Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forces in Mechanics
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/forces-in-mechanics

Comparative studies between Semi-analytical and shear deformation

theories for functionally graded beam under bending
Sunil Yadav a, Somnath Damse a, Sandeep Pendhari a, *, Keshav Sangle a,
Atteshamuddin S. Sayyad b
a
Structural Engineering Department, Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute, H.R.Mahajani Marg, Matunga, Mumbai, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, SRES’s Sanjivani College of Engineering, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Kopargaon 423601, Maharashtra, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, the bending response of functionally graded (FG) beam using three different approaches. viz. semi-
Functionally graded beam analytical, higher-order shear and normal deformation theory (HOSNT), and trigonometric shear deformation
Shear deformation theory theory (TSDT) under transverse loading conditions has been investigated. The boundary value problem (BVP) of
Semi-analytical
the HOSNT and TSDT is derived using principle of virtual work whereas semi-analytical approach consist of
Power-law
formation of two-point BVP along the beam depth. All three models satisfy zero shear stress conditions at the top
and bottom surfaces of the beam. The material properties of the FG beam vary across the thickness direction
according to the power-law distribution. Aluminium-zirconia and aluminium-alumina are two types of compo­
sitions used to create FG beams. For comparison purpose, the authors have generated results for semi-analytical
and HOSNT, being not available in the published literature. The numerical results are compared with previously
published solutions to assess the correctness and effectiveness of the three models.

1. Introduction solutions are complex. As a result, numerous approximate beam and

A functionally graded material (FGM) is a material in which material
properties vary smoothly and continuously along a given domain
dimension to achieve the structure’s desired properties. This variety
helps minimize structural cracking and delamination, which are
frequent in a conventional multilayer system. In 1984, scientists intro­
duced FGM in Sendai (Japan) Koizumi [1]. For the past three decades, a
study has been done on FGM, as the applicability of materials has
increased in aircraft, aeronautical, and other domains of modern tech­
nology. Although the concept of FGM appears to be a novel creation,
certain elements, such as bones and body skin, already exist in nature as
FG materials.
Several scholars have produced numerous hypotheses to investigate
FGM based on various techniques. Sankar [2] found elasticity solutions
for a functionally graded (FG) beam subjected to transverse loads with
an exponential change of Young’s modulus across thickness and a con­
stant Poisson’s ratio. Later, Sankar and Tzeng [3] proposed a beam
theory for FG beams with exponentially varying elastic characteristics
and evaluated thermal stresses. However, analytically and computa­
tionally, two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) elasticity
plate theories for analyzing FGM based structural elements have
developed.
Chakraborty et al. [4] introduced the first-order shear deformation
theory (FOST) using a new beam element to examine the thermal and
elastic behaviour of FG beams, considering the variation in elastic and
thermal properties through the thickness. Using FOST, Nguyen et al. [5]
proposed a Navier-type closed-form solution for the static deformation
and free vibration of FG beams. Hadji et al. [6,7] used novel FOST and
higher-order shear deformation theory (HOST) to analyze simply sup­
ported FG beams. Mohanty et al. [8] examined the static and dynamic
behaviour of FG beams using a finite element approach with the
assumption of FOST for pinned end conditions. Various researchers
[9–13] used quasi-3D HOST to analyse the bending, buckling and vi­
bration of FG plates resting on a viscoelastic foundation.
Kadoli et al. [14] used HOST to analyze the static responses of FG
beams under uniformly distributed load subjected to different end
conditions. Thai and Vo [15] developed various HOST for bending and
free vibration of FG beams. Then, Hamilton’s principle was used to
derive the equations of motion with the assumption of a higher-order
axial displacement and a constant through-thickness variation of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ssyadav_p19@ci.vjti.ac.in (S. Yadav), sspendhari@st.vjti.ac.in (S. Pendhari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finmec.2022.100111
Received 26 May 2022; Received in revised form 21 June 2022; Accepted 9 July 2022
Available online 10 July 2022
2666-3597/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

deformation, where physical quantities are expressed in terms of de­

Fig. 1. A functionally graded beam subjected to transverse loading on the
top surface
transverse displacement in the beam.Some important contributions
using nonlocal HOST are elaborated in references [16–19] where
bending, buckling and vibration analysis are performed on FG nano­
beams and plates under different loading conditions. Ghadirian et al.
[20] used HOST for numerical instability investigation of composite
pipes reinforced with carbon nanotubes.
Reddy [21] studied the through-thickness response of FG plates
using third-order shear deformation theory. Li et al. [22] derived a
single governing equation for an auxiliary function from the funda­
mental elasticity equation with the consideration of the FG beam shear
rivatives in the general solution. Jha et al. [23] reviewed FG plates for
thermoelastic and vibration responses. Subsequently, Jha et al. [24]
used higher-order shear and normal deformation theory (HOSNT) to
analyze the static response of orthotropic simply supported FG plates
under transverse loads. The Poisson’s ratio of the FG plate is assumed to
be constant, and the modulus of elasticity varies continuously in the
thickness direction according to the volume fraction of constituents. Few
other notable works in HOSNT are reported in references [25–27] for FG
plate subjected to hydro-thermo-mechanical loading conditions.
Şimşek [28] presented a free vibration analysis of FG beams with
different end conditions. Zenkour [29] used generalized sinusoidal shear
deformation theory to determine the exact solution for FG plates and
presented numerical results on the displacement and stress response of
FG plates under uniform loading.
Touratier [30] used zero shear stress conditions at the top and bot­
tom surfaces of the plate and cosine shear stress distribution by intro­
ducing a novel plate theory. Qian and Ching [31] used the Meshless
Local Petro-Galerkin (MLPG) method for static and dynamic analysis of
FG cantilever beams. Zhong and Yu [32] presented a general solution for
a cantilever FG beam subjected to different loadings with an arbitrary
graded variation in material properties using the semi-inverse method,
assuming constant elastic moduli in the thickness direction. The
formulation of the FG symmetrical beam under three-point bending al­
lows for the warping of the cross-section, eliminating the need for a
shear correction coefficient used in other theories by Benatta et al. [33].

Table 1
Normalized inplane and transverse displacement (u, w) and Stresses (σ xx , τxz ) of FG beam under uniformly distributed loading for aspect ratio 5 (material set I)
n Variables Present Analysis HDT[22] TBT [50] SBT[30] HBT[51] EBT[52]

Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT

0 u(0) 0.9324 0.9279 0.9248 0.9402 0.9398 0.9409 0.9397 0.9420

(0.4826) (0.8151)
w(h/2) 3.1394 3.1633 3.1692 3.1657 3.1654 3.1649 3.1654 3.1635
(-0.7612) (-0.9492)
σxx (h) 3.7957 3.7887 3.9450 3.8020 3.8020 3.8053 3.8017 3.8083
(0.1844) (-3.9334)
τxz (h/2) 0.7132 0.6973 0.6953 0.7500 0.7332 0.7549 0.7312 0.7763
(2.2293) (2.5098)
0.5 u(0) 1.6488 1.6372 1.6114 1.6603 1.6597 1.6613 1.6595 1.6628
(0.7035) (-0.6974)
w(h/2) 4.8114 4.8375 4.8077 4.8292 4.8285 4.8278 4.8285 4.8260
(-0.5424) (-0.3699)
σxx (h) 4.9927 4.9761 5.2784 4.9925 4.9924 4.9970 4.9920 5.0012
(0.7096) (-5.7223)
τxz (h/2) 0.7270 0.7096 0.7121 0.7676 0.7504 0.7720 0.7484 0.7934
(2.3933) (2.0495)
1 u(0) 2.2786 2.2666 2.2183 2.3045 2.3038 2.3058 2.3036 2.3075
(0.5266) (2.6463)
w(h/2) 6.2388 6.2810 6.1895 6.2599 6.2594 6.2586 6.2594 6.2563
(-0.6764) (0.7902)
σxx (h) 5.8843 5.8699 6.2136 5.8837 5.8836 5.8892 5.8831 5.8943
(0.2447) (-5.5962)
τxz (h/2) 0.7102 0.6937 0.6947 0.7500 0.7332 0.7549 0.7312 0.7763
(2.3232) (2.1824)
2 u(0) 3.0703 3.0533 2.9435 3.1134 3.1130 3.1153 3.1127 3.1174
(0.5536) (4.1298)
w(h/2) 8.0653 8.1200 7.9304 8.0602 8.0677 8.0683 8.0675 8.0667
(-0.6782) (1.6725)
σxx (h) 6.9015 6.8815 7.2608 6.8812 6.8826 6.8901 6.8819 6.8969
(0.2897) (-5.2061)
τxz (h/2) 0.6696 0.6550 0.6571 0.6787 0.6706 0.6933 0.6685 0.7157
(2.1804) (1.8667)
10 u(0) 3.8815 3.8599 3.7513 3.8860 3.8864 3.8913 3.8859 3.8957
(0.5564) (3.3543)
w(h/2) 10.9183 11.0240 10.8677 10.8979 10.9381 10.942 10.9375 10.9404
(-0.9681) (0.4634)
σxx (h) 9.6489 9.6487 10.2515 9.7063 9.7122 9.7238 9.7111 9.7341
(0.0020) (-6.2452)
τxz (h/2) 0.6435 0.6267 0.6293 0.6436 0.6467 0.6708 0.6445 0.6944
(2.6107) (2.2066)

