1 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams

2 and frames under static loading

3 Juan Camilo Molina-Villegas1a , Jorge Eliecer Ballesteros Ortegab and Simón Benítez Sotoa
4
a Escuela de Ciencias Aplicadas e Ingeniería, Universidad EAFIT, Medellín, Colombia
5
b Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA
6

7
8 ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
9
10 Keywords: This paper presents an exact closed-form solution for axially non-uniform static Timoshenko
11 Axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams beams and frames under arbitrary external loads and bending moments, using the Green’s
12 Closed-form solution Functions Stiffness Method (GFSM). The GFSM integrates elements from the Stiffness Method
13 Green’s functions (SM), Finite Element Method (FEM), and Green’s Functions (GFs), offering a versatile solution
14 Finite element method methodology. By aligning with SM and FEM concepts, it includes essential components such
15 Mesh reduction method as stiffness matrices, shape functions, and fixed end forces. From the capabilities of the GFs,
16 Framed structures it enables the derivation of closed-form solutions. The GFSM fills the gap of existing closed-
17 Composite materials form solutions for axially non-uniform static Timoshenko beams and frames which are generally
18 limited to one span structures with linearly tapered/functionally graded composite elements
19 subjected to simple external loads. This method’s efficacy is demonstrated through two practical
20 examples, analyzing non-uniform beams and plane frames, broadening the applicability of
21 closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko structures.

22

23 1. Introducción

24 Non-uniform structural reticular elements, including those with non-homogeneous cross-sections and those made from

25 heterogeneous materials, are widely used for their stress distribution and material optimization benefits [1, 2]. Among

26 heterogeneous materials, Functionally Graded Materials (FGMs) are notable for their gradual mechanical property

27 changes [3, 4]. FGMs, as second-generation composites, are highly versatile for applications in biomedical, aerospace,

28 naval, mechanical, and civil structures [5, 6]. When mechanical properties vary exclusively along the axial direction,

29 they are classified as Axially Functionally Graded (AFG) materials [7], while axially non-uniform elements encompass

30 both non-homogeneous cross-sections and AFGMs.

31

32 Due to the kinematic model used to describe them, non-uniform elements of reticular structures are commonly idealized

33 using beam [8] or the plane stress models [9–11]. In particular, the Euler-Bernouli and Timoshenko beam models are

34 the most widely used, being the main difference between both, that in the Timoshenko theory planar cross-section

35 remain planar after the external loads are applied, but can rotate with respect to the beam centroidal-line [12].

36

37 In recent decades, various methods have been employed to analyze axially non-uniform static Euler-Bernoulli and

38 Timoshenko beams and frames. The Finite Element Method (FEM) has been widely used, providing stiffness matrices
1 First and corresponding author, jmolina2@eafit.edu.co, address: Cr 49, Cl. 7 Sur #50, Medellín, Antioquia, Postal Code: 050022

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 1 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

39 and fixed end forces for both common axially non-uniform elements and arbitrary non-uniform elements [13–19].

40 Alternative methods have also been explored, including Laplace transform [20] and the transformation of differential

41 equations into constant coefficients [21, 22]. Additionally, exact elasticity solutions for Functionally Graded Materials

42 (FGMs) have been presented [23, 24]. For Timoshenko beams, FEM has been prevalent, offering various solutions

43 ranging from simple to complex models, with alternative approaches proposed by other researchers [25–33].

44

45 The Green’s Functions Stiffness Method (GFSM) is an alternative approach for analyzing axially non-uniform beams

46 and frames, demonstrated in [34] for Euler-Bernoulli beams and frames. This is a novel mesh reduction method closely

47 related to traditional FEM and the Stiffness Method (SM), sharing with those the use of shape functions, stiffness

48 matrices, and fixed end forces; being all exact in the case of the GFSM. This makes its matrix formulation equal to the

49 Transcendental Finite Element Method (TFEM) [35, 36], being the key differentiator of the GFSM the use of Green’s

50 Functions (GFs) of fixed elements, which allows to obtain closed-form solution of reticular structures. The GFSM has

51 been proven effective for static Euler-Bernoulli beams on elastic Winkler foundations, static Timoshenko frames, and

52 dynamic Euler-Bernoulli frames, showcasing its efficiency and versatility in structural analysis [37–40].

53

54 While various methods have been developed, there is currently a gap in the literature for a readily implementable

55 approach to derive closed-form solutions for static axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under arbitrary

56 external loads and bending moments. To address this gap, this paper presents the formulation of the GFSM for analyzing

57 these structures.

58

59 The paper is structured into six sections. Section 2 introduces the decomposition of the axially non-uniform

60 Timoshenko frame element into axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam and rod elements. Section 3 presents the

61 formulation for the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element, while the formulation for the axially non-uniform

62 rod element can be found in [34]. In Section 4, the beam and rod formulations are merged to present the GFSM for the

63 axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame element. Section 5 illustrates its applicability through two examples, one for a

64 beam and another for a frame structure. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the conclusions.

65 2. Decomposition of the Timoshenko frame element

66 The element to be studied is the axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame element presented in Fig. 1. It has an axially

67 non-uniform linear elastic material with Young’s modulus 𝐸(𝑥), and shear modulus 𝐺(𝑥), a variable cross-section with

68 area 𝐴(𝑥), shear coefficient 𝜅(𝑥) [41], shear area 𝐴𝑠 (𝑥) = 𝜅(𝑥)𝐴(𝑥), and second moment of area about the 𝑧-axis 𝐼(𝑥).

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 2 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

69 The element is subjected to arbitrary external distributed load in axial direction 𝑝(𝑥), transverse distributed load 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥),

70 and distributed bending moment 𝑞𝜃 (𝑥).

qv (x)

y y
Mi qθ (x) Mj
F Xi x F Xj z
i p(x) j
F Yi F Yj
E(x), G(x), A(x), As (x), I(x)
L

Fig. 1: Axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame element.

71 The internal forces fields of the element includes the axial force 𝑃 (𝑥), the shear force 𝑉 (𝑥), and the bending moment

72 about the 𝑧-axis 𝑀(𝑥), all of which follow the positive sign convention depicted in Fig. 2.

qv (x)

y qθ (x)
V (x) V (x)
x P (x) P (x)
M (x) M (x)
p(x)

Fig. 2: Internal forces positive sign convention.

73 Utilizing a first-order theory, the transverse and axial behaviors of the axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame element

74 are decoupled. This enables its decomposition into an axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element (Fig. 3(a)) and

75 an axially non-uniform rod element (Fig. 3(b)).

qv (x)

y y
Mi qθ (x) Mj
F Xi F Xj
x x
i j i p(x) j
F Yi F Yj
E(x), G(x), As (x), I(x) E(x), A(x)
L L

(a) Axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element. (b) Axially non-uniform rod element.

Fig. 3: Decomposition of the axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame element as an axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam

and axially non-uniform rod elements.

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 3 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

76 3. Formulation of the GFSM for the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element

77 3.1. Governing boundary value problem

78 The internal forces in the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element are caused by its deformation, expressed in

79 terms of the displacement and cross-section rotation fields as [42]:

d𝜃
𝑀(𝑥) = 𝐸𝐼(𝑥) (𝑥) (1a)
d𝑥
[ ]
d𝑣
𝑉 (𝑥) = 𝐴𝑠 𝐺(𝑥) (𝑥) − 𝜃(𝑥) (1b)
d𝑥

80 where 𝐸𝐼(𝑥) = 𝐸(𝑥)𝐼(𝑥) and 𝐴𝑠 𝐺(𝑥) = 𝐴𝑠 (𝑥)𝐺(𝑥) are the element bending and shear rigidities, 𝑣(𝑥) is the transverse

81 displacement field (positive in the 𝑦-axis direction), and 𝜃(𝑥) is the cross-section rotation field (positive about the

82 𝑧-axis direction, i.e., counter clockwise).

