Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Trigonometric-series solution for analysis of laminated composite beams

Trung-Kien Nguyen a,⇑, Ngoc-Duong Nguyen a, Thuc P. Vo b,d, Huu-Tai Thai c
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, 1 Vo Van Ngan Street, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
b
Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
c
School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia
d
Duy Tan University, Da Nang, Vietnam

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A new analytical solution based on a higher-order beam theory for static, buckling and vibration of lam-
Received 11 September 2016 inated composite beams is proposed in this paper. The governing equations of motion are derived from
Revised 8 October 2016 Lagrange’s equations. An analytical solution based on trigonometric series, which satisfies various bound-
Accepted 15 October 2016
ary conditions, is developed to solve the problem. Numerical results are obtained to compare with pre-
Available online 18 October 2016
vious studies and to investigate the effects of length-to-depth ratio, fibre angles and material anisotropy
on the deflections, stresses, natural frequencies and critical buckling loads of composite beams with var-
Keywords:
ious configurations.
Trigonometric-series solution
Laminated composite beams
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Static
Buckling
Vibration

1. Introduction derive exact solutions for the natural frequencies and critical buck-
ling loads of cross-ply composite beams. Chen et al. [27] also pro-
Composite laminated beams have been increasingly used in the posed an analytical solution based on state-space differential
various engineering fields for example in constructions, spacecraft, quadrature for vibration of composite beams. By using the dynamic
aircraft, mechanical engineering, etc. In order to predict accurately stiffness matrix method, Jun et al. [28,29] calculated the natural
their structural responses, various beam theories with different frequencies of composite beams based on third-order beam theory.
approaches have been developed. These beam theories can be A literature review shows that although Ritz procedure is efficient
divided into three following categories: classical beam theory to deal with static, buckling and vibration problems of composite
(CBT), first-order beam theory (FBT) and higher-order theory beams with various boundary conditions, the research on this
(HBT). A general review and assessment of these theories for com- interesting topic is still limited.
posite beams can be found in [1–3]. It should be noted that CBT is The objectives of this paper is to develop a new trigonometric-
only suitable for thin beams due to neglecting shear effect. FBT series solution for analysis of composite beams with arbitrary lay-
overcomes this adverse by taking into account this effect. However ups. It is based on a higher-order theory which accounts for a
practically an appropriate shear correction is required. By using higher-order variation of the axial displacement. By using Lagrange
higher-order variation of axial displacement, HBT predicts more equations, the governing equations of motion are derived. Ritz-
accurate than CBT and FBT, and importantly no shear correction type analytical solution with new trigonometric series is developed
factor is necessary. Therefore, this theory has been increasingly for beams under various boundary conditions. The convergence
applied in predicting responses of composite beams. and verification studies are carried out to demonstrate the accu-
For numerical methods, finite element method has been widely racy of the proposed solution. Numerical results are presented to
used to analyze composite beams [4–17]. For analytical approach, investigate the effects of length-to-depth ratio, fibre angle and
Navier solution is the simplest one, which is only applicable for material anisotropy on the deflections, stresses, natural frequen-
simply supported boundary conditions [18–20]. In order to deal cies and critical buckling loads of composite beams.
with arbitrary boundary conditions, many researchers developed
different methods. Ritz-type method is commonly used [21–24]. 2. Theoretical formulation
Khdeir and Reddy [25,26] developed state-space approach to
A laminated composite beam with rectangular section (b
h)
⇑ Corresponding author. and length L as shown in Fig. 1 is considered. It is made of n plies
E-mail address: [email protected] (T.-K. Nguyen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.10.033
0263-8223/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T.-K. Nguyen et al. / Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151 143

of orthotropic materials in different fibre angles with respect to the

x-axis.

2.1. Kinetic, strain and stress relations

The displacement field of refined higher-order deformation the-

ory ([30–32]) is given by:


5z 5z3
u1 ðx; zÞ ¼ u0 ðxÞ  zw0;x þ  2 /0 ðxÞ
4 3h
Fig. 1. Geometry of laminated composite beams. ¼ u0 ðxÞ  zw0;x þ WðzÞ/0 ðxÞ ð1aÞ

u3 ðx; zÞ ¼ w0 ðxÞ ð1bÞ

Table 1
Trigonometric series for shape functions. where u0 ; /0 and w0 are unknown mid-plane displacements of
Boundary conditions uj (x) wj (x) nj (x) beam; W is the shape function representing a higher-order variation
of axial displacement; the comma indicates partial differentiation
S–S sin jLp x cos jLp x cos jLp x
p p p
with respect to the coordinate subscript that follows.
C–F 1  cos ð2j1Þ x sin ð2j1Þ x sin ð2j1Þ x
2L 2L 2L The strain field of beams is given by:
C–C sin2 jLp x sin 2jLp x sin 2jLp x
xx ðx; zÞ ¼ u0;x  zw0;xx þ WðzÞ/0;x ¼ 0x þ zjbx þ WðzÞjsx ð2aÞ

