See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283811390

Celebrating the Centenary of Timoshenko's Study of Effects of Shear

Deformation and Rotary Inertia

Article  in  Applied Mechanics Reviews · November 2015

DOI: 10.1115/1.4031965

CITATIONS READS

89 1,056

3 authors, including:

Isaac Elishakoff J. Kaplunov

Florida Atlantic University Keele University
619 PUBLICATIONS   10,915 CITATIONS    182 PUBLICATIONS   2,719 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Asymptotic homogenization View project

Multi-scale modelling of waves in porous media with applications to acoustic control and biomechanics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Kaplunov on 23 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Isaac Elishakoff
Fellow ASME
Department of Ocean and
Mechanical Engineering,
Celebrating the Centenary
Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991
e-mail: elishako@fau.edu
of Timoshenko’s Study of
Julius Kaplunov
Effects of Shear Deformation
School of Computing and Mathematics,
Keele University,
Keele,
and Rotary Inertia
Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK This study revisits Timoshenko beam theory (TBT). It discusses at depth a more consistent
e-mail: j.kaplunov@keele.ac.uk and simpler governing differential equation. The so-called second spectrum is also
addressed. Then, we provide the asymptotic justification of the aforementioned differen-
Evgeniya Nolde tial equation along with detailed discussion of the boundary and initial conditions. The
Department of Mathematics, paper also presents remarks of historical character, in the context of other pertinent
Brunel University, studies. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4031965]
Uxbridge,
Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK
e-mail: Evgeniya.Nolde@brunel.ac.uk

1 Introduction developments, are given in a greater detail. On a number of occa-

sions, the authors find useful to reproduce partial citations from
The refined formulations for thin elastic beams taking into
original texts.
account shear deformation and rotatory inertia are usually referred
The paper is organized as follows. Preliminary remarks briefly
to as TBT. Analysis and development of this theory was the sub-
addressing history of improving classical beam theory are pre-
ject of numerous considerations. It could be argued that Timo-
sented in Sec. 2. The explicit formulae for the eigenfrequencies of
shenko theory is not less popular than classical Bernoulli–Euler
a simply supported beam are reproduced in Sec. 3, where discus-
theory. At the same time, physical assumptions underlying Timo-
sion of the second vibration spectrum is initiated. Qualitative anal-
shenko theory are not that straightforward as classical beam
ysis of the second spectrum is continued in Sec. 6. The famous
hypotheses. In fact, the former can be mathematically justified
Timoshenko and Bresse–Rayleigh equations are derived in Sec. 4.
only using rather sophisticated asymptotic techniques, see e.g.,
Sections 5 and 7 are concerned with both ad hoc and asymptotic
Refs. [1] and [2], and also [3] treating Timoshenko–Reissner
calculations of a corrected version of Bresse–Timoshenko
plates.
equation. Section 8 deals with boundary and initial conditions
The aim of this paper is twofold: we first provide an extensive
associated with the corrected equations.
review of this theory that originated about 100 years ago; second
goal of this study is to revisit TBT in order to promote a simpler
and a more consistent beam equation incorporating the effects of 2 Preliminary Historical Remarks
shear deformation and rotatory inertia. An ad hoc derivation of The classical Bernoulli–Euler differential equation for beam
such equation is presented along with an asymptotic procedure vibrations does not take into account either rotary inertia or shear
adapted for the case of plane stress. In contrast to the original deformation. It reads
Timoshenko theory, its corrected version does not support the
so-called “second vibration spectrum,” e.g., see Ref. [4] and refer- @4y @2y
ences therein, which apparently can be treated as unexpected side EIz 4
þ qA 2 ¼ 0 (1)
@x @t
effect arising from Timoshenko hypotheses. The initial Timo-
shenko intention seemingly was just to evaluate the classical where E is the modulus of elasticity, Iz is the moment of inertia,
Bernoulli–Euler spectrum with a higher accuracy [5–7]. In terms y(x, t) is the transverse displacement, x is the axial coordinate, t is
of asymptotic theory, this corresponds to higher order low- time, q is the material density, and A is the cross-sectional area.
frequency long wave expansions, e.g., see Ref. [8]. Detailed dis- Lord Rayleigh [9] extended this equation by incorporating the
cussion of the second spectrum is one of the main focuses of the rotary inertia of the cross section. His equation reads
paper. In addition, this study addresses the important issue of
consistency of boundary and initial conditions in refined beam @4y @2y @4y
theories which is virtually ignored in the academic literature. EIz þ qA 2  qIz 2 2 ¼ 0 (2)
@x4 @t @x @t
The paper predominantly cites the publications that have
brought new ideas to beam theory. Several books and journal A similar way for incorporating the rotary inertia was 18 years
papers tackling similar problems within the framework of thin earlier proposed by Bresse [10].
plates and shells are also mentioned. The reference list contains Timoshenko [6,7,11] in turn extended Rayleigh equation by
quite a few Russian sources. Many of them were not widely incorporating the effect of shear deformation. His governing equa-
known for English speaking audience. The derivations in the tion reads
paper that are having novel insights, e.g., some of asymptotic
  4
@4y @2y E @ y q 2 Iz @ 4 y
This paper is dedicated to blessed memories of our teachers, Professors V.V. EIz þ qA  qI z 1 þ þ ¼0 (3)
Bolotin (1926–2008) and A.L. Goldenveizer (1910–2003), who instilled in us @x4 @t2 kG @x2 @t2 kG @t4
unyielding love of structural mechanics.
Manuscript received May 29, 2015; final manuscript received October 29, 2015;
published online December 11, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Prashant K Purohit. where k is the shear coefficient and G is the shear modulus.

Applied Mechanics Reviews Copyright V

C 2015 by ASME NOVEMBER 2015, Vol. 67 / 060802-1

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 In the words of Laura et al. [12], “the publication, by Stephen
Timoshenko, of his now classical theory of vibration of beams,
whereby shear and rotatory inertia effects are taken into account,
constitutes one of the most remarkable events in the development
of the structural dynamics of the XX century. Together with the
Timoshenko–Mindlin theory of vibrating plates it has influenced
the mathematical analysis of the quasi-infinite variety of dynamics
of continuous media and structural acoustics problems from
bridges and machine elements to surface, underwater and space
vehicles passing through the prediction of the behavior to elec-
tronic packages, bioengineering systems etc.” These authors
describe Timoshenko’s contribution as “epoch making.” Accord-
ing to Bhaskar [4], “the impact of Stephen Timoshenko’s work in
the area is undisputed (over a thousand citations in the last 25
years). His seminal paper (Timoshenko, 1921) effected a major
advancement to the theory following the works of Euler, Bernoulli
and Rayleigh…Timoshenko recognized the deficiency of the EB
(Euler–Bernoulli) model and introduced a correction in his 1921
paper, now regarded a classic in the field. The genius of his work
lies in identifying shear of the cross section with respect to the
axis as the most important degree of freedom missing in the EB
model while still allowing that cross sections remain approxi-
mately plane during motion.”
Pisarenko [13] and Grigolyuk [14] wrote biographical mono-
graphs on Timoshenko. According to the former (p. 200): “Of
Timoshenko-the-scientist it can be said without exaggeration, that
his seventy-years-long creative career constituted a whole epoch
in the exploration of the mechanics of a solid deformable body.”1
Koiter [18] chose to disagree with the above assessments. In his
words: “what is generally known as Timoshenko beam theory is a
good example of a basic principle in the history of science: a
theory which bears someone’s name is most likely due to someone
else. In fact, additional deflections due to transverse shear
occur already in the fourth edition (1868) of W.J.M Rankine’s
well-known book Applied Mechanics (see Ref. [19])…The
conventional formula for the shear factor k, based on energy con-
siderations, according to the author’s definition with the value
k ¼ (6/5)(1 þ ) for a narrow rectangular cross section, also occurs
already in the literature of the 19th century.”2
Simmonds [22] notes: “…shear deformation effects were first
introduced by Rankine (1858) and rotary inertia effects by Bresse
(1859). In his oft-cited paper of 1921, Timoshenko without
explicit reference to either Bresse or Rankine combined these
effects to create what is now almost universally referred to as the
Timoshenko equations.”
It is interesting that Fl€ugge in his paper [23] incorporates the
effect of shear deformation in beam vibrations not quoting either
Rayleigh or Timoshenko. At the same time, a mere three years
1 3
Gere et al. [15] in their memorial resolution wrote: “Timoshenko’s
accomplishments in the field of applied mechanics and his impact on engineering
education in the United States were truly remarkable. His widespread influence as a
teacher and writer has resulted in frequent references to him as ‘the father of applied
mechanics’ in this country, and his active years are often referred to as ‘the
Timoshenko era’ in applied mechanics.” Moreover, “in 1957 the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers established the Timoshenko Medal in his honor, and he
was the first recipient of this annual award because ‘by his invaluable contributions
and personal example, he guided a new era in applied mechanics.’” Gere et al.
inform that a special “Timoshenko Room” was dedicated on the Stanford University
campus. Simha [16] states: “The legend of Timoshenko has few parallels in the
annals of publishing technical books. For reading and understanding engineering
mechanics in the books of Timoshenko permeate a Shakespearean aura of
authenticity and authority…” As a final remark, it is noteworthy to mention that
Ukraine issued a “commemorative stamp in honor of S. P. Timoshenko” (Felippa
[17]), as well as made a documentary movie, according to Pisarenko [13].
2
Intriguingly, Grigolyuk and Selezov ([20], p. 14) write: “S. P. Timoshenko is
universally considered as the author of this refined theory, although the accounting
for rotary inertia was done earlier by Rayleigh (1877), and later on it turned out that
the analogous method of accounting of the rotary inertia and shear deformation was
known even earlier to Bresse (1859).” Selezov [21] informs: “Information about
Bresse became known for me from some sources, not from the original, in spite of
(the fact that) the most references in review I have read is the Lenin Library in
Moscow including Cauchy and Poisson. It would be of interest for us to see a Bresse
fragment related to the Timoshenko beam.”
060802-2 / Vol. 67, NOVEMBER 2015
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
earlier (1939) he had published a paper [24] saluting Timoshenko
on the occasion of his 60th anniversary.3, Moreover, a handbook
edited by Fl€ugge [25] contains a chapter (No. 61) by Young
[26]—coauthor of Timoshenko’s book on vibration (Weaver,
Timoshenko, and Young, 1990) in which section 61.5 deals with
the TBT, and another chapter (No. 64) by Zajac [27], with a simi-
lar section (No. 64.6) in which it is stated (pp. 64–70) that “like
the theories governed by the basic wave equation, the Timoshenko
theory predicts that discontinuities will propagate at definite, finite
velocities. This was shown by Fl€ugge (1942).”4
Timoshenko himself, in the preface written in 1967 to his col-
lected works in the Russian language [29] (published in 1975,
three years after his passing away), noted: “It is difficult for the
author to deliberate on the significance of his papers, especially
since they were written long time ago. In my opinion, the most
important are those on forced vibration of beams, on the contribu-
tion of shear deformation to beam vibrations, on the elastic impact
of a rigid body on a beam, as well as on applications of the energy
method to the solution of the plane problem of elasticity and to
the problem of bending of a cantilever beam.” As can be seen, he
viewed his beam theory as one of his four central contributions.5
3 Free Vibrations of a Simply Supported Beam
For a uniform beam that is simply supported at its ends, the
transverse displacement y(x, t) can be written in terms of mode
shapes
X
yðx; tÞ ¼ Cm Ym ðxÞsin xm t (4)
m
with
mpx
Ym ð xÞ ¼ sin (5)
L
where L is the span of the beam, xm are the sought mth natural
frequencies, and Cm are the arbitrary constants.
Substituting Eqs. (5) and (4) in Eqs. (1)–(3), we obtain the fol-
lowing equations, respectively:
 4
mp
EIz  qAx2m ¼ 0 ðBernoulli–EulerÞ (6)
L
 4  2
mp 2 mp
EIz  qAxm  qIz x2m ¼ 0 ðBresse–RayleighÞ
L L
(7)
Fl€
ugge [24] wrote, among others, “mechanics literature contains many works
whose objectives are purely mathematical and the mechanics context serves merely
as decorative framing; and opposite them, many others that address a problem with
inadequate mathematical means and yield little more than an ad-hoc solution.
Between these extremes lies the fertile domain of technical-scientific research. In
Timoshenko, to whom we offer today our good luck wishes on his 60th anniversary,
we honor a leading scientist who, over a life-long career, has promoted the theory of
elasticity in this fruitful way and shown a generation of young research engineers the
path to success between the extremes.”
4
Kurrer ([28], p. 730) writes about the relationship between Timoshenko and
Fl€
ugge: “After the war, Fl€ ugge and his wife Fl€
ugge-Lotz (1903–1974), were ordered
to carry out research work in Paris at the Office National d’Etudes et de Recherches
Aeronautique (ONERA). That was in 1947. Following an inquiry from Timoshenko,
the two scientists left France illegally and in 1949 started work at Stanford
University, where they worked as teachers and researchers…”
5
According to Young [30]: “In a paper ‘on the correction for shear of the
differential equation for transverse vibrations of prismatic bars,’ Philosophical
Magazine, 1921, Timoshenko shows how the effect of the shear may be taken into
account in investigating transverse vibrations and deduces the general equation of
vibration. He gives an example to show that the correction for shear is several times
greater than the correction for rotatory inertia. The general equation given in this
paper is of great importance in vibration theory and is commonly called
Timoshenko’s equation.” Elsewhere, Young [31] writes: “This short paper inspired
many further investigations by others and was responsible for the term ‘Timoshenko
Beam’ so often seen in the literature today.”
Transactions of the ASME
     2 of the Timoshenko beam do not separate into two spectra,” and
mp 4 E mp q 2 Iz 4
EIz  qAx2m  qIz 1 þ x2m þ x finally “the existing concept of the second spectrum of frequencies
L kG L KG m
for Timoshenko beam must be abandoned…”
¼ 0 ðTimoshenkoÞ (8) Bhashyam and Prathap [36], commenting on Abbas and
Thomas’ work [35], wrote: “They confirmed the existence of a
From Eqs. (6)–(8), we obtain the related natural frequencies second spectrum as well as the pure shear oscillation for a simply
xBE,m, xBR,m, and xT,m supported beam. However they observed that there is no separate
second spectrum of frequencies for Timoshenko beams with other
 
