Computers & Structures Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.

473-481, 1993 CWM-7949/93

s6.clo
+ 0.00
Printed in Gnat Britain. 0 1993
PcrpmonFTM Ltd

AN IMPROVED TWO-NODE TIMOSHENKO BEAM

FINITE ELEMENT
Z. FRIEDMAN and J. B. KOSMATKA

Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Science, University of California,

San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A.

(Received 24 February 1992)

Abstract-The stiffness, mass, and consistent force matrices for a simple two-node Timoshenko beam
element are developed based upon Hamilton’s principle. Cub& and quadratic Lagrangian polynomials are
used for the transverse and rotational displacements, respectively, where the polynomials are made
interdependent by requiring them to satisfy the two homogeneous differential equations associated with
Timoshenko’s beam theory. The resulting stiffness matrix, which can be exactly integrated and is free of
‘shear-locking’, is in agreement with the exact Timoshenko beam stiffness matrix. Numerical results are
presented to show that the current element exactly predicts the displacement of a short beam subjected
to complex distributed loadings using only one element, and the current element predicts shear and
moment resultants and natural frequencies better than existing Timoshenko beam elements.

INTRODUCTION librium. Other developers [13, 141tried different order

Analysts interested in studying the static and dynamic
behavior of structures composed of short beams need
a reliable beam finite element that includes both
transverse shear deformation and rotatory inertia.
Beam finite elements which approximate these effects
based upon Timoshenko’s beam theory [ 1,2] are gen-
erally developed using one or two approaches. The
first approach is based upon a direct flexibility ap-
proach in which the original differential equations are
integrated and manipulated in a way that the
force-displacement relations are obtained at the
nodes. Examples include [3-71. This approach will
produce a stiffness matrix which is in agreement with
the exact stiffness matrix developed by Przemiene-
icki [8] and thus one needs only a single element to
predict the exact static displacement of a short beam
subjected to discrete nodal forces. But this approach
has a serious drawback in that a compatible (i.e.,
exact) consistent force matrix or mass matrix cannot
be developed and thus one cannot study either the
static behavior of a short beam subjected to dis-
tributed loads or the vibrational behavior of short
beams.
The second approach involves using variational
principles (i.e., either the principle of minimum po-
tential energy or the principle of virtual work) to
formulate the element stiffness, mass, and force
matrices. Here the distribution of the two kinematic
variables that describe the beam translation and
rotation are assumed using Lagrangian interpolation
functions. Early ‘higher-order’ elements [9-121 used
the same order interpolation polynomials for both of
the kinematic variables, where the order of the se-
lected polynomial is higher than the minimum order
needed to satisfy the differential equations of equi-
polynomials for the two different variables, where
again the order of one of the polynomials was larger
than required. All of these elements [g-14] gave
reasonable results for short thick beams, but pro-
duced overly stiff results (commonly known as ‘shear-
locking’) for long slender beams. Furthermore, the
resulting elements had either more than two nodes
(i.e., end nodes plus internal nodes) or two nodes with
more than two degrees-of-freedom (DOF) at each
node. Hughes et al. [15] was the first to develop a
‘low-order’ two-node element based upon linear poly-
nomials (2 DOF/node) for each of the variables. This
element, which was formulated using selective re-
duced integration, produced reasonably accurate re-
sults over a broad range of beam thickness/length
ratios (i.e., free of ‘shear-locking’). More recently,
Tessler and Dong [16] presented an approach for
developing beam elements that are free of ‘shear-
locking’ without resorting to reduced integration.
These elements use a polynomial for the translational
displacement (w) that is one-order higher than the
rotational displacement (0) and then impose a con-
straint that makes the two polynomials interdepen-
dent. Though it was not discussed in [16], it can be
shown that the imposed constraint is equivalent to
requiring the displacements to satisfy one of the
partial differential equations associated with the
homogeneous form of Timoshenko’s beam the-
ory [l, 21.
All of the above element formulations require that
one use a significant number of elements to accurately
study the behavior of short beams subjected to
complex distributed loadings. Moreover, if one is
interested in calculating the local element shear
forces and/or moments (for the purpose of calculat-
ing the local stress state) the model must be further

