2 The Era of Elasticity

2.1 Fundamentals of Elasticity

2.1.1 Basic Field Equations
In order to establish a solution in continuum mechanics, three basic sets of rela-
tions have to be fulfilled: (1) equilibrium conditions, which guarantee that the body
is always in equilibrium; (2) compatibility conditions, which guarantee that the
body remains continuous; and (3) constitutive relations, which connect stresses and
strains of a material behavior. These relations can be expressed in tensor notations
as follows.

[Link] Equilibrium
The equilibrium conditions for an arbitrary volume, V, Figure 2.1, are

∫ (σ
V
ij , j + Fi ) dV = 0 (2.1)

where
σij is the stress tensor
Fi is the body force

Equation 2.1 may be written in the usual (X, Y, and Z) notation as

∂σ x ∂τ xy ∂τ xz
+ + + Fx = 0
∂x ∂y ∂z

∂τ yx ∂σ y ∂τ yz (2.2)
+ + + Fy = 0
∂x ∂y ∂z

∂τ zx ∂τ zy ∂σ z
+ + + Fz = 0
∂x ∂y ∂z

where
σx, σy, and σz represent the normal stress components
τxy, τyz, … represent the shear stress components

[Link] Compatibility
The compatibility conditions (or conditions of body continuity) can be expressed as

ε ij ,kl + ε kl ,ij − ε ik , jl − ε jl ,ik = 0 (2.3)

17
18 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

z
F
dV

y n
ds T

x
n

Figure 2.1 Equilibrium of a material body.

Upon expanding these expressions, the following can be obtained with respect to the
usual (X, Y, and Z) notation:

∂2ε x ∂2ε y ∂ 2 ε xy
+ = 2
∂y 2 ∂x 2 ∂x ∂y

∂2ε y ∂2ε z ∂ 2 ε yz
+ = 2
∂z 2 ∂y 2 ∂y∂z

∂2ε z ∂2ε x ∂ 2 ε zx
+ 2 =2
∂x 2
∂z ∂z ∂x
(2.4)
∂  ∂ε yz ∂ε zx ∂ε xy  ∂ 2 ε x
− + + =
∂x  ∂x ∂y ∂z  ∂y∂∂z

∂  ∂ε zx ∂ε xy ∂ε yz  ∂ 2 ε y
− + + =
∂y  ∂y ∂z ∂x  ∂z∂x

∂  ∂ε xy ∂ε yz ∂ε zx  ∂ 2 ε z
− + + =
∂z  ∂z ∂x ∂y  ∂x∂y

where
εx, εy, and εz represent the normal strain components
εxy, εyz, … represent the shear strain components

For a material element in volume, V, the three equations of equilibrium, Equation

2.2 and the six equations of compatibility, Equation 2.4, give a sum of nine equa-
tions. On the other hand, the total number of unknowns is 15 (6 stress components,
6 strain components, and 3 displacement components). The remaining six equations
necessary to obtain a solution are the material-dependent equations (constitutive
relations). The interrelations between the three sets of relations are schematically
illustrated in Figure 2.2.
The Era of Elasticity 19

External forces Fi, Ti ui Displacements

Equilibrium Compatibility
equations equations

Stresses σij εij Strains

Constitutive laws

Figure 2.2 Interrelations between mechanics variables.

[Link] Constitutive Relations

The constitutive relations can be expressed in tensor notation as follows:

σij = Cijkl ε kl (2.5)

where Cijkl is the material elastic constant tensor. Equation 2.5 is a simple generaliza-
tion of Hooke’s law experiment in a simple tension test, and, therefore, it is referred
to as the generalized Hooke’s law. This equation can be written in matrix form for an
isotropic linear elastic material as follows:
{σ} = [C ]{ε} (2.6)
where the matrix [C] is called the elastic constitutive or elastic moduli matrix and
is given by

(1 − ν) ν ν 0 0 0 
 
 ν (1 − ν) ν 0 0 0 
 ν ν (1 − ν) 0 0 0 
 
 0 (1 − 2 ν)
[C ] =
E 0 0 0 0 
 2 
(1 + ν)(1 − 2 ν)  
 0 (1 − 2 ν)
0 0 0 0 
 2 
 (1 − 2 ν) 
 0 0 0 0 0 
 2 
(2.7)
where
E is Young’s modulus
ν is Poisson’s ratio

2.1.2 Solution Process: An Illustration

Linear elasticity is based on two fundamental assumptions: the stress–strain rela-
tion is linear and is reversible. The first assumption allows for the application of
20 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

P (force/unit length)
y

a θ

M
at M
σx= –2P cos4θ
πa
σy= –2P sin2θ cos2θ
x πa
τxz= –2P sinθ cos3θ
πa

Figure 2.3 Half-space problem.

the principle of superposition. The second assumption means that the material is
load-path independent, which permits for total load application, that is, no need to
go to incremental solution or follow load history. This leads to a simple and direct
formulation of the equations of mechanics at a point in a body. Nevertheless, the
solution of the 15 equations, except in very special cases, represents a great math-
ematical challenge, and in some cases is impossible to achieve without exploring
nontraditional thinking. Figure 2.3 shows the solution of the problem of half-space
under concentrated load, one of the few problems that can be handled from a direct
solution of the 15 equations.

2.2 The Concept of Generalized Stress

and Generalized Strain
2.2.1 Introduction
In the concept of continuum mechanics, the field relations derived at a material
point can be used to establish solutions for limited applications. In order to widen
the scope of applications, these field relations should be formulated in terms of ele-
ments from which the structure is composed, for example, bar, plate, shell, and
finite element (FE). For example, for a bar element instead of the six stress compo-
nents, σij, at a point one can deal with the bending moment (generalized stress), M.
Correspondingly, the six strain components, εij, are replaced with the angle of rela-
tive rotation or curvature (generalized strain), φ. The same concept applies to other
structure elements such as plate, shell, FE, etc.
One may ask how to decide on which variable a generalized stress or general-
ized strain is. Bending moment in a beam can be considered as a generalized stress,
whereas other variables, such as shear, cannot be considered as generalized stresses
because the deformations associated with their correspondent strains are negligible.
In a beam, for example, the curvature signifies the dominant deformation (bending
deformation), and therefore it is considered as a generalized strain and its correspon-
dent stress variable (moment) is considered as a generalized stress.
The Era of Elasticity 21

Another question may arise about the significance of this concept and its impact.
The answer is very simple; for example, in a beam problem with continuum mechan-
ics approach, the solution searches for 15 variables (15 equations in 15 unknowns).
On the other hand, in a beam analogy (bending theory) the solution searches for one
variable. The reduction in the effort is thus very obvious when using this concept
since the effort is an exponential function of the number of variables. In this regard,
Einstein was asked once why he would use one type of soap instead of two as other
people do. He replied: two soaps are too many variables, one is enough and much
simpler.
In the following sections, equilibrium is utilized to develop the generalized
stress in terms of the stress tensor. Compatibility is utilized to derive the general-
ized strain in terms of the strain tensor. The constitutive relations are employed to
connect the generalized stresses and the generalized strains. These developments
are given for different structure elements, for example, bar, plate bending, shell ele-
ment, and FE.

2.2.2 Bar Element as a Start

[Link] Axially Loaded Element
For a bar element subjected to an axial force (generalized stress), P, causing a uni-
form axial stress, σ, equilibrium leads to

P = σA (2.8)

where A is the cross-sectional area of the bar. The stress, σ, causes an axial strain,
ε, which is associated with a change in bar length (generalized strain), Δ. Based on
compatibility the generalized strain is related to the strain as follows:

∂∆
ε= (2.9)
∂x

Upon integration of the previous equation

∆ = εL (2.10)

where L is the bar length. The generalized stress, P, can be related to the generalized
strain, Δ, upon employing Hooke’s law:

σ = Eε (2.11)

where E is Young’s modulus. This leads to

∆
P = σA = E εA = E A
L
22 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

or

 EA 
P= ∆ (2.12)
 L 

The term (EA/L) connecting the two variables P and Δ is the bar axial stiffness.

[Link] Flexural Element

The same simple and systematic steps followed for a bar under axial force can be
followed for the development of the variables of a bar under pure bending. Consider
a bar element of length ΔS subjected to end moments, M, such that the element
deforms as shown in Figure 2.4. Upon applying equilibrium at the end section of
the element

∫
M = σy dA (2.13)

The generalized strain (or curvature), φ, can be related to the strain in a beam, ε,
upon the adoption of linear strain distribution within the section depth according to
Bernoulli’s hypothesis (plane sections perpendicular to the neutral axis before bend-
ing remain plane and perpendicular to the neutral axis after bending). Thus,
ε = ϕy (2.14)

The generalized stress, M, is related to the generalized strain, φ, through the applica-
tion of the stress–strain relation σ = Eε:

M = ∫ σy dA = ∫ E εy dA = ∫ E ϕy 2 dA = E ϕ ∫ y 2 dA

or
M = EI ϕ (2.15)

where I is the moment of inertia of the beam cross section. It should be noted that
only the bending moment can be considered as a generalized stress, whereas other

∆θ = ∆S
dy

dA
y

M M

∆S

Figure 2.4 Bar element under pure bending.

The Era of Elasticity 23

parameters such as shear or torsion cannot be, since the deformations associated
with their correspondent stresses are negligible.

