Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283

www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

A new layerwise trigonometric shear deformation theory

for two-layered cross-ply beams
Rameshchandra P. Shimpi *, Yuwaraj M. Ghugal
Aerospace Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, 400 076, India

Received 9 February 2000; received in revised form 5 December 2000; accepted 13 February 2001

Abstract
A new layerwise trigonometric shear deformation theory for the analysis of two-layered cross-ply laminated beams is presented.
The number of primary variables in this theory is even less than that of first-order shear deformation theory, and moreover, it
obviates the need for a shear correction factor. The sinusoidal function in terms of thickness coordinate is used in the displacement
field to account for shear deformation. The novel feature of the theory is that the transverse shear stress can be obtained directly
from the use of constitutive relationships, satisfying the shear-stress-free boundary conditions at top and bottom of the beam and
satisfying continuity of shear stress at the interface. The principle of virtual work is used to obtain the governing equations and
boundary conditions of the theory. The effectiveness of the theory is demonstrated by applying it to a two-layered cross-ply lami-
nated beam. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shear deformation; Laminated thick beam; Transverse shear stress; Interface shear continuity; Cross-ply beam

1. Introduction
The use of fiber-reinforced composite laminates has
greatly increased in weight sensitive applications such as
aerospace and automotive structures because of their high
specific strength and high specific stiffness. The increased
use of laminated beams in various structures has stimu-
lated considerable interest in their accurate analysis. On
account of their low ratio of transverse shear modulus to
the in-plane modulus, shear deformation effects are more
pronounced in the composite beams subjected to trans-
verse loads.
It is well-known that the classical Euler–Bernoulli
theory of beam bending, also known as elementary the-
ory of bending (ETB), disregards the effects of the shear
deformation. The theory is suitable for slender beams
but not for thick or deep beams since it is based on the
assumption that the transverse normal to the neutral axis
remains so during bending and after bending, implying
that the transverse shear strain is zero. Since the theory
neglects the transverse shear deformation, it leads to less
accurate results in the case of isotropic thick beams and
more so in the case of laminated composite thick beams,
where shear effects are significant.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rpshimpi@aero.iitb.ac.in (R.P. Shimpi).
0266-3538/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0266-3538(01)00024-0
Bresse [1], Rayleigh [2], and Timoshenko [3] were the
pioneer investigators who included refined effects such as
the shear deformaton and rotatory inertia in the beam the-
ory. Timoshenko showed that the effect of transverse shear
is much greater than that of rotatory inertia on the response
of transverse vibration of prismatic beams. This theory is
now widely referred to as the Timoshenko beam theory in
the literature. In this theory, transverse shear strain dis-
tribution is assumed to be constant through the beam
thickness and, thus, requires a shear correction factor to
appropriately represent the strain energy of deformation.
Kant and Manjunatha [4], Manjunatha and Kant [5],
Maiti and Sinha [6] and Vinayak et al. [7] used the
equivalent single layer, displacement based, higher-order
shear deformation theories (HSDT) in the analysis of
symmetric and unsymmetric laminated beams and
employed the finite-element method as a solution tech-
nique. These theories are the special cases of Lo et al. [8]
higher-order theory.
Levy [9] and Stein [10] developed refined plate the-
ories expressing the displacement field in terms of
trigonometric functions to represent the thickness effect
and approximated the shear stress distribution through
the thickness.
Recently, Liu and Li [11] presented an overall com-
parison of laminate theories based on displacement
hypothesis emphasizing the importance of layerwise
1272 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283

Nomenclature 
EQL
zx Non-dimensional transverse shear
stress obtained from the equilibrium
b Width of beam equations
D Flexural rigidity 
z Non-dimensional transverse normal
D
Modified flexural rigidity coefficient stress
as defined in Appendix
D1, D2, D3, D
3 Constants as defined in Appendix Superscripts
E (1), E (2) Young’s moduli of layer 1 and layer CR Constitutive relationships
2, respectively EQL Equilibrium equations
G(1), G(2) Shear moduli of layer 1 and layer 2,
respectively Acronyms
h Depth (i.e. thickness) of beam ESCBP Exact solution of cylindrical bending
L Span of the beam of plate
S Aspect ratio (i.e. ratio of span to CPT Classical plate theory
depth of beam) ETB Elementary theory of beam-bending
x, y, z Rectangular coordinates FSDT First-order shear deformation theory

