MECHANICS RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS Vol.12(1), 1-9, 1985. Printed in the USA.

0093-6413/85 $3.00 + .00 Copyright (c) 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd.

ON BICKFORD'S CONSISTENT HIGHER ORDER BEAM THEORY
Mark Levinson
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maine at Orono
Orono, Maine, U.S.A.
(Received 2 July 1984; accepted for print 25 January 1985)
Introduction
Recently Bickford [I] used Hamilton's ~rinciple to derive a consistent, higher
order theory of the elastodynamics of beams based upon the kinematic and stress
assumptions previously used by Levlnson [2] for beams of rectangular cross sec-
tion. In [2] the usual beam equations of motion [3] were used to obtain a
higher order beam theory. This latter theory provided a fourth order system of
differential equations not too unlike the equations of Timoshenko beam theory
with the difference being that in the new theory the shear stress boundary con-
ditions on the lateral surfaces of the beam were satisfied. Bickford's
consistent theory is a sixth order system of differential equations requiring
the specification, provided by the variational formulation, of three boundary
conditions at each end of the beam. A vectorial formulation of Bickford's
theory is achieved in [i] by defining a p o s t e r i o r i , a "... higher order moment
resultant" but, as Bickford himself notes, "It remains to be seen whether or
not there can he developed a rational method for constructing the vectorial
equations without knowing, a priori, the variational equations." This latter
point is of no consequence since the validity of the variational equations is
unquestioned.
It would seem that Bickford's work has relegated the earlier work of the pre-
sent writer to the status of an intellectual artifact in the history of applied
mechanics whose importance is limited to providing the motivation for the work
of Bickford; from a certain theoretical point of view this is clearly so. What
is vexatious, however, is that Bickford's theory, in the two elastostatic and
one elastodynamic problems which he considers, provides inferior results in two
cases and essentially the same results in the remaining case when compared to
the results given by the present writer's theory, exact elasticity solutions
being available for purposes of comparison in all three of the examples con-
sidered. Bickford [2] makes comparisons only with Timoshenko beam theory and
the theory of elasticity and one of the latter comparisons is erroneous.
It is the purpose of this paper, therefore, to bring to the attention of the
applied mechanics community the observation that a theoretically superior beam
theory does not, in three often used comparison examples, always provide better
or even equally good, results when compared with a supposedly inferior theory.
This question is considered in the discussion at the end of this paper.
i! IiARK L E V I N S O N
T h e V a r i o u s T h e o r i e s
B i c k f o r d ' s ( v a r i a t i o n a l l y ) c o n s i s t e n t b e a m t h e o r y is b a s e d u p o n t h e k i n e m a t i c
a s s u m p t i o n s , p r e v i o u s l y u s e d in [2], that
4 z 2) 4 z ~w
u ( x , z , t ) = z(l - 5 ~ 2 ~ 3 h ~x
a n d (i)
w ( x , z , t ) = w ( x , t )
w h e r e u a n d w a r e d i s p l a c e m e n t c o m p o n e n t s in t h e x a n d z d i r e c t i o n s r e s p e c -
t i v e l y . ~ ( x , t ) r e p r e s e n t s the r o t a t i o n , at t h e n e u t r a l s u r f a c e , of a c r o s s -
s e c t i o n of t h e b e a m ; t h e c o m p a r a b l e q u a n t i t y in T i m o s h e n k o b e a m t h e o r y is an
a v e r a g e d r o t a t i o n of t h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n [4]. u a n d w as g i v e n l e a d , u p o n u s e
of t h e s t r a i n - d i s p l a c e m e n t r e l a t i o n s and H o o k e ' s law, to the v a n i s h i n g of
h
t h e s h e a r s t r e s s at z = + ~ w h e r e h is t h e d e p t h of t h e b e a m of n a r r o w , r e c -
t a n g u l a r c r o s s - s e c t i o n w h o s e w i d t h c o n v e n i e n t l y m a y b e t a k e n as u n i t y . F u r t h e r -
m o r e , B i c k f o r d a s s u m e d t h e b e a m to b e in a o n e - d i m e n s i o n a l s t a t e of s t r e s s as
w a s a l s o d o n e in [2].