2 EIz mp 4 end conditions and they concluded that earlier statements about its
xBE;m ¼ ðBernoulli–EulerÞ (9) existence were due to misinterpretations.” Moreover, “…even for
qA L
end conditions other than hinged-hinged, with a finite element
procedure one can detect two kinds of spectra and can suitably
and
classify them.” Hathout et al. [37] claimed that “…regardless of
" # the end conditions of the Timoshenko beam, there are two distinct
    1
2 EIz mp 4 Iz mp 2 families of damped frequencies exhibiting independent mode
xBR;m ¼ 1þ ðBresse–RayleighÞ (10) shapes and sensitivity behavior.”
qA L A L
Levinson and Cooke [38] declared that their paper is
“concerned with the question of whether there are, indeed, two
distinct spectra of frequencies for the transverse vibrations of
whereas
Timoshenko beams as has been claimed by a number of prior
"   2 authors for the case of simply supported beam and, more recently,
h i2 kG E mp
ð1 Þ
xT;m ¼ 2 qA þ qIz 1 þ for beams supported in an arbitrary manner.” They claimed “non-
2q Iz kG L existence of a distinct second spectrum of frequencies for Timo-
v"ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3 shenko beams with arbitrary boundary conditions.” Moreover,
u
u     2 #2  
t E mp 4Eq2 Iz2 mp 4 7 they asserted that “even in the case of hinged-hinged Timoshenko
 qA þ qIz 1 þ  5 beams one need not think in terms of two distinct frequency
kG L kG L
spectra.”
Stephen [39] concluded his paper on the same question as
ðTimoshenko; first seriesÞ (11) follows: “The exact Pochhammer–Chree theory for wave propa-
gation in circular section beams predicts a multiplicity of possible
and modes; Timoshenko beam theory predicts the existence of two
"   2 possible modes. If second spectrum of Timoshenko beam theory
h i2 kG E mp
ð2 Þ is of any physical significance its predictions should be in line
xT;m ¼ 2 qA þ qIz 1 þ
2q Iz kG L with the exact theory, or capable of modification such that it con-
v" ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi 3 forms the results of the exact theory without affecting the excel-
u
u     2 #2  
t E mp 4Eq2 Iz2 mp 4 7 lent agreement afforded to the first predominantly flexural
þ qA þ qIz 1 þ  5 spectrum. Alternatively it should be considered as an unavoidable
kG L kG L
consequence of the structure of an otherwise remarkably success-
ful engineering theory (italics ours). On the basis of the lack of
ðTimoshenko; second seriesÞ (12) agreement between phase velocity predictions of the second spec-
trum with any modes of wave propagation of the exact theory,
As is indicated by Eqs. (11) and (12), the simply supported except at very short and very long wavelengths, when the second
Timoshenko beam possesses two series of natural frequencies, spectrum approaches two different modes, the conclusion reached
differing by the sign preceding the radical: a minus in the first is the latter.” Bhaskar [4] disagreed with this assessment: “Note
equation for the lower series and a plus in the second for the that the relatively poor accuracy of the second spectrum with
higher one.
respect to detailed theories cannot be a measure of its physical
According to Stephen [32], a beam simply supported at one
meaningfulness (contrary to the suggestion of Stephen (2006) and
end and guided at the other, as well as one with both ends guided,
Stephen and Puchegger (2006) (that is, Refs. [32] and [40]).” At
also allows vibrations modes corresponding to two frequency
the same time he emphasized that “the second spectrum is less
branches. In these cases of three sets of boundary conditions, the
mode shape is represented by trigonometric functions. In other accurate with respect to three-dimensional theories…”
cases, the mode shape may be composite. For example, Goens Nesterenko [41] wrote: “The appearance of two frequency se-
[33] studied beams free at both ends; he concluded that the ries in the Timoshenko theory is due to the last term in Eq. (1.1)
governing equation of the Timoshenko beam involves a critical (our Eq. (3)) containing the fourth time derivative of the unknown
frequency below which the solution is composite (trigonometric– function and taking into account the influence of the transverse
hyperbolic) and above which purely trigonometric. Trail-Nash and shear deformation on the beam vibrations. In the derivation of the
Collar [34] attributed this duality to excitation of two frequency Timoshenko 4
equation this term, together with the Rayleigh
2 2
spectra; they derived numerical results for beams with two simply term…@ y/@x @t , which takes into account the rotational inertia
supported and two free ends. Specifically, Trail-Nash and Collar of an element of the beam during the vibrations, are considered to
noted: “Two numerical examples illustrate the appearance of the be small corrections to the classical Bernoulli–Euler theory….
second spectrum…One matter of unusual interest (academically at Consequently, in the Timoshenko theory it is natural to regard as
least) which emerges from this study is that, at sufficiently high fre- physical only those frequencies which turn into frequencies of the
quencies, a complete new spectrum of natural frequencies appears Bernoulli–Euler equation…Only the x n series (in our notation,
ð1Þ
when both shear flexibility and rotatory inertia are taken into xT;m series, given in Eq. (11)) satisfies this natural condition.”
account; this new spectrum does not appear to have been noted Nesterenko [41] brought out an additional point: he maintained
previously.” Abbas and Thomas [35] note in this context: “For the that for the second frequency branch, “the Ostrogradskii energy of
case of a free-free beam Trail-Nash and Collar made an error in clas- the Timoshenko beam turns out to be negative.” According to Ste-
sifying the numerical results and this resulted in their claiming the phen [32], “within some branches of physics, this would be suffi-
existence of a second spectrum,” and moreover, “for the fixed-free, cient to conclude that a second spectrum is ‘unphysical’” (see also
free-free and fixed-fixed end conditions the frequencies of vibration Ref. [42]).

