Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1. INTRODUCTION
. .
738
2. FORMULATION
where u and w are the in-plane and lateral displacements of the middle surface, cx is the
rotation of the normal to the middle plane about the y-axis, and h is the thickness of the
beam. The strains associated with the displacements in equation (1) are
ex=ex0+z[kx1+z 2kx2 ],
2
gxz=g*
xz +z k*
xz ,
where
ex0=1u/1x,
g*
xz =cx+1w/1x,
kx1=1gx /1x,
2
k*
xz =(4/h )(cx+1w/1x),
(2)
739
The stresses in the nth layer, for layers stacked in the y-direction as shown in Figure 2, the
principal material axis of which is oriented at an angle u to the x-axis, are related to the strains
by the relation
F
G
G
j
J
G
G
f
sxx J
K C11
G
G C12
syy
G
G
szz f
C
= G 13
G 0
tyz F
G
G 0
gxy
G
G
txz j
k C16
C12
C13
C22
C23
C23
C33
C44
C45
C45
C55
C26
C36
C16L
C26G
G
C36G
0G
G
0
G
C66l
F
G
G
j
J
G
G
f
exx J
eyy G
ezz f
gyz F
(3)
G
G
gxz j
gxy
If the beam is undergoing uniaxial bending and if there is no torsional loading, one can take
syy=szz=tyz=txy=0, and upon substitution of this equation (3) one arrives at the following
relation which accounts for Poissons ratio effect [8]:
6 7$
sxx
Q
= 11
txz
Q16
Q16
Q66
%6 7
exx
.
gxz
(4)
Here Q11=C*
11 , Q16=C*
16 and Q66=C*
66 .
For layers stacked in the z-direction as shown in Figure 1 one can obtain, using the same
procedure and with appropriate stressstrain relations [8], the following relations among the
Qij and C*
ij constants: Q11=C*
11C*
16 C*
16 /C*
66 , Q16=0 and Q66=C*
44 . The relations for C*
ij in
terms of Cij are given in reference [8].
2.1.
The stiffness matrix is formulated by using the strain energy expressions for a beam given
by
U=12
U=12
vol
(5)
(6)
740
. .
where
K
G
G
[D]=G
G
G
k
A11
B11
B11
E11
A16
D16
D11
F11
B16
E16
E11
F11
H11
E16
G16
A16
D16
B16
E16
E16
G16
A66
D66
D66
F66
L
G
G
G.
G
G
l
hk
hx
g g
bk
hx
bk1
nl
Qij (1, z, z 2, z 3, z 4, z 5 ) dz
hk1
The layer configuration shown in Figure 2 is adopted for the tapered beams considered in
the present parametric study. Taper is considered for the thickness with the width of the
beam kept constant. Only symmetrically tapered beams of rectangular cross-section are
considered. Different tapered beams are obtained from a uniform beam by altering its
thickness along the length with its length, width and volume kept constant. For a tapered
beam defined by a function f(x) and for any particular taper parameter b, the half-thickness
hx at any distance x can be calculated by using the relation
hx=h1 {1bf(x)},
(7)
1
2
(8)
vol
2.3.
For the finite element formulation a two-node beam element with four degrees of freedom
[uj wj (1w/1x)j cxj ] per node is used. For this configuration the generalized displacements are
interpolated by using expressions of the form
2
(9)
741
where Nj are the Lagrange linear interpolation functions and zj (x) and jj (x) are Hermite
cubic interpolation functions. By using equation (9) the generalized strains can be expressed
as
{e0 }=[B]{de },
(10)
where [B] is the matrix of shape functions and their derivatives and {de } is the nodal
displacement vector. The element stiffness matrix can be obtained by substituting equation
(10) in equation (6) and the element mass matrix can be obtained by substituting equation
(9) in equation (8): [K]e=f0l [B]T[D][B] dx; [M]e=f0l [N]T[r][N] dx. Here [N] is the matrix of
shape functions and its derivatives.
2.4.
