Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762

Mechanics of shear deformable thin-walled beams

made of composite materials
Marcelo T. Piovan

, V ctor H. Cort nez

Grupo de Analisis de Sistemas Mecanicos, Universidad Tecnologica Nacional (FRBB) 11 de Abril 461, 8000 Baha Blanca, Argentina
Received 1 March 2006; received in revised form 8 September 2006; accepted 15 December 2006
Available online 13 March 2007
Abstract
In this paper, a new theoretical model is developed for the generalized linear analysis of composite thin-walled beams with open
or closed cross-sections. The present model incorporates, in a full form the shear deformability by means of two features. The rst
one may be addressed as a mechanical aspect where the effect of shear deformability due to both bending and non-uniform warping
is considered. The second feature is connected with the constitutive aspects, and it contemplates the use of different hypotheses adopted
in the formulation. These topics are treated in a straightforward way by means of the Linearized Principle of Virtual Works. The model
is developed by employing a non-linear displacement eld, whose rotations are formulated by means of the rule of semi-
tangential transformation. This model allows studying many problems of statics, free vibrations with or without arbitrary initial stresses
and linear stability of composite thin-walled beams with general cross-sections. A discussion about the constitutive equations is
performed, in order to explain distinctive aspects of the effects included in the theory. This paper presents the theoretical formulation
together with nite element procedures that are developed with the aim to obtain solutions to the general equations of thin-walled
shear deformable composite beams. A non-locking fourteen-degree-of-freedom nite element is introduced. Numerical examples
are carried out in several topics of statics, dynamics and buckling problems, focusing attention in the validation of the theory with
respect to experimental data and with 2D and 3D computational approaches. Also, new parametrical studies are performed in order
to show the inuence of shear exibility in the mechanics of the thin-walled composite beams as well as to illustrate the usefulness
of the model.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Thin-walled beams; Composite material; Shear exibility
1. Introduction
The use of slender composite structures is growing continuously in many applications of aeronautical, mechanical, naval
and even construction industries. The composite materials have many advantages that motivate their use in structural
applications. The most well known features of composite materials are their high strength and stiffness properties along
with low weight, good corrosion resistance, enhanced fatigue life, low thermal expansion properties among others [1].
Other important property of composite materials is the very low machining cost [2]. As a consequence of the increasing
applications of thin-walled beams, many research activities have been devoted towards the development of theoretical and
computational methods for the appropriate analysis of such members.
The rst consistent study dealing with the static structural behaviour of thin-walled compositeorthotropic members,
under various loading patterns, was due to Bauld and Tzeng [3], who developed in the early eighties, applying Vlasov
hypotheses, a beam theory to analyse ber-reinforced members featuring open cross-sections with symmetric laminates.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/tws
0263-8231/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2006.12.001

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mpiovan@frbb.utn.edu.ar (M.T. Piovan).
Other authors contemporaneous to Bauld and Tzeng, developed composite thin-walled beam models with closed cross-
sections [46], however they did not take into account transverse shear deformation and cross-sectional warping. These
theories were restricted to beams without shear deformability, and special staking sequences [6]. Moreover, the models
were mainly applied for static analysis. It has to be mentioned that, Kim et al. [34] developed recently exact solutions for
thin-walled open-section composite beams with arbitrary lamination.
Composite thin-walled beam models allowing for some effects of shear deformability were rst presented in the
middle eighties with the pioneering articles of Giavotto et al. [7] and Bauchau [8]. In these works the effect of shear
deformability was partially taken into account. However certain aspects related to shear deformability, such as warping
torsion shear, were not considered. The late eighties and the nineties brought a considerable amount of new models and
applications.
In 1988, Libove [9] developed a simple theory for calculating shear-ows and normal stresses applied to thin-walled
beams of closed section. Libove took into account the bending shear deformability but did not mention the shear
deformability due to non-uniform warping. Smith and Chopra [10] and Chandra and Chopra [11] developed theoretical
models and closed-form solutions for composite box-beams considering only shear deformation due to bending, however
they employed a rened form to describe the warping function and presented extensive comparisons with experimental
results and other beam solutions [12]. Reheld et al. [13] studied the non-conventional effects of constitutive elastic
couplings (such as bendingbending coupling or bendingshear coupling, etc.) in the mechanics of cantilever boxed-beams
introducing the concepts of circumferential asymmetric or uniform stiffness (i.e. CAS or CUS) congurations for
closed sections.
Librescu et al. [1418] developed models, which were employed in a broad eld of engineering problems. In these models
the bending component of shear exibility was taken into account but the warping torsion component was neglected.
However in these models new extensions were performed, such as the consideration of the thickness effects in shear and
warping deformations.
Massa and Barbero [19] derived an interesting strength of materials theory for simple static and buckling problems.
Sherbourne and Kabir [20] developed a model for lateral buckling analyses. In these theories the shear exibility
due warping was not considered. Special attention, deserve the works of Cesnik and coworkers [21,22] who performed
studies on thin-walled composite beams by means of the so-called Variational Asymptotical Cross Sectional Analysis
(VABSA) Method. In these works there is no mention to buckling problems and vibrations with arbitrary states of initial
stresses.
According to the authors knowledge, the rst study accounting for full shear exibility is that of Wu and Sun [23].
However, in their paper, emphasis was given in showing the effectiveness of the developed nite element and not in
characterizing the shear effect on the mechanics of the member. More recently, Chen [24] developed a theory of anisotropic
thin-walled beams considering full shear exibility. However in these last articles, congurations of initial stresses were not
involved and only problems of free vibrations were studied. By making use of the HellingerReissner principle, the authors
introduced recently [25] a theory of thin-walled beams with symmetric balanced laminates, which considers full shear
exibility, i.e. bending-shear and warping-shear, covering also topics of dynamics under initial normal stresses, and
accounting for thickness shear exibility and thickness warping.
In the present paper, a theoretical model is presented for the dynamic, static and buckling analysis of anisotropic,
open and closed cross-section composite thin-walled-beams with general stacking sequences and arbitrary states of
initial stresses and off-axis loadings. This model takes into account, in a full form, the shear exibility due to
bending and warping. The theory is developed by applying the Principle of Virtual Works and employing a displacement
eld enhanced by means of second-order rotation-terms based on the rule of semitangential nite rotations intro-
duced by Argyris et al. [26,27]. It has to be soundly noted that for the case of isotropic thin-walled beams, Kim et al.
[28,29] proved that the employment of a displacement eld based on the semitangential rotations, can
represent appropriately the energy due to general initial stresses and off-axis loading. The employment of a displace-
ment eld enhanced with second-order rotational terms showed a quite important effect in the static stability
(specially lateral stability) of thin-walled beams made of isotropic materials [28,29]. In order to deal with the
problem of stability and dynamics with arbitrary states of initial stresses in the context of thin-walled composite
beams, a displacement eld (derived in Ref. [31]) based on the semitangential transformation rule [26,27] is
employed.
A non-shear-locking fourteen degree-of-freedom nite element is introduced to validate the model. Static deections,
lateral and axial buckling loads are obtained for general cross-section beams with arbitrary stacking sequence. Free
vibration frequencies are obtained for beams having general boundary conditions; these calculations are performed with or
without accounting for arbitrary states of initial stresses and off-axis loadings. Also, studies with different cross-sections
and laminate stacking sequences are carried out as well. In order to show the accuracy and practical effectiveness of the
nite element approach, some comparisons with analytical solutions [25] as well as experimental tests and shell nite
elements of COSMOS/M are performed.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 38
2. Theory
2.1. Assumptions
In Fig. 1 a sketch of a thin-walled beam is shown. In this gure, it is possible to see the reference points C and B. The
principal reference point C is located at the geometric centre of the cross-section, where the axis x is parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the beam, while y and z are the axes associated to the cross section, but not necessarily the principal
ones. The point B is a generic point belonging to the middle line of the cross-sectional wall (see Fig. 2a); its coordinates are
denoted as Y(s) and Z(s).
The present thin-walled beam theory is based on the following assumptions:
(1) The cross-section contour is rigid in its own plane.
(2) The curvature at any point of the shell is neglected. This is the same to consider the section shaped by an array of
segments as shown in Fig. 2a.
(3) The warping function is dened with respect to the principal reference point C.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. Sketch of a straight thin-walled beam.
Fig. 2. (a) Description of cross-section geometrical entities and (b) displacement parameters.
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 39
(4) A general laminate stacking sequence for composite material is considered. In the constitutive expressions for
laminated composites, basic hygrothermal effects are considered.
(5) The material density is assumed constant along the beam but it can vary in the laminate thickness.
(6) The stress tensor and the volume and surface forces are composed by initial and incremental terms.
(7) The displacement eld is considered to be represented by a linear component and a second-order component based on
the semitangential rotations introduced by Argyris et al. [26,27].
(8) Inertial effects due to higher order displacements are neglected.
(9) Structural damping is considered with a simplied Rayleigh-damping model.
2.2. The general linearized principle of virtual works for a composite beam
The general expression of the Principle of Virtual Works for a body which presents initial stresses can be written in the
following form [30]:
_
V
s
f
ij
de
ij
dV
_
V

X
f
i
r

u
f
i
_ _
d u
f
i
dV
_
S

T
f
i
d u
f
i
dA 0, (1)
where u
f
i
is the displacement vector, e
ij
is the GreenLagrange strain tensor, s
f
ij
the second PiolaKirchhof stress tensor,

X
f
i
the vector of volume forces, and

T
f
i
the vector of surface forces. s
f
ij
,

X
f
i
and

T
f
i
are composed by the sum of the
corresponding incremental (s
ij
;

X
i
and

T
i
) and initial (s
0
ij
;