Applied Mechanics Reviews NOVEMBER 2015, Vol. 67 / 060802-3

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Recently, Manevich [43] considered the significance of “the Combining Eqs. (14) and (19), we have
second spectrum” in the context of dynamics of Timoshenko  
beam on linear and nonlinear elastic foundation. He dealt, inter @ 2 y @w @y2
alia, with “arguments for treating the second mode ‘unphysical.’ k 2
 AG  qA 2 ¼ 0 (22)
@x @x @t
The most serious argument…is connected with accuracy of
the second branch frequency predictions. Of course, accuracy of Equations (21), (22), and (15), with w eliminated, result in Eq. (3)
the TBT in computing high frequencies (usually associated with which properly ought to be referred to as Bresse–Rayleigh–
the second branch) is lower than that of the low-frequency first Timoshenko equation. Alternatively, since Rayleigh did not add
branch…But results of calculations…testify moderate accuracy of up to Bresse’s contribution, Eqs. (21) and (22) could be referred
TBT-2 (the second spectrum) at least for long-wave modes. For as Bresse–Timoshenko equations.
an approximate theory such an accuracy is sufficient.”
5 Correcting Timoshenko’s Correction:
4 Recapitulation of Bresse–Rayleigh’s and
Physical Approach
Timoshenko’s Equations
Following Elishakoff [44], consider the last term in Eq. (21),
Bresse and Lord Rayleigh corrected the Bernoulli–Euler equa- qIz@ 2w/@t2, which replaces its rotary inertia counterpart
tion (1) by taking into account the rotary movement of the beam qIz@ 3y/@x@t2. Timoshenko’s intention had been to correct the orig-
elements. The angle of rotation equals the slope of the deflection inal rotary inertia term by incorporating the corresponding shear
curve @y/@x; the associated angular acceleration is @ 3y/@x@t2. The deformation. This operation has an apparent secondary effect, in
moment of inertia of the element about an axis through its that it modifies Bresse’s [10] and Rayleigh’s [9] corrections. It
center of mass constitutes qIz(@ 3y/@x@t2)dx and according to would be more consistent to retain Bresse’s [10] and Rayleigh [9]
D’Alembert’s principle, we obtain original term while bringing the shear effect into the picture.
Thus, the preferable set of equations would consist of Eq. (22) and
@Mz @3y
Vy þ  qIz ¼0 (13)  
@x @x@t2 @2w @y @3y
EIz 2 þ k  w AG  qIz ¼0 (23)
where Vy(x, t) is the shearing force and Mz(x, t) the bending @x @x @x@t2
moment. Substituting it in the dynamic equilibrium condition for
forces in the y-direction of the transverse vibration Equation (23) represents a correction of Timoshenko’s correction.
Eliminating w from both of them, we have
@Vy @2y   4
¼ qA 2 (14) @4y @2y E @ y
@x @t EIz 4 þ qA 2  qIz 1 þ ¼0 (24)
@x @t kG @x2 @t2
we obtain
The natural frequency squared associated with this equation
 
@ @Mz @3y @2y reads
 qIz ¼ qA 2 (15)
  "  #1
@x @x @x@t 2 @t  
EIz mp 4 E mpr 2
In the final step, with x2m ¼ 1þ 1þ (25)
qA L kG L
@2y pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Mz ¼ EIz (16) where r ¼ Iz =A is the radius of inertia of the cross section. Let
@x2 e ¼ r/L. If the condition
equation (15) yields the Bresse–Rayleigh equation (2). me  1 (26)
Timoshenko [7] further corrected the latter by incorporating the
shear deformation, expressing the slope of the deflection as two is met, Eq. (25) can be replaced by the following approximate
terms expression:
@y
¼wþb (17) X2m  ðmpÞ4 ½1  ð1 þ vÞðmpÞ2 e2  (27)
@x

According to the mechanics of solids, we have where the following notations are introduced:
rffiffiffi
@w xL2 q E
Mz ¼ EIz (18) X¼ ; v¼ (28)
@x r E kG
 
@y Here and below we assume that v  1.
Vy ¼ kbAG ¼ k  w AG (19) Equation (22) does not lead to two frequency spectra in the
@x
purely simply supported and guided cases, or in the mixed case
In other words, Timoshenko replaced the dynamic equilibrium with one end simply supported and the other guided. In this
equation of motion (13) by respect, it satisfies Nesterenko’s ([41], p. 672) criterion whereby
“in the Timoshenko theory it is natural to regard as physical
@Mz @2w only those frequencies which turn into frequencies of the
Vy þ  qIz 2 ¼ 0 (20) Bernoulli–Euler equation when the coefficients a2 and a3 vanish”
@x @t (in our notation, a2 ¼ ðIz =AÞð1 þ E=kGÞ and a3 ¼ qIz =kAG).
and substituting Eqs. (18) and (19) in Eq. (20), he obtained Indeed, if in Eq. (25) the second term in the square parentheses is
formally put as zero, what remains is the Bernoulli–Euler expres-
  sion for the natural frequency squared. Only the first frequency
@2w @y @2w
EIz 2 þ k  w AG  qIz 2 ¼ 0 (21) spectrum, given by Eq. (8) of the original Timoshenko equation,
@x @x @t has such a property. Apparently, what Timoshenko had in mind

060802-4 / Vol. 67, NOVEMBER 2015 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 regarding the word “correction” in the title of his now classical
1921 paper was precisely the above criterion or its analog.
It appears that Timoshenko did not overestimate the importance
of the last term in the characteristic equation stemming from his
equation (3) and disregarded it in estimating natural frequencies.
In his words: “If only the first two terms on the left side of this
equation (our Eq. (8)) are retained, we have” the Bernoulli–Euler
beam’s natural frequency squared, given in Eq. (9). Timoshenko
further writes: “By retaining the first three terms of Eq. (10) (our
Eq. (8)) (i.e., by neglecting the terms which involve” x4m ), we
have Eq. (10) for the natural frequency squared, “where the rota-
tory inertia is taken into consideration.” Furthermore, in Timo-
shenko’s own words, “by using the complete equation (10) (our
Eq. (8)), and neglecting small quantities of the second order, we
find,” approximately, Eq. (27).
The latter derives from our correcting of Timoshenko’s correc-
tion. This fact can be viewed as an additional validation of
Eq. (27). Here, the following comment appears to be instructive.
One would easily understand that the slope of the deflection curve,
dy/dx, would have two contributions, one from pure rotation, w,
and the other from pure shear, b. According to Timoshenko [5–7],
the rotary inertia term should have contribution from pure rota-
tion, w, not from the entire dy/dx. This is accounted for in the last
term of the Timoshenko beam equation (Eq. (21)). So, it may not
be clear to all readers why would one think that it is more accurate
to replace the angle of rotation w in this term by the slope dy/dx.
Indeed, the pertinent question arises: Does replacement of angle
of rotation w in this term by the slope dy/dx defeat the purpose of
Eq. (17)?
To answer this possible inquiry, one should note that Eqs. (23)
and (24) represent contributions of rotary inertia and the shear
deformation in an additive form (see term 1 þ E/kG in Eq. (24),
whereas Timoshenko’s original equation (3) indicates in its last
term combined effect of rotary inertia and shear deformation,
which is a secondary effect. Thus, the purpose of Eq. (17) is not
defeated: the rotary inertia and shear deformation play in concert
in Eq. (24), the latter equation representing the simplest possible
accounting of both rotary inertia and shear deformation.
We also cite here Nesterenko ([41], p. 672) who noted, “the
appearance of two frequency series in the Timoshenko theory is
due to the last term in Eq. (1.1) (our Eq. (3)) containing the fourth
derivative of the unknown function and taking into account the
influence of the transverse shear deformation on the beam
vibrations.” Since this term does not appear in the current deriva-
tion, the second frequency spectrum does not arise in these new
circumstances.
Elishakoff and Lubliner [45] and later Elishakoff and Livshits
[46] and Lottati and Elishakoff [47] disregarded that term
not only in the characteristic equation but also in the
Bresse–Timoshenko governing equations; the resulting equation
(8) was referred to as “simplified Bresse–Timoshenko equation.”
In Ref. [46], a closed-form solution was obtained for the random
vibration response of damped beams. Later on, Elishakoff and
Abramovich [48] studied the case of large space structures; Eli-
shakoff et al. [49]—that of the space shuttle weather protection
system; Pielorz [50]—for free vibrations; and Falsone et al.
[51]—for finite element analysis. Recently, several investigators
applied this simplified Bresse–Timoshenko theory to nanotech-
nology. For example, Elishakoff and Pentaras [52] utilized it for
short double-walled carbon nanotubes, Elishakoff et al. [53]—
for short nanosensors, and Elishakoff and Soret [54]—for nonlo-
cal beams with surface effects. This modified version was also
used in other papers, mostly in the Journal of Sound and Vibra-
tion, and elsewhere. Primacy here is seemingly due to Tseitlin
[55,56], who was followed by Szidarovsky [57], Cherkasov
[58], Vorobyev [59], and Sabodash [60], see also Ref. [61].
These papers were uncovered by one of us (I.E.) when the book
by Grigolyuk and Selezov [20] was kindly made available from
the estate of Professor Alexander Kornecki (1920–1985) of the
Technion Institute of Technology (Israel).
Applied Mechanics Reviews
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The present study claims that the above approach is not
an approximation, but constitutes taking into account of shear
deformation and rotary inertia in a more consistent manner.
Fortunately, the higher consistency results in a simpler set of
equations.
The proposed correction procedure can be also applied to the
so-called two parameter Timoshenko-type theory, see Ref. [62].
The governing equation of this theory is given by
  4
@4y @2y E @ y q 2 Iz @ 4 y
EIz 4
þ qA 2
 qI z 1 þ 2 2
þ ¼ 0 (29)
@x @t k1 G @x @t k2 G @t4
with k1 and k2 being shear coefficients. The associated corrected
equation takes a simpler form
  4
@4y @2y E @ y
EIz þ qA  qI z 1 þ ¼0 (30)
@x4 @t2 k1 G @x2 @t2
It is seen that under our approach, only one of the two
shear coefficients, namely, k1, remains in the equation. Just as
Timoshenko [7] has shown that the contribution of the term
ðq2 Iz =ðkGÞÞ@ 4 y=@t4 is negligible in the evaluation of natural fre-
quencies, it has now been shown that the contribution of
ðq2 Iz =ðk2 GÞÞ@ 4 y=@t4 is small in the Stephen and Levinson [62]
theory. As it follows from the asymptotic analysis in Refs. [3] and
[8], similar corrections are also possible for refined plate and shell
theories, see also Refs. [63] and [64] and more recent papers
[65,66].
6 Qualitative Analysis of Two Frequency Branches
It is now time to return to question of the two frequency spec-
tra. Prathap [67] noted: “The so-called second spectrum of fre-
quencies of a Timoshenko beam has a well recorded history.
Although not noticed in Timoshenko’s original work [7], it was
subsequently discovered in a series of analytical investigations
[34,68,69],” see also Ref. [70]. With due respect, one has to dis-
agree with this statement. It is unimaginable that Timoshenko
would ignore the fact that a biquadratic (a term used by him
repeatedly!) equation has two roots for the natural frequency
squared! In our humble opinion, he refrained from referring to the
second branch because it did not represent an important finding
for him. As the title of his paper indicates, it deals with “the cor-
rection for shear of the differential equation for transverse vibra-
tions of prismatic bars,” and since the first frequency spectrum
was an answer to his inquiry, he was correct to deal with it alone.
Prathap [67] wrote: “More recently, Stephen [39] and Levinson
and Cooke [38] challenged the existence of the second
spectrum…” So, we are back to the question: Does or does not the
Timoshenko beam possess a second frequency spectrum? The an-
swer is quite simple: Timoshenko’s (1921) theory predicts two
frequency spectra, given in Eqs. (11) and (12). This is an undis-
puted fact. Barr [71] and Chan et al. [72] provided an experimen-
tal verification of existence of the second spectrum, which is also
confirmed by 3D finite element analysis in Ref. [73].
At this juncture, we ought to quote Bhaskar [4]: “Inclusion of
shear deformation and rotary inertia was a major step forward in
the one-dimensional theory. However, the procedure of ignoring
the highest order term from Eq. (2.3) or (2.4) (in our Eq. (8)) as
employed by Timoshenko (and by others; e.g., Dym and Shames
1972, §§7.7 and 7.12 (see Ref. [74])), amounts to seeking a regu-
lar expansion…This is inadmissible because the term O(e4), asso-
ciated with the highest order term k2 (in our notation, associated
with X4), singularly perturbs the algebraic equation (2.4).” In the
present notation, such singular expansion of the second Timo-
shenko spectrum can be written as
NOVEMBER 2015, Vol. 67 / 060802-5
 1 h 2 2
i stiffness corresponding to cross sections of a sophisticated shape,
X2m  1 þ ð1 þ vÞðmp Þ e (31) e.g., see Refs. [94–97] and references therein.
ve4
Asymptotic straightforward derivation of the general high-order
This formula corresponds to the so-called high-frequency long beam theory from 3D dynamic equations in linear anisotropic
wave behavior for which wavelength is greater than the beam elasticity was pioneered by Sayir, e.g., see Ref. [2]. In case of a
thickness (see condition (26)), whereas vibration frequency is close relatively weak anisotropy, his results are in a full agreement with
to the first shear resonance, that is, X ¼ e2v1=2. A consistent the derived equations (25) and (27) correcting the Timoshenko
asymptotic theory for high-frequency long-wave vibrations of thin correction.
elastic structures can be derived using asymptotic analysis of 3D In this section, we specify the above mentioned straightforward
dynamic equations of elasticity, see e.g., Refs. [8], [75], and [76]. approach for the plane stress problem for an isotropic elastic strip
It is worth mentioning that the second branch can be excited assuming stress components s11, s33, and s13 being functions of
under more general circumstances than the first one, in particular, x1, x3, and t, and all other stress components s22, s12, and s23
for a thin structure with clamped faces [77,78]. The associated being equal to zero. We assume that in x1x3-plane, the body
high-frequency long-wave vibrations are very pronounced in fluid occupies the region 1  x1  1, h  x3  h, where h is the
structure interaction problems, see e.g., Refs. [79] and [80]. They half-thickness of the strip.
have been also investigated for thin prestressed, anisotropic, and The equations of plane stress can be written as
layered structures, see e.g., Refs. [81–85].
At the same time, the ranges of validity of the low-frequency @s11 @s13 @ 2 u1 @s13 @s33 @ 2 u3
expansion (27) and high-frequency expansion (31) do not overlap. þ  q 2 ¼ 0; þ  q 2 ¼ 0;
Indeed, the high-frequency limit X  e2 (see Eq. (31)) applied to @x1 @x3 @t @x1 @x3 @t
   
