Pergamon

0045-7949(94)0059%8

Contpurrrr & Snu~rurcs Vol. 57. No I. pp. 141-149. 1995 Copyright 1995 Elsevier Scmm Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0045.7949195 $9.50 + 0.00

AN IMPROVED TWO-NODE FINITE ELEMENT STABILITY AND NATURAL FREQUENCIES AXIAL-LOADED TIMOSHENKO BEAMS
J. B. Kosmatka
Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Science, University La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A. (Received 31 March 1994) of California,

FOR OF

San Diego,

Abstract-The linear flexural stiffness, incremental stiffness, mass, and consistent force matrices for a simple two-node Timoshenko beam element are developed based upon Hamiltons principle, where interdependent cubic and quadratic polynomials are used for the transverse and rotational displacements, respectively. The resulting linear flexural stiffness matrix is in agreement with the exact 2-node Timoshenko beam stiffness matrix. Numerical results are presented to show that the current element can accurately predict the buckling load and natural frequencies of axially-loaded isotropic and composite beams for a wide variety of beam-lengths and boundary conditions. The current element consistently outperforms the existing finite element approaches in studies involving the buckling or vibration behavior of axially-loaded short beams.

INTRODUCTION

Axially-loaded beam-type structural components can be found in almost all aerospace, civil, and mechanical systems. The presence of a tensile axial load is well known to increase all of the bending natural frequencies of the beam member, whereas a compressive axial load will decrease all of the bending natural frequencies. The magnitude of the compressive axial load can only be increased up to the point where the first bending frequency goes to zero, then the motion of the beam member becomes unstable (i.e. buckling occurs). This vibration and stability behavior has been studied analytically using a Bernoulli-Euler theory for long slender uniform beam columns [I, 21 and using the Timoshenko beam theory [3,4] for short uniform beam columns [5], where the latter approach can be used to study beams composed of advanced composite materials because the effects of shear deformation and rotatory inertia are included. For complex structural systems (i.e. aircraft fuselages with stringers and skins), the above simple analytical solutions are generally not applicable and thus one uses the finite element method to study the vibration and stability behavior. Most researchers and almost all developers of commercial finite element computer programs (MSC/NASTRAN, ANSYS, etc.) use a 2-node (4 DOF) finite element. For long slender beams, the linear flexural stiffness, the mass, and the incremental (or geometric) stiffness matrices are developed in a consistent manner using a cubic Hermitian polynomial for the transverse displacement and the Bernoulli-Euler form of the beam strain energy, the kinetic energy, and the
141

potential energy associated with the axial loads, respectively. For short thick or composite beams, a different approach is used. The linear flexural stiffness matrix is developed using force equilibrium relations (not a displacement formulation) so that the resulting matrix form is in agreement with the exact 2-node Timoshenko stiffness matrix developed by Przemieniecki [6]. But the mass matrix and incremental stiffand altered. Accuracy matrix are not ness convergence problems are known to occur when one attempts to study the vibration and/or stability of axially-loaded short or composite beams using finite elements because of the inconsistencies in the development of the flexural stiffness matrix (force equilibrium) with the mass and incremental stiffness matrices (displacement formulation). Recently, Friedman and Kosmatka [7] developed a set of interdependent cubic and quadratic shape functions for the transverse and rotational displacements of the beam, respectively, which exactly satisfy the homogeneous differential equations associated with Timoshenkos beam theory. The stiffness. mass, and consistent force matrices for a two-node beam element with (4 DOF) were developed based upon Hamiltons principle, where the resulting linear flexural stiffness matrix is in agreement with the aforementioned exact 2-node Timoshenko stiffness matrix developed by Przemieniecki [6]. Published results showed that the elements exactly predicts the transverse displacements of short beams subjected to complex distributed loadings using only one element, and predicts shear and moment resultants and natural frequencies better than any existing 2-node Timoshenko beam-type finite element. In the current

