A Finite Rotating Shaft Element Using

Timoshenko Beam Theory

H. D. Nelson
Professor of Engineering Sciences,
Arisona State University,
Tempe, Ariz.

The use of finite elements for simulation of rotor systems has received considerable
attention within the last few years. The published works have included the study of the
effects of rotatory inertia, gyroscopic moments, axial load, and internal damping; but
have not included shear deformation or axial torque effects. This paper generalizes
the previous works by utilizing Timoshenko beam theory for establishing the shape
functions and thereby including transverse shear effects. Internal damping is not
included but the extension is straightforward. Comparison is made of the finite element
analysis with classical closed form Timoshenko beam theory analysis for nonrotating
and rotating shafts.

Introduction

Since 1970, several researchers in the general area of rotor dynamic analysis have studied the use of the finite element method
X ; *
for modeling rotor systems. To the author's knowledge the first
works in the area were by Ruhl [1] in 1970 and by Ruhl and
Booker [2] in 1972. Ruhl's finite element included translational
inertia and bending stiffness but neglected rotatory inertia,
gyroscopic moments, shear deformation, axial load, axial torque
and internal damping. At about the same time Thorkildsen [3]
developed a finite element which was more general than Ruhl's
in that it also included rotatory inertia and gyroscopic moments.
In 1974, Polk [4] presented a study on natural whirl speed and
critical speed analysis using a Rayleigh beam finite element. In
an addenda to Polk's paper, he presented the development of a
Timoshenko beam finite element but did not present any numerical results. Diana, et al. [5] in 1975 published the results of a
finite element analysis of a rotating shaft. Their element was
Fig. 1 Typical element and coordinate systems
similar to Ruhl's. Also in 1975, Dimaragonas [6] presented the
general development of an element with all the above mentioned
The purpose of this paper is to more accurately document the
effects except shear deformation, axial load, and axial torque.
work of Polk and to present the results of numerical studies to
In 1976, Gasch [7] published a paper quite similar to that of determine the accuracy of the Timoshenko beam finite rotating
Dimaragonas, but also included the effect of distributed eccentric- shaft element. The finite element analyses are compared with
ity. Nelson and McVaugh [8] presented a study in 1976 which classical closed form solution of continuous systems as presented
utilized a Rayleigh Beam rotating shaft element similar to that by Dym and Shames [10] and by Eshleman and Eubanks [11]
of Polk. In addition the element equations were developed in in their study of the critical speeds of a continuous rotor.
both a fixed and rotating frame Of reference. This paper was generalized in 1977 by Zorzi and Nelson [9] by the inclusion of
internal viscous and hysteretic damping such as was presented
earlier by Dimaragonas and by Gasch. This work was also presented in both a fixed and rotating reference frame.

Coordinates and Shape Functions

A typical finite rotating shaft element is illustrated in Fig. 1

with the two primary reference systems which are utilized to
describe its motion. The (XYZ) triad is a fixed reference with
the X axis coinciding with the undeformed centerline of the
element. The [XYZ] triad is a rotating reference with its x axis
coincident with X. The (xyz) triad rotates at a uniform rate co
Contributed by the Design Engineering Division and presented at the Winter about the X axis. The element is considered to be initially
Annual Meeting, New York, December 2-7, 1979 of the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received at ASME Headquarters Aug. 9, straight and is modeled as an eight degree of freedom element:
two translations and two rotations at each end-point of the ele1979. Paper No. 79-WA/DE-5.

Journal of Mechanical Design

Copyright 1980 by ASME

OCTOBER 1980, Vol. 102/793

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ment. The cross-section of the element is circular and is considered to be uniform for this study.
A typical cross-section of the element, located at a distance s
from the left end point, translates and rotates during the general
motion of the element. The translation of the cross-section
centerline neglecting axial motion is given by the two displacements (V, W) which consist of a contribution (Vp, Wp) due to
bending and a contribution (V, W) due to shear deformation.
The rotation of the cross-section is described by the rotation
angles (B = dWp/ds, T = dVp/ds) which are associated
with the bending deformation of the element.
The translation of a typical point internal to the element is
approximated by the relation

fa"
V(s,T) j _ |~ ^, o o fa fa o o
W(s,T) j L o fa-fa o o fa fa o .
- [*<)] {(}

tions are related to the bending and shear deformation respectively for the Timoshenko Beam.
The derivation of the shape functions is provided in detail in
reference [13] and due to the length of the development is not
repeated here. The functions are listed in the appendix.