473
474 Z. FRIEDMAN
and J. B. KOSMATKA

discretized. In the current paper, we will develop the y axis. The nonzero strain components of the beam
stiffness, mass and consistent force matrices for a are determined using eqns (la-c) as
two-node beam element with 2 DOF/node, based
upon Hamilton’s principle. The element is developed ae
by extending the approach of [16] to include two
E xx ‘Zjg’ y,; = g + 8. @a,
b)
constraints. Cubic and quadratic Lagrangian poly-
nomials are used for the transverse and rotational The equations of motion are derived via Hamilton’s
displacements, respectively, where the polynomials principle
are made interdependent by requiring them to satisfy
both of the homogeneous differential equations
6l-I= ‘2(6U-dT-GW,)dt =0 (3)
associated with Timoshenko’s beam theory. The
s 11
resulting stiffness matrix is in agreement with the
exact stiffness matrix developed by Przemieneicki [8]. where 6V, 6T, and 6 W, are the variations of the strain
Thus the current approach offers the best of the energy, the kinetic energy, and the work of external
above two approaches in that the stiffness matrix forces, respectively. The strain energy is given as
is exact (which cannot be done using the second
approach) and one is able to calculate fully com-
patible consistent force and mass matrices (which (da)
cannot be done using the first approach). Numerical
results are presented to show that the current element and can be rewritten, by making use of eqns (2a, b),
(1) exactly predicts the displacement of a short the beam material constitutive relations, and integrat-
beam subjected to complex distributed loadings ing over the cross-section, as
using only one element, and (2) predicts shear
and moment resultants and natural frequencies r a@-IT r ae 7
better than existing Timoshenko beam-type finite
elements.

REVIEWOF BEAMEQUATIONS WI

Consider a prismatic isotropic beam, of length L, where E and G are Young’s and the shear moduli of
having a general homogeneous cross-section of area the beam material, respectively, I is the area moment
A (see Fig. 1). A Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) of inertia of the cross-section, and k is a shear
is defined on the beam where the x axis is coincident coefficient that is dependent upon the material defi-
with the centroidal axis and y and z are coincident nition and cross-section geometry [ 171. The kinetic
with the principal axes of the root cross-section. It is energy of the beam is given as
further assumed that the centroidal axis is coincident
with the elastic axis so that bending-torsion coupling
is negligible. Moreover, we are restricting our studies
to behavior in the x-z plane only so that the displace-
ment relations in the x, y, and z directions can be W
written as
and can also be rewritten by making use of eqns
(2a, b) and integrating over the cross-section, as
~(x,y,z,~)=zwGt), v(x,y,z,t)=O,
raw7
W,Y, z, t) = w( x, t), U-4

where w is the time-dependent transverse displace-

ment of the centroidal axis and 0 is the time-depen-
dent rotation of the cross-section about the positive
where p is the mass density of the material. Finally,
the work of external forces is given as

(6)

where q and m are the distributed forces and mo-

ments along the length of the beam.
The two differential eauations of motion and
Fig. 1. Beam element. associated boundary conditions are obtained by
 An improved two-node Timoshenko beam finite element 415

substituting eqns (4b), (5b), and (6) into (3) and where
integrating by parts

where the two geometric and natural boundary con-

ditions that must be specified at the beam ends
(x = 0, L) include

Geometric Nahrral

Here Q and M are defined as the effective cross-sec-

tion shear force and moment.

FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

In this section, a finite element formulation of the

equations of motions is developed using Hamilton’s
principle (eqn (3)), where ‘new’ shape functions for
(w) and (0) are determined so that they exactly satisfy
the homogeneous form of the static equations of
equilibrium of a uniform Timoshenko beam

($) is the ratio of the beam bending stiffness to the

shear stiffness given by
@a,W

From the first equation (eqn (8a)), it is readily

apparent that this equation can only be satisfied if the
polynomial order for (w) is selected one order higher
and the array of nodal displacements and rotations is
than the polynomial order for (0). Tessler and
given (see Fig. 1) as
Dong f 161successfully developed a Timshenko beam
element using a quadratic Lagrange shape function
for (w) and linear Lagrange shape functions were
coupled using eqn (8a) as a single constraint
equation. The resulting element can be exactly inte- It is interesting to note the strong dependency the
grated and is impervious to ‘shear-locking’, but no shape functions have upon (&), which is a ratio of the
attempt was made to develop shape functions that in- beam bending stiffness to the shear stiffness.
corporated eqn (8b) as a second constraint equation. The finite element representation of the equations
In the current development, a cubic shape function of motion can be developed by substituting the
is proposed for (w) and a quadratic shape function is displacement distribution (eqn (9a)) into Hamilton’s
proposed for (0). The shape function coefficients are principle (eqn (3a)) and carrying out the integration
determined by requiring them to exactly satisfy both over the beam-length
of the constraints (eqns (8a, b)) and thus lead to a
two-node (2 DOF/node) Timoshenko beam bending
element. The resulting explicit form of the two shape
functions are given as where the mass matrix is given as
416 and J. B. KOSMATKA
Z. FRLEDMAN

the stiffness matrix is given as Static analysis

dx (10~)
and the consistent force array is given as
The coefficients of the stiffness matrix, mass matrix,
and the distributed force array for either a uniform
load or a linear varying distributed load
(q(x) = q,,(l - x/L)) are given in the Appendix. The
current stiffness matrix is in complete agreement with
the exact Timoshenko stiffness matrix developed in
[8] and it contains the requisite rigid body displace-
ment and rotation modes, as well as the constant
strain mode. Moreover, the current stiffness element
will reduce to the stiffness matrix associated with a
Bernoulli-Euler beam [18] for (C#J= 0, long slender
beams) and thus the current element is free of ‘shear-
locking’. Finally, both the mass and consistent force
matrices depend upon (4) and both these matrices
reduce to the Bernoulli-Euler form by setting (I#J= 0).
NUMERICAL STUDIES
In this section, the static and free vibration behav-
ior of the current two-node element is studied and a
comparison is made with the exact solutions of
Timoshenko beam theory and existing two-node (2
DOF/node) finite element approaches. Element con-
vergence studies are presented for tip displacements,
shear resultants, and moment resultants of a
cantilever beam subjected to either an applied trans-
verse tip load, a uniform load, or a linear varying
distributed load. Similarly, element convergence is
studied for the natural vibration frequencies of a
simply-supported beam. For the following analyses,
it is assumed that the material properties of the beam
are defined as (E = 1, v = 0.300) and the cross-section
is square (h x h) with a shear correction factor taken
from [17] to be
For the static analysis studies, the behavior of a
short cantilever beam (L/h = 4) is considered for
three different applied loadings; transverse tip load
(Fig. 2a), uniform distributed load (Fig. 2b), and a
linearly varying distributed load (Fig. 2~). The cur-
rent element is compared to the classic two-node
Bernoulli-Euler based finite element [ 181and the fol-
lowing three well-known two-node Timoshenko
based finite elements: (1) the Hughes et al. el-
ement [15] that uses linear Lagrange polynomials for
the displacement and rotation, as well as reduced
integration to prevent ‘shear-locking’, (2) the Mac-
Neal element [19] again uses linear Lagrange poly-
nomials for the displacement and rotation from [ 151,
but has an additional correction called ‘residual
bending flexibility’, and (3) the Tessler and Dong
element [16] uses full numerical integration with a
quadratic polynomial for the displacement and a
linear polynomial for the rotation, where the shape
functions are interconnected to prevent ‘shear-lock-
ing’. All of the static analyses were performed using
1,2,4,8, or 16 elements to discretize the beam length.
In the first example, the cantilever beam is sub-
jected to a transverse tip load (P) (see Fig. 2a) and
the calculated tip displacement is presented in Fig. 3,
where the tip displacement is normalized to the exact
Timoshenko-based solution value
(12)
The current element and the MacNeal element [19]
are both able to predict the exact tip displacement
using a single element, whereas the Hughes el-
ement [15] and the Tessler and Dong element [16]