cxz ðx; zÞ ¼ W;z /0 ¼ gðzÞ/0 ð2bÞ

Table 2
Three different boundary conditions of beams. where 0x and jbx ; jsx are the axial strain and curvatures of the beam.
th
BC x¼0 x¼L The stress of the k -layer is given by:
ðkÞ  
S–S w0 ¼ 0 w0 ¼ 0
rxx
ðkÞ
ðx; zÞ ¼ Q 11 0x ðxÞ þ zjbx ðxÞ þ WðzÞjsx ðxÞ ð3aÞ
C–F u0 ¼ 0; w0 ¼ 0; /0 ¼ 0; w0;x ¼ 0
C–C u0 ¼ 0; w0 ¼ 0; /0 ¼ 0; w0;x ¼ 0 u0 ¼ 0; w0 ¼ 0; /0 ¼ 0; w0;x ¼ 0
rxzðkÞ ðx; zÞ ¼ Q ðkÞ
55 cxz ðx; zÞ ð3bÞ

Table 3
Convergence studies for normalized mid-span displacements, fundamental frequencies and critical buckling loads of (0 /90 /0 ) composite beams (L=h ¼ 5, Material I,
E1 =E2 ¼ 40).

BC Number of series (m)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Deflection
S–S 1.4978 1.4632 1.4685 1.4671 1.4676 1.4674 1.4675 1.4674
C–F 3.6160 4.0311 4.1035 4.1380 4.1499 4.1571 4.1604 4.1626
C–C 0.8696 0.9183 0.9274 0.9301 0.9311 0.9316 0.9319 0.9320
Fundamental frequency
S–S 9.2084 9.2084 9.2084 9.2084 9.2084 9.2084 9.2084 9.2084
C–F 4.3499 4.2691 4.2473 4.2394 4.2359 4.2342 4.2332 4.2327
C–C 11.8716 11.6673 11.6269 11.6143 11.6093 11.6069 11.6056 11.6048
Critical buckling load
S–S 8.6132 8.6132 8.6132 8.6132 8.6132 8.6132 8.6132 8.6132
C–F 4.7080 4.7080 4.7080 4.7080 4.7080 4.7080 4.7080 4.7080
C–C 11.6518 11.6518 11.6518 11.6518 11.6518 11.6518 11.6518 11.6518

Table 4
Normalized mid-span displacements of (0 /90 /0 ) composite beam under a uniformly distributed load (Material II, E1 =E2 ¼ 25).

BC Theory L=h
5 10 20 30 50
S–S Present 2.412 1.096 0.759 0.697 0.665
Murthy et al. [11] 2.398 1.090 – – 0.661
Khdeir and Reddy [36] 2.412 1.096 – – 0.665
Vo and Thai (HBT) [14] 2.414 1.098 0.761 – 0.666
Zenkour [37] 2.414 1.098 – – 0.666
Mantari and Canales [24] – 1.097 – – –
C–F Present 6.813 3.447 2.520 2.342 2.250
Murthy et al. [11] 6.836 3.466 – – 2.262
Khdeir and Reddy [36] 6.824 3.455 – – 2.251
Vo and Thai (HBT) [14] 6.830 3.461 2.530 – 2.257
Mantari and Canales [24] – 3.459 – – –
C–C Present 1.536 0.531 0.236 0.177 0.147
Khdeir and Reddy [36] 1.537 0.532 – – 0.147
Mantari and Canales [24] – 0.532 – – –
144 T.-K. Nguyen et al. / Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151

Table 5
Normalized mid-span displacements of (0 /90 ) composite beams under a uniformly distributed load (Material II, E1 =E2 ¼ 25).

BC Theory L=h
5 10 20 30 50
S–S Present 4.777 3.688 3.413 3.362 3.336
Murthy et al. [11] 4.750 3.668 – – 3.318
Khdeir and Reddy [36] 4.777 3.688 – – 3.336
Vo and Thai (HBT) [14] 4.785 3.696 3.421 – 3.344
Zenkour [37] 4.788 3.697 – – 3.344
Mantari and Canales [24] – 3.731 – – –
C–F Present 15.260 12.330 11.556 11.410 11.335
Murthy et al. [11] 15.334 12.398 – – 11.392
Khdeir and Reddy [36] 15.279 12.343 – – 11.337
Vo and Thai (HBT) [14] 15.305 12.369 11.588 – 11.363
Mantari and Canales [24] – 12.475 – – –
C–C Present 1.920 1.004 0.752 0.704 0.679
Khdeir and Reddy [36] 1.922 1.005 – – 0.679
Mantari and Canales [24] – 1.010 – – –

Table 6
Normalized stresses of (0 /90 /0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite beams with simply-supported boundary conditions (Material II, E1 =E2 ¼ 25).

