Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 24 November 2014
Revised 7 August 2015
Available online 19 October 2015
Keywords:
Plane beam
Elasticity solution
Airy stress function
Kinematic variables
Clapeyrons theorem
Finite element
a b s t r a c t
In this paper, an elasticity solution for a two-dimensional (2D) plane beam is derived and it is shown that
the solution provides a complete framework for exact one-dimensional (1D) presentations of plane beams.
First, an interior solution representing a general state of any 2D linearly elastic isotropic plane beam under
a uniform distributed load is obtained by employing a stress function approach. The solution excludes the
end effects of the beam and is valid suciently far away from the beam boundaries. Then, three kinematic
variables dened at the central axis of the plane beam are formed from the 2D displacement eld. Using these
central axis variables, the 2D interior elasticity solution is presented in a novel manner in the form of a 1D
beam theory. By applying the Clapeyrons theorem, it is shown that the stresses acting as surface tractions on
the lateral end surfaces of the interior beam need to be taken into account in all energy-based considerations
related to the interior beam. Finally, exact 1D rod and beam nite elements are developed by the aid of the
axis variables from the 2D solution.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Elasticity solutions for plane beams are of fundamental interest
in mechanical sciences. An important application of such solutions is
the benchmarking of beam theories based on various kinematic assumptions. Two-dimensional (2D) interior elasticity solutions can be
easily obtained, for example, for an end-loaded cantilever and a uniformly loaded simply-supported beam by employing the Airy stress
function (e.g., Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970).
An interior solution excludes, by virtue of the Saint Venants principle, the end effects that decay with distance from the ends of a
beam. In the calculation of displacements, constraint conditions are
applied at the beam supports to prevent it from moving as a rigid
body. These constraints for the 2D elasticity solution can be chosen so
that they correspond to the boundary conditions of, for example, the
Timoshenko beam theory (Timoshenko, 1921). Due to the foregoing, a
2D interior plane stress solution for a plane beam acts as an ideal reference solution for narrow one-dimensional (1D) shear-deformable
beam models that do not include end effects.
Many beam and plate theories are based on an assumed displacement eld similar to the one rst used by Vlasov (1957). These
theories are commonly referred to as third-order theories because
third-order polynomials are used in the expansion of the displacement components. For surveys on third-order kinematics and plate
theories, see the works by Jemielita (1990) and Reddy (1990, 2003).
Two examples of third-order beam theories are the Levinson and the
ReddyBickford beams for which the assumed displacement eld is
exactly the same (Bickford, 1982; Heyliger and Reddy, 1988; Levinson,
1981; Reddy, 1984). As rst shown by Bickford (1982), the Reddy
Bickford beam exhibits a boundary layer character, that is, the decaying end effects are present in the beam. The ReddyBickford theory
is obtained through an energy-based variational formulation, which
results in additional higher-order load resultants in comparison to an
interior elasticity solution. If the higher-order load resultants are neglected, the Levinson theory is obtained.
In this study, a general interior elasticity solution is derived for
a uniformly loaded linearly elastic homogeneous isotropic 2D plane
beam. As the main novelties of the study we nd that
In more detail, the paper is organized as follows. In the introductory Section 2, a polynomial Airy stress function is used to derive
the interior stress eld for a 2D plane beam under a uniform distributed load. The strains are calculated from the stresses according
to the plane stress condition and the displacements are integrated
126
A.T. Karttunen, R. von Hertzen / International Journal of Solids and Structures 78-79 (2016) 125130
p
h/2
N
M Q
h/2
y
x
N
Q M
4y2
(x, y) = c1 y2 + c2 y3 + c3 xy 1 2
L/2
L/2
3h
q 3 2
2 2
x = 2c1 + 6c2 y
y =
xy = c3
N(x) = t
Q (x) = t
h/2
h/2
h/2
h/2
h/2
h/2
xy (x, y)dy,
(1)
(2)
(3)
where (x, y) is the Airy stress function. Eqs. (3) satisfy the twodimensional equilibrium equations. To ensure compatibility, it is required that the stress function satises the biharmonic equation
(Barber, 2010)
4
4
4
+
2
+
= 0.
x4
x2 y2 y4
qx
2I
(6)
(7)
h2
y2 .
