You are on page 1of 8

Effect of transverse shear deformation on vibrations of planar

structures composed of beam-type elements

STANLEY'B. DONa ANDJOSEPHA. WOLF,JR.*

Schoolo] EngineeringandAppliedScience,Universityof California,LosAngeles,California90024

(Received19April 1971)

A finite elementbeam-typemodelconsideringtransversesheardeformationis presentedwhich utilizes

Timoshenko'soriginalkinematicvariables.A directcalculationof the distributionof energiesdueto exten-

sion,flexure,and shearis indicated.For beamvibrations,comparisonof the presentresultswith other

analysesshowsthat thecurrentformulationisextremelyeffectivefor crosssectionswhosedepth is compa-

rableto a wavelength.Naturalfrequenciesofframesandarchesarecomputedusingthepresentelementand are comparedwith valuesbaseduponneglectof transversesheardeformationto illustratethis effect

quantitatively.

SvBjF_JgrC•ssrv•½nxio•:

12.7.1, 12.7.

INTRODUCTION

The refinementof Bernoulli-Eulerbeam theory to

includetransversesheardeformationwasfirst givenby

Timoshenko.•.2The

compositionof the kinematicfield into independent

functions for the transversedeflection and bending rotation. Thus, a shearangle is possiblealong with a

correspondingstress-strainrelation which involvesa correctionor shapefactor.This factoris neededfor an equivalenceof strain energybetweenthe distributed

and grossshearstressstates.In an alternate formu-

lation,a the total deflectionis separatedinto bending

and sheardeflectionsand the governingequationsof

essenceof this theory is the de-

motion

are cast in these variables.

Finite elementdisplacementmodelsfor beamswhich

include transverse shear deformation and rotatory

inertiahavebeenpresentedby Archersand Kapur.sIn

Archer'smodel, the stiffnessmatrix containsterms of

the type F(1-I-•) whereq,= 12E1/k2AGPwhichreflect

the shearcontribution.This formulationmay be seen

to beobtainedusingthebasicequationsof thealternate

formulation involving bending and shear deflections?

The

details

are summarized

in Przemieniecki's

text. 6 In

Kapur'smodel,the derivationis directly madeusing

the formulation with separate bending and shear

deflections.Cubicpolynomialapproximateshapesare

taken for both bending and shear deflections.The

bendingportion leasisto the usual Bernoulli-Euler

formulation.However, the cubic polynomialfor the

transverseshear deflection,requiringboth displace-

ments and rotations at the ends of the beam element as

generalizedcoordinates,overspecifiesthe problem.

Volume53

NumberI

1973

RecallthattheshearingslopesaredirectlyproportionaJ

to the transverseshearingforces,henceboth of these

quantitiescannotbe prescribedat the ends.A con- sequenceof thisis that the transverseshearportionof Kapur's stiffnessmatrix will not admit rigid body

rotationswithoutstraining.

In this paper, a finite elementmodelutilizing the displacementvariablesof Timoshenko'sformulation•.•

is presented.The approximatedisplacementfield is

taken in termsof quadraticinterpolationsinsteadof linearinterpolationswith anticipationof a moreflexible modelso that fewerelementsare neededto properly characterizethe physical behavior. Wempner7 has given a similar theory of finite elementanalysisfor

plates and shells,in which he discussedrelaxationof

the Kirchhoffhypothesis.In his exampleson elasto- static loading of beams, linear displacementand

rotationfieldswereusedand a relativelystiffelemental

behavior

was observed.

One particularfeatureof the presentformulationis

the ease with which the energy contributionsfrom

bending, extension, and transverse shear can be sepa-

rated. This canbe calculateda posteriorito a frequency

analysisusingthe modalpatterns.In Archer'sformu-

lation,a this apparentlycannotbe donewithout going throughanotherfrequencyanalysis.The reasonis that

the

shear

correction

is

embedded

with

the

flexural

deformationexpressions. In order to illustrate the effectivenessand the range

of applicabilityof the presentmodel, a number of comparisonson beamsare made.Further exampleson archesand frames,solvedby both the presentmodel

oaded 22 Oct 2010 to 150.165.162.144. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/journals/doc/ASALIB-home/info/ter

STRUCTURAL

VIBRATION

WITH

SHEAR

DEFORMATION

and the classicalbeam element,are offeredto

the

influence

of transverse

shear deformation.

indicate

Distri-

butions of extensional,flexural, and shear energies

accompanytheseexamplesto further illustratethis

point.

