Anda di halaman 1dari 20

Journal of Sound and Vibration (1995) 187(5), 737756

DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF TAPERED COMPOSITE


BEAMS USING HIGHER ORDER SHEAR
DEFORMATION THEORY
S. R R N. G
Machine Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of
Technology, Madras 600 036, India
(Received 6 May 1994, and in final form 5 September 1994)
Harmonic response of tapered composite beams is investiaged by using a finite element
model based on a higher order shear deformation theory. Only uniaxial bending is considered
and the interlaminar shear stresses are neglected. The Poisson ratio effect is incorporated in
the formulation of beam constitutive equations. The effect of in-plane inertia and rotary
inertia is also considered in the formulation of the mass matrix. A parametric study is
done of the influence of anisotropy, taper profile and taper parameter. Linearly and
parabolically varying thickness variations of increasing, decreasing, decreasingincreasing
and increasingdecreasing type are used.
7 1995 Academic Press Limited

1. INTRODUCTION

Conventional metals are being replaced by fibre-reinforced composite materials in a variety


of structural components owing to their high strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight
ratios. Non-uniform beams, tapered and stepped, can be used to achieve a better distribution
of strength and weight and sometimes to satisfy architectural and functional requirements.
Interest in laminated beams, uniform and non-uniform, is growing as they are finding a
number of applications in turbine blades, helicopter blades and robot arms. Therefore, there
is a need for a better understanding of the vibration characteristics of laminated beams,
and far laminated composite beams, especially non-uniform beams, have not been studied
extensively.
The paper by Kapania and Raciti [1] gives the recent developments in the vibration
analysis of laminated composite beams. In recent years several authors have tried to predict
the natural frequencies of laminated beams of uniform thickness. Miller and Adams [2]
studied the vibration characteristics of orthotropic clampedfree beams using the classical
lamination theory. Vinson and Sierakowiski [3] have given exact solutions based on classical
lamination theory. Chen and Yang [4] and Chandrashekhara et al. [5] have undertaken the
free vibration analysis of composite beams based on first order shear deformation theory.
Recently Chandrashekhara and Bangera [6] have studied the free vibration characteristics
of laminated composite beams using a finite element model based on a higher order plate
theory [7]. They have corrected generalized force and generalized strain relations, to
consider the Poisson effect, by ignoring the forces in the y-direction. This operation involves
inversion of certain matrices and is limited to the type of beam theory one is using.
737
0022460X/95/450737+20 $12.00/0

7 1995 Academic Press Limited

. .

738

It would be appropriate to correct stressstrain relations rather than correcting the


generalized force and generalized strain relations [8]. Oral [9] has formulated a shear flexible
finite element for linearly tapered symmetrically laminated composite beams using first order
shear deformation theory. The element has three nodes and there are six DOF at each
nodethree displacements and three independent rotations. The author [9] has used this
element to find the static response of tapered beams.
In the present work the dynamical behaviour of tapered composite beams subjected to
a point harmonic excitation is studied by using a finite element method. Higher order shear
deformation theory based on a higher order plate theory [7] is used in developing the finite
element model for tapered beams as it does not require shear correction factors and because
results predicted by it are accurate compared to those obtained with first order shear
deformation theory. The Poisson ratio effect is incorporated by correcting stressstrain
relations. The effect of in-plane inertia and rotary inertia is also considered in the formulation
of the mass matrix. Only uniaxial bending is considered and the effect of interlaminar shear
stresses is neglected. A variety of parametric studies are conducted to demonstrate the
influence of taper and material anisotropy on the dynamic response.

2. FORMULATION

The displacement equations [7] used in obtaining one-dimensional laminated beam


equations (see Figure 1) are
U(X, z, t)=u(x, t)+z[cx (x, t)(4/3)(z/h)2(cx (x, t)+1w(x, t)/1x)],
(1)

W(x, z, t)=w(x, t),

where u and w are the in-plane and lateral displacements of the middle surface, cx is the
rotation of the normal to the middle plane about the y-axis, and h is the thickness of the
beam. The strains associated with the displacements in equation (1) are
ex=ex0+z[kx1+z 2kx2 ],

2
gxz=g*
xz +z k*
xz ,

where
ex0=1u/1x,

g*
xz =cx+1w/1x,

kx1=1gx /1x,

2
k*
xz =(4/h )(cx+1w/1x),

kx2=(4/3h 2 )(1gx /1x+1 2w/1x 2 ).