Element Equations
The element equations can be determined by use of the extended Hamilton's Principle, which states that the true path
renders the definite integral

q{t)
(1)

(T - V + W)dt

(3)

stationary with respect to any variation of the path between two

instants ti and U providing the path variation vanishes at the end
points. The equations of motion are thus determined by the
relation

The indivisual shape functions; \pi{s) = j(s) + $fli(s), i = 1,

2, 3, 4; represent the static displacement modes associated with
unit displacements of one of the endpoint coordinates with all
(4)
[5(7'-V) + 8W]dt = 0
other coordinates constrained to zero. The <Xi(s) functions are
/.:
associated with the bending deformation of a Timoshenko Beam
and the /3,(s) functions are due to the shear deformation.
where T and V are the kinetic and potential energies respectively
The rotation of a typical cross section of the element is ap- of the element and 8W represents the variational work done by
nonconservative forces and any forces not accounted for in the
proximated by the relation
potential energy function.
0
-fa fa 0 0
-xj, Qfa 0 "j I
B(s,t) J _
The element kinetic energy consists of both translational and
(0
0
0 fa fa 0
rotational forms. The rotational form includes rotatory terms
T(s,t) )
0 ^4 J 1
such as included in Rayleigh beam theory and also rotary terms
(2) associated with the spinning of the shaft. The total kinetic energy
[*(*)] {9(0}
The individual shape functions; 0,-(s) = <(s) + 3?5,(s), i = 1, expression is

I fa

2, 3, 4; represent static rotation shape functions associated with

unit displacements of one of the endpoint coordinates with all
other coordinates constrained to zero. The et'(s) and 5<(s) func-

T = 2
2

Jo

\w )

\w }

-Nomenclature(/3, I") = small angle rotations about ( F , Z) axes

fa- = a, + $j3 r = translation displacement functions; r =
1, 2, 3, 4
0 r = r + 4?5,. = rotation displacement functions; r = 1, 2,
3,4
4> spin speed
* = 12EI/kAGZ 2 = transverse shear effect
A = I2/w = spin/whirl ratio
v = s/l
( i W j !"W) = element mass center location
(VL, tL) = (1J(0), f(0))
(17* !R) = W),
fd))
co = whirl speed
Q spin speed = 0
T, V, W = kinetic energy, potential energy, and work
functions respectively
A = cross sectional area
EI = bending stiffness per unit of curvature
0 = shear modulus
J = action integral
Id, IP = diametral and polar mass moments of inertial per unit length
Ip = polar mass moment of inertia of the element
as a rigid body
k = transverse shear form factor
1 = element length
L = system rotor length
m = mass per unit of length
p = nondimensional frequency, p =
mlRfi/EI

P
r
R
s

axial load
radius of element cross-section
:
slenderness ratio, r/2L
axial distance along element
centerline displacements in ( F , Z) direc<y,w)
tions
bending contribution to (V, W)
shear contribution to (V4 W)
(.V,, W.)
matrix of translation displacement functions
matrix of rotation displacement functions
displacement vectors relative to (Y, Z) and
(y, z) references respectively
cosine and sine components respectively of
(p, Pot)
distibuted unbalance force in V direction
cosine and sine components respectively of
(Pwc, p . . )
distributed unbalance force in W direction
cosine and sine element unbalance force
{.}, \Q.\
vectors associated with {q}
element unbalance force vector associated
\P)
with {p}
[R]
rotation matrix
[M]
element translational and rotatory mass
matrices respectively
element gyroscopic matrix
[G]
element stiffness matrix
[K]
[A]
element axial load incremental stiffness
matrix
[M]
- transformed element mass matrix
:

ti)Av)

794/Vol. 102, OCTOBER 1980

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

if.'"
ITBds

(5)

The potential energy of the element consists of elastic bending and

shear energy and energy due to axial load. The total potential
energy function is
Fig. 2 Typical rotor-schematic

If
+ If

ds

We"
kAG

Wp"

(IV
W,'

|W I

[H]-[H)T

= [G] + $[(?], + $ 2 [ G ] 2

ds

(6)

The only variational work included in this study for the element
is due to the distributed unbalance force. The variational work
expression is