2.2.3 Plate Element as a Next Step

[Link] Compatibility
For a plate element in Cartesian coordinates, the thickness is denoted as h and the
deflection as w. Since there is no normal force applied to the end sections of the
plate segment shown in Figure 2.5, the neutral surface is assumed to coincide with
the middle surface of the plate. Based on Kirchhoff’s hypothesis for thin plates with
small deflection (plane sections perpendicular to the neutral surface before bending
remain plane and perpendicular to the neutral surface after bending), the elonga-
tion of a fiber parallel to the x- or y-axis is proportional to its distance z from the
middle surface. The generalized strains (curvature of the deflection in the x- and
y- ­directions, φx and φy, respectively) can be taken as

1 ∂2w
ϕx = =− 2 (2.16a)
rx ∂x

1 ∂2w
ϕy = =− 2 (2.16b)
ry ∂y

where rx and ry are the radii of curvatures in the x- and y-directions, respectively.
From kinematics, the strains at a distance z from the middle surface in the x- and
y-directions, εx and εy, respectively, are

∂u ∂  ∂w  ∂2w
εx = =  −z  = −z 2 (2.17a)
∂x ∂x  ∂x  ∂x

dx

x, u dy

n n

y, v d c
z, w
h/2
Middle
n n surface
h
z
a b

dz

Figure 2.5 Plate bending element.

24 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

∂v ∂  ∂w  ∂2w
εy = =  −z  = −z 2 (2.17b)
∂y ∂y  ∂y  ∂y

where u and v are the displacement components in the x- and y-directions, respectively.

[Link] Constitutive Relations

From the generalized Hooke’s law

σx σ
εx = −ν y (2.18a)
E E

σx σy
ε y = −ν + (2.18b)
E E

where ν is Poisson’s ratio. This leads to

E
σx = (ε x + νε y ) (2.19a)
1 − ν2

E
σy = ( νε x + ε y ) (2.19b)
1 − ν2

Upon substitution of Equation 2.17 into Equation 2.19

− Ez  ∂ 2 w ∂2w 
σx = 2 
+ν 2 (2.20a)
1 − ν  ∂x 2
∂y 

− Ez  ∂2w ∂2w 
σy =  ν ∂x 2 + ∂y 2  (2.20b)
1 − ν2

[Link] Equilibrium
From equilibrium, the generalized stresses Mx and My are related to the stresses σx
and σy as follows:

h/2

Mx =
∫ σ z dz
−h / 2
x (2.21a)

h/2

My =
∫ σ z dz
−h / 2
y (2.21b)
The Era of Elasticity 25

In this regard, the twisting moments, Mxy and Myx, and shearing forces, Qx and Qy,
cannot be considered as generalized stresses since the deformations associated with
their correspondent stresses are negligible. Upon substituting Equation 2.20 into
Equation 2.21 and integrating

 ∂2w ∂2w 
Mx = −D  2 + ν 2  (2.22a)
 ∂x ∂y 

 ∂2w ∂2w 
My = −D  ν 2 + 2  (2.22b)
 ∂x ∂y 

where

Eh3
D= (2.23)
12(1 − ν2 )

The generalized stresses, Mx and My, can be related to the generalized strains (curva-
tures), φx and φy, by solving Equations 2.16 and 2.22:

 1 ν
M x = D(ϕ x + νϕ y ) = D  +  (2.24a)
 rx ry 

 ν 1
M y = D( νϕ x + ϕ y ) = D  +  (2.24b)
 rx ry 

2.2.4 Shell Element as a Further Extension

The most common shell structures are thin cylindrical shells under axisymmetric
loading, as in water tanks, towers, etc. Therefore, they are taken as an example of
shell structures to show how generalized stresses and generalized strains are derived
and related.
For this element, Figure 2.6, there are three generalized strains and three corre-
sponding generalized stresses: (1) the radial strain (which is the tangential strain of
the middle surface), εθ, and its corresponding tangential force, Nθ; (2) the curvature
of the cylinder wall in the x-direction, φx, and the corresponding moment, Mx; and
(3) the curvature of the cylinder wall in the tangential direction, φθ, and the corre-
sponding moment, Mθ.

[Link] Equilibrium
Upon considering the equilibrium of the shell element in Figure 2.6 in the x- and
y-directions and the moment about the y-axis (and neglecting higher-order terms),
the following relations can be obtained:
26 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

QX
Mθ Nθ dMX
MX + dX
dX
MX
NX dNX
x NX + dX
dX
r
Mθ dQX
y QX + dX
z dX
r dθ
Nθ

Nθ dx dθ

Nθ dx Nθ dx
r r
dθ

Figure 2.6 Element of a circular cylindrical shell.

 dN x 
 dx dx  r dθ = 0 (2.25)

dQx N θ
+ =p (2.26)
dx r

dM x
− Qx = 0 (2.27)
dx

Equation 2.25 means that Nx should be equal to either a constant value or zero; in
this derivation, it is considered equal to zero. Upon differentiating Equation 2.27
with respect to x and substituting from Equation 2.26, the following can be obtained:

d 2 M x Nθ
+ =p (2.28)
dx 2 r

[Link] Kinematics for Membrane Action

The kinematical relations and constitutive relations are discussed for membrane
action first and later for bending behavior. Define the membrane strains in the x- and
radial directions as εx and εθ, respectively, and the displacements in the x- and radial
directions as u and w, respectively (Figure 2.7). Then,

du
εx = (2.29)
dx
The Era of Elasticity 27

r+
w

Figure 2.7 Radial deformation of a circular cylindrical shell element.

w
εθ = (2.30)
r

[Link] Constitutive Relations

From the generalized Hooke’s law,

σx σ N N 1
εx = −ν θ = x −ν θ = ( N x − νN θ ) (2.31)
E E Et Et Et

σ x σθ N N 1
εθ = − ν + = −ν x + θ = ( − νN x + N θ ) (2.32)
E E Et Et Et

From Equations 2.31 and 2.32, the following values of Nx and Nθ in terms of εx and
εθ can be obtained:

Et
Nx = (ε x + νε θ ) (2.33)
1 − ν2

Et
Nθ = ( νε x + ε θ ) (2.34)
1 − ν2

For an open cylinder, Nx = 0, that is,

ε x = − νε θ (2.35)

Then,
N θ = Et ε θ (2.36)
28 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

[Link] Kinematics for Bending Action

For bending strain, define the strains in the x- and radial directions as ε bx and εθb , and
their corresponding stresses as σ x and σθ, respectively. Based on Kirchhoff hypoth-
b b

esis the strains ε x and εθ are linear functions of the distance z from the neutral axis,
b b

Figure 2.8; that is,

ε bx = zϕ x (2.37)

The notation φx, Figure 2.8, is used here for the curvature of the cylinder in the
x-direction; however, other notations such as k x may be commonly used in text books:
∂2w
ϕx = (2.38)
∂x 2

In order to assess εθb refer to Figure 2.8,

(r − z + w) dθ − (r − z ) dθ w  z  z
εθ + εθb = ≈  1 +  ≈ εθ  1 +  (2.39)
(r − z) dθ r  r  r 

Since (z/r) ≪ 1, it can be neglected in the above equation; hence,

εθb ≈ 0 (2.40)

This will also lead to

εθ + εθb εθ w
ϕθ = = = 2 ≈0 (2.41)
r r r

t
z dz

x dx

x
dx
z
dz

r
z dz
Unit arc length w r
at z = 0.0
(r–r z)= arc length at z= z

Figure 2.8 Bending deformation of a circular cylindrical shell element.

The Era of Elasticity 29

[Link] Constitutive Relations

From the generalized Hooke’s law,

σ bx =
E
1 − ν2
(
ε bx + νεθb =
E
)
1 − ν2
( zϕ x ) (2.42)

[Link] Equilibrium
Thus, the generalized stress Mx is

t 2 t 2
E Et 3
Mx =
∫
−t 2
σ z dz =
b
x
1 − ν2 ∫
−t 2
ϕ x z 2 dz =
12(1 − ν2 )
ϕ x = Dϕ x (2.43)

The stress σθ can be obtained from Hooke’s law as follows:

b

νE
σθb =
E
1 − ν2
(
νε bx + εθb =
E
)
1 − ν2
νε bx =
E
( )
1 − ν2
(νzϕ x ) =
1 − ν2
( zϕ x ) (2.44)

Hence, the moment Mθ is

t 2 t 2
νE νEt 3
Mθ =
∫
−t 2
σ z dz =
b
θ
1 − ν2 ∫
−t 2
ϕ x z 2 dz =
12(1 − ν2 )
ϕ x = νDϕ x (2.45)

In summary, the generalized stresses, Nθ and Mx, and the generalized strains, εθ and
φx, are related as follows:

N θ = Et ε θ (2.46)

M x = Dϕ x (2.47)

The curvature φθ ≈ 0; therefore, the moment Mθ = νMx cannot be considered a gener-

alized stress.

2.2.5 Finite Element as a Recent Progress

[Link] Kinematics
In the FE method, Figure 2.9, formulation starts with the kinematical (compatibil-
ity) conditions. In this step, the generic displacements of an element (internal dis-
placements within an element), {u}, are related to the generalized strains (the nodal
displacements of the element), {q}, by means of assumed shape functions, [N].
This assumption is equivalent to Bernoulli’s assumption in beams under bending
30 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

v3 = q6

3
u3 = q5
y, v
v 2 = q4
v1 = q2 x, u
2 u2 = q3
1 u =q
1 1
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2.9 Sample finite element: (a) structural element; (b) discretization; and (c) finite
element.

