Composite Structures 8 (1987) 47--61

Shear Coefficients for Thin-Walled Composite Beams

L a w r e n c e C. B a n k
Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, NY 12180-3590,USA

ABSTRACT

The shear coefficient in Timoshenko beam theory is obtained for thin-walled

beams constructed of laminated panels of composite material using a
variation of the method due to Cowper. Formulae are presented for a class of
such composite beams. Comparisons are made with Cowper's original
formulae for the case of an isotropic beam. The effect of shear deformation
under static loading of typical composite beams is investigated. A procedure
is outlined for the distribution of plies in the laminated panels to achieve
optimal response under static or dynamic loading.

1 INTRODUCTION

Thin-walled beams constructed of laminated composite materials can

provide weight savings over conventional metal thin-walled beams. The use
of such composite thin-walled beams as structural members in aerospace
structures, robotics and specialized civil engineering applications is
increasing. In addition to the weight savings generated by certain composite
material systems, a thin-walled composite beam has the additional
advantage of allowing the designer to specify different material properties
for different parts of the beam cross-section. This enables the shape of the
cross-section to be exploited to the fullest by judicious arrangement of
unidirectional plies within the laminated composite panels which form the
beam. For example, to resist bending under transverse loading unidirec-
tional plies with fibers parallel to the beam axis placed at maximum distance
from the beam neutral axis would be advantageous; whilst to resist shearing
under transverse loading unidirectional plies placed at _+45° perpendicular
47
Composite Structures 0263-8223/87/$03.50 © Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd,
England, 1987. Printed in Great Britaih
48 Lawrence C. Bank

to the beam neutral plane would be advantageous. These concepts are

standard practice in the analysis and design of reinforced concrete beams.
The analysis and design of such a thin-walled composite beam is also
complicated by the use of the composite material. One of the factors which
must be addressed is the anisotropic nature of the laminated panels which
form the beam. As is well documented, in such laminated panels the ratio of
the in-plane longitudinal elastic modulus (E) to the in-plane shear modulus
(G) is typically 10 to 30 times greater than that for an isotropic material.
Consequently the significance of deflection due to shear deformation, under
static as well as dynamic loading, cannot be neglected in composite thin-
walled beams. In order to incorporate shear deflection the beam theory first
considered by Bresse I and later by Timoshenko 2 can be used as an initial
improvement over the Bernoulli-Euler beam theory. With Timoshenko beam
theory, as it is commonly known, the effects of the shearing deformation on
the flexural vibrations or on the static deflection of a thin-walled composite
beam can be investigated in a quantitative manner. The distribution of
unidirectional plies within the laminated panels which form the composite
beam can be optimized to yield a beam with desired flexural properties.
At the heart of Timoshenko beam theory lies a shear coefficient, K,
which has been defined in various ways. 3The numerical value of K has been
c o m p u t e d by essentially two different types of methods, as discussed by
Stephen. 4The one type of method relies on a dynamic condition by equating
frequencies or phase velocities of vibration of a Timoshenko beam with
those predicted by some exact solution. The other type of method relies on a
static condition by finding the shear deformation of the Timoshenko beam
in a direct manner from an assumed solution for the shear stress distribution
in the beam. The shear coefficient attempts to overcome the inability of
Timoshenko beam theory, which is a first order theory, to account for the
true shear stress distribution in the cross-section. One of the static methods
for calculating K which has attracted attention is due to Cowper. 5.6 It has
previously been used for solid cross-section composite beams of both
specially orthotropic materials 7and of generally orthotropic materials. 8The
success of Cowper's method lies in the derivation of the shear coefficient
from the equations of three-dimensional elasticity and it can therefore be
applied to the analysis of anisotropic materials in a fairly straight-forward
m a n n e r by incorporating elastic anisotropy. In this paper Cowper's method
will be used to analyze a certain class of thin-walled composite beams.
Formulae are derived for the calculation of the shear coefficient for
thin-walled composite beams of various cross-sectional shapes. At the
present time the theory is limited to cross-sections assembled of vertical and
horizontal panels such as box-beams, I or T beams. Results of parametric
studies in which the lay-up of the laminated panels is varied for different
cross-sectional shapes are shown.
 Shear coefficientsfor thin-walled composite beams 49