"-r(rJ(d-H':H

ds

(7)

with the detailed form of the force components listed in the appendix. The substitution of relations (1, 2) in the energy expressions (5, 6) and in the variational work expression (7); and the
evaluation of the indicated integrals yields the following form for
eqs. (5, 6, 7) respectively.
T
2
T = - M '([M] + {N})U\-4>U} [H}{q\ + ~ h<i>

HlK\-[A\){q\

V =

(12d)
(12e)

[A] = [A}0 + $ [ 4 ] , + *[A] 2

+ 2 J0

[0]

W
HV

(8)

(9)

and the equivalent distributed four vectors are of the similar

form
(13a)

KM =

(13b)
Equation (11) relates the element motion to fixed frame coordinates and all of the matrices are symmetric with the exception of
the skew symmetric gyroscopic matrix, [G] . Each of the coefficient
matrices and the lateral force vectors include the effect of shear
deformation. If shear deformation effects are ignored, the parameter $ is zero and ony terms with a zero subscript remain. The
equation of motion then reduces to the equation presented by
Nelson and McVaugh [8].
When analyzing systems with isotropic supports for natural
frequencies of whirl or unbalance response, it is convenient to
utilize a rotating reference system. Such a reference is shown in
Fig. 1 and the equation of transformation between fixed and
rotating frame coordinates is

cos co( sin cot

sin cot

cos a)/

Pi
cos cot sin cot

V*

sin col

p>

cos cot

cos cot sin cot

pi

sin cot

78

= \8q}T {\QC} cos 0< + \Q.) sin 2/)

+ [N]){q]

<j>[G]{q\ + ([K]-[A])

{q\

(11)

The coefficient matrices of the equation of motion are of the form

[K] = [K\0 + $[K\i

(12a)

[M] = [M} + * [M], + $2 [M)3

IN] = [N]0 + $ [N]i + *

Journal of Mechanical Design

[A']2

pi

sin cot

ps

cos cot

{?} = [B] M

(14)

Introduction of the transformation equation (14) into equation

(11) and premultiplication by [R]T gives
W\

+ [N]) {p\ + co (2[Afl + ( 1 - X ) [G]) jp)

+

( [Kl-[A)-u*

({M} + d - 2 X ) [JV]) ) {p} = {P\

(15)

= {Qc} cos Sit + {<?} sin Qt

cos cot sin cot

(10)

The i ndividual matrices and vectors appearing in the above

equations are developed in detail in [13] and are listed in the appendix. The application of Hamiltons extended principle, equation (4), with the energy and work functions, equations (8, 9, 10),
produces the following matrix equation of motion for the finite
rotating shaft element
([M]

cos cot

(126)
(12c)

The matrix [M] which appears in these rotating reference equations is a skew symmetric matrix and X is the ratio of the rotor
spin speed Q and the rotating reference co. The element unbalance force vector {P} = {Pj + $>{P}i with {P} = {Qc}0
and (P}i = [Q.}i.
The equation of motion of a rotor composed of an assemblage of
finite elements may be either formulated in terms of fixed reference coordinates by using equation (11) or in terms of fixed
reference coordinates by using equation (15). The primary

OCTOBER 1980, Vol. 102 / 795

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

3.1

Bernoul1i-Euler
Finite Element

Eshleman-Eubanks (eqs.41,42)
ffi *.tf A
9

Bernoul1i-tuler
Rayleigh
Timoshenko
Shear Effect

Finite Element
(5 Elements)

Eshleman-Eubanks (eq.15)

B = Backward Whirl
F = Forward Whi r l

Bernoul1i-Euler
Rayleigh
Timoshenko
Shear Effect

.02

.04
.06
Slenderness Ratio,

.08
R.

.10

Fig. 5 First p r i m a r y critical speed of a simply s u p p o r t e d

shaft: c o m p a r i s o n s

t
0

Fig. 3
sons

Closed Form
Solutions

.02

.04
.06
Slenderness Ratio, R

.08

uniform

.10

First n a t u r a l f r e q u e n c y of a s i m p l y supported b e a m : c o m p a r i -

2TT

6.2

5.5

b.3

8ernoulli-Euler
A
Finite Element
Eshleman-Eubanks (eqs.41,12)
Eshleman-Eubanks (en.15)
j,

3
-

Bernoul 1 i-Euler
Rayleigh
Timoshenko
Shear Cffact
BernouIIi'-Euler'
Rayleigh
Timoshenko
Shear Effect