4
(8)
Note that the above interior stress distributions are universal, that is,
they are valid for any plane beam under a uniform load since they
are not associated with any particular constraint conditions at the
beam ends. Using Eqs. (6) and (8), the load resultants calculated from
Eqs. (1) are
N = 2Ac1 ,
M = 6Ic2
2
q 2 h2
x
,
Ac3 x +
3
2
10
Q = qx
2
Ac3 ,
3
(9)
2
2
2
, y =
, xy =
,
2
2
x y
y
x
4y2
1
h2
x (x, y)ydy,
which can be used to impose the force and moment boundary conditions at x = L/2. The boundary conditions on the upper and lower
surfaces of the beam are
x =
8c3 xy
q(3x2 y 2y3 )
,
+
6I
h2
q
(h3 + 3h2 y 4y3 ),
24I
(5)
N
= 0,
x
M
= Q,
x
Q
= q.
x
(10)
We note that Schneider and Kienzler (2015) arrived at the same equilibrium equations (10) through their recent exact 3D representation
of linear elasticity. When c1 , c2 and c3 are solved from Eqs. (9) and
substituted into Eqs. (6) and (8), we obtain
My
3qy
qy3
N
+
+
,
A
I
5A
3I
Q
= (h2 4y2 ).
8I
x =
(11)
xy
(12)
The stress distribution of Eq. (11) has been called by Reheld and
Murthy (1982) the rened (nonclassical) axial stress distribution in
the context of their beam theory. More complicated distributed loads
lead to different additional load terms in the stresses. By setting
q = 0, Eqs. (11) and (12) give the stress distribution of the classical
EulerBernoulli beam.
2.3. Example Simply-supported beam
As an example, let us consider a simply-supported beam under
a constant uniform load q. In a setting according to Fig. 1, the axial
force, bending moment and shear force along the beam are given by
(4)
The solution to the plane beam problem is obtained by nding a solution of Eq. (4) that satises the stress boundary conditions (2) of the
beam.
N(x) = 0,
Q (x) = qx,
(13)
respectively. We nd that the interior stress state in the beam calculated from Eqs. (7) and (11)(13) is the same as the one found in any
A.T. Karttunen, R. von Hertzen / International Journal of Solids and Structures 78-79 (2016) 125130
x =
y =
xy
xy
2(1 + )
=
=
xy , (14)
G
E
U
U
U
U
x = x , y = y , xy = x + y ,
x
y
y
x
(15)
Ux (x, y) =
1
2c3 y
2c1 x + 6c2 xy
E
3h2
qx 3
h + 3 h2 y + 4x2 y 4y3 (2 + ) ,
24EI
Uy (x, y)
1
4c3 (x3 + 3 xy2 )
2c1 y 3c2 (x2 + y2 ) +
+ Cx + D2
E
3h2
q
2h3 y + 3h2 x2 (2 + ) y2
48EI
+ 2 y4 (1 + 2) x4 6 x2 y2 ,
ux (x) = Ux (x, 0) =
1
q x
,
(2c1 x + D1 ) +
E
2Et
uy (x) = Uy (x, 0) =
1
4c3 x3
3c2 x2 +
+ Cx + D2
E
3h2
(18)
qx2 2
3h (2 + ) 2x2 ,
48EI
2
1
Ux
4x
(x) =
(x, 0) =
6c2 x C c3
+ 2(1 + )
y
E
h2
qx 2
+
4x + 3 h2 ,
(19)
(20)
y x
24EI
x y
127
4y3
Ux (x, y) = ux + y
3h2
ux y2
x
2 x
qy
+
(2h + 3y)( 2 1)h2 + 2y3 (1 + 2) .
