Effect of transverse shear deformation on vibrations of planar structures composed of beam-type elements

STANLEY' DONa ANDJOSEPH WOLF,JR.* B. A.

School Engineering AppliedScience, o] and University California, of LosAngeles, California 90024 (Received April 1971) 19

A finite elementbeam-typemodelconsidering transverse sheardeformationis presented which utilizes Timoshenko's originalkinematicvariables. directcalculation the distribution energies to extenA of of due sion,flexure,and shearis indicated.For beam vibrations, comparison the presentresultswith other of analyses shows that the currentformulation extremely is effective cross for sections whose depth is comparableto a wavelength. Natural frequencies frames of andarches computed are using present the element and are compared with valuesbasedupon neglectof transverse sheardeformation illustrate this effect to quantitatively. SvBjF_Jgr Cssrvnxio: 12.7.1, 12.7.

INTRODUCTION

Recallthat theshearing slopes directly are proportionaJ

The refinement Bernoulli-Eulerbeam theory to of includetransverse sheardeformation wasfirst givenby Timoshenko. The essence this theory is the de.2 of composition the kinematic field into independent of functions for the transverse deflection and bending rotation. Thus, a shear angle is possiblealong with a corresponding stress-strain relation which involvesa correction shape or factor.This factor is needed an for equivalence strain energybetweenthe distributed of and grossshear stressstates. In an alternate formulation, the total deflection separated a is into bending and sheardeflections the governing and equations of

to the transverseshearingforces,hence both of these quantitiescannot be prescribed the ends. A conat sequence this is that the transverse of shearportionof Kapur's stiffnessmatrix will not admit rigid body rotationswithout straining. In this paper, a finite elementmodel utilizing the displacement variablesof Timoshenko's formulation . is presented. The approximate displacement field is taken in terms of quadraticinterpolations insteadof linearinterpolations with anticipation a moreflexible of model so that fewer elements neededto properly are characterizethe physical behavior. Wempner has 7 given a similar theory of finite elementanalysisfor motion are cast in these variables. plates and shells,in which he discussed relaxation of Finite element displacement models beams for which the Kirchhoff hypothesis. his examples elastoIn on include transverse shear deformation and rotatory static loading of beams, linear displacementand inertiahavebeenpresented Archer and Kapur.s In by s rotationfieldswereusedand a relativelystiff elemental Archer's model, the stiffness matrix containsterms of behavior was observed. the type F(1-I-) whereq,= 12E1/k2AGP whichreflect One particularfeature of the presentformulationis the shear contribution.This formulation may be seen the ease with which the energy contributionsfrom to beobtained using basic the equations the alternate of
formulation involving bending and shear deflections? bending, extension, and transverse shear can be separated. This can be calculateda posteriori a frequency to The details are summarized in Przemieniecki's text. 6 In

Kapur's model,the derivationis directly made using the formulation with separate bending and shear deflections. Cubic polynomialapproximate shapes are taken for both bending and shear deflections.The bendingportion leasisto the usual Bernoulli-Euler formulation. However, the cubic polynomialfor the transverse shear deflection,requiring both displacements and rotations at the ends of the beam element as

analysisusingthe modal patterns. In Archer'sformulation, this apparentlycannotbe donewithout going a throughanotherfrequency analysis. The reason that is
the shear correction is embedded with the flexural

deformationexpressions. In order to illustrate the effectiveness the range and

of applicabilityof the presentmodel, a number of comparisons beamsare made.Further examples on on generalizedcoordinates,overspecifies the problem. archesand frames,solvedby both the presentmodel
Volume53 NumberI 1973