83

84 The vertical and rotational differential equilibrium equations for the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element

85 are:

𝑑𝑉
(𝑥) = −𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) (2a)
𝑑𝑥
𝑑𝑀
(𝑥) + 𝑉 (𝑥) = −𝑞𝜃 (𝑥) (2b)
𝑑𝑥

86 Replacing Eqs. (1) into Eqs. (2) there are obtained the coupled governing Differential Equations (DEs) for the axially

87 non-uniform Timoshenko beam element [33]:

{ [ ]}
d d𝑣
𝐴𝑠 𝐺(𝑥) (𝑥) − 𝜃(𝑥) = −𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) (3a)
d𝑥 d𝑥
[ ] [ ]
d d𝜃 d𝑣
𝐸𝐼(𝑥) (𝑥) + 𝐴𝑠 𝐺(𝑥) (𝑥) − 𝜃(𝑥) = −𝑞𝜃 (𝑥) (3b)
d𝑥 d𝑥 d𝑥

88 It is important to mention that an alternative to the coupled DEs (3) is to combine those in a single fourth order

89 differential equation with variable coefficients as proposed in [43].

90

91 To facilitate the solution of the DEs (3) it is recommendable to derive Eq. (3b) and then subtract it to Eq. (3a), obtaining:

[ ] d𝑞
d2 d𝜃
𝐸𝐼(𝑥) (𝑥) = 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) − 𝜃 (𝑥) (4)
d𝑥 2 d𝑥 d𝑥

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 4 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

92 Because the GFSM is based on a strong formulation, to the DEs (3a) and (4) should be added four boundary conditions,

93 being the governing Boundary Value Problem (BVP) defined as:

{ [ ]}
d d𝑣
𝐴𝑠 𝐺(𝑥) (𝑥) − 𝜃(𝑥) = −𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) (5a)
d𝑥 d𝑥
2 [ ] d𝑞
d d𝜃
𝐸𝐼(𝑥) (𝑥) = 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) − 𝜃 (𝑥) (5b)
d𝑥 2 d𝑥 d𝑥
𝑣(0) = 𝑣𝑖 (5c)

𝜃(0) = 𝜃𝑖 (5d)

𝑣(𝐿) = 𝑣𝑗 (5e)

𝜃(𝐿) = 𝜃𝑗 (5f)

94 where 𝑣𝑖 and 𝑣𝑗 are the 𝑦-axis displacement at 𝑥 = 0 and 𝑥 = 𝐿 respectively, whereas 𝜃𝑖 and 𝜃𝑗 are the rotations of the

95 cross-section at the same points.

96

97 To help solve the BVP presented in Eqs. (5), its solution is decomposed into a homogeneous (denoted using the subscript

98 ℎ) and a particular or “fixed” (denoted using the subscript 𝑓 ) solutions (see Fig. 4). The transverse displacement,

99 cross-section rotation, bending moment, and shear force fields are defined, respectively, as:

𝑣(𝑥) = 𝑣ℎ (𝑥) + 𝑣𝑓 (𝑥) (6a)

𝜃(𝑥) = 𝜃ℎ (𝑥) + 𝜃𝑓 (𝑥) (6b)

𝑀(𝑥) = 𝑀ℎ (𝑥) + 𝑀𝑓 (𝑥) (6c)

𝑉 (𝑥) = 𝑉ℎ (𝑥) + 𝑉𝑓 (𝑥) (6d)

qv (x)

y y
Mjh qθ (x) Mjf
Mih Mif
x x
i j i j
F Yih E(x), G(x), As (x), I(x) F Yjh F Yif F Yjf
E(x), G(x), As (x), I(x)
L L

(a) Homogeneous response. (b) Fixed response.

Fig. 4: Decomposition of the response of axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element.

100 In sections 3.2 and 3.3, the solutions of the homogeneous and fixed responses are presented.

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 5 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

101 3.2. Homogeneous response

102 The governing BVP for the homogeneous response of the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element is (see Fig.

103 4(a)):

{ [ ]}
d d𝑣ℎ
𝐴𝑠 𝐺(𝑥) (𝑥) − 𝜃ℎ (𝑥) =0 (7a)
d𝑥 d𝑥
[ ]
d2 d𝜃
𝐸𝐼(𝑥) ℎ (𝑥) = 0 (7b)
d𝑥 2 d𝑥

𝑣ℎ (0) = 𝑣𝑖 (7c)

𝜃ℎ (0) = 𝜃𝑖 (7d)

𝑣ℎ (𝐿) = 𝑣𝑗 (7e)

𝜃ℎ (𝐿) = 𝜃𝑗 (7f)

104 An easy way to solve the BVP (7) is to start solving the DE (7b) to obtain a general solution for 𝜃ℎ (𝑥), and then replace

105 it in Eq. (7a) to obtain 𝑣ℎ (𝑥), getting as result:

𝑥 𝑥
𝑠 1
𝜃ℎ (𝑥) = 𝐶1 d𝑠 + 𝐶2 d𝑠 + 𝐶3 (8a)
∫0 𝐸𝐼(𝑠) ∫0 𝐸𝐼(𝑠)
𝑥 𝑥
1
𝑣ℎ (𝑥) = 𝐶4 d𝑠 + 𝜃 (𝑠)𝑑𝑠 + 𝐶5 (8b)
∫0 𝜅𝐴𝐺(𝑠) ∫0 ℎ

106 Because Eqs. (8) have 5 unknowns and the BVP (7) only has 4 boundary conditions, it is necessary to obtain an

107 additional independent equation. For this, Eq. (3b) is used for 𝑣(𝑥) = 𝑣ℎ (𝑥), and 𝑞𝜃 (𝑥) = 0, obtaining 𝐶1 = −𝐶4 . Using

108 Eqs. (8) to satisfy the boundary conditions presented in Eqs. (7c) to (7f), the transverse displacement and cross-section

109 rotation fields are obtained, respectively:

𝑣ℎ (𝑥) = 𝜓2𝑣 (𝑥)𝑣𝑖 + 𝜓3𝑣 (𝑥)𝜃𝑖 + 𝜓5𝑣 (𝑥)𝑣𝑗 + 𝜓6𝑣 (𝑥)𝜃𝑗 (9a)

𝜃ℎ (𝑥) = 𝜓2𝜃 (𝑥)𝑣𝑖 + 𝜓3𝜃 (𝑥)𝜃𝑖 + 𝜓5𝜃 (𝑥)𝑣𝑗 + 𝜓6𝜃 (𝑥)𝜃𝑗 (9b)

110 where

4 (𝐿)  (𝐿)
𝜓2𝑣 (𝑥) = − [1 (𝑥) − 5 (𝑥)] + 3  (𝑥) + 1 (10a)
𝐷 𝐷 2
 (𝐿) −1 (𝐿) + 5 (𝐿) + 3 (𝐿) ⋅ 𝐿
𝜓3𝑣 (𝑥) = − 3 [1 (𝑥) − 5 (𝑥)] + 2 (𝑥) + 𝑥 (10b)
𝐷 𝐷
 (𝐿)  (𝐿)
𝜓5𝑣 (𝑥) = 4 ⋅ [1 (𝑥) − 5 (𝑥)] − 3  (𝑥) (10c)
𝐷 𝐷 2

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 6 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

2 (𝐿)  (𝐿) − 5 (𝐿)

𝜓6𝑣 (𝑥) = − [1 (𝑥) − 5 (𝑥)] + 1 2 (𝑥) (10d)
𝐷 𝐷

111

4 (𝐿)  (𝐿)
𝜓2𝜃 (𝑥) = − 3 (𝑥) + 3  (𝑥) (11a)
𝐷 𝐷 4
 (𝐿) −1 (𝐿) + 5 (𝐿) + 3 (𝐿) ⋅ 𝐿
𝜓3𝜃 (𝑥) = − 3 3 (𝑥) + 4 (𝑥) + 1 (11b)
𝐷 𝐷
 (𝐿)  (𝐿)
𝜓5𝜃 (𝑥) = 4  (𝑥) − 3  (𝑥) (11c)
𝐷 3 𝐷 4
 (𝐿)  (𝐿) − 5 (𝐿)
𝜓6𝜃 (𝑥) = − 2  (𝑥) + 1 4 (𝑥) (11d)
𝐷 3 𝐷