The natural frequencies are obtained by solving the eigenvalue problem
[K]{d}=v 2[M]{d},
(11)
where [K] and [M] are the global stiffness and the global mass matrices, respectively, d is
the corresponding eigenvector and v is the natural frequency.
For a small amount of structural damping, the steady state response of a beam subjected
to harmonic excitation is given by
[Kd ]{U}={F},
(12)
where [Kd ] is the dynamic stiffness matrix [Kd ]=[K](1+hi)V 2[M], in which {F} is the force
vector consisting of amplitudes of nodal forces, {U} is the displacement vector, V is the
frequency of excitation and h is the structural damping factor. The dynamic displacements
{U} obtained from equation (12) are then used to obtain dynamic stresses by using equations
(2), (4) and (9).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A number of examples have been considered. Unless mentioned otherwise, the following
AS4/3051-6 graphite/epoxy material properties are used: E1=14480 GPa, E2=965 GPa,
G23=345 GPa, G12=G13=414 GPa, n12=03, r=138923 kg/m3. The non-dimensional
parameters used in presenting results are the following: v=vL 2zr/E1 h 2 ; V*=(natural
frequency of a tapered beam)/(corresponding natural frequency of a uniform beam);
w*=(maximum dynamic displacement w of a uniform or tapered beam)/(maximum static
displacement w of a uniform beam); s*=(maximum dynamic normal stress sx of a uniform
or tapered beam)/(maximum static normal stress sx of a uniform beam); t*=(maximum
dynamic shear stress txz of a uniform or tapered beam)/(maximum static shear stress txz
of a uniform beam); wn=(maximum displacement w of a uniform beam)/(maximum
displacement w of a uniform orthotropic (0) beam); s1n=(maximum principal normal stress
s1 of a uniform beam)/(maximum principal stress s1 of a uniform orthotropic (0) beam);
s2n=(maximum principal normal stress s2 of a uniform beam)/(maximum principal stress
s1 of a uniform orthotropic (0) beam); t12n=(maximum shear stress in principal plane t12
of a uniform beam)/(maximum principal stress s1 of a uniform orthotropic (0) beam).
For Tables 13 the laminated plate strip (i.e., plies stacked in the z-direction as shown
in Figure 1) is considered. In Table 1 the natural frequencies of a simply supported
orthotropic (0) graphite/epoxy beam are compared with existing results. The comparison
is quite good. It is well known that the classical theory over predicts the natural frequencies
in case of thick beams.
. .
742
Mode
number
CLT
[3]
FSDT
[5]
HSDT
[6]
Present
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0051
0203
0457
0812
1269
0813
3250
7314
13002
20316
0051
0203
0454
0804
1262
0755
2548
4716
6960
9194
0051
0202
0453
0799
1238
0756
2554
4742
7032
9355
0051
0202
0454
0804
1252
0754
2555
4753
7052
9382
120
(L=762 mm)
15
(L=381 mm)
T 2
Comparison of non-dimensional natural frequencies (v ) of symmetrically laminated cross-ply
[0/90/90/0] and angle-ply [45/45/45/45] beams under various boundary conditions
[0/90/90/0]
ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV
HSDT [6]
Present
Boundary
conditions
SS
CC
CF
25023
45940
09241
24980
46440
09231
[45/45/45/45]
ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV
HSDT [6]
Present
08295
18472
02965
07966
17611
02849
T 3
Comparison of non-dimensional frequencies (v ) of a simply supported [45/45/45/45]
antisymmetric angle ply beam
Mode
number
HSDT
[6]
Present
1
2
3
4
5
08278
32334
70148
107449
119145
0797
3120
6791
11862
13030
T 4
Comparison of tip displacements of a tapered cantilever isotropic beam
D/d
2
5
Bending
Reference [9]
002729
004789
Present
Stretching
Reference [9]
002782
004856
023077E03
032609E03
Present
02310E03
03350E03
743
T 5
Comparison of non-dimensional dynamic displacements of a simply supported isotropic beam
of uniform thickness
xL/4
ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV
Reference [10]
Present
Mode
number
1
2
3
10000
1250
12350
xL/2
ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV
Reference [10]
Present
9747
1258
12608
14140
1746
13784
01191
17821
T 6
Effect of anisotropy on the maximum static response of a simply supported composite beam
of uniform thickness
Type beam
wn
s1n
s2n
=t12n =
R.F.
