MODIFIED HYPERBOLIC SHEAR DEFORMATION THEORY FOR

STATIC FLEXURE ANALYSIS OF THICK ISOTROPIC BEAM

Abstract
A hyperbolic shear deformation theory for thick isotropic beams is developed where the
displacements are defined using a meaningful function which is more physical and directly
comparable with other higher order theories. Governing variationally consistent equilibrium
equations and boundary conditions are derived in terms of the stress resultants and
displacements using the principle of virtual work. This theory satisfies shear stress free
boundary condition at top and bottom of the beam and doesn’t need shear correction factor.
Results obtained for stresses and displacements using the present theory for static flexure of
simply supported uniform isotropic beam carrying uniformly distributed load are compared
with other beam theories and the exact elasticity solution.
Key words –shear deformation, stress resultants, static flexure, thick isotropic beam, modified
hyperbolic shear deformation theory.
1.Introduction
Several beam theories are used to represent the kinematics of deformation. Among those Euler
beam theory(EBT) is earliest and one of the well - known theory which has a major drawback
of neglecting effects of transverse shear strain because of the assumption the plane section that
is perpendicular to neutral axis of beam before bending, remains plane and perpendicular to
axis after the deformation. This theory provides excellent solution for the analysis of slender
beams whereas for moderately short or thick beams, the solutions are not in the acceptable
range.

In the development of beam theories, Timoshenko was the first to include the influence of
transverse shear strain and rotatory inertia effect into the newly developed first order shear
deformation theory(FSDT) [15]. In the Timoshenko beam theory, it is assumed that cross
section remains plane but not normal to the neutral axis after deformation. Since Timoshenko
beam theory assumes a constant transverse shear stress distribution through the beam depth, it
is necessary to have shear correction factor for the beam. Cowper[2,3 ] analyzed the accuracy
of Timoshenko beam theory for transverse vibration of simply supported beam with respect to
fundamental frequency and reported some values for shear correction factor of beams having
various cross section.

The limitations on the Euler beam theory and the Timoshenko theory led to the development
of higher order theory. Many higher order theories are available in the literature for static and
dynamic analysis of the beams. Levinson[7] developed new rectangular beam theory for static
and dynamic analysis of the beam where he derived governing equations for beam using vector
mechanics. Bickford [1] used the same displacement function used by the Levinson and
derived a variationally consistent shear deformation theory for isotropic beams. Third order
plate theory developed by Reddy[9] was specialized into beam theory (HSBT) by Heyliger and
Reddy[6] to study the linear and non-linear bending and vibration of isotropic beams These
parabolic shear deformation theories obviate the need for the shear correction factor since
shear stress free boundary condition in top and bottom of the beam are satisfied.

There are another set of refined shear deformation theory using trigonometric and hyperbolic
function to define the displacement function. Touratier [17] presented trigonometric shear
deformation theories. However, this theory does not satisfy shear stress free boundary
acondition. Ghugal and Shimpi [5] developed variationaly consistent trigonometric shear
deformation theory(TSDBT) which satisfies the shear stress free function condition at top and
bottom surfaces of the beam. Soldatos [14] dveloped hyperbolic shear deformation theory for
homogeneous monoclinic plates. Ghugal and Sharma [4] and Sayyad and Ghugal[12]
developed a variationally consistent refined hyperbolic shear deformation theory(HPSBT) for
flexure and free vibration of thick isotropic beam. Although this theory satisfies shear free
conditions at top and bottom of the beam and doesn’t need shear correction factor, there is an
inconsistency in the relationship for displacement function hence strains, compare to other
higher order theories which have been used in unified higher order theory by Simsek and
Reddy[13] . Recently, Pankade, Tupe and Salve[8] have developed a hyperbolic shear
deformation theory with the displacement function defined using third order variable and
hyperbolic function to analyze the isotropic beam.