the low-frequency formula (27) gives me  1 contradicting to the E @u1 @u3 E @u1 @u3
s11 ¼ þ  ; s 33 ¼  þ ;
original long wavelength assumption underlying any one- 1   2 @x1 @x3 1  2 @x1 @x3
dimensional beam theory. As a result, there is no chance for a uni-  
E @u1 @u3
form asymptotic beam theory. However, there is a possibility for s13 ¼ þ (32)
composite theories mainly developed for plates and shells, see 2ð1 þ  Þ @x3 @x1
e.g., Refs. [75] and [76] and references therein, providing correct
asymptotic behavior for two limiting cases (X  1 and X  1) but where u1 and u3 are the displacement components, q is the mass
not for the whole frequency domain. The concept for the compos- density per unit volume of the material, E is the Young modulus,
ite asymptotics is clarified in Ref. [86] (see also references and  is Poisson’s ratio.
therein) and later publication [87], adapting this concept to elastic The governing equations (32) are considered together with
structures. boundary conditions on traction free faces
Our equation (22) does not predict the two frequency branches.
We regard this paper as a consistent realization of Timoshenko’s
[7] desire to provide a correction to the Bernoulli–Euler theory s13 ¼ 0; s33 ¼ 0 at x3 ¼ 6h (33)
with the shear deformation incorporated, and further to Bresse’s
[10] and Rayleigh’s [9] correction for the rotary inertia. Indeed, in
our Eq. (25) or (27), as well as in Timoshenko’s simplified equa- In this section, we follow the asymptotic methodology summar-
tion (10), the first and second terms in the sum 1 þ E/(KG) repre- ized in Refs. [3] and [8].
sent these two corrections additively in the reverse order. Let us introduce small parameter g, defined as the ratio of h to
It should be noted that Love [88] dealt with rotary inertia in the wavelength l, and rescale the spatial coordinates and time as
longitudinal vibration of bars. Shear deformation was included in
the contribution by Bishop [89] (see also paper by Shatalov et al pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
[90]). In Stephen’s words [91], Love’s equation “has received lit- x1 ¼ ln; x3 ¼ glf; t ¼ g1 l q=E s (34)
tle subsequent mention.” In his book, Love referred to Timoshen-
ko’s (1921) paper but did not include either the Timoshenko
equation or the expression of the corresponding natural frequency. The stress and displacement components are rescaled as follows:
Love surely knew about Timoshenko’s contribution. Young [92]
wrote of the time when Timoshenko left the Ukraine and Russia
u1 ¼ glu; u3 ¼ lw; s11 ¼ gEr11 ; s33 ¼ g3 Er33 ; s13 ¼ g2 Er13
for the West: “After several years of interruption Timoshenko
resumed his scientific work at Zagreb and prepared several papers. (35)
There, he wrote in English and, with the help of R.V. Southwell
and A.E.H. Love, they were published in the Philosophical Maga-
zine and in the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society.” Here, nondimensional quantities u, w, r11, r33, and r13 are
Thus, Love facilitated publication of Timoshenko’s work (by the assumed to be of the same asymptotic order. Then, the governing
way, Timoshenko was working on translating Love’s treatise into equations (32) take the form
Russian). Timoshenko and Love met each other in 1912 [93].
r11;n þ r13;f  g2 u€ ¼ 0 (36)

7 Asymptotic Approach in Case of Plane Stress

An asymptotically consistent dynamic equation for a r13;n þ r33;f  w
€¼0 (37)
Timoshenko-type linear isotropic prizmatic beam was first derived
by Berdichevskii and Kvashnina [1] using the variational- and
asymptotic approach based on series expansion of the energy
functional in 3D elasticity [75,76]. The approximate 1D equation g2 r11 ¼ ð1   2 Þ1 ðg2 u;n þ w;f Þ (38)
in Ref. [1] coincides with Eqs. (25) and (27) to within the values
of constant coefficients. Later on, the methodology of Berdichev- g4 r33 ¼ ð1   2 Þ1 ðg2 u;n þ w;f Þ (39)
skii and Kvashnina [1] was extended to a more general setup
incorporating anisotropy, nonlinearity, inhomogeneity, beam cur-
vature, and implementing numerical methods for computing the g2 r13 ¼ ð2 þ 2Þ1 ðu;f þ w;n Þ (40)

060802-6 / Vol. 67, NOVEMBER 2015 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 in which a comma indicates differentiation with respect to the 1 1 
implied nondimensional spatial coordinate and a dot indicates the wð4Þ ¼ f2 W200 þ ð1 þ 2 Þf4 þ 2ð1 þ 6 þ 5 2 Þf2 W00000 þ W4
2 24
differentiation with respect to s. Boundary conditions (33) now (56)
take the form r13 ¼ 0, r33 ¼ 0 at f ¼ 61.
We are looking for the solution in the form 1 3 
ð Þ
r112 ¼ W200 f þ 2f  ð6 þ 5 Þf W00000 (57)
6
f ðn; f; sÞ ¼ f ð0Þ þ g2 f ð2Þ þ g4 f ð4Þ þ (41)

for f ¼ {u, w, r11, r33, r13}, where f (k) ¼ f (k)(n, f, s) and ð Þ 1 2  1  4 

r132 ¼ f  1 W2000 þ f þ ð8 þ 5 Þf2  ð7 þ 5 Þ W0v
2 12
X ðkÞ
f ðkÞ ðn; f; sÞ ¼ FðkÞ ~ (58)
m ðn; sÞf m ðfÞ (42)
m
ð Þ 1 3 
r332 ¼ f þ 3f W20000 þ fW
€2
Leading-order problem. From Eqs. (38) and (40), we have 6
1  5 
ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ þ 3f  5ð8 þ 7 Þf3 þ 15ð7 þ 5 Þ W0vi (59)
w;f ¼ 0; u;f þ w;n ¼ 0 (43) 180

which results in w(0) ¼ W0 and uð0Þ ¼ W00 . Here and below, Wi Then, by substituting the obtained result into the condition
ð2Þ
are functions of n and s only and a dash indicates differentiation r33 jf¼61 ¼ 0, we get
with respect to n.
First-order problem. From Eqs. (36)–(39), we have 1 0000
W þW € 2 þ 17 þ 10 W0vi ¼ 0 (60)
ð0Þ ð0Þ 3 2 45
r11;n þ r13;f ¼0 (44)

