G. R.

COWPER
Associate Research Officer,
N a t i o n a l Aeronautical Establishment,
National Research Council,
Ottawa, Canada

The Shear Coefficient in Timoshenko's

Beam Theory
The equations of Timoshenko's beam theory are derived by integration of the equations
of three-dimensional elasticity theory. A new formula for the shear coefficient comes out
of the derivation. Numerical values of the shear coefficient are presented and compared
with values obtained by other writers.

I HE RANGE of applicability of the one-dimensional

theory of beams can be extended bj' taking account of transverse
shear deformations and, in the case of vibrating beams, rotary
inertia. The equations which include these effects are generally
referred to as Timoshenko's beam equations [1, 2] 1 and they have
received considerable attention in the literature. In these equations the effective transverse shear strain is taken as equal to the
average shear stress on a cross section divided by the product of
the shear modulus and the shear coefficient K. The coefficient K
is a dimensionless quantity, dependent on the shape of the cross
section, which is introduced to account for the fact that the shear
stress and shear strain are not uniformly distributed over the
cross section.
According to the commonly accepted definition, K is the ratio
of the average shear strain on a section to the shear strain at the
centroid. The analysis which leads to this definition is available
in reference [3], as well as numerical values of K based upon it.
Recently, however, Leibowitz and Kennard [4] have criticized
the accepted definition, pointing out an unwarranted assumption
in the underlying analysis. The author agrees with the criticism
of Leibowitz and Kennard and the present paper is a response to
their suggestion that further study of the shear coefficient is
needed.
There is other evidence that the commonly accepted definition
of K is not entirely satisfactory. Several writers [5, 6, 7] have
pointed out that the customary values of K lead to unsatisfactory
results when Timoshenko's beam equations are used to calculate
the high-frequency spectrum of vibrating beams, and have advocated that K should be adjusted arbitrarily so that better results
are obtained. It must be noted, however, that these writers do
not dispute the basic definition of K. Instead they point out that
the distribution of shear strain over a cross section depends on the
mode of vibration of the beam and therefore varies wdth frequency. The unsatisfactory results, they claim, arise from using
static strain distributions as a basis for calculating K instead of
the strain distributions which occur in high-frequency motion.
In this paper a fresh derivation of Timoshenko's beam equations is presented. Our approach is to derive the beam equations
by integration of the equations of three-dimensional elasticity
theory. While this technique is familiar in plate and shell theory,
it apparently has not been used previously in connection with
beams. A new formula for the shear coefficient comes out of the
derivation, and numerical values of K are calculated for a number
of cross sections. Finally, the new values of K are compared
with those obtained by other authors.
1

N u m b e r s in b r a c k e t s d e s i g n a t e R e f e r e n c e s a t e n d of p a p e r .

Contributed b y the Applied M e c h a n i c s Division for publication

( w i t h o u t p r e s e n t a t i o n ) i n t h e JOUBNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS.
D i s c u s s i o n of t h i s p a p e r s h o u l d b e a d d r e s s e d t o t h e E d i t o r i a l D e partment, A S M E , United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th Street,
N e w Y o r k , N . Y . 1 0 0 1 7 , a n d w i l l b e a c c e p t e d u n t i l J u l y 10, 1 9 6 6 .
Discussion r e c e i v e d after the closing d a t e will be returned.
Manus c r i p t r e c e i v e d b y A S M E A p p l i e d M e c h a n i c s D i v i s i o n , M a y 14,
1 9 6 5 ; final d r a f t , A u g u s t 2, 1965.
Paper No. 6 6 A P M - C .

Journal of Applied Mechanics

X
Fig. 1

General uniform beam

Derivation of Timoshenko's Beam Theory

We consider a uniform beam as illustrated in Fig. 1. The z-axis
is taken to coincide with the line of centroids of the cross sections.
To exclude complications arising from coupling with torsional deflections it will be assumed that the cross section and applied
loads are symmetric about the x-z plane which is therefore the
plane of deflection of the beam. The beam is acted upon by body
forces Fx, Fy, and by surface tractions Tx, Tm applied to the
lateral faces. For simplicity it will be assumed that the z-components of body force and surface traction are zero.
A basic quantity in the beam equations is the transverse deflection IF. This quantity requires precise definition since the
cross section of the beam inevitably distorts to a small extent
and all points of the cross section do not undergo the same displacement. Often W is taken as the displacement of the centroid.
Here we follow a different course and define IF as the mean deflection of the cross section. Thus
IF =