142

J. B. Kosmatka initial stress, the kinetic energy, and the work of external forces, respectively. The strain energy is given as

paper, these interdependent shape functions are used to develop an incremental stiffness matrix, which is fully compatible with the exact linear flexural stiffness matrix and thus accuracy and convergence problems which occur in stability and vibration calculations of axially-loaded short or composite beams can be eliminated. Numerical results are presented to show that the current element can accurately predict the buckling load and natural frequencies of axially-loaded isotropic and composite beams better than existing commercially available finite element programs.
REVIEW OF TIMOSHENKO BEAM EQUATIONS

ss
oL A

{v){c}

dA dx

(4a)

and can be rewritten, by making use of eqns (2a and b), the beam material constitutive relations, and integrating over the cross-section, as

We begin by considering a prismatic isotropic beam, of length L, having a general homogeneous cross-section of area A. A Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) is defined on the beam where the x-axis is coincident with the centroidal axis and y and I are coincident with the principal axes of the root crosssection. It is assumed that the centroidal axis is concident with the elastic axis so that bending-torsion coupling is negligible. Limiting our discussion to transverse displacements in the -u-.r plane only, the kinematic displacement distributions can be written as: u(x,y,
z, t) = -yQ(x,

(4b)
where EI and kGA are flexural rigidity and the shear rigidity, respectively, with k being a shear coefficient that is dependent upon the material definition and cross-section geometry [8]. The potential energy of the beam associated with an initial axial tension load (P) is given as

(4c) The kinetic energy of the beam is given as:

t),

tJ(x, Y> z, t) = c(x, t),

w(x,y,z,f)=O, where, u is the time-dependent ment of the centroidal axis and dent relation of the cross-section z-axis (see Fig. 1). The nonzero the beam are determined using a0
Et, = -(;x. y,, =

W-4
transverse displace0 is the time depenabout the positive strain components of eqns (1 a-c) as

(5a)
and is rewritten using eqns (2a and b) and integrating over the cross-section as

1 c:X

0,

(2a. b)
where p is the mass density. external forces is given as Finally, the work of

The equations principle

of motion

are derived

via Hamiltons

an=

(6)
@U+61;,-6T-6W,)dt s II =0 (3) where q and m are the distributed forces and moments along the length of the beam. The two differential equations of motion and associated boundary conditions are obtained by substituting eqns (4b), (4c), (Sb), and (6) into eqn (3) and integrating by parts

where 6U, 6 V,, 6T and 6 Weare the variations of the strain energy, the potential energy associated with

f Y,

$y+ __L
Fig. I. Beam elemenl

(7x b)

Improved finite element for axial-loaded Timoshenko beams where the two geometric and natural boundary ditions that must be specified at the beam (X = 0, L) include Geometric Natural I
V

143

conends

for (0) of the form:

0
a21 a2,

0
a3

0
4,

,=kG,4(&D)+P(~),

X :

alI aI2 aI3

a32 a42

a23 a33 a4)

(7c)

I
Pa,

FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

The above partial differential equations of motion are transformed to a two-node finite element based discrete set of differential equations using newly developed shape functions for (v) and (0). These functions are developed so that they exactly satisfy the homogeneous form of both of the static equations of equilibrium of an unstressed uniform Timoshenko beam

b)

&(kGA($3))=0,

~(EI~)+kGA(~--tl)=O.

(8a,b)

where (t,), (e,), (v,), (0,) are the nodal displacements and rotations at the beam end nodes (1) and (2), respectively, (see Fig. 1) and (a,) and (bi,) are unknown coefficients. Four of the (ai,) and four of the (bii) coefficients can be determined in terms of the remaining 12 coefficients by enforcing that (v(x = L) = v2) and (0(x = L) = 0,). The remaining coefficients are determined by substituting the shape functions into the eqns (8a and b) and solving. The resulting explicit form of the two shape functions are given as:

We begin by assuming a general cubic shape function for (u) and a quadratic shape function

UW

where

&){(gy+;)(;y+(+;)(:)}
[N,.]'=

-&&)) -J(t)2 -(;)) _ &{(i>-(1 -Z)(pi(5)) _

(1Ob)

[No I =

144 (4) is the ratio of the beam bending shear stiffness given by stiffness

J. 9. Kosmatka to the

(104

and the array of nodal displacements given as

and rotations

is

{A} = {c,, O,, Q, k}.

