Here is the question I asked about the Timoshenko model @Wenbin
For this equation from the textbook.
As gamma is clearly defined as epsilon 13 and 23, but in the thesis, Appendix A, it is defined as 12 and 13.
The question is why are the notations (subscripts) different? Since they are essentially the same and it’s just that in the book we do not have initial curvatures.
In my thesis, written 20+ years ago, MSG was not born yet. We had no idea/intention to unify with micromechanics. Now, MSG unifies structural mechanics with micromechanics, for 3D continuum model, we use 2\epsilon_{13}, 2\epsilon_{23} for transverse shear strains. To unify the notation, we change what we used for beam/plate/shell to 3D continuum model notation as it is more commonly known.
@Wenbin in Timoshenko model, transverse shear strains are defined as 2\epsilon_{12} and 2\epsilon_{13}, so how did they become 2\epsilon_{13} and 2\epsilon_{23}? Because 2\epsilon_{13} and 2\epsilon_{23} are the transverse shear strains defined for Reissner-Mindlin model not the Timoshenko model.
Then that is a typo. Should be 12 and 13.
