Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Buckling of laminated composite and sandwich beams due to axially varying T

in-plane loads
Armagan Karamanlia, , Metin Aydogdub
⁎

a
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Bahcesehir University, 34353 Istanbul, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Trakya University, 22030 Edirne, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper is dedicated to study the elastic buckling behavior of isotropic, laminated composite and sandwich
Composite beam beams subjected to various axially varying in-plane loads and boundary conditions (BCs). The formulation of the
Buckling problem is derived by using the Ritz method with the displacement field based on a shear and normal deformable
Ritz method beam theory (SNDBT). Polynomial functions are employed to present the displacement field. The convergence
Shear and normal deformable beam theory
studies are performed and then obtained results are compared with those of reported works. Results from ex-
In plane variable axial load
tensive analysis are presented for different BCs, aspect ratios, orthotropy ratios, fiber angles and loading con-
ditions. It is observed that the type of the axially variable in-plane load significantly affects the critical buckling
loads and mode shapes of the beams depending on the BCs. The normal deformation effect depends on not only
the aspect ratio but also BCs and the fiber orientation angles.

1. Introduction
The applications of laminated composite beams (LCBs) have been
becoming widespread in civil, mechanical, aerospace, military and
aeronautical industries with the increasing of the customer demands
based on the specifications related to strength, stiffness and lightness.
Therefore, the researchers have developed various theories to present
the bending, free vibration and buckling behaviors of LCBs. A review of
these theories can be found in [1–4]. It should be noted that the higher
order beam theories (HBTs) which assume a higher-order variation of
the axial displacement through the height of the beam, predict the
structural behavior of the LCBs more accurate than classical beam
theory (CBT) and the first-order shear deformable beam theories
(FSDTs). The CBT neglects the shear deformation effect, underestimates
the deflections and overestimates the natural frequencies and critical
buckling loads. Moreover, the FSDTs require a shear correction factor
which depends on the BC, loading condition and geometrical proper-
ties. Eventually, the use of HBTs has been increasing due to their ad-
vantages over CBT and FSDTs.
The elastic instability problem of LCBs has a great importance
especially in aircraft and ship applications. As a result, the buckling
analysis of LCBs has attracted a number of researchers who investigated
both theoretically and experimentally the elastic instability problem to
obtain solutions for urgent practical requirements. Mathew et al. [5]
studied the thermal buckling response employing the FSDT and the fi-
nite element method (FEM). In [6], Abramovich presented analytical
solutions for the thermal buckling analysis of LCBs subjected to various
BCs. By employing a layer-wise theory, Lee investigated the thermal
buckling of LCBs [7]. The buckling behavior of LCBs was investigated
by Khdeir and Reddy based on the different beam theories [8]. Khdeir
[9] also studied the thermal buckling response of LCBs by using various
beam theories. Aydogdu used the Ritz method to present the mechan-
ical buckling [10] and thermal buckling [11] behavior of LCBs for
different boundary conditions. Vo and Thai [12] investigated the vi-
bration and buckling of LCBs based on a HBT in which the transverse
displacement consists of bending and shear components by using FEM.
Vosoughi et al. [13] studied the thermal buckling and postbuckling of
LCBs by using differential quadrature method (DQM). An analytical
solution for the nonlinear thermal stability of LCBs was presented in
[14]. Wang et al. [15] examined the buckling analysis of LCBs by using
isogeometric FEM for various BCs. The buckling and post buckling re-
sponses of LCBs in hygrothermal environments were studied by Emam
and Elhater [16]. In [17–18], Mantari and Canales presented solutions
based on the Ritz method for the buckling analysis of LCBs using a
SNDBT. Nguyen et al. [19] employed the Ritz method to examine the
buckling behavior of LCBs employing trigonometric trial functions. Yun
et al. [20] investigated the thermal buckling of LCBs based on the dy-
namic stiffness method. In a very recent study [21], Nguyen et al.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: armaganfatih.karamanli@eng.bau.edu.tr (A. Karamanli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.067
Received 23 September 2018; Received in revised form 2 November 2018; Accepted 23 November 2018
Available online 24 November 2018
0263-8223/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu
Fig. 1. Geometry of a laminated composite beam.
Fig. 2. Geometry of the laminated composite sandwich beam.
applied new shape functions using the Ritz method for the thermo-
mechanical buckling analysis of LCBs. It is noteworthy that the elastic
buckling may also occur under the non-uniform variable in plane
loading conditions. Some reported works can be found for the elastic
buckling of isotropic columns with non-uniform loading conditions
[22–33].
Moreover, there are a few studies related to the buckling analysis of
isotropic and composite plates. The elastic buckling of isotropic plates
under the axially variable in-plane loads can be found in [34–36].
Buckling analysis of symmetric laminated anisotropic plates under the
shear and variable edge loads was examined by Nemeth [37]. By em-
ploying different boundary conditions, Lopatin and Morozov
Fig. 3. Simply supported beam with a distributed in plane axial load.
392
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408
Table 1
Coefficients of external axial distributed loads.
1 2 3
N1x 0 0 1
N2x 0 2 0
N3x 0 −2 2
N 4x 3 0 0
N5x 3 −6 3
N6x −6 6 0
investigated the buckling behavior of orthotropic plates under the in-
plane compressive loads [38,39]. Employing the FSDT and series so-
lution, Zhong and Gu [40] examined the buckling of simply supported
symmetric laminated cross-ply composite plates subjected to variable
edge loads. Cagdas and Adali [41] studied the in-plane pre-buckling
stresses of cross-ply laminated plates for different in-plane boundary
constraints and investigated the optimization of the layer thickness to
obtain the maximum buckling load for various boundary constraints. By
using the finite element formulation, the cutout effects on the elastic
buckling response of the composite plates under variable in-plane
loading were investigated by Narayana [42]. The Ritz method was
employed to present the buckling of skew composite plates under the
variable in-plane loads by Kumar et al. [43]. Some recent studies re-
lated to buckling of composites beams and plates can be found in
[44–47].
Except very few previous studies, axial stress has been assumed as
uniform compression throughout plate or beam structures. As pointed
out Hu et al. [48] axial stress varies parabolically in the longitudinal
direction or transverse direction have practical importance. The local
stability of the crown of the hat-stiffened panel of the blended wing
body aircraft. In this structure the axial stress varies from tension at the
two loaded edges to compression in the middle of the structure. It is
clear from above literature survey, to the author’s best knowledge there
is no reported work on the elastic buckling of laminated composite and
sandwich beams subject to the non-uniform axially variable in-plane
loads. Due to this motivation, in the present study, buckling of com-
posite beams with axially varying stress has been investigated. More-
over, the normal deformation effect is important especially for the thick
Fig. 4. Distribution of the axially variable in-plane loads through the length of
the beam.
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408

Table 2
Kinematic boundary conditions used for the numerical computations.
BC x = −L/2 x = L/2

SS u = 0, w b = 0, ws = 0, wz = 0 w b = 0, ws = 0, wz = 0
CS u = 0, w b = 0, ws = 0, wz = 0, w b' = 0, ws' = 0 w b = 0, ws = 0, wz = 0
CC u = 0, w b = 0, ws = 0, wz = 0, w b' = 0, ws' = 0 u = 0, w b = 0, ws = 0, wz = 0, w b' = 0, ws' = 0
CF u = 0, w b = 0, ws = 0, wz = 0, w b' = 0, ws' = 0

