A variational formulation for dynamic analysis of composite laminated

beams based on a general higher-order shear deformation theory

Yegao Qu

, Xinhua Long, Hongguang Li, Guang Meng

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Available online 15 March 2013
Keywords:
Composite laminated beam
Variational formulation
Higher-order shear deformation theory
Free vibration
Transient vibration
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a general formulation for free and transient vibration analyses of composite lami-
nated beams with arbitrary lay-ups and any boundary conditions. A modied variational principle com-
bined with a multi-segment partitioning technique is employed to derive the formulation based on a
general higher-order shear deformation theory. The material couplings of bending-stretching, bending-
twist, and stretching-twist as well as the Poissons effect are taken into account. A considerable number
of free and transient vibration solutions are presented for cross- and angle-ply laminated beams with var-
ious geometric and material parameters. Different combinations of free, simply-supported, pinned,
clamped and elastic-supported boundary conditions are examined. The validity of the formulation is con-
rmed by comparing the present solutions with analytical and experimental results available in the lit-
erature and the ones obtained from nite element analyses. The accuracy of several higher-order shear
deformable beam theories for predicting the vibrations of laminated beams has been ascertained. Results
of parametric studies for composite beams with different orthotropic ratios, ber orientations, layer
numbers and boundary conditions are also discussed. The present formulation is versatile in the sense
that it is capable of accommodating a variety of beam theories available in the literature, and allows
the use of different polynomials as admissible functions for composite beams, such as the Chebyshev
and Legendre orthogonal polynomials, and the ordinary power polynomials. Moreover, it permits to deal
with the linear vibration problems for thin and thick beams subjected to dynamic loads and boundary
conditions of arbitrary type.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Composite laminated beams are extensively used in aircraft
structures, space vehicles, turbo-machines and other industrial
applications due to their high strength-to-weight and stiffness-
to-weight ratios. It is well known that laminated beams in these
applications often operate in complex environmental conditions
and are commonly exposed to a variety of dynamic excitations
which may result in excessive vibration and fatigue damage. A
thorough understanding of the vibration behaviors of laminated
beams is therefore of particular importance. Despite the many con-
tributions to the analysis of laminated beams, the establishment of
reliable and efcient modeling techniques for simulating the dy-
namic behaviors of generally layered composite beams remains a
challenging task and is the focus of the present study.
The development of accurate beam theories has been the sub-
ject of signicant research interest for many years, and a large
amount of beam models have been proposed based on different
assumptions and approximations. Excellent overviews of these
types of models may be found in Kapania and Raciti [1], Ghugal
and Shimpi [2], and Vinson and Sierakowski [3]. Variational princi-
ples, including the classical principles (either displacements or
stresses as unknowns) and mixed principles (e.g. displacements
and stresses simultaneously as unknowns), are usually employed
to derive the consistent governing equations and boundary condi-
tions for the theoretical models; see [414] for details and proofs.
Since a general displacement-based theory will be used in the pres-
ent study, a brief review related to the displacement-based theo-
ries is given below. Physically, laminated beams with general
layer-ups are three-dimensional (3D) structures for which the
methods of linear elasticity theory may be applied [15]. However,
it is well recognized that the solutions of the 3D elasticity equa-
tions for composite beams are difcult to obtain and in most cases
are even unattainable. Typically, researchers make suitable
assumptions concerning the kinematics of deformation or the state
of stress through the thickness of the beams, and reduce the 3D
beam problems to various 1D representations with reasonable
accuracy, such as the equivalent single layer (ESL) model and the
layer-wise (LW) model. Following the ordinary classication of
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.02.032

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 021 34206332; fax: +86 021 34206814.
E-mail addresses: quyegao@sjtu.edu.cn, quyegao@gmail.edu.cn (Y. Qu).
Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Composite Structures
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ compst r uct
the ESL models, there are mainly three major categories, i.e., the
classical beam theory (CBT), the rst-order beam theory (FBT),
and the higher-order beam theory (HBT). The CBT known as
EulerBernoulli beam theory is the simplest one and is applicable
to slender composite beams. For thick beams, the CBT underesti-
mates deection and overestimates natural frequency due to
ignoring the transverse shear deformation effect [13]. In order
to take into account the effects of transverse shear deformation
for the analysis of moderately thick beams, the FBT by Timoshenko
has been developed. In this theory, transverse shear strain distribu-
tion is assumed to be constant through the beam thickness and,
thus, requires a shear correction factor to appropriately represent
the strain energy of deformation [13,16,17]. It has been shown
that the accuracy of the FBT solutions will be strongly dependent
on the shear correction factor, and the value of this factor is not
a constant but changes with material properties, layer sequences,
loading cases, boundary conditions, etc. The limitations of classical
beam theory and rst-order beam theory stimulated the develop-
ment of higher-order shear deformation theories to avoid the use
of shear correction factors, to include correct cross sectional
warping and to get the realistic variation of the transverse shear
strains and stresses through the thickness of beam. A number of
high-order theories with different shear strain shape functions
(including polynomial functions [1822], trigonometric functions
[2325], exponential functions [26,27], etc.) have been proposed.
Although some shape functions mentioned above were initially
developed for elastic plates or shells, application of these functions
to composite beams is immediate. In the LW models, each layer in
a laminated beam is considered to be a separate beam, and com-
patibility conditions are applied between adjacent layers. These
models provide realistic descriptions of kinematics at the ply level
and yield accurate stress results for composite laminated beams,
but suffer from an excessive number of displacement variables in
proportion to the number of layers and hence are not suitable for
practical applications, especially when optimization studies are
concerned. There also exist some special layer-wise theories, often
called zigzag theories, containing a constant number of unknown
variables irrespective of the number of layers in laminated beams.
In these theories, the additional unknowns are eliminated by
enforcing the continuity of the transverse shear stress components
at the interfaces between adjacent layers and by satisfying the zero
shear traction conditions on the top and bottom surfaces of the
beams. Examples of LW theories are those found in the articles
[2831].
The dynamic analysis of composite laminated beams based on
various beam theories has been the subject of signicant research
activities during the past few years. Early studies have been com-
piled in the excellent review paper by Kapania and Raciti [32]. In
order to properly focus on the features and emphasis of the present
paper, a brief review is herein given to the works which are mainly
devoted to the free and transient vibration analyses of laminated
beams. The dynamic analysis of laminated beams is mostly re-
stricted to free vibrations. A number of analytical and computa-
tional methods have been developed and proposed to handle the
free vibration problems of laminated beams. They include, but
are not limited to, the closed-form solution [3,16,21,22,33,34], var-
iational method [3539], dynamic stiffness method [4044], trans-
fer matrix method [4547], differential quadrature method
[48,49], meshless method [50], nite difference method [5153],
and nite element method [5456]. It should be mentioned that
the Poissons effect, which is often neglected in the one-
dimensional laminated beam analysis, has very signicant inu-
ence on the vibration analysis of composite beams with general
layer-ups. The incorporation of this effect involves either
correcting the relations of the generalized force/moment resultants
and generalized strains of laminated beams or correcting the
constitutive equations of a 3D anisotropic body [57]. The transient
vibration analysis of composite laminated beams has received less
attention compared to the free vibrations. Marur and Kant [58]
developed a nite element model with seven degrees of freedom
per node for predicting the transient dynamic responses of com-
posite beams. The governing equations of motion were solved
using the central difference predictor technique to obtain the re-
sponse history at different time steps. Sokolinsky and Nutt [59]
presented a discretized formulation based on an implicit nite dif-
ference method for the time-domain response analysis of sandwich
beams. Khdeir [60] investigated the transient vibrations of cross-
ply laminated beams by using a generalized modal approach in
conjunction with a general higher-order beam theory. Arvin et al.
[61] performed a nite element analysis to obtain the structural re-
sponses of a composite sandwich beam with viscoelastic core.
Kapuria and Alam [62] developed a 1D beam nite element with
electric degrees of freedom for the dynamic analysis of hybrid pie-
zoelectric beams by using the layer-wise theory. The Newmark di-
rect time integration method was employed to obtain the transient
responses of the composite beams. Tagarielli et al. [63] reported
the nite element solutions for the dynamic shock responses of
fully clamped monolithic and sandwich beams. Kiral [64] used a
three-dimensional nite element model together with the New-
mark integration method to obtain the dynamic response of com-
posite beams subjected to moving loads. Mohebpour et al. [65]
investigated the dynamic responses of composite laminated beams
subjected to a moving oscillator by using the rst-order beam the-
ory and nite element method. Based on the mode superposition
method, Jafari-Talookolaei et al. [66] studied the dynamic re-
sponses of a delaminated beam due to a moving oscillatory mass.
alim [67] performed a forced vibration analysis of non-uniform
composite beams subjected to impulsive loads. The solutions ob-
tained in the Laplace domain were transformed to the time domain
by using the Durbins inverse Laplace transform method. According
to the comprehensive survey of the literature, it is found that most
of the previous efforts were restricted to laminated beams with
limited sets of classical boundary conditions (e.g., the free, sim-
ply-supported and clamped edges). Actually, the boundary condi-
tions of a composite beam may not always be classical in
engineering applications. This may become one of the main
sources of discrepancy when the comparison between theory and
experiment is made. Moreover, the existence of various higher-or-
der shear deformable beam theories gives rise to a problem that
one may be easily inundated by the abundance of the available
models or choices. Although the free vibration results for lami-
nated beams based on some shear deformation theories have been
presented and compared by Aydogdu [36,37], to the best of our
knowledge, the discrepancies of various higher-order theories in
predicting the transient responses of laminated beams have not
been investigated. It should be further remarked here that many
of the commonly used methods, such as the closed-form method
[3,16,21,22,33,34] and the dynamic stiffness method [4044], are
mainly restricted to free vibration analysis; they soon become
cumbersome when one wants to deal with the dynamic response
problems of composite beams under arbitrary loading cases.
The primary objective of the present investigation is to devel-
op a unied formulation for free and transient vibration analyses
of generally layered laminated beams with arbitrary combina-
tions of classical and non-classical boundary conditions. A modi-
ed variational principle in conjunction with a multi-segment
partitioning technique is employed to derive the formulation
based on a general higher-order shear beam theory. The elastic
couplings of the bending-stretching, bending-twist and stretch-
ing-twist with the Poissons effect are taken into account. The for-
mulation is particularly attractive since one can choose different
polynomials as admissible displacement and rotation functions
176 Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192
for a practical beam analysis. This fact is conrmed through the
application of the following four types of polynomials, i.e. the
Chebyshev orthogonal polynomials of rst and second kind, the
Legendre orthogonal polynomials of rst kind, and the ordinary
power polynomials. To validate the convergence, efciency and
accuracy the proposed formulation, as well as to explore the lim-
its of its applicability, a considerable number of numerical exam-
ples are given for the free vibrations of cross- and angle-ply
laminated beams with different combinations of free, simply-sup-
ported, pinned, clamped and elastic-supported boundary condi-
tions. The present solutions are validated through comparisons
with previously published analytical and experimental results in
the literature and those solutions obtained from the nite ele-
ment analyses. As to the transient vibration analyses, laminated
beams subjected to distributed rectangular and exponential pulse
loads are examined. The accuracy of a variety of higher-order
shear deformable beam theories for predicting the vibration
behaviors of laminated beams has been investigated. The effects
of the ber orientation, layer number and boundary condition
on the transient vibration responses of laminated beams are also
discussed. As it will become evident in what follows, the present
formulation is capable of dealing with the linear vibration prob-
lems of composite laminated beams subjected to dynamic loads
and boundary conditions of arbitrary type.
2. Mathematical formulations
A laminated beam made of an arbitrary number of perfectly
bonded orthotropic layers is shown in Fig. 1. A Cartesian co-ordi-
nate system (o x, y, z) is dened on the central axis of the beam,
where the x-axis is taken along the central-line with the y-axis in
the width direction and the z-axis in the thickness direction. The
composite beam has a length of L with a rectangular cross-section
of b h.
It is assumed that the deformations of the laminated beam are
characterized by its center-line and take place in the xz plane. The
displacement eld for the beam based on a general shear deform-
able theory takes the form:
~ ux; z; t ux; t f z
@w
@x
gz#x; t
~ wx; z; t wx; t
1
where u and w represent center-line displacement components of
the beam along the x and z directions, respectively; # is a unknown
function that represent the effect of transverse shear strain on the
center-line of the beam. f(z) and g(z) denote the shape functions
that determine the distribution of axial and transverse strain and
stress through the beam thickness. t represents the time variable.
The linear strains associated with the proposed displacement
eld as given in Eq. (1) under the assumptions of small deforma-
tion and small rotation are given by:
e
x
e
0
x
f e
1
x
ge
2
x
; c
xz