Cl@)

It is interesting to note the dependency the shape functions have upon (c#J),which is a ratio of the beam bending stiffness to the shear stiffness (see Figs 2 and 3). For long slender beams (4 = 0), [N,] reduces to the cubic Hermitian polynomial and [N,,] reduces to the derivative of [N,.] with respect to (x), whereas for short or composite beams, the polynomials are uniquely defined for a specific value of (4). The finite element representation of the equations of motion is developed by substituting the displacement distribution [eqn (lOa)] into Hamiltons principle (eqn 3) and carrying out the integration over the beam-length

SI
0
02 0.4 wu 0.6 0.8 1

Fig. 3. Variation of the rotational displacement function with (4). the stiffness matrix r is given as 7r

shape

WI{& + [WI + Wxll{A) = i F),

where the mass matrix is given as

(lla)

tK1=

JI

dx

(tlb)

EI 0

0 kGA

IN,,1

W,,l f;
(or geometric)

t4 1

the unit incremental given as

stiffness matrix is

d_u

(11~)

and the consistent

force array is given as

(W

Fig. 2. Variation

of the transverse displacement function with (4).

shape

The matrices are integrated exactly and the resulting explicit coefficients of the stiffness matrix, incremental stiffness matrix, mass matrix, and the distributed force array for either a uniform load or a linear varying distributed load (q(y) = yI (I -.X/L) + q?(s/L)) are given in the Appendix. The current stiffness matrix is in complete agreement with the exact Timoshenko stiffness matrix developed in Ref. [6] and it contains the requisite rigid body displacement and rotation modes, as well as the constant strain mode. Moreover, the current stiffness element will reduce to the stiffness matrix associated

Improved finite element for axial-loaded Timoshenko beams with a Bernoulli-Euler beam for (4 = 0, long slender beams) and thus the current element is free of shear-locking. The mass, incremental stiffness, and consistent force matrices depend upon (4), since [JV~] and [No] depend upon (4), and all of these matrices reduce to the classic Bernoulli-Euler based form by setting (4 = 0).
Bernoulli-Euler T L e 0 0.75 05 Current Finlte Element & ANSYS, MSCINASTRAN Finite Element

145

ai 0.25

Fig. 5. Percent error in the calculated load as a function of element discretization for a pinned-pinned isotropic beam (L/h = loo).

NUMERICAL RESULTS

In this section, the stability (or buckling) and vibration behavior of the axially-loaded beams is studied using the current two-node element, where comparison is made with exact solutions[5,9], a Bernoulli-Euler based finite element solution, and the approach used in ANSYS, MSQNASTRAN, and most commercially available finite element programs (i.e. exact Timoshenko 2-node flexural stiffness, classic incremental stiffness). Element convergence studies are presented for a variety of beam-lengths using two different boundary conditions (Fig. 4, pinned-pinned, fixed-fixed) and two different engineering materials: an material isotropic (aluminum, E = 10.0 x IO6 Ib/in2, v = 0.333, pg = 0.098 lb/in)) and a composite material (high-strength graphite-epoxy, E = 21.0 x IO6 Ib/in2, G = 0.70 x lo6 lb/in2, pg = 0.057 Ib/in3). For the following analyses, it is assumed that the cross-section is square (h x h) with a shear correction factor (k = 0.851). Stability analysis

be compared to the following exact beam-column solutions [9], which correctly account for the effects of shear deformation,
can

p,, = $ eK

(13)