(plane sections perpendicular to the neutral axis before bending remain plane and
perpendicular to the neutral axis after bending) or Kirchhoff’s hypothesis in plates
under bending:

{u} = [ N ]{q} (2.48)

With the displacement within the element, the strain vector, {ε}, at any point within
the element can be obtained by differentiation of {u} in Equation 2.48

{ε} = [ B]{q} (2.49)

where [B] is composed of the derivatives of the shape function, [N].

[Link] Equilibrium
The next step is to impose the equilibrium condition in order to obtain the relation
between the generalized stresses (nodal force vector), {F}, and the internal stress
vector at any point, {σ}. This step can be achieved upon the application of the prin-
ciple of virtual work. This demonstrates the fact that the principle of virtual work is
nothing other than a principle of equilibrium. Thus,

∫
{F} = [ B]t {σ} dV (2.50)

[Link] Constitutive Relations

The third step is to impose the constitutive relations that can be expressed in the fol-
lowing general form:

{σ} = [C ]{ε} (2.51)

where [C] is called the elastic constitutive or elastic moduli matrix. Upon substitu-
tion of (2.49) and (2.51) into (2.50)

{F} = [ k ]{q} (2.52)

The Era of Elasticity 31

where

∫
[ k ] = [ B]t [C ][ B] dV (2.53)

Thus, the formulation of generalized stresses and generalized strains and their rela-
tion in the FE is the same as other structure elements such as bars or plates, except in
the application of equilibrium and compatibility. Equilibrium is justified through the
principle of virtual displacement and compatibility is achieved through the assumed
shape function.

2.3 Theory of Structures

2.3.1 Generalized Stress –Generalized Strain
Relations of a Beam Member
In the preceding section it was illustrated how the generalized stress (moment), M,
and generalized strain (curvature), φ, of a beam element are related. This relation is
utilized to develop the relation between the generalized stress (end moment), M, and
the generalized strain (end rotation), θ, of a beam member.

[Link] No Sway
Figure 2.10a illustrates a beam member AB with two end moments (generalized
stresses), MA and MB, associated with end rotations (generalized strains), θA and θB.
The moment at a section located at a distance x from the origin of coordinates, M(x),
can be written as

 M + MB 
M ( x) = − MA +  A  x (2.54)
 L

MA MB B ∆
θA
θB
A B A
L L Q
(a) (b)

MB
θB B ∆
MA θA

A
L

(c)

Figure 2.10 Beam member subjected to end moments and sway: (a) end moments; (b)
sway; and (c) end moments and sway.
32 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

From the generalized stress–generalized strain relation of a beam element, the cur-
vature at a section x, φ(x), is

M ( x) 1  M A + M B  
ϕ( x ) = =   x − MA  (2.55)
EI EI  L  

The curvature, φ(x), is related to the deflection, v(x), and hence the moment as follows:

d 2 v( x ) 1  M A + M B  
= ϕ( x ) =   x − MA  (2.56)
dx 2 EI  L  

Upon integrating Equation 2.56 twice, and introducing the boundary conditions,
v||x=0 = 0 and v||x=L = 0, the integration constants can be determined. Then, the equation
of deflection will be

1  M A + M B  3 M A 2  2 M A − M B  
v( x ) =  x − x +  Lx  (2.57)
EI  6 L  2  6 

The equation of rotation, θ(x), will be

1  M A + M B  2  2 MA − MB  
θ( x ) =   x − MA x +   L  (2.58)
EI  2L   6 

Applying Equation 2.58 at member ends A and B

L
θA = (2 M A − M B ) (2.59a)
6 EI

and

L
θB = (− MA + 2 MB ) (2.59b)
6 EI

Solving Equations 2.59a and b in terms of MA and MB leads to

EI
MA = (4θ A + 2θ B ) (2.60a)
L

EI
MB = (4θ B + 2θ A ) (2.60b)
L
The Era of Elasticity 33

Equations 2.60a and b represent the generalized stress–generalized strain relation of

a beam member with no sway.

[Link] Sway
If the beam member experiences sway only, Figure 2.10b, the generalized stress
will be the shear, Q, and the corresponding generalized strain will be the vertical
displacement (sway), Δ. For this case, it can be easily proven, as derived for the case
of no sway, that

12 EI
Q= ∆ (2.61)
L3

The shear, Q, will be associated with two end moments, MA = MB = −QL/2; hence,

−6 EI
MA = MB = ∆ (2.62)
L2

The relation in Equation 2.62 is advantageous in limiting the number of variables

to one generalized stress. Thus, Equations 2.60a and b and 2.62 can be combined to
give the following generalized stress–generalized strain relations for the case of a
beam member with sway (Figure 2.10c):

EI  ∆
MA =  4θ A + 2θ B − 6  (2.63a)
L  L

EI  ∆
MB =  4θ B + 2θ A − 6  (2.63b)
L  L

Equations 2.60a and b or 2.63a and b are commonly known as the slope-deflection
equations.
The concept of generalized stresses and generalized strains has been widely used
along with the principle of superposition to develop many successful methods of
structural analysis such as the slope-deflection method and the moment distribution
method. In addition, it has been used to solve many mechanics problems such as
column buckling. Such a contribution is illustrated in the following sections.

2.3.2 Single Span Beam Problems

The solution of single span beam problems can be obtained from the direct applica-
tion of the slope-deflection equations and with the enforcement of the appropriate
boundary conditions. Examples of these problems are given in Figure 2.11, along
with their solutions. For the problem in Figure 2.11c, the end moment at A is set
34 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

4EI 2EI
θ θ
A B L B A B L A
θB
θB
2EI 4EI
θ θ
L B L A
L L
(a) (b)
3EI
θ
A B L B
θB

L
MA = 0.0, θA = – 1 θB, MB = 3EI θB
2 L
(c)

Figure 2.11 Examples of single span beam problems: (a) carryover to fixed end A, (b)
carryover to fixed end B, and (c) carryover to hinged end A.

equal to zero in Equation 2.60a leading to θA = −θB/2, which upon substitution in

Equation 2.60b gives the illustrated result. The moment at the fixed end of the beams
in Figure 2.11a and b is the carryover moment, which is half the moment applied at
the other end (the end free to rotate), that is, the carryover factor in this case is equal
to 0.5. On the other hand, in the beam of Figure 2.11c the carryover moment and
hence the carryover factor are equal to zero.
For the simply supported beam subjected to uniform load in Figure 2.12a, the end
rotation can be obtained by following the same solution procedure in the previous
section for obtaining the slope-deflection equations. The solution of the beam sub-
jected to two end moments in Figure 2.12b can be obtained from the slope-deflection
equations. Upon using the principle of superposition, the solutions of the previous
two beams can be used to obtain the fixed end moments of the beam in Figure 2.12c
through the enforcement of the boundary conditions. The same procedure can be
followed to obtain the fixed end moments for other cases.

A P B Mo A B
θA θB Mo
θA θB

L L
(a) (b)

PL2 P PL2
12 12

L
(c)

Figure 2.12 Fixed end moments: (a) uniform load, (b) equal end moments, and (c) using
the principle of superposition.
The Era of Elasticity 35

2.3.3 Slope-Deflection Method for Simple Structures

The slope-deflection method is one of the successful methods used for the analysis
of statically indeterminate skeletal structures and for other applications. It is a form
of the stiffness method where the unknowns are the displacements of the joints, that
is, the size of the problem depends on the number of unspecified degrees of freedom
(degree of kinematic indeterminacy). The application of the method is illustrated in
the following example.
The continuous beam shown in Figure 2.13 has two degrees of freedom (the
rotations at B and C), which means that the solution leads to the formation of two
simultaneous linear equations in θB and θC. The solution starts with writing the
slope-deflection equations of each span as an isolated beam. In these equations, we
write the moment at each joint of the span, which is the summation of the fixed
end moment due to applied loads and the moment associated with the end rotations
or sway (or settlement). Then, we apply equilibrium at joints B and C (summation
of end moments at each joint is equal to the external moment applied at the joint,
which is zero in this case). Thus, two simultaneous linear equations in θB and θC
are derived, and, hence, these joint rotations are obtained. Consequently, the end
moments can be calculated followed by the end shear.
The same procedure of slope-deflection method used in beams applies to frames
except in those with sway where equilibrium equation(s) is written for the sway. For
example, for the frame in Figure 2.14 the number of degrees of freedom is 3 (the rota-
tions at B and C and the lateral sway, ΔB or ΔC). The sway equation is obtained from the
equilibrium of the forces in the direction of the sway; in this case, the external horizon-
tal loads and the shear at A and D. The shear is obtained from member equilibrium.
In this method, it is obvious that the equations of the individual spans are devel-
oped from the three basic conditions, equilibrium, compatibility, and constitutive
relations, as illustrated earlier. Also, in the complementary steps of the solution,
compatibility is the initiation of the solution, the rotation at any joint is controlled,
and the formation of the slope-deflection equations is obtained by applying the same
three sets of conditions. In addition, equilibrium is enforced in order to obtain the
simultaneous linear equations of the unknown rotations. Nevertheless, as a result of
adopting the generalized stress and generalized strain concept, the solution is much
easier here in comparison with the continuum mechanics approach.

2.3.4 Moment Distribution Method for Frame Structures

The moment distribution method is another successful method for the analysis of
statically indeterminate beams and frames. It is a form of the displacement method in

A B W C D
P

6000 5000 5000 6000

Figure 2.13 Example of a continuous beam.