f c
0
xz
gc
1
xz
2:a-b
where
e
0
x

@u
@x
; e
1
x

@
2
w
@x
2
; e
2
x

@#
@x
; c
0
xz

@w
@x
; c
1
xz
# 3:a

f 1
@f
@z
; g
@g
@z
3:b
All further equations such as constitutive equations and equations of
motion are derived using the general displacement eld in Eq. (1) so
as to ensure the applicability of the present formulation and solution
methodology to various beam theories. It should be noted that the
displacement eld in Eq. (1) contains the displacement elds of
CBT, FBT and some HBTs as special cases. This is achieved by choos-
ing the shape functions f(z) and g(z) as follows: for CBT, f(z) = z and
g(z) = 0; for FBT, f(z) = 0 and g(z) = z. For higher-order beamtheories,
these shape functions are generally evaluated by implementing the
transverse shear stress boundary conditions so that the transverse
shear stresses on the top and bottom surfaces of the beam vanish,
i.e., c
xz
j
z = h/2
= 0. The choice of these shape functions is not unique.
In practice, it is based on the satisfaction of certain mechanical con-
straints of the problem considered and, in general, characterizes the
degree of sophistication and accuracy of the resulting beam theory.
Table 1 shows a number of HBTs in terms of different shape func-
tions g(z), when f(z) is taken as z. In order to express these theories
in a concise manner, acronyms are used herein as shown in Table 1.
It should be remarked here that the shape functions employed in
HBT
[V]
, HBT
[VE1]
and HBT
[VE2]
do not comply exactly with the tangen-
tial stress-free boundary conditions on the top and bottom surfaces
of beams. Regarding the tangential trigonometric function proposed
by Mantari et al. [75,76], HBT
[M2]
and HBT
[M3]
respectively represent
the higher-order beam theories for m = 1/(5h) and m = p/(2h).
Similarly, for the shape functions obtained by Viola et al. [74] and
El Meiche et al. [78], HBT
[VE1]
and HBT
[VE2]
denote the beam models
for n = 1 and n = 1/[cosh (p /2) 1], respectively, whereas HBT
[M5]
and HBT
[M6]
indicate the beam theories when the parameter m is
respectively taken as m = 6 and m = 7 in the hybrid shape func-
tions developed by Mantari and Guedes Soares [80]. If the exponen-
tial shape functions of Karama et al. [26] and Aydogdu[27] are
compared, it is found that they are mathematically equivalent
descriptions [77]; therefore, a symbol HBT
[KA]
is just used herein.
It is noted that the displacement elds of these HBTs are formulated
based on shear rotation as variable since f(z) is taken as z. Actually,
a number of HBTs can also be formulated by taking the rotation of
normal as unknown variable [82]. For instance, the Reddys third-
order shear deformation theory [20], which is indicated as HBT
[R]
in this paper, can be easily recovered from Eq. (1) by choosing
f(z) = 4z
3
/(3h
2
) and g(z) = z 4z
3
/(3h
2
). Although new shape func-
tions are attainable, only the ones presented in Table 1 are examined
in this paper. The development of new beam theories derived from
the general displacement eld has been left as a subject for future
investigation.
Fig. 1. Geometry and co-ordinate system of a laminated beam.
Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192 177
While reducing the beam problem to a one-dimensional prob-
lem, it is found that the Poissons effect has very signicant inu-
ence on the vibration analysis of composite laminated beams,
especially for those angle-ply beams with large ply angles. By
ignoring the force and moment resultants in the width direction
and correcting the generalized force-strain relations, one obtains
the constitutive equations for one-dimensional laminated beam
as (for more details, see Appendix A)
N
x
M
x
P
x
_

_
_

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

_
_

_
e
0
x
e
1
x
e
2
x
_

_
_

_;
Q
xz
P
xz
_ _

A
55
D
55
D
55
F
55
_ _
c
0
xz
c
1
xz
_ _
4:a-b
where N
x
and M
x
are the stretching force resultant and bending mo-
ment resultant, respectively; P
x
represents the high-order bending
moment resultant. Q
xz
and P
xz
are shear force resultants. A
11
; B
11
,
etc., are the coefcients of the matrix A BC
1
B
T
and the matrices
A, B and C are given by
in which
A
ij
; B
ij
; D
ij
; E
ij
; F
ij
; H
ij
b

N
k1
_
z
k1
z
k
1; f ; f
2
; g; fg; g
2
Q
k
ij
dz; i; j 1; 2; 6 6:a
A
55
; D
55
; F
55
b

N
k1
_
z
k1
z
k

f
2
;

f g; g
2
Q
k
55
dz 6:b
where Q
k
ij
denotes the transformed reduced stiffness. For the kth
orthotropic lamina, Q
k
ij
can be written as [83]:
Q
k
11
Q
k
11
cos
4
h
k
2 Q
k
12
2Q
k
66
_ _
sin
2
h
k
cos
2
h
k
Q
k
22
sin
4
h
k
Q
k
12
Q
k
11
Q
k
22
4Q
k
66
_ _
sin
2
h
k
cos
2
h
k
Q
k
12
sin
4
h
k
cos
4
h
k

Q
k
22
Q
k
11
sin
4
h
k
2 Q
k
12
2Q
k
66
_ _
sin
2
h
k
cos
2
h
k
Q
k
22
cos
4
h
k
Q
k
16
Q
k
11
Q
k
12
2Q
k
66
_ _
sinh
k
cos
3
h
k
Q
k
12
Q
k
22
2Q
k
66
_ _
sin
3
h
k
cosh
k
Q
k
26
Q
k
11
Q
k
12
2Q
k
66
_ _
sin
3
h
k
cosh
k
Q
k
12
Q
k
22
2Q
k
66
_ _
sinh
k
cos
3
h
k
Q
k
66
Q
k
11
Q
k
22
2Q
k
12
2Q
k
66
_ _
sin
2
h
k
cos
2
h
k
Q
k
66
sin
4
h
k
cos
4
h
k

Q
k
55
Q
k
55
cos
2
h
k
Q
k
44
sin
2
h
k
7:a-g
where h
k
is the ber orientation angle of kth lamina with respect to
the x-axis of the beam. The elastic constants Q
k
ij
in the principal
material coordinate system are expressed as follows:
Q
k
11

E
k
1
1 l
k
12
l
k
21
; Q
k
12

l
k
12
E
k
2
1 l
k
12
l
k
21
; Q
k
22

E
k
2
1 l
k
12
l
k
21
;
Q
k
44
G
k
23
; Q
k
55
G
k
13
; Q
k
66
G
k
12
8:a-f
where E
k
1
, E
k
2
, G
k
12
, G
k
23
, G
k
13
, and l
k
12
are the engineering parameters of
the kth lamina [83].
2.1. Variational formulation for laminated beams
As mentioned previously, variational statements can be used
to establish the governing equations for composite beams. These
equations could either be given in a strong form or a weak form.
The strong form for the vibration problem of a composite beam
consists of partial differential equations of motion (hold in each
Table 1
Several shape functions proposed in the literature.
Model Shape functions Acronyms
Kaczkowski [68], Panc [69] and Reissner [70] 5z
4
1
4
3h
2
z
2
_ _
HBT
[KPR]
Levinson [18], Murty [19] and Reddy [20]
z 1
4
3h
2
z
2
_ _
HBT
[LMR]
Levy [71], Stein [72], Touratier [23,24]
h
p
sin
p
h
z
_ _
HBT
[LST]
Mantari et al. [73]
sin
p
h
z
_ _
e
1
2
cos
p
h
z

p
2h
z
HBT
[M1]
Viola et al. [74]
2h
p
tan
p
2h
z
_ _
HBT
[V]
Mantari et al. [75,76]
tanmz zmsec
2 mh
2
_ _
; m
1
5h
;
p
2h
_ _
HBT
[M2]
HBT
[M3]
Karama et al. [26], Aydogdu [27]
ze
2z=h
2
(za
2z=h
2
= lna
,"a > 0)
HBT
[KA]
Mantari et al. [77]
z2:85
2z=h
2
0:028z
HBT
[M4]
Viola et al. [74], El Meiche et al. [78]
n
h
p
sinh
p
h
z
_ _
z
_
; n 1;
1
coshp=21
_ _
HBT
[VE1]
HBT
[VE2]
Soldatos [79] hsinh
z
h
_ _
z cosh
1
2
_ _
HBT
[S]
Mantari et al. [80]
sinh
z
h
_ _
e
mcosh
z
h


z
h
cosh
1
2
_ _
msinh
2 1
2
_ _
_ _
e
mcosh
1
2

; m f6; 7g
HBT
[M5]
HBT
[M6]
Akavci and Tanrikulu [81] 3p
2
htanh
z
h
_ _

3p
2
z sec h
2 1
2
_ _
HBT
[AT1]
Akavci and Tanrikulu [81]
z sec h p
z
2
h
2
_ _
z sec h
p
4
_ _
1
p
2
tanh
p
4
_ _ _
HBT
[AT2]
A
A
11
B
11
E
11
B
11
D
11
F
11
E
11
F
11
H
11
_

_
_

_; B
A
12
A
16
B
12
B
16
E
12
E
16
B
12
B
16
D
12
D
16
F
12
F
16
E
12
E
16
F
12
F
16
H
12
H
16
_

_
_

_; C
A
22
A
26
B
22
B
26
E
22
E
26
A
26
A
66
B
26
B
66
E
26
E
66
B
22
B
26
D
22
D
26
B
22
F
26
B
26
B
66
D
26
D
66
F
26
F
66
E
22
E
26
F
22
F
26
H
22
H
26
E
26
E
66
F
26
F
66
H
26
H
66
_

_
_

_
5:a-c
178 Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192
point of the beam) and associated boundary and initial condi-
tions. The solutions to the strong form satisfy the differential
equations, boundary and initial conditions exactly and must be
as smooth as required by the differential equations and bound-
ary terms. Closed form solutions are limited to few simple load-
ing cases and boundary conditions. In the weak form, additional
approximations are generally introduced for the analysis and the
resulting equations may be written as a system of algebraic
equations, which lead to a solution that is easier to obtain than
by solving the partial differential equations (i.e., the strong form)
directly. In this work, an efcient and accurate variational meth-
od proposed by the authors [8487] for predicting the dynamic
behaviors of isotropic and composite shells is employed for the
vibration analysis of composite beams. To this end, a laminated
beam is equally divided into N
0
beam segments in the x
direction; then the vibration problem of the beam is character-
ized using a modied variational principle, which involves seek-
ing the minimum of a modied variational functional as
[86,87]
P
_
t
1
t
0

N
0
i1
T
i
U
i
W
i
dt
_
t
1
t
0

i;i1
P
kj
dt 9
where T
i
and U
i
are the maximum kinetic energy and strain energy
of a beam segment, respectively. W
i
is the work done by external
loads. The subscript i indicates the beam segment number. P
kj
de-
notes the interface potential on the common boundaries of adjacent
beam segments (i) and (i + 1). t
0
and t
1
are two specied times.
Based on the general displacement eld in Eq. (1), the maximum ki-
netic energy of the ith beam segment is given as
T
1
2
_
l
i
q
0
_ u
2
q
0
_ w
2
q
2
@ _ w
@x
_ _
2
q
5
_
#
2
_
2 q
1
_ u
@ _ w
@x
q
3
_ u
_
# q
4
@ _ w
@x
_
#
_ __
dx 10
where the dot above a variable represents differentiation with re-
spect to time. l
i
is the length of the ith beam segment. q
0
, q
1
, q
2
,
q
3
, q
4
and q
5
are the inertia terms, dened by:
q
0
; q
1
; q
2
; q
3
; q
4
; q
5
b

N
k1
_
z
k1
z
k
q
k
1; f ; f
2
; g; fg; g
2
dz 11
where q
k
is the mass density per unit volume of the kth lamina.
The strain energy of the ith beam segment associated with the
general shear deformable theory is expressed as
U
i

1
2
_
l
i
N
x
e
0
x
M
x
e
1
x
P
x
e
2
x
Q
xz
c
0
xz
P
xz
c
1
xz
_ _
dx 12
where the strains, curvatures, force and moment resultants are de-
ned by Eqs. (3-4).
All external loads are assumed to act on the center-line of each
beam segment. Then, the work done by external forces for the ith
beam segment is
W
i

_
l
i
f
u;i
u
i
f
w;i
w
i
dx 13
where f
u,i
and f
w,i
are the distributed forces along the beam length
applied in the x and z directions, respectively.
In constructing the interface potential P
kj
in Eq. (9), we follow
the similar way as was done in the authors earlier works [8487]
for elastic shells, where a modied variational principle (MVP) in
conjunction with the least-squares weighted residual method
(LSWRM) was proposed to impose the essential interface continu-
ity constraints. By doing so, we have
P
kj
f
u
N
x
H
u
f
w
Q
xz
H
w
f
r
M
x
H
r
f
#
P
x
H
#
j
xx
i