The determination of the magnitude of a static compressive axial load that will produce beam buckling is studied by recognizing that the static homogeneous form of eqn (I la) is an eigenvalue problem

where the lowest positive eigenvalue is the magnitude of the compressive buckling load (i = PC,) and the corresponding eigenvector is the deformed shape of the buckled beam. The current calculated solutions

where (L,,) is the effective beam-length. For pinned-pinned beams (LeR = L) and for fixed-fixed beams (L,, = L/2). The above solution reduces to the classic beam+olumn relation when the effects of shear deformation are neglected. In Fig. 5, the percentage error in the calculated buckling load (PC,) with the above exact solution is presented for a slender pinned-pinned isotropic beam of length (L/h = 100) as a function of element discretization. It is observed that the current element, as well as the Bernoulli-Euler element and the approach used in most commercial programs (ANSYS, MSC/NASTRAN), quickly converge to the exact solution for this long slender beam with no evidence of shear-locking. In Fig. 6, the percentage error in the calculated buckling load (PC,) is presented for a composite fixed-fixed beam (L/h = IO). The current element again quickly converges to the exact solution of eqn (13), whereas the ANSYS and MSC/NASTRAN solutions converge to a value approximately 5% less than the exact value and the Bernoulli-Euler element converges to a value nearly I 15% higher than the exact value. The converged 5% error in the two existing commercial programs is a

ANSYS, MSUNASTRAN 2 4 6 8 n 10 12 14 16

Fig. 4. Beam boundary

conditions, (a) pinned-pinned, (b) fixed-fixed.

and

Fig. 6. Percent error in the calculated load as a function of element discretization for a fixed-fixed composite beam (L/h = IO).

146 result since

J. B. Kosmatka

of using the classic incremental stiffness matrix, both the current element and the existing approach have the same linear flexural stiffness matrix. This converged error for the existing approach can be much larger than 10% for short composite beams (L/h z 5). The large error associated with the Bernoulli~Euler element is a result of not including the effects of shear deformation. In Fig. 7. the ratio of the beam axial stress at buckling (m = P,,/A) to the material stiffness (E) is presented for a fixeddfixed composite beam as a function of beam-length aspect ratio (LJA /I), where the thin solid line represents the classic Bernoulli-Euler without shear deformation, the heavy solid line represents the exact solution when the effects of shear deformation are included, and the symbols are finite element results obtained using a I6 element (n = 16) discretization. The current element is able to predict the buckling load over the complete range of beamlength aspect ratios, whereas the solutions obtained using most commercial finite element programs (ANSYS, MSCNASTRAN) are accurate as long as the beam-length aspect ratio is greater than 50. For most isotropic engineering materials, the material compressive strength-stiffness ratio is (0, /E < 0.01) and thus the existing finite element approach is adequate, since a short isotropic beam-column will generally fail by compressive material yielding before elastic buckling. But for advanced composite materials, such as graphite-epoxy and S-glass-epoxy, the material strength-stiffness ratio is typically (0.01 < 0,./E < 0.03) and thus a short composite column will undergo elastic buckling before material yielding. Clearly for composite beams the current element should be used, since the approach used in existing commercially available finite element programs is inadequate.
Vibration analysis

Fig. 8. Percent error in the calculated frequency as a function of element unloaded pinned-pinned isotropic

first bending natural discretization for an beam (L/h = 20).

available for simply-supported axially-loaded beams that include both the effects of shear deformation and rotatory inertia

where the first term represents the mth natural frequency for a long slender (Bernoulli-Euler type) pinned-pinned beam
w

(14b)
deformation,

the second term accounts for shear rotatory inertia, and axial load

KY=/=>

(4c)

and the third term is a correction axial load

that accounts

for

J-

I - P,, _,,,

Four studies were performed to assess the capabilities of the current element to predict the free vibration behavior of unloaded and axial-loaded isotropic and composite beams. The first two studies involved unloaded beams so that the quality of the mass matrix could be assessed, whereas the last two studies addressed axial-loaded beam vibrations so that the presence of the incremental stiffness matrix on the beam vibration predictions could be studied. Closedform solutions [5] for the natural frequencies are 0 03
\ ,Bernoull~~Euler \I/j-T,moshenkoSolt,o Solution

with (P) being positive tive number)

(m th) mode.

