Computers & Structures Vol. 37. No. 5, pp. 769-776, 1990 004s7949190 s3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. Pqamon Rem plc

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SHEAR LOCKING IN

BEAM ELEMENTS
J. RAKOWSKI

Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Poznali ul. Piotrowo $60-965 Poznari, Poland

(Receiued 1 November 1989)

Abstract-A new concept of explanation of the shear locking phenomenon occurring in the Timoshenko
beam is presented. Instead of element matrix analysis the global expression of the equilibrium equation
for a whole beam is considered. Based on the element stiffness matrix the equilibrium conditions for a
regular discretized beam are derived in the form of one difference equation that converges to the analytical
differential formulation for the continuous beam. It is clearly shown that application of the linear shape
functions leads to an overly stiff element in the Mindlin elements because this approximation converges
to the solution of a different equilibrium equation. From the stiffness matrices of exactly and reduced
integrated linear and quadratic elements the difference equilibrium conditions are derived and they are
compared with the exact equations of the bending beam problem. For each type of element the improved
one is elaborated that assures the exact solution for beams irrespective of beam thickness and discretization
(number of elements). The numerical analyses for various boundary conditions, beam load, discretization
and thickness ratios are given.

1. INTRODUCTION schemes for certain differential equations may con-

Extensive research work has been devoted to the
shear locking phenomenon. This problem is the
subject of many recent papers [l-3]. Noting that the
low-order elements lead to effects incorrectly over the
last few years a large variety of finite improved
elements has been elaborated for analysis of beams,
plates and shells. The effort to avoid the parasitic
shear in bending elements is invested in development
of methods that are heuristic in their nature. In
the majority of cases these methods have no direct
physical interpretation and they seem rather to be
numerical tricks. The consequence of application, e.g.
reduced and selective integrations, stabilization
matrices or Kirchhoff constraints is an alteration of
some numbers in element stiffness matrix [4-71. It
leads to more accurate numerical results that con-
verge to the exact solution by increasing the number
of elements. The source of the troubles that appear in
the application of low-order bending elements is
defined by many authors as ill conditioning of the
stiffness matrix. For that reason a lot of investi-
gations have focused attention on the analysis of the
singularity of element stiffness matrices or on spuri-
ous constraints arising in Co and C’ elements [S, 81. In
all works known to me, in analyzing Timoshenko
beams the element stiffness matrix is the only subject
of consideration e.g. [14,8-l 11. Up to date nobody
has asked the question: what differential equations
are equivalent to the equilibrium conditions derived
from element stiffness matrices? Are they irrespective
of the type of element equations really describing the
bending problem? It should be noted here that finite
verge to the solution of different equations [12].
In this paper a new idea of the shear locking
phenomenon interpretation is presented. A careful
examination of the linear and quadratic Mindlin
beam elements provides a very clear explanation of
the locking essense. In order to investigate this prob-
lem the global expression of equilibrium equations
for a whole beam is analyzed. For regular discretized
Timonshenko beams the equilibrium conditions are
derived in the form of one difference equation. It is
shown that the Mindlin formulation for the linear
shape functions cause an overly stiff element because
this approximation converges to the solution of a
different differential equation describing the static
problem. The consideration is completed with analy-
sis of reduced integrated elements and for each type
of element an improved one is elaborated. The point
of the new proposed linear and quadratic elements is
that all of them secure exact solutions irrespective of
the discretization (number of elements), boundary
conditions, loads and beam thickness.
The presentation of a new concept will start with
the derivation of the exact formulation for the dis-
crete beam bending problem. Although the FEM
methodology is used, all results of numerical compu-
tations are obtained analytically by means of the
eigenfunction method described in [13]. In the third
section the exactly and reduced integrated linear and
quadratic Mindlin elements are analyzed. For each
type of element an equivalent difference equilibrium
equation is derived and compared with the exact
one. Based on this comparison corrections are pro-
posed for all elements that fully eliminate errors