36 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

B C

Figure 2.14 Example of a frame with a sway.

which equilibrium, compatibility, and constitutive conditions are used to obtain the
properties of individual members with the aid of the generalized stress–­generalized
strain concept. These properties include the fixed end moments, stiffness, and car-
ryover factor, as illustrated in the preceding section. The rigid joints are assumed to
be locked and the corresponding moments (fixed end moments) are calculated. Then,
the out-of-balance moment at each joint is calculated and distributed between the
members connected to the joint according to their stiffness. This step is followed by
transferring a percentage of the correction moment between the joints of each mem-
ber according to the carryover factor. Subsequently, the joints’ balance is checked
and another adjustment of the moments connected to the joints is achieved followed
by the carryover moment. This last iterative procedure is repeated until convergence
takes place.

2.3.5 Structural Design

It has been illustrated how the three sets of conditions, equilibrium, compatibility,
and constitutive conditions, are utilized to develop successful methods for structural
analysis. With the introduction of the concept of the generalized stress and gen-
eralized strain, the effort of analysis has been remarkably reduced. Two variables
replaced the continuum mechanics stress and strain tensors and the constitutive rela-
tions with the implementation of Bernoulli’s hypothesis. The solution will always
search for one unknown, M, and the other unknown comes from the generalized
stress–generalized strain relation.
After performing structural analysis and obtaining the internal forces, the stress,
σ, can be calculated and checked against the allowable value, σall:

M
σ= y ≤ σall (2.64)
I
The Era of Elasticity 37

The allowable value is provided by the code and is based on real tests. This value
should guarantee safety and in order to do so it accounts for residual stresses and
other environmental factors. The code is meant by other issues such as how to avoid
local buckling, bracing, etc.

2.4 Theory of Structural Stability

2.4.1 Generalized Stress–Generalized Strain
Relations of a Beam-Column Member
Similar to the case of beam member, the relation between generalized stress (end
moment), M, and generalized strain (end rotation), θ, of a beam-column member can
be developed. For the framed member in Figure 2.15a, upon writing the equilibrium
relations in the deformed geometry, the following relations can be obtained for the
case of no sway:

EI
MA = (siiθ A + sijθ B ) (2.65a)
L

EI
MB = (sjiθ A + sjjθ B ) (2.65b)
L

where the stability functions, sii, sij, sji, and sjj, are as given in Table 2.1. In case there
is a sway of value Δ, Figure 2.15b, the generalized stress–generalized strain relations
will be

EI  ∆
MA =  siiθ A + sijθ B − (sii + sij ) L  (2.66a)
L

MA MB
θA
P A θB P
B
L

(a)
MB

P
MA θB B
θA
∆
P
A L

(b)

Figure 2.15 Beam-column member subjected to end moments and sway: (a) no sway and
(b) sway.
38 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

Table 2.1
Stability Functions for a Beam-Column
Condition of Axial Load, P
Function Compression Tension Zero

kL sin kL − (kL )2 cos kL (kL )2 cosh kL − kL sinh kL

sii = sjj 4
2 − 2 cos kL − kL sin kL 2 − 2 cosh kL + kL sinh kL

(kL )2 − kL sin kL kL sinh kL − (kL )2

sij = sji 2
2 − 2 cos kL − kL sin kL 2 − 2 cosh kL + kL sinh kL

P
Note: k =
EI

EI  ∆
MB =  s jiθ A + s jjθ B − (s ji + s jj ) L  (2.66b)
L

Equations 2.65a and b or 2.66a and b are commonly referred to as the slope-deflec-
tion equations.

2.4.2 Buckling Analysis of Structural Members

The generalized stress–generalized strain relations of a beam-column member (or
slope-deflection equations) are the analytical tool of a beam-column. This is illus-
trated by the following three examples.

Example 2.1
This example, Figure 2.16a, describes a beam-column with one fixed end and one
hinged end. In this member, the rotation at end A is zero, and, therefore, the slope-
deflection equations at ends A and B are

EI
MA = ( sij θB ) (2.67a)
L

EI
MB = ( sij θB ) (2.67b)
L

The moment at joint B, MB = 0; hence, from Equation 2.67b and since θB ≠ 0

s jj = 0
The Era of Elasticity 39

A B
P θB P

(a)

MF
A C B
P θB P

MF X L–X MF
L L
(b)
MF
A C Mint
P
P

MF X MF
L L
(c)

Figure 2.16 Beam-column with one fixed end and one hinged end: (a) beam-column with
fixed-hinged ends, (b) forces and moments, and (c) a free body.

or

kL sin kL − (kL)2 cos kL

=0 (2.68)
2 − 2 cos kL − kL sin kL

Since kL ≠ 0, Equation 2.68 is simplified to the following characteristic equation

of the beam-column

tan kL − kL = 0 (2.69)

The value of kL that satisfies Equation 2.69 is

kL = 4.4934

Thus,

PL2
k 2L2 = 20.19 = (2.70)
EI

that is, the critical load of the beam-column is

20.19EI π 2EI (2.71)

Pcr = 2
=
L (0.7L)2
40 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

The critical load of this member could have been obtained by solving the dif-
ferential equation of equilibrium. The equilibrium equation of the segment AC,
Figure 2.16c, of this member is

 x
−Mint + Py − MF  1−  = 0 (2.72)
 L

Since

Mint = −EIy ″ (2.73)

the equilibrium equation can be written as

MF  x (2.74)
y ″ + k 2y −  1−  = 0
EI L

which has a general solution of the form

MF  x
y( x ) = C1 sin kx + C2 cos kx +  1−  (2.75)
P  L

After imposing the boundary conditions, Equation 2.75 would lead to the same
characteristic equation of the member, Equation 2.69.

Example 2.2
This example, Figure 2.17, describes a beam-column with one fixed end and one
guided end. In this member, the rotation at both ends A and B is zero, and, there-
fore, the slope-deflection equations at ends A and B are

EI  − ∆  EI ∆
MA = MB = (2.76)
L  −( sii + sij ) L  = L2 ( sii + sij )

From the member equilibrium

MA + MB = P ∆ (2.77)

Substituting Equation 2.76 into Equation 2.77 and simplifying

P
A B ∆
P
L

Figure 2.17 Beam-column with one fixed end and one guided end.
The Era of Elasticity 41

PL2
= sii + sij
2EI
or

k 2L2
= sii + sij (2.78)
2

Upon substitution of the stability functions into Equation 2.78 and simplifica-
tion, the following is obtained:

kL sin kL = 0 (2.79)

The lowest value of kL that satisfies Equation 2.79 is

kL = π

Then,

PL2
k 2L2 = π 2 = (2.80)
EI

that is, the critical load of the beam-column is

π 2EI
Pcr = (2.81)
L2

The critical load of this member can be obtained by solving the differential
equation of equilibrium. The equilibrium equation of one segment of this mem-
ber is

P∆
Mint − + Py = 0 (2.82)
2

Since

Mint = EIy ″ (2.83)

thus, the equilibrium equation can be written as

P∆
y ″ + k 2y = (2.84)
2EI

which has a general solution of the form

∆
y( x ) = C1 sin kx + C2 cos kx + (2.85)
2

After imposing the boundary conditions, Equation 2.85 would lead to the same
characteristic equation of the member, Equation 2.79.
42 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

Example 2.3
This example, Figure 2.18, describes a continuous beam-column with two outer
ends fixed and an interior joint that prevents lateral displacement. Both column
spans have the same flexural rigidity, EI, but are of different lengths, 0.5L and L.
The rotations at ends A and C are zero; therefore, the slope-deflection equations
of the moments at B are

MBA =
EI
0.5L
(
siiBAθB = )
2EI BA
L
sii θB ( ) (2.86a)

MBC =
L
(
EI BC
sii θB ) (2.86b)

From equilibrium at joint B

MBA + MBC = 0 (2.87)

Equations 2.86a and b and 2.87 yield the following relation:

2siiBA + siiBC = 0 (2.88)

From Table 2.1

0.5kL sin 0.5kL − (0.5kL)2 cos 0.5kL

siiBA = (2.89a)
2 − 2 cos 0.5kL − 0.5kL sin 0.5
5kL

kL sin kL − (kL)2 cos kL

siiBC = (2.89b)
2 − 2 cos kL − kL sin kL

Upon substitution of siiBA and siiBC into Equation 2.88 and simplification the charac-
teristic equation can be obtained, which upon solution yields

kL = 5.412

This gives the critical load of this continuous beam-column

2.97π 2EI
Pcr = (2.90)
L2

B
A C
P P

0.50 L L

Figure 2.18 Continuous beam-column example.

The Era of Elasticity 43

[Link] Euler Load

The critical load of any beam-column of different boundary conditions can be
determined by following the previous procedure using the slope-deflection equa-
tions. Alternatively, a solution can be obtained by forming the differential equation
of equilibrium and then solving the equation imposing the appropriate boundary
conditions. One of the interesting cases is a column of two hinged ends, Figure 2.19,
for which the critical load is

π 2 EI
Pcr = (2.91)
L2

The critical load of a column with two hinged ends is called Euler load, P E, that is,

π 2 EI
PE = (2.92)
L2

2.4.3 The K Factor and the Alignment Charts

[Link] K Factor
The critical load of any beam-column of any boundary condition, Pcr, can be written
in a unified form as follows:

π 2 EI
Pcr = (2.93)
L2b

where Lb is the buckling length of the column, which is the distance between the
inflection points of the beam-column in its deformed shape as a pin-pin column.
From Equations 2.92 and 2.93, the column critical load, Pcr, can be related to Euler
load, PE, as follows:

PE P
Pcr = = E2 (2.94)
( L b /L ) K

where the factor K is the ratio between the column buckling length, Lb, and its length,
L. The value of K of the beam-column in Figure 2.16a is 0.7 (Pcr = 2.041PE = PE/(0.7)2
or Lb = 0.7L), while K is equal to 1.0 for the beam-column in Figure 2.17 and of course

A B
P θA θB P

Figure 2.19 Pin-ended column.