Lay-ups Theory r xx r xz
L=h ¼ 5 10 20 L=h ¼ 5 10 20

(0 /90 /0 ) Present 1.0696 0.8516 0.7965 0.4050 0.4289 0.4388
Zenkour [37] 1.0669 0.8500 – 0.4057 0.4311 –
Vo and Thai (HBT) [14] 1.0670 0.8503 0.7961 0.4057 0.4311 0.4438
(0 /90 ) Present 0.2362 0.2343 0.2338 0.9174 0.9483 0.9594
Zenkour [37] 0.2362 0.2343 – 0.9211 0.9572 –
Vo and Thai (HBT) [14] 0.2361 0.2342 0.2337 0.9187 0.9484 0.9425

60
where (A; B; D; Bs ; Ds ; Hs ) are the stiffnesses of laminated com-
Normalized transverse displacement

S−S
50 C−F posite beams given by:
C−C
n Z
X zkþ1
40 ðkÞ
ðA; B; D; Bs ; Ds ; Hs Þ ¼ ð1; z; z2 ; W; zW; W2 ÞQ 11 bdz ð5Þ
k¼1 zk

30
n Z
X zkþ1
ðkÞ
As ¼ g 2 Q 55 bdz ð6Þ
20 k¼1 zk

The work done V by the compression load N 0 and transverse

10 load q is given by:
Z L Z L
1
0 V¼ N0 ðw0;x Þ2 dx  qw0 dx ð7Þ
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2 0 0
θ
The kinetic energy K of system is written by:
Fig. 2. Effects of the fibre angle change on the normalized transverse displacement
of ½h=  hs composite beams (L=h ¼ 10, Material II, E1 =E2 ¼ 25). Z
1
K¼ qðzÞðu_ 21 þ u_ 23 ÞdV
2 V
ðkÞ ðkÞ Z L
where Q 11 and Q 55 are the in-plane and out-of-plane elastic stiff- 1
_ 0;x Þ þ 2J 1 /_ 0 u_ 0 ð8Þ
½I0 u_ 20  2I1 u_ 0 w
_ 0;x þ I2 ðw 2
¼
ness coefficients in the global coordinates (see [30] for details). 2 0

 2J2 /_ 0 w
_ 0;x þ K 2 /_ 20 þ I0 w
_ 20 dx
2.2. Variational formulation
where dot-superscript denotes the differentiation with respect to
The strain energy U of system is given by: the time t; q is the mass density of each layer, and
Z I0 ; I1 ; I2 ; J1 ; J2 ; K 2 are the inertia coefficients defined by:
1
U¼ ðrxx xx þ rxz cxz ÞdV
2 V n Z
X zkþ1
Z L ðI0 ; I1 ; I2 ; J 1 ; J 2 ; K 2 Þ ¼ qðkÞ ð1; z; z2 ; W; zW; W2 Þbdz ð9Þ
1 2 2 s ð4Þ
¼ ½Aðu0;x Þ  2Bu0;x w0;xx þ Dðw0;xx Þ þ 2B u0;x /0;x k¼1 zk
2 0

 2Ds w0;xx /0;x þ Hs ð/0;x Þ2 þ As /20 dx The total potential energy of system is expressed by:
 T.-K. Nguyen et al. / Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151 145

Fig. 3. Distribution of the normalized stresses (r

 xx ; r
 xz ) through the beam depth of (0 /90 /0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite beams with simply-supported boundary conditions
(Material II, E1 =E2 ¼ 25).