769
770 J. RAKOWSKI

Fig. 1. Beam element description.
associated with application of these low-order el-
ements. Also presented are the results of calculations
for beam with various thickness ratios, boundary
conditions, discretization and loads.
2. TIMOSHENKO BEAM-EXACT SOLUTION
The solution of eqn (3), using (1) and (2), for unit
boundary conditions (t$ = 1, wi = 1, i = 1,2) leads
to the exact shape functions for the two-node
Timoshenko beam element, which are presented in
Table 1 [{ =x/a, D = l/(d + l)].
By neglecting the shear deflection (d = 0) one gets
the standard Hermitan polynomials for the classical
Euler-Bernoulli beam. Having found the shape func-
tions, the element stiffness matrix is computed by the
application of the virtual work principle. The matrix
corresponding to the vector of nodal displacements
and rotations {w,, 01, w2, t9,} can be expressed as
fo11ows:

Let us consider a four degree of freedom linearly K,E’ aj y&&+dW, (4)

elastic beam element (Fig. 1). The fundamental geo-
metrical and physical relations for shear-flexible con- where
tinuous straight beam are:
KE=
EI

-d!(x) = -M(x) 12 6a -12

dx
6a [3 + (d + l)qa* -6a [3 - (d + l)*]a*
Q(x)= F =KGA~(x), -12 -6a 12

6a [3 - (d + l)*]a* -6a

1
Y(X)= qg) - e(x),
12 6a -12 6a
where w(x) is the transverse displacement, e(x) the 6a 3a2 -6a 3a2
rotation, and y(x) the shear strain of the cross- K,=
-12 -6a 12 -6a ’
section; M(x) is the bending moment, Q(x) the shear
force; E and G are the Young’s and shear modulus, 6a 3a2 -6a 3a2
respectively; I and A are the moment of inertia and I
cross-section area, respectively; K is the shear correc- Evaluation of (4) leads to the following form of the
tion factor. element stiffness matrix:
The interpolations of displacements and rotations
are assumed as follows:
KC- ~&P,+d*K,l, (5)
w(x) = t: c,xi
i-0 where now Kl and K, include only numbers

e(x) = i D,x’. (2)

i-0
6 4 -6 2
Substituting (2) into (1) we obtain the following
differential equation:
6 2 -6 4
$ = -$ [0(x) + c, + 2c,x + 3CJX’], (3)

where d = 12EI/KGAa* [for a rectangular cross-

section beam, d = 2(1 + v)h*/Ka*, where h is beam
depth, v Poisson’s ratio, a the length of element and
K = S/6].

Table 1. Exact shape functions for Timoshenko beam element

w(C) WC) r(C)
0, = 1 Da[2<’ - (4 + d)<* + (2 + d)(]/2 D[3C2 - (4 + d)t + d + l] -Dd/2
0,=1 Da[2<‘-(2-d)<*-dt]/2 N; : - g,- d)t 1 - Dd/2
w,=l D[2(‘-3t*-dt+d+I] - Ddla
w2= 1 D[-2{‘+3{*+d<j 6D[-s + &a Dd/a
 Shear locking in beam elements 771

where

A2= A:= E + E-’ - 2, E” = E:, B = a3/(6H).

After elimination 4, in (9) we get finally one
fourth-order difference equilibrium equation
Fig, 2. Illustration of equilibrium conditions of an arbitrary
r-node of regular beam. A4w,=B* A2+6-i.A2 P,-3B*(E-E-‘)m,.
)
The stiffness matrix (5) corresponds to the element (10)
relationship
This equation describes exactly the static problem of
K*q=f, (61 the discrete, regular T~oshenko beam subjected to
arbitrary nodal loads P, and M,, irrespective of the
where qT=(w,+1,W2r(62)r ~=j~l,w,h,m2j, beam depth and discretization (number of elements).
4, = a#,, m, = Mj/u; Pi, Mi are external nodal forces For a +O (R --)0~))it converges to the exact differen-
and moments, respectively. tial equation for continuous Timoshenko beam.
One can note that both parts of the exact derived Indeed, dividing both sides of eqn (10) by a4 and
matrix (5) (bending and shear matrices) depend on noting that
the shear flexibility. In fact

