INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371 (DOI: 10.1002/nme.919)

Exact determinant for infinite order FEM representation

of a Timoshenko beam–column via improved transcendental
member stiffness matrices

F. W. Williams1 , D. Kennedy 2, ∗, † and M. S. Djoudi 2

1 Department of Building and Construction, City University of Hong Kong, Academic Building,
Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong
2 Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University, P.O. Box 925, The Parade, Cardiff CF24 0YF, U.K.

SUMMARY
Transcendental stiffness matrices for vibration (or buckling) have been derived from exact analytical
solutions of the governing differential equations for many structural members without recourse to
the discretization of conventional finite element methods (FEM). Their assembly into the overall
dynamic structural stiffness matrix gives a transcendental eigenproblem, whose eigenvalues (natural
frequencies or critical load factors) can be found with certainty using the Wittrick–Williams algorithm.
A very recently discovered analytical property is the member stiffness determinant, which equals the
FEM stiffness matrix determinant of a clamped ended member modelled by infinitely many elements,
normalized by dividing by its value at zero frequency (or load factor). Curve following convergence
methods for transcendental eigenproblems are greatly simplified by multiplying the transcendental
overall stiffness matrix determinant by all the member stiffness determinants to remove its poles. In
this paper, the transcendental stiffness matrix for a vibrating, axially loaded, Timoshenko member is
expressed in a new, convenient notation, enabling the first ever derivation of its member stiffness
determinant to be obtained. Further expressions are derived, also for the first time, for unloaded and
for static, loaded Timoshenko members. These new expressions have the advantage that they readily
reduce to corresponding expressions for Bernoulli–Euler members when shear rigidity and rotatory
inertia are neglected. Additionally, the total equivalence of the normalized transcendental determinant
with that of an infinite order FEM formulation aids understanding and evaluation of conventional FEM
results. Examples are presented to illustrate the use of the member stiffness determinant. Copyright
䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: eigenproblem; structures; buckling; vibration; transcendental; Wittrick–Williams algo-

rithm; member stiffness determinant

∗ Correspondence to: D. Kennedy, Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University, P.O. Box 925, The Parade,
Cardiff CF24 0YF, U.K.
† E-mail: kennedyd@cf.ac.uk

Contract/grant sponsor: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; contract/grant number:
GR/R05406/01
Contract/grant sponsor: Royal Academy of Engineering
Received 27 May 2002
Revised 17 April 2003
Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 28 May 2003
1356 F. W. WILLIAMS, D. KENNEDY AND M. S. DJOUDI

1. INTRODUCTION

When Bernoulli–Euler or Timoshenko beam theory is used, the natural frequencies of free
vibration of frames, or their critical buckling loads, can be obtained from the appropriate
overall stiffness matrix equations of the frame.
For the finite element method (FEM) usually employed this gives
(K − f M)D = 0 (1)
where K and M are symmetric, K is the static stiffness matrix and D is the displacement
vector. For buckling problems, f is the load factor and M is the geometric stiffness matrix.
However for vibration problems, f =
2 , M is the mass matrix and D must be multiplied
by sin
t, where t is time and
is the circular frequency. In this formulation each physical
member of the structure is usually represented by several finite elements and so its contribution
to Equation (1) can be expressed as




kii − f mii kic − f mic di 0
= (2)
kic − f mic kcc − f mcc
T T dc pc
where T denotes the transpose of a matrix; the subscripts c and i, respectively, indicate
connection freedoms and internal freedoms; dc contains all the degrees of freedom at the
two ends of the member; di contains all the internal freedoms where the finite elements are
connected together; pc contains the forces transmitted from the structure to the ends of the
member; and pi = 0 because there are no forces where the elements are joined together due
to the problem being a free vibration or buckling one.
An alternative to FEM, which avoids its discretization errors, is to solve the differential
equations of a member with its distributed mass and axial force included to obtain the member
equations
k(f ) dc = pc (3)
and to obtain the overall stiffness matrix K(f ) of the frame by assembling such member
stiffness matrices in the usual way, giving
K(f ) D = 0 (4)
Hence k(f ) and K(f ), which are both symmetric, are dynamic stiffness matrices for vi-
bration problems and their counterparts for buckling problems. The eigenproblem represented
by Equation (4) is a transcendental one, i.e. the coefficients of K(f ) involve trigonometric
and hyperbolic functions of f . Therefore the linear eigensolvers used to extract the eigenval-
ues, i.e. the natural frequencies or critical load factors, from Equation (1) cannot be applied
to it. However this transcendental eigenproblem can be solved with total security by apply-
ing the Wittrick–Williams algorithm [1–3], which ensures that no eigenvalues can be missed
by calculating J , the number of eigenvalues lying between the origin of f and its current
value. It has long been established [2] that this safeguard enables the eigenvalues to be ob-
tained from the zeros of a plot of |K(f )| versus f . However, such curves have infinities as
well as zeros and this considerably complicates the curve following process. Very recently
a new member property was discovered and named the member stiffness determinant, see

