Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 17741782

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Flexuraltorsional behavior of thin-walled closed-section composite
box beams
Thuc Phuong Vo, Jaehong Lee

Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, 98 Kunja Dong, Kwangjin Ku, Seoul 143-747, Republic of Korea
Received 28 July 2006; received in revised form 2 October 2006; accepted 3 October 2006
Available online 13 November 2006
Abstract
This paper presents a exuraltorsional analysis of composite box beams. A general analytical model applicable to thin-walled box section
composite beams subjected to vertical and torsional load is developed. This model is based on the classical lamination theory, and accounts for
the coupling of exural and torsional responses for arbitrary laminate stacking sequence congurations, i.e. unsymmetric as well as symmetric.
Governing equations are derived from the principle of the stationary value of total potential energy. Numerical results are obtained for thin-walled
composites beams under vertical and torsional loading, addressing the effects of ber angle and laminate stacking sequence.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Thin-walled composites; Classical lamination theory; Flexuraltorsional response; Finite element method
1. Introduction
Fiber-reinforced composite materials have been used over
the past few decades in a variety of structures. Composites
have many desirable characteristics, such as high ratio of
stiffness and strength to weight, corrosion resistance and
magnetic transparency. Thin-walled structural shapes made
up of composite materials, which are usually produced by
pultrusion, are being increasingly used in many engineering
elds. In particular, the use of pultruded composites in civil
engineering structures await increased attention.
Thin-walled composite structures are often very thin and
have complicated material anisotropy. Accordingly, warping
and other secondary coupling effects should be considered
in the analysis of thin-walled composite structures. The
theory of thin-walled closed section members made of
isotropic materials was rst developed by Vlasov [1] and
Gjelsvik [2]. For ber-reinforced composites, some analyses
have been formulated to analyze composite box beams with
varying levels of assumptions. Chandra et al. [3] discussed
structural coupling effects for symmetric and anti-symmetric
box beams under exural, torsional, and extensional loads.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 3408 3287.

E-mail address: jhlee@sejong.ac.kr (J. Lee).
Song and Librescu [4] focused on the formulation of the
dynamic problem of laminated composite thick- and thin-
walled, single-cell beams of arbitrary cross-section and on
the investigation of their associated free vibration behavior.
Puspita et al. [5] have proposed a simplied analytical
calculation of composite beams with orthotropic phases, as
well as computer-aided design software based on a nite
element method to treat composite beams such as helicopter
blades. Jeon et al. [6] developed an analytic model of large
deections for static and dynamic analysis of composite
box beams. Kollar and Pluzsik [7] presented a beam theory
for thin-walled open and closed section composite beams
with arbitrary layups which neglects the effect of restrained
warping and transverse shear deformation, and developed
expressions for the stiffness matrix. Salim and Davalos [9]
presented a linear analysis of open and closed sections made
of general laminated composites by extending Gjelsvics
model [2]. This model accounts for all possible elastic
couplings in composite sections, such as extension- and
bending-torsion. The effect of warping-torsion on the torsional
stiffness of the beam is investigated. Recently, Cortinez and
Piovan [10] presented a stability analysis of composite thin-
walled beams with open or closed cross-sections. This model
is based on the use of the HellingerReissner principle, that
considers shear exibility in full form, general cross-section
0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.10.002
T.P. Vo, J. Lee / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 17741782 1775
Fig. 1. Denition of coordinates in thin-walled closed sections.
shapes and symmetrically balanced or especially orthotropic
laminates.
In this paper, an analytical model for thin-walled open-
section composite beams developed by Lee and Lee [8]
has been extended to closed-section composite beams.
This model is applicable to the exural, torsional and
exuraltorsional behavior of box section composite beams
subjected to vertical and torsional load. It is based on the
classical lamination theory, and accounts for the coupling
of exural and torsional responses for arbitrary laminate
stacking sequence congurations, i.e. unsymmetric as well as
symmetric. Governing equations are derived from the principle
of the stationary value of total potential energy. Numerical
results are obtained for thin-walled composite beams under
vertical and torsional loading, addressing the effects of ber
angle and laminate stacking sequence.
2. Kinematics
The theoretical developments presented in this paper require
two sets of coordinate systems that are mutually interrelated.
The rst coordinate system is the orthogonal Cartesian
coordinate system (x, y, z), for which the x and y axes lie in
the plane of the cross section and the z axis parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the beam. The second coordinate system is
the local plate coordinate (n, s, z) as shown in Fig. 1, wherein
the n axis is normal to the middle surface of a plate element,
the s axis is tangent to the middle surface and is directed along
the contour line of the cross section. The (n, s, z) and (x, y, z)
coordinate systems are related through an angle of orientation
as dened in Fig. 1. Point P is called the pole axis, through
which the axis parallel to the z axis is called the pole axis.
To derive the analytical model for a thin-walled composite
beam, the following assumptions are made:
1. The contour of the thin wall does not deform in its own
plane.
2. The linear shear strain
sz
of the middle surface is to have
the same distribution in the contour direction as it does in
the St. Venant torsion in each element.
3. The KirchhoffLove assumption in classical plate theory
remains valid for laminated composite thin-walled beams.
According to assumption 1, the midsurface displacement
components u, v at a point A in the contour coordinate system
can be expressed in terms of displacements U, V of the pole
P in the x, y directions, respectively, and the rotation angle
about the pole axis,
u(s, z) = U(z) sin (s) V(z) cos (s) (z)q(s) (1a)
v(s, z) = U(z) cos (s) + V(z) sin (s) +(z)r(s). (1b)
These equations apply to the whole contour. The out-of-plane
shell displacement w can now be found from the assumption 2.
For each element of middle surface, the shear strain becomes