EI
KB=>‘d+,-
1 K
1
lime
a4
O-+O
=$,lim
a-0
[
a2.$
1 =O

&=$&K2. (7)
lim
n-0 [ 2 1
!!.A2-6Ef d2
-KG/~ ‘da2

The element stiffness matrix (5), although different in

its formulation, is identical to that derived in [1 1] and
ftl =p(a)

[14]. By neglecting in (7) the shear deflection (d = 0),

the bending matrix KB coincides with the stiffness of
the Euler-Bernoulli beam element (K, = 0).
It will be shown now that the global FEM formu-
lation for discrete, regular beams can be expressed in
yields
the form of one difference equation. Let us divide a
beam into R identical efements (a = const.). Starting
with the element stiffness matrix (5) and deponing EI d4W)
*-=P(X)---&‘z.
EI d2p(x)
(11)
the ~ui~b~urn conditions for an arbitrary beam dX4
node r (see Fig. 2) we have
The difference equation formulation of FEM for
6(w,-,-~)+2(#,-,+2#+)+6(w,-w.,) regular discrete beam systems consisting of an arbi-
trary large number of elements gives the possibility to
+2(2~,+c++,)-W,-,-W+W,-~,+,) obtain solutions in an analytical, closed form for
various boundary conditions (see [13]).
= 6B(d + 1) *m,,

- lZ(w,_, - w,)-~(#,-Is#,~ 3. MINDLIN BEAM ELEMENTS

In this section we will analyze beams consisting of

+ 12(~,-~,+,)+6(4b,+~,+1f=6B(d+1)*P,.
(81
Introducing in the eqns (8) the shifting operator E:
and the central difference operator A; we obtain
Mindlin elements. The difference equilibrium
equations are derived for exactly and reduced
integrated stiffness matrices of linear and quadratic
elements. The results are compared with exact formu-
lation.
The element stiffness matrices are derived from the

1
expression for strain energy [4,8]
(A’ + 6) - 4 A2 Cp,- 3(E - E-‘)w, = 3B(d + l)m,

(E
-E-')$,
- 2 * A2w,= B(u’ + l)P,, (9)
712 J. RAKOWSKI

1.0
3.1. Linear element
First, we assume the element shape functions w(x) 0.6
and 6(x) to be independent and linear
0.6
w(x)=w1+(w2--,).x/a, 0.4

e(x) = fI1+ (0, - 0,) 9x/a. (13) 0.2

0.0
Substituting (13) into (12) after exact integration we
get the stiffness matrix in the form
Fig. 3. Convergence of normalized node displacements for
linear element beam vs thickness ratio (L/h) and number of
(14) elements (R).

Employing reduced integration to the considered

where K, and KZ are identical to the matrices in (5).
linear beam element (one-point quadrature on the
The difference equilibrium equation for a regular
shear energy term) we get the following form of the
beam referring to this matrix is of the form
element matrix:
d
A4w,=--..
d+l K=$$[(d- l).K,+K,], (16)

- 38 . (E - E-‘)m,
1 . (15)
Comparing the above equation with the exact
one, eqn (lo), we see that the application of
linear elements leads to fully different equation de-
scribing the bending problem of the Timoshenko
beam. For d-r0 (h/a +O) the quotient d/(d + 1)
converges rapidly to zero. It explains the essence of
the locking phenomenon. Fortunately, eqn (15)
differs from the exact eqn (10) on its right hand
side only on the factor d/(d + l), so it is not necessary
to perform numerical computations to estimate the
error caused by shear locking. Moreover, one can
see here that the error is independent of the load
acting on beam and boundary conditions and the
results of computations converge to the exact sol-
ution as well as the quotient d/(d + 1) converges to
1 (see Fig. 3).
It is possible to improve this linear beam element
in a simple way: one must only introduce to the
exactly integrated model modified physical par-
ameters, namely, instead of E and G, E * d/(d + 1)
and G * d/(d + l), respectively.
with Ki and K2 identical to the number matrices
in (5).
The difference equilibrium equation for a beam
consisting of an arbitrary number of identical el-
ements with stiffness matrices given in (16) can be
expressed as follows:
-3B*(E-E-‘)m,. (17)
The form of the equilibrium condition (17) is nearly
to the exact formulation of (10). One can see that
the ‘underintegrated’ linear elements do not lock
but the solution for a finite number of elements
will never reach the exact result for any value of
d, however in the element length limit (a-0,
i.e. R + co) eqn (17) converges to the exact differential
equation for the continuous beam, eqn (11). It can be
seen more precisely by looking at the results that were
performed for beams with various discretization,
boundary conditions and load distribution. The