1
2
f
u
j
u
H
2
u
f
w
j
w
H
2
v
f
r
j
r
H
2
w
f
#
j
#
H
2
#
_ _

xx
i
14
in which
Q
xz
Q
xz

@M
x
@x
15
The rst expression in the right-hand side of P
kj
is derived by
means of the MVP to relax the enforcement of the interface conti-
nuity constraints (for more details, the reader is referred to refer-
ences [84,88]). The second expression is obtained from the
LSWRM, and the existence of this term is twofold: to ensure a
numerically stable operation for the multi-segment decomposition
of composite beams, and to ensure a unied formulation that can
deal with non-classical boundary constraints. H
u
, H
w
, H
r
and H
#
are the essential continuity equations on the common interfaces,
given by: H
u
= u
i
u
i+1
, H
w
= w
i
w
i+1
, H
r
= @w
i
/@x @ w
i+1
/@x
and H
#
= #
i
#
i+1
. j
t
(t = u, w, r, #) are pre-assigned weighted
parameters. In practice, the weighted parameters taken to be
10
2
10
7
E will lead to reasonably converged solutions, with E being
the maximumelastic modulus in the principal coordinate direction
[86,87]. Hence, j = 10
3
E has been adopted to present all the results
in the following analysis. f
t
are the parameters dening various
boundary conditions. For the case of two adjacent beam segments,
f
t
= 1; while for the case of geometric boundaries, values of f
t
are
dened in Table 2. An arbitrary set of classical boundary conditions
at the two ends of a composite beam can be obtained by an appro-
priate choice of the values of f
t
. The essential boundary terms for
these classical boundary conditions at the ends of a composite
beam are also given along with the table.
As noted in the Introduction, the mechanical interaction of the
composite beam and the elastic foundation is an important issue
in practical engineering applications. For such elastic supported
beams, vibration results based on alternative mathematical meth-
ods are very rare in the literature. A careful examination of the sec-
ond expression of the right-hand side of Eq. (14) reveals that the
weighted parameters j
t
may be viewed as physical stiffnesses of
the elastic foundation along translational and/or rotational direc-
tions. This offers an important advantage of the present formula-
tion since non-classical boundary conditions (elastic restraints) at
the two ends of a composite beam can be easily incorporated in
the present model by removing the modied variational term from
Eq. (14).
2.2. Equations of motion and solution methodology
The main advantage of the modied variational functional P in
Eq. (9) is that the choice of the displacement and rotation functions
for each beam segment is greatly simplied, and any linearly inde-
pendent, complete basis functions may be employed. The reason
lies in the fact that both the interface continuity and geometric
boundary conditions in a laminated beam are relaxed and enforced
through the MVP and the LSWRM, and there is no need to explicitly
satisfy the natural conditions on these interfaces and boundaries
for the displacement and rotation functions. The functional P
permits the use of the same functions for each beam segment.
Table 2
Values of f
t
(t = u, w, r, #) for classical boundary conditions.
Boundary set Essential conditions f
u
f
w
f
r
f
#
Free No constraints 0 0 0 0
Simply-supported u = w = 0 1 1 0 0
Pinned u = w = @w/@x = 0 1 1 1 0
Clamped u = w = @w/@x = # = 0 1 1 1 1
Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192 179
The displacement and rotation components of each beam segment
can be written in the forms:
ux; t

P
p0
T
p
x~ u
p
t Uxut; wx; t

P
p0
T
p
x ~ w
p
t Wxwt
#x; t

P
p0
T
p
x
~
#
p
t Hx#t
16
Note the subscript i is omitted here for the sake of brevity. T
p
(x) is
the p order complete polynomials, and P is the highest degree taken
in the polynomials. ~ u
p
, ~ w
p
and
~
#
p
are the generalized coordinate
variables. U(x), W(x) and H(x) are the function vectors; u, w and
# are the generalized coordinate vectors. Four sets of polynomials
are independently used to expand the displacement and rotation
components of each beam segment in the x direction. They are:
(a) Chebyshev orthogonal polynomials of rst kind (COPFK) [89]
T
0
x 1; T
1
x x; T
p1
x 2xT
p
x T
p1
x; for p P2
17
(b) Chebyshev orthogonal polynomials of second kind (COPSK)
[89]
T
0
x 1; T
1
x 2x; T
p1
x 2xT
p
x T
p1
x; for pP2
18
(c) Legendre orthogonal polynomials of rst kind (LOPFK) [89]
T
0
x 1; T
1
x x; p1T
p1
x
2p1xT
p
x pT
p1
x; for p P2 19
(d) Ordinary power polynomials (OPP)
T
p
x x
p
; for p 0; 1; 2; . . . 20
It should be remarked here that the COPFK, COPSK and LOPFK
are complete and orthogonal series dened on the interval of
x 2 [1, 1]. A coordinate transformation from x (for the ith beam
segment, x 2 [x
i
, x
i+1
]) to xx 2 1; 1 needs to be introduced to
implement the present analysis, i.e., x g
a
x g
b
, g
a
= (x
i+1
x
i
)/2
and g
b
= (x
i+1
+ x
i
)/2. Similarly, a mapping between x 2 [x
i
,x
i+1
]
and x 2 0; 1 is used for the OPP since it is a stable and complete
representation only on the [0,1] interval. In doing so, we obtain
the relation: x x
i1
x
i
x x
i
.
Upon inserting Eqs. (10), (12),(13) and (14) into the Eq. (9) and
setting the variation of the preceding functional P to zero (i.e.,
dP = 0) with respect to the generalized coordinate vectors u, w
and #, one nds the equations of motion for a laminated beam as
M