2 P R O P E R T I E S OF T H E B E A M

The beam lies with its major axis in the z-direction. The loading is assumed
to be in the x z plane with the beam deflection in the x-direction. It is assumed
that the loading, the geometry and the material properties of the cross-
section are symmetric with respect to the x z plane.
The geometry of the cross-section in the x y plane is described by an arc
length coordinate s, which follows the contour and by the angle 0 which
describes the slope of the contour. The positive direction of the arc length s

laminated
composite
n 9 /rpanels
w"

Y
,,, -r = , sir
,=

sheer flow n~r~'8

't X

Fig. 1. Cross-section of a typical thin-walled composite beam.

is chosen arbitrarily (see Fig. 1) and is related to the angle 0 which is taken as
positive when it is measured from the positive x-direction to the positive
s-direction in a counter-clockwise direction.
The thin-walled composite beam is constructed of laminated composite
material panels which have orthotropic in-plane material properties and are
oriented in the beam such that one of the orthotropic axes is parallel to beam
axis. The laminated panels which are symmetric about their mid-planes are
thin with respect to the overall dimensions of the beam cross-section. It is
assumed that a shear stress exists and that it follows the contour of the
cross-section. This shear stress, according to the usual assumptions of thin-
walled beam theory, is uniform across the thickness of the laminates which
form the cross-section. In addition there exists an axial stress in the cross-
section which acts in the plane of the laminates which form the beam. For
the thin-walled beam it is assumed that all other stress components are
negligible. These assumptions do not preclude the consideration of in-plane
warping of the laminated panels of the cross-section which is known to be a
factor in the determination of the shear coefficient for the thin-walled
composite beam.
The in-plane material properties of the orthotropic laminated panels
which form the thin-walled composite beam are given in a generalized form
with respect to the orthotropic axes, s and z, of the panel. The thickness
coordinate of the panel is designated by the letter n. The in-plane stress-
50 LawrenceC. Bank

strain relation for a generic laminated panel is given below following Tsai
and Hahn. 9

1 - - 17SZ
0
Ez Ez
--b'zs 1
(l)
E, E,
l
0 ,Ts
Gsz --

where
E~ = in-plane longitudinal modulus
E, = in-plane transverse modulus
G,z = in-plane shear modulus
v,. v~, = in-plane Poisson's ratios
The relationship between the local panel coordinate system (n, s, z) and the
global beam coordinate system (x, y, z) is shown in Fig, 1. In the derivation
that follows the in-plane material properties will be sufficient to describe the
behavior of the composite beam.

3 D E R I V A T I O N OF EQUATION FOR SHEAR COEFFICIENT

The derivation of Timoshenko beam theory equations from the equations of

'three-dimensional elasticity is fully described by Cowper. 5In this paper only
the key equations and assumptions will be briefly repeated for the sake of
continuity. Detailed derivation will be presented where the necessary
specialization of Cowper's method for thin-walled composite beams is
undertaken.
Following Cowper, the mean deflection of the cross-section, W, the mean
rotation of the cross-section, cI), and the mean axial displacement of the
cross-section, U, are defined below as,

*:lIxudY
w=ll I uxdxdy (2)

(3)

u -~f uzdxdy (4)

 Shear coefficients for thin-walled composite beams 51

where ul is the component of displacement in the/-direction, A is the area of

the cross-section and I is the second m o m e n t area ('moment of inertia')
about the y-axis. The total transverse shear force, Q, and the bending
m o m e n t , M, acting at any section along the length of the beam have their
usual definitions,

Q= I I o-dxdy (5)

M= I f Xtrzzdxdy (6)

where o'ij are the stress components. As mentioned in the introduction,

Cowper's m e t h o d is based on the static analysis of the beam and depends on
deriving the relationship between W, ~ and the shear distortion of the
beam. Consequently only the static equations of Timoshenko beam theory
will be used in what follows. Additional variables called residual displace-
ments, v~ and v~, are introduced to account for the warping of the cross-
section, and are defined as,
vz = u~ - x~ - U (7)
Vx = ltx-- W (8)
Using the mean variables defined above and the residual displacements the
following two equations are obtained for an orthotropic elastic beam.

E~'O~ =M- f xvx~tr=dxdy-f f xvr~crrydxdy (9,

Oz A- ~ 0x ] dxdy (10)

where E~, Gxz, v~, and vy~ are the material properties of a generally
orthotropic beam. The relationship between these material properties and
the properties of a laminated panel, eqn (1), is shown in what follows.
As noted by Cowper, so far no approximations beyond the linear theory
of elasticity have been made. At this stage two assumptions regarding the
stress distribution in the beam are introduced.
(1) The stresses o-,~and cryyare assumed to be negligible compared with the
axial stress or= and are therefore set to zero. For the thin-walled beam this
assumption is particularly well founded and concurs with what has pre-
viously been assumed. This reduces the moment-curvature relationship,
eqn (9), to its usual form

E~IOcb= M (11)
Oz
52 Lawrence C. Bank

(2) In order to evaluate the integral in eqn (10) the residual displacement in
the axial direction, v~, must be calculated. For the thin-walled beam
considered here the following method is used. It is assumed that the shear
stress in the thin-walled cross-section can be represented by a shear flow
which follows the contour of the cross-section and is uniform across the
thickness. This shear flow and the corresponding shear stress distribution
can be found directly from equilibrium by using standard methods for
thin-walled sections. 10The shear stress distribution found in this manner is
then used to find the residual displacement by assuming that it can be
equated with the shear stress distribution for a special case of a beam for
which the exact solution is known from Saint-Venant flexure theory. The
special case considered here is that of an anisotropic cantilever beam
subjected to a single transverse load at the tip. The solution to this problem
in terms of a flexure function is given by Love. n The use of the shear stress
distribution for this special case to analyze the bending problem is discussed
in detail by Cowper 5 and Stephen. 4 The relationship between the shear
stress, rsz, which is assumed to be uniform across the thickness of the
laminated panels, and the 'exact' shear stresses is given as
rsz = O'xzCOS0 + O-yzSinO (12)

Using Love's solution for the anisotropic beam the expressions for the shear
stresses and the axial displacement of the beam are given in terms of a
flexure function, X, as
GxzQ[Ox~ y2 ]
tr= - Ezl --~-X + VxzX2+ 2Gyz ( E z - G x z v * z - 2 G y z v Y z ) (13)

Cryz- GyzQ[
Ezl OX
cgy + X~(Ez_Gx~v=) ] (14)

The function f(z) depends on the end conditions of the beam and is not
required in the derivation. The solution proceeds in the following manner.
In the case of a solid cross-section the solution for the flexure function can be
found for certain regular cross-sections 12and the necessary terms in eqn (10)
can be evaluated immediately at this stage. For the thin-walled cross-section
the flexure function cannot be found directly and, therefore, we use the
equilibrium shear stress distribution to find the flexure function. To do this
we introduce a modified flexure function, 0, defined as
xy2 E
0 = - X- ~ ( z - G = v x z - Gyzvyz) (16)
~¢ayz
 Shear coefficients for thin-walled composite beams 53

and substitute expressions for Otk/Ox and OqJ/~y into the expressions for o'x~
and o-y~. Using eqn (12) the relationship between the modified flexure
function and the shear stress distribution is found as

Ox cos O + Gy dqSsin0
G x~ °O ay = -E- f~t 7 sz + -'-~-(
GX~ Vxzffc2 - Vyzy2) cos 0 + G y~vy~xy sin 0

(17)

We are now in a position to evaluate eqn (10) which reduces to the second
static equation of Timoshenko beam theory. Substituting for v~ and o-~, as
demonstrated by Cowper 5leads to,
oW Q
+• - (18)
c~z K* AEz

where K* is a 'modified' shear coefficient. This equation is of the same form

as the more conventional equation for Timoshenko beam theory where the
term on the right-hand side would have the denominator KAG. As shall be
shown in what follows, it is necessary to define the expression in this way to
account for the different in-plane moduli of the laminated panels that form
the beam. The special case of identical laminated panels is given later. The
expression for K* depends on the flexure function and is found from the
shear stress distribution by a closed integration around the contour of the
cross-section. At this stage it is necessary to restrict the solution to a certain
class of cross-sections. In order to uncouple the material properties in the x y
plane of the cross-section so that the in-plane properties of the laminated
panels may be used, the cross-section is restricted to one assembled of
vertical and horizontal panels only. Thus, either sin 0 or cos 0 becomes zero
in eqn (17) and the integration around the contour is a function of either x or
y. This results in the following two expressions for the modified flexure
function, for vertical panels (parallel to the x z plane),

G , z ~0 _ Eft _~
~ Q cos~ rsz + (vs~x2) (19)

for horizontal panels (parallel to the y z plane),

aO Ezl
Gsz a~ - Q sinO zsz + Gs~v,zXy (20)

In deriving these expressions an additional assumption regarding the

material properties of the thin-walled composite beam has been made. It is
assumed that the Poisson's ratio in the thickness directionof each panel is
zero. As a consequence of this assumption all area integrals are reduced to
line integrals around the contour of the cross-section. In addition, the value
54 LawrenceC. Bank

TABLE 1
Comparison between the Predicted Values of the Shear Coefficient K for Various
Thin-Walled Isotropic Beams

Cross-section K (eqn (25)) K (Cowper5) % difference

Rectangle (b/h = 0.25) 0.741 9 0.756 6 1.9
Square (b/h = 1.0) 0.419 7 0.435 5 3.6
Rectangle (b/h = 2.0) 0.227 6 0.241 2 5.6
Rectangle (b/h = 4.0) 0.096 8 0.106 1 8.8
I Beam (b/h = 0.5) 0.467 4 0.477 1 2-0
I Beam (b/h = 1.0) 0-291 3 0.295 6 1.5

o f the s h e a r coefficients calculated for isotropic materials by this m e t h o d

differ slightly f r o m the original C o w p e r m e t h o d (see Table 1). T h e modified
s h e a r coefficient K* is t h e n given by the expression,

1
K* = (21)
-2~
1 +~
+-Vszs2t ds 1 ~ r0tds

w h e r e the positive sign in the first term of the d e n o m i n a t o r is taken for

i n t e g r a t i o n in the y-direction and the negative sign for integration in the
x-direction. This is due to the fact that the following substitution has been
m a d e in the derivation of K*
ye X~

If f (Vyzy2_VxzX2)dxdy=_~ {~,, Vszy2tdy- fx, V'zX2tdx}

= ~5 +vszs2tds (22)

F o r the special case in which the b e a m is constructed of identical

l a m i n a t e d panels the equations for T i m o s h e n k o b e a m t h e o r y in their
u n m o d i f i e d f o r m still hold and are given as,

Ezl =M (23)
az

aW Q
+~ - - - (24)
oz KAGs~
, E~
K = K -~--with K* defined in eqn (21) (25)
 Shear coefficients for thin-walled composite beams 55

4 T R A N S F O R M E D SECTION

The above procedure can be used to find the shear coefficient K* for the
general case of a thin-walled composite beam constructed of laminated
panels having different material properties. For example, consider a
rectangular box beam in which the horizontal panels consist of 0 ° plies and
the vertical panels consist of ---45° plies. In this case the in-plane material
properties will be different for the different layups and a 'transformed
section' approach is used to facilitate the calculation of K*.
The section is transformed with respect to the in-plane longitudinal
modulus of the laminated panels. A representative longitudinal modulus, E,
is chosen and the transformed section properties (written with the subscript
t) I, and A, are calculated and used in place of I and A in the expression for
K*. The in-plane shear modulus and the in-plane Poisson's ratios are
incorporated in the calculation of K* when the flexure function is found by
integration around the cross-section. The transformed thickness of each
laminated panel is used in the integration around the contour in the
calculation of K*.
Justification for the use of such a transformed section is provided by the
previous assumption relating to the shear stress flow around the cross-
section. As mentioned earlier the shear stress is calculated by using ordinary
strength of materials theory. Inherent in this theory is the assumption that
the shear flow is found from the solution to the beam bending problem.
Consequently the rationale behind the use of the transformed section in the
analysis of beams of several materials (which are often referred to as
'composite beams' in the literature) is equally applicable here. 1~ It is
important to keep in mind that the shear stress calculated in this manner acts
over the actual thickness of the cross-section and not over the 'transformed'
thickness. The classical shear formula for bending about the y-axis, for
thin-walled sections, is therefore written as,

- Q xttds (26)
7"sz ittact s,

where tactis the actual thickness of the cross-section and t, is the transformed
thickness of the cross-section.

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To illustrate the effect of shear deflection a rectangular cross-section thin-

walled composite cantilever beam with identical panels is considered. The
56 Lawrence C. Bank

unmodified equations of Timoshenko beam theory, eqns (23)-(25), are used

to obtain the expression for the ratio of the bending deflection, wb to the
shear deflection, w , at the tip of the cantilever of length 4,

Wb _ A~2(Gsz~ g (27)
ws 31 A~Ez]

In Fig. 2 the deflection ratio (wdws) at the cantilever tip is plotted against
the shear coefficient K for different values of E~/Gsz. In this example the

I0 /1 /
//
/ //
it ,//
/
/ /1

~6

iI /
// /,// j- E/G=2 6
• ------ E/G=25
/////~J ..... E/G =50
///~' ----- E / G =100

o
o o2 o, o16 o18
SHEAR COEFFICIENT- K

Fig. 2. Deflection ratio (Wb/Ws)versus the shear coefficient K for different values of E/G.

rectangular composite cantilever beam considered has the following

geometry; ( = 1000 m m , b = 100 m m , h = 50 m m , t = constant. As can
be seen from the figure as EJGsz increases the deflection ratio decreases
indicating a greater contribution from the shear deflection.
For different cross-sections and different material properties the actual
value of K* or K must be calculated from eqn (21) or (25). The steps in this
p r o c e d u r e are briefly described below for the sake of clarity.
(i) Find the shear stress distribution rsz around the cross-section using
equilibrium methods.
(ii) Using eqns (19) and (20) integrate around the cross-section to find
the modified flexure function. Solve for the integration constants in
terms of one arbitrary constant by ensuring continuity of qJ around
the cross-section.
(iii) Evaluate terms in the denominator of eqn (21) by performing two
m o r e separate integrations around the cross-section.
(iv) Calculate I and A (or I, and A ~) for the cross-section.
(v) Substitute into eqn (21) or (25).
Using this straight-forward procedure K* or K values can be found for any
 Shear coefficients for thin-walled composite beams 57

cross-section c o n s t r u c t e d of vertical and horizontal panels. Results o f

calculations for rectangular and I b e a m sections are given below.

5.1 Rectangular beam

(a) G e n e r a l case o f different thickriess panels o f different material

properties, Fig. 3. T h e t r a n s f o r m e d section is used to give,

K*=20(ot+3m)2/[~-~1(60m2n2+60amn2 )

E1 3
+ --G--~2( 180m + 300otm 2+ 144a2m + 24ct 3)

+ vt( - 30m2n 2 - 50~mn ~) + v2(30rn 2+ 6o.m - 4o~2) ] (28)

(b) F o r the f r e q u e n t l y occurring special case of different thickness panels

with identical material properties (E~, Gs~, ~,~) we use the unmodified
T i m o s h e n k o b e a m equations with,

K = 20( 1 + 3m)2/[( 180m 3+ 300m ~+ 144m + 60rn2n 2 + 60ran 2+ 24)

VszGsz ]
~zz ( - 30m2 + 50mn2 + 30m2n2 - 6m + 4) (29)

(c) F o r the case of the square section (b) reduces to,

20
K = { x,s~G,~] (30)
48-3\ Ez ]

w h e r e n = b / h , m = qb/t2h, a = E2/E, in eqns (28)-(29).

~'-EIGivl

hl E2G~ ~2

i,X
I
t-- L~ -~

Fig. 3. Cross-section of a thin-walled rectangular beam.

58 Lawrence C. Bank

5.2 I b e a m

(a) General case of different thickness flange and web of different material
properties, Fig. 4. The transformed section is used to give,

F E1
K* = 20(c~+ 3m)2//--~--(60m 2n 2 + 60o~mn2)
LU,

+ - ~ ( 1 8 0 m 3 + 300ctm 2 + 144ot2m + 24c~ 3)

+ vl(6Om2n 2 + 40otmn 2) + v2(30m 2 + 6 a m - 4o~2) ] (31)

where n = b / h , m = 2bt#htw, a = E 2 / E 1 in eqn (31).

Table 1 shows the comparison between the values of K calculated by
Cowper's formulae and eqn (25) for an isotropic material (u = 0-30) for
different cross-sectional shapes of constant thickness. It is seen that the
values of K predicted by the two methods are in fairly good agreement for
this special case. As the E / G ratios increase from the isotropic value of 2.6
for the composite panels, the formulae above more appropriately reflect the
thin-walled assumptions made in their derivation.
In Table 2 the values of K for rectangular cross-sections of different aspect
ratios ( b / h ) are given for beams constructed of identical laminated panels.
The in-plane properties of different layups of graphite/epoxy T300/5208
have been calculated using the data in Tsai and Hahn. 9As is seen the ---45°
lay-up has the largest K values and the lowest E / G ratio implying the best
resistance to shear deformation. However, the longitudinal stiffness is
severely reduced compared with the unidirectional 0 ° lay-up. It would

b
I

EIG ,z/,

E2 G2 z/2
I

Fig. 4. Cross-section of a thin-walled I beam.

 Shear coefficients for thin-walled composite beams 59

TABLE 2
Values of K for Thin-Walled Rectangular Composite Beams Constructed from Different
Lay-ups of Graphite/Epoxy T300/5208

T300/5208 Properties K
lay-up
Ez Gsz vs~ b/h = 0"25 b/h = 1"0 b/h = 4"0
(GPa) (GPa)

0° 181.00 7-17 0.280 0 0.740 5 0.417 0 0.093 9

008/90° 162.47 7.17 0-098 5 0-740 4 0.416 8 0.093 7
00/90 ° 95.99 7.17 0.030 2 0.740 4 0.416 7 0.093 6
-+30° 64.81 36.74 1.372 8 0.751 1 0-438 0 0.120 5
-+45° 25.05 46-59 0.746 9 0-768 0 0.456 3 O-155 8

TABLE 3
Values of the Modified Shear Coefficient K* for a Rectangular Composite Beam with
Varying Percentages of ---45° Plies in the Vertical Panels

% of +--45° plies in Properties K* (x 10 -3)

vertical panels
E2 G2 1-'2
(GPa) (GPa)

0 181-00 7.17 0.280 0 3.719

lO 166.17 1I- l I 0.456 6 4-500
25 143.11 17-03 0-581 7 5-205
50 103.98 26.88 0-674 8 5-872
75 64.57 36.74 0-720 1 6.286
100 25.05 46.59 0.746 9 6.598

c l e a r l y b e a d v a n t a g e o u s to c o m b i n e these t w o effects in a c o m p o s i t e b e a m to
utilize t h e c o m p o s i t e m a t e r i a l efficiently.
In o r d e r to i n v e s t i g a t e the effect o f c o m b i n i n g d i f f e r e n t lay-ups in the
l a m i n a t e d p a n e l s within a b e a m , K* values are c a l c u l a t e d for a r e c t a n g u l a r
( b / h = 4.0) c r o s s - s e c t i o n with c o n s t a n t wall thickness. T h e h o r i z o n t a l
p a n e l s a r e c o n s t r u c t e d f r o m u n i d i r e c t i o n a l 0 ° plies while the vertical p a n e l s
h a v e v a r y i n g p e r c e n t a g e s o f ---45° plies. T h e values o f K* a n d the m a t e r i a l
p r o p e r t i e s f o r t h e vertical p a n e l s (written with subscript 2) f o r the d i f f e r e n t
l a y - u p s a r e g i v e n in T a b l e 3.
U s i n g t h e v a l u e s o f the m a t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s a n d o f K* in T a b l e 3 the
d e f l e c t i o n r a t i o (Wb/Ws) is p l o t t e d in Fig. 5, a l o n g the length o f a c a n t i l e v e r
b e a m w i t h d i m e n s i o n s ~ = 1000 r a m , b = 100 r a m , h = 25 r a m , t = c o n -
s t a n t . A s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f ---45° plies in the vertical p a n e l s is i n c r e a s e d the
60 Lawrence C. Bank

18
,/
16 /
/"
14

t2
./ / /

6 Z ; " / / / / _ 0% ± 45*
, , , - / ~ - f - - - Io*/. ± 4s*
4
,//,/~j/-- ..... 50*/. +_ 4 5 °
100% +-45*
2

0 I I I I
0 zoo 400 6oo Boo ~ooo
DISTANCE FROM SUPPORT ( m m )

Fig. 5. Variation of the deflection ratio (wb/ws) along the length of a cantilever beam. Curves
show the effect of increasing the percentage of -+45° plies in the vertical panels of a
rectangular cross-section (b/h = 4.0).

deflection ratio increases indicating a smaller proportion of deflection due to

shear. The total deflection of the beam can now be found and the percentage
of ---45° plies in the vertical panels which gives the smallest total deflection
can be obtained. For the above case for t = 1 mm the optimal percentage
is 25.
The procedure above demonstrates the manner in which an optimal
composite thin-walled beam may be designed. The method allows the
designer to compare the effects of altering lay-ups and thicknesses of the
various laminated panels in the beam. O f particular importance is the
response of composite thin-walled beams to flexural vibrations. The shear
coefficients calculated by the methods described in this paper are also
applicable to the analysis and design of a Timoshenko beam with a required
frequency response.

6 CONCLUSION

A m e t h o d has been presented for calculating the shear coefficient in the

T i m o s h e n k o b e a m theory for thin-walled composite beams constructed of
laminated panels. Simplifying assumptions concerning the material proper-
ties and the stress distributions in the beam have been made. The m e t h o d
can be used instead of Bernoulli-Euler beam theory without much extra
effort to obtain a more realistic description of the behavior of a thin-walled
composite beam. The method can also be used to investigate, in a systematic
 Shear coefficientsfor thin-walled composite beams 61

m a n n e r , the effects of altering cross-sectional geometries or of altering

in-plane material properties of the laminated panels.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Paul Bednarczyk, a graduate student in the

D e p a r t m e n t of Civil Engineering at RPI for his help with the calculations
and figures.

REFERENCES

1. Bresse, J. A. C., Course de mecanique, 2nd edn, Part 1, Gauthier-Villars,

Paris, 1866.
2. Timoshenko, S. P., On the correction for shear of the differential equation for
transverse vibration of prismatic bars, Phil. Mag., 41 (1921) 744--6.
3. Kaneko, T., On Timoshenko's correction for shear in vibrating beams, J. Phys.
D: Phys., 8 (1975) 1927-36.
4. Stephen, N. G., Timoshenko's shear coefficient from a beam subjected to
gravity loading, J. Appl. Mech., 47 (1980) 121-7.
5. Cowper, G. R., The shear coefficient in Timoshenko's beam theory, J. Appl.
Mech., 33 (1966) 335--40.
6. Cowper, G. R., On the accuracy of Timoshenko's beam theory, Proc. ASCE
EM6, 94 (1968) 1447-53.
7. Dharmarajan, S. and McCutchen, H. (Jr), Shear coefficients for orthotropic
beams, J. Comp. Mat., 7 (1973) 530--5.
8. Teh, K. K. and Huang, C. C., Shear deformation coefficient for generally
orthotropic beam, Fib. Sci. and Tech., 12 (1979) 73--80.
9. Tsai, S. W. and Hahn, H. T., Introduction to composite materials, Technomic
Inc., Pennsylvania, 1980.
10. Sechler, E. E. and Dunn, L. G., Airplane structural analysis and design, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1942.
11. Love, A. E. H., A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity, 4th edn,
Dover, New York, 1944, p. 344.
12. Tolf, G., Saint-Venant bending of an orthotropic beam, Composite Structures,
4 (1985) 1-14.
13. Beer, F. P. and Johnston, E. R. (Jr), Mechanics of materials, McGraw-Hill
Inc., New York, 1981.