By m a k i n g u s e of t h e a b o v e a s s u m p t i o n s a n d H a m i l t o n ' s P r i n c i p l e , B i c k f o r d
o b t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n s i s t e n t b o u n d a r y v a l u e p r o b l e m f o r t h e l i n e a r
e l a s t o d y n a m i c s of a b e a m of r e c t a n g u l a r c r o s s - s e c t i o n . T h e e q u a t i o n s of
m o t i o n a r e
~ ( , + w ' ) + -Sx [ B ( 1 6 w " - 6 8 , ' ) ] = [y(16 w' - 6 8 ~ ) 1
a n d (2)
~x ~ x z [ B ( 5 w " - 16 ' ) ] = paw" ~2 - - ~ t 3 x [y(5w' - 16~)] - p ( x , t )
a n d t h e b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n s g i v e n b y B i c k f o r d a r e
a ( w' + , ) - - 2 f [ ~ ( 5 w" - 1 6 , ' ) 1 - . [ y ( 5 w" - 1 6 ~ ) 1 ~Wlo 0 ,
~ 3 ( 1 6 ~ ' - 5 w" ) ~ w' I = 0 , ( 3 )
o
a n d
B ( 1 6 w " - 6 8 , ' ) 6 , 1 = 0
o
w h e r e p is t h e d e n s i t y of t h e b e a m a n d p ( x . t ) is t h e t r a n s v e r s e l o a d i n g a c t i n g
on t h e b e a m of l e n g t h ~. F u r t h e r m o r e .
_ ~( ) _ ~( ) 8 A G
( ) ' _- . . . . . . . . , ( ' ) = _ . . . . . , ~ -
~x ~t 15 "
( 4 )
h 3
EI pI A = h a n d I = - -
B - 105 ' Y - 105 ' ' 12
w i t h E a n d G b e i n g t h e e l a s t i c a n d s h e a r m o d u l i i of t h e b e a m ' s m a t e r i a l r e s p e c -
t i v e l y .
H I G H E R O R D E R B E A M T H E O R Y 3
T h e a b o v e t h e o r y , of s i x t h o r d e r in x, is t h e o n e p r o v i d e d b y t h e c a l c u l u s of
v a r i a t i o n s w h i c h is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e k i n e m a t i c a s s u m p t i o n s (i).
The w o r k of L e v l n s o n [2] d o n e e a r l i e r , w a s b a s e d u p o n the k i n o m n t i c a s s u m p -
t i o n s (I) a n d t h e u s u a l n o t i o n s of t r a n s v e r s e s h e a r f o r c e Q a n d b e n d i n g
m o m e n t M. T h e s e a r e r e l a t e d b y the b e a m e q u a t i o n s of m o t i o n [3]
Q' = 0 A ' w - p
a n d (5)
M' - Q = J A O ~ Z d A .
T h e a n a l y s i s [2] l e d to t h e f o l l o w i n g b o u n d a r y v a l u e p r o b l e m f o r the l i n e a r
e l a s t o d y n a m i c s of a b e a m of n a r r o w r e c t a n g u l a r c r o s s - s e c t i o n .
I ~ t ~,.., 4~)
g ( ~ + w') + ~ ~xx [ E l ( w " - 4~')] = ~ w -
a n d (6)
2 ~ [ A G ( @ + w ' ) ] = 0 A ~ - p ( x , t )
3 ~x
a r e t h e g o v e r n i n g d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a t i o n s w h i l e t h e b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n s to b e
s a t i s f i e d at e a c h e n d of the b e a m a r e
Q = ~ A G ( ~ + w') o r w s p e c i f i e d
a n d (7)
M = ~ E I ( 4 ~ ' - w") o r $ s p e c i f i e d .