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
 EXACT DETERMINANT FOR INFINITE ORDER FEM REPRESENTATION 1357

Reference [4] which also has an extensive list of relevant references. The main value of the
member stiffness determinant is that it can be used to remove all the infinities of |K(f )| versus
f plots when solving transcendental eigenproblems, as will be discussed in more detail in
Section 4. However a subsidiary advantage is that the member stiffness determinant is equal
to the limiting value of the properly normalized determinant of a member with clamped ends
when modelled by appropriately formulated finite elements, the number of which approaches
infinity [4]. The member stiffness determinant is now considered in more detail.
Reverting to the finite element member equation, i.e. Equation (2), let Ni be the number of
degrees of freedom of di and let
i be the Ni × Ni determinant

i = |kii − f mii | (5)

The member eigenvalues, i.e. its natural frequencies or critical buckling loads, when its ends
are clamped (i.e. dc = 0) are clearly given by
i = 0 and their accuracy can be improved by
using more finite elements to represent the member, so that Ni is increased. Hypothetically, this
enables exact member eigenvalues to be obtained from the zeros of
∞ , the limiting value of

i as Ni → ∞. However, the finite elements would then have infinitesimal length and hence
infinite stiffnesses, so that
∞ would have the order of infinity raised (due to Ni ) to the power
infinity. Therefore it is necessary to normalize
i by dividing it by its value at f = 0 to give
¯ ∞ as Ni → ∞. The exact eigenvalues of the member with

¯ i , which approaches a finite limit

its ends clamped are then given by
¯ ∞ = 0. Additionally, exact member equations, identical
to those of Equation (3), could then be obtained by eliminating di from Equation (2) to give

k(f ) = (kcc − f mcc ) − (kic

T
− f mic
T
)(kii − f mii )−1 (kic − f mic ) (6)

The hypothetical equations just described cannot be assembled or solved because this would
require a computer with infinite storage, speed and accuracy. However the analogy with the
alternative exact method of Equations (3) and (4) enables many useful conclusions to be drawn.
Some are obvious and well known, e.g. the exact member stiffness matrix of Equation (3) (for
Bernoulli–Euler or Timoshenko members, optionally including axial force) is the limiting case
approached as more and more finite elements are used to represent a member during an
appropriately formulated finite element solution. In contrast, a less obvious conclusion recently
drawn by the authors [4] is that there is a ‘normalized member stiffness determinant’, i.e.

¯ ∞ , for the exact solution. The formulae for uncoupled axial Bernoulli–Euler beam flexure
were presented in Reference [4]. The present paper shows that it is possible, with much
greater difficulty, to find exact formulae for
¯ ∞ when Timoshenko and axial force effects are
optionally included. These formulae can be used, via Equation (4) with f =
2 , to find the
natural frequencies of loaded or unloaded frames. Alternatively, by applying a limiting process,
k(f ) and
¯ ∞ can be found for the case when
= 0 and f is a load factor applied to the
axial force in the member, so that Equation (4) gives the critical buckling load factors of a
frame.
Two very desirable consequences of the discovery of what appears to be the most appropriate
form of the formula for
¯ ∞ were that the formulae for the coefficients of k(f ) are re-expressed
such that they share a common denominator and can also readily be seen to limit to the usual
exact Bernoulli–Euler formulae for a member without axial load.
The zeros of
¯ ∞ give the exact eigenvalues of a clamped/clamped member. Similarly

¯ ∞ |k(f )| is an exact representation of the member determinant for a free/free member and

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
1358 F. W. WILLIAMS, D. KENNEDY AND M. S. DJOUDI

so its zeros give the exact eigenvalues of a free/free member. Furthermore, alternative standard
end conditions such as pinned/pinned, clamped/free and clamped/pinned can be included by
forming their exact determinant
¯ ∞ |k∗ (f )| and finding its zeros, where k∗ (f ) is k(f ) with
the rows and columns corresponding to the suppressed freedoms removed. Note that in the
theory of the previous two sentences the determinants are completely normalized ones only if
they are divided by |k(0)| and |k∗ (0)|, respectively, but successful solution does not require
such division.

2. EXACT MEMBER EQUATIONS

Figure 1 shows the amplitudes of the displacements (d), rotations (), forces (p) and moments
(m) at the ends of a typical member. These amplitudes should all be multiplied by sin
t for
vibration problems. The subscripts denote ends 1 and 2 of the member, which is of length L
and has flexural rigidity EI , mass per unit length  and axial force P .
It is well known that the transcendental member equations have the form
    
k/L2 k/L −k/L2 k/L d1 p1
    
 k/L k −k/L k  1   m1 
 
  =  (7)
 −k/L2 −k/L k/L2 −k/L   d2    
  p2 
 
k/L k −k/L k 2 m2

where k = EI /L.
The original Timoshenko theory [5] was subsequently modified to give the more compact
equations [6] listed in Appendix A. For reasons given there, it has now been found convenient
to derive the following new expressions for the Timoshenko beam–column, in which k  AG is
the shear rigidity and I is the second moment of area:
 = (S1 C2 − j
C1 S2 )/a
= ( j
S2 − S1 )/a
 = (C1 S2 +
S1 C2 )(4 /a b )/a
(8)
 = (C2 − C1 ) a /a
 = (S2 +
S1 )(4 /a b )/a
 = 21 [S1 S2 − (1 − C1 C2 )] (a + j
b )(a /c )/a
where the variables on the right-hand sides are given by