P¼U þVK where x is the frequency, i ¼ 1 the imaginary unit; ðuj ; wj ; /j )

2

Z h
1 L
are unknown values to be determined; wj ðxÞ; uj ðxÞ and nj ðxÞ are
P¼ Aðu0;x Þ2  2Bu0;x w0;xx þ Dðw0;xx Þ2 þ 2Bs u0;x /0;x
2 the shape functions which are proposed for simply supported (S–
0
i
S), clamped–clamped (C–C) and clamped-free (C–F) boundary con-
2Ds w0;xx /0;x þ Hs ð/0;x Þ2 þ As /20 dx
ditions given in Table 1. It is clear that the proposed shape functions
Z Z L
1 L satisfy various boundary conditions given in Table 2. It is noted that
þ N0 ðw0;x Þ2 dx  qw0 dx
2 0 0
the inappropriate shape functions may cause slow convergence
Z Lh rates and numerical instabilities [21,22]. In addition, for shape func-
1
 I0 u_ 20  2I1 u_ 0 w _ 0;x Þ2 þ 2J 1 /_ 0 u_ 0
_ 0;x þ I2 ðw tions which do not satisfy boundary conditions, Lagrangian
2 0
i multipliers method can be used to impose boundary conditions
2J 2 /_ 0 w
_ 0;x þ K 2 /_ 20 þ I0 w _ 20 dx ð10Þ [33,34,24].
The governing equations of motion can be obtained by
Based on Ritz method [30], the displacement field in Eq. (10) is substituting Eq. (11c) into Eq. (10) and using Lagrange’s
approximated in the following forms: equations:
X
m
u0 ðx; tÞ ¼ wj ðxÞuj eixt ð11aÞ @P d @P
 ¼0 ð12Þ
j¼1 @qj dt @ q_ j

X
m with qj representing the values of ðuj ; wj ; /j ), that leads to:
w0 ðx; tÞ ¼ uj ðxÞwj eixt ð11bÞ
02 3 2 318 9 8 9
j¼1 K11 K12 K13 M11 M12 M13 >
<u> = >
<0> =
B6 T 12 7 26 7C
@4 K K22 K23 5  x 4 T M12 M22 M23 5A w ¼ F
X
m >
: > ; >
: > ;
/0 ðx; tÞ ¼ nj ðxÞ/j eixt ð11cÞ T
K13 T
K23 K33 T
M13 T
M23 M33 / 0
j¼1
ð13Þ
146 T.-K. Nguyen et al. / Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151

Table 7
Normalized fundamental frequencies of (0 /90 /0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite beams (Material I, E1 =E2 ¼ 40).

BC Lay-ups Theory L=h

5 10 20 30 50
S–S (0 /90 /0 ) Present 9.208 13.614 16.338 17.055 17.462
Murthy et al. [11] 9.207 13.611 – – –
Khdeir and Reddy [25] 9.208 13.614 – – –
Aydogdu [21] 9.207 – 16.337 – –
Vo and Thai [15] 9.206 13.607 16.327 – 17.449
Mantari and Canales [24] 9.208 13.610 – – –
(0 /90 ) Present 6.128 6.945 7.219 7.274 7.302
Murthy et al. [11] 6.045 6.908 – – –
Khdeir and Reddy [25] 6.128 6.945 – – –
Aydogdu [21] 6.144 – 7.218 – –
Vo and Thai [15] 6.058 6.909 7.204 – 7.296
Mantari and Canales [24] 6.109 6.913 – – –

C–F (0 /90 /0 ) Present 4.234 5.498 6.070 6.198 6.267
Murthy et al. [11] 4.230 5.491 – – –
Khdeir and Reddy [25] 4.234 5.495 – – –
Aydogdu [21] 4.234 – 6.070 – –
Mantari and Canales [24] 4.221 5.490 – – –
(0 /90 ) Present 2.383 2.543 2.591 2.600 2.605
Murthy et al. [11] 2.378 2.541 – – –
Khdeir and Reddy [25] 2.386 2.544 – – –
Aydogdu [21] 2.384 – 2.590 – –
Mantari and Canales [24] 2.375 2.532 – – –

C–C (0 /90 /0 ) Present 11.607 19.728 29.695 34.268 37.679
Murthy et al. [11] 11.602 19.719 – – –
Khdeir and Reddy [25] 11.603 19.712 – – –
Aydogdu [21] 11.637 – 29.926 – –
Mantari and Canales [24] 11.486 19.652 – – –
(0 /90 ) Present 10.027 13.670 15.661 16.154 16.429
Murthy et al. [11] 10.011 13.657 – – –
Khdeir and Reddy [25] 10.026 13.660 – – –
Aydogdu [21] 10.102 – 15.688 – –
Mantari and Canales [24] 9.974 13.628 – – –

Table 8
Normalized critical buckling loads of (0 /90 /0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite beams with simply-supported boundary conditions (Materials I and II, E1 =E2 ¼ 10).