T h e a p p r o x i m a t e t h e o r y r e p r e s e n t e d b y e q u a t i o n s (6) a n d (7), w h i c h is of t h e
f o u r t h o r d e r in x, c l e a r l y is d i f f e r e n t f r o m B i c k f o r d ' s a p p r o x l m m t e t h e o r y
g i v e n in e q u a t i o n s (2) a n d (3). F u r t h e r m o r e , the f o r m e r t h e o r y c a n n o t b e o b -
t a i n e d f r o m B i c k f o r d ' s t h e o r y b y a n a p p r o x i m a t i o n p r o c e d u r e of a n y sort. N o t e ,
h o w e v e r , that the f o r m e r t h e o r y , e q u a t i o n s (6) a n d (7), is m a t h e m a t i c a l l y
w e l l - p o s e d . F r o m a n e n e r g y v i e w p o i n t , i.e. b e i n g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h H a m i l t o n ' s
p r i n c i p l e , B i c k f o r d ' s t h e o r y is to b e p r e f e r r e d . W e n o t e t h a t B i c k f o r d w a s
a b l e , a p o s t e r i o r i , to p r o v i d e a v e c t o r i a l , i.e. d y n a m i c e q u i l i b r i u m , d e r i v a -
t i o n b y i n t r o d u c i n g a " . . . h i g h e r o r d e r m o m e n t r e s u l t a n t "
~ A E l h 2
M = - Z 3 O x x d A = ~ (5w" - 16~') (8)
a n d m a n i p u l a t i n g t h e s t r e s s e q u a t i o n s of m o t i o n of t h e p l a n e m e c h a n i c s of a
c o n t i n u o u s m e d i a in l e s s t h a n o b v i o u s w a y s . In f a c t , B i c k f o r d h i m s e l f n o t e d
t h a t "It r e m a i n s to b e s e e n w h e t h e r or n o t t h e r e c a n b e d e v e l o p e d a r a t i o n a l
m e t h o d for c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e v a c t o r i a l e q u a t i o n s w i t h o u t k n o w i n g , a p r i o r i ,
the v a r i a t i o n a l e q u a t i o n s . "
4 M A R K L E V I N S O N
S i n c e s o m e c o m p a r i s o n s w i t h t h e r e s u l t s of the n o w c l a s s i c a l T i m o s h e n k o b e a m
t h e o r y w i l l b e m a d e l a t e r in t h i s p a p e r , it is a p p r o p r i a t e to g i v e t h e e q u a -
t i o n s of t h a t t h e o r y h e r e for r e f e r e n c e p u r p o s e s . T h e y a r e , in t h e n o t a t i o n
u s e d in t h i s p a p e r ,
K 2 A G ( ~ + w ' ) - ~ x (ml~') = - 0 1 ~
a n d (9)
K 2 ~ x [ A G ( ~ + w ' ) ] = 0 ~ w - p ( x , t )
w h i l e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n s a r e
Q = K 2 A G ( ~ + w ' ) or w s p e c i f i e d
a n d (10)
M = EI~' or ~ s p e c i f i e d
at e a c h e n d of t h e b e a m . K 2 is t h e s o - c a l l e d T i m o s h e n k o s h e a r c o e f f i c i e n t
a n d ~ h e r e r e p r e s e n t s a n a v e r a g e d r o t a t i o n of a b e a m c r o s s - s e c t i o n ; t h i s
l a t t e r m a t t e r is d i s c u s s e d i n s o m e d e t a i l in [4]. (I) N o t e t h a t t h e m a t h e -
m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e of t h e b o u n d a r y v a l u e p r o b l e m g i v e n b y e q u a t i o n s (9) a n d
(I0) is t h e s a m e as t h a t of t h e o n e g i v e n b y e q u a t i o n s (6) a n d (7).
W e n o w p r o c e e d to c o m p a r e t h e p r e d i c t i o n s of t h e v a r i o u s a p p r o x i m a t e t h e o r i e s
w i t h t h o s e of the l i n e a r t h e o r y of e l a s t i c i t y f o r s e v e r a l p a r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m s .
T h e s e c o m p a r i s o n s w i l l l e a d to a n u n e x p e c t e d c o n u n d r u m w h i c h w i l l b e e x a m i n e d
in l a t e r d i s c u s s i o n .
S o m e E x a m p l e s a n d C o m p a r i s o n s
W e n o w g i v e s o m e r e s u l t s f o r t h r e e s t a n d a r d p r o b l e m s , a l l u s e d f o r i l l u s t r a -
t i v e p u r p o s e s b y B i c k f o r d , a s g i v e n b y (a) B i c k f o r d ' s t h e o r y , (b) t h e t h e o r y
g i v e n in [2], a n d (c) T i m o s h e n k o b e a m t h e o r y . T h e s e r e s u l t s a r e t h e n c o m -
p a r e d w i t h t h o s e p r o v i d e d b y t h e c l a s s i c a l , l i n e a r t h e o r y of e l a s t i c i t y ;
B i c k f o r d d i d n o t p r o v i d e a l l of t h e s e c o m p a r i s o n s . T h e p r o b l e m s c o n s i d e r e d
a r e t h e e l a s t o s t a t i c o n e s f o r t h e e n d l o a d e d c a n t i l e v e r a n d t h e u n i f o r m l y
l o a d e d , s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d b e a m w h i l e t h e t h i r d o n e is the e l a s t o d y n a m i c p r o b -
l e m f o r t h e f i r s t f a m i l y of f l e x u r a l f r e q u e n c i e s of s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d b e a m s
(or i t s t r a v e l l i n g w a v e e q u i v a l e n t ) .