112 and

𝑥[ 𝜒 ] 𝑥
𝑠
1 (𝑥) = d𝑠 d𝜒 =  (𝜒)d𝜒 (12a)
∫0 ∫0 𝐸𝐼(𝑠) ∫0 3
𝑥[ 𝜒 ] 𝑥
1
2 (𝑥) = d𝑠 d𝜒 =  (𝜒)d𝜒 (12b)
∫0 ∫0 𝐸𝐼(𝑠) ∫0 4
𝑥
𝑠
3 (𝑥) = d𝑠 (12c)
∫0 𝐸𝐼(𝑠)
𝑥
1
4 (𝑥) = d𝑠 (12d)
∫0 𝐸𝐼(𝑠)
𝑥
1
5 (𝑥) = d𝑠 (12e)
∫0 𝐴𝑠 𝐺(𝑠)

113 being

𝐷 = [1 (𝐿) − 5 (𝐿)] ⋅ 4 (𝐿) − 2 (𝐿) ⋅ 3 (𝐿) (13)

114 The functions 𝜓𝑛𝑣 (𝑥) and 𝜓𝑛𝜃 (𝑥) (𝑛 = 2, 3, 5, 6) are the analytical displacement and rotation shape functions for the

115 axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element, respectively, being the same used in the TFEM [44].

116

117 Using Eqs. (1), the homogeneous internal forces fields can be easily computed from the homogeneous transverse

118 displacement and cross-section rotation fields presented in Eqs. (10) and (11), respectively, getting as result:

𝑀ℎ (𝑥) = 𝜓2𝑀 (𝑥)𝑣𝑖 + 𝜓3𝑀 (𝑥)𝜃𝑖 + 𝜓5𝑀 (𝑥)𝑣𝑗 + 𝜓6𝑀 (𝑥)𝜃𝑗 (14a)

𝑉ℎ (𝑥) = 𝜓2𝑉 (𝑥)𝑣𝑖 + 𝜓3𝑉 (𝑥)𝜃𝑖 + 𝜓5𝑉 (𝑥)𝑣𝑗 + 𝜓6𝑉 (𝑥)𝜃𝑗 (14b)

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 7 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

119 where

3 (𝐿) 4 (𝐿)
𝜓2𝑀 (𝑥) = − 𝑥 (15a)
𝐷 𝐷
−1 (𝐿) + 5 (𝐿) + 3 (𝐿) ⋅ 𝐿 3 (𝐿)
𝜓3𝑀 (𝑥) = − 𝑥 (15b)
𝐷 𝐷
 (𝐿) 4 (𝐿)
𝜓5𝑀 (𝑥) = − 3 + 𝑥 (15c)
𝐷 𝐷
 (𝐿) − 5 (𝐿) 2 (𝐿)
𝜓6𝑀 (𝑥) = 1 − 𝑥 (15d)
𝐷 𝐷

120 and

4 (𝐿)
𝜓2𝑉 (𝑥) = (16a)
𝐷
3 (𝐿)
𝑉
𝜓3 (𝑥) = (16b)
𝐷
4 (𝐿)
𝑉
𝜓5 (𝑥) = − (16c)
𝐷
2 (𝐿)
𝜓6𝑉 (𝑥) = (16d)
𝐷

121 being the functions 𝜓𝑛𝑀 (𝑥) and 𝜓𝑛𝑉 (𝑥) (𝑛 = 2, 3, 5, 6) defined as the bending moment and shear force shape functions,

122 respectively.

123

124 From the evaluation of the homogeneous internal force fields at 𝑥 = 0 and 𝑥 = 𝐿, the relation between the generalized

125 forces and displacements at the ends of the element are obtained (compare Fig. 2 with Fig. 4(a) to see the difference

126 between the positive sign conventions for the internal forces and the forces at the ends of the elements):

⎧ ℎ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
⎪𝐹 𝑌𝑖 ⎪ ⎪ −𝑉ℎ (0) ⎪ ⎢𝑘22 𝑘23 𝑘25 𝑘26 ⎥ ⎪ 𝑣𝑖 ⎪
⎪ ℎ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪
⎪ 𝑀𝑖 ⎪ ⎪−𝑀ℎ (0)⎪ ⎢𝑘32 𝑘33 𝑘35 𝑘36 ⎥ ⎪ 𝜃𝑖 ⎪
⎨ ⎬=⎨ ⎬=⎢ ⎥⎨ ⎬ (17)
⎪𝐹 𝑌𝑗ℎ ⎪ ⎪ 𝑉ℎ (𝐿) ⎪ ⎢𝑘52 𝑘53 𝑘55 𝑘56 ⎥ ⎪𝑣𝑗 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪
⎪ 𝑀 ℎ ⎪ ⎪ 𝑀ℎ (𝐿) ⎪ ⎢𝑘62 𝑘63 𝑘65 𝑘66 ⎥⎦ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ 𝑗 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎣ ⎩ 𝜃𝑗 ⎭

127 being

4 (𝐿)
𝑘22 = 𝑘55 = −𝑘25 = −𝑘52 = − (18a)
𝐷
3 (𝐿)
𝑘23 = 𝑘32 = −𝑘35 = −𝑘53 =− (18b)
𝐷
2 (𝐿)
𝑘26 = 𝑘62 = −𝑘56 = −𝑘65 =− (18c)
𝐷

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 8 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

1 (𝐿) − 5 (𝐿) − 3 (𝐿) ⋅ 𝐿

𝑘33 = (18d)
𝐷
1 (𝐿) − 5 (𝐿)
𝑘36 = 𝑘63 =− (18e)
𝐷
1 (𝐿) − 5 (𝐿) − 2 (𝐿) ⋅ 𝐿
𝑘66 = (18f)
𝐷

128 where the following identity has been used:

2 (𝑥) + 3 (𝑥) = 4 (𝑥) ⋅ 𝑥 (19)

129 The 4 × 4 matrix presented in Eq. (17) is the analytic stiffness matrix for the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam

130 element, which is equivalent the one used in the TFEM [16, 19, 26].

131 3.3. Fixed response

132 The governing BVP for the fixed response of the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element is (see Fig. 4(b)):

{ [ ]}
d d𝑣𝑓
𝐴𝑠 𝐺(𝑥) (𝑥) − 𝜃𝑓 (𝑥) = −𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) (20a)
d𝑥 d𝑥
[ ]
d2 d𝜃𝑓 d𝑞
𝐸𝐼(𝑥) (𝑥) = 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) − 𝜃 (𝑥) (20b)
d𝑥 2 d𝑥 d𝑥

𝑣𝑓 (0) = 0 (20c)

𝜃𝑓 (0) = 0 (20d)

𝑣𝑓 (𝐿) = 0 (20e)

𝜃𝑓 (𝐿) = 0 (20f)

133 To solve the BVP (20) the fixed response will be decomposed into two parts, one generated by the arbitrary external

134 load 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) (denoted using the superscript 𝑣), and the other part generated by the arbitrary external moments 𝑞𝜃 (𝑥)

135 (denoted using the superscript 𝜃) as presented in Fig. 5. Being the transverse displacement, cross-section rotation,

136 bending moment, and shear force fixed fields defined respectively, as:

𝑣𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝑣𝑣𝑓 (𝑥) + 𝑣𝜃𝑓 (𝑥) (21a)

𝜃𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝜃𝑓𝑣 (𝑥) + 𝜃𝑓𝜃 (𝑥) (21b)

𝑀𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝑀𝑓𝑣 (𝑥) + 𝑀𝑓𝜃 (𝑥) (21c)

𝑉𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝑉𝑓𝑣 (𝑥) + 𝑉𝑓𝜃 (𝑥) (21d)

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 9 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

qv (x)

y y
Mjvf qθ (x) Mjθf
Mivf Miθf
x x
i j i j
F Yivf F Yjvf F Yiθf F Yjθf
E(x), G(x), As (x), I(x) E(x), G(x), As (x), I(x)
L L

(a) Fixed response due to the external transverse load 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥). (b) Fixed response due to the external bending moment 𝑞𝜃 (𝑥).

