Assessment of mixed and displacement-based models for static analysis

of composite beams of different cross-sections

R.M. Aguiar, F. Moleiro

, C.M. Mota Soares

Department of Mechanical Engineering, IDMEC/IST Instituto Superior Tcnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Available online 27 August 2011
Keywords:
Laminated composite beams
Finite element model
Equivalent single layer theories
Displacement-based formulation
Mixed formulation
Least-squares formulation
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a numerical assessment of different nite element models (FEM) for the static anal-
ysis of laminated composite beams of various cross-sections, considering equivalent single layer theories
(Classical Lamination Theory CLT, First-order Shear Deformation Theory FSDT and Higher-order Shear
Deformation Theories HSDT). New mixed least-squares FEM are developed for all theories and con-
fronted with displacement-based weak form, mixed weak form and mixed weighted residual form
FEM, which are derived for comparison purposes. The governing equations consistent with the mixed for-
mulations, derived from the HellingerReissner variation principle, are also presented. A method of trans-
forming the actual geometrical beam cross-section into an equivalent single layer, through
transformation matrices and the parallel axis theorem, existing in the literature for the CLT is imple-
mented and extended to the FSDT and HSDT. Validation and assessment of the different FEM involved
the implementation of analytical solutions and comparison with numerical and analytical results avail-
able in the literature, from which conclusions in terms of accuracy and computational effort are drawn.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Composite structures, and beams in particular, play an increas-
ingly signicant role inthe aeronautical, mechanical and civil indus-
tries. The adaptation of composite material structures to these
demanding industries in an efcient manner requires the develop-
ment of numerical models, suchas nite element models (FEM), sui-
ted to their design. The main available theories for laminated
composite structures, which these numerical models are based
upon, are axiomatic approaches, which rely on certain assumptions
concerning the thickness z-expansion for the unknown variables.
These models can be divided according to their variable description,
either as equivalent single layer (ESL) models, in which case the
independent variables are introduced for the entire structure, or as
layerwise models, in which each layer is treated as an independent
structure. This paper only considers ESL models, which are known
to provide a sufciently accurate description of the global response
of thin to moderately thick laminates [1], even though, as the lami-
nate becomes thicker the layerwise models become more suitable.
These models can be further divided into displacement or mixed
formulations, in view of the chosen unknown variables.
ESL nite element models were extended to laminated compos-
ite structures, such as beams, from FEM originally developed for
one-layered isotropic structures, whether based on the Classical
Lamination Theory (CLT), First-order Shear Deformation Theory
(FSDT) or on further improvements by Higher-order Shear Defor-
mation Theories (HSDT). Typically, FEM are based on weak forms,
and for the most part, using displacement formulations. The over-
whelming success of displacement-based weak form FEM is mostly
due to the underlying principle of virtual displacements, which can
be associated to the minimization problem of a quadratic func-
tional (the principle of minimum total potential energy), leading
to symmetric and positive denite algebraic problems. In contrast,
mixed weak form FEM can be associated to saddle-point (station-
ary) optimization problems, leading to indenite algebraic prob-
lems. Also, the approximation spaces for the different set of
variables cannot be chosen independently [2]. The alternative to
weak form FEM, also named Ritz FEM in literature, is weighted
residual FEM. Among weighted residual methods, the least-squares
formulation is quite unique in its basic idea of minimizing the error
introduced in the approximation of the governing equations. In
fact, the real benet of the least-squares variational principle along
with a mixed formulation is that it leads to a variational uncon-
strained minimization problem, where the mixed nite element
approximation spaces can be chosen independently, leading to
symmetric and positive denite algebraic problems. Mixed least-
squares models are also shown to be insensitive to shear locking
[3,4], which refers to the computational difculties encountered
when thin structures are modelled.
The previous discussion raises attention to the need of a
comprehensive numerical assessment of the different nite element
formulations, as seen to some extent in [5,6] for plates, but also in
particular for laminated composite beams, within the framework
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.08.028

Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 21 8417455; fax: +351 21 8417915.

E-mail address: lipa.moleiro@dem.ist.utl.pt (F. Moleiro).
Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Composite Structures
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ compst r uct
of ESL theories, to begin with. In response to this need, laminated
beams of various cross-sections are statically analyzed using differ-
ent FEMaccording to the ESL theory, more specically, the CLT, FSDT
and HSDT. New mixed least-squares FEM are developed for all the-
ories and confronted with displacement-based weak form, mixed
weak form and mixed weighted residual form FEM, which are de-
rived for comparison purposes. The governing equations consistent
with each formulation are derived and the method of transforming
the actual geometrical beam cross-section into an equivalent layer
described in [7] for the CLT is adopted and extended to the FSDT
and HSDT. In order to validate and assess the different FEM, analyt-
ical solutions were implemented, as well as compared to numerical
and analytical results available in literature, including: [8] which
used a state-space concept in conjunction with the Jordan canonical
form to obtain exact solutions for angle-ply rectangular beams for
various ESL theories (disregarding y-direction dependence in the
equations of motion); [9] which presented a beam theory for thin-
walled open and closed section angle-ply composite beams neglect-
ing the effects of restrained warping and transverse shear deforma-
tion and developed expressions for the stiffness matrix; [10] which
developed an analytical model applicable to the exural, torsional
and exuraltorsional behaviour of I-section composite beams
using the CLT, implementing a displacement-based FEM to obtain
numerical results for plane stress and strain state conditions; [11]
whichextends the analytical model developedin[10] byincorporat-
ing (rst-order) transverse shear deformation; [12] which extends
the analytical model in [10] to closed sections; and also [13] which
derives ananalytical technique to obtainthe stiffness matrix consid-
ering all deformation effects and their couplings and adopts a nite
element approximation for the transverse shear deformation to
avoid the need of reduced integration techniques in order to over-
come shear locking. I-section, C-section and Box-section beams are
analyzed to test the developed FEM. Furthermore, various FEM der-
ivations available in literature such as in [3,4,14,15] were taken
advantage of, for similar or analogous cases.
2. Equivalent single layer theories
2.1. Displacement eld
For generality purposes, the displacement eld in the beam may
be assumed to be:
ux; z u
0
x z c
0
dw
0
x
dx
c
1
/
x
x
_ _
c
2
z
2
w
x
x
c
3
z
3
k
x
x
wx; z w
0
x; zc
0
c
1

1
where u and w are the displacements along the x and z coordinates,
respectively; u
0
and w
0
denote the displacement components in the
mid-plane (i.e. z = 0); and /
x
, w
x
and k
x
are functions of x. The dis-
placement eld in Eq. (1) contains the displacement eld of the
CLT (or EulerBernoulli beam theory), FSDT (or Timoshenko beam
theory), Second-order Shear Deformation Theory SSDT and
Third-order Shear Deformation Theory TSDT, obtained by substi-
tuting constants c
0
through c
3
as indicated in Table 1.
2.2. Strain eld
The strains associated with the displacement eld in Eq. (1), un-
der the assumption of innitesimal deformations, are given by Eqs.
(2) and (3).
e
xx
e
0
xx
z e
1
xx
z
2
e
2
xx
z
3
e
3
xx
c
xz
c
0
xz
z c
1
xz
z
2
c
2
xz
2
e
0
xx

du
0
dx
; e
1
xx
c
0
d
2
w
0
dx
2
c
1
d/
x
dx
; e
2
xx
c
2
dw
x
dx
; e
3
xx
c
3
dk
x
dx
c
0
xz
c
1
dw
0
dx
c
1
/
x
; c
1
xz
2c
2
w
x
; c
2
xz
3c
3
k
x
3
3. Constitutive equations
The constitutive equations of an orthotropic layer are normally
referred to the material coordinate system (x
1
, x
2
, x
3
), where the x
1
-
axis is parallel to the bre, the x
2
-axis is normal to the bre within
the lamina and the x
3
-axis is normal to the plane of the lamina.
However, in a composite laminate, several layers are considered
together and thus a unique problem coordinate system (x, y, z) is
established, where all of the layers constitutive equations are re-
ferred to, designated as the problem coordinate system. To this
end, a coordinate transformation needs to be considered between
the material and the problem coordinate system for each layer
[1]. Additionally in the case of a general beam section, the coordi-
nate transformation of each lamina, i, (ange/web) consists of two
in-plane rotations. A rst in-plane rotation, where the z
0
-axis is ori-
ented at an angle h
i
from the z-axis, followed by a second in-plane
rotation, where the x
1
-axis is oriented at an angle b
i
from the x-
axis, as seen in Fig. 1.
The transformed lamina material stiffness coefcients, in the
problem coordinate system can be written in matrix form as [7]:
C T
r
b
z
T
r
h
x
C
m
T
e
h
x
T
e
b
z
4
where [T
r
] and [T
e
] are the stress and strain transformation matri-
ces, respectively, and x and z indicate the axis about which the rota-
tions occur. The stress transformations are given in Appendix A and
a detailed explanation of a coordinate transformation consisting of
the second in-plane rotation about the z-axis and the stress trans-
formations can be found in [1].
As in most ESL theories for composite laminates, it is postulated
that the transverse normal strain is zero, e
zz
= 0, which amounts to
neglecting the transverse normal stress r
zz
, even though it is not
identically zero. As a result, the constitutive equations used in
the framework of ESL theories are somewhat modied. Neverthe-
less, the material and the problem coordinate systems are still
the same, as well as the coordinate transformation between them.
Actually, in most ESL theories, a plane stress state can be perceived
to some extent, in agreement with very thin to moderately thick
laminates [1,3]. Furthermore, for beam structures, as dened by
[16], strains are ignored in the y-direction and so, although r
yy
,
r
yz
and r
xy
are not identically zero, they will not appear in the vir-
tual work statement and hence in the equations of motion. Conse-
quently, it amounts to neglecting these stresses. Hence, the stress
strain relation for each orthotropic layer in the problem coordinate
system appearing in the governing equations reduces to:
r
xx
r
xz
_ _

