NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RAIPUR

SHEAR DEFORMATION THEORIES

EULER-BERNOULLI V/S TIMOSHENKO

SUBMITTED TO : SUBMITTED BY :
DR. G.D. RAMTEKKAR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
PAVITHRA .V
RAHUL DHAKER
 CONTENT
 Introduction
 Euler-Bernoulli’s beam theory
 Timoshenko theory
 Mathematical formulation
 Stiffness matrix
 INTRODUCTION

 Conversion of 3D beam into 1D model.

 The simplest and best known models were given by
- Euler–Bernoulli beam theory
- Timoshenko beam theory
 EULER BERNOULLI BEAM THEORY

• Also known as Engineer's beam theory or Classical beam theory or ZERO ORDER SHEAR
DEFORMATION BEAM THEORY
• First enunciated around 1750, but was not applied on a large scale until the development
of the Eiffel Tower and the Ferris wheel in the late 19th century
• A special case of Timoshenko beam theory.
• Inaccurate for deep beams.
 EULER BERNOULLI THEORY ASSUMPTIONS
1. Beam is isotropic.
- At one point ,in any direction , property will be same

σ
σ σ1 σ1
σ

σ σ
σ1 σ1
σ1
2. Beam is homogenous.
- At any point ,in one direction , property remains same.

σ σ

σ σ
Homogenous + isotropic
- at any point, in any direction ,property remains same

σ
σ
σ

σ σ
3. Beam material obeys hooke’s law.

- stress is directly proportional to strain within elastic limit i.e. upto point B.

B
stress A

strain
 4. Loading across the width of beam is uniform.

B
z

1
5. Plane section ,perpendicular to neutral axis before bending, remains plane and
perpendicular to neutral axis after bending.

N A

A P

P
 Shear deformation is negligible i.e. Ꚍxy = 0

Ꚍxy = 0
There are shear deformation theories that remove the previous assumption.
We will go over the Timoshenko beam theory that removes the previous assumption for
beams.
When the beam is thick in that case the cross-sectional dimensions of the beam are
considered to be comparable in comparison with the length and the shear effect becomes
predominant.
When the normality assumption is not used i.e. “plane sections remain plane” but not
necessarily normal to the longitudinal (neutral) axis after deformation, the transverse
shear strain is not zero.
Beam theory based on these assumptions is called first order shear deformation beam
theory, most commonly known as the Timoshenko beam theory.
 WHY CONSIDER SHEAR DEFORMATION ?
𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛
 For normal beam ratio lies between 10-15, usually above 7 or 8.
𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ

 Even if it go up to 7 or 8 it does not reflect any significant error in ignoring shear deformation.
𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛
 When the depth of beam is large, ratio is low. When ratio is low. i.e. in the range
𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ
2.5 to 7.
 In such case plane section no longer remain plane after bending.
 There is the significant warping effect in the cross-section which cannot be ignored.
 Other way of analyzing the shear deformation is in term of strain energy i.e. the strain energy
in the beam which is usually negligible (less then 1 percent) in comparison to flexural strain
energy become significant when span/depth ratio approaches to the unity.
TIMOSHENKO BEAM THEORY ASSUMPTIONS
 Plane section ,perpendicular to neutral axis before bending, remains plane but not
perpendicular to neutral axis after bending.

P
 Shear deformation is not zero i.e. Ꚍxy ≠ 0
In a Timoshenko beam a rotation between the cross section and the bending line is
allowed.This rotation comes from a shear deformation, which is not included in a
Bernoulli beam. Therefore, the Bernoulli beam is stiffer. However, if the relation between
length and thickness is large enough the error between both models is small. You need the
Timoshenko beam works for shorter beam structures.
 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
EULER-BERNOULLI BEAM THEORY

 The Euler-Bernoulli equation describes the relationship between the beam's deflection
and the applied load.
𝑑4𝑤
q = EI( 4 )
𝑑𝑥

where, q = force per unit length

E = Elastic modulus
I = Second moment of area
w = displacement in z direction
z

uz = w(x) = Vertical deflection of the neutral axis

 A ux = -z Ѱ(x)
D
𝒅𝒘
As plane AB remains Ʇ to CD Ѱ =
𝒅𝒙

𝒅𝒘
ux = -z
𝒅𝒙
C B
𝜕𝒖x 𝒅 𝟐𝒘
Ꜫxx = = -z 𝟐
𝜕𝒙 𝒅𝒙
 STIFFNESS MATRIX OF STANDARD BEAM ELEMENT
EULER-BERNOULLI BEAM THEORY