sz
=
v
z
+
w
s
=

(z)
F(s)
t (s)
(2)
where t (s) is the thickness of the contour box section, F(s) is
the St. Venant circuit shear ow.
After substituting for v from Eq. (1) and considering the
following geometric relations,
dx = ds cos (3a)
dy = ds sin . (3b)
Eq. (2) can be integrated with respect to s from the origin to an
arbitrary point on the contour,
w(s, z) = W(z) U

(z)x(s) V

(z)y(s)

(z)(s) (4)
where differentiation with respect to the axial coordinate z
is denoted by primes (

); W represents the average axial

displacement of the beam in the z direction; x and y are the
coordinates of the contour in the (x, y, z) coordinate system;
and is the so-called sectorial coordinate or warping function
given by
(s) =
_
s
s

_
r(s)
F(s)
t (s)
_
ds (5a)
_
i
F(s)
t (s)
ds = 2A
i
i = 1, . . . , n (5b)
where r(s) is the height of a triangle with the base ds; A
i
is the area circumscribed by the contour of the i circuit. The
explicit forms of (s) and F(s) for box sections are given in
the Appendix.
The displacement components u, v, w representing the
deformation of any generic point on the prole section are given
with respect to the midsurface displacements u, v, w by the
assumption 3.
u(s, z, n) = u(s, z) (6a)
v(s, z, n) = v(s, z) n
u(s, z)
s
(6b)
w(s, z, n) = w(s, z) n
u(s, z)
z
. (6c)
The strains associated with the small-displacement theory of
elasticity are given by

s
=
s
+ n
s
(7a)

z
=
z
+ n
z
(7b)

sz
=
sz
+ n
sz
(7c)
1776 T.P. Vo, J. Lee / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 17741782
where

s
=
v
s
;
z
=
w
z
(8a)

s
=

2
u
z
2
;
z
=

2
u
z
2
;
sz
= 2

2
u
sz
. (8b)
All the other strains are identically zero. In Eq. (8),
s
and
s
are assumed to be zero.
z
,
z
and
sz
are the midsurface axial
strain and the biaxial curvature of the shell, respectively. The
above shell strains can be converted to beam strain components
by substituting Eqs. (1), (4) and (6) into Eq. (8) as

z
=

z
+ x
y
+ y
x
+

(9a)

z
=
y
sin
x
cos

q (9b)

sz
= 2
sz
=
sz
(9c)
where

z
,
x
,
y
,

and
sz
are axial strain, biaxial curvatures
in the x and y direction, warping curvature with respect to the
shear center, and twisting curvature in the beam, respectively
dened as

z
= W

(10a)

x
= V

(10b)

y
= U

(10c)

(10d)

sz
= 2

. (10e)
The resulting strains can be obtained from Eqs. (7) and (9) as

z
=

z
+ (x + n sin )
y
+ (y n cos )
x
+( nq)