X
0
i
and

T
0
i
) components. The dots over variable u
f
i
mean
derivation with respect to the temporal variable (i.e. one or two dots denote rst or second derivative). The symbol r means
the material density. The displacement u
f
i
is composed by the sum of u
L
i
and u
NL
i
, which denote rst- and second-order (i.e.
linear and non-linear) terms of displacements, respectively.
Now, considering the aforementioned background and employing assumptions (5)(8) in Eq. (1) it is possible to obtain
the general linearized principle of virtual works for a beam with an arbitrary state of initial stresses [31] as follows:
W
T

_
V
s
ij
d
L
ij
dV
_
V
s
0
ij
dZ
L
ij
d
NL
ij
dV
_
V

X
i
du
L
i
dV
_
S
2

T
i
du
L
i
dA
_
S
2

T
0
i
du
NL
i
dA

_
V

X
0
i
du
NL
i
dV
_
V
r u
L
i
du
L
i
dV
_
V
u _ u
L
i
du
L
i
dV 0, 2
W
0
T

_
V
s
0
ij
d
ij
dV
_
V

X
0
i
du
i
dV
_
S
2

T
0
i
du
i
dA 0. (3)
Eq. (2) is subjected to the constraint Eq. (3), which implies the condition of self-equilibrium of initial stresses and initial
volume and surface forces.
The rst term of (2) denotes the virtual work due to internal forces, the second term gives the virtual work due to initial
stresses, the third and fourth terms are the virtual works of applied volume and surface forces due to linear components of
displacement eld, the fth and sixth terms are the virtual works of initial volume and surface forces due to non-linear
components of displacement eld. The seventh term of (2) is the virtual work of inertial forces and nally the underlined
term is the virtual work of dissipative forces, which is considered with an analogous approach to the one of Ref. [24].
L
ij
are
the linear strain components, whereas Z
NL
ij
and
NL
ij
are non-linear strains components, given by the following expressions:

L
ij

1
2
qu
L
j
qx
i

qu
L
i
qx
j
_ _
;
NL
ij

1
2
qu
NL
j
qx
i

qu
NL
i
qx
j
_ _
,
Z
L
ij

1
2
qu
L
h
qx
i
qu
L
h
qx
j
_ _
. 4a2c
The higher-order strain components due to second-order displacements are neglected in the GreenLagrange strain
tensor [31].
2.3. The displacement eld for thin-walled composite beam
Taking into account assumptions (1)(3) it is possible to develop the general displacement eld, for an arbitrary point of
a straight composite thin-walled beam including rst-order and second-order terms of rotational parameters, in the
following form [31]:
u
L
x
x; s; n; t u
xc
x; t ys; ny
z
x; t zs; ny
y
x; t os; ny
x
x; t, (5a)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 40
u
L
y
x; s; n; t u
yc
x; t zs; nf
x
x; t, (5b)
u
L
z
x; s; n; t u
zc
x; t ys; nf
x
x; t, (5c)
u
NL
x
x; s; n; t
1
2
zs; nf
x
x; ty
z
x; t ys; nf
x
x; ty
y
x; t, (5d)
u
NL
y
x; s; n; t
ys; n
2
f
x
x; t
2
y
z
x; t
2

zs; n
2
y
z
x; ty
y
x; t, (5e)
u
NL
z
x; s; n; t
ys; n
2
y
z
x; ty
y
x; t
zs; n
2
f
x
x; t
2
y
y
x; t
2
. (5f)
Expressions (5a)(5c) and (5d)(5f) are the rst-order (or linear) and second-order components of the displacement eld,
respectively. Note that the rotation parameters are dened as independent variables, conversely to some recent articles
[3234] where the following denitions have been employed:
y
y

du
zc
dx
; y
z

du
yc
dx
; y
x

df
x
dx
. (6a2c)
The use of constraint equations (6) along with the displacement eld (5), corresponds to a non-shear-deformable model.
In the present work, conditions (6) are not invoked at all in the development of the mathematical model, but they will be
later involved (in order to reduce the extended shear deformable model to a non-shear deformable one) for comparison
purposes.
In Eqs. (5) the cross-section variables y(s) and z(s) of a generic point are related to the ones of the cross-section middle line
Y(s) and Z(s) by means of expressions (7). On the other hand, o is the warping function, which is dened in expression (8)
ys; n Ys n
dZ
ds
; zs; n Zs n
dY
ds
, (7a2b)
os; n o
p
s o
s
s; n. (8)
In expression (8), o
P
is the primary or contour warping function whereas o
S
is the secondary or thickness warping function
given by
o
p
s
_
s
rs cs ds D
C
,
o
s
s; n nls, 9a2b
where r(s), l(s) (see their meaning in Fig. 2a), c(s) and D
C
are dened in the following form:
rs Zs
dY
ds
Ys
dZ
ds
; ls Ys
dY
ds
Zs
dZ
ds
, (10a2b)
cs
1

A
66
s
_
s
rs ds
_
S
1=

A
66
s ds
_

_
_

_,
D
C

_
S
rs cs

A
11
s ds
_
S

A
11
s ds
. 10c2d
The functions

A
11
s and

A
66
s are elastic properties of composite laminates (see Appendix A). The function c(s) is
connected with the torsional shear ow [25,31] and D
C
is a constant. In the case of open sections, one has c(s) 0, consequently
Eq. (8) holds for both closed and open sections.
In expressions (10cd), S (capital letter S) indicates the whole cross-section middle-line contour, as it can be seen in
Fig. 2a.
2.4. Displacementstrain relationships
The displacementstrain relationships are obtained substituting the displacement eld (5) into the strain components
dened in Eq. (4), that is

L
xx

D1
y
D3
z
D2
o
D4
; (11a)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 41
g
L
xy
2
L
xy

D5
z
qo
qy
_ _

D8

qo
qy

D7
_ _
; (11b)
g
L
xz
2
L
xz

D6
y
qo
qz
_ _

D8

qo
qz

D7
_ _
, (11c)

NL
xx
y
qy
y
f
x

qx
_ _
z
qf
x
y
z

qx
y
y
y
z
_ _
, (12a)
g
NL
xy
2
NL
xy

y
y
f
x
2
y
qy
2
y
qx

qy
2
z
qx
_ _
z
qy
y
y
z

qx
_ _
; (12b)
g
NL
xz
2
NL
xz

y
z
f
x
2
y
qy
y
y
z

qx
z
qf
2
x
qx

qy
2
y
qx
_ _
; (12c)
Z
L
xx

D1
y
D3
z
D2
o
D4

2

qu
zc
qx
y
D8
_ _
2

qu
yc
qx
z
D8
_ _
2
, (13a)
Z
L
xy
y
z
y
x
qo
qy
_ _

D1
y
D3
z
D2
o
D4
f
x
qu
zc
qx
y
D8
_ _
, (13b)
Z
L
xz
y
y
y
x
qo
qz
_ _

D1
y
D3
z
D2
o
D4
f
x
qu
yc
qx
z
D8
_ _
, (13c)
where for the sake of simplicity the following denitions are employed:

D1

qu
xc
qx
;
D2

qy
y
qx
;
D3

qy
z
qx
;
D4

qy
x
qx
, (14a2d)

D5

qu
yc
qx
y
z
_ _
;
D6

qu
zc
qx
y
y
_ _
,

D7

qf
x
qx
y
x
_ _
;
D8

qf
x
qx
. 14e2h
The entities e
Di
, i 1; . . . ; 8 may be regarded as generalized deformations. In this context e
D1
is the axial deformation,
e
D2
and e
D3
are bending deformations, e
D4
is the warping deformation, e
D5
and e
D6
are the bending shear deformations, e
D7
is the warping shear deformation and nally e
D8
is the pure torsion shear deformation.
2.5. Description of virtual works components
Substituting displacements (5) and strains denitions (11)(13) into expression (2) the total virtual work W
T
can be
expressed in the following form:
W
T
W
1
W
2
W
3
W
4
W
5
W
6
0, (15)
where W
1
is the virtual work due to internal forces, W
2
the virtual work due to initial stresses and of applied volume and
surface initial forces due to second-order displacements, W
3
the virtual works of surface forces applied at the beam ends,
W
4
virtual work of applied volume forces, W
5
the virtual work of inertial forces and nally W
6
the virtual work of
dissipative forces.
The terms of the virtual work expression (15) can be written in the following compact form:
W
1

_
L
0
fdD
E
g
T
fQ
E
g dx, (16a)
W
2

_
L
0
fdD
G
g
T
T
0
E
fD
G
g dx
_
L
0
fdUg
T
C
0
X
fUg dx fdUg
T
C
0
T
C
0
D
fUg, (16b)
W
3
fdUg
T
f

Qgj
x0;L
, (16c)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 42
W
4

_
L
0
fdUg
T
fPg dx, (16d)
W
5

_
L
0
fdUg
T
Mf

Ug dx, (16e)
W
6

_
L
0
fdUg
T
Df
_
Ug dx, (16f)
where fUg is a vector of the displacement variables (17a) and fdUg the corresponding vector of variational displacements.
fD
E
g and fD
G
g are vectors of generalized deformations (17bc)
fUg fu
xc
; u
yc
; y
z
; u
zc
; y
y
; f
x
; y
x
g
T
, (17a)
fD
E
g f
D1
;
D2
;
D3
;
D4
;
D5
;
D6
;
D7
;
D8
g
T
, (17b)
fD
G
g
D1
;
D2
;
D3
;
D4
;
D5
;
D6
;
D7
;
D8
; f y
y
; f
x
; y
z
; y
x
;
qu
yc
qx
;
qu
zc
qx
;
D2
;
D8
_
T
. (17c)
The vector fQ
E
g, dened in (18), contains the internal forces or beam stress resultants
fQ
E
g fQ
X
; M
Y
; M
Z
; B; Q
Y
; Q
Z
; T
W
; T
SV
g
T
, (18)
where, Q
X
is the axial force; M
Y
and M
Z
are bending moments; B the bi-moment; Q
Y
and Q
Z
are shear forces; T
SV
and T
W
are pure torsion and exuraltorsional moments, respectively. These beam stress resultants are dened as follows:
fQ
X
; M
Y
; M
Z
; B; Q
Y
; Q
Z
g
_
A
fs
xx
; s
xx
z; s
xx
y; s
xx
o; s
xy
; s
xz
g dA, (19a)
fT
SV
; T
W
g
_
A
s
xz
y
qo
qz
_ _
s
xy
z
qo
qy
_ _ _ _ _
; s
xy
qo
qy
s
xz
qo
qz
_ __
dA, (19b)
M
X

_
A
s
xz
y s
xy
z dA T
SV
T
W
, (19c)
where M
X
is the total torque.
The matrix T
0
E
of initial beam stress resultants, introduced in (16b), is written in the following form:
T
0
E

T
0
E11
T
0
E12

T
0
E21
T
0
E22

_ _
(20)
and the sub-matrices of (20) are given as follows:
T
0
E11

Q
0
X
M
0
Y
M
0
Z
B
0
0 0 0 0
N
0
ZZ
N
0
YZ
N
0
ZW
0 0 0 0
N
0
YY
N
0
YW
0 0 0 0
N
0
WW
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
sym 0 0
N
0
ZZ
_

_
_

_
, (21a)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 43
T
0
E12
T
0
E21

Q
0
Z
0 Q
0
Y
T
0
W
0 0 0 0
0 0 M
0
X
=2 T
0
WZ
0 0 0 0
M
0
X
=2 M
0
Y
=2 0 T
0
WY
0 0 0 0
Q
0
ZW
0 Q
0
YW
T
0
WW
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 M
0
Y
0 0 0
_

_
_

_
, (21b)
T
0
E22

0 Q
0
Y
=2 0 0 0 0 0 M
0
Z
=2
0 Q
0
Z
=2 0 Q
0
Z
Q
0
Y
M
0
Z
=2 0
0 0 0 0 0 M
0
Y
=2
0 0 0 0 0
Q
0
X
0 0 0
sym Q
0
X
0 M
0
Z
0 0
N
0
YY
_

_
_

_
, (21c)
where
fQ
0
X
; M
0
Y
; M
0
Z
; B
0
g
_
A
s
0
xx
f1; z; y; og dA, (22a)
fQ
0
Y
; Q
0
YW
; Q
0
Z
; Q
0
ZW
g
_
A
s
0
xy
; s
0
xy
o; s
0
xz
; s
0
xz
o dA, (22b)
fN
0
YY
; N
0
ZZ
; N
0
WW
; N
0
ZW
; N
0
YW
; N
0
YZ
g
_
A
s
0
xx
fy
2
; z
2
; o
2
; zo; yo; yzg dA, (22c)
fT
0
W
; T
0
WZ
; T
0
WY
; T
0
WW
g
_
A
s
0
xy
qo
qy
s
0
zx
qo
qz
_ _
f1; z; y; og dA, (22d)
M
0
X

_
A
s
0
xz
y s
0
xy
z dA T
0
W
T
0
SV
. (22e)
It has to be pointed out that expressions (22a)(22e) are initial beam-stress-resultants. As it can be seen comparing
expressions (19) that Q
0
X
, Q
0
Y
, Q
0
Z
, M
0
Y
, M
0
Z
, B
0
, T
0
SV
, T
0
W
and M
0
X
are the conventional initial beam-stress-resultants.
However, the initial stress-resultants Q
0
YW
, T
0
WW
, etc. have to be interpreted as generalized initial beam-stress-resultants.
The matrices C
0
X
, C
0
T
and C
0
D
introduced in (16b) are given in the following expressions:
C
0
X

1
2
_
A
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2y

X
0
y
0 y

X
0
z
z

X
0
y
_ _
z

X
0
x
0
0 0 0 0
sym 2z

X
0
z
y

X
0
x
0
2 y

X
0
y
z

X
0
z
_ _
0
0
_

_
_

_
dA, (23a)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 44
C
0
T

1
2
_
A
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2y

T
0
y
0 y

T
0
z
z

T
0
y
_ _
z

T
0
x
0
0 0 0 0
sym 2z

T
0
z
y

T
0
x
0
2 y

T
0
y
z

T
0
z
_ _
0
0
_

_
_

_
dA, (23b)
C
0
D

1
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2y
D

F
0
y
0 y
D

F
0
z
z
D

F
0
y
_ _
z
D

F
0
x
0
0 0 0 0
sym 2z
D

F
0
z
y
D

F
0
x
0
2 y
D

F
0
y
z
D

F
0
z
_ _
0
0
_

_
_

_
, (23c)
where

X
0
j
and

T
0
j
, j 1; 2; 3 are initial volume forces and initial surface forces, respectively, and

F
0
f

F
0
x
;

F
0
y
;

F
0
z
g is
a generic off-axis force applied at the generic point Dx
D
; y
D
; z
D
. The bC
0
D
c can be obtained by employing the Dirac-Delta
function,

dy; z, that is for the considered generic case at point D,

d 1 if y; z y
D
; z
D
and

d 0 if y; zay
D
; z
D
, as it
is explained in Refs. [28,31].
In Eq. (16c), f

Qg is the vector of forces applied at the beam-ends given as
f

Qg f

Q
X
;

Q
Y
;

M
Z
;

Q
Z
;

M
Y
;

M
X
;

Bg
T
, (24)
where

Q
X
,

Q
Y
,

Q
Z
,

M
Y
,

M
Z
,

M
X
and

B are the beam-stress-resultants applied at beam-ends.
In Eq. (16d), fPg is the vector of applied volumetric forces dened as follows:
fPg
_
A
f

X
x
;

X
y
;

X
x
y;

X
z
;

X
x
z;

X
z
y

X
y
z;

X
x
og
T
dA, (25)
where

X
j
, j 1; 2; 3 are the applied volume forces.
The matrices M and D can be obtained employing the matrix G
k
given in Eq. (26), where superscript k stands for r
or m, i.e. material density or damping property proportional to the mass
G
k

J
k
11
0 J
k
13
0 J
k
12
0 J
k
14
J
k
11
0 0 0 J
k
12
0
J
k
33
0 J
k
23
0 J
k
34
J
k
11
0 J
k
13
0
J
k
22
0 J
k
24
sym J
k
22
J
k
33
0
J
k
44
_

_
_

_
, 26
where the J
k
ij
constants are dened as
J
k
ij

_
A
k g
a
i
g
a
j
dA 8 g
a
f1; zs; n; ys; n; os; ng; k r; or k m. (27)
Then, the matrices M and D are obtained as follows:
M G
k
8 k r, (28a)
D G
k
8 k m. (28b)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 45
It has to be mentioned that the constants J
r
ij
can be identied with inertial properties of the cross-section. Thus, J
r
11
is the
inertia due to translation of the cross-section, J
r
22
and J
r
33
are bending rotary inertias, J
r
44
is the warping inertia, and the rest
of J
r
ij
constants are coupling terms of inertia.
The dissipative constants J
m
ij
are proportional to the inertial properties. Also, it has to be noted that the virtual work of
dissipative forces described in (16f) is equivalent to the one introduced as structural damping in the linear dynamic model
of Ref. [24].
Finally, the differential equations of motion can be obtained by substituting expressions (5), (11)(13), (17), (18), (20),
(23)(25) and (28) into (16) and then performing in (15) the common procedures of the calculus of variations [31].
2.6. Constitutive equations for the beam stress resultants
In order to obtain the relationship between beam stress resultants and generalized deformations e
Di
, one has to select the
constitutive laws for a composite shell and employ constitutive hypotheses of the shell stress resultants in terms of the shell
strains. In Appendix A, a brief description of the constitutive hypotheses is performed.
By means of an appropriate transformation, Eqs. (11) can be represented with respect to the wall reference-system
fB : x; s; ng in the following form:

L
xx

xx
nk
xx
; g
L
xs
2
L
xs
g
xs
nk
xs
; g
L
xn
2
L
xn
g
xn
, (29a2c)
where
xx
, g
xs
, g
xn
, k
xx
and k
xs
are the strains and curvatures of a laminated plate [1,2] given by
f
S
g D
P
fD
E
g, (30)
with
f
S
g f
xx
; g
xs
; g
xn
; k
xx
; k
xs
g
T
(31)
and fD
E
g given by (17b). The shell stress resultants can be expressed in terms of the generalized deformations (14) in the
following matrix form [31]:
fN
P
g M
C
f
S
g, (32)
where the matrixes and vectors M
C
, D
P
and fN
P
g are given by
M
C

A
11

A
16
0

B
11

B
16

A
16

A
66
0

B

16

B
66
0 0

A
H
55
0 0

B
11

B

16
0

D
11

D
16

B
16

B
66
0

D
16

D
66
_

_
_

_
, (33a)
D
P

1 Zs Ys o
P
s 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
dY
ds
dZ
ds
rs cs cs
0 0 0 0
dZ
ds
dY
ds
ls 0
0
dY
ds

dZ
ds
ls 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
_

_
_

_
, (33b)
fN
P
g fN
xx
; N
xs
; N
xn
; M
xx
; M
xs
g
T
. (33c)
In Eq. (33c), N
xx
, N
xs
and N
xn
are axial, tangential shear and transverse shear shell stress resultants, respectively, whereas
M
xx
and M
xs
are shell bending and twisting moments. [M
C
] is the matrix of modied shell stiffness, which depends on the
type of constitutive hypotheses considered [31].
The beam-stress-resultants can be condensed in the following matrix form:
fQg fQ
E
g fQ
HT
g, (34)
where fQ
E
g is the vector of internal beam stress resultants, fQ
HT
g the beam stress resultants due to hygrothermal effects
dened as follows:
fQ
HT
g fQ
HT
X
; M
HT
Y
; M
HT
Z
; B
HT
; Q
HT
Y
; Q
HT
Z
; T
HT
W
; T
HT
SV
g
T
. (35)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 46
The vector of initial beam stress resultants can be arranged in a similar manner. i.e.
fQ
0
g fQ
0
a
; Q
0
b
g, (36)
where
fQ
0
a
g fQ
0
X
; M
0
Y
; M
0
Z
; B
0
; Q
0
Y
; Q
0
Z
; T
0
W
; T
0
SV
g
T
, (37a)
fQ
0
b
g fN
0
YY
; N
0
ZZ
; N
0
WW
; N
0
YW
; N
0
ZW
; N
0
YZ
; Q
0
YW
; Q
0
ZW
; T
0
WZ
; T
0
WY
; T
0
WW
g
T
. (37b)
The previous beam stress resultants can be expressed in terms of the generalized deformations by means of the following
equations:
fQ
E
g J
E
fD
E
g, (38a)
fQ
0
a
g J
0
C1
D
0
E
; fQ
0
b
g J
0
C2
fD
0
E
g, (38b2c)
fQ
HT
g
_
S
D
P

J
HT
fN
HT
P
g
_ _
ds, (37d)
where
J
E
J
0
C1

_
S
D
P

T
M
C
D
P
ds, (39a)
J
0
C2

_
S
D
P2

T
M
C
D
P
ds, (39b)
D
P2

Ys
2
0 0 2Ys
dZ
ds
0
Zs
2
0 0 2Zs
dY
ds
0
o
2
P
s 0 0 2o
P
sls 0
Yso
P
s 0 0 Ysls o
P
s
dZ
ds
_ _
0
Zso
P
s 0 0 Zsls o
P
s
dZ
ds
_ _
0
YsZs 0 0 Ys
dY
ds
Zs
dZ
ds
_ _
0
0 o
P
s
dY
ds
o
P
s
dZ
ds
0 ls
dY
ds
0 o
P
s
dZ
ds
o
P
s
dY
ds
0 ls
dZ
ds
0 rs cs Zs lsZs 0 rs cs
dY
ds
0 rs cs Ys lsYs 0 rs cs
dZ
ds
0 rs cs o
P
s lso
P
s 0 rs cs ls
_

_
_

_
, (39c)

J
HT

1

H
12
0 0

H
14
0
0

H
22
1 0

H
24
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0

H
42
0 1

H
44
0
0

H
52
0 0

H
54
1
_

_
_

_
, (39d)
fN
HT
P
g fN
HT
xx
; N
HT
ss
; N
HT
xs
; M
HT
xx
; M
HT
ss
; M
HT
xs
g
T
(39e)

J
HT
and fN
HT
P
g are the coupling matrix and vector of hygrothermal shell resultants, which are detailed in Appendix A.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 47
3. Numerical formulation based on the method of nite elements
In order to solve problems of static, dynamic and buckling with several boundary conditions, off-axis loading
and arbitrary lamination sequences; a non-locking nite element is formulated. The nite element has two-nodes with
seven degrees-of-freedom at each one, and can be considered as an extension to the composite materials domain
with general stacking sequence of an element previously developed by the authors for symmetric balanced stacking
sequence [35].
The vector of nodal displacements is given by
fU
e
g fu
xc
1
; u
yc
1
; y
z
1
; u
zc
1
; y
y
1
; f
x
1
; y
x
1
; u
xc
2
; u
yc
2
; y
z
2
; u
zc
2
; y
y
2
; f
x
2
; y
x
2
g
T
(40)
while the displacement eld in the element is interpolated in the form
u
xc
a
0
a
1
x; u
yc
b
0
b
1
x b
2
x
2
b
3
x
3
,
y
z
b
1

H
1
b
3
2
2b
2
x 3b
3
x
2
, 41a2c
u
zc
c
0
c
1
x c
2
x
2
c
3
x
3
,
y
y
c
1

H
2
c
3
2
2c
2
x 3c
3
x
2
, 41d2e
f
x
d
0
d
1
x d
2
x
2
d
3
x
3
,
y
x
d
1

H
3
d
3
2
2d
2
x 3d
3
x
2
, 41f2g
where the a
i
s, b
i
s, c
i
s, and d
i
s, are indeterminate constants whereas
x
x
L
e
; H
1

12J
E
33
J
E
55
L
2
e
; H
2

12J
E
22
J
E
66
L
2
e
; H
3

12J
E
44
J
E
77
L
2
e
, (42a2d)
where L
e
is the element length and J
E
ij
are elements of the matrix J
E
. It must be noted that the interpolation eld gives

D5

H
1
b
3
2
;
D6

H
2
c
3
2
;
D7

H
3
d
3
2
. (43a2c)
It is possible to see that when H
i
! 0 expressions (43) become zero, then the virtual work due to the shear-components
vanishes. In these circumstances, the element avoids the shear-locking phenomenon and it can be employed also for
calculating models within the context of Vlasov-hypotheses, i.e. neglecting shear exibility.
Now, substituting (40) into (15) and applying the conventional steps of nite element procedures, it is possible to arrive
to the following general nite element equation:
K K
G
fWg Df
_
Wg Mf

Wg fPg. (44)
In which [K], [K
G
], [D] and [M] are global matrices of elastic stiffness, geometric stiffness, structural damping and mass,
respectively; whereas fWg, f
_
Wg, f

Wg and fPg are the global vectors of nodal displacements, nodal velocities, nodal
accelerations and nodal forces. In order to obtain the initial stresses one employs Eq. (45), which is the nite element form
of the self-equilibrium condition of initial stresses and initial volume and surface forces
K
0
fW
0
g fP
0
g (45)
K
0
,fW
0
g and fP
0
g are the global matrix of initial elastic stiffness, the global vector of initial nodal displacements and
the global vector of initial volume and surface forces, respectively.
It has to be mentioned that the geometric stiffness matrix K
G
has two parts. The rst part corresponds to the state of
initial stresses including the virtual work with respect to the linear components of the GreenLagrange strains due to the
non-linear components of displacements, whereas the second part corresponds to the arbitrary initial off-axis loading. The
presence of this last component in the geometric stiffness matrix is crucial for the calculation of lateral buckling loads and
vibrations patterns composite thin-walled beams. It has to be noted that a geometric stiffness matrix with initial off-axis
loading actions was rstly introduced by Argyris et al. [26,27] to deal with instability problems of frames constructed with
isotropic materials but neglecting warpingtorsion shear exibility in the model. Also other authors [28,29] considered
initial off-axis loadings in lateral buckling and free vibration analysis of thin-walled beams and frames made of isotropic
material. The present approach can be reduced to the model of Refs. [28,29] when the condition of material isotropy is
employed in the constitutive equations.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 48
For the case of free vibration analysis, the general equation (44) can be reduced to the following eigen-value equation
(46) when damping effects are neglected and harmonic motion is settled
K lK
G
O
2
MfW

g f0g (46)
O 2pf; f is the natural frequency measured in Hertz and l is a parameter appropriately dened, in terms of beam-stress-
resultants, for the characterization of initial stresses.
As is possible to see, Eq. (46) allows to obtain natural frequencies (f) of beams subjected or not (this means that l 1 or
l 0) to arbitrary initial stresses. On the other hand, the same equation can be utilized to obtain buckling loads when the
condition f 0 is imposed.
4. Modelling topics in the context of thin-walled composite beams
4.1. Experimental and computational validation
The present thin-walled beam theory was developed in order to contain in a unied fashion different modelling schemes
that cover different constitutive forms. This approach makes possible the study of the inuence of shear deformability and
warping (contour and thickness), among other effects, in order to validate the theory with experimental results, if available,
or 2D and 3D computational FEM models at least. Table 1 shows a set of different schemes for modelling the shear
exibility effects from a constitutive point of view. These schemes are particularly identied because some of them are
widely used in the hypotheses of composite thin-walled beam models. SFM means Shear Flexible Model, whereas
NSFM stands for Non-Shear Flexible Model (employed in [3234]). Four different alternatives of SFM are proposed.
The modelling scheme SFM1 (employed in [23]) involves the consideration of hoop shear exibility (that is, taking into
account only the shell shear strain g
xs
) and complete warping effects (i.e. contour and thickness). The modelling alternative
SFM2 involves complete warping effects and the hoop and thickness shear exibility (however in the shell shear strain g
xn
,
the components e
D5
and e
D6
are neglected on the base of previous experimental correlation evidence [31,35,36]). The
modelling alternative SFM3 neglects all thickness components, that is thickness warping and thickness shear exibility (this
implies o
S
0 and g
xn
0 in the general formulation). The modelling scheme SFM4 involves the hoop and thickness shear
exibility and the complete warping. In the subsequent paragraphs for every calculation, the nite element models are
composed by 30 elements; this number of elements has shown to be good enough in order to assure the convergence with a
relative error less than 0.1% (see Refs. [31,35,43]).
In Tables 2 and 3 comparisons between the modelling schemes of Table 1 and other computational and composite thin-
walled beam-models [23] are shown. The analysed specimen was a cantilever composite slender U-section beam made of
graphite-epoxy T300 whose material and geometrical properties can be found in Ref. [23]. Tables 2 and 3 depict the natural
frequencies for lamination stacking sequence of {0
2
/730}
S
and {0/745/90}
S
, respectively. As it can be seen, the four
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Modeling schemes for the shear exibility effects
Name of modelling scheme Shear exibility effects Warping effects
SFM1 {g
xs
60
D5
a0;
D6
a0;
D7
a0; g
xn
0
D5
0;
D6
0;
D7
0} Hoop and thickness
SFM2 {g
xs
60
D5
a0;
D6
a0;
D7
a0; g
xn
60
D5
0;
D6
0;
D7
a0} Hoop and thickness
SFM3 {g
xs
60
D5
a0;
D6
a0;
D7
a0; g
xn
0
D5
0;
D6
0;
D7
0} Only hoop
SFM4 {g
xs
60
D5
a0;
D6
a0;
D7
a0; g
xn
60
D5
a0;
D6
a0;
D7
a0} Hoop and thickness
NSFM {g
xs
0; g
xn
0} Hoop and thickness
Table 2
Comparison of modeling alternatives on the natural frequencies (Hz) for a clamped-free U-beam made of graphite-epoxy with stacking sequence {0
2
/
730}
S
Natural frequency 11 21 31
Vibration mode 11 FT-XZ 11 F-XY 21 FT-XZ
Wu and Sun computational shell model [23] 108.0 127.8 386.8
Wu and Sun beam model [23] 107.9 127.7 391.2
Present NSFM 108.0 128.3 406.4
Present SFM1 107.4 127.4 392.1
Present SFM2 107.6 127.4 392.8
Present SFM3 107.4 127.4 392.3
Present SFM4 107.7 127.7 394.1
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 49
schemes of SFM and the NSFM agree well with the thin-walled beam model of Wu and Sun and the computational shell
solution [23]; this is due to fact that the U-beam is very slender (i.e. h=Lo0:1, with h and L height and length of the beam).
However, a different behaviour in the SFM schemes can be seen in Tables 4 and 5, where natural frequencies of the
aforementioned stacking sequences for a cantilever cylindrical panel are shown. The cylindrical panel is made of graphite-
epoxy T300 (see [23] for properties) and has a radius of curvature of 127 mm, a length of 152 mm and a wall thickness of
1.04 mm. In Tables 25, the acronyms FT and F identify exuraltorsional and exural modes in the planes XZ and
XY, respectively.
As mentioned above, the present theory can be employed also for calculating isotropic beams as a limit case. In this way,
Tables 6 and 7 show the comparison of SFM schemes of the rst and sixth natural frequencies of a cantilever aluminium
beam with standard U-prole of
3
4
inches. The frequencies of the SFM alternatives are compared with computational shell
models and experimental characterizations for different beam lengths obtained from Ref. [36], where the material
properties can be found.
As it could be seen for dynamical problems the SFM1 and SFM2 generally agrees well with experimental and
computational shell solutions, and some discrepancies can be observed for alternatives SFM3 and SFM4. It is clear that for
very slender beams, discrepancies among all of the SFM alternatives with experimental or computational shell results are
normally reduced to less than 1% or 3% (for example see Tables 6 and 7 for L 100 cm, or Tables 2 and 3). However in
shorter isotropic or composite beams, schemes SFM4 or SFM3 have serious discrepancies with the validation evidence,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Comparison of modeling alternatives on the natural frequencies (Hz) for a clamped-free U-beam made of graphite-epoxy with stacking sequence {0/745/
90}
S
Natural frequency 11 21 31
Vibration mode 11 F-XY 11 FT-XZ 21 FT-XZ
Wu and Sun computational shell model [23] 95.36 96.88 298.6
Wu and Sun beam model [23] 95.11 97.26 299.4
Present NSFM 95.26 97.29 305.07
Present SFM1 95.01 96.98 299.59
Present SFM2 95.02 97.04 299.68
Present SFM3 95.01 97.02 299.58
Present SFM4 95.05 97.09 300.12
Table 4
Comparison of modeling alternatives on the natural frequencies (Hz) for a clampedfree cylindrical panel made of graphite-epoxy with stacking sequence
{0
2
/730}
S
Natural frequency 11 21 31
Vibration mode 11 FT-XZ 11 F-XY 21 FT-XZ
Wu and Sun computational shell model [23] 165.7 289.6 718.5
Wu and Sun beam model [23] 168.3 307.5 737.2
Present NSFM 171.4 323.2 794.2
Present SFM1 162.1 304.5 650.4
Present SFM2 162.1 305.4 650.8
Present SFM3 162.2 305.6 652.2
Present SFM4 171.3 321.3 792.2
Table 5
Comparison of modeling alternatives on the natural frequencies (Hz) for a clampedfree cylindrical panel made of graphite-epoxy with stacking sequence
{0/745/90}
S
Natural frequency 11 21 31
Vibration mode 11FT-XZ 11F-XY 21FT-XZ
Experimental results due to Crawley [23] 177.0 201.8 645.0
Wu and Sun computational shell model [23] 192.4 236.1 705.8
Wu and Sun beam model [23] 194.1 235.8 724.1
Present NSFM 196.5 241.3 747.1
Present SFM1 187.4 235.0 668.6
Present SFM2 190.4 234.9 686.8
Present SFM3 187.4 234.9 668.7
Present SFM4 196.4 240.4 746.1
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 50
which can reach 15% or more as it can be seen for example Table 7 for L 20 cm, or Tables 4 and 5 for the second and
third frequencies. The discrepancies between the SFM alternatives can be observed in the static response of composite
beams with strong elastic coupling. A rst comparison of the SFM alternatives for a cantilever composite thick walled box-
beam subjected to a tip torsional moment of 1130 Nm or a tip shear load of 4450 N is performed. The box-beam has a
length of 1.524 m and it is made of graphite-epoxy AS4/3501-6 and it was designated CAS5 (that is: circumferentially
asymmetric stiffness which implies bendingtorsion coupling) by Kim and White [37], where the material properties and
cross-sectional dimensions can be found. In Fig. 3 the bending translation induced by the tip torque is shown whereas in
Fig. 4 the twisting angle induced by the tip shear load is depicted. In both cases the SFM alternatives are compared with the
highly accurate 3D computational solutions (obtained using 5280 C3D8R solid nite elements of ABAQUS) shown by
Kim and White [37]. It is possible to see that the modelling schemes SFM1 and SFM3 reveal strong discrepancies with the
computational 3D approximation.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 6
Comparison of modeling alternatives on the rst natural frequency (Hz) of a clampedfree aluminum U-beam, with computational shell and experimental
results
L (cm) Experimental result [36] SFM1 SFM2 SFM3 SFM4 COSMOS/M Shell6 [36]
20 302.3 311.0 311.2 311.7 313.4 312.2
25 216.9 220.8 220.9 221.2 222.1 222.3
30 164.3 165.7 165.8 165.9 166.5 167.1
40 103.1 103.4 103.5 103.5 103.7 104.5
50 70.5 70.5 70.0 70.5 70.6 71.3
60 50.3 50.9 50.9 50.9 51.0 51.5
70 38.1 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.9
80 29.6 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.6 30.3
90 23.9 23.9 23.9 23.9 23.9 24.2
100 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.6 20.1
25.4 50.8 76.2 101.6 127 152.4
[cm]
0.025
0.05
0.075
0.1
0.125
0.15
u
Z
C

[
c
m
]
Present SFM4
Present SFM3
Present SFM2
Present SFM1
Kim-White (3D FEM)
Fig. 3. Bending displacement u
zc
induced by tip torque in a thick-walled composite beam. Comparisons of the SFM schemes with 3D FEM solutions [37].
Table 7
Comparison of modeling alternatives on the sixth natural frequency (Hz) of a clamped-free aluminum U-beam, with computational shell and experimental
results.
L (cm) Experimental results [36] SFM1 SFM2 SFM3 SFM4 COSMOS/M Shell6 [36]
20 5133.9 5493.5 5592.9 5729.6 5966.4 5250.2
25 3368.9 3744.1 3791.4 3855.4 3962.4 3369.4
30 2611.7 2734.0 2759.5 2849.3 2849.3 2592.7
40 1663.3 1676.8 1686.5 1698.4 1719.4 1654.8
50 1167.7 1161.3 1165.9 1171.4 1181.6 1156.4
60 870.0 868.0 870.6 873.5 879.5 866.5
70 687.5 682.5 684.2 686.1 689.8 680.1
80 559.4 556.2 557.3 558.6 561.2 550.1
90 469.7 465.2 466.1 467.2 468.8 462.2
100 402.4 396.9 397.6 398.5 399.6 401.1
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 51
The present composite beam theory and other contemporaneous theories can offer good predictions when they are
compared with experimental and computational results as it can be seen, for example in Figs. 57. In Fig. 5 it is shown that
the twisting angle for a cantilever rectangular box-beam subjected to a tip torque of 0.113 Nm, the section-walls were
constructed with graphite-epoxy AS4/3501-6 and a cross-ply stacking sequence (see Refs. [37,38] for cross-sectional
dimensions and material properties). In Fig. 6 the bending slope for a cantilever rectangular box beam subjected to a tip
shear load of 4.45 N, constructed with graphite-epoxy AS4/3501-6 and the stacking sequence denominated CAS2 (see
[37,38]) is shown. In Fig. 7 the variation of the twisting angle gradient with respect to the tip torque in a cantilever beam
constructed with graphite-epoxy T300/5208 with a cylindrical cross-section of stacking sequence {(20/70)
2
}
S
(see [39] for
elastic properties and cross-sectional dimensions) is shown.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
25.4 50.8 76.2 101.6 127 152.4
[cm]
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006

X

[
r
a
d
]
PresentSFM4
PresentSFM3
PresentSFM2
PresentSFM1
Kim- White (3D FEM)
Fig. 4. Twisting angles f
x
induced by tip shear load in a thick-walled composite beam. Comparisons of the SFM schemes with 3D FEM solutions [37].
12.7 25.4 38.1 50.8 63.5 76.2
[cm]
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004

X

[
r
a
d
]
Smith- Chopra [10]
Present SFM2
Kim White [37]
Experiment [38]
Fig. 5. Twisting angles f
x
due to a tip torque in a thin-walled composite beam. Comparisons of different shear exible models with experimental results.
12.7 25.4 38.1 50.8 63.5 76.2
[cm]
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
u
'
z
c

[
r
a
d
]
Stemple and Lee [12]
Present SFM2
Kim- White [37]
Experiment [38]
Fig. 6. Bending slope u
0
zc
due to a tip shear load in a thin-walled composite beam. Comparisons of different shear exible models with experimental
results.
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 52
Despite the good correlation evidenced in Figs. 57, it has to be mentioned that the models, which are compared with the
present one, do not take into account the shear exibility due to warping torsion (that is, they consider the constraint
f
0
x
y
x
, which implies to enforce e
D7
0 into both g
xs
and g
xn
in the present full shear exible beam theory). However, this
effect is very important in open cross-sections with strong elastic couplings as it is shown in Fig. 8 and can be important
even in closed cross-sections for the prediction of displacements induced by torsionbending and torsionextension elastic
couplings, as shown in Fig. 9. Fig. 8 depicts the twisting angle of an I-beam whose material and cross-sectional properties
ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 20 30 40
M
X
[ Nm]
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06

'
X

[

/
c
m
]
Present SFM2
Kim- White [ 39]
Experiment [ 39]
Fig. 7. Twisting angle gradient f
0
x
variation with respect to a tip torque in a thin-walled composite beam. Comparisons of different shear exible models
with experimental results.
12.7 25.4 38.1 50.8 63.5 76.2
[cm]
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35

X

[
r
a
d
]
Jung- Lee [ 40]
Present SFM2
Cesnik et al. [ 22]
Chandra- Chopra [11]
Experiment [11]
Fig. 8. Twisting angle f
x
produced by a tip torque in a thin-walled composite I-beam. Comparisons of different shear exible models with experimental
results.
12.7 25.4 38.1 50.8 63.5 76.2
[cm]
0.00001
0.00002
0.00003
0.00004
Smith- Chopra [10]
Present SFM2
Kim- White [ 39]
Experiment [ 38]

X

[
r
a
d
]
Fig. 9. Twisting angle f
x
induced by a tip axial load in a thin-walled composite box-beam. Comparisons of different shear exible models with
experimental results.
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 53
can be found in Refs. [11,22,40]. In this gure it is possible to see a good experimental correlation for all models from the
clamped end up to approximately 2/3 of the beam length. However at the free end, the models that neglect warpingtorsion
shear exibility predict sensible lower values than experimental ones, and the present model predicts a slightly higher values
than experimental ones. It has to be mentioned that for comparative purposes the experimental value at the free end (not
depicted in the original paper [11]) was numerically extrapolated with accurate methodologies [41]. Fig. 9 depicts the
twisting angle of a rectangular box-beam induced by a tip axial load of Q
x
4.45 N, the material and cross-sectional
properties can be found in Refs. [10,38]. In Fig. 9 one can see a poor experimental correlation for the models which do not
take into account the warpingtorsion shear effect. However discrepancies arise at the free end, even for the present theory.
In these circumstances, examining the experimental data, it is possible to suspect a non-linear behaviour or at least a
probable experimental mistake in the specimen properties.
Two last examples are offered in order to validate the present model with shell FEM solutions for buckling calculations.
In Fig. 10 the material and geometrical properties of a cantilever I-beam and a U-beam with their respective loading case
are shown. The buckling loads and lateral buckling load obtained with the present theory (using alternative SFM2) are
compared with computational solutions performed by the authors with nite element shell models of COSMOS/M [42].
Models of more than 12000 shell elements (SHELL4T) are employed to calculate the lateral buckling loads in COSMOS/
M. In Table 8 the comparisons of lateral buckling loads at points C, A
1
, A
2
, and A
3
of the U-beam are given. In Table 9 the
results of buckling loads at point C of the I-beam with three types of lay-up sequences are given and compared with
COSMOS/M shell results. As it is possible to see agreement is good in both cases. It has to be soundly noted that the lateral
buckling for loads applied at points A
1
, A
2
, and A
3
were obtained considering the geometric stiffness matrix with the initial
off-axis loading component; if this component is not taken into account, the lateral buckling loads at off-axis points, in the
context of a linearized formulation, cannot be correctly calculated.
The alternative SFM2 of the theory, among the schemes introduced to represent and analyse the shear deformability in
composite thin-walled beams, offers the best correlation with experimental results as well as 2D and 3D nite elements
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 8
Lateral buckling loads (N) of a cantilever U-beam made of steel
Buckling load Point where load is
applied
Model h/L
0.05 0.10
Q
0
Z
_ _
CR
C Present SFM2 30138 145735
COSMOS/M 30115 143210
A
1
Present SFM2 25406 93252
COSMOS/M 25125 92950
A
2
Present SFM2 33492 177327
COSMOS/M 33250 176452
A
3
Present SFM2 25806 93159
COSMOS/M 24812 91981
Comparison of beam and COSMOS/M shell solutions.
Material for U- Beam: Steel
E =210 GPa, G = 80.76 GPa
Material for I - Beam: AS4/ 3501- 6/c
E
11
=144 GPa, E
22
=9.68 GPa,
G
12
= G
13
= 4.14 GPa, G
23
=3.45 GPa,
V
12
= 0.30 V
23
= 0.48
Fig. 10. Cross-sections and material properties of cantilever I-beam and U-beam, for buckling calculations.
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 54
approaches. This aspect of the theory, was shown briey in the present paragraph with a few examples, however in Ref. [31]
one can nd more than eighty studies about the subject, corroborating that statement. In the following paragraphs the
mention of the shear exible model implies the use of alternative SFM2 of this theory.
4.2. Lateral buckling loads of anisotropic beams
In this paragraph a study of the lateral buckling of anisotropic I-beam and U-beam is performed. The beams are made of
graphite-epoxy AS4/3501/6 whose material properties can found in Fig. 10, the cross-sectional properties as well as the
loading cases can be found in Fig. 11. Three different types of lay-up sequences are considered: {0/0/0/0}, {0/90}
S
and
{745}
S
. The boundary conditions taken into account are Clamped-Free (CFBC) and Clamped at both ends (CCBC). The
lateral loads are applied at points C, A
1
, A
2
, or A
3
at the free end (x L) for the CFBC and at the middle of the beam
(x L/2) for the CCBC. In Fig. 12 the variation of lateral buckling load with respect the slenderness ratio h/L is depicted,
for the shear exible I-beam made with lay-up sequence of {0/90}
S
. In Table 10, the lateral buckling loads applied at point
A
3
of I-beam of CFBC and CCBC for the {0/0/0/0} and {745}
S
stacking sequences, are given. Table 11 shows the lateral
buckling loads applied at point A
3
, of U-beam with CFBC for {0/0/0/0} and {745}
S
lay-up sequences. In both tables a
comparison of inuence of the initial off-axis loadings in shear exible and/or non-shear exible models is carried out. As it
is possible to see from these tables the inuence of initial off-axis loadings in the geometric stiffness matrix is quite
important, this implies that the employment of the rened displacement eld with second-order terms has a crucial
signicance.
4.3. Dynamic problems of initially stressed beams
In this paragraph, the inuence of arbitrary initial stresses in the free vibratory response of composite thin-walled beams
is performed. It is employed a U-beam made of AS4/3501-6/c with the stacking sequence {0/90}
S
and the following
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 9
Buckling loads (N) of a cantilever I-beam made of composite material
Buckling load Lamination lay-up Model h/L
0.05 0.10
Q
0
X
_ _
CR
{0/0/0/0} Present SFM2 19175 75559
COSMOS/M 19058 73564
{0/90/90/0} Present SFM2 10561 41861
COSMOS/M 10350 40698
{45/45/45/45} Present SFM2 2003 8012
COSMOS/M 2033 7958
Comparison of beam and COSMOS/M shell solutions.
Material for U- Beam: AS4 / 3501- 6a
E
11
=142 GPa, E
22
=9.79 GPa,
G
12
= G
13
= 6.13 GPa, G
23
= 6.13 GPa,

12 23
= 0.42 =0.42
E
11
=144 GPa, E
22
=9.68 GPa,
G
12
= G
13
= 4.14 GPa, G
23
= 3.45 GPa,

12 23
= 0.30 =0.48
Material for I - Beam: AS4 / 3501- 6c
Fig. 11. Cross-sectional properties of composite I-beam and U-beam for buckling and lateral buckling calculations.
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 55
cross-sectional dimensions h 0.6 m, b 0.3 m and e 0.03 m (see Fig. 11). The U-beam is subjected to an initial state of
stresses generated by the action of a parameterized initial shear load

Q
0
Z
applied at the cross-sectional centroid at the
middle of the beam, whose ends are both clamped. The initial shear load is parameterized with respect to a maximum value
corresponding to 1/3 of the lateral buckling load at the considered point and location. In order to analyse parametrically
the effect of initial stresses on the free vibration of the U-beam, the parameter K
f
i
is introduced (47) meaning the ratio
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0.0
25.0

50.0
75.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
h/ L
Q
z (
0
)

[
1
0
0

k
N
]

Q
z (
0
)

[
1
0
0

k
N
]
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
h/ L
b
Fig. 12. Lateral buckling loads variation with slenderness ratio h/L of the shear exible I-beam with {0/90}
S
lay-up sequence: (a) clampedclamped; (b)
clampedfree.
Table 10
Lateral loads [10
5
N] applied at point A
3
of I-beam with different boundary conditions for {0/0/0/0} and {745}
S
stacking sequences
Boundary condition Stacking sequence {0/0/0/0} {45/45/45/45}
Slenderness ratio h=L 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.1
Clampedclamped Shear exible model [I] 5.2373 41.0200 1.1129 5.8215
[II] 2.4313 18.7029 0.7496 3.2039
[III] 53.6 54.4 32.6 45.0
Non-shear exible model [I] 3.5760 14.3500 1.1053 5.6930
[II] 1.7460 7.3010 0.7448 3.1389
[III] 51.2 49.1 32.6 44.9
Clampedfree Shear exible model [I] 0.2736 1.8261 0.0917 0.4417
[II] 0.0862 0.4385 0.0718 0.3255
[III] 68.5 76.0 21.7 26.3
Non-shear exible model [I] 0.2499 1.3820 0.0914 0.4382
[II] 0.0838 0.3950 0.0815 0.3234
[III] 66.5 71.4 10.8 26.2
[I] Without considering the terms due to initial off-axis loads, [II] Considering the terms due to initial off-axis loads, [III] Percentage discrepancy:
100 Q
0
Z I
Q
0
Z II

_
Q
0
Z I
.
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 56
between a natural frequency f
i
with and without initial stresses
K
f
i

f
i
j

Q
0
Z
f
i
j

Q
0
Z
0
; i 1; 2; 3 . . . . (47)
In Fig. 13, the variation of L
f
i
with respect to

Q
0
Z
, for the rst three natural frequencies and different slenderness ratios
h/L, is shown. It has to be mentioned that the selected stacking sequence involves no elastic coupling and, in the absence of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 11
Lateral loads (10
5
N) applied at point A
3
of U-beam with clamped-free boundary conditions for {0/0/0/0} and {745}
S
stacking sequences
Boundary condition Stacking sequence Model of initial stresses Slenderness ratio h/L
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Clampedfree {0/0/0/0} [I] 0.3807 1.9707 4.5178 7.3394
[II] 0.1044 0.5194 1.3729 2.6201
[III] 72.6 73.6 69.6 64.3
{45/45/45/45} [I] 0.1369 0.6587 1.7292 3.4622
[II] 0.1141 0.4101 0.8064 1.2908
[III] 16.6 37.7 53.4 62.7
[I] Without considering the terms due to initial off-axis loads, [II] Considering the terms due to initial off-axis loads [III] Percentage discrepancy:
100 Q
0
Z I
Q
0
Z II

_
Q
0
Z I
.
0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
f
i
f
3
f
2
f
1
a
Q
(0)
Z
f
i
0.25 0.75 1
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
b
0.5
Q
(0)
Z
f
3
f
2
f
1
Fig. 13. Variation of the rst three frequency parameters with the parametric initial load, for a clamped U-beam made with {0/90}
S
: (a) h/L 0.05; (b) h/
L 0.10.
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 57
initial stresses, the rst and third natural frequencies of this U-beam have a coupled exuraltorsional character
in the plane XZ, whereas the second natural frequency has a pure bending character in the plane XY. Now, observing
Fig. 13, it is possible to see that the rst frequency strongly diminishes as the parametric ratio increases. The second
frequency increases as the parametric ratio is increasing. The third frequency has the same variation of the rst one,
but with a very small order of magnitude, which cannot be detected in the gure. The effect of initial stresses is quantitative
more important in the case of slender beams. However, it is not the quantitative variation but a qualitative variation
that affects mostly the dynamics of initially stressed thin-walled beams. This statement can be observed in Fig. 14 where it
is possible to see that the shapes of the rst and second modes, evidence a strong coupling when the beam is initially
stressed.
5. Conclusions
A general model for composite thin-walled beams was derived applying the linearized principle of virtual works.
The beam formulation includes a displacement eld with rst-order and second-order terms. The displacement
was conceived in order to manage shear exibility in a full form. In the principle of virtual works, it was con-
sidered the presence of an arbitrary state of initial stresses and initial volume and surface forces, general initial
off-axis forces as well as inertial and dissipative forces. The present model can be employed for dealing with general
dynamic and stability problems as well as general static problems. As a summary, the theory is featured by the following
topics:
(a) The displacement eld was derived upon the basement of semitangential rotations.
(b) Full shear exibility was taken into account, meaning that both, bendingshear deformability and warpingtorsion
shear deformability and these couplings were considered in the formulation.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
u
xc
u
yc
u
zc
X
Variables
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
b
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
a
Z

X

Fig. 14. Mode shapes of the U-beam under a unitary parametric initial load: (a) rst frequency; (b) second frequency.
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 58
(c) The warping function was deduced in order to include variation of elastic properties along the cross-section contour as
well as thickness effects. The function holds for both closed or open general sections
(d) The material constitutive law holds for general composites of arbitrary stacking sequence of lamination on each cross-
section segment.
(e) The model can be employed also in the domain of isotropic materials imposing the appropriate constitutive equations.
(f) The dissipative forces were taken into account by means of a Rayleigh model of one parameter.
(g) In order to perform some numerical analysis, a fourteen-degrees-of-freedom nite-element for general analysis of
composite thin (and even moderately thick) walled beams was developed.
The hypotheses of the shear exibility were tested by comparing the present theory with other thin-walled composite
beam formulations, experimental data and 2D and 3D nite element approaches. As it was shown the results obtained with
models based on hypotheses that neglect the shear exibility do not agree well with experimental data as well as with
rened 2D and 3D nite element approaches. O the other hand, the formulation based on shear exibility concepts showed
a better general performance. In this context, four types of shear exibility hypotheses were tested and compared each
other with experimental data and computational results. These comparisons evidenced the important role played by the
thickness effects in the shearwarping generalized deformation (i.e. e
D7
) as well as in the warping function, in order to
predict displacements induced by elastic coupling.
The present theory introduces in a context of a thin-walled composite beam model the virtual work done by initial
off-axis loads, which has a remarkable inuence in the calculation of lateral buckling loads as well as in the predic-
tion of frequencies of beams subjected to generalized initial stresses. The presence of initial stresses in a vibrating
composite thin-walled beam in comparison to the beam not subjected to initial stresses, leads not only to a quanti-
tative change in the value of the frequency, but to a qualitative change in the vibration pattern. This qualitative
difference can be observed in the coupling of modes, which are usually uncoupled when the beam is not subjected to initial
stresses.
Acknowledgements
The present study was sponsored by the Secretar a de Ciencia y Tecnolog a de la Universidad Tecnolo gica Nacional and
CONICET.
Appendix A
The stressstrain relations for a composite ply can be expressed in the following form [1,2]:
s
xx
s
ss
s
nn
s
sn
s
xn
s
xs
_

_
_

Q
11

Q
12

Q
13
0 0

Q
16

Q
12

Q
22

Q
23
0 0

Q
26

Q
13

Q
23

Q
33
0 0

Q
36
0 0 0

Q
44

Q
45
0
0 0 0

Q
45

Q
55
0

Q
16

Q
26

Q
36
0 0

Q
66
_

_
_

xx

ss

nn
g
sn
g
xn
g
xs
_

_
_

_
DT
a
xx
a
ss
a
nn
0
0
a
xs
_

_
_

_
DH
b
xx
b
ss
b
nn
0
0
b
xs
_

_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
. (A.1)
In the above equation

Q
ij
are components of the transformed stiffness matrix dened [1,2] in terms of the elastic
properties (Elasticity Moduli and Poisson coefcients) and bre orientation of the ply [1,2]; a
ij
and b
ij
are the ply-
coefcients of thermal and moisture expansion, while DT and DH are the mean variation of temperature and moisture,
respectively. Employing (A.1) and with the denition of shell stress resultants (A.2) and neglecting normal effects in
thickness (i.e. s
nn
e
nn
0) it is possible to obtain a constitutive form (A.3) in terms of shell stress resultants and shell
strain components [1]
fN
xx
; N
ss
; N
xs
; N
xn
; N
sn
; M
xx
; M
ss
; M
xs
g
_
e=2
e=2
fs
xx
; s
ss
; s
xs
; s
xn
; s
sn
; s
xx
n; s
ss
n; s
xs
ng dn; (A.2)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 59
N
xx
N
ss
N
xs
N
sn
N
xn
M
xx
M
ss
M
xs
_

_
_

A
11
A
12
A
16
0 0 B
11
B
12
B
16
A
12
A
22
A
26
0 0 B
12
B
22
B
26
A
16
A
16
A
66
0 0 B
16
B
26
B
66
0 0 0 A
H
44
A
H
45
0 0 0
0 0 0 A
H
45
A
H
55
0 0 0
B
11
B
12
B
16
0 0 D
11
D
12
D
16
B
12
B
22
B
26
0 0 D
12
D
22
D
26
B
16
B
26
B
66
0 0 D
16
D
26
D
66
_

_
_

xx

ss
g
xs
g
sn
g
xn
k
xx
k
ss
k
xs
_

_
_

N
HT
xx
N
HT
ss
N
HT
xs
0
0
M
HT
xx
M
HT
ss
M
HT
xs
_

_
_

_
, (A.3)
where Nxx, Nss, and Nxs are axial, hoop and shear-membranal shell forces, respectively; Nxn, Nsn are transverse shear shell
forces; and Mxx, Mss and Mxs are axial and hoop bending and twisting shell moments, respectively; whereas exx and ess are
axial and hoop normal shell strains, respectively; gxs, gsn and gsn are shear shell strains; kxx, kss and kxs are axial, hoop and
twisting curvatures, respectively. The coefcients Aij, Bij, Dij and A
H
ij
are shell stiffness-coefcients integrated in the
thickness domain as dened in Refs. [1,2]. In (A.3) the hygrothermal shell stress-resultants can be expressed in the following
form:
N
HT
xx
N
HT
ss
N
HT
xs
M
HT
xx
M
HT
ss
M
HT
xs
_

_
_

_
e=2
e=2

Q
11

Q
12

Q
16

Q
12

Q
22

Q
26

Q
16

Q
26

Q
66
n

Q
11
n

Q
12
n

Q
16
n

Q
12
n

Q
22
n

Q
26
n

Q
16
n

Q
26
n

Q
66
_

_
_

_
DT
a
xx
a
ss
a
xs
_

_
_

_
DH
b
xx
b
ss
b
xs
_

_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_dn. (A.4)
Now, from expression (A.3) and neglecting hoop and interlaminar shell-stress-resultants (Nss
N
sn
M
ss

0) and
rearranging the homonym shell strains (i.e. ess, gsn, kss) in the remaining equations, it is possible to obtain the basic
constitutive relations
N
xx
N
xs
N
xn
M
xx
M
xs
_

_
_

A
11

A
16
0

B
11

B
16

A
16

A
66
0

B

16

B
66
0 0

A
H
55
0 0

B
11

B

16
0

D
11

D
16

B
16

B
66
0

D
16

D
66
_

_
_

xx
g
xs
g
xn
k
xx
k
xs
_

_
_

1

H
12
0 0

H
14
0
0

H
22
1 0

H
24
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0

H
42
0 1

H
44
0
0

H
52
0 0

H
54
1
_

_
_

_
N
HT
xx
N
HT
ss
N
HT
xs
M
HT
xx
M
HT
ss
M
HT
xs
_

_
_

_
, (A.5)
where

A
ij
are components of the reduced in-plane stiffness matrix,

B
ij
are components of the reduced bendingextension
coupling matrix,

D
ij
are components of the reduced bending stiffness matrix,

A
H
55
is the component of the reduced
transverse shear stiffness matrix, nally

H
ij
are elastichygrothermal coupling coefcients. All these coefcients are given
by the following expressions:

A
11
A
11

2A
12
B
12
B
22
A
22
B
2
12
D
22
A
2
12

D
, (A.6a)

A
16
A
16

A
26
B
12
B
22
A
22
B
12
B
26
A
12
B
26
B
22
A
12
B
26
D
22

D
, (A.6b)

A
66
A
66

2A
26
B
26
B
22
A
22
B
2
26
D
22
A
2
26

D
, (A.6c)

B
11
B
11

B
12
B
2
22
A
22
B
12
D
12
A
12
B
22
D
12
A
12
D
22
B
12

D
, (A.6d)

B
16
B
16

B
12
B
22
B
26
A
12
B
26
D
22
A
22
B
12
D
26
A
12
D
26
B
22

D
, (A.6e)

16
B
16

B
12
B
22
B
26
D
12
B
26
A
22
D
22
B
12
A
26
D
12
A
26
B
22

D
, (A.6f)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 60

B
66
B
66

B
22
B
2
26
A
26
B
26
D
22
A
26
B
22
D
26
A
22
D
26
B
26

D
, (A.6g)

D
11
D
11

2B
12
B
22
D
12
A
22
D
2
12
D
22
B
2
12

D
, (A.6h)

D
16
D
16

B
26
B
22
D
12
B
12
B
26
D
22
B
12
B
22
D
26
A
22
B
26
D
12

D
, (A.6i)

D
66
D
66

2B
26
B
22
D
26
A
22
D
2
26
D
22
B
2
26

D
, (A.6j)

A
H
55
A
H
55

A
H
45

2
A
H
44
, (A.6k)

H
12

B
12
B
22
A
12
D
22
D
;

H
22

B
26
B
22
A
26
D
22
D
, (A.6l,m)

H
42

D
12
B
22
B
12
D
22
D
;

H
52

D
26
B
22
B
26
D
22
D
, (A.6n,o)

H
14

A
12
B
22
B
12
A
22
D
;

H
24

A
26
B
22
B
26
A
22
D
, (A.6p,q)

H
44

B
12
B
22
D
12
A
22
D
;

H
12

B
26
B
22
A
22
D
26
D
, (A.6r,s)
where
D A
22
D
22
B
2
22
. (A.7)
It has to be noted that, although

B
16
and

B

16
have different forms, they are practically the same, even in the case of an
intricate lamination sequence.
References
[1] Barbero EJ. Introduction to composite material design. London: Taylor & Francis Inc.; 1999.
[2] Jones RM. Mechanics of composite materials. London: Taylor & Francis Inc.; 1999.
[3] Bauld Jr NR, Tzeng LS. A Vlasov theory for ber-reinforced beams with thin-walled open cross sections. Int J Solids Struct 1984;20(3):27797.
[4] Manseld EH, Sobey AJ. The ber composite helicopter blade. Part I: stiffness properties. Part II: prospects of aeroelastic tailoring. Aeronaut Quart
1979;30:41349.
[5] Manseld EH. The stiffness of a two-cell anisotropic tube. Aeronaut. Quart. 1981;32:33853.
[6] Kapania RK, Raciti S. Recent advances in analysis of laminated beams and plates 1. Shear effects and buckling. AIAA J 1989;27(7):92334.
[7] Giavotto V, Borri M, Mantegaza L, Ghiringhelli G, Carmaschi V, Mafoli GC, et al. Anisotropic beam theory and applications. Comput Struct
1983;16:40313.
[8] Bauchau OA. A beam theory for anisotropic materials. J Appl Mech 1985;52(2):41622.
[9] Libove C. Stresses and rate of twist in single cell thin-walled beams with anisotropic walls. AIAA J 1988;26(9):110718.
[10] Smith EC, Chopra I. Formulation and evaluation of an analytical model for composite box-beams. J Am Helicopter Soc 1991;36(3):2335.
[11] Chandra R, Chopra I. Structural behavior of two/cell composite rotor blades with elastic couplings. AIAA J 1992;30:291421.
[12] Stemple AD, Lee SW. Finite-element model for composite beams with arbitrary cross-sectional warping. AIAA J 1988;26(12):151220.
[13] Reheld LW, Atilgan AR, Hodges DH. Non-classical behavior of thin-walled composite beams with closed cross sections. J Am Helicopter Soc
1990;35(3):4250.
[14] Librescu L, Song O. On the aeroelastic tailoring of composite aircraft swept wings modeled as thin-walled beam structures. Compos Eng
1992;2(57):497512.
[15] Song O, Librescu L. Free vibration of anisotropic composite thin-walled beams of closed cross-section contour. J Sound Vibr 1993;167(1):12947.
[16] Bhaskar K, Librescu L. A geometrically non-linear theory for laminated anisotropic thin-walled beams. Int J Eng Sci 1995;33(9):133144.
[17] Qin Z, Librescu L. On a shear-deformable theory of anisotropic thin-walled beams: further contribution and validations. Compos Struct
2002;56(4):34558.
[18] Na S, Librescu L. Dynamic response of elastically tailored adaptive cantilevers of non-uniform cross section exposed to blast pressure pulses. Int J
Impact Eng 2001;25(9):84767.
[19] Massa JC, Barbero EJ. A strength of materials formulation for thin-walled composite beams with torsion. J Compos Mater 1998;32(17):156094.
[20] Sherbourne AN, Kabir MZ. Shear strains effects in lateral stability of thin-walled brous composite beams. J Eng Mech 1995;121(5):6407.
[21] Cesnik CE, Sutyrin VG, Hodges D. Cross-sectional analysis of composite beams including large initial twist and curvature effects. AIAA J
1996;34(9):191320.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 61
[22] Cesnik CE, Sutyrin VG, Hodges D. Rened theory of composite beamsthe role of short-wavelength extrapolation. Int J Solids Struct
1996;33(10):1387408.
[23] Wu XX, Sun CT. Vibration analysis of laminated composite thin-walled beams using nite elements. AIAA J 1990;29(5):73642.
[24] Chen CN. Dynamic equilibrium equations of composite anisotropic beams considering the effects of transverse shear deformations and structural
damping. Composite Struct 2000;48:287303.
[25] Cort nez VH, Piovan MT. Vibration and buckling of composite thin-walled beams with shear deformability. J Sound Vibr 2002;258(4):70123.
[26] Argyris JH, Hilpert O, Malejannakis GA, Scharpf DW. On the geometrical stiffness of a beam in space. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
1979;20:10531.
[27] Argyris JH. An excursion into large rotations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1982;32:85155.
[28] Kim MY, Chang SP, Kim SB. Spatial stability analysis of thin-walled space frames. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1996;39:499525.
[29] Kim SB, Kim MY. Improved formulation for spatial stability and free vibration of thin-walled tapered beams and space frames. Eng Struct
2000;22:44658.
[30] Washizu K. Variational methods in elasticity and plasticity. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1968.
[31] Piovan MT. Theoretical and computational study in the mechanics of composite thin walled curved beams, considering non-conventioanl effects (in
spanish). PhD thesis. Department of Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur. Bah a Blanca. Argentina, 2002.
[32] Lee J, Kim SE. Lateral buckling analysis of thin-walled laminated channel-section beams. Compos Struct 2002;56:3919.
[33] Lee J, Kim SE, Hong K. Lateral buckling I-section beams. Eng Struct 2002;24:95564.
[34] Kim N, Shin DK, Kim M-Y. Exact solutions for thin-walled open-section composite beams with arbitrary lamination subjected to torsional moment.
Thin-Walled Struct 2006;44:63854.
[35] Cort nez VH, Piovan MT. Stability of composite thin-walled beams with shear deformability. Comput Struct 2006;84:97890.
[36] Cort nez VH, Genovese PA, Piovan MT, La Malfa S. Estudio experimental y teo rico sobre las vibraciones exo-torsionales de vigas abiertas de
paredes delgadas. In: Letelier Sotomayor M, editor. Proceedings of fourth CIDIM, Santiago de Chile, Chile, 1999.
[37] Kim C, White SR. Thick walled composite beam theory including 3D elastic effects and torsional warping. Int J Solids Struct
1997;34(3132):423759.
[38] Chandra R, Stemple AD, Chopra I. Thin walled composite beams under bending, torsional and extensional loads. J Aircraft 1990;27:61926.
[39] Kim C, White SR. Analysis of thick hollow composite beams under general loadings. Compos Struct 1996;34:26377.
[40] Jung SN, Lee J-Y. Closed form analysis of thin walled composite I-beams considering non-classical effects. Compos Struct 2003;60:917.
[41] Maeder R. Programing in Mathematica. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley; 1991.
[42] COSMOS/M V1.75. Users manual. Structural Research Analysis Corporation, 1995.
[43] On ate E. Ca lculo de Estructuras por el Me todo de Elementos Finitos, Ana lisis esta tico lineal. Barcelona, Spain: CIMNE; 1992.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.T. Piovan, V.H. Cortnez / Thin-Walled Structures 45 (2007) 3762 62