I. BASIC

EQUATIONS

Let an x-z coordinatesystem be establishedwith

the x axis alongthe middle surfaceof the beam and

let t denotetime. Timoshenko'sformulationincluding

extensional

effects

involves

two

middle

surface

dis-

placementsuo,w, and a rotationiS.The longitudinal andtransversedisplacementsat a genericpointare

u(x?.,t)= uo(x,t)+•

(x,t),

(1a)

w(x,z,t)=w(x,t).

(lb)

In Eq. 4, u•, w•, ism,u,,, w•, 15,,ui, w•,/5• aregeneralized

coordinatesdenotingthe longitudinaland transverse

displacementsand rotationat the aft end,midpoint,

andforwardendof theelement,respectively.The forms of Eq. 4 provideenoughfreedomto allowfor all the zero-strain(rigid body) modesas well as the funda-

mentaldeformationpatterns.Note that a two-pointor

linearinterpolationusingdispla&mentsat the endsof

the elementcouldhavebeenusedfroin the standpoint

of meetingthe necessarygeometricalcontinuity re-

quirements.Thisleadsto a relativelystiffelementand

thus many elementsare neededto modela structure. Wempner* indicatedthat hislinearinterpolationmodel requiresat least two elementsto characterizeflexure

in his elastostaticproblems.The presentthree-point

interpolationyields a more flexible element so that fewer elementsare necessaryfor convergencein a

solution. One additional

comment

can be made on the

These variablesare related to their corresponding

useof a middlenode.Insteadof themiddlenode,higher

kineticmeasuresN, M, andQ by

derivatives

evaluated

at the ends of the element could

N=AEu0.z,

M=EII5,z,

Q=k2GA(w,zq-I•), (2)

with A,

I,

E, and G as the usualnotationfor cross-

sectionalpropertiesand elasticmoduliand k2 as the

shearcorrectionfactor.The Lagrangianfunctionis

[AE(uo.•)•q-EIIS,,•q-k•GA(w,,q-tS)23tx,
2

---

(3)

have been adopted as the generalizedcoordinates.

These types of coordinatesare not requiredto be

continuousfrom one element to another. However,

with the particularform of the assumeddisplacement field, a nodein the interiorof the elementappearsto

be more natural.

Substitutingthe strainsanddisplacementsexpressed

in terms of

the assumeddisplacementfield into the

kinetic and potential energiesand transformingthe nodaldisplacementsto a globalsystemof generalized coordinatesyields

where a is the density. Application of Hamilton's

principleon L leadsto the equationof motionof the

problem.

In

II.

FINITE

ELEMENT

FORMULATION

a finite element analysis, there is initially a

discretizationprocesswherethe originalstructureis

replacedby an assemblageof elementsinterconnected

at nodes. Fundamental

to this formulation

is a

kine-

maticallyadmissibledisplacementfieldfor the element.

Here, let u0,w, t5be taken as quadraticinterpolation

functionsalongthe lengthof the beamelement:

•0iO,t)= ud(t)( 1-- 3•+ 2••}+,,•(t) (4•-- 4••}

wi(x,t)=wb•(t){1--3i+2•}

+ur/(t){2œ2--•},

(4a)

+w,•(t) {42--4•}

+w/(t){2i•--•},

(4b)

(4c)

wherethe superscriptj denotesthe jth elementand

Z is a coordinatenormalizedwith respectto the length

b.

+tSzfft){2•-•:},

(s)

Ti=«{ai} r[-m•_q{a•},

(7)

where[ki] and [mfl axeelementstiffnessand mass

matrices,and {%} is an orderedarray of globalgen-

eralizedcoordinates,i.e.,

(8)

with U and W as displacementsalongthe globalX

and Z directions,respectively.The elementsof

and[mi] arelistedin AppendixA.