Orthotropic
[0/90/90/0]
[15/15/15/15]
[30/30/30/30]
[45/45/45/45]
[60/60/60/60]
[75/75/75/75]
[90/90/90/90]
1000
1679
1040
4024
15170
26070
28810
29030
10000
17410
07490
05873
04042
02157
00676
00000
00000
00000
00355
01546
03300
05184
06687
07373
00331
00332
01666
03034
03671
03365
02157
00363
100
263
606
2879
7889
15507
23239
27277
. .
744
T 7
Effect of anisotropy on the maximum dynamic response of a simply supported composite beam
of uniform thickness
Type of beam
wn
s1n
s2n
=t12n =
R.F.
Orthotropic
[0/90/90/0]
[15/15/15/15]
[30/30/30/30]
[45/45/45/45]
[60/60/60/60]
[75/75/75/75]
[90/90/90/90]
1000
1655
1048
4146
1563
2609
2874
2894
1000
1843
0896
0754
0510
0273
0086
0000
0000
00000
00382
01926
04059
06446
08291
09154
00493
00479
01915
03845
04581
04229
02721
00497
100
253
642
3676
9712
19381
28843
33885
T 8
Maximum dynamic response values of simply supported cross-ply and angle-ply beams of
uniform thickness
Type of
beam
v
(rad/s)
Res.
no.
Cross-ply
[0/90/90/0]
Angle-ply
[45/45/45/45]
s*
w*
3 571
4993
12 896
541
25 410
099
1
2
3
1 633
6 463
14 303
5104
449
065
t*
0
29920
299290
21020
210290
98530
985390
3023
2076
767
3292
219590
12110
08790
4040
02790
3896
1350
425
Superscripts over the numerical values in cross-ply cases denote the fiber direction in the layer.
T 9
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for linearly varying thickness variation: increasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3
V*
w*
Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075
09933
09629
08700
09971
09833
09401
09972
09846
09447
5218
6144
8938
609
738
1073
102
108
106
31
28
23
16
13
11
10
10
8
3446
4045
5973
1335
1592
2235
419
424
419
28
22
15
13
13
9
10
10
6
3564
4931
9244
2412
2984
4399
1018
1049
984
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
230
270
398
089
106
149
028
028
028
28
22
15
13
13
9
10
10
6
3564
4931
9244
2412
2984
4399
1018
1049
984
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
745
T 10
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for linear thickness variation: decreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3
V*
w*
Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075
09933
09629
08700
09971
09833
09401
09972
09846
09447
4719
4789
5591
543
563
657
108
124
160
31
34
37
46
49
49
52
52
52
3118
3144
3736
1193
1221
1369
438
502
647
34
37
46
46
49
52
52
52
55
3221
3842
5783
2148
2277
2693
1070
1208
1535
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
208
210
249
079
081
091
029
033
043
34
37
46
46
49
52
52
52
55
3221
3842
5783
2148
2277
2693
1070
1208
1535
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
T 11
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for linear thickness variation: decreasingincreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3
V*
w*
Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075
09393
08252
05914
09929
09630
08731
09969
09894
09768
5888
8426
19670
548
580
727
111
132
178
31
31
31
16
19
19
31
31
31
42.16
6598
16550
1223
1311
1652
447
519
656
31
31
31
43
19
37
31
31
31
2573
2277
2027
2416
3034
4817
1015
1049
1082
4
55
7
31
31
31
40
22
22
Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
281
440
1104
082
087
110
030
035
044
31
31
31
43
19
37
31
31
31
2573
2277
2027
2416
3034
4817
1015
1049
1082
4
55
7
31
31
31
40
22
22
T 12
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for linear thickness variation: increasingdecreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3
V*
w*
Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075
10405
10633
10279
09945
09667
08791
10003
09952
09719
4290
3825
3783
545
573
710
101
105
113
31
31
31
16
13
13
10
10
10
2676
2395
2681
1218
1299
1621
405
409
448
25
43
10
13
49
7
10
52
55
3439
4410
7384
2410
3019
4766
1057
1177
1451
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
178
160
179
081
087
108
027
027
030
25
43
10
13
49
7
10
52
55
3439
4410
7384
2410
3019
4766
1057
1177
1451
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. .