Lay-ups Theory L=h

5 10 20 30 50
Material I
(0 /90 /0 ) Present 4.727 6.814 7.666 7.848 7.945
Aydogdu [22] 4.726 – 7.666 – –
Vo and Thai [15] 4.709 6.778 7.620 – 7.896
(0 /90 ) Present 1.920 2.168 2.241 2.255 2.262
Aydogdu [22] 1.919 – 2.241 – –
Vo and Thai [15] 1.910 2.156 2.228 – 2.249

Material II
(0 /90 /0 ) Present 3.728 6.206 7.460 7.751 7.909
Aydogdu [22] 3.728 – 7.459 – –
Vo and Thai [15] 3.717 6.176 7.416 – 7.860
(0 /90 ) Present 1.766 2.116 2.227 2.249 2.260
Aydogdu [22] 1.765 – 2.226 – –
Vo and Thai [15] 1.758 2.104 2.214 – 2.247
 T.-K. Nguyen et al. / Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151 147

Table 9
Normalized critical buckling loads of (0 /90 /0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite beams (Material I, E1 =E2 ¼ 40).

BC Lay-ups Theory L=h

5 10 20 30 50
S–S (0 /90 /0 ) Present 8.613 18.832 27.086 29.496 30.906
Mantari and Canales [24] 8.585 18.796 – – –
Khdeir and Reddy [26] 8.613 18.832 – – –
(0 /90 ) Present 3.907 4.942 5.297 5.369 5.406
Aydogdu [22] 3.906 – – – –
Mantari and Canales [24] 3.856 4.887 – – –

C–F (0 /90 /0 ) Present 4.708 6.772 7.611 7.790 7.886
Mantari and Canales [24] 4.673 6.757 – – –
Khdeir and Reddy [26] 4.708 6.772 – – –
(0 /90 ) Present 1.236 1.324 1.349 1.353 1.356
Aydogdu [22] 1.235 – – – –
Mantari and Canales [24] 1.221 1.311 – – –

C–C (0 /90 /0 ) Present 11.652 34.453 75.328 97.248 114.398
Mantari and Canales [24] 11.502 34.365 – – –
Khdeir and Reddy [26] 11.652 34.453 – – –
(0 /90 ) Present 8.674 15.626 19.768 20.780 21.372
Mantari and Canales [24] 8.509 15.468 – – –

where the components of stiffness matrix K and mass matrix M are For convenience, the following normalized terms are used:
given by:

3 2
Z Z Z 100w0 E2 bh bh L h
L L L  ¼
w ; r xx ¼ r
2 xx
; ;
K 11
ij ¼ A wi;x wj;x dx; K 12
ij ¼ B wi;x uj;xx dx; K 13
ij ¼ B
s
wi;x nj;x dx qL4 qL 2 2
0 0 0 2
Z Z bh
L L r xz ¼ rxz ð0; 0Þ ð15aÞ
K 22
ij ¼ D ui;xx uj;xx dx þ N0 ui;x uj;x dx qL
0 0
Z Z Z rffiffiffiffiffi
L L L
xL2 q
K 23
ij ¼ D s
u 33
i;xx nj;x dx; K ij ¼ Hs ni;x nj;x dx þ As ni nj dx x
 ¼ for Materials I and II;
0 0 0 h E2
Z Z Z 2 rffiffiffiffiffi
L L L xL q
M 11
ij ¼ I0 wi wj dx; M 12
ij ¼ I1 wi uj;x dx; M 13
ij ¼ J 1 wi nj dx x
 ¼ for Material III ð15bÞ
0 0 0
h E1
Z L Z L Z L
M 22
ij ¼ I0 ui uj dx þ I2 ui;x uj;x dx; M23
ij ¼ J 2 ui;x nj dx L2
0 0 0 Ncr ¼ Ncr 3
for Materials I and II;
Z L Z L
E2 bh
M 33
ij ¼ K 2 ni nj dx; F i ¼ qui dx ð14Þ L2
0 0 Ncr ¼ Ncr 3
for Material III ð15cÞ
E1 bh
The deflection, stresses, critical buckling loads and natural
frequencies of composite beams can be determined by solving In order to evaluate the convergence and reliability of the pro-
Eq. (13). posed solution, (0 /90 /0 ) composite beams (L=h ¼ 5) with Mate-
rial I and E1 =E2 ¼ 40 are considered. The mid-span displacements,
fundamental natural frequencies and critical buckling loads with
3. Numerical examples respect to the series number m for different boundary conditions
are given in Table 3. It is observed that the responses converge
In this section, convergence and verification studies are carried quickly for three boundary conditions: m = 2 for buckling, m = 12
out to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed solution and to for vibration, and m = 14 for deflection. Thus, these numbers of ser-
investigate the responses of composite beams with various bound- ies terms will be used for buckling, vibration and static analysis,
ary conditions for bending, vibration and buckling problems. For respectively throughout the numerical examples. In comparison,
static analysis, the beam is subjected to a uniformly distributed the present trigonometric solution appears convergence more
load with density q. Laminates are supposed to have equal thick- quickly than the polynomial series solution [33], especially for
nesses and made of the same orthotropic materials whose proper- buckling analysis.
ties are followed:
3.1. Static analysis
 Material I [21]: E1 =E2 ¼ open, G12 ¼ G13 ¼ 0:6E2 ; G23 ¼ 0:5E2 ;
m12 ¼ 0:25 As the first example, (0 /90 /0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite beams
 Material II [21]: E1 =E2 ¼ open, G12 ¼ G13 ¼ 0:5E2 ; G23 ¼ 0:2E2 ; with material II and E1 =E2 ¼ 25 are considered. Their mid-span dis-
m12 ¼ 0:25 placements for various boundary conditions with 5 ratios of
 Material III [35]: E1 ¼ 144:9 GPa, E2 ¼ 9:65 GPa, G12 ¼ G13 ¼ length-to-depth, L=h ¼ 5; 10; 20; 30; 50 are given in Tables 4,5
4:14 GPa, G23 ¼ 3:45 GPa, m12 ¼ 0:3, q ¼ 1389 kg=m3 . and compared to earlier studies. It is observed that the present
148 T.-K. Nguyen et al. / Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151