Fig. 5: Decomposition of the fixed response of the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element.

137 3.3.1. Fixed response due to 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥)

138 The displacement Green’s function 𝐺𝑦𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) associated with the studied element is defined as the transverse

139 displacement field when it is fixed and subjected to a point unit transverse external load at 𝜉 (see Fig. (6)). This

140 function has two intervals and is defined as follows:

⎧ 𝐼
⎪𝐺𝑦𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) 0<𝑥≤𝜉
𝐺𝑦𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) = ⎨ (22)
⎪𝐺𝐼𝐼 (𝑥, 𝜉) 𝜉≤𝑥<𝐿
⎩ 𝑦𝑦

141 being

𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊2𝑣 (𝑥)𝜓2𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝑊3𝑣 (𝑥)𝜓3𝑣 (𝜉) (23a)
𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊5𝑣 (𝑥)𝜓5𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝑊6𝑣 (𝑥)𝜓6𝑣 (𝜉) (23b)

142 where

𝑊2𝑣 (𝑥) = −1 (𝑥) + 5 (𝑥) (24a)

𝑊3𝑣 (𝑥) = 2 (𝑥) (24b)

𝑊5𝑣 (𝑥) = −1 (𝐿) + 5 (𝐿) + 𝑥 ⋅ 2 (𝐿) + 1 (𝑥) − 5 (𝑥) − 𝐿 ⋅ 2 (𝑥) (24c)
[ ] [ ]
𝑊6𝑣 (𝑥) = 𝑥 ⋅ 4 (𝐿) − 4 (𝑥) − 3 (𝐿) − 3 (𝑥) (24d)

143 The cross-section rotation field associated with the displacement Green’s function 𝐺𝑦𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) is called the rotation

144 Green’s function, which is expressed as 𝐺𝜃𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉), established as:

𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊2𝜃 (𝑥)𝜓2𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝑊3𝜃 (𝑥)𝜓3𝑣 (𝜉) (25a)
𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊5𝜃 (𝑥)𝜓5𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝑊6𝜃 (𝑥)𝜓6𝑣 (𝜉) (25b)

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 10 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

145 being

𝑊2𝜃 (𝑥) = −3 (𝑥) (26a)

𝑊3𝜃 (𝑥) = 4 (𝑥) (26b)

𝑊5𝜃 (𝑥) = 2 (𝐿) − 2 (𝑥) − (𝐿 − 𝑥) ⋅ 4 (𝑥) (26c)

𝑊6𝜃 (𝑥) = 4 (𝐿) − 4 (𝑥) (26d)

146 Following [34], the fixed displacement field 𝑣𝑣𝑓 (𝑥) and the fixed cross-section rotation field 𝜃𝑓𝑣 (𝑥) generated by the

147 external load 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) are computed as follows:

𝑥 𝐿
𝑣𝑣𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉)d𝜉 (27a)
∫0 ∫𝑥
𝑥 𝐿
𝜃𝑓𝑣 (𝑥) = 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉)d𝜉 (27b)
∫0 ∫𝑥

y 1
−ψ3v (ξ) −ψ6v (ξ)
x
i j
−ψ2v (ξ) −ψ5v (ξ)
ξ L−ξ

Fig. 6: Fixed axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element subjected to a external unit point load, and its reactions.

148 Replacing Eqs. (27) into Eqs. (1) are obtained the bending moment and shear force fields:

𝑥 𝐿
𝑀𝑓𝑣 (𝑥) = 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉)d𝜉 (28a)
∫0 ∫𝑥
𝑥 𝐿
𝑉𝑓𝑣 (𝑥) = 𝐺𝑉𝐼𝐼𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐺𝑉𝐼 𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉)d𝜉 (28b)
∫0 ∫𝑥

149 being the functions 𝐺𝑀𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) and 𝐺𝑉 𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) the bending moment and shear force Green’s functions associated with the

150 element presented in Fig. 6, i.e., the internal forces fields of the fixed axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element

151 subjected to a transverse point unit load located at 𝜉. Those functions also have two intervals and can be computed

152 from 𝐺𝑦𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) using Eqs. (1), or using simple statics based on the fact that their reactions are known (see Fig. 6):

𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊2𝑀 (𝑥)𝜓2𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝑊3𝑀 (𝑥)𝜓3𝑣 (𝜉) (29a)

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 11 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊5𝑀 (𝑥)𝜓5𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝑊6𝑀 (𝑥)𝜓6𝑣 (𝜉) (29b)

153 and

𝐺𝑉𝐼 𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊2𝑉 (𝑥)𝜓2𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝑊3𝑉 (𝑥)𝜓3𝑣 (𝜉) (30a)

𝐺𝑉𝐼𝐼𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊5𝑉 (𝑥)𝜓5𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝑊6𝑉 (𝑥)𝜓6𝑣 (𝜉) (30b)

154 where

𝑊2𝑀 (𝑥) = −𝑥 (31a)

𝑊3𝑀 (𝑥) = 1 (31b)

𝑊5𝑀 (𝑥) = −𝐿 + 𝑥 (31c)

𝑊6𝑀 (𝑥) = −1 (31d)

155 and

𝑊2𝑉 (𝑥) = 1 (32a)

𝑊3𝑉 (𝑥) = 0 (32b)

𝑊5𝑉 (𝑥) = −1 (32c)

𝑊6𝑉 (𝑥) = 0 (32d)

156 By evaluating Eqs. (28) at the ends of the fixed element, the fixed-end forces (reactions) generated by the arbitrary

157 external load 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) are obtained:

𝐿
𝐹 𝑌𝑖𝑣𝑓 = −𝑉𝑓𝑣 (0) = − 𝜓2𝑣 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥)d𝑥 (33a)
∫0
𝐿
𝑀𝑖𝑣𝑓 = −𝑀𝑓𝑣 (0) = − 𝜓3𝑣 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥)d𝑥 (33b)
∫0
𝐿
𝐹 𝑌𝑗𝑣𝑓 = 𝑉𝑓𝑣 (𝐿) = − 𝜓5𝑣 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥)d𝑥 (33c)
∫0
𝐿
𝑀𝑗𝑣𝑓 = 𝑀𝑓𝑣 (𝐿) = − 𝜓6𝑣 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥)d𝑥 (33d)
∫0

158 Being those equivalent to the ones used in the TFEM [19], and following the general form used in the FEM [42, 45].

159

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 12 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

160 To understand the meaning of Eqs. (33), note that the reactions of the fixed beam presented in Fig. (6) are the negative

161 of the shape functions 𝜓𝑛𝑣 (𝑥) (𝑛=2,3,5,6), i.e., the reactions generated by the unit point load located at 𝑥 (for ease of

162 the discussion 𝜉 has been changed to 𝑥). The term −𝜓𝑛𝑣 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥)d𝑥 can be interpreted as the reactions generated by the
𝐿
163 differential load 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥)d𝑥 located at 𝑥, and − ∫0 𝜓𝑛𝑣 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥)d𝑥 is the superposition of the reactions generated by all the

164 differential external loads from 𝑥 = 0 to 𝑥 = 𝐿.

165 3.3.2. Fixed response due to 𝑞𝜃 (𝑥)

166 To compute the response of the fixed axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element subjected to the external bending

167 moment 𝑞𝜃 (𝑥) (see Fig. 5(b)), a similar approach to the one used in the previous section for the external load 𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) will

168 be followed. To do this, it is necessary to use the response of a fixed element subjected to a unit point bending moment

169 as presented in Fig. 7.

y
−ψ3θ (ξ) 1 −ψ6θ (ξ)
x
i j
−ψ2θ (ξ) −ψ5θ (ξ)
ξ L−ξ

Fig. 7: Fixed axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element subjected to a external unit bending moment, and its reactions.