746
T 13
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for parabolic thickness variation: increasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3
V*
w*
Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075
09796
09236
07651
09944
09735
09038
09966
09803
09201
5482
6952
13350
621
803
1435
103
111
114
30
27
24
15
15
13
11
10
9
3625
4577
8470
1368
1710
2806
424
452
445
27
23
17
15
13
11
10
9
8
3414
4384
7673
2320
2743
3870
990
982
805
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
242
305
564
091
114
187
028
030
030
27
23
17
15
13
11
10
9
8
3414
4384
7673
2320
2743
3870
990
982
805
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T 14
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for parabolic thickness variation: decreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3
V*
w*
Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075
09796
09236
07651
09944
09735
09038
09966
09803
09201
4923
5323
7993
550
586
734
108
125
175
32
34
38
47
47
49
51
52
53
3254
3505
5066
1209
1247
1435
444
509
686
34
38
44
46
48
50
51
52
53
3063
3355
4592
2051
2002
1980
1037
1108
1239
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
217
234
338
081
083
096
030
034
046
34
38
44
46
48
50
51
52
53
3063
3355
4592
2051
2002
1980
1037
1108
1239
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
T 15
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for parabolic thickness variation: decreasingincreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3
V*
w*
Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075
09413
08308
05951
09848
09368
07898
09956
09780
09207
5888
8483
20840
570
655
1005
111
136
211
31
31
31
17
18
19
31
31
31
3910
5521
12030
1292
1499
2279
437
503
682
30
30
30
17
19
22
30
30
30
2543
2292
2137
2327
2764
4032
1057
1167
1388
5
9
14
30
30
30
21
21
22
Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
261
368
802
086
100
152
029
034
045
30
30
30
17
19
22
30
30
30
2543
2292
2137
2327
2764
4032
1057
1167
1388
5
9
14
30
30
30
21
21
22
747
T 16
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for parabolic thickness variation: increasingdecreasing type
no.
V*
w*
Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075
10410
10711
10659
10009
09820
09159
09982
09868
09514
4297
3825
3629
529
538
607
099
101
107
31
31
31
15
14
13
11
10
9
2773
2349
2213
1172
1180
1401
397
397
430
2
3
30
30
7
14
11
6
9
8
5
3564
4806
8452
2503
3283
5496
1100
1297
1759
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*
t*
185
157
148
078
079
093
026
026
029
30
29
7
14
11
6
9
8
5
3564
4806
8452
2503
3283
5496
1100
1297
1759
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
748
. .
constant is taken as 002. For tapered beams two types of profiles, linear and parabolic, are
considered for thickness variation. The different taper profiles considered are shown in
Figure 3.
The effect of anisotropy on the response, static and harmonic, is shown in Tables 6 and 7.
The maximum harmonic response values of simply supported cross-ply and angle-ply beams
of uniform thickness are shown in Table 8. Maximum response values along with the
Figure 4. The distribution of displacements and stresses for a SS (45/45/45/45) beam; increasing typelinear,
w, hx=0; W, hx=025; Q, hx=050; R, hx=075.
749
Figure 5. The distribution of stresses for a SS (45/45/45/45) beam; increasing typelinear. Key as Figure 4.
750
. .
following properties was used: E1=30106 psi, E2=075106 psi, G12=0375106 psi,
n12=025. Only the resonant response values of beam at the lowest natural frequency are
presented in Table 7. The stresses presented are those in the principal material directions
of the first layer. A similar trend is observed in both the static and dynamic cases. The laminae
arrangement is as shown in Figure 2. In the case of an angle-ply beam, as the fibre orientation
angle, u to the x-axis increases, the normal stress in the fibre direction decreases and that
in the direction perpendicular to the fibre increases. The shear stress, t12n , increases with the
751
increase in u up to u=45 and then decreases. The normal stress in the fibre direction of a
cross-ply beam is greater than that in all the other types of beams considered. In contrast,
the shear stress t12n in a cross-ply beam is less than that obtained for the angle-ply beams.