Figure 1. A straight uniform composite beam.

(2)

739

Figure 2. A linearly tapered composite beam of constant width.

The stresses in the nth layer, for layers stacked in the y-direction as shown in Figure 2, the
principal material axis of which is oriented at an angle u to the x-axis, are related to the strains
by the relation

F
G
G
j
J
G
G
f

sxx J

K C11
G
G C12
syy
G
G
szz f
C
= G 13
G 0
tyz F
G
G 0
gxy
G
G
txz j
k C16

C12

C13

C22

C23

C23

C33

C44

C45

C45

C55

C26

C36

C16L
C26G
G
C36G
0G
G
0
G
C66l

F
G
G
j
J
G
G
f

exx J
eyy G

ezz f

gyz F

(3)

G
G
gxz j

gxy

If the beam is undergoing uniaxial bending and if there is no torsional loading, one can take
syy=szz=tyz=txy=0, and upon substitution of this equation (3) one arrives at the following
relation which accounts for Poissons ratio effect [8]:

6 7$

sxx
Q
= 11
txz
Q16

Q16
Q66

%6 7

exx
.
gxz

(4)

Here Q11=C*
11 , Q16=C*
16 and Q66=C*
66 .
For layers stacked in the z-direction as shown in Figure 1 one can obtain, using the same
procedure and with appropriate stressstrain relations [8], the following relations among the
Qij and C*
ij constants: Q11=C*
11C*
16 C*
16 /C*
66 , Q16=0 and Q66=C*
44 . The relations for C*
ij in
terms of Cij are given in reference [8].
2.1.
The stiffness matrix is formulated by using the strain energy expressions for a beam given
by
U=12

(sxx exx+txz gxz ) d (vol),

U=12

vol

{e0 }T{N0 } dx,

(5)

and {N0 }T=[Nx Mx Px Qxz Rxz ]. Upon expressing the


where {e0 }T=[ex0 kx1 kx2 g*
xz k*
xz ]
generalized stress vector as {N0 }=[D]{e0 } and substituting this in equation (5), the
expression for the strain energy becomes
U=12

{e0 }T[D]{e0 } dx,

(6)

740

. .

where

K
G
G
[D]=G
G
G
k

A11
B11

B11

E11

A16

D16

D11

F11

B16

E16

E11

F11

H11

E16

G16

A16
D16

B16
E16

E16
G16

A66
D66

D66
F66

L
G
G
G.
G
G
l

For the configuration shown in Figure 1

hk

hx

g g

bk

hx

bk1

nl

(Aij , Bij , Dij , Eij , Fij , Hij )=b s


k=1

Qij (1, z, z 2, z 3, z 4, z 5 ) dz

hk1

and for the configuration shown in Figure 2


nl

(Aij , Bij , Dij , Eij , Fij , Hij )=b s


k=1

Qij (1, z, z 2, z 3, z 4, z 5 ) dy dz.

The layer configuration shown in Figure 2 is adopted for the tapered beams considered in
the present parametric study. Taper is considered for the thickness with the width of the
beam kept constant. Only symmetrically tapered beams of rectangular cross-section are
considered. Different tapered beams are obtained from a uniform beam by altering its
thickness along the length with its length, width and volume kept constant. For a tapered
beam defined by a function f(x) and for any particular taper parameter b, the half-thickness
hx at any distance x can be calculated by using the relation
hx=h1 {1bf(x)},

(7)

where b is the taper parameter=(1h2 /h1 ), h1 is the maximum half-thickness, h2 is the


minimum half-thickness and f(x) is a function defining the taper profile (see the Appendix).
In equation (7) the only unknown is h1 , which can be calculated by equating the volume of
the tapered beam to that of uniform beam.
2.2.
The expression for the kinetic energy may be written as
T=

1
2

r(U 2+W 2 ) d (vol).