k = 1w + VI
(114
12+ llv ’

thus, the bending stiffness to shear stiffness ratio is

found to be
Fig. 2. Cantilever beam subjected to: (a) an applied trans-
4 =~,12+11v)(;)r=3.06(~)2, (llb) verse tip load, (b) a uniform distributed load, and (c) a
linearly varying distributed load.
 An improved two-node Timoshenko beam finite element 417

o.75iL-l-yJ6 0, I I

1 2 4 8 1 2 4 6
Elements
Fig. 3. Normalized tip displacement of a cantilever beam Fig. 5. Normalized root shear resultant of a cantilever beam
subjected to an applied transverse tip load as a function of subjected to an applied transverse tip load as a function of
element discretization. element discretization.

is at least 16 times greater than the exact value. In

predict a significantly stiffer displacement for a single
order to reasonably predict the root moment and/or
element. These last two elements can effectively pre-
shear force using any of these three existing elements,
dict the exact results when the beam is discretized
one must discretize the beam using at least 32
using eight or more elements. The Bernoulli-Euler
elements.
based element [18] predicts the slender beam tip dis-
In the second example, the cantilever beam is
placement using a single element, where this displace-
subjected to a uniform distributed load (q = qo) (see
ment (set 4 = 0 in eqn (12)) is 4.5% stiffer than the
Fig. 2b) and the calculated tip displacement is pre-
Timoshenko prediction. In Figs 4 and 5, the moment
sented in Fig. 6, where the tip displacement is normal-
resultant (M) and the root shear resultant (Q) are
ized to the exact Timoshenko-based solution
determined using the calculated displacement field
and eqn (7c), where the results are normalized to the
exact root values w=!c!c ,+I
’ 8E/ I 3’>
M, = PL, Q, = P. Wa, W This time the current element and the Hughes el-
ement [15] can predict the exact tip displacement
The current element is able to exactly predict both the
using a single element, whereas the Tessler and Dong
root moment and shear force using a single element,
element [16] is initially 30% stiffer than the exact
whereas the remaining three Timoshenko el-
value and the MacNeal element [19] is over 30%
ements [15, 16, 191 predict a root moment that is
more flexible than the exact values. Both [16] and [19]
nearly 50% of the exact value and a shear force that
converge to the correct tip displacement when eight

Current
\
10 L..

z-
b
3’

1 2 4
Elements
a 16 0.6; Elements

Fig. 4. Normalized root moment of a cantilever beam Fig. 6. Normalized tip displacement of a cantilever beam
subjected to an applied transverse tip load as a function of subjected to a uniform distributed load as a function of
element discretization. element discretization.
418 Z. FRIEDMAN and J. B. KOSMATKA

0.6

0.75 ’ 1181
1161
0.2
1 2 4
Elements
8 16 o.5; Elements
16

Fig. 7. Normalized root moment of a cantilever beam Fig. 9. Normalized tip displacement of a cantilever beam
subjected to a uniform distributed load as a function of subjected to a linearly varying distributed load as a function
element discretization. of element dketization.