2
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

Table 2 loading. Boggarapu et al. [41] provided an overview of recent de­

Normalized inplane and transverse displacements (u,w) and stresses (σ xx , τxz ) of velopments in FGM. The study focuses on material selection, processing
FG beam under uniformly distributed loading for aspect ratio 10 (material set I) techniques, analytical modelling, and FGM applications. Belarbi et al.
n Variable Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT [42] presented a novel refined shear deformation theory for FG sand­
0 u(0) 0.4621 0.4597 0.4573
wich curved beams to investigate the bending behaviour in which ma­
(0.5193) (1.0387) terial properties of beams vary continuously in the thickness direction
w(h/2) 2.9438 2.9533 2.9199 according to a power-law distribution. Mohamed et al. [43] developed a
(-0.3227) (0.8118) novel model based on HSDT for FG plates to investigate displacements
σxx (h) 7.5228 7.5007 7.8482
and shear stresses.
(0.2937) (-4.3255)
τxz (h/2) 0.7296 0.7269 0.7184 Pendhari et al. [44] extended the mixed semi-analytical model pro­
(0.3700) (1.5350) posed by Kant et al. [45] to develop a solution for functionally graded
0.2 u(0) 0.6101 0.6006 0.5974 narrow beams under plane stress conditions of elasticity and formulated
(1.5571) (2.0816) first-order ordinary differential equations (ODEs) in the thickness di­
w(h/2) 3.6158 3.5979 3.6076
(0.4950) (0.2267)
rection bound to a two-point boundary value problem (BVP). The ma­
σxx (h) 8.5631 8.4960 8.9764 terial properties of the beam varied according to an exponential law in
(0.7835) (-4.8265) the thickness direction. The results were compared with the elastic so­
τxz (h/2) 0.7445 0.7382 0.7088 lution developed by Sankar [2] and found to be in excellent agreement
(0.8462) (4.7951)
with each other.
0.5 u(0) 0.8141 0.8200 0.8025
(-0.7247) (1.4248) Ghugal and Shinde [46] studied the flexural response of laminated
w(h/2) 4.5387 4.5453 4.5351 beams using layerwise TSDT. However, as per the authors knowledge,
(-.1454) (0.07931) no work has been performed on analyzing FGM beams using the TSDT
σxx (h) 9.8858 9.8444 10.3978 formulation. Both semi-analytical and HOSNT methods are analytically
(0.4187) (-5.1791)
and computationally complex. Hence, it is relevant to extend the studies
τxz (h/2) 0.7447 0.7411 0.7121
(0.4834) (4.3776) in this area. In this paper, semi-analytical, HOSNT and TSDT have been
1 u(0) 1.1372 1.1312 1.0965 used to investigate the bending behaviour of FG beams for various
(0.5276) (3.5789) power-law indexes (n) ranging from ceramic to metal as well to compare
w(h/2) 5.8911 5.9088 5.7395
the accuracy of HOSNT and TSDT with reference to the semi-analytical
(-0.3004) (2.5733)
σxx (h) 11.6362 11.5998 12.1000 solutions. Semi-analytical model is based on formation of two-point
(0.3128) (-3.9858) boundary value problem (BVP) governed by set of first-order ordinary
τxz (h/2) 0.7284 0.7252 0.7183 differential equations (ODEs) along with the beam depth which has been
(0.4393) (1.3866) further attempted by numerical integration scheme. Whereas Taylors
2 u(0) 1.5368 1.5287 1.4691
series and trigonometric functions have been used in HOSNT and TSDT,
(0.5270) (4.4052)
w(h/2) 7.5673 7.5903 7.3354 respectively for primary displacement variables. In both HOSNT and
(-0.3039) (3.0645) TSDT, the principle of virtual work is used to derive governing equa­
σxx (h) 13.6027 13.5584 14.0990 tions and boundary conditions. The Navier-type solution technique is
(0.3267) (-3.6485)
used to solve the simply supported FG beams. Both HOSNT and TSDT
τxz (h/2) 0.6887 0.6859 0.6802
(0.4066) (1.2342)
consider the combined effect of bending and shear rotations in
10 u(0) 1.9150 1.9049 1.8468 displacement field. All three models satisfy zero shear stress conditions
(0.5274) (3.5613) at the top and bottom surfaces of the beam. The numerical results are
w(h/2) 9.9365 9.9755 9.7401 compared with existing solutions to assess the correctness and effec­
(-0.3924) (1.9765)
tiveness of three models: semi-analytical, HOSNT, and TSDT.
σxx (h) 19.1097 19.0613 19.8035
(0.2532) (-3.6306) In the next section, the mathematical formulation of the TSDT model
τxz (h/2) 0.6614 0.6571 0.6521 has been presented in detail. For brevity’s sake, semi-analytical and
(0.6501) (1.4061) HOSNT formations have not been presented here.

2. Theoretical Formulation
Giunta et al. [34] performed a free vibration response of FG beams
for several hierarchic families of refined theories, assuming a change in
An FG beam (Fig. 1) having a thickness h is investigated, which is
material properties according to a power-law distribution through the
supported on two opposed edges, x = 0 and L. The beam is considered in
section, and compared the numerical results with the FEM solution.
a 2D plane stress condition in the x-z plane with a y-direction width of
Niknam et al. [35] used the Galerkin and differential quadrature
unity. Only transverse loading is applied to the top surface of the beam,
methods to analyze the nonlinear bending behaviour of a tapered FG
and all other surfaces are free from stress. The beam occupies the region
beam subjected to thermomechanical loads with general boundary
in O-x-y-z Cartesian coordinate system
conditions. Pradhan and Chakraverty [36] analyzed power-law expo­
0≤x≤ L ; -b/2≤ y≤ b/2 : - h/2≤ z≤ h/2
nential shear deformation beam theory on FG beams subjected to
The displacement field of the present trigonometric shear deforma­
various end conditions. Sayyad and Ghugal [37] investigated the
tion theory is given as [47],
bending, buckling, and free vibration responses of FG beams with
varying material properties through thickness according to power-law dw h πz
u(x, z) = uo − z + sin ϕ(x)
distribution using hyperbolic shear deformable theory. Menasria et al. dx π h
(1)
[38] study the dynamic behaviour of FG-sandwich plates resting on h πz
elastic foundations under different boundary conditions using w(x, z) = w(x) + cos ξ(x)
π h
four-unknown refined plate theory. Liu et al. [39] study the dynamic
response of an E-FGM nanoplate embedded in a visco-elastic foundation where u and w are displacements in x and z-direction. uo represents the
when it is subjected to a moving load. centerline displacement and is a function of x. The cross-section rota­
Sayyad and Ghugal [40] used sinusoidal beam theory to develop the tions of the beam at the neutral axis are represented by ϕ and ξ. The
static behaviour of the FG curved beam subjected to uniform transverse normal strains are represented as ϵx , ϵz while the shear strain is denoted