Q
11
Q
15
Q
15
Q
55
_ _
e
xx
c
xz
_ _
5
A beam whose anges and webs are at h = 0 or h = 90 on the other
hand, (as in I-section, C-section and Box-section beams, henceforth
named common beams), presents decoupled stresses r
xx
and r
xz
:
Table 1
Values of constants c
0
through c
3
for each ESL theory.
ESL theory c
0
c
1
c
2
c
3
CLT 1 0 0 0
FSDT 0 1 0 0
SSDT 0 1 1 0
TSDT 0 1 1 1
602 R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616
r
xx
Q
11
e
xx
r
xz
Q
55
c
xz
6
where Q
11
and Q
55
for cases h = 0 and h = 90 are as follows:
h 0

: Q
11
cosb
4
Q
11
2cosb
2
sinb
2
Q
12
sinb
4
Q
22
4sinb
2
cosb
2
Q
66
Q
55
sinb
2
Q
44
cosb
2
Q
55
h 90

: Q
11
cosb
4
Q
11
4sinb
2
cosb
2
Q
55
Q
55
sinb
2
Q
44
cosb
2
Q
66
7
For further details on the lamina material stiffness coefcients Q
ij
see [1].
4. Equivalent single layer transformation
4.1. Parallel axis transformation
In order to obtain material stiffness matrices for laminated
composite beams with cross-sections other than rectangular, the
actual geometrical beam cross-section needs to be transformed
into an equivalent layer. Layers and stacking sequences between
anges and webs are considered to be perfectly independent
among each other, effectively treating the cross section as an
assembly of sets of laminates. As an assembly of sets of laminates,
oriented on different locations, it becomes necessary to translate
material stiffness matrices to a common reference axis in order
to obtain the material stiffness matrix of the entire section. The
Parallel Axis Theorem is used for this purpose [7]. Furthermore,
considering that the axial-bending coupling terms disappear when
reported to the neutral axis [17], instead of referring distances to
the mid-surface as typically done for rectangular cross-sections,
the location of the neutral axis is calculated and the material stiff-
ness matrices are reported to this latter.
Consider, for the sake of example, the TSDT (other theories are a
particularization of this case) and a strain eld in the form of Eq.
(2). Integrating the stresses (for common beams) of each ply
through the laminate thickness allows to obtain: N
xx
, M
xx
, Q
x
which
are the in-plane force resultant, in-plane moment resultant and the
transverse force resultant respectively; L
xx
, P
xx
which are higher or-
der in-plane stress resultants, and R
x
, S
x
which are higher order
shear stress resultants.
N
xx
M
xx
L
xx
P
xx
_

_
_

A
11
B
11
D
11
E
11
B
11
D
11
E
11
F
11
D
11
E
11
F
11
G
11
E
11
F
11
G
11
H
11
_

_
_

_
e
0
xx
e
1
xx
e
2
xx
e
3
xx
_

_
_

_
;
Q
x
R
x
S
x
_
_
_
_
_
_

A
55
B
55
D
55
B
55
D
55
E
55
D
55
E
55
F
55
_
_
_
_
c
0
xz
c
1
xz
c
2
xz
_
_
_
_
_
_
8
The laminate material stiffnesses are given by:
A
jj
; B
jj
; D
jj
; E
jj
; F
jj
; G
jj
; H
jj

N
k1
_
z
k1
z
k
Q
k
jj
1; z; z
2
; z
3
; z
4
; z
5
; z
6

dz 9
The resultants in Eq. (8) should, however, preserve the same values
when the material stiffnesses are translated to a new reference [18].
Considering a distance d between the old reference axis and a new
axis as shown in Fig. 2, then the material stiffness coefcients in the
new axis will be given, in the exact same matrix form as in Eq. (8),
except the new material stiffness coefcients will be as follows (see
Appendix B for further details):
A
0
ii
A
ii
B
0
ii
B
ii
dA
ii
D
0
ii
D
ii
2dB
ii
d
2
A
ii
E
0
ii
E
ii
3dD
ii
3d
2
B
ii
d
3
A
ii
F
0
ii
F
ii
4dE
ii
6d
2
D
ii
4d
3
B
ii
d
4
A
ii
G
0
jj
G
jj
5dF
jj
10d
2
E
jj
10d
3
D
jj
5d
4
B
jj
d
5
A
jj
H
0
jj
H
jj
6dG
jj
15d
2
F
jj
20d
3
E
jj
15d
4
D
jj
6d
5
B
jj
d
6
A
jj
; for i 1; 5 and j 1
10
4.2. Neutral axis determination
The material stiffnesses are reported to the neutral axis, in order
to eliminate the axial-bending coupling terms, as mentioned previ-
ously. The neutral axis of a general cross-section is determined by
Eq. (11), where, d
NA
is the distance between the neutral axis and
the sections mid-plane, d
j
MP
is the distance between the mid-plane
of laminate j and the mid-plane of the entire section and A
j
11
; B
j
11
are the stiffness coefcients of laminate j:
d
NA

n
j1
A
j
11
d
j
MP
B
j
11
_ _

n
j1
A
j
11
11
Fig. 1. Coordinate transformation: rst in-plane rotation (left) [7]; second in-plane rotation (right) [3].
Fig. 2. Relation between new and old reference axis.
R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616 603
4.3. Inclined laminate material stiffnesses
Prior to translating material stiffnesses to the neutral axis,
equations have to be determined for inclined laminates consider-
ing a local reference axis, such as the mid height in Fig. 3. Applying
the parallel axis theorem and integrating along the length of the
laminate, in the case of the TSDT leads to the following trans-
formed laminate material stiffness coefcients:
A
ii
b
w
A
00
ii
B
ii
b
w
B
00
ii
D
ii
b
w
D
00
ii

b
3
w
12
sin
2
hA
00
ii
E
ii
b
w
E
00
ii

b
3
w
4
sin
2
hB
00
ii
F
ii
b
w
F
00
ii

b
3
w
2
sin
2
hD
00
ii

b
5
w
80
sin
4
hA
00
ii
G
jj
b
w
G
00
jj

5
6
b
3
w
sin
2
hE
00
jj

b
5
w
16
sin
4
hB
00
jj
H
jj
b
w
H
00
jj

5
4
b
3
w
sin
2
hF
00
jj

3
16
b
5
w
sin
4
hD
00
jj

b
7
w
448
sin
6
hA
00
jj
; for i 1; 5 and j 1
12
This is exemplied for D
ii
in Appendix C.
5. Governing equations
5.1. Principle of virtual displacements
The principle of virtual displacements is used to derive the gov-
erning equations consistent with the displacement formulations,
as follows [8]:
0
_
v
r
xx
de
xx
r
xz
dc
xz
dAdx
_
L
0
qxdw
0
dx 13
where q(x) is the distributed transverse load per unit length; r
xx
and
r
xz
are substituted from Eq. (6); and e
xx
and c
xz
are substituted from
Eqs. (2) and (3), obtaining:
du
0
:
dN
xx
dx
0
dw
0
:
dQ
x
dx
c
1

d
2
M
xx
dx
2
c
0
q 0
d/
x
: c
1
dM
xx
dx
c
1
Q
x
0
dw
x
: c
2
dL
xx
dx
2c
2
R
x
0
dk
x
: c
3
dP
xx
dx
3c
3
S
x
0
14
These equations (i.e. equilibrium equations) can be expressed in
terms of displacements by substituting for the resultants in Eq.
(8) and considering the strain eld in Eqs. (2) and (3), resulting in
the following equations:
du
0
: A
11
d
2
u
0
dx
2
B
11
c
0
d
3
w
0
dx
3
c
1
d
2
/
x
dx
2
_ _
D
11
c
2
d
2
w
x
dx
2
E
11
c
3
d
2
k
x
dx
2
0
dw
0
: c
1
A
55
d/
x
dx

d
2
w
0
dx
2
_ _
c
1
2B
55
dw
x
dx
c
2
3D
55
dk
x
dx
c
3
_ _
c
0
B
11
d
3
u
0
dx
3
_
D
11
c
0
d
4
w
0
dx
4
c
1
d
3
/
x
dx
3
_ _
E
11
c
2
d
3
w
x
dx
3
F
11
c
3
d
3
k
x
dx
3
_
q 0
d/
x
: c
1
B
11
d
2
u
0
dx
2
D
11
c
0
d
3
w
0
dx
3
c
1
d
2
/
x
dx
2
_ _
E
11
d
2
w
x
dx
2
c
2
F
11
d
2
k
x
dx
2
c
3
_ _
c
1
A
55
/
x

@w
0
@x
_ _
c
1
2B
55
w
x
c
2
3D
55
k
x
c
3
_ _
0
dw
x
: c
2
D
11
d
2
u
0
dx
2
E
11
c
0
d
3
w
0
dx
3
c
1
d
2
/
x
dx
2
_ _
F
11
d
2
w
x
dx
2
G
11
d
2
k
x
dx
2
_ _
2c
2
B
55
/
x

dw
0
dx
_ _
c
1
2D
55
w
x
c
2
3E
55
k
x
c
3
_ _
0
dk
x
: c
3
E
11
d
2
u
0
dx
2
F
11
c
0
d
3
w
0
@x
3
c
1
d
2
/
x
dx
2
_ _
G
11
d
2
w
x
dx
2
c
2
H
11
d
2
k
x
dx
2
c
3
_ _
3c
3
D
55
/
x

dw
0
dx
_ _
c
1
2E
55
w
x
c
2
3F
55
k
x
c
3
_ _
0
15
5.2. HellingerReissner variational principle
In the present work the HellingerReissner principle [19] is
used to derive the governing equations consistent with the mixed
formulations for the CLT and the FSDT. Therefore, constants c
2
and
c
3
are eliminated fromEq. (3) prior to applying the variational prin-
ciple, resulting in the following strain eld:
e
xx

du
0
dx
z c
0
d
2
w
0
dx
2
c
1
d/
x
dx
_ _
; c
xz
c
1
dw
0
dx
c
1
/
x
16
Considering the bending problem of a beam of length L, subjected to
a distributed force q(x), the HellingerReissner principle will be gi-
ven by [20]:
V
R