Table 2. Normalized central node displacement for a clamped-

clamped beam (the length of the beam L = R ( a) _
Length-depth ratio Number of elements
(L/h) R=2 R=4 R=8 R = 16
1 0.923 1 0.9808 0.9952 0.9988
2 0.7500 0.9375 0.9844 0.9961
4 0.4286 0.8571 0.9643 0.9911
8 0.1579 0.7895 0.9414 0.9868
16 0.0448 0.7612 0.9403 0.9851
32 0.0116 0.7529 0.9382 0.9845
64 0.0029 0.7507 0.9377 0.9844
128 0.0007 0.7502 0.9375 0.9844
256 0.0002 0.7500 0.9375 0.9844
512 0.7500 0.9375 0.9844
etc. 0.7500 0.9375 0.9844
 Shear locking in beam elements 773

Table 3. Normalized end node displa~m~t for a cantilever beam

Length+kpth ratio Number of eiements
(L/h) R=l R=2 R-4 R-8

: 0.8571
0.7895 09643
0.9474 0.9911
0.9868 0.9978
0.9967
4 0.7612 0.9403 0.9851 0.9963
8 0.1529 0.9382 0.9846 0.9961
16 0.7507 0.9377 0.9844 0.9961
32 0.7502 0.9375 0.9844 0.9961
64 0.7500 0.9375 0.9844 0.9961
etc. 0.7500 0.9375 0.9844 0.9961

Table 4. Normalized central node displacement for a simply supported

beam
Length-depth ratio Number of elements
(L/h) R=2 R=4 R=8 R = 16
0.9375 0.9844 0.9961 0.9990
: 0.8571 0.9643 0.9911 0.9978
4 0.7895 0.9474 0.9868 0.9967
0.7612 0.9403 0.985 1 0.9963
1: 0.7529 0.9382 0.9846 0.9961
32 0.7507 0.9377 0.9844 0.9961
64 0.7502 0.9375 0.9844 0.9961
128 0.7500 0.9375 0.9844 0.9961
etc. 0.7500 0.9375 0.9844 0.996 1

Table 5. Normalized central node displacement for a simply

supported-clamped beam
Length-depth ratio Number of elements
(L/h) R=2 R=4 R=8 R--l6
0.9288 0.9822 0.9956 0.9989
: 0.7835 0.9461 0.9865 0.9966
4 0.5630 0.8914 0.9729 0.9932
8 0.4161 0.8549 0.9638 0.9909
0.3628 0.8417 0.9605 0.9901
:; 0.3480 0.8380 0.9596 0.9899
64 0.3441 0.8371 0.9593 0.9898
128 0.3432 0.8368 0.9593 0.9898
256 0.3429 0.8368 0.9592 0.9898
512 0.3429 0.8367 0.9592 0.9898
etc. 0.3429 0.8367 0.9592 0.9898

Table 6. Normalized node displacements for beams due to various beam loads
Boundary conditions
Simply supported Cantilever beam
Number jmiddle node) (end node)
of elements L/h II I II
1 0.9375 0.9375 0.9643 0.9615
4 0.7895 0.7895 0.9403 0.9322
R=2 8 0.7612 0.7612 0.9382 0.9295
32 0.7507 0.7507 0.9375 0.9286
128 0.7500 0.7500 0.9375 0.9286