In the present study the displacement function used in the hyperbolic shear deformation theory
[4] is modified such that the functions used to define the displacements are more physical and
directly comparable to other higher order theories. Governing variationally consistent
equilibrium equations for uniform isotropic beam are derived in terms of stress resultants and
associated force and kinematic boundary conditions are defined in terms of stress resultants
and displacements respectively. Solutions for the bending problem of uniform isotropic
rectangular beam are derived and associated constants are defined and solutions are validated
using an illustrative problem.
2.Preliminaries
In the originally developed hyperbolic shear deformation theory by Ghugal and Sharma[4], the
displacement field is assumed as
𝑑𝑤 1 𝑧
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑧) = −𝑧 + [ 𝑧𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ( ) − ℎ𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ( )]𝜃(𝑥)
𝑑𝑥 2 ℎ
𝑤(𝑥, 𝑧) = 𝑤(𝑥)
At the later work of Sayyad and Ghugal, [12] the displacement u(x,z) is given in following
form
𝑑𝑤 1 𝑧 𝑑𝑤
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑧) = −𝑧 + [ 𝑧𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ( ) − ℎ𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ( )][ + ф(𝑥)]
𝑑𝑥 2 ℎ 𝑑𝑥
Here u and w are the axial and transverse displacements of the beam center line in the x and z
directions, respectively. θ(x) and ф(x) are two unknown functions which represent shear
rotation and total rotation of cross section at neutral axis respectively. But these functions θ(x)
and ф(x) are not equal to shear rotation and total rotation of cross section at neutral axis
respectively.
Theoretical Formulation of Proposed Modified Beam Theory
Consider a uniform isotropic thick beam as shown in Fig.1, in which the deformed beam cross
section neither stays normal to the deformed centroidal axis nor remains a plane. By using the
Cartesian coordinate system (x; y; z) indicated in Fig.1 where the x-axis is coincident with the
centroidal axis of the undeformed beam, the y-axis is the neutral axis, and the z-axis is along
the thickness of the beam. The beam is subjected to transverse load of intensity q(x) per unit
length of the beam.

x
u
x
q(x)

b
ф(x)
y
x
h 𝑑𝑤
u - 𝑑𝑥
z

z w
z w

Figure 1
Assumptions Made in the Theoretical Formulation
 The in-plane displacement u in x direction consists of two parts:
a. Displacement due to the bending rotation
b. Displacement due to shear rotation which is assumed to be hyperbolic
in nature with respect thickness coordinate
 The transverse displacement w in z direction is assumed to be a function of x
coordinate.
 Transverse normal displacement v is assumed to be identically zero
 One-dimensional constitutive law is used.
 The beam is subjected to lateral load only

The Displacement Field

Based on the above mentioned assumptions displacement field of the present theory is given
as
𝑑𝑤 𝑧 1
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑧) = −𝑧 𝑑𝑥 + [ 𝑧 − 𝜇( ℎ𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(ℎ) − 𝑧)]𝜃(𝑥) ; 𝜇 = 1 (1)
𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ −1
2

𝑤(𝑥, 𝑧) = 𝑤(𝑥) (2)

where u(x,z) is axial displacement at any point on the line parallel to beam centroidal axis and
also w(x) and θ(x) are two unknown functions named the transverse displacement and rotation
of cross section due to shear at neutral axis respectively.
𝑑𝑤
𝜃(𝑥) = [ + ф(𝑥)] ; ф(x) is total rotation of the cross section at neutral axis.
𝑑𝑥

The normal strain and transverse strain are obtained using linear theory of elasticity.
𝜕𝑢 𝑑2 𝑤 𝑧 𝑑𝜃
𝜀𝑥𝑥 = = −𝑧 + [𝑧 – 𝜇( ℎ𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (ℎ) − 𝑧)] (3)
𝜕𝑥 𝑑𝑥 2 𝑑𝑥

𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑤 𝑧
𝛾𝑥𝑧 = + = [ 1 – 𝜇(𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (ℎ) − 1)]𝜃(𝑥) (4)
𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑥

One-dimensional law is used to obtained normal bending and transverse shear stresses.
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = 𝐸𝑥 𝜀𝑥𝑥 (5)
𝜏𝑥𝑧 = 𝐺𝑥𝑧 𝛾𝑥𝑧 (6)
Governing Equations and Boundary Conditions
Using above stress and strain relations in Eqns (3)-(6), virtual strain energy δU becomes
𝐿
𝛿𝑈 = ∫0 ∫𝐴 [𝜎𝑧𝑧 𝛿є𝑥𝑥 + 𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝛿 𝛾𝑥𝑧 ] 𝑑𝐴 𝑑𝑥 (7)

and the virtual potential energy of the transverse load q is given by

𝐿
𝛿𝑉 = − ∫0 𝑞(𝑥)𝛿𝑤 𝑑𝑥 (8)
Applying the principle of virtual work δπ = δU + δV = 0, it becomes
𝐿 𝐿
∫0 ∫𝐴 [σxx δєxx+ τxzδ γxz]𝑑𝐴 𝑑𝑥 - ∫0 𝑞(𝑥)𝛿𝑤 𝑑𝑥 = 0 (9)
𝐿 𝑑2 𝛿𝑤 𝑑𝛿𝜃 𝑑𝛿𝜃
∫0 [−Mxx 𝑑𝑥 2
+ Mxx 𝑑𝑥
− M’xx 𝑑𝑥
+ Qxδθ − Rxδθ − 𝑞(𝑥)𝛿𝑤]dx = 0 (10)

By applying integration by parts, we obtain the coupled Euler–Lagrange equations which are
the governing differential equations of equilibrium and associated boundary conditions of the
beam.
𝑑𝛿𝑤 𝐿 𝐿 𝑑𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑑𝛿𝑤 𝑑𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑑𝑀′𝑥𝑥
[−𝑀𝑥𝑥 + 𝑀𝑥𝑥𝛿𝜃 − 𝑀’𝑥𝑥𝛿𝜃]0 + ∫0 [ − 𝛿𝜃 + 𝛿𝜃 +
𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥
𝑄𝑥𝛿𝜃 − 𝑅𝑥𝛿𝜃 − 𝑞(𝑥)𝛿𝑤]𝑑𝑥 = 0 (11)
𝐿
𝑑𝛿𝑤 𝐿 𝑑𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑑 2 𝑀𝑥𝑥
[−𝑀𝑥𝑥 + 𝑀𝑥𝑥𝛿𝜃 − 𝑀’𝑥𝑥𝛿𝜃 + 𝛿𝑤 ]0 + ∫ {[− 𝛿𝑤 − 𝑞(𝑥)𝛿𝑤 ]
𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 0 𝑑𝑥 2
𝑑𝑀 𝑑𝑀′ 𝑥𝑥
− [ 𝑑𝑥𝑥𝑥 − 𝑑𝑥
− 𝑄𝑥 + 𝑅𝑥]𝛿𝜃}𝑑𝑥 = 0 (12)

Equation of Equilibrium
𝑑 2 𝑀𝑥𝑥
= -𝑞(𝑥) (13)
𝑑𝑥 2
𝑑(𝑀𝑥𝑥 −𝑀′ 𝑥𝑥 )
- (Qx - Rx ) = 0 (14)
𝑑𝑥

Boundary conditions
𝑑𝑀𝑥𝑥
=0 or 𝑤 is prescribed (15)
𝑑𝑥

̅ 𝑥𝑥 = 0
𝑀 or θ is prescribed (16)
𝑑𝑤
Mxx = 0 or − 𝑑𝑥 is prescribed (17)

Here the stress resultants are defined as follows

𝑀𝑥𝑥 = ∫𝐴 𝑧 𝜎𝑥𝑥 𝑑𝐴 (18)

𝑄𝑥 = ∫𝐴 𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝑑𝐴 (19)
𝑧
𝑀′𝑥𝑥 = 𝜇 ∫𝐴[ℎ𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(ℎ) − 𝑧] 𝜎𝑥𝑥 𝑑𝐴 (20)
𝑧
𝑅𝑥 = 𝜇 ∫𝐴 [𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (ℎ) − 1]𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝑑𝐴 (21)
𝑑𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑑𝑀′𝑥𝑥
𝑉𝑥 = = 𝑄𝑥 − 𝑅𝑥 + (22)
𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥

Where Mxx and Qx are the usual bending moment and shear force and M’xx and Rx are the
higher order stress resultant. Vx is the effective shear force.
For a uniform rectangular isotropic beam, the equations of equilibrium can be obtained in terms
of the displacements w and θ using the stress resultant-displacement relations given in Eqns
(18)-(21).
𝑑4 𝑤 𝑑3 𝜃
𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 4 − 𝐴0 𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 3 = 𝑞(𝑥) (22)

𝑑3 𝑤 𝑑2 𝜃
𝐸𝐼𝐴𝑜 𝑑𝑥 3 − 𝐸𝐼𝐵0 𝑑𝑥 2 + 𝐵0 𝐺𝐴𝜃 = 0 (23)

Where
1 1 1
A0 = μ{ cosh2 - 12[cosh2 – 2sinh2]}
1 1 1 1
B0 = 𝜇 2 { (cosh2)2 - 24[cosh2 – 2sinh2]cosh2 +6 [sinh1 -1]}
1 1 1 1
C0 = 𝜇 2 { 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ 2[cosh2 -2sinh2] – 2[sinh1-1] }

The General Solutions for Static Flexure of Beams

By integrating and rearranging the Eqns (22) and (23),
𝑑3 𝑤 𝑑2 𝜃
– A0𝑑𝑥 2 + V(x) = 0 (24)
𝑑𝑥 3

Vx = - ( ∫ 𝑞(𝑥)𝑑𝑥 + C1) ; Vx is effective shear force at section x.

𝑑3 𝑤 𝐴 𝑑2 𝜃
– 𝐵0 + kθ = 0 (25)
𝑑𝑥 3 0 𝑑𝑥 2

𝐺𝐴𝐶
k= 𝐸𝐼𝐴 0
0

Using Eqns (24) and (25), following differential equation can be obtained in terms of θ
only.
𝑑2 𝜃 𝑉(𝑥)
– λ2θ + 𝐸𝐼𝑚 = 0 (26)
𝑑𝑥 2

𝐵𝑜
𝑚= − 𝐴𝑜
𝐴𝑜
λ2=k/m
Solving the Eqn (26) for θ and substituting the result into Eqn(25) will give following
general solutions for displacements
𝑥 𝑉
θ = C2coshλx + C3sinhλx + 𝐸𝐼𝑚 (27)

𝐴0 𝑥3 𝑥2
𝐸𝐼𝑤 = ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ 𝑞 𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑥 + 𝐸𝐼 [𝐶2𝑆𝑖𝑛ℎ𝜆𝑥 + 𝐶3𝐶𝑜𝑠ℎ𝜆𝑥 ] + 𝐶1 + 𝐶4 +
𝜆 6 2
𝐶5𝑥 + 𝐶6 (28)
Illustrative Example
A simply supported beam with rectangular cross section (b× h ) is subjected to uniformly
distributed load q over the span L at surface z = −h/2 acting in the downward z direction. The
origin of beam is taken at left end support i.e. at x = 0. The material properties for beam used
are: E = 30 GPa, υ = 0.2 and ρ = 2400 kg/m3, where E is the Young’s modulus, ρ is the
density, and υ is the Poisson’s ratio of beam material. The boundary conditions associated with
simply supported beam as follows:
′ ′ 𝑑𝜃 𝑑2 𝑤
𝑀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑤 = 0 at x= 0 and x=L 𝑀𝑥𝑥 = 𝑀𝑥𝑥 = 0 → = = 0 at x=0 and x=L
𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 2

From the general solutions of the beam, expression for 𝑤 and θ as follows:
𝑞𝐿 2𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎλ(𝐿⁄2−𝑥)
θ(x) = [ (1 − 𝑥𝐿 ) − (λL)cosh(λL⁄2)
] (28)
2𝑘𝐸𝐼
𝑞𝐿4 𝑞𝐴20 𝐿2 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎℎλ(𝐿⁄2−𝑥)
𝑤(𝑥) = [( 𝑥𝐿)4 − 2( 𝑥𝐿)3 + 𝑥𝐿 ] − [ 𝑥𝐿 − ( 𝑥𝐿)2 − (𝜆𝐿)
2
2 (1 − cosh(λL⁄2) )] (29)
24𝐸𝐼 2𝐶0 𝐺𝐴

Results are obtained using present theory, other beam theories and exact elasticity solutions
given in [16] for axial displacement, transverse displacement, axial stress and transverse stress
for two different aspect ratios (s=4 and s=10) of the beam in following non dimensional forms
and presented in tables 1-10 and in Fig 2-11 in graphical form.
10𝐸𝑏ℎ3 𝑤(𝑥) 𝑏𝜎𝑥𝑥 (𝑥,𝑧)
𝑤
̅(𝑥) =
𝑞𝐿4
𝜎̅𝑥𝑥 =
𝑞
𝐺𝑏𝜃(𝑥) 𝑏𝜏𝑥𝑧 (𝑥,𝑧)
𝜃̅ (𝑥) = 𝜏̅𝑥𝑧 =
𝑞 𝑞
Table 1. Variation of non-dimensional transverse deflection Table 2. Variation of non-dimensional transverse
along the beam(S=4) deflection along the beam(S=10)

x/L EBT Present/ FSBT HSBT Exact x/L EBT Present/ FSBT HSBT Exact
HPSBT HPSBT
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.1 0.4905 0.5712 0.5715 0.5712 0.5665 0.1 0.4905 0.5034 0.5026
0.5035 0.5034
0.2 0.928 1.0717 1.0720 1.0717 1.0630 0.2 0.928 0.9510 0.9496
0.9510 0.9510
0.3 1.2705 1.4592 1.4595 1.4592 1.4477 0.3 1.2705 1.3007 1.2988
1.3007 1.3007
0.4 1.488 1.7037 1.7040 1.7037 1.6905 0.4 1.488 1.5225 1.5204
1.5226 1.5225
0.5 1.5625 1.7872 1.7875 1.7872 1.7735 0.5 1.5625 1.5984 1.5960
1.5985 1.5984
0.6 1.488 1.7037 1.7040 1.7037 1.6905 0.6 1.488 1.5225 1.5142
1.5226 1.5225
0.7 1.2705 1.4592 1.4595 1.4592 1.4477 0.7 1.2705 1.3007 1.2988
1.3007 1.3007
0.8 0.928 1.0717 1.0720 1.0717 1.0630 0.8 0.928 0.9510 0.9496
0.9510 0.9510
0.9 0.4905 0.5712 0.5715 0.5712 0.5665 0.9 0.4905 0.5034 0.5026
0.5035 0.5034
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Table 3. Variation of non-dimensional axial stress along Table4. Variation of non-dimensional axial stress along
centroidal axis of beam(S=4) centroidal axis of beam(S=10)
x/L EBT Present/ FSBT HSBT Exact x/L EBT Present/ FSBT HSBT Exact
HPSBT HPSBT
0 0 0 0 0.0000 0.2 0 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.20
0.1 4.32 4.5586 4.32 4.5549 4.52 0.1 27.00 27.2387 27.00 27.2351 27.20
0.2 7.68 7.9187 7.68 7.9151 7.88 0.2 48.00 48.2387 48.00 48.2351 48.20
0.3 10.08 10.3187 10.08 10.3151 10.28 0.3 63.00 63.2387 63.00 63.2351 63.20
0.4 11.52 11.7587 11.52 11.7551 11.72 0.4 72.00 72.2387 72.00 72.2351 72.20
0.5 12.0 12.2387 12 12.2351 12.2 0.5 75.00 75.2387 75.00 75.2351 75.20
0.6 11.52 11.7587 11.52 11.7551 11.72 0.6 72.00 72.2387 72.00 72.2351 72.20
0.7 10.08 10.3187 10.08 10.3151 10.28 0.7 63.00 63.2387 63.00 63.2351 63.20
0.8 7.68 7.9187 7.68 7.9151 7.88 0.8 48.00 48.2387 48.00 48.2351 48.20
0.9 4.32 4.5586 4.32 4.5549 4.52 0.9 27.00 27.2387 27.00 27.2351 27.20
1 0 0 0 0 0.2 1 0 0 0 0 0
 Table 5. Variation of non-dimensional axial stress Table 6. Variation of non-dimensional axial stress across
the depth of the beam at x=0.5L(S=4)
across the depth of the beam at x=0.5L(S=4)

z/h EBT Present/ FSBT HSBT Exact z/h EBT Present/ FSBT HSBT Exact
HPSBT HPSBT
0.5 12.000 12.2387 12.000 12.2351 12.2000 0.5 75.0 75.2387 75.0 75.2351 75.2000
0.4 9.600 9.6188 9.600 9.6153 9.6160 0.4 60.0 60.0188 60.0 60.0153 60.0160
0.3 7.200 7.1144 7.200 7.1115 7.1280 0.3 45.0 44.9144 45.0 44.9115 44.9280
0.2 4.800 4.6958 4.800 4.6937 4.7120 0.2 30.0 29.8958 30.0 29.8937 29.9120
0.1 2.400 2.3338 2.400 2.3327 2.3440 0.1 15.0 14.9338 15.0 14.9327 14.9440
0 0.000 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0000
-0.1 -2.400 -2.3338 -2.400 -2.3327 -2.3440 -0.1 -15.0 -14.9338 -15.0 -14.9327 -14.9440
-0.2 -4.800 -4.6958 -4.800 -4.6937 -4.7120 -0.2 -30.0 -29.8958 -30.0 -29.8937 -29.9120
-0.3 -7.200 -7.1144 -7.200 -7.1115 -7.1280 -0.3 -45.0 -44.9144 -45.0 -44.9115 -44.9280
-0.4 -9.600 -9.6188 -9.600 -9.6153 -9.6160 -0.4 -60.0 -60.0188 -60.0 -60.0153 -60.0160
-0.5 -12.000 -12.2387 -12.000 -12.2351 -12.2000 -0.5 -75.0 -75.2387 -75.0 -75.2351 -75.2000

Table 7. Variation of non-dimensional shear rotation Table 8. Variation of non-dimensional shear rotation
along centroidal axis of beam(S=4) along centroidal axis of beam(s=10)

x/L Present FSBT HSBT Exact x/L Present FSBT HSBT Exact
0 2.9111 2.400 2.9198 3.00 0 7.3973 6.00 7.4198 7.50
0.1 2.3926 1.920 2.4000 2.40 0.1 5.9816 4.80 6.0000 6.00
0.2 1.7945 1.440 1.8000 1.80 0.2 4.4862 3.60 4.5000 4.50
0.3 1.1963 0.960 1.2000 1.20 0.3 2.9908 2.40 3.0000 3.00
0.4 0.5982 0.480 0.6000 0.60 0.4 1.4954 1.20 1.5000 1.50
0.5 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.5 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
0.6 -0.5982 -0.480 -0.6000 -0.60 0.6 -1.4954 -1.20 -1.5000 -1.50
0.7 -1.1963 -0.960 -1.2000 -1.20 0.7 -2.9908 -2.40 -3.0000 -3.00
0.8 -1.7945 -1.440 -1.8000 -1.80 0.8 -4.4862 -3.60 -4.5000 -4.50
0.9 -2.3926 -1.920 -2.4000 -2.40 0.9 -5.9816 -4.80 -6.0000 -6.00
1 -2.9111 -2.400 -2.9198 -3.00 1 -7.3973 -6.00 -7.4198 -7.50

Table9.Variation of non-dimensional shear stress Table 10. Variation of non-dimensional shear stress
across the depth of the beam at x=0(S=4)
across the depth of the beam at x=0(S=4)

z/h Present/ FSBT HSBT Exact z/h Present/ FSBT HSBT Exact
HPSBT HPSBT
0.5 0.0000 2.40 0.0000 0.000 0.5 0.0000 6.0 0.0000 0.00
0.4 1.0619 2.40 1.0511 1.080 0.4 2.6983 6.0 2.6711 2.70
0.3 1.8769 2.40 1.8687 1.920 0.3 4.7694 6.0 4.7487 4.80
0.2 2.4534 2.40 2.4526 2.520 0.2 6.2342 6.0 6.2327 6.30
0.1 2.7969 2.40 2.8030 2.880 0.1 7.1072 6.0 7.1230 7.20
0 2.9111 2.40 2.9198 3.000 0 7.3973 6.0 7.4198 7.50
-0.1 2.7969 2.40 2.8030 2.880 -0.1 7.1072 6.0 7.1230 7.20
-0.2 2.4534 2.40 2.4526 2.520 -0.2 6.2342 6.0 6.2327 6.30
-0.3 1.8769 2.40 1.8687 1.920 -0.3 4.7694 6.0 4.7487 4.80
-0.4 1.0619 2.40 1.0511 1.080 -0.4 2.6983 6.0 2.6711 2.70
-0.5 0.0000 2.40 0.0000 0.000 -0.5 0.0000 6.0 0.0000 0.00
 x\L

x\L
1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 𝑤̅̅ 0 𝑤̅
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
EBT Present/HPSBT EBT Present/HPSBT FSBT
FSBT HSBT HSBT Exact

Figure 2. Variations of transverse deflection along the Figure 3. Variations of transverse deflection along the
beam(S=4) beam(S=10)

x\L
x\L

1.2
1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 𝜎̅ 0 𝜎̅
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
EBT Present/HPSBT FSBT EBT Present/HPSBT FSBT
HSBT Exact HSBT Exact

Figure 4. Variations of axial stress along the Figure 4. Variations of axial stress along the
beam at z=0 (S=4) beam at z=0 (S=10)
z\h
z\h

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 𝜎̅ 0 𝜎̅
-15.000 -10.000 -5.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 -100.0 -50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0
-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6
EBT Present/HPSBT FSBT HSBT Exact EBT Present/HPSBT FSBT
HSBT Exact

Figure 5. Variation of axial stress across the Figure 6. Variation of axial stress across the
depth at L= 0 (S=4) depth at L= 0 (S=4)
 x\L

x\L
1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 𝜏̅ 0 𝜏̅
-4.0000 -2.0000 0.0000 2.0000 4.0000 -10.0000 -5.0000 0.0000 5.0000 10.0000
Present FSBT HSBT Exact Present FSBT HSBT Exact

Figure 7. Variation of shear rotation along the Figure 8. Variation of shear rotation along the
beam at z=0 (S=4) beam at z=0 (S=10)
z\h

z\h
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 𝜏̅ 0 𝜏̅
0.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 0.0000 2.0000 4.0000 6.0000 8.0000
-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

Present/HPSBT FSBT HSBT Exact Present/HPSBT FSBT HSBT Exact

Figure 9. Variation of shear Stress across the depth of Figure 10. Variations of shear stress across the depth of
beam at L= 0 (S=4) beam at L= 0 (S=10)
Discussion
The results obtained using present theory for bending of simply supported isotropic beam are
compared with EBT, FSBT, HSBT, HPSBT and exact elasticity solutions given in[16]. Here
the displacements values are obtained using the expressions derived for displacements and
stress values are obtained using the constitutive relations.
It is observed that present modification to HPSBT doesn’t affect the accuracy of the results and
gives exact values as obtained using HPSBT except for the function which represents shear
rotation at neutral axis. Results obtained using modified theory almost equal to the values
obtained using HSBT. Although present theory overestimates transverse displacement and
axial stress compare to exact solution, it is only 0.8% and 0.3% for maximum transverse
deflection and axial stress respectively when the aspect ratio is equal to 4. Present theory
underestimates the maximum shear stress by 3% and 1.4% for aspect ratio 4 and 10 respectively
compare to the exact solution.
Present theory is consistent with the other higher order theories which have been included in
the unified beam theory with respect to functions that represent the shear rotation and total
rotation at neutral axis. This modification to HPSBT has made the theory more comparable to
other higher order theories and it is easier to establish stress resultants and displacement
relationships as presented in [10 ]. Also the function that is equal to shear rotation at neutral
axis in this theory can be replaced in terms of a function that is equal to total rotation of the
cross section whereas in HPSBT when the function that represent the shear rotation at neutral
axis is replaced with function that represent the total rotation of the cross section, we can’t
directly get the value for rotation of cross section. It is required to do certain adjustments to get
the values for rotation of cross section using HPSBT. This modification would make some
tasks much easier like establishing the exact relationship between other beam theories as
presented in [10]. Also this displacement function will be useful in formulating the unified
beam element as presented in [11].

Conclusion
A modified HPSBT has been presented in this paper which has the following features.
Although the displacement field is modified, this theory satisfies zero transverse shear stress
boundary conditions on top and bottom surfaces of the beam hence it doesn’t need shear
correction factor.
This modified HSBT is consistent with other higher order beam theories [13] in terms of the
relationship for displacements and strains.
The number of unknown variables is same as that of HPSBT.
The axial stress and transverse shear stress can be obtained using the constitutive relations.
This modified theory gives exactly same values as HPSBT for axial stress, transverse shear
stress, transverse displacement and shear strain, except for the function that represents shear
rotation at neutral axis.
The present theory gives almost same values compared to HSBT and very close values to exact
elastic solution.
,References
[1]. Bickford, W. B., A consistent higher order beam theory. Development of Theoretical and
Applied Mechanics, SECTAM 11 (1982) 137–150
[2]. Cowper, G. R., On the accuracy of Timoshenko’s beam theory, ASCE Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Division 94 (6) (1968) 1 447–1 453
[3]. Cowper, G. R. (1966). The shear coefficient in Timoshenko’s beam. Trans. ASME: J.
Appl. Mech., 33, 335–340.
[4]. Ghugal, Y. M., & Sharma, R. (2009). A hyperbolic shear deformation theory for flexure
and vibration of thick isotropic beams. International Journal of Computational Methods,
6(4), 585–604.
[5]. Ghugal, Y. M., Shimpi, R. P. P., Engineering, A., Bombay, T., & Powai, T. B. (2002). A
Review of Refined Shear Deformation Theories for Isotropic and Anisotropic Laminated
Beams. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 20(9), 255–272.
[6]. Heyliger, P. R., & Reddy, J. N. (1988). A higher order beam finite element for bending
and vibration problems. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 126(2), 309–326.
[7]. Levinson, M. (1981). A new rectangular beam theory. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
74(1), 81–87.
[8]. Pankade, P. M., Tupe, D. H., & Salve, S. B. (2016). Static Flexural Analysis of Thick
Isotropic Beam Using Hyperbolic Shear Deformation Theory, 6890(5), 565–571.
[9]. Reddy, J. N. (1984). A simple higher-order theory for laminated composite plates.
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 51(4), 745–752.
[10]. Reddy, J. N. (2010). Canonical relationships between bending solutions of classical
and shear deformation beam and plate theories. Annals of Solid and Structural
Mechanics, 1(1), 9–27.
[11]. Reddy, J. N., Wang, C. M., & Lam, K. Y. (1997). Unified Finite Elements Based on
the Classical and Shear Deformation Theories of Beams and Axisymmetric Circular
Plates. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering, 13(6), 495–510.
[12]. Sayyad, A.S.,& Ghugal, Y. M.,(2011). Flexure of thick beams using new hyperbolic
shear deformation theory. International journal of mechanics,5(3).
[13]. Şimşek, M., & Reddy, J. N. (2013). Bending and vibration of functionally graded
microbeams using a new higher order beam theory and the modified couple stress theory.
International Journal of Engineering Science, 64, 37–53.
[14]. Soldatos, K. P. (1992). A transverse shear deformation theory for homogeneous
monoclinic plates. Acta Mechanica, 94(3–4), 195–220.
[15]. Timoshenko, S. P. (1921) On the correction for shear of the differential equation for
transverse vibrations of prismatic bars, Philosophical Magazine,Series6, pp. 742–746.
[16]. Timoshenko, S. P. and Goodier, J. N. (1970)Theory of Elasticity, 3rd edition
(McGraw-Hill, Singapore).
[17]. Touratier, M. (1991). An efficient standard plate theory. International Journal of
Engineering Science, 29(8), 901–916.