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

STRUCTURAL

VIBRATION

WITH

SHEAR

DEFORMATION

and the classical beam element,are offeredto indicate In Eq. 4, u, w, ism, w, 15,,ui, w,/5 are generalized u,,,
the influence of transverse shear deformation. Districoordinates denotingthe longitudinaland transverse butions of extensional, flexural, and shear energies displacements rotationat the aft end, midpoint, and accompany theseexamples further illustratethis andforwardendof the element, to respectively. forms The point. of Eq. 4 provideenough freedomto allow for all the zero-strain(rigid body) modesas well as the fundaI. BASIC EQUATIONS mentaldeformation patterns. Note that a two-point or linear interpolation usingdispla&ments the endsof at Let an x-z coordinatesystem be establishedwith the elementcouldhave beenusedfroin the standpoint the x axis along the middle surfaceof the beam and of meeting the necessary geometrical continuity relet t denotetime. Timoshenko's formulationincluding quirements. This leadsto a relativelystiff element and extensional effects involves two middle surface disthus many elementsare neededto model a structure. placements w, and a rotation iS.The longitudinal Wempner indicatedthat his linear interpolation uo, * model and transverse displacements a generic at point are requiresat least two elementsto characterize flexure problems. The presentthree-point u (x?.,t) uo = (x,t)+ (x,t), (1a) in his elastostatic interpolationyields a more flexible element so that for convergence a in w(x,z,t)=w(x,t). (lb) fewer elements are necessary solution. One additional comment can be made on the

These variablesare related to their correspondinguseof a middlenode.Insteadof the middlenode,higher derivatives evaluated at the ends of the element could kinetic measures M, and Q by N, have been adopted as the generalizedcoordinates. N=AEu0.z, M=EII5,z, Q=k2GA(w,zq-I), (2) These types of coordinates are not required to be continuousfrom one element to another. However, with A, I, E, and G as the usual notation for crossdisplacement sectional properties and elasticmoduliand k2 as the with the particularform of the assumed field, a nodein the interior of the elementappears to shearcorrection factor.The Lagrangianfunctionis be more natural.
Substituting strains the and displacements expressed in terms of the assumed displacement field into the kinetic and potential energies and transforming the nodaldisplacements a globalsystemof generalized to coordinates yields

---

[AE(uo.)q-EIIS,,q-kGA(w,,q-tS)23tx , (3)

where a is the density. Application of Hamilton's

Ti={ai} r[-m_q{a}, (7) principle L leadsto the equation motionof the on of problem. where[ki] and [mfl axeelementstiffness mass and matrices,and {%} is an orderedarray of globalgenII. FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION eralizedcoordinates, i.e., In a finite element analysis, there is initially a (8) discretization process where the originalstructureis replaced an assemblage elements by of interconnected with U and W as displacements along the global X at nodes. Fundamental to this formulation is a kineand Z directions, respectively. elements The of maticallyadmissible displacement fieldfor the element. and[mi] arelisted Appendix in A. Here, let u0, w, t5 be taken as quadraticinterpolation The Lagrangianfor the entire structural systemis
functionsalongthe length of the beam element:
the sum of the elemental contributions

0iO,t)= ud(t)( 1-- 3 + 2} +,,(t) ( 4-- 4} +ur/(t){22--}, (4a)

wi(x,t)=wb(t){ 1--3i+2} +w,(t) {42--4} +w/(t){2i--},

L=T--V=E

(I;.--V$).

(9)

(4b) (4c)

Applicationof Hamilton's principleon L yields the equations motionin discrete of coordinates

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

+tSzfft) 2-:}, {

00)

where[M] and [K] axe systemmassand softness wherethe superscript denotes jth elementand matricesand { U} is an orderedset of globalgeneralizecl j the whichfor simple harmonic motioncan be Z is a coordinate normalized with respect the length coordinates, to
b.
taken as

(s)