Fig. 4. The first three mode shapes of (0 /90°/0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite beams with simply-supported boundary conditions (L=h ¼ 10, Material I, E1 =E2 ¼ 40).

solutions are in excellent agreement with those calculated by var- curve corresponds to the C–F beams while the highest curve is
ious higher-order theories ([11,14,24,36,37]). The axial and trans- C–C ones.
verse shear stresses of these beams with L=h ¼ 5; 10; 20 are
presented in Table 6 and compared to solutions obtained by Vo 3.2. Vibration and buckling analysis
and Thai [14] and Zenkour [37]. Good agreements with the previ-
ous models are also found. The variation of the axial and shear Tables 7–9 report the fundamental frequencies and critical
stress through the beam depth is displayed in Fig. 3, in which a buckling loads of (0 /90 /0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite beams with
parabolic distribution and traction-free boundary conditions of different boundary conditions. The present solutions are validated
shear stress is observed. by comparison with those derived from HBTs ([11,15,21,22,24–
Next, the effect of fibre angle change on the mid-span displace- 26]). Excellent agreements between solutions from the present
ments of ðh=  hÞs composite beams (L=h ¼ 10) with material II and model and previous ones are observed while a slight deviation
E1 =E2 =25 is plotted in Fig. 2. It can be seen that the mid-span with those from Mantari and Canales [24] is found for L=h ¼ 5.
transverse displacement increases with the fibre angle, the lower The first three mode shapes of (0 /90 /0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite
 T.-K. Nguyen et al. / Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151 149

16 25

Normalized fundamental frequency 0o/90o/0o o o

0 /90 /0
o
14

Normalized critical buckling load

0o/90o 20
o
0 /90
o

12

15
10

8
10

6
5
4

2 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
E1/E2 E1/E2

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Effects of material anisotropy on the normalized fundamental frequencies and critical buckling loads of (0 /90 /0 ) and (0 /90 ) composite beams with simply-
supported boundary conditions (L=h ¼ 10, Material I).

Table 10
Normalized fundamental frequencies of ½h=  hs composite beams with respect to the fibre angle change (L=h ¼ 15, Materials III).

BC Theory Fibre angle

0 15 30 45 60 75 90
C–C Present 4.9116 4.7173 4.1307 3.1973 2.2019 1.6825 1.6205
Aydogdu [23] 4.9730 4.2940 2.1950 1.9290 1.6690 1.6120 1.6190
Chandrashekhara et al. [6] 4.8487 4.6635 4.0981 3.1843 2.1984 1.6815 1.6200
Chen et al. [27] 4.8575 3.6484 2.3445 1.8383 1.6711 1.6161 1.6237
Vo and Thai [15] 4.8969 4.5695 3.2355 1.9918 1.6309 1.6056 1.6152
S–S Present 2.6563 2.5108 2.1033 1.5367 1.0121 0.7608 0.7317
Aydogdu [23] 2.6510 1.8960 1.1410 0.8040 0.7360 0.7250 0.7290
Chandrashekhara et al. [6] 2.6560 2.5105 2.1032 1.5368 1.0124 0.7611 0.7320
Vo and Thai [15] 2.6494 2.4039 1.5540 0.9078 0.7361 0.7247 0.7295
C–F Present 0.9832 0.9259 0.7683 0.5553 0.3631 0.2722 0.2618
Aydogdu [23] 0.9810 0.6760 0.4140 0.2880 0.2620 0.2580 0.2600
Chandrashekhara et al. [6] 0.9820 0.9249 0.7678 0.5551 0.3631 0.2723 0.2619
Vo and Thai [15] 0.9801 0.8836 0.5614 0.3253 0.2634 0.2593 0.2611