E = Forward Whirl
ackward Whir

0.04

0.06

0.0B

Slenderness Ratio, R

i
0

Fig. 6 Second p r i m a r y critical speed of a s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d u n i f o r m

shaft: c o m p a r i s o n s

.02

.04

.06

Slenderness Ratio,

.08

.10

motion reduces to

( ([iE]-[il])-([M] + (1-2X)[JV]) ) {p}

Fig. 4 Second n a t u r a l f r e q u e n c y of a simply supported b e a m : c o m parisons

purpose of the remainder of this paper is to investigate the influences of rotatory inertia, gyroscopic moment, and transverse
shear on the natural whirl speeds of a rotor system. Thus, it is
convenient to utilize the rotating reference coordinates and to
also impose undamped isotropic supports. In this case, we seek
a nontrivial solution for a specified spin/whirl ratio (X) in {p}
space with {p} equal to a constant. The element equation of

(16)

and its nontrivial solutions are obtained by solving the eigenvalue

problem.
{[K]-[A]) {p} - ([itf] + d-2X)[JV]) {p\

(17)

In the above equation, the matrices [K], [A], [M], and [JV] are
all symmetric and all have the property that the (x, y) and
(x, z) planar motions are uncoupled. It is possible, therefore, to
simplify the case of a two plane rotor dynamics problem into a
planar one. The result is

796/Vol. 102, OCTOBER 1980

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

Table 1 Natural frequencies

Timoshenko beam

of a nonrotating

simply

supported

Rotatory inertia

Shear deformation

Rotatory inertia and shear

effect only

effect only

effects combined

* =0

(Rayleiqh Beam)
p(s)

(Timoshenko Beam)
p(s)

Pi

P(5)

P 2

P(?)

P3

.02

3.1387 j

3.1385

3.1346 ;

3.1342

3.1316

3.1313

i 3.1312

1st

.04

3.1295 j

3.1293

3.1136 '

3.1125

3.1023

3.1017

3.1012

Mode

.06

3.1145 j

3.1143

3.0801 ,'

3.0780

3.0571

3.0561

.08

3.0940 j

3.0939

3.0361 I

3.0327

3.0005

2.9989

! 3.0551
1
j 2.9g71

2.9838 1

2.9790

2.9364

2.9343

! 2.9311

.02

3.0687 !
1
6.2638 !

3.0685
6.2586

6.2371

6.2250

6.2143

6.2074

; 6.2024

.04

6.1928

6.1877

6.0949

6.0653

6.0222

' 6.0079

| 5.9943

.06

6.0829 i

6.0779

5.8893

5.8387

5.7705

5.7482

j 5.7190

.08

5.9440

5.9391

5.6510

5.5811

5.5043

5.4752

; 5.3995

.10

5.7864

5.7817

5.4038

5.3188

5.2470

5.2126

4.9737

.10

2nd
Mode

T a b l e 2 P r i m a r y critical
Timoshenko beam

speeds

of

a simply

supported

X =

p(s)

p(s)

0.02

3.1392

3.1376

1st

0.04

3.1278

Mode

0.06

rotating

X =

p( 7 )

-1

P..

p(.)

p(s)

p( 7 )

P5

3.1374

3.1373

3.1270

3.1256

3.1253

3.1251

3.1251

3.1246

3.1245

3.0827

3.0802

3.0796

3.0780

3.1085

3.1038

3.1027

3.1037

3.0174

3.0135

3.0125

3.0067

0.08

3.0806

3.0734

3.0715

3.0757

2.9398

2.9342

2.9328

2.9193

0.10

3.0441

3.0338

3.0311

3.0416

2.8566

2.8493

2.8475

2.8234

0.02

6.3024

6.2604

6.2532

6.2489

6.2103

6.1699

6.1631

6.1560

0.04

6.2421

6.1717

6.1551

6.1515

5.9458

5.8878

5.8748

5.8387

0.06

6.1268

6.0171

5.9873

6.0045

5.6333

5.5575

5.5380

5.4493

0.08

5.9537

5.8052

5.7623

5.8250

5.3313

5.2396

5.2146

5.0670

0.10

5.7370

5.5596

5.5069

5.6287

5.0573

4,9530

4.9238

4.7231

2nd
Mode

X].-IA].) jp}. = w([M], + ( i - 2 \ M ] . ) {p}*

(18) Computational Results

where the matrices are all symmetric and of size (4 X 4).