The Lagrangianfor the entire structuralsystemis

the sum of the elemental

contributions

L=T--V=E

(•I;.--V$).

(9)

Applicationof Hamilton'sprincipleon L yieldsthe equationsof motionin discretecoordinates

where[M]

[3t]lOI +[g]l uI --o,

00)

and [K]

axesystemmassand softness

matricesand { U} is an orderedsetof globalgeneralizecl

coordinates,whichfor simpleharmonicmotioncanbe

taken

as

IF} = {Uole"',

The Journalof the AcousticalSocietyof America

(11)

121

ded 22 Oct 2010 to 150.165.162.144. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/journals/doc/ASALIB-home/info/t

DONG

AND

where• is the naturalfrequency.Substitutionof this formintothegoverningequationsleadsto thefollowing

algebraiceigenvalueproblem:

{[KJ-oo'E•f]}{Uo}=0.

(12)

In thepresentpaper,thisalgebraiceigenvalueproblem

is

which has been found to be computationallyvery

efficient. The essenceof this method is a suitably

chosenreducedset of generalizedcoordinateswhich

are iterated until convergenceis achieved.For the

examplesoffered,15coordinatesareusedanditeration

is performeduntil the lowestten have converged

within an initiallyprescribedtolerance.

As comparisonwith the classicalbeamtheorywill bemade,a correspondingfiniteelementformulationis

needed.Here, the stiffnessandmassmatricesarebased

on an assumedlinear and cubicinterpolationof the

displacementfield:

solved by a direct-iterativesolution technique,s

uo(X,O= ub(t){1--i} -t-u/(t)g,

(13a)

w(x,t)= w•(t){ 1-- 3•2-{-2œs}-!-li•t•(t){• - 2•2_{_•a}

Xw/(t){3i2-2i

•}+l,•l(t){ia-i•},

(13b)

whereu•, ws,•8•,u•, wt, •t aregeneralizedcoordinates

representingthe displacementsand rotationsat the

endsof the beam.The resultingmassmatrix whichis

usedin thecomparisonaccountsforrotatoryinertia,but

WOLF

the stiffnessmatrix has no provisionsfor transverse

shearingdeformation.Therefore,a direct measureof

the

influence

of

transverse

shear

can

be made.

Com-

ponentsof the elementmassand stiffnessmatrices can be found in Archer? The algebraiceigenvalue

problemwhichresultshas the sameform as Eq. 12

and is alsosolvedby the direct-iterativeeigensolution

technique. Somecommentson the relativeeaseof computer

applicationswith the two elementsmay be helpful. The direct-iterativeeigensolutiontechniques consists

principallyof twophases:(1) thereductionof therank

of the originaleigensystem,and (2) the eigensolution in thereducedspace.Asthesizeof thereducedproblem is the samefor both formulations,the computational

effort in

effort is

the secondphaseis identical.However,more

requiredfor the presentelementin the first

phasebecauseits bandwidthis 500/ogreaterthan the

classicalbeam element (element stiffnessand mass matricesare 9X9 for the presentcaseand 6)<6 for the classicalbeam element). However, it should be

pointedout that in problemsconsideredherein,the

maximumbandwidthsfor both caseswere not large. Hence, no appreciabledifferencesin computertimes

were noticed.

IH.

ENERGY'

CALCULATIONS

Once the modal patterns are determined,it is a

straightforwardcalculationto determinethe energy

TABr• I. Exampleproblemdescriptions.

STRUCTURE

NUMBER

OF

ELEMENTS

NUMBER

OFDEGREES

OF FREEDOM

GEOMETRYAND

ENDCONDITIONS

BEAM

TM•OBAY

FRAME

SEETEXT

25*

or

50+

SEETEXT

163

I-

/.,•;

I

122

SEMICIRCULAR

ARCH

ePRESENTELEMENT

Volume53

Number!

1973

or

60+

183

+CONSISTENT MASS ELEMENT WITH NO SHEAR CORRECTION

aded 22 Oct 2010 to 150.165.162.144. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/journals/doc/ASALIB-home/info/ter

STRUCTURAL

VIBRATION

WITH

SHEAR

DEFORMATION

TABLEII. Comparisonof computedversusexactfrequenciesof a uniformhingedbeam(L/r

Solution neglecting

51.6).

