COMMUNICATIONS IN NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING, Vol.

13, 495510 (1997)

UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENTS BASED ON THE CLASSICAL

AND SHEAR DEFORMATION THEORIES OF BEAMS
AND AXISYMMETRIC CIRCULAR PLATES

J. N. REDDY 1, C. M. WANG 2 AND K. Y. LAM 2

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843-3123, U.S.A.
2
Faculty of Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260

SUMMARY
In this paper a unied nite element model that contains the EulerBernoulli, Timoshenko and simplied
Reddy third-order beam theories as special cases is presented. The element has only four degrees of freedom,
namely deection and rotation at each of its two nodes. Depending on the choice of the element type, the
general stiness matrix can be specialized to any of the three theories by merely assigning proper values to
parameters introduced in the development. The element does not experience shear locking, and gives exact
generalized nodal displacements for EulerBernoulli and Timoshenko beam theories when the beam is
homogeneous and has constant geometric properties. While the Timoshenko beam theory requires a shear
correction factor, the third-order beam theory does not require specication of a shear correction factor.
An extension of the work to axisymmetric bending of circular plates is also presented. A stiness matrix
based on the exact analytical form of the solution of the rst-order theory of circular plates is derived.
# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng, 13, 495510 (1997)

No. of Figures: 1 No. of Tables: 0 No. of References: 19

KEY WORDS classical deformation; shear deformation; axisymmetric circular plates; unied nite elements

1. INTRODUCTION
The nite element models of the EulerBernoulli beam theory (EBT) and Timoshenko beam
theory (TBT) are now standard (see Reddy1 ). A number of Timoshenko beam nite elements
have appeared in the literature.1 5 They dier from each other in the choice of interpolation
functions used for the transverse deection w0 and rotation f. Some are based on equal inter-
polation and others on unequal interpolation of w0 and f.
The Timoshenko beam nite element with linear interpolation of both w0 and f is the simplest
element. However, it is very sti in the thin beam limit, i.e. as the length-to-thickness ratio
becomes large (say, 100). Such behaviour is known as shear locking.2 5 The locking is due to the
inconsistency of the interpolation used for w0 and f. To overcome the locking, one may use equal
interpolation for both w0 and f but use a lower-order polynomial for the shear strain,
gxz dw0 =dx f. This is often realized by using selective integration, in which reduced-order
integration is used to evaluate the stiness coecients associated with the transverse shear

Correspondence to: J. N. Reddy, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M University, College Station,
TX 77843-3123, U.S.A.

CCC 10698299/97/06049516$17.50 Received 1 May 1996

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 1 January 1997
496 J. N. REDDY, C. M. WANG AND K. Y. LAM

strain, and all other coecients of the stiness matrix are evaluated using full integration. The
selective integration Timoshenko beam element is known to exhibit spurious energy modes.2;5
Pratap and Bhashyam5 discussed using a consistent interpolation of the variables to alleviate
locking.
Since the transverse shear strain in the Timoshenko beam theory6;7 is represented as a constant
through the beam thickness, a shear correction factor is introduced to calculate the transverse
shear force that would be equal in magnitude to the actual shear force. Since the actual shear
stress distribution through beam thickness is quadratic, Jemielita,8 Levinson,9 Bickford10 and
Reddy11;12 developed third-order beam theories to capture the true variation of the shear stress.
The displacement eld of these third-order theories accommodates quadratic variation of the
transverse shear strain and stresses, and there is no need to use shear correction factors in a third-
order theory. The Levinson third-order beam theory has the same equations of equilibrium as the
Timoshenko beam theory but the force and moment resultants contain higher-order strain terms.
Bickford10 used Levinson's displacement eld and developed variationally consistent equations
of motion of isotropic beams, while Reddy11;12 developed a variationally consistent third-order
theory of laminated composite plates.
Heyliger and Reddy13 used the third-order laminated plate theory of Reddy (RBT) to develop
a beam nite element and study bending and vibrations of isotropic beams. The element is based
on Lagrange linear interpolation of the rotation f and Hermite cubic interpolation of w0 , as they
are the minimum requirements imposed by the weak forms of the third-order theory (also see
Phan and Reddy14 and Reddy15 ).
The objective of the present paper is to develop a unied beam nite element that contains the
nite element models of the EulerBernoulli, Timoshenko and rened third-order beam theory
(RBT). The derivation of the unied element is based on the exact relationships developed by
Wang16 and Reddy et al.17 between various theories. The relationships allow interdependent
interpolation of w0 and f, and any redundancy of degrees of freedom is removed, resulting in an
ecient and accurate locking-free nite element for the analysis of beams according to classical
as well as rened beam theories.

2. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SOLUTIONS OF EBT, TBT AND RBT

2.1. A review of the theories
The bending equations of equilibrium and stress resultantdisplacement relations of the three
beam theories are summarized below for constant material and geometric properties:
EulerBernoulli beam theory (EBT):

d2 M Exx
qx 1
dx2
d2 wE0
M Exx Dxx 2
dx2

Timoshenko beam theory (TBT):

dM Txx dQTx
QTx ; qx 3a; b
dx dx

COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997) # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENTS 497
 
dfT T dwT0
M Txx Dxx ; QTx Axz K s f 4a; b
dx dx

Rened third-order beam theory (RBT):

dM R dPxx
xx
QR
x a bRx 5a
dx dx
dQRx dRx d2 Pxx
qx b a 5b
dx dx dx2
 R 
dfR df d2 wR
MR
xx D xx aF xx 0
6a
dx dx dx2
 
 R dwR
QRx Axz f
0
6b
dx
 R 
dfR df d2 wR
0
Pxx F xx aH xx 6c
dx dx dx2
 R

dw0
Rx D xz fR 6d
dx

where quantities with superscript `E' refer to the EulerBernoulli beam theory, `T' refers to the
Timoshenko beam theory K s denotes the shear correction factor) and `R' refers to the rened
third-order beam theory. In RBT, Pxx and Rx denote the higher-order stress resultants, and the
bending stiness Dxx , shear stiness Axz and parameters appearing in the above equations are
dened below: Z Z
Dxx E x z2 dA E x I 2
yy ; F xx E x z4 dA E x I 4
yy
A A
Z Z
H xx E x z6 dA E x I 6
yy ; Axz Gxz dA Gxz A 7a
ZA ZA
Dxz Gxz z2 dA Gxz I 2
yy ; F xz Gxz z4 dA Gxz I 4
yy
A A

D xx Dxx aF xx ; Fxx F xx aH xx
A xz Axz bDxz ; D xz Dxz bF xz 7b
D^ xx D xx aFxx ; A^ xz A xz bD xz

4 4
a ; b 3a 8
3h2 h2
where I i
yy denotes the ith area moment of inertia about the y-axis:
Z
I i
yy zi dA 9
A

and A is the area of the cross-section.

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997)
498 J. N. REDDY, C. M. WANG AND K. Y. LAM

The primary and secondary variables of the three theories are:

EulerBernoulli beam theory (EBT):

dw0
Primary variables : w0 ; 10a
dx
Secondary variables : Qx ; M xx 10b

Timoshenko beam theory (TBT):

Primary variables : w0 ; f 11a

Secondary variables : Qx ; M xx 11b

EulerBernoulli beam theory (RBT):

dw0
Primary variables : w0 ; ; f 12
dx
Secondary variables : V x; Pxx ; M xx aPxx 13

where

dPxx
V x  Qx bRx a 14
dx
The specication of a primary variable constitutes a geometric boundary condition, whereas the
specication of a secondary variable constitutes a force boundary condition. One should note
that the third-order theory requires the specication of both f and dw0 =dx, and the eective
shear force in RBT is V x .

2.2. Relationships between EBT and TBT solutions

The deection, bending moment, and shear force of Timoshenko beam theory can be expressed
in terms of the corresponding quantities of the EulerBernoulli beam theory. These relationships
are summarized below:16
 
Dxx Dxx x3 x2
Dxx wT0 x Dxx wE0 x M Exx x C1 x C2 C3 x C4 15
Axz K s Axz K s 6 2

dwE0 x2
Dxx fT x Dxx C1 C2 x C3 16
dx 2

M Txx x M Exx x C 1 x C2 17

QTx x QEx x C1 18

where C 1 , C 2 , C 3 and C 4 are constants of integration, which are to be determined using the
boundary conditions of the particular beam. For example, for hingedhinged beams all C i are

COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997) # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENTS 499

zero, for xedfree beams all Ci except C4 M Exx 0=Dxx Axz K s are zero, and for the clamped
hinged case they are given by
3OT
C1 M E 0; C 2 C 1 L; C 3 0; C 4 OT M Exx 0L2 19
1 3OT L xx

where OT Dxx =Axz K s L2 and L is the length of the beam. The values of the constants for
additional boundary conditions can be found in Wang.16