1 0.9844 0.985 1 0.9911 0.9900

4 0.9474 0.9545 0.9851 0.9818
R=4 8 0.9403 0.9494 0.9846 0.9810
32 0.9377 0.9475 0.9844 0.9808
128 0.9375 0.9474 0.9844 0.9808

1 0.9961 0.9963 0.9978 0.9974

4 0.9868 0.9890 0.9963 0.9953
R-8 8 0.985 1 0.9878 0.9961 0.9951
32 0.9844 0.9874 0.9961 0.9950
128 0.9844 0.9873 0.9961 0.9950
774 J. RAKOWSICI

central node ~spla~rn~~ are determined from the The stifl’ness matrix co~s~nding to the nodal
analytical solution of eqns (10) and (17) by means of element displacements and loads
the eigenfunction method described in 1131and they
are presented in Tables 2-5. The results refer to the 9T=(W*,~I,W2,~2rW~,(P~}
end load for the cantilever beam and to the central
node for the other cases of boundary conditions. The p={p,,m,,P,,m,,P,,m,},
reduced integration for beams of small numbers
of elements is not effective-two-element clamped- with c#+= ~0, and mi= M,/u, (i = 1,2,3) can be
clamped beam locks (see Table 2). written now in the following form:
The convergence to the exact solution is much
better for cantilever beams (Table 3).
The results of computations for simply supported
and simply suppo~ed~lam~ beams are presented
in Tables 4 and 5. Assuming that in each element P2 = 0 and m2 = 0 we
In Table 6 one can find the displacement results can express the middle node displacements as
due to various beam loads:
(I) one node of the beam is loaded by a unit force
wz = (WI + wj )/2 + (9, - 43 )I8
(the middle node for the simply supported, the
end node for the cantilever beam) 1
(II) all nodes of the beam are loaded by uniform - ~ * [3O(w, - w,) + (10d - 3)(43 + #,)I.
(62- 4(6 + 5d)
forces.
(21)
The underintegrated linear element can be improved
by substituting into eqn (16) (d + I) instead of d. This
Using the difference technique presented in Section 2
modification is implied by the eqn (l?), where intro-
we get from the relations (19x21) the equilib~um
ducing expression (d + 1) (instead of d) transforms it conditions for regular beam
to the exact eqn (10).

3.2. Quadratic element ~+6)-(&&))A+.

The shape functions for the three-node element are

w(x) = w, - (3w, - 4w7,+ Wj) . x/a 6+5d

-3(E-E-‘)w,=3Bd*-----‘m,
1 + Sd
+ (2w, - 4w2 + 2w,) ’ x2/az
6+5d up
e(x) = 8, - (38, - 46, + 0,) *x[a (E-E-I)$,--2.A2w,=Bd.--- ,. (22)
1 + 5d

’ (2’1- 4’2 ’ 28,) * X2i'*. ('8) Elimination of rb in (22) yields

Anal~i~lly integrated terms of element stiffness r 1 * -I

a I
matrix are given by A4wr=B. A2+6-Z~A2+2(1 -.A2+5d) P,
1

0 00 00 0 -3B*(E-E-‘)m,. (23)

0 713 0 -8/3 0 l/3

This equation does not coincide with the exact
0 00 00 0 one given in (lo), but in the beam element limit
(a -+O, R + 00) it converges to the exact equation for
0 -813 0 16/3 0 -8/3
a continuous beam (11). The difference between
0 00 00 0 the exact formulation (10) and that presented in
(23) is to be found in the right hand side of
0 l/3 0 -8/3 0 713 _
_ (19) the eq~lib~um equation: instead of d we have in
-I
eqn (23) the expression [d - l/(1 + 541.
^. Comparing
_.
28 6 -32 8 4 -2 eqn (23) with (17) we see that application of the
quadratic exactly integrated elements gives better
6 8/S -8 415 2 -2/5 approximation than underintegrated linear elements,
-32 -8 64 0 -32 8 in particular for deep beams (see Fig. 4). The results
KY= ’ of computations are presented in Tables 7-9.
8 415 0 3215 -8 415 They are performed for beams subjected to the
4 2 -32 -8 28 -6 central node load (clamped and simply supported
beams) and to the end node load (cantilever beam).
-2 -2/S 8 415 -6 815_ It should be emphasised that by increasing
 Shear locking in beam elements 115