q K K
k
K
j
q F 21
where q is the global generalized coordinate vector, given as:
q u
T
1
; w
T
1
; #
T
1
; u
T
2
; w
T
2
; #
T
2
; . . . ; u
T
N
0
; w
T
N
0
; #
T
N
0
_ _
T
. M and K are, respec-
tively, the disjoint generalized mass and stiffness matrices. K
k
and
K
j
are the generalized interface stiffness matrices introduced by
the MVP and the LSWRM, respectively. The elements in the above
matrices are listed in Appendix B. The task related to the free vibra-
tion problems of laminated beams can be easily solved by assuming
harmonic motion and removing the external loads from Eq. (21).
Regarding the transient vibration problems, the Newmark method
with integration parameters c
0
= 0.5 and c
1
= 0.25 is employed to
obtain the time domain solutions for composite beams. To avoid
repetition readers may consult Refs. [8487] for more details about
the solution methods outlined above.
3. Results and discussion
A considerable number of numerical examples are now pre-
sented to conrm the reliability, convergence, efciency, and accu-
racy of the proposed formulation. In order to simplify the
presentation, F, S, P, C, and E represent free, simply-supported, pin-
ned, clamped and elastic supports, respectively. Three types of
elastic end support conditions, indicated by the symbols E
I
, E
II
and E
III
, are considered herein for laminated beams. E
I
type is con-
sidered to be axial elastic (i.e., u 0, w = @ w/@x = # = 0) and is
characterized by a stiffness constant k
u
per unit length in the x
direction. On the contrary, support type E
II
only allows elastically
restrained displacement in the z direction (i.e., w0, u = @w/@
x = # = 0) and a transverse restrained stiffness k
w
is prescribed for
this boundary condition. When both axial and transverse displace-
ments of the beam end are elastically restrained (i.e., u 0, w0,
@w/@x = # = 0), the end support is denoted by the symbol E
III
. In
what follows, a simple letter string will be used to describe the
types of the boundary conditions imposed on the two ends of a
beam, e.g., the symbol FC denotes the beam having free and
clamped end conditions at x = 0 and x = L, respectively. The numer-
ical results to be discussed are appropriately grouped into two ma-
jor categories: free vibration and transient vibration responses. To
validate the present approach, the results are compared with avail-
able published results in the literature and those solutions ob-
tained from the nite element analyses.
3.1. Free vibration analysis of laminated beams
The performance characteristics of the proposed formulation for
the free vibration analysis of composite beams are evaluated in this
section. The rst example is slender and thick orthotropic (0
0
)
beams with simply-supported boundary conditions. The following
material properties and geometric dimensions are used:
E
1
= 144.80 GPa, E
2
= 9.65 GPa, G
23
= 3.45 GPa, G
12
= G
13
= 4.14 GPa,
l
12
= 0.3 and q = 1389.23 kg/m
3
; for beam I (slender beam),
L = 0.762 m, L/b = L/h = 120; for beam II (thick beam), L = 0.381 m,
L/b = L/h = 15. Convergence studies of the natural frequencies for
the two beams are carried out to determine the optimal number
of beam segments required for satisfactory solutions, as shown in
Table 3. For these calculations, eight terms (i.e., P = 7) of the rst
kind Chebyshev orthogonal polynomials are used for each beam
segment. The present results obtained from HBT
[LMR]
are compared
with those exact solutions employing CBT [3] and FBT [16], and -
nite element results based on HBT
[R]
[54]. It is observed that the
present method furnishes stable and rapid convergence character-
istics as the number of beam segments is increased. Review of the
convergence rate of the natural frequencies indicates that good
accuracy of the vibration frequencies can be achieved with little
segments divided in the laminated beams. In fact, if a decomposi-
tion of two segments (i.e., N
0
= 2) in the orthotropic beams is used,
the frequencies of mode order up to 6 are still converged to two
decimal places. When 20 segments are used for the beams, the
accuracy of high-order vibration modes can be greatly improved.
To limit the length of the paper, these converged high-order fre-
quencies are not here presented. Further, there is excellent agree-
ment between the HBT
[LMR]
results of the present formulation and
those HBT
[R]
solutions [54] obtained from nite element modeling,
conrming the high accuracy of the present approach. For the slen-
der beam, the difference between the CBT and present solutions is
negligible. Thus the CBT is certainly accurate in this case. However,
for thick beams, one should not expect the CBT to produce accurate
predictions of the natural frequencies; for example, the discrep-
ancy between the CBT and present HBT
[LMR]
results for the fth
mode of the thick beam reaches more than 117.3%.
180 Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192
In order to further verify the convergence and accuracy of the
present formulation, the rst ve natural frequencies of cross-ply
(0
0
/90
0
/0
0
/90
0
) and angle-ply (30
0
/50
0
/30
0
/50
0
) laminated com-
posite beams with respect to different number of beam segments
are respectively listed in Tables 4 and 5. The material properties
and geometric dimensions of the beams follow the same congura-
tion as dened in the aforementioned Beam II, whereas CC
boundary conditions are considered herein for the beams. Each
layer is assumed to be of the same thickness. Similar to the previ-
ous examples, HBT
[LMR]
is employed for the theoretical computa-
tions, and the convergence study for the beams starts with
segment number N
0
= 2, which is increased progressively to
N
0
= 100. From Tables 4 and 5, the convergence trends of the
numerical results for the beams are obvious. For the cross-ply
beam, the present results are compared with those FBT solutions
obtained by the modied varational method [38] and the dynamic
stiffness method [42], whereas for the angle-ply beam, the present
solutions are compared with the corresponding values obtained by
HBT
[LST]
[43] and HBT
[R]
[54]. In both cases, it is observed that the
results obtained using two beam segments (i.e., N
0
= 2) are close to
the reference results. The small discrepancies in the results are
probably due to the fact that different beam theories and solution
approaches were used in the literature. It should be noted that the
fourth mode frequency in Table 5 given by Ref. [54] may be mis-
printed by the authors. Table 6 shows the comparison of present
results with those HBT
[LST]
solutions reported by Jun and Hongxing
Table 3
Convergence of natural frequencies (kHz) for orthotropic beams with different number of beam segments N
0
(beam I: L = 0.762 m, L/b = L/h = 120; beam II, L = 0.381 m, L/b = L/
h = 15; boundary conditions: SS).
Model Mode no. Number of beam segments Ref. [3] CBT Ref. [16] FBT Ref. [54] HBT
[R]
N
0
= 2 N
0
= 4 N
0
= 6 N
0
= 8 N
0
= 12 N
0
= 20 N
0
= 50
Beam I 1 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.0506 0.051 0.051 0.051
2 0.2015 0.2015 0.2015 0.2015 0.2015 0.2015 0.2015 0.203 0.203 0.202
3 0.4507 0.4507 0.4507 0.4507 0.4507 0.4507 0.4507 0.457 0.454 0.453
4 0.7946 0.7946 0.7946 0.7946 0.7946 0.7946 0.7946 0.812 0.804 0.799
5 1.2301 1.2286 1.2286 1.2286 1.2286 1.2286 1.2286 1.269 1.262 1.238
Beam II 1 0.7533 0.7533 0.7533 0.7533 0.7533 0.7533 0.7533 0.813 0.755 0.756
2 2.5470 2.5470 2.5470 2.5470 2.5470 2.5470 2.5470 3.250 2.548 2.554
3 4.7328 4.7328 4.7328 4.7328 4.7328 4.7328 4.7328 7.314 4.716 4.742
4 7.0251 7.0251 7.0251 7.0251 7.0251 7.0251 7.0251 13.002 6.960 7.032
5 9.3534 9.3501 9.3501 9.3500 9.3500 9.3500 9.3500 20.316 9.194 9.355
Table 4
Convergence of natural frequencies (Hz) for cross-ply (0
0
/90
0
/0
0
/90
0
) laminated beams with different number of beam segments N
0
(L = 0.381 m, L/b = L/h = 15; boundary
conditions: CC).
Mode no. Number of beam segments Ref. [38] FBT Ref. [42] FBT
N
0
= 2 N
0
= 4 N
0
= 6 N
0
= 8 N
0
= 12 N
0
= 20 N
0
= 50 N
0
= 100
1 1056.1 1054.4 1054.1 1054.1 1054.0 1054.0 1054.0 1054.0 1062.2 1054.4
2 2526.7 2518.0 2516.6 2516.3 2516.2 2516.3 2516.3 2516.3 2612.0 2509.2
3 4336.7 4314.1 4310.8 4310.1 4309.9 4309.9 4309.9 4309.9 4293.7 4281.5
4 6323.5 6285.9 6280.1 6279.0 6278.6 6278.7 6278.7 6278.7 6309.0 6215.8
5 8400.0 8359.7 8351.4 8349.7 8349.3 8349.4 8349.3 8349.3 8245.7 8239.9
Table 5
Convergence of natural frequencies (Hz) for angle-ply (30
0
/50
0
/30
0
/50
0
) laminated beams with different number of beam segments N
0
(L = 0.381 m, b = h = L/15; boundary
conditions: CC).
Mode no. Number of beam segments Ref. [43] HBT
[LST]
Ref. [54] HBT
[R]
N
0
= 2 N
0
= 4 N
0
= 6 N
0
= 8 N
0
= 12 N
0
= 20 N
0
= 50 N
0
= 100
1 637.9 637.4 637.3 637.2 637.2 637.2 637.2 637.2 638.5 640.5
2 1657.7 1654.5 1653.7 1653.4 1653.2 1653.2 1653.2 1653.2 1657.3 1666.8
3 3040.0 3029.2 3026.5 3025.6 3025.1 3024.9 3025.0 3025.0 3034.0 3059.5
4 4677.5 4654.1 4648.3 4646.2 4645.1 4644.8 4644.8 4644.8 4661.2 3397.8
5 4960.9 4960.9 4960.9 4960.9 4960.8 4960.8 4960.8 4960.8 4784.6 4712.5
Table 6
Natural frequencies (Hz) for angle-ply (30
0
/50
0
/30
0
/50
0
) laminated beams with different boundary conditions (L = 0.381 m, b = h = L/15).
Mode no. FF FC SS CS
Ref. [43] HBT
[LST]
Present HBT
[LMR]
Ref. [43] HBT
[LST]
Present HBT
[LMR]
Ref. [43] HBT
[LST]
Present HBT
[LMR]
Ref. [43] HBT
[LST]
Present HBT
[LMR]
1 659.3 659.2 105.3 105.1 294.8 294.9 450.5 449.8
2 1738.6 1735.2 637.6 636.4 1132.4 1130.2 1389.9 1387.0
3 3213.4 3207.2 1698.0 1694.2 2414.4 2409.6 2724.1 2717.5
4 4784.8 4948.0 2392.3 2480.6 4012.3 4001.1 4340.4 4327.8
5 4961.0 4961.6 3121.0 3113.2 4784.2 4952.9 4784.3 4956.1
Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192 181
[43] for the angle-ply (30
0
/50
0
/30
0
/50
0
) laminated composite beam
with four sets of boundary conditions, namely, the FF, FC, SS
and CS. The present results are obtained by using N
0
= 4. Again,
one can see that the present HBT
[LMR]
solutions are in good corre-
lation with the reference results.
Investigations carried out above demonstrate that the free
vibration behaviors of composite laminated beams are well charac-
terized by the HBT
[LMR]
. Comparisons of numerical results based on
different beam theories for angle-ply (h) laminated beams with
free end conditions are shown in Table 7. The material properties
and geometric dimensions of the beams are given as follows:
E
1
= 37.41 GPa, E
2
= 13.67 GPa, G
12
= 5.478 GPa, G
13
= 6.03 GPa,
G
23
= 6. 666 GPa, l
12
= 0.3; for the (0
0
) beam: L = 0.21008 m,
b = 16.96 10
3
m, h = 3.33 10
3
m, q = 1975.2 kg/m
3
; for the
(45
0
) beam: L = 0.11179 m, b = 12.7 10
3
m, h = 3.38 10
3
m,
q = 1968.9 kg/m
3
; for the (90
0
) beam: L = 0.11180 m,
b = 12.68 10
3
m, h = 3.37 10
3
m, q = 1965.9 kg/m
3
. Experi-
mental results reported by Ritchie et al. [90] for the laminated
beams are also included in Table 7 for additional comparison pur-
poses. It is observed that the present HBT solutions are in close
agreement with the experimental results. The max discrepancy be-
tween the HBT results and the experimental data does not exceed
than 2.8% for the worst case and in most case is less than 1%. For
lower-order vibration modes, there seem to be almost no differ-
ences in the solutions of all HBTs; however, the vibration results
of HBT
[V]
, HBT
[VE1]
and HBT
[VE2]
deviate signicantly from other
HBT solutions when higher-order vibration modes are concerned.
The discrepancies in the results may be attributed to the violation
of the tangential stress-free boundary conditions for the above
three types of HBTs. Another interesting observation is that the
HBT
[VE1]
and HBT
[VE2]
produce identical results for all numerical
cases. This is anticipated since they use the similar shape functions
just with different multiplying coefcients. Moreover, the HBT
[VE1]
and HBT
[VE2]
predict frequencies that are higher than the frequen-
cies based on other HBTs. A detailed comparison between the pres-
ent HBT results and those HBT
[LST]
solutions of Jun and Hongxing
[43] for the (45
0
) beam with other four sets of boundary conditions
(i.e., FC, SS, CS and CC) are listed in Table 8. From this table the
accuracy of the results of the proposed formulation is remarkable.
There is no signicant difference between the present HBT results
and the HBT
[LST]
solutions reported by Jun and Hongxing [43], ex-
cept for the results of those HBTs (i.e., HBT
[V]
, HBT
[VE1]
, HBT
[VE2]
,
HBT
[M5]
, and HBT
[M6]
) which do not satisfy zero shear traction con-
ditions on the top and bottom surfaces of the beam.
Having shown the validity of the present approach, we nowturn
our attention to the parametric studies on the free vibrations of
laminated beams. In view of the large number of parameters that
could be studied, it is decided to limit the scope of the current work
to an investigation of just two variables, namely the effects of ply-
orientation and material anisotropy on the natural frequencies of
laminated beams. Unless otherwise stated, the following material
parameters are used: E
1
/E
2
= 15, E
2
= 10 GPa, G
12
/E
2
= 0.5,
Table 7
Comparison of natural frequencies (Hz) obtained with different theories for angle-ply (h) laminated beams (boundary conditions: F-F).
Ply-angle Mode HBT
[R]
HBT
[KPR]
HBT
[LMR]
HBT
[LST]
HBT
[M1]
HBT
[V]
HBT
[M2]
HBT
[M3]
HBT
[KA]
0
0
1 337.02 337.04 337.04 337.05 337.05 337.15 337.05 337.04 337.04
2 926.06 926.07 926.07 926.08 926.19 927.22 926.07 926.09 926.09
3 1806.65 1806.69 1806.69 1806.71 1807.16 1811.48 1806.68 1806.76 1806.77
4 2967.26 2967.27 2967.26 2967.33 2968.58 2980.75 2967.27 2967.47 2967.50
5 4397.15 4397.17 4397.17 4397.31 4400.13 4427.45 4397.17 4397.61 4397.71
6 6083.53 6083.57 6083.57 6083.84 6089.34 6142.21 6083.56 6084.40 6084.62
HBT
[M4]
HBT
[VE1]
HBT
[VE2]
HBT
[S]
HBT
[M5]
HBT
[M6]
HBT
[AT1]
HBT
[AT2]
Ref. [90]
1 337.05 337.32 337.32 337.05 337.04 337.05 337.04 337.03 337.7
2 926.09 928.88 928.88 926.07 926.11 926.13 926.07 926.10 926.7
3 1806.78 1818.40 1818.40 1806.66 1806.86 1806.95 1806.70 1806.81 1812.3
4 2967.52 3000.37 3000.37 2967.24 2967.75 2967.99 2967.30 2967.60 2979.1
5 4397.76 4471.94 4471.94 4397.05 4398.25 4398.80 4397.23 4397.92 4411.1
6 6084.72 6229.32 6229.32 6083.41 6085.69 6086.70 6083.70 6084.99 6104.8
45
0
HBT
[R]
HBT
[KPR]
HBT
[LMR]
HBT
[LST]
HBT
[M1]
HBT
[V]
HBT
[M2]
HBT
[M3]
HBT
[KA]
1 764.88 765.31 765.31 765.29 765.34 765.68 765.31 765.33 765.31
2 2096.99 2097.37 2097.36 2097.38 2097.72 2100.96 2097.37 2097.44 2097.44
3 4077.13 4077.41 4077.41 4077.48 4078.84 4092.08 4077.40 4077.64 4077.67
4 6667.09 6667.26 6667.27 6667.46 6671.23 6707.87 6667.25 6667.87 6667.98
5 9829.59 9829.69 9829.68 9830.11 9838.49 9919.14 9829.68 9830.97 9831.27
HBT
[M4]
HBT
[VE1]
HBT
[VE2]
HBT
[S]
HBT
[M5]
HBT
[M6]
HBT
[AT1]
HBT
[AT2]
Ref.[90]
1 765.32 766.18 766.18 765.26 765.33 765.26 765.32 765.32 767.9
2 2097.44 2106.12 2106.12 2097.37 2097.51 2097.50 2097.38 2097.47 2091.9
3 4077.71 4113.36 4113.36 4077.44 4077.93 4078.17 4077.44 4077.80 4155.9
4 6668.07 6767.32 6767.32 6667.04 6668.71 6669.46 6667.36 6668.26 6762.7
5 9831.48 10051.61 10051.61 9829.20 9832.92 9834.53 9829.89 9831.85 10006.0
90
0
HBT
[R]
HBT
[KPR]
HBT
[LMR]
HBT
[LST]
HBT
[M1]
HBT
[V]
HBT
[M2]
HBT
[M3]
HBT
[KA]
1 728.82 728.61 728.63 728.62 728.65 728.91 728.61 728.62 728.63
2 1997.99 1997.84 1997.83 1997.84 1998.13 2000.78 1997.84 1997.87 1997.89
3 3886.91 3886.87 3886.85 3886.93 3888.05 3898.92 3886.87 3887.03 3887.07
4 6362.23 6362.01 6362.00 6362.15 6365.27 6395.50 6362.02 6362.50 6362.61
5 9390.71 9390.85 9390.82 9391.20 9398.10 9464.88 9390.82 9391.89 9392.19
HBT
[M4]
HBT
[VE1]
HBT
[VE2]
HBT
[S]
HBT
[M5]
HBT
[M6]
HBT
[AT1]
HBT
[AT2]
Ref. [90]
1 728.62 729.31 729.31 728.81 728.66 728.61 728.61 728.63 731.2
2 1997.89 2005.01 2005.01 1997.90 1997.95 1997.96 1997.82 1997.91 1994.8
3 3887.09 3916.40 3916.40 3886.89 3887.28 3887.47 3886.87 3887.15 3901.5
4 6362.64 6444.41 6444.41 6362.10 6363.18 6363.75 6362.05 6362.81 6315.7
5 9392.29 9574.03 9574.04 9391.01 9393.50 9394.78 9391.00 9392.61 9317.8
182 Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192
G
13
/E
2
= G
23
/E
2
= 0.3846, l
12
= 0.25 and q = 1600 kg/m
3
. The
HBT
[LMR]
and a decomposition of four segments in the laminated
beams are employed for all numerical computations. The rst four
mode frequencies of four-layer symmetric angle-ply (h, h, h, h)
beams are given for different ply orientations and boundary condi-
tions, as shown in Table 9. The natural frequencies are presented
using a dimensionless form: x xL
2
=h

q=E
1
_
. It is observed that
the frequency parameters decrease with increasing the ply orienta-
tion angle for all boundary conditions. Moreover, the elastic bound-
ary condition has a profound inuence on the natural frequencies of
the laminated beams, and the CC boundary condition provides the
largest frequencies for all cases.
The fundamental frequency parameters x xL
2
=h

q=E
2
_
for
antisymmetric cross-ply laminated beams with different layer
numbers and orthotropic ratios E
1
/E
2
are shown in Table 10. It is
clearly shown from this table that, for a certain layer-up, the fre-
quency values increase with an increase of the E
1
/E
2
ratio for all
classical boundary conditions. This is true because an increase in
elastic modulus strengthens the beam stiffness. Further, for each
set of classical boundary conditions, as the number of layers in-
creases, the fundamental frequency parameter increases. The rea-
son for this is that as the number of layers increases, the
magnitude of the coupling stiffnesses B
11
and E
11
in Eq. (4) de-
crease. It is noted that for the antisymmetric cross-ply laminates,
the coupling stiffnesses reach their maximum values with two lay-
ers and become zero with an innite number of layers. As a conse-
quence, the less is the extension-bending coupling, then the larger
fundamental frequency parameters are obtained. However, the dif-
ferences are insignicant for beams that are constructed of a larger
number of layers. For the E
III
E
III
boundary conditions, it is of par-
ticular interest to note that the frequency parameters of the beams
are not particularly affected by the change of the layer numbers
and E
1
/E
2
ratios. This is expected since the fundamental vibration
frequencies of the beams are dominant by the elastic support
conditions.
As far as the computational aspects of the study are concerned,
the current formulation is presented in a very general form that
leaves open the opportunity of using it in conjunction with differ-
ent polynomials. It has been proved in the aforementioned studies
that the free vibration behaviors of laminated beams are well char-
acterized by the Chebyshev orthogonal polynomials of rst kind
(COPFK). In order to evaluate the versatility of the formulation
for the application of different basis functions, the relative fre-
quency discrepancies between the COPFK solutions and the results
of COPSK, LOPFK and OPP for the antisymmetric cross-ply (0
0
/90
0
)
2
laminated beam with different boundary conditions are illustrated
in Fig. 2. The frequency results of the rst fty modes are exam-
ined. In all the numerical cases, the HBT
[LMR]
is considered and
the order of the polynomials is taken as: P = 8. The discrepancy is
dened as: Relative discrepancy x
d
x
COPFK
=x
COPFK
, where
the subscript