Neutral axis coefficient as defined in FEM Finite element method
Appendix HSDT Higher-order shear deformation
l1, l2 Coefficients as defined in Appendix theory
u
Non-dimensional inplane displace- HOST Higher-order shear deformation
ment theory
w
Non-dimensional transverse displace- HST Higher-order shear deformation
ment theory

x Non-dimensional inplane stress LTSDT-I Layerwise trigonometric shear defor-

CR
zx Non-dimensional transverse shear mation theory, Model I
stress obtained from the constitutive LTSDT-II Layerwise trigonometric shear defor-
relationships mation theory, Model II

theories and also presented a series of quasi-layerwise
theories.
Lu and Liu [12] developed an interlaminar shear stress
continuity theory for composite laminates by using Her-
mite cubic shape functions. The theory is layer dependent
and the number of degrees of freedom involved is very
high and hence it is computationally complicated. Results
of single-layered, two-layered and three-layered cross-
ply laminates for cylindrical bending were presented.
To improve the accuracy of the transverse stress pre-
diction, layerwise higher-order theories based on
assumed displacements for individual layers, have been
proved to be very promising techniques in the flexural
analysis of thick laminates. Such theories were developed
and used by Lu and Liu [12], Li and Liu [13], Ambart-
sumyan [14], Reddy [15] and Reddy and Robbins [16].
A study of the literature indicates that, most of the
layerwise theories have been developed for symmetric
cross-ply laminates subjected to cylindrical bending.
Furthermore, higher order theories even with more than
three displacement variables (e.g. there are three in the
case of FSDT) appear to be insufficient and inefficient
when the laminated beam is unsymmetric, if the unsym-
metry in the lay-up is not properly accounted for in the
theory. It is further noted that the research work dealing
with unsymmetric laminated beams using refined the-
ories is scarce. These facts have been commented upon
by Vinson and Chou [17] and Icardi [18]. Thus, there is
a need for a new layerwise refined shear deformation
theory with a minimum number of displacement vari-
ables, for shear-deformable laminated beams.
More recently, Shimpi and Ghugal [19] developed a sim-
ple layerwise trigonometric shear deformation theory
(designated here as LTSDT-I) for flexural analysis of cross-
ply laminated beams. However, the displacement model of
the theorysuffered fromthe defectinthattherewas anunba-
lancedsmallresultantforcealongthelengthwisedirectionof
the beam. Removing this deficiency, an improved layerwise
displacementmodelis presented in this paper and will be
referred to as LTSDT-II.
The constitutive relationships in respect of transverse
shear stress and shear strain in each layer are satisfied
and also interface shear stress continuity is satisfied in
the proposed theory. In order to verify the accuracy of
the theory, it has been applied to two-layered cross-ply
[90/0] laminated beam.
2. Theoretical formulation
The theoretical formulation of a cross-ply laminated
beam based on certain kinematical and physical
 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283
assumptions is presented. The variationally correct
forms of differential equations and boundary conditions,
based on the assumed displacement field are obtained
using the principle of virtual work.
The beam under consideration consists of two layers:
layer 1 and layer 2.
Layer 1 (90
layer) occupies the region:
04x4L; b=24y4b=2; h=24z40
Layer 2 (0
layer) occupies the region:
04x4L; b=24y4b=2; 04z4h=2
where x, y, z are Cartesian coordinates, L is the length,
b is the width and h is the total depth of beam. The
beam is subjected to transverse load of intensity q(x) per
unit length of the beam. The beam can have any mean-
ingful boundary conditions.
2.1. Assumptions made in the theoretical formulation
1. The axial displacement consists of two parts:
(a) displacement which is analogous to that given
by elementary theory of bending;
(b) displacement due to shear deformation, which
is assumed to be sinusoidal in nature with respect
to thickness coordinate, such that maximum shear
stress occurs at neutral axis as predicted by the
elementary theory of bending of beam.
2. Displacement u is such that the resultant of
inplane stress,  x, acting over the cross-section
should result in only bending moment and should
not result in force in the x direction.
3. The transverse displacement is assumed to be a
function of longitudinal length coordinate of beam.
4. The displacements are small compared to beam
thickness.
5. The layers are perfectly bonded to each other.
6. The stacking sequence of layers is such that there
is no bending-twisting coupling.
7. The body forces are ignored in the analysis. (The
body forces can be effectively taken into account
by adding them to the external forces.)
8. One-dimensional constitutive laws are assumed for
each layer.
9. The beam is subjected to lateral load only.
2.2. The displacement field
Based on the before mentioned assumptions, the dis-
placement field of the present layerwise beam theory is
given as below:
1273
dw
uð1Þ ðx; zÞ ¼ ðz 
hÞ
dx