3
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

Table 3
Normalized inplane and transverse displacements (u, w) and stresses (σ xx , τxz ) of FG beam under uniformly distributed loading for aspect ratio 20.0 (material set I)
n Variable Present Analysis HDT[22] TBT[50] SBT[30] HBT[51] EBT[52]

Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT

0 u(0) 0.2304 0.2292 0.2284 0.2306 0.2306 0.2306 0.2306 0.2306

(0.5208) (0.8680)
w(h/2) 2.8946 2.9002 2.8708 2.8962 2.8962 2.8962 2.8962 2.8961
(-0.1934) (0.8222)
σxx (h) 15.0116 14.9621 15.63 15.013 15.0129 15.0138 15.0129 15.0145
(0.3297) (-4.1194)
τxz (h/2) 0.7346 0.7359 0.7226 0.7500 0.7451 0.7686 0.7429 0.7920
(-0.1769) (1.6335)
0.5 u(0) 0.4093 0.4064 0.4008 0.4087 0.4087 0.4087 0.4087 0.4088
(0.7085) (2.0767)
w(h/2) 4.4702 4.4714 4.4666 4.4645 4.4644 4.4644 4.4644 4.4643
(-0.0335) (0.0805)
σxx (h) 19.722 19.6338 20.7123 19.7005 19.7004 19.7015 19.7003 19.7026
(0.4472) (-5.0212)
τxz (h/2) 0.7503 0.7511 0.7378 0.7676 0.7620 0.7855 0.7599 0.8089
(-0.1066) (1.6660)
1 u(0) 0.5682 0.5652 0.5509 0.5686 0.5686 0.5686 0.5685 0.5686
(0.5279) (-0.5983)
w(h/2) 5.8037 5.8146 5.7611 5.8049 5.8049 5.8049 5.8049 5.8047
(-0.1774) (0.7340)
σxx (h) 23.2061 23.1282 24.3570 23.2054 23.2053 23.2067 23.2052 23.2080
(0.3356) (-4.9594)
τxz (h/2) 0.7344 0.7355 0.7226 0.7500 0.7451 0.7686 0.7429 0.7920
(-0.1497) (1.6067)
2 u(0) 0.7684 0.7645 0.7341 0.7691 0.7691 0.7692 0.7691 0.7692
(0.5075) (4.4638)
w(h/2) 7.4421 7.4561 7.2191 7.4415 7.4421 7.4421 7.442 7.4420
(-0.1881) (2.9964)
σxx (h) 27.1049 27.0129 28.1300 27.0989 27.0991 27.1010 27.0989 27.1027
(0.3394) (-3.7819)
τxz (h/2) 0.6954 0.6964 0.6847 0.6787 0.6824 0.7069 0.6802 0.7315
(-0.1438) (1.5386)
10 u(0) 0.9537 0.9488 0.9217 0.9536 0.9536 0.9537 0.9536 0.9538
(0.5137) (3.3553)
w(h/2) 9.6895 9.7102 9.5062 9.6879 9.6905 9.6908 9.6905 9.6907
(-0.2136) (1.8917)
σxx (h) 38.1232 38.0021 39.5295 38.1372 38.1385 38.1414 38.1383 38.1440
(0.3176) (-3.6888)
τxz (h/2) 0.6675 0.6679 0.6570 0.6436 0.6596 0.6858 0.6572 0.7115
(-0.0599) (1.5730)

by γ yz . These strains are calculated using a linear elasticity theory and a where Qij are the reduced stiffness coefficient given as follows,
displacement field defined by Eq. (1)
E(z) μE(z)
Q11 = ; Q13 = (5)
∂u duo d2 w h πz dϕ 1 − μ2 1 − μ2
ϵx = = − z 2 + sin
∂x dx dx π h dx
E(z)
dw πz Q33 = ; Q55 = G13
ϵz = = − sin ξ (2) 1 − μ2
dz h
( )
γ zx =
∂u dw
+ = cos
πz
ϕ+
h ∂ξ The stress resultants associated with the displacement field of present
∂z dx h π ∂x theory are as follows:
The material gradation varied continuously throughout the beam { }
∫ h { }
2
h πz
thickness, according to the power-law distribution given by [21,48] Nx Mxb Mxs = σx 1 z sin dz
− h π h
( z)
2

E(z) = Eb + (Et − Eb ) 0.5 + n (3) ∫ h

2 πz
h Vxzs =
− h
τzx cos
h
dz (6)
where Eb and Et are the bottom and top surface Youngs modulus,
2
⎛ ⎞
∫
respectively, h is the total thickness of the beam, and n is a parameter
h
2 h π z⎠
Vzzs = σz ⎝ − sin dz
which controls the volume fraction of materials in the thickness direc­ − h
2
π h
tion. Here, we assumed that modulus and, density vary according to Eq.
(3) and Poisson’s ratio (μ) considered to be constant. Using Eqs. (2) through (4) and the principle of virtual work, varia­
The 2D constitutive relations are used for the stress-strain relation­ tionally consistent differential equations and boundary conditions for
ship, the beam under consideration are obtained. The principle of virtual
work in its analytical form is given by [49],
σx = Q11 ϵx + Q13 ϵz
σ z = Q13 ϵx + Q33 ϵz (4)
τzx = Q55 γxz

4
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

Table 4
Normalized inplane and transverse displacements (u,w) and stresses (σxx , τxz ) of FG beam under uniformly distributed loading for aspect ratio 5,10 and 20 (material set
II)
n Variable L/h=5 L/h=10 L/h=20

Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT

0 u(0) 14.4629 14.3924 14.3535 7.1682 7.1315 7.1414 3.5748 3.5564 3.5671
(0.4875) (0.7565) (0.5123) (0.3740) (0.5144) (0.2148)
w(h/2) 48.0694 49.0640 49.1561 45.6594 45.8067 46.0079 44.8972 44.9842 45.2189
(-2.0691) (-2.2607) (-0.3225) (-0.7632) (-0.1937) (-0.7165)
σxx (h) 3.7855 3.7887 4.0113 7.5177 7.5008 7.9222 15.0088 14.9621 15.7841
(-0.0859) (-5.9665) (0.2252) (-5.3804) (0.3114) (-5.1655)
τxz (h/2) 0.7133 0.6973 0.6953 0.7309 0.7270 0.7184 0.7372 0.7359 0.7226
(2.2472) (2.5276) (0.5322) (1.7089) (0.1723) (1.9765)
0.2 u(0) 9.5894 9.6530 9.6783 4.7440 4.7733 4.8127 2.3646 2.3646 2.4037
(-0.6628) (-0.9267) (-0.6183) (-1.4490) (0.0000) (-1.6544)
w(h/2) 36.2522 36.8064 36.8953 33.9580 34.3343 34.4177 33.3819 33.7105 33.7950
(-1.5286) (-1.7739) (-1.1080) (-1.3537) (-0.9843) (-1.2375)
σxx (h) 3.1191 3.1397 3.3204 6.2034 6.2223 6.5636 12.3892 12.4151 13.0814
(-0.6604) (-6.4541) (-0.3055) (-5.8074) (-0.2091) (-5.5874)
τxz (h/2) 0.6981 0.6854 0.6830 0.7147 0.7133 0.7014 0.7205 0.7214 0.7080
(1.8178) (2.1616) (0.1987) (1.8637) (-0.1263) (1.7322)
0.5 u(0) 7.7877 7.7594 7.7883 3.8358 3.8358 3.8725 1.9193 1.9117 1.9343
(0.3631) (-0.0081) (0.000) (-0.9570) (0.3934) (-0.7847)
w(h/2) 30.7195 30.9671 31.0145 28.9070 29.0209 29.0178 28.4518 28.5296 28.5156
(-0.8061) (-0.9605) (-0.3941) (-0.3834) (-0.2735) (-0.2243)
σxx (h) 2.7601 2.7647 2.9216 5.4924 5.4834 5.7809 10.9708 10.9428 11.5247
(-0.1663) (-5.8494) (0.1642) (-5.2516) (0.2553) -5.0487
τxz (h/2) 0.7032 0.6896 0.6859 0.7195 0.7168 0.6859 0.7251 0.7243 0.7109
(1.9382) (2.4643) (0.3808) (4.6752) (0.1090) 1.9556
1 u(0) 6.8337 6.8014 6.8301 3.3830 3.3657 3.3977 1.6866 1.6779 1.6975
(0.4721) (0.0519) (0.5123) (-0.4339) (0.5158) (-0.6469)
w(h/2) 27.0461 27.2285 27.2650 25.5783 25.6543 25.6326 25.2097 25.2568 25.2220
(-0.6745) (-0.8095) (-0.2971) (-0.2123) (-0.1868) (-0.0488)
σxx (h) 2.4657 2.4651 2.6029 4.9012 ()4.8887 5.1537 9.7872 9.7559 10.2762
(0.0243) (-5.5647) (0.2559) (-5.1514) (0.3198) (-4.9960)
τxz (h/2) 0.7158 0.7020 0.6957 0.7320 0.7292 0.7185 0.7374 0.7365 0.7226
(1.9211) (2.8013) (0.3757) (1.8376) (0.1193) 2.0044
2 u(0) 6.2679 6.2391 6.2699 3.1093 3.0934 3.1221 1.5510 1.5430 1.5601
(0.4595) (-0.0321) (0.5117) (-0.4117) (0.5171) (-0.5861)
w(h/2) 24.1177 24.2720 24.3270 22.8910 22.9569 22.9694 22.5831 22.6247 22.6282
(-0.6399) (-0.8680) (-0.2880) (-0.3426) (-0.1844) (-0.2000)
σxx (h) 2.1771 2.1704 2.2893 4.3130 4.2989 4.5336 8.6051 8.5760 9.0399
(0.3059) (-5.1560) (0.3262) (-5.1153) (0.3378) (-5.0526)
τxz (h/2) 0.7328 0.7188 0.7125 0.7492 0.7465 0.7355 0.7547 0.7538 0.7395
(1.9118) (2.7715) (0.3604) (1.8286) (0.1166) (2.0114)
10 u(0) 5.1324 5.0988 5.0785 2.5446 2.5271 2.5321 1.2691 1.2603 1.2648
(0.6551) (1.0504) (0.6885) (0.4916) (0.6950) (0.3396)
w(h/2) 17.3857 17.4734 17.5115 16.3208 16.3310 16.4044 16.0534 16.0426 16.1270
(-0.5043) (-0.7235) (-0.0624) (-0.5122) (0.0672) (-0.4587)
σxx (h) 1.4014 1.3614 1.4402 2.7267 2.6930 2.8444 5.4152 5.3707 5.6673
(2.8508) (-2.7730) (1.2359) (-4.3177) (0.8212) (-4.6551)
τxz (h/2) 0.7186 0.7019 0.7213 0.7361 0.7316 0.7442 0.7424 0.7405 0.7481
(2.3199) (-0.3799) (0.6140) (-1.0976) (0.2519) (-0.7719)

∫ L∫
The boundary conditions at the ends of the beam are as follows: at x=0
h
2 [ ]
b σx δϵx + σz δϵz + τxz δγxz dxdz
− h and at x=L,
(7)
0 2
∫ L Either Nx = 0 Or u0 =0
− q(x)δwdx = 0 Either Vx = 0 Or w=0
Either Mbx = 0 Or dw
0
dx =0
Introducing stress resultants given by Eq. (6) in Eq. (7) and integrating Either Msx = 0 Or ϕ=0
s
it by parts and collecting the coefficients of δu0 ,δw, δϕ and δξ and setting Either Vxz =0 Or ξ=0
them equal to zero, the following governing equations and boundary The stress resultants acting on the cross-section are expressed in
conditions are obtained in terms of stress resultants. terms of displacement variables and are defined as:
The axial force,
dNx
δuo : =0 ∫ h
dx 2 duo
2 Nx = σx dz = A11 −
d Mxb dx
(9)
− h
δwo : +q=0 2
2

dx
(8) d2 w dϕ π
dMx s B11 + As11 − As12 ξ
δϕ : − Vxzs = 0 dx2 dx h
dx
dV s h The moment resultants due to classical bending and transverse shear
δξ : xz − Vzzs = 0
dx π deformation effects are as follows:

5
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

Table 5
Normalized inplane and transverse displacements (u, w) and stresses (σ xx , τxz ) of FG beam under sinusoidal loading for aspect ratio 5, 10 and 20 (material set I)
n Variable L/h=5 L/h=10 L/h=20

Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT

0 u(0) 0.7216 0.7213 0.7151 0.3576 0.35747 0.3563 0.1783 0.1783 0.1780
(0.0443) (0.9117) (0.0391) (0.3635) (0.0392) (0.2018)
w(h/2) 2.4807 2.4797 2.4778 2.3224 2.3212 2.3193 2.2826 2.2814 2.2794
(0.0423) (0.1197) (0.0508) (0.1343) (0.0516) (0.1401)
σxx (h) 3.0834 3.0931 3.1621 6.0997 6.1034 6.2190 12.1686 12.1680 12.3859
(-0.3116) (-2.5493) (-0.0603) (-1.9551) (0.0041) (-1.7858)
τxz (h/2) 0.4758 0.4754 0.4733 0.4770 0.4769 0.4748 0.4773 0.4772 0.4751
(0.0987) (0.5379) (0.0356) (0.4737) (0.0188) (0.4713)
0.2 u(0) 0.9517 0.9411 0.9274 0.4721 0.4670 0.4624 0.2355 0.2330 0.2310
(1.1231) (2.5614) (1.0865) (2.0587) (1.0867) (1.9315)
w(h/2) 3.0365 3.0117 3.0010 2.8524 2.828 2.8207 2.8062 2.7819 2.7754
(0.8167) (1.1687) (0.8585) (1.1141) (0.8662) (1.0975)
σxx (h) 3.5135 3.5037 3.5867 6.9479 6.9126 7.0525 13.8588 13.7802 14.0456
(0.2800) (-2.0825) (0.5084) (-1.5051) (0.5674) (-1.3481)
τxz (h/2) 0.4850 0.4833 0.4811 0.4861 0.4847 0.4826 0.4864 0.4851 0.4829
(0.3525) (0.8041) (0.3044) (0.7342) (0.2816) (0.7318)
0.5 u(0) 1.2765 1.2732 1.2455 0.6346 0.6330 0.6212 0.3168 0.3160 0.3104
(0.2624) (2.4315) (0.2426) (2.1146) (0.2398) (2.0232)
w(h/2) 3.8011 3.7936 3.7591 3.5805 3.5729 3.5462 3.5249 3.5174 3.4926
(0.198) (1.1065) (0.2108) (0.9576) (0.2133) (0.918)
σxx (h) 4.0570 4.0619 4.1604 8.0168 8.01096 8.17794 15.9874 15.9677 16.2857
(-0.1205) (-2.5474) (0.0732) (-2.0096) (0.1229) (-1.8659)
0.4861 0.48547 0.4833 0.4873 0.4869 0.4847 0.4876 0.4872 0.4851
(0.1337) (0.578) (0.0800) (0.5335) (0.0697) (0.5127)
1 u(0) 1.7650 1.7636 1.7124 0.8802 0.8798 0.8542 0.4398 0.4396 0.4599
(0.0770) (2.9801) (0.0477) (2.9593) (0.0409) (-4.5725)
w(h/2) 4.9286 4.9261 4.8401 4.6473 4.64487 4.5724 4.5764 4.5741 4.5050
(0.0507) (1.7956) (0.0522) (1.6114) (0.0520) (1.5618)
σxx (h) 4.7834 4.7926 4.9052 9.4374 9.4402 9.6318 18.8124 18.8101 19.1757
(-0.1906) (-2.5458) (-0.0292) (-2.0597) (0.0120) (-1.9314)
τxz (h/2) 0.4756 0.4753 0.4733 0.4770 0.4768 0.4748 0.4773 0.4772 0.4751
(0.0672) (0.4982) (0.0272) (0.4632) (0.0167) (0.4692)
2 u(0) 2.3792 2.3771 2.2956 1.1897 1.1892 1.1447 0.5946 0.5946 0.5720
(0.0891) (3.5162) (0.0495) (3.7889) (0.0000) (3.8008)
w(h/2) 6.3728 6.3664 6.2024 5.9699 5.9660 5.8263 5.8652 5.8652 5.7318
(0.1005) (2.6744) (0.0664) (2.4065) (0.0000) (2.2745)
σxx (h) 5.6163 5.6233 5.7475 11.0353 11.0366 11.2468 21.9707 21.9707 22.3712
(-0.1239) (-2.3351) (-0.0111) (-1.9163) (0.0000) (-1.8225)
τxz (h/2) 0.45007 0.4499 0.4483 0.4518 0.4517 0.4499 0.4522 0.4522 0.45031
(0.0222) (0.3910) (0.0132) (0.4271) (0.0000) (0.4223)
10 u(0) 3.0032 3.0007 2.8955 1.4815 1.4808 1.4385 0.7380 0.7378 0.7181
(0.0825) (3.5877) (0.0458) (2.9037) (0.0392) (2.7069)
w(h/2) 8.6355 8.6285 8.5074 7.8414 7.8364 7.7408 7.6412 7.6372 7.5482
(0.0804) (1.4834) (0.0632) (1.2833) (0.0531) (1.2177)
σxx (h) 7.8448 7.8816 8.1436 15.4969 15.5131 15.8298 30.9039 30.9069 31.4329
(-0.4680) (-3.8078) (-0.1044) (-2.1484) (-0.0096) (-1.7117)
τxz (h/2) 0.4324 0.4314 0.4298 0.4336 0.4334 0.4318 0.4339 0.4338 0.4323
(0.2150) (0.6035) (0.0645) (0.4311) (0.0230) (0.3848)