d denotes the COPSK, LOPFK and OPP. The number
of segments, N
0
, decomposed in the laminated beam is chosen
Table 8
Comparison of natural frequencies (Hz) obtained with different theories for the angle-ply (45
0
/45
0
/45
0
/45
0
) laminated beam subjected to different boundary conditions
(L = 0.11179 m, b = 12.7 10
3
m, h = 3.38 10
3
m).
Boundary Mode HBT
[R]
HBT
[KPR]
HBT
[LMR]
HBT
[LST]
HBT
[M1]
HBT
[V]
HBT
[M2]
HBT
[M3]
HBT
[KA]
FC 1 120.58 120.57 120.57 120.57 120.58 120.60 120.58 120.58 120.57
2 752.61 752.61 752.60 752.61 752.70 753.52 752.61 752.63 752.62
3 2093.93 2093.93 2093.93 2093.96 2094.52 2099.85 2093.93 2094.02 2094.04
4 4065.98 4066.00 4066.00 4066.09 4068.08 4086.84 4066.00 4066.29 4066.38
HBT
[M4]
HBT
[VE1]
HBT
[VE2]
HBT
[S]
HBT
[M5]
HBT
[M6]
HBT
[AT1]
HBT
[AT2]
Ref. [43]
1 120.57 120.62 120.62 120.57 120.58 120.58 120.58 120.57 120.5
2 752.62 754.81 754.81 752.60 752.64 752.61 752.61 752.62 752.5
3 2094.05 2108.44 2108.44 2093.93 2094.15 2093.92 2093.94 2094.07 2093.8
4 4066.42 4117.33 4117.33 4065.99 4066.78 4066.02 4066.05 4066.49 4065.7
HBT
[R]
HBT
[KPR]
HBT
[LMR]
HBT
[LST]
HBT
[M1]
HBT
[V]
HBT
[M2]
HBT
[M3]
HBT
[KA]
SS 1 338.20 338.20 338.20 338.20 338.21 338.33 338.20 338.20 338.20
2 1347.02 1347.00 1347.01 1347.01 1347.20 1349.00 1347.01 1347.04 1347.04
3 3009.51 3009.52 3009.52 3009.56 3010.48 3019.38 3009.52 3009.67 3009.69
4 5299.07 5299.05 5299.05 5299.18 5301.99 5329.25 5299.05 5299.49 5299.57
HBT
[M4]
HBT
[VE1]
HBT
[VE2]
HBT
[S]
HBT
[M5]
HBT
[M6]
HBT
[AT1]
HBT
[AT2]
Ref. [43]
1 338.20 338.50 338.50 338.20 338.21 338.20 338.20 338.20 338.1
2 1347.04 1351.86 1351.86 1347.01 1347.08 1347.01 1347.01 1347.05 1347.0
3 3009.71 3033.65 3033.65 3009.53 3009.88 3009.51 3009.55 3009.77 3009.5
4 5299.63 5373.40 5373.39 5299.05 5300.12 5299.15 5299.12 5299.79 5299.1
HBT
[R]
HBT
[KPR]
HBT
[LMR]
HBT
[LST]
HBT
[M1]
HBT
[V]
HBT
[M2]
HBT
[M3]
HBT
[KA]
CS 1 527.32 527.32 527.32 527.33 527.35 527.86 527.32 527.33 527.33
2 1698.97 1698.98 1698.98 1699.00 1699.32 1703.43 1698.98 1699.04 1699.06
3 3514.93 3514.94 3514.93 3515.03 3516.45 3532.07 3514.94 3515.16 3515.25
4 5945.46 5945.45 5945.44 5945.67 5949.70 5991.27 5945.43 5946.04 5946.29
HBT
[M4]
HBT
[VE1]
HBT
[VE2]
HBT
[S]
HBT
[M5]
HBT
[M6]
HBT
[AT1]
HBT
[AT2]
Ref. [43]
1 527.34 528.63 528.63 527.32 527.35 527.32 527.36 527.34 527.3
2 1699.07 1709.88 1709.88 1698.98 1699.14 1698.99 1699.22 1699.08 1698.9
3 3515.30 3557.13 3557.12 3514.95 3515.57 3514.92 3515.88 3515.35 3514.7
4 5946.38 6059.00 6059.00 5945.45 5947.15 5945.47 5947.97 5946.53 5944.8
HBT
[R]
HBT
[KPR]
HBT
[LMR]
HBT
[LST]
HBT
[M1]
HBT
[V]
HBT
[M2]
HBT
[M3]
HBT
[KA]
CC 1 763.39 763.38 763.38 763.39 763.48 764.78 763.39 763.40 763.41
2 2088.73 2088.74 2088.73 2088.78 2089.45 2097.01 2088.74 2088.84 2088.89
3 4054.70 4054.77 4054.77 4054.91 4057.27 4081.73 4054.77 4055.11 4055.28
4 6621.53 6621.63 6621.62 6621.96 6627.94 6686.94 6621.62 6622.44 6622.89
HBT
[M4]
HBT
[VE1]
HBT
[VE2]
HBT
[S]
HBT
[M5]
HBT
[M6]
HBT
[AT1]
HBT
[AT2]
Ref. [43]
1 763.42 766.80 766.80 763.38 763.44 763.39 763.47 763.42 763.3
2 2088.91 2109.06 2109.06 2088.73 2089.05 2088.73 2089.20 2088.93 2088.5
3 4055.35 4121.44 4121.44 4054.77 4055.80 4054.77 4056.28 4055.40 4054.1
4 6623.03 6784.44 6784.43 6621.61 6624.13 6621.62 6625.32 6623.12 6619.9
Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192 183
as: N
0
= 50. It can be observed from Fig. 2 that the four sets of poly-
nomials lead to almost identical results, and the absolute maxi-
mum discrepancy does not exceed 1 10
6
for the worst case.
This reveals, regardless of the boundary condition being consid-
ered, that the accuracy of the present formulation is not particu-
larly affected by the employed basis functions.
Concerning the present formulation used in the free vibration
analysis, one may assert that it offers a simple yet powerful
Table 9
Frequencies parameters x xL
2
=h

q=E1
_
of four-layer angle-ply (h, h, h,h) laminated beams with different boundary conditions (L/h = 15, b = h = 2.5 10
2
m; elastic
support stiffness: k
u
= 1.5 10
5
N/m, k
w
= 2.5 10
5
N/m).
h Mode no. Boundary conditions
SS PP CC FC S-C PC FP S-P E
I
E
I
E
II
E
II
E
III
E
III
0
0
1 2.6297 3.0928 4.7851 0.9764 3.6824 3.9264 0.4204 2.8597 0.5196 0.6659 0.5196
2 8.7727 9.3764 10.7268 5.1117 9.7960 10.0892 4.2905 9.0725 4.7851 2.7942 0.6659
3 16.1350 16.9016 17.7455 11.8961 16.9551 17.3349 11.2284 16.5143 10.7268 8.8238 2.7942
4 23.8003 24.7482 25.2337 19.3963 24.5222 24.9960 19.0247 24.2687 17.7455 16.1629 8.8238
15
0
1 1.8773 2.3122 3.7170 0.6844 2.7496 2.9832 0.3419 2.0938 0.5196 0.6629 0.5196
2 6.7199 7.2621 8.8099 3.8516 7.7941 8.0604 3.1286 6.9903 3.7170 2.1011 0.6629
3 13.1319 13.7852 15.0281 9.4723 14.1043 14.4265 8.6752 13.4565 8.8099 6.7864 2.1011
4 20.1919 20.9678 21.8363 16.1212 21.0284 21.4132 15.5248 20.5767 15.0281 13.1662 6.7864
30
0
1 1.2251 1.6057 2.6062 0.4409 1.8589 2.0677 0.2556 1.4147 0.5195 0.6553 0.5195
2 4.6455 5.1094 6.5985 2.6261 5.6167 5.8494 2.0976 4.8780 2.6062 1.5447 0.6553
3 9.6804 10.2105 11.8104 6.8506 10.7593 11.0224 6.0651 9.9450 6.5985 4.7416 1.5447
4 15.7425 16.3389 17.7947 12.3123 16.7873 17.0825 11.4991 16.0397 11.8104 9.7262 4.7416
45
0
1 0.8745 1.2163 1.9202 0.3132 1.3466 1.5367 0.2022 1.0444 0.5194 0.6429 0.5194
2 3.3982 3.8195 5.0431 1.9097 4.1982 4.4127 1.5362 3.6099 1.9202 1.2816 0.6429
3 7.3167 7.7888 9.3411 5.1343 8.3232 8.5601 4.4869 7.5530 5.0431 3.5300 1.2816
4 12.3174 12.8324 14.5082 8.1271 13.4189 13.6756 8.1271 12.5748 9.3411 7.3771 3.5300
60
0
1 0.7583 1.0817 1.6787 0.2713 1.1720 1.3527 0.1821 0.9188 0.5193 0.6348 0.5193
2 2.9650 3.3674 4.4547 1.6638 3.6846 3.8907 1.3470 3.1673 1.6787 1.2032 0.6348
3 6.4408 6.8908 8.3408 4.5099 7.3789 7.6057 3.9349 6.6663 4.4547 3.1163 1.2032
4 10.9539 11.4409 12.8083 6.4044 12.0221 12.2657 6.4044 11.1975 8.3408 6.5095 3.1163
75
0
1 0.7325 1.0523 1.6241 0.2620 1.1330 1.3118 0.1777 0.8910 0.5192 0.6325 0.5192
2 2.8675 3.2667 4.3189 1.6086 3.5677 3.7723 1.3052 3.0682 1.6241 1.1865 0.6325
3 6.2400 6.6865 8.1043 4.3675 7.1591 7.3844 3.8112 6.4638 4.3189 3.0241 1.1865
4 10.6340 11.1165 12.2105 6.1054 11.6891 11.9306 6.1054 10.8754 8.1043 6.3110 3.0241
90
0
1 0.7302 1.0496 1.6191 0.2611 1.1294 1.3081 0.1773 0.8885 0.5192 0.6322 0.5192
2 2.8586 3.2576 4.3064 1.6036 3.5569 3.7615 1.3014 3.0592 1.6191 1.1850 0.6322
3 6.2215 6.6678 8.0823 4.3544 7.1388 7.3640 3.7999 6.4452 4.3064 3.0157 1.1850
4 10.6044 11.0867 12.1670 6.0837 11.6581 11.8996 6.0837 10.8457 8.0823 6.2927 3.0157
Table 10
Frequencies parameters x xL
2
=h