2.3. Relationships between solutions of EBT and RBT

The relationships between the bending solutions of EBT and RBT were developed recently by
Reddy et al.17 Unlike in the Timoshenko beam theory, the third-order theory requires the
solution of an additional second-order equation to establish these relationships. The reason is
that both EBT and TBT are fourth-order theories, whereas RBT is a sixth-order theory. The
R
second-order equation can be in terms of QR R
x , M xx , f or w0 . For example, in the case of beams
under a uniformly distributed transverse load q0 , the second-order equation in terms of QR x is
given by

d2 QR hq i
2
x
l2 Q R
x m
0
L 2x C 1 20a
dx 2
where
^ xz Dxx
A A xz D xx
l2 ; m 20b

aF xx Dxx Fxx Dxx 
aF xx Dxx Fxx Dxx
The solution to this dierential equation is
m E
QR
x x C 5 sinh lx C 6 cosh lx Qx C1 21
l2
Equations for force and moment resultants, rotation and deection of RBT in terms of the
EBT solutions are given by17

dPxx dM R
VR R
x x Qx bRx a xx
QEx x C 1 22
dx dx

MR E
xx x M xx x C 1 x C 2 23

 
dwE0 F xx R x2
Dxx fR x Dxx a Qx C 1 C 2 x C 3 24
dx A xz 2
  Z 
Dxx x3 x2
Dxx wR x D wE
xx 0 x Q R
Z dZ C1 C2 C3 x C4 25
A xz
0 x
6 2

The six constants of integration, C1 C6 , are determined using the six boundary conditions
available in the third-order theory. The boundary conditions for various types of supports are

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997)
500 J. N. REDDY, C. M. WANG AND K. Y. LAM

dened below, consistent with the primary and secondary variables of RBT:
dPxx
freeF: QR
x bRx a 0 26
dx
MR
xx aPxx 0; Pxx 0 27

simply supportedS: wR
0 0; MR
xx aPxx 0; Pxx 0 28

dwR
clampedC: wR
0 0; fR 0; 0
0 29
dx
For example, for a hingedhinged beam under a uniformly distributed load of intensity q0 , the
constants are given by
   
q0 m Dxx
C1 C2 C3 0; C4 30a
l4 A xz
 
q0 m q0 m lL
C5 3 ; C6 3 tanh 30b
l l 2

For a cantilever beam under a uniformly distributed load, the constants have the values
     
Dxx q0 m 1 lL sinh lL
C 1 C 2 C 3 0; C 4 31a
A xz l4 cosh lL
 
q m 1 lL sinh lL q Lm
C 5 03 ; C6 0 2 31b
l cosh lL l

3. A UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF BEAMS

3.1. Preliminary comments
Here we develop a single element that incorporates the kinematics of all three theories. The
development utilizes the relationships between the solutions of the three theories (see Section 2).
To avoid solving the second-order equation, we simplify the third-order theory and then develop
the element. A simplication of RBT can be made by reducing the order of the theory from sixth
to fourth. This is done here by dropping the second-derivative term in the additional dierential
equation for w0 . While this is an approximation of the original third-order theory, it is as simple
and accurate as the Timoshenko beam theory while not requiring a shear correction factor.

3.2. Simplied RBT

First we derive the second-order equation in terms of w0 . Substituting 6a into (23), we obtain

dfR d2 wR d2 wE0
D xx aF xx 0
Dxx C1 x C2 32
dx dx2 dx2

COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997) # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENTS 501

Integrating the above equation gives

dwR dwE x2
D xx fR aF xx 0 Dxx 0 C1 C 2 x C 3 33
dx dx 2
From 5a and 6b; d, we have
R  
dM xx dM R
xx dPxx ^ R dwR0
 a Axz f 34
dx dx dx dx

so that

1 dM R dwR
fR xx
0
35
^ xz dx
A dx

Substituting (35) into (33), we obtain

   R
Dxx dMxx dwR dwE x2
Dxx 0 Dxx 0 C1 C 2 x C 3 36
A^ xz dx dx dx 2

which, on integration, yields

 
Dxx  R x3 x2
Dxx wR0 x Mxx Dxx wE0 x C1 C 2 C3 x C 4 37
^ xz
A 6 2

From 6a, we have

R 2 R
MR  df aF xx d w0
xx Dxx 38
dx dx2
R 2 R
M ^ xx df aFxx d w0
 R  M R aPxx D 39
xx xx
dx dx2
Eliminating dfR =dx from (38) and (39), we obtain
2 R
^ xx M R D xx M
D ^ xx Fxx D xx d w0
 R aF xx D 40
xx xx
dx2
and, using (23), we can write
^ 2 R
 R Dxx M E C 1 x C 2 a F xx D
M ^ xx Fxx D xx d w0 41
D xx D xx
xx xx
dx2