Table 3 When g (z ) is set to zero, the present SNDBT is reduced to a HBT. With
Boundary exponents for various BCs. the linearity assumption for the deformations, the kinematic relations
BC Left end Right end
associated with the displacement field can be given by:
U
pu pwb pws pwz qu qwb qws qwz = = u' zwb'' f (z ) ws''
xx
x (2a)
SS 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
CS 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 W
zz = = g ' (z )
CC 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 z (2b)
CF 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0
W U
= + = g (z )(ws' + wz' )
xz
x z (2c)
beams and it should be considered. This work aims to study the buck-
ling behavior of isotropic, laminated composite and sandwich beams For each orthotropic lamina, the stress-strain relation is given by:
based on a SNDBT [49–52] by using Ritz method. The effects of BCs, k k
Q11 Q13 0
aspect ratios, orthotropy ratios, fiber angles on the buckling response of xx xx
zz = Q13 Q33 0 zz
isotropic, laminated composite and sandwich beams subjected to axi-
ally variable in-plane loads.
xz 0 0 Q55 xz (3)

where ( xx , zz , xz ) and ( xx , zz , xz ) are the components of the stress and

2. Theory and formulation strain tensors, respectively. Qij ’s are reduced transformed stiffness and
can be given by:
In Fig. 1, a laminated composite beam with rectangular sections
height (h), width (b) and the length L is illustrated. Q11 = C11cos 4 + 2(C12 + 2C66) cos 2 sin2 + C22sin4

Q13 = C23sin2 + C13cos 2

2.1. Kinematics, stress and strain relations
Q33 = C33
The displacement field of the SNDBT to be used within this study is
given with the following equations [49–52]: Q55 = C55sin2 + C44cos 2 (4)
dw (x ) 4z 3 dws (x )
U (x , z ) = u (x ) z b = u (x ) zwb' (x ) f (z ) ws' (x ) where
dx 3h2 dx
(1a) C11 =
E1
; C12 =
E1 21
; C22 =
E2 (1 13 31 )
; C13 =
E1 31
;
4z 2
W (x , z ) = wb (x ) + ws (x ) + 1 wz (x ) = wb (x ) + ws (x )
h2 E2 12 31 E3 (1 21 21)
C23 = ; C33 = ; C66 = G12; C44 = G13; C55 = G23;
+ g (z ) wz (x ) (1b)
=1 12 21 13 31
where u is the axial displacement, wb and ws are the bending and shear
components of the transverse displacement, respectively and wz is an E1, E2 , G12 , G13 , G23, 12 and 21 are the six independent material
unknown which is defined to obtain the normal deformation effect. properties.

Table 4
Material properties of composite and sandwich beams.
Problem Structure Material Properties

LCB 1 [49,53] E1/E 2 = Open ; E3 = E2 ; G12 = G13 = 0.5E2 ; G23 = 0.2E 2

12 = 13 = 23 = 0.25

LCSB 2 [49,54] Face Layer: 1

Core Layer:
E1c/E2c = 1; E3c = E 2c ; G12c = G13c = 1.5E 2c ; G23c = 0.4E 2c
12c = 13c = 23c = 0.25

393
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408

Table 5 Table 6
Verification and convergence studies on the DCBLs of an isotropic beam sub- Convergence studies on the DCBLs of laminated composite and sandwich beams
jected to uniformly distributed axial load for various BCs (L/h = 100). subjected to uniformly distributed axial load for various BCs (L/h = 5).
Theory Reference SS CS CC CF Theory Reference SS CS CC CF

Euler-Bernoulli Robinson and 18.569 52.504 74.643 7.837 Symmetric LCB [0°/90°/0°], E1/E 2 = 25
Rayleigh-Ritz Adali [55] Present-HBT 2 terms 4.0163 6.6006 5.7109 3.6317
( z = 0) Ritz ( z = 0) 4 terms 3.8072 5.4279 5.4685 3.3940
6 terms 3.7566 5.3501 5.3964 3.3907
Euler-Bernoulli Duan and Wang 18.569 52.501 74.629 7.837
8 terms 3.7563 5.3388 5.3957 3.3904
Exact ( z = 0) [33]
10 terms 3.7562 5.3380 5.3955 3.3904
Present-HBT 2 terms 22.5925 54.6018 78.7779 7.8882 12 terms 3.7562 5.3380 5.3955 3.3904
Ritz ( z = 0) 4 terms 18.5675 52.6493 74.5638 7.8376
Present-Quasi 3D 2 terms 3.9499 6.5682 5.6421 3.6266
6 terms 18.5630 52.4680 74.5445 7.8366
Ritz ( z 0) 4 terms 3.7276 5.2784 5.2971 3.3761
8 terms 18.5629 52.4649 74.5432 7.8366
6 terms 3.6607 5.1039 5.1176 3.3658
10 terms 18.5629 52.4649 74.5432 7.8366
8 terms 3.6595 5.0772 5.1149 3.3637
12 terms 18.5629 52.4649 74.5432 7.8366
10 terms 3.6593 5.0754 5.1144 3.3636
Present-Quasi 3D 2 terms 22.9861 56.8692 85.1630 8.1797 12 terms 3.6593 5.0754 5.1143 3.3636
Ritz ( z 0) 4 terms 18.5691 53.1277 75.4847 7.9291
6 terms 18.5643 52.6983 75.0538 7.8811 Anti-Symmetric LCB [0°/90°], E1/E 2 = 25
8 terms 18.5642 52.6202 74.8760 7.8636 Present-HBT 2 terms 2.4921 5.3365 4.8348 1.2700
10 terms 18.5642 52.5759 74.7772 7.8548 Ritz ( z = 0) 4 terms 2.2272 4.3698 4.6188 1.2558
12 terms 18.5642 52.5491 74.4538 7.8496 6 terms 2.2246 4.2928 4.5736 1.2555
8 terms 2.2246 4.2900 4.5721 1.2555
10 terms 2.2246 4.2898 4.5719 1.2555
12 terms 2.2246 4.2897 4.5719 1.2555

2.2. Laminated composite sandwich beam Present-Quasi 3D 2 terms 2.4712 5.3137 4.7836 1.2707
Ritz ( z 0) 4 terms 2.2105 4.2802 4.4844 1.2559
6 terms 2.2072 4.1570 4.3592 1.2554
A laminated composite sandwich beam (LCSB) shown in Fig. 2 has 8 terms 2.2070 4.1434 4.3493 1.2553
the top and bottom layer thickness (h1 ) and core thickness (h2 ). The 10 terms 2.2070 4.1412 4.3474 1.2553
equations given above for laminated composite beam is used in the 12 terms 2.2070 4.1410 4.3473 1.2553
formulation of LCSB. The main difference between laminated composite
SLCB, (1-3-1), [0°/90°/0°]
beam and laminated sandwich beam formulations are the material
Present-HBT 2 terms 4.6981 7.7735 6.7517 3.7447
properties and the thickness of the layers. In the laminated composite Ritz ( z = 0) 4 terms 4.4029 6.2234 6.2292 3.5967
beam formulation all of the layers have the same thickness and material 6 terms 4.3679 6.1632 6.1605 3.5946
properties, but the core and face layers have different material prop- 8 terms 4.3660 6.1190 6.1519 3.5945
10 terms 4.3660 6.1183 6.1510 3.5945
erties and different thicknesses in the LCSB formulation.
12 terms 4.3660 6.1180 6.1509 3.5945
It is noteworthy that the Zig-Zag theories where the discontinuity of
the displacement at each layer interface is captured, can provide more Present-Quasi 3D 2 terms 4.5986 7.7243 6.6304 4.2913
Ritz ( z 0) 4 terms 4.2568 5.9730 6.0036 4.1832
accurate results than the classical higher order shear and normal de- 6 terms 4.2002 5.7113 5.5950 4.1752
formable beam theories, especially for the sandwich or layered com- 8 terms 4.1847 5.5280 5.5347 4.1740
posite laminates. 10 terms 4.1843 5.5076 5.5090 4.1739
12 terms 4.1840 5.5006 5.5076 4.1738

2.3. Variational formulation

The potential energy of a shear and normal deformable beam can be

written as:
N xe (x ) = N0 P (x ) (7b)
1
U= v( + + xz xz ) dV
2
xx xx zz zz
(5) Positive load is assumed compressive. The distributed external loads
where V is the volume of the beam. obtained based on the different values of i (i = 1, 2, 3) given in Table 1
The potential energy of the external axially variable in-plane load are used for the numerical computations. The integral of the each axi-
shown in Fig. 3 is given by: ally variable in-plane load through the length of the beam is equal to
integral of the uniformly distributed in-plane load. This may allow
1 L /2
x
wb 2
wb ws ws 2 making the comparisons in a fair ground. Fig. 4 shows the distribution
V= N xe (x ) +2 + dx dx
2 L /2 x x x x of the axial loads through the length of the beam.
L /2 (6)
Using Eqs. (1)–(7), the total potential energy can be obtained as
Here is external axially variable in-plane load. The following
N xe (x ) follows:
polynomial axial load distribution is chosen in the present study:
=U+V
2
L L
N xe (x ) = N0 1 x+ + 2 x+ + 3
2 2 (7a)

394
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408

Table 7
DCBLs of isotropic beams subjected to various axially varying in plane loads for different BCs and aspect ratios.
Boundary Condition Aspect Ratio (L/h) Axial Load Type Point Load

Nx1 Nx2 Nx3 N x4 Nx5 N x6

SS 5 16.8638 14.0211 20.8017 12.9515 23.5651 16.6151 8.8210

10 18.1259 15.0068 22.6107 13.8421 25.8807 17.8954 9.5803
20 18.4569 15.2661 23.0806 14.0763 26.4750 18.2318 9.7953
50 18.5508 15.3397 23.2135 14.1427 26.6426 18.3272 9.8576
100 18.5642 15.3502 23.2326 14.1523 26.6666 18.3409 9.8666

CS 5 42.7947 32.0166 60.9906 28.3249 75.3448 41.9007 16.3583

10 50.0473 37.0379 74.5751 32.6221 97.2149 49.6910 19.0736
20 51.9657 38.3824 78.0492 33.7778 102.6329 51.7432 19.9187
50 52.4999 38.7593 79.0045 34.1023 104.1040 52.3153 20.1683
100 52.5759 38.8129 79.1395 34.1485 104.3113 52.3966 20.2044

CC 5 53.2872 41.0511 71.1305 36.9674 84.1764 50.9057 27.3662

10 68.6951 51.9917 97.9048 46.5029 124.8538 66.6641 35.4447
20 73.2653 55.2726 105.5765 49.3718 136.2579 71.3316 38.4559
50 74.5878 56.2263 107.7779 50.2069 139.5008 72.6838 39.4004
100 74.7772 56.3635 108.0932 50.3271 139.9629 72.8781 39.5396

CF 5 7.6480 5.0138 15.4135 4.1386 25.3772 8.4294 2.3987

10 7.8116 5.1071 15.9922 4.2102 26.9316 8.6668 2.4556
20 7.8456 5.1266 16.1145 4.2251 27.2633 8.7173 2.4677
50 7.8537 5.1313 16.1443 4.2287 27.3452 8.7297 2.4706
100 7.8548 5.1319 16.1484 4.2292 27.3565 8.7313 2.4710

1
L /2
u 2 2w
b
2
d 2ws
2 2w
b
2w
s
the shear-bending coupling, bending-normal bending coupling and
= A +D + Ds + 2H shear bending-normal bending coupling stiffness coefficients respec-
2 x x2 dx 2 x2 x2
L /2
tively and As is the shear stiffness coefficient.
u 2w u 2w u 2w
b s b
2B 2Bs + 2X wz 2Y wz 3. Ritz procedure
x x2 x x2 x x2
2w
2Ys s
wz + Zwz 2 Since the differential equations derived for the buckling analysis of
x2 LCBs consist of variable coefficients, the exact solution cannot be ob-
2 2
tained. Various numerical techniques can be employed for the solution
ws wz ws wz of this complicated problem like FEM, DQM, meshless methods, Ritz
+ As + +2
x x x x method etc. Among them, the Ritz procedure has been found accurate
x 2 2 and simple by the researchers [10–11,17–19]. In this study, the Ritz
wb wb ws ws
N0 P (x ) +2 + dx dx procedure is employed for the solution of the problem. The kinematic
x x x x
L /2 (8) boundary conditions for the studied problem are given in Table 2.
The following displacement functions u (x), wb (x ) , ws (x ) and wz (x )
the stiffness coefficients of the present SNDBT are defined as:
are defined for the present composite beam buckling problem:
+h /2
(A, B, Bs , D , Ds , H ) = Q11 b (1, z, f , z 2 , f 2 , fz, g '2) dz m
L pu
L qu
h /2 (9a) u (x ) = Aj j (x ), j (x ) = x+ x xj 1

j=1
2 2 (10a)
+h /2
As = Q55 g 2dz
h /2 (9b) m
L pw
b L qw
b
wb (x ) = Bj j (x ), j (x ) = x+ x xj 1
+h /2 ' j =1
2 2 (10b)
(X , Y , Ys ) = Q13 bg (1, z, f ) dz
h /2 (9c)
m pws qws
L L
+h /2 ws (x ) = Cj j (x ), j (x ) = x+ x xj 1
Z= Q33 bg '2dz 2 2 (10c)
h /2 (9d) j =1

where A, B D are the classical extensional, bending-stretching coupling m

L pwz
L qwz
wz (x ) = Dj j (x ), j (x ) = x+ x xj 1
and bending stiffness coefficients, Ds and Z are the shear bending and 2 2
j=1 (10d)
normal bending stiffness coefficients respectively (similar to D), Bs and
X are the stretching-shear bending coupling and stretching-normal where Aj , Bj , Cj and Dj are undetermined coefficients, j (x ) , j (x ), j (x )
bending stiffness coefficients respectively (similar to B), H, Y, Ys and are and j (x ) are the trial functions, p and q ( = u , wb, ws, wz ) are the

395
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408

Table 8
DCBLS of symmetric [0°/θ/0°] LCBS subjected to different axial in plane loads (E1/ E2 = 25) .
Aspect Ratio (L/h) Angle Axial Load Type Point Load

Nx1 Nx2 Nx3 N x4 Nx5 N x6

a. SS
5 0° 4.9676 4.4070 5.5064 4.1831 5.8690 4.7943 3.3527
15° 4.8853 4.3344 5.4153 4.1148 5.7723 4.7144 3.3008
30° 4.6571 4.1326 5.1636 3.9247 5.5062 4.4928 3.1562
45° 4.3365 3.8476 4.8128 3.6557 5.1370 4.1815 2.9508
60° 4.0044 3.5504 4.4525 3.3745 4.7601 3.8592 2.7343
75° 3.7532 3.3243 4.1817 3.1600 4.4777 3.6157 2.5672
90° 3.6593 3.2397 4.0808 3.0796 4.3727 3.5248 2.5041

20 0° 16.1561 13.4605 19.8443 12.4451 22.4265 15.8992 8.8152

15° 16.0453 13.3699 19.7022 12.3619 22.2605 15.7891 8.7585
30° 15.7558 13.1339 19.3285 12.1455 21.8215 15.5014 8.6121
45° 15.3858 12.8343 18.8439 11.8715 21.2464 15.1324 8.4293
60° 15.0323 12.5508 18.3718 11.6132 20.6790 14.7786 8.2607
75° 14.7728 12.3445 18.0190 11.4259 20.2502 14.5178 8.1411
90° 14.6753 12.2674 17.8853 11.3560 20.0867 14.4197 8.0970

b. CS
5 0° 6.9245 5.6577 8.4500 5.2449 9.7487 6.4200 4.0774
15° 6.8016 5.5575 8.3005 5.1522 9.5764 6.3069 4.0066
30° 6.4650 5.2815 7.8946 4.8960 9.1108 5.9975 3.8097
45° 6.0037 4.8993 7.3468 4.5396 8.4888 5.5746 3.5317
60° 5.5410 4.5115 6.8072 4.1760 7.8835 5.1514 3.2423
75° 5.2006 4.2238 6.4161 3.9051 7.4495 4.8406 3.0227
90° 5.0754 4.1177 6.2734 3.8050 7.2920 4.7265 2.9407

20 0° 39.2553 29.4862 55.5128 26.1521 68.6625 38.2582 16.1885

15° 38.8984 29.2267 54.9519 25.9253 67.8966 37.8978 16.0592
30° 37.9306 28.5256 53.4138 25.3140 65.7766 36.9168 15.7141
45° 36.6021 27.5702 51.2602 24.4835 62.7617 35.5615 15.2542
60° 35.2187 26.5837 48.9692 23.6294 59.5045 34.1414 14.7918
75° 34.1318 25.8136 47.1424 22.9648 56.8833 33.0215 14.4381
90° 33.7106 25.5162 46.4300 22.7084 55.8586 32.5871 14.3027

c. CC
5 0° 6.9667 5.6966 8.5087 5.2934 9.8352 6.4545 4.5915
15° 6.8430 5.5954 8.3584 5.1992 9.6616 6.3408 4.5085
30° 6.5046 5.3171 7.9506 4.9394 9.1930 6.0302 4.2785
45° 6.0419 4.9327 7.4019 4.5790 8.5687 5.6066 3.9565
60° 5.5790 4.5437 6.8631 4.2123 7.9635 5.1837 3.6258
75° 5.2392 4.2556 6.4735 3.9399 7.5310 4.8740 3.3786
90° 5.1144 4.1494 6.3316 3.8393 7.3744 4.7603 3.2870

20 0° 47.6910 36.7832 63.9673 33.1581 76.5962 45.5185 26.5743

15° 47.1691 36.3938 63.1958 32.8118 75.5816 45.0083 26.3045
30° 45.7322 35.3248 61.0559 31.8623 72.7507 43.6015 25.5668
45° 43.7122 33.8296 58.0117 30.5369 68.6904 41.6192 24.5415
60° 41.5672 32.2499 54.7439 29.1395 64.3122 39.5108 23.4654
75° 39.8711 31.0050 52.1462 28.0398 60.8419 37.8437 22.6209
90° 39.2151 30.5241 51.1407 27.6152 59.5063 37.1994 22.2953

d. CF
5 0° 4.2748 3.0100 6.2502 2.5697 7.6555 4.1442 1.5642
15° 4.2195 2.9744 6.1501 2.5406 7.5243 4.0857 1.5488
30° 4.0659 2.8758 5.8734 2.4602 7.1645 3.9230 1.5067
45° 3.8477 2.7365 5.4862 2.3470 6.6707 3.6921 1.4483
60° 3.6153 2.5883 5.0873 2.2269 6.1745 3.4481 1.3871
75° 3.4333 2.4716 4.7870 2.1324 5.8092 3.2592 1.3392
90° 3.3636 2.4267 4.6752 2.0960 5.6747 3.1876 1.3207

20 0° 7.5083 4.9309 15.0033 4.0745 24.4880 8.2380 2.3989

15° 7.4683 4.9051 14.9163 4.0533 24.3307 8.1924 2.3868
30° 7.3689 4.8411 14.6959 4.0010 23.9240 8.0779 2.3570
45° 7.2556 4.7688 14.4325 3.9422 23.4151 7.9443 2.3240
60° 7.1656 4.7126 14.2052 3.8969 22.9422 7.8339 2.2996
75° 7.1125 4.6804 14.0547 3.8714 22.6028 7.7646 2.2865
90° 7.0953 4.6702 14.0015 3.8635 22.4766 7.7411 2.2827

396
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408

Table 9
DCBLs of anti-symmetric [0°/θ] LCBs subjected to different axial in plane loads (E1/ E2 = 25) .
Aspect Ratio (L/h) Angle Axial Load Type Point Load

Nx1 Nx2 Nx3 N x4 Nx5 N x6

a. SS
5 0° 4.9676 4.4070 5.5064 4.1831 5.8690 4.7943 3.3527
15° 4.8097 4.2643 5.3317 4.0454 5.6804 4.6437 3.2327
30° 4.3606 3.8522 4.8455 3.6457 5.1610 4.2160 2.8805
45° 3.6585 3.1939 4.1170 3.0059 4.4021 3.5475 2.3171
60° 2.8012 2.4013 3.2405 2.2437 3.5114 2.7281 1.6750
75° 2.2838 1.9399 2.6882 1.8064 2.9442 2.2303 1.3269
90° 2.2070 1.8734 2.6016 1.7441 2.8523 2.1557 1.2798

20 0° 16.1561 13.4605 19.8443 12.4451 22.4265 15.8992 8.8152

15° 15.2062 12.6648 18.6928 11.7080 21.1391 14.9668 8.2874
30° 12.4509 10.3588 15.3462 9.5723 17.3922 12.2614 6.7607
45° 8.4609 7.0264 10.4749 6.4885 11.9153 8.3397 4.5656
60° 4.9485 4.1022 6.1536 3.7856 7.0255 4.8822 2.6538
75° 3.5279 2.9224 4.3950 2.6962 5.0253 3.4820 1.8872
90° 3.3811 2.8007 4.2125 2.5838 4.8171 3.3372 1.8084

b. CS
5 0° 6.9245 5.6577 8.4500 5.2449 9.7487 6.4200 4.0774
15° 6.7177 5.4949 8.1806 5.0955 9.4237 6.2268 3.9545
30° 6.1758 5.0614 7.4841 4.6923 8.5882 5.7227 3.6043
45° 5.4801 4.4733 6.6283 4.1260 7.5769 5.0844 3.0642
60° 4.7681 3.8058 5.8594 3.4657 6.7050 4.4527 2.4287
75° 4.2539 3.3341 5.3628 3.0123 6.1767 4.0035 2.0396
90° 4.1412 3.2404 5.2391 2.9257 6.0435 3.9014 1.9752

20 0° 39.2553 29.4862 55.5128 26.1521 68.6625 38.2582 16.1885

15° 37.1705 27.8984 52.7098 24.7351 65.3842 36.2590 15.2832
30° 31.0462 23.2432 44.4199 20.5842 55.6155 30.3751 12.6417
45° 21.8420 16.2844 31.7207 14.3939 40.3299 21.4810 8.7482
60° 13.2413 9.8327 19.5116 8.6750 25.1757 13.0916 5.2168
75° 9.5842 7.1056 14.2061 6.2642 18.4393 9.4968 3.7505
90° 9.1930 6.8150 13.6308 6.0078 17.6984 9.1103 3.5961

c. CC
5 0° 6.9667 5.6966 8.5087 5.2934 9.8352 6.4545 4.5915
15° 6.7579 5.5331 8.2354 5.1441 9.5051 6.2593 4.4647
30° 6.2134 5.1017 7.5316 4.7469 8.6595 5.7522 4.1184
45° 5.5278 4.5380 6.6762 4.2153 7.6459 5.1198 3.6272
60° 4.8815 3.9636 5.9372 3.6550 6.7967 4.5356 3.0842
75° 4.4537 3.5738 5.4885 3.2766 6.3028 4.1541 2.7285
90° 4.3474 3.4834 5.3707 3.1916 6.1738 4.0577 2.6540

20 0° 47.6910 36.7832 63.9673 33.1581 76.5962 45.5185 26.5743

15° 45.3890 34.9734 61.0679 31.5144 73.3664 43.3531 25.2368
30° 38.5760 29.6292 52.4312 26.6645 63.6788 36.9380 21.2966
45° 28.0422 21.4223 38.7846 19.2362 47.9836 26.9752 15.2934
60° 17.6441 13.4069 24.8350 12.0119 31.2923 17.0578 9.5052
75° 12.9882 9.8474 18.4152 8.8146 23.3785 12.5840 6.9615
90° 12.4702 9.4536 17.6882 8.4616 22.4653 12.0837 6.6819

d. CF
5 0° 4.2748 3.0100 6.2502 2.5697 7.6555 4.1442 1.5642
15° 4.0913 2.8724 6.0300 2.4490 7.4008 3.9798 1.4892
30° 3.5452 2.4642 5.3957 2.0915 6.7030 3.4926 1.2671
45° 2.6707 1.8234 4.3698 1.5353 5.6784 2.7026 0.9231
60° 1.7455 1.1705 3.1165 0.9773 4.4117 1.8259 0.5820
75° 1.3061 0.8695 2.4239 0.7233 3.5961 1.3877 0.4289
90° 1.2553 0.8353 2.3353 0.6947 3.4760 1.3350 0.4119

20 0° 7.5083 4.9309 15.0033 4.0745 24.4880 8.2380 2.3989

15° 7.0380 4.6210 14.0813 3.8180 23.0214 7.7264 2.2472
30° 5.6866 3.7310 11.4235 3.0815 18.7766 6.2543 1.8119
45° 3.7777 2.4756 7.6398 2.0433 12.6692 4.1675 1.1994
60° 2.1598 1.4137 4.3964 1.1662 7.3533 2.3899 0.6833
75° 1.5254 0.9980 3.1131 0.8230 5.2249 1.6899 0.4819
90° 1.4611 0.9559 2.9824 0.7883 5.0065 1.6188 0.4616

397
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408

Fig. 5. Dimensionless critical buckling loads for symmetric [0°/90°/0°] LCBs subjected to different axial loads with respect to various BCs and orthotropy ratios
(L/h = 5).

boundary exponents used to satisfy the BCs given in Table 3. where is the dimensionless critical buckling load (DCBL), [Kkl] and
The governing equations for the LCBs under the in-plane loads can [Mkl] are the stiffness and geometry matrices, respectively. The above-
be derived by substituting Eqs. (10a)–(10d) into Eq. (8) and then em- mentioned matrices are symmetric. The DCBL of the LCBs can be de-
ploying the minimum energy principle: fined by:

N0 L2
=0 =
qj (11) E1 bh3 (13)

with qj representing the undetermined coefficients, that leads to The symmetric matrices are given by:
L /2
[K11] [K12 ] [K13] [K14] [0] [0] [0] [0] {A} K11 (i , j ) = A i, x j, x dx ,
[K12]T [K22] [K23] [K24] [0] [M22] [M23 ] [0] {B } L /2 (14a)
N0
[K13]T [K23]T [K33] [K34 ] [0] [M23]T [M33] [0] {C }
L /2
[K14]T [K24]T [K34]T [K 44] [0] [0] [0] [0] {D}
K12 (i , j ) = B i, x j, xx dx ,
{0} L /2 (14b)
{0}
= L /2
{0} K13 (i, j) = Bs i, x j, xx dx ,
{0} (12) L /2 (14c)

398
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408

Fig. 6. Dimensionless critical buckling loads for anti-symmetric [0°/90°] LCBs subjected to different axial loads with respect to various BCs and orthotropy ratios
(L/h = 5).

L /2 L /2 L /2
K14 (i , j ) = X i, x j dx , K 44 (i , j ) = Z i j dx + As i, x j, x dx ,
L /2 (14d) L /2 L /2 (14j)
L /2 L /2
x
K22 (i, j) = D i, xx j, xx dx , M22 (i , j ) = N0 P (x ) L i, x j, x dx dx
L /2 (14e) L /2 2 (14k)
L /2 L /2
x
K23 (i , j ) = H i, xx j, xx dx , M23 (i , j ) = N0 P (x ) L i, x j, x dx dx
L /2 (14f) L /2 2 (14l)
L /2 L /2
x
K24 (i, j) = Y j dx , M33 (i, j) = N0 P (x )
i, xx L j, x j, x dx dx
L /2 (14g) L /2 2 (14m)
L /2 L /2 After the determination of the critical buckling load , mode shape
K33 (i, j) = Ds i, xx j, xx dx + As i, x j, x dx , of the buckled beam can be obtained by inserting into Eq. (12).
L /2 L /2 (14h)
L /2 L /2 4. Numerical results
K34 (i , j ) = Ys i, xx j dx + As i, x j, x dx ,
L /2 L /2 (14i) The elastic buckling behavior of the isotropic, laminated composite

399
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu
Fig. 7. Dimensionless critical buckling loads for CC symmetric [0°/90°/0°] and
anti-symmetric [0°/90°] LCBs subjected to different axial loads with respect to
various aspect ratios (E1/ E2 = 25) .
and sandwich beams by using a SNDBT based on the Ritz method for
various axially variable in-plane loads (given in Table 1), aspect ratios,
fiber angles, orthotropy ratios and BCs is investigated in this section. In
Table 4, the material properties of the studied problems are presented.
4.1. Comparison and convergence studies
Firstly, an isotropic beam subjected to uniformly distributed axial
load is considered for comparison and convergence studies. Various BCs
are applied and the numerical results in terms of the DCBLs are used for
comparison purposes with those from previous works [33,55], as illu-
strated in Table 5. Since the m is set to 10 and then 12, the maximum %
difference between the obtained results based on the present SNDBT
becomes %0.04 for isotropic CC and CF BCs. On the other hand, with
the present HBT, 8 terms in the series expansion is enough to obtain
satisfactory results. It is also clear that, the computed results in terms of
DCBLs show excellent agreement with the previous results. It should be
400
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408
noted that the thickness stretching is ignored in the previous works
used for the comparison studies [33,52].
An additional convergence study is performed for laminated com-
posite and sandwich beams. Various BCs are considered. It is clear that
8 terms in the series expansion yield satisfactory results with HBT.
Similar to the analysis results based on the isotropic beams, the sa-
tisfactory results can be obtained by employing 10 terms in the series
expansion. However, within this paper, the normal strain is not equal to
zero. The remaining analyses are carried out by setting m to 10 in the
series expansion for all type of BCs (See Table 6).
4.2. Isotropic beams
In this section, the DCBLs of isotropic beams are investigated for
various types of axially variable in-plane loads, aspect ratios and BCs. It
can be seen from Table 7 that DCBL increases with an increment in the
aspect ratio. The effect of the aspect ratio on the DCBL is more pro-
nounced for the CC beam. As it is expected, the maximum DCBL is
observed for CC isotropic beams. The lowest DCBL is obtained when the
axially variable in-plane load is set to Nx4 for all types of BCs. It is in-
teresting to see that the DCBLs obtained by applying the uniformly
distributed axial in-plane load (Nx1) is higher than the bell shaped axi-
ally variable in-plane load (N x6 ). It may be noteworthy that the higher
density of the axial load in the middle of the beam may lead to a de-
crement in the stiffness of the beam. It is clear that the highest value of
the DCBL is obtained by applying the axial in-plane load (Nx5). The
results presented in Table 7 can be used as benchmark examples for
future studies.
4.3. Laminated composite beams (LCBs)
The buckling analysis of the symmetric [0°/θ/0°] and anti-sym-
metric [0°/θ] LCBs under the variable in-plane loads are performed in
this section. It is assumed that all the laminate of the composite beams
has the same material properties and thickness. In Table 8, the DCBLs of
the symmetric [0°/θ/0°] LCBs are given for various axially variable in-
plane loads, BCs, fiber angles (θ) and aspect ratios. It can be seen that
the minimum DCBL is always obtained for the LCBs subjected to the Nx4 .
Moreover, applying the Nx5 always leads to have the maximum DCBL for
all type of BCs. As expected, the DCBL increases with an increment on
the aspect ratio. It is found that the DCBL is decreased by an increment
in fiber angle for all types of BCs. The effect of aspect ratio variation on
the DCBL is significant for CC LCBs. On the other hand, it is the least for
CF LCBs. The DCBLs obtained for CC and CS LCBs is almost same while
the aspect ratio is set to 5 for all fiber orientation angles. On the other
hand, with the increasing of the aspect ratio, the difference between the
DCBLs of CC and CS LCBs increases. It is seen that Nx3 and Nx5 types load
distributions give higher critical buckling loads when compared to
uniform distribution (Nx1) whereas reverse is true for Nx2 , Nx3 and N x6 type
load distributions.
Table 9 presents the DCBLs of the anti-symmetric [0°/θ] LCBs under
the variable in-plane loads. It is clear that the DCBL decreases as the
fiber angle increases. Similar to symmetric LCBs, the DCBL increases
with an increment in the aspect ratio. The most affected beam in terms
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu
Fig. 8. The effects of the orthotropy ratio and normal strain on the variation of the DCBLs of the symmetric [0°/30°/0°] LCBs for various BCs (L/h = 5, Nx4 ).
of the DCBL with respect to the variation of the aspect ratio is the CC
LCB. Moreover, the effect of the θ on the DCBL is more pronounced for
CC and CS LCBs than others. The minimum DCBL is obtained by setting
the axially variable in-plane load as Nx4 . Moreover, Nx5 yields the max-
imum DCBL as well.
The effect of the variation of the orthotropy ratio on the DCBL of
symmetric and anti-symmetric LCBs is presented in Figs. 5 and 6 for
various BCs. The calculation of the DCBL depends on the E1. One may
keep E2 constant and increase E1. For this case, the critical buckling
load will definitely increase. However, E1 can be kept as constant and
E2 is decreased. The DCBL eventually decreases. Within this study, it is
assumed that E2 is constant. The computed results based on the sym-
metric LCBs show that the effect of the orthotropy ratio change is sig-
nificant for SS LCBs. It is clear that with the increasing of the orthotropy
ratio, the DCBLs decreases. Moreover, the effect of the orthotropy ratio
change on the DCBLs of CF LCBs becomes negligible for the region
E1/ E2 30 . It is important to note that the most affected load condition
with the variation of the orthotropy ratio is the Nx5 which yields the
maximum DCBL. On the other hand, the least affected one is the Nx4
which yields the minimum DCBL. It is interesting that the buckling
401
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408
behavior of the LCBs based on the orthotropy ratio variation is almost
same for the uniformly distributed axial in-plane load (Nx1) and bell
shaped axially variable in-plane load (N x6) for SS and CF LCBs. The
decrement on the DCBLs of LCBs is significant between the E1/ E2 = 5
and E1/ E2 = 10 for all types of BCs.
The numerical results obtained based on the buckling analysis of
anti-symmetric LCBs shown in Fig. 6 imply that the effect of the or-
thotropy ratio variation is also very similar to the response of the
symmetric LCBs. However, it should be noted that the effect of the
orthotropy ratio variation on the anti-symmetric LCBs is more sig-
nificant than the symmetric ones especially for SS, CS and CC LCBs.
Fig. 7 is devoted to exhibit the effect of the aspect ratio change on
the DCBLs of CC symmetric and anti-symmetric LCBs. As it is expected,
the DCBLs of symmetric LCBs are higher than those of anti-symmetric
LCBs. It is seen that the DCBL values increase as the aspect ratio in-
creases. It is found that the effect of the variation of the aspect ratio on
the DCBL is more significant for the symmetric LCBs than the anti-
symmetric ones. As it is mentioned before regarding to the analysis for
variation of the orthotropy ratio, it is interesting that the Nx5 always
yields the maximum DCBLs. Moreover, it is more sensitive to the
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu
Fig. 9. Buckling mode shapes of symmetric [0°/90°/0°] LCBs with respect to various BCs and axial loads (E1/ E2 = 25, L/h = 5).
variation of the aspect ratio change than others. After the region where
the aspect ratio is set to greater than 70 for anti-symmetric LCBs, the
effect of the aspect ratio increase on the DCBLs becomes almost negli-
gible. On the other hand, especially for Nx5, an increment in the aspect
ratio which is above 70 still has a significant impact on the DCBLs of the
symmetric LCBs.
The difference between the SNDBT and HBT in terms of the DCBLs
of symmetric LCBs with respect to the variation of the orthotropy ratio
is illustrated in Fig. 8 for various BCs. The effect of the orthotropy ratio
on the difference of the DCBLs obtained by the SNDBT and HBT is
significant for CS and CC LCBs. On the other hand, the least affected one
is the CF LCB. The detailed analysis showed that the normal deforma-
tion effect is significant when the fiber orientation angle is set to 30°.
The effect of the various axially variable in-plane loads on the
buckling mode shapes of the symmetric LCBs is shown in Fig. 9. The
aspect ratio is set to 5. It can be seen that the type of axially variable in-
402
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408
plane load significantly affects the buckling mode shapes of LCBs.
However, the abovementioned effect is more pronounced for SS LCBs.
Moreover, one can easily notice that the shifting of the peak of the
buckling mode shape amplitude to the left-hand side is more noticeable
for SS LCBS than those of CS and CC LCBs. It is interesting that the
highest shifting to the left is obtained by setting the axially variable in-
plane load (N x6 ) which yields the highest DCBL for SS, CS and CC
boundary conditions. On the other hand, the lowest shifting to the left is
observed with the variable load (Nx4 ) that leads to have the lowest
critical buckling load. One of the most important findings of this study
is the buckling mode shapes of the CF symmetric LCBs for the axially
variable in-plane loads, Nx2 and Nx4 . The maximum deflections are seen
just on the left side of the middle of the beam. However, for the rest of
the loading conditions maximum deflections are always obtained on the
tip of the beam.
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408

Table 10
DCBLs of symmetric [0°/90°/0°] LCBs subjected to different axial in plane loads, (E1/ E2=25) .
Aspect Ratio (L/h) Axial Load Type Point Load

Nx1 Nx2 Nx3 N x4 Nx5 N x6

a. SS
h2/h1 = 3 5 4.1843 3.7597 4.5386 3.5739 4.7657 4.0517 2.8619
10 9.4590 8.0259 11.1408 7.4694 12.1740 9.2442 5.4730
20 13.0160 10.8354 16.0187 10.0149 18.1313 12.8142 7.0820
50 14.4620 11.9712 18.0493 11.0414 20.6696 14.2794 7.7166

h2/h1 = 8 5 3.7761 3.3787 4.0060 3.1844 4.1350 3.7043 2.4632

10 7.1395 5.9993 8.5899 5.5635 9.5369 7.0012 4.0057
20 8.7918 7.2993 10.8910 6.7399 12.3942 8.6671 4.7400
50 9.3771 7.7587 11.7161 7.1549 13.4295 9.2610 4.9957

b. CS
h2/h1 = 3 5 5.5076 4.6378 6.4558 4.3673 7.2664 5.0779 3.5098
10 17.6496 13.9158 21.1516 12.5885 23.2667 16.5439 8.4990
20 32.0926 24.0623 45.6710 21.3240 56.8629 31.3409 13.1421
50 39.9088 29.5405 59.5071 26.0227 77.6997 39.6346 15.5100

h2/h1 = 8 5 4.7846 4.1440 5.4463 3.9794 6.0431 4.4074 3.2574

10 15.0797 11.6079 19.5010 10.3978 21.9382 14.3436 6.7331
20 22.8060 16.9946 33.1783 15.0181 42.2564 22.4420 9.1154
50 26.1277 19.3211 39.0980 17.0124 51.2334 25.9843 10.1117

c. CC
h2/h1 = 3 5 5.5347 4.6485 6.5018 4.3839 7.3493 5.1099 3.9203
10 18.3341 14.9466 21.4784 13.7477 23.7892 17.0998 11.4512
20 39.4855 30.3862 53.3382 27.3670 64.4014 37.7477 21.8920
50 55.0730 41.6623 78.6689 37.2574 100.6378 53.4820 29.3651

h2/h1 = 8 5 4.9262 4.2501 5.6255 4.0489 6.2548 4.5489 3.7828

10 16.6197 13.2080 20.3920 12.0401 22.5464 15.5709 9.8545
20 29.4220 22.4625 40.7715 20.1652 50.5504 28.3162 16.0231
50 36.4737 27.5550 52.3374 24.6274 67.2631 35.4709 19.3866

d. CF
h2/h1 = 3 5 3.5718 2.5044 5.1757 2.1325 6.1326 3.4802 1.2927
10 5.3328 3.5466 9.9381 2.9492 14.7342 5.6790 1.7603
20 5.9878 3.9301 12.0021 3.2466 19.6694 6.5790 1.9101
50 6.1938 4.0505 12.6746 3.3396 21.3462 6.8705 1.9542

h2/h1 = 8 5 2.8058 1.9146 4.5149 1.6110 5.4857 2.8413 0.9579

10 3.6443 2.4067 7.0575 1.9943 11.0325 3.9439 1.1807
20 3.9124 2.5634 7.9197 2.1156 13.1494 4.3180 1.2415
50 3.9928 2.6103 8.1834 2.1519 13.8110 4.4322 1.2587

4.4. Laminated composite sandwich beams (LCSBs)
In this example, the elastic buckling behavior of LCSBs subjected to
axially variable in-plane loads are studied. The LCSB shown in Fig. 2
has the top and bottom layer thickness (h1 ) and core thickness (h2 ). The
DCBLs of the LCSBs are presented in Table 10 for various loading and
BCs, aspect ratios and core thickness to face layer thickness ratios. It is
clear that the maximum DCBL of the LCSB is also obtained by applying
the Nx4 . Again, the Nx4 leads to have the minimum DCBL for all BCs. The
DCBL increases as the aspect ratio increases for all types of BCs. An
increment in the core thickness to face layer thickness ratio yields a
decrement in the DCBL.
Fig. 10 is plotted to show the effect of the core thickness to face
layer thickness ratio on the DCBLs of the LCSBs under axially variable
in-plane loads. It is found that for all types of BCs the DCBL decreases
with and increment in the core thickness to face layer thickness ratio.
Moreover, the slope of the DCBL curves between the h2/ h1 = 1 and
h2/ h1 = 3 indicates that the variation of the core thickness to face layer

403
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu
Fig. 10. Effect of the h2/ h1 ratio on the DCBLs for symmetric [0°/90°/0°] LCSBs subjected to different axial loads with respect to various BCs and orthotropy ratios
(E1/ E2 = 25, L/h = 5).
thickness ratio significantly affects the DCBLs of SS, CS and CC LCSBs
than those of CF LCSBs. Again, the most pronounced elastic buckling
responses are obtained in terms of the variation DCBLs with the Nx5 for
all types of BCs. On the other hand, it is interesting that the slope of the
DCBL curve decreases with the increasing of the core thickness to face
layer thickness ratio for all types of loading conditions and BCs.
Eventually, the difference between the DCBLs of different loading
conditions are also decreasing for all types of BCs except the CF. The
least affected loading condition with respect to the variation of the core
thickness to face layer thickness ratio is the Nx4 .
The variation of the DCBLs of the SS, CS, CC and CF LCSBs is plotted
in Fig. 11 with respect to aspect ratio chance and normal deformation
effect. It is clear that the effect of the normal deformation is decreasing
404
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408
with the increasing of the aspect ratio. Moreover, the normal de-
formation effect depends on the BC as well. This effect is more pro-
nounced for thick CS and CC beams than others. The least affected one
is the CF symmetric LCSB. The difference between the DCBLs obtained
by the SNDBT and HBT is almost negligible for the aspect ratios,
L /h 6 . It is clear that the influence of the normal deformation is more
pronounced for the thick beams than that of the thin beams.
In Fig. 12, the effect of the normal deformation is illustrated with
respect to the variation of fiber angle for various BCs. It is interesting
that the effect of the normal strain also depends on the fiber angle. The
effect of the fiber angle orientation on the normal deformation is
maximum while the fiber orientation angle is set to 0°. An increment in
the fiber angle, the DCBL of the LCSBs decreases for any BC. Especially,
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu
Fig. 11. The effects of the aspect ratio and normal strain on the variation of the DCBLs of the symmetric [0°/30°/0°] LCSBs for various BCs
(E1/ E2 = 25, 1 3 1, Nx4 ).
for CS and CC LCSBs, the effect of the normal strain with the variation
of the fiber angle is significant than others. The CF laminated composite
sandwich beam is the least sensitive structure to the variation of the
fiber angle.
The effect of the components of the transverse displacement on the
buckling mode shapes of the CC LCSBs with respect to various loading
conditions is presented in Fig. 13. The mode shapes of the bending and
shear components of the transverse displacement is almost the same.
Similar to the mode shapes of the CC LCBs, the peak is shifting to the
leftmost with the N x6 for the buckling mode shapes of bending and shear
components of the transverse deflection. Still, the least shifted peak is
obtained with the axially variable in-plane load (Nx4 ) which yields the
minimum buckling load. The effect of the thickness stretching on the
405
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408
buckling mode shapes depending on the applied load is also in-
vestigated. It is found that the thickness stretching effect is more visible
when the applied load is N x6 . It is interesting that the buckling mode
shapes obtained based on the thickness stretching component of the
transverse displacement has two peaks which are only observed for the
N x6 . For the others, only one peak can be seen. On the left-hand side of
the CC LCSB, the effect of the N x6 is more pronounced than others
whereas the highest peak is obtained on the right-hand side by the Nx4 .
5. Conclusion
The buckling behavior of the isotropic beams, LCBs and LCSBs is
investigated. Various axially variable in-plane loading conditions are
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu
Fig. 12. The effects of the fiber angles and normal strain on the variation of the DCBLs of the symmetric [0°/ θ /0°] LCBs for various BCs
(E1/ E2 = 25, L/h = 5, 1 3 1, Nx4 ).
considered. A shear and normal deformable beam theory is employed.
The numerical solutions are obtained by using the Ritz method with
polynomial displacement field. Various configurations, aspect ratios,
fiber orientation angles, boundary and loading conditions are used for
analysis. Using the results obtained from the analysis, the following
conclusions can be presented:
• The type of axially variable in-plane load is significantly affects the
DCBL of the beam structures.
• The fiber angle value (θ) is important for the DCBL. Moreover, its
effect on the DCBL is more pronounced especially for CS and CC
symmetric and anti-symmetric LCBs.
• The effect of the orthotropy ratio is more significant for anti-sym-
metric LCBs than symmetric ones especially for SS, CS and CC LCBs.
• The CC symmetric LCBs are more affected with the variation of the
aspect ratio than the anti-symmetric ones. It is important to note
406
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408
that the intensity of the effect also depends on the type of the axially
variable in-plane load.
• The effect of the orthotropy ratio on the difference of the DCBLs
obtained by the SNDBT and HBT is significant for CS and CC LCBs.
• The buckling mode shapes of LCBs are significantly affected by the
type of axially variable in-plane load for all BCs.
• The variation of the core thickness to face layer thickness ratio
significantly affects the DCBLs of LCSBs for all types of BCs.
• The DCBL of the LCSBs depend on not only the aspect ratio but also
the BCs and fiber orientation angles.
• Especially, for CS and CC LCSBs, the effect of the normal strain with
the variation of the fiber angle is significant than others
• The effect of the thickness stretching on the buckling mode shapes
may vary depending on the type of the axially variable in-plane
load.
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu
Fig. 13. The effect of the components of the transverse displacement on the
buckling mode shapes for CC symmetric [0°/90°/0°] LCSBs with respect to
various axial variable in-plane loads (h2/ h1 = 2, E1/ E2 = 25, L/h = 5).
407
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.067.
References
[1] Sayyad AS, Ghugal YM. Bending, buckling and free vibration of laminated com-
posite and sandwich beams: a critical review of literature. Compos Struct
2017;171:486–504.
[2] Ghugal YM, Shimpi RP. A review of refined shear deformation theories for isotropic
and anisotropic laminated beams. J Reinf Plast Compos 2001;20(3):255–72.
[3] Aguiar R, Moleiro F, Soares CM. Assessment of mixed and displacement-based
models for static analysis of composite beams of different cross-sections. Compos
Struct 2012;94(2):601–16.
[4] Zhen W, Wanji C. An assessment of several displacement-based theories for the
vibration and stability analysis of laminated composite and sandwich beams.
Compos Struct 2008;84(4):337–49.
[5] Mathew TC, Singh G, Rao GV. Thermal buckling of cross-ply composite laminates.
Comput Struct 1992;42(2):281–7.
[6] Abramovich H. Thermal buckling of cross-ply composite laminates using a first
order shear deformation theory. Compos Struct 1994;28(2):201–13.
[7] Lee J. Thermally induced buckling of laminated composites by a layerwise theory.
Comput Struct 1997;65(6):917–22.
[8] Khdeir A, Reddy J. Buckling of cross-ply laminated beams with arbitrary boundary
conditions. Compos Struct 1997;37(1):1–3.
[9] Khdeir A. Thermal buckling of cross-ply laminated composite beams. Acta Mech
2001;149(1):201–13.
[10] Aydogdu M. Buckling analysis of cross-ply laminated beams with general boundary
conditions by Ritz method. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66(10):1248–55.
[11] Aydogdu M. Thermal buckling analysis of cross-ply laminated composite beams
with general boundary conditions. Compos Sci Technol 2007;67(6):1096–104.
[12] Vo TP, Thai H-T. Vibration and buckling of composite beams using refined shear
deformation theory. Int J Mech Sci 2012;62(1):67–76.
[13] Vosoughi A, Malekzadeh P, Banan MR, Banan MR. Thermal buckling and post-
buckling of laminated composite beams with temperature-dependent properties. Int
J Non-Linear Mech 2012;47(3):96–102.
[14] Asadi H, Bodaghi M, Shakeri M, Aghdam M. An analytical approach for nonlinear
vibration and thermal stability of shape memory alloy hybrid laminated composite
beams. Eur J Mech A Solids 2013;42:454–68.
[15] Wang X, Zhu X, Hu P. Isogeometric finite element method for buckling analysis of
generally laminated composite beams with different boundary conditions. Int J
Mech Sci 2015;104:190–9.
[16] Emam S, Eltaher M. Buckling and postbuckling of composite beams in hygrothermal
environments. Compos Struct 2016;152:665–75.
[17] Mantari J, Canales F. Free vibration and buckling of laminated beams via hybrid
Ritz solution for various penalized boundary conditions. Compos Struct
2016;152:306–15.
[18] Canales F, Mantari J. Buckling and free vibration of laminated beams with arbitrary
boundary conditions using a refined HSDT. Composites Part B 2016;100:136–45.
[19] Nguyen T-K, Nguyen N-D, Vo TP, Thai H-T. Trigonometric-series solution for ana-
lysis of laminated composite beams. Compos Struct 2017;160:142–51.
[20] Jun L, Yuchen B, Peng H. A dynamic stiffness method for analysis of thermal effect
on vibration and buckling of a laminated composite beam. Arch Appl Mech
2017;87(8):1295–315.
[21] Nguyen ND, Nguyen TK, Nguyen TH, Thai HT. New Ritz-solution shape functions
for analysis of thermo-mechanical buckling and vibration of laminated composite
beams. Compos Struct 2018;184:452–60.
[22] Eisenberger M. Buckling loads for variable cross-section members with variable
axial forces. Int J Solids Struct 1991;27(2):135–44.
[23] Lee K. Buckling of fibers under distributed axial load. Fibers Polym
2008;9(2):200–2.
[24] Wang CM, Wang CY, Reddy JN. Exact solutions for buckling of structural members.
Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 2004.
[25] Li QS. Exact solutions for the generalized Euler’s problem. J Appl Mech
2009;76(4):041015.
A. Karamanli, M. Aydogdu
[26] Li X-F, Xi L-Y, Huang Y. Buckling load of tapered fibers subjected to axially dis-
tributed load. Fibers Polym 2010;11:1193–7.
[27] Wei D, Yan S, Zhang Z, Li X. Critical load for buckling of non-prismatic columns
under self weight and tip force. Mech Res Commun 2010;37(6):554–8.
[28] Sun D-L, Li X-F, Wang CY. Buckling of standing tapered Timoshenko columns with
varying flexural rigidity under combined loadings. Int J Struct Stab Dyn
2016;16(6):1550017.
[29] Leipholz H, Bhalla K. On the solution of the stability problems of elastic rods sub-
jected to triangulaly distributed tangential follower forces. Ing Arch
1977;46:115–24.
[30] Sugiyama Y, Mladenov KA. Vibration and stability of elastic columns subjected to
triangularly distributed sub-tangential forces. J Sound Vib 1983;88:447–57.
[31] Ryu BJ, Sugiyama Y, Yim KB, Lee GS. Dynamic stability of an elastically restrained
column subjected to triangulary distributed subtangential forces. Comput Struct
2000;76:611–9.
[32] Wang CM, Ang KK. Buckling capacities of braced heavy columns under an axial
load. Comput Struct 1988;28(5):563–71.
[33] Duan WH, Wang M. Exact solution for buckling of columns including selfweight.
ASCE J Eng Mech 2008;134(1):116–9.
[34] Timoshenko S, Gere J. Theory of elastic stability. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1963.
[35] Leissa AW, Kang JH. Exact solution for vibration and buckling of an SS-C-SS-C
rectangular plate loaded by linearly varying in plane stress. Int J Mech Sci
2002;44:1925–45.
[36] Kang JH, Leissa AW. Exact solutions for the buckling of rectangular plates having
linearly varying in-plane loading on two opposite simply supported edges. Int J
Solids Struct 2005;42:4220–38.
[37] Nemeth MP. Buckling behavior of long symmetrically laminated plates subjected to
shear and linearly varying axial edge loads TP-3659 NASA; 1997.
[38] Lopatin AV, Morozov EV. Buckling of the CCFF orthotropic rectangular plates under
in-plane pure bending. Compos Struct 2010;92(6):1423–31.
[39] Lopatin AV, Morozov EV. Buckling of the SSCF rectangular orthotropic plate sub-
jected to linearly varying in-plane loading. Compos Struct 2011;93(7):1900–9.
[40] Zhong H, Gu C. Buckling of symmetrical cross-ply composite rectangular plates
under a linearly varying in-plane load. Compos Struct 2007;80:42–8.
[41] Cagdas IU, Adali S. Buckling of cross-ply laminates subject to linearly varying
compressive loads and in-plane boundary restraints. J Thermoplast Compos Mater
2011;26(2):193–215.
[42] Narayana AL, Rao K, Kumar RV. Buckling analysis of rectangular composite plates
with rectangular cutout subjected to linearly varying in-plane loading using fem.
408
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 391–408
Sadhana 2014;39(3):583–96.
[43] Kumar A, Panda SK, Kumar R. Buckling behaviour of laminated composite skew
plates with various boundary conditions subjected to linearly varying in-plane edge
loading. Int J Mech Sci 2015;100:136–44.
[44] Barati MR, Zenkour AM. Post-buckling analysis of refined shear deformable gra-
phene platelet reinforced beams with porosities and geometrical imperfection.
Compos Struct 2017;181:194–202.
[45] Zenkour AM, Alshehri NA. Buckling analyses of functionally graded plates resting
on elastic foundations via a six-variable hyperbolic deformation plate theory. Mater
Focus 2017;6(5):539–47.
[46] Barati MR, Zenkour AM. Post-buckling analysis of imperfect multi-phase nano-
crystalline nanobeams considering nanograins and nanopores surface effects.
Compos Struct 2018;184:497–505.
[47] Bouazza M, Zenkour AM, Benseddiq N. losed-from solutions for thermal buckling
analyses of advanced nanoplates according to a hyperbolic four-variable refined
theory with small-scale effects. Acta Mech 2018;229(5):2251–65.
[48] Hurang H, Badir A, Abatan A. Buckling behavior of a graphite/epoxy composite
plate under parabolic variation of axial loads. Int J Mech Sci
2003;45(6–7):1135–47.
[49] Vo TP, Thai HT, Nguyen TK, Lanc D, Karamanli A. Flexural analysis of laminated
composite and sandwich beams using a four-unknown shear and normal deforma-
tion theory. Compos Struct 2017;176:388–97.
[50] Vo TP, Thai HT, Aydogdu M. Free vibration of axially loaded composite beams
using a four-unknown shear and normal deformation theory. Compos Struct
2017;178:406–14.
[51] Karamanli A, Vo T. Size dependent bending analysis of two directional functionally
graded microbeams via a quasi-3D theory and finite element method. Composites
Part B 2018;144:171–83.
[52] Trinh LC, Vo T, Thai HT, Nguyen TK. Size-dependent vibration of bi-directional
functionally graded microbeams with arbitrary boundary conditions. Composites
Part B 2018;134:225–45.
[53] Pagano N. Exact solutions for composite laminates in cylindrical bending. J Compos
Mater 1969;3(3):398–411.
[54] Chakrabarti A, Chalak H, Iqbal MA, Sheikh AH. A new FE model based on higher
order zigzag theory for the analysis of laminated sandwich beam with soft core.
Compos Struct 2011;93(2):271–9.
[55] Robinson MTA, Adali S. Variational solution for buckling of nonlocal carbon na-
notubes under uniformly and triangularly distributed axial loads. Compos Struct
2016;156:101–7.