170 This response includes the Green’s functions 𝐺𝑦𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉), 𝐺𝜃𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉), 𝐺𝑀𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉) and 𝐺𝑉 𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉), for the transverse

171 displacement, rotation of the cross-section, bending moment, and shear force fields, respectively. Being those functions

172 defined as:

𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊2𝑣 (𝑥)𝜓2𝜃 (𝜉) + 𝑊3𝑣 (𝑥)𝜓3𝜃 (𝜉) (34a)
𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊5𝑣 (𝑥)𝜓5𝜃 (𝜉) + 𝑊6𝑣 (𝑥)𝜓6𝜃 (𝜉) (34b)

173

𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊2𝜃 (𝑥)𝜓2𝜃 (𝜉) + 𝑊3𝜃 (𝑥)𝜓3𝜃 (𝜉) (35a)
𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊5𝜃 (𝑥)𝜓5𝜃 (𝜉) + 𝑊6𝜃 (𝑥)𝜓6𝜃 (𝜉) (35b)

174

𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊2𝑀 (𝑥)𝜓2𝜃 (𝜉) + 𝑊3𝑀 (𝑥)𝜓3𝜃 (𝜉) (36a)

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 13 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊5𝑀 (𝑥)𝜓5𝜃 (𝜉) + 𝑊6𝑀 (𝑥)𝜓6𝜃 (𝜉) (36b)

175 and

𝐺𝑉𝐼 𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊2𝑉 (𝑥)𝜓2𝜃 (𝜉) + 𝑊3𝑉 (𝑥)𝜓3𝜃 (𝜉) (37a)

𝐺𝑉𝐼𝐼𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉) = 𝑊5𝑉 (𝑥)𝜓5𝜃 (𝜉) + 𝑊6𝑉 (𝑥)𝜓6𝜃 (𝜉) (37b)

176 From the comparison of the Green’s functions of the fixed element subjected to the external transverse point load (Eqs.

177 (23), (25), (29) and (30)) with those generated by the external point bending moment (Eqs. (34) to (37)), it is clear

178 that the latter can be computed from the former by simply replacing the shape functions 𝜓𝑛𝑣 (𝜉) by 𝜓𝑛𝜃 (𝜉) (𝑛 = 2, 3, 5, 6).

179

180 Following the same principle used in section 3.3.1, the fixed transverse displacement, cross-section rotation, bending

181 moment, and shear force fields generated by the external bending moment 𝑞𝜃 (𝑥), are respectively:

𝑥 𝐿
𝑣𝜃𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉)d𝜉 (38a)
∫0 ∫𝑥
𝑥 𝐿
𝜃𝑓𝜃 (𝑥) = 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉)d𝜉 (38b)
∫0 ∫𝑥
𝑥 𝐿
𝑀𝑓𝜃 (𝑥) = 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉)d𝜉 (38c)
∫0 ∫𝑥
𝑥 𝐿
𝑉𝑓𝜃 (𝑥) = 𝐺𝑉𝐼𝐼𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐺𝑉𝐼 𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉)d𝜉 (38d)
∫0 ∫𝑥

182 From the internal forces fields presented in Eqs. (38c) and (38d), the fixed end forces due to the external bending

183 moment 𝑞𝜃 (𝑥) are:

𝐿
𝐹 𝑌𝑖𝜃𝑓 = −𝑉𝑓𝜃 (0) = − 𝜓2𝜃 (𝑥)𝑞𝜃 (𝑥)d𝑥 (39a)
∫0
𝐿
𝑀𝑖𝜃𝑓 = −𝑀𝑓𝜃 (0) = − 𝜓3𝜃 (𝑥)𝑞𝜃 (𝑥)d𝑥 (39b)
∫0
𝐿
𝐹 𝑌𝑗𝜃𝑓 = 𝑉𝑓𝜃 (𝐿) = − 𝜓5𝜃 (𝑥)𝑞𝜃 (𝑥)d𝑥 (39c)
∫0
𝐿
𝑀𝑗𝜃𝑓 = 𝑀𝑓𝜃 (𝐿) = − 𝜓6𝜃 (𝑥)𝑞𝜃 (𝑥)d𝑥 (39d)
∫0

184 4. Formulation of the GFSM for the axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame element

185 The formulation of the GFSM for the axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame element presented in Fig. 1 is obtained

186 by superposing the formulations of the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam element (Section 3) and the axially

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 14 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

187 non-uniform rod element presented in [34]. The exact relation between forces and displacements at the frame element

188 ends is:

⎧ ⎫ ⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫ ⎧ 𝐿 ⎫
⎪ 𝐹 𝑋𝑖 ⎪ ⎢𝑘11 0 0 𝑘14 0 0 ⎥ ⎪ 𝑢𝑖 ⎪ ⎪ ∫0 𝜓1𝑢 (𝑥)𝑝(𝑥)d𝑥 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 𝐿 [ 𝑣 ] ⎪
⎪ 𝐹 𝑌𝑖 ⎪ ⎢ 0 𝑘22 𝑘23 0 𝑘25 𝑘26 ⎥ ⎪ 𝑣𝑖 ⎪ ⎪∫0 𝜓2 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) + 𝜓2 (𝑥)𝑞𝜃 (𝑥) d𝑥⎪
𝜃
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 𝐿 [ ] ⎪
⎪ 𝑖⎪ ⎢ 0
𝑀 𝑘32 𝑘33 0 𝑘35 𝑘36 ⎥ ⎪ 𝜃𝑖 ⎪ ⎪∫0 𝜓3𝑣 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) + 𝜓3𝜃 (𝑥)𝑞𝜃 (𝑥) d𝑥⎪
⎨ ⎬=⎢ ⎥⎨ ⎬ − ⎨ ⎬ (40)
⎪𝐹 𝑋 ⎪ ⎢𝑘 0 0 𝑘44 0 ⎥ ⎪
0 ⎥ ⎪𝑢𝑗 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 𝐿 𝑢
∫0 𝜓4 (𝑥)𝑝(𝑥)d𝑥 ⎪
⎪ 𝑗⎪ ⎢ 41 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ [ ] ⎪
⎪𝐹𝑌 ⎪ ⎢ 0 𝑘52 𝑘53 0 𝑘55 𝑘56 ⎥ ⎪𝑣𝑗 ⎪ ⎪∫0 𝜓5𝑣 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) + 𝜓5𝜃 (𝑥)𝑞𝜃 (𝑥) d𝑥⎪
𝐿
⎪ 𝑗⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ [ ] ⎪
⎪ 𝑀𝑗 ⎪ ⎢ 0 𝑘62 𝑘63 0 𝑘65 𝑘66 ⎥⎦ ⎪ 𝜃 ⎪ ⎪∫ 𝜓 𝑣 (𝑥)𝑞𝑣 (𝑥) + 𝜓 𝜃 (𝑥)𝑞𝜃 (𝑥) d𝑥⎪
𝐿
⎩ ⎭ ⎣ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ 0
𝑗 6 6 ⎭

189 The axial displacement, transverse displacement, and cross-section rotation fields are obtained from Eqs. (41), (42),

190 and (43), respectively, while the axial force, bending moment, and shear force fields are computed from Eqs. (44),

191 (45), and (46), respectively. It is evident that in the case of a FEM formulation employing analytic shape functions and

192 stiffness matrices, such as TFEM, the GFSM can be utilized to “fix” their results as an additional post-processing step

193 during the analysis, involving the addition of the fixed response for each element.