44 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

Table 2.2
Theoretical K Values of Idealized Columns
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0

Note: Buckled shape of column is shown by dashed line

for the pin-ended column. Different values of K, Table 2.2, are given for beam-­
columns of different boundary conditions, and the values range from 0.5 for a braced
fixed ended column to 2.0 for a column of one fixed end and one free end. The value
of K of the continuous beam-column in Figure 2.18 is 0.58 (Pcr = 2.97PE = PE/(0.58)2 or
Lb = 0.58L), which is approximately the average value of cases (a) and (b) in Table 2.2.
In the design of a structural system, where columns are not isolated members, the
assessment of the critical load should follow a different approach. For instance, the
critical load of a system can be determined by the slope-deflection equations or a sec-
ond-order analysis. On the other hand, the value of the K factor can be assessed with
the aid of the alignment charts that are derived from the slope-deflection method.

[Link] Alignment Charts

The alignment charts have been developed by Julian and Lawrence (1959) for a sim-
plified assessment of the K factor. In the development of the charts the two models
in Figure 2.20 are used for a system that is braced against side sway and an unbraced
system. In both models, the following assumptions are adopted:

1. All columns are prismatic and behave elastically.

2. The axial forces in the beams are negligible.
3. All columns in a story buckle simultaneously.
The Era of Elasticity 45

P P
∆ ∆

θB θB

c1 c1

θA θA b1 θA b2 θA
b2
b1 A θA A θ
θA θA A

c2 c2

θB θB θB b4
b3 B b3 B θB

θB θB b4 θB θB

c3
c3

θA θA
∆
(a) P (b) P

Figure 2.20 Subassemblage models: (a) subassemblage model for braced frame and
(b) subassemblage model for unbraced frame.

4. At a joint, the restraining moment provided by the beams is distributed

among the columns in proportion to their stiffnesses.
5. At buckling the girders are bent as shown in the models.

In both models in Figure 2.20, column c2 (member AB) is the column in question.
After writing the slope-deflection equations of either model and applying equilib-
rium at joints A and B, a relation of K is obtained in terms of two end stiffness
parameters of the column, GA and GB, where

GA =
∑ A
( I /L ) c
=
∑ of column stiffnesses meeting at joint A (2.95a)
∑ A
( I /L ) b ∑ of beam stiffnesses meeting at joint A

GB =
∑ B
( I /L ) c
=
∑ of column stiffnesses meeting at joint B (2.95b)
∑ B
( I /L ) b ∑ of beam stiffnesses meeting at joint B
The indices b and c stand for beam and column, respectively, and the indices
A and B stand for joints A and B, respectively. The obtained relation of K is
46 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

expressed in a monograph form (alignment chart) for both cases of bracing condi-
tions (Figure 2.21).

2.4.4 Stability Analysis of Framed Structures

The application of the slope-deflection method for stability analysis of a framed
system is illustrated by the following two examples (Figure 2.22). The first exam-
ple is a frame where sway is not allowed and the second example is a frame where
sway is allowed.

Example 2.4
In this example it is required to determine the collapse load of the portal frame
shown in Figure 2.22a, where sway is assumed to be prevented. The deflected
shape of the frame is assumed as illustrated by the dashed lines. Upon writing the
slope-deflection equations for the column joints A and B and eliminating θA since
MA = 0, the following equation is obtained:

EIc  sij2c 
MBA =  siic −  θB (2.96)
Lc  siic 

The index c stands for column. Writing the slope-deflection equations for the
beam joints B and C and eliminating θC since θC = −θB, the following equation is
obtained:

EIb
MBC = ( siib − sijb )θB (2.97)
Lb

The index b stands for beam. Assuming that the axial force in the beam is so small
that it can be neglected, siib = 4 and sijb = 2; that is,

2EIb
MBC = θB (2.98)
Lb

Upon applying equilibrium at joint B,

EIc  sij2c  2EIb

MBA + MBC =  siic − s  θB + L θB = 0
Lc  iic  b

leading to

EIc  sij2c  2EIb

 siic − + =0 (2.99)
Lc  siic  Lb
The Era of Elasticity 47

GA K GB
∞ ∞
50.0 1.0 50.0
10.0 10.0
5.0 5.0
3.0 0.9 3.0
2.0 2.0

0.8
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.7 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
0.6
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

(a) 0 0.5 0

GA K GB
∞
∞ ∞
100.0 20.0 100.0
50.0 10.0 50.0
30.0 5.0 30.0
20.0 4.0 20.0

10.0 3.0 10.0

9.0 9.0
8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
4.0 2.0 4.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0
1.5

1.0 1.0

(b) 0 1.0 0

Figure 2.21 Alignment charts: (a) braced system and (b) unbraced system.
48 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

P P P P

B C
B C

A D A D

(a) (b)

Figure 2.22 Examples of framed systems: (a) no side-sway and (b) side-sway allowed.

This equation is the characteristic equation of the frame. For the special case Ic = Ib
and Lc = Lb, Equation 2.99 becomes

sij2c
siic − +2=0 (2.100)
siic

By trial and error the value of kL that satisfies Equation 2.100 is

P
kL = L = 3.59
EI

which gives a value of the critical load

EI
Pcr = 12.9 (2.101)
L2

Example 2.5
In this example it is required to determine the collapse load of the portal frame
shown in Figure 2.22b, where sway is allowed. The deflected shape of the frame
is assumed as illustrated by the dashed lines. Upon writing the slope-deflection
equations for the column joints A and B and eliminating θA since MA = 0, the fol-
lowing equation is obtained:

EIc  sij2c   sij2c  ∆ 

MBA =  siic −  θB −  siic −
   (2.102)
Lc  siic   siic  Lc 

Writing the slope-deflection equations for the beam joints B and C and after
eliminating θC, since the beam is in double curvature θC = θB, the following equa-
tion is obtained:
The Era of Elasticity 49

EIb
MBC = ( siib + sijb )θB (2.103)
Lb

Assuming that the axial force in the beam is so small that it can be neglected,
siib = 4 and sijb = 2; that is,

6EIb
MBC = θB (2.104)
Lb

Upon applying equilibrium at joint B,

EIc  sij2c   sij2c  ∆  6EIb

MBA + MBC =  siic − θ − s − + θB = 0
siic   siic  Lc 
B iic
Lc   Lb

leading to

 sij2c IL   sij2c  ∆
 siic − + 6 b c θB  θB −  siic −  =0 (2.105)
 siic IcLb   siic  Lc

From the story shear equilibrium of the frame

MAB + MBA + P ∆ MCD + MDC + P ∆

+ =0 (2.106)
Lc Lc

It should be noted that

MAB = MDC = 0 (hinged) (2.107a)

MCD = MBA (antisymmetry) (2.107b)

Upon substitution from the last equation in the shear equation in terms of MBA
and substitution of MBA from Equation 2.102 and simplification, the following can
be obtained:

 sij2c   sij2c P 2 ∆
 siic −  θB −  siic − − Lc  = 0 (2.108)
 siic   siic EIc  Lc

Equations 2.105 and 2.108 are the frame equilibrium equations and can be written
in matrix form as follows:
50 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

 IbLc 
S + 6 I L −S   θB   0 
 c b
 ∆  =   (2.109)
 PL2c     0 
 −S S−
EIc 
 Lc 


where

sij2c
S = siic − (2.110)
siic

For the special case Ic = Ib = I and Lc = Lb = L, Equation 2.109 becomes

θ 
S + 6 −S   B   0 
2 2 ∆  =  
 −S (2.111)
 S − k L   0
L

where k2 = P/EI. At bifurcation, both θB and Δ increase without bound and there-
fore in order for Equation 2.111 to be valid

S+6 −S
=0 (2.112)
−S S − k 2L2

Equation 2.112 is the characteristic equation of the frame. By trial and error the
value of kL that satisfies this equation is

p
kL = L = 1.35
EI

which gives a value of the critical load

EI
Pcr = 1.82 (2.113)
L2

In the preceding examples, the slope-deflection method has been used to deter-
mine the critical load of a framed system. In case this calculation regime is difficult
to perform as in the case of large structures, codes of practice adopt approximate
methods in order to account for the second-order stability effects. These methods
are commonly known as the amplification (or magnification) methods, which are
presented next.

2.4.5 Amplification Factors for Second-Order Effects

With reference to Figure 2.23, structural stability has two fundamental effects: the
first is the P–Δ effect and the second is the P–δ effect. The first effect may have a
softening or stiffening effect on structural members; nevertheless, such an effect is
The Era of Elasticity 51

∆
P
P P
H

(a) (b) P

Figure 2.23 (a) P–Δ effect and (b) P–δ effect.

generally detrimental for columns. With reference to Figure 2.23a, the P–Δ effect is
associated with additional loads on columns due to the interaction between the load
and nodal displacements (the shift of the load from its original position because of
structural deformations). The lateral force, H, acting on the frame alone causes a
lateral drift, Δ; however, with the presence of vertical forces, ΣP, this drift and the
overturning moment will increase further as a result of the interaction between the
vertical forces and the lateral drift.
The member stability (P–δ effect), Figure 2.23b, will have a softening effect on
a slender member if P is compression, and a stiffening effect if P is tension. The
softening effect arises from the additional moments due to the interaction between
the axial compressive force and the lateral deflection of the member, δ. If the axial
force is tension, the interaction between this force and the member lateral deflection
will reduce the moments along the column span. Usually columns are subjected to
compression rather than tension and therefore the P–δ effect is critical.
In order to approximately assess the stability effects without having to carry out
a slope-deflection analysis or a second-order analysis, the moment amplification (or
magnification) has been developed. In this method, the P–Δ effect and the P–δ effect
are estimated independently as illustrated in the following sections.