(PC,_ ,,) is the magnitude

for a tension axial force and of the buckling load (negathat causes the beam to buckle into its

In the first two studies, the first (m = I) bending natural frequencies of an unloaded (P = 0) isotropic beam (L/h = 20) and a composite beam (L/h = IO) were calculated using the different finite element

IS-

Bernoulli-Euler ,

Finite Element

/
ANSYS. MSQNASTRAN

Fig. 7. Beam axial buckling stress to material stiffness ratio (f,,,&t) as a function of beam-length aspect ratio for a fixed-fixed composite beam (n = 16).

Fig. 9. Percent error in the calculated first bending natural frequency as a function of element discretizdtion for an unloaded pinned.--pinned composite beam (L//I = IO).

Improved finite element for axial-loaded approaches and the resulting percentage error is presented in Figs 8 and 9 as a function of element discretization. In Fig. 8, the current element converges quickly to the exact solution while the solutions obtained using the Bernoulli-Euler element or the approach found in most commercial programs converge to values that are very close. In Fig. 9, again the current element converges to the exact solution, whereas the ANSYS and MSCNASTRAN solutions converge to a value which is in 0.3% error and the Bernoulli-Euler element converges to a value that has close to a 14% error. The slight errors (0.2&3%) are associated with differences in the formulation of the mass matrix (i.e. rotatory inertia, consistent displacement formulation), whereas the large 14% error is a result of not including shear deformation. In the third study, the first (m = I) bending natural frequency of a composite beam (L/h = 10) subjected to large compressive loads (P = 0.9OP,,), was calculated based upon eqn (I la) using the different finite element approaches and the resulting percent error is presented in Fig. 10 as a function of element discretization. The current element converges to the exact solution, which was expected since the incremental stiffness matrix and the mass matrix both exhibited excellent convergence characteristics in the previous studies. The solutions obtained from ANSYS and MSCNASTRAN converged to a solution that was nearly 5% less than the exact value, where this discrepancy can be traced to the use of the classic incremental stiffness matrix. The BernoulliEuler prediction converged to a 95% error value as a result of neglecting shear deformation. In the final study (Fig. I I), the first two bending natural frequencies (WI = I, 2) of a composite beam (L/h = 10) are presented as a function of axial load, where the solid line represents the exact solution including shear deformation effects, the dashed line is the results associated with a classic Bernoulli-Euler approach (no shear deformation), and the symbols are the current finite element results obtained using a refined (n = 32) element discretization. The presented results are normalized to the buckling load of the

Timoshenko

beams

147

lb)
20

Second Bendmg

WC,)

Fig. Il. (a) (w/c+,), and (b) (W/U,,) vs applied axial load (P/P,,) for a pinned-pinned composite beam (L/h = lo), (-Timoshenko-based solution including shear deformation, - - ~~ Classic Bernoulli&Euler based solution without shear deformation, 0 current model using 32 elements).

beam (P,,) calculated using eqn (13) and to the unloaded first bending natural frequency (0) of the beam calculated using eqn (14a). The current finite element clearly predicts the exact behavior over a broad range of applied compressive and tension axial loads. In Fig. 1I b, one can see the well known linear relationship between the squares of the natural frequencies and magnitude of the applied axial load, where it can be easily observed, as expected, that shear deformation has a greater effect on the higher natural frequencies than the lower ones. In addition it is observed that these two linear relations (solid and dashed lines) are nearly parallel for a given natural frequency, so that the inclusion of the effects of shear deformation alters both the buckling load and the squares of the natural frequency in a linearly proportional manner. Thus, if one knows the slope of the line based upon a Bernoulli-Euler approach (dashed line) and the reduction in the buckling load (BP,,) due to the inclusion of shear deformation effects, then one can easily calculate the reduction in the square of the first natural frequency (AU) due to the effect of shear deformation, using Aw2 = (slope)(AP,.,).

(15)

CONCLUSIONS

8 n

16

32

Fig. 10. Percent error in the calculated first bending natural frequency as a function of element discretization for a pinned-pinned composite beam (L/h = IO) subjected to a large compressive load (P = 0.9OP,,).