 z=h 

þ h C1 þ C2 sin ðxÞ ð3Þ
2 0:5 þ

dw
uð2Þ ðx; zÞ ¼ ðz 
hÞ
dx


ð1Þ  z=h 

þ h C3 þ sin ðxÞ ð4Þ
2 0:5 

wðxÞ ¼ wðxÞ ð5Þ
ð2Þ
Here u(1) and u(2) are the inplane displacement com-
ponents in the x direction, superscripts 1 and 2 refer to
layer 1 and layer 2, w(x) is the transverse displacement
in the z direction and C1, C2, C3 and
are the constants
(given in the Appendix). The function (x) is a rotation
function or the warping function of the cross-section of
the beam.
2.3. Superiority of the present theory
The present theory is a displacement-based layerwise
theory, and layerwise higher-order or refined shear-
deformation theories are known to be successful tech-
niques for improving the accuracy of displacement and
stresses [11].
The kinematics of the present theory is much richer
than those of the higher order shear deformation the-
ories available in the literature, because if the trigono-
metric term (involving thickness coordinate z) is expanded
in power series, the kinematics of higher order theories
(which are usually obtained by power series in thickness
coordinate z) are implicitly taken into account to good
deal of extent.
Also, it needs to be noted that every additional power
of thickness coordinate in the displacement field of
other higher-order theories of Lo et al. [8] type not only
introduces additional unknown variables in those the-
ories but these variables are also difficult to interpret
physically [16]. Thus use of the sine term in the thick-
ness coordinate (in the kinematics) enhances the rich-
ness of the theory, and also results in the reduction of
the number of unknown variables as compared to other
theories [5,7] without loss of physics of the problem in
modelling.
The number of primary variables in this theory is even
less than that of first-order shear-deformation theory,
and moreover, it obviates the need of a shear correction
factor. Thus, the displacement field chosen is superior to
those of others.
2.3.1. Strains
Normal and transverse shear strains for layers 1
and 2
1274 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283

@uð1Þ d2 w (i.e. w and ), we obtain the governing equations and

ðx1Þ ¼ ¼ ðz 
hÞ 2 the associated boundary conditions. The governing
@x

dx 
ð6Þ equations are as follows:
 z=h 
d
þ h C1 þ C2 sin
2 0:5 þ
dx d4 w d3  q
ð2 Þ 2  D 1  ¼0 ð15Þ
@u dw dx4 dx3 D
ðx2Þ ¼ ¼ ðz 
hÞ 2
@x

dx
ð7Þ
 z=h 
d d3 w d2 
þ h C3 þ sin  D þ D3  ¼ 0 ð16Þ
2 0:5 
dx dx3
2
dx2


ð1Þ @uð1Þ dw C2  z=h 

zx ¼ þ ¼ cos  ð8Þ
@z dx 1 þ 2
2 0:5 þ
The associated boundary conditions obtained are of

 the following form:
ð2Þ @uð2Þ dw   z=h 

zx ¼ þ ¼ cos  ð9Þ
@z dx 1  2
2 0:5 
d3 w d2 
3
 D1 2 ¼ 0 or w is prescribed ð17Þ
dx dx
2.3.2. Stresses
According to assumption (8), one-dimensional con- d2 w d dw
stitutive laws are used to obtain the normal bending and 2
 D1 ¼ 0 or is prescribed ð18Þ
dx dx dx
transverse shear stresses for layers 1 and 2.
 d2 w d
d2 w  D2 ¼ 0 or  is prescribed ð19Þ
xð1Þ ¼ Eð1Þ ðx1Þ
¼E ð1Þ
 ðz 
hÞ 2 dx 2 dx
dx

  ð10Þ
 z=h 
d
þ h C1 þ C2 sin where D, D1, D2, D3 are the constants as defined in
2 0:5 þ
dx
 Appendix.
d2 w Thus the variationally consistent governing differ-
xð2Þ ¼ Eð2Þ ðx2Þ ¼ Eð2Þ  ðz 
hÞ 2
dx ential equations and boundary conditions are obtained.

  ð11Þ
The flexural behaviour of beam is given by the solution
 z=h 
d
þ h C3 þ sin of these equations and simultaneously satisfaction of
2 0:5 
dx
the associated boundary conditions.


ð1Þ G ð1 Þ  C 2  z=h 

zx ¼ Gð1Þ zx
ð1 Þ
¼ cos  ð12Þ
1 þ 2
2 0:5 þ

3. Illustrative example


ð2Þ Gð2Þ   z=h 

zx ¼ Gð2Þ zx
ð2 Þ
¼ cos  ð13Þ A simply supported two-layered [90/0] composite
1  2
2 0:5 
beam, wherein layers 1 and 2 occupy the regions given
by expressions (1) and (2), respectively, is considered for
2.4. Governing equations and boundary conditions detailed numerical study. The beam is subjected to sin-
gle sinusoidal load q(x)=qo sin (x=L), acting in the z
Using the expressions (6)–(13) for strains and stresses direction, where qo is magnitude of the sinusoidal load-
and principle of virtual work, variationally consistent ing at midspan. This is the same problem, which was
differential equations and boundary conditions for the also considered by Pagano [20]. The material of the
beam under consideration are obtained. The principle of beam layers is a carbon-fibre/epoxy uni-directional
virtual work when applied to the beam leads to: composite. The following has been assumed:
ð x¼L ð z¼0
 ð1 Þ ð1 Þ ð1Þ ð1Þ
Eð2Þ G ð1 Þ G ð2 Þ
b x  x þ zx zx dx dz ¼ 25; ¼ 0:20; ¼ 0:02
x¼0 z¼h=2 Eð1Þ Eð1Þ Eð2Þ
ð x¼L ð z¼þh=2

