ri ) 812 927 925 1150

12.6 399 450 449 373
17.0 199 219 218 164
21.4 80
7 82
5 82
1 70
3
25.8 2
59 −7
72 −7
73 6
79
30.1 −52
9 −71
7 −71
4 −43
8
34.5 −94
3 −120 −118 −86
0
38.9 −126 −157 −155 −121
43.2 −152 −186 −185 −151
47.6 (ro ) −173 −210 −208 −180

hook cross-section. These stress distributions are shown in Fig. 5. At

the outer radii in particular, the differences are negligible. However, in
the highest stress region the solutions are significantly different. This
is especially noticeable at ri where the critical stress predicted by the
elasticity solution is just over 24% higher than any of the mechanics of
materials predictions. One reason for this difference may be the elasticity
method’s inclusion of radial and shear stresses that Winkler’s theory
neglects.
Figure 6 shows the circumferential stress distribution at the critical
section as captured by FEA. These results are again generally consistent
with those presented previously, except for a significantly higher
compressive stress at ro than is predicted by any of the other methods. If
 Elasticity Method for Curved Beam Stress Analysis 329
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

Figure 5. A comparison of non-rectangular elasticity and Winkler’s theory

stresses across the section.

the FEA stress values running along the section centerline were plotted
on Fig. 5, these values would be closest to those given by Cook’s
adaptations near ri and closest to those of the elasticity method for
the majority of the rest of the domain. The overall shape of the stress
distribution would also be closest to that of the extended elasticity
solution, which better captures how rapidly the stresses decline moving
away from the inner radius.
The differences between the FEA results and those of the analytic
methods can be accounted for in several ways. First, and most
significantly, whereas the analytic methods provide a single value of

Figure 6. The section stress distribution computed using FEA. The stress
contours shown have units of psi.
 330 Sloboda and Honarmandi

circumferential stress at any given radius, FEA provides results that

vary in both cross-section dimensions. Although definite “banding”
is apparent in the FEA result of Fig. 6, this “banding” is distorted
near the inner and outer radii, leading to a stress state that varies
with thickness. Second, FEA does not assume plane sections remain
plane; this assumption constrains the analytic methods and could lead
to differences. Third, FEA affords a three-dimensional representation
of reality whereas the other methods provide lower dimensional
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

representations; thus, details present in the full FEA model may not be
represented in the other methods. It seems clear that neither elasticity
nor Winkler’s theory is able to capture the complexity seen in the FEA
results, but both predict the trends and values well enough to be useful
for initial design work.
Significant deformation should accompany lifting hook failure; this
suggests that basing design parameters such as the factor of safety on
linear elastic analysis in combination with a yield stress failure criterion
may not be the best approach. The FEA models show that only a very
small area of the hook experiences the critical stress; this area is close to
the hook’s surface at ri and stresses decline rapidly as one moves away
from it. In fact, when the examined radius is 0.1 in (2.5 mm) from the
inner surface, the stress drops to half of the maximum value. Although
repeatedly loading a hook past the linear elastic yield point would lead
to failure, the hook can probably sustain considerably more load in the
case of a one-time-only event. This was simulated in FEA by using a
bilinear kinematic-hardening model and gradually increasing the load
over a series of nonlinear simulations. The critical stresses at ri as a
function of the hook load are shown in Fig. 7. Clearly, the maximum

Figure 7. Critical stresses for linear elastic and nonlinear elastic-plastic FEA.
 Elasticity Method for Curved Beam Stress Analysis 331

stress levels off for a period as the material plastically deforms, after
which the stresses rapidly climb and failure occurs. This reinforces the
idea that parameters such as the safety factor should be evaluated in light
of an elastic-plastic analysis.
In principle, the elasticity method presented in this work could be
extended to treat the case of plasticity and serve as an initial analysis
method for determining the critical load which leads to failure of a
trial design. Similar work has been accomplished before for rectangular
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

sections (Dadras, 2001; Shaffer and House, 1955) using Timoshenko’s

elasticity as a basis.

4. CONCLUSIONS

For a small, double-trapezoidal lifting hook, the traditional mechanics

of materials solutions, including Cook’s adjustments to Winkler’s
theory, agree fairly well with the linear elastic FEA predictions of the
critical stresses. These equations are simple, explanatory, and useful for
optimizing initial hook geometry on the basis of yield criteria prior to
FEA in final design.
The non-rectangular elasticity method extended in this paper yields
stress distributions similar to those of other analysis methods for the
example hook. However, in the critical stress region there is some
divergence. In the form provided, the elasticity method can be easily
applied to cross-sections of any shape, making it a valuable design tool.
Analysis incorporating plasticity may be possible by further extending
the work.
In light of the FEA simulations performed, it seems appropriate for
manufacturers to use linear elastic analysis to set working load limits
for their products and elastic-plastic analysis when scrutinizing the safety
factor of their designs.

REFERENCES

Asher, U. M., Mattheij, R. M. M., Robert, D. R. (1988). Numerical

Solution of Boundary Value Problems For Ordinary Differential
Equations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Bagci, C. (1993). Exact elasticity solutions for stresses and deflections in
curved beams and rings of exponential and t-sections. Trans. ASME,
Journal of Mechanical Design 115:346–358.
Boresi, A. P., Schmidt, R. J. (2003). Advanced Mechanics of Materials.
6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Brock, J. E. (1971). Stresses in curved beams. Machine Design, Mar.
4:88–90.
 332 Sloboda and Honarmandi

Chapra, S. C., Canale, R. P. (2002). Numerical Methods for Engineers.

4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Cook, R. D. (1992). Circumferential stresses in curved beams. Trans.
ASME, Journal of Applied Mechanics 59:224–225.
Dadras, P. (2001). Plane strain elastic-plastic bending of a strain-
hardening curved beam. International Journal of Applied Mechanics
43:39–56.
Dragoni, E. (2001). Designing the cross-section of curved beams for
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 02:50 25 December 2014

equal magnitude of peak bending stresses. Journal of Strain Analysis

36(5):473–479.
Oden, J. T., Ripperger, E. A. (1981). Mechanics of Elastic Structures.
2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Perkins, H. C. (1931). Stresses in curved bars. Trans. ASME. 53:201–205.
Schmidt, R., Cook, R. D. (1992). Discussion: circumferential stresses in
curved beams. Trans. ASME, Journal of Applied Mechanics 59:1044–
1045.
Shaffer, B. W., House, R. N. (1955). The elastic-plastic stress distribution
within a wide curved bar subjected to pure bending. Trans. ASME,
Journal of Applied Mechanics 22:305–310.
Timoshenko, S. P., Goodier, J. N. (1970). Theory of Elasticity. 3rd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wahl, A. M. (1946). Calculation of stress in crane hooks. Trans. ASME.
68:239–242.
Winslow, A. M., Edmonds, R. H. G. (1926). Tests and theory of curved
beams. Trans. ASME. 48:647–663.
Wright, W. (1953). Stresses in curved beams—a tabular method of
solution based on Winkler’s Theory. Trans. ASME, Journal of
Applied Mechanics 68:138–139.