 

Solution neglecting

transverse shear

Solution

Solution

Solution

Mode

Timoahenko

transverse she•.r

(consistant mass

neglecting

with 20

with 20 of

number

solution n

and rotatory

inertia zo

element)

rotatory

inertia•a

Archer element00

the oresent elements

n

t•.

% error

% error

•.%

error

•o,,

% error

•.

% error

1

188.203

189.655

0.77

189.306

0.59

188.545

0.18

188.205

0.001

188.209

0,003

2

736.313

736.313

3.03

753.074

2.28

741.410

0.69

736.451

0.019

736,423

0.015

3

1600.92

1706.96

6.62

1679.22

4.89

1624.10

1.44

1602.33

0.088

1601.52

0.037

4

.

2725.43

3034.82

11.35

2948.76

8.19

2789.77

2.36

2732.27

0.25

2727.43

0.073

5

4052.92

4742.62

17.02

4537.35

11.95

4180.70

3.37

4075.18

0.55

4058.15

0.13

6

5533.76

6831.25

23.44

6417.10

15.96

5781.11

4.46

5589.84

1.01

5545.31

0.21

7

7127.99

9302.25

30.50

8558.47

20.07

7531.03

5.65

7246.83

1.67

7150.70

0.32

8

8804.93

12158.1

38.08

10932.0

24.16

9416.92

6.95

9027.37

2.51

8845.76

0.46

9

10541.6

15402.4

46.11

13509.6

28.16

11425.2

8.38

10921.0

3.60

10610.1

0.65

10

12320.8

19040.4

54.53

16265.9

32.02

13548.7

9.96

12923.1

4.8't

12429.6

0.88

contributions.If {•,•} is a particulareigenvector,then

to

be

the potentialenergyis

V = «{•,}

 

(15a)

r[-K]{•,}.

(14)

(lSb)

Hence, the variousenergycontributionscan be seen

(lSc)

TABLv-III.

Coefficientsa. for vibrationof uniformhingedbeams•o.-a•(EI/oAL4)L

Ten presentelements

Slenderness

Timoshenko

20 Archer

elements

Energy distribution

ratio

Mode

L/r

number

 

error

a•

% error

% flexure

% shear

 

1

8.3874

8.3892

0.02

8.3876

0.002

79.0

21.0

2

25.346

25.396

0.20

25.352

0.02

53.6

46.4

3

44.127

44.391

0.60

44.166

0.09

37.1

62.9

4'

55.902

56.802

1.61

56.614

1.27

0.0

100.0

10

5

63.095

63.875

1.24

63.242

0.23

26.5

73.5

6b

66.619

66.963

0.52

66.619

0.00

21.0

79.0

7

81.920

83.647

2.11

82.325

0.49

19.4

80.6

8

b

88.181

89.027

0.96

88.186

0.005

46.3

53.7

9

100.56

103.79

3.21

101.48

1.01

14.6

85.4

l0 b

113.96

115.77

1.59

114.00

0.04

62.8

37.2

1

9.4106

9.4113

0.01

9.4115

0.01

93.1

6.9

2

33.549

33.579

0.09

33.567

0.05

78.9

21.1

3

65.647

65.865

0.33

65.752

0.16

65.0

35.0

4

101.38

102.18

0.79

101.76

0.37

53.3

46.7

20

5

138.66

140.70

1.47

139.67

0.73

43.9

56.1

6

176.51

180.74

2.40

178.76

1.27

36.2

63.8

7

214.48

222.11

3.56

218.88

2.05

29.9

70.1

8 ß

223.61

229.44

2.61

226.46

1.27

0.0

100.0

9

b

237.50

241.10

1.52

237.50

0.00

6.9

93.1

10

252.38

264.86

4.94

260.13

3.07

24.6

75.4

1

9.7905

9.7907

0.002

9.7954

0.05

98.7

1.3

2

38.267

38.274

0.02

38.347

0.21

95.1

4.9

3

83.087

83.162

0.09

83.515

0.52

89.8

10.2

4

141.23

141.59

0.25

142.65

1.01

83.6

16.4

50

5

209.68

210.86

0.56

213.35

1.75

77.0

23.0

6

285.87

288.84

1.04

293.81

2.78

70.4

29.6

7

367.74

373.99

1.70

382.97

4.14

63.9

36.1

8

453.71

465.37

2.57

480.27

5.85

57.6

42.4

9

542.63

562.47

3.66

584.74

7.76

51.7

48.3

10

633.65

665.05

4.96

669.96

5.73

48.0

52.0

ß Pure shear mode. b Second set of Timoshenko modes.