System Equations
A typical rotor system is illustrated in Fig. 2 and consists of
uniform finite elements, rigid discs, and isotropic undamped
supports. The various system components are assembled using
classical assembly procedures and the system equations are of
the form
[K], {A} = ([M], + ( l - 2 \ ) [ i V ] s ) {A}

(19)

where the size of the matrices are (2n, X 2n s ) with n, equal to the
number of rotor stations. The solution of eq. (19) yields the
natural frequencies of whirl; ur,r = 1, 2, . . ., 2n,; for a specified
spin/whirl ratio, X, and the natural whirl modes {A} r .

Journal of Mechanical Design

In order to evaluate the accuracy of the Timoshenko beam

finite rotating shaft element, computed results were compared
with well established analyses of classical problems. The first
comparison was for the natural frequencies of a uniform nonrotating simply supported beam, X = 0, and the results are
compared to the values obtained from Timoshenko beam theory
as published in D y m and Shames [10]. The results of this comparison are presented in tabular form in Table 1 and in graphical
form in Figs. 3 and 4. The second comparison was for the primary
forward and backward critical speeds, X = 1 , for the same
beam and the results are compared to the values published by
Eshleman and Eubanks [11]. These comparisons are listed in
Table 2 and are graphed in Figs. 5 and 6.
T h e study was conducted with different numbers of elements in
order to establish a measure of analytical accuracy for a particular

OCTOBER 1980, Vol. 102/797

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

number of finite elements used in the system model. This information is also listed in the tables and graphs below. The
following notation is used in the tables: pi,2,3 represents the
values of p from equations 7.70, 7.71, 7.75 respectively of reference [10], p4,5 represents the values of p from equations 41, 42
respectively of reference [11], and p<"> represents the value of p
using n finite elements.

Summary and Conclusions

The equations of motion for a uniform rotating shaft element
have been formulated using deformation shape functions developed from Timoshenko beam theory. The model thus includes
the effects of translational and rotational inertia, gyroscopic
moments, bending and shear deformation, and axial load. The
effects of internal damping are not included b u t the generalization is straight forward. The inclusion of axial torque effects
will be presented in a later publication which is presently in
progress.
The numerical effort in this study included two separate configurations:
i) a nonrotating uniform Tomoshenko beam with
simply supported boundary conditions, ii) a rotating uniform
Timoshenko beam including gyroscopic moments. For both of
these cases the study included the variation of the shaft slenderness ratio over the range 0.02 to 0.10, and the variation of the
number of finite elements from 1 to 7. The results of the numerical work is contained in Tables 1 and 2. As expected, the accuracy of the finite element model improves as the number of
elements is increased.
For the nonrotating beam, three separate finite element
simulations were made and the results are included in Table 1.
The effects of rotatory inertia (Rayleigh Beam) and shear deformation were studied separately and also in combination
(Timoshenko Beam). The finite element simulations are compared with closed form solutions for the three cases in Table 1
and are also displayed graphically in Figs. 3 and 4. The first
natural frequency calculations using five finite elements yield
results which are within a fraction of a percent of the closed
form solutions for all three cases over the slenderness ratio range
0.02 to 0.10. For the second natural frequency the Rayleigh
beam comparison is also very accurate while the shear effect and
Timoshenko beam comparisons are less accurate with the percentage error increasing with the slenderness ratio. All of the
finite element predictions are high and at a slenderness ratio of
0.10 the percentage deviations are less than 2 percent for the
shear effect and less than 5 percent for the Timoshenko Beam.
For the rotating shaft, the first and second primary critical
speeds were determined using three, five, and seven equal length
finite element models. The computed values are listed in Table 2
for a range of slenderness ratios from 0.02 to 0.010. Table 2 also
includes the critical speeds as determined by approximate relations developed by Eshleman and Eubanks [11]. These approximate relations do not include interaction effects between the
transverse shear and rotatory inertia and the transverse shear
and gyroscopic effects. The general equations of motion solved
by Eshleman and Eubanks includes all of the interaction effects.
These results were available only in graphical form and are
reproduced in Figs. 4 and 5, together with the approximate
results from Eshleman and Eubanks and the finite element
results.
A comparison of results from Figs. 4 and 5 indicates t h a t the
finite element simulation yields primary critical speeds which
are less than 1 percent higher than predicted by Eshleman and
Eubank's closed form solution. In addition the error appears
to be reasonably insensitive to the slenderness ratio for the range
of the study. The approximate results presented by Eshleman
and Eubanks provide less accurate predictions but are still
within 5 percent of the closed form solution.
The numerical results indicate t h a t the finite element model

798/Vol. 102, OCTOBER 1980

developed in this paper provides an accurate representation of

rotating shaft dynamics. The inclusion of shear deformation
effects yields a more precise finite element than any presented
previously and it can be incorporated easily in existing computer
programs with negligible increase in computation time and
storage requirements.