(11a)

sz
=
_
n +
F
2t
_

sz
. (11b)
3. Variational formulation
Total potential energy of the system is calculated by the sum
of strain energy and potential energy,
= U +V (12)
where U is the strain energy
U =
1
2
_
v
(
z

z
+
zs

sz
) dv. (13)
The strain energy is calculated by substituting Eq. (11) into
Eq. (13)
U =
1
2
_
v
_

z
[

z
+ (x + n sin )
y
+ (y n cos )
x
+ ( nq)

] +
zs
_
n +
F
2t
_

sz
_
dv. (14)
The variation of strain energy can be stated as
U =
_
l
0
(N
z

z
+ M
y

y
+ M
x

x
+ M

+ M
t

sz
)ds (15)
where N
z
, M
x
, M
y
, M

, M
t
are axial force, bending moments
in the x and y directions, warping moment (bimoment), and
torsional moment with respect to the centroid, respectively,
dened by integrating over the cross-sectional area A as
N
z
=
_
A

z
dsdn (16a)
M
y
=
_
A

z
(x + n sin )dsdn (16b)
M
x
=
_
A

z
(y n cos )dsdn (16c)
M

=
_
A

z
( nq)dsdn (16d)
M
t
=
_
A

zs
_
n +
F
2t
_
dsdn. (16e)
The variation of the work done by external forces can be stated
as
V =
_
l
0
(qV + t )dz (17)
where q is transverse load and t is applied torque. Using the
principle that the variation of the total potential energy is zero,
the following weak statement is obtained
0 =
_
l
0
(N
z
W

M
y
U

M
x
V

+2M
t

+ qV + t )ds. (18)
4. Constitutive equations
The constitutive equations of a kth orthotropic lamina in the
laminate co-ordinate system of the box section are given by
_

sz
_
k
=
_

Q

11

Q

16

16

Q

66
_
k
_

sz
_
(19)
where

Q

i j
are transformed reduced stiffnesses. The trans-
formed reduced stiffnesses can be calculated from the trans-
formed stiffnesses based on the plane stress assumption and
plane strain assumption. More detailed explanation can be
found in Ref. [11].
The constitutive equations for bar forces and bar strains are
obtained by using Eqs. (11), (16) and (19)
_

_
N
z
M
y
M
x
M

M
t
_

_
=
_
_
_
_
_
E
11
E
12
E
13
E
14
E
15
E
22
E
23
E
24
E
25
E
33
E
34
E
35
E
44
E
45
sym. E
55
_

_
_

sz
_

_
(20)
where E
i j
are stiffnesses of the thin-walled composite, and can
be dened by
E
11
=
_
s
A
11
ds (21a)
T.P. Vo, J. Lee / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 17741782 1777
E
12
=
_
s
(A
11
x + B
11
sin )ds (21b)
E
13
=
_
s
(A
11
y B
11
cos )ds (21c)
E
14
=
_
s
(A
11
B
11
q)ds (21d)
E
15
=
_
s
_
A
16
F
2t
+ B
16
_
ds (21e)
E
22
=
_
s
(A
11
x
2
+ 2B
11
x sin + D
11
sin
2
)ds (21f)
E
23
=
_
s
[A
11
xy + B
11
(y sin x cos )
D
11
sin cos ] ds (21g)
E
24
=
_
s
[A
11
x + B
11
(sin qx) D
11
q sin ] ds (21h)
E
25
=
_
s
_
A
16
F
2t
x + B
16
_
x +
F sin
2t
_
+ D
16
sin
_
ds
(21i)
E
33
=
_
s
(A
11
y
2
2B
11
y cos + D
11
cos
2
)ds (21j)
E
34
=
_
s
[A
11
y B
11
(cos + qy) + D
11
q cos ] ds (21k)
E
35
=
_
s
_
A
16
F
2t
y + B
16
_
y
F cos
2t
_
D
16
cos
_
ds (21l)
E
44
=
_
s
(A
11

2
2B
11
q + D
11
q
2
)ds (21m)
E
45
=
_
s
_
A
16
F
2t
+ B
16
_

Fq
2t
_
D
16
q
_
ds (21n)
E
55
=
_
s
_
A
66
F
2
4t
2
+ B
66
F
t
+ D
66
_
ds (21o)
where the A
i j
, B
i j
and D
i j
matrices are extensional, coupling
and bending stiffness, respectively, dened by
(A
i j
, B
i j
, D
i j
) =
_