IF} = { Uole"',
The Journalof the Acoustical Society America of

(11)
121

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

DONG

AND

WOLF

where is the naturalfrequency. Substitution this the stiffnessmatrix has no provisionsfor transverse of forminto thegoverning equations leads thefollowing shearingdeformation.Therefore, a direct measureof to the influence of transverse shear can be made. Comalgebraic eigenvalue problem: ponentsof the elementmass and stiffness matrices {[KJ-oo'Ef] } { Uo} =0. (12) can be found in Archer? The algebraiceigenvalue problemwhich resultshas the sameform as Eq. 12 In thepresent paper,thisalgebraic eigenvalue problem and is alsosolvedby the direct-iterativeeigensolution is solved by a direct-iterative solution technique, technique. s Somecomments the relative easeof computer on which has been found to be computationally very with the two elementsmay be helpful. efficient. The essence this method is a suitably applications of technique consists s chosen reducedset of generalized coordinates which The direct-iterativeeigensolution principally twophases: the reduction the rank of (1) of are iterated until convergence achieved. For the is of the originaleigensystem, (2) the eigensolution and examples offered, coordinates usedand iteration 15 are in the reduced space. the sizeof the reduced As problem is performed until the lowest ten have converged is the samefor both formulations, computational the within an initially prescribed tolerance. effort in the second phaseis identical.However,more As comparison with the classical beamtheorywill effort is requiredfor the presentelementin the first be made,a corresponding element finite formulation phasebecause bandwidthis 500/o is its greaterthan the needed. Here, the stiffness massmatricesare based classicalbeam element (element stiffnessand mass and on an assumed linear and cubic interpolation the matricesare 9X9 for the present caseand 6)<6 for of displacement field: the classicalbeam element). However, it should be uo(X,O ub(t) 1--i} -t-u/(t)g, = { considered herein, the (13a) pointedout that in problems maximumbandwidths both cases for were not large. w(x,t)= w (t){ 1-- 3 2 2 -!-lit (t){ - 22_{_a -{- s} } Hence, no appreciable differences computertimes in Xw/(t){3i2-2i } +l,l(t){ia-i}, (13b) were noticed.

whereu, ws,8,u, wt, t are generalized coordinates IH. ENERGY' CALCULATIONS representing displacements rotationsat the the and endsof the beam. The resultingmassmatrix which is Once the modal patterns are determined, it is a calculationto determinethe energy used thecomparison in accounts rotatoryinertia,but straightforward for

TABr I. Exampleproblemdescriptions.

STRUCTURE

NUMBER OF ELEMENTS

NUMBER OFDEGREES OF FREEDOM

GEOMETRY AND END CONDITIONS

BEAM

SEE TEXT

SEE TEXT
II

TMO BAY
FRAME

50+

or

25*
or

163

/.,;

SEMICIRCULAR
ARCH

60+

183

ePRESENT ELEMENT

+CONSISTENT MASS ELEMENT WITH NO SHEAR CORRECTION

122

Volume 53

Number!

1973

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

TABLE Comparison computed II. of versus exactfrequencies a uniformhinged of beam (L/r

Solution neglecting transverse she.r and rotatory inertia zo

51.6).
Solution with 20 of the oresent elements

Mode number

Timoahenko solution n

Solution neglecting transverse shear (consistant mass

element)

Solution neglecting rotatory inertiaa

Solution with 20 Archer element00

n
1

188.203

t.
189.655

% error
0.77

189.306

% error
0.59

.%
188.545

error
0.18

o,,
188.205

% error
0.001

.
188.209

% error
0,003

2
3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 10

736.313
1600.92 2725.43 4052.92 5533.76 7127.99 8804.93 10541.6 12320.8

736.313
1706.96 3034.82 4742.62 6831.25 9302.25 12158.1 15402.4 19040.4

3.03
6.62 11.35 17.02 23.44 30.50 38.08 46.11 54.53

753.074
1679.22 2948.76 4537.35 6417.10 8558.47 10932.0 13509.6 16265.9

2.28
4.89 8.19 11.95 15.96 20.07 24.16 28.16 32.02

741.410
1624.10 2789.77 4180.70 5781.11 7531.03 9416.92 11425.2 13548.7

0.69
1.44 2.36 3.37 4.46 5.65 6.95 8.38 9.96

736.451
1602.33 2732.27 4075.18 5589.84 7246.83 9027.37 10921.0 12923.1

0.019
0.088 0.25 0.55 1.01 1.67 2.51 3.60 4.8't

736,423
1601.52 2727.43 4058.15 5545.31 7150.70 8845.76 10610.1 12429.6

0.015
0.037 0.073 0.13 0.21 0.32 0.46 0.65 0.88

contributions. {,} is a particulareigenvector, If then the potentialenergyis

to be

(15a) (lSb)
(lSc)

V = {,} r[-K]{,}.

(14)

Hence, the various energy contributions can be seen

TABLvIII. Coefficients for vibrationof uniformhingedbeams a. o.-a(EI/oAL4)L

Ten presentelements
Slenderness ratio
Mode

Timoshenko

20 Archer elements

Energy distribution

L/r

number
1
2

error
8.3874
25.346

a
8.3876
25.352 44.166 56.614 63.242 66.619

% error
0.002
0.02 0.09 1.27 0.23 0.00

% flexure
79.0
53.6 37.1 0.0 26.5 21.0

% shear
21.0
46.4 62.9 100.0 73.5 79.0

8.3892
25.396 44.391 56.802 63.875 66.963

0.02
0.20 0.60 1.61 1.24 0.52

10

3 4' 5 6b 7 8b 9 l0 b
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9b 10

44.127 55.902
63.095 66.619

81.920 88.181 100.56 113.96

9.4106 33.549 65.647 101.38 138.66 176.51 214.48 223.61 237.50 252.38

83.647 89.027 103.79 115.77

9.4113 33.579 65.865 102.18 140.70 180.74 222.11 229.44 241.10 264.86 9.7907 38.274 83.162 141.59 210.86 288.84 373.99 465.37 562.47 665.05

2.11 0.96 3.21 1.59

0.01 0.09 0.33 0.79 1.47 2.40 3.56 2.61 1.52 4.94 0.002 0.02 0.09 0.25 0.56 1.04 1.70 2.57 3.66 4.96

82.325 88.186 101.48 114.00

9.4115 33.567 65.752 101.76 139.67 178.76 218.88 226.46 237.50 260.13 9.7954 38.347 83.515 142.65 213.35 293.81 382.97 480.27 584.74 669.96

0.49 0.005 1.01 0.04

0.01 0.05 0.16 0.37 0.73 1.27 2.05 1.27 0.00 3.07 0.05 0.21 0.52 1.01 1.75 2.78 4.14 5.85 7.76 5.73

19.4 46.3 14.6 62.8

93.1 78.9 65.0 53.3 43.9 36.2 29.9 0.0 6.9 24.6 98.7 95.1 89.8 83.6 77.0 70.4 63.9 57.6 51.7 48.0

80.6 53.7 85.4 37.2

6.9 21.1 35.0 46.7 56.1 63.8 70.1 100.0 93.1 75.4 1.3 4.9 10.2 16.4 23.0 29.6 36.1 42.4 48.3 52.0

20

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9.7905 38.267 83.087 141.23 209.68 285.87 367.74 453.71 542.63 633.65

Pure shear mode. b Second set of Timoshenko

modes.

The Journalof the Acoustical Society America of

123

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/t

DONG

AND

WOLF

TABLEIV. Convergence frequency of coefficients vibrationof uniformhingedbeams. for

Slenderness ratio

number

Mode

Number
of nodal

Timoshenko

Archerelement

Present element

L/r
10

n
1

points
21 41 81 21 41 81 21 41

a,,
8.38736

a
8.38920 8.38782 8.38747 56.8023 56.6611 56.6257 103.785 101.366 100.763 115.772 114.416 114.076 9.79066 9.79057 9.79054
665.048

% error
0.022 0.005 0.001 1.61 1.36 1.30 3.20 0.80 0.20 1.59 0.40 0.10 0.001 0.000 0.000
4.96

a
8.38764 8.38738 8.38736 56.6139 56.6139 56.6139 101.483 100.627 100.567 114.002 113.966 113.964 9.79538 9.79087 9.79056
669.958

% error
0.003 0.0oo 0.0o0 1.27 1.27 1.27 0.92 0.06 0.005 0.034 0.003 0.001 0.049 0.003 0.000
5.73

lO

55.9017

10

100.562

81
10

10

21 41 81 21 41 81
21

113.963

50

9.79054

50

10

41 81

633.647

641.458 635.594

1.23 0.31

639.154 634.025

0.87 0.06

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

Consistant mass element Present element

Slenderness ratio

number

Mode
n
1 2 3 4

Energy distribution
a
2.914 8.497 9.754 11.59 13.19 14.48 18.73 18.93 19.47 24.91
2.955 11.67 13.12 17.50

Energy distribution
a
2.527 7.797 8.579 10.26 12.02 12.82 13.66 15.89 15.98 19.56
2.839 11.03 12.29 15.97

/r

% extension % flexure
2.6 80.6 47.5 74.4
84.8

% extension % flexure % shear

1.8 64.5 29.1 49.5
30.2

10

6
7 8 9

45.7
30.5 15.9 37.2

10
I 2 3 4

27.3
0.6 7.8 35.4 41.1

97.4 19.4 52.5 25.6 15.2 54.3 69.5 84.1 62.8 72.7
99.4 92.2 64.6 58.9

80.2
2.4 49.8 50.5

35.3
0.6 6.8 29.5 31.5

73.4 18.7 47.2 24.7 32.4 13.9 46.0 27.5 27.8 33.0
91.2 81.6 57.3 49.9

24.8 16.8 23.7 25.8 37.4 5.9 51.6 22.7 21.7 31.7
8.2 11.6 13.2 18.6

20

5 6 7 8 9 10
I
2 3

19.95 20.67 23.94 28.22 29.13 32.87

2.967
12.15 15.09

13.0 10.8
81.4 69.0 79.3 49.9

87.0 89.2
18.6 31.0 20.7 50.1

17.76 18.24 23.29 27.15 28.19 31.29

2.966
12.14 15.08

11.1 3.9
75.6 68.9 75.5 61.1

65.8 72.0
18.3 23.4 17.2 30.7

23.1 24.1
6.1 7.7 7.3 8.2

0.1
1.0 4.0

99.9
99.0 96.0

0.1
1.0 4.0

97.7
95.4 90.8

2.1
3.6 5.2

50

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

20.68 21.52 22.12 42.85 44.48 52.84 54.81

0.3 7.6 1.9 7.4 33.2 33.1 4.0

99.7 92.4 98.1 92.6 66.8 66.9 96.0

20.66 21.50 22.09 42.87 44.46 52.83 54.87

0.3 7.6 1.9 7.5 33.4 33.3 4.0

92.5 83.3
88.6 82.8 56.9 54.0 79.8

7.2 9.1
9.5 9.7 9.7 12.7 16.2

124

Volume53

Number!

1973

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

Tahoe VI. Coefficients for vibrationof uniformhinged180 arches am o,-a,,(EI/pAL4) .

Consistant mass element
Present element

Slenderness number Mode ratio

L/r n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4

Energy distribution
a,
16.55 26.63 44.40 49.78 ?3.27 82.41 104.5 115.7 136.8 148.8 20.57 48.60 73.42 80.85 123.6 136.7 183.6 196.5 248.1 258.1 22.12 65.61 130.3 148.4

Energy distribution
an
12.87 24.69 38.13 40.01 57.62 60.42 60.83 73.40 81.03 85.18 18.35 43.72 66.42 74.89 100.2 122.4 145.1 165.5 198.1 206.0 21.60 62.57 120.8 146.3

% extension% flexure
42.5 90.0 60.9 55.0 50.1 60.6 40.1 68.4 31.1 75.3 13.3 68.1 42.3 79.9 19.9 84.3 16.6 85.7 15.5 86.2 2.2 7.5 9.7 88.2 57.5 10.0 39.1 45.0 49.9 39.4 59.9 31.6 68.9 24.7 86.7 31.9 57.7 20.1 80.1 15.7 83.4 14.3 84.5 13.8 97.8 92.5 90.3 11.8

% extension% flexure % shear

24.0 70.5 38.5 59.6 10.6 16.2 32.9 17.1 40.3 19.3 10.5 43.1 60.9 55.9 37.9 33.8 61.0 13.6 77.3 7.7 2.1 6.6 7.5 83.5 35.4 10.6 23.9 16.5 17.5 7.1 21.0 13.6 15.6 38.3 69.0 35.0 25.6 24.1 34.3 28.6 19.7 31.1 10.9 28.2 93.3 84.3 78.2 13.3 40.6 18.9 37.6 23.9 71.9 76.7 46.1 69.3 44.1 42.4 20.5 21.9 13.5 20.0 27.8 37.6 19.3 55.3 11.8 64.1 4.6 9.1 14.3 3.2

10

20

50

5
6 7 8 9 10

215.7
221.6 320.2 346.3 431.8 492.1

86.0
9.9 6.4 91.5 6.5 90.8

14.0
90.1 93.6 8.5 93.5 9.2

199.6
212.0 278.2 335.4 368.8 439.5

13.4
82.4 10.5 60.2 37.4 8.2

68.2
13.7 65.3 26.9 42.5 57.0

18.4
3.9 24.2
12.9 20.1 34.8

where[Ko], EKs-1, EK.] are stiffness matricescon- are: A=105 in?, E=10X10 a psi, G=3.75X106 psi,
taining only terms involving EA, El, and k2GA, I=1575 in.s, k2=[, L=200 in., and 0=2.5389X10 -4 respectively. For the classical formulation,only K lb.secZ/in. Twenty elements . were usedto modelthe and Ks exist. beam for each solution. This gives twice as many degrees freedomin the solutionwith the present of IV. EXAMPLES element, owingto the presence interiornodalpoints of in theelements. an analysis For using of thepresent ten The accuracy the refinedelementdescribed of above elements, coo= 13034.9,giving an error of 5.80%. This is illustrated the examples by presented thissection. in than the errorusing Archer's element. Three examples were analyzed, as summarized in is slightlygreater
Table I. Also summarized there are the number of

For sucha slender beam(L/r=51.6), bending action predominates, for the small numberof elements and elements and degrees freedomfor eachcaseand the of better accuracy with the present end conditions. eachexample, properties A, usedin this example, In the p, only if an equalnumberof bending G, and EI are constant throughout the structural elementis obtained system. Unless otherwise noted, E=30X10 psi, degreesof freedom are used. Table III contains frequencies a beamwith hingedendsfor threevalues for G/E={, k2=s O is chosen make (EI/oAL4)=I, t, to of slenderness ratio (L/r= 10, 20, 50). Two finite and L/r is the ratio of the length to the radius of one consisting 20 Archerelements of gyrationof the cross section. Additionalcomments for elementmodels, and the other,ten of the present elements, compared are eachexample presented are below. with Timoshenko beamfrequencies.Bothmodels n probeamsare givenin TablesII, III, and IV. In Table II, a detailedcomparison severalbeammodels given, of is basedon an exampleproblempreviouslystudiedby Jeter? The properties the beam for this example of
(i) Simply Supported Beam: Results for various vide good results, but frequenciescalculated with the presentmodelare noticeablycloserto the Timoshenko

resultsfor L/r= 10 and L/r=20, expecially the for second of frequencies. L/r=50, the Archer set For
modelis better, as noted in the discussion Table II. of

The Journalof the Acoustical Society America 125 of 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

With 20 of the present elements, ao=639.15,whichis (iii) Hinged Arch: Table VI contains frequency and energy distributions hinged 180 for in errorby only 0.87%. In Table III, the proportions coefficients of flexural and shear energiesare also given for the arches.The model consists a sequence straightof of cases tabulated.Note the appearance a pure shear beamfinite elements of connecting nodalpointslying on mode, associated z2 with a4 for L/r--10, and as for the circular elastic axis of the arch. Results for a modal L/r--20. Alsoof interestis the complementary nature using30 of the presentelements are compared with of the distributionsof bending and shear energies those for a 60-element consistent mass model. The of shearhas a greater effect here exhibited the first (second, by third, ...) modeof the inclusion transverse first set, and the first (second, third, ...) modeof the than for two bay frames for beams, onlyreducing or not secondset of Timoshenkomodes. A more compre- modalfrequencies, also but producing modalreordering hensive studyof the convergence properties the two evenfor L/r = 50. of elementsis presentedin Table IV. Representative cases have beenselected from thosegivenin Table III,
and are shown as functions of the number of nodal
V. CONCLUSIONS

points in each beam model. For the thick beam (L/r= 10), the presentelementis moreaccurate all in cases. the resultsfor the slenderbeam (L/r=50), In the presentelementpossesses larger errorsfor a 21 nodal point model, as has been previouslynoted. However, with the exceptionof the fundamental frequency, the numberof nodalpointsis increased, as it converges the Timoshenko to solutionmore rapidly