þb xð2Þ  ðx2Þ þ zx
ð2 Þ ð2 Þ
zx dx dz ð14Þ Superscripts (1) and (2) refer to layers 1 and 2,
x¼0 z¼0
ð x¼L respectively.
 q w dx ¼ 0
x¼0 3.1. The solution scheme
where the symbol  denotes the variational operator.
Employing Green’s theorem in Eq. (14) successively The following is the form of the solution for w(x) and
and collecting the coefficients of the primary variables (x) that satisfies boundary conditions perfectly:
 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283 1275


wðxÞ ¼ w1 sin
x q0 S2 Eð1Þ
z 
L xð1Þ ¼ 
l1  l2
b 2 D
Eð2Þ h

 ð24Þ
x  z=h 
 x
ðxÞ ¼ 1 cos C1 þ C2 sin sin
L 2 0:5 þ
L

q0 S2
z 
where w1 and 1 are constants. xð2Þ ¼ 
l1  l2
Using the assumed solution scheme and the governing b 2 D
h

 ð25Þ
equations, the unknown functions w(x) and (x) can be  z=h 
 x
C3 þ sin sin
found. Expressions for transverse displacement w and 2 0:5 
L
function  are given as follows:

q0 hS4 l1 x 3.4. Expressions for transverse shear stresses derived

w¼ sin ð20Þ
Eð2Þ b4 D
L from the constitutive relationships, tCR
zx

q0 S 3 l2 x It may be noted that it is possible to obtain transverse

¼ cos ð21Þ shear stress,  zx, by using either the constitutive rela-
Eð2Þ b3 D
L CR
tionships or the equilibrium equations. Notation zx
denotes zx obtained by using constitutive relationships.
where b, D
, E(2), h, S, l1 and l2 are defined in the
CR
 ð1Þ CR
Nomenclature and/or Appendix. Substituting expres- zx ¼ zx ifh=24z40
sions for w and  given by Eqs. (20) and (21) in Eqs.  ð2Þ CR
(3)–(5), final expressions for in-plane displacements can ¼ zx if 04z4h=2
be obtained.  ð1Þ CR  ð2Þ CR
where zx and zx are as follows:
3.2. Expressions for inplane displacement, u



ð1Þ CR q0 S3 Gð1Þ
zx ¼
u ¼ uð1Þ ifh=24z40 b 3 D
Eð2Þ
ð2Þ



¼u if 04z4h=2 C2 l2   z=h 
x
 cos cos ð26Þ
1 þ 2
2 0:5 þ
L
where u(1) and u(2) are as follows:


q0 h S3 
ð2Þ CR q0 S3 Gð2Þ
u ð1 Þ
¼ zx ¼
Eð2Þ b 3 D
 b 3 D
Eð2Þ


 


z  z=h 
 x l2   z=h 
x
 
l1 þ C1 þ C2 sin l2 cos  cos cos ð27Þ
h 2 0:5 þ
L 1 þ 2
2 0:5 
L
ð22Þ
q0 h S3
u ð2 Þ ¼
Eð2Þ b 3 D
 3.5. Expressions for transverse shear stress, tEQL
zx , and


 
z  z=h 
 x transverse normal stress,  z, obtained from the
 
l1 þ C3 þ sin l2 cos equilibrium equations
h 2 0:5 
L
ð23Þ
Substituting expressions for w and  given by Eqs. The following equilibrium equations of two-dimen-
(20) and (21) in Eqs. (10)–(13), the final expressions for sional elasticity, ignoring body forces, are used to
in-plane and transverse shear stresses can be obtained. obtain transverse shear and transverse normal stresses.