(8)

vol

2.3.
For the finite element formulation a two-node beam element with four degrees of freedom
[uj wj (1w/1x)j cxj ] per node is used. For this configuration the generalized displacements are
interpolated by using expressions of the form
2

u(x , t)= s uj (t)Nj (x),


j=1

cx (x, t)= s cxj (t)Nj (x),


j=1

w(x, t) s {wj (t)zj (x)+(1w(t)/1x)j jj (x)},


j=1

(9)

741

where Nj are the Lagrange linear interpolation functions and zj (x) and jj (x) are Hermite
cubic interpolation functions. By using equation (9) the generalized strains can be expressed
as
{e0 }=[B]{de },

(10)

where [B] is the matrix of shape functions and their derivatives and {de } is the nodal
displacement vector. The element stiffness matrix can be obtained by substituting equation
(10) in equation (6) and the element mass matrix can be obtained by substituting equation
(9) in equation (8): [K]e=f0l [B]T[D][B] dx; [M]e=f0l [N]T[r][N] dx. Here [N] is the matrix of
shape functions and its derivatives.
2.4.
The natural frequencies are obtained by solving the eigenvalue problem
[K]{d}=v 2[M]{d},

(11)

where [K] and [M] are the global stiffness and the global mass matrices, respectively, d is
the corresponding eigenvector and v is the natural frequency.
For a small amount of structural damping, the steady state response of a beam subjected
to harmonic excitation is given by
[Kd ]{U}={F},

(12)

where [Kd ] is the dynamic stiffness matrix [Kd ]=[K](1+hi)V 2[M], in which {F} is the force
vector consisting of amplitudes of nodal forces, {U} is the displacement vector, V is the
frequency of excitation and h is the structural damping factor. The dynamic displacements
{U} obtained from equation (12) are then used to obtain dynamic stresses by using equations
(2), (4) and (9).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A number of examples have been considered. Unless mentioned otherwise, the following
AS4/3051-6 graphite/epoxy material properties are used: E1=14480 GPa, E2=965 GPa,
G23=345 GPa, G12=G13=414 GPa, n12=03, r=138923 kg/m3. The non-dimensional
parameters used in presenting results are the following: v=vL 2zr/E1 h 2 ; V*=(natural
frequency of a tapered beam)/(corresponding natural frequency of a uniform beam);
w*=(maximum dynamic displacement w of a uniform or tapered beam)/(maximum static
displacement w of a uniform beam); s*=(maximum dynamic normal stress sx of a uniform
or tapered beam)/(maximum static normal stress sx of a uniform beam); t*=(maximum
dynamic shear stress txz of a uniform or tapered beam)/(maximum static shear stress txz
of a uniform beam); wn=(maximum displacement w of a uniform beam)/(maximum
displacement w of a uniform orthotropic (0) beam); s1n=(maximum principal normal stress
s1 of a uniform beam)/(maximum principal stress s1 of a uniform orthotropic (0) beam);
s2n=(maximum principal normal stress s2 of a uniform beam)/(maximum principal stress
s1 of a uniform orthotropic (0) beam); t12n=(maximum shear stress in principal plane t12
of a uniform beam)/(maximum principal stress s1 of a uniform orthotropic (0) beam).
For Tables 13 the laminated plate strip (i.e., plies stacked in the z-direction as shown
in Figure 1) is considered. In Table 1 the natural frequencies of a simply supported
orthotropic (0) graphite/epoxy beam are compared with existing results. The comparison
is quite good. It is well known that the classical theory over predicts the natural frequencies
in case of thick beams.

. .

742

In Table 2 the non-dimensional natural frequencies of symmetrically laminated cross-ply


and angle-ply beams of uniform thickness for various boundary conditions are compared.
Only the first natural frequency is considered for comparison. In Table 3 is shown the
T 1
Comparison of natural frequencies (kHz) of a simply supported orthotropic (0) graphite/epoxy
beam
L/h

Mode
number

CLT
[3]

FSDT
[5]

HSDT
[6]

Present

1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5

0051
0203
0457
0812
1269
0813
3250
7314
13002
20316

0051
0203
0454
0804
1262
0755
2548
4716
6960
9194

0051
0202
0453
0799
1238
0756
2554
4742
7032
9355

0051
0202
0454
0804
1252
0754
2555
4753
7052
9382

120
(L=762 mm)