References
1 Ruhl, R. L., "Dynamics of Distributed Parameter Rotor
Systems: Transfer Matrix and Finite Element Techniques,"
P h D dissertation, Cornell University, 1970.
2 Ruhl, R. L., and Booker, J. F., "A Finite Element Model
for Distributed Parameter Turborotor Systems," ASME,
Journal of Engineering for Industry, Feb. 1972, pp. 128-132.
3 Thorkildsen, T., "Solution of a Distributed Mass and Unbalanced Rotor System Using a Consistent Mass Matrix Approach," M S E Engineering Report, Arizona State University,
June, 1972.
4 Polk, S. R., "Finite Element Formulation and Solution of
Flexible Rotor-Rigid Disc Systems for Natural Frequencies and
Critical Whirl Speeds," M S E Engineering Report, Arizona State
University, May 1974.
5 Diana, G., Massa, E., and Pizzigoni, "A Finite Element
Method for Computing Oil Whirl Instability of a Rotating Shaft
Supported by Elastic Bearings," 7. Mech. E., 1975, pp. 659-663.
6 Dimaragonas, A. D., "A General Method for Stability
Analysis of Rotating Shafts," Ingenieur - Archive 44, H. 1, 1975,
pp. 9-20.
7 Gasch, R., "Vibration of Large Turbo-Rotors in FluidFilm Bearings on an Elastic Foundation," J. of Sound and Vibration, 47(i), 1976, pp. 53-73.
8 Nelson, H. D., and McVaugh, J. M., "The Dynamics of
Rotor-Bearing Systems Using Finite Elements," ASME, Journal
of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 98, No. 2, May 1976, pp. 5 9 3 600.
9 Zorzi, E. S., and Nelson, H. D., "Finite Element Simulation of Rotor-Bearing Systems with Internal Damping," ASME,
Journal of Engineering for Power, Vol. 99, Series A, No. 1, Jan.
1977, pp. 71-76.
10 Dym, C. L., and Shames, I. H., Solid Mechanics - A
Variational Approach, McGraw-Hill, 1973.
11 Eshleman, R. L., and Eubanks, R. A., "On the Critical
Speeds of a Continuous Rotor," ASME, Journal of Engineering
for Industry, Vol. 91, (4B), Nov., 1969, pp. 1180-1188.
12 Ziegler, H., Principles of Structural Stability, Blaisdell
Publishing Co., 1968.
13 Nelson, H. D., "A Finite Rotating Shaft Element Using
Timoshenko Beam Theory," Engineering Research Center Report ERC-R-77023, Arizona State University, Sept. 1977, p. 61.

APPENDIX
Shape Functions and Element Matrices
Shape Functions
fr{s)

v =

.]___

lotr{s)

^r(a)])r

lt 2,

3, 4

s
I

ai = 1 - 3l/2 + 2J;3

/3i = 1 - v

a 2 = l{v - 2c 2 + v>)

j3 2 = - (v - )

a 3 = Zv'i 2v3

fa = v

0,4

<f>r(s)

I
2

I
(

~"
1

1+ *

"2)
[er(s) +

(- + c2)

$8r(s)]

e, = - (6y - 6v)

Si = 0

e2 = 1 - iv + 3v

SI = 1

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

(vii)

Pseudo Gyroscopic Matrix

[M] = [MU = *[A/] ,

+ *W*

Wh

ml

420(1 + * ) *

156

22/

22/

iP

54

13/

54

13/

156

13/

3/2

22/

22/

4/2

13/

ske N

sym

-3/

0
-i

[M]l

294

38.5/

skew

sym

ml

38.5/

7/2

420(l + $)2

126

31.5/

126

31.5/

294

31.5/

(1

7/2

38.5/

31 .51

7/2

38.5/

7/2

[M.\i

140

17.5/

skew

sym

ml

17.5/

3.5/2

420(l + $)2

70

17.5/

70

17.5/

17.5/

3.5Z2

17.5/

17.5/

\i .5/2

Journal of Mechanical Design

17 . 5 /

-3.5/2

140

OCTOBER 1980, Vol. 102 / 803

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

[Af], =

ml
420(1 + $)2

140
0

140

-17.5/

3.5/2

17.5/

70

70

-17.5/

140

17.5/

-3.5/2

17.5/

3.5/2

-3.5P

-17.5/

-17.5/
(Hi)

sym

3.5/2
15.7/

140

3.5/2

Rotatory Mass Matrix

IN) = UV] + $UV], + $2[A>]2

36
0
0
mr
[N].