@x @zx
þ ¼0 ð28Þ
3.3. Expressions for inplane stress, sx @x @z
@zx @z
þ ¼0 ð29Þ
@x @z
x ¼ xð1Þ ifh=24z40
To obtain  zx, we integrate Eq. (28) layerwise, w.r.t
¼ xð2Þ if 04z4h=2
the thickness coordinate z and impose the following
where xð1Þ and xð2Þ are as follows: boundary condition at bottom of the beam
1276 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283

 ð2 Þ
 q0 S
zx ¼0 ð30Þ ð2Þ EQL
z¼h=2 zx ¼


8 
 b
 D
 9
>
> z 1 z 2 1
>
>
and the stress-continuity condition >
<
h  2 h þ 8  2 l1 >
= x



 cos
  ð2Þ >
> z 1 1  2
 z=h 
> L
ð1 Þ
zx ¼ zx ð31Þ > þ C3  
: cos l2 >
>
;
z¼0 z¼0 h 2  2 0:5 

ð35Þ
at interface to get constants of integrations and to
maintain the continuity of transverse shear stress at
q0 Eð1Þ
layer interface. zð1Þ ¼ 

Eð2Þ
To obtain  z, we substitute the expressions obtained 8 
b D
  9
for shear stresses Eq. (29) and integrate layerwise, w.r.t >
> 1 z 3
z 2

z 1
z >
>
>
>    l1 >
>
the thickness coordinate z and impose the following >
> 6 h 2 h 2 h 8 h >
>
>
>

   >
>
>
> Eð 2Þ
1
C
z 2
z  >
>
boundary condition at bottom of the beam >
> 1 >
>
>
> þ  l 1  þ l 2 >
>
>
> Eð 1Þ 24 8 2 h h >
>
 >
>

 >
>
ð2 Þ >
< 2 >
= x
zz ¼0 ð32Þ 1 þ 2
 z=h 

z¼h=2 þC2 sin l2 sin
>  2 0:5 
> L
>
>

 >
>
>
> 2 >
>
and the stress-continuity condition >
> 1 þ 2
 
>
>
>
> C2 sin l2 >
>
>
>  2 0:5 þ
>
>
>
> " # >
>
  ð2 Þ >
ð2Þ 
>
2 n
o >
>
ð1 Þ >
> E C 1  2
 
>
>
zz z¼0
¼ zz z¼0
ð33Þ >
> 
3
þ 1 sin l >
>
: Eð 1Þ 8  2 0:5 

2 ;

ð36Þ
at interface to obtain constants of integrations and to
maintain the continuity of transverse normal stress at
layer interface. q0
zð2Þ ¼ 
Using the above procedure, expressions are obtained b D

8
  9
for transverse shear zx EQL
and transverse normal  z >
> 1 z 3

z 2 1
z
1 >
stresses in their following regions of through-thickness >
>    þ l1 >
>
>
>
> 6 h 2 h 8 h 8 24 >
>
variation: < C 
z2
z
1
> >
= x
3
(Notation zxEQL
denotes shear stress  zx as obtained by    þ l2 sin
>
> 2 h h 4 >
> L
using equilibrium equations). >
>
 2 
 >
>
>
> 1  2
 z=h 
>
>
>
: 1  sin l2 >
;
 ð1Þ EQL  2 0:5 

EQL
zx ¼ zx if h=24z40 ð37Þ
 ð2Þ EQL
¼ zx if 04z4h=2
z ¼ zð1Þ if h=24z40 Thus expressions for displacements and stresses have
been obtained in their explicit forms.
¼ zð2Þ if 04z4h=2

 ð1Þ EQL  ð2Þ EQL ð1Þ

where zx , zx , z and zð2Þ are as follows: 4. Numerical results



ð1Þ EQL q0 S Eð1Þ The results obtained for displacements and stresses at
zx ¼
b  D
Eð2Þ salient points are presented in Tables 1–6 and in Figs. 1–
8


 9
> z 1
z2 Eð2Þ 1
>
3 in non-dimensional parameters.
>
>
 þ  l >
>
>
> h 2 h E ð1Þ 8 2
1 >
>
>
> 

 >
> 4.1. Non-dimensional displacements and stresses
>
>
 >
>
>
> z 1 þ 2
 z=h 
>
>
>
< þ C 1  C 2 cos l 2>
=
h  2 0:5 þ
x The results for inplane displacement, transverse dis-


 cos
>
> 1 þ 2
 
>
> L placement, inplane and transverse stresses are presented
>
> þC2 cos l2 >
>
>
>  2 0:5 þ
>
> in the following non-dimensional form in this paper.
>
>