or more elements are used. The Bernoulli-Euler-
based beam element correctly predicts the tip dis-
placement without including shear deformation
(4 = 0) which is 6% stiffer than the Timoshenko
prediction of eqn (14). The associated root moment
resultant (M) and shear resultant (Q) are calculated
using eqn (7~) and their magnitudes are presented in
Figs 7 and 8, where the results are normalized to the
exact root values
M =%p
3 Q,=q&
f 2
The current element predicts the root moment as
16% low and the root shear force as 50% low when
only one element is used, where these resultants
quickly converge to the exact values if the beam is
discretized using eight elements. In contrast, the three
existing Timoshenko based elements [15, 16, 191 pre-
dict the root moment at least 50% low and the root
shear between 5.5 and 11 times too large when a
single element is used. In order to get reasonable
moment and/or shear resultant predictions using any
of the three existing elements, one must discretize the
beam using at least 32 elements.
In the final static analysis example, the cantilever
beam is subjected to a linearly distributed load
(q = q,,(l -x/L)). See Fig. 2(c). The calculated tip
displacement is presented in Fig. 9, where the tip
displacement is normalized to the exact Timoshenko-
based solution
(15a, b)
(16)
It is interesting to note that only the current element
is able to exactly predict the tip displacement using a
single element. The Tessler and Dong element [16] is
nearly 35% too stiff, whereas the Hughes element [15]
and the MacNeal element [19] are approximately
25% and 60% too flexible, respectively, when a single
element is used. The three existing elements will all

.-

I r Current

6
0.6

0.4

0.2
1 2 4 8 16 1 2 4 0
Elements Elements

Fig. 8. Normalized root shear resultant of a cantilever beam Fig. 10. Normalized root moment of a cantilever beam
subjected to a uniform distributed load as a function of subjected to a linearly varying distributed load as a function
element discretization. of element discretization.
 An improved two-node Timoshenko beam finite element
converge to the exact value as the number of elements
is increased. The Bernoulli-Euler based element [ 181,
which doesn’t include shear deformation will predict
the slender beam displacement using a single element.
The root moment resultant (M) and shear resultant
(Q) are presented in Figs 10 and 11, where the results
are normalized to the exact root values
M,+‘, Q,+,. (17%b)
The predicted moment and shear resultants are more
accurately determined using the current element than
any of the existing three Timoshenko elements. For
example if only one element is used, the current
element predicts a moment 30% lower than the exact
value and a shear force 75% lower than the exact
value, whereas the predictions using the existing three
elements [IS, 16, 191vary from 50-75% lower for the
moment and 3 to 7 times higher for the shear force.
The current element effectively converges to the exact
solution by discretizing the beam into 8 elements as
opposed to a minimum of 32 elements for any of the
three existing elements.
Free vibration analysis
Two studies were performed to assess the capabili-
ties of the current element to predict the free vibration
behavior of a simply-supported beam. In the first
study, a single element was used to calculate the
fundamental bending natural frequency as function
of beam length aspect ratio (h/L). The current el-
ement and the Tessler and Dong element [16] are
compared to the exact Bernoulli-Euler solution and
the Timoshenko solution [2] in Fig. 12, where the
fundamental bending frequency is normalized to
J-
n EI
“O=x PA’
Fig. 11. Normalized root shear resultant of a cantilever
beam subjected to a linearly varying distributed load as a
function of element discretimtion.
479
1
alao
0.1
O.Ob.br L J
li
1
Fig. 12. First transverse bending natural frequency of a
simply-supported beam as a function of beam-length aspect
ratio (h/L), where the finite element predictions use a single
element.
For extremely long slender beams (h/L z 0) both
finite element solutions closely agree with the
Bernoulli-Euler prediction. As the beam becomes
shorter (0.1 < h/L < 1) both finite element solutions,
which remain in near agreement with each other,
become more flexible than the Bernoulli-Euler sol-
ution as a result of including transverse shear defor-
mation, but are still stiffer than the exact Timoshenko
solution of [2]. If one uses more finite elements to
discretize the beam, the finite element solutions will
be even more flexible and will converge to the exact
Timoshenko solution of [2]. The need for many finite
elements to study the free vibration behavior can be
easily understood by recognizing that the (ith) exact
fundamental mode shape of the simply-supported
beam is equal to (sin(irrx/L)) and that the current
finite element attempts to approximate that shape
using a cubic polynomial. Thus discretizing the beam
into (n) elements effectively means that the mode
shape is being approximated using (n) cubic poly-
nomials.
In the second numerical example, the first six
bending natural frequencies of a short simply-sup-
ported beam (h/L = 0.20) are studied for three differ-
ent element mesh definitions (4, 8, and 20 elements)
using the current element and the Tessler and Dong
element [16]. From Table 1, it can be observed that
(1) when only four elements are used the current
approach can predict the first two natural frequencies
within 5% while the Tessler and Dong element [2] can
only predict the first natural frequency, (2) when eight
elements are used the current element can predict the
first three natural frequencies within 5% whereas the
Tessler and Dong element [2] can predict the first
two, and (3) when the beam is discretized using 20
elements both approaches can predict the first six
natural frequencies within 5% where the current
element is consistently more accurate than the Tessler
and Dong element [2].
480 Z. FRIEDMANand J. B. KOSMATKA