_
L
0
_
A
r
xx
e
xx
r
xz
k
xz
U

0
r
xx
; r
xz

_
dA
_ _
dx
_
L
0
q w dx
17
Substituting the strain eld in Eq. (16) and the following relations
(B
11
= 0, since distances are reported to the neutral axis):
N
xx
; M
xx

_
h=2
h=2
r
xx
1; z dz; Q
x
K
S
_
h=2
h=2
r
xz
dz;
U

0
r
xx
; r
xz

r
2
xx
2Q
11

r
2
xx
2Q
55
r
xx

M
xx
z
D
11

du
0
dx
_ _
Q
11
; r
xz

Q
x
K
S
A
55
Q
55
18
Then, taking variations and equating to zero, allows to obtain the
consistent governing equations, (which consists of equilibrium
equations together with constitutive equations): Fig. 3. Innitesimal section of laminate about mid-height [7].
604 R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616
du
0
:
dN
XX
dx
0
dw
0
:
dQ
X
dx
c
1

d
2
M
XX
dx
2
c
0
q 0
d/
x
: c
1
Q
x
c
1
dM
xx
dx
0
dN
xx
:
du
0
dx

N
xx
A
11
0
dM
xx
:
d
2
w
0
dx
2
c
0

d/
x
dx
c
1

M
xx
D
11
0
dQ
x
:
dw
0
dx
c
1
/
x
c
1

Q
x
K
S
A
55
0
19
5.3. ESL theory particularization
In order to obtain the governing equations associated to each
ESL theory, a particular set of values indicated in Table 1 is replaced
for c
0
, c
1
, c
2
and c
3
. The consistent boundary conditions for simply
supported (S), clamped (C) and free (F) support type conditions at a
given point, x = x
0
, for each theory, is presented in Table 2.
In the case of the FSDT theory a shear correction factor K
S
is
introduced in the constitutive equations given by Eq. (8) (to correct
the constant transverse shear stress predicted by the FSDT), in the
form:
Q
x
K
S
A
55
k
0
xz
20
6. Finite element models
6.1. Displacement-based weak form
In order to obtain the governing equations consistent with the
displacement-based weak form models, the particular set of
constants, c
0
through c
3
, corresponding to each theory (available in
Table 1) should be substituted into Eq. (15). The weak-form is then
obtainedby rst multiplying the resulting governing equations with
weighted functions, integrating over the discretized domain of the
problem and then integrating by parts to weaken differentiability
of the independent variables. The FEMare presented in Appendix D.
6.1.1. TSDT, SSDT
After integrating by parts, the independent variables appear dif-
ferentiated only once with respect to x. The FEM is then obtained
by substituting Lagrange interpolations [15] into the weak form,
for the variables {u
0
, w
0
, /
x
, w
x
, k
x
} in the case of TSDT, and
{u
0
, w
0
, /
x
, w
x
} in the case of SSDT.
6.1.2. FSDT
The fact that distances are reported to the neutral axis, implying
B
11
= 0, allows to obtain the following weighted integral statement
(prior to integrating by parts):
_
l
0
K
S
A
55
d
2
w
0
dx
2

d/
x
dx
_ _
q
_ _
dw
0
dx 0
_
l
0
D
11
d
2
/
x
dx
2
K
S
A
55
dw
0
dx
/
x
_ _
_ _
d/
x
dx 0
21
It may be observed that Eq. (21) are in the same form as exemplied
in [14,15] for an isotropic Timoshenko beam. For this reason, a con-
sistent interpolation procedure based on [14] is implemented in or-
der to avoid shear locking.
6.1.3. CLT
In this case, since B
11
= 0 (distances are reported to the neutral
axis), the resulting weighted integral statement becomes decou-
pled (and hence, it may be treated independently). Considering
only the weighted expression below (useful for comparison
purposes),
_
l
0
D
11
d
4
w
0
dx
4
q
_ _
dw
0
dx 0 22
It may be observed that Eq. (22) is in the same form as exempli-
ed in [15] for an isotropic EulerBernoulli beam (only multiplied
by different constants), and may therefore, be manipulated in the
same fashion to obtain the corresponding FEM.
6.2. Mixed weak form
6.2.1. CLT
The governing differential equations correspond to Eq. (19)
after replacing for the correct constants in Table 1, resulting in:
dN
XX
dx
0;
d
2
M
XX
dx
2
q
d
2
w
0
dx
2

M
xx
D
11
0;
du
0
dx

N
xx
A
11
0
23
The mixed weak form FEM is derived by rst multiplying the
governing equations with weighted functions, integrating over
the discretized domain of the problem and then integrating by
parts to weaken differentiability of M
xx
and w
0
. Lagrange interpola-
tions [15] are then admissible for all the variables {u
0
, w
0
, N
xx
, M
xx
}
as they will be differentiated only once with respect to x. The FEM
is presented in Appendix E.
6.3. Mixed weighted residual form
6.3.1. FSDT
Again, the governing differential equations correspond to Eq.
(19) after replacing for the correct constants in Table 1. The mixed
weighted residual form FEM is derived by simply multiplying the
governing equations with weighted functions and then integrating
over the discretized domain of the problem. In this case, the inde-
pendent variables appear differentiated only once with respect to
x. The Galerkin weighted residual approach is applied, in which
the weighted function is chosen to be equal to the approximation
function. Lagrange interpolations [15] are then used as well for
all variables {u
0
, w
0
, /
x
, N
xx
, M
xx
, Q
x
}. The FEM is presented in Appen-
dix F.
6.3.2. CLT
The FEM is formulated by substituting the correct constants in
Table 1 into Eq. (19), just as in subSection 6.2, however, the result-
ing Eq. (23) are then intentionally transformed into an equivalent
rst-order system to make it more comparable to the least-squares
model ahead. The transformation implies introducing additional
independent variables, which can be argued to be benecial, as
the auxiliary variables may represent physically meaningful vari-
ables. Furthermore, the transformation reduces the higher regular-
ity requirements that are common to all weighted residual FEM
[4]:
Table 2
Type of support and respective boundary conditions.
Type of support Boundary conditions
(S) w
0
= N
xx
= M
xx
= c
2
L
xx
= c
3
P
xx
= 0
(C) u
0
= w
0
= dw
0
/dx = c
1
/
x
= c
2
w
x
= c
3
k
x
= 0
(F) N
xx
= M
xx
= c
0
dM
xx
/dx = c
1
Q
x
= c
2
L
xx
= c
2
P
xx
= 0
R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616 605
dN
xx
dx
0; Q
x

dM
xx
dx
0;
dQ
x
dx
q 0
M
xx
D
11

dh
dx
0; h
dw
0
dx
0;
du
0
dx

N
xx
A
11
0
24
The Galerkin weighted residual method is implemented (just as
for the FSDT), considering Lagrange interpolations for the variables
{u
0
, w
0
, h, N
xx
, M
xx
, Q
x
}. Again, the FEM is presented in Appendix F.
6.4. Mixed least-squares form
The development of the mixed least-squares FEM for each ESL
theory is analogous to the TSDT case, which is shown herein. For
this reason, only the differentiating points for the SSDT, FSDT and
CLT will be described.
6.4.1. TSDT
The governing equations (for the chosen mixed formulation)
written in terms of independent variables only, consists of equilib-
rium equations in Eq. (14) and constitutive equations in Eq. (8),
after substituting Eq. (3). The equations are particularized for the
TSDT by replacing for the correct constants in Table 1. The resulting
governing equations appearing within least-squares functional in
Eq. (25), are a rst-order system and do not require further trans-
formation to reduce higher regularity requirements (as discussed
in Section 6.3).
In view of the TSDT and the chosen mixed formulation, the
least-squares functional is derived from the sum of the squared
residuals of each governing equation as follows:
J
1
2
_
l
0
dN
xx
dx
_ _
2