(i) T h e t h e o r y g i v e n in [2] p r i m a r i l y w a s d e v i s e d so as to h a v e a b e a m t h e o r y
w h i c h i n c l u d e d s h e a r d e f l e c t i o n a n d r o t a t o r y i n e r t i a e f f e c t s b u t d i d n o t
r e q u i r e , a s d o e s T i m o s h e n k o b e a m t h e o r y , a n a d s c i t i o u s s h e a r c o e f f i c i e n t .
HIGHER ORDER BEAM. THEORY 5
i. The End Loaded Cantilever
For our purposes it is sufficient to give the expressions for w(x) provided
by the various beam theories as well as w(x,O) from the theory of elasticity.
The loaded end of the beam is taken to be at x = 0 and the beam is fixed at
x = while - h/2 ~ z ~ h/2. w b , w , w t , w e , and ~ are the deflections
given by Bickford's theory, Levinson's theory, Timoshenko's theory, linear
elasticity for the case of plane stress, and Bernoulli-Euler (or technical)
beam theory, respectively.
1 p~S ~ 2
Wb = ~ + g i i (1 + ~)( )
where
a n d
and
(1 - ~ - sinh ~ - sinh Ix)
A A~coshAA
(11)
420 ( 1 2 ) ( 2 )
X ffi ( I + v ) h
- - p S x 3
w ( # - (13)
- - i p 3 h 2
w ~ f w + ~ (I + v ) ( ) (I x
E - Y - - y ) , ( 1 4 )
1 pS ~ 2 x
w t ~ + ~ E I (I + ~ ) ( ) (I - y ) , (15)
- - 1 p 3 h 2 x
We(x,O) -- w + ~ E-~- (i + v)(~) (I - ~--) from [5]. (16)
It already is apparent from this problem that Bickford's (variationally) con-
sistent beam theory [I] provides a result for the beam deflection which is
inferior, when compared to the one given by the linear theory of elasticity,
to the prediction of the theory given in [2]. In fact, for this example the
latter theory gives the exact deflection curve for the neutral surface. In-
deed, for the deflection of the loaded end, Bickford provides an approxima-
tion which is very slightly inferior to the one given by Timoshenko beam
theory [3] (3) due to the hyperbolic term which at x ffi 0 becomes
(i + ~) (h _ .r420 ~) (I + v ) h
420 ) c a n n t ~ ~ ) ( ] ffi 420 ( ) << 1 (17)
for realistic values of h/.
( 2 ) Un f o r t u n a t e l y [ 1 ] h a s a n u mb e r o f t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r s s o t h a t a s g i v e n
t h e r e i s n o t q u i t e r i g h t .
( 3 ) We u s e K 2 ffi 5 / 6 t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p a p e r a l t h o u g h , f o r t h e r e c t a n g u l a r b e a m,
wo r k o f Co wp e r [ 4 ] s u g g e s t s t h a t K 2 = 1 0 ( 1 + ~ ) / ( 1 2 + 1 1 ~ ) ; f o r v = 0 . 3 t h i s
p r o v i d e s K ~ ffi 0 . 8 5 0 .
6 MARK LEVINSON
2. The Uniformly L o a d e d , Simply Supp0r.ted Beam_
In this case we only present the various predictions for the central deflec-
tion of the beam which occupies the interval 0 < x <~
2 2
Wb(-~ ) = w + 2-~ E1 8 - ~ (I + ~) ( ) ] (18)
where now
5 po ~4
=
384 E1
, ( 1 9 )
4 2
w ~ ( ) = ~ + 4-0 E l ( I + ~ ) ( ) , ( 2 0 )
and
wt(x) - w~(x) , (21)
4 2
I po~ 4 ~ h
W e ( 2 '0)= w + 3-2 El (5 + ~) ( ) from [5]. (22)
For this problem all of the beam theories overestimate the "shear correction"
2
term. For ~ = 0.3 the order (h/h) term is about 9.5% too large and the (h/~)
(1+~)2 ~ 2
term of Bickford's theory will decrease this overestimate by 2100 (~)
which is negligibly small for meaningful values of h/ , i.e. much less than
1% of the "shear correction" term.