(1/A)ffuxdxdy

(1)

where A is the area of the cross section, ux is the ^-component of

displacement of a point of the beam, and the integration extends
over the cross section. The advantage of this definition becomes
apparent in the first equilibrium equation for the beam, which
we now derive.
The equation of equilibrium of an element of the beam with
regard to forces in the x-direction is
dcr

-J
dx

do-,,,
b<rx,

b2u
-|
+ Fx = p
x
by
i)z
bt2

(2)

where <r, and so on, are the components of stress and p the mass
density of the beam. Integration of (2) over the cross section
yields

//ft

by

+ Fx ) dxcly + ~

JJ

(TX!dxdy
b2

'

bt2

dxdy
/

(3)

Let

Copyright 1966 by ASME

Q = SS^^dxdy

(4)
JUNE

1 9 6 6

/ 3 3 5

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

and we recognize that Q is the total transverse shear force acting

on a cross section. Also let
daTX

d<r,
.
+ "
+ Fx dxdy
T
dx
dy
7

+ nyuxy)ds

= fTzds

+ ffF

dQ +,

ffFxdxdy

(6)

p =

bnv

(8)
where I is the moment of inertia of the cross section about the
i/-axis and uz is the z-component of displacement of an element of
the beam. We may interpret $ as the mean angle of rotation of a
cross section about the neutral axis. If cross sections remained
plane as the beam bends, than M, would be proportional to x, and <f>
would be exactly equal to the angle of rotation of each cross section. In reality each cross section warps to some extent in addition to rotating. However, $ may be regarded as the mean
angle of rotation of the cross section in the sense that $ is the
angle of inclination of the plane which most nearly coincides with
the position of the warped cross section. The foregoing definition
of $ arises naturally in the moment-equilibrium equation which
we now consider.
T o derive the moment-equilibrium equation of the beam we
begin with the equation of equilibrium of an element of the beam
with regard to forces in the z-direction,
So[

>;/

dz

(13)

(9)

di2

Multiplication of (9) by z and integration over the cross section

yields

= U +

(14)

+ v,

where
U = (1

(15)

/A)ffuzdxdy

is the mean displacement of the cross section in the z-direction.

It follows from (14) that
ffvxdxdy

(7)

d<2

which is the first equation of Timoshenko's beam theory.

Timoshenko's equations also contain a quantity $ which has
been given various definitions and interpretations. Here we define
$ by the relation

2>.-c

ux = W + vx:

Xdxdy

dz

d2$

dM

which is the second equation of Timoshenko's beam theory.

In order to derive the relation between W, <3?, and the shear
distortion of the beam we define residual displacements vx, vz, by

where n x , n v , are the components of the unit normal to the

boundary of the cross section and ds is an element of arc of the
boundary. From (6) we recognize that p is the total transverse
load per unit length applied to the beam. Therefore (3) may be
written

Hence (10) becomes

(5)

Transformation by the divergence theorem gives

V =

the surface tractions have no z-component.

= ffvzdxdy

= ffxvjdxdy

(16)

= 0

The residual displacement vz essentially represents the warping

of the cross section. The stress-strain relation
dux

duz

dz

eta

(17)

may now be written

oz

dvx

(IS)

dz

dx

Integration of (18) over the cross section then yields, in view of

(16),
bW

dz

,L *$

1
=

(19)

G^)dxdy

AG

We pass over, for the moment, the task of evaluating the integral
in (19) and turn instead to the relation between the bending
moment and curvature for the beam.
To obtain the moment-curvature relation we begin with the
stress-strain relation
F

dz

(20)

V(TXX + <Tyy)

azl

where E is Young's modulus and v is Poisson's ratio. Multiplication of (20) by x and integration over the cross section yields
E

Oz

ffxiizdxdy

= ffxazzdxdy

v ffx(<rxx

ayy)dxdy

xazzdxdy
d^
' d* 2

//

xu.dxdy

(10)

Oz

= M -

(11)

ffx<jlzdxdy

dQ ,

so that M is the bending moment acting at any section of the

beam. Making use of integration by parts and the divergence
theorem, we find

dM
dz
EI-

d(x<rxz)