∫ h
2 duo d2 w ∫ h
Mxs = σ x f (z)dz = As11 − Bs11 2 2 ′ duo d2 w
− h dx dx Vzzs = σzz g (z)dz = As12 − Bs12 2
2 dx dx
(12)
− h
2
dϕ π
+Ass11 + Ass12 ξ dϕ π
dx h +Ass12 − Ass22 ξ
∫ h
(10) dx h
2 du d2 w
Mxb = σxz dz = B11 o − D11 2 + Bss11 Substituting these stress resultants into Eq. (8), we get the governing
− h dx dx
equations in terms of unknown variables of the theory as follows:
2

dϕ π
+ Bs12 ξ
dx h d2 uo d3 w d2 ϕ π dξ
δuo : − A11 + B11 3 − As11 2 + As12 =0 (13)
dx2 dx dx h dx
The transverse shear and transverse normal stress resultants are as fol­
lows: d3 uo d4 w d3 ϕ π d2 ξ
⎛ ⎞ δw : − B11 3
+ D11 4 − Bs11 3 + Bs12 =q (14)
∫ h2 dx dx dx h dx2
h dξ
(11)
′
s
Vxz = τxz f (z)dz = Acc55 ⎝ + ϕ⎠
− h π dx d2 uo d3 w d2 ϕ
2 δϕ : − As11 2 + Bs11 3 − Ass11 2 + Acc55 ϕ
dx dx dx
( ) (15)
π h dξ
+ Ass12 + Acc55 =0
h π dx

6
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

Table 6
Normalized inplane and transverse displacements (u, w) and stresses (σ xx , τxz ) of FG beam under sinusoidal loading for aspect ratio 5, 10 and 20 (material set II)
n Variable L/h=5 L/h10 L/h=20

Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT Semi-Analytical HOSNT TSDT

0 u(0) 11.1936 11.0908 11.1887 5.5467 5.8114 5.5446 2.7667 2.7612 2.7656
(-0.9183) (0.0438) (-4.772) (0.0382) (0.1977) (0.0390)
w(h/2) 38.4776 38.4310 38.4612 36.0214 36.4970 36.0031 35.4038 35.8737 35.3855
(0.1209) (0.0424) (-1.3202) (0.0508) (-1.3272) (0.0516)
σxx (h) 3.0835 3.1624 3.0931 6.0998 6.2166 6.1034 12.1686 12.3956 12.1681
(-2.5591) (-0.3113) (-1.9153) (-0.0596) (-1.8651) (0.0041)
τxz (h/2) 0.4759 0.4733 0.4754 0.4771 0.4748 0.4769 0.4774 0.4751 0.4773
(0.5400) (0.1008) (0.4820) (0.0356) (0.4817) (0.0146)
0.2 u(0) 7.4204 7.4802 7.5025 3.6706 3.9148 3.7108 1.8300 1.9547 1.8500
(-0.806) (-1.1064) (-6.6545) (-1.0965) (-6.8147) (-1.0928)
w(h/2) 28.6474 28.8468 28.8499 26.7903 27.3007 26.9856 26.3227 26.8067 26.5298
(-0.6960) (-0.7068) (-1.9051) (-0.7289) (-1.8387) (-0.7867)
σxx (h) 2.5411 2.6143 2.5630 5.0331 5.1660 5.0627 10.0445 10.3084 10.1000
(-2.881) (-0.8618) (-2.6405) (-0.5875) (-2.6272) (-0.5521)
τxz (h/2) 0.4649 0.4637 0.4658 0.4662 0.4653 0.4674 0.4665 0.4657 0.4677
(0.2645) (-0.1849) (0.1930) (-0.2552) (0.1714) (-0.2507)
0.5 u(0) 6.0256 6.0256 6.0300 2.9980 3.1462 2.9819 1.4853 1.5721 1.4865
(0.0001) (-0.0726) (-4.9453) (0.5353) (-5.8417) (-0.078)
w(h/2) 24.2716 24.2715 24.2790 22.8044 23.0154 22.8111 22.4355 22.6160 22.4424
(0.0001) (-0.0306) (-0.9254) (-0.0295) (-0.8045) (-0.0307)
σxx (h) 2.2488 2.2980 2.2566 4.4563 4.5579 4.4612 8.8945 9.0961 8.8890
(-2.1869) (-0.3455) (-2.2799) (-0.1099) (-2.2664) (0.0621)
τxz (h/2) 0.4679 0.4655 0.4676 0.4691 0.4671 0.4691 0.4695 0.4675 0.4695
(0.5022) (0.0555) (0.4263) (0.0085) (0.4259) (-0.0085)
1.0 u(0) 5.2880 5.2802 5.2856 2.6176 2.7579 2.6166 1.3053 1.3790 1.3048
(0.1467) (0.0448) (-5.3598) (0.0385) (-5.6461) (0.0390)
w(h/2) 21.3656 21.3181 21.3544 20.1774 20.3301 20.1668 19.8788 20.0033 19.8684
(0.2222) (0.0524) (-0.7567) (0.0525) (-0.6265) (0.0520)
σxx (h) 2.0098 2.0459 2.0121 3.9771 4.0670 3.9774 7.9351 8.1145 7.9338
(-1.7946) (-0.1124) (-2.2609) (-0.0082) (-2.2604) (0.0163)
τxz (h/2) 0.4758 0.4733 0.4756 0.4771 0.4748 0.4769 0.4774 0.4751 0.4773
(0.5275) (0.0462) (0.4820) (0.0314) (0.4817) (0.0125)
2.0 u(0) 4.8512 4.8472 4.8493 2.4060 2.5370 2.4051 1.2004 1.2680 1.1999
(0.0822) (0.0391) (-5.4433) (0.039) (-5.6314) (0.0424)
w(h/2) 19.0500 19.0203 19.0401 18.0569 18.2186 18.0475 17.8074 17.9473 17.7981
(0.1558) (0.0519) (-0.8956) (0.0520) (-0.7857) (0.0520)
σxx (h) 1.7764 1.7989 1.7720 3.5007 3.5777 3.4978 6.9772 7.1348 6.9744
(-1.2677) (0.2471) (-2.1987) (0.0825) (-2.2586) (0.0398)
τxz (h/2) 0.4870 0.4845 0.4869 0.4882 0.4859 0.4882 0.4885 0.4862 0.4885
(0.5174) (0.0266) (0.4711) (0.0061) (0.4708) (0.0061)
10.0 u(0) 3.9723 3.9323 3.9637 1.9690 2.0606 1.9648 0.9822 1.0284 0.9801
(1.0077) (0.2175) (-4.6504) (0.2153) (-4.7015) (0.2168)
w(h/2) 13.7376 13.6907 13.6981 12.8756 13.0132 12.8361 12.6589 12.7941 12.6195
(0.3409) (0.2871) (-1.0687) (0.3067) (-1.068) (0.3112)
σxx (h) 1.1498 1.1351 1.1117 2.2165 2.2330 2.1914 4.3925 4.4519 4.3678
(1.2733) (3.3094) (-0.7431) (1.1319) (-1.3534) (0.5611)
τxz (h/2) 0.4783 0.4901 0.4924 0.4804 0.4915 0.4798 0.4807 0.4918 0.4802
(-2.4691) (-2.9479) (-2.3105) (0.1290) (-2.3091) (0.1102)