Table 1. First six normalized Timoshenko natural frequencies (or/o,) of a short (h/L = 0.2) simply-sup-
ported beam and the corresponding normalized finite element predictions using 4, 8, and 20 elements
(m/c+)
Exact 4 elements 8 elements 20 elements
Mode PI
number (&%) Current [I61 Current 1161 Current 1161
1 0.9404 1.0024 1.0263 1.0006 1.0065 1.0001 1.0011
2 3.2612 1.0281 1.1100 1.0067 1.0261 1.0010 1.0041
3 6.2514 1.0952 1.2654 1.0241 1.0598 1.0038 1.0093
4 9.4910 1.5101 I.5101 1.0550 1.1084 1.0088 1.0166
5 12.8357 1.4682 1.3538 1.0985 1.1710 1.0161 1.0260
6 16.1981 1.2714 1.1575 1.1371 1.0728 1.0258 I .0376
The exact values (wT) are normalized to the first natural frequency based upon the Bernoulli-Euler beam
theory
n2 EI
o,= -
L
o$_. PA

CONCLUSIONS 5. R. T. Sevem, Inclusion of shear deformation in the

The stiffness, mass, and consistent force matrices
for a simple two-node Timoshenko beam element
were developed based upon Hamilton’s principle. The
element, which can be exactly integrated and is free
of ‘shear-locking’, was formulated by extending the
approach of Tessler and Dong [16] to include two
constraints. Cubic and quadratic Lagrangian poly-
nomials are used for the transverse and rotational
displacements, respectively, where the polynomials
are made interdependent by requiring them to satisfy
both of the homogeneous differential equations as-
sociated with Timoshenko’s beam theory. The result-
ing stiffness matrix is in agreement with the exact
stiffness matrix developed by Przemieneicki [8]. Nu-
merical results are presented to show that the current
element (1) exactly predicts the displacement of a
short beam subjected to any complex distributed
loading using only one element, and (2) predicts shear
and moment resultants and natural frequencies better
than existing finite elements.
REFERENCES
S. P. Timoshenko, On the correction for shear of the
differential equation for transverse vibrations of pris-
matic beams. Philosophical Magazine 41,744-746 (192 1).
S. P. Timoshenko, On the transverse vibrations of bars
of uniform cross-section. Philosophical Magazine 43,
125-131 (1922).
R. B. McCalley, Rotatory Inertia Correction for Mass
Matrices, pp. 63-73. General Electric Knolls Atomic
Power Laboratory, Schenectady, NY, Report DIG/SA
(1963).
J. S. Archer, Consistent matrix formulations for struc-
tural analysis using finite element techniques. AIAA Jnl
3, 191&1918 (1965).
stiffness matrix for a beam element. J. Strain Analysis
5, 239-24 I (1970).
6. R. Davis, R. D. Henshell and G. B. Warburton, A
Timoshenko beam finite element. J. Sound Vibr. 22,
475487 (1972).
7. D. M. Egle, An approximate theory for transverse shear
deformation and rotatory inertia effects in vibrating
beams. NASA CR-1317 (1969).
8. J. S. Przemieneicki, Theory of Matrix Structural Analy-
sis, pp. 70-82. McGraw-Hill, New York (1968).
9. W. Carnegie, J. Thomas and E. Dokumuci, An
improved method of matrix displacement analysis in
vibration problems. Aeronaut. Quart. 20, 321-332
(1969).
10. K. K. Kapur, Vibrations of a Timoshenko beam using
a finite element approach. J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 40,
1058-1063 (1966).
11. S. B. Dong and J. A. Wolf, Effect of transverse shear
deformation on vibrations of planar structures com-
posed of beam-type elements. J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 53,
12&127 (1973).
12. J. Thomas and B. A. H. Abbas, Finite element model
for dynamic analysis of Timoshenko beam. J. Sound
Vibr. 41, 291-299 (1975).
13. R. E. Nickel1 and G. A. Secor, Convergence of consist-
ently derived Timoshenko beam finite elements. Int. J.
Numer. Meth. Engng 5, 243-253 (1972).
14. D. L. Thomas, J. M. Wilson and R. R. Wilson,
Timoshenko beam finite elements. J. Sound Vibr. 31,
315-330 (1973).
15. T. J. R. Hughes, R. L. Taylor and W. Kanoknukulchoii,
A simple and efficient plate element for bending. Int. J.
Numer. Meth. Engng 11, 1529-1943 (1977).
16. A. Tessler and S. B. Dong, On a hierarchy of conform-
ing Timoshenko beam elements. Comput. Struct. 14,
335-344 (1981).
17. G. R. Cowper, The shear coefficient in Timoshenko’s
beam theory. ASME J. appl. Mech. 33,335-340 (1966).
18. M. Paz, Structural Dynamics, 3rd F!dn, pp. 36311.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1980).
19. R. H. MacNeal, A simple quadrilateral shell element.
Compur. Struck 8, 175-183 (1976).