In the case of an angle-ply beam the beam becomes flexible as the inclination of fibre to the
x-axis increases. It can be seen that the relative factor of safety (with respect to an orthotropic
(0)beam) is a minimum in case of an orthotropic (0) beam. In the case of an angle-ply beam,
the relative factor of safety increases with increase in fibre orientation angle and is very
great compared to that of the orthotropic (0) beam. The relative factor of safety for any
lamination scheme is calculated by dividing the value obtained upon substitution of its
principal stresses in the TsaiHill failure criterion by the value obtained upon substitution
of the principal stresses of the orthotropic (0) beam. It can be seen that, the orthotropic
(0) beam is better insofar as uniaxial bending is considered.
3.1.2. Effect of taper profile
It is shown in Tables 916 that, for increasing and decreasing thickness variations, the
maximum dynamic displacement and the maximum dynamic normal stress obtained with
a parabolic profile are greater than those obtained with linear profile, whereas the maximum
shear stress obtained with parabolic profile is less. In the case of a decreasingincreasing
thickness variation, the maximum dynamic displacements obtained with both profiles are
the same, whereas the stresses obtained with a linear variation are greater due to the presence
752
. .
of the stress concentration effect as there is a sudden change in cross-section. The stress
concentration effect becomes predominant for a taper parameter, bq05. In the case of
decreasingincreasing thickness variation the maximum displacement and the maximum
normal stress obtained with both profiles are more or less the same, but the maximum shear
stress obtained with a parabolic variation is greater. Among all the variations considered,
insofar as the first resonance is concerned, the decreasing-increasing thickness variation gives
higher maximum dynamic displacement and higher maximum dynamic normal stress
753
754
. .
developed at the smallest cross-section. Usually the maximum dynamic shear stress
developed increases with increase in the taper parameter.
4. CONCLUSIONS
A number of results have been presented to show the effect of taper profile, taper
parameter and material anisotropy on the harmonic response of laminated composite
755
beams. The validity of the present results has been established by comparing results with
existing results in the literature. From the results presented it can be concluded that, insofar
as uniaxial bending is considered, the orthotropic (0) beam is better than all the other types
of beams considered. It can also be seen that, among all thickness variations considered the
increasingdecreasing thickness variation with taper parameter equal to 05 would be better
for simply supported end conditions.
REFERENCES
1. R. K. K and S. R 1989 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal 27,
935946. Recent advances in analysis of laminated beams and plates, part II: vibrations and wave
propagation.
2. A. K. M and D. F. A 1975 Journal of Sound and Vibration 41, 433449. An analytic
means of determining the flexural and torsional resonant frequencies of generally orthotropic
beams.
3. J. R. V and R. L. S 1986 Behaviour of Structures Composed of Composite
Materials: Martinus Nijhoff. See pp. 139144.
4. A. T. C and T. Y. Y 1985 Journal of Composite Materials 19, 459475. Static and dynamic
formulation of symmetrically laminated beam finite element for microcomputer.
5. K. C, K. K and S. R 1990 Composite Structures 14, 269279.
Free vibration of composite beams including rotary inertia and shear deformation.
756
. .
1. Linearincreasing:
f(x)=1x/L.
2. Lineardecreasing:
f(x)=x/L.
3. Linearincreasingdecreasing:
f(x)=
2x/L
2(1x/L)
for 0ExEL/2,
.
for L/2ExEL.
4. Lineardecreasingincreasing:
f(x)=
12x/L
(12x/L)
for 0ExEL/2,
.
for L/2ExEL
5. Parabolicincreasing:
f(x)=1(x/L)2.
6. Parabolicdecreasing:
f(x)=1(1x/L)2.
7. Parabolicdecreasingincreasing:
f(x)=1((2x/L)1)2.
8. Parabolicincreasingdecreasing:
f(x)=(12x/L)2.