[Link] P–Δ Effect

When the lateral forces ΣH act on a frame and cause a primary lateral deflection,
Δi, which can be obtained from a first-order analysis, the vertical forces will inter-
act with this deflection. As a result, additional lateral deflection and additional
moments take place, which is called the P–Δ effect. This effect can be estimated
by different methods such as the story magnifier method and the multiple-column
magnifier method (Chen and Lui, 1991). In the former method, it is assumed that
each story behaves independently of other stories and that the additional moment
in the columns caused by the P–Δ effect is equivalent to that caused by a lateral
force of ΣPΔ/h (h is the story height). Hence, the sway stiffness of the story can be
determined as
52 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

ΣH ΣH + ΣP ∆ / h
SF = = (2.114)
∆i ∆

where
ΣH is the sum of all story horizontal forces producing Δi which is the first-order
translational deflection of the story under consideration
ΣP is the axial load on all columns in that story

Solving Equation 2.114 for the total deflection Δ,

 1 
∆= ∆i (2.115)
 1 − ΣP ∆ i / ΣHh 

Since every story is assumed to behave independently of other stories, the sway
moment as a result of the story swaying is proportional to the lateral deflection of the
story. Therefore, the total moment due to sway and second-order effect (in terms of
the primary story moment, Misway) is

 1 
M= Misway (2.116)
 1 − ΣP ∆ i / ΣHh 

[Link] P–δ Effect

In order to estimate the P–δ effect, the beam-column in Figure 2.24 is considered.
The vertical loads and end moments produce primary moment, Mi, and primary
deflection, vi. As a result of the interaction between the axial force, P, and the pri-
mary deflection, additional moment, Mii, and additional deflection, vii, which is called
the P–δ effect, take place. The total moment, M, and the total deflection, v, are thus,

MA A B MB
P P
θA θB x

L Deflected shape

MA x
MB

M Mi

y Mii = Pv

Figure 2.24 P–δ effect.

The Era of Elasticity 53

M = Mi + Mii (2.117a)

v = vi + vii (2.117b)

For an approximate assessment of this effect (Chen and Lui, 1991), assume that Mii
has the shape of half sine wave and that vmax (= δ = δi + δii) occurs at midspan:

πx
Mii = Pδ sin (2.118)
L

The moment Mii is related to the second derivative of vii by

Mii
vii″ = − (2.119)
EI

The negative sign in Equation 2.119 is because the moment increases while the slope
decreases and vice versa. From Equations 2.118 and 2.119,

Pδ πx
vii″ = − sin (2.120)
EI L

Upon double integrating Equation 2.120 and introducing the boundary conditions
(vii = 0 at x = 0, L) and calculating δii = vii at midspan,

Pδ
δ ii = − (2.121)
PE

Since

δ = δ i + δ ii (2.122)

substituting Equation 2.121 into Equation 2.122 and solving for δ,

1
δ= δi (2.123)
1 − P / PE

If the maximum primary moment is assumed to take place in the midspan, the fol-
lowing equation for the maximum moment can be obtained:

1 + ψP / PE
M max = Mi max (2.124)
1 − P / PE
54 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

where

δ i PE
ψ= (2.125)
Mi max

Equation 2.124 can be written in the following form:

Cm
M max = Mi max (2.126)
1 − P / PE

where

ψP
Cm = 1 +
PE (2.127)

It should be mentioned that the value of Cm in Equation 2.127 is applicable only when
the maximum primary moment, Mimax, takes place at or near midspan.

Example 2.6
For demonstration, the amplification factor methods are applied to the frame
shown in Figure 2.25. The axial rigidity and flexural rigidity of all frame members
have the same values, EA = 2.619 × 106 kN and EI = 3.852 × 104 kN m4, respec-
tively. From first-order analysis, the lateral displacements of joints B and C are
ΔB = 26.41 mm and ΔC = 26.22 mm, respectively, and the maximum deflection of
member AB is δiAB = 7.33 mm and of member DC is δiDC = 10.373 mm.
For the P–Δ effect, ΣPΔ i /ΣHh = 0.05263. From Equation 2.116, M = 1.056Misway;
that is, the end moment of column AB at B is M = 1.056 × 115.3 = 121.76 kN m,
and the end moment of column DC at C is M = 1.056 × 249.8 = 263.8 kN m.
For the P–δ effect, PE = 152.2 × 102 kN for either column AB or column DC.
For column AB, P/PE = 0.0123 and Mimax ≃ 90.4 kN m. From Equation 2.125,
ψAB = 1.234; thus, from Equation 2.124, Mmax = 1.028Mimax. For column DC,
P/ PE = 0.014 and Mimax ≃ 125.0 kN m, ψDC = 1.263 and Mmax = 1.0282Mimax.

50 kN 50 kN
30 kN/m M = –115.277 kN m M = –249.784 kN m
40 kN
B C
B C
Axial force =

Axial force =
–213.451 kN
–186.55 kN
5.00 m

A D A D
10.00 m M = 65.49 kN m M = 0.0 kN m
(a) (b)

Figure 2.25 Frame Example 2.6: (a) dimensions and loads and (b) deformed shape and
straining actions.
The Era of Elasticity 55

2.5 Theory of Plates

The generalized stress–generalized strain relations of the thin plate element under
bending have been derived from the three sets of conditions: equilibrium, compat-
ibility, and constitutive law. By this, a major simplification has been introduced to the
solution of the bending problem: dealing with 2 variables instead of 15 and treating
a whole element instead of a field point. Expanding the discussion of this topic by
considering the equilibrium of the element shown in Figure 2.26, the following dif-
ferential equation of equilibrium can be derived:

∂4w ∂4w ∂4w p (2.128)

+ 2 + =
∂x 4 ∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂y 4 D

where p is the load intensity.

In this section, the concept of generalized stress and generalized strain with the
three sets of conditions is employed to derive different solutions of thin plate bend-
ing problems.

dx
δQx
Qx + dx
dy

δx
δMy
My + dy δMx
δy Mx + dx
δx
δMyx
Myx+ dy δM
δy Mxy + xy dx
δx

δQy
Qy + dy
δy
(a)
Myx
Mx My δMx
Mx + dx
δx
Mxy
δM
Mxy + xy dx
δx
δMy δM
My + dy Myx+ yx dy
δy δy
Qy
Qx
x

δQx
z Qx + dx
δx
y
δQy
Qy + dy
(b) δy

Figure 2.26 (a) Plate element equilibrium and (b) stress resultants.
56 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

a x

All edges are simply supported

Figure 2.27 Simply supported plate.

The simply supported plate shown in Figure 2.27 is subjected to a sinusoidal load
given by

πx πy
p( x, y) = po sin sin (2.129)
a b

where a and b are the plate dimensions in the x and y directions, respectively. Upon
substitution of the load formula in the differential equation of equilibrium,

∂4w ∂4w ∂ 4 w po πx πy
+ 2 + = sin sin (2.130)
∂x 4
∂x ∂y
2 2
∂y 4
D a b

From kinematics,

∂2w
w = 0 and = 0 at x = 0 and x = a (2.131a)
∂x 2

∂2w
w = 0 and = 0 at y = 0 and y = b (2.131b)
∂y 2

In order to solve this plate problem, the deflection expression must satisfy the afore-
mentioned kinematic relations and should have the same form as the load expression.
Hence, the deflection should have the following form:
πx πy
w = C sin sin (2.132)
a b
where C is a constant that can be obtained upon substitution of Equation 2.132 into
Equation 2.130:
po
C= (2.133)
(( ) ( ))
2
Dπ 4
1/a + 1/b2
2
The Era of Elasticity 57

or

po πx πy (2.134)
w= sin sin
((1/a ) + (1/b ))
2
Dπ 4 2 2 a b

The stress resultants, Qx, Qy, Mx, My, Mxy, and Myx can be obtained from

∂  ∂2w ∂2w 
Qx = − D +
∂x  ∂x 2 ∂y 2 

∂  ∂2w ∂2w 
Qy = − D +
∂y  ∂x 2 ∂y 2 

 ∂2w ∂2w  (2.135)

Mx = −D  2 + ν 2 
 ∂x ∂y 

 ∂2w ∂2w 
My = −D  ν 2 + 2 
 ∂x ∂y 

 ∂2w 
M xy = (1 − ν) D  = − M yx
 ∂x∂y 

Of course, the strains and stresses at any point can be obtained if needed:

∂2w
ε x = −z
∂x 2
∂2w
ε y = −z
∂y 2

∂2w
γ xy = −2 z
∂x ∂y (2.136)
E
σx = (ε x + νε y )
1 − ν2
E
σy = ( νε x + ε y )
1 − ν2
E γ xy
τ xy =
2(1 + ν)
58 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

Let us examine the same simply supported plate in Figure 2.27 if subjected to a
general distributed load p(x,y). The load can be represented by double Fourier series
(Navier) as follows:

∞ ∞
mπx nπy
p( x, y) = ∑∑ p
m =1 n =1
mn sin
a
sin
b
(2.137)

In order to obtain pmn, both sides of Equation 2.137 are multiplied by sin(m′πx/a)
sin(n′πy/b); then, both sides of the equation are integrated, which leads to

a b
4 m πx nπy
pmn =
ab ∫ ∫ p( x,y)sin
0 0
a
sin
b
dxdy (2.138)

From the previous solution of the plate under sinusoidal load and upon applying the
principle of superposition, a solution of a simply supported plate under general load-
ing condition can be obtained:

∞ ∞
mπx nπy
∑ ∑ ((m/a) + (n /b) )
1 pmn
w= sin sin (2.139)
Dπ 4 m =1 n =1
2 2 2
a b

If p(x,y) = po, then

a b
4p mπx nπy 16 po
pmn = o
ab ∫ ∫ sin
0 0
a
sin
b
= 2
π mn
(2.140)

and

∞ ∞
sin(mπx /a)sin(nπy /b)
∑ ∑ mn((m /a) + (n /b) )
16 po
w= (2.141)
π6 D m =1 n =1
2 2 2

m, n = 1,3,5,… since the terms of equations vanish for even values of m or n.