dQ
x
dx
q
_ _
2

dM
xx
dx
Q
x
_ _
2

dL
xx
dx
2R
x
_ _
2
_

dP
xx
dx
3S
x
_ _
2
N
xx
A
11
du
0
dx
B
11
d/
x
dx
D
11
dw
x
dx
E
11
dk
x
dx
_ _
2
M
xx
B
11
du
0
dx
D
11
d/
x
dx
E
11
dw
x
dx
F
11
dk
x
dx
_ _
2
L
xx
D
11
du
0
dx
E
11
d/
x
dx
F
11
dw
x
dx
G
11
dk
x
dx
_ _
2
P
xx
E
11
du
0
dx
F
11
d/
x
dx
G
11
dw
x
dx
H
11
dk
x
dx
_ _
2
Q
x
A
55
dw
0
dx
/
x
_ _
2B
55
w
x
3D
55
k
x
_ _
2
R
x
B
55
d
@w
0
dx
/
x
_ _
2D
55
w
x
3E
55
k
x
_ _
2
S
x
D
55
dw
0
dx
/
x
_ _
2E
55
w
x
3F
55
k
x
_ _
2
_
dx 25
Then, taking variations and equating to zero, allows to obtain 12
linearly independent equations since the variable variations are
arbitrary and independent. The independent variables and their
variations are then substituted using Lagrange interpolations [15]
for {u
0
, w
0
, /
x
, N
xx
, M
xx
, L
xx
, Q
x
, R
x
, w
x
, P
xx
, S
x
, k
x
}. The resulting FEM,
which is presented in Appendix G, yields a symmetric positive def-
inite system of linear equations. The approach utilized here to ob-
tain the FEM, is explained in detail in [3,4] for the case of
multilayered composite plates.
6.4.2. SSDT, FSDT, CLT
The mixed least-squares FEM for the SSDT, FSDT and CLT are
developed analogously to the TSDT case explained previously, how-
ever the governing equations are obtained by replacing for different
constants, according to Table 1. The independent variables and their
variations are substituted using Lagrangea interpolations [15] for
{u
0
, w
0
, /
x
, N
xx
, M
xx
, L
xx
, Q
x
, R
x
, w
x
} in the case of SSDT, {u
0
, w
0
, /
x
, N
xx
,
M
xx
} in the case of FSDT and {u
0
, w
0
, h, N
xx
, M
xx
} in the case of CLT.
The resulting FEM are also presented in Appendix G.
7. Numerical applications
In the following, a number of numerical examples are pre-
sented, involving composite beams with various cross-sections,
analyzed using the proposed FEM for each theory (CLT, FSDT, SSDT
and TSDT). The results obtained are compared with analytical and/
or numerical results available in literature for most cases. In all
examples, the following acronyms are used in the interest of
brevity:
DBW Displacement-based weak form FEM
MW Mixed weak form FEM
MWR Mixed weighted residual form FEM
MLS Mixed least-squares FEM
ANA Analytical solution implemented [21]
p Order of the interpolation functions used
n Number of nite elements used
dof Total degrees of freedom (i.e. dimension of the model)
7.1. Simply supported rectangular beam
A rectangular cross-section beam (0/90/0), simply supported at
its ends and subjected to a uniformly distributed load along the
length of the beam, is analyzed. The laminas are of equal thickness
and made of the same orthotropic material, whose properties are:
E
1
=E
2
25; G
12
G
13
0:5E
2
; G
23
0:2E
2
; m
12
0:25 26
In the case of FSDT a value of 5/6 is used for the shear correction
factor. The deection w and the in-plane tensile stress r
xx
are pre-
sented in a non-dimensionalized form, as follows:
wx
wxAE
2
h
2
10
2
q
0
L
4
; r
xx

Ahr
xx
q
0
L
2
27
where L is the length of the beam, A is the cross-sectional area and h
is the total thickness. The load is assumed to be uniformly distrib-
uted with an intensity q
0
.
The results for the beam mid-span deection for different
length-to-height ratios are compared with those of [8] in Table 3,
who used a state-space concept in conjunction with the Jordan
canonical form to obtain exact solutions for symmetric and anti-
symmetric cross-ply rectangular beams. The results of the mid-
span tensile stress are presented in Table 4.
Table 3 shows excellent agreement between present nite ele-
ment models and the corresponding analytical results, for each
theory (predicted by [8] and in the present work). The importance
of shear deformation is made quite evident by comparing the
numerical results in Table 3 obtained by the CLT (EulerBernoulli
beam theory), FSDT (Timoshenko beam theory), SSDT and TSDT,
more so, when the L/h ratio decreases.
In Table 4, the difference in results between the TSDT and all
other theories shows that the TSDT is the only one capable of
revealing the inuence of shear deformation in this case. As ex-
pected, this difference becomes more noticeable as the beams L/
h ratio decreases and shear deformation becomes more relevant.
Concerning convergence, by comparing the different FEM in
terms of number of elements (n) for the same order of polynomial
(p = 3 or p = 4) we verify that the MLS seem to stand out in global
terms, losing only once by 1 element (3-nodes) and converging
for the same or less number of elements for the remaining cases.
606 R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616
It is interesting still to note that although the CLT MW converges
after just 8 elements (17-nodes) for p = 2, increasing p to 3 does
not entail a decrease in the number of elements needed (or an
improvement in accuracy) even though it implies a 47% increase
in the number of nodes. It can also be observed that in global
terms, the DBW display slightly inferior accuracy and in most cases
need more elements to converge. In fact, for certain cases (indi-
cated by ) these models do not converge even after 36 elements
using a Hermit interpolation polynomial of order 3 (over 100-
nodes). In the SSDT and TSDT cases, although the MLS converge
using fewer nodes than the DBW, they achieve this at the expense
of a greater number of degrees of freedom, translated into in-
creased computational efforts.
7.2. Simply supported I-beam
A 2.5m long open section I-beam, simply supported at its two
ends and subjected to a uniformly distributed transverse load of
1 kN/m along the web of the beam, is analyzed using the proposed
models. The beam has a depth of 50 mm, a ange width of 50 mm
and the same thickness (2.08 mm) for the anges and the web. The
study is made with different symmetrical stacking sequences (h/
h)
4s
, where the anges and the web have identical lay-ups for
all cases. The material properties of the laminas are:
E
1
53:78 GPa; E
2
17:93 GPa; G
12
G
13
8:96 GPa
G
23
3:45 GPa; m
12
0:25 28
The values of the mid-span transverse deection are presented
in Table 5. The results for the deections are also compared with
those of [10,11,13]. Note that [11,13] considered the effect of trans-
verse shear deformation, while [10] is based on the CLT. In all the
aforementioned studies, nite element analysis is applied after
obtaining the cross sectional material stiffness matrix analytically
and results are presented for either a plane stress state (r
s
= 0) or
a plane strain state (e
s
= 0). Also, [13] used the shell element
S9R5 (curved thin shell element with nine nodes and ve degrees
of freedom per node) to obtain the ABAQUS results.
A careful examination of Table 5 reveals on the one hand that all
the FEM derived in the present work predict the same mid-span
Table 3
Non-dimensional mid-span deection w of simply supported rectangular beam (0/90/0) subjected to a uniformly distributed load.
Theory Model p n Nodes dof L/h = 5 L/h = 10 L/h = 20 L/h = 50 L/h = 100
CLT
[8] 0.646 0.646 0.646
ANA 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642
DBW 3 36

109 218 0.64642 0.64640 0.64640 0.64640 0.64640

MW 2 8 17 68 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642
3 8 25 100 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642
4 1 5 20 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642
MWR 3 7 22 132 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642
4 1 5 30 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642
MLS 3 8 25 150 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642
4 1 5 30 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642 0.64642
FSDT
[8] 2.146 1.021 0.661
ANA 2.14646 1.02143 0.74017 0.66142 0.65017
DBW 3 36

109 218 2.14646 1.02113 0.74017 0.66142 0.65017

MWR 3 11 34 204 2.14646 1.02143 0.74017 0.66142 0.65017
4 1 5 30 2.14646 1.02143 0.74017 0.66142 0.65017
MLS 3 8 25 150 2.14646 1.02143 0.74017 0.66142 0.65017
4 1 5 30 2.14646 1.02143 0.74017 0.66142 0.65017
SSDT
[8] 1.896 0.959 0.659
ANA 1.89645 0.95893 0.72455 0.65892 0.64955
DBW 3 8 25 100 1.89645 0.95893 0.72455 0.65892 0.64955
4 1 5 20 1.89645 0.95893 0.72455 0.65892 0.64955
MLS 3 8 25 225 1.89645 0.95893 0.72455 0.65892 0.64955
4 1 5 45 1.89645 0.95893 0.72455 0.65892 0.64955
TSDT
ANA 2.42608 1.10523 0.76204 0.66496 0.65106
DBW 3 13 40 200 2.42608 1.10523 0.76204 0.66496 0.65106
4 9 37 285 2.42608 1.10523 0.76204 0.66496 0.65106
MLS 3 10 31 372 2.42608 1.10523 0.76204 0.66496 0.65106
4 7 21 348 2.42608 1.10523 0.76204 0.66496 0.65106
Table 4
Non-dimensional mid-span tensile stress rxx at z = h/2 of simply supported rectan-
gular beam (0/90/0) subjected to a uniformly distributed load.
Theory Model p n L/h = 10 L/h = 100
CLT
ANA 0.77765 0.77765
DBW 3 36