The simplest method for improving the

exactly integrated elements is to modify the shear
parameter d without changing the stiffness matrices

c;(;,;;,;_,
,!“:‘,,,,
KY and KY. Indeed, if we replace d in eqn (20) by
d,,, = 0.1 . [Sd - 1 + J(25d* + 10d + 21)], where d, is
the root of the equation

1
d,,,-- = d,
10 10' 10' 10' 10'
1 1 + 5d,,,
Fig. 4. Comparison of central node displacement for beams
with reduced integrated linear (L) and exactly integrated
quadratic elements (Q). R is the number of beam elements. we get the exact solution of the Timoshenko beam
bending problem.
the beam thickness, as well as in the case of linear Now we estimate the accuracy of the reduced
elements, the displacements attain a certain limit of integrated quadratic element. Applying two-point
accuracy different of course for each value of R. quadrature to the shear term of strain energy (12) we

Table 7. Normalized central node displacement for a clamped*lamped beam

(the length of the beam L = R . a)
Length-depth ratio Number of elements
CL/h) R=2 R=4 R=8 R = 16
1 0.9987 0.9999 1.0000 1.oooo
2 0.9844 0.9990 0.9999 1.0000
4 0.8797 0.9911 0.9994 1.0000
8 0.5654 0.9557 0.9967 0.9998
16 0.2261 0.8767 0.9874 0.9991
32 0.0663 0.7998 0.968 1 0.9967
64 0.0173 0.7645 0.9495 0.9920
128 0.0044 0.7538 0.9410 0.9873
256 0.0011 0.7510 0.9384 0.9852
512 0.0003 0.7502 0.9377 0.9846

Table 8. Normalized central node disnlacement for a simnlv sunnorted beam

Length-depth ratio Number of elements
(L/h) R=2 R=4 R=8 R = 16
1 0.9990 0.9999 1.0000 1.0000
2 0.9911 0.9994 1.0000 1.0000
4 0.9557 0.9967 0.9998 1.0000
8 0.8767 0.9874 0.9991 0.9999
16 0.7998 0.968 1 0.9967 0.9998
32 0.7645 0.9495 0.9920 0.9992
64 0.7538 0.9410 0.9874 0.9980
128 0.7510 0.9384 0.9852 0.9968
256 0.7502 0.9377 0.9846 0.9963
512 0.7501 0.9376 0.9844 0.9962

Table 9. Comparison of the normalized displacements for the middle and the end
nodes of a cantilever beam
Number of elements
R=2 R=4 R=8
Middle End Middle End Middle End
Llh node node node node node node
1 0.9993 0.9994 1.oooo 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
2 0.9952 0.9967 0.9997 0.9998 1.0000 1.0000
4 0.9804 0.9874 0.9985 0.999 1 0.9999 0.9999
8 0.9493 0.968 1 0.9948 0.9967 0.9996 0.9998
16 0.9194 0.9495 0.9872 0.9920 0.9987 0.9992
32 0.9056 0.9410 0.9798 0.9874 0.9968 0.9980
64 0.9015 0.9384 0.9764 0.9852 0.9949 0.9968
128 0.9004 0.9377 0.9754 0.9846 0.9941 0.9963
256 0.9001 0.9376 0.975 1 0.9844 0.9938 0.9962
512 0.9000 0.9375 0.9750 0.9844 0.9938 0.9961
776 J. RAKO~SKI