OX

d(xayz)
O!/

<f>x{nxaIZ + nyavt)ds

= - Q

cr 1
/

air

ff<rxzdxdy
(12)

since the line integral vanishes as a result of the assumption that

336

JUNE

1966

vffx(axx

+ ajdxdy

(21)

To sum up the results obtained so far, it has been found that the
motion of the beam satisfies the following four equations;

Let
Af =

EI

dz

~dz

, d2W

pi

~ vffx(irxx

(22 a)

(22 b)

di2

(22 c)

ayy)dxdy

dxdy

(22 d)

So far, no approximation beyond the customary assumptions of

the linear theory of elasticity has been introduced. However,
equations (22) are not yet in a viable form and to make further

Transactions of the ASiVIE

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

<[xt

progress it is necessary to introduce two assumptions about the

distribution of stress and strain within the beam.
The first assumption concerns the integral in (22c). In order
to obtain the moment-curvature relation in its customary form we
must assume that the stresses a x x , a y y are so small in comparison
with <r that the integral in (22c) may be neglected. This leaves
b<t>

EI = M
dz

is the moment of inertia of the cross section about the .r-axis.

Substitution of (27) into (22d) then 3'ields

Q-

2(1 +

&X

ft
v)I \d:,
dx

a,

(2

( vx'
{ 2

an '

( j * + (2 + v)xy^j

( - x

x, J 2

j-

j j x (

Yj

(x +

+ \

f f ^

dQ ,

p
dz

OM
~

dW

= pA

"7"

dt2

d2$

T
=

p I

dz

<J> =

KAG

The function x for a circle of radius a is given by Love [8]

X = -

(25)

/ 3
v\
1
( - + - J a2x + - (x* -

+ xy*)dxdyj

3xy2)

The value of K then follows from (30) as

6(1 +

v)

(32)

7 + 6?
Hollow Circle

For a circular tube of inner radius b and outer radius a the

function % is given bj' Love [S] as

" " ( i f)(

(a2 + b2)r +

where r, 9 are polar coordinates.

K =

6(1 +

a2b2\

w
v^
cos 8 + cos 38
r /
4

The value of K is then

i0(l +

m2)2

(33)

(7 + 6i>)(l + w 2 ) 2 + (20 + 12 v)m2

where m = b/a is the ratio of inner to outer radius.

walled tube (33) reduces to

xv2)dxdv

JJx(X

(31)

dt2

K =
+ f

<30>

Circle

ny{2 + v)xy

+ xy>)dxdy

Calculation of Shear Coefficients for Various Cross Sections

XIJ-)

(2 v)y2
+

This, then, is our formula for the shear coefficient K. Numerical

values of K for certain cross sections are calculated in the next
section. The final form of the equations of Timoshenko's beam
theory are

(24)

Assuming then, that the shear stresses and warping displacement are given by (24), we find

d'I>
EI = M
dz

on the boundary of the cross section. Solutions for x for a variety

of cross sections are available in standard textbooks and in the
literature. The function/(z) in (24) is a polynomial whose exact
form depends on the end conditions of the beam and which, for
our purposes, need not be known.
W e note that in a tip-loaded cantilever the shear force Q is constant, while in a uniformly loaded beam Q varies linearly along
the beam. Since relations (24) are exact in the cases of constant
and linearly varying Q it is natural to adopt them as approximations to the shear stresses and displacements for general loadings,
including dynamic loadings. It seems reasonable to assume that
this approximation is valid provided Q does not vary too rapidly
along the length of the beam. A more thorough justification of
this assumption for static loadings can be found in [15].

v' =

v) is a harmonic function which satisfies the boundary

2(1 + v)I \ dy

uz = xf(z) where
condition

v)I

dz
ra2

(29)

ICAG

2(1 +

K =
V

whore K is the quantity given by

(23)

The second assumption concerns the distribution of shear stress

within the beam and is needed in order to evaluate the integral in
(22d). N o w exact solutions, exclusive of end effects, for the
shear stresses in a uniform beam are known in two particular
cases of loadinga cantilever beam under a single transverse load
at the tip, and a uniformly loaded beam. The analysis of a tiploaded cantilever constitutes the classical flexure problem and is a
standard chapter in textbooks on the theory of elasticity [8, 10,
11]. It is also known that the distribution of transverse shear
stress in a uniformly loaded beam is exactly the same as in a tiploaded cantilever [9]. In both cases the shear stresses crxs, <ryz
and the displacement uz are given by [8]

u $

dz

For a thin-

2(1 + v)
4 +

3^

(26)
Rectangle

We may now evaluate the integral in (22d) obtaining

<r -

0 ) dxdy =
ar /

Referring once again to Love, we find that the function x for a

rectangular cross section is

I)

v)I

X = (-(1

2(1 +

+ v)a2 + vb2/3)x + (2 + v)(x3 +

- i f f -

X(X

+ xy2)dxdy

(27)

where
h =

ff'U2dxdy

Journal of Applied Mechanics

(28)