We note that Bickford erroneously claims that the order (h/~) 2 term in his
result is the same as the corresponding term in the elasticity solution [5]
whereas, in fact, it is exactly the same as the approxima_te order (h/~) 2 term
provided by the beam theories of Timoshenko and the present writer. Conse-
quently, all of the beam theories incorporating the deflection due to shear
(and rotatory inertia in the dynamic case) provide virtually identical re-
suits.
Finally, we come to the third example.
3. T h e N a t u r a l Frequencies of Simp.ly Supp.orted.. Beams
This example may be viewed either in terms of standing flexural waves (natural
frequencies) of a beam of length ~ or of travelling flexural waves (phase
velocities). We confine our discussion of this problem to the lower branch
of the flexural frequency curve since all of the beam theories provide com-
parable, and not especially good, approximations to the known elasticity
results for the upper branch of the frequency curve; this has been noted by
Bickford.
HIGHER ORDER BEAM THEORY 7
Since, as observed in [2], the equations for flexural waves in beams are
identical for Timoshenko beam theory and the present writer's theory provided
that K z = 5/6 we only need comment on the results given in [i] and by Cowper
in [6] for Bickford's and Timoshenko's beam theories respectively. In both
of those papers it is noted that Timoshenko beam theory (and, consequently,
the theory of the present writer) provides an excellent approximation to the
results of the linear theory of elasticity for the lower branch of the flexu-
ral frequency curve. Bickford notes, however, that while his beam theory
provides a comparable approximation for low frequencies it provides a de-
cidedly inferior approximation for high frequencies. In fact, Bickford's
theory provides a lower branch of the frequency curve which is asymptotically
incorrect for high frequencies whereas Timoshenko beam theory (and, therefore,
the theory of the present writer) is asymptotically correct.
We have, then, another example for which Bickford's (variationally) consist-
ent higher order beam theory provides results inferior to those given by the
lower order, but consistent, theory of Timoshenko and the (variationally) in-
consistent higher order theory of the present writer.
Discussion
In this paper we have reviewed the beam theories of Bickford [i] and the
present writer [2] as well as the now classical Timoshenko beam theory and
have noted that in the fundamental sense of (variational) consistency Bick-
ford's theory is the superior one of the more recent theories mentioned.
However, in the three examples of (I) the end loaded cantilever, (2) the
uniformly loaded, simply supported beam, and (3) the natural frequencies
of a simply supported beam, common test cases for all of which plane stress
linear elasticity solutions exist, unexpected results were encountered.
In the first example the (variationally) inconsistent theory given in [2]
provided the exact deflection curve of the neutral axis given by the linear
theory of elasticity and, in fact, the exact stress field. On the other
hand, the theory of Bickford predicted an approximate centerline deflection
which is very slightly inferior to the one given by Timoshenko beam theory,
that theory giving a "shear correction" term which%is 20% too small. For
the second example all three beam theories being compared provided essentially
the same, good approximation to the elasticity result. In this case Bick-
ford's theory provided a result for the "shear correction" term which was a
fraction of a percent better than the result given by the other two theories
due to an additional term having no counterpart in the elasticity solution.
8 M A R K L E V I N S O N
Finally, in the third example, one of e l a s t o d y n a m i c s , T i m o s h e n k o beam theory
and the theory of the present w r i t e r provided the same excellent a p p r o x i m a t i o n
to the e l a s t i c i t y p r e d i c t i o n s for the lower b r a n c h of the frequency ctlrve for
a simply supported b e a m w h i l e B i c k f o r d ' s theory p r o v i d e d a good a p p r o x i m a t i o n
only at low f r e q u e n c i e s and that theory even was a s y m p t o t i c a l l y incorrect at
h i g h frequencies.