Finally, substituting (41) into (37), we obtain

!
a d2 R
w ^ xx
D
Dxx wR ^ xx Fxx D xx 0
Dxx wE0 x M Exx
0 x ^ F xx D
^ xz
Axz dx2 A
" ! # " !#
x3 D^ xx x2 ^ xx
D
x C1 C2 C3 x C4 42
6 ^ xz
A 2 A^ xz

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997)
502 J. N. REDDY, C. M. WANG AND K. Y. LAM

Now, we wish to simplify the RBT by neglecting the second-derivative term in (42). This
amounts to reducing the order of the theory from sixth to fourth. We obtain
! " ! #
D^ xx x3 ^ xx
D
R E E
Dxx w0 x Dxx w0 x M xx x C1
A^ xz 6 ^ xz
A
" !#
x2 ^ xx
D
C2 C3 x C4 43
2 ^ xz
A

3.3. Summary of the relationships

The relationships between EBT, TBT and simplied RBT can now be expressed in one set by
introducing tracers A and B:

VR E
x x Qx x C 1 44

MR E
xx x M xx x C 1 x C 2 45

dwE0 x2
Dxx yR x Dxx C1 C2 x C3 46
dx 2
 3   2 
x x
Dxx wR
0 x D xx wE
0 x AM E
xx x C 1 Ax C 2 B C3 x C4 47
6 2

where
8
>
> 0 for EBT 8
>
> > 0 for EBT
>
> D >
>
>
< xx for TBT >
< 0 for TBT
A Axz K s B 48
>
> >
> ^ xx
D
>
> ^ >
>
>
> D : for simplified RBT
> xx
: for simplified RBT ^ xz
A
^ xz
A

and yR is the equivalent slope

R
dw
Dxx yR x D xx fR x aF xx 0 49
dx

3.4. Stiness matrix derivation

Consider a (Hermite cubic) beam element of length h and element-wise constant material and
geometric properties. Let the generalized displacements at nodes 1 and 2 of a typical element of
any of the three beam theories be dened as [see Figure 1(a)]

w0 0 D1 ; y0  D2
50
w0 h D3 ; yh  D4

COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997) # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENTS 503

Figure 1. Geometry and sign convention for the generalized displacements and forces of a beam element: (a) generalized
displacements and generalized forces; (b) interpretation of the stiness coecients as forces required to produce unit
generalized displacements

where yx denotes the slope (positive clockwise), which has dierent meaning in dierent
theories, as dened below:
8
> dw0
>
> dx for EBT
<

yx 51
>
> fT x
 for TBT
>
: R

y x for simplified RBT

where x denotes the element co-ordinate, the origin of which is located at node 1 of the element.
Next, let Q1 and Q3 denote the shear forces (i.e. values of V Rx at nodes 1 and 2, respectively;

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997)
504 J. N. REDDY, C. M. WANG AND K. Y. LAM

similarly, let Q2 and Q4 denote the bending moments (i.e. values of M R xx ) at nodes 1 and 2,
respectively. Figure 1(a) shows the sign convention used for the generalized displacements and
forces.
The stiness matrix for the unied element is derived using the traditional method to calculate
stinesses in structural analysis. The method involves imposing a unit generalized displacement,
while all other generalized displacements are zero, and determining the generalized forces
required to keep the beam in equilibrium (i.e. equivalent to using the unitdummydisplacement
method). The formulation utilizes the relationships between EBT, and TBT and RBT. This
amounts to using Hermite cubic interpolation for the transverse deection and a dependent
interpolation for the slope. The procedure is outlined briey here.
To obtain the rst column of the element stiness matrix, we set [see Figure 1(b)]:

dwE0
at x 0: wE0 wT0 wR
0  D1 ; yT y R 0 52a
dx

dwE0
at x h: wE0 wT0 wR
0 0; yT yR 0 52b
dx

and determine the constants C1 C 4 from (44)(47). We obtain

0 1
12Dxx B C
B A CD1 ; C2 h C1
C1 3 @ 2 A
h h 2
A 53
12
 
6Dxx
C 3 0; C 4 A D1 C 2 B
h2

Substitution of these constants into (44)(47) gives

 
12Dxx
Q1  V R x 0 m D1
h3
 
R 6Dxx
Q2  M xx 0 m D1
h2
  54
12Dxx
Q3  V R
x h m D1
h3
 
6Dxx
Q4  M Rxx h m D1
h2

where

1 A
m ; O 55
1 12O h2

COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997) # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENTS 505