15
(L=381 mm)

T 2
Comparison of non-dimensional natural frequencies (v ) of symmetrically laminated cross-ply
[0/90/90/0] and angle-ply [45/45/45/45] beams under various boundary conditions
[0/90/90/0]
ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV
HSDT [6]
Present

Boundary
conditions
SS
CC
CF

25023
45940
09241

24980
46440
09231

[45/45/45/45]
ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV
HSDT [6]
Present
08295
18472
02965

07966
17611
02849

T 3
Comparison of non-dimensional frequencies (v ) of a simply supported [45/45/45/45]
antisymmetric angle ply beam
Mode
number

HSDT
[6]

Present

1
2
3
4
5

08278
32334
70148
107449
119145

0797
3120
6791
11862
13030

T 4
Comparison of tip displacements of a tapered cantilever isotropic beam
D/d
2
5

Bending
Reference [9]
002729
004789

Present

Stretching
Reference [9]

002782
004856

023077E03
032609E03

Present
02310E03
03350E03

743

T 5
Comparison of non-dimensional dynamic displacements of a simply supported isotropic beam
of uniform thickness
xL/4
ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV
Reference [10]
Present

Mode
number
1
2
3

10000
1250
12350

xL/2
ZXXXXXXCXXXXXXV
Reference [10]
Present

9747
1258
12608

14140

1746

13784
01191
17821

Figure 3. Different types of thickness variation: (a) linear; (b) parabolic.

T 6
Effect of anisotropy on the maximum static response of a simply supported composite beam
of uniform thickness
Type beam

wn

s1n

s2n

=t12n =

R.F.

Orthotropic
[0/90/90/0]
[15/15/15/15]
[30/30/30/30]
[45/45/45/45]
[60/60/60/60]
[75/75/75/75]
[90/90/90/90]

1000
1679
1040
4024
15170
26070
28810
29030

10000
17410
07490
05873
04042
02157
00676
00000

00000
00000
00355
01546
03300
05184
06687
07373

00331
00332
01666
03034
03671
03365
02157
00363

100
263
606
2879
7889
15507
23239
27277

. .

744

T 7
Effect of anisotropy on the maximum dynamic response of a simply supported composite beam
of uniform thickness
Type of beam

wn

s1n

s2n

=t12n =

R.F.

Orthotropic
[0/90/90/0]
[15/15/15/15]
[30/30/30/30]
[45/45/45/45]
[60/60/60/60]
[75/75/75/75]
[90/90/90/90]

1000
1655
1048
4146
1563
2609
2874
2894

1000
1843
0896
0754
0510
0273
0086
0000

0000
00000
00382
01926
04059
06446
08291
09154

00493
00479
01915
03845
04581
04229
02721
00497

100
253
642
3676
9712
19381
28843
33885

T 8
Maximum dynamic response values of simply supported cross-ply and angle-ply beams of
uniform thickness
Type of
beam

v
(rad/s)

Res.
no.

Cross-ply
[0/90/90/0]

Angle-ply
[45/45/45/45]

s*

w*

3 571

4993

12 896

541

25 410

099

1
2
3

1 633
6 463
14 303

5104
449
065

t*
0

29920
299290
21020
210290
98530
985390
3023
2076
767

3292
219590
12110
08790
4040
02790
3896
1350
425

Superscripts over the numerical values in cross-ply cases denote the fiber direction in the layer.

T 9
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for linearly varying thickness variation: increasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3

V*

w*

Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075

09933
09629
08700
09971
09833
09401
09972
09846
09447

5218
6144
8938
609
738
1073
102
108
106

31
28
23
16
13
11
10
10
8

3446
4045
5973
1335
1592
2235
419
424
419

28
22
15
13
13
9
10
10
6

Node at which maximum displacement is obtained.


Element in which maximum normal stress is obtained.
Element in which maximum shear stress is obtained.