4^63
7T'

"

3xy2)/6

( - ) " sinh [n-Kx/b) ^

(nny/b)

n3 cosh (nira/b)

where the length of the side parallel to the x-axis is 2a and the
length of the side parallel to the y-axis is 26. The value of K
then follows as

JUNE 1 96 6 / 337

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

v)

10(1 +

K =

12 +

(34)

Hi/

j t

It is remarkable that IC is independent of the aspect ratio of the

rectangle.
Ellipse
The function x for an ellipse, again from Love, is
a2(2(l

X =

- S ^

+ v)a2 + b-)
3a2 +

Fig. 2

b2

2a2 + b2 + vja2 -

9a 2

362

b2)/2 ,
(x3 3xy2)

where a is the semiaxis in the z-direction and b is the semiaxis in

the ^-direction. Here a may be greater than, less than, or equal
to, b. The value of K then is
K =

12(1 + p)(3a 4 + a2b2)

(40 + 37v)a i + (16 +

IC =

(35)

10?)a2&2 + vb4

T h i n - w a i l e d cross section

2(1 +
K7. -

7)

i/)/

7 ^

(41)

xfttds

Calculations such as outlined in the foregoing have been carried out for some common thin-walled sections.
Although
straightforward, the calculations are tedious and will not be detailed here. The final results are presented in Fig. 3, which summarizes all our calculations of K.

Semicircle
For a semicircle of radius a the flexure function has been
calculated by the author as
(2 X =

v)

{x3 -

(3 +

2(1 - v)

r2 cos 2 6
x H
3tr

3xy2)

2v)a 3

2tt

(-)>

( 4 2 + 1)

3(1 -

2v)a 3

2tr

n(4re2 9)

cos 2nd

where x, y are rectangular coordinates with origin at the centroid

and r, 6 are polar coordinates with origin at the center of the
semicircle. When IC is calculated from (30) and numerical values
are inserted in the infinite series which occur, the final result obtained is
if

1 +
1.305 +

(36)

1.2731/

Thin-Walled Sections
The shear stress and warping in thin-walled sections can be
calculated if some simplifying assumptions, based on the thinness of the wall, are introduced. Let us consider a section such as
shown in Fig. 2. The arc length along the section is denoted by s,
the slope angle of the tangent to the section is 6, and t is the
variable thickness of the section. In thin-walled sections the
shear stress r, Fig. 2, follows the contour and may be assumed
to be uniform across the thickness. Moreover, T can be calculated
directly from requirements of equilibrium using well-known
methods [12], T o obtain the warping displacement it is advantageous to put

<A = - x - vy*

(37)

so that the third equation of (24) becomes

ti. = xf(z) + (,Q/EI)ft

(38)

For thin-walled sections ft will be a function of s onh'.

r

<t X! COS

9 + ayz sin 6

Now
(39)

and substitution of (37) into (24) and the result into (39) yields
2(1 + v)I

dft
ds

v ,
T

2 ({X2

~~

y2)

C0S

6 +

2XV

S'n

(40)

Integration of (40) then gives ft. In turn, the shear coefficient is

obtained from (30) which, in view of (37), may be written

338

U N E 19 6 6

Table 1 compares our values of K with those obtained by other

authors.
Table

cos 2nd

)
W

Comparison With Other Evaluations of K

Source
Timoshenko [3]
Mindlin [5]
Goodman [7], [v
Eoark [13]
Formula (30), v =
Formula (30), v =
Formula (30), v =

=
0
0.3
1/2

1/3)