Consider pure bending

V- transverse displacement
𝑑𝑣
ɸ=
𝑑𝑥
Assume V is the shape function (Displacement Function)
V= C1 + C2x + C3x2 + C4x3 …………… (i)

4 Coefficients → 4 DOF

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 20

 V1 V2
Boundary Condition :
Node 1: x = 0, V(0) = V1 = C1 ……… 1 ɸ1 ɸ2
𝑑𝑉
= C2 + 2C3x + 3C3x2 = ɸ
𝑑𝑥
At x =0, ɸ(0) = ɸ1 = C2 ……….2

Node 2: x = l, V(l) = V2 = C1 + C2l + C3l2 + C4l3 ….……. 3

ɸ (l) = ɸ2 = C2 + 2C3l + 3C4l2 ………..4

Simultaneously solving equations 1, 2, 3 and 4

C1 = V1
C2 = ɸ1
−3𝑉1 2ɸ1 3𝑉2 ɸ2
C3 = 2 − + 2 −
𝑙 𝑙 𝑙 𝑙
2𝑉 ɸ1 2𝑉2 ɸ2
C4 = + − +
𝑙3 𝑙2 𝑙3 𝑙3
ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 21
Substituting these equations in the displacement function
‘V’ = C1 + C2x + C3x2 + C4x3 and
rearranging in terms of each DOF, V1, ɸ1, V2, ɸ2

V= N1 V1 + N2 ɸ1 + N3 V2 + N4 ɸ2

where N1, N2, N3 and N4 are the shape functions

Solving we get,
𝑙3−2𝑙𝑥2+𝑥3 𝑙2𝑥−2𝑥2𝑙+𝑥3
N1 = N2 =
𝑙3 𝑙2
3𝑥2𝑙−2𝑥3 𝑥3−𝑥2𝑙
N3 = N4 = 2
𝑙3 𝑙

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 22

No. of shape function = DOF ( V1, ɸ1, V2, ɸ2 )

NODE 1 NODE 2 Slope = 0

Slope = 0 1
1
Slope = 0 Slope = 0

ᶓ ᶓ1= -1 ᶓ ᶓ2= 1
ᶓ1= -1 ᶓ2= 1

Slope = 0 Slope = 1
Slope = 1 Slope = 0

ᶓ ᶓ2= ᶓ1= -1 ᶓ2= 1

ᶓ1= -1 1 ᶓ

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 23

 STIFFNESS MATRIX
EULER-BERNOULLI BEAM THEORY

Now the stiffness matrix is derived from the shape functions and using the strain
equilibrium. It comes out to be :

𝐸𝐼 12 6𝑙 12 6𝑙
K=
𝑙3 6𝑙 4𝑙2 −6𝑙 2𝑙2
−12 −6𝑙 12 −6𝑙
6𝑙 2𝑙2 −6𝑙 4𝑙2

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 24

TIMOSHENKO BEAM THEORY

uz = w(x) = Vertical deflection of the neutral axis

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 25

 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
TIMOSHENKO BEAM THEORY

ux = -z Ѱ(x)
A 𝒅𝒘
As plane AB not Ʇ to CD Ѱ ≠
𝒅𝒙
D
𝒅Ѱ
σxx = -E z 𝒅𝒙
C
𝜕𝒖𝒙 𝜕𝒖𝒛
σ xz = G( + )=
B 𝜕𝒛 𝜕𝒙
𝒅𝒘
G (- Ѱ(x) + )
𝒅𝒙
The governing equation is a system of ordinary differential equations:
𝑑𝑤 1 𝑑 𝑑Ѱ
=Ѱ- (𝐸𝐼 )
𝑑𝑥 𝑘𝐴𝐺 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥

where k - Timoshenko shear coefficient which depends on the geometry.

G - Shear modulus.
E - Elastic modulus.
I - Second moment of area.
A - Area of cross section.
Timoshenko beam theory for the static case is equivalent to the Euler-Bernoulli
theory when the last term above is neglected, an approximation that is valid
when
𝑬𝑰
<< 1
𝑳𝑨𝒌𝑮

where L is the length of the beam

TIMOSHENKO BEAM EQUATIONS
𝜕𝑄 𝜕2𝑊 ……. (a)
+ 𝑝 = 𝜌𝐴 2
𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑡
𝜕𝑀 𝜕2∅ …….. (b)
− 𝑄= 𝜌𝐼 2
𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑡

EI
𝜕∅
𝜕𝑧
= M
………. (c)