0.77805 0.77744
MW 4 1 0.77765 0.77765
MWR 4 1 0.77765 0.77765
MLS 4 1 0.77765 0.77765
FSDT
ANA 0.77765 0.77765
DBW 3 36

0.77744 0.77805
MWR 4 1 0.77765 0.77765
MLS 4 1 0.77765 0.77765
SSDT
ANA 0.77765 0.77765
DBW 4 1 0.77765 0.77755
MLS 4 1 0.77765 0.77765
TSDT
ANA 0.87323 0.77860
DBW 4 9 0.87324 0.77861
MLS 4 7 0.87324 0.77861
R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616 607
deection as the analytical approaches, and on the other hand that
for certain lamination schemes the current models diverge some-
what from the reference results. It is interesting to note in Table
5 that for a lamination sequence, in the form [h/h]
4s
, the current
FEM mid-span prediction is located between the reference value
for r
s
= 0 and e
s
= 0, all the way up to h = 75. The cases for which
the current predictions deviate notably from the reference results
are explained by the initial assumption that for a beam structure,
strains may be ignored in the y-direction, implying that all Pois-
sons ratio effects can be ignored, meaning also that there will be
no y-direction dependence on any quantity involved in the set of
governing equations [16]. In fact the length-to-width ratio for
which the transverse deection can be assumed to be independent
of the y-coordinate is a function of the lamination scheme. For
angle-ply laminates this ratio must be rather large to make the
twisting curvature negligible [1].
7.3. Clamped Box-beam
A Box-beam clamped at both ends subjected to a uniformly dis-
tributed transverse load of 6.5 kN/m along the length of the beam
is analyzed using the proposed FEM. The beam is 1 m long, 70 mm
deep and 50 mm wide, and all the beam walls are 2 mm thick. The
stacking sequence is [(45/45)
5
/0
10
] and the material properties
assumed for all laminas are:
E
1
148 GPa; E
2
9:65 GPa; G
12
4:55 GPa; m
12
0:34 29
The transverse mid-spandeectionobtainedby the present anal-
ysis is presented in Table 6, along with the results obtained by [9]
assuming plane strain conditions and by [12] assuming both plane
stress and plane strain conditions. Note that [9] solved the problem
Table 5
Mid-span deection of simply supported I-beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load, for different stacking sequences (h/h)
4s
.
Theory Model p n h = 0 h = 15 h = 30 h = 45 h = 60 h = 75 h = 0,90
CLT
ANA 6.207 6.735 8.500 11.890 16.530 20.190 9.617
DBW 3 25 6.207 6.735 8.500 11.890 16.530 20.190 9.617
MW 4 1 6.207 6.735 8.500 11.890 16.530 20.190 9.617
MWR 4 1 6.207 6.735 8.500 11.890 16.530 20.190 9.617
MLS 4 1 6.207 6.735 8.500 11.890 16.530 20.190 9.617
[10] r
s
= 0 1.3 6.233 6.899 9.290 13.420 16.960 18.410 9.299
[10] e
s
= 0 1.3 6.103 6.610 8.281 11.340 15.120 17.640 9.153
FSDT
ANA 6.241 6.770 8.540 11.940 16.590 20.270 9.669
DBW 3 25 6.241 6.770 8.540 11.940 16.590 20.270 9.669
MWR 4 1 6.241 6.770 8.540 11.940 16.590 20.270 9.669
MLS 4 1 6.241 6.770 8.540 11.940 16.590 20.270 9.669
SSDT
ANA 6.236 6.764 8.534 11.930 16.580 20.260 9.661
DBW 4 1 6.236 6.764 8.534 11.930 16.580 20.260 9.661
MLS 4 1 6.236 6.764 8.534 11.930 16.580 20.260 9.661
TSDT
ANA 6.281 6.812 8.587 11.990 16.660 20.360 9.726
DBW 4 9 6.281 6.812 8.587 11.990 16.660 20.360 9.726
MLS 4 7 6.281 6.812 8.587 11.990 16.660 20.360 9.726
[13]r
s
= 0 6.264 6.929 9.320 13.450 17.000 18.460 9.387
[13]e
s
= 0 6.134 6.640 8.309 11.370 15.150 17.680 9.192
[11]r
s
= 0 1 6.259 6.923 9.314 13.450 16.990 18.450 9.381
[11]e
s
= 0 1 6.129 6.637 8.307 11.360 15.150 17.680 9.189
[13] ABAQUS 6.340 6.989 9.360 13.480 17.020 18.490 9.400
Table 6
Mid-span deection of clamped box-beam [(45/45)
5
/0
10
] subjected to a uniformly distributed load.
Theory Model p n w (mm) for conguration M
xx
(N.m) at x = L
1 2 3 Box-beam
CLT
ANA 0.4855 0.4860 0.4861 541.7
DBW 3 30 0.4855 0.4860 0.4861 541.1
MW 3 8 0.4855 0.4860 0.4861 541.7
MWR 3 21 0.4855 0.4860 0.4861 541.7
MLS 3 8 0.4855 0.4860 0.4861 541.7
[12] r
s
= 0 1.3 0.438
[12] e
s
= 0 1.3 0.494
[9] e
s
= 0 0.488
FSDT
ANA 0.8847 0.8851 0.8852 541.7
DBW 3 30 0.8847 0.8851 0.8852 541.1
MWR 4 10 0.8847 0.8851 0.8852 541.7
MLS 3 6 0.8847 0.8851 0.8852 541.7
TSDT
DBW 4 21 1.022 1.022 1.023 541.7
MLS 4 9 1.022 1.022 1.023 541.7
608 R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616
analytically (closed form), while [12] applied one dimensional nite
element analysis after obtaining the cross-sectional stiffness matrix
analytically. In both [9] and [12] the transverse load is an eccentric
uniform load applied at the mid-plane of the left web, however
[12] concludes that the load eccentricity does not affect the vertical
displacements, so even though the present models do not account
for eccentric loads, the results are sill comparable. Three congura-
tions (shown in Fig. 4) representing a Box-beam section were ana-
lyzed in order to evaluate their inuence in the current example.
A careful examination of Table 6 shows that the resulting mid-
span deection is not signicantly inuenced by the cross-section
conguration. This is due to the fact that the webs and anges con-
stituting the cross-section are thin structures, which is generally
the case for composite beams. The mid-span displacements pre-
dicted by the current CLT are in good agreement with the results
predicted by [9,12] for the same theory. Once again the current
FEM are compared to shell-like theories for plane stress and strain
state conditions. Table 6 shows a signicant effect of transverse
shear deformation when comparing the results obtained using
the CLT (both by the references and the present models) and the
theories which do not neglect the transverse shear deformation,
i.e. the FSDT and the TSDT. This effect is expected as the beam is
moderately thick, presenting a L/h ratio of approximately 14. An
inspection of Table 6 also reveals that in global terms the DBW
need more elements to converge when comparing the same order
of polynomial (whether of the same polynomial family or not) and
slightly underpredicts the exact value of the in-plane moment. In
fact, even after 100 elements (not in Table 6) it still does not man-
age to converge exactly to the analytical value, although coming
close, 541.6 N m.
8. Concluding remarks
A comprehensive numerical assessment of various nite ele-
ment formulations was conducted, involving the displacement-
based weak form FEM for the CLT, FSDT, SSDT, TSDT; the mixed
weak form FEM for the CLT; the mixed weighted residual form
FEM for the CLT, FSDT; and the mixed least-squares FEM for the
CLT, FSDT, SSDT, TSDT.
The ESL approach implemented by transforming the actual geo-
metrical beam cross-section into an equivalent single layer,
through transformation matrices and the parallel axis theorem
was correctly extended to the rst and higher-order theories.
In terms of the FEM developed, although any given model
could be used within the framework of each theory, the weak
form FEM demonstrated slightly less accuracy, needed more
elements (and nodes) to converge, and in the case of the FSDT
had to resort to consistent interpolation elements to avoid shear
locking (reduced integration techniques could also be used). The
least-squares model on the other hand, in addition to standing
out slightly concerning convergence, also beneted from a
positive denite system of linear equations, avoiding the need
to resort to generalized algebraic solvers which require an
increase in memory usage.
As expected large differences between the results for the re-
ned theories and the classical theory were observed as the
length-to-height ratio decreased; more so, between the CLT and
any other theory than amongst the rened theories. The FEM using
the TSDT should be implemented when accuracy is more impor-
tant than computational cost as a design driver, the models using
the CLT should only be used for thin laminated composite beams
to ensure correct predictions and the models using the FSDT and
the SSDT present good compromises in terms of accuracy versus
computational cost. The FSDT although generally predicting values
closer to the TSDT, required the introduction of a shear factor (K
S
)
often complicated to predict (a value of 5/6 correct for homoge-
nous rectangular beams was used).
In regards to treating laminated composite beams in the pure
sense, i.e. neglecting variations in the y-direction, comparison be-
tween present results and shell like theories presented in the liter-
ature, reinforced the notion that for angle-ply laminates the
length-to-width ratio must be rather large to make the twisting
curvature negligible [1] and this way assure that the beam
assumption is valid.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the nancial support received from FCT/
POCI (2010)/FEDER. In particular, the second author is grateful for
the Post-Doctoral Grant SFRH/BPD/45991/2008 assured by FCT.
Appendix A
Stress transformations used to obtain the material coefcients
in the problem coordinate system.
T
r
b
z

cos
2
b sin
2
b 0 0 0 sin2b
sin
2
b cos
2
b 0 0 0 sin2b
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 cosb sinb 0
0 0 0 sinb cosb 0
sinb cosb sinb cosb 0 0 0 cos
2
b sin
2
b
_

_
_

_
Fig. 4. Box-beam cross-section congurations 13, respectively.
R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616 609
T
r
h
x

1 0 0 0 0 0
0 cos
2
h sin
2
h sin2h 0 0
0 sin
2
h cos
2
h sin2h 0 0
0 sinh cosh sinh cosh cos
2
h sin
2
h 0 0
0 0 0 0 cosh sinh
0 0 0 0 sinh cosh
_

_
_

_
A:1
Appendix B
Translating N
xx
, M
xx
, Q
x
, L
xx
, P
xx
, R
x
and S
x
to a new reference axis
z
0
at a distance d from the old axis z (z
0
= z + d), in the case of the
TSDT (for common beams).
N
0
xx
M
0
xx
L
0
xx
P
0
xx
_

_
_

_
h=2d
h=2d
r
0
xx
1
z
0
z
02
z
03
_

_
_

_
dz
0
)
N
0
xx
M
0
xx
L
0
xx
P
0
xx
_

_
_

N
k1
_
z
k1
z
k
Q
k
11
e
xx
1
z d
z d
2
z d
3
_

_
_

_
dz
Q
0
x
R
0
x
S
0
x
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
h=2d
h=2d
r
0
xz
1
z
0
z
02
_
_
_
_
_
_
dz
0
)
Q
x
R
x
S
x
_
_
_
_
_
_