Q
i j
(1, n, n
2
)dn. (22)
It appears that the laminate stiffnesses E
i j
depend on the cross
section of the composites. The explicit forms of the laminate
stiffnesses E
i j
can be calculated for a composite box section
and is given in the Appendix.
5. Governing equations
The equilibrium equations of the present study can be
obtained by integrating the derivatives of the varied quantities
by parts and collecting the coefcients of U, V, W and
N

z
= 0 (23a)
M

y
= 0 (23b)
M

x
+ q = 0 (23c)
M

+ 2M

t
+ t = 0. (23d)
By substituting Eqs. (10) and (20) into Eq. (23) the explicit form
of the governing equations can be expressed with respect to the
laminate stiffnesses E
i j
as
E
11
W

E
12
U

E
13
V

E
14

+ 2E
15

= 0 (24a)
E
12
W

E
22
U
i v
E
23
V
i v
E
24

i v
+ 2E
25

= 0 (24b)
E
13
W

E
23
U
i v
E
33
V
i v
E
34

i v
+2E
35

+ q = 0 (24c)
E
14
W

+ 2E
15
W

E
24
U
i v
2E
25
U

E
34
V
i v
2E
35
V

E
44

i v
+ 4E
55

+ t = 0. (24d)
Eq. (24) is the most general form for exural and torsional
behavior of a thin-walled laminated composite with a box
section, and the dependent variables, U, V, W and are fully
coupled.
6. Finite element formulation
The present theory for thin-walled composite beams
described in the previous section was implemented via a
displacement based nite element method. The generalized
displacements are expressed over each element as a linear
combination of the one-dimensional Lagrange interpolation
function
j
and Hermite-cubic interpolation function
j
associated with node j and the nodal values
W =
n

j =1
w
j

j
(25a)
U =
n

j =1
u
j

j
(25b)
V =
n

j =1
v
j

j
(25c)
=
n

j =1

j
. (25d)
Substituting these expressions into the weak statement in
Eq. (18), the nite element model of a typical element can be
expressed as
[K]{} = { f } (26)
where [K] is the element stiffness matrix and [ f ] is the element
force vector
[K] =
_
_
_
_
K
11
K
12
K
13
K
14
K
22
K
23
K
24
K
33
K
34
sym. K
44
_

_
(27)
{ f } = {0 0 f
3
f
4
}
T
. (28)
The explicit forms of [K] and [ f ] are given by
K
11
i j
=
_
l
0
E
11

j
dz (29a)
1778 T.P. Vo, J. Lee / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 17741782
Table 1
The axial displacement and the angle of twist of a cantilever beam at the free end under axial load
Ref. [7] Present
Plane strain Plane stress
Axial displacement 0.616 mm 0.603 mm 0.620 mm
Angle of twist 9.948 10
3
rad 16.400 10
3
rad 9.113 10
3
rad
Table 2
The maximum deection and the angle of twist at the mid-span of a clamped beam under eccentric uniform load
Ref. [7] Present
Plane strain Plane stress
Maximum deection 0.488 mm 0.438 mm 0.494 mm
Maximum angle of twist 2.760 10
3
rad 2.678 10
3
rad 6.427 10
3
rad
K
12
i j
=
_
l
0
E
12