The Journalof the AcousticalSocietyof America

123

ded 22 Oct 2010 to 150.165.162.144. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/journals/doc/ASALIB-home/info/t

DONG

AND

WOLF

TABLEIV. Convergenceof frequencycoefficientsfor vibrationof uniformhingedbeams.

Slenderness

ratio

Mode

number

Number

of nodal

Timoshenko

Archerelement

Presentelement

L/r

n

points

a,,

a•

% error

a•

% error

 

21

8.38920

0.022

8.38764

0.003

10

1

41

8.38736

8.38782

0.005

8.38738

0.0oo

 

81

8.38747

0.001

8.38736

0.0o0

21

56.8023

1.61

56.6139

1.27

lO

4

41

55.9017

56.6611

1.36

56.6139

1.27

 

81

56.6257

1.30

56.6139

1.27

21

103.785

3.20

101.483

0.92

10

9

41

100.562

101.366

0.80

100.627

0.06

 

81

100.763

0.20

100.567

0.005

21

115.772

1.59

114.002

0.034

10

10

41

113.963

114.416

0.40

113.966

0.003

 

81

114.076

0.10

113.964

0.001

21

9.79066

0.001

9.79538

0.049

50

1

41

9.79054

9.79057

0.000

9.79087

0.003

 

81

9.79054

0.000

9.79056

0.000

21

665.048

4.96

669.958

5.73

50

10

41

633.647

641.458

1.23

639.154

0.87

 

81

635.594

0.31

634.025

0.06

TABLEV. Coefficientsa, for vibrationof uniform,fixedtwo-bayframesa,,•-a,, (EI/oAL4)•.

Consistant

mass element

Present element

Slenderness

Mode

number

 

Energydistribution

 

Energydistribution

 

ratio

œ/r

n

a•

% extension % flexure

a•

% extension % flexure % shear

 

1

2.914

2.6

97.4

2.527

1.8

73.4

24.8

2

8.497

80.6

19.4

7.797

64.5

18.7

16.8

3

9.754

47.5

52.5

8.579

29.1

47.2

23.7

4

11.59

74.4

25.6

10.26

49.5

24.7

25.8

 

10

5

13.19

84.8

15.2

12.02

30.2

32.4

37.4

 

6

14.48

45.7

54.3

12.82

80.2

13.9

5.9

7

18.73

30.5

69.5

13.66

2.4

46.0

51.6

8

18.93

15.9

84.1

15.89

49.8

27.5

22.7

9

19.47

37.2

62.8

15.98

50.5

27.8

21.7

10

24.91

27.3

72.7

19.56

35.3

33.0

31.7

I

2.955

0.6

99.4

2.839

0.6

91.2

8.2

2

11.67

7.8

92.2

11.03

6.8

81.6

11.6

3

13.12

35.4

64.6

12.29

29.5

57.3

13.2

4

17.50

41.1

58.9

15.97

31.5

49.9

18.6

 

20

5

19.95

13.0

87.0

17.76

11.1

65.8

23.1

 

6

20.67

10.8

89.2

18.24

3.9

72.0

24.1

7

23.94

81.4

18.6

23.29

75.6

18.3

6.1

8

28.22

69.0

31.0

27.15

68.9

23.4

7.7

9

29.13

79.3

20.7

28.19

75.5

17.2

7.3

10

32.87

49.9

50.1

31.29

61.1

30.7

8.2

I

2.967

0.1

99.9

2.966

0.1

97.7

2.1

2

12.15

1.0

99.0

12.14

1.0

95.4

3.6

3

15.09

4.0

96.0

15.08

4.0

90.8

5.2

4

20.68

0.3

99.7

20.66

0.3

92.5

7.2

 

50

5

21.52

7.6

92.4

21.50

7.6

83.3

9.1

 

6

22.12

1.9

98.1

22.09

1.9

88.6

9.5

7

42.85

7.4

92.6

42.87

7.5

82.8

9.7

8

44.48

33.2

66.8

44.46

33.4

56.9

9.7

9

52.84

33.1

66.9

52.83

33.3

54.0

12.7

10

54.81

4.0

96.0

54.87

4.0

79.8

16.2

124

Volume53

Number!