3564
4931
9244
2412
2984
4399
1018
1049
984

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

230
270
398
089
106
149
028
028
028

28
22
15
13
13
9
10
10
6

3564
4931
9244
2412
2984
4399
1018
1049
984

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

745

T 10
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for linear thickness variation: decreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3

V*

w*

Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075

09933
09629
08700
09971
09833
09401
09972
09846
09447

4719
4789
5591
543
563
657
108
124
160

31
34
37
46
49
49
52
52
52

3118
3144
3736
1193
1221
1369
438
502
647

34
37
46
46
49
52
52
52
55

3221
3842
5783
2148
2277
2693
1070
1208
1535

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

208
210
249
079
081
091
029
033
043

34
37
46
46
49
52
52
52
55

3221
3842
5783
2148
2277
2693
1070
1208
1535

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

Node at which maximum displacement is obtained.


Element in which maximum normal stress is obtained.
Element in which maximum shear stress is obtained.

T 11
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for linear thickness variation: decreasingincreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3

V*

w*

Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075

09393
08252
05914
09929
09630
08731
09969
09894
09768

5888
8426
19670
548
580
727
111
132
178

31
31
31
16
19
19
31
31
31

42.16
6598
16550
1223
1311
1652
447
519
656

31
31
31
43
19
37
31
31
31

2573
2277
2027
2416
3034
4817
1015
1049
1082

4
55
7
31
31
31
40
22
22

Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

281
440
1104
082
087
110
030
035
044

31
31
31
43
19
37
31
31
31

2573
2277
2027
2416
3034
4817
1015
1049
1082

4
55
7
31
31
31
40
22
22

Node at which maximum displacement is obtained.


Element in which maximum normal stress is obtained.
Element in which maximum shear stress is obtained.

T 12
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for linear thickness variation: increasingdecreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3

V*

w*

Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075

10405
10633
10279
09945
09667
08791
10003
09952
09719

4290
3825
3783
545
573
710
101
105
113

31
31
31
16
13
13
10
10
10

2676
2395
2681
1218
1299
1621
405
409
448

25
43
10
13
49
7
10
52
55

Node at which maximum displacement is obtained.


Element in which maximum normal stress is obtained.
Element in which maximum shear stress is obtained.

3439
4410
7384
2410
3019
4766
1057
1177
1451

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

178
160
179
081
087
108
027
027
030

25
43
10
13
49
7
10
52
55

3439
4410
7384
2410
3019
4766
1057
1177
1451

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

. .

746

T 13
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for parabolic thickness variation: increasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3

V*

w*

Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075

09796
09236
07651
09944
09735
09038
09966
09803
09201

5482
6952
13350
621
803
1435
103
111
114

30
27
24
15
15
13
11
10
9

3625
4577
8470
1368
1710
2806
424
452
445

27
23
17
15
13
11
10
9
8

3414
4384
7673
2320
2743
3870
990
982
805

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

242
305
564
091
114
187
028
030
030

27
23
17
15
13
11
10
9
8

3414
4384
7673
2320
2743
3870
990
982
805

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Node at which maximum displacement is obtained.


Element in which maximum normal stress is obtained.
Element in which maximum shear stress is obtained.

T 14
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for parabolic thickness variation: decreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3

V*

w*

Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075

09796
09236
07651
09944
09735
09038
09966
09803
09201

4923
5323
7993
550
586
734
108
125
175

32
34
38
47
47
49
51
52
53

3254
3505
5066
1209
1247
1435
444
509
686

34
38
44
46
48
50
51
52
53

3063
3355
4592
2051
2002
1980
1037
1108
1239

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

217
234
338
081
083
096
030
034
046

34
38
44
46
48
50
51
52
53

3063
3355
4592
2051
2002
1980
1037
1108
1239

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

Node at which maximum displacement is obtained.


Element in which maximum normal stress is obtained.
Element in which maximum shear stress is obtained.

T 15
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for parabolic thickness variation: decreasingincreasing type
Res.
no.
1
2
3

V*

w*

Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075

09413
08308
05951
09848
09368
07898
09956
09780
09207

5888
8483
20840
570
655
1005
111
136
211

31
31
31
17
18
19
31
31
31

3910
5521
12030
1292
1499
2279
437
503
682

Node at which maximum displacement is obtained.


Element in which maximum normal stress is obtained.
Element in which maximum shear stress is obtained.