N
k1
_
z
k1
z
k
Q
k
55
c
xz
1
z d
z d
2
_
_
_
_
_
_
dz B:1
where, a variable change was performed from z
0
to z with the Jaco-
bian, dz
0
/dz = 1.
Appendix C
Transformed material stiffness coefcients for the element
shown in Fig. 3, in the case of the TSDT by applying the parallel axis
theorem, will be given by:
A
ii
A
00
ii
B
ii
B
00
ii
hA
00
ii
D
ii
D
00
ii
2hB
00
ii
h
2
A
00
ii
E
ii
E
00
ii
3hD
00
ii
3h
2
B
00
ii
h
3
A
00
ii
F
ii
F
00
ii
4hE
00
ii
6h
2
D
00
ii
4h
3
B
00
ii
h
4
A
00
ii
G
jj
G
00
jj
5hF
00
jj
10h
2
E
00
jj
10h
3
D
00
jj
5h
4
B
00
jj
h
5
A
00
jj
H
jj
H
00
jj
6hG
00
jj
15h
2
F
00
jj
20h
3
E
00
jj
15h
4
D
00
jj
6h
5
B
00
jj
h
6
A
00
jj
C:1
where i = 1,5; j = 1 and h = s sin(h).
Taking D
web
11
as an example and integrating along the length of
the laminate:
D
web
11

_
bw=2
bw=2
D
00web
ii
2hB
00web
ii
h
2
A
00web
ii
_ _
ds
b
w
D
00web
ii
2
_
bw=2
bw=2
s sinh ds B
00web
ii

_
bw=2
bw=2
s sinh
2
ds A
00web
ii
() D
web
11
b
w
D
00web
ii

b
3
w
12
sin
2
hA
00web
ii
C:2
Appendix D
Displacement-based weak form FEM for each ESL theory.
D.1. TSDT
K
u
0
u
0
ij
K
u
0
kx
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K
kxu
0
ij
K
kxkx
ij
_
_
_
_
u
0
j
.
.
.
k
x
j
_ _

F
u
0
i
.
.
.
F
kx
i
_ _
D:1
where the explicit integral expressions of all nonzero sub-matrices
K
cd
ij
and sub-vectors F
c
i
are as follows:
K
uu
ij

_
l
0
A
11
du
u
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
u/
x
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
u
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
uw
x
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
u
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
ukx
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
u
i
dx
du
kx
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
ww
ij

_
l
0
A
55
du
w
i
dx
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
w/
x
ij

_
l
0
A
55
u
w
i
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
ww
x
ij

_
l
0
2B
55
u
w
i
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
wkx
ij

_
l
0
3D
55
u
w
i
du
kx
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
/
x
u
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
/
x
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
/
x
w
ij

_
l
0
A
55
u
/
x
i
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
w
x
u
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
w
x
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
w
x
w
ij

_
l
0
2B
55
u
w
x
i
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
/
x
/
x
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
/
x
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
A
55
u
/
x
i
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx;
K
/
x
w
x
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
/
x
i
dx
du
/
x
w
x
j
dx
2B
55
u
/
x
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx
K
w
x
/
x
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
w
x
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
2B
55
u
w
x
i
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx;
K
w
x
w
x
ij

_
l
0
F
11
du
w
x
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
4D
55
u
w
x
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx
K
/
x
kx
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
/
x
i
dx
du
/
x
kx
j
dx
3D
55
u
/
x
i
u
kx
j
_ _
dx;
K
w
x
kx
ij

_
l
0
G
11
du
w
x
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
6E
55
u
w
x
i
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx
K
kxu
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
kx
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
kxw
ij

_
l
0
3D
55
u
kx
i
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
kx/
x
ij

_
l
0
F
11
du
kx
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
3D
55
u
kx
i
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx;
K
kxw
x
ij

_
l
0
G
11
du
kx
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
6E
55
u
kx
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx
K
kxkx
ij

_
l
0
H
11
du
kx
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
9F
55
u
kx
i
u
kx
j
_ _
dx;
F
w
i

_
l
0

du
w
i
dx
q
_ _
dx D:2
610 R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616
D.2. SSDT
K
u
0
u
0
ij
K
u
0
w
x
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K
w
x
u
ij
K
w
x
w
x
ij
_

_
_

_
u
0
j
.
.
.
w
x
j
_

_
_

F
u
0
i
.
.
.
F
w
x
i
_

_
_

_
D:3
where the explicit integral expressions of all nonzero sub-matrices
K
cd
ij
and sub-vectors F
c
i
are as follows:
K
uu
ij

_
l
0
A
11
du
u
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
u/
x
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
u
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
uw
x
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
u
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
ww
ij

_
l
0
A
55
du
w
i
dx
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
w/
x
ij

_
l
0
A
55
u
w
i
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
ww
x
ij

_
l
0
2B
55
u
w
i
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
/
x
u
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
/
x
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
/
x
w
ij

_
l
0
A
55
u
/
x
i
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
/
x
/
x
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
/
x
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
A
55
u
/
x
i
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx; K
/
x
w
x
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
/
x
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
2B
55
u
/
x
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx
K
w
x
u
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
w
x
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
w
x
w
ij

_
l
0
2B
55
u
w
x
i
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
w
x
/
x
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
w
x
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
2B
55
u
w
x
i
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx; K
w
x
w
x
ij

_
l
0
F
11
du
w
x
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
4D
55
u
w
x
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx
F
w
i

_
l
0

du
w
i
dx
q
_ _
dx D:4
D.3. FSDT
K
e
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
/
i
dx
du
/
j
dx
K
S
A
55
u
/
i

du
w
i
dx
_ _
u
/
j

du
w
j
dx
_ _ _ _
dx ()
K
e
ij

2D
11
l
e
l
2
6 3l 6 3l
3l 2lR
e
3l l
2
H
e
6 3l 6 3h
e
3l l
2
H
e
3l 2l
2
R
e
_

_
_

_
l
e
1 12K
e
; K
e

D
11
K
S
A
55
l
2
; H
e
1 6K
e
; R
e
1 3K
e
F
e
i

_
l
0
u
w
i
qx
_
dx D:5
where l is the beam element length and u
w
, u
u
are the interpola-
tion functions, obtained in view of the consistent interpolation pro-
cedure found in [15] for the isotropic Timoshenko beam element,
and in this case given by:
u
w
1

1
l
e
l
e
12K
e
x
l
3 2
x
l
_ _
x
l
_ _
2
_ _
; u
w
2

l
l
e
1
x
l
_ _
2
x
l
6K
e
1
x
l
_ _
x
l
_ _
u
w
3

1
l
e
3
2x
l
_ _
x
l
_ _
2
12K
e
x
l
_ _
; u
w
4

l
l
e
1
x
l
_ _
x
l
_ _
2
6K
e
1
x
l
_ _
x
l
_ _
u
/
1

6
ll
e
1
x
l
_ _
x
l
_ _
; u
/
2

1
l
e
l
e
4
x
l
3
x
l
_ _
2
12K
e
x
l
_ _
u
/
3

6
ll
e
1
x
l
_ _
x
l
_ _
; u
/
4

1
l
e
3
x
l
_ _
2
2
x
l
12K
e
x
l
_ _
D:6
D.4. CLT
K
e
ij

_
l
0
D
11
d
2
u
i
dx
2
d
2
u
j
dx
2
_ _
dx 0 ()
K
e
ij

D
11
l
3
12 6l 12 6l
4l
2
6l 2l
2
12 6l
sym: 4l
2
_

_
_

_
F
i

_
l
0
q u dx D:7
where l is the beam element length and / are the same Hermite cu-
bic interpolation functions as used in [15] for the isotropic Euler
Bernoulli beam element.
Appendix E
Mixed weak form FEM for the case of CLT.
K
uu
ij
K
uw
ij
K
uNxx
ij
K
uMxx
ij
K
wu
ij
K
ww
ij
K
wNxx
ij
K
wMxx
ij
K
Nxxu
ij
K
Nxxw
ij
K
NxxNxx
ij
K
Nxxw
ij
K
Mxxu
ij
K
Mxxw
ij
K
MxxNxx
ij
K
MxxMxx
ij
_

_
_

_
u
0
j
w
0
j
N
xx
j
M
xx
j
_

_
_

F
u
i
F
w
i
F
Nxx
i
F
Mxx
i
_

_
_

_
E:1
where the explicit integral expressions of all nonzero sub-matrices
K
cd
ij
and sub-vectors F
c
i
are as follows:
K
uNxx
ij

_
l
0
du
u
i
dx
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx; K
wMxx
ij

_
l
0

du
w
i
dx
du
Mxx
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
Nxxu
ij

_
l
0
du
Nxx
i
dx
u
u
j
_ _
dx
R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616 611
K
NxxNxx
ij

_
l
0

u
Nxx
i
u
Nxx
j
A
11
_ _
dx; K
Mxxw
ij

_
l
0

du
Mxx
i
dx
du
w
i
dx
_ _
dx; K
MxxMxx
ij

_
l
0
u
Mxx
i
u
Mxx
j
D
11
_ _
dx
F
w
i

_
l
0
qu
w
i
_ _
dx E:2
Appendix F
Mixed weighted residual form FEM for the case of FSDT and CLT.
F.1. FSDT
K
uu
ij
K
uQ
x
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K
Q
x
u
ij
K
Q
x
Q
x
ij
_

_
_

_
u
0
j
.
.
.
Q
x
j
_

_
_

F
u
i
.
.
.
F
Q
x
i
_

_
_

_
F:1
where the explicit integral expressions of all nonzero sub-matrices
K
cd
ij
and sub-vectors F
c
i
are as follows:
K
uNxx
ij

_
l
0
u
u
i
du
Nxx
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
Mxx/
x
ij

_
l
0
u
Mxx
i
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
wQ
x
ij

_
l
0
u
w
i
du
Q
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
MxxMxx
ij

_
l
0
u
Mxx
i
u
Mxx
j
D
11
_ _
dx; K
/
x
Mxx
ij

_
l
0
u
/
x
i
du
Mxx
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
Q
x
w
0
ij