5 2.5

S−S
Normalized fundamental frequency

Normalized critical buckling load

C−F S−S
4 2
C−C C−F
C−C
3 1.5

2 1

1 0.5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
θ θ

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Effects of the fibre angle change on the normalized fundamental frequencies and critical buckling loads of ½h=  hs composite beams (L=h ¼ 15, Material III).

beams (L=h ¼ 10) with material I and E1 =E2 ¼ 40 is plotted in Fig. 4. anisotropy on the fundamental frequencies and critical buckling
It can be seen that the symmetric beam exhibits double coupled loads is plotted in Fig. 5. Obviously, the results increase with E1 =E2 .
vibration (w0 ; /0 ) whereas the anti-symmetric one presents triply Finally, ðh=  hÞs composite beams (L=h ¼ 15) with material III
coupled vibration (u0 ; w0 ; /0 ). The effect of the ratio of material are analysed. The effects of fibre angle variation on the fundamen-
150 T.-K. Nguyen et al. / Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151

5 2
Normalized fundamental frequency 4.5 S−S

Normalized critical buckling load

4 C−F
1.5 S−S
C−C
C−F
3.5
C−C
3
1
2.5

2
0.5
1.5

0.5 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
L/h L/h

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Effects of the span-to-depth ratio on the normalized fundamental frequencies and critical buckling loads of [30 /-30 ]s composite beams (L=h ¼ 15, Material III).