48EI
(17)
(22)
These displacements represent the exact third-order interior kinematics of a linear homogeneous isotropic beam having a narrow rectangular cross-section. If we neglect the load term and the Poisson
effect in Eqs. (21) and (22), the 2D displacement eld is exactly of
the same form as in the Levinson and ReddyBickford beam theories.
Note that instead of the Airy stress function, one may also consider
the Marguerre function for the case of plane stress and the Love strain
function for plane strain in order to arrive at the displacements (21)
and (22) (e.g., Soutas-Little, 1973). In terms of the central axis variables, the strains (15) may be readily written in the form
ux qy3
+
(2 + ),
x
x 6EI
(23)
ux
+
y = y
x
x
q
+
(3y + h)( 2 1)h2 + 4y3 (1 + 2) ,
24EI
u
4y2
xy = 1 2
+ y .
x
h
(21)
Uy (x, y) = uy y
x = y
(16)
uy
y3 2
+
+
,
x
6 x2
(24)
(25)
Note that if the strains are calculated directly from the expressions
(21) and (22) using the denitions (15), the results simplify to Eqs.
(23)(25) due to the specic low-order polynomial form of the central axis variables.
3.2. Load resultants and beam equilibrium equations
Using the strains (23)(25) and applying the plane stress constitutive relations (14), the load resultants (1) in terms of the central axis
variables can be written as
N = EA
ux qh
,
x
2
qh2
(2 + 5),
x
40
uy
2
Q = GA +
.
3
x
M = EI
(26)
(27)
(28)
128
A.T. Karttunen, R. von Hertzen / International Journal of Solids and Structures 78-79 (2016) 125130
EA
2 ux
= 0,
x2
(29)
uy
2 2
EI 2 GA +
= 0,
3
x
x
2
2 uy
GA
+
= q.
3
x
x2
By uncoupling Eqs. (30) and (31), the axis variables uy and can be
solved from
ux,1
N1
M1 Q1
(30)
(31)
uy,1
h/2
h/2
ux,2
L/2
uy,2
N2
Q2 M2
L/2
Fig. 2. Set-up according to which exact rod and exural beam nite elements are
developed.
EI
3
= q,
x3
(32)
Let us briey study the energetic aspects of the interior beam. The
strain energy of the 2D beam and the external work due to the uniform load are given by
EI
4 uy
= q.
x4
(33)
U=
1
2
V
(x x + y y + xy xy )dV, Wq =
q h3 x
ux =
,
24EI
q
uy =
(L2 4x2 ) 5(5L2 4x2 ) + 6h2 (8 + 5) ,
1920EI
qx
=
15L2 20x2 3h2 (2 + 5) .
120EI
Substitution of the central axis variables into the 2D displacements
(21) and (22) results in the exact 2D interior displacement eld. Alternatively, to obtain the 2D displacements, we can solve uy and
from Eqs. (32) and (33) with the interior boundary conditions
uy ( L/2) = 0, M( L/2) = 0
qh2
( L/2) =
(2 + 5).
x
40EI
Detailed end effects are out of the scope of this study, but one should
keep in mind that the moment-related boundary conditions at the
beam ends might take a different form in a solution which includes
the boundary layer behavior. Note also that, unlike in the Timoshenko
beam theory, the distributed load q has an effect on the momentrelated boundary condition.
L/2
L/2
respectively. While the contributions (34) to the total potential energy of the beam are apparent, the following consideration may not
be that obvious at rst. We recall from the problem denition in
Section 2.1 that the interior solution part represents essentially a
beam section with fully-developed interior stresses which has been
cut off from a complete beam so that the boundary layer is not modeled. Thus, we obtain for the work due to the stresses on the lateral
end surfaces of the interior beam
Ws = t
h/2
h/2
t
+t
h/2
h/2
h/2
h/2
h/2
h/2
(35)
2U Wq Ws = 0.