ð0Þ ð0Þ Thus, for W ¼ W0 þ g2 W2 , we have

€ ð0Þ ¼ 0
r13;n þ r33;f  w (45)

ð0Þ ð0Þ ð2Þ

1 0000
W þW € þ g2 17 þ 10 W vi ¼ 0
r11 ¼ ð1   2 Þ1 ðu;n þ w;f Þ (46) 3 45
(61)

ð0Þ ð2Þ
0 ¼ u;n þ w;f (47) It can be rewritten as
ð0Þ  
From these equations and conditions r13 jf¼61 ¼ 0, we can 1 0000 €  g2 1 17 þ 2 W€ 00 ¼ 0
ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ W þW (62)
successively express wð2Þ ; r11 ; r13 , and r33 in terms of W0 and 3 3 5
W2. As a result, we get
or going back to x1 and t and introducing y ¼ lW, we arrive at the
ð0 Þ 1 ð Þ ð Þ sought for equation
w ¼ W000 f2 þ W02 ; r110 ¼ W000 f;
2 (48) " #
ð Þ 1  ð Þ 1  Eh2 @ 4 y 2 17 þ 10 @
2
@2y
r130 ¼ f2  1 W0000 ; r330 ¼ f3 þ 3f W00000 þ W
€0
4
þq 1h 2
¼0 (63)
2 6 3 @x1 15 @x1 @t2
ð0Þ
Then, by substituting the obtained result into condition r33 jf¼61
which in case of plane stress coincides with Eq. (24) at
¼ 0, we get the equation for W0
k ¼ (5 þ 5)/(6 þ 5). The same result also follows, for example,
1 0000 from considerations in Refs. [62] and [98].
W þW €0 ¼ 0 (49) Note that if we replace
3 0

Second-order problem. From Eqs. (36)–(40), we have E 

E! ; ! (64)
1  2 1
ð2Þ ð2Þ ð0Þ
r11;n þ r13;f  u€ ¼0 (50)
in Eq. (63), we get the associated plane strain equation which
ð2Þ ð2Þ
€ ð2Þ ¼ 0
r13;n þ r33;f  w (51) follows from the more general derivation in Refs. [3,8], and [61],
where the full set of physical assumptions underlying the
ð2Þ ð2Þ ð4Þ asymptotic analog of Timoshenko–Reissner plane theory is also
r11 ¼ ð1   2 Þ1 ðu;n þ w;f Þ (52) presented.

ð0Þ ð2Þ ð4Þ

r33 ¼ ð1   2 Þ1 ðu;n þ w;f Þ (53) 8 Boundary and Initial Conditions
Goldenveizer was apparently the first who emphasized the
ð0Þ
r13 ¼ ð2 þ 2Þ1 ðu;f þ w;n Þ
ð2Þ ð2Þ
(54) importance of refining boundary conditions along with the equa-
tions of motion in high-order structural theories in application to
thin plates, see Ref. [99]. In the short paper [22], Simmonds
ð2Þ
From these equations and tangential condition r13 jf¼61 ¼ 0, as at writes: “Goldenveiser’s views find support in the simpler theory
previous stage, we can successfully determine uð2Þ ; wð4Þ ; of beams where it has been often accepted uncritically that the
ð2Þ ð2Þ ð2Þ
r11 ; r13 , and r33 Timoshenko equations give better results than the classical
Euler–Bernoulli theory. However, in two papers that derived
improvements to the classical dynamic theory for beams of nar-
1 
row rectangular cross section (by starting from the two-
uð2Þ ¼ W20 f þ ð2 þ  Þf3  ð1 þ  Þf W0000 (55)
6 dimensional equations of plane stress theory), Duva and

Applied Mechanics Reviews NOVEMBER 2015, Vol. 67 / 060802-7

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 1 A cantilever beam of length 2L vibrating with wave-
length l, l  L
Simmonds (Refs. [100] and [101]) showed that the most important
corrections come from two-dimensional end effects. For the spe-
cial case of an elastically isotropic beam, they showed that the
end correction (which is due to a Poisson ratio effect) to the low-
est natural frequency of a cantilevered beam is more important
than the correction predicted by the Timoshenko equation.”
It also appears instructive to reproduce Simmonds’s [102] view
on high-order plate theories, while commenting on the study by
Shimpi et al. [103], see also private communications [104,105]:
“this paper joins a host of others, beginning with the seminal
papers of Reissner (Refs. [106] and [107]), that attempt to
improve the accuracy of classical (Kirchhoff) plate theory without
a concomitant refinement of the classical boundary conditions—a
refinement that necessitates using the equations of three-
dimensional elasticity to examine edge layers whose thickness are
of the order of the plate thickness. Without such a refinement,
improvements to Kirchhoff’s theory are, in general, illusory, as
many authors over the past 50 years have emphasized.” The same
arguments apply, of course, to beam theory.
Below, we demonstrate that similarly to plates and shells [3,8],
the effect of the boundary conditions on high-order vibration
modes appears to be less than that of the equations of motion.
As an example, we evaluate the natural frequencies of a cantile-
ver beam of length 2L (see Fig. 1). In this case, we get an extra
pffiffiffi geometric parameter e ¼ h/L (differs from e in Sec. 5 by
small
3) in addition to the parameter g ¼ h/l introduced in Sec. 7. We
concentrate on higher-order vibration modes (l  L, that is, e 
g), for which the effect of the Timoshenko correction is expected
to be the most pronounced.
Considerpffiffiffi harmonic motion with time dependence
expðiks= 3Þ, where a nondimensional frequency parameter k is
of order 1. Then, Eq. (62) takes the form
W 0000  k2 ðW  2a g2 W 00 Þ ¼ 0
where
 