This completes the derivations of the stiness coecients of the rst column of the stiness
matrix. The same procedure can be repeated, with dierent generalized displacements set to
unity, to obtain the remaining stiness coecients. The complete nite element model is given by
2 3
12Dxx 6Dxx 12Dxx 6Dxx
6
6 h3 h2 h3 h2 77
6 78 9 8 9 8 9
6 6D 4D 6D e
2D 7 q1 > Q1 >
6 xx xx
l xx xx
x 7>
> D1 >
> >
> > >
> >
6 h2 h h2 h 7< = < = < =
6 7 D2 q2 Q2
m6 7 56
6 12Dxx 6D 12D 6D 7>
> D3 >
> >
> q3 >
> >
> Q3 >
>
6 xx xx xx 7: ; : ; : ;
6 h3 h2 h3 h2 7 D4 q4 Q4
6 7
6 7
4 6Dxx 2Dxx 6Dxx 4Dxx 5
2 x 2
l
h h h h
where

l 1 3O; x 1 6O 57

and
Z h
qei qx'i x dx 58
0

Here 'i x denote the Hermite interpolation functions implied by (44)(47).

4. A UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF CIRCULAR PLATES

4.1. Basic equations
Here we present, following the same ideas as used for beams, a development of a unied nite
element that contains both classical and Timoshenko type kinematics for axisymmetric bending
of circular plates. The r-co-ordinate is taken radially outward from the centre of the plate and the
z-co-ordinate along the thickness (or height) of the plate. The classical plate theory (CPT) is
based on the displacement eld

dw0
ur r; z z
dr 59
uz r; z w0 r

where w0 is the transverse deection of the point r; 0 on the midplane (i.e. z 0) of the plate.
The rst-order shear deformation plate theory is based on the displacement eld

ur r; z zfr
60
uz r; z w0 r

where f denotes rotation of a transverse normal in the plane y constant. The bending
equations of equilibrium and stress resultantdisplacement relations of the two theories are
summarized below for constant material and geometric properties.

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997)
506 J. N. REDDY, C. M. WANG AND K. Y. LAM

Classical plate theory (CPT):

d d
rQC
r rq; rQC
r  rM C C
rr M yy 61a; b
dr dr

where

d2 wC 1 dwC
MC
rr D11
0
D 12
0
62a
dr2 r dr
d2 wC 1 dwC
MC
yy D12
0
D 22
0
62b
dr2 r dr

and QCr denotes the shear force in the classical plate theory.
First-order shear deformation plate theory (FST):

d
rM Frr M Fyy rQFr 0 63a
dr
d
rQFr rq 63b
dr
where

dfF 1
M Frr D11 D12 fF 64a
dr r
dfF 1
M Fyy D12 D22 fF 64b
dr r
 
dwF0
QFr A44 K s fF 64c
dr

4.2. Relationships between CPT and FST solutions

The deection, bending moment and shear force of the rst-order plate theory can be expressed
in terms of the corresponding quantities of the classical plate theory for axisymmetric bending of
isotropic circular plates. The relationships are again established using the load equivalence (see
Wang and Lee18 ).
First we introduce the moment sum (see Szilard19 )
M rr M yy
M 65
1n
Using 62a; b in (65), we can show that
 2 C   
C d w0 1 dwC
0 1 d dwC0
M D D r 66a
dr2 r dr r dr dr

COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997) # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENTS 507

and
 
1 d dMC
r q 66b
r dr dr

We can also establish the following equality using denition (65) and equations 62a; b:

dMC d
r rM C C C
rr M yy rQr 67
dr dr
Similarly, we have
 
dfF 1 F 1 d
F
M D f D rfF 68
dr r r dr

and
 
1 d dMF
r q 69
r dr dr
dMF d
r rM Frr M Fyy rQFr 70
dr dr
From 61a; b and 63b it follows that

rQFr rQC
r c1 71

and from (67), (70) and (71) we have

dMF dMC
r r c1
dr dr
or

MF MC c1 log r c2 72

where c1 and c2 are constants of integration.