_
l
0
u
Q
x
i
du
w
0
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
/
x
Q
x
ij

_
l
0
u
h
i
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx; K
Q
x
/
x
ij

_
l
0
u
Q
x
i
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx; K
Nxxu
ij

_
l
0
u
Nxx
i
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
Q
x
Q
x
ij

_
l
0

u
Q
x
i
u
Q
x
j
K
S
A
55
_ _
dx; K
NxxNxx
ij

_
l
0
u
Nxx
i
u
Nxx
j
A
11
_ _
dx; F
w
0
i

_
l
0
u
w
0
i
q
_ _
dx F:2
F.2. CLT
K
uu
ij
K
uQ
x
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K
Q
x
u
ij
K
Q
x
Q
x
ij
_

_
_

_
u
0
j
.
.
.
Q
xj
_

_
_

F
u
i
.
.
.
F
Q
x
i
_

_
_

_
F:3
where the explicit integral expressions of all nonzero sub-matrices
K
cd
ij
and sub-vectors F
c
i
are as follows:
K
uNxx
ij

_
l
0
u
u
i
du
Nxx
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
NxxNxx
ij

_
l
0
u
Nxx
i
u
Nxx
j
A
11
_ _
dx; K
wQ
x
ij

_
l
0
u
w
i
du
Q
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
Mxxh
ij

_
l
0
u
Mxx
i
du
h
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
hMxx
ij

_
l
0
u
h
i
du
Mxx
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
MxxMxx
ij

_
l
0
u
Mxx
i
u
Mxx
j
D
11
_ _
dx
K
hQ
x
ij

_
l
0
u
h
i
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx; K
Q
x
w
0
ij

_
l
0
u
Q
x
i
du
w
0
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
Nxxu
ij

_
l
0
u
Nxx
i
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
Q
x
h
ij

_
l
0
u
Q
x
i
u
h
j
_ _
dx; F
w
i

_
l
0
qu
w
i
_ _
dx F:4
Appendix G
Mixed least-squares form FEM for each ESL theory.
G.1. TSDT
K
uu
ij
K
ukx
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K
ukx
ij
K
kxkx
ij
_

_
_

_
u
0
j
.
.
.
k
xj
_

_
_

F
u
i
.
.
.
F
kx
i
_

_
_

_
G:1
where the explicit integral expressions of all nonzero sub-matrices
K
cd
ij
and sub-vectors F
c
i
are given below and it is understood that
K
cd
ij
K
dc
ji
to avoid redundancy:
K
uu
ij

_
l
0
A
2
11
B
2
11
D
2
11
E
2
11
_ _
du
u
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
u/
x
ij

_
l
0
A
11
B
11
B
11
D
11
D
11
E
11
E
11
F
11

du
u
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
uNxx
ij

_
l
0
A
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx
K
uMxx
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx; K
uLxx
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Lxx
j
_ _
dx
K
uw
x
ij

_
l
0
A
11
D
11
B
11
E
11
D
11
F
11
E
11
G
11

du
u
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
uPxx
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Pxx
j
_ _
dx
K
ukx
ij

_
l
0
A
11
E
11
B
11
F
11
D
11
G
11
E
11
H
11

du
u
i
dx
du
kx
j
dx
_ _
dx
612 R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616
K
ww
ij

_
l
0
A
2
55
B
2
55
D
2
55
_ _
du
w
i
dx
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
w/
x
ij

_
l
0
A
2
55
B
2
55
D
2
55
_ _
du
w
i
dx
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx
K
wQ
x
ij

_
l
0
A
55
du
w
i
dx
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx;
K
wRx
ij

_
l
0
B
55
du
w
i
dx
u
Rx
j
_ _
dx
K
ww
x
ij

_
l
0
2 A
55
B
55
B
55
D
55
D
55
E
55

du
w
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
wSx
ij

_
l
0
D
55
du
w
i
dx
u
Sx
j
_ _
dx
K
wkx
ij

_
l
0
3 A
55
D
55
B
55
E
55
D
55
F
55

du
w
i
dx
du
kx
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
/
x
/
x
ij

_
l
0
A
2
55
B
2
55
D
2
55
_ _
u
/
x
i
u
/
x
j
_
B
2
55
D
2
55
E
2
55
F
2
55
_ _
du
/
x
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
_
dx
K
/
x
Nxx
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
/
x
i
dx
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
/
x
Mxx
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
/
x
i
dx
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
/
x
Q
x
ij

_
l
0
A
55
u
/
x
i
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx
K
/
x
Lxx
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
/
x
i
dx
u
Lxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
/
x
Rx
ij

_
l
0
B
55
u
/
x
i
u
Rx
j
_ _
dx
K
/
x
w
x
ij

_
l
0
B
11
D
11
D
11
E
11
E
11
F
11
F
11
G
11

du
/
x
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
_
2 A
55
B
55
B
55
D
55
D
55
E
55
u
/
x
i
u
w
x
j
_
dx
K
/
x
Pxx
ij

_
l
0
F
11
du
/
x
i
dx
u
Pxx
j
_ _
dx; K
/
x
Sx
ij

_
l
0
D
55
u
/
x
i
u
Sx
j
_ _
dx
K
/
x
kx
ij

_
l
0
B
11
E
11
D
11
F
11
E
11
G
11
F
11
H
11

du
/
x
i
dx
du
kx
j
dx
_
3 A
55
D
55
B
55
E
55
D
55
F
55
u
/
x
i
u
kx
j
_
dx
K
NxxNxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Nxx
i
dx
du
Nxx
j
dx
u
Nxx
i
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
Nxxw
x
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
Nxx
i
dx
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx
K
Nxxkx
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
Nxx
i
dx
u
kx
j
_ _
dx;
K
MxxMxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Mxx
i
dx
du
Mxx
j
dx
u
Mxx
i
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx
K
MxxQ
x
ij

_
l
0

du
Mxx
i
dx
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx;
K
Mxxw
x
ij

_
l
0
E
11
u
Mxx
i
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
Mxxkx
ij

_
l
0
F
11
u
Mxx
i
du
kx
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
Q
x
Q
x
ij

_
l
0
du
Q
x
i
dx
du
Q
x
j
dx
2u
Q
x
i
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx
K
Q
xx
w
x
ij

_
l
0
2B
55
u
Mxx
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx;
K
Q
xx
kx
ij

_
l
0
3D
55
u
Mxx
i
u
kx
j
_ _
dx
K
LxxLxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Lxx
i
dx
du
Lxx
j
dx
u
Lxx
i
u
Lxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
LxxRx
ij

_
l
0
2
du
Lxx
i
dx
u
Rx
j
_ _
dx
K
Lxxw
x
ij

_
l
0
F
11
u
Lxx
i
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
Lxxkx
ij

_
l
0
G
11
u
Lxx
i
du
kx
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
RxRx
ij

_
l
0
5
du
Rx
i
dx
u
Rx
j
_ _
dx
K
Rxw
x
ij

_
l
0
2D
55
u
Rx
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx; K
Rxkx
ij

_
l
0
3E
55
u
Rx
i
u
kx
j
_ _
dx
K
w
x
w
x
ij

_
l
0
D
2
11
E
2
11
F
2
11
G
2
11
_ _
du
w
x
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
_
4 B
2
55
D
2
55
E
2
55
_ _
u
w
x
i
u
w
x
j
_
dx
K
w
x
Pxx
ij

_
l
0
G
11
@u
w
x
i
@x
u
Pxx
j
_ _
dx; K
w
x
Sx
ij

_
l
0
2E
55
u
w
x
i
u
Sx
j
_ _
dx
K
w
x
kx
ij

_
l
0
D
11
E
11
E
11
F
11
F
11
G
11
G
11
H
11

du
w
x
i
dx
du
kx
j
dx
_
6 B
55
D
55
D
55
E
55
E
55
F
55
u
w
x
i
u
kx
j
_
dx;
K
PxxPxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Pxx
i
dx
du
Pxx
j
dx
u
Pxx
i
u
Pxx
j
_ _
dx
K
PxxSx
ij

_
l
0
3
du
Pxx
i
dx
u
Sx
j
_ _
dx;
K
Pxxkx
ij

_
l
0
H
11
u
Pxx
i
du
kx
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
SxSx
ij

_
l
0
10
du
Sx
i
dx
u
Sx
j
_ _
dx
R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616 613
K
Sxkx
ij

_
l
0
3F
55
u
Sx
i
u
kx
j
_ _
dx
K
kxkx
ij

_
l
0
E
2
11
F
2
11
G
2
11
H
2
11
_ _
_
9 D
2
55
E
2
55
F
2
55
_ _
u
kx
i
u
kx
j
du
kx
i
dx
du
kx
j
dx
_
dx
F
Q
x
i

_
l
0

du
Q
x
i
dx
q
_ _
dx G:2
G.2. SSDT
K
uu
ij
K
uw
x
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K
uw
x
ij
K
w
x
w
x
ij
_

_
_

_
u
0
j
.
.
.
w
x
j
_

_
_

F
u
i
.
.
.
F
w
x
i
_

_
_

_
G:3
where the explicit integral expressions of all nonzero sub-matrices
K
cd
ij
and sub-vectors F
c
i
are given below and it is understood that
K
cd
ij
K
dc
ji
to avoid redundancy:
K
uu
ij

_
l
0
A
2
11
B
2
11
D
2
11
_ _
du
u
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
ww
ij

_
l
0
A
2
55
B
2
55
_ _
du
w
i
dx
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
u/
x
ij

_
l
0
A
11
B
11
B
11
D
11
D
11
E
11

du
u
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
w/
x
ij

_
l
0
A
2
55
B
2
55
_ _
du
w
i
dx
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx
K
uNxx
ij