We are left, then, w i t h the v e x a t i o u s s i t u a t i o n that B i c k f o r d ' s ( v a r i a t i o n a l -
ly) c o n s i s t e n t beam theory is, for c e r t a i n c o m m o n examples, i n f e r i o r to or,
at best, e q u i v a l e n t to b o t h the ( v a r i a t i o n a l l y ) i n c o n s i s t e n t theory of the
p r e s e n t w r i t e r [2] and to T i m o s h e n k o b e a m theory. This goes against our
i n t u i t i v e b e l i e f that (variationally) c o n s i s t e n t a p p r o x i m a t e theories are
best. The e x p l a n a t i o n w o u l d seem to be that w h e r e a s (variationally) c o n s i s t -
ent a p p r o x i m a t e t h e o r i e s p r o v i d e the best a p p r o x i m a t i o n s to the f u n c t i o n a l s
(energies) of a p r o b l e m they may n o t p r o v i d e the best a p p r o x i m a t i o n s to quan-
tities of m o r e d i r e c t interest such as d e f l e c t i o n s , f r e q u e n c i e s , etc. It
then m a y b e c o m e n e c e s s a r y to e v a l u a t e the w o r t h o f a n a p p r o ~ i m a t e t h e o r y b y its
p e r f o r m a n c e over a s p e c t r u m of c r i t e r i a rather than the single c r i t e r i o n of
(variational) c o n s i s t e n c y . Perhaps it is too early yet to r e l e g a t e the theory
of the p r e s e n t w r i t e r [2] to the s t a t u s of an artifact in the h i s t o r y of
a p p l i e d m e c h a n i c s . This v i e w w o u l d be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the v i e w s e x p r e s s e d
in r e c e n t w o r k of I r r i t i e r [8] and Bert [9] c o n c e r n i n g the plate theory ex-
t e n s i o n [10,11,12] of the b e a m theory given in [2].
Recently, Reddy [13] w a s m o t i v a t e d by that plate theory [i0] to d e r i v e a
( v a r i a t i o n a l l y ) c o n s i s t e n t p l a t e theory a n a l o g o u s to B i c k f o r d ' s b e a m theory.
It w i l l be of interest to c o m p a r e the actual p e r f o r m a n c e , in p a r t i c u l a r cases,
of R e d d y ' s plate theory and the one given in [10].
R e f e r e n c e s
i. W.B. B i c k f o r d , A C o n s i s t e n t H i g h e r Order B e a m Theory, D e v e l o p m e n t s in
T h e o r e t i c a l and A p p l i e d M e c h a n i c s , Ii, 137 (1982).
2. M. L e v i n s o n , A N e w R e c t a n g u l a r B e a m Theory, J. Sound Vib., 74, 81 (1981).
3. H. R e i s m a n n and P.S. Paw~ik, E l a s t o k i n e t i c s , W e s t P u b l i s h i n g Co., St. Paul,
(1974).
4. G.R. Cowper, The Shear C o e f f i c i e n t in T i m o s h e n k o ' s Beam Theory, J_~_. App,.
M e c h s . , 33, 335 (1966).
H I G H E R O R D E R B E A M T H E O R Y 9
5. S.P. T i m o s h e n k o a n d J.N. Goodier, T h e o r y of Elastlcity, 3rd ed., M c G r a w -
H i l l B o o k Co. (1970).
6. G.R. Cowper, On the A c c u r a c y of T i m o s h e n k o ' s B e a m Theory, A S C E J. Eng.
Mechs., 94, 1447 (1968).
7. M. L e v i n s o n , F u r t h e r R e s u l t s of a N e w B e a m Theory, J. Sound Vib., 77, 440
(1981).
8. H. Irretler, The I n f l u e n c e of M i d - P l a n e N o r m a l Stress and Cross Section
D e f o r m a t i o n in Free V i b r a t i n g Plates, MechS. Res. Comm., 10, 53 (1983).
9. C.W. Bert, C o m p a r i s o n of N e w P l a t e T h e o r i e s A p p l i e d to L a m i n a t e d C o m p o s i t e s ,
M e c h a n i c s of C o m p o s i t e M a t e r i a l s , A S M E W i n t e r A n n u a l M e e t i n g , Boston, (1983) .
i0. M. L e v l n s o n , A n A c c u r a t e , Simple Theory of the Statics and D y n a m i c s of
Elastic Plates, Mechs. Res. Comm., 7, 343 (1980).
Ii. M. L e v l n s o n and D.W. Cooke, T h i c k R e c t a n g u l a r P l a t e s - I. The G e n e r a l i z e d
N a v l e r Solution, Int. J. Mech. Scl., 25, 199 (1983).
12. D.W. C o o k e and M. L e v i n s o n , T h i c k R e c t a n g u l a r Plates - II. The G e n e r a l i z e d
L E v y Solution, Int. J. Mech. SCl., 25, 207 (1983).
13. J.N. Reddy, A Simple H i g h e r - O r d e r Theory for L a m i n a t e d C o m p o s i t e Plates,
J. Appl. Mechs., to appear.