 > >
> >
>
>
> Eð2Þ C3 1  2
 
 >
>
>
: þ cos l 2 ;
Eð1Þ 2  2 0:5 
Eð1Þ bu 100Eð1Þ bh3 w bx
u
¼ ; w
¼ ; 
x ¼ ;
ð34Þ qo h qo L 4 qo
 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283
bzx bz

zx ¼ ; 
z ¼
qo qo
The percentage difference (% Diff.) in results obtained
by models of other researchers with respect to the cor-
responding results obtained by the present theory
(LTSDT-II) is calculated as follows:
%Diff: ¼
value obtained by other modelcorresponding value by LTSDT-II
value by LTSDT-II
 100
5. Discussion
For the problem under consideration, it may be noted
that the exact results are not available in the literature
to the best of the authors’ knowledge. In the absence of
exact results, researchers have compared their results
with the exact solution for the cylindrical bending of
plate (ESCBP) obtained by Pagano [20] for composite
laminates.
Kant and Manjunatha [4], Manjunatha and Kant [5],
Maiti and Sinha [6] and Vinayak et al. [7] used the
equivalent single layer (ESL) theories in the analysis of
laminated beams and provided the finite element solu-
tions.
It is well known that the cylindrical-plate-bending
problem, though near to a beam-bending problem, is a
different problem altogether, in which the Poisson’s
effect figures. In this paper also, results obtained by Lu
and Liu [12] and Pagano [20] are quoted for the sake of
the record. Also, results using elementary theory of
beam bending are quoted.
In LTSDT-II, stress/strain relationships are satisfied
in both the layers and the interface continuity for
transverse shear stress is maintained, also the closed
form solution has been obtained for the problem under
consideration. Because of these reasons, it is believed
that the LTSDT-II results are superior.
5.1. In-plane displacement
The comparison of results of maximum non-
dimensionalised inplane displacement and the percen-
tage difference in results of other models with respect to
results of present model is shown in Table 1 for the
aspect ratios 4 and 10. These displacements are calcu-
lated at left end of the beam (i.e. at x=0).
(a) Results of in-plane displacement of other higher-
order models and the present model are on the
high side compared to the exact results of
cylindrical bending of plate for the aspect ratio 4
as a consequence of the neglect of the Poisson’s
1277
effect in beam theory. Results of present
LTSDT-II model and HOSTB5 beam model of
Kant and Manjunath [4] are comparable within
3.46%. The maximum value of this displacement
using LTSDT-II has been found to decrease by
0.43% as compared to that of LTSDT-I for the
aspect ratio 4.
(b) For the aspect ratio 10, the value of this dis-
placement obtained by LTSDT-I is found to
increase by 0.11% when compared to LTSDT-II.
The values by Lu and Liu [12] and Pagano [20]
are found to decrease by 2.58% for aspect ratio
10.
(c) The ETB underestimates the value by 23.28% as
compared to that of LTSDT for the aspect ratio
4. For aspect ratio 10, ETB underestimates the
result by 4.66% compared to LTSDT-II. In gen-
eral, ETB underpredicts the inplane displace-
ments as compared to those given by higher
order models.
5.2. Transverse displacement
The variation of maximum nondimensionalised
transverse displacement with various aspect ratios, is
shown in Fig. 1. The comparison of maximum trans-
verse displacements for the aspect ratios of 4 and 10 is
presented in Tables 2 and 3. It should be noted that the
deflection of cylindrical bending of a plate strip is
somewhat smaller than the corresponding beam deflec-
tion due to the plate action in plate strip.
(a) It is seen from the comparison that the results for
transverse displacement of present model are
comparable with the results of higher order
Fig. 1. Variation of maximum transverse deflection w
at x=0.5 L with
aspect ratio S.
1278 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283

models of Lu and Liu [12], Vinayak et al. [7] and
the finite element solution of first order shear
deformation theory by Maiti and Sinha [6].
However, higher order model of Maiti and Sinha
underestimates the deflection by 25.49% as
compared to that given by the present model for
the aspect ratio 4 and this may be due to the lack
of C1 continuity in the finite element formula-
tion.
(b) For aspect ratio 10 results of LTSDT-II model,
HOSTB5 model of Manjunatha and Kant [5], Lu
and Liu [12], model and Pagano [20] are in close
agreement with each other. No significant differ-
ence is observed between the value of transverse
displacement obtained by LTSDT-II and
LTSDT-I for the aspect ratio 4 and 10.
(c) The ETB underestimates the results for trans-
verse displacement by 44.60% as compared to
result of LTSDT-II for the aspect ratio 4; and for
the aspect ratio 10, ETB underestimates the dis-
placement by 11.64% as compared to that of the
present model. It is seen from the Fig. 2 that the
LTSDT-II converges to the ETB results asymp-
totically as the aspect ratio increases.
5.3. In-plane stress
This component of stress is directly evaluated using
the constitutive law and strain displacement relations.
The comparison of maximum nondimensionalised
inplane stresses obtained by the present theory and
other refined theories is presented in the Tables 2 and 3
for the aspect ratios of 4 and 10 respectively. Fig. 2
shows through the thickness variation of inplane stress
for the aspect ratio 4, at midspan of beam.
(a) It can be seen that the maximum value of inplane
stress obtained by LTSDT-II is comparable with
the values of Manjunatha and Kant [5], Vinayak
et al. [7], Lu and Liu [12] and Pagano [20] for the