1 17
a¼ þ 2
6 5
pffiffiffi
and factor expðiks= 3Þ is omitted. The general solution of
Eq. (65) can be written as
W ¼ A cosðk1 nÞ þ B sinðk1 nÞ þ C exp ½k2 ðn þ L=lÞ
W ¼ 0 (75)
þ D exp ½k2 ðn  L=lÞ
where A, B, C, and D are arbitrary constants and
ki ¼ k1=2 ½ð1 þ a2 g4 k2 Þ1=2  ð1Þi ag2 k1=2 ; i ¼ 1; 2
¼ k2 ð1 þ 2a g2 kÞ (76)
Our goal is to investigate whether the solution of the refined
equation (65) can be subject to the classical boundary conditions
for a cantilever beam at n ¼ 6L/l ¼ 6ge1
Wðge1 Þ ¼ W 0 ðge1 Þ ¼ W 00 ðge1 Þ ¼ W 000 ðge1 Þ ¼ 0
By substituting Eq. (66) into Eq. (67) and neglecting exponen-
tially small terms, we get
060802-8 / Vol. 67, NOVEMBER 2015
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
½k1 cosðk1 ge1 Þk2 sinðk1 ge1 Þ½k2 cosðk1 ge1 Þk1 sinðk1 ge1 Þ¼0
(68)
Now, we search for the asymptotic expansion of the natural fre-
quencies in the form
k ¼ k0 þ g2 k1 þ Oðge þ g4 Þ (69)
We deduce from Eq. (68) at leading order
pffiffiffiffiffi
cos ð2 k0 ge1 Þ ¼ 0 (70)
resulting in
p2 ðn þ 1=2Þ2 e2
k0 ¼ (71)
4g2
where n  L/l  1 and g  en  e. The last formula corresponds to
the classical Bernoulli–Euler beam theory.
Next, we get at first-order
ap4 ðn þ 1=2Þ4 e4
k1 ¼ ak0 ¼  (72)
16g4
As might be expected, the general solution (66) combined with
the boundary conditions (67) enables calculating O(e2n2) correc-
tion to the natural frequencies predicted by the Bernoulli–Euler
theory. At the same time, asymptotic analysis in Ref. [100] start-
ing from static decay conditions for an elastic semi-infinite strip
[108] (see also Ref. [109] dealing with low-frequency perturbation
of static decay conditions) shows that refinement of the classical
boundary conditions leads to O(e) correction to the values k0. The
latter can be neglected provided that
n  e1=2 (73)
Thus, over this range, the refined equation of motion can be con-
sidered together with the classical boundary conditions. It is also
obvious that the strong inequality (73) is violated for low-order
vibration modes, when n  L/l  1 or e  g [100].
It can be easily verified that the coefficients in the two-term
expansion (69) are expressed only through the quantity k1 entering
the phase of rapidly oscillating trigonometric functions in
(65) Eq. (66). Therefore, within the same asymptotic error O(g2), we
may transform the expression in brackets in Eq. (65) by using the
substitution
W 00 ¼ kW (74)
corresponding to oscillating solutions of the associated degenerate
equation (g ¼ 0). As a result, we arrive at a generalization of the
Bernoulli–Euler equation
W 0000  k2
(66)
where the modified frequency k* is given by
k2
The related concept of the classical structure theories with
modified inertia, along with other arguments in this section, was
initially established for plates and shells, see, for example, the
monograph [8] and references therein and also more recent papers
(67) [64–66]. Proceeding to next orders, we can determine more terms
in the expansion (76).
Considerations above are in perfect agreement with the Bolo-
tin’s asymptotic method [110] (see also paper by King [111] and
Transactions of the ASME
 review article by Elishakoff [112]); in application to beams, see
Ref. [87]. It is based upon the observation that the mode shapes
over the interior of a beam with arbitrary boundary conditions
resemble those of a simply supported beam, with edge effects
being important only in the vicinity of the edges. This suggests
that with increase of the mode numbers, the effect of boundary
conditions decreases.
The refined initial conditions for plane strain following from
more general considerations in Refs. [113] and [114] may be
adapted for the case under consideration via the conventional sub-
stitution (74). In particular, for an initial transverse velocities field
G(n) uniformly distributed along the thickness of an infinite beam,
we have at s ¼ 0
W ¼ 0; W_ ¼ G þ bg2 G00 (77)
where
2
b¼
6
For example, if GðnÞ ¼ cosðnÞ, then the solution of the initial
value problem (62) and (77) is
1   the University of Politechnica of Bucharest, Romania; and Igor
W ¼ G 1  bg2 sinðcsÞcos n (78)
c
with
c ¼ ½3ð1 þ 2ag2 Þ1=2
It is clear from inspection of this formula that at the large
values of time (s  1), O(g2) correction in the phase of a rapidly
oscillating sine originating from the refined equation of motion is
more significant than that associated with the imposed initial
conditions.
9 Conclusion
In an extensive re-assessment of the Bresse–Timoshenko beam
theory, a simpler equation is suggested as the more consistent ana-
log of his original counterpart. The derived equation embodies
Timoshenko’s statement on the smallness of the term which repre-
sents the combined contribution of the rotary inertia and shear de-
formation, while retaining their direct contributions. Its superior
consistency is supported by the considerations in Secs. 7 and 8
along with the references therein.
Had Timoshenko made a mistake in 1921 while extending
Bresse–Rayleigh theory without explicitly arriving at a simplest
needed version of it? The answer should apparently be negative.
In fact, his correction yielded more than he planned for: his result
constitutes a hyperbolic partial differential equation [23].
Timoshenko’s [7] theory also predicts an experimentally verified
second frequency spectrum whereas the Bernoulli–Euler, Bres-
se–Rayleigh, or the current theory does not. This, however, should
not be held against them, as Timoshenko’s theory gives only a
rough approximation to the aforementioned second spectrum and
fails to predict all other spectral characteristic of a 3D cylindrical
waveguide, e.g., see Ref. [39].
Now, addressing the “Centenary” found in the title. The
arithmetic may appear not quite correct. It is usually held that
Timoshenko first published his work on the shear deformation
effect in beam vibration in 1921; however, prior to the latter pub-
lication he published it also in Zagreb, in 1920. This explains the
subtitle of this study. Moreover, according to Grigolyuk ([115],
p. 737), this paper had been written in 1912, but not submitted im-
mediately for publication until about ten years later. Grigolyuk
([116], p. 15; [117], p. 523) claimed additionally that the correc-
tion on shear deformation for beam vibrations was “…reproduced
for the first time in 1916 in the Course of Elasticity Theory: Part
Applied Mechanics Reviews
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
2, Columns and Plates (sections 38–39, pp. 200–213 [5]).”6 Note
that the latter book was reissued in 1972 [120]. Intriguingly, the
Russian version of the 1920 and 1921 papers appeared twice in
the Russian collection of Timoshenko’s works, the first being the
original Russian text and the second as an attempt to reconstruct it
from the English translation—which yielded a slightly different
text (Filin’s testimony [121]).7 As a result, Timoshenko’s now
classical study earned publication three times in English and four
times in Russian. The theory became enormously popular; for
example, a Google check yields thousands of hits. It is only natu-
ral that almost every modern mechanical vibration textbook
includes the material exposed by Timoshenko about a century
ago.
Acknowledgment
First of all, the authors would like to record great benefit
derived by discussions with late Professors Wilhelm Fl€ugge of
Stanford University, and James Simmonds of the University of
Virginia. Discussions with (in alphabetical order) Professors No€el
Challamel of the Universite de Bretagne, France; Hans P.W. Got-
tlieb of Griffith University, Australia; Arkadij Manevich of the
Dnepropetrovsk National University, Ukraine; Mircea Rades of
T. Selezov of the Institute of Hydromechanics, Kiev, Ukraine are
gratefully acknowledged. Last but not the least, sincere thanks are
due to Ing. Eliezer Goldberg of the Technion—Israel Institute of
Technology.
References
[1] Berdichevskii, V. L., and Kvashnina, S. S., 1974, “On Equations Describing
the Transverse Vibrations of Elastic Bars,” J. Appl. Math. Mech., 40(1),
pp. 104–119 (Prikl. Mat. Mekh., 40(1), pp. 120–135).
[2] Sayir, M., 1980, “Flexural Vibrations of Strongly Anisotropic Beams,” Ing.
Arch., 49, pp. 309–330.
[3] Goldenveizer, A. L., Kaplunov, J. D., and Nolde, E. V., 1993, “On
Timoshenko–Reissner Type Theories of Plates and Shells,” Int. J. Solids
Struct., 30(5), pp. 675–694.
[4] Bhaskar, A., 2009, “Elastic Waves in Timoshenko Beams: The “Lost and
Found” of an Eigenmode,” Proc. R. Soc. A, 465(2101), pp. 239–255.
[5] Timoshenko, S. P., 1916, Course of Elasticity Theory. Part 2—Columns and
Plates, A. E. Collins Publishers, St. Petersburg, 1916 (in Russian) (2nd ed.,
Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1972).
[6] Timoshenko, S. P., 1920, “On the Differential Equation for the Flexural Vibra-
tions of Prismatical Rods,” Glas. Hrvat. Prirodosl. Drus., Zagreb, 32, Nr. 2,
pp. 55–57 (in English).
[7] Timoshenko, S. P., 1921, “On the Correction for Shear of the Differential
Equation for Transverse Vibrations of Prismatic Bars,” Philos. Mag., 41(245),
pp. 744–746.
[8] Kaplunov, J. D., Kossovich, L. Y., and Nolde, E. V., 1998, Dynamics of Thin
Walled Elastic Bodies, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
[9] Rayleigh Lord (J. W. S. Strutt), 1877–1878, The Theory of Sound, Macmillan,
London.
[10] Bresse, J. A. C., 1859, Cours de Mecanique Appliqu
ee, Mallet-Bachelier, Paris
(in French).
[11] Timoshenko, S. P., 1921, “On the Additional Deflection Due to
Shearing,” Glas. Hrvat. Prirodosl. Drus., Zagreb, 33, Part 1, Nr. 1, pp. 50–52
(in English).
6
It should be emphasized that Timoshenko was renowned for his making
references to other authors. (Simha [118], for example, writes: “A sublime feature of
Timoshenko’s books is the generous citation of papers, books and reports published
all over the world, sometimes suppressing references of his own work.”) In his book