30
30
30
17
19
22
30
30
30

2543
2292
2137
2327
2764
4032
1057
1167
1388

5
9
14
30
30
30
21
21
22

Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

261
368
802
086
100
152
029
034
045

30
30
30
17
19
22
30
30
30

2543
2292
2137
2327
2764
4032
1057
1167
1388

5
9
14
30
30
30
21
21
22

747

T 16
Maximum response values of a simply supported cross-ply beam [0/90/90/0] subjected to a point
harmonic load for parabolic thickness variation: increasingdecreasing type

no.

V*

w*

Layer 1
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

025
050
075
025
050
075
025
050
075

10410
10711
10659
10009
09820
09159
09982
09868
09514

4297
3825
3629
529
538
607
099
101
107

31
31
31
15
14
13
11
10
9

2773
2349
2213
1172
1180
1401
397
397
430

2
3

30
30
7
14
11
6
9
8
5

3564
4806
8452
2503
3283
5496
1100
1297
1759

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Layer 2
ZXXXXCXXXXV
s*

t*

185
157
148
078
079
093
026
026
029

30
29
7
14
11
6
9
8
5

3564
4806
8452
2503
3283
5496
1100
1297
1759

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Node at which maximum displacement is obtained.


Element in which maximum normal stress is obtained.
Element in which maximum shear stress is obtained.

comparison of the non-dimensional natural frequencies of a simply supported antisymmetric


angle-ply beam of uniform thickness. For all these beams the L/h ratio is taken as 15, h being
equal to 254 cm. The present results in both Table 2 and Table 3 are in good agreement
with those in reference [6]. A slight deviation of the present results from those in reference
[6] may be due to the procedure employed in considering the Poisson ratio effect. In reference
[6] this effect is considered after the evaluation of stress resultants, whereas in the present
case it is considered before the evaluation of stress resultants.
For checking the accuracy of the present formulation for tapered beams, linearly tapered
clampedfree isotropic beams with decreasing thickness variation and of rectangular
cross-section have been analyzed for stretching and bending modes. Two beams, one with
h1 /h2=2 and the other with h1 h2=5, were taken for analysis. The following properties were
used: E=30106 lb/in2, n=0, L=10 in, b=1 in. The force is applied at the tip and is equal
to 1000 lb. The tip displacements are compared in Table 4 with those in reference [9]. The
comparison is good.
To validate the present formulation for dynamic analysis the non-dimensional dynamic
displacements of a simply supported isotropic beam of uniform thickness, subjected to a
point harmonic excitation at the first three natural frequencies, are compared with the
analytical solutions given in reference [10]. The force is applied at quarter span. The
comparison is shown in Table 5. The non-dimensional displacement is given by
w(x)p 4EI/PL 3, where E is the Youngs modulus, I is the moment of inertia, P is the magnitude
of the harmonic force and L is the length of the beam. The hysteretic damping constant is
taken as 0.01. The results obtained by the present formulation are in good agreement with
those in reference [10].
3.1.
The following discussion deals with the steady state response of simply supported
composite beams, with plies stacked in the y-direction as shown in Figure 2, when subjected
to harmonic excitation. Three types of harmonic loading with the excitation frequencies
equal to the first three natural frequencies are considered. The amplitude of the load is kept
constant in all three types of harmonic excitation. The point harmonic load is applied at
quarter span from the left end of the beam. For harmonic response the hysteretic damping

748

. .

constant is taken as 002. For tapered beams two types of profiles, linear and parabolic, are
considered for thickness variation. The different taper profiles considered are shown in
Figure 3.
The effect of anisotropy on the response, static and harmonic, is shown in Tables 6 and 7.
The maximum harmonic response values of simply supported cross-ply and angle-ply beams
of uniform thickness are shown in Table 8. Maximum response values along with the

Figure 4. The distribution of displacements and stresses for a SS (45/45/45/45) beam; increasing typelinear,
w, hx=0; W, hx=025; Q, hx=050; R, hx=075.