Next, from (65), (68) and (72), we have

dwC c1 r c2 r c3
fF 0
2 log r 1 73
dr 4D 2D rD
Finally, from 64c, (71) and (73), we obtain

dwF0 1  C c1 
fF Qr 74
dr GhK s r
C
and noting that QC
r dM =dr, we have

c1 r 2 c1 c2 r2 c3 log r c4 MC
wF0 wC
0 1 log r log r 75
4D K s Gh 4D D D K s Gh

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997)
508 J. N. REDDY, C. M. WANG AND K. Y. LAM

The four constants of integration are determined using the boundary conditions of the
problem. Note that, for a solid circular plate, for r 0, (71) gives c1 0.

4.3. Finite element model

Here we develop a nite element model for axisymmetric bending of isotropic circular plates that
contains the classical plate element as a special case. We adopt a slightly dierent approach to
derive the element stiness matrix. The general solution of 63a; b, for the isotropic case, is
  
1 4D
wF0 r log r r2 log r 1 c1 c2 r2 4c3 log r 4c4
4D GAK s
c^1 c^2 r2 c^ 3 log r c^ 4 r2 log r 76

1 h c3 i
fF r c1 r2 log r 1 2c2 r 4
4D  r 
c^3 1
2^c2 r c^ 4 r1 2 log r G 77
r r

where D Eh3 =121 n2 and G 4D=GAK s . Then we have

2 3
1 r2a log ra r2a log ra
8 9 6 1
7
1 78 ^ 9
> D1 > 66 G 7> c1 >
>
< > = 60 2ra
ra
ra 1 2 log ra
ra 7
>
< > =
D2 6 7 c^ 2
6 7
> D > 6 r2b r2b log rb 7> c^ >
>
: >3
; 61 log rb 7>
: 3> ;
D4 6 7 c^ 4
4 1 1 5
0 2rb rb 1 2 log rb G
rb rb

or

fDg Hf^cg 78

The nodal forces are

Q1  2prQFr r ra 8pD^ c4
   
1 n 1 n
Q2  2prM Frr r ra 2pD 21 nra c^ 2 c^ 3 La G c^ 4
ra ra
Q3  2prQFr r rb 8pD^ c4
   
1 n 1 n
Q4  2prM Frr r rb 2pD 21 nrb c^ 2 c^ 3 Lb G c^ 4
rb rb

or

fQg Gf^cg GH 1 fDg  KfDg 79

COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997) # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 UNIFIED FINITE ELEMENTS 509

where La 21 nlog ra 3 nra , Lb 21 nlog rb 3 nrb and

20 0 0 4 3
6 1 n h i 7
60 21 nra 7
La 1 ra n G
6 ra 7
6 7
G 2pD6 7 80
60 0 0 4 7
6 7
4 1 n h i5
0 21 nrb Lb 1 n
rb G
rb

and K GH 1 is the unied element stiness matrix. The classical plate element stiness
matrix is obtained from K by setting G 0. Note that the stiness matrix derivation presented
herein is based on the form of the exact solution, which diers from the conventional polynomial
based stiness matrix. Of course, the present element gives exact nodal values.

5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a unied nite element model of the EulerBernoulli, Timoshenko and simplied
Reddy third-order beam theories is developed. The bending stiness matrix of the unied nite
element is derived. The development is based on the exact relationships between the bending
solutions of the EulerBernoulli beam theory (EBT), Timoshenko beam theory (TBT) and
simplied Reddy third-order beam theory (RBT). The relationships provide an interdependent
interpolation of the deection and rotation of the form
X
4 X
4
wR
0 x Dj 'j x; yR x Dj cj x 81
j 1 j 1

where cj are quadratic interpolation functions related to 'j . Consequently, the element stiness
matrix is of the same order as that for the EulerBernoulli beam element 4  4, and it gives
exact nodal values of the generalized displacements for EulerBernoulli and Timoshenko beams
with uniform cross-section and homogeneous material properties (i.e. the element has a
superconvergence property). An independent interpolation of the form
X
4 X
3
wR
0 x Dj 'j x; yR x Yj cj x 82
j 1 j 1