K for rectangle
0.667
0.822
0.870
0.833
0.833
0.850
0.870

K for circle
0.750
0.847
0.900
0.857
0.886
0.900

With the exception of Timoshenko's values, the foregoing results all agree fairly well with each other. The agreement is particularly interesting in view of the vastty different methods used
by the various authors. The values of Mindlin and of Goodman
were based on high-frequency vibration modes while those of
Roark were derived with only static deflections in mind. Mindlin
chose K so that the frequency of the first thickness-shear mode, as
calculated from the Timoshenko equations, agrees with the frequency given by the three-dimensional equations for small elastic
vibrations. Goodman chose I i so that the frequency equation
obtained from the Timoshenko equations is correct in the limit of
zero wavelength. Roark's values are based on the work of Newlin and Trayer [14] who calculate a K for static deflection of
a simple beam by means of elementary strain-energy methods.
All these calculations are indirect in the sense that they make no
use of the definition of IC as the ratio of the average shear strain
of the shear strain at the centroid. The only values of IC based
directly on the definition are Timoshenko's and, as Table 1 indicates, these values are exceptional. This is in harmony with
Leibowitz and Kennard's [4] criticism of the customary definition
of K.
The nature of our approximation regarding the shear stresses
suggests that our values of IC are most satisfactory for static and
long-wavelength, low-frequency deformations of beams.
Comparison of our values with those of Mindlin and Goodman then
gives an indication of the variation of the effective value of IC with
frequency.

References
1
S . P . T i m o s h e n k o , " O n t h e C o r r e c t i o n f o r S h e a r of t h e D i f f e r ential E q u a t i o n f o r T r a n s v e r s e V i b r a t i o n s of P r i s m a t i c B a r s , "
Philosophical
Magazine,
v o l . 4 1 , 1921, p p . 7 4 4 - 7 4 6 .
2
S . P . T i m o s h e n k o , " O n t h e T r a n s v e r s e V i b r a t i o n s o f B a r s of
U n i f o r m C r o s s - S e c t i o n , " Philosophical
Magazine,
v o l . 4 3 , 1922, p p .
125-131.

Transactions of the A S M E

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

CIRCLE

6 ( l + i/)
7+ 6 v

HOLLOW

K=

CIRCLE
6(l + i/)(l + m2)2

(7 + 6l/)(l + m 2 ) Z + ( 2 0 + l 2 i / ) m 2
WHERE

m = b/o

RECTANGLE
.l0(l + )
12 + 1 I V

ELLIPSE

K =

I2(l + l/)0*(3o2 + b2)

( 4 0 + 3 7 i / ) c r + ( l 6 + l 0 i . ' ) a 2 b 2 + Vb*

MAY BE

E I T H E R > OR < b

SEMICIRCLE

K =

I+v
I 3 0 5 + 1.2731/

THIN-WALLED

ROUND

TUBE

_ 2 ( l + i/)

THIN-WALLED

SQUARE

TUBE

2 0 ( 1 + 1/)

THIN-WALLED

I-SECTION
10(1 + i/)(i +

3m)2

(12 + 7 2 m + 150m' + 9 0 m 3 ) + y ( l l + 6 6 m + 135m 2 + 9 0 m 3 ) + 3 0 n 2 ( m + m 2 ) + 5l/n 2 (8m + 9 m z )

WHERE

m =2bt

THIN-WALLED

/hl

BOX

n =

/h

ill

SECTION
10(1 +

v) (I + 3m)

( l 2 + 7 2 m + l 5 0 m z + 9 0 m 3 ) + l / ( l l + 6 6 m + l 3 5 m 2 + 9 0 m 3 ) + l 0 n 2 ( ( 3 + !/)m + 3 m 2 )

WHERE

m = bl,/hl

SPAR-AND-WEB

n - b/h

SECTION
t
IO(l + ! / ) ( l + 3 m )

( l 2 + 72m + 150 m2 + 9 0 m 3 ) + i / ( l l + 6 6 m + 135m 2 + 0 0 m ! )

WHERE

m = 2As/ht

THIN-WALLED

A s = AREA

OF ONE

SPAR

T-SECTION

I 0 ( l + l/)(l + 4 m ) Z

(l2 + 9 6 m + 2 , ' 6 m 2 + l 9 2 m 3 ) + ^ ( l | + 8 8 m + 2 4 8 m 2 + 2 l 6 m 3 ) + 3 0 n 2 ( m + m 2 ) + I O i / n 2 ( 4 m + 5m 2 + m 3 )
WHERE

m ' bl,/ht

Fig. 3

F o r m u l a s for s h e a r coefficient;

Journal of Applied Mechanics

r!