( )
π duo π d2 w π h m =1, and 4qo /mπ for uniformly distributed load (UDL) when m = 1, 3,
δξ : − As12 + Bs12 2 − Ass11 + Acc55 5,..., where qo represents the maximum intensity of load and m is the
h dx h dx h π
(16) integer representing the number of half sine waves. The unknown var­
dϕ π2 h2 d2 ξ
+ 2 Ass22 ξ − 2 Acc55 2 = 0 iables u0 , w,ϕ, ξ are presented in the following trigonometric series,
dx h π dx which satisfy boundary conditions (17) exactly:
( ) ( )
3. Navier Solution ∑ ∞
mπ x ∑∞
mπx
uo = um cos ; w(x) = wm sin
L L
The Navier type solution for the simply supported rectangular beam
m=1 m=1
( ) ( ) (19)
is developed satisfying the following boundary conditions at x = 0 and x ∑ ∞
mπ x ∑∞
mπ x
=L: ϕ(x) = ϕm cos ; ξ(x) = ξm sin
m=1
L m=1
L
Nx = w = ξ = Mxb = Mxs = 0 (17)
where um , wm ,ϕm , ξm are the unknown coefficients of the respective
The transverse load acting on the top surface of the beam is presented in Fourier expansion to be determined. Substituting this form of solution
the form of a trigonometric series. and q(x) into the governing Eqs. (13)-(16) yields a system of algebraic
equations which can be written in matrix form as follows:
∑
∞
mπx
q(x) = qm sin (18) {f } = [K]{Δ} (20)
m=0
L

The coefficient qm of Fourier expansion is qo for sinusoidal loading when

7
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

Fig. 2. Through thickness variation of displacement and stresses for different power law index ’n’ in functionally graded beam for aspect ratio 5 (material set I)

8
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

Fig. 3. Through thickness variation of displacement and stresses for different power law index ’n’ in functionally graded beam for aspect ratio 5 (material set II)

⎡ ⎤
K11 K12 K13 K14 ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ K21 um 0
K22 K23 K24 ⎥
[K] = ⎢ ⎥ (21) ⎢ wm ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎥and{f } = ⎢ qm ⎥
⎣ K31 K32 K33 K34 ⎦ {Δ} = ⎢
⎣ ϕm ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦ (22)
K41 K42 K43 K44
ξm 0

9
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

The matrix elements Kij (i,j=1,2,...,4) of stiffness matrix [K] are defined tabulated in Tables 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The results obtained from
semi-analytical, HOSNT and TSDT have been compared with available
in Appendix. Solving Eq. (20), the unknowns um ,wm ,ϕm ,ξm can be
solutions given by Li et al. [22], Tourtatier [30], Karama et al. [52],
readily determined. Having obtained the values of these unknown co­
Reddy [50], and Soldatos [51] for inplane and transverse displacements
efficients, all the displacement and stress components within the beam
(u,w), inplane normal (σxx ) and transverse shear stresses (τxz ) wherever
using Eqs. (1), (3) and (4) can be obtained. The expressions for dis­
applicable and are observed to be in good agreement. Moreover, for the
placements and stresses are
{ } same span-to depth ratios and power-law index, results obtained from
π h πz πx semi-analytical, HOSNT and TSDT have been presented in Table 4 for
uo = um − zh wm + sin ϕm cos (23)
L π h L material set II. Further, solutions obtained from semi-analytical, HOSNT
{ } and TSDT for span-to-depth ratios 5, 10, and 20 under sinusoidal loading
wo =
h πz
wm + cos ξm sin
πx
(24) condition have been presented in Tables 5 and 6 for material set I and
π h L material set II, respectively, which can be useful as a benchmark solution
{ [ ] in future references.
σx = Q11 −
π π2 z h πz
um + 2 wm − sin ϕm For different material gradation indices, through-thickness varia­
L L L h
(25) tions of normalized inplane and transverse displacement (u,w), stresses
[ πz ]} πx (σxx , τxz ) are presented in Fig. 2 [material set I] and Fig. 3 [material set II]
− Q13 sin ξm sin
h L for aspect ratio 5 subjected to both loading conditions. Tables 1 to 6 also
{ [ ] contain the percentage difference depicted in parentheses for HOSNT
σz = Q13 −
π π2 z h πz
um + 2 wm − sin ϕm and TSDT compared to semi-analytical solutions. The results presented
L L L h
(26) tables and figures showed that the semi-analytical, HOSNT, and TSDT
[ πz ]} π x
models are all in close agreement with available solutions based on
− Q33 sin ξm sin
h L various beam theories.
{ } The variable power-law index (n) ranges from ceramic (n=0) to
h πz πx metal (n<10) and has been considered here to illustrate its influence on
τCR
xz = Q55 ϕm + ξm cos cos (27)
L h L the bending behaviour of FG beams subjected to transverse loading
conditions. It has been seen from Figs. 2 and 3, that increasing the
Finally, equilibrium equation of the theory of elasticity is used to
power-law index n decreases the stiffness of the FG beams, thus increases
determine the more accurate transverse shear stresses across the depth
the inplane as well transverse deflections and inplane stresses. This is
of beam.
because when the power-law index n increases, the metal component
∂σ x ∂τzx increases in comparison to the ceramic component, making FG beams
+ =0 (28)
∂x ∂z more flexible. It is to be noted from both the Figs. 2 and 3 that the
neutral axis goes on shifting towards metal side due to more stiffness as
4. Numerical Results and Discussion expected which results in variable ordinates for inplane displacements at
top and bottom of beam.
A computer program is developed to examine the response of FG From Table 1, the maximum difference in in-plane and transverse
beams subjected to transverse load based on the trigonometric shear displacements are found to be approximately 0.70% and -0.97%,
deformation theory described in the preceding section to establish its respectively, for HOSNT, whereas, for TSDT, the differences are 4.13%
reliability and effectiveness. In addition, programs have been developed and 1.67%, respectively. For in-plane normal and shear stresses, dif­
for semi-analytical and HOSNT models too. For the analysis, pure ma­ ferences are 0.29% and 2.61%, respectively, for HOSNT, whereas, for
terial with various values of the volume fraction exponent n is used. The TSDT, differences are -6.24% and 2.51%, respectively, for TSDT. How­
material gradation index (n) was changed between 0 and 10, simulating ever, percentage differences reduce as the aspect ratio increases as ex­
a ceramic to metal transition. Sinusoidal and uniformly distributed pected. Moreover, it must be noted that the HOSNT solution is superior
loading are applied at the top of the beam surface. For the sake of to the TSDT solution due to the close representation of deformation
simplicity, body forces are neglected. The following normalizations are characteristics in the HOSNT formulation. Variations in transverse
utilized in beam analysis for a uniform comparison of the results under displacement and in-plane stresses using L/h as a controlling factor can
mechanical loading. help to determine the proper beam thickness for an acceptable range of
( ) transverse displacement and axial and transverse stresses, which can be
100Eo h3 L 100Eo h3 used for various applications.
w= 4
w ,z u= u(0, z)
qo L 2 qo L4
( ) (29)
h L h 5. Conclusion
σ xx = σx , z τxz = τxz u(0, z)
qo L 2 qo L
This study uses semi-analytical, HOSNT, and TSDT approaches with
In which a bar over the variable indicates its normalized value and qo
plane stress conditions for static analysis of the FG beam subjected to
denotes the load intensity. The following sets of material properties are
transverse loading. The Taylor series and trigonometric functions
used:
represent deformation properties across the depth of the beam for
The material set I (Thai et al. [15])
HOSNT and TSDT, respectively. On the other hand, the semi-analytical
Eh =380 Gpa (Alumina)
technique is based on generating a two-point boundary value problem
Eo =70 Gpa (Aluminium)
with the depth of the beam determined by a set of coupled first-order
μ=0.3
ordinary differential equations. The numerical integration technique is
The material set II (Thai et al. [5])
used in the semi-analytical approach, whereas the Navier solution
Eh =70 Gpa (Aluminium)
technique is used to obtain a solution for the HOSNT and TSDT ap­
Eo =200 Gpa (Zirconia)
proaches. All three models satisfied zero transverse shear stress condi­
μ=0.3
tions at the top and bottom surfaces of the beam.
The nondimensional deflections and stresses of FG beams (Material
This paper proposes a generalized shear deformation theory for thick
set I) for different values of power-law index n are subjected to uniform
FG beams, inducing transverse normal strain. The reduction of the 3-D
load qm for span-to-depth ratios (s=L/h) 5, 10 and 20 have been
problem to the one-dimensional one is accomplished by assuming a