4 = L4
2 /EI, p2 = PL 2 /EI

(9)
r 2 = I /AL 2 , s 2 = EI/k  AGL 2

q = 1 − 4 r 2 s 2 , t = 1 − s 2 p2
(10)
a = (p2 q/2 + r 2 2 + s 2 2 )/2t

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
 EXACT DETERMINANT FOR INFINITE ORDER FEM REPRESENTATION 1359

d1
m1,θ 1 m2,θ 2 d2
P

P
p1

p2

Figure 1. Member end forces and displacements.



a =  a + (2a + q/t)


(11)

b =  j −a + (a + q/t)
2

S1 = sin a , C1 = cos a
(q > 0) j = 1, S2 = sinh b , C2 = cosh b (12)
(q
0) j = −1, S2 = sin b , C2 = cos b

= t − s 2 4 /2a ,
= (a /b )/( j t + s 2 4 /2b )
(13)
c = 1
2 (
a + b )
 
a =
(1 − C1 C2 ) + 1
2 (1 − j
2 )S1 S2 /c
(14)
 = (b −
a )/(a + j
b )

It can be seen that, unlike the earlier expressions given in Appendix A, the above Equa-
tions (8)–(14) have the following two advantages. Firstly, all six right-hand sides of Equation (8)
share the denominator a . Secondly, when p2 = r 2 = s 2 = 0 Equations (10)–(14) are immedi-
ately seen to give: q = t = 1; a = 0; j = 1; a = b = ; S1 = sin  = S; C1 = cos  = C;
S2 = sinh  = S  ; C2 = cosh  = C  ; =
= 1; c = ; a = (1 − CC  )/ = ; and  = 0.
Substituting these values into the six right-hand sides of Equation (8) clearly gives

 = (SC  − CS  )/, = (S  − S)/
 = (SC  + CS  )2 /,  = (C  − C)/ (15)
 = (S + S  )2 /,  = (SS  )/

i.e. setting the axial force, rotatory inertia and shear deflection to zero in the Timoshenko beam–
column equations correctly produces a slightly improved form of the usual [7] expressions for
the unloaded Bernoulli–Euler beam equations as its limiting case. (Note that the clarity of

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
1360 F. W. WILLIAMS, D. KENNEDY AND M. S. DJOUDI

Equations (8)–(14) makes them significantly less concise than the corresponding equations of
Reference [6], which should therefore be used in computer programs if execution time is
important. For this reason the expression for
¯ ∞ derived in Section 3 will also be stated in
the notation of Reference [6]).
Calculation of natural frequencies by the Wittrick–Williams algorithm requires expressions
for Jm , the number of natural frequencies of the member with its ends clamped which lie
below
. Therefore it is important to observe that the expressions given for Jm in Equations
(9)–(11) of Reference [6] remain valid when they are transformed in accordance with Equation
(A8) of Appendix A.

3. THE DETERMINANT PROPERTY OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM–COLUMN,

WITH IMPORTANT LIMITING CASES

As a consequence of Equation (6), the required determinant
¯ ∞ , or factor(s) of it, should

appear in the denominator of all the coefficients of k(f ), i.e. in all six right-hand sides of
Equation (8). Hence it seems virtually certain that a must be a factor of
¯ ∞ . Looking at the
six right-hand sides of Equation (8), it is apparent that , a , b and c appear quite often in
either the numerator or denominator. Hence it seemed possible to the authors that some power
of one or more of these could form a factor of
¯ ∞ , with the probability being that if  or c
appeared they would do so in its denominator, because they are in the numerators of Equation
(8), while b would more probably be in the numerator of
¯ ∞ and a could be in either the
numerator or denominator.
Various alternative possible equations were tried for
¯ ∞ . Their predictions were compared
¯
with the value of
i obtained by, in effect, using the finite element approach of Equation (5)
with very large values of Ni . These values of Ni were obtained by successive doubling based on
a single finite element of length L/2r , by using the multi-level substructuring method indicated
by Figure 2, so that in effect Ni = 2r . Results were obtained for consecutive alternative values
of r to show both that
¯ ∞ was sufficiently converged and also that ill conditioning was not
invalidating the results. Ultimately the correct expression was found, and proved conclusively

Lr Lr

i=4 Lr = L / 2r
2 1 3
i=3
2 1 3
i=2
2 1 3
i=1
2 1 3

Figure 2. Illustration for r = 4 of the substructure doubling method used.

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
 EXACT DETERMINANT FOR INFINITE ORDER FEM REPRESENTATION 1361

by the independent derivation given in Appendix B, to be

(a a b /24 c )

¯ ∞ = (16)
(p /p2
p )

where the denominator is a consequence of the normalization and so relates to the static
member with axial force P and shear rigidity k  AG, see Appendix C. In fact, it is the limit
of the numerator as
→ 0, as might be expected. The derivation of Equation (16) is outlined
as follows.
Consider two identical members of length Li = L/2i which are connected together as in
Figure 2. Therefore Equations (8)–(14) apply to both of them and so the stiffness matrix at
their joint is given by Equation (7) as


2k/L2 0
kj (f ) = (17)
0 2k

This is also the stiffness matrix of the combined member of length Li−1 = L/2i−1 when
its ends are clamped. The degrees of freedom of this member comprise those at the joint,
together with the internal degrees of freedom of the two members of length Li . Since kj (f )
is a diagonal matrix, it follows that

i−1 = |kj (f )|
2i = (4i i ki2 /L2i )
2i (18)

where the subscript i relates to the member of length Li . Normalizing with respect to the
static values given by f = 0 yields

¯ i−1 = (i  /i0  )

¯2 (19)
i i0 i

where i0 and i0 are the values of i and i for the static case.
Appendix B gives the remainder of the derivation of Equation (16), because its equations are
quite involved. Appendix C then incidentally gives equations for i0 and i0 via its Equation
(C1), its main purpose being to list the stiffnesses (i.e. the equivalents of Equations (8)–(14))
for the intrinsically important limiting cases of static members with shear rigidity, both with
and without the axial force P . Appendix C also gives an equation for the member stiffness
determinant of a vibrating Timoshenko member with P = 0 and shows that it limits to
the recently discovered [4] Bernoulli–Euler result. Similarly, it gives the member stiffness
determinant for a static member with axial force and shear rigidity.

4. RESULTS

The example problem is that of Figure 3, which was recently [4] carefully chosen, along with
the flexural rigidities and masses per unit length shown, in order to illustrate the use of the
member stiffness determinant for Bernoulli–Euler beams. This example has been adapted to
illustrate the use of the member stiffness determinant for axially loaded Timoshenko members,
as follows, by assuming that all members share the same density  and Young’s modulus E,
where /E = Q.

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
1362 F. W. WILLIAMS, D. KENNEDY AND M. S. DJOUDI

EI, µ EI, µ
0.4EI 0.6EI L
0.25P 0.4P
0.7µ 0.8µ

3EI, 1.7µ 3EI, 1.7µ

0.6EI 0.8EI L
0.5P 0.8P
0.8µ 0.9µ

3EI, 1.7µ 3EI, 1.7µ

0.8EI 1.2EI L
0.75P 1.2P
0.9µ 1.1µ

4EI, 2µ 4EI, 2µ
EI L
P 1.6P 1.4EI
µ 1.2µ

2L 2L 2L

Figure 3. Symmetric, rigidly jointed, four storey, three bay frame with inextensible members and
P = 0.282 EI /L2 . Because of the symmetry, the member properties and their axial forces are
not shown for the right-hand part of the frame.

The axial forces shown were assumed for the members, where P was given the value
0.282 EI /L2 because this was approximately 40% of the value which would cause buckling
of the frame according to Bernoulli–Euler theory. In addition, each member was given a rotatory
inertia I equal to Q times its flexural rigidity and a shear rigidity k  AG equal to 1.5/Q times
its mass per unit length, e.g. so that I = 0.4Q EI and k  AG = 1.05/Q for the top outer
column of Figure 3. Note that these expressions for I and k  AG are dimensionally correct
and were chosen because they together caused a realistic reduction of approximately 5% in
the fundamental natural frequency of the frame, when loaded as shown but analysed by using
Bernoulli–Euler theory, i.e. by setting r 2 = s 2 = 0.
The recent Bernoulli–Euler beam results [4] were obtained by using a computer program
for extensible members, but the member inextensibility was fully allowed for by suppressing
all vertical displacements within D, forcing the horizontal displacements of the nodes at each
storey level to be identical, and additionally setting EA artificially high. In addition, only
anti-symmetric modes of vibration were obtained, by analysing only half of the frame. This
was achieved by cutting all the interior beams at their mid-lengths and introducing supports
on rollers there, such that vertical motion was suppressed while both horizontal motion and
rotation were unrestrained. Finally, the nodes at these supports were eliminated by a simple
substructuring procedure [4], so that the D to which K corresponds consisted of only one
horizontal deflection and two rotations per storey level, i.e. K was of order 12. For consistency
with this recent Bernoulli–Euler work, all the features described in this paragraph were retained
in the results which follow.
Figure 4 shows plots of |K̄(f )| versus the dimensionless frequency f¯ and of |K̄∞ (f )| versus
f¯. Here |K̄(f )| is |K(f )| normalized by dividing by its value at f = 0, f¯ is f divided by
the fundamental natural frequency of the frame and, much more importantly,
¯
|K̄∞ (f )| = |K̄(f )|
∞i (20)
i

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
 EXACT DETERMINANT FOR INFINITE ORDER FEM REPRESENTATION 1363

c
K ( f ) multiplied by 10 , where:
c= -1 -3 -5 -10 -7 -10

1
K( f )

0 f
10 20 30
-1

-2

-3
(×2)
(a) Positions of poles

c
K ∞ ( f ) multiplied by 10 , where:
c= 0 -3 0
6

2
K∞ ( f )

0 f
10 20 30

-2

-4
(b)

Figure 4. Plots of (a) |K̄(f )| and (b) |K̄∞ (f )| versus f¯. Note that the changes of ver-
tical scale shown occur exactly at eigenvalues, i.e. where the curve crosses the axis,
or sometimes, for (a) only, at poles.

where the multiplication over i covers all members. Hence it can be seen from Figure 4(b)
that |K̄∞ (f )| has the crucially important property (discussed in more detail in the earlier paper
[4]) that it has no infinities, i.e. no poles, when plotted against f¯.

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
1364 F. W. WILLIAMS, D. KENNEDY AND M. S. DJOUDI

Table I. Number of iterations needed to converge

on the first 16 eigenvalues when using the curve of
|K̄(f )| in Figure 4(a) (which has poles), and the curve
of |K̄∞ (f )| in Figure 4(b) (which has no poles).
Number of iterations
Eigenvalue
number |K̄(f )| |K̄∞ (f )|

1 13 13
2 6 6
3 6 7
4 5 5
5 7 7
6 7 7
7 6 6
8 8 7
9 7 6
10 8 9
11 6 6
12 7 7
13 7 6
14 10 7
15 6 5
16 6 6
Total 115 110

The absence of poles clearly makes the curve of Figure 4(b) easier to follow, in order to find
its zeros, i.e. the eigenvalues of the frame, than is Figure 4(a). In order to check this assertion,
the first 16 eigenvalues were found by applying a standard transcendental eigenproblem curve
following convergence method [8], which incorporates the Wittrick–Williams algorithm as a
safeguard, firstly using the plot of |K̄(f )| shown in Figure 4(a), for which it was designed,
and secondly using the plot of |K̄∞ (f )| shown in Figure 4(b). The numbers of iterations, i.e.
points on the curves, needed to find the eigenvalues to an accuracy of 1 in 106 are compared
in Table I. Hence it can be seen that using the normalized member stiffness determinants to
construct |K̄∞ (f )| from |K̄(f )|, and hence to remove its poles, yields a 4% improvement
in computational effort, even when using a convergence method which has been specifically
designed and tuned for use with curves having poles.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Transcendental stiffness matrices for vibration (or buckling) have long been available for a range
of structural members. Such stiffness matrices are exact in the sense that they are obtained from
an analytical solution of the governing differential equations of the member. Hence, assembly
of the member stiffnesses to obtain the overall stiffness matrix of the structure results in a
transcendental eigenproblem, which can be solved with certainty using the Wittrick–Williams
algorithm. This approach contrasts with approximate methods such as FEM, which discretize
the problem and so obtain the more usual linear (algebraic) eigenproblem.

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
 EXACT DETERMINANT FOR INFINITE ORDER FEM REPRESENTATION 1365

When such an exact solution exists, the member has a very recently [4] discovered property
that can also be expressed analytically and is called its member stiffness determinant. The
member stiffness determinant is a property of the member when its ends are clamped and is so
called because it is the limit, as the number of elements becomes infinite, of the determinant of
the member’s stiffness matrix when it is modelled by conventional FEM. The member stiffness
determinant is normalized by dividing by its value when the eigenparameter (i.e. the frequency
or load factor) is zero, as otherwise it would become infinite.
In this paper, the previously derived transcendental stiffness matrix for vibration of an
axially loaded Timoshenko member has first been re-expressed using a new notation which
was developed because it enabled the expression for the member stiffness determinant to be
discovered and proved analytically to be correct. Additional stiffness determinant expressions
have been derived for the vibration of an unloaded Timoshenko member and for a static, axially
loaded Timoshenko member. A substantial benefit of the new notation is that the expressions
it gives for the member stiffnesses and for the member stiffness determinant in all these cases
are readily seen to reduce to the corresponding expressions for Bernoulli–Euler members if the
shear rigidity and rotatory inertia are neglected, without the need to perform tedious limiting
processes.
A major advantage of the member stiffness determinant is that, when its values for all
members of a structure are multiplied together and are also multiplied by the determinant of
the transcendental overall stiffness matrix of the structure, the result is a determinant which has
no poles when plotted against the eigenparameter. In coding and computation terms the effort
needed is almost trivial because only a few extra equations must be coded to compute the
member stiffness determinant. Such plots are better suited for convergence on eigenvalues by
curve following than the previously used plots of the determinant of the transcendental overall
stiffness matrix, which can have numerous poles, often of high multiplicity. This advantage is
illustrated by results.
The total equivalence of the normalized member stiffness determinant obtained from the tran-
scendental stiffness matrix expressions with that obtained by an infinite number of conventional
finite elements is also of value in understanding and evaluating conventional FEM results. Such
total equivalence also exists for the complete structure if the determinant of the transcendental
overall stiffness matrix is normalized by dividing by its value when the eigenparameter is
zero.

APPENDIX A

Original Timoshenko stiffness coefficients

The stiffness coefficients of Equation (7) for a Timoshenko beam–column were previously given
[6] by the following expressions:

 = (SC  − j
CS  ), = ( j
S  − S)
 = b2 (CS  +
SC  )/,  = Z(C  − C) (A1)
 = b2 (S  +
S)/,  = Z[( + j
)SS  − ( −
)(1 − CC  )]/( +
)

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
1366 F. W. WILLIAMS, D. KENNEDY AND M. S. DJOUDI

where the variables on the right-hand sides are given by

b2 = L4
2 /EI, p2 = P L2 /EI

(A2)
r 2 = I /AL2 , s 2 = EI /k  AGL2

q = 1 − b2 r 2 s 2 , t = 1 − s 2 p2
(A3)
 = (qp2 + b2 r 2 + b2 s 2 )/2t

 =  + (2 + qb2 /t)
2

 (A4)
2
j  = − + (2 + qb2 /t)

Z = t − b2 s 2 /,
= Z/(j t + b2 s 2 /) (A5)

S = sin , C = cos 
(q > 0) j = 1, S  = sinh , C  = cosh  (A6)
 
(q
0) j = −1, S = sin , C = cos 

 = ( +
)/[2
(1 − CC  ) + (1 − j
2 )SS  ] (A7)

Equations (A1)–(A7) remain valid when any combination of the effects of axial force, rotatory
inertia and shear deflection are suppressed by setting the relevant parameter (p2 , r 2 or s 2 )
equal to zero.
Note that  and  are used above instead of the  and
of Reference [6], because
is
used for determinants in the present paper and  is reserved for use in the member equations
for axial motion, which are not presented in this paper but are frequently used in conjunction
with the above Timoshenko equations when solving frame problems [5].
As a consequence of Equation (6) it should be possible to manipulate the equations for
the coefficients of k(f ) such that they all have |kii − f mii |, i.e.
∞ , in their denominator.
However
¯ ∞ must be used instead to avoid the denominator being infinite. Therefore it is
re-assuring that all six right-hand sides of Equation (15) share the common denominator ,
indicating that
¯ ∞ is likely to be equal to  or to  multiplied by or divided by some other
function of f . Unfortunately, the six right-hand sides of Equation (A1) do not appear to have
a common denominator, although actually they share the reciprocal of . A second weakness
of Equations (A1)–(A7) for the Timoshenko beam–column is that it is not easy to see how
they simplify to Equation (15) for the unloaded Bernoulli–Euler beam, i.e. it is not easy to
see why setting p 2 = r 2 = s 2 = 0 in Equation (A2) transforms Equations (A1)–(A7) into
Equation (15). These two weaknesses combined to make it difficult to find a relatively simple
formula for
¯ ∞ for the Timoshenko beam–column case from the one recently discovered [4]
for the simpler Bernoulli–Euler beam case. This motivated successful efforts to remove both
weaknesses, to give the alternative formulation for the Timoshenko equations presented in
Section 2. The necessary changes adopted the Bernoulli–Euler beam notation wherever a clash
with the Timoshenko notation would otherwise occur, because the Bernoulli–Euler notation is
the better established of the two. It was also observed that ,  and half of the numerator of

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
 EXACT DETERMINANT FOR INFINITE ORDER FEM REPRESENTATION 1367

 all become  when p2 = r 2 = s 2 = 0. Hence the changes needed to transform Equations

(A1)–(A7) into Equations (8)–(14) are

b2 → 4 ,  → 2 a ,  → a ,  → b
(A8)
Z → a , numerator → 2c , denominator → 2a c

¯ ∞ in Equation (16) can be

For future reference, it should be noted that the expression for

expressed in the notation of this Appendix as

p2
p
¯∞ =

(A9)
b2 ( +
)p

APPENDIX B

Detail of derivation of the member stiffness determinant

Substituting into Equation (19) from Equation (8), and also from Equation (C1) of Appendix C,
gives

(S1i C2i − ji
i C1i S2i )(C1i S2i +
i S1i C2i )4i 2ci

¯ i−1 =
[
i (1 − C1i C2i ) + 21 (1 − ji
2i )S1i S2i ]2 ai bi

[2(1 − Cpi ) − jpi

pi Spi ]2
2pi
× ¯2

(B1)
i
(Spi −
pi Cpi )(jpi
2pi Spi )pi4

Note that, since Li = 1

2 Li−1 , ki = 2ki−1 and

i = 21 i−1 , pi = 1
2 pi−1 , ri = 2ri−1 , si = 2si−1
qi = qi−1 , ti = ti−1 , ai = ai−1 , ji = ji−1
ai = 21 ai−1 , bi = 1
2 bi−1 , i = i−1 ,
i =
i−1 (B2)
ci = 21 ci−1 , i = i−1
pi = pi−1 ,
1
2
pi = 1
2
pi−1 , jpi = jpi−1

Standard trigonometric formulae for double angles and their hyperbolic counterparts clearly
give

S1i C1i = 21 S1i−1 , 2

S1i = 1
2 (1 − C1i−1 ), 2
C1i = 1
2 (1 + C1i−1 )
S2i C2i = 21 S2i−1 , 2
S2i = − 21 ji (1 − C2i−1 ), 2
C2i = 2 (1 + C2i−1 )
1
(B3)
Spi Cpi = 21 Spi−1 , 2
Spi = 2 jpi (1 − Cpi−1 ),
1 2
Cpi = 2 (1 + Cpi−1 )
1

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
1368 F. W. WILLIAMS, D. KENNEDY AND M. S. DJOUDI

Hence, substituting from Equations (B2) and (B3) into Equation (B1) gives

¯ i−1 = [(1 − ji
i )S1i C1i S2i C2i +
i S1i C2i − ji
i C1i S2i ]i ci
2 2 2 2 2 4 2


[
i (1 − C1i C2i ) + 21 (1 − ji
2i )S1i S2i ]2 ai bi

[2(1 − Cpi ) − jpi

pi Spi ]2
× ¯2


2 − j
S C )p 4 i
(jpi Spi pi pi pi pi i

1
2 [
i−1 (1 − C1i−1 C2i−1 ) + 1 2 4 2
2 (1 − ji−1
i−1 )S1i−1 S2i−1 ]i ci
=
[
i (1 − C1i C2i ) + 2 (1 − ji
i )S1i S2i ] ai bi
1 2 2

[2(1 − Cpi ) − jpi

pi Spi ]2
×1 ¯2

i
4 [2(1 − Cpi−1 ) − jpi−1
pi−1 Spi−1 ]pi
4

ai−1 ai−1 bi−1 pi−1

2
4
pi−1 [2i ci pi ]
2
= ¯2

(B4)
i
24i−1 ci−1 pi−1 [ai ai bi pi2
pi ]2

Therefore


2
24i−1 ci−1 pi−1 ¯
i−1 = 24i ci pi ¯i

(B5)
ai−1 ai−1 bi−1 pi−1
2

pi−1 ai ai bi pi2
pi
This recurrence relation has the general solution
ai ai bi pi2
pi
¯i =

eLi (B6)
24i ci pi
where  is an arbitrary function which is independent of Li .
Now consider a finite element formulation for which level r is the innermost level. The level r
stiffness matrix kj (f ) of Equation (17) is replaced by appropriate finite element approximations
such that its determinant is an even function of Lr , so that
¯ r−1 = |kj (f )|/|kj (0)| is also
an even function of Lr . In the limit as r → ∞ (so that Lr → 0), a series expansion of
Equation (B6) only yields an even function of Lr if  = 0, i.e. if the exponential factor is
omitted. Hence, for the member of full length L, Equation (B6) becomes the required result of
Equation (16).
Limiting expressions for
¯ ∞ as P → 0 and
→ 0 are given in Appendix C.

APPENDIX C

Limiting cases of the Timoshenko beam–column equations and member

stiffness determinant
Before proceeding it should be noted that Equations (C1)–(C3) presented below are as concise
as the corresponding equations of Reference [6], but have substantial improvements in clarity
since the stiffness coefficients of each of Equations (C1) and (C3) clearly share a common

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
 EXACT DETERMINANT FOR INFINITE ORDER FEM REPRESENTATION 1369

denominator and the new notation greatly enhances the compatibility of the notation of Equation
(C3) and of Equations (C1) and (C2) with that of Equations (8)–(14), which makes the limiting
processes needed to get from one set of equations to the next much easier to perform.

C.1. Equations for static member with axial force and shear rigidity
Because
¯ ∞ is normalized with respect to its value when f = 0, for the vibration problem
it is necessary to obtain the limit of Equation (8) as
→ 0, i.e. as f → 0, to obtain the
static stiffness coefficients for an axially loaded beam with shear rigidity k  AG. This was done
previously in Reference [6], and the results are simply repeated here, with important changes
of notation, giving
 = (Sp −
p Cp )/p , = (
p − Sp )/p
(C1)
 =  =  + ,  =  = jp
2p Sp /p

where the definitions of p2 , s 2 and t are still given by Equations (9) and (10) and

p = (jp p2 /t),
p = tp

(p2 > 0) jp = 1, Sp = sin p , Cp = cos p

(C2)
(p < 0) jp = −1,
2
Sp = sinh p , Cp = cosh p

p = [2(1 − Cp ) − jp
p Sp ]
p /p2
Jm can be found from Equations (9), (10) and (12) of Reference [6], replacing  by p .

C.2. Equations for static member with shear rigidity and P = 0

In the limit, as P → 0, Equation (C1) gives [6] the following expressions, which are needed
when normalizing
¯ ∞ for the buckling problem.
 = (3 + 0 )/0 , = (3 − 0 )/0

 =  = 12/0 ,  =  = 6/0 (C3)

0 = (1 + 12s 2 )
As in Reference [6], Jm = 0 in the limit as P → 0.

C.3. Determinant for vibration of unloaded Timoshenko member

For an unloaded member, Equation (19) holds when i0 and i0 are replaced by the values of
i and i for the unloaded static case of Equation (C3). Thus

¯ i−1 = [(1 − ji
i )S1i C1i S2i C2i +
i S1i C2i − ji
i C1i S2i ]i ci (1 + 12si )

2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2

¯2
i
[
i (1 − C1i C2i ) + 2 (1 − ji
i )S1i S2i ] ai bi [12(4 + 12si )]
1 2 2 2

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
1370 F. W. WILLIAMS, D. KENNEDY AND M. S. DJOUDI

1
[
i−1 (1 − C1i−1 C2i−1 ) + 1
(1 − ji−1
2i−1 )S1i−1 S2i−1 ]4i 2ci (1 + 12si2 )2
= 2 2 ¯2

i
[
i (1 − C1i C2i ) + 1
2 (1 − ji
2i )S1i S2i ]2 ai bi [48(1 + 12si−1
2 )]

6ai−1 ai−1 bi−1 [4i ci (1 + 12si2 )]2 ¯ 2

= 2 )[6   ]2 i

(C4)
4i−1 ci−1 (1 + 12si−1 ai ai bi

so that


2
4i−1 ci−1 (1 + 12si−1
2 )
4i ci (1 + 12si2 ) ¯
¯ i−1 =


i (C5)
6ai−1 ai−1 bi−1 6ai ai bi
Using the arguments of the latter part of Appendix B gives the solution
6a a b

¯ ∞ = 4
 c (1 + 12s 2 )


12
= 2 in the notation of Appendix A (C6)
b ( +
)(1 + 12s 2 )

which clearly limits when r 2 = s 2 = 0 to the recently discovered [4] Bernoulli–Euler result
¯ ∞ = 6/3 .

C.4. Determinant for static member with axial force and shear rigidity
Here, Equation (19) holds with i and i given by Equation (C1); i0 and i0 are given by
Equation (C3). Thus, for buckling problems,
2 − j
S C )p 4 (1 + 12s 2 )2
(jpi Spi pi pi pi pi i

¯ i−1 =
¯ i
i 2
[2(1 − Cpi ) − jpi
pi Spi ]2 [12(4 + 12si2 )]
1
[2(1 − Cpi−1 ) − jpi−1
pi−1 Spi−1 ]pi4 (1 + 12si2 )2
= 4 ¯2

i
48[2(1 − Cpi ) − jpi
pi Spi ]2 (1 + 12si−1
2 )

12pi−1 [pi2
pi (1 + 12si2 )2 ]2
= ¯2

(C7)
2
i
pi−1 (1 + 12si−1 )(12pi )
pi−1 2 2

so that


2
2

pi−1 (1 + 12si−1 ) pi2

pi (1 + 12si2 )
pi−1 2
¯ i−1 =

¯i

(C8)
12pi−1 12pi
giving the solution
12p

¯ ∞ = (C9)
p
p (1 + 12s 2 )
2

Setting s 2 = 0 gives the limit for a loaded Bernoulli–Euler member
¯ ∞ = 12p /p2

p .

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371
 EXACT DETERMINANT FOR INFINITE ORDER FEM REPRESENTATION 1371

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for support
under grant number GR/R05406/01 and to the Royal Academy of Engineering for support during
the first author’s three month stay at Tsinghua University and Dalian University of Technology in
China, during which time the key ideas of this paper were developed. The first author holds a chair at
Cardiff University to which he will return upon completion of his appointment at City University of
Hong Kong.

REFERENCES
1. Williams FW, Wittrick WH. An automatic computational procedure for calculating natural frequencies of
skeletal structures. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1970; 12:781–791.
2. Wittrick WH, Williams FW. A general algorithm for computing natural frequencies of elastic structures.
Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics 1971; 24:263–284.
3. Wittrick WH, Williams FW. An algorithm for computing critical buckling loads of elastic structures. Journal
of Structural Mechanics 1973; 1:497–518.
4. Williams FW, Kennedy D, Djoudi MS. The member stiffness determinant and its uses for the transcendental
eigenproblems of structural engineering and other disciplines. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences 2003; 459:1001–1019.
5. Howson WP, Williams FW. Natural frequencies of frames with axially loaded Timoshenko members. Journal
of Sound and Vibration 1973; 26:503–515.
6. Howson WP, Banerjee JR, Williams FW. Concise equations and program for exact eigensolutions of plane
frames including member shear. Advances in Engineering Software 1983; 5:137–141.
7. Anderson ID. Dynamic Stability Functions for Continuous Structures. Heriot–Watt University: Edinburgh, 1968.
8. Williams FW, Kennedy D. Reliable use of determinants to solve non-linear structural eigenvalue problems
efficiently. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1988; 26:1825–1841.

Copyright 䉷 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 59:1355–1371