Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Isogeometric analysis of shear refined delaminated composite beams using T

dimensionally reduced beam sectional analysis
⁎
Esmaeel Ghafari, Jalil Rezaeepazhand
Smart and Composite Structures Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, 9177948974 Mashhad, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper the isogeometric method is used to present a shear refined composite beam model through the
Beam sectional analysis concept of dimensional reduction method. A one-dimensional (1D) beam model is extracted from three-di-
Dimensional reduction method mensional (3D) elasticity problem. The 1D beam model is developed using cross-sectional properties from two-
Isogeometric analysis dimensional (2D) beam sectional analysis. The 2D analysis of the cross-section is presented by implementing the
Delamination
transverse shear effects in isogeometric analysis. In beam cross-sectional problem, the influence of linear
parameterization is investigated for isogeometric modeling of beam cross-section. Moreover, the effect of de-
lamination on cross-sectional stiffness constants is discussed. Using isogeometric analysis (IGA), less degrees of
freedom is needed in contrast to classical finite element method and automatic mesh refinement capability is
attained. The present composite beam model eliminates the expensive use of 3D finite element analysis with its
high precision and fidelity to 3D problem.

1. Introduction
Composite beam theories are continuously developing with fast
growth of using composite materials in beam-like structures such as
wind turbine blades, helicopter blades, propellers, wings etc. The
composite beam theories are enriched to solve beams with arbitrary
cross-section geometry and material anisotropy with considering dif-
ferent non-classical effect, like cross-sectional warping deformations,
transverse shear effects, material couplings, pre curved/twisted geo-
metries, restrained warping due to boundary effects and so on.
With urgent need to investigate composite beams with complicated
section geometry such as helicopter blades, a numerical beam cross-
sectional analysis introduces by Giavotto et al. [1] and Borri et al. [2]
since 1983. This method uses finite element discretization on arbitrary
shaped beam cross-sections. The formulation uses the virtual work
principle and in fact generalizes the warping methods of elasticity so-
lutions for solid and thin-walled beams with anisotropic and non-
homogeneous material. The cross-sectional stiffness matrix for central
solution is computed from a set of algebraic equations. The generalized
warping deformations and strain resultants are assumed to be poly-
nomial series of degree one with respect to spanwise coordinate. Strain
resultants include transverse shear related ones. Therefore, the 6 × 6
cross-sectional stiffness matrix, comprising shear constants, is directly
computed from governing equations. In [1] the existence of 3D
interlaminar stresses for even simple laminated beams under simple
loading is stated which emphasizes the demand for a detailed beam
cross-section modeling. Hodges and his co-workers [3–5] have devel-
oped another numerical composite beam sectional analysis using var-
iational asymptotic method (VAM) and finite element method (FEM),
since 1992. The 3D strain field is defined based on the concept of de-
composition of the rotation tensor as a combination of 1D strain re-
sultants and 3D warping displacements. In this asymptotic analysis,
first, the zeroth-order strain energy is computed which does not include
transverse shear effects. Then a second-order, asymptotically-correct
strain energy is estimated to capture the strain energy related to shear
strains. Since the defined 1D strain resultants do not include general-
ized shear strains, an extra step named “transformation to generalized
Timoshenko model” [4] is needed. Moreover, for discretization of cross-
section, Sapountzakis and Dourakopoulos [6] presented a boundary
element-based tool in cross-sectional analysis of composite beams with
arbitrarily cross-section geometry. Shear deformations effects are con-
sidered using the concept of shear deformation coefficients. In FEM-
based tools, area elements discretize cross-section while in boundary
element, only line or parabolic elements on boundaries are used and
therefore less number of elements are needed. Filippi et al. [7] pre-
sented a refined 1D beam model by Carrera Unified Formulation (CUF).
CUF is a hierarchical formulation that by introducing some supple-
mentary functions for the cross-section subdomains or elements, the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jrezaeep@um.ac.ir (J. Rezaeepazhand).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.12.001
Received 2 August 2018; Received in revised form 5 November 2018; Accepted 4 December 2018
Available online 08 December 2018
0263-8223/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand
approximation of unknown variables and therefore the accuracy of
solution are improved with fixed number of elements. Besides the 2D
numerical discretization, a Rayleigh-Ritz-based beam cross-sectional
analysis is developed in previous work of authors [8,9]. This approach
eliminates mesh generation on cross-section and instead uses poly-
nomial or B-spline series over the whole cross-section to approximation
of unknown warping fields.
Another branch of composite beam theories uses analytical proce-
dures to investigate thin-walled beams. Besides their limitations to
model solid sections or investigate beams with core, cohesive zones and
physical defects, generally thin-walled theories do not capture the in-
plane warping effects of cross-section. Considering all in-plane and out-
of-plane warpings is crucial for accurate prediction of cross-sectional
stiffness constants as well as in-plane and out-of-plane strains and
stresses. Taking into account the out-of-plane stresses is essential in
delamination analysis. For instance, some advanced thin-walled the-
ories are addressed by Kim and White [10] and Qin and Librescu [11].
These models accounts for transverse shear effects, elastic couplings
and primary and secondary torsional warpings. These warpings are out-
of-plane ones and therefore the beam cross-section is assumed to be
rigid in its own plane. It can be concluded that the thin-walled models
are appropriate for simple composite beam cross-sections whereas 2D
numerical techniques, such as finite element analysis, are capable of
modeling complex composite beam cross-sections. Usually, 2D numer-
ical cross-sectional models can be implemented for detailed stress
analysis while thin-walled models can be useful in primary composite
beam design stages [12].
Considering shear effects in composite beam theories can be es-
sential even in slender composite structures due to low shear stiffness of
composite materials. The primary theory of considering transverse
shear deformation effects is called first-order shear deformation theory
(FSDT). The FSDT do not obey the zero shear stress state on the top and
bottom surfaces of the beam cross-section. Hence the shear correction
factor is introduced to simulate the effect of the actual non-constant
stress distribution. Higher-order shear deformation theories (HSDT)
take into account a non-uniform shear stress distribution and therefore
using shear correction factors is not needed [13]. A Finite element
model for the static analysis of laminated composite beams using
equivalent single layer, first-order shear deformation and higher-order
shear deformation theories, is presented by [14]. A method of trans-
forming the actual geometrical beam cross-section into an equivalent
single layer, through transformation matrices and the parallel axis
theorem is extended to the FSDT and HSDT. Large differences between
the results of classical and refined theories were observed by decreasing
the length-to-height ratio.
In 2005 a novel numerical method was introduced by Hughes et al.
[15] named isogeometric analysis (IGA). IGA uses common basis
functions of computer aided design (CAD) methods to discretize the
solution domain. Thus, same basis functions are employed for both
geometry modeling and approximation of the unknown fields of pro-
blem. Indeed, IGA integrates CAD technologies with FEM through re-
placing polynomial shape functions and classical mesh generation of
FEM by, respectively, spline basis functions and automatic mesh re-
finement capability of IGA. Since CAD geometry model is directly used
for analysis, mesh generation process in FEM and its error is eliminated.
The geometry is created in coarsest form and different mesh refine-
ments can be automatically implemented without changing solution or
pre-solution procedures which distinguishes IGA form FEM. Complex
curves can be created by B-spline basis functions and circular arcs are
exactly modeled by non-uniform rational B-splines (NURBS). Also, local
refinement is accessible by employing T-spline basis functions. More-
over, IGA shows better convergence behavior due to high-regularity
properties of its basis functions, than FEM with common Lagrange
polynomials [16]. A concerning problem in IGA is the parameterization
technique in process of choosing control points of the geometry. In fact,
different set of control points may create an identical geometry, while
859
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868
can yields various IGA results. The effect of parameterization in IGA
framework is investigated in [17] on the structural vibration and in
[18] on the analysis of free-formed curved beams. An overview of IGA
with its applications and developments are discussed by [19]. It is de-
clared that time taken from design to analysis is greatly reduced which
leads to a dramatic efficiency enhancement. Some IGA-based beam
analyses are addressed as follows. Using isogeometric approach, a
Kirchhoff–Love shell element is developed by [20] to analyze thin-
walled beams. It was proven that NURBS basis functions are very effi-
cient for analysis and provide the great feature of exact geometric re-
presentation. A NURBS-based isogeometric analysis for free vibration
analysis of the generally laminated Timoshenko-type curved beams is
presented in [21]. An isogeometric static analysis of the laminated
composite plane beams by using refined zigzag theory is developed by
[22]. The exact beam geometries are taken directly from a CAD soft-
ware. IGA and collocation methods are used for analysis of Euler-Ber-
noulli and Timoshenko beams in respectively [16] and [23]. Due to the
isogeometric basis functions, suitable degree and continuity of the
displacement field is automatically guaranteed. An isogeometric finite
element method, based on NURBS basis functions is used for the
buckling analysis of generally laminated composite columns with var-
ious boundary conditions [24]. Also, a NURBS-based isogeometric
formulation is developed for static and free vibrational analysis of la-
minated composite and sandwich beams by [25].
Delamination in a composite laminated structure is an important
composite defect which may occur during production process or service
time. The delamination can remarkably reduce load carrying capacity,
structural integrity and change the stiffness constants of a composite
structure [26,27]. Indeed, interlaminar delamination is due to lack of
sufficient reinforcement in the thickness direction of laminates [28]. A
study on the vibration characteristics of generally laminated composite
curved beams with single through-the-width delamination is presented
in [29]. The effects of material coupling, shear deformation and rotary
inertia are considered for the delaminated beam. Also an asymptotically
exact cross-sectional model for thin composite strips with matrix cracks
and delamination is presented in [30]. The effects of these defects are
investigated on cross-sectional coupling stiffness terms.
The present study is focused on developing an isogeometric-based
dimensional reduction method for composite beams in which shear
deformation effect is taken into account. From the 3D beam problem, a
2D cross-sectional analysis in the framework of isogeometric method is
extracted which yields beam cross-sectional stiffness constants. Then,
the 3D problem is reduced to a 1D beam problem which includes
stiffness matrix of cross-section comprises its 3D deformation effects.
Therefore, the achieved 1D beam model with a reasonable accuracy can
significantly reduce the numerical cost in contrast to 3D FEM tools.
Using isogeometric discretization of cross-section enriches the present
beam sectional analysis by exact geometry modeling, automatic mesh
refinement and fast convergence. In fact, the present paper is aimed to
promote the previous work of authors [31] by including transverse
shear deformation effects. To this aim, the energy and variational
methods, similar to [1], is used. Moreover, delamination effects on the
degradation of cross-sectional stiffness constants are investigated for
the first time with the present approach. Isotropic as well as solid and
thin-walled composite beams are studied to show the validity and
benefits of the proposed method.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the beam config-
uration with kinematics of its deformation is introduced. Section 3
explains the dimensional reduction method which yields a beam cross-
sectional analysis based on isogeometric approach. Isotropic and la-
minated composite test cases are examined with the proposed beam
model in Section 4 and finally some conclusion remarks are presented
in Section 5.
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868