_
l
0
A
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx; K
wQ
x
ij

_
l
0
A
55
du
w
i
dx
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx; K
uMxx
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx
K
wRx
ij

_
l
0
B
55
du
w
i
dx
u
Rx
j
_ _
dx;
K
uLxx
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Lxx
j
_ _
dx
K
ww
x
ij

_
l
0
2 A
55
B
55
B
55
D
55

du
w
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
uw
x
ij

_
l
0
A
11
D
11
B
11
E
11
D
11
F
11

du
u
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
/
x
/
x
ij

_
l
0
A
2
55
B
2
55
_ _
u
/
x
i
u
/
x
j
B
2
11
D
2
11
E
2
11
_ _
du
/
x
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
/
x
Nxx
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
/
x
i
dx
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx
K
/
x
Mxx
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
/
x
i
dx
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
/
x
Q
x
ij

_
l
0
A
55
u
/
x
i
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx; K
/
x
Lxx
ij

_
l
0
E
11
du
/
x
i
dx
u
Lxx
j
_ _
dx
K
/
x
Rx
ij

_
l
0
B
55
u
/
x
i
u
Rx
j
_ _
dx
K
/
x
w
x
ij

_
l
0
B
11
D
11
D
11
E
11
E
11
F
11

du
/
x
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
_
2 A
55
B
55
B
55
D
55
u
/
x
i
u
w
x
j
_
dx
K
NxxNxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Nxx
i
dx
du
Nxx
j
dx
u
Nxx
i
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
Nxxw
x
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
Nxx
i
dx
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx
K
MxxMxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Mxx
i
dx
du
Mxx
j
dx
u
Mxx
i
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
MxxQ
x
ij

_
l
0

du
Mxx
i
dx
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx
K
Mxxw
x
ij

_
l
0
E
11
u
Mxx
i
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
Q
x
Q
x
ij

_
l
0
du
Q
x
i
dx
du
Q
x
j
dx
2u
Q
x
i
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx
K
Q
xx
w
x
ij

_
l
0
2B
55
u
Mxx
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx;
K
LxxLxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Lxx
i
dx
du
Lxx
j
dx
u
Lxx
i
u
Lxx
j
_ _
dx
K
LxxRx
ij

_
l
0
2
du
Lxx
i
dx
u
Rx
j
_ _
dx;
K
Lxxw
x
ij

_
l
0
F
11
u
Lxx
i
du
w
x
j
dx
_ _
dx; K
RxRx
ij

_
l
0
5u
Rx
i
u
Rx
j
_ _
dx
K
Rxw
x
ij

_
l
0
2D
55
u
Rx
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx;
K
w
x
w
x
ij

_
l
0
D
2
11
E
2
11
F
2
11
_ _
du
w
x
i
dx
du
w
x
j
dx
4 B
2
55
D
2
55
_ _
u
w
x
i
u
w
x
j
_ _
dx
F
Q
x
i

_
l
0

du
Q
x
i
dx
q
_ _
dx G:4
G.3. FSDT
K
uu
ij
K
uQ
x
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K
uQ
x
ij
K
Q
x
Q
x
ij
_

_
_

_
u
0
j
.
.
.
Q
xj
_

_
_

F
u
i
.
.
.
F
Q
x
i
_

_
_

_
G:5
614 R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616
where the explicit integral expressions of all nonzero sub-matrices
K
cd
ij
and sub-vectors F
c
i
are given below and it is understood that
K
cd
ij
K
dc
ji
to avoid redundancy:
K
uu
ij

_
l
0
A
2
11
B
2
11
_ _
du
u
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
u/
x
ij

_
l
0
A
11
B
11
B
11
D
11

du
u
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
uNxx
ij

_
l
0
A
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
uMxx
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
ww
ij

_
l
0
K
2
S
A
2
55
du
w
i
dx
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
w/
x
ij

_
l
0
K
2
S
A
2
55
du
w
i
dx
u
/
x
j
_ _
dx;
K
wQ
x
ij

_
l
0
K
S
A
55
du
w
i
dx
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx
K
/
x
/
x
ij

_
l
0
K
2
S
A
2
55
u
/
x
i
u
/
x
j
B
2
11
D
2
11
_ _
du
/
x
i
dx
du
/
x
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
/
x
Nxx
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
/
x
i
dx
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx
K
/
x
Mxx
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
/
x
i
dx
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
/
x
Q
x
ij

_
l
0
K
S
A
55
u
/
x
i
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx
K
NxxNxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Nxx
i
dx
du
Nxx
j
dx
u
Nxx
i
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx
K
MxxMxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Mxx
i
dx
du
Mxx
j
dx
u
Mxx
i
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
MxxQ
x
ij

_
l
0

du
Mxx
i
dx
du
Q
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
Q
x
Q
x
ij

_
l
0
du
Q
x
i
dx
du
Q
x
j
dx
2u
Q
x
i
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx;
F
Q
x
i

_
l
0

du
Q
x
i
dx
q
_ _
dx
G.4. CLT
K
uu
ij
K
uQ
x
ij
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
K
uQ
x
ij
K
Q
x
Q
x
ij
_

_
_

_
u
0
j
.
.
.
Q
xj
_

_
_

F
u
i
.
.
.
F
Q
x
i
_

_
_

_
G:7
where the explicit integral expressions of all nonzero sub-matrices
K
cd
ij
and sub-vectors F
c
i
are given below and it is understood that
K
cd
ij
K
dc
ji
to avoid redundancy:
K
uu
ij

_
l
0
A
2
11
B
2
11
_ _
du
u
i
dx
du
u
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
uh
ij

_
l
0
A
11
B
11
B
11
D
11

du
u
i
dx
du
h
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
uNxx
ij

_
l
0
A
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
uMxx
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
u
i
dx
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx; K
ww
ij

_
l
0

du
w
i
dx
du
w
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
wh
ij

_
l
0
du
w
i
dx
u
h
j
_ _
dx;
K
hh
ij

_
l
0
u
h
i
u
h
j
B
2
11
D
2
11
_ _
du
h
i
dx
du
h
j
dx
_ _
dx;
K
hNxx
ij

_
l
0
B
11
du
h
i
dx
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx
K
hMxx
ij

_
l
0
D
11
du
h
i
dx
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
NxxNxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Nxx
i
dx
du
Nxx
j
dx
u
Nxx
i
u
Nxx
j
_ _
dx
K
MxxMxx
ij

_
l
0
du
Mxx
i
dx
du
Mxx
j
dx
u
Mxx
i
u
Mxx
j
_ _
dx;
K
MxxQ
x
ij

_
l
0

du
Mxx
i
dx
du
Q
x
j
dx
_ _
dx
K
Q
x
Q
x
ij

_
l
0
du
Q
x
i
dx
du
Q
x
j
dx
u
Q
x
i
u
Q
x
j
_ _
dx;
F
Q
x
i

_
l
0

du
Q
x
i
dx
q
_ _
dx:
References
[1] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells theory and
analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2004.
[2] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall; 1996.
[3] Moleiro F. Mixed least-squares nite element models for analysis of
multilayered composite plates. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technical University of
Lisbon, IST; 2009.
[4] Moleiro F, Mota Soares CM, Mota Soares CA, Reddy JN. Layerwise mixed least-
squares nite element models for static and free vibration analysis of
multilayered composite plates. Compos Struct 2010;92(9):232838.
[5] Carrera E. An assessment of mixed and classical theories on global and local
response of multilayered orthotropic plates. Compos Struct 2000;50:18398.
[6] Carrera E, Demasi L. Classical and advanced multilayered plate elements based
upon PVD and RMVT. Part 2: numerical implementations. Int J Numer Methods
Eng 2002;55:25391.
[7] Syed KAN. Analysis of hat-sectioned reinforced composite beams including
thermal effects. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Texas at Arlington; 2006.
[8] Khdeir AA, Reddy JN. An exact solution for the bending of thin and thick cross-
ply laminated beams. Compos Struct 1997;37:195203.
[9] Kollar LP, Pluzsik A. Analysis of thin-walled composite beams with arbitrary
layup. J Reinf Plast Compos 2002;21:142365.
[10] Lee J, Lee S. Flexural-torsional behavior of thin-walled composite beams. Thin-
Walled Struct 2004;42:1293305.
[11] Lee J. Flexural analysis of thin-walled composite beams using shear
deformable beam theory. Compos Struct 2005;70:21222.
[12] Vo TP, Lee J. Flexural-torsional behavior of thin-walled closed-section
composite box beams. Eng Struct 2007;29:177482.
[13] Sheikh AH, Thomsen OT. An efcient beam element for the analysis of
laminated composite beams of thin-walled open and closed cross sections.
Compos Sci Technol 2008;68:227381.
[14] Reddy JN. On locking-free shear deformable beam nite elements. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 1997;149:11332.
R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616 615
[15] Reddy JN. An introduction to the nite element method. 3rd ed. New
York: McGraw Hill; 2006.
[16] Vinson JR, Sierakowski RL. The behavior of structures composed of composite
materials. 2nd ed. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
[17] Barbero EJ, Raftoyiannis IG. Euler buckling of pultruted composite columns.
Compos Struct 1993;24:13947.
[18] Tsai SW, Hahn HT. Introduction to composite materials. Lancaster,
Pennsylvania: Technomic Publishing; 1980.
[19] Washizu K. Variational methods in elasticity and plasticity. 3rd ed. New
York: Pergamon Press; 1982.
[20] Richards TH. Energy methods in stress analysis. Chichester: Ellis Horwood;
1977.
[21] Aguiar RM. Numerical assessment of theories and nite element models for
analysis of laminated composite beams. M.Eng. Dissertation. Technical
University of Lisbon, IST; 2010.
616 R.M. Aguiar et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 601616