Table 1
Comparison of non-dimensional in-plane displacement (u
)

For S=4 when x=0 and z= h=2 For S=10 when x=0 and z= h=2
a
Source Model u
Percentage difference u
Percentage differencea

Present LTSDT-II 5.0353 0.00 63.3050 0.00

Shimpi and Ghugal [19] LTSDT-I 5.0571 0.43 63.3790 0.11
Kant and Manjunatha [4] HOSTB5 4.8611 3.46 – –
Lu and Liu [12] HSDT 4.7143 6.37 61.6667 2.58
Pagano [20] ESCBP 4.5000 10.63 61.6667 2.58
Euler–Bernoulli ETB 3.8627 23.28 60.3540 4.66
a
Percentage difference quoted is with respect to the corresponding value obtained using LTSDT-II.

Table 2
Comparison of non-dimensional transverse displacement (w
) and in-plane stress (
x )

For S=4

Source Model when x=0.5 L when x=0.5 L and z= h=2 when x=0.5 L and z=h=2
a a
w
% Diff. 
x % Diff. 
x % Diff.a

Present LTSDT-II 4.7437 0.00 3.9547 0.00 30.5650 0.00

Shimpi and Ghugal [19] LTSDT-I 4.7431 0.01 3.9650 0.26 30.2980 0.87
Manjunatha and Kant [5] HOSTB5 4.2828 9.71 3.7490 5.20 27.0500 11.50
FEM
Maiti and Sinha [6] HST 3.5346 25.49 2.3599 40.33 25.7834 15.64
FEM
Maiti and Sinha [6] FSDT 4.7898 0.97 3.1514 20.31 29.1144 4.75
FEM
Vinayak et al. [7] HSDT 4.5619 3.83 4.0000 1.15 27.0000 11.66
FEM
Lu and Liu [12] HSDT 4.7773 0.71 3.5714 9.69 30.0000 1.85
Pagano [20] ESCBP 4.3276 8.77 3.8359 3.00 30.0290 1.75
Euler and Bernoulli ETB 2.6281 44.60 3.0386 23.16 27.9540 8.54
a
Percentage difference quoted is with respect to the corresponding value obtained using LTSDT-II.
 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283 1279

Table 3
Comparison of non-dimensional transverse displacement (w
) and in-plane stress (
x }

For S=4

Source Model when x=0.5 L when x=0.5 L and z= h=2 when x=0.5 L and z=h=2

w
% Diff.a 
x % Diff.a 
x % Diff.a

Present LTSDT-II 2.9744 0.00 19.8880 0.00 177.140 0.00

Shimpi and Ghugal [19] LTSDT-I 2.9743 0.00 19.8999 0.06 176.870 0.15
Manjunatha and Kant [5] HOSTB5 2.8986 2.55 19.7100 0.90 173.000 2.34
FEM
Lu and Liu [12] HSDT 3.0000 0.86 20.0000 0.56 175.000 1.21
Pagano [20] ESCBP 2.9569 0.59 20.0000 0.56 175.000 1.21
Euler and Bernoulli ETB 2.6281 11.64 18.9910 4.51 174.710 1.37
a
Percentage difference quoted is with respect to the corresponding value obtained using LTSDT-II.

Fig. 2. Variation of inplane stress 
x through the thickness for aspect

ratio 4 at x=0.5 L.

Fig. 3. Variation of transverse shear stress 
zx through the thickness

aspect ratio of 4. Results of higher order model
of Maiti and Sinha [6] in both the layers deviate
significantly (by 40.33 and 15.64%) from those
of the present model, however, their FSDT solu-
tion gives comparable value of this stress in the
0o layer. LTSDT-I has exhibited an increase in
value of this stress in the 90
layer by 0.26% and
decrease in the value by 0.87% in 0
layer as
compared to LTSDT-II for the aspect ratio 4.
(b) For the aspect ratio of 10, the stresses given by
LTSDT-II, higher order models and cylindrical
bending of plate (Pagano [20]) are in good
agreement with each other with negligible varia-
tion in the results. However, ETB underestimates
the value of inplane stress by 4.51% in the 90

layer and by 1.37% in the 0
layer as compared
to the maximum value of inplane stress given by
present model. No significant difference is found
between the values of inplane stress for the
aspect ratio 10 in both the layers.
(c) It is observed from the Tables 2 and 3 that the
ETB underestimates the maximum value of
aspect ratio 4 at x=0.0.
inplane stress by 23.16% as compared to the
value obtained by the present model for the
aspect ratio of 4 in the 90
layer. In the 0
layer,
ETB underpredicts the value of inplane stress by
8.54% as compared to value of LTSDT-II. The
values of inplane stress in 90 and 0
layers given
by the present model are in close agreement with
those of Pagano [20].
5.4. Transverse shear stress
The transverse shear stresses are obtained directly
from the constitutive relationships (
CR
zx ) or, alter-
natively, from the equilibrium equations of two dimen-
sional elasticity (
EQL
zx ). The transverse shear stress
satisfies the stress free boundary conditions on the top
and bottom surfaces of the beam and continuity at layer
interface when these stresses are obtained by both the
above mentioned approaches.
1280 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283