'
⎧ u1 ⎫
ε
⎧ 11 ⎫ ⎡ 1 0 0 0 x3 − x2 ⎤ ⎪ ' ⎪ ⎡ ∂1 0 0⎤
u − θ3 ⎪ ⎢ ∂ ∂1 0⎥
⎪ 2ε12 ⎪ ⎢ 0 1 0 − x3 0 0 ⎥⎪ 2 2
ω1
⎪ 2ε13 ⎪ ⎢ 0 0 1 x ⎪ ' ⎪ ⎢ ∂1 ⎥
= 2 0 0 ⎥ u3 + θ2 + ⎢ ∂3 0
⎥ ⎧ ω2 ⎫
⎨ ε22 ⎬ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥
0 0 ⎥ ⎨ θ1' ⎬ ⎢ 0 ∂2 0 ⎥ ⎨ ω3 ⎬
⎪ 2ε23 ⎪ ⎢ ⎩ ⎭
0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎢0 ∂3 ∂2 ⎥
⎪ε ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ θ2' ⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎩ 33 ⎭ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦⎪
' ⎪ ⎣0 0 ∂3 ⎦
⎩ θ3 ⎭ (4)
∂
where operator ∂i ≡ ∂xi
(i = 1, 2, 3) and ()′ indicates derivative with
respect to coordinate x1. Considering 1D beam strain definitions, γ1 = u1'
is extensional, γ2 = u2' − θ3 and γ3 = u3' + θ2 are shear strains, κ1 = θ1' is
torsional and κ2 = θ2' and κ3 = θ3' are bending stains. Commonly κ1 is
Fig. 1. Beam configuration consists of a reference line with normal cross-sec- noted as twist per length and κ2 , κ3 are called bending curvatures. In-
tions. troducing 1D generalized strain (strain resultant) field
ψ = [ γ1 γ2 γ3 κ1 κ2 κ3 ]T and 3D warping field ω = [ ω1 ω2 ω3 ]T , the
2. 3D beam model 3D strain field ε = [ ε11 2ε12 2ε13 ε22 2ε23 ε33 ]T is summarized as