120/(1 + * ) 2

sym

36
4/2

-3/

3/

4/2

-36

-3/
0

36

-/2

3/

-/2

-3/

-36

3/

-3/
0

3/

36

4/2

mr
[N]i = 120/(l + co)2

15/

sym
5/2

-15/

15/

-15/

5/2
15/

-15/

-5P

-15/

S/2

-5/2

15/

5/2

[JV]i =

(w)

mr2
120/(l+$)2

sym

10/2

10/2

5/2

10/2

5/2

10/2

Gyroscopic Matrix
[G] = [H] - [H]T
= [G]0 + $ [ G ] 1 + $2[G] 2

800/Vol. 102, OCTOBER 1980

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

0
36

skew

-3?

-31

2mr 2
120/

[0].

sym

4P

36

-Zl

-36

-3/

36

-3?

Zl

-3;

-I*

3/

4/a

0
0

sym

skew

lbl

lbl

bP

~ 120T

lbl

15/

lbl

bP

-15/

151

-bP

-15/

2mr
[Oli

^1

J-Jj -

sym

2mrJ

10Z

120/

-bP

bP

10/2

skew

() Axial Load Incremental Stiffness Matrix

36
0

[A]. =

30/(l + *)2

sym

36
4/

-3/

4/<>

-36

-3/

-36

3/

36

-3/

-P

3/

4/>

3/

-3/

-P

36

60

Mli -

30/(l + $)2

60

bP

60

60

60

bP

-5Z

-60

sym
5/

-bP

Journal of Mechanical Design

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

30

U]t =

(vi)

30K1 + * ) 2

30

-30

30

30

2..5Z*

sym
2.5Z>

-30

-2.5P

2.5Z

-2.W

2.5Z

Unbalance Force Vector

{Q} = {Qc} cosUt+
{Qc\

{Qc\o+

{Q,\ sin fl(

{Qc\l

{Qs} = {0.}c + *{Q.ji

For the linear distribution of unbalance specified by the relations
V(s)

= VL(1 v) + I]RV

f(s) = fz,(l - v) + f B v,
the components of the unbalance force vector are:

20 " " '

20" " * '

27)

2?)

+ U[
6

3
W

fJ 2 -

To * - ii5 '"

24

5i? +

\Q,\,

(Q)o = m$2

= mQ><

""24
r/d

20 " '

27) ' " '

2-0 f ' ' '

20 !*>

24

- -

VLP + - V
30 '
20 '

'20

f t

'

~ 20

20 '

j<34 = " ^

"20 ' *

"20

f i

'

2i'2
24

30 ' " "

~~ 20

f i

'

24

HlflV

24

W
3 0 ^ + 2 0 ^

802/Vol. 102, OCTOBER 1980

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ruP
20 '

rid
3

W2
24

24

6
VRP

24

24

+ U
3

ft
6/

30 '

2~0 " " '

30 '

3
rid

20 "

24

24

'

UP
24

+ U3

U[2
1

11 si
6

24

5[
3

W2
24

W2
24

Transactions of the ASME

(vii)

Pseudo Gyroscopic Matrix

[M] = [MU = *[A/] ,

+ *W*

Wh

ml

420(1 + * ) *

156

22/

22/

iP

54

13/

54

13/

156

13/

3/2

22/

22/

4/2

13/

ske N

sym

-3/

0
-i

[M]l

294

38.5/

skew

sym

ml

38.5/

7/2

420(l + $)2

126

31.5/

126

31.5/

294

31.5/

(1

7/2

38.5/

31 .51

7/2

38.5/

7/2

[M.\i

140

17.5/

skew

sym

ml

17.5/

3.5/2

420(l + $)2

70

17.5/

70

17.5/

17.5/

3.5Z2

17.5/

17.5/

\i .5/2

Journal of Mechanical Design

17 . 5 /

-3.5/2

140

OCTOBER 1980, Vol. 102 / 803

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms