A Novel Higher Order Shear and Normal Deformation Theory for Bending of Thick

Beams
Juneed Yawar *1, M. Mursaleen Butt2, Abbas Bhat3
1,2,3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Srinagar, Jammu &
Kashmir, India, 190006
*1 [email protected]
2
[email protected]
3
[email protected]

Abbreviations

HSDT Higher order shear deformation theory

UDL Uniformly distributed load

FSDT First order shear deformation theory

1D One-dimensional

3D Three-dimensional

SSB Simply supported beam

HOBT Higher order beam theory

BC Boundary conditions

Higher order shear and normal deformation

HOSNDT theory

Symbols

b Width of beam

h Height/depth of the beam

f (z) Shape function

E Modulus of elasticity

σ Normal strain

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

τ Shear stress

γ Shear strain

u Axial displacement

w Transverse displacement

ϑ Poisson ratio

l Length of beam

q Load intensity

N Area integral of normal stress about cross-

section
M Resultant due to moment

Q Shear Stress resultant

δ Variational operator

K Stiffness matrix

∆ Displacement vector of unknown variables

f Force vector

∅ Shear slope function

p Power law index

Abstract

This paper introduces a novel higher-order shear and normal deformation theory (HOSNDT) for
bending analysis of thick beams, addressing the limitations of existing beam theories by
providing significantly improved accuracy in predicting stress and strain distributions. Unlike
conventional approaches, the proposed HOSNDT model employs a fifth-order polynomial
function, meticulously developed and validated through MATLAB simulations. The theory is
applied to simply supported beams made from materials with constant elasticity modulus and
functionally graded materials. Key parameters, including transverse displacement, transverse
shear stress, and axial normal stress, are analyzed in detail, with boundary constraints that are
free of traction ensuring the model's applicability.

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

The inadequacies of conventional beam theories in describing the stress-strain distribution in
thick beams are highlighted, and the proposed four-variable model effectively addresses these
challenges by incorporating both normal and transverse shear deformations. This enhancement
results in significantly more accurate predictions of beam behavior. Comprehensive experiments
validate the model's improved stability and accuracy, demonstrating its potential as a valuable
tool for structural engineering applications. The findings lay the groundwork for future research
on diverse beam configurations and material combinations, pointing to promising new directions
in structural engineering analysis and design.

1. Introduction

Partial differential equations are often used to address engineering challenges through
mathematical modeling [1]. The following are the two main approaches in solving these issues:

1.1. Derivation of differential equations

The first phase is to determine which differential equation accurately reflects the system's
behavior. Usually, this formula demonstrates the way displacements, stresses, and strains relate
to one another within the system [2, 3]. For instance, it clarifies the bending characteristics of the
beams and the relationship between applied loads and deflection.

1.2. Equation solving

It is necessary to arrive the intended answer after the differential equation has been successfully
formulated. Right now, we want to find displacements, stresses, and strains that satisfy the
equation and any relevant boundary conditions. By figuring out the solutions to these equations,
engineers may accurately forecast and comprehend how the system would behave under various
loading conditions [4, 5].

The solution of these field equations in the larger context of elasticity problems, which cover a
variety of engineering scenarios, requires the discovery of both differential and algebraic
correlations between stresses, strains, and displacements [6]. Elasticity studies a branch of beam
bending, or more precisely, the deformation of beams under loads. Understanding beam

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

deflection and stress distribution through the derivation and solution of pertinent equations can
help engineers construct and optimize structures more successfully [7].

The proposed HOSNDT model, which introduces a fifth-order polynomial function, addresses
the limitations of conventional higher-order theories by improving accuracy in stress-strain
predictions for thick beams [8, 9]. This approach is particularly effective in configurations where
traditional methods, including finite element modeling, face computational or boundary
condition challenges. Although FEM is widely used for structural analysis, its computational
demands and difficulty in capturing certain boundary conditions motivate the development of
alternative approaches. This study offers a more efficient analytical model tailored to thick
beams, enabling precise predictions with reduced computational complexity.

2. Literature Review

The main concepts and developments around functionally graded materials (FGMs), laminated
plates, and advanced composite materials that have been covered in pertinent publications are
compiled in this overview. It seeks to address fundamental theories, contemporary developments,
and variations in models and analytical methods within this field [10-15].
In contrast to conventional theories, M. Touratier [1] innovative plate theory improves accuracy
by taking into consideration the cosine shear stress distribution and offering free boundary
conditions for shear stress on plate surfaces.
J.N. Reddy [16] examines several theories of third-order plates, emphasizing how they are
equivalent when considering the same displacement field. Their basic characteristics and
contributions to sophisticated plate theories are demonstrated by their coherence.
Using a novel hyperbolic displacement model, S.S. Akavci [17] investigates the buckling and
free vibration analysis of laminated composite plates on elastic foundations and validates its
accuracy in opposition to accepted theories.
K.P. Soldatos [18] presents a transverse shear deformation theory for homogeneous monoclinic
plates, offering versatility and accuracy in static and dynamic analyses.
M. Koizumi [19, 20] initiated FGM development, focusing on space plane program applications.
Their work led to further research on FGM properties and applications.

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

Sayyad et al. [21-23] utilized higher-order shear deformation theories to analyze FGM beams
and plates, emphasizing the importance of sophisticated theories for accurate simulations.
Bouhadra et al. [24] explored the impact of thickness-stretching on thick FG beam mechanical
vibration, proposing an improved hypothesis validated through mathematical expressions and
numerical illustrations.
Swaminathan [25] provided insights into FGM modeling and analysis methods, showcasing the
interdisciplinary nature of FGM research's potential applications and mechanical behavior.

This paper highlights continuous advancements in laminated plates, FGMs and composite
materials, with a focus on developing models for FGM mechanical behavior and improving plate
theories to address shear deformation. These advancements enhance the understanding of
material behavior under varying loads, contributing to more precise and efficient engineering
designs.

3. Methodology

A new kind of function, 𝑓(𝑧), is introduced in the paper and applied to the HOSNDT model. For
this reason, a polynomial function is chosen over other functions such as trigonometric or
hyperbolic functions because of its simplicity. Appropriate polynomial function selection is done
using MATLAB simulations.

3.1. Verification of the Model

To confirm the model's correctness, two difficulties are resolved: A transverse load is supplied to
a simply supported beam (SSB) with a constant Young's modulus and an equally distributed
load. The reason this issue was selected is that the elasticity theory offers an exact answer for a
beam like this. a beam having a variable modulus of elasticity and functional grading. To
validate the model, the outcomes are contrasted with those of other higher-order beam theories.

3.2. Derivation of Governing Differential Equations

The concept of virtual displacements is used to generate the governing differential equations.
The formulae consider the transverse shear stress and the normal stress in the axial and

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

transverse axes. The governing differential equations regarding unknown displacement functions
are stated by utilizing stress resultants and replacing the strain-displacement relationships.

3.3. Integration and Boundary Conditions

To simplify the governing differential equations, boundary constraints are imposed and the
equations are integrated by parts. These boundary conditions may consist of merely supported
ends, cantilever ends, or fastened ends. Based on the geometry and material characteristics of the
beam, constants, and coefficients in the differential equations are found.

3.4. Solution Analytical for a Simply Supported Beam

Using Navier's method, an analytical solution is obtained; it is assumed that the solution takes
the form of trigonometric functions that meet the beam's boundary requirements [26]. The
solution is the same for both issues (functionally graded materials and constant modulus of
elasticity), and MATLAB simulations employ the appropriate modulus of elasticity values.

3.5. Validation and Comparison

For validation, the precise solution and the numerical findings for transverse displacement and
stresses from the present model are compared with those from higher-order shear deformation
theories [27]. The study concludes that, in comparison to HSDTs, the HOSNDT model yields
more accurate findings for transverse displacement and stresses.

The process consists of numerical simulation, theoretical derivation, and validation using
comparison with known solutions. The development and verification of the higher-order shear
and normal deformation theory for thick beams heavily relies on the innovative polynomial form
function and the utilization of MATLAB simulations. The outcomes show increased stability and
accuracy in beam behavior prediction, indicating that the HOSNDT model is a useful tool for
structural engineering analysis and design.

3.6. Beam Bending

Beam analysis is crucial in engineering because beams may be used for a variety of purposes and
are susceptible to transverse stresses. However, there are significant mathematical challenges in

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

addressing beam problems accurately [28]. There are a number of theories that have simplified
the complex three-dimensional elasticity issue related to beams, however the simplified cases
lack numerous well-founded answers. Although these approximation methods provide helpful
solutions, they include assumptions and simplifications.

By using these techniques, engineers may more effectively visualize and evaluate beam
structures. While these ideas may not provide all the answers, they can provide some insight into
how the beams respond to various stress situations. By balancing accuracy and practicality, these
approximation approaches provide engineers with the knowledge they need to make well-
informed decisions on beam configuration and optimization [29].

This approach overcomes the drawbacks of traditional beam theory by decreasing errors in thick
beam deflection and stress estimates. Compared to earlier theories, it has been accepted that
higher-order shear deformation theory (HOSNDT) and high-order shear deformation theory
(HSDT) are accurate.

3.7. Present theory

In addition to normal deformation, the current theory takes transverse shear stress into account.
The polynomial function 𝑍(𝑧) was improved and tested, yielding highly accurate results. Since
the theory requires a parabolic fluctuation of the transverse shear stress, a shear correction factor
is not necessary. In the X-Z plane, the loading on the beam is presumed. The beam's axis is in the
X direction, and the Z direction is where the transverse load is expected to be applied. Although
this theory can potentially be applied to other types of materials, only isotropic linear elastic
materials have been considered in this work. The term "thick beams" in this study refers to
beams with a length to height ratio of fewer than 10.

3.8. Kinematics

The displacement field chosen for the development of the present theory is:

𝑑
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑧) = 𝑢0 (𝑥) − 𝑧 𝑑𝑥 𝑤0 (𝑥) + 𝑓(𝑧)∅𝑥 (𝑥),

𝑤(𝑥, 𝑧) = 𝑤0 (𝑥) + 𝑓′(𝑧)∅𝑧 (𝑥) ……(1)

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

where the variables 𝑢 and 𝑤 represent the X-directional and Z-directional displacements,
respectively, of any point on the beam. 𝑢0 and 𝑤0 denote the displacements in the x-direction
and z-direction, respectively, of a point located on the beam's axis. ∅𝑥 and ∅𝑧 refer to the shear
slope functions associated with shear in the transverse direction and normal deformations,
respectively.

The function 𝑓(𝑧) the present theory is shown below:

𝑎𝑧 3 1 𝑎𝑧 5
𝑓(𝑧) = 0.03ℎ + 𝑎 ∗ 𝑧 − 1.306 ∗ ℎ [( ) + ( ) ]
ℎ 20 ℎ

𝑎𝑧 2 5 𝑎𝑧 4
and, 𝑓 ′ (𝑧) = 𝑎 − 1.306 ∗ 𝑎 [3 ∗ ( ℎ ) + 20 ( ℎ ) ]

Where,
𝑎 = 1.1

h= height or depth of beam in the transverse direction of cross-section.

The plots of 𝑓(𝑧) and 𝑓’(𝑧) are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

𝑧
Figure 1. The plot of shape function 𝑓(𝑧) vs. ℎ

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

 𝑑𝑓(𝑧) 𝑧
Figure 2. The plot of the derivative of shape function vs. ℎ
𝑑𝑧

The non-zero strain components (assuming small strain) are as follows:

𝜕𝑢0 𝜕 2 𝑤0 𝜕∅𝑥
∈𝑥 = −𝑧 2
+ 𝑓(𝑧)
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥

∈𝑧 = 𝑓 ′′ (𝑧) ∗ ∅𝑧

𝜕∅𝑧
𝛾𝑥𝑧 = 𝑓′(𝑧) (∅𝑥 + ) ……..(2)
𝜕𝑥

Where,
∈𝑥 = Normal strain along 𝑥-direction
∈𝑧 = Normal strain along 𝑧-direction
𝛾𝑥𝑧 = Shear strain

3.9. Constitutive relation

The stress-strain relationship in this study is derived from Hook's law, which applies to isotropic
materials [30]. The beam is assumed to be under plane stress conditions, which can be converted
to plane strain conditions by appropriately substituting values for Poisson's ratio and modulus of
elasticity. The linear constitutive relation, assuming plane stress, is as follows:

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

 𝜎𝑥 𝐸 𝜗𝐸 ∈𝑥
0
1−𝜗2 1−𝜗2
𝜎𝑧 𝜗𝐸 𝐸
= 1−𝜗2 1−𝜗2
0 ∈𝑧 ….(3)
𝐸
𝜏𝑥𝑧
{ } [0 0 2(1+𝜗)] {𝛾𝑥𝑧 }

Where,
𝜎𝑥 = Normal stress along 𝑥-axis (Axial direction)

𝜎𝑧 = Normal stress along 𝑧-axis (Transverse direction)

𝜏𝑥𝑧 = Transverse shear stress

𝐸 =Modulus of elasticity (can be a constant or a function of 𝑧 in the case of functionally

graded materials)

𝜗 = Poisson’s ratio

∈𝑥 = Normal strain along the 𝑥-axis

∈𝑧 = Normal strain along the 𝑧-axis

𝛾𝑥𝑧 = Shear strain

3.10. Geometry, coordinates and properties of the beam selected for verification of present
theory

Though a large number of problems can be solved by using the present theory, I used SSB with
modulus of elasticity E for comparison with other HSDT’s. Two types of materials have been
used. Problem number 1 has constant E and problem number 2 uses functionally graded
material. Further details about properties are present in results and discussion.

A beam with cross-section ℎ × 𝑏 , length 𝑙, transverse load q(x) , modulus of elasticity E which
can be a constant or function of z (in case of functionally graded material) and Poisson ratio 𝜗 is
selected. For functionally graded beam power law variation is assumed along transverse
direction.

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

Figure 3. Geometry and coordinates of the beam. Transverse load has been assumed as a
function of x.

3.11. Governing differential equations

The governing differential equations are derived by employing the principle of virtual
displacements [31].

ℎ
𝑙 𝑙
∫𝑜 ∫2 ℎ(𝜎𝑥 𝛿 ∈𝑥 + 𝜎𝑧 𝛿 ∈𝑧 + 𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝛿𝛾𝑥𝑧 ) 𝑑𝑧𝑑𝑥 = ∫0 (𝑞(𝑥)𝛿𝑤0 )𝑑𝑥 ……… (4)
−
2

where 𝛿 represents variational operator, ℎ is depth of beam, 𝑙 is length, 𝑞(𝑥) is transverse load as
a function of X-coordinate, 𝜎𝑥 ix normal stress in X-direction (Axial direction), 𝜎𝑧 is normal
stress in Z-direction (Transverse direction), 𝜏𝑥𝑧 is transverse shear stress, ∈𝑥 is normal strain
along X-direction, ∈𝑧 is normal strain along Z-direction and 𝛾𝑥𝑧 is shear strain.

Substituting values of ∈𝑥 , ∈𝑧 and 𝛾𝑥𝑧 from equation (2) into (4) and using stress resultants [9],
we have

𝑙 𝑑𝛿𝑢0 𝑑2 𝛿𝑤0 𝑑𝛿∅𝑥 𝑑𝛿∅𝑧 𝑙

∫0 (𝑁𝑥 − 𝑀𝑥𝑏 + 𝑀𝑥𝑠 + 𝑁𝑧 𝛿∅𝑧 + 𝑄𝑥𝑧 𝛿∅𝑥 + 𝑄𝑥𝑧 ) 𝑑𝑥 = ∫0 (𝑞(𝑥)𝛿𝑤0 )𝑑𝑥…(5)
𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 2 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥

Where,
ℎ
{𝑁𝑥 , 𝑀𝑥𝑏 , 𝑀𝑥𝑠 } =∫ 2
ℎ 𝜎𝑥 {1, 𝑧, 𝑓(𝑧)}𝑏 𝑑𝑧
−
2
ℎ

𝑄𝑥𝑧 = ∫2 ℎ 𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝑓 ′ (𝑧) 𝑏 𝑑𝑧

−
2
ℎ

𝑁𝑧 = ∫2 ℎ 𝜎𝑧 𝑓 ′′ (𝑧) 𝑏 𝑑𝑧 ... (6)

−
2

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

where 𝑁𝑥 is the area integral of axial stress about cross-section, 𝑀𝑥𝑏 is resultant moment due to
bending stress, 𝑀𝑥𝑠 is resultant moment due to shear, 𝑁𝑧 is normal stress resultant in Z-direction
and 𝑄𝑥𝑧 is shear stress resultant.

Integrating equation (5) by parts and either setting coefficients of 𝛿𝑢0 , 𝛿𝑤0 , 𝛿∅𝑥 and 𝛿∅𝑧 equal
to zero (as per principle of virtual displacements), or 𝛿𝑢0 , 𝛿𝑤0 , 𝛿∅𝑥 and 𝛿∅𝑧 equal to zero, we
have
𝑑𝑁𝑥 𝑑2 𝑀𝑥𝑏
𝛿𝑢0 = 0 : =0, 𝛿𝑤0 = 0 : + 𝑞(𝑥) = 0
𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 2

𝑑𝑀𝑥𝑠 𝑑𝑄𝑥𝑧
𝛿∅𝑥 = 0 : − 𝑄𝑥𝑧 = 0 , 𝛿∅𝑧 = 0 : − 𝑁𝑧 = 0
𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥

.…. (7)

The above four equations are governing differential equations of the beam. The equations are
obtained for the beam with transverse load 𝑞(𝑥) only and no other external force is assumed. The
forces or moments at end points will come under boundary conditions for a given beam. As of
yet any boundary condition can exist for the beam (Cantilever, fixed or simple support).

By substituting equation (6) into equation (7), we can express the governing differential
equations in terms of the unknown displacement functions as follows

𝑑 2 𝑢0 𝑑3 𝑤0 𝑑 2 ∅𝑥 𝑑 ∅𝑧
𝛿𝑢0 = 0 : A −𝐷 + 𝐵𝑠 +𝑋 = 0 ……………………………(8)
𝑑𝑥 2 𝑑𝑥 3 𝑑𝑥 2 𝑑𝑥

𝑑 3 𝑢0 𝑑4 𝑤0 𝑑 3 ∅𝑥 𝑑 2 ∅𝑧
𝛿𝑤0 = 0: 𝐷 −𝐵 + 𝐷𝑠 +𝑌 = −𝑞(𝑥) ……………………..(9)
𝑑𝑥 3 𝑑𝑥 4 𝑑𝑥 3 𝑑𝑥 2

𝑑 2 𝑢0 𝑑 2 ∅𝑥 𝑑 ∅𝑧 𝑑∅𝑥
𝛿∅𝑥 = 0 : 𝐵𝑠 − 𝐷𝑠 + 𝐻𝑠 + 𝑌𝑠 − 𝐴𝑠 (∅𝑥 + ) = 0 …………...(10)
𝑑𝑥 2 𝑑𝑥 2 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥
𝑑𝑢0 𝑑2 𝑤0 𝑑∅𝑥 𝑑∅ 𝑑 2 ∅𝑧
𝛿∅𝑧 = 0 : − 𝑋 +𝑌 − 𝑌𝑠 − 𝑍𝑠 ∅𝑧 + 𝐴𝑠 ( 𝑑𝑥𝑥 + ) = 0 ………..(11)
𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 2 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 2

where 𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐷, 𝑋, 𝑌, 𝐴𝑠 , 𝐵𝑠 , 𝐷𝑠 , 𝑍𝑠 , 𝐻𝑠 and 𝑌𝑠 are constants whose values are given below.

ℎ
2 𝐸
𝐴 = 𝑏∫ 𝑑𝑧
− 1
ℎ − 𝜗2
2

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

 ℎ
2 𝐸
𝐵 = 𝑏∫ ∙ 𝑧 2 𝑑𝑧
ℎ 1 − 𝜗2
−
2
ℎ
𝐸2
𝐷 = 𝑏∫ 2
∙ 𝑧 𝑑𝑧
− 1−𝜗
ℎ
2
ℎ
𝐸2
𝐵𝑠 = 𝑏 ∫ 2
∙ 𝑓(𝑧) 𝑑𝑧
− 1−𝜗
ℎ
2
ℎ
2 𝐸
𝐷𝑠 = 𝑏 ∫ ∙ 𝑧 ∙ 𝑓(𝑧) 𝑑𝑧
−
ℎ 1 − 𝜗2
2
ℎ
2 𝐸
𝐻𝑠 = 𝑏 ∫ ∙ (𝑓(𝑧))2 𝑑𝑧
− 1
ℎ − 𝜗2
2
ℎ
𝜗𝐸
2
𝑋 = 𝑏∫ 2
∙ 𝑓′′(𝑧) 𝑑𝑧
− 1−𝜗
ℎ
2
ℎ
𝜗𝐸
2
𝑌 = 𝑏∫ 2
∙ 𝑧 ∙ 𝑓′′(𝑧) 𝑑𝑧
− 1−𝜗
ℎ
2
ℎ
2𝜗𝐸
𝑌𝑠 = 𝑏 ∫ 2
∙ 𝑓(𝑧) ∙ 𝑓′′(𝑧) 𝑑𝑧
− 1−𝜗
ℎ
2
ℎ
2 𝐸
𝑍𝑠 = 𝑏 ∫ ∙ (𝑓′′(𝑧))2 𝑑𝑧
ℎ 1 − 𝜗2
−
2
ℎ
𝐸
𝐴𝑠 = 𝑏 ∫ 2
ℎ ∙ (𝑓′(𝑧))2 𝑑𝑧 …………(12)
− 2(1+𝜗)
2

If 𝐸 can be removed from the integral if it is constant for a particular beam. 𝐸 is a function of the
Z-coordinate for beams with functional grades. The governing differential equations for any
beam loaded by a 𝑞(𝑥) load in a transverse direction are equations (9) through (11). These
formulas apply to beams with any kind of boundary condition, including simple support and
cantilever. We will use UDL to solve them for SSB in the following section. Two categories of
issues have been selected for the model's validation [32]. The first problem compares the chosen

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

isotropic linear material with a constant modulus of elasticity with the exact solution. The second
problem involves a functionally graded beam with an evenly distributed load, although there isn't
a precise solution for this kind of beam, hence in relation to so relative comparison is done with
higher-order beam theories.

3.12. Analytical solution for simply supported beam

The analytical solution is derived using Navier's technique, where the solution is assumed to be
in the form of trigonometric functions that satisfy the B.C’s for the beam [33, 34]. As discussed
in section three I have solved two problems with different materials. This solution is common to
both the problems with change being only applied during MATLAB simulation where
corresponding values of modulus of elasticity will be used for each problem. The MATLAB
code for problem 1 is given in appendix I and for problem 2 is given in appendix II. In this
section only analytical part is discussed. This solution partly depends on Computer calculations
for quickly obtaining the values that is where MATLAB comes handy.
𝑛𝜋𝑥
SSB of cross-section 𝑏 × ℎ subjected to UDL 𝑞(𝑥) = ∑∞
𝑛=1 𝑞𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( ) applied in the
𝑙

transverse direction, where 𝑞𝑛 is given as follows:

4𝑞0
𝑞𝑛 = , 𝑛 = 1 , 3,5,7, …
𝑛𝜋

𝑞𝑛 = 0 , 𝑛 = 2,4,6,8, …

where 𝑞0 is the load per unit length applied in transverse direction or load intensity.

Figure 4. Simply supported beam with uniformly distributed load (UDL)

Since there is no external force considered in 𝑥-direction and simply supported beam doesn’t
allow any vertical movement at ends, we can use following trigonometric series [35].

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

 𝑢0 = ∑∞ ∞
𝑛=1 𝑢𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜆𝑥), 𝑤0 = ∑𝑛=1 𝑤𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜆𝑥)

∅ 𝑥 = ∑∞
𝑛=1 ∅𝑥𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜆𝑥), ∅ 𝑧 = ∑∞
𝑛=1 ∅𝑧𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜆𝑥)

…... (13)
𝑛𝜋
where 𝜆= ( 𝑙 ) and 𝑢𝑛 , 𝑤𝑛 , ∅𝑥𝑛 , ∅𝑧𝑛 are unknown coefficients.

Substituting equation (13) and value of 𝑞(𝑥) into governing equations (8), (9), (10) and (11), we
get matrix equation of the following form

(𝐾)(∆) = (𝐹)

where (𝐾) is stiffness matrix, (∆) is vector of unknown coefficients (𝑢𝑛 , 𝑤𝑛 , ∅𝑥𝑛 , ∅𝑧𝑛 ) and
(𝐹) is called force vector.

The matrix equation (𝐾)(∆) = (𝐹) can be written in more detailed form as

𝑘11 𝑘12 𝑘13 𝑘14 𝑢𝑛 0

𝑘21 𝑘22 𝑘23 𝑘24 𝑤𝑛 −𝑞
[ ] { ∅ } = { 𝑛} ….(14)
𝑘31 𝑘32 𝑘33 𝑘34 𝑥𝑛 0
𝑘41 𝑘 42 𝑘43 𝑘44 ∅ 𝑧𝑛 0

where,
𝑘11 = −𝐴𝜆2 , 𝑘12 = 𝐷𝜆3 , 𝑘13 = −𝐵𝑠 𝜆2, 𝑘14 = 𝑋𝜆
𝑘21 = 𝐷𝜆3 , 𝑘22 = −𝐵𝜆4 , 𝑘23 = 𝐷𝑠 𝜆3 , 𝑘24 = −𝑌𝜆2
𝑘31 = −𝐵𝑠 𝜆2 , 𝑘32 = 𝐷𝑠 𝜆3 , 𝑘33 = −(𝐻𝑠 𝜆2 + 𝐴𝑠 ),
𝑘34 = (𝑌𝑠 − 𝐴𝑠 )𝜆 , 𝑘41 = 𝑋𝜆 , 𝑘42 = −𝑌𝜆2 ,
𝑘43 = (𝑌𝑠 − 𝐴𝑠 )𝜆 , 𝑘44 = −(𝑍𝑠 + 𝐴𝑠 𝜆 2 )

Once the values of unknown coefficients (𝑢𝑛 , 𝑤𝑛 , ∅𝑥𝑛 , ∅𝑧𝑛 ) are determined with the help of
MATLAB by first obtaining stiffness matrix and then substituting values of stiffness matrix and
force vector into equation (14), we can determine the four variables of governing differential
equations by using equation (13). Then stresses and strains are obtained by using equation (2)
and (3). This strategy is followed for both problems discussed in next section under heading
‘Results and Discussion’. Let’s discuss the simulation results and compare them with other
higher order beam theories in next section.

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Problem no. 1

Results obtained for a SSB with cross-section ℎ × 𝑏 and length 𝑙, UDL intensity 𝑞0 =
106 𝑁/𝑚, modulus of elasticity 𝐸 = 210 𝐺𝑃𝑎, and Poisson ratio 𝑣 = 0.3. The dimensionless
form of the results for the transverse displacement 𝑤 axial bending stress 𝜎𝑥 and transverse shear
stress 𝜏𝑥𝑧 are defined as:

10𝐸∙𝑤(𝑥,𝑧)∙𝑏ℎ3 𝑏𝜎𝑥 (𝑥,𝑧) 𝑏𝜏𝑥𝑧 (𝑥,𝑧)

𝑤(𝑥, 𝑧) = , σ𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑧) = , τ𝑥𝑧 (𝑥, 𝑧) =
𝑙4 𝑞0 𝑞0 𝑞0

Error for each theory was calculated with respect to the exact elasticity solution by Timoshenko
et al. [36]. These results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison of the present HOSNDT model with existing beam theories for different
𝒉
thickness-to-length ratios . Parameters 𝑤, 𝜎𝑥 , and 𝜏𝑥𝑧 represent transverse displacement, axial
𝒍

stress, and shear stress, respectively, with percentage errors relative to the exact solution by
Timoshenko et al. [36].

𝒉 Theory 𝒘 𝝈𝒙 % error 𝝉𝒙𝒛 % error

% error
𝒍
1 Present 2.440 0.509 3.212 0.396 1.404 -6.37
2
1 S. Ambartsumian [37] 2.357 -3.913 3.210 0.312 1.156 -22.93
2
1 ET. Kruszewski [38] 2.515 2.527 3.261 ------ 1.333 11.13
2
1 J.N. Reddy [16] 2.532 3.220 3.261 1.906 1.415 -5.667
2
1 M. Touratier [1] 2.529 3.098 3.278 2.437 1.451 -3.27
2
1 K. Soldatos [18] 2.513 2.445 3.257 1.800 1.587 5.8
2
1 Karama et al. [32] 2.510 2.323 3.322 3.812 1.4877 0.82
2
1 S.S. Akavci [17] 2.523 2.853 3.253 1.656 1.397 -6.866
2

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

1 Timoshenko et al. [39] 2.538 3.465 3.000 -6.25 0.984 -34.40
2
1 C. Truesdell [40] 1.563 -3.628 3.000 -6.25 ------ -------
2
1 Exact (Timoshenko et 2.453 0.00 3.200 0.00 1.5 0.000
2 al. [39])
1 Present 1.786 0.07 12.196 -0.03 2.959 -1.35
4
1 S. Ambartsumian [37] 1.762 -1.288 12.212 0.098 2.389 -20.36
4
1 ET. Kruszewski [38] 1.805 1.120 12.262 0.508 2.836 -5.466
4
1 J.N. Reddy [16] 1.806 1.176 12.263 0.516 2.908 -3.066
4
1 M. Touratier [1] 1.805 1.120 12.280 0.656 2.993 -0.233
4
1 K. Soldatos [18] 1.805 1.17 12.261 0.50 2.909 -3.04
4
1 Karama et al. [32] 1.801 0.896 12.324 1.016 3.084 2.80
4
1 S.S. Akavci [17] 1.804 1.064 12.254 0.442 2.882 -3.933
4
1 Timoshenko et al. [39] 1.806 1.176 12.000 -1.639 1.969 -34.36
4
1 C. Truesdell [40] 1.563 -12.43 12.000 -1.639 ------- -------
4
1 Exact (Timoshenko et al.
1.785 0.000 12.200 0.000 3.000 0.000
4 [39])
1 Present 1.598 0.029 75.076 -0.16 7.6229 1.639
10
1 S. Ambartsumian [37] 1.595 -0.187 75.216 0.021 6.066 -19.12
10
1 ET. Kruszewski [38] 1.602 0.250 75.266 0.087 7.328 -2.293
10
1 J.N. Reddy [16] 1.602 0.250 75.268 0.090 7.361 -1.853
10
1 M. Touratier [1] 1.601 0.187 75.281 0.111 7.641 1.89
10
1 K. Soldatos [18] 1.601 0.187 75.211 0.014 7.576 1.013
10

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

 1 Karama et al. [32] 1.601 0.187 75.330 0.172 7.872 4.97
10
1 S.S. Akavci [17] 1.601 0.187 75.259 0.078 7.312 2.56
10
1 Timoshenko et al. [39] 1.602 0.250 75.000 -0.265 4.922 -34.37
10
1 C. Truesdell [40] 1.563 -2.190 75.000 -0.265 -------- -------
10
1 Exact (Timoshenko et al. 1.598 0.000 75.200 0.000 7.500 0.000
10 [39])

The superior accuracy of the present HOSNDT model is evident across all thickness-to-length
h
ratios ( l ), particularly in the prediction of transverse displacement (𝑤) and axial stress (𝜎𝑥 ) .

Unlike Euler-Bernoulli and Ambartsumian theories, which show significant deviations, the
present model closely matches the exact elasticity solutions. Furthermore, it demonstrates
improved stability over J.N. Reddy [16] and M. Touratier [1] models in handling higher
h 1
thickness ratios ( l = 10). These findings validate the proposed HOSNDT model as a reliable and

accurate tool for beam analysis, with potential applications in aerospace, civil, and mechanical
engineering. Future work could explore extending its applicability to dynamic loading conditions
and non-isotropic materials.

4.2. Problem no. 2

For further verification of present theory, another problem (Functionally graded beam) is
selected where in modulus of elasticity varies in transverse direction according to power law as
follows:
1 𝑧 𝑝
𝐸 = 𝐸1 + (𝐸2 − 𝐸1 ) ( + )
2 ℎ
where 𝐸1 = 70𝐺𝑃𝑎, 𝐸2 = 380𝐺𝑃𝑎, 𝑝 = 0,1,2,3, … and Poisson ratio is not changing.
Results are obtained for a SSB with cross-section ℎ × 𝑏 and length 𝑙, UDL intensity 𝑞0 =
106 𝑁/𝑚, modulus of elasticity 𝐸, and Poisson ratio 0.3. The dimensionless form of the results
for the transverse displacement 𝑤 axial bending stress 𝜎𝑥 and transverse shear stress 𝜏𝑥𝑧 are
provided below.
100𝐸∙𝑤(𝑥,𝑧)∙𝑏ℎ3 ℎ𝑏𝜎𝑥 (𝑥,𝑧)
w(𝑥, 𝑧) = , σ𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑧) = ,
𝑙4 𝑞0 𝑞0 𝑙

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

 𝑏ℎ𝜏𝑥𝑧 (𝑥, 𝑧)
τ𝑥𝑧 (𝑥, 𝑧) =
𝑞0 𝑙
ℎ 1
The results are obtained for = 5 , 𝑝 = 1,5,10 and are presented in Table 2. It is evident from
𝑙

both tables that present theory is in agreement with other higher order beam theories and also is
much better than them in terms of accuracy.
Table 2. Comparison of present theory with other beam theories.

𝑙 𝑙 ℎ ℎ 1
𝑤 (2 , 0), 𝜎𝑥 (2 , ) and 𝜏𝑥𝑧 (0,0) for functionally graded material ( 𝑙 = 5)
2

p Theory
𝐥
𝒘 (𝟐 , 𝟎) 𝐥 𝐡 𝝉𝒙𝒛 (𝟎, 𝟎)
𝝈𝒙 ( , )
𝟐 𝟐
1 Present 6.138 5.895 0.747

Sayyad et al. [21]

1 6.133 5.867 0.802
(Good for deflection only)
1 J.N. Reddy [16] 6.259 5.885 0.733

M. Touratier [1]
1 (Trigonometric- Good for 6.258 5.889 0.754
stresses only)
Sayyad et al. [21]
1 6.256 5.815 0.718
(hyperbolic)

1 Timoshenko et al. [39] 6.205 5.796 0.831

1 C. Truesdell [40] 5.774 5.796 --------

5 Present 9.619 8.153 0.615

Sayyad et al. [21]

5 9.541 7.763 0.770
(Good for deflection only)
5 J.N. Reddy [16] 9.828 8.112 0.590

M. Touratier [1]
5 (Trigonometric- Good for 9.836 8.122 0.615
stresses only)

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

 Sayyad et al. [21]
5 9.698 8.005 0.578
(hyperbolic)

5 Timoshenko et al. [39] 9.498 7.943 1.537

5 C. Truesdell [40] 8.750 7.943 --------

10 Present 10.762 9.758 0.667

Sayyad et al. [21]

10 10.760 9.717 0.659
(Good for deflection only)
10 J.N. Reddy [16] 10.938 9.714 0.646

M. Touratier [1]
10 (Trigonometric- Good for 10.942 9.724 0.670
stresses only)
Sayyad et al. [21]
10 10.794 9.587 0.641
(hyperbolic)

10 Timoshenko et al. [39] 10.534 9.523 1.905

10 C. Truesdell [40] 9.607 9.522 --------

5. Conclusion

1. In this study, a novel form function 𝑓(𝑧) was introduced and applied to the HOSNDT model.
The selected fifth-order polynomial function, chosen for its simplicity and effectiveness, was
validated using MATLAB simulations. Two representative problems were solved to verify
the model's accuracy. The first problem involved a simply supported beam (SSB) with a
constant Young's modulus and a uniformly distributed load, validated against exact elasticity
solutions. The second problem examined a functionally graded beam, with results consistent
with existing higher-order beam theories. Compared to HSDTs, the numerical findings
demonstrate superior accuracy in predicting transverse displacement and stresses. This study
discusses the theory of beams, which provides variationally consistent governing differential
equations.

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

2. This work establishes a robust framework for beam theory, providing variationally consistent
governing differential equations that improve upon traditional approaches.
3. By incorporating shear stress-free boundary conditions at the beam's upper and lower
surfaces, the HOSNDT model eliminates the need for shear correction factors required in
FSDT.
4. Simulation results confirm that the HOSNDT model outperforms existing higher-order shear
deformation models, making it a preferred choice for accurate analysis of thick beams. This
study highlights the potential of the proposed model for broader applications and
recommends further research to extend its scope to dynamic loading and non-isotropic
materials.
5. The results for functionally graded beams align with those of other higher-order beam
theories, while the results for simply supported beams with a constant modulus of elasticity
conform precisely to elasticity solutions, reinforcing the reliability of the proposed model.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the National Institute of Technology,
Srinagar for their knowledge and assistance with every facet of our research as well as for
helping to write the manuscript.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] M. Touratier, "An efficient standard plate theory," International journal of engineering science,
vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 901-916, 1991.
[2] J. Reddy, C. Wang, and K. Lee, "Relationships between bending solutions of classical and shear
deformation beam theories," International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 34, no. 26, pp.
3373-3384, 1997.

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

[3] T. Kant and A. Gupta, "A finite element model for a higher-order shear-deformable beam
theory," Journal of sound and vibration, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 193-202, 1988.
[4] M. Meradjah, A. Kaci, M. S. A. Houari, A. Tounsi, and S. Mahmoud, "A new higher order shear
and normal deformation theory for functionally graded beams," Steel Compos. Struct, vol. 18, no.
3, pp. 793-809, 2015.
[5] A. A. Bousahla, M. S. A. Houari, A. Tounsi, and E. A. ADDA BEDIA, "A novel higher order
shear and normal deformation theory based on neutral surface position for bending analysis of
advanced composite plates," International Journal of Computational Methods, vol. 11, no. 06, p.
1350082, 2014.
[6] Y. Qu, X. Long, H. Li, and G. Meng, "A variational formulation for dynamic analysis of
composite laminated beams based on a general higher-order shear deformation theory,"
Composite Structures, vol. 102, pp. 175-192, 2013.
[7] Y. M. Ghugal and R. Sharma, "A refined shear deformation theory for flexure of thick beams,"
Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 8, pp. 183-195, 2011.
[8] A. Maalla and J. Song, "Computational modeling for nonlinear magneto-electro-elastic responses
of smart multi-phase symmetric system," Advances in nano research, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 327-337,
2021.
[9] G. Fan and M. Lezgy-Nazargah, "An efficient seven-parameter double superposition-based
theory for free vibration analysis of laminated composite shells," European Journal of
Mechanics-A/Solids, vol. 106, p. 105299, 2024.
[10] A. Garg, M.-O. Belarbi, H. Chalak, and A. Chakrabarti, "A review of the analysis of sandwich
FGM structures," Composite Structures, vol. 258, p. 113427, 2021.
[11] M. Filippi, E. Carrera, and A. Zenkour, "Static analyses of FGM beams by various theories and
finite elements," Composites Part B: Engineering, vol. 72, pp. 1-9, 2015.
[12] S. S. Tabatabaei and A. Fattahi, "A finite element method for modal analysis of FGM plates,"
Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1111-1122, 2022.
[13] Z. Ma et al., "Additive manufacturing of functional gradient materials: A review of research
progress and challenges," Journal of Alloys and Compounds, vol. 971, p. 172642, 2024.
[14] M. Karimzadeh, D. Basvoju, A. Vakanski, I. Charit, F. Xu, and X. Zhang, "Machine learning for
additive manufacturing of functionally graded materials," Materials, vol. 17, no. 15, p. 3673,
2024.
[15] V. Bhavar, P. Kattire, S. Thakare, and R. Singh, "A review on functionally gradient materials
(FGMs) and their applications," in IOP conference series: materials science and engineering,
2017, vol. 229, no. 1: IOP Publishing, p. 012021.
[16] J. Reddy, "A general non-linear third-order theory of plates with moderate thickness,"
International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 677-686, 1990.
[17] S. Akavci, "Buckling and free vibration analysis of symmetric and antisymmetric laminated
composite plates on an elastic foundation," Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, vol.
26, no. 18, pp. 1907-1919, 2007.
[18] K. Soldatos, "A transverse shear deformation theory for homogeneous monoclinic plates," Acta
Mechanica, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 195-220, 1992.
[19] M. Koizumi, "FGM activities in Japan," Composites part b: engineering, vol. 28, no. 1-2, pp. 1-4,
1997.
[20] M. Koizumi and M. Niino, "Overview of FGM research in Japan," Mrs Bulletin, vol. 20, no. 1,
pp. 19-21, 1995.
[21] S. M. Ghumare and A. S. Sayyad, "A new fifth-order shear and normal deformation theory for
static bending and elastic buckling of P-FGM beams," Latin American Journal of Solids and
Structures, vol. 14, pp. 1893-1911, 2017.
[22] B. M. Shinde and A. S. Sayyad, "A new higher order shear and normal deformation theory for
FGM sandwich shells," Composite Structures, vol. 280, p. 114865, 2022.

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]

[23] A. S. Sayyad and Y. M. Ghugal, "Analytical solutions for bending, buckling, and vibration
analyses of exponential functionally graded higher order beams," Asian Journal of Civil
Engineering, vol. 19, pp. 607-623, 2018.
[24] A. Messaoudi et al., "Impact of the Shear and Thickness Stretching Effects on the Free Vibrations
of Advanced Composite Plates," Mechanics of Composite Materials, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 1001-
1018, 2023.
[25] K. Swaminathan and D. Sangeetha, "Thermal analysis of FGM plates–A critical review of
various modeling techniques and solution methods," Composite Structures, vol. 160, pp. 43-60,
2017.
[26] M. Dan, A. Pagani, and E. Carrera, "Free vibration analysis of simply supported beams with solid
and thin-walled cross-sections using higher-order theories based on displacement variables,"
Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 98, pp. 478-495, 2016.
[27] W. Li, H. Chen, S. Chen, and Z. Liu, "A force-based beam element model based on the modified
higher-order shear deformation theory for accurate analysis of FG beams," in Structures, 2025,
vol. 71: Elsevier, p. 107991.
[28] M.-O. Belarbi, M. S. A. Houari, H. Hirane, A. A. Daikh, and S. P. A. Bordas, "On the finite
element analysis of functionally graded sandwich curved beams via a new refined higher shear
deformation theory," arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14719, 2021.
[29] M. Singha, T. Prakash, and M. Ganapathi, "Finite element analysis of functionally graded plates
under transverse load," Finite elements in Analysis and Design, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 453-460, 2011.
[30] G. F. Becker, "The finite elastic stress-strain function," American Journal of Science, vol. 3, no.
275, pp. 337-356, 1893.
[31] G. Jelenić and M. Saje, "A kinematically exact space finite strain beam model—finite element
formulation by generalized virtual work principle," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, vol. 120, no. 1-2, pp. 131-161, 1995.
[32] M. Karama, K. Afaq, and S. Mistou, "Mechanical behaviour of laminated composite beam by the
new multi-layered laminated composite structures model with transverse shear stress continuity,"
International Journal of solids and structures, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1525-1546, 2003.
[33] U. Vevek, H. Namazi, R. Haghighi, and V. V. Kulish, "Analysis & validation of exact solutions
to Navier-Stokes equation in connection with quantum fluid dynamics," Mathematics in
Engineering, Science & Aerospace (MESA), vol. 7, no. 2, 2016.
[34] N. Osadebe, C. Attama, and O. Oguaghamba, "Dynamics of rectangular orthotropic plates using
characteristic orthogonal polynomial–Galerkin’s methods," Nigerian Journal of Technology, vol.
36, no. 1, pp. 50-56, 2017.
[35] Y. Boutahar, N. Lebaal, and D. Bassir, "A refined theory for bending vibratory analysis of thick
functionally graded beams," Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 12, p. 1422, 2021.
[36] S. Timoshenko and J. Goodier, "Theory of elasticity, 2nd Edn McGraw Hill," New York, 1951.
[37] S. Ambartsumian, "On the theory of bending plates," Izv Otd Tech Nauk AN SSSR, vol. 5, no. 5,
pp. 69-77, 1958.
[38] E. T. Kruszewski, Effect of transverse shear and rotary inertia on the natural frequency of a
uniform beam (no. 1909). National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1949.
[39] S. P. Timoshenko, J. N. Goodier, and H. N. Abramson, "Theory of Elasticity (3rd ed.)," Journal
of Applied Mechanics, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 888-888, 1970, doi: 10.1115/1.3408648.
[40] C. Truesdell and C. Truesdell, "Timoshenko’s history of strength of materials (1953)," An Idiot’s
Fugitive Essays on Science: Methods, Criticism, Training, Circumstances, pp. 251-253, 1984.

Corresponding author: Juneed Yawar, [email protected]