ε = G1 ψ + G2 ω + G3 ω', (5)
Here a beam as a slender structure with six degrees of freedom for
its reference axis is considered in Fig. 1. The beam is straight which
where
consists of a reference line and plain cross-sections normal to the re-
ference line. The cross-sections are not necessarily normal to the re-
⎡0 0 0⎤
ference line after beam deformation due to transverse shear effect. The ⎢ ∂ 0 0⎥
degrees of freedom for the reference line are consist of three displace- ⎡1 0 0 0 x3 − x2 ⎤ ⎢ ∂x2 ⎥
⎢0 1 0 − x3 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ∂ 0 0⎥
ments u1, u2 , u3 and three rotation θ1, θ2 , θ3 along the beam orthogonal ⎢ ∂x3 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥,
coordinates x1, x2 , x3 . The coordinate axis x1 is along the beam reference G1 = ⎢ 0 0 1 x2
⎥ G2 = ⎢ 0 ∂
0 ⎥, G3
line and local coordinate axes x2 , x3 are on the undeformed beam cross- ⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ∂x2 ⎥
⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ∂ ∂ ⎥
section planes.
⎣0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦ ⎢0 ∂x3 ∂x2 ⎥
Therefore, based on classical theories, the displacement components ⎢ ∂ ⎥
of any point of the beam ∼ ui (i = 1, 2, 3) can be assumed as Eq. (1). ⎢0 0 ⎥
∂x3 ⎦
⎣
∼
u1 = u1 + x3 θ2 − x2 θ3 (1) ⎡1 0 0⎤
⎢0 1 0⎥
∼ 0 0 1⎥
u2 = u2 − x3 θ1 =⎢ .
⎢0 0 0⎥
∼ ⎢0 0 0⎥
u3 = u3 + x2 θ1 ⎢0
⎣ 0 0⎥
⎦ (6)
The Saint-Venant torsion theory considers additional out-of-plane
displacement component for longitudinal displacement ∼ u1 which is The 3D strain field (5) is linear in 1D strain field ψ and 3D warping
called warping displacement. This consideration came from the fact field ω and therefore reducing the problem to a 1D beam model would
that non-circular cross-sections warps out of their planes due to torsion be accessible. This is accomplished by computing 3D warping field ω in
even for isotropic beams. In composite cases, both in- and out-of-plane terms of 1D strain field ψ . This procedure is called beam cross-sectional
cross-sectional warping can be observed for any loading such as ex- analysis which yields 1D beam constitutive relation containing stiffness
tension and bending. Hence, the displacement field of (1) is extended to constants of cross-section.
Eq. (2), which is written in matrix form. ω1, ω2 , ω3 are warping dis- The beam cross-sectional analysis is done by a simple energy
placements along reference coordinates x1, x2 , x3, respectively, so ω1 is method to estimate the unknown warping functions. First, the 3D strain
called out-of-plane and ω2 , ω3 are in-plane warping displacements. energy is presented in (7) where C is the 6 × 6 material matrix of beam
points and the integration is over the beam volume with length “L ” and
∼
⎧ u1 ⎫ ⎧ u1 ⎫ ⎡ 0 x3 − x2 ⎤ ⎧ θ1 ⎫ ⎧ ω1 ⎫ cross-section “s ”.
∼
u2 = u2 + ⎢− x3 0 0 ⎥ θ2 + ω2
⎨ ∼ ⎬ ⎨u3 ⎬ ⎢ ⎨ ⎬ ⎨ω ⎬
x 0 0 ⎥ 2U = ∫ ∫ {ε T C ε } dx3 dx2 dx1
⎩ u3 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎣ 2 ⎦ ⎩ θ3 ⎭ ⎩ 3 ⎭ (2)
L s (7)
Indeed, warping displacements are 3D deformations of beam cross-
Warping is characteristic of a special cross-section (geometry and
section beside assumed reference line degrees of freedom. Hence,
material) and therefore cross-sectional analysis is done by strain energy
adding warpings to beam kinematics can improve the classical beam ∼
density per unit length of beam (U ). This strain expression can assumed
theory to a beam model with considerable fidelity to its 3D elasticity
as sectional energy as well [5]. Using the strain field definition (5), the
problem. Consequently, by computing warping functions as a char-
sectional strain energy is expanded to (8).
acteristic of a certain cross-section, a 1D beam model similar to well-
known classical beam theories is in hand. ∼
The kinematics definition of the problem is completed by introdu-
2U = ∫s {ψTG1T C G1 ψ + ωTG2T C G2 ω + ω′TG3T C G3 ω′

cing strains with assumed displacement components. Based on small + 2ψTG1T C G2 ω + 2ψTG1T C G3 ω′ + 2ωTG2T C G3 ω′} dx3 dx2
deformation theory, 3D strain components can be derived by relation (8)
(3).
As discussed earlier, commonly, numerical methods such as FEM are
1 ∼
εij = ( u i, j + ∼
uj, i ) employed to solve arbitrary shaped heterogeneous beam cross-sections.
2 (3)
Here a novel numerical concept, named isogeometric method, is uti-
Regarding displacement field (2), 3D strain components are pre- lized. Hence the beam cross-section is discretized by CAD basis func-
sented in the following equation. tions for unknown warping field such that

860
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868

Fig. 2. A set of 3 × 3 2D B-spline basis functions from degrees 2 and knot vectors.{0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1}

n
ωk (x1, ξ , η) = ∑ Rip,q (ξ , η) Vik (x1) (k = 1, 2, 3),
i=1
p, q
in which Ri (ξ , η) is a set of 2D B-spline basis functions in parametric
domain (ξ , η) of degrees p and q in directions ξ and η , respectively. Vik
are control variables. Computed warping field can be mapped to the
real domain (x2 , x3) by multiplication of basis functions by the control
variables. 2D B-spline basis functions are created from combinations of
1D basis functions as discussed in [31]. For instance, basis functions of
degrees 2 in ξ and η directions, based on open knot vectors
{0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1} are depicted in Fig. 2.
The B-spline basis functions are non-negative in their domain and
show continuity of one order less than their degree if knot points are
not repeated. Summation of the basis functions is one in each point of
parametric domain. B-spline basis functions with open knot vector are
just interpolatory at the ends of the parametric space which means that
the first and last control points lie on the B-spline curve. For more
details of B-spline and IGA see [31] and also see [32] for detailed use of
2D B-spline basis functions for warping discretization.
The warping field with one out-of-plane and two in-plane ones are
discretized with IGA concept as [31]
∼
∫s [(G2 R∼)T C ∼
A5 = ∫s (G1T C G3 R ) dx3 dx2 , A6 = G3 R ] dx3 dx2 .
(9)
Computation of above integrals in IGA is discussed in [31].
The sectional strain energy (11) is a 1D expression, however to at-
tain a 1D beam model, unknown warping coefficients V should be
calculated. To this end, energy principle is used. The 1D beam potential
energy density can be reached by adding { −2ψTF } to the sectional strain
energy (11) which is the action of internal forces/moments [5]. Indeed
the potential energy density can be derived by considering an in-
finitesimal piece of beam under internal and external forces [1] such
that
∼
2Π = {ψT [A1 ] ψ + V T [A2 ] V + V ′T [A3 ] V ′ + 2ψT [A 4 ] V + 2ψT [A5 ] V ′
+ 2V T [A6 ] V ′ − 2ψTF }. (13)
Here F = [ F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ]T is generalized force/moment
vector, contains extensional force F1, transverse shear forces F2 , F3 ,
torsional moment M1 and bending moments M2 , M3 in the direction of
coordinate axes Fig. 1. Minimizing the attained potential energy ex-
pression with respect to unknown warping coefficients V and 1D strains
ψ , leads to Euler-Lagrange Eqs. (14) and (15), respectively.

A2 V − A3 V '' + A4T ψ − A5T ψ' + (A6 − A6T ) V ' = 0 (14)

⎡ R¯ (ξ , η)
p, q 0 0 ⎤ ⎧ V1 ⎫
⎢ ⎥ V2 ≡ R ∼
ω= 0 R¯ p, q (ξ , η) 0 (ξ , η) V (x1),
A1 ψ + A 4 V + A5 V ' = F
⎢ ⎥ ⎨ ⎬ (15)
⎣ 0 0 R¯ p, q (ξ , η) ⎦ ⎩V 3 ⎭ (10)
− p, q
Neglecting the extremity effects due to boundary conditions, the
where R (ξ , η) = [R1p, q , R2p, q, ⋯, Rrp, q] and V k = [V1k , V2k, ⋯, Vrk ]T unknown warping coefficients and 1D strains are first order poly-
(k = 1, 2, 3) . Using warping field (10), the strain energy (8) in dis- nomials of longitudinal coordinate x1. Hence, the central solution of
cretized form is obtained as beam can be derived by the following assumptions [1].
∼ V '' = 0, ψ'' = 0
2U = {ψT [A1 ] ψ + V T [A2 ] V + V ′T [A3 ] V ′ + 2ψT [A 4 ] V + 2ψT [A5 ] V ′ (16)
+ 2V T [A6 ] V ′}, (11) And therefore the central equations reduce to
where A2 V + A4T ψ − A5T ψ' + (A6 − A6T ) V ' = 0 (17)
∼ ∼
A1 = ∫s (G1T C G1) dx3 dx2 , A2 = ∫s [(G2 R )T CG2 R ] dx3 dx2
A1 ψ + A 4 V + A5 V ' = F . (18)

A3 = ∫s (R∼TG3T C ∼
G3 R ) dx3 dx2 , A 4 = ∫s (G1T C ∼
G2 R ) dx3 dx2 (12)
Taking derivative of Eqs. (17) and (18) respect to longitudinal co-
ordinate and having Eq. (16) in mind, one can derive the following

861
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868

Fig. 4. Thin-walled airfoil cross-section.

Table 1
Stiffness constants of isotropic thin-walled airfoil cross-section.
Stiffness Present Thin-walledC [34]

S11 (N) 3.397 × 107 3.472 × 107

S16 (N. m) 1.749 × 10 4 −
Fig. 3. Square section with its elements in physical domain by (a ) equally S22 (N) 1.079 × 107 −
spaced control points and (b ) linear parameterization. S33 (N) 2.604 × 105 −
S34 (N. m) − 6.502 × 103 −

extra equations. S44 (N. m2) 1.301 × 103 1.085 × 103

S55 (N. m2) 8.666 × 102 8.676 × 102
A2 V ' + A4T ψ' = 0 (19) S66 (N. m2) 4.029 × 10 4 4.287 × 10 4

A1 ψ' + A 4 V ' = F ' (20)

Table 2
The derivative of generalized forces/moments can be derived from
Stiffness constants of composite strip.
the equilibrium equation of internal forces/moments such that [1]
Stiffness Present NABSA [35] %Diff.
⎡0 0 0 0 0 0⎤
⎢0 0 0 0 0 0⎥ S11 (N) 3.610 × 106 3.610 × 106 0
0 0 0 0 0 0⎥
F' = ⎢ F ≡ tF , S12 (N) − 2.071 × 105 − 2.071 × 105 0
⎢0 0 0 0 0 0⎥ S22 (N) 4.167 × 105 4.167 × 105 0
⎢0 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢0 − 1 S33 (N) 3.064 × 10 4 3.061 × 10 4 0.1
⎣ 0 0 0 0⎥⎦ (21)
S44 (N. m2) 3.950 × 10−1 3.950 × 10−1 0
'' S45 (N. m2) 9.915 × 10−2 9.915 × 10−2 0
where consequently leads to F = 0 . For the 1D beam model, the
warping displacement coefficients and its derivative are assumed as a S55 (N. m2) 5.318 × 10−1 5.315 × 10−1 0.06

linear contribution of generalized strains ψ [5] or generalized forces/ S66 (N. m2) 2.634 × 102 2.634 × 102 0

moments F [1] which both are equivalent regarding the sectional

constitutive equation F = Sψ and therefore we can consider

ψ = X1 F , ψ' = X2 F

V = X3 F , V ' = X 4 F , (22)
where Xi (i = 1, ⋯, 4) are unknown matrices. Imposing Eq. (22) into the
equilibrium Eqs. (17)–(20), the following system of equations in matrix
form can be attained Fig. 5. Delaminated composite strip cross-section.
T
⎡ A4 − A5T A2 (A6 − A6T ) ⎤ X1 ⎫ 0
⎧
⎢ A1 0 A4 A5 ⎥ ⎪ X2 ⎪ ⎧ I ⎫ ⎧ F1 ⎫ ⎡ S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 ⎤ γ
1⎫
⎢ ⎥ = . ⎪ F2 ⎪ ⎢ S12 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 ⎥ ⎧
⎪ γ2 ⎪
⎢ 0 A4T 0 A2 ⎥ ⎨ X3 ⎬ ⎨ 0 ⎬ ⎪ F3 ⎪ ⎢ S13 ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎪ ⎪ t
⎥ ⎩ X4 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ S23 S33 S34 S35 S36 ⎪ γ3 ⎪
⎣ A1 0 A4 ⎦ (23) =⎢ ⎥ .
⎨ M1 ⎬ ⎢ S14 S24 S34 S44 S45 S46 ⎥ ⎨ κ1 ⎬
⎪ M2 ⎪ ⎢ S15 S25 S35 S45 S55 S56 ⎥ ⎪ κ2 ⎪
Solving the above equation, the desired unknown matrices Xi ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪
(i = 1, ...,4 ) are computed and by the use of (22), the sectional strain ⎩ M3 ⎭ ⎣ S16 S26 S36 S46 S56 S66 ⎦ ⎩ κ3 ⎭ (27)
energy expression (11) converts to the desired 1D form as follows:
∼ where S11 represents extensional stiffness constant of beam cross sec-
2U = F T {X1T [A1 ] X1 + X3T [A2 ] X3 + X4T [A3 ] X 4 + 2X1T [A 4 ] X3 tion. S22 and S33 are transverse shear, S44 is torsional and S55 and S66 are
+ 2X1T [A5 ] X 4 + 2X3T [A6 ] X 4 } F . (24) bending cross-sectional stiffness constants as well. S12 stands for ex-
tension-shear coupling and other couplings similarly relate mentioned
The 1D beam strain energy representation can be found in Eq. (25) deformations.
[5], where S is the 6 × 6 cross-sectional stiffness matrix. For complex geometries and material changes, it is necessary to
2U ̂ = create the geometry by multiple patches. Here composite layers are
∫L {ψT S ψ} dx1 = ∫L {F T S−1 F } dx1 (25) modelled by different patches. The compatibility between patches is
Regarding to 1D strain energy (25), the beam cross-sectional stiff- satisfied by selecting the same spline edges or faces on the interface of
ness matrix S is derived by the following equation and therefore the the connected patches. To create a discontinuity, such as a delamina-
goal of cross-sectional analysis is achieved. tion between composite layers, identical basis functions and control
points but distinct control variables are considered on the delamination
S = {X1T [A1 ] X1 + X3T [A2 ] X3 + X4T [A3 ] X 4 + X1T [A 4 ] X3 line. Therefore, on a unique interface line, independent degrees of
+ X3T [A 4 ]T X1 + X1T [A5 ] X 4 + X4T [A5 ]T X1 + X3T [A6 ] X 4 freedom exist which yields a delamination region.
−1 Computing the stiffness constants in (27) depends on the calculation
+ X4T [A6 ]T X3} (26)
of integrals (12). All terms are defined in real domain (x2 , x3) instead of
The 1D beam constitutive relation is expanded in matrix form as the basis functions R which are described in the parametric space (ξ , η) .

862
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868

Fig. 8. Composite box-beam cross-section.

Table 4
Stiffness constants of [(30/0)3] composite box-beam.
Stiffness Present NABSA [35] %Diff.

S11 (N) 5.560 × 106 5.560 × 106 0.8

S14 (N. m) 5.886 × 103 5.886 × 103 0

Fig. 6. Shear rigidity of delaminated composite strip for different normalized

S22 (N) 4.364 × 105 4.364 × 105 0

delamination length.α
S25 (N. m) − 2.983 × 103 − 2.983 × 103 0
S33 (N) 1.886 × 105 1.886 × 105 0
S36 (N. m) − 3.141 × 103 − 3.141 × 103 0
S44 (N. m2) 5.080 × 101 5.080 × 101 0
S55 (N. m2) 1.762 × 102 1.762 × 102 0
S66 (N. m2) 4.362 × 102 4.362 × 102 0

Table 5
Stiffness constants of CUS composite box-beam.
Stiffness Present VABS [5] %Diff.

S11 (N) 6.392 × 106 6.392 × 106 0

S14 (N. m) 1.213 × 10 4 1.213 × 10 4 0
S22 (N) 4.013 × 105 4.015 × 105 0.05
S25 (N. m) − 5.876 × 103 − 5.876 × 103 0
S33 (N) 1.751 × 105 1.754 × 105 0.17
S36 (N. m) − 6.366 × 103 − 6.367 × 103 0.02
S44 (N. m2) 4.816 × 101 4.818 × 101 0.04
S55 (N. m2) 1.900 × 102 1.900 × 102 0
S66 (N. m2) 4.950 × 102 4.950 × 102 0

Fig. 7. Delaminated rectangular cross-section angle-ply (45/ −45) composite stand for elements and similar to FEM, the integrations can be calcu-
beam. lated on the elements. Then, the global matrices are obtained by as-
sembling element matrices similar to FEM which significantly reduce
The physical coordinates x2 and x3 and derivatives respect to them can the computational effort.
be defined in parametric space as explained in [31] and therefore in-
tegrals are mapped into the parametric domain. The Gaussian quad-
rature rule is employed to compute these integrals. Knot spans in IGA

Table 3
Stiffness constants of rectangular cross-section angle-ply (45/ −45) composite beam.
Stiffness Present 3D elements [36] VABS [36] Delaminated (α = 1/3 ) % Reduction due delamination

S11 (N) 2.955 × 108 2.957 × 108 2.955 × 108 1.879 × 108 36.41
S14 (N. m) − 2.960 × 106 − 2.960 × 106 − 2.960 × 106 − 5.621 × 105 81.01
S22 (N) 5.394 × 107 5.409 × 107 5.395 × 107 2.837 × 107 47.40
S25 (N. m) 1.832 × 106 1.836 × 106 1.832 × 106 1.113 × 106 39.25
S33 (N) 9.660 × 107 9.659 × 107 9.660 × 107 3.058 × 107 68.34
S36 (N. m) 5.198 × 105 5.197 × 105 5.198 × 105 6.730 × 10 4 87.05
S44 (N. m2) 1.326 × 105 1.326 × 105 1.326 × 105 7.776 × 10 4 41.48
S55 (N. m2) 2.434 × 105 2.436 × 105 2.434 × 105 2.230 × 105 8.38
S66 (N. m2) 4.944 × 10 4 4.955 × 10 4 4.945 × 10 4 3.508 × 10 4 29.05

863
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868

Fig. 9. Convergence behavior of transverse shear rigidity (S33 ).

Fig. 11. Various delamination types of composite box-beam cross-sections.

3. 1D beam model

Using the 1D strain energy (25) and following the procedure of [31],
an IGA-based 1D beam model can be obtained, whereas, here transverse
shear deformation is considered. To achieve this, the 1D degrees of
freedom are expanded by isogeometric method as
n n
∼ ∼
uk = ∑ Ni,p (ξ ) uk, i , θk = ∑ Ni,p (ξ ) θk, i (k = 1, 2, 3)
i=1 i=1 (28)

where Ni, p (ξ ) are 1D B-spline basis functions of degree p and uk, i and θk, i
are unknown coefficients. Therefore, linear 1D strains are defined such
that
'
⎡ Np 0 0 0 0 0 ⎤ 
γ1 ⎢ ' ⎥ ⎧ u1 ⎫
⎧ ⎫ ⎢ 0 N p 0 0 0 − Np ⎥ ⎪ u ⎪
γ 2
⎪ 2⎪ ⎢ '
0 ⎥⎪
⎥ u ⎪
⎪ γ3 ⎪ ⎢ 0 0 N p 0 Np ⎪ 3⎪ 
=
⎨ κ1 ⎬ ⎢ 0 0 0 N p' 0 ⎥ ⎨ θ1 ⎬ ≡ Bu ,
0
⎪ κ2 ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪  ⎪
θ
⎪ κ3 ⎪ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 N p' 0 ⎥ ⎪ 2⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ θ ⎪
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎩ 3⎭
N p' ⎥ (29)
Fig. 10. Convergence behavior of torsional rigidity (S44 ). ⎣ ⎦
 = [∼
in which Np (ξ ) = [N1, p, N2, p, ⋯, Nn, p] and u u1,1, ∼
u1,2, …, ∼
u1, n ]T and so
1
Table 6 on. By expanded strain definition (29), the 1D beam strain energy (25)
Stiffness constants of CAS composite box-beam. is obtain in term of unknown 1D coefficients u to attain the desired
Stiffness Present VABS [4] NABSA [4] beam stiffness matrix K as follows

T
S11 (N)
S12 (N)
6.094 × 106
− 8.185 × 105
6.094 × 106
− 8.185 × 105
6.094 × 106
− 8.185 × 105
2U ̂ = u {∫ B S Bdx } u ≡ u K u.
L
T
1
T
(30)
S13 (N) − 6.672 × 102 − 5.827 × 102 − 6.672 × 102 To complete the 1D beam model, work of external forces and mo-
S22 (N) 3.937 × 105 3.932 × 105 3.937 × 105 ments per unit span ( fi &mi i = 1, 2, 3) is considered as
S23 (N) 3.523 × 102 3.523 × 102 3.572 × 102
S33 (N) 1.721 × 105 1.730 × 105 1.721 × 105 Ŵ = ∫L u1 f1 dx1 + ∫L u2 f2 dx1 + ∫L u3 f3 dx1 + ∫L θ1 m1 dx1 + ∫L θ2 m2 dx1
S44 (N. m2) 4.850 × 101 4.879 × 101 4.879 × 101
S45 (N. m2) 5.051 × 101 5.051 × 101 5.051 × 101 + ∫ θ3 m3 dx1. (31)
L
S46 (N. m2) − 1.007 − 1.007 − 1.002
S55 (N. m2) 1.696 × 102 1.696 × 102 1.696 × 102 And regarding to isogeometric-based expanded 1D variables (28),
S56 (N. m2) − 1.068 − 1.065 − 1.065 the work expression summarizes to
S66 (N. m2) 4.046 × 102 4.046 × 102 4.046 × 102
 TF,
Ŵ = u (32)
∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ T
where F = [ f1 f2 f3 m1 m2 m3 ] and

864
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868

Table 7
Stiffness constants of delaminated [(30/0)3] composite box-beam.
Stiffness Without delaminated Delamination type

(a) (b) (c ) (d) (e )

S12 (N) 0 5.783 × 101 0 0 0 4.893 × 101

S13 (N) 0 0 − 2.669 × 101 0 0 − 1.334 × 101
S22 (N) 4.364 × 105 4.359 × 105 4.316 × 105 4.353 × 105 4.270 × 105 4.308 × 105
S23 (N) 0 0 0 0 0 − 4.448 × 102
S25 (N. m) − 2.983 × 103 − 2.977 × 103 − 2.948 × 103 − 2.974 × 103 − 2.918 × 103 − 2.942 × 103
S33 (N) 1.886 × 105 1.818 × 105 1.884 × 105 1.757 × 105 1.880 × 105 1.816 × 105
S36 (N. m) − 3.141 × 103 − 3.016 × 103 − 3.145 × 103 − 2.903 × 103 − 3.147 × 103 − 3.016 × 103

Table 8
Stiffness constants of delaminated CAS composite box-beam.
Stiffness Without delaminated Delamination type

(a) (b) (c ) (d) (e )

S13 (N) − 6.672 × 102 − 2.393 × 102 − 4.849 × 102 1.570 × 102 − 2.949 × 102 − 1.797 × 102
S23 (N) 3.523 × 102 3.029 × 102 1.272 × 102 2.669 × 102 − 1.001 × 102 2.647 × 101
S46 (N. m2) − 1.007 − 1.050 − 0.950 − 1.099 − 0.890 − 0.950
S56 (N. m2) − 1.068 − 1.036 − 0.847 − 1.007 − 0.629 − 0.855

Table 9
Tip transverse displacement u3 of the thin-walled airfoil beam.
Material Tip transverse displacement %Diff.

Present (mm ) 3D FEM (mm )

Isotropic 3.890 3.884 0.15

Composite 6.010 6.008 0.03

Fig. 13. Transverse displacement of CUS beam under tip shear force.

with stiffness matrix S , the 1D beam stiffness matrix K is obtained by

(30). Hence, a 1D beam model with fidelity to 3D beam deformation
effects is reached by (34).
The following rule is used in applying boundary conditions and
computing tip point loads. At the first and last point of a knot vector,
the magnitude of the first and last basis functions are equal to one,
respectively, and others are zero. Thus, the load expressions (33) simply
Fig. 12. Twist angle of CAS beam under tip shear force.
equal to the magnitude of point loads at the last basis function and
other terms are zero. Also the clamped boundary condition is easily
∼ ∼ =
fi = ∫L NpT fi dx1, m i ∫L NpT mi dx1 (i = 1, 2, 3). implied by eliminating first term of all six degrees of freedom from Eq.
(33)
(34).
Finally, regarding the strain energy and the wok expressions (30)
and (32), the 1D beam governing equation will be 4. Results and discussion
 = F.
Ku (34)
The isogeometric-based beam sectional analysis (IBSA) code of [31]
Eq. (21) computes the stiffness constants of cross-section and then is modified to compute shear related stiffness constants. An isotropic

865
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868

before, parameterization in IGA modeling can affect the results. For this
square section an identical geometry can be produced by linear para-
meterization and equally spaced control points as depicted by Fig. 3.
An error up to 3 percent can be seen by equally spaced control
points with a 2 × 2 mesh of B-splines of degree 2 while the error de-
creases by increasing the B-splines degrees or the number of knot span
elements. Here, the linear parameterized model is achieved by h-re-
finement (see Ref. [15]) of the mesh with one element.
A thin-walled NACA0012 airfoil cross-section is considered. Both
isotropic and composite materials are examined. The airfoil chord is
120mm and the thickness is 0.675mm . The isotropic material properties
are E = 210GPa and v = 0.3. The cross-section is illustrated in Fig. 4
where the reference line is located on its center of area. The cross-
section is modeled by one patch with splines of degree 2 in cir-
cumference and thickness directions. To interpolate the airfoil curve,
113 points on the airfoil are used to create 113 control points by equally
spaced parameters and knot vector. The stiffness constants of the cross-
section are presented in Table 1. The subscript “C” for thin-walled
theory [34] implies classical results by neglecting transverse shear ef-
fects. The present method is shown to be more accurate than thin-
walled method of [34]. The notable discrepancy in torsional constant
S44 of these methods is produced by torsional-shear coupling. The ac-
Fig. 14. Normalized tip transverse displacement of CUS beam with and without
transverse shear effect.
curacy of present cross-sectional analysis will be proven by 1D beam
results.
Moreover, by considering previous geometry, a unidirectional la-
Table 10 minate [15]T composite airfoil is considered. Material properties of the
Tip deformations of the rectangular composite beam.
lamina are E1 = 141.963GPa , E2 = E3 = 9.79056GPa ,
Tip deformation Present 3D FEM Present with 3D FEM with G12 = G13 = G23 = 59.9844GPa and v12 = v13 = v23 = 0.42. Isogeometric
delamination delamination modeling of cross-section is the same as isotropic one. The 1D de-
4.360 4.365 5.441 5.352
formations of this cross-section will be examined later.
u1 (mm)
θ1 (rad. ) 9.734 × 10−2 9.396 × 10−2 3.933 × 10−2 4.126 × 10−2
Next, a twelve layered 30 × 1.47mm composite strip is modeled. The
cross-section layup is considered [45/0]3s from graphite/epoxy layers
where its detailed material properties are mentioned in [35]. Each layer
is a patch and discretized by 5 × 1 knot span elements with B-splines of
degrees 11 and 2 in its width and height directions, respectively. The
compatibility between layers is satisfied by employing identical basis
functions, control points and control variables on interfaces. This IGA
modeling results in 1200 degrees of freedom. The same degrees of
freedom can be used by less order of basis functions with more ele-
ments. However, based on our numerical tests, here using higher order
B-splines shows better convergence behavior. The cross-sectional stiff-
ness constants are presented in Table 2.
As mentioned earlier, delamination can noticeably decrease the ri-
gidity of the structure. The cross-sectional stiffness degradation for ar-
bitrary shaped composite beams is not discussed in the literature as
much. Here the previously introduced strip with a mid-plane delami-
nation of normalized length α (0 ≤ α < 1) is considered as depicted in
Fig. 5. The delaminated region is created by considering identical basis
functions and control points but distinguishing control variables on the
delamination line. The shear rigidity S33 reduces by increasing the
normalized delamination length α as presented in Fig. 6. Shear stiffness
can be critical to investigate low slenderness ratio beams or high fre-
quency modes.
A rectangular composite cross-section is investigated in [36] where
cross-sectional properties are computed with the aid of a single slice of
Fig. 15. Twist angle of rectangular composite beam under tip extension force. 3D solid elements. The cross-section is 0.05 × 0.1m with [45/ −45]T layup
and the material properties are presented in [36]. In the present paper,
this beam configuration (Fig. 7) with and without delamination is in-
12.7 × 12.7mm square cross-section is modeled by 675 degrees of
vestigated. The cross-section is discretized by two one-element patches
freedom in FEM-based code VABS [4]. Here this beam cross-section is
with B-splines of order 8 × 8which yields 459 degrees of freedom. The
discretized by B-splines of degree 3 in ξ and η directions over open knot
present results are compared with 10 × 10 meshed solution [36] and
vectors which create a 3 × 3 knot span element domain with just 108
VABS results by 744 quadratic elements in Table 3 where shows good
degrees of freedom. Knot span element is a non zero interval of a knot
correlation of present method with FEM-based VABS code. The stiffness
vector in IGA. Classical stiffness constants are same as presented in [31]
constants of delaminated cross-section with α = 1/3 is presented in
and the transverse shear stiffness is computed 9.21 × 106 (N) that is
Table 3 as well where shows a significant discrepancy for approxi-
identical to VABS [4] and the elasticity solution [33]. As discussed
mately all stiffness constant. The delaminated model is refined by knot

866
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand
insertion which yields to 2322 degrees of freedom. The maximum
stiffness reduction due to delamination is near 87% for shear-bending
coupling S36 .
Next, composite box-beams are investigated to verify the present
IBSA code. The first box-beam has configured by [(30/0)3] layup for each
wall with dimensions which illustrated in Fig. 8. The cross-sectional
stiffness constants are tabulated in Table 4 where each layer is a patch
with one knot span element by B-spline basis functions of order 11 × 1.
The isogeometric modeling yields 924 degrees of freedom. The results
show well agreement of present method with FEM-based NABSA sec-
tional analysis.
Two other composite box-beam benchmarks are called CUS and CAS
where CUS has extension-twist and shear-bending couplings whereas
CAS configuration yields extension-shear and torsional-bending cou-
pling behavior. In a wise design of composite beams, special couplings
can be benefited, such as in aeroelastic design of composite wings. First,
CUS configuration is discussed where all walls have six layers with [15]6
layup. CUS and CAS cross-sections have similar dimensions of Fig. 8,
with the exception of the height of these sections which considered
13.46mm . The CUS cross-section is modeled by FEM-based VABS soft-
ware in [5] where the material details can be found there. The non-zero
stiffness constants of CUS are presented in Table 5 and compared
against VABS results with maximum discrepancy of under 0.2 percent.
A convergence study is performed for the transverse shear and
torsional cross-sectional stiffness constants (S33 and S44 ) and presented
in Figs. 9 and 10, since these constants converged slower than others for
CUS cross-section. Two common refinement strategies in IGA, called
order elevation and knot insertion are used. For order elevation, each
layer is a patch with one knot span element where basis function order
in thickness direction is taken 1. The basis function order in width di-
rection of layers is considered 3, 5, …, 17 which yields to respectively
252 , 420 , …, 1428 degrees of freedom (control variables) for all warping
functions. Knot insertion is started from modeling each layer by a single
element patch of basis orders 1 and 3in thickness and width directions of
layers which is identical with first step of order elevation. Then by knot
insertion (h-refinement process) number of knot span elements is taken
3, 5, …, 19. The present results show the faster convergence behavior of
order elevation against the knot insertion method with the same de-
grees of freedom. It should be noted that the present method riches to
VABS results with less than 800 degrees of freedom whereas VABS uses
2100 degrees of freedom for its reported results. It evidently shows the
better convergence behavior of IGA in comparison to FEM.
The CAS cross-section has been made of [−15]6 , [15]6 , [15/ −15]3 and
[−15/15]3 for upper, lower, right and left walls, respectively. With the
same IGA modeling which uses 924 degrees of freedom, the results are
shown in Table 6 in comparison to VABS results with 2100 degrees of
freedom and NABSA. The present IBSA code results show the maximum
difference of 1.37 percent with NABSA and 14.5 percent with VABS.
Composite box-beams are load-carrying component of structures
and therefore investigating stiffness degradation due to delamination
can be vital. [(30/0)3] and CAS box-beam layups are considered with
different delamination types as shown in Fig. 11. The stiffness constants
which are more affected by delamination are listed in Tables 7 and 8 for
these configurations. For [(30/0)3] box-beam extension-shear couplings
appears for asymmetric delamination types (a) , (b) and (e ) and also
there exist shear-shear coupling for (e ) delamination. The shear stiffness
constant of x2 direction (S22 ) shows the maximum discrepancy of 2.15%
for (d ) delamination and S33 faces 6.84% difference for (c ) delamination
type. The shear-bending couplings S25 and S36 experience maximum
variations of 2.18% and 7.58% by (d ) and (c ) delamination types, re-
spectively. For CAS configuration, the shear related couplings S13 and
S23 as well as bending couplings S46 and S56 are more sensitive to de-
lamination. As presented in Table 8, maximum stiffness difference for
S13 and S23 are due to (c ) and (d ) delamination types, respectively.
Moreover, delamination of type (d ) creates maximum variations up to
41.10% for the mentioned bending coupling constants.
867
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868
The structural integrity of box-beams keeps their fundamental
constants less sensitive to the delamination. By introducing stiffness
constants for the whole cross-section and generates a 1D beam model,
local behavior of delamination is neglected. Nevertheless, delamination
can produce new couplings or change the existing ones in box-beams
which is substantially depends on stacking sequences of composite
layups.
Next, 1D behavior of isotropic and composite beams based on pro-
posed method of Section 3 is examined. An isotropic and composite
thin-walled beams with airfoil cross-sections are considered. The cross-
sectional stiffness constants of isotropic model are presented in Table 1.
The cantilevered beams length is equal to 1 m. The loading is a 10N tip
shear force. Table 9, the beam tip transverse displacement is compared
with a 3D finite element modeling by ABAQUS software where uses
121000 C3D8R linear 3D eight-nodded elements. The results show good
agreement of the present method with 3D FEM. In cross-sectional
analysis of the airfoils, about 1000 degrees of freedoms for all warping
displacements are used and less than 50 degrees of freedoms are used in
the beam 1D model. The finite element model has more than 540000
degrees of freedom. It can be concluded that for thin structure with core
such as helicopter blades, a huge amount of elements is needed to
create a 3D finite element model.
A cantilevered 0.762m (30in.) length beam with CAS cross-section
configuration is considered under a tip shear loading 4.448N (1lb ).
Beside the previously discussed CAS cross-section with 15 and − 15
layers, a same stacking sequence with 30 and − 30 layers is considered,
as well. The present results of beam twist angle for these test cases are
compared to thin-walled theory and experimental results of [37] in
Fig. 12. The results show the significant influence of ply angle changes
and also considerable correlation of present 2D cross-sectional analysis
with experimental results in comparison to thin-walled analysis.
Moreover, a CUS cantilevered beam with same length and loading,
is considered. The transverse displacement along the spanwise co-
ordinate is shown in Fig. 13 where emphasizes on the agreement of
present model with another 2D numerical cross-sectional analysis
NABSA [12]. This CUS test case is examined by varying the beam length
to evaluate the influence of transverse shear effects. Fig. 14 presents the
normalized tip transverse displacement by dividing results to classical
ones, in which shear deformation is neglected [31]. Therefore, the re-
lative discrepancy between Timoshenko (considering transverse shear
deformation) and classical results for different beam slenderness ratios
L/a (“L” is the beam length and “a” is the biggest dimension of cross-
section) is shown. Here, transverse shear effect seems to be considerable
for slenderness ratios under 10.
As the last case, a 1m cantilevered beam of composite rectangular
cross-section, with and without delamination is evaluated. The cross-
sectional stiffness constants can be found in Table 3. The beam is
subjected to a tip extensional point load of 106N . The beam is twisted