1973

aded 22 Oct 2010 to 150.165.162.144. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/journals/doc/ASALIB-home/info/ter

STRUCTURAL

VIBRATION

WITH

SHEAR

DEFORMATION

Tahoe VI. Coefficientsamfor vibrationof uniformhinged180øarches•o,•-a,,(EI/pAL4) •.

Slenderness Mode

ratio

number

Consistant

mass element

Energydistribution

Present element

Energydistribution

L/r

n

a,•

% extension% flexure

an

% extension% flexure % shear

1

16.55

42.5

57.5

12.87

24.0

35.4

40.6

2

26.63

90.0

10.0

24.69

70.5

10.6

18.9

3

44.40

60.9

39.1

38.13

38.5

23.9

37.6

4

49.78

55.0

45.0

40.01

59.6

16.5

23.9

10

5

?3.27

50.1

49.9

57.62

10.6

17.5

71.9

6

82.41

60.6

39.4

60.42

16.2

7.1

76.7

7

104.5

40.1

59.9

60.83

32.9

21.0

46.1

8

115.7

68.4

31.6

73.40

17.1

13.6

69.3

9

136.8

31.1

68.9

81.03

40.3

15.6

44.1

10

148.8

75.3

24.7

85.18

19.3

38.3

42.4

I

20.57

13.3

86.7

18.35

10.5

69.0

20.5

2

48.60

68.1

31.9

43.72

43.1

35.0

21.9

3

73.42

42.3

57.7

66.42

60.9

25.6

13.5

4

80.85

79.9

20.1

74.89

55.9

24.1

20.0

20

5

123.6

19.9

80.1

100.2

37.9

34.3

27.8

6

136.7

84.3

15.7

122.4

33.8

28.6

37.6

7

183.6

16.6

83.4

145.1

61.0

19.7

19.3

8

196.5

85.7

14.3

165.5

13.6

31.1

55.3

9

248.1

15.5

84.5

198.1

77.3

10.9

11.8

10

258.1

86.2

13.8

206.0

7.7

28.2

64.1

1

22.12

2.2

97.8

21.60

2.1

93.3

4.6

2

65.61

7.5

92.5

62.57

6.6

84.3

9.1

3

130.3

9.7

90.3

120.8

7.5

78.2

14.3

4

148.4

88.2

11.8

146.3

83.5

13.3

3.2

50

5

215.7

86.0

14.0

199.6

13.4

68.2

18.4

6

221.6

9.9

90.1

212.0

82.4

13.7

3.9

7

320.2

6.4

93.6

278.2

10.5

65.3

24.2

8

346.3

91.5

8.5

335.4

60.2

26.9

12.9

9

431.8

6.5

93.5

368.8

37.4

42.5

20.1

10

492.1

90.8

9.2

439.5

8.2

57.0

34.8

where[Ko], EKs-1,EK.] are stiffnessmatricescon-

taining only terms involving EA,

El,

and k2GA,

respectively.For the classicalformulation,only K•

and Ks exist.

IV.

EXAMPLES

The accuracyof the refinedelementdescribedabove

isillustratedby theexamplespresentedin thissection.

Three exampleswere analyzed, as summarizedin

Table

I.

Also

summarized

there

are

the

number

of

elementsand degreesof freedomfor eachcaseand the

end conditions.In eachexample,the propertiesp, A,

G,

and EI

are constant throughout the structural

system. Unless otherwise noted, E=30X10 ø psi,

G/E={,

k2=st, O is chosento make (EI/oAL4)•=I,

and L/r

is the ratio of the length to the radiusof

gyrationof the crosssection.Additionalcommentsfor eachexamplearepresentedbelow.