𝑥 𝐿
𝑢(𝑥) = 𝜓1𝑢 (𝑥)𝑢𝑖 + 𝜓4𝑢 (𝑥)𝑢𝑗 + 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑥𝑥 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑝(𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝑥𝑥 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑝(𝜉)d𝜉 (41)
∫0 ∫𝑥
194

𝑣(𝑥) = 𝜓2𝑣 (𝑥)𝑣𝑖 + 𝜓3𝑣 (𝑥)𝜃𝑖 + 𝜓5𝑣 (𝑥)𝑣𝑗 + 𝜓6𝑣 (𝑥)𝜃𝑗

𝑥[ ] 𝐿[ ]
+ 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝐼
(𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝐺𝑦𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉) d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝑦𝑦 𝐼
(𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝐺𝑦𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉) d𝜉 (42)
∫0 ∫𝑥
195

𝜃(𝑥) = 𝜓2𝜃 (𝑥)𝑣𝑖 + 𝜓3𝜃 (𝑥)𝜃𝑖 + 𝜓5𝜃 (𝑥)𝑣𝑗 + 𝜓6𝜃 (𝑥)𝜃𝑗

𝑥[ ] 𝐿[ ]
+ 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝑦 𝐼𝐼
(𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝐺𝜃𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉) d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝜃𝑦 𝐼
(𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝐺𝜃𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉) d𝜉 (43)
∫0 ∫𝑥
196
𝑥 𝐿
𝑃 (𝑥) = 𝜓1𝑃 (𝑥)𝑢𝑖 + 𝜓4𝑃 (𝑥)𝑢𝑗 + 𝐺𝑃𝐼𝐼𝑥 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑝(𝜉)d𝜉 + 𝐺𝑃𝐼 𝑥 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑝(𝜉)d𝜉 (44)
∫0 ∫𝑥
197

𝑀(𝑥) = 𝜓2𝑀 (𝑥)𝑣𝑖 + 𝜓3𝑀 (𝑥)𝜃𝑖 + 𝜓5𝑀 (𝑥)𝑣𝑗 + 𝜓6𝑀 (𝑥)𝜃𝑗

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 15 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading
𝑥[ ] 𝐿[ ]
+ 𝐼𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝑦 𝐼𝐼
(𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝐺𝑀𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉) d𝜉 + 𝐼
𝐺𝑀𝑦 𝐼
(𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝐺𝑀𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉) d𝜉 (45)
∫0 ∫𝑥
198

𝑉 (𝑥) = 𝜓2𝑉 (𝑥)𝑣𝑖 + 𝜓3𝑉 (𝑥)𝜃𝑖 + 𝜓5𝑉 (𝑥)𝑣𝑗 + 𝜓6𝑉 (𝑥)𝜃𝑗

𝑥[ ] 𝐿[ ]
+ 𝐺𝑉𝐼𝐼𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝐺𝑉𝐼𝐼𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉) d𝜉 + 𝐺𝑉𝐼 𝑦 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝑣 (𝜉) + 𝐺𝑉𝐼 𝜃 (𝑥, 𝜉)𝑞𝜃 (𝜉) d𝜉 (46)
∫0 ∫𝑥

199 5. Examples

200 5.1. Example 1

201 Compute the response of the axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam presented in Fig. 8, which has square cross-section

202 with sides of 𝐿∕20, linear elastic material with Poisson’s ratio of 0.2, and linearly varying Young’s modulus define as
( )
𝑥
203 𝐸(𝑥) = 𝐸0 1 − .
2𝐿

y y

L
A, As , I=Const
x 20 z
E = E0 (1 − )
1 x 2 L
20
2L
L

Fig. 8: Simple supported axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam.

204 Solution

205

206 The main mechanical and geometric properties of the beam are:

𝐸(𝑥) ( )
5 𝑥
𝐺(𝑥) = = 𝐸0 1 − (47a)
2(1 + 𝜈) 12 2𝐿
5 + 5𝜈 6
𝜅= = (47b)
6 + 5𝜈 7
𝐿2
𝐴= (47c)
400
𝐿4
𝐼= (47d)
1920000

207 Where the value of 𝜅 has been computed following [46, 47].

208

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 16 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

209 The transverse displacement and cross-section rotation fields obtained using the GFSM are presented in Eqs. (48) and

210 (49), respectively, with the former being the same as presented in Eq. (42) of [33].

𝑄 { ( 𝑥
)(
𝑥
)
𝑣(𝑥) = ln 1 − −7683360 + 3840000
𝐸0 2𝐿 𝐿
( )2 ( )3 }
𝑥 𝑥 𝑥
− [3843360 ln(2) + 1280000] + 960000 + 320000 (48)
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
211 { ( ) ( )2 }
𝑄 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥
𝜃(𝑥) = 3840000 ln 1 − + 1920000 + 960000 − 3843360 ln(2) + 2562240 (49)
𝐸0 𝐿 2𝐿 𝐿 𝐿

212 The internal force fields and reactions are not presented, as they can be easily obtained using statics.

213

214 Source file

215

216 From the following link can be downloaded the Python source file used to solve this example: https://figshare.

217 com/s/5a9f781626f433a9057e.

218 5.2. Example 2

219 Compute the response of the axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame presented in Fig. 9(a), which has 3 solid uniform

220 elements with circular cross-section of radius equal to 0.3m, linear elastic material with Poisson’s ratio of 0.2, and

221 axially varying Young’s modulus defined for each element as 𝐸𝐸 (𝑥′𝐸 ) = 𝐸𝐸0 exp(𝛼𝐸 𝑥′𝐸 ) (see Table 1 for the vales of

222 𝐸𝐸0 and 𝛼𝐸 ), being 𝑥′𝐸 the axial local axis of the element 𝐸 (see Fig. 9(b)).

Element 𝐸𝐸0 = 𝐸𝐸 (0) 𝐸𝐸 (𝐿𝐸 ) 𝛼𝐸

𝐴 2 × 107 3 × 107 ln(3∕2)∕5 ≈ 0.081093

𝐵 3 × 107 2 × 107 ln(2∕3)∕4 ≈ −0.135155

𝐶 2 × 107 3 × 107 ln(3∕2)∕5 ≈ 0.081093

Table 1

Properties to define the Young’s modulus of each element.

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 17 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

50kN/m
′
yB

yC
′
θ
qB (x′B ) = 3x′2
B [kN⋅m/m]
40kN 2 x′B B 3

xC
′
20kN⋅m

y A C

1m

x′
A
1 4

y′
A
1m x

(a) Model. (b) Discretization.

Fig. 9: Model and discretization of the axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame.

223 Calculation of the generalized nodal displacements

⎧0⎫ ⎡ 2797411 653363 31033 −2292851 0 0 ⎤ ⎧𝑢 ⎫ ⎧ −0.961 ⎫

⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ 2⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪0⎪ ⎢ 653363 949625 79094 0 −63937 89442 ⎥ ⎪𝑣2 ⎪ ⎪102.300⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪0⎪ ⎢ 31033 79094 349958 0 −102369 91616 ⎥ ⎪𝜃2 ⎪ ⎪ 12.524 ⎪
⎨ ⎬=⎢ ⎥⎨ ⎬ + ⎨ ⎬ (50)
⎪0⎪ ⎢−2292851 0 0 2797411 −653363 27114 ⎥ ⎪𝑢3 ⎪ ⎪ 6.178 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪0⎪ ⎢ 0 −63937 −102369 −653363 949625 −69106⎥ ⎪𝑣3 ⎪ ⎪ 43.230 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪0⎪ ⎢ 0 89442 91616 27114 −69106 286686 ⎥⎦ ⎪ 𝜃 ⎪ ⎪ −5.532 ⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎣ ⎩ 3⎭ ⎩ ⎭

224 Being its solution:

⎧𝑢 ⎫ ⎧ 2.65126 × 10−4 m ⎫
⎪ 2⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪𝑣2 ⎪ ⎪ −2.94144 × 10 m ⎪
−4

⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪𝜃2 ⎪ ⎪ 9.74546 × 10−6 rad ⎪
⎨ ⎬=⎨ ⎬ (51)
⎪𝑢3 ⎪ ⎪ 2.39364 × 10−4 m ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪𝑣3 ⎪ ⎪ 1.08523 × 10−4 m ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪𝜃 ⎪ ⎪1.11472 × 10−4 rad.⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎩
3 ⎭

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 18 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

225 Computation of the reactions

⎧𝐹 𝑋 ⎫ ⎡−504559 −653363 −31033 0 0 0⎤ ⎧𝑢 ⎫ ⎧ 0.961 ⎫ ⎧ 59.069kN ⎫

⎪ 1⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ 2⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ 𝐹 𝑌1 ⎪ ⎢−653363 −885688 23275 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎪𝑣2 ⎪ ⎪ 8.933 ⎪ ⎪ 96.456kN ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ 𝑀1 ⎪ ⎢ 27114 −20336 59489 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎪𝜃2 ⎪ ⎪ 5.945 ⎪ ⎪19.695kN ⋅ m⎪
⎨ ⎬=⎢ ⎥ ⎨ ⎬+⎨ ⎬=⎨ ⎬
⎪𝐹 𝑋4 ⎪ ⎢ 0 0 0 −504559 653363 −27114⎥ ⎪𝑢3 ⎪ ⎪−6.178⎪ ⎪ −59.069kN ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ 𝐹 𝑌4 ⎪ ⎢ 0 0 0 653363 −885688 −20336⎥ ⎪𝑣3 ⎪ ⎪ 10.537 ⎪ ⎪ 68.544kN ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪𝑀 ⎪ ⎢ 0 0 0 31033 23275 ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
59489 ⎦ ⎩𝜃3 ⎭ ⎩−3.511⎭ ⎩13.075kN ⋅ m⎪
⎩ 4⎭ ⎣ ⎭
(52)

226 Calculation of the displacement fields

227

228 Fig. 10 compares the deformed shapes of the structure obtained using the GFSM with 3 elements, and the FEM with

229 45 and 360 elements using the OpenSees software [48], a scale factor of 3000 has been used. It is clear that the two

230 methods have and excellent agreement, especially for the denser FEM mesh.