tal frequencies and critical buckling loads are illustrated in Table 10 [7] Marur S, Kant T. Free vibration analysis of fiber reinforced composite beams
using higher order theories and finite element modelling. J Sound Vib
and Fig. 6. It can be seen that the results decrease with an increase
1996;194(3):337–51.
of fibre angle. A good agreement between the present solutions [8] Karama M, Harb BA, Mistou S, Caperaa S. Bending, buckling and free vibration
and those obtained from [6] is observed. It should be noted that of laminated composite with a transverse shear stress continuity model.
there exist slight deviations between the present solution and Compos B Eng 1998;29(3):223–34.
[9] Shi G, Lam K, Tay T. On efficient finite element modeling of composite beams
Chandrashekhara et al. [6] with those from previous studies and plates using higher-order theories and an accurate composite beam
([15,23,27]). [30 /-30 ]s composite beams with S–S, C–F and C–C element. Compos Struct 1998;41(2):159–65.
boundary conditions are chosen to investigate the effect of the [10] Shi G, Lam K. Finite element vibration analysis of composite beams based on
higher-order beam theory. J Sound Vib 1999;219(4):707–21.
span-to-depth ratio on the fundamental frequencies and critical [11] Murthy M, Mahapatra DR, Badarinarayana K, Gopalakrishnan S. A refined
buckling loads (Fig. 7). It can be seen that the results increase with higher order finite element for asymmetric composite beams. Compos Struct
the increase of L=h. The effect of the span-to-depth ratio is effec- 2005;67(1):27–35.
[12] Subramanian P. Dynamic analysis of laminated composite beams using higher
tively significant for C–C boundary condition when L=h 6 20. order theories and finite elements. Compos Struct 2006;73(3):342–53.
[13] Vidal P, Polit O. A family of sinus finite elements for the analysis of rectangular
laminated beams. Compos Struct 2008;84(1):56–72.
4. Conclusions
[14] Vo TP, Thai H-T. Static behavior of composite beams using various refined
shear deformation theories. Compos Struct 2012;94(8):2513–22.
The authors proposed a new analytical solution for static, buck- [15] 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.
ling and vibration of laminated composite beams based on a
[16] Mantari J, Canales F. Finite element formulation of laminated beams with
higher-order beam theory. This solution based on trigonometric capability to model the thickness expansion. Compos B Eng 2016;101:107–15.
series are developed for various boundary conditions. Numerical [17] Li J, Wu Z, Kong X, Li X, Wu W. Comparison of various shear deformation
results are obtained to compare with previous studies and to inves- theories for free vibration of laminated composite beams with general lay-ups.
Compos Struct 2014;108:767–78.
tigate effects of fibre angle and material anisotropy on the deflec- [18] Matsunaga H. Vibration and buckling of multilayered composite beams
tions, stresses, natural frequencies, critical buckling loads and according to higher order deformation theories. J Sound Vib 2001;246
corresponding mode shapes. The obtained results showed that (1):47–62.
[19] Mantari J, Canales F. A unified quasi-3D HSDT for the bending analysis of
the proposed series solution converges quickly for buckling analy- laminated beams. Aerosp Sci Technol 2016;54:267–75.
sis. The present solution is found to simple and efficient in analysis [20] Kant T, Marur S, Rao G. Analytical solution to the dynamic analysis of
of laminated composite beams with various boundary conditions. laminated beams using higher order refined theory. Compos Struct 1997;40
(1):1–9.
[21] Aydogdu M. Vibration analysis of cross-ply laminated beams with general
Acknowledgements boundary conditions by Ritz method. Int J Mech Sci 2005;47(11):
1740–55.
[22] Aydogdu M. Buckling analysis of cross-ply laminated beams with general
This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for
boundary conditions by ritz method. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66
Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under Grant (10):1248–55.
No. 107.02-2015.07. [23] Aydogdu M. Free vibration analysis of angle-ply laminated beams with general
boundary conditions. J Reinf Plast Compos 2006;25(15):1571–83.
[24] Mantari J, Canales F. Free vibration and buckling of laminated beams via
References hybrid Ritz solution for various penalized boundary conditions. Compos Struct
2016;152:306–15.
[1] Ghugal YM, Shimpi RP. A review of refined shear deformation theories for [25] Khdeir A, Reddy J. Free vibration of cross-ply laminated beams with arbitrary
isotropic and anisotropic laminated beams. J Reinf Plast Compos 2001;20 boundary conditions. Int J Eng Sci 1994;32(12):1971–80.
(3):255–72. [26] Khdeir A, Reddy J. Buckling of cross-ply laminated beams with arbitrary
[2] Aguiar R, Moleiro F, Soares CM. Assessment of mixed and displacement-based boundary conditions. Compos Struct 1997;37(1):1–3.
models for static analysis of composite beams of different cross-sections. [27] Chen W, Lv C, Bian Z. Free vibration analysis of generally laminated beams via
Compos Struct 2012;94(2):601–16. state-space-based differential quadrature. Compos Struct 2004;63
[3] Zhen W, Wanji C. An assessment of several displacement-based theories for (34):417–25.
the vibration and stability analysis of laminated composite and sandwich [28] Jun L, Xiaobin L, Hongxing H. Free vibration analysis of third-order shear
beams. Compos Struct 2008;84(4):337–49. deformable composite beams using dynamic stiffness method. Arch Appl
[4] Yuan F-G, Miller RE. A higher order finite element for laminated beams. Mech 2009;79(12):1083–98.
Compos Struct 1990;14(2):125–50. [29] Jun L, Hongxing H. Free vibration analyses of axially loaded laminated
[5] Yu H. A higher-order finite element for analysis of composite laminated composite beams based on higher-order shear deformation theory.
structures. Compos Struct 1994;28(4):375–83. Meccanica 2011;46(6):1299–317.
[6] Chandrashekhara K, Bangera K. Free vibration of composite beams using a [30] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composites plates: theory and
refined shear flexible beam element. Comput Struct 1992;43(4):719–27. analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1997.
 T.-K. Nguyen et al. / Composite Structures 160 (2017) 142–151 151

[31] Reissner E. On transverse bending of plates, including the effect of transverse shear deformation theory. Compos Struct 2015;10. doi: http://dx.doi.org/
shear deformation. Int J Solids Struct 1975;11(5):569–73. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.074.
[32] Soldatos K, Timarci T. A unified formulation of laminated composite, shear [35] Chandrashekhara K, Krishnamurthy K, Roy S. Free vibration of composite
deformable, five-degrees-of-freedom cylindrical shell theories. Compos Struct beams including rotary inertia and shear deformation. Compos Struct 1990;14
1993;25(1):165–71. (4):269–79.
[33] Nguyen T-K, Nguyen TT-P, Vo TP, Thai H-T. Vibration and buckling analysis of [36] Khdeir A, Reddy J. An exact solution for the bending of thin and thick cross-ply
functionally graded sandwich beams by a new higher-order shear deformation laminated beams. Compos Struct 1997;37(2):195–203.
theory. Compos B Eng 2015;76:273–85. [37] Zenkour AM. Transverse shear and normal deformation theory for bending
[34] Nguyen T-K, Vo TP, Nguyen B-D, Lee J. An analytical solution for buckling and analysis of laminated and sandwich elastic beams. Mech Compos Mater Struct
vibration analysis of functionally graded sandwich beams using a quasi-3D 1999;6(3):267–83.