(36)
The above calculation shows that in static equilibrium the strain energy of the beam is equal to one-half of the work done by the surface
tractions if they were to move (slowly) through their respective displacements. This is exactly according to the Clapeyrons theorem (e.g.,
Sadd, 2014). In a recent paper (Karttunen and von Hertzen, 2015), in
contrast to the long-standing belief that the interior beam theory by
Levinson (1981) is variationally inconsistent, we provided a consistent variational formulation for the Levinson beam by accounting for
the external (virtual) work (35). The resulting beam equations were
exactly the same as those in the case of the vectorial derivation by
Levinson (1981). The work (35) is an integral part of all energy-based
considerations related to interior beams.
3.5. Exact rod and beam nite elements
The polynomial 2D interior elasticity solution presented in
Section 2 can be used to derive exact 1D interior rod and beam nite
elements. Fig. 2 presents the setting according to which the elements
are developed. Both nodes in Fig. 2 have three degrees of freedom.
For nodes i = 1, 2, we have axial displacements ux, i , transverse displacements uy, i and rotations of the cross-section i . By the aid of
A.T. Karttunen, R. von Hertzen / International Journal of Solids and Structures 78-79 (2016) 125130
the central axis variables (18)(20), we obtain for nodes 1 and 2 six
equations
ux,1 = ux ( L/2),
ux,2 = ux (L/2),
uy,1 = uy ( L/2),
uy,2 = uy (L/2),
1 = ( L/2),
(37)
2 = (L/2).
N1 = N( L/2),
N2 = N(L/2),
Q1 = Q ( L/2),
Q2 = Q (L/2),
M1 = M( L/2),
M2 = M(L/2).
(38)
= U Wq Ws .
(39)
The stresses on the end surfaces in Eq. (35) are written as given by
Eqs. (11) and (12), where the load resultants are expressed as nodal
forces according to Eqs. (38). Then, by calculating (34) and (35) and
by applying the principle of minimum total potential energy
= 0,
ux,i
= 0,
uy,i
= 0 (i = 1, 2)
i
(40)
EA
1
L 1
1
1
12
EI
6L
(1 + )L3 12
6L
ux,1
ux,2
q
2
q h 1
,
2 1
12
6L
12
6L
6L
(4 + )L2
6L
(2 )L2
uy,1
Q1
1
M1
uy,2
Q2
2
M2
where =
as
N1
N2
(41)
6L
(2 )L2
6L
(4 + )L2
u = ux,1
T
1 ux,2 uy,2 2 .
(47)
L2 =
xy
2
L 4 x2 y2 (2 + ) ,
24EI
(48)
1
16h3 y( 2 1) 4L2 L2 4x2 2y2 ( 1)
384EI
+ 8 y2 L2 + 4(y2 3x2 ) (L2 4x2 )2 + 16y4 .