j
dz (29b)
K
13
i j
=
_
l
0
E
13

j
dz (29c)
K
14
i j
=
_
l
0
(2E
15

j
E
14

j
)dz (29d)
K
22
i j
=
_
l
0
E
22

j
dz (29e)
K
23
i j
=
_
l
0
E
23

j
dz (29f)
K
24
i j
=
_
l
0
(E
24

j
2E
25

j
)dz (29g)
K
33
i j
=
_
l
0
E
33

j
dz (29h)
K
34
i j
=
_
l
0
(E
34

j
2E
35

j
)dz (29i)
K
44
i j
=
_
l
0
(E
44

j
2E
45
(

j
+

j
) + 4E
55

j
)dz (29j)
f
3
i
=
_
l
0
q
i
dz (29k)
f
4
i
=
_
l
0
t
i
dz. (29l)
In Eq. (26), {} is the unknown nodal displacements
{} = {W U V }
T
. (30)
7. Numerical examples
For verication purposes, a cantilever composite box beam
with length L = 1 m, and the cross section shown in Fig. 2
is subjected to an axial load of 24 kN with stacking sequence
[0
10
/45
10
]. Plane stress (
s
= 0) and plane strain (
s
= 0)
assumptions are made in the analysis. The following material
properties are used
Fig. 2. A cantilever composite box beam under axial load.
Fig. 3. A clamped composite box beam under an eccentric uniform load.
E
1
= 148 GPa, E
2
= 9.65 GPa,
G
12
= 4.55 GPa,
12
= 0.34.
(31)
The results using the present analysis are compared with
previously available results Ref. [7] in Table 1. It is seen that
the results of the present nite element analysis for plane stress
are in good agreement with the solution in Ref. [7].
The next example is a clamped composite box beam with
the same cross section as the previous example except for
the stacking sequence [45
5
/0
10
], which is subjected to an
eccentric uniform load p = 6.5 kN/m acting at the midplane
of the left web as shown in Fig. 3. The maximum angle of twist
and the deection are given in Table 2. It is also shown that the
solution based on the plane stress assumption (
s
= 0), yields a
more accurate result. It seems that the angle of twist in Ref. [7]
was calculated by using plane strain assumptions.
For convenience, the following nondimensional values of
angle of twist and vertical displacements are used

=
_

_
pL
G
12
b
1
t
2
for uniform load
P
G
12
b
1
t
2
10
8
for concentrated load
(32a)
T.P. Vo, J. Lee / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 17741782 1779
Fig. 4. Variation of angle of twist at mid-span with respect to ber angle change
for clamped composite box beams under an eccentric uniform load.
v =
_

_
vpL
3
E
2
b
3
1
t
for uniform load
vPL
2
E
2
b
3
1
t
10
8
for concentrated load.
(32b)
In order to investigate the effects of ber orientation, a
clamped composite box beam is subjected to an eccentric
uniform load as shown in Fig. 3. Two layers with
equal thicknesses are considered as anti-symmetric angle-ply
laminates [/ ] in the anges and webs. For all the analysis,
the assumption
s
= 0 is made. The coupling stiffnesses
E
13
, E
14
, E
23
, E
24
, E
35
are zero, but E
15
and E
45
do not vanish
due to the unsymmetric stacking sequence of the webs and
anges. Variation of the torsional and vertical displacements at
mid-span with respect to ber angle change in the anges and
webs are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The maximum angle of twist
occurs near = 25

, that is, because the torsional rigidity E

55
becomes maximum at = 25

.
The next example is a cantilever composite box beam under
point load shown in Fig. 6. Four layers with equal thickness
are considered as an anti-symmetric angle-ply laminate in the
anges and webs. The stacking sequence of the top and bottom
anges are [
2
] and [
4
] respectively, left and right webs
are [
2
/
2
], and thus, exhibit exural torsional coupling. The
vertical displacements at the free end are shown in Fig. 7
with respect to ber angle variation. It shows that the load
eccentricity does not affect the vertical displacements. On
the other hand, the maximum torsional displacement shows
substantial changes for eccentricity with respect to ber angle
variation as shown in Fig. 8. Even for no eccentricity (e/b = 0),
the torsional displacement becomes nonzero as the ber angle
goes off-axis implying that the coupling stiffnesses E
15
and E
45
drive exuraltorsional coupling. Vice versa, for (e/b = 0.25),
the torsional displacement can vanish for specic values of ber
angle (near 3

and 68

) implying that the angle of twist can be

suppressed with carefully tailored stacking sequences even for
applied torque.
Fig. 5. Variation of the vertical displacements at mid-span with respect to ber
angle change for clamped composite box beams under an eccentric uniform
load.
Fig. 6. A cantilever composite box beam under an eccentric load at free end.
Fig. 7. Variation of the vertical displacements at free end with repsect to the
ber angle change of a cantilever composite box beam.
8. Concluding remarks
An analytical model was developed to study the exural
torsional behavior of a laminated composite beam with
1780 T.P. Vo, J. Lee / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 17741782
C =
b
2
1
{A
1
(t
1
+ 2t
3
) + A
3
t
3
} + b
2
2
{A
2
(t
2
+ 2t
4
) + A
4
t
4
} + 2b
1
b
2
{A
1
(t
2
+ t
4
) + A
3
t
4
+ A
2
t
3
}
2{b
1
(t
1
+ t
3
) + b
2
(t
2
+ t
4
)}
0 =
_
A
dA
0 =
_
b
1
0