The through thickness variation of shear stress for the
aspect ratio 4 is given in the Fig. 3, in which the varia-
tion obtained by using constitutive relations of the pre-
sent theory is denoted by LTSDT-II- CR curve and the
same obtained by using equilibrium equations is deno-
ted by LTSDT-II- EQL curve. The comparison of
maximum nondimensionalised shear stresses for aspect
ratios 4 and 10 is presented in the Tables 4 and 5
respectively.
(a) The maximum transverse shear stress obtained
by HOSTB5 model of Manjunatha and Kant [5]
via constitutive relations underpredicts the value
by 35.54% while that obtained by direct integra-
tion overestimates the value by 5.44% for the
aspect ratio 4. The model of Vinayak et al. [7]
overpredicts the value by 2.67%, and that is
given by Pagano [20] is comparable within
0.81%, however, the model of Maiti and Sinha
[6] underpredicts this value by 4.77% for the
aspect ratio 4. LTSDT-I has exhibited a decrease
in this value by 2.1% as compared to that of
LTSDT-II for the aspect ratio 4. The use of con-
stitutive relations showed the underestimation of
shear stresses in 90
layer and overestimation of
same in the 0
layer as compared to those obtained
by direct integration of equilibrium equations for
the aspect ratio 4.
(b) It may be seen from the Fig. 3 that the through
thickness distribution of this stress obtained by
use of constitutive relations is more closer to that
of ETB in the 0
layer. The results of LTSDT-II
using constitutive relations are comparable with
those of FSDT and ETB for the aspect 4. How-
ever, ETB overestimates this value by 9.96%
when compared with that of LTSDT-II obtained

Table 4
Comparison of maximum transverse shear stress 
CR EQL
zx , 
zx and transverse normal stress (
z )

For S=4

Source Model when x=0.0 and z=
h when x=0.0 and z=
h when x=0.5 L and z=h=2


CR
zx % Diff.a 
EQL
zx % Diff.a 
z % Diff.a

Present LTSDT-II 2.9895 0.00 2.6784 0.00 1.00 0.00

Shimpi and Ghugal [19] LTSDT-I 2.9886 0.03 2.6222 2.10 0.98 2.00
Manjunatha and Kant [5] HOSTB5 1.9270 35.54 2.8240 5.44 1.00 0.00
FEM
Maiti and Sinha [6] HST – – 2.4252 9.45 – –
FEM
Maiti and Sinha [6] FSDT 2.8467 4.77 – – – –
FEM
Vinayak et al. [7] HSDT – – 2.7500 2.67 1.00 0.00
FEM
Lu and Liu [12] HSDT 2.7925 6.59 – – – –
Pagano [20] ESCBP – – 2.7000 0.81 1.00 0.00
Euler and Bernoulli ETB – – 2.9453 9.96 1.00 0.00
a
Percentage difference quoted is with respect to the corresponding value obtained using LTSDT-II.

Table 5
Comparison of non-dimensional transverse shear stress 
CR EQL
zx , 
zx and transverse normal stress (
z )

For S=4

Source Model when x=0.0 and z=
h when x=0.0 and z=
h when x=0.5 L and z=h=2


CR
zx % Diff. a

EQL
zx % Diff. a

z % Diff.a

Present LTSDT-II 7.6948 0.00 7.2638 0.00 1.00 0.00

Shimpi and Ghugal [19] LTSDT-I 7.6945 0.00 7.2406 0.32 0.99 1.00
Manjunatha and Kant [5] HOSTB5 4.9130 36.15 7.2820 0.25 1.00 0.00
FEM
Lu and Liu [12] HSDT 7.3000 5.13 – – – –
Pagano [20] ESCBP – – 7.3000 0.49 1.00 0.00
Euler and Bernoulli ETB – – 7.3643 1.38 1.00 0.00
a
Percentage difference quoted is with respect to the corresponding value obtained using LTSDT-II.
 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283 1281

Table 6
Comparison of variation of non-dimensional transverse normal stress (
z ) through the thickness of beam (
z at x=0.5 L and S=4)

LTSDT-II LTSDT-I HOSTB5 ETB ESCBP