APPENDIX

The stiffness matrix is found by substituting the shape functions (eqns (9a-c)) into eqn (1Oc) and integrating

12 6L -12 6L
(4+g)L2 -6L (2 - 4)L2
jK]=EI (AlI
(I+ #)L’ 12 -6L ’
symmetric (4+ +)L* 1
 An improved two-node Timoshenko beam finite element 481

which is in exact agreement with the flexibility derived stiffness matrix of [S]. The consistent load vector for the uniform
distributed force (q) and moment (m) is calculated by substituting the shape functions (eqns (9ac)) into eqn (IOd) and
integrating over the beam length

1 -1

I I-
L 4L
M
{F)=fg ; +(l++)
2
1
642)

--L 4L
6 -Y-

This force array reduces to the consistent load vector of a Bernoulli-Euler beam by setting (4 = 0). The force vector for
a linearly varying distributed load (q(x) = qo(l -x/L)) is found to be equal to

%L (A3)
{F)= 120(1 +#I)

where this vector reduces to the linear distributed force vector of the Bernoulli-Euler theory by setting (4 = 0).
Similarly the consistent mass matrix is found by substituting the shape functions (eqns (9a-c)) into eqn (lob) and
integrating

[Ml = Pf,AI+ W,,,l, (A4)

where the first-part is associated with translational inertia

(70@+ 1474 +78) (354*+774 f44); (354*+634 +27) -(354* + 634 + 26) f

(74*+ 144 +g); (35@+634 f26); -(7~$*+ 144 16);

PAL
[MoA1 = 210(1 + f#J)2 (7042 + 1474 + 78) -(35f#? + 774 + 44);

symmetric (74* + 144 + 8);

(A5)
and the second part is associated with rotatary inertia

36 -(15C#J- 3)L -36 -(15f$ - 3)L

(loC#J*+54 +4)L* (154 -3)L (542-5f#J - l)L2
W,,l = 30(1 p1 (‘46)
+ 4)2L 36 (154 -3)L .
i symmetric (1092 + 54 + 4)L’ J

These two mass matrices will reduce to the consistent translational and rotatory interia mass matrices for the
Bernoulli-Euler beam theory by setting (4 = 0).