2.6 Theory of Shells

The generalized stress–generalized strain relations of thin cylindrical shells under
axisymmetric loading have been derived from the three sets of conditions: equilib-
rium, compatibility, and constitutive law. Thus, the number of variables is reduced
from 15 to 3, which is a remarkable simplification. In addition, a solution of a whole
structural element or structure can be obtained at once. The discussion is extended
in this section in order to show how the concept of generalized stress–generalized
The Era of Elasticity 59

strain along with the three basic sets of conditions are employed to obtain solutions
of different problems of thin cylindrical shells under axisymmetric loading. The
discussion starts with the derivation of the general solution of this class of problems.
The following equilibrium equations have been derived earlier in Section 2.2.4:

dQx N θ (2.142)
+ =p
dx r

dM x
− Qx = 0 (2.143)
dx

Upon differentiating Equation 2.143 with respect to x, and substituting for dQx/dx
from (2.142), the following equation can be obtained:

d 2 M x Nθ
+ =p (2.144)
dx 2 r

Upon substitution from Equation 2.46 for Nθ, from Equation 2.47 for Mx and
φx = ∂2w/∂x2 into Equation 2.144, the following differential equation of equilibrium
can be obtained:

∂ 4 w Etw p
+ = (2.145)
∂x 4 Dr 2 D

Define

Et (2.146)
4β 4 =
Dr 2

Then, Equation 2.145 can be written as follows:

∂4w p( x )
+ 4β 4 w = (2.147)
∂x 4
D

Equation 2.147 is the differential equation of equilibrium of thin cylindrical shells

subjected to axisymmetric loading. The general solution of this equation has the
form

w = eβx (C1 cos βx + C2 sin βx ) + e −βx (C3 cos βx + C4 sin βx ) + f ( x ) (2.148)

The term f(x) is the particular solution and the constants C1 to C4 can be obtained
from the boundary conditions.
60 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

Ho
t Mo
t

r r

Mo
(a) Ho (b)

Figure 2.28 Example of a long circular cylindrical shell: (a) shear at the edge and (b)
moment at the edge.

In the following, the concept of generalized stress–generalized strain along with

the three basic sets of conditions is used to obtain solutions for long thin cylindrical
shells under different loading conditions. In the following example, a long cylinder
is solved for a shear force at the edge, Figure 2.28a, and for a bending moment at
the edge, Figure 2.28b. For both problems, the function f(x) is set equal to zero since
there is no applied pressure. In addition, the deflection associated with the term e βx
tends to approach infinity as x tends to a large value. This contradicts the real behav-
ior of the cylinder under the shown edge load, in which the deflection and moments
dissipate as x increases. Therefore, the constants C1 and C2 of Equation 2.148 should
vanish; thus, the equation reduces to

w = e −βx (C3 cos βx + C4 sin βx ) (2.149)

In order to obtain the constants C3 and C4, the boundary conditions for each problem
are introduced. For the problem in Figure 2.28a, the conditions are

M x ( x = 0) = 0 (2.150a)

dM x
Qx ( x = 0 ) = H o = (2.150b)
dx x=0

For the problem in Figure 2.28b, the conditions are

M x ( x = 0) = M o (2.151a)

dM x
Qx ( x = 0 ) = 0 = (2.151b)
dx x=0
The Era of Elasticity 61

The solution of the problem in Figure 2.28a is

H o −βx
Mx = e sin βx
β

 π
Qx = 2 H oe −βx cos  βx + 
 4

N θ = 2 H oβre −βx cos βx

(2.152)
Mθ = νM x

H o −βx
w= e cos βx
2 Dβ3

dw − H o −βx  π
= e sin  βx + 
dx 2 Dβ 2  4

The solution of the problem in Figure 2.28b is

 π
M x = 2 M oe −βx cos  βx − 
 4

Qx = −2 M oe −βx sin βx

 π
N θ = −2 2 M oβ2re −βx sin  βx − 
 4
(2.153)
Mθ = νM x

− M o −βx  π
w= e sin  βx − 
2 Dβ 2  4

dw M o −βx  π
= e sin  βx − 
dx Dβ  2

2.7 Finite Element

The FE method is based on three concepts: (1) the concept of generalized stresses
and generalized strains; (2) equilibrium is justified through the principle of virtual
displacement; and (3) compatibility is achieved through the assumed shape function.
As a consequence, it has become possible to analyze any structure of any geometry
and of different materials.
In this section, the solution of a few examples are presented in order to show (1)
the level of accuracy that can be reached using the FE method and (2) how struc-
tural behavior can be reflected in the FE solution and thus to verify some mechanics
62 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

1.20 1.20

0
0.2
3 2 12 MPa
0.30

1 M
0.30

12 MPa
2.40 m

Figure 2.29 Example of a cantilever beam.

assumptions. In all examples, the elasticity modulus, E = 25,000 MPa, and Poisson’s
ratio, ν = 0.2, are used.
The first example is a cantilever beam subjected to an end moment, Figure 2.29,
where the exact solution can be obtained from mechanics (Section 2.3.1). The rota-
tion, θ(x), is

M
θ( x ) = ( x) (2.154)
EI

and the deflection, v(x), is

M  x2 
v( x ) = (2.155)
EI  2 

The moment M = 1.44 × 108 N mm and the flexural rigidity EI = 9 × 1012 N mm2; thus,
θ(x = L) = 0.0384 rad and v(x = L) = 46.08 mm. Hence, the vertical deflection at 1 and 2
is, v1 = v2 = 46.08 mm upward, and the horizontal displacement at 1 is u1 = 0, while the
horizontal displacement at 2 is calculated from the rotation as u2 = −11.52 mm. From
the FE solution of this problem it is found that, u1 = 0, u2 = −11.51 mm, v1 = 46.12 mm,
and v2 = 45.98 mm. When these FE results are compared with the exact values, it is
evident how much accurate the FE results are when using proper meshing and mod-
eling. Also, from the FE results the strain distribution at section 3 is almost linear,
which conforms to the simplification of Bernoulli’s hypothesis of beams.
The second example, Figure 2.30, is a beam with different values of shear span to
depth ratio, a/d. In this example, the division line between a deep beam and a short
beam can be noticed from the strain distribution. From the FE results in Table 2.3,
for a shear span to depth ratio a/d ≤ 2.0, the beam behaves as a deep beam, which
agrees with St. Venant’s principle. Also, the stress trajectories show the arch action
in deep beams and the truss model in ordinary beam.
The third example is a simply supported rectangular plate, Figure 2.27, with
dimensions a = 4.00 m, b = 3.00 m, and t = 100 mm. The plate is subjected to a uni-
form load p = 10.0 kN/m2. The exact value of maximum deflection obtained from
mechanics (Section 2.5) was w = 2.54 mm and from FE was 2.50 mm.
It should be mentioned that FE is advantageous not only in analyzing any problem
of any shape but also in handling discontinuity problems, for example, openings,
The Era of Elasticity 63

0.15 0.15
0.15

F/2 F/2

30
1

0.
d = 1.00 m

2
a/2 a/2
a a

Figure 2.30 Example of a beam of different shear span to depth ratios.

bends and stress concentration, and irregular boundary conditions. The fourth exam-
ple shown in Figure 2.31 is a deep beam with a central opening. From the FE results
illustrated in the figure, the stress distribution at the central section (section 1) is
nonlinear and the stress trajectories agree with the logical flow of forces. The same
observations are valid for the deep beam with an eccentric opening (Figure 2.32).
Another example shown in Figure 2.33 is a cantilever with a dapped end, where the
illustrated FE results reflect the behavior of such a discontinuity region.
In conclusion, the FE can analyze any structure of any shape and of any bound-
ary condition. If the FE can be considered “exact,” which means the best possible
solution, it can be used for calibration and verification, for instance, verification of
kinematic assumptions such as Bernoulli’s assumption. It can illustrate the limits of
simplified models, for example, beam model, and the reliability of simplification, for
example, Bernoulli’s hypothesis. The FE can handle those problems where simpli-
fied models are not valid, for example, openings in beams, abrupt change of thick-
ness, and discontinuity in general.