q=E2
_
for antisymmetric cross-ply laminated beams with different layer numbers and E
1
/E
2
ratios (L/h = 15, b = h = 2.5 10
2
m; elastic
support stiffness: k
u
= 1.5 10
5
N/m, k
w
= 2.5 10
5
N/m).
Lay-up E
1
/E
2
Boundary conditions
SS PP CC FS F-P FC SP SC PC E
III
E
III
(0
0
/90
0
) 5 4.6399 5.8843 8.6667 6.1638 0.9211 1.4280 5.2389 6.2935 7.0727 2.0118
10 5.9576 7.2026 9.9944 7.1700 1.0737 1.6682 6.5460 7.4858 8.3192 2.0120
15 6.9269 8.2074 11.0100 7.9627 1.1866 1.8577 7.5284 8.4025 9.2775 2.0121
20 8.4007 9.7901 12.6369 9.2809 1.3600 2.1743 9.0526 9.8638 10.8115 2.0122
(0
0
/90
0
)
2
5 4.8152 6.1047 9.9582 7.2218 0.9519 1.6733 5.4522 7.1230 7.8584 2.0119
10 6.3992 7.6945 12.5325 9.4130 1.1284 2.1993 7.0362 9.1690 9.9197 2.0122
15 7.5990 8.9048 14.3085 11.0828 1.2536 2.6095 8.2395 10.6551 11.4174 2.0122
20 9.4267 10.7603 16.7204 13.6405 1.4372 3.2581 10.0784 12.7976 13.5809 2.0123
(0
0
/90
0
)
4
5 4.8475 6.2312 10.2589 7.4651 0.9769 1.7292 5.5359 7.3155 8.0815 2.0120
10 6.4647 7.9329 13.0785 9.8951 1.1760 2.3127 7.1942 9.5331 10.3405 2.0122
15 7.6883 9.2156 14.9869 11.7276 1.3162 2.7643 8.4462 11.1225 11.9579 2.0123
20 9.5485 11.1659 17.5255 14.4997 1.5195 3.4725 10.3490 13.3787 14.2560 2.0123
(0
0
/90
0
)
8
5 4.8550 6.2733 10.3334 7.5249 0.9861 1.7430 5.5619 7.3631 8.1424 2.0120
10 6.4793 8.0100 13.2128 10.0124 1.1937 2.3402 7.2420 9.6223 10.4535 2.0122
15 7.7078 9.3147 15.1540 11.8838 1.3394 2.8017 8.5076 11.2367 12.1020 2.0123
20 9.5748 11.2934 17.7256 14.7071 1.5501 3.5241 10.4282 13.5212 14.4358 2.0123
(0
0
/90
0
)
20
5 4.8570 6.2859 10.3542 7.5416 0.9890 1.7468 5.5696 7.3763 8.1599 2.0120
10 6.4833 8.0329 13.2503 10.0450 1.1991 2.3478 7.2560 9.6471 10.4857 2.0122
15 7.7131 9.3439 15.2007 11.9272 1.3464 2.8120 8.5255 11.2686 12.1430 2.0123
20 9.5819 11.3309 17.7816 14.7647 1.5593 3.5384 10.4512 13.5609 14.4870 2.0123
(0
0
/90
0
)
40
5 4.8573 6.2878 10.3572 7.5440 0.9894 1.7473 5.5707 7.3782 8.1624 2.0120
10 6.4838 8.0362 13.2556 10.0497 1.1998 2.3489 7.2580 9.6506 10.4903 2.0122
15 7.7139 9.3482 15.2073 11.9334 1.3474 2.8135 8.5281 11.2731 12.1489 2.0123
20 9.5829 11.3363 17.7896 14.7729 1.5606 3.5404 10.4545 13.5666 14.4943 2.0123
184 Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192
alternative to other complex analytical techniques for providing
reasonably accurate vibration frequencies of laminated beams.
The use of the generalized displacement eld ensures the applica-
bility of the present formulation and solution methodology to a
variety of beam theories. Not only the lower-order frequencies
but the high-order frequencies can be obtained by using a small
number of beam segments. Moreover, unlike most existing tech-
niques, the current method offers a unied solution for a variety
of boundary conditions, including both the classical and non-
classical cases. For different boundary conditions, there is no need
to reformulate the beam matrix in the present method, and only
very simple algebraic operations at the geometrical boundaries
need to be re-evaluated. This leads to reduced computational ef-
forts, and is simple and efcient to implement. It is of interest to
note that, irrespective of the boundary condition being considered,
the accuracy of the present formulation is not particularly affected
by the employed polynomials. This makes the choice of admissible
functions very exible, and can be considered as one distinguished
feature of the present formulation.
3.2. Forced vibration analysis of laminated beams: transient responses
This subsection is devoted to the transient response analysis of
laminated beams subjected to transverse dynamic loads. The fol-
lowing material properties are used throughout the investigation:
E
1
/E
2
= 15, E
2
= 9.5 GPa, G
12
/E
2
= G
13
/E
2
= 0.5, G
23
/E
2
= 0.35, l
12
= 0.3
and q = 1450 kg/m
3
. All layers are assumed to have the same thick-
ness. Two commonly time-dependent dynamic loads, i.e., the rect-
angular pulse and exponential pulse (see Fig. 3), are considered.
For the rectangular pulse, the loading function is described as:
q = q
0
[H(t) H(t T
0
)], where q
0
and T
0
are respectively the mag-
nitude and duration of the applied load, and H(t) is the Heaviside
step function. The exponential pulse is given as: q = q
0
e
st
, which
may be used to simulate the laminated beam subjected to a blast
0 10 20 30 40 50
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
COPSK
LOPFK
OPP
COPSK
LOPFK
OPP
(c) (b)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
-
7
)

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
-
7
)

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
-
7
)

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
-
7
)

Mode number
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mode number
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mode number
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mode number
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mode number
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mode number
COPSK
LOPFK
OPP
(a)
-6
-3
0
3
6
-3
0
3
-9
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
12
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
-
7
)

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y

(
x
1
0
-
7
)

-9
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
12
COPSK
LOPFK
OPP
COPSK
LOPFK
OPP
(f) (e)
COPSK
LOPFK
OPP
(d)
-12
-9
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
Fig. 2. Frequency discrepancies of orthogonal polynomials for the antisymmetric cross-ply (0
0
/90
0
)
2
laminated beam with different boundary conditions: (a) SS; (b) PP; (c)
CC; (d) F-C; (e) S-C; (f) P-C.
Fig. 3. Applied load types for a laminated beam.
Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192 185
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
4

m
)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
4

m
)
Time (s)
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (s)
Present: N0=2
Present: N0=4
Present: N0=8
ANSYS
(a)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Present: N0=2
Present: N0=4
Present: N0=8
ANSYS
(b)
Fig. 4. Transient deection responses of the orthotropic beam subjected to the rectangular pulse: (a) CC; (b) E
II
E
II
.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
2

m
)
Time (s)
HBT[R]
HBT[KPR]
HBT[LMR]
HBT[LST]
HBT[M1]
HBT[V]
HBT[M2]
HBT[M3]
HBT[KA]
HBT[M4]
HBT[VE1]
HBT[VE2]
HBT[S]
HBT[M5]
HBT[M6]
HBT[AT1]
HBT[AT2]
Fig. 5. Transient deection responses of angle-ply (45
0
) beam subjected to uniform rectangular pulse and SS boundary conditions: L/h = 150, b = h = 0.01 m; T
0
= 0.3 s, x
1
= 0,
x
2
= L.
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
5

m
)
Time (s)
HBT[R]
HBT[KPR]
HBT[LMR]
HBT[LST]
HBT[M1]
HBT[V]
HBT[M2]
HBT[M3]
HBT[KA]
HBT[M4]
HBT[VE1]
HBT[VE2]
HBT[S]
HBT[M5]
HBT[M6]
HBT[AT1]
HBT[AT2]
Fig. 6. Transient deection responses of angle-ply (45
0
) beam subjected to uniform rectangular pulse and SS boundary conditions::L/h = 30, b = h = 0.01 m; T
0
= 0.01 s, x
1
= 0,
x
2
= L.
186 Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192
loading if the characteristic parameter s is adjusted to approximate
the loading curve from a real blast test. These two loadings may
have arbitrary distributions in the spatial domain. However, for
the sake of brevity, only uniform and sinusoidal distributions of
the loadings along the length of the beamare examined herein. Un-
less otherwise stated, the COPFK (P = 7) and HBT
[LMR]
are employed
for the following theoretical calculations, and the transient re-
sponses are measured at the center of the beams in the transverse
direction. All the initial conditions, i.e., displacements and veloci-
ties, are taken as zero.
The rst testing example concerns an orthotropic beam sub-
jected to the rectangular pulse f
w
(x,t) = q
0
[H(t) H(t T
0
)], which
is assumed to be uniformly distributed along the length of the beam
(i.e., x
1
= 0 and x
2
= L) with intensity q
0
= 1 N/m and duration
0.0000 0.0006 0.0012 0.0018 0.0024 0.0030
-2.8
-2.1
-1.4
-0.7
0.0
0.7
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
7

m
)

Time (s)
HBT[R]
HBT[KPR]
HBT[LMR]
HBT[LST]
HBT[M1]
HBT[V]
HBT[M2]
HBT[M3]
HBT[KA]
HBT[M4]
HBT[VE1]
HBT[VE2]
HBT[S]
HBT[M5]
HBT[M6]
HBT[AT1]
HBT[AT2]
0.0020 0.0022
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
Fig. 7. Transient deection responses of angle-ply (45
0
) beam subjected to uniform rectangular pulse and SS boundary conditions::L/h = 10, b = h = 0.01 m; T
0
= 0.0015 s,
x
1
= 0, x
2
= L.
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
(a)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
6
m
)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
6
m
)
Time (s)
=0
0
=15
0
=30
0
=45
0
=60
0
=75
0
=90
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
(b)
Time (s)
=0
0
=15
0
=30
0
=45
0
=60
0
=75
0
=90
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
-2
-1
0
1
2
(c)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
6
m
)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
5
m
)
Time (s)
=0
0
=15
0
=30
0
=45
0
=60
0
=75
0
=90
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
(d)
Time (s)
=0
0
=15
0
=30
0
=45
0
=60
0
=75
0
=90
0
Fig. 8. Effects of ply orientation on the centre deection of angle-ply laminated beams with different boundary conditions: (a) SS; (b) PP; (c) CC; (d) E
III
E
III
.
Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192 187
T
0
= 0.015 s. In this example, geometrical properties of the beamare
given as:L/h = 150, b = h = 0.01 m. Two sets of boundary conditions
are examined, namely the CC and E
II
E
II
. In the E
II
-E
II
boundary
conditions, the elastic support stiffness at the ends of the beam is
taken as: k
v
= 3.5 10
6
N/m. Comparisons are made with nite ele-
ment analysis ANSYS to check the validity of the present theoretical
formulation. A mesh of 150 BEAM188 elements is used for the
orthotropic beam for reasonably converged results. A full calcula-
tion procedure (direct solver) is employed in ANSYS. The deection
responses for the beam with CC and E
II
E
II
boundary conditions
are illustrated in Fig. 4a and b, respectively. The time increment
Dt in the gures is taken to be 0.15 ms. It is observed that the pres-
ent formulation gives fairly accurate predictions of the transient
vibration responses, and a decomposition of two beam segments
is adequate for converged results for the two boundary conditions.
To examine the accuracy of different theories for predicting
transient responses of laminated beams, Figs. 57 depict the
time-history deections of angle-ply (45
0
) laminated beams with
different length-to-thickness ratios (L/h = 150, 30, 10). In all cases,
SS boundary conditions are considered, and the uniformly distrib-
uted rectangular pulse is employed with intensity q
0
= 1 N/m.
The numerical results show that, in the case of slender and moder-
ately thick beams (i.e., L/h = 150, 30), the discrepancies of the trans-
verse deection responses obtained by different higher-order shear
deformable beam theories are negligible. This implies that all the
shear functions dened in Table 1 may be used in the modeling
of the displacement eld for slender and moderately thick lami-
nated beams. However, for thick beams (e.g., L/h = 10), the vibra-
tion responses based on HBT
[V]
, HBT
[VE1]
and HBT
[VE2]
tend to
deviate from those calculated by the rest of HBTs. The differences
in the results are probably due to the fact that the three sets of
HBTs violate the free surface boundary conditions. It is interesting
to note that for laminated beams with pinned boundary conditions,
the deection responses determined by HBT
[VE1]
and HBT
[VE2]
devi-
ate signicantly from other HBTs even for moderately thick beams.
However, those results for pinned supported beams are omitted
herein for the brevity of the presentation.
Having already established the accuracy of the present solutions,
parametric studies are conducted to investigate the transient vibra-
tionbehaviors of laminatedbeams subjectedto anexponential load-
ing. The inuence of ply orientation and layer number on the
dynamic responses of laminated beams will be discussed in detail
based on the HBT
[LMR]
. The loading has a sinusoidal distribution in
the spatial domain, dened as: f
w
(x, t) = q
0
cos (px/L)e
st
(x
1
= 0,
x
2
= L, see Fig. 3), and the magnitude q
0
and characteristic parameter
s of the applied load are respectively given as: q
0
= 1 N/m and
s = 800. The geometric details of the beam are: L = 0.25 m,
b = h = 0.01 m. Four sets of boundary conditions are examined,
namely the SS, PP, CC and the E
III
E
III
. In the E
III
E
III
boundary
conditions, the elastic support stiffnesses are taken as: k
u
= 1.5
10
5
N/m and k
v
= 2.5 10
5
N/m.
Fig. 8shows the effect of the plyorientationh onthe deectionre-
sponses of angle-ply (h) laminated beams with different boundary
conditions. The depicted results reveal that the increase of the ber
orientation plays a benecial role toward increasing the amplitude
and the oscillation period of transient deection responses for the
beams with three combinations of classical boundary conditions,
i.e., SS, PP and CC. This is expected since an increase in the ber
orientation will lead to a decrease in the bending stiffness of the
beam. In the case of the E
III
E
III
boundary conditions, the fundamen-
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
6
m
)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
6
m
)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
6
m
)
Time (s)
(0
0
/90
0
)
(0
0
/90
0
)8
(0
0
/90
0
)16
(0
0
/90
0
)64
(a)
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Time (s)
(0
0
/90
0
)
(0
0
/90
0
)8
(0
0
/90
0
)16
(0
0
/90
0
)64
(b)
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Time (s)
(0
0
/90
0
)
(0
0
/90
0
)8
(0
0
/90
0
)16
(0
0
/90
0
)64
(c)
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
x
1
0
-
5
m
)
Time (s)
(0
0
/90
0
)
(0
0
/90
0
)8
(0
0
/90
0
)16
(0
0
/90
0
)64
(d)
Fig. 9. Effects of layer number on the centre deection of antisymmetric cross-ply laminated beams with different boundary conditions: (a) SS; (b) PP; (c) CC; (d) E
III
E
III
.
188 Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192
tal bending modes are dominant by the elastic boundary, and the
amplitude and oscillation period of the displacement responses
therefore are not affected by the change of the ber orientation.
The effects of layer number on the transient deection re-
sponses of antisymmetric cross-ply laminated beams are illus-
trated in Fig. 9. It can be seen from the gures that the
laminated beam of (0
0
/90
0
) tends to yield the largest deection
amplitudes for the SS, PP and CC boundary conditions. This is
because the extension-bending coupling terms for antisymmetric
cross-ply beams attain their maximum value with two layers.
However, in the case of the E
III
E
III
boundary conditions, the dis-
crepancies of the deection response curves for the laminated
beams with different layer-ups are not quite obvious. Another
observation worth noting is that the amplitudes and oscillation
periods of the time response curves seem very insignicantly af-
fected by an increase in the layer number.
4. Conclusions
This paper introduces a general computational algorithm for
vibration analysis of composite laminated beams with arbitrary
boundary conditions. A modied variational principle in conjunc-
tion with a multi-segment partitioning technique is employed to
derive the formulation based on a general higher-order beam the-
ory. The displacement and rotation elds of each beam segment
are expanded by means of polynomials. The Poissons effect and
the material couplings of the bending-stretching, bending-twist,
and stretching-twist are considered. The applicability and versatil-
ity of the present formulation are illustrated for free and transient
vibrations of laminated beams with various geometric and mate-
rial parameters under different combinations of classical and
non-classical boundary conditions. It is found that the present
method furnishes stable and rapid convergence characteristics as
the number of beam segments is increased, and the numerical re-
sults based on the present formulation are in excellent agreement
with corresponding results published in the literature and those
solutions obtained from the nite element analyses. The accuracy
of several higher-order shear deformable beam theories for pre-
dicting the vibrations of laminated beams has been conrmed.
What is of particular importance is that, regardless of the boundary
condition being considered, the accuracy of the present formula-
tion is not particularly affected by the employed polynomials. This
makes the choice of admissible functions very exible, and can be
considered as one distinguished feature of the present formulation.
In views of the accuracy, efciency and versatility of the present
formulation, it offers a potential alternative to the conventional
analytical and numerical approaches for initial and boundary value
problems of composite laminated beams.
Appendix A. Constitutive equations for one-dimensional
laminated beam
The one-dimensional laminated beam equations that account
for Poissons effect are derived based on a general higher-order
plate theory with the following displacement eld:
~ ux; y; z; t ux; y; t f z
@w
@x
gz#x; y; t
~ vx; y; z; t vx; y; t f z
@w
@y
gzux; y; t
~ wx; y; z; t wx; y; t
A:1
where u, v, w, # and uare the ve unknown functions of middle sur-
face of the plate, while f(z) and g(z) represents shape functions
determining the distribution of the transverse shear strains and
stresses along the thickness.
The linear strain expressions derived from the displacement
model of Eq. (A.1) are as follows:
e
x
e
0
x
f e
1
x
ge
2
x
; e
y
e
0
y
f e
1
y
ge
2
y
; e
xy
e
0
xy
f e
1
xy
ge
2
xy
;
c
xz