(49)
uy,1
In addition we have
L1 =
129
E
q
(ux,2 ux,1 ) ,
2L
4t
E
q
c2 =
(1 2 )
(L2 + 3 h2 ),
6L
144I
3Eh2
c3 = 3
2(uy,1 uy,2 ) + L(1 + 2 ) ,
4L (1 + )
c1 =
(42)
60
K r u r = fr q r ,
(43)
K b u b = fb q b ,
(44)
where Kr and Kb are the rod and beam element stiffness matrices, respectively, and ur and ub are the rod and beam nodal displacement
vectors, respectively. The force vectors are fr and qr for the rod element, and fb and qb for the beam element, respectively. Note that the
stiffness matrix Kb is the same as for the Levinson beam (Karttunen
and von Hertzen, 2015) and also equal to the stiffness matrix of a
Timoshenko beam element when the Timoshenko shear coecient
has the value of 2/3 (e.g., cf. Kosmatka, 1995). Finally, by substituting
c1 , c2 , c3 , C, D1 and D2 (Appendix A) into the displacements (16) and
(17) we can write the 2D displacements in the form
Ux (x, y) = Nx u + qL1 ,
(45)
Uy (x, y) = Ny u + qL2 ,
(46)
C=
4L3
E
4L2 (uy,1 uy,2 )
(1 + )
(A.1)
E
(ux,1 + ux,2 ),
2
qL4 (1 + 4)
E
,
D2 =
4(uy,1 + uy,2 ) + L(1 2 )
8
384I
D1 =
(A.2)
where = 3h2 (1 + )/L2 . The shape functions in Eqs. (45) and (46)
are
NTx =
1
xL
2
2
2
2
y[3L 12x +4y (2+)]
2L3 (1+)
2
2
y{2L (L2x)+L[(L2x)(L+6x)+4y (2+)]}
3
4L (1+)
+ xL
2L (1+)
4L3 (1+)
(A.3)
130
NTy =
A.T. Karttunen, R. von Hertzen / International Journal of Solids and Structures 78-79 (2016) 125130
y
L
L (L2x)+12 xy2 +(L+x)(L2x)2
3
2L (1+)
L2 [L2 4(x2 + y2 )]4 L(L6x)y2 +L(L+2x)(L2x)2
8L3 (1+)
2
yL
L2 (L+2x)12 xy2 +(Lx)(L+2x)2
2L (1+)
2
2
2
2
2
2
L
L
+4
(
x
+
y
)
+4
L
(
L+6x
)
y
L
(
L2x
)(
L+2x
)
]
[
(A.4)
8L3 (1+)
References
Barber, J.R., 2010. Elasticity, 3rd ed. Springer, New York.
Bickford, W.B., 1982. A consistent higher order beam theory. Dev. Theor. Appl. Mech.
11, 137150.
Dym, C.L., Shames, I.H., 2013. Solid Mechanics A Variational Approach (Augmented
Edition). Springer, New York.
Heyliger, P.R., Reddy, J.N., 1988. A higher order nite element for bending and vibration
problems. J. Sound Vib. 126 (2), 309326.
Jemielita, G., 1990. On kinematical assumptions of rened theories of plates a survey.
J. Appl. Mech. 57 (4), 10881091.
Karttunen, A.T., von Hertzen, R., 2015. Variational formulation of the static Levinson
beam theory. Mech. Res. Commun. 66, 1519.
Kosmatka, J.B., 1995. An improved twonode nite element for stability and natural
frequencies of axialloaded Timoshenko beams. Comput. Struct. 57 (1), 141149.
Levinson, M., 1981. A new rectangular beam theory. J. Sound Vib. 74 (1), 8187.
Reddy, J.N., 1984. A simple higherorder theory for laminated composite plates. J. Appl.
Mech. 51 (4), 745752.
Reddy, J.N., 1990. A general nonlinear 3rdorder theory of plates with moderate thickness. Int. J. Nonlin. Mech. 25 (6), 677686.
Reddy, J.N., 2003. Mechanics of Laminated Composite Plates and Shells: Theory and
Analysis, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Reheld, L.W., Murthy, P.L.N., 1982. Toward a new engineering theory of bending
fundamentals. AIAA J. 20 (5), 693699.
Sadd, M.H., 2014. Elasticity Theory, Applications and Numerics, 3rd ed. Academic
Press, Oxford.
Schneider, P., Kienzler, R., 2015. On exact rod/beam/shaft-theories and the coupling
among them due to arbitrary material anisotropies. Int. J. Solids Struct. 56, 265
279.
Soutas-Little, R.W., 1973. Elasticity. Dover, New York.
Timoshenko, S.P., 1921. On the correction for shear of the differential equation for transverse vibration of prismatic bars. Philos. Mag. 41, 744746.
Timoshenko, S.P., Goodier, J.N., 1970. Theory of Elasticity, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Vlasov, B.F., 1957. On equations of bending of plates (in Russian). Dokla Ak. Nauk Azerbeijanskoi SSR 3, 955959.