(1916, 1972), he does not reference neither Bresse’s (1859) nor Rayleigh’s (1877)
contributions in taking into account rotary inertia. He knew the book by Bresse
(1859) for his History of Strength of Materials (1953) [119]; he describes other
contributions of Bresse in detail. In his first journal version (Timoshenko, 1920), he
does quote Rayleigh (1877). However, in his second journal version (Timoshenko,
1921), there is no reference to either Bresse (1859) or Rayleigh (1877).
7
We do not reprimand, as it were, Timoshenko for his multiple publication of
results on combined effect of shear deformation and rotary inertia on beam’s
vibration. He writes (Timoshenko [93], pp. 113–114), although in another context:
“In the 1908–1909 school year I prepared for publication an article in German
containing a condensed account of my works on stability that had already appeared
in Russian journals. Publishing an article in German was essential at that time,
because works printed in Russian remained almost unknown in Western Europe.”
NOVEMBER 2015, Vol. 67 / 060802-9
 [12] Laura, P. P. A., Rossi, R. E., and Maurizi, M., 1992, Vibrating Timoshenko
Beams: A Tribute to the 70th Anniversary of the Publication of Professor S.
Timoshenko’s Epoch Making Contribution, Institute of Applied Mechanics
and Department of Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca,
Argentina.
[13] Pisarenko, G. S., 1991, Stepan Prokopievich Timoshenko, 1878–1972, Nauka,
Moscow (in Russian).
[14] Grigolyuk, E. I., 2000, S.P. Timoshenko: Life and Destiny, Krylov State
Research Centre, St. Petersburg (in Russian).
[15] Gere, J. M., Herrmann, G., Kays, W. M., and Lee, E. H., 1972, “Memorial Re-
solution, Stephen P. Timoshenko (1878–1972),” Stanford Historical Society,
Stanford, CA, http://historicalsociety.stanford.edu/pdfmem/TimoshenkoS.pdf
[16] Simha, K. R. Y., 2002, “Timoshenko: Father of Engineering Mechanics,”
Resonance, 7(10), pp. 2–3.
[17] Felippa, C. A., 2005, “The Amusing History of Shear Flexible Beam Ele-
ments,” IACM Expressions, 17(5), pp. 13–17.
[18] Koiter, W. T., 1977, “Discussion: ‘Timoshenko Beam Theory is Not Always
More Accurate Than Elementary Beam Theory’ (Nicholson, J. W., and Sim-
monds, J. G., 1977, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 44, pp. 337–338),” ASME J. Appl.
Mech., 44(2), pp. 357–358.
[19] Rankine, W. J. W., 1858, A Manual of Applied Mechanics, Richard Griffin
and Co., London, pp. 342–344.
[20] Grigolyuk, E. I., and Selezov, I. T., 1973, “Nonclassical Theories of Vibra-
tions of Columns, Plates, and Shells,” Advances in Science and Technology,
Series. Mechanics of Deformable Solids, Vol. 5, VINITI Publishers, Moscow
(in Russian).
[21] Selezov, I., 2009, private communication.
[22] Simmonds, J. G., 2003, “In Support of A. L. Gol’denveiser’s Approach
to Refining Classical Plate and Shell Theories,” Izvestiya VUZov, Severo-
Kavkazskii Region: Estestvennye Nauki, Special Issue: Non-Linear Problems
in Continuum Mechanics, pp. 75–76.
[23] Fl€ugge, W., 1942, “Die Ausbreitung von Biegungswellen in Staben,”
Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 22(6), pp. 312–318 (in German).
[24] Fl€ugge, W., 1939, “Stephen Timoshenko Zum 60,” Z. Angew. Math. Mech.,
19(1), pp. 63–64 (in German).
[25] Fl€ugge, W., ed., 1962, Handbook of Engineering Mechanics, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
[26] Young, D. H., 1962, “Continuous Systems,” Handbook of Engineering
Mechanics, W. Fl€ ugge, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 61.14–61.18.
[27] Zajac, E. E., 1962, “Propagation of Elastic Waves,” Handbook of Engineering
Mechanics, W. Fl€ ugge, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 64.9–64.11.
[28] Kurrer, K. E., 2008, The History of Theory of Structures: From Arch Analysis
to Computational Mechanics, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
[29] Timoshenko, S. P., 1975, Strength and Vibrations of Structural Elements, E. I.
Grigolyuk, ed., Nauka, Moscow (in Russian), p. 10.
[30] Young, D. H., 1954, “Collected Papers of Stephen P. Timoshenko,” ASME J.
Appl. Mech., 21(4), pp. 418–419.
[31] Young, D. H., 1972, “Stephen P. Timoshenko: 1878–1972,” ASME Appl.
Mech. Rev., 25(7), pp. 759–763.
[32] Stephen, N. G., 2006, “The Second Frequency Spectrum of Timoshenko
Beams—Further Assessment,” J. Sound Vib., 292, pp. 372–389.
[33] Goens, E., 1931, “Uber die Bestimmung des Elastizitatsmoduls von Staben
mit Hilfe von Biegungsschwingungen,” Ann. Phys., 403(6), pp. 649–678 (in
German).
[34] Trail-Nash, R. W., and Collar, A. R., 1953, “The Effects of Shear Flexibility
and Rotatory Inertia on the Bending Vibrations of Beams,” Q. J. Mech. Appl.
Math., 6(Pt. 2), pp. 186–222.
[35] Abbas, B. A. H., and Thomas, J., 1977, “The Second Frequency Spectrum of
Timoshenko Beams,” J. Sound Vib., 51(1), pp. 123–137.
[36] Bhashyam, G. R., and Prathap, G., 1981, “The Second Frequency Spectrum of
Timoshenko Beams,” J. Sound Vib., 76(3), pp. 407–420.
[37] Hathout, I., Leipholz, H., and Singhal, K., 1980, “Sensitivity of the Frequencies
of Clamped Timoshenko Beams,” J. Eng. Sci. Univ. Riyadh, 6, pp. 113–121.
[38] Levinson, M., and Cooke, D. W., 1982, “On the Two Frequency Spectra of
Timoshenko Beams,” J. Sound Vib., 84(3), pp. 319–326.
[39] Stephen, N. G., 1982, “The Second Frequency Spectrum of Timoshenko
Beams,” J. Sound Vib., 80(4), pp. 578–582.
[40] Stephen, N. G., and Puchegger, S., 2006, “On the Valid Frequency Range of
Timoshenko Beam Theory,” J. Sound Vib., 297(3–5), pp. 1082–1087.
[41] Nesterenko, V. V., 1993, “A Theory for Transverse Vibrations of the Timo-
shenko Beam,” J. Appl. Math. Mech., 57(4), pp. 669–677.
[42] Chervyakov, A. M., and Nesterenko, V. V., 1993, “Is it Possible to Assign
Physical Meaning to Field Theory With Higher Derivatives?,” Phys. Rev. D,
48(12), pp. 5811–5817.
[43] Manevich, A. I., 2015, “Dynamics of Timoshenko Beam on Linear and Non-
linear Foundation Phase Relations, Significance of the Second Spectrum,
Stability,” J. Sound Vib., 344, pp. 209–220.
[44] Elishakoff, I., 2010, “An Equation Both More Consistent and Simper Than the
Bresse–Timoshenko Equation,” Advances in Mathematical Modeling and
Experimental Methods for Materials and Structures: The Jacob Aboudi Vol-
ume, R. Gilat and L. Banks-Sills, eds., Springer, Berlin, pp. 249–254.
[45] Elishakoff, I., and Lubliner, E., 1985, “Random Vibration of a Structure Via
Classical and Nonclassical Theories,” Probabilistic Methods in Mechanics
and Structures, S. Eggwertz and N. Lind, eds., Springer, Berlin, pp. 455–467.
[46] Elishakoff, I., and Livshits, D., 1989, “Some Closed-Form Solutions in
Random Vibration of Bresse–Timoshenko Beams,” Probab. Eng. Mech., 4(1),
pp. 49–54.
060802-10 / Vol. 67, NOVEMBER 2015
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[47] Lottati, I., and Elishakoff, I., 1987, “Influence of the Shear Deformation and
Rotary Inertia on the Flutter of a Cantilever Subjected to a Follower Force—
Exact and Symbolic Manipulation Solutions,” Refined Dynamical Theories in
Beams, Plates and Shells and Their Applications, I. Elishakoff and H. Irretier,
eds., Springer, Berlin, pp. 261–273.
[48] Elishakoff, I., and Abramovich, H., 1992, “Note on Dynamic Response of
Large Space Structures,” J. Sound Vib., 156(1), pp. 178–184.
[49] Elishakoff, I., Baruch, M., Zhu, L., and Caimi, R., 1995, “Random Vibration
of Space Shuttle Weather Protection Systems,” Shock Vib., 2(2), pp. 111–118.
[50] Pielorz, A., 1996, “Discrete-Continuous Models in the Analysis of Low Struc-
tures Subject to Kinetic Excitations Caused by Transversal Waves,” Mech.
Teor. Stosow. (J. Theor. Appl. Mech.), 3(34), pp. 547–566.
[51] Falsone, G., Settineri, D., and Elishakoff, I., 2015, “A New Class of Interde-
pendent Shape Polynomials for the FE Dynamic Analysis of Mindlin Plate
Timoshenko Beam,” Meccanica, 50(3), pp. 767–780.
[52] Elishakoff, I., and Pentaras, D., 2009, “Natural Frequencies of Carbon Nano-
tubes Based on Simplified Bresse–Timoshenko Theory,” J. Comput. Theor.
Nanosci., 6(7), pp. 1527–1531.
[53] Elishakoff, I., Challamel, N., Soret, C., Bekel, Y., and Gomez, T., 2013, “Virus
Sensor Based on Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube: Improved Theory Incorpo-
rating Surface Effects,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A, 371(1993), p. 20120424.
[54] Elishakoff, I., and Soret, C., 2013, “A Consistent Set of Nonlocal
Bresse–Timoshenko Equations for Nanobeams With Surface Effects,” ASME
J. Appl. Mech., 80(6), p. 061001.
[55] Tseitlin, A. I., 1961a, “On the Effect of Shear Deformation and Rotary Inertia
in Vibrations of Beams on Elastic Foundation,” J. Appl. Math. Mech., 25(2),
pp. 531–535 (Prikl. Mat. Mekh., 25(2), pp. 362–364, in Russian).
[56] Tseitlin, A. I., 1961b, “About the Solution of Timoshenko’s Equation for the
Beam on Elastic Foundation,” Proceedings of the Kazakh Branch of the Acad-
emy of Civil Engineering and Architecture of the USSR, Vol. 3, pp. 250–254
(in Russian).
[57] Szidarovsky, J., 1962, “Natural Vibration of a Bar Under Axial Force, Taking
Into Consideration the Effect of Shearing Force and Rotatory Inertia,” Acta
Tech. Acad. Sci. Hung., 39(1–2), pp. 29–41.
[58] Cherkasov, A. P., 1964, “Influence of Shear Force and Rotary Inertia on
Dynamic Stability of Columns,” Proceedings of the Kharkov Civil Engineer-
ing Institute, Vol. 16, pp. 21–32 (in Russian).
[59] Vorobyev, N. L., 1968, “Towards Questions of Qualitative Methods of Deter-
mination of Critical Forces and Free Vibration Frequencies of Columns,”
Problems of Reliability and Serviceability of Agrarian Machines, Rostov-on-
Don, pp. 20–29 (in Russian).
[60] Sabodash, B. A., 1979, “Dynamic Stability of Beams With Shear Deformation
and Rotary Inertia Taken Into Account,” Prikl. Mekh. (Appl. Mech.), 15(5),
pp. 73–78 (in Russian).
[61] Berdichevsky, V. L., 1973, “Dynamic Theory of Thin Elastic Plates,” Izv. AN