cause an alteration of nine numbers in the KF matrix shape functions used in the variational formulation
(19), which has now the following form: - of the bending problem leads to the differential
equilibrium equation which does not cover the
KT=
exact one. The presented method allows determi-
nation of exact errors that also occur in reduced
integrated elements. Owing to this method it was
28 6 -32 8 4 -2
possible to elaborate corrections to each type of
6 413 -8 413 2 -213 element in order to get the exact solutions. The
important topic of the numerical examples was that
-32 -8 64 0 -32 8
all of them were carried out analytically, so there was
8 413 0 16/3 -8 413 no loss of precision and any disorders did not appear
during computations, e.g. for large values of the
4 2 -32 -8 28 -6
thickness ratio L/h.
-2 -213 8 413 -6 413 The author is of the opinion that this technique can
be extended on the analysis of the C” and C’ plate
(25) and shell elements.
Let us express the middle node displacements by
REFERENCES
external. From (19) where KY is given now by (25) we
have 1. A. Kamoulakos, Understanding and improving the
reduced integration of Mindlin shell elements. Znt. J.
Nruner. Me&. Engng 26, 2009-2029 (1988).
~2 = (w, + ~3 112 + (4, - #3 I/‘8
2. I. Kreja and Z. Cywinski, Is reduced integration just a
nurne~~l trick? Commrt. Struet. 2X491-496 (1988).
#2= -. l
4(1 +d)
Ww3- WI> + W - lN#s+ #i 11. 3. D. Briassoulis, The co shell, plate and beam elements
freed from their deficiencies. Comp. Meth. appl. Meek
(26) Engng 72, 243-266 (1989).
4. T. J. R. Hughes, R. L. Taylor and W. Kanoknukulchai,
A simple and efficient finite element for plate bending.
Substituting (26) into the element stiffness matrix (20) Znt. J.-Numer. Meth. Engng 11, 1529-1543 (1977).
in accordance with the difference equation formu- 5. 0. C. Zienkiewicz. The Finite Element Method. 3rd Bdn.
lation for a regular beam we get finally McGraw-Hill, London (1977).
6. T. Belytschko, C. S. Tsay and W. K. Liu, A stabilization
matrix for the bilinear Mindlin plate element. Comput.
A4w,=B+ P,-3B~(E--E-‘)m, Struct. 29, 313-327 (1981).
I. E. Hinton and D. R. J. Gwen, An Zntroduction to Finite
(27) Element Computations. Pineridge Press, Swansea, U.K.
(1979).
8. G, Prathap and G. R. Bhashyam, Reduced integration
in which we recognize the exact ~uilib~um equation
and the shear-flexible beam element. Znt. J. Numer.
of bending problem for the Timoshenko beam. So the Meth. Engng 18, 195-210 (1982).
reduced integrated quadratic element gives the exact 9. H. Stolarski. N. Carnenter and T. Belytschko. A
results in numerical calculations. Kirchhoff-mode method for Co bilinear and-serendipity
plate elements. Comput. Meth. appl. Meth. Engng SO,
121-145 (1985).
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS 10. R. H. MacNeal, A simple quadrilateral shell element.
Comput. Struct. 8, 175-183 (1978).
The problem of shear locking has been examined 11. N. Carpenter, T. Belytschko and H. Stolarski, Locking
in a different way. A more general method to analyze and shear scaling factors in Co bending elements. Com-
the convergence of finite element scheme using the put. Struct. 22, 39-52 (1986)
12. J. M. Ball, Existence of solutions in finite elasticity.
difference equation formulation of FEM was pre- Proc. of the ZUTAM Symposium on Finite Elasticity,
sented. It has been shown that knowing the element Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands (1981).
stiffness matrix it is possible to create an equivalent 13. J. Rakowski and R. Switka, On Some generalization of
difference equation for a whole regular system. In- the E~genf~ction Method Used to the EZastic Discrete
stead of the usually applied element matrix consider- Systems (in Polish), Rozprawy nr 116, Polit. Pozn.,
Poznali ( 1980).
ation the study of one difference equation gives a 14. A. K. Chugh, Stiffness matrix for a beam element
clear explanation of the shear locking essence. It was including transverse shear and axial force effects. Znt. J.
proved that locking appears because the linear Numer. Meth. Engng 11, 1681-1697 (1977).