n = b/h

v =

b H

P o i s s o n ' s r a t i o ; n e u t r a l a x i s is s h o w n a s a c h a i n - d o t t e d l i n e

JUNE 1 9 6 6 / 339

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

3
S. P . T i m o s h e n k o , Strength
of MaterialsPart
1, s e c o n d
e d i t i o n , D . V a n N o s t r a n d C o m p a n y , I n c . , N e w Y o r k , N . Y . , 1940,
pp. 170-171.
4
R . C . L e i b o w i t z a n d E . H . K e n n a r d , " T h e o r y of F r e e l y
V i b r a t i n g N o n u n i f o r m B e a m s , I n c l u d i n g M e t h o d s of S o l u t i o n a n d
A p p l i c a t i o n t o S h i p s , " D a v i d T a y l o r M o d e l B a s i n , R e p o r t 1317,
1961, p p . 1 8 0 - 1 8 1 .
5
R . D . Mindlin and H . Deresiewicz, " T i m o s h e n k o ' s Shear C o e f f i c i e n t f o r F l e x u r a l V i b r a t i o n s of B e a m s , " T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t N o .
10, O N R P r o j e c t N R 0 6 4 - 3 8 8 , D e p a r t m e n t o f C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , N e w Y o r k , N . Y 1953.
6 L . E . G o o d m a n , d i s c u s s i o n of p a p e r , " F l e x u r a l V i b r a t i o n s in
U n i f o r m B e a m s According to the T i m o s h e n k o T h e o r y , " b y R . A .
A n d e r s o n , J O U R N A L OF A P P L I E D M E C H A N I C S , v o l . 2 1 , T R A N S .

ASME,

vol. 76,1954, pp. 202-204.

7
L . E . G o o d m a n a n d J. G . S u t h e r l a n d , d i s c u s s i o n of p a p e r ,
" N a t u r a l F r e q u e n c i e s o f C o n t i n u o u s B e a m s of U n i f o r m
Span
L e n g t h , " b y R . S. A y r e a n d L . S. J a c o b s e n , JOURNAL OF APPLIED
MECHANICS, v o l . 18, T R A N S . A S M E , v o l . 7 3 , 1 9 5 1 , p p .

3 4 0

A . E . H . L o v e , A Treatise

JUNE 1 9 6 6

on the Mathematical

217-218.

Theory

of

Elas-

ticity,
fourth edition, C a m b r i d g e University Press, C a m b r i d g e
E n g l a n d , 1952, C h a p t e r 15.
9
A . E . H . L o v e , A Treatise on the Mathematical
Theory of Elasticity,
f o u r t h edition, C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press,
Cambridge,
E n g l a n d , 1952, C h a p t e r 16, e s p e c i a l l y p . 3 5 8 .
10 S . P . T i m o s h e n k o a n d J. N . G o o d i e r , Theory
of
Elasticity,
second edition, M c G r a w - H i l l B o o k C o m p a n y , Inc., N e w Y o r k , N . Y . ,
1951, C h a p t e r 12.
11
I . S. S o k o l n i k o f f , Mathematical
Theory
of Elasticity,
second
edition, M c G r a w - H i l l B o o k C o m p a n y , Inc., N e w Y o r k , N . Y . , 1956,
C h a p t e r 4.
12 E . E . S e c h l e r a n d L . G . D u n n , Airplane
Structural Analysis
and
Design, J o h n W i l e y & S o n s , I n c . , N e w Y o r k , N . Y . , 1942, p p . 3 4 3 - 3 5 4 .
13 R . J. R o a r k , Formidas
for Stress and Strain,
third edition,
M c G r a w - H i l l B o o k C o m p a n y , I n c . , N e w Y o r k , N . Y . , 1954, p p .
119-121.
14 J. A . N e w l i n a n d G . W . T r a y e r , " D e f l e c t i o n s of B e a m s W i t h
S p e c i a l R e f e r e n c e t o S h e a r D e f o r m a t i o n , " N A C A R e p o r t 180, 1 9 2 4 .
15
J. N . G o o d i e r , " O n t h e P r o b l e m s of t h e B e a m a n d t h e P l a t e i n
t h e T h e o r y of E l a s t i c i t y , " Transactions
of the Royal Society of
Canada,
t h i r d series, v o l . 32, s e c t i o n 3, 1938, p p . 6 5 - 8 S .

Transactions of the ASiVIE

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use