SSSR, Mekh. Tverd. Tela, 8(6), pp. 99–109.
[62] Stephen, N. G., and Levinson, M., 1979, “A Second Order Beam Theory,”
J. Sound Vib., 67(3), pp. 293–305.
[63] Stephen, N. G., 1997, “Mindlin Plate Theory: Best Shear Coefficient and
Higher Spectra Validity,” J. Sound Vib., 202(4), pp. 539–553.
[64] Belov, A. V., Kaplunov, J. D., and Nolde, E. V., 1999, “A Refined Asymptotic
Model of Fluid-Structure Interaction in Scattering by Elastic Shells,”
Flow, Turbul. Combust., 61, pp. 255–267.
[65] Kaplunov, J. D., Nolde, E. V., and Shorr, B. F., 2005, “A Perturbation
Approach for Evaluating Natural Frequencies of Moderately Thick Elliptic
Plates,” J. Sound Vib., 281, pp. 905–919.
[66] Pichugin, A. V., Askes, H., and Tyas, A., 2008, “Asymptotic Equivalence of
Homogenisation Procedures and Fine-Tuning of Continuum Theories,”
J. Sound Vib., 313(3–5), pp. 858–874.
[67] Prathap, G., 1983, “The Two Frequency Spectra of Timoshenko Beams—A
Re-Assessment,” J. Sound Vib., 90(3), pp. 443–446.
[68] Anderson, R. A., 1953, “Flexural Vibrations in Uniform Beams According to
the Timoshenko Theory,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 20, pp. 504–510.
[69] Dolph, C. L., 1954, “On the Timoshenko Theory of Transverse Beam
Vibrations,” Q. J. Appl. Math., 12, pp. 175–187.
[70] Aalami, B., and Atzori, B., 1974, “Flexural Vibrations and Timoshenko’s
Beam Theory,” AIAA J., 12(5), pp. 679–685.
[71] Barr, A. D. S., 1993, “Parametric Vibration in Beams,” Proceedings of the
14th Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 1, Queen’s University,
Kingston, ON, pp. 3–9.
[72] Chan, K. T., Wang, X. Q., So, R. M. S., and Reid, S. R., 2001, “Superposed
Standing Waves in a Timoshenko Beam,” Proc. R. Soc. London, A, 458,
pp. 83–108.
[73] Dixit, A., 2013, “Mechanics-Based Explanation of the Second Frequency
Branch of Timoshenko Beam Theory,” 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Boston, MA,
AIAA, Reston, VA, April 8–11, pp. 1–15.
[74] Dym, C. L., and Shames, I. H., 1972, Solid Mechanics: A Variational
Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[75] Le, K. C., 1999, Vibrations of Shells and Rods, Springer, Berlin.
[76] Berdichevsky, V. L., 2009, Variational Principles in Continuum Mechanics,
Springer, Berlin.
[77] Kaplunov, J. D., 1995, “Long-Wave Vibrations of a Thin-Walled Body With
Fixed Faces,” Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math., 48(3), pp. 311–327.
[78] Kaplunov, J. D., and Nolde, E. V., 2002, “Long-Wave Vibrations of a Nearly
Incompressible Isotropic Plate With Fixed Faces,” Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math.,
55(3), pp. 345–356.
Transactions of the ASME
 [79] Kaplunov, J. D., and Markushevich, D. G., 1993, “Plane Vibrations and Radia-
tion of an Elastic Layer Lying on a Liquid Half-Space,” Wave Motion, 17(3),
pp. 199–211.
[80] Kaplunov, J. D., Nolde, E. V., and Veksler, N. D., 1994, “Asymptotic Formu-
lae for the Modal Resonance of Peripheral Waves in the Scattering of an
Obliquely Incident Plane Acoustic Wave by a Cylindrical Shell,” Acustica,
80, pp. 280–293.
[81] Ryazantseva, M. Y., 1989, “High-Frequency Vibrations of Symmetrical Sand-
wich Plates,” Mech. Solids, 24(5), pp. 175–181.
[82] Kaplunov, J. D., Kossovich, L. Y., and Rogerson, G. A., 2000, “Direct
Asymptotic Integration of the Equations of Transversely Isotropic Elasticity
for a Plate Near Cut-Off Frequencies,” Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math., 53(2),
pp. 323–341.
[83] Pichugin, A. V., and Gogerson, G. A., 2001, “A Two-Dimensional Model for
Extensional Motion of a Pre-Stressed Incompressible Elastic Layer Near
Cut-Off Frequencies,” IMA J. Appl. Math., 66(4), pp. 357–385.
[84] Kaplunov, J. D., Nolde, E. V., and Rogerson, G. A., 2002, “An Asymptotically
Consistent Model for Long-Wave High-Frequency Motion in a Prestressed
Elastic Plate,” Math. Mech. Solids, 7(6), pp. 581–606.
[85] Lutianov, M., and Rogerson, G. A., 2010, “Long Wave Motion in Layered
Elastic Media,” Int. J. Eng. Sci., 48(12), pp. 1856–1871.
[86] Van Dyke, M. D., 1975, Perturbation Methods in Fluid Mechanics, Parabolic
Press, Stanford, CA.
[87] Andrianov, I., Awrejcewicz, J., and Manevitch, L. I., 2004, Asymptotical
Mechanics of Thin-Walled Structures, Springer, Berlin.
[88] Love, A. E. H., 1944, A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity,
Dover Publications, New York.
[89] Bishop, R. E. D., 1952, “Longitudinal Waves in Beams,” Aeronaut.l Quar.,
3(2), pp. 280–293.
[90] Shatalov, M., Marais, J., Fedotov, J., and Tenkam, M. J., 2011, “Longitudinal
Vibrationn of Isotropic Solid Rods: From Classical to Modern Theories,”
Advances in Computer Science and Engineering, M. Schmidt, ed., InTech
Open, Rijeka, Croatia, pp. 187–214.
[91] Stephen, N. G., 1981, “Considerations on Second Order Beam Theories,” Int.
J. Solids Struct., 17(3), pp. 325–333.
[92] Young, D. H., 1953, Biographical Sketch, The Collected Papers, S. P. Timo-
shenko, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, p. XVIII.
[93] Timoshenko, S. P., 1968, As I Remember: The Autobiography of Stephen P.
Timoshenko, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, pp. 128–129.
[94] Hodges, D. H., 2006, Nonlinear Composite Beam Theory, AIAA, Reston, VA.
[95] Berdichevsky, V. L., 1976, “Equations of the Theory of Anisotropic Inhomo-
geneous Rods,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 228, pp. 558–561.
[96] Berdichevsky, V. L., and Starosel’skii, L. A., 1983, “On the Theory of Curvi-
linear Timoshenko-Type Rods,” J. Appl. Math. Mech. (Prikl. Mat. Mekh.),
47(6), pp. 809–817.
[97] Popescu, B., and Hodges, D. H., 2000, “On Asymptotically Correct
Timoshenko-Like Anisotropic Beam Theory,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 37(3),
pp. 535–558.
[98] Kathnelson, A. N., 1994, “Improved Beam Vibration Equations: Asymptotic
Approach,” J. Sound Vib., 178(2), pp. 265–268.
[99] Goldenveizer, A. L., 1958, “On Reissner’s Theory of Bending of Plates,” Izv.
AN SSSR, Otd. Tekhn. Nauk., 4, pp. 102–109.
[100] Duva, J. M., and Simmonds, J. G., 1991, “The Usefulness of Elementary
Theory for the Linear Vibrations of Layered, Orthotropic Elastic Beams and
Applied Mechanics Reviews
DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 12/15/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Corrections Due to Two-Dimensional End Effects,” ASME J. Appl. Mech.,
58(1), pp. 175–180.
[101] Duva, J. M., and Simmonds, J. G., 1992, “The Influence of Two-Dimensional
End Effects on the Natural Frequencies of Cantilevered Beams in Shear,”
ASME J. Appl. Mech., 59(1), pp. 230–232.
[102] Simmonds, J. G., 2008, “Discussion: ‘New First-Order Shear Deformation
Plate Theories’ (Shimpi, R. P., Patel, H. G., and Arya, H., 2007, ASME J.
Appl. Mech., 74, pp. 523–533),” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 75(4), p. 045503.
[103] Shimpi, R. P., Patel, H. G., and Arya, H., 2007, “New First-Order Shear Defor-
mation Plate Theories,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 74(3), pp. 523–533.
[104] Simmonds, J. G., 2008, private communication.
[105] Simmonds, J. G., 2009, private communications.
[106] Reissner, E., 1944, “On the Theory of Bending of Elastic Plates,” J. Math.
Phys. (Cambridge, MA), 23, pp. 184–191.
[107] Reissner, E., 1945, “The Effect of Transverse-Shear Deformation on the Bend-
ing of Elastic Plates,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 12, pp. A67–A77.
[108] Gregory, R. D., and Wan, F. Y. M., 1984, “Decaying States of Plane Strain in
a Semi-Infinite Strip and Boundary Conditions for Plate Theory,” J. Elasticity,
14(1), pp. 27–64.
[109] Babenkova, E., and Kaplunov, J., 2004, “Low-Frequency Decay Conditions for a
Semi-Infinite Elastic Strip,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 460(2048), pp. 2153–2169.
[110] Bolotin, V. V., 1961, “An Asymptotic Method for the Study of the
Problem of Eigenvalues for Rectangular Regions,” Problems in Continuum
Mechanics: Muskhelishvili Anniversary Volume, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA,
pp. 56–68.
[111] King, W. W., 1974, “Applications of Bolotin’s Method to Vibrations of
Plates,” AIAA J., 12(3), pp. 399–401.
[112] Elishakoff, I., 1976, “Bolotin’s Dynamic Edge Effect Method,” Shock Vib.
Dig., 8(1), pp. 95–104.
[113] Kaplunov, J. D., Nolde, E. V., and Rogerson, G. A., 2006, “An Asymptotic
Analysis of Initial-Value Problems for Thin Elastic Plates,” Proc. R. Soc. Lon-
don A, 462(2073), pp. 2541–2561.
[114] Nolde, E., 2007, “Qualitative Analysis of Initial-Value Problems for a Thin
Elastic Strip,” IMA J. Appl. Math., 72(3), pp. 348–375.
[115] Grigolyuk, E. I., 1971, “S. P. Timoshenko and His Works in the Field of
Stability of Deformable Systems,” Stability of Beams, Plates and Shells, E. I.
Grigolyuk, ed., Nauka, Moscow, pp. 731–800 (in Russian).
[116] Grigolyuk, E. I., 1972, “Problems of Strength, Vibrations and Stability of
Engineering Constructions and Their Modeling in Works by S.P. Tim-
oshenko,” Theory of Plates and Shells, Kazan’ University Publishing, Kazan,
Russia, Vol. 9, pp. 3–54 (in Russian).
[117] Grigolyuk, E. I., 1975, “S.P. Timoshenko and His Works in Problems of
Mechanics of Deformable Solids and Analysis of Engineering Constructions,”
S.P. Timoshenko: Static and Dynamic Problems in Theory of Elasticity,
Naukova Dumka Publishers, Kiev, pp. 515–542 (in Russian).
[118] Simha, K. R. Y., 2002, “Timoshenko and His Books,” Resonance, 7(10),
pp. 45–53.
[119] Timoshenko, S. P., 1953, History of Strength of Materials: With a Brief
Account of the History of Elasticity and Theory of Structures, McGraw-Hill,
New York, pp. 146–152.
[120] Timoshenko, S. P., 1972, Course of Elasticity Theory, 2nd ed., Naukova
Dumka Publishers, Kiev (in Russian).
[121] Filin, A. P., 2007, Essays About Scientists-Mechanicists, Strategiya Publishers,
Moscow (in Russian), p. 784.
NOVEMBER 2015, Vol. 67 / 060802-11