1
(s
1
)t
1
ds
1
+
_
b
2
0

2
(s
2
)t
2
ds
2
+
_
b
1
0

3
(s
3
)t
3
ds
3
+
_
b
2
0

4
(s
4
)t
4
ds
4
.
Box I.
Fig. 8. Variation of the torsional displacement at free end with respect to the
ber angle change of a cantilever composite box beam.
box section. The model is capable of predicting accurate
deection as well as angle of twist for various conguration
including boundary conditions, laminate stacking sequence
and ber angle. To formulate the problem, a one-dimensional
displacement-based nite element method is employed. The
assumption that normal stress in the contour direction vanishes
(
s
= 0) seems more appropriate than the free strain
assumption in the contour direction. The model presented is
found to be appropriate and efcient in analyzing exural
torsional problems of a thin-walled box-section laminated
composite beam.
Acknowledgments
The support of the research reported here by the Korea
Ministry of Construction and Transportation through Grant
2003-C103A1040001-00110 is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix
The St. Venant circuit shear ow of the box section in Fig. 9
is given by
F =
2b
1
b
2
b
1
_
1
t
1
+
1
t
3
_
+ b
2
_
1
t
2
+
1
t
4
_. (33)
Warping functions with respect to the shear center of sides 1, 2,
3, 4 are dened by
Fig. 9. Geometry of thin-walled composite box section.

1
(s
1
) =
_
x
1
+ x
p

F
t
1
_
s
1
+ C = A
1
s
1
+ C (34a)

2
(s
2
) =
_
y
2
+ y
p

F
t
2
_
s
2
+
_
x
1
+ x
p

F
t
1
_
b
1
+C = A
2
s
2
+ A
1
b
1
+ C (34b)

3
(s
3
) =
_
x
3
x
p

F
t
3
_
s
3
+
_
x
1
+ x
p

F
t
1
_
b
1
+
_
y
2
+ y
p

F
t
2
_
b
2
+ C
= A
3
s
3
+ A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C (34c)

4
(s
4
) =
_
y
4
y
p

F
t
4
_
s
4
+
_
x
1
+ x
p

F
t
1
_
b
1
+
_
y
2
+ y
p

F
t
2
_
b
2
+
_
x
3
x
p

F
t
3
_
b
1
+ C
= A
4
s
4
+ A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C (34d)
where constant C can be determined by the conditions given in
Box I.
The explicit forms of the laminate stiffnesses E
i j
for
composite box section can be dened by
E
11
= A
1
11
b
1
+ A
2
11
b
2
+ A
3
11
b
1
+ A
4
11
b
2
(35a)
E
12
= A
1
11
x
1
b
1
B
1
11
b
1
+
1
2
A
2
11
b
2
2
+ A
2
11
x
1
b
2
+ A
3
11
x
3
b
1
+ B
3
11
b
1

1
2
A
4
11
b
2
2
+ A
4
11
x
3
b
2
(35b)
E
13
=
1
2
A
1
11
b
2
1
+ A
1
11
y
4
b
1
+ A
2
11
y
2
b
2
B
2
11
b
2
+
1
2
A
3
11
b
2
1
+ A
3
11
y
2
b
1
+ A
4
11
y
4
b
2
+ B
4
11
b
2
(35c)
T.P. Vo, J. Lee / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 17741782 1781
E
14
= (A
1
11
A
1
B
1
11
)
b
2
1
2
+ A
1
11
Cb
1
+ (A
2
11
A
2
B
2
11
)
b
2
2
2
+ A
2
11
(A
1
b
1
+ C)b
2
+ (A
3
11
A
3
B
3
11
)
b
2
1
2
+ A
3
11
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C)b
1
+(A
4
11
A
4
B
4
11
)
b
2
2
2
+ A
4
11
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C)b
2
(35d)
E
15
= b
1
_
B
1
16
+ A
1
16
F
2t
1
_
+ b
2
_
B
2
16
+ A
2
16
F
2t
2
_
+b
1
_
B
3
16
+ A
3
16
F
2t
3
_
+ b
2
_
B
4
16
+ A
4
16
F
2t
4
_
(35e)
E
22
= A
1
11
x
2
1
b
1
2B
1
11
x
1
b
1
+ D
1
11
b
1
+
1
3
A
2
11
b
3
2
+ A
2
11
x
1
b
2
2
+ A
2
11
x
2
1
b
2
+ A
3
11
x
2
3
b
1
+ 2B
3
11
x
3
b
1
+ D
3
11
b
1
+
1
3
A
4
11
b
3
2
A
4
11
x
3
b
2
2
+ A
4
11
x
2
3
b
2
(35f)
E
23
=
1
2
(A
1
11
x
1
+ B
1
11
)b
2
1
+ A
1
11
x
1
y
4
b
1
B
1
11
y
4
b
1
+
1
2
(A
2
11
y
2
B
2
11
)b
2
2
+ A
2
11
x
1
y
2
b
2
B
2
11
x
1
b
2
+
1
2
(A
3
11
x
3
+ B
3
11
)b
2
1
+ A
3
11
x
3
y
2
b
1
+ B
3
11
y
2
b
1
+
1
2
(A
4
11
y
4
B
4
11
)b
2
2
+ A
4
11
x
3
y
4
b
2
+ B
4
11
x
3
b
2
(35g)
E
24
=
1
2
{A
1
11
x
1
A
1
+ B
1
11
(A
1
x
1
) + D
1
11
}b
2
1
+ A
1
11
x
1
Cb
1
B
1
11
Cb
1
+
1
3
(A
2
11
A
2
B
2
11
)b
3
2
+
1
2
{A
2
11
x
1
A
2
+ A
2
11
(A
1
b
1
+ C)
B
2
11
x
1
}b
2
2
+ A
2
11
x
1
(A
1
b
1
+ C)b
2
+
1
2
{A
3
11
x
3
A
3
+ B
3
11
(A
3
x
3
) D
3
11
}b
2
1
+ A
3
11
x
3
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C)b
1
+ B
3
11
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C)b
1
+
1
3
(A
4
11
A
4
+ B
4
11
)b
3
2
+
1
2
{A
4
11
x
3
A
4
A
4
11
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C) B
4
11
x
3
}b
2
2
+ A
4
11
x
3
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C)b
2
(35h)
E
25
= B
1
16
_
x
1