𝜕𝑊
+∅=
𝑄 ……… (d)
𝜕𝑧 𝐾𝐴𝐺

where Q = ∫∫σxx dx dy

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 29

 ꝺσ𝑥𝑥 ꝺσ𝑥𝑦
p = ∫∫( + + Fx ) dx dy;
ꝺ𝑥 ꝺ𝑦

W=(1/A) ∫∫ux dx dy

M= ∫∫xσZZ dxdy

1
Ø = 𝐼 ∫∫x uz dx dy

2 1+𝜈 𝐼
K = 𝜈(𝐼 −𝐼) 𝐴
1 − ∬ 𝑥 χ+𝑥𝑦2 𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
2 𝐼

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 30

 STIFFNESS MATRIX
TIMOSHENKO BEAM THEORY

β
γ

𝑑𝑣
Ѱ=β+γ=
𝑑𝑥

β - the bending angle of the beam.

γ - the shear angle due to the shear deformation.
v- displacement
 𝑑𝑀
V= where V = shear force
𝑑𝑥
𝑑β
M = EI where M = bending moment
𝑑𝑥
Putting the value of M in equation for V

𝑑2 β
V = EI
𝑑𝑥2

We know, V = GAkγ

where G=modulus of rigidity,

A=area of the cross section,
K=shear correction factor
K varies in different cross sections
ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 32
 𝑉 𝐸𝐼 𝑑2β
So, γ= =
𝐺𝐴𝑘 𝐺𝐴𝑘 𝑑𝑥2

𝑑𝑣
Now let β= (only bending)
𝑑𝑥
Putting the value of β in the expression for γ ,we get
𝐸𝐼 𝑑3𝑣
γ =
𝐺𝐴𝑘 𝑑𝑥3

The polynomial solution of 𝑣ҧ =a1x3 + a2x2 + a3x +a4

where a1, a2, a3 and a4 are polynomial constants

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 33

 𝑑3𝑣ത
= 6a1
𝑑𝑥3
𝑑3𝑣ത
Putting the value of in γ,
𝑑𝑥3
𝐸𝐼
γ= 6a1 = 6a1g,
𝐺𝐴𝑘
𝐸𝐼
where, g =
𝐺𝐴𝑘
𝑑𝑣
Again, β = = 3a1x2 +2a2x + a3
𝑑𝑥
Ѱ = β + γ = 3a1x2 + 2a2x + a3 + 6a1g
Ѱ = (3x2 + 6g) a1 + a3 + 2a2x

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 34

 𝑑𝑣
We know, Ѱ=
𝑑𝑥

So v = ‫ ׬‬Ѱ dx
v = a1x3 + a2x2 + (a3 + 6ga1) x + a4
Now putting the boundary condition for both Ѱ and v :
When x = 0; v (0) = a4 = d1;
Ѱ(0) = a3 + 6ga1 = ɸ1;
When x = l ; v (l) = a1l3 + a2l2 + a3l + a4 = d2;
Ѱ(l) = 2a2l + a3 + (3l + 6g) a1 = ɸ2;

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 35

Putting all the boundary condition in the expression for v, we can get the
value of constant coefficients in terms of d1, ɸ1, d2, ɸ2
2𝑑1+𝑙ɸ1−2𝑑2+𝑙ɸ2
a1 = ;
𝑙2+12 𝑔 𝑙

−3𝑙𝑑1− 2𝑙2+6𝑔 ɸ1+3𝑙𝑑2 −(𝑙2−6𝑔)ɸ2

a2 = 2 ;
𝑙 +12 𝑔 𝑙

−12𝑔𝑑1+ 𝑙3+6𝑔𝑙 ɸ1+12𝑔𝑑2 −6𝑔lɸ2

a3= ;
𝑙2+12 𝑔 𝑙
a4= d1;

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 36

Putting the value of a1, a2, a3 and a4 in the expression for v, we get

1 𝐿 λ 1
v= [ 1 + 2𝜁3 - 3 𝜁2 + λ(1- 𝜁)] d1 + [ 𝜁 + 𝜁3 -2 𝜁2 + (𝜁- 𝜁2)] ɸ1 + [ -2 𝜁3 + 3 𝜁2 +λ 𝜁]d2
1+λ 1+λ 2 1+λ
𝐿 λ
+ [𝜁2 𝜁3 - + (𝜁2 - 𝜁)] ɸ2
1+λ 2

