Applied Mathematics and Mechanics (English Edition), 2006, 27(10):1305–1310

Editorial
c Committee of Appl. Math. Mech., ISSN 0253-4827

ANALYTICAL SOLUTION FOR FIXED-FIXED ANISOTROPIC

BEAM SUBJECTED TO UNIFORM LOAD ∗

DING Hao-jiang ( )1 , HUANG De-jin (  )1,2 , WANG Hui-ming (  )3

(1. Department of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, P. R. China;

2. Faculty of Engineering, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, Zhejiang Province, P. R. China;
3. Department of Mechanics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, P. R. China)

(Contributed by DING Hao-jiang)

Abstract: The analytical solutions of the stresses and displacements were obtained for
fixed-fixed anisotropic beams subjected to uniform load. A stress function involving un-
known coefficients was constructed, and the general expressions of stress and displacement
were obtained by means of Airy stress function method. Two types of the description for
the fixed end boundary condition were considered. The introduced unknown coefficients
in stress function were determined by using the boundary conditions. The analytical
solutions for stresses and displacements were finally obtained. Numerical tests show that
the analytical solutions agree with the FEM results. The analytical solution supplies a
classical example for the elasticity theory.
Key words: fixed-fixed beam; anisotropy; stress function; analytical solution
Chinese Library Classification: O343.1
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 74B05
Digital Object Identifier(DOI): 10.1007/s 10483-006-1002-z

Introduction
The plane stress problem of beam is a classical subject in elasticity theory and also will
be encountered frequently in practical cases. The isotropic beams have been investigated by
Timoshenko and Goodier[1] for many cases, such as tension, shearing, pure bending, bending
of a cantilever subjected to a transverse load at the end, bending of a simply supported beam
under uniform load, and other cases of continuously loaded beams. Lekhnitskii[2] studied the
deformations of the anisotropic beams including tension, shearing, pure bending, bending of a
cantilever loaded at the end, bending of the simply supported beams and the cantilever beams
under uniform load or linearly distributed load. Jiang and Ding[3] investigated the orthotropic
cantilever beams subjected to distributed shear or normal load on their upper and lower edges.
For uniformly loaded, both ends fixed beams, Gere and Timoshenko[4] presented the expressions
of deflection and stress by employing Euler-Bernoulli beam theory. A numerical solution of
fixed-fixed deep beams was reported by Ahmed et al.[5] . Recently, Ding et al.[6] obtained
the analytical solutions for fixed-fixed isotropic beam subjected to uniform load. It is noted
here that the study for fixed-fixed anisotropic beam under uniform load is not considered in
Lekhnitskii’s monograph. Also, to the authors’ knowledge, no literature has been published yet
on this subject. Here, stress function method is introduced to investigate the fixed-fixed beams
subjected to uniform load, and the stresses and displacements are obtained in explicit form at

∗ Received Sep.30, 2005; Revised Jun.2, 2006

Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos.10472102 and 10432030)
Corresponding author DING Hao-jiang, Professor, E-mail: [email protected]
1306 DING Hao-jing, HUANG De-jin and WANG Hui-ming

the end. The solutions can be degenerated to those for isotropic beams, and the degenerated
solutions are completely in accord with the existing results.

1 Basic Equations

In x-y plane, the constitutive equations for anisotropic material can be expressed as
⎧
⎪ ∂u
⎪
⎪ = s11 σx + s12 σy + s16 τxy ,
⎪
⎪ ∂x
⎪
⎨ ∂v
= s12 σx + s22 σy + s26 τxy , (1)
⎪
⎪ ∂y
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∂u
⎩ + ∂v/∂x = s16 σx + s26 σy + s66 τxy ,
∂y
where u, v, σx , σy and τxy are the components of displacement and stress, respectively. sij are
elastic compliance constants.
The stress components can be expressed by stress function φ as

∂2φ ∂2φ ∂2φ

σx = , σy = , τxy = − , (2)
∂y 2 ∂x2 ∂x∂y
in which the stress function φ must satisfy the following compatibility equation:

∂4φ ∂4φ ∂4φ ∂4φ ∂4φ

s22 − 2s 26 + (2s 12 + s 66 ) − 2s 16 + s 11 = 0. (3)
∂x4 ∂x3 ∂y ∂x2 ∂y 2 ∂x∂y 3 ∂y 4
2 Analytical Solutions for Fixed-Fixed Beam