F
2t
1
_
b
1
D
1
16
b
1
+ A
1
16
x
1
F
2t
1
b
1
+
1
2
_
B
2
16
+ A
2
16
F
2t
2
_
b
2
2
+ B
2
16
x
1
b
2
+ A
2
16
x
1
F
2t
2
b
2
+ B
3
16
_
x
3
+
F
2t
3
_
b
1
+ D
3
16
b
1
+ A
3
16
x
3
F
2t
3
b
1
+
1
2
_
B
4
16
A
4
16
F
2t
4
_
b
2
2
+ B
4
16
x
3
b
2
+ A
4
16
x
3
F
2t
4
b
2
(35i)
E
33
=
1
3
A
1
11
b
3
1
A
1
11
y
4
b
2
1
+ A
1
11
y
2
4
b
1
+ A
2
11
y
2
2
b
2
2B
2
11
y
2
b
2
+ D
2
11
b
2
+
1
3
A
3
11
b
3
1
+ A
3
11
y
2
b
2
1
+ A
3
11
y
2
2
b
1
+ A
4
11
y
2
4
b
2
+ 2B
4
11
y
4
b
2
+ D
4
11
b
2
(35j)
E
34
=
1
3
(A
1
11
A
1
+ B
1
11
)b
3
1
+
1
2
(A
1
11
y
4
A
1
A
1
11
C B
1
11
y
4
)b
2
1
+ A
1
11
y
4
Cb
1
+
1
2
{A
2
11
y
2
A
2
B
2
11
(A
2
+ y
2
) + D
2
11
}b
2
2
+ A
2
11
y
2
(A
1
b
1
+ C)b
2
B
2
11
(A
1
b
1
+ C)b
2
+
1
3
(A
3
11
A
3
B
3
11
)b
3
1
+
1
2
{A
3
11
y
2
A
3
+ A
3
11
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C) B
3
11
y
2
}b
2
1
+ A
3
11
y
2
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C)b
1
+
1
2
{A
4
11
y
4
A
4
B
4
11
(A
4
+ y
4
) D
4
11
}b
2
2
+ A
4
11
y
4
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C)b
2
+ B
4
11
(A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C)b
2
(35k)
E
35
=
1
2
_
B
1
16
A
1
16
F
2t
1
_
b
2
1
+ B
1
16
y
4
b
1
+ A
1
16
y
4
F
2t
1
b
1
+ B
2
16
_
y
2