f j
0
xz
gj
1
xz
; c
yz


f j
0
yz
gj
1
yz
A:2
where
e
0
x

@u
@x
; e
1
x

@
2
w
@x
2
; e
2
x

@#
@x
; e
0
y

@v
@y
; e
1
y

@
2
w
@y
2
;
e
2
y

@u
@y
; e
0
xy

@v
@x

@u
@y
; e
1
xy
2
@
2
w
@x@y
; e
2
xy

@u
@x

@#
@y
A:3
j
0
xz

@w
@x
; j
1
xz
#; j
0
yz

@w
@y
; j
1
yz
u A:4

f 1
@f
@z
; g
@g
@z
A:5
The laminated plate constitutive equations based on the general
higher-order shear deformation theory can be expressed as
For a one-dimensional composite laminated beam, it is as-
sumed that the y-direction is free of stresses, i.e., N
y
= N
xy
= M
y
= -
M
xy
= P
y
= P
xy
= 0, while the mid-plane strains, and bending and
twisting curvatures corresponding to y-direction are assumed to
be nonzero. The strains and curvatures e
0
y
; e
1
y
; e
2
y
; e
0
xy
; e
1
xy
; e
2
xy
_ _
can
be solved in terms of e
0
x
; e
1
x
; e
2
x
_ _
, resulting in the following
relation:
N
x
N
y
N
xy
M
x
M
y
M
xy
P
x
P
y
P
xy
_

_
_

A
11
A
12
A
16
B
11
B
12
B
16
E
11
E
12
E
16
A
12
A
22
A
26
B
12
B
22
B
26
E
12
E
22
E
26
A
16
A
26
A
66
B
16
B
26
B
66
E
16
E
26
E
66
B
11
B
12
B
16
D
11
D
12
D
16
F
11
F
12
F
16
B
12
B
22
B
26
D
12
D
22
D
26
F
12
F
22
F
26
B
16
B
26
B
66
D
16
D
26
D
66
F
16
F
26
F
66
E
11
E
12
E
16
F
11
F
12
F
16
H
11
H
12
H
16
E
12
E
22
E
26
F
12
F
22
F
26
H
12
H
22
H
26
E
16
E
26
E
66
F
16
F
26
F
66
H
16
H
26
H
66
_

_
_

_
e
0
x
e
0
y
e
0
xy
e
1
x
e
1
y
e
1
xy
e
2
x
e
2
y
e
2
xy
_

_
_

_
;
Q
xz
P
xz
_ _

A
55
D
55
D
55
F
55
_ _
j
0
xz
j
1
xz
_ _
A:6a-b
Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192 189
N
x
M
x
P
x
_

_
_

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

_
_

_
e
0
x
e
1
x
e
2
x
_

_
_

_ A:7
Appendix B. Generalized mass and stiffness matrices of
composite laminated beam
The disjoint generalized mass and stiffness matrices of a lami-
nated beam are respectively given by
M diagM
1
; M
2
; . . . ; M
i
; . . . ; M
N
0
;
K diagK
1
; K
2
; . . . ; K
i
; . . . ; K
N
0
B:1
where the sub-matrices M
i
and K
i
are the mass and stiffness matri-
ces of the ith beam segment.
M
i

_
l
i
M
i
uu
M
i
uw
M
i
u#
M
i;T
uw
M
i
ww
M
i
w#
M
i;T
u#
M
i;T
w#
M
i
##
_

_
_

_
dl; K
i

_
l
i
K
i
uu
K
i
uw
K
i
u#
K
i;T
uw
K
i
ww
K
i
w#
K
i;T
u#
K
i;T
w#
K
i
##
_

_
_

_
dl
B:2
The elements of the mass matrices are:
M
i
uu
q
0
U
T
U; M
i
uw
q
1
U
T
@W
@x
;
M
i
u#
q
3
U
T
H; M
i
ww
q
0
W
T
W q
2
@W
T
@x
@W
@x
;
M
i
w#
q
4
@W
T
@x
H; M
i
##
q
5
H
T
H
B:3
According to the FSDT, the elements of the stiffness matrices are:
K
i
uu
A
11
@U
T
@x
@U
@x
; K
i
uw
B
11
@U
T
@x
@
2
W
@x
2
; K
i
u#
E
11
@U
T
@x
@H
@x
;
K
i
ww
A
55
@W
T
@x
@W
@x
D
11
@
2
W
T
@x
2
@
2
W
@x
2
;
K
i
w#
D
55
@W
T
@x
H F
11
@
2
W
T
@x
2
@H
@x
; K
i
##
F
55
H
T
H H
11
@H
T
@x
@H
@x
B:4
The generalized interface stiffness matrix K
k
and K
j
introduced
by the MVP and LSWRM are obtained through the assembly of all
interface matrices. The interface matrix K
i
k
and K
i
j
at the interface
location of x = x
i
is given below
K
i
k

K
u
i
u
i
K
u
i
w
i
K
u
i
#
i
K
u
i
u
i1
K
u
i
w
i1
K
u
i
#
i1
K
T
u
i
w
i
K
w
i
w
i
K
w
i
#
i
K
w
i
u
i1
K
w
i
w
i1
K
w
i
#
i1
K
T
u
i
#
i
K
T
w
i
#
i
K
#
i
#
i
K
#
i
u
i1
K
#
i
w
i1
K
#
i
#
i1
K
T
u
i
u
i1
K
T
w
i
u
i1
K
T
#
i
u
i1
0 0 0
K
T
u
i
w
i1
K
T
w
i
w
i1
K
T
#
i
w
i1
0 0 0
K
T
u
i
#
i1
K
T
w
i
#
i1
K
T
#
i
#
i1
0 0 0
_

_
_

xx
i
;
K
i
j

K
u
i
u
i
0 0 K
u
i
u
i1
0 0
0 K
w
i
w
i
0 0 K
w
i
w
i1
0
0 0 K
#
i
#
i
0 0 K
#
i
#
i1
K
T
u
i
u
i1
0 0 K
u
i1
u
i1
0 0
0 K
T
w
i
w
i1
0 0 K
w
i1
w
i1
0
0 0 K
T
#
i
#
i1
0 0 K
#
i1
#
i1
_

_
_

xx
i
B:5
where the sub-matrices are expanded as
K
u
i
u
i
f
u
A
11
@U
T
i
@x
U
i
U
T
i
@U
i
@x
_ _
;
K
u
i
w
i
B
11
f
w
@
2
U
T
i
@x
2
W
i
f
r
@U
T
i
@x
@W
i
@x
f
u
U
T
i
@
2
W
i
@x
2
_ _
B:6a-b
K
u
i
#
i
E
11
f
#
@U
T
i
@x
H
i
f
u
U
T
i
@H
i
@x
_ _
;
K
u
i
u
i1
f
u
A
11
@U
T
i
@x
U
i1
;
K
u
i
w
i1
f
w
B
11
@
2
U
T
i
@x
2
W
i1
f
r
B
11
@U
T
i
@x
@W
i1
@x
B:6c-e
K
u
i
#
i1
f
#
E
11
@U
T
i
@x
H
i1
B:6f
K
w
i
w
i
f
w
A
55
@W
T
i
@x
W
i
W
T
i
@W
i
@x
_ _
D
11
@
3
W
T
i
@x
3
W
i
W
T
i
@
3
W
i
@x
3
_ _ _ _
f
r
D
11
@
2
W
T
i
@x
2
@W
i
@x