would have led to a stiness matrix of order 7  7 for the same accuracy as the element derived
herein. Thus, shear deformable nite elements based on the Timoshenko and third-order beam
theories can be included in any computer program by simply replacing the stiness matrix of the
existing EulerBernoulli beam nite element with that given in (56). The element proves to be
very ecient for use in frame structural analysis (after including axial displacement degrees of
freedom) because only one element for the structural member is sucient to obtain exact
displacements and forces from element equilibrium equations. The traditional, equal but linear
interpolation element with selective reduced integration will not give the same accuracy unless
two or more elements per structural member are used. Further, the present element includes shear
deformation and therefore the user never has to know if the shear deformation is signicant
enough to include in the analysis.

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997)
510 J. N. REDDY, C. M. WANG AND K. Y. LAM

A unied element stiness matrix for axisymmetric bending of a circular plate is also
developed. It includes the classical and rst-order shear deformation theories. The element
stiness matrix is unconventional in that it is based on the form of analytical solution, which
contains logarithmic terms and yields exact nodal values, whereas the conventional polynomial
based element yields only approximate nodal values. One must be careful about such an element
because it does not contain the rigid body mode.
Extension of the present formulation to a general curved beam, with dynamic and non-linear
eects, is desirable to make it a more practical element. Similar ideas may prove to be useful in
developing locking-free plate elements, although the two-dimensional nature and arbitrary
geometry of a plate element makes it dicult to readily extend the present thinking.

REFERENCES

1. J. N. Reddy, An Introduction to the Finite Element Method, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993.
2. R. C. Averill and J. N. Reddy, `On the behaviour of plate elements based on the rst-order theory', Eng.
Comput., 7, 5774 (1990).
3. R. E. Nickell and G. A. Secor, `Convergence of consistently derived Timoshenko beam nite elements',
Int. j. numer. methods eng., 5, 243253 (1972).
4. A. Tessler and S. B. Dong, `On a hierarchy of conforming Timoshenko beam elements', Comput.
Struct., 14(34), 335344 (1981).
5. G. Prathap and G. R. Bhashyam, `Reduced integration and the shear exible beam element', Int. j.
numer. methods eng., 18, 195210 (1982).
6. S. P. Timoshenko, `On the correction for shear of the dierential equation for transverse vibrations of
prismatic bars', Philosophical Magazine, 41, 744746 (1921).
7. S. P. Timoshenko, `On the transverse vibrations of bars of uniform cross section', Philos. Mag., 43,
125131 (1922).
8. G. Jemielita, `Techniczna teoria plyt srednieej grubbosci' (Technical theory of plates with moderate
thickness), Rozprawy Inzynierskie (Engineering Transactions), Polska Akademia Nauk, 23(3), 483499
(1975).
9. M. Levinson, `A new rectangular beam theory', J. Sound Vib., 74, 8187 (1981).
10. W. B. Bickford, `A consistent higher order beam theory', Dev. Theor. Appl. Mech., 11, 137150 (1982).
11. J. N. Reddy, `A simple higher-order theory for laminated composite plates', J. Appl. Mech., 51,
745752 (1984).
12. J. N. Reddy, Energy and Variational Methods in Applied Mechanics, Wiley, New York, 1984.
13. P. R. Heyliger and J. N. Reddy, `A higher-order beam nite element for bending and vibration
problems', J. Sound Vib., 126(2), 309326 (1988).
14. N. D. Phan and J. N. Reddy, `Analysis of laminated composite plates using a higher-order shear
deformation theory', Int. J. numer. methods eng., 12, 22012219 (1985).
15. J. N. Reddy, Mechanics of Laminated Composite Plates: Theory and Analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, 1997.
16. C. M. Wang, `Timoshenko beam-bending solutions in terms of EulerBernoulli solutions', J. Eng.
Mech.,, ASCE, 121(6), 763765 (1995).
17. J. N. Reddy et al., `Exact relationships between the bending solutions of the EulerBernoulli beam
theory and shear deformable beam theories', Int. J. Solids & Struct. (1997), in press.
18. C. M. Wang and K. H. Lee, `Deection and stress-resultants of axisymmetric Mindlin plates in terms of
corresponding Kircho solutions', Int. J. Mech. Sci. 38(11), 11791185 (1996).
19. R. Szilard, Theory and Analysis of Plates, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1974.

COMMUN. NUMER. METH. ENGNG, VOL. 13, 495510 (1997) # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.