10
S. Yadav et al. Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111

displacement field which allows sine variations through the thickness of
the beam for axial displacement and a cosine variation for the transverse
displacement. The advantages of present theory are its simplicity, ac­
curacy, no higher-order derivatives, and material dependency of the
kinematics, which can be extended to nonlinear behaviour (geometric
and material). From the numerical investigations, it is observed that the
solutions obtained from all three approaches are in close agreement,
except for a slight difference for thick beams. The solutions presented in
this investigation can be served as benchmark solutions for future
studies to assess the new refined theories. From the numerical in­
vestigations, it is observed that the solutions obtained from all three
approaches are in close agreement, except for a slight difference for
thick beams. The solutions presented in this investigation can be served
as benchmark solutions for future studies to assess the new refined
theories.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to Prof. Y. M. Ghugal, Applied Mechanics
Department, Govt. College of Engineering, Karad, M.S., India, for his
immense help in editing the manuscript thoroughly, valuable sugges­
tions and improving the discussion of the manuscript.

Appendix

where elements of stiffness matrix [K] are given as follows,

m2 π2 m3 π3
K11 = A11 , K12 = − B11
L2 L3

m2 π 2 m2 π 2
K13 = As11 , K14 = − As12
L2 hL

m4 π 4 m3 π 3
K22 = D11 , K23 = Bs11
L4 L3

m3 π 3 m2 π2
K24 = Bs12 , K33 = Ass11 + Acc55
hL2 L2

m2 π2 mh
K34 = Ass12 + Acc55 ,
hL L

π2 m2 h2
K44 = Ass22 + Acc55
h2 L2

K43 = K34 , K41 = K14 , K42 = K24 ,

K43 = K34 , K32 = K23 , K31 = K13

where,
∫ h
2 ( )
(A11 , B11 , D11 ) = Q11 1, z, z2 dz
− h
2

⎛ ⎞
∫ h
2 h π z⎝ π z⎠
(As11 , Bs11 , Ass11 ) = Q11 sin 1, z, zsin dz
− h
2
π h h

⎛ ⎞
∫ h
2 h π z⎝ h πz⎠
(As12 , Bs12 , Ass12 ) = Q12 sin 1, z, sin dz
− h
2
π h π h

⎛ ⎞
∫ h
2 πz
Acc55 = Q55 ⎝cos2 ⎠dz
− h
2
h

References [5] T.-K. Nguyen, T.P. Vo, H.-T. Thai, Static and free vibration of axially loaded
functionally graded beams based on the first-order shear deformation theory,
Compos. B. Eng. 55 (2013) 147–157.
[1] M. Koizumi, The concept of fgm, Ceram. Trans. 34 (1993) 3–10.
[6] L. Hadji, T.H. Daouadji, M. Meziane, Y. Tlidji, E. Bedia, Analysis of functionally
[2] B.V. Sankar, An elasticity solution for functionally graded beams, Compos. Sci.
graded beam using a new first-order shear deformation theory, Struct. Eng. Mech.
Technol. 61 (5) (2001) 689–696.
57 (2) (2016) 315–325.
[3] B.V. Sankar, J.T. Tzeng, Thermal stresses in functionally graded beams, AIAA J. 40
[7] L. Hadji, Z. Khelifa, A.B. El Abbes, A new higher order shear deformation model for
(6) (2002) 1228–1232.
functionally graded beams, KSCE J. Civ. Eng 20 (5) (2016) 1835–1841.
[4] A. Chakraborty, S. Gopalakrishnan, J. Reddy, A new beam finite element for the
[8] S. Mohanty, R. Dash, T. Rout, Static and dynamic stability analysis of a functionally
analysis of functionally graded materials, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 45 (3) (2003) 519–539.
graded timoshenko beam, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 12 (04) (2012) 1250025.