749

Figure 5. The distribution of stresses for a SS (45/45/45/45) beam; increasing typelinear. Key as Figure 4.

resonant frequencies of a simply supported symmetric cross-ply beams of different thickness


variations when subjected to a point harmonic load are shown in Tables 916. The maximum
response values of [45/45/45/45] beams are not given, as a more or less similar trend
as that observed in cross-ply beams is observed. The variation of displacement and stresses
along the length of the beam are shown in Figures 411. It is to be noted that the variations
of lateral displacement and stresses of [45/45/45/45] beams of linear variation only are
shown, because the variation is more or less similar in all the types of beams considered.
From these tables and figures, the following observations are made.
In the case of symmetric angle-ply beams the magnitude of the stresses developed is the
same in all the laminae. In the case of cross-ply beams the magnitude of the normal stress
developed in the 0 ply is greater than that developed in the 90 ply and the ratio between
these two stresses is approximately equal to the ratio of the elastic moduli. However the same
shear stresses are developed in both the 0 ply and the 90ply. In all the beams considered
the variation of normal stress along the length of the beam is the same as that of the
displacement for any particular mode and for any particular thickness variation considered.
However, the variation of shear stress is opposite to that of displacement.
3.1.1. Effect of anisotropy
The effect of anisotropy on the response values of simply supported uniform composite
beams is shown in Tables 6 and 7. For Tables 6 and 7, graphite/epoxy material with the

750

. .

following properties was used: E1=30106 psi, E2=075106 psi, G12=0375106 psi,
n12=025. Only the resonant response values of beam at the lowest natural frequency are
presented in Table 7. The stresses presented are those in the principal material directions
of the first layer. A similar trend is observed in both the static and dynamic cases. The laminae
arrangement is as shown in Figure 2. In the case of an angle-ply beam, as the fibre orientation
angle, u to the x-axis increases, the normal stress in the fibre direction decreases and that
in the direction perpendicular to the fibre increases. The shear stress, t12n , increases with the

Figure 6. As Figure 4, but decreasing typelinear.

751

Figure 7. As Figure 5, but decreasing typelinear.

increase in u up to u=45 and then decreases. The normal stress in the fibre direction of a
cross-ply beam is greater than that in all the other types of beams considered. In contrast,
the shear stress t12n in a cross-ply beam is less than that obtained for the angle-ply beams.
In the case of an angle-ply beam the beam becomes flexible as the inclination of fibre to the
x-axis increases. It can be seen that the relative factor of safety (with respect to an orthotropic
(0)beam) is a minimum in case of an orthotropic (0) beam. In the case of an angle-ply beam,
the relative factor of safety increases with increase in fibre orientation angle and is very
great compared to that of the orthotropic (0) beam. The relative factor of safety for any
lamination scheme is calculated by dividing the value obtained upon substitution of its
principal stresses in the TsaiHill failure criterion by the value obtained upon substitution
of the principal stresses of the orthotropic (0) beam. It can be seen that, the orthotropic
(0) beam is better insofar as uniaxial bending is considered.
3.1.2. Effect of taper profile
It is shown in Tables 916 that, for increasing and decreasing thickness variations, the
maximum dynamic displacement and the maximum dynamic normal stress obtained with
a parabolic profile are greater than those obtained with linear profile, whereas the maximum
shear stress obtained with parabolic profile is less. In the case of a decreasingincreasing
thickness variation, the maximum dynamic displacements obtained with both profiles are
the same, whereas the stresses obtained with a linear variation are greater due to the presence

752

. .

of the stress concentration effect as there is a sudden change in cross-section. The stress
concentration effect becomes predominant for a taper parameter, bq05. In the case of
decreasingincreasing thickness variation the maximum displacement and the maximum
normal stress obtained with both profiles are more or less the same, but the maximum shear
stress obtained with a parabolic variation is greater. Among all the variations considered,
insofar as the first resonance is concerned, the decreasing-increasing thickness variation gives
higher maximum dynamic displacement and higher maximum dynamic normal stress

Figure 8. As Figure 4, but decreasingincreasing typelinear.