@W
T
i
@x
@
2
W
i
@x
2
_ _
B:6g
K
w
i
#
i
F
11
f
#
@
2
W
T
i
@x
2
H
i
f
r
@W
T
i
@x
@H
i
@x
_ _
f
w
W
T
i
D
55
H
i
F
11
@
2
H
i
@x
2
_ _
;
K
w
i
u
i1
f
u
B
11
@
2
W
T
i
@x
2
U
i1
B:6h-i
K
w
i
w
i1
f
w
A
55
@W
T
i
@x
D
11
@
3
W
T
i
@x
3
_ _
W
i1
f
r
D
11
@
2
W
T
i
@x
2
@W
i1
@x
;
K
w
i
#
i1
f
#
F
11
@
2
W
T
i
@x
2
H
i1
B:6j-k
K
#
i
#
i
f
#
H
11
@H
T
i
@x
H
i
H
T
i
@H
i
@x
_ _
; K
#
i
u
i1
f
u
E
11
@H
T
i
@x
U
i1
;
B:6l-m
K
#
i
w
i1
f
w
D
55
H
T
i
F
11
@
2
H
T
i
@x
2
_ _
W
i1
f
r
F
11
@H
T
i
@x
@W
i1
@x
_ _
;
K
#
i
#
i1
f
#
H
11
@H
T
i
@x
H
i1
B:6n-o
K
u
i
u
i
f
u
j
u
U
T
i
U
i
; K
u
i
u
i1
f
u
j
u
U
T
i
U
i1
;
K
w
i
w
i
f
w
j
w
W
T
i
W
i
f
r
j
r
@W
T
i
@x
@W
i
@x
; B:7p-r
K
w
i
w
i1
f
w
j
w
W
T
i
W
i1
f
r
j
r
@W
T
i
@x
@W
i1
@x
;
K
#
i
#
i
f
#
j
#
H
T
i
H
i
; K
#
i
#
i1
f
#
j
#
H
T
i
H
i1
;
K
u
i1
u
i1
f
u
j
u
U
T
i1
U
i1
B:7s-v
K
w
i1
w
i1
f
w
j
w
W
T
i1
W
i1
f
r
j
r
@W
T
i1
@x
@W
i1
@x
;
K
#
i1
#
i1
f
#
j
#
H
T
i1
H
i1
B:7w-x
References
[1] Kapania RK, Raciti S. Recent advances in analysis of laminated beams and
plates. Part I. Shear effects and buckling. AIAA J 1989;27(7):92334.
[2] Ghugal YM, Shimpi RP. A review of rened shear deformation theories for
isotropic and anisotropic laminated beams. J Reinf Plast Compos
2001;20(3):25572.
190 Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192
[3] Vinson JR, Sierakowski RL. The behavior of structures composed of composite
materials. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff; 1986.
[4] Carrera E. Developments, ideas, and evaluations based upon Reissners mixed
variational theorem in the modeling of multilayered plates and shells. Appl
Mech Rev 2001;54(4):30128.
[5] Carrera E, Demasi L. Classical and advanced multilayered plate elements based
upon PVD and RMVT. Part 1: Derivation of nite element matrices. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 2002;55(2):191231.
[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(3):25391.
[7] Carrera E. Theories and nite elements for multilayered, anisotropic,
composite plates and shells. Arch Comput Methods Eng 2002;9(2):87140.
[8] Carrera E. Theories and nite elements for multilayered plates and shells: a
unied compact formulation with numerical assessment and benchmarks.
Arch Comput Methods Eng 2003;10(3):21596.
[9] Demasi L. Treatment of stress variables in advanced multilayered plate
elements based upon Reissners mixed variational theorem. Compos Struct
2006;74(4):44957.
[10] Demasi L. 1
6
Mixed plate theories based on the generalized unied
formulation. Part I: Governing equations. Compos Struct 2009;87(1):111.
[11] Demasi L. 1
6
Mixed plate theories based on the generalized unied
formulation. Part II: Layerwise theories. Compos Struct 2009;87(1):1222.
[12] Demasi L. 1
6
Mixed plate theories based on the generalized unied
formulation. Part III: Advanced mixed high order shear deformation theories.
Compos Struct 2009;87(3):18394.
[13] Demasi L. 1
6
Mixed plate theories based on the generalized unied
formulation. Part IV: Zigzag theories. Compos Struct 2009;87(3):195205.
[14] Demasi L. 1
6
Mixed plate theories based on the generalized unied
formulation. Part V: Results. Compos Struct 2009;88(1):116.
[15] Cheng S, Wei X, Jiang T. Stress distribution and deformation of adhesive-
bonded laminated composite beams. J Eng Mech 1989;115(6):115062.
[16] Chandrashekhara K, Krishnamurthy K, Roy S. Free vibration of composite
beams including rotary inertia and shear deformation. Compos Struct
1990;14(4):26979.
[17] Omidvar B. Shear coefcient in orthotropic thin-walled composite beams. J
Compos Constr 1998;2(1):4655.
[18] Levinson M. A new rectangular beam theory. J Sound Vib 1981;74(1):817.
[19] Murty AVK. Toward a consistent beam theory. AIAA J 1984;22(6):8116.
[20] Reddy JN. A simple higher-order theory for laminated composite plates. J Appl
Mech, Trans ASME 1984;51(4):74552.
[21] Kant T, Marur SR, Rao GS. Analytical solution to the dynamic analysis of
laminated beams using higher order rened theory. Compos Struct
1997;40(1):19.
[22] Matsunaga H. Vibration and buckling of multilayered composite beams
according to higher order deformation theories. J Sound Vib
2001;246(1):4762.
[23] Touratier M. An efcient standard plate theory. Int J Eng Sci
1991;29(8):90116.
[24] Touratier M. A rened theory of laminated shallow shells. Int J Solids Struct
1992;29(11):140115.
[25] Vidal P, Polit O. A family of sinus nite elements for the analysis of rectangular
laminated beams. Compos Struct 2008;84(1):5672.
[26] Karama M, Afaq KS, Mistou S. Mechanical behaviour of laminated composite
beam by the new multi-layered laminated composite structures model with
transverse shear stress continuity. Int J Solids Struct 2003;40(6):152546.
[27] Aydogdu M. A new shear deformation theory for laminated composite plates.
Compos Struct 2009;89(1):94101.
[28] Shimpi RP, Ghugal YM. A new layerwise trigonometric shear deformation
theory for two-layered cross-ply beams. Compos Sci Technol
2001;61(9):127183.
[29] Plagianakos TS, Saravanos DA. High-order layerwise mechanics and nite
element for the damped dynamic characteristics of sandwich composite
beams. Int J Solids Struct 2004;41(24-25):685371.
[30] Chrysochoidis NA, Saravanos DA. Generalized layerwise mechanics for the
static and modal response of delaminated composite beams with active
piezoelectric sensors. Int J Solids Struct 2007;44(25-26):875168.
[31] Tahani M. Analysis of laminated composite beams using layerwise
displacement theories. Compos Struct 2007;79(4):53547.
[32] Kapania RK, Raciti S. Recent advances in analysis of laminated beams and
plates. Part II. Vibrations and wave propagation. AIAA J 1989;27(7):93546.
[33] Khdeir AA, Reddy JN. Free vibration of cross-ply laminated beams with
arbitrary boundary conditions. Int J Eng Sci 1994;32(12):197180.
[34] Giunta G, Biscani F, Belouettar S, Ferreira AJM, Carrera E. Free vibration
analysis of composite beams via rened theories. Compos Part B: Eng
2013;44(1):54052.
[35] Berthelot JM. Damping analysis of laminated beams and plates using the Ritz
method. Compos Struct 2006;74(2):186201.
[36] Aydogdu M. Vibration analysis of cross-ply laminated beams with general
boundary conditions by Ritz method. Int J Mech Sci 2005;47(11):174055.
[37] Aydogdu M. Free vibration analysis of angle-ply laminated beams with general
boundary conditions. J Reinf Plast Compos 2006;25(15):157183.
[38] Krishnaswamy S, Chandrashekhara K, Wu WZB. Analytical solutions to
vibration of generally layered composite beams. J Sound Vib
1992;159(1):8599.
[39] Jafari-Talookolaei RA, Abedi M, Kargarnovin MH, Ahmadian MT. An analytical
approach for the free vibration analysis of generally laminated composite
beams with shear effect and rotary inertia. Int J Mech Sci 2012;65(1):97104.
[40] Eisenberger M, Abramovich H, Shulepov O. Dynamic stiffness analysis of
laminated beams using a rst order shear deformation theory. Compos Struct
1995;31(4):26571.
[41] Banerjee JR, Williams FW. Exact dynamic stiffness matrix for composite
timoshenko beams with applications. J Sound Vib 1996;194(4):57385.
[42] Jun L, Hongxing H, Rongying S. Dynamic nite element method for generally
laminated composite beams. Int J Mech Sci 2008;50(3):46680.
[43] Jun L, Hongxing H. Dynamic stiffness analysis of laminated composite beams
using trigonometric shear deformation theory. Compos Struct
2009;89(3):4423.
[44] Damanpack AR, Khalili SMR. High-order free vibration analysis of sandwich
beams with a exible core using dynamic stiffness method. Compos Struct
2012;94(5):150314.
[45] Ellakany AM, Elawadly KM, Alhamaky BN. A combined transfer matrix and
analogue beam method for free vibration analysis of composite beams. J Sound
Vib 2004;277(4-5):76581.
[46] Ellakany AM. Calculation of higher natural frequencies of simply supported
elastic composite beams using Riccati matrix method. Meccanica
2008;43(5):52332.
[47] Yildirim V, Kiral E. Investigation of the rotary inertia and shear deformation
effects on the out-of-plane bending and torsional natural frequencies of
laminated beams. Compos Struct 2000;49(3):31320.
[48] Chen WQ, Lv CF, Bian ZG. Free vibration analysis of generally laminated beams
via state-space-based differential quadrature. Compos Struct 2004;63(3
4):41725.
[49] Atlihan G, allioglu H, Sahin Conkur E, Topcu M, Ycel U. Free vibration
analysis of the laminated composite beams by using DQM. J Reinf Plast
Compos 2009;28(7):88192.
[50] Ferreira AJM. Thick composite beam analysis using a global meshless
approximation based on radial basis functions. Mech Adv Mater Struct
2003;10(3):27184.
[51] Sokolinsky VS, Nutt SR, Frostig Y. Boundary condition effects in free vibrations
of higher-order soft sandwich beams. AIAA J 2002;40(6):12207.
[52] Sokolinsky VS, Nutt SR. Consistent higher-order dynamic equations for soft-
core sandwich beams. AIAA J 2004;42(2):37482.
[53] Numayr KS, Haddad MA, Ayoub AF. Investigation of free vibrations of
composite beams by using the nite-difference method. Mech Compos
Mater 2006;42(3):23142.
[54] Chandrashekhara K, Bangera KM. Free vibration of composite beams using a
rened shear exible beam element. Comput Struct 1992;43(4):71927.
[55] Ramtekkar GS, Desai YM, Shah AH. Natural vibrations of laminated composite
beams by using mixed nite element modelling. J Sound Vib
2002;257(4):63551.
[56] Vo TP, Thai HT. Free vibration of axially loaded rectangular composite beams
using rened shear deformation theory. Compos Struct 2012;94(11):337987.
[57] Bhimaraddi A, Chandrashekhara K. Some observations on the modeling of
laminated composite beams with general lay-ups. Compos Struct
1991;19(4):37180.
[58] Marur SR, Kant T. Transient dynamics of laminated beams: an evaluation with
a higher-order rened theory. Compos Struct 1998;41(1):111.
[59] Sokolinsky VS, Nutt SR. Consistent higher-order dynamic equations for soft-
core sandwich beams. AIAA J 2004;42(2):37482.
[60] Khdeir AA. Dynamic response of antisymmetric cross-ply laminated composite
beams with arbitrary boundary conditions. Int J Eng Sci 1996;34(1):919.
[61] Arvin H, Sadighi M, Ohadi AR. A numerical study of free and forced vibration of
composite sandwich beam with viscoelastic core. Compos Struct
2010;92(4):9961008.
[62] Kapuria S, Alam N. Efcient layerwise nite element model for dynamic
analysis of laminated piezoelectric beams. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
2006;195(1922):274260.
[63] Tagarielli VL, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. Prediction of the dynamic response of
composite sandwich beams under shock loading. Int J Impact Eng
2010;37(7):85464.
[64] Kiral Z. Damped response of symmetric laminated composite beams to moving
load with different boundary conditions. J Reinf Plast Compos
2009;28(20):251126.
[65] Mohebpour SR, Fiouz AR, Ahmadzadeh AA. Dynamic investigation of
laminated composite beams with shear and rotary inertia effect subjected to
the moving oscillators using FEM. Compos Struct 2011;93(3):111826.
[66] Jafari-Talookolaei RA, Kargarnovin MH, Ahmadian MT. On the dynamic
response of a delaminated composite beam under the motion of an
oscillating mass. J Compos Mater 2012;46(22):286377.
[67] alimFF. Free and forced vibrations of non-uniform composite beams. Compos
Struct 2009;88(3):41323.
[68] Kaczkowski Z. Plates. In: Statical calculations. Arkady, Warsaw; 1968.
[69] Panc V. Theories of elastic plates. Prague: Academia; 1975.
[70] Reissner E. On transverse bending of plates, including the effect of transverse
shear deformation. Int J Solids Struct 1975;11(5):56973.
[71] Levy M. Memoire sur la theorie des plaques elastique planes. J Math Appl
1877;30:219306.
[72] Stein M. Nonlinear theory for plates and shells including the effect of
transverse sharing. AIAA J 1986;24(9):153744.
Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192 191
[73] Mantari JL, Oktem AS, Guedes Soares C. A new higher order shear deformation
theory for sandwich and composite laminated plates. Compos Part B: Eng
2012;43(3):148999.
[74] Viola E, Tornabene F, Fantuzzi N. General higher-order shear deformation
theories for the free vibration analysis of completely doubly-curved laminated
shells and panels. Compos Struct 2013;95:63966.
[75] Mantari JL, Oktem AS, Guedes Soares C. A new trigonometric shear
deformation theory for isotropic, laminated composite and sandwich plates.
Int J Solids Struct 2012;49(1):4353.
[76] Mantari JL, Guedes Soares C. Generalized hybrid quasi-3D shear deformation
theory for the static analysis of advanced composite plates. Compos Struct
2012;94(8):256175.
[77] Mantari JL, Oktem AS, Guedes Soares C. Static and dynamic analysis of
laminated composite and sandwich plates and shells by using a new higher-
order shear deformation theory. Compos Struct 2011;94(1):3749.
[78] El Meiche N, Tounsi A, Ziane N, Mechab I, Adda.bedia EA. A new hyperbolic
shear deformation theory for buckling and vibration of functionally graded
sandwich plate. Int J Mech Sci 2011;53(4):23747.
[79] Soldatos KP. A transverse shear deformation theory for homogeneous
monoclinic plates. Acta Mech 1992;94(3-4):195220.
[80] Mantari JL, Guedes Soares C. Analysis of isotropic and multilayered plates and
shells by using a generalized higher-order shear deformation theory. Compos
Struct 2012;94(8):264056.
[81] Akavci SS, Tanrikulu AH. Buckling and free vibration analyses of laminated
composite plates by using two new hyperbolic shear-deformation theories.
Mech Compos Mater 2008;44(2):14554.
[82] Kadoli R, Akhtar K, Ganesan N. Static analysis of functionally graded beams
using higher order shear deformation theory. Appl Math Model
2008;32(12):250925.
[83] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells: theory and
analysis. 2nd ed. Florida: CRC Press; 2003.
[84] Qu Y, Chen C, Long X, Hua H, Meng G. Free and forced vibration analysis of
uniform and stepped circular cylindrical shells using a domain decomposition
method. Appl Acoust 2013;74(3):42539.
[85] Qu Y, Chen Y, Long X, Hua H, Meng G. A modied variational approach for
vibration analysis of ring-stiffened conical-cylindrical shell combinations. Eur J
Mech A/Solids 2013;37:20015.
[86] Qu Y, Hua H, Meng G. A domain decomposition approach for vibration analysis
of isotropic and composite cylindrical shells with arbitrary boundaries.
Compos Struct 2013;95:30721.
[87] Qu Y, Long X, Wu S, Meng G. A unied formulation for vibration analysis of
composite laminated shells of revolution including shear deformation and
rotary inertia. Compos Struct 2013;98:16991.
[88] Chien WZ. Method of high-order lagrange multiplier and generalized
variational principles of elasticity with more general forms of functionals.
Appl Math Mech 1983;4(2):14357.
[89] Jeffery A, Dai HH. Handbook of mathematical formulas and integrals. fourth
edition. California: Academic Press; 2008.
[90] Ritchie IG, Rosinger HE, Shillinglaw AJ, Fleury WH. The dynamic elastic
behaviour of a bre-reinforced composite sheet. I. The precise experimental
determination of the principal elastic moduli. J Phys D: Appl Phys
1975;8(15):173349.
192 Y. Qu et al. / Composite Structures 102 (2013) 175192