Consider a fixed-fixed beam with rectangular cross section subjected to a uniform load q
as shown in Fig.1. Suppose the width of the beam is unit, and the length and height are,
respectively, l and h.
The stress function is first constructed in a poly-
nomial form as
φ = Ay 5 + Bxy 4 + cy 4 + Dx2 y 3 + Exy 3 + F y 3
+ Gxy 2 + Hy 2 + Ix2 y + Jxy + Kx2 , (4)

where A, B, C, D, E, F , G, H, I, J and K are 11

unknown constants. Substituting Eq.(4) into Eq.(3),
three equations can be derived as
Fig.1 Fixed-fixed beam subjected ⎧
to a uniform load ⎨ 10s11 A − 4s16 B + 2(s12 + s66 )D = 0,
⎪
s11 B − s16 D = 0, (5)
⎪
⎩
2s11 C − s16 E = 0.

The substitution of Eq.(4) into Eq.(2) gives the expressions of the stress as
⎧ 3 2 2 2
⎨ σx = 20Ay + 12Bxy + 12Cy + 6Dx y + 6Exy + 6F y + 2Gx + 2H,
⎪
σy = 2Dy 3 + 2Iy + 2K, (6)
⎪
⎩
τxy = −4By 3 − 6Dxy 2 − 3Ey 2 − 2Gy − 2Ix − J.

Substituting Eq.(6) into Eq.(1) and integrating them, the expressions of the displacement
are then obtained as
 Analytical Solution for Fixed-Fixed Anisotropic Beam 1307

u = [5s16 A − (s12 + s66 )B + s26 D]y 4

+ [(20s11 A − 4s16 B + 2s12 D)x + 4s16 C − (s12 + s66 )E]y 3
+ [3(2s11 B − s16 D)x2 + 3(4s11 C − s16 E)x + 3s16 F − (s12 + s66 )G + 2s26 I]y 2
+ [2s11 Dx3 + 3s11 Ex2 + (6s11 F + 2s12 I − 2s16 G)x]y + (s11 G − s16 I)x2
+ (2s11 H − s16 J + 2s12 K)x + ωy + u0 , (7a)
4 3
v = (5s12 A + 0.5s22 D − s26 B) y + [2(2s12 B − s26 D)x + 4s12 C − s26 E]y
+ [3s12 (Dx2 + Ex + F ) − s26 G + s22 I]y 2 + [2(s12 G − s26 I)x + 2s12 H − s26 J + 2s22 K]y
− 0.5s11 Dx4 − s11 Ex3 − [3s11 F − 2s16 G + (s12 + s66 )I]x2
+ (2s16 H + 2s26 K − s66 J)x − ωx + v0 , (7b)
where u0 , v0 and ω are arbitrary constants, which denote the translation and rotation of rigid
body, respectively. So the displacement components involve 14 undetermined constants.
Timoshenko and Goodier[1] proposed two types of description for the boundary conditions
of fixed-end. Both of them will be considered in this paper. The boundary conditions for the
first type are written as (i) y = h/2, σy = 0; (ii) y = −h/2, σy = −q; (iii) y = ±h/2, τxy = 0;
∂v
(iv) u = v = 0, ∂x = 0 at point x = 0, y = 0 and point x = l, y = 0. And those for the second
∂v
are obtained only by replacing ∂x = 0 with ∂u ∂y = 0 in corresponding boundary conditions for
the first type.
Substituting the stress components (6) and displacement components (7) into the corre-
sponding boundary conditions, 11 algebraic equations can then be derived. Together with
Eq.(3), we get 14 equations to determine 14 unknown constants. The components of stress and
displacement for the first type are expressed as
⎧ 2
⎪ σx = − (6x2 − 6xl + l2 ) qy + s11 s66 + 2s11 s12 − 4s16 qy(4y 2 − h2 )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ h 3 2
2s11 h 3
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ s s12 s66
⎪
⎪ 16 2
q(l − 2x)(12y − h ) + 2
q(h − y) − qy,
⎨ +
2s11 h3 2s11 h s11 h
(8)
⎪
⎪ q(y + h)(h − 2y)2
⎪
⎪ σy = − ,
⎪
⎪ 2h3 
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪ q s16
⎪ 2
⎩ τxy = 3 (4y − h ) 4 2
y + 3(2x − l) .
4h s11
⎧
⎪ 3s11 s16 s66 − 4s316 − 2s26 s211 + 4s11 s12 s16 4 (s11 s66 + s11 s12 − 2s216 )(2x − l) 3
⎪
⎪ u = qy + qy
⎪
⎪ 2s211 h3 s11 h3
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ x2 s16 xls16 l2 s16 s12 s16 + s16 s66 3s26 s316
⎪
⎪ + −3 + 3 − − 5 + + qy 2
⎪
⎪ h3 h3 2h3 4s11 h 2h s211 h
⎪
⎪   
⎪
⎪ 2s11 x3 3s11 x2 l s216 s11 l2 s216
⎪
⎪ − −
3s66
− x−
3s66
− l
⎪
⎪ + + 3
⎪
⎪ h3 h3 2h s11 h h 4h 2s11 h
⎪
⎨ 
s26 q s12 s16 qs16 x(l − x)
+ − qy + ,
⎪
⎪ 2 2s11 4h
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2s s2 + 2s11 s16 s26 − 4s12 s216 + s11 s12 s66 − s211 s22 4 (2s12 s16 − s11 s26 )(l − 2x) 3
⎪
⎪ v = 11 12 qy + qy
⎪
⎪ 2s211 h3 s11 h3
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪ 3s12 x2 3s12 xl s12 l2 s16 s26 s12 s216 3s212 3s12 s66 3s22
⎪
⎪ − − + + − + + − qy 2
⎪
⎪ h 3 h 3 2h 3 2hs11 2
hs11 4hs11 4hs11 4h
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2s12 s16 − 3s11 s26 3s11 s26 − 2s12 s16 s2 − s11 s22 qs11 (l − x)2 x2
⎩ + x+ l + 12 qy + .
2hs11 4hs11 2s11 2h3
(9)
1308 DING Hao-jing, HUANG De-jin and WANG Hui-ming

And those for the second type are

⎧
⎪ 2 qy s11 s66 + 2s11 s12 − 4s216
⎪
⎪ σx = − (6x 2
− 6xl + l ) + 2qy 3
⎪
⎪ h 3 s 2 h3
⎪
⎪ 
11

⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 6s 16 2(s s
11 26 − s12 s16 ) 3
⎪
⎪
⎪ + 3
l − 2x + 2 2 2 h2 + 3s s h2 h qy 2
⎪
⎪ s 11 h 2s 11 l − 3s 16 11 66
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 12x(s12 s16 − s11 s26 ) 6(s11 s26 − s12 s16 )qly 3s11 s12 − 2s216
⎪
⎪ − 2 2 qy − 2 2 − qy
⎨ 2 2
2s11 l − 3s16 h + 3s11 s66 h 2 2
2s11 l + 3s11 s66 h − 3s16 h 2 2 2s211 h
⎪
⎪ s16 q 2s2 s12 l2 + 3s11 s12 s66 h2 − 3s11 s16 s26 h2
⎪
⎪ (2x − l) + 11 q,
⎪
⎪
+
2s11 h 2s11 (2s211 l2 − 3s216 h2 + 3s11 s66 h2 )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ q(y + h)(h − 2y)2
⎪
⎪ σy = − ,
⎪
⎪ 2h3
⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ (4y 2 − h2 )q s16 6(s11 s26 − s12 s16 )h3
⎩ τxy = 3(2x − l) + 4 y− 2 2 .
4h3 s11 2s11 l − 3s216 h2 + 3s11 s66 h2
⎧ (10)
3 2
⎪ 3s s s − 4s − 2s s + 4s s s
⎪ u = 11 16 66
⎪
16 26 11 11 12 16
qy 4
⎪
⎪ 2s 2 h3
⎪
⎪ 11
⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪ (s11 s12 − 2s216 + s11 s66 ) 2(s11 s26 − s12 s16 )h3
⎪
⎪ + 2x − l − 2 l 2 − 3s2 h2 + 3s s h2 qy
3
⎪
⎪ s h 3 2s
⎪
⎪
11 11 16 11 66
⎪
⎪  2
⎪
⎪ 3s 16 2 3s 16 l 6s (s
16 11 26 s − s s
12 16 ) s 16 l
⎪
⎪ − x − x − x +
⎪
⎪ h3 h3 2s211 l2 − 3s216 h2 + 3s11 s66 h2 2h3
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 6s211 s26 + s16 (2s216 − 5s11 s12 − 2s11 s66 ) 3s16 (s11 s26 − s12 s16 )l 2
⎪
⎪ − + 2 l 2 − 3s2 h2 + 3s s h2 qy
⎪
⎪ 4s 2 h 2s
⎪
⎪ 11 11 16 11 66
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ qs 11 6qs 11 (l − x)xy qs16
⎪
⎪ + 3 (l − x)(2x − l)xy + 2 2 2 h2 + 3s s h2 (s12 s16 − s11 s26 ) + 4h x(l − x),
⎪
⎪ h 2s l − 3s 11 66
⎪
⎪
11 16
⎪
⎪ 2 2 2
⎪
⎪ (2s s
11 12 − s s
11 22 + s s
11 12 66 s + 2s s
11 26 16 s − 4s 12 s16 )
⎪
⎪ v = qy 4
⎪
⎪ 2s 2 h3
⎪
⎪ 
11

⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ (s11 s26 − 2s12 s16 ) 2(s12 s16 − s11 s26 )h3
+ 2x − l + qy 3
s11 h3 2s211 l2 + 3s11 s66 h2 − 3s216 h2
⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪ x−l 2(s11 s26 − s12 s16 )
⎪
⎪ − 3s12 − 2 2 qxy 2
⎪
⎪ h3 2s11 l + 3s11 s66 h2 − 3s216 h2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪ 2s12 s216 − 3s11 s212 + 3s211 s22 − 2s11 s16 s26 3s12 (s11 s26 − s12 s16 )l s12 l2
⎪
⎪ + − − qy 2
⎪
⎪ 4s 2 h 2s 2 l 2 + 3s s h2 − 3s2 h2 2h 3
⎪
⎪ 11 11 11 66 16
⎪
⎪   2
⎪
⎪ s 12 s 16 3s 26 qxy s − s 11 s 22 (3s 11 s 26 − 2s 12 s 16 )l
⎪
⎪ + − + 12 +
⎪
⎪ s11 2 h 2s11 4s11 h
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪ 3(s11 s26 − s12 s16 )2 h2 s11 qx3 (l − x)
⎪
⎪ + qy −
⎪
⎪ 2 2
2s11 (2s11 l + 3s11 s66 h − 3s16 h ) 2 2 2 2h3
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ s11 qx2 (l − x)[2l3 s211 + 3(s11 s66 − s216 )h2 l + 4(s11 s26 − s12 s16 )h3 ]
⎪
⎪ +
⎪
⎪ 2h3 (2s211 l2 + 3s11 s66 h2 − 3s216 h2 )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ qx(l − x)
⎪
⎪ +
⎪
⎪ 4s11 h(2s11 l + 3s11 s66 h2 − 3s216 h2 )
2 2
⎪
⎪
⎩
× [2s211 (3s11 s66 − 2s216 )l2 + 4s211 (s12 s16 − s11 s26 )hl + 3(3s11 s66 − 2s216 )(s11 s66 − s216 )h2 ].
(11)
 Analytical Solution for Fixed-Fixed Anisotropic Beam 1309

Setting s11 = 1/E0 , s12 = −μ/E0 , s66 = 2(1 + μ)/E0 , s16 = s26 = 0, in which E0 is Young’s
modulus, μ is Poisson’s ratio, the above-mentioned solutions are then degenerated to those for
isotropic beam. It is noted here that the degenerated solutions for Eqs.(8)–(11) are completely
same as those in Ref.[6]. Furthermore, we notice that, in the solutions of anisotropic beam, the
terms of y 2 in σx , y 3 in τxy , y 4 and y 2 in u and y 3 in v are not involved in the solutions of
isotropic and orthotropic beams.

3 Numerical Example

Numerical tests are demonstrated for a fixed-fixed anisotropic beam subjected to a uniform
load. Also, the comparison between the analytical solutions and the FEM results is made.
Suppose the geometric parameters of the beam are: span 10 m, height 1m and width unit. The
uniform load intensity is q = 107 N/m. The material properties are listed in Table 1. The FEM
results are achieved by MSC.Nastran codes. The boundary conditions for FEM are treated as:
(i) x = 0, l, −h/2 ≤ y ≤ h/2, u = v = 0; (ii) y = h/2, 0 ≤ x ≤ l, σy = τxy = 0; (iii) y = −h/2,
0 ≤ x ≤ l, σy = 107 Pa, τxy = 0. The Quad4 element of 0.01 m× 0.01 m is employed and the
total elements for the whole beam are 1000.

Table 1 Material properties (unit: m2 · N−1 )

s11 s12 s16 s22 s26 s66
11.162 × 10−12 −4.557 × 10−12 1.847 × 10−12 11.970 × 10−12 2.171 × 10−12 33.778 × 10−12

Figure 2 shows the curve of displacement component v at y = 0 (the deflection of the neutral
axis) and Fig.3 shows the curve of displacement component u at y = −h/2, in which BC1 and
BC2 denote the results for the first and second types of description for the fixed-end boundary,
respectively, and FEM denote that for finite element method.

Fig.2 Dimensionless displacement com- Fig.3 Dimensionless displacement component

ponent v at y = 0 u at y = −h/2

Observing the analytical expressions and the numerical results, we find that the deflection of
neutral axis is a quartic curve of x. The displacement component u at the height y = −h/2 is a
cubic curve of x. From Figs.2 and 3, we find that the FEM results locate between those for BC1
and BC2, and closer to that for BC2. These results indicate that the type of the description
for fixed-end boundary will lead to different constraint conditions. The restriction for the first
type is stronger than that for the second type. Factually, the restriction for the second type
is closer to that for FEM solution. The presented analytical solutions provide two important
approximations in practical use.
The dimensionless stress σx /q at y = −h/2 is plotted in Fig.4. We find that, except the
1310 DING Hao-jing, HUANG De-jin and WANG Hui-ming

adjacent region of the two ends, the FEM results also locate between the results of BC1 and
BC2, and the FEM results are closer to those of BC2. The results of σx /q obtained by FEM
increase rapidly near the two ends, which can be explained as stress concentration.

Fig.4 Dimensionless stress component σx at y = −h/2

From the expression of u, we find that, instead of the middle of the beam, the zero point of the
displacement component u of neutral axis locates at x=5.0897 m for BC1, and at x=5.0866 m
for BC2. The extreme point of the displacement component v in the neutral section locates
in the middle of the beam for BC1, while at x=5.0012 m for BC2. From the expression of σx ,
we obtain that the extreme point of σx locates at x=5.0551 m for BC1 and at x=5.0564 m for
BC2. These results are directly related to the material parameters s16 and s26 . If the material
constants satisfy s16 = 0 and s26 = 0, named as the orthotropic material, the zero point of u
in y = −h/2 section, the extreme point of v in the neutral section and the extreme value point
of σx then appear at the middle of the beam(x=5 m).

4 Conclusions

The analytical solutions for fixed-fixed anisotropic beam subjected to uniform load are pre-
sented in this paper. The analytical solutions supply a classical example for the elasticity theory.
Numerical tests show that the analytical solutions agree with the FEM results. The analytical
solutions of the two types of description for fixed-end boundary provide a theoretical range for
FEM results. The solutions are significative in both theoretical investigation and practical use.

References
[1] Timoshenko S P, Goodier J N. Theory of Elasticity[M]. 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.
[2] Lekhnitskii S G. Anisotropic Plate[M]. Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968.
[3] Jiang A M, Ding H J. The analytical solutions for orthotropic cantilever beams (I): Subjected to
surface forces[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University, Science A, 2005, 6(2):126–131.
[4] Gere J M, Timoshenko S P. Mechanics of Materials[M]. 2nd Ed. PWS-KENT Publishing Company,
Boston, 1984.
[5] Ahmed S R, Idris B M, Uddin M W. Numerical solution of both ends fixed deep beams[J].
Computer & Structures, 1996, 61(1):21–29.
[6] Ding H J, Huang D J, Wang H M. The analytical solution for fixed-end beam subjected to uniform
load[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University, Science A, 2005, 6(8):779–783.