(i) Simply Supported Beam: Results for

various

beamsaregivenin TablesII, III,

a detailedcomparisonof severalbeammodelsis given,

basedon an exampleproblempreviouslystudiedby Jeter? The propertiesof the beamfor this example

andIV. In Table II,

are: A=105 in?, E=10X10 a psi, G=3.75X106 psi,

I=1575

in.s, k2=[,

L=200

in., and 0=2.5389X10 -4

lb.secZ/in.•. Twenty elementswereusedto modelthe

beam for each solution.This gives twice as many

degreesof freedomin the solutionwith the present element,owingto the presenceof interiornodalpoints

in theelements.Forananalysisusingtenof thepresent

elements,co•o=13034.9,givingan errorof 5.80%. This

isslightlygreaterthantheerrorusingArcher'selement.

For sucha slenderbeam(L/r=51.6), bendingaction

predominates,and for the small numberof elements usedin thisexample,betteraccuracywith the present

elementisobtainedonly if an equalnumberof bending

degreesof freedom are used. Table III

contains fre-

quenciesfor a beamwith hingedendsfor threevalues of slendernessratio (L/r= 10, 20, 50). Two finite elementmodels,one consistingof 20 Archerelements

andtheother,tenof thepresentelements,arecompared

with Timoshenkobeamfrequencies.n Bothmodelspro-

vide good results, but frequenciescalculated with the

presentmodelare noticeablycloserto the Timoshenko

resultsfor L/r= 10 and L/r=20,

expeciallyfor the

secondset of frequencies.For L/r=50,

the Archer

modelis better, as notedin the discussionof Table II.

The Journalof the AcousticalSocietyof America

125

ded 22 Oct 2010 to 150.165.162.144. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/journals/doc/ASALIB-home/info/t

DONG

AND

With 20 of the presentelements,a•o=639.15,whichis

in errorby only0.87%. In Table III,

the proportions

of

flexural and shearenergiesare also given for the

casestabulated.Note the appearanceof a pure shear

mode,z2associatedwith a4 for L/r--10,

and as for

L/r--20.

of the distributionsof bendingand shear energies

Alsoof interestis the complementarynature

WOLF

(iii) Hinged Arch: Table VI

containsfrequency

coefficientsand energydistributionsfor hinged 180ø arches.The modelconsistsof a sequenceof straight-

beamfinite elementsconnectingnodalpointslyingon

the circular elastic axis of the arch. Results for a modal

using30 of the presentelementsare comparedwith

those

for

a

60-element

consistent

mass

model.

The

exhibitedby the first (second,third,

)

modeof the

inclusionof transverseshearhas a greatereffecthere

first set,and the first (second,third,

)

modeof the

thanfor twobayframesorfor beams,notonlyreducing

secondset of Timoshenkomodes.A more compre-

hensivestudyof the convergencepropertiesof the two

elementsis presentedin Table IV.

caseshavebeenselectedfrom thosegivenin Table III,

Representative

and

are

shown

as functions

of

the

number

of

nodal

points in each beam model. For the thick beam

(L/r= 10), the presentelementis moreaccuratein all

cases.In the resultsfor the slenderbeam (L/r=50),

the presentelementpossesseslargererrorsfor a 21 nodal point model, as has been previouslynoted.

However, with the exceptionof the fundamental frequency,as the numberof nodalpointsis increased,

it convergesto the Timoshenkosolutionmore rapidly

than

the Archer

element.

(ii) Two-Bay Frame: Frequencycoefficientsand

energydistributionsare givenin Table V for two-bay frameswith fixed ends.The bay width L is taken as 100 in. Calculationsbasedon a model containing25

of the presentelementsare comparedwith thosefor a 50-elementmodel incorporatinga consistantmass

formulation,includingrotatory inertia, but with no

shearcorrection.As expected,modescontaininga high percentageof shearenergyin the presentmodelalso

showlarge frequencydifferences.With L/r=10,

it

appearsthat the inclusionof sheardeformationalso

givesrise to a reorderingof someof the modes.This

effectis not presentfor Z/r= 20 or L/r = 50.

modalfrequencies,but alsoproducingmodalreordering

evenfor L/r = 50.