due to its substantial extension-torsion coupling constant S14 . The tip
extensional displacement and induced twist angle are presented and
compared with a 3D FEM using ABAQUS software in Table 10. The 3D
finite element model is constructed by 336000 C3D8R linear eight-
nodded elements. Also Fig. 15 shows the non-negligible difference of
the beam twist angle for delaminated cross-section. This variation is
due to the considerable change of the extension-twist coupling stiffness
by the previously described delamination of Fig. 7. On the other hand,
the influence of delamination for other discussed sections is not much
distinguishing for the 1D beam deformation. Indeed, the box-beams, by
preserving their integrity, are less affected by delamination in the 1D
global behavior.
5. Conclusion
The great importance of beam cross-sectional analysis with con-
sidering parameterization in IGA, transverse shear effect and delami-
nation is well recognized. Isogeometric analysis is utilized to discretize
E. Ghafari, J. Rezaeepazhand
the beam cross-section by benefiting its better convergence behavior
and automatic mesh refinement in contrast to FEM. The para-
meterization is shown to be a concern in IGA even for simple geome-
tries. Transverse shear deformation can significantly changes 1D beam
response for small slenderness ratios. The influence of delamination on
cross-sectional stiffness constants intensively depends on delamination
type, cross-section geometry and even stacking sequence of layers. The
substantial variation of coupling deformation due to delamination is
clearly established for a rectangular composite beam whereas less
sensitivity to delamination can be seen for box-beams. The proposed
beam analysis shows good reliability even for special details of cross-
section to be alternative of costly 3D FEM.
6. Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable re-
quest.
References
[1] Giavotto V, Borri M, Mantegazza P, Ghiringhelli G, Carmaschi V, Maffioli GC, et al.
Anisotropic beam theory and applications. Comput Struct 1983;16:403–13.
[2] Borri M, Ghiringhelli GL, Merlini T. Linear analysis of naturally curved and twisted
anisotropic beams. Compos Eng 1992;2:433–56.
[3] Hodges DH, Atilgan AR, Cesnik CES, Fulton MV. On a simplified strain energy
function for geometrically nonlinear behaviour of anisotropic beams. Compos Eng
1992;2:513–26.
[4] Yu W, Hodges DH, Volovoi V, Cesnik CES. On Timoshenko-like modeling of initially
curved and twisted composite beams. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39:5101–21.
[5] Yu W, Hodges DH, Ho JC. Variational asymptotic beam sectional analysis–an up-
dated version. Int J Eng Sci 2012;59:40–64.
[6] Sapountzakis EJ, Dourakopoulos JA. Flexural-torsional buckling analysis of com-
posite beams by BEM including shear deformation effect. Mech Res Commun
2008;35:497–516.
[7] Filippi M, Pagani A, Petrolo M, Colonna G, Carrera E. Static and free vibration
analysis of laminated beams by refined theory based on Chebyshev polynomials.
Compos Struct 2015;132:1248–59.
[8] Ghafari E, Rezaeepazhand J. Vibration analysis of rotating composite beams using
polynomial based dimensional reduction method. Int J Mech Sci
2016;115–116:93–104.
[9] Ghafari E, Rezaeepazhand J. Two-dimensional cross-sectional analysis of composite
beams using Rayleigh-Ritz-based dimensional reduction method. Compos Struct
2018;184:872–82.
[10] Kim C, White SR. Thick-walled composite beam theory including 3-D elastic effects
and torsional warping. Int J Solids Struct 1997;34:4237–59.
[11] Qin Z, Librescu L. On a shear-deformable theory of anisotropic thin-walled beams:
further contribution and validations. Compos Struct 2002;56:345–58.
[12] Jung SN, Nagaraj VT, Chopra I. Refined structural model for thin-and thick-walled
composite rotor blades. AIAA J 2002;40:105–16.
[13] Rafiee M, Nitzsche F, Labrosse M. Dynamics, vibration and control of rotating
composite beams and blades: a critical review. Thin-Walled Struct
2017;119:795–819.
868
Composite Structures 210 (2019) 858–868
[14] 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;94:601–16.
[15] Hughes TJR, Cottrell JA, Bazilevs Y. Isogeometric analysis: CAD, finite elements,
NURBS, exact geometry and mesh refinement. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
2005;194:4135–95.
[16] Reali A, Gomez H. An isogeometric collocation approach for Bernoulli-Euler beams
and Kirchhoff plates. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2015;284:623–36.
[17] Cottrell JA, Reali A, Bazilevs Y, Hughes TJR. Isogeometric analysis of structural
vibrations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2006;195:5257–96.
[18] Hosseini SF, Moetakef-Imani B, Hadidi-Moud S, Hassani B. The effect of para-
meterization on isogeometric analysis of free-form curved beams. Acta Mech
2016;227:1983–98.
[19] Nguyen VP, Anitescu C, Bordas SP, Rabczuk T. Isogeometric analysis: an overview
and computer implementation aspects. Math Comput Simul 2015;117:89–116.
[20] Kiendl J, Bletzinger K-U, Linhard J, Wüchner R. Isogeometric shell analysis with
Kirchhoff-Love elements. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2009;198:3902–14.
[21] Luu A-T, Kim N-I, Lee J. NURBS-based isogeometric vibration analysis of generally
laminated deep curved beams with variable curvature. Compos Struct
2015;119:150–65.
[22] Hasim KA. Isogeometric static analysis of laminated composite plane beams by
using refined zigzag theory. Compos Struct 2018;186:365–74.
[23] Kiendl J, Auricchio F, Hughes TJ, Reali A. Single-variable formulations and iso-
geometric discretizations for shear deformable beams. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 2015;284:988–1004.
[24] 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.
[25] Lezgy-Nazargah M, Vidal P, Polit O. NURBS-based isogeometric analysis of lami-
nated composite beams using refined sinus model. Eur J Mech A/Solids
2015;53:34–47.
[26] Guo Y, Ruess M, Gürdal Z. A contact extended isogeometric layerwise approach for
the buckling analysis of delaminated composites. Compos Struct 2014;116:55–66.
[27] Yazdi AA, Rezaeepazhand J. Structural similitude for flutter of delaminated com-
posite beam-plates. Compos Struct 2011;93:1918–22.
[28] Zhang L, Gao Z, Yu W. A string-based cohesive zone model for interlaminar dela-
mination. Eng Fract Mech 2017;180:1–22.
[29] Jafari-Talookolaei R-A, Abedi M, Hajianmaleki M. Vibration characteristics of
generally laminated composite curved beams with single through-the-width dela-
mination. Compos Struct 2016;138:172–83.
[30] Salunkhe SB, Singh C, Guruprasad P. Effect of matrix cracks and delamination on
extension-twist coupling of thin pretwisted composite strips. Compos Struct
2017;180:234–50.
[31] Ghafari E, Rezaeepazhand J. Isogeometric analysis of composite beams with arbi-
trary cross-section using dimensional reduction method. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 2017;318:594–618.
[32] Cottrell JA, Hughes TJR, Bazilevs Y. Isogeometric analysis: toward integration of
CAD and FEA. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
[33] Renton J. Generalized beam theory applied to shear stiffness. Int J Solids Struct
1991;27:1955–67.
[34] Wang L, Liu X, Guo L, Renevier N, Stables M. A mathematical model for calculating
cross-sectional properties of modern wind turbine composite blades. Renew Energy
2014;64:52–60.
[35] Popescu B, Hodges DH. On asymptotically correct Timoshenko-like anisotropic
beam theory. Int J Solids Struct 2000;37:535–58.
[36] Couturier PJ, Krenk S, Høgsberg J. Beam section stiffness properties using a single
layer of 3D solid elements. Comput Struct 2015;156:122–33.
[37] Chandra R, Stemple AD, Chopra I. Thin-walled composite beams under bending,
torsional, and extensional loads. J Aircr 1990;27:619–26.