F
2t
2
_
b
2
D
2
16
b
2
+ A
2
16
y
2
F
2t
2
b
2
+
1
2
_
B
3
16
+ A
3
16
F
2t
3
_
b
2
1
+ B
3
16
y
2
b
1
+ A
3
16
y
2
F
2t
3
b
1
+ B
4
16
_
y
4
+
F
2t
4
_
b
2
+ D
4
16
b
2
+ A
4
16
y
4
F
2t
4
b
2
(35l)
E
44
= b
1
A
1
11
_
b
1
A
1
_
C + A
1
b
1
3
_
+ C
2
_
b
1
B
1
11
_
C + 2A
1
b
1
3
_
+b
2
A
2
11
_
b
2
A
2
_
A
1
b
1
+ C + A
2
b
2
3
_
+ (A
1
b
1
+ C)
2
_
b
2
B
2
11
_
A
1
b
1
+ C + 2A
2
b
2
3
_
+b
1
A
3
11
_
b
1
A
3
_
A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C + A
3
b
1
3
_
+ (A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C)
2
_
b
1
B
3
11
_
A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C + 2A
3
b
1
3
_
+b
2
A
4
11
_
b
2
A
4
_
A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C + A
4
b
2
3
_
+ (A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C)
2
_
b
2
B
4
11
_
A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C + 2A
4
b
2
3
_
(35m)
1782 T.P. Vo, J. Lee / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 17741782
E
45
= B
1
66
b
1
__
A
1

F
2t
1
_
b
1
2
+ C
_
+ A
1
16
b
1
F
2t
1
{A
1
b
1
+ C} D
1
16
b
2
1
2
+ B
2
66
b
2
__
A
2

F
2t
2
_
b
2
2
+ A
1
b
1
+ C
_
+ A
2
16
b
2
F
2t
2
{A
2
b
2
+ A
1
b
1
+ C} D
2
16
b
2
2
2
+ B
3
66
b
1
__
A
3

F
2t
3
_
b
1
2
+ A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C
_
+ A
3
16
b
1
F
2t
3
{A
3
b
1
+ A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ C} D
3
16
b
2
1
2
+ B
4
66
b
2
__
A
4

F
2t
4
_
b
2
2
+ A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C
_
+ A
4
16
b
2
F
2t
4
{A
4
b
2
+ A
1
b
1
+ A
2
b
2
+ A
3
b
1
+ C} D
4
16
b
2
2
2
(35n)
E
55
= D
1
66
b
1
+ A
1
66
b
1
F
2
4t
2
1
+ 2B
1
66
F
2t
1
+ D
2
66
b
2
+ A
2
66
b
2
F
2
4t
2
2
+ 2B
2
66
F
2t
2
+ D
3
66
b
1
+ A
3
66
b
1
F
2
4t
2
3
+ 2B
3
66
F
2t
3
+ D
4
66
b
2
+ A
4
66
b
2
F
2
4t
2
4
+ 2B
4
66
F
2t
4
(35o)
References
[1] Vlasov VZ. Thin-walled elastic beams. 2nd ed. Jerusalem, Israel: Israel
Program for Scientic Translation; 1961.
[2] Gjelsvik A. The theory of thin-walled bars. New York: John Wiley and
Sons Inc.; 1981.
[3] Chandra R, Stemple AD, Chopra I. Thin-walled composite beams under
bending, torsional and extensional loads. Journal of Aircraft 1990;27(7):
61936.
[4] Song O, Librescu L. Free vibration of anisotropic composite thin-walled
beams of closed cross-section contour. Journal of Sound and Vibration
1993;167(1):12947.
[5] Puspita G, Barrau JJ, Gray D. Computation of exural and torsional
homogeneous properties and stresses in composite beams with orthotropic
phases. Composite Structures 1993;24:439.
[6] Jeon SM, Cho MH, Lee I. Static and dynamic analysis of composite
box beams using large deection theory. Computers and Structures 1995;
57(4):63542.
[7] Kollar LP, Pluzsik A. Analysis of thin-walled composite beams with
arbitrary layup. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 2002;
21(16):142365.
[8] Lee J, Lee S. Flexuraltorsional behavior of thin-walled composite beams.
Thin-walled Structures 2004;42:1293305.
[9] Salim HA, Davalos JF. Torsion of open and closed thin-walled lami-
nated composite sections. Journal of Composite Materials 2005;39(6):
497524.
[10] Cortinez VH, Piovan MT. Stability of composite thin-walled beams with
shear deformability. Computers and Structures 2006;84:97890.
[11] Jones RM. Mechanics of composite materials. New York: Hemisphere
Publishing Corp.; 1975.