Stiffness

and

V.

CONCLUSIONS

mass

matrices

for

a

finite

element

formulation, which utilizes the kinematic variables of

Timoshenko'soriginalformulation,havebeenderived. Relative advantagesof the presentformulationwere illustratedby a detailedcomparisonof beamvibration resultsobtainedby variousmethods.It wasfoundthat the presentelementis moreeffectivewhenthe depth

of the beamis not small in comparisonwith a

wave-

length.Also, the presentformulationpermitsa

direct

calculation of the distribution of energiesdue to

extension,flexure,andshear.This is helpfulin under-

standing the characteristicsof the modal behavior.

Additionalexamplesonframesandarcheswereincluded to illustratethe natureof planarstructuralvibrations

when transverse shear deformation

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

is considered.

The numericalexamplesreportedhereinwerecarrild

out with the help of the CampusComputingNetwork

of the Universityof California,LosAngeles.

APPENDIX

A

The elementsof thestiffnessandmassmatrices,[ki] and[mi], are

where

c

s

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

--s

c

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

--3½

--3s

0

4•

4s

0

--c

--s

0

3s

--3c

0

--4s

4c

0

s

--c

0

0

0

--3

0

0

4

0

0

--1

2s

0

-•c

-4s

0

2c

2s

0

-2s

2c

0

4s

-4c

0

-2s

2c

0

0

0

2

0

0

--4

0

0

2

126

VQlume53

Number!

1973

(A1)

(A2)

(A3)

aded 22 Oct 2010 to 150.165.162.144. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/journals/doc/ASALIB-home/info/te

STRUCTURAL

VIBRATION

WITH

SHEAR

DEFORMATION

with c=cosO,s=sinO,and0 astheanglebetweenthebeam'saxisandtheglobalX axis,and

'0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

k2GAl

0

k2GA

«k•7Al

0

k2GA

•k•GAl

 

EArl

0

0

EA/1

0

0

 

,

(A4)

s•metfic

 

IEA/I

0

0

 

Ik•GA/l

Ik•GA

 

>Al

0

0

•pAl

0

0

• pdlI

0

0

 

pal

0

0

•pAl

0

0

«pAl

0

 

pll

0

0

•pll

0

0

«dl

 

«•Al

0

0

lpAl

0

0

=

«pAl

0

0

}pAl

0

(AS)

 

o

o

«pn

 

•ymmetric

 

}•Al

0

0

*Present address:ResearchLaboratories,General Motors Corp.,GeneralMotorsTechnicalCenter,Warren,Mich. 48090.

• S. P. Timoshenko,Phil. Mag.41, 744-746(1921).

aS. P. Timoshenko,Phil. Mag. 43, 125-131(1922).

aT. Davidsonand J. Fl. Meier, Proc.SESA4, 88-111 (1946). 4j. S. Archer,J. AIAA 3, 1910-19180965).

• K. K. Kapur,J. Acoust.Soc.Amer.40, 1058-1063(1966).

sj. S.

Przemieniecki,Thzory of Matrix StructuralAnalysis

(McGraw-Flill,New York, 1968),Chap.5. * G. Wempner,Int. J. SolidsStructures$, 117-153(1969).

«pll

sS. B. Dong, J. A. Wolf, Jr., and F. E. Peterson,Int.

J.

NumericalMethodsEngineering4, 155-161(1972).

• J. S. Archer,J. Struct.Div. Proc.Mner. Soc.Civil Engrs.89,

161-178 (1963).

•0E. L. Jeter, Naval OrdnanceTest StationTech. Publ. No.

4280 (1967).

n R. A. Anderson,J. Appl. Mech. 75, 5(14-510(1953).

• S.

H. Crondoll et al., Dynamicsof

Mzchanicaland Electro-

mechanicalSystems(McGraw-Hill,New York, 1968),Sec.7.5.

The Journalof the AcousticalSacie•yof America

127

ded 22 Oct 2010 to 150.165.162.144. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/journals/doc/ASALIB-home/info/t