2.8 The Allowable Stress as a Basis for Design

There is a fundamental two-stage process in structural design operation: first, the
forces acting on each structural member must be defined, and second, the load-
carrying capacity of each member must be determined. The first stage involves an
analysis of the stresses acting within the structural members and the second involves
knowledge of the load-carrying capacity of the structural members. In allowable
stress design, the first stage is based on a linear elastic analysis while the second
stage is based on full-scale tests of structural members reduced by an acceptable
safety factor to the allowable stress level as specified by specifications.
This was the era of great advancement in the use of the mathematical theory of
elasticity for structural design, but one that placed too much emphasis on the elastic
64 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

Table 2.3
FE Results of the Example Beam of Different Shear Span to Depth Ratios
(Figure 2.30)
Strain Strain
Distribution at Distribution at
a/d Section 1 Section 2 Stress Trajectories
1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

response of an idealized version of the real structure to normal working loads. It

turned the engineers so far toward the analysis of the working load range that the
much more important task of insuring the safety of a design against collapse or
failure was submerged till the emerging development of the theory of plasticity in
the 1950s.
In order to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the safety factor, SF, the two dia-
grams in Figure 2.34 are examined; one diagram is the idealized stress–stress rela-
tion based on linear elasticity theory and the other is the actual behavior of the
material. However, at the time of the design method initiation, the material curve
The Era of Elasticity 65

0.70

Fu = 3.0 MN

0
0.4

4.70 m
1.50
0.50

A 1 B
0.50 0.50
2.50 1.50 2.50
7.00 m
(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 2.31 Example of a deep beam with a central opening: (a) beam; (b) stress trajec-
tories; and (c) stress distribution at section 1.

could be measured up to the first yield point, while the strength beyond this point
was not possible to be predicted and therefore was neglected. Hence, safety would
have been related to this first yield point; that is, the allowable stress, σall, would have
been a fraction of this yield stress, σy:

σy
σall = (2.156)
SF

The value of the safety factor would be based on the type of material (steel, con-
crete, etc.), type of straining action (flexure, axial, shear, etc.), type of load and load
66 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

0.70

Fu = 3.0 MN

40
0.

4.70 m
1.50

1
0.50

A B
0.50 1.50
4.50 2.50
7.00 m
(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 2.32 Example of a deep beam with an eccentric opening: (a) beam; (b) stress tra-
jectories; and (c) stress distribution at section 1.

combination, type of structure, etc. The values of safety factor were defined through
time with the accumulation of practical experience.
The allowable stress design method had been employed reasonably well in tradi-
tional structures as a result of the accumulative experience particularly under normal
loading conditions. However, safety rules based on experience work well only for
designs lying within the scope of that experience. They cannot be relied on outside
of that range, for example, for the case of nontraditional structures, for example, off-
shore structures, poles, and nuclear facilities. In other words, structures susceptible
to abnormal loads, for example, extreme wind, major earthquakes, and explosive
loads, could not be handled properly with this method. Therefore, it was a logical
The Era of Elasticity 67

40
1 2

0.
1.50
0.40 0.70 0.40
3.00 m

1.50
Fy = 1.0 MN

4.50 m 1.50 m
(a)

(b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2.33 Example of a cantilever with a dapped end: (a) cantilever; (b) stress trajecto-
ries; (c) strain distribution at section 1; and (d) strain distribution at section 2.
68 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

σ σ

σy σy
First yield point
Safety margin
σall

(a) ε (b) ε

Figure 2.34 Idealized and actual material stress–strain relation: (a) idealized and (b)
actual.

future development to establish more reliable and more rational inelastic second-
order analysis methods for design that can avoid the drawbacks of the allowable
stress design method. This further development of analysis and design methods is
described in Chapter 3.

2.9 Historical Sketch

Modern theory of elasticity began when the French mathematician Jacob Bernoulli
combined equilibrium equations with Hooke’s law (1678) to obtain the differential
equation of the elastica, in 1705, that is, the curve assumed by the deformed axis
of the beam. In 1821, 116 years after Bernoulli, the general equations of equilib-
rium and vibration of elastic solids were formulated by Navier, which led to the
formulation of the linear theory of elasticity by A.L. Cauchy in 1822. This linear
theory of elasticity remains virtually unchanged to the present day. During this
period, following the discovery of Hooke’s law, the growth of the science of elas-
ticity proceeded from the synthesis of solutions of special problems. This began
the development of flexural theory of beams, theory of torsion, theory of stability
of columns, and some results on bending and vibration of plates in the early nine-
teenth century.
This chapter represents an attempt to present concisely several aspects of the
theory of elasticity from a unified point of view and to indicate those familiar meth-
ods of solution of the field equations of elasticity that are familiar to structural engi-
neers in particular. To this end, we must single out and stress the contributions to the
engineering theory by the Russian elastician, S. P. Timoshenko, a great teacher, and
whose work was widely known for its elegance and importance.
It was during his years in the United States that Timoshenko made the major
part of his contributions and writings to the theory of elasticity and to its applica-
tion to the design of engineering structures and components. Timoshenko, his col-
leagues, and his students became internationally known for their pioneering work in
elasticity, especially those classical textbooks used widely in engineering practice
The Era of Elasticity 69

and university teaching in particular. Timoshenko’s unparalleled monographs on the

applications of elasticity to engineering structures include

1. Applied Elasticity, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York, 1925 (with
J. M. Lessells).
2. Vibration Problems in Engineering, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New
York, 1928, 1937 and 1955 (with D. H. Young).
3. Strength of Materials, Part I, Elementary Theory and Problems, D. Van
Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ, 1930, 1940, and 1955.
4. Strength of Materials, Part II, Advanced Theory and Problems, D. Van
Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ, 1930, 1941, and 1956.
5. Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1934 and
1951 (with J. N. Goodier).
6. Elements of Strength of Materials, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.,
Princeton, NJ, 1935, 1940 and 1949 (with G. H. McCullough), 1962 (with
D. H. Young).
7. Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1936
and 1961 (with J. M. Gere).
8. Engineering Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1937,
1940, 1951 and 1956 (with D. H. Young).
9. Theory of Plates and Shells, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
1940, 1959 (with S. Woinowsky-Krieger).
10. Theory of Structures, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1945 and
1965 (with D. H. Young).
11. Advanced Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1948 (with
D. H. Young).
12. History of Strength of Materials, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
1953.
13. Engineering Education in Russia, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, 1959.
14. The Collected Papers of Stephen P. Timoshenko, 1953, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
15. As I Remember, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ, 1968.
16. Stephen Timoshenko 60th Anniversary Volume, Contributions to the
Mechanics of Solids Dedicated to Stephen Timoshenko by His Friends, The
MacMillan Company, New York, 1938.

S. P. Timoshenko was born on December 22, 1878 in Ukraine to parents who took
great care of their children. He was self-motivated and since his childhood had a
dream to become a structural engineer. After his graduation from Realgymnasium
at the age of 18, Timoshenko obtained most of his early education and practical
experience in Russia. In his early life he had two trips to western Europe, which had
a great influence on his life and career. In his 1900 trip he visited Germany, Belgium,
France, and Switzerland, where he realized how these countries were ahead of Russia
in both culture and industrial development. During his 1904 trip he was very much
impressed with August Föppl at Munich Polytechnical Institute.
70 Understanding Structural Engineering: From Theory to Practice

In the academic year 1903–1904 he read English Love’s Theory of Elasticity and
Lord Rayleigh’s Theory of Sound. These two books impressed him immensely and
had a considerable influence on his scientific work. Timoshenko went twice to the
University of Göttingen in Germany for a few months in 1905 and 1906, where he
took some courses in mathematics and mechanics and investigated the problem of
lateral buckling of I-beams. Timoshenko had his first teaching opportunity at Kiev
Polytechnicum, where he commenced lecturing in January 1907. During his whole
teaching career, and different from what was followed at his time, he used to start
with the simplest problems and move gradually to the more complicated ones, which
was much appreciated by his students.
In 1920, Timoshenko escaped to Zagreb because of the long suffering for many
years under the Bolshevik regime and the World War I and because he was politi-
cally in danger. In Zagreb, he was satisfied with his scientific achievements; however,
he decided to start his academic life in the United States in 1922. Nevertheless, he
had only a chance to work in industry, first in a vibration company in Philadelphia
for a few months and afterward in Westinghouse Company in Chicago. With many
research accomplishments he stayed in Westinghouse for 5 years until he had the
opportunity to return to academic work as he always hoped. In 1927, he joined the
University of Michigan where he achieved teaching and research work of excep-
tional level such that his ideas and attitude toward mechanics became widespread
throughout the United States. In 1936, he joined Stanford University until his formal
retirement in 1944; however, he continued his academic activities at Stanford but
with a reduced scale and with concentration on writing and revision of text books.

References
Chen, W. F. and Han, D. J., 1988, Plasticity for Structural Engineers, Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Chen, W. F. and Lui, E. M., 1987, Structural Stability—Theory and Implementation, Elsevier,
New York.
Chen, W. F. and Lui, E. M., 1991, Stability Design of Steel Frames, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Jawad, M. H., 1994, Theory and Design of Plate and Shell Structures, Chapman & Hall, New
York.
Kassimali, A., 2005, Structural Analysis, 3rd edn., Thomson, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kelkar, V. S. and Sewell, R. T., 1987, Fundamentals of the Analysis and Design of Shell
Structures, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Livesly, R. K., 1975, Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis, 2nd edn., Pergamon Press, New
York.
The Collected Papers of Stephen P. Timoshenko, 1953, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York.
Timoshenko, S. P., 1953, History of Strength of Materials, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York.
Timoshenko, S. P., 1968, As I Remember, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ,
Translated from Russian by R. Addis.
Timoshenko, S. P. and Goodier, J. N., 1970, Theory of Elasticity, 3rd edn., McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
Timoshenko, S. P. and Woinowsky-Krieger, S., 1959, Theory of Plates and Shells, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York.