Undeformed shape
GFSM - 3 elements
FEM - 45 elements
FEM - 360 elements

Fig. 10: Deformed shape of the structure with a scale factor of 3000, using the GFSM with 3 elements presented in Fig.

9(b), and two FEM discretizations using 45 and 360 FEs (15 and 120 FEs per structural member, respectively).

231 Calculation of the internal forces fields

232

233 Figs. 11 compares the internal forces fields computed with the GFSM and the two previously mentioned FEM meshes.

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 19 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

PB

PC
VB

VC
x′B
x′B

xC
′

xC
′
GFSM - 3 elements
x′
A
A

FEM - 45 elements GFSM - 3 elements

P

x′
A
FEM - 360 elements
0

50A
FEM - 45 elements

50
V
− 1 70

−7 40
FEM - 360 elements

0
−
40

−1
0

−5
−5

0
(a) Axial force [kN]. (b) Shear force [kN].

MC
MB

x′B

xC
′
GFSM - 3 elements
x′
A
40A

FEM - 45 elements

40
M

FEM - 360 elements

−4 0

0
0

−4
0
(c) Bending moment [kN⋅m].

Fig. 11: Internal forces fields computed using the GFSM with 3 elements (dashed black line) and the FEM using 45 and

360 FEs (15 and 45 FEs by structural element, respectively).

234 Again, the GFSM and the denser FEM mesh agree excellent.

235

236 Source file

237

238 From the following link can be downloaded the Python source file used to solve this example: https://figshare.

239 com/s/5a965c72804496a0cf9d.

240 6. Conclusions

241 1. This paper presents the formulation of the GFSM for the static analysis of axially non-uniform Timoshenko

242 beams and frames subjected to arbitrary external loads and bending moments, enabling the calculation of their

243 closed-form solutions.

244 2. The GFSM is an analytic mesh-reduction method that is closely related to the FEM and shares with it fundamental

245 features such as stiffness matrices, shape functions, and fixed end forces. In the case of a FEM formulation that

246 uses analytic shape functions and stiffness matrices, such as the TFEM, the GFSM can be used to “fix” the FEM

247 results just as an additional post-processing step.

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 20 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

248 3. Because the formulation of the GFSM is based on the exact solutions of the governing differential equations

249 (strong formulation), instead of an approximated weak formulation like in the FEM, it allows for 100% coherent

250 solutions. This eliminates common problems such as shear locking [49], sawtooth behavior in the internal forces

251 fields, or discrepancies between the internal forces fields and the elements end forces, common in FEM solutions.

252 4. To demonstrate the benefits of the GFSM for obtaining closed-form solutions of axially non-uniform Timoshenko

253 beams and frames, two examples were presented. The first example computed the response of a single-span,

254 axially non-uniform Timoshenko beam and compared it with the analytical solution presented in [33]. The second

255 example presented the response of a plane, axially non-uniform Timoshenko frame and compared it to the FEM

256 solution using very dense meshes. In both cases, closed-form solutions were obtained.

257 CRediT authorship contribution statement

258

259 Juan Camilo Molina-Villegas: Conceptualization, methodology, writing original draft, validation Jorge Eliecer

260 Ballesteros Ortega Conceptualization, methodology, review Simón Benítez Soto: software, validation, reviewing

261 and editing.

262

263 Declaration of Competing Interest

264

265 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have

266 appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

267

268 Data Availability

269

270 No data was used for the research described in the article. The Python code used for the elaboration of both examples

271 is presented at the end of each one.

272 References
273 [1] N. El-Mezaini, C. Balkaya, E. Çitipitiogˇlu, Analysis of frames with nonprismatic members, Journal of Structural Engineering 117 (6) (1991)

274 1573–1592. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:6(1573).

275 [2] V. Mercuri, G. Balduzzi, D. Asprone, F. Auricchio, Structural analysis of non-prismatic beams: Critical issues, accurate stress recovery, and

276 analytical definition of the finite element (fe) stiffness matrix, Engineering Structures 213 (2020) 110252. doi:https://doi.org/10.

277 1016/j.engstruct.2020.110252.

278 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029619321601

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 21 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

279 [3] V. Birman, L. W. Byrd, Modeling and analysis of functionally graded materials and structures, Applied Mechanics Reviews 60 (5) (2007)

280 195–216. doi:10.1115/1.2777164.

281 [4] B. Saleh, J. Jiang, R. Fathi, T. Al-hababi, Q. Xu, L. Wang, D. Song, A. Ma, 30 years of functionally graded materials: An overview of

282 manufacturing methods, applications and future challenges, Composites Part B: Engineering 201 (2020) 108376. doi:https://doi.org/

283 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108376.

284 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359836820334247

285 [5] A. Gupta, M. Talha, Recent development in modeling and analysis of functionally graded materials and structures, Progress in Aerospace

286 Sciences 79 (2015) 1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.07.001.

287 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376042115000561

288 [6] S. Akshaya, A. Prakash, J. Bharati Raj, Applications of functionally graded materials in structural engineering—a review, in: National

289 Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction Management, Springer, 2020, pp. 553–566.

290 [7] D. Cao, Y. Gao, M. Yao, W. Zhang, Free vibration of axially functionally graded beams using the asymptotic development method, Engineering

291 Structures 173 (2018) 442–448. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.111.

292 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029618306746

293 [8] S. A. Faghidian, I. Elishakoff, The tale of shear coefficients in timoshenko–ehrenfest beam theory: 130 years of progress, Meccanica 58 (1)

294 (2023) 97–108.

295 [9] G. Nie, Z. Zhong, S. Chen, Analytical solution for a functionally graded beam with arbitrary graded material properties, Composites Part B:

296 Engineering 44 (1) (2013) 274–282. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.05.029.

297 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359836812003551

298 [10] M. Vilar, D. Hadjiloizi, P. K. Masjedi, P. M. Weaver, Stress analysis of generally asymmetric non-prismatic beams subject to arbitrary loads,

299 European Journal of Mechanics - A/Solids 90 (2021) 104284. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2021.104284.

300 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0997753821000668

301 [11] N. K. Shakya, S. S. Padhee, Asymptotic analysis of timoshenko-like orthotropic beam with elliptical cross-section, European Journal of

302 Mechanics - A/Solids 102 (2023) 105100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2023.105100.

303 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0997753823001924

304 [12] I. Elishakoff, Handbook on Timoshenko-Ehrenfest beam and Uflyand-Mindlin plate theories, World Scientific, 2020.

305 [13] D. Karabalis, D. Beskos, Static, dynamic and stability analysis of structures composed of tapered beams, Computers & Structures 16 (6) (1983)

306 731–748. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(83)90064-0.

307 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0045794983900640

308 [14] M. Eisenberger, Explicit stiffness matrices for non-prismatic members, Computers & Structures 20 (4) (1985) 715–720. doi:https:

309 //doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(85)90032-X.

310 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004579498590032X

311 [15] J. D. Aristizabal-Ochoa, Tapered beam and column elements in unbraced frame structures, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 1 (1)

312 (1987) 35–49. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(1987)1:1(35).