𝑥 12𝑔
where 𝜁 = and λ =
𝐿 𝐿2

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 37

From the expression for v, we get the shape function due to bending as
1
N11 = [1 + 2𝜁3 - 3𝜁2 + λ(1- 𝜁)]
1+λ
𝐿 λ
N12 = [ 𝜁 + 𝜁3 -2 𝜁2 + (𝜁- 𝜁2)]
1+λ 2
1
N13 = [ -2 𝜁3 + 3 𝜁2 +λ 𝜁]
1+λ
𝐿 λ 2
N14 = [𝜁 - 𝜁 + (𝜁
3 2 - 𝜁)]
1+λ 2

38
Similarly putting the values of a1, a2, a3, a4 in the expression of Ѱ:
Ѱ = (3x2 + 6g)a1 + a3 + 2a2x
Shape function due to rotation will be:
6(𝜁 −𝜁2)
N21 = ;
1+λ 𝐿
[3𝜁2 −4𝜁 +1+λ 1 −𝜁 ]
N22 = ;
1+λ
[6𝜁 −6𝜁2]
N23 = ;
1+ λ 𝐿
[3𝜁2−2𝜁 +λ𝜁]
N24 = ;
1+λ
Shape function for the shear angle, γ:
𝑑𝑣
γ=Ѱ-
𝑑𝑥
So the shape function for γ will be
𝑑𝑁1
N3 = N2 - ;
𝑑𝑥
1 1
N31 = [ (6 𝜁2 - 6𝜁) – (6𝜁2 - 6𝜁-λ)] ;
1+λ 𝐿
1 λ
N32 = [{3 𝜁2 - 4 𝜁 + 1 +λ(1- 𝜁)} – L{3 𝜁2 - 4 𝜁 + 1 + (1 - 2 𝜁)}] ;
1+λ 2
1 1
N33 = [ (6 𝜁 - 6𝜁2) – (6𝜁 - 6𝜁2 + λ)] ;
1+λ 𝐿
1 λ
N34 = [(3 𝜁2 - 2𝜁 + λ 𝜁) – L(3 𝜁2 - 2 𝜁 + (2 𝜁 - 1))] ;
1+λ 2

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 40

 FORMULATION OF STIFFNESS MATRIX
TIMOSHENKO BEAM THEORY

Due to the bending & shear deformation the potential energy is stored at the beam.
Potential energy, U can be expressed as:

𝐸𝐼 1 𝑇 𝑑𝑁2𝑇 𝑑𝑁2 6𝐸𝐼 1 𝑇 𝑑𝑁3𝑇 𝑑𝑁3

U= * ‫׬‬0 𝑞 qd𝜁 + ‫׬‬0
𝑞 qd𝜁
2𝑙 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 Ѱ𝑙 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥
𝐸𝐼 1 𝑇 6𝐸𝐼 1 𝑇
U = * ‫׬‬0 𝑞 𝐾𝑏𝑞𝑑𝜁 + ‫׬‬0
𝑞 𝐾𝑠𝑞𝑑 𝜁
2𝑙 Ѱ𝑙

Kb - bending stiffness matrix Ks - shear stiffness matrix

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 41

So, K = Kb + Ks

EI 12 6𝑙 −12 6𝑙
K= 3 *
6𝑙 4 + λ 𝑙2 −6𝑙 2 − λ 𝑙2
l (1+λ)
−12 −6𝑙 12 −6𝑙
6𝑙 2 − λ 𝑙2 −6𝑙 4 + λ 𝑙2

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 42

 REFERENCES
• G. R. Cowper , Associate Research Officer, National Aeronautical Establishment, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada “The Shear
Coefficient in Timoshenko's Beam Theory” Journal of Applied Mechanics (JUNE 1 9 6 6)
• A . Labuschagnea, N.F.J. VanRensburga, A.J. Vander Merweb, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cape Peninsula University of
Technology , South Africa “Comparison of linear beam theories” (12 June 2008)
• S. Ali Faghidian, Ph.D “Unified Formulations of the Shear Coefficients in Timoshenko Beam Theory”
 Rudranarayan Kandi , “Comparative study of various beams under different loading condition using finite element method” (MAY
2012)
Aamer Haque, “Introduction to Timoshenko Beam Theory”
 C. M. Wang" Member, ASCE, “Timoshenko beam-bending solutions in terms of Euler-Bernoulli solutions”(1995)
J. J. Jensen Department of Ocean Engineering, The Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark, “On the shear coefficient in
Timoshenko’ s beam theory”
M. LEVINSON Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maine at Orono, Orono, Maine 04469, U.S.A. (15 January 1980, and in
revised form 7 July 1980) “A new rectangular beam theory”
 J.A. Franko – Villafane , Mexico “On the accuracy of Timoshenko beam theory above the critical frequency : best shear coefficient
Science direct articles