753

Figure 9. As Figure 5, but decreasingincreasing typelinear.

whereas the increasingdecreasing thickness variation gives lower maximum dynamic


displacement and maximum dynamic normal stress. Upon comparison one can conclude
that the increasingdecreasing with a linear profile is better suited for simply supported end
conditions.
3.1.3. Effect of taper parameter
It is shown in Tables 916 that, in the cases of both cross-ply and angle-ply beams, higher
mode frequencies decrease with the increase in the taper parameter for any particular
thickness variation considered. Excepting the increasingdecreasing taper variation, for
all the other thickness variations of both the cross-ply and angle-ply beams considered
the first natural frequency decreases as the taper parameter b increases. In the case of
increasingdecreasing thickness variation, the change in the first natural frequency
is minimum for 025Qbq05. From the graphs presented one can observe that if the
thickness of the beam at any particular section increases the stresses developed at that section
decrease and vice versa. Also, the locations of the maximum displacement and the maximum
stresses shift towards the smaller cross-section end as the taper parameter increases. The
peaks of dynamic shear stress occur near points where the bending moment is zero. In the
case of a uniform beam peaks of dynamic shear stresses developed near the points where
the bending moment is zero are equal in magnitude. In the case of a tapered beam, among
all the sections where the bending moment is zero maximum dynamic shear stress would be

754

. .

developed at the smallest cross-section. Usually the maximum dynamic shear stress
developed increases with increase in the taper parameter.

4. CONCLUSIONS

A number of results have been presented to show the effect of taper profile, taper
parameter and material anisotropy on the harmonic response of laminated composite

Figure 10. As Figure 4, but increasingdecreasing typelinear.

755

Figure 11. As Figure 5, but increasingdecreasing typelinear.

beams. The validity of the present results has been established by comparing results with
existing results in the literature. From the results presented it can be concluded that, insofar
as uniaxial bending is considered, the orthotropic (0) beam is better than all the other types
of beams considered. It can also be seen that, among all thickness variations considered the
increasingdecreasing thickness variation with taper parameter equal to 05 would be better
for simply supported end conditions.

REFERENCES
1. R. K. K and S. R 1989 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal 27,
935946. Recent advances in analysis of laminated beams and plates, part II: vibrations and wave
propagation.
2. A. K. M and D. F. A 1975 Journal of Sound and Vibration 41, 433449. An analytic
means of determining the flexural and torsional resonant frequencies of generally orthotropic
beams.
3. J. R. V and R. L. S 1986 Behaviour of Structures Composed of Composite
Materials: Martinus Nijhoff. See pp. 139144.
4. A. T. C and T. Y. Y 1985 Journal of Composite Materials 19, 459475. Static and dynamic
formulation of symmetrically laminated beam finite element for microcomputer.
5. K. C, K. K and S. R 1990 Composite Structures 14, 269279.
Free vibration of composite beams including rotary inertia and shear deformation.

756

. .

6. K. C and K. M. B 1992 Computers and Structures 43(4), 719727. Free


vibration of composite beams using a refined shear flexible beam element.
7. J. N. R 1984 Journal of Applied Mechanics 51, 745752. A simple higher order theory for
laminated composite plates.
8. A. B and K. C 1991 Composite Structures 19, 371380. Some
observations on the modelling of laminated composite beams with general lay-ups.
9. S. O A shear flexible finite element for non-uniform laminated composite beams. 1991
Computers and Structures 38(3), 353360.
10. G. B. W 1976 The Dynamical Behaviour of Structures. Oxford: Pergamon Press. See
pp. 131133.

APPENDIX: FUNCTIONS FOR VARIOUS THICKNESS VARIATIONS CONSIDERED

1. Linearincreasing:
f(x)=1x/L.
2. Lineardecreasing:
f(x)=x/L.
3. Linearincreasingdecreasing:
f(x)=

2x/L
2(1x/L)

for 0ExEL/2,
.
for L/2ExEL.

4. Lineardecreasingincreasing:
f(x)=

12x/L
(12x/L)

for 0ExEL/2,
.
for L/2ExEL

5. Parabolicincreasing:
f(x)=1(x/L)2.
6. Parabolicdecreasing:
f(x)=1(1x/L)2.
7. Parabolicdecreasingincreasing:
f(x)=1((2x/L)1)2.
8. Parabolicincreasingdecreasing:
f(x)=(12x/L)2.