The linear flexural stiffness, incremental stiffness, mass, and consistent force matrices for a simple two-node Timoshenko beam element are developed based upon Hamiltons principle, where interdependent cubic and quadratic polynomials are used for the transverse and rotational displacements, respectively. Numerical results are presented that show that: (1) the current element is in agreement with the

148

J. 8. Kosmatka
2. A. Bokaian, 3.

exact results for long slender isotropic beams, where there is no hint of any type of shear-locking effects, (2) the current element accurately predicted both the buckling load and natural frequencies of composite beams, whereas most commercially available solutions (ANSYS, MSC/NASTRAN) predicted buckling loads and natural frequencies that were significantly lower than the exact, and (3) the inclusion of shear deformation lowers the buckling load and the square of the first natural frequency in a linearly proportional manner.
REFERENCES I. A.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

Bokaian, Natural frequencies compressive axial loads. J. Sound (1988).

of beams V&r. 126(l),

under 49 -65

9.

Natural frequencies of beams under tensile axial loads. J. Sound Vihr. 142(5), 481498 (1990). S. P. Timoshenko, On the correction for shear of the differential equation for transverse vibrations of prismatic beams. Phil. Mm. 41, 744-746 (19211. S. P. Timoshenko, On the Transverse vibraiions bf bars of uniform cross-section. Phi{. Msg. 43, 12% I3 1 (1922). H. Abramovich, Natural frequencies of Timoshenko beams under compressive loads. J. Sound Vihr. 157(l), 183 189 (1992). J. S. Przcmieniecki. Theory of Matrix Structurul Anul~si,s. pp. 70-82. McGraw-Hiil, New York (1968). Z. Friedman and J. B. Kosmatka, An immoved twonode Timoshenko beam finite element. Cotnput. Struct. 47(3). 473 481 (1993). G. R. Cowper. The shear coefficient in Timoshenkos beam theory. ASME J. uppl. Mech. 33,335-340 (1966). Z. P. Bazant and L. Cedolin, Stability ofStructures, (First Edn), pp. 30-35. Oxford University Press, New York (1991).

APPENDiX

The integrated

stiffness matrix

is equal

to

12

6L (4+d)L

-12 -6L 12

6L (2-(p)L -6L (4+&L]

(Ai)

i symmetric The incremental (or geometric) stiffness matrix is found 3L (4 + 54 + 2.56,)L symmetric The consistent load vector for the uniform distributed force (q) and moment to be -(36

(36 + 604 f 304 *) K1 ____-^ = 3OL( 1 + #)?

+ 604 + 304) -3L -(I

3L + 54 t-2.54l)L -3L (4 + 5# + 2.5Qt)LZ

(36 + 604 + 3&f?)

(AZ)

(m) is

(A3)

and the force vector

for a linearly

varying

distributed

load (Y(X) = q,(I - s/L)

f q?(r/L))

is found

to be equal

to

(A4)

The integrated

form of the consistent

mass matrix

can be written

in two parts

as (AS)

tM1 = [M,,,I + &,,,I. where the first-part is associated with t~nslational inertia

[(70@+

,474

.+,*)

(354+774

+44)-t
7

(35&?+636,

+27)

-(35Cn+63@ -(7#J+ -(35#

+26)f;j

(74 + 1446 + 8) ;-

(354 -I- 6341 + 26) f (70&L i- 1474 + 78)

146 +h)$ + 774 + 44);

symmetric

,
(742 f 144 + 8) ;i

(A6)

Improved the second part is associated

finite element inertia

for axial-loaded

Timoshenko

beams

149

with rotatory

r
Pf,,,l =

36

-(lS$

- 3)L

-36 (154 -3)L 36

-(I54

- 3)L

1 647) 1

,o(l&

(lOf#GfSC#J f4)L

(SC#J-5C$ - 1)L (154 -3)L (10@+5C#J +4)L

symmetric