313 [16] M. Eisenberger, Exact solution for general variable cross-section members, Computers & Structures 41 (4) (1991) 765–772. doi:https:

314 //doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(91)90186-P.

315 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004579499190186P

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 22 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

316 [17] J. Murin, V. Kutis, 3d-beam element with continuous variation of the cross-sectional area, Computers & Structures 80 (3) (2002) 329–338.

317 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(01)00173-0.

318 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045794901001730

319 [18] H. J. Al-Gahtani, Exact stiffnesses for tapered members, Journal of Structural Engineering 122 (10) (1996) 1234–1239. doi:10.1061/

320 (ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:10(1234).

321 [19] L. Yao-Zhi, X. Xian, W. Fang, Accurate stiffness matrix for nonprismatic members, Journal of Structural Engineering 133 (8) (2007) 1168–

322 1175. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:8(1168).

323 URL https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:8(1168)

324 [20] E. Jones, et al., The flexure of a non-uniform beam, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5 (5) (1955) 799–806.

325 [21] F. Romano, G. Zingone, Deflections of beams with varying rectangular cross section, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 118 (10) (1992)

326 2128–2134. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1992)118:10(2128).

327 [22] F. Romano, G. Zingone, Deflections of members with variable circular cross-section, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 34 (6)

328 (1992) 419–434. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7403(92)90009-6.

329 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020740392900096

330 [23] B. Sankar, An elasticity solution for functionally graded beams, Composites Science and Technology 61 (5) (2001) 689–696. doi:https:

331 //doi.org/10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00007-0.

332 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266353801000070

333 [24] Q. Yang, B. Zheng, K. Zhang, J. Li, Elastic solutions of a functionally graded cantilever beam with different modulus in tension and compression

334 under bending loads, Applied Mathematical Modelling 38 (4) (2014) 1403–1416. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.08.021.

335 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X13005313

336 [25] M. Eisenberger, Stiffness matrices for non-prismatic members including transverse shear, Computers & Structures 40 (4) (1991) 831–835.

337 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(91)90312-A.

338 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004579499190312A

339 [26] A. Tena-Colunga, Stiffness formulation for nonprismatic beam elements, Journal of Structural Engineering 122 (12) (1996) 1484–1489.

340 doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:12(1484).

341 [27] A. Shooshtari, R. Khajavi, An efficient procedure to find shape functions and stiffness matrices of nonprismatic Euler–Bernoulli and

342 Timoshenko beam elements, European Journal of Mechanics - A/Solids 29 (5) (2010) 826–836. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

343 euromechsol.2010.04.003.

344 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0997753810000586

345 [28] A. Palacio-Betancur, J. Darío Aristizabal-Ochoa, Second-order stiffness matrix and loading vector of a tapered rectangular Timoshenko beam-

346 column with semirigid connections, Structures 15 (2018) 211–223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.07.002.

347 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352012418300663

348 [29] O. E. Gendy, E. Sallam, M. A. Mohamedien, Finite element formulation of Timoshenko tapered beam-column element for large displacement

349 analysis based on the exact shape functions, Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 23 (3) (2022) 269–288. arXiv:https://doi.

350 org/10.1080/13287982.2022.2070958, doi:10.1080/13287982.2022.2070958.

351 URL https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2022.2070958

352 [30] S. N. Chockalingam, V. Pandurangan, M. Nithyadharan, Timoshenko beam formulation for in-plane behaviour of tapered monosymmetric

353 i-beams: Analytical solution and exact stiffness matrix, Thin-Walled Structures 162 (2021) 107604. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 23 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

354 tws.2021.107604.

355 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263823121001269

356 [31] F. Romano, Deflections of Timoshenko beam with varying cross-section, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 38 (8) (1996) 1017–

357 1035. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7403(95)00092-5.

358 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020740395000925

359 [32] S. J. Medwadowski, Nonprismatic shear beams, Journal of Structural Engineering 110 (5) (1984) 1067–1082. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)

360 0733-9445(1984)110:5(1067).

361 [33] S. Lee, Y. Kuo, Static analysis of nonuniform Timoshenko beams, Computers & Structures 46 (5) (1993) 813–820. doi:https://doi.org/

362 10.1016/0045-7949(93)90144-3.

363 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0045794993901443

364 [34] J. C. Molina-Villegas, J. E. Ballesteros Ortega, G. Martínez Martínez, Closed-form solution for non-uniform Euler–Bernoulli beams and

365 frames, Engineering Structures 292 (2023) 116381. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116381.

366 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029623007964

367 [35] F. W. Williams, D. Kennedy, M. S. Djoudi, Exact determinant for infinite order FEM representation of a Timoshenko beam–column via

368 improved transcendental member stiffness matrices, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 59 (10) (2004) 1355–1371.

369 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/nme.919, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.919.

370 URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nme.919

371 [36] S. Adhikari, Exact transcendental stiffness matrices of general beam-columns embedded in elastic mediums, Computers & Structures 255

372 (2021) 106617. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2021.106617.

373 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045794921001395

374 [37] J. C. Molina-Villegas, J. E. Ballesteros Ortega, D. Ruiz Cardona, Formulation of the green’s functions stiffness method for euler–bernoulli

375 beams on elastic winkler foundation with semi-rigid connections, Engineering Structures 266 (2022) 114616. doi:https://doi.org/10.

376 1016/j.engstruct.2022.114616.

377 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029622007155

378 [38] J. C. Molina-Villegas, J. E. Ballesteros Ortega, Closed-form solution of timoshenko frames using the green’s function stiffness method,

379 International Journal of Solids and Structures 269 (2023) 112180. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2023.112180.

380 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002076832300077X

381 [39] J. C. Molina-Villegas, J. E. Ballesteros Ortega, Closed-form solution of Timoshenko frames with semi-rigid connections, Structures 48 (2023)

382 212–225. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.12.082.

383 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235201242201270X

384 [40] J. C. Molina-Villegas, J. E. Ballesteros Ortega, Closed-form solution of euler–bernoulli frames in the frequency domain, Engineering Analysis

385 with Boundary Elements 155 (2023) 682–695. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2023.06.027.

386 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955799723003430

387 [41] S. A. Faghidian, I. Elishakoff, The tale of shear coefficients in Timoshenko–Ehrenfest beam theory: 130 years of progress, Meccanica 58 (1)

388 (2023) 97–108.

389 [42] J. N. Reddy, Introduction to the finite element method, McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.

390 [43] Y. Huang, Z.-Y. Ouyang, Exact solution for bending analysis of two-directional functionally graded Timoshenko beams, Archive of Applied

391 Mechanics 90 (5) (2020) 1005–1023. doi:10.1007/s00419-019-01655-5.

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 24 of 25

 Closed-form solutions for axially non-uniform Timoshenko beams and frames under static loading

392 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-019-01655-5

393 [44] S. Tudjono, A. Han, D.-K. Nguyen, S. Kiryu, B. S. Gan, Exact shape functions for timoshenko beam element, IOSR Journal of Computer

394 Engineering 19 (03) (2017) 12–20.

395 [45] K.-J. Bathe, Finite element procedures, Klaus-Jurgen Bathe, 2006.

396 [46] T. Kaneko, On Timoshenko's correction for shear in vibrating beams, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 8 (16) (1975) 1927–1936.

397 doi:10.1088/0022-3727/8/16/003.

398 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/8/16/003

399 [47] H. E. Rosinger, I. G. Ritchie, On Timoshenko's correction for shear in vibrating isotropic beams, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 10 (11)

400 (1977) 1461–1466. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/10/11/009.

401 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/10/11/009

402 [48] F. McKenna, M. H. Scott, G. L. Fenves, Nonlinear finite-element analysis software architecture using object composition, Journal of Computing

403 in Civil Engineering 24 (1) (2010) 95–107. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000002.

404 [49] J. Rakowski, The interpretation of the shear locking in beam elements, Computers & Structures 37 (5) (1990) 769–776. doi:https:

405 //doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(90)90106-C.

406 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004579499090106C

J.C. Molina-Villegas et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 25 of 25