11
S. Yadav et al.
[9] S.I. Tahir, A. Tounsi, A. Chikh, M.A. Al-Osta, S.U. Al-Dulaijan, M.M. Al-Zahrani,
The effect of three-variable viscoelastic foundation on the wave propagation in
functionally graded sandwich plates via a simple quasi-3d hsdt, Steel Compos.
Struct. 42 (4) (2022) 501.
[10] A. Rachid, D. Ouinas, A. Lousdad, F.Z. Zaoui, B. Achour, H. Gasmi, T.A. Butt,
A. Tounsi, Mechanical behavior and free vibration analysis of fg doubly curved
shells on elastic foundation via a new modified displacements field model of 2d and
quasi-3d hsdts, Thin-Walled Struct. 172 (2022) 108783.
[11] H. Hebali, A. Chikh, A.A. Bousahla, F. Bourada, A. Tounsi, K.H. Benrahou,
M. Hussain, A. Tounsi, Effect of the variable visco-pasternak foundations on the
bending and dynamic behaviors of fg plates using integral hsdt model, Arch. Appl.
Mech. 83 (2) (2022) 177–191.
[12] K. Bouafia, M.M. Selim, F. Bourada, A.A. Bousahla, M. Bourada, A. Tounsi, E. Adda
Bedia, A. Tounsi, Bending and free vibration characteristics of various
compositions of fg plates on elastic foundation via quasi 3d hsdt model, Steel
Compos. Struct. 41 (4) (2021) 487–503.
[13] H. Hachemi, A.A. Bousahla, A. Kaci, F. Bourada, A. Tounsi, K.H. Benrahou,
A. Tounsi, M.M. Al-Zahrani, S. Mahmoud, Bending analysis of functionally graded
plates using a new refined quasi-3d shear deformation theory and the concept of
the neutral surface position, Steel Compos. Struct. 39 (1) (2021) 51–64.
[14] R. Kadoli, K. Akhtar, N. Ganesan, Static analysis of functionally graded beams
using higher order shear deformation theory, Appl. Math. Model. 32 (12) (2008)
2509–2525.
[15] H.-T. Thai, T.P. Vo, Bending and free vibration of functionally graded beams using
various higher-order shear deformation beam theories, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 62 (1)
(2012) 57–66.
[16] V. Refaeinejad, O. Rahmani, S. Hosseini, An analytical solution for bending,
buckling, and free vibration of fg nanobeam lying on winkler-pasternak elastic
foundation using different nonlocal higher order shear deformation beam theories,
Sci. Iran. 24 (3) (2017) 1635–1653.
[17] V. Refaeinejad, O. Rahmani, S. Hosseini, Evaluation of nonlocal higher order shear
deformation models for the vibrational analysis of functionally graded
nanostructures, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 24 (13) (2017) 1116–1123.
[18] O. Rahmani, V. Refaeinejad, S. Hosseini, Assessment of various nonlocal higher
order theories for the bending and buckling behavior of functionally graded
nanobeams, Steel Compos. Struct. 23 (3) (2017) 339–350.
[19] A. Bakoura, F. Bourada, A.A. Bousahla, A. Tounsi, K.H. Benrahou, A. Tounsi, M.
M. Al-Zahrani, S. Mahmoud, Buckling analysis of functionally graded plates using
hsdt in conjunction with the stress function method, Comput. Concr. 27 (1) (2021)
73–83.
[20] H. Ghadirian, S. Mohebpour, P. Malekzadeh, F. Daneshmand, Numerical instability
investigation of composite pipes reinforced by carbon nanotubes based on higher-
order shear deformation theory, Mar. Struct. 82 (2022) 103141.
[21] J. Reddy, Analysis of functionally graded plates, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 47
(1–3) (2000) 663–684.
[22] X.-F. Li, B.-L. Wang, J.-C. Han, A higher-order theory for static and dynamic
analyses of functionally graded beams, Arch. Appl. Mech. 80 (10) (2010)
1197–1212.
[23] D. Jha, T. Kant, R. Singh, A critical review of recent research on functionally
graded plates, Compos. Struct. 96 (2013) 833–849.
[24] D. Jha, T. Kant, R. Singh, Stress analysis of transversely loaded functionally graded
plates with a higher order shear and normal deformation theory, J. Eng. Mech. 139
(12) (2013) 1663–1680.
[25] B. Merazka, A. Bouhadra, A. Menasria, M.M. Selim, A.A. Bousahla, F. Bourada,
A. Tounsi, K.H. Benrahou, A. Tounsi, M.M. Al-Zahrani, Hygro-thermo-mechanical
bending response of fg plates resting on elastic foundations, Steel Compos. Struct.
39 (5) (2021) 631–643.
[26] I.M. Mudhaffar, A. Tounsi, A. Chikh, M.A. Al-Osta, M.M. Al-Zahrani, S.U. Al-
Dulaijan, Hygro-thermo-mechanical bending behavior of advanced functionally
graded ceramic metal plate resting on a viscoelastic foundation. Structures volume
33, Elsevier, 2021, pp. 2177–2189.
[27] M.W. Zaitoun, A. Chikh, A. Tounsi, A. Sharif, M.A. Al-Osta, S.U. Al-Dulaijan, M.
M. Al-Zahrani, An efficient computational model for vibration behavior of a
functionally graded sandwich plate in a hygrothermal environment with
viscoelastic foundation effects, Eng. Comput. (2021) 1–15.
[28] M. Şimşek, Fundamental frequency analysis of functionally graded beams by using
different higher-order beam theories, Nucl. Eng. Des. 240 (4) (2010) 697–705.
12
Forces in Mechanics 8 (2022) 100111
[29] A.M. Zenkour, Generalized shear deformation theory for bending analysis of
functionally graded plates, Appl. Math. Model. 30 (1) (2006) 67–84.
[30] M. Touratier, An efficient standard plate theory, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 29 (8) (1991)
901–916.
[31] L.-F. Qian, H.-K. Ching, Static and dynamic analysis of 2-d functionally graded
elasticity by using meshless local petrov-galerkin method, J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 27 (4)
(2004) 491–503.
[32] Z. Zhong, T. Yu, Analytical solution of a cantilever functionally graded beam,
Compos. Sci. Technol. 67 (3–4) (2007) 481–488.
[33] M. Benatta, I. Mechab, A. Tounsi, E.A. Bedia, Static analysis of functionally graded
short beams including warping and shear deformation effects, Comput. Mater. Sci.
44 (2) (2008) 765–773.
[34] G. Giunta, D. Crisafulli, S. Belouettar, E. Carrera, Hierarchical theories for the free
vibration analysis of functionally graded beams, Compos. Struct. 94 (1) (2011)
68–74.
[35] H. Niknam, A. Fallah, M. Aghdam, Nonlinear bending of functionally graded
tapered beams subjected to thermal and mechanical loading, Int. J. Non Linear
Mech. 65 (2014) 141–147.
[36] K.K. Pradhan, S. Chakraverty, Generalized power-law exponent based shear
deformation theory for free vibration of functionally graded beams, Appl. Math.
Comput. 268 (2015) 1240–1258.
[37] A.S. Sayyad, Y.M. Ghugal, Bending, buckling and free vibration responses of
hyperbolic shear deformable fgm beams, Mech. Adv. Compos. Struct. 5 (1) (2018)
13–24.
[38] A. Menasria, A. Kaci, A.A. Bousahla, F. Bourada, A. Tounsi, K.H. Benrahou,
A. Tounsi, E.A. Bedia, S. Mahmoud, A four-unknown refined plate theory for
dynamic analysis of fg-sandwich plates under various boundary conditions, Steel
Compos. Struct. 36 (3) (2020) 355–367.
[39] G. Liu, S. Wu, D. Shahsavari, B. Karami, A. Tounsi, Dynamics of imperfect
inhomogeneous nanoplate with exponentially-varying properties resting on
viscoelastic foundation, Eur. J. Mech.-A/Solids (2022) 104649.
[40] A.S. Sayyad, Y.M. Ghugal, A sinusoidal beam theory for functionally graded
sandwich curved beams, Compos. Struct. 226 (2019) 111246.
[41] V. Boggarapu, R. Gujjala, S. Ojha, S. Acharya, S. Chowdary, D. kumar Gara, et al.,
State of the art in functionally graded materials, Compos. Struct. 262 (2021)
113596.
[42] M.-O. Belarbi, M.S.A. Houari, H. Hirane, A.A. Daikh, S.P.A. Bordas, On the finite
element analysis of functionally graded sandwich curved beams via a new refined
higher order shear deformation theory, Compos. Struct. 279 (2022) 114715.
[43] M. Mohamed, T. Abdelouahed, M. Slimane, A refined of trigonometric shear
deformation plate theory based on neutral surface position is proposed for static
analysis of fgm plate, Procedia Struct. Integr. 26 (2020) 129–138.
[44] S.S. Pendhari, T. Kant, Y.M. Desai, C. Venkata Subbaiah, On deformation of
functionally graded narrow beams under transverse loads, Int. J. Mech. Mater. Des.
6 (3) (2010) 269–282.
[45] T. Kant, S.S. Pendhari, Y.M. Desai, On accurate stress analysis of composite and
sandwich narrow beams, International Journal for Computational Methods in
Engineering Science and Mechanics 8 (3) (2007) 165–177.
[46] Y.M. Ghugal, S.B. Shinde, Flexural analysis of cross-ply laminated beams using
layerwise trigonometric shear deformation theory, Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 10 (4)
(2013) 675–705.
[47] Y. Ghugal, R. Shimpi, A trigonometric shear deformation theory for flexure and
free vibration of isotropic thick beams. Structural Engineering Convention, SEC,
2000, pp. 255–263.
[48] M.W. Zaitoun, A. Chikh, A. Tounsi, M.A. Al-Osta, A. Sharif, S.U. Al-Dulaijan, M.
M. Al-Zahrani, Influence of the visco-pasternak foundation parameters on the
buckling behavior of a sandwich functional graded ceramic–metal plate in a
hygrothermal environment, Thin-Walled Struct. 170 (2022) 108549.
[49] D. McIver, Hamilton’s principle for systems of changing mass, J. Eng. Math. 7 (3)
(1973) 249–261.
[50] J.N. Reddy, A simple higher-order theory for laminated composite plates, 1984.
[51] K. Soldatos, A transverse shear deformation theory for homogeneous monoclinic
plates, Acta Mech. 94 (3) (1992) 195–220.
[52] M. Karama, K. Afaq, S. Mistou, Mechanical behaviour of laminated composite
beam by the new multi-layered laminated composite structures model with
transverse shear stress continuity, Int. J. Solids Struct. 40 (6) (2003) 1525–1546.