Stiffness and mass matrices

for a finite

element

formulation, which utilizes the kinematic variables of

Timoshenko's originalformulation, have beenderived. Relative advantages the presentformulationwere of illustratedby a detailedcomparison beamvibration of results obtained various by methods. wasfoundthat It the presentelementis more effectivewhenthe depth of the beam is not small in comparison with a wavethan the Archer element. length. Also, the presentformulationpermits a direct (ii) Two-Bay Frame: Frequencycoefficients and calculation of the distribution of energies due to energydistributions given in Table V for two-bay are extension, flexure,and shear.This is helpfulin underframeswith fixed ends.The bay width L is taken as standing the characteristics the modal behavior. of 100 in. Calculationsbasedon a model containing25 Additional examples frames on andarches wereincluded of the presentelements compared are with thosefor a to illustratethe natureof planar structuralvibrations 50-element model incorporatinga consistantmass when transverse shear deformation is considered. formulation, including rotatory inertia, but with no shearcorrection. expected, As modes containing high a ACKNOWLEDGMENT percentage shearenergyin the presentmodel also of showlarge frequency differences. With L/r=10, it appearsthat the inclusion sheardeformation of also The numerical examples reported hereinwerecarrild givesrise to a reordering someof the modes.This out with the help of the CampusComputingNetwork of effectis not present Z/r= 20 or L/r = 50. for of the Universityof California, Los Angeles.

APPENDIX

The elements the stiffness mass of and matrices, [ki] and [mi], are
(A1)
(A2)
where c --s 0 --3 s c 0 --3s 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --c 0 0 0 --s 0 0 0 0

3s
0 2 -2s 0

--3c
0 2s 2c 0

0
--3 0 0 2

--4s
0 -c 4s 0

4c
0 -4s -4c 0

0
4 0 0 --4

s
0 2c -2s 0

--c
0 2s 2c 0

0
--1 0 0 2

(A3)

126 VQlume53 Number ! 1973 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

with c=cosO, s=sinO,and 0 as the anglebetween beam's the axisand the global axis,and X
'0 0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

k2GA l

0 EArl

k2GA 0

k7Al 0

0 EA/1

k2GA 0

kGA l 0
, (A4)

smetfic

IEA/I

0 IkGA/l

0 IkGA

>A l

0 pal

0 0 pll

= ymmetric

pAl 0 0 0 pAl 0 0 0 pll Al 0 0 pAl 0

pdl I 0 0 0 pAl 0 0 0 dl lpAl 0 0 0 }pAl 0 o o pn }Al 0 0 pll

(AS)

*Present address:ResearchLaboratories,General Motors s S. B. Dong, J. A. Wolf, Jr., and F. E. Peterson, Int. J. Corp.,General MotorsTechnical Center,Warren,Mich. 48090. NumericalMethodsEngineering 155-161 (1972). 4, S. P. Timoshenko, Mag. 41, 744-746(1921). Phil. J. S. Archer,J. Struct.Div. Proc.Mner. Soc.Civil Engrs.89, aS. P. Timoshenko, Phil. Mag. 43, 125-131(1922). 161-178 (1963). aT. Davidson and J. Fl. Meier, Proc.SESA 4, 88-111 (1946). 0E. L. Jeter, Naval OrdnanceTest Station Tech. Publ. No. 4j. S. Archer,J. AIAA 3, 1910-19180965). 4280 (1967). K. K. Kapur, J. Acoust. Soc.Amer.40, 1058-1063(1966). n R. A. Anderson, Appl. Mech. 75, 5(14-510(1953). J. sj. S. Przemieniecki,Thzory of Matrix StructuralAnalysis (McGraw-Flill,New York, 1968),Chap.5. S. H. Crondoll et al., Dynamicsof Mzchanicaland Electro* G. Wempner, Int. J. Solids Structures 117-153(1969). $, mechanical Systems (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968),Sec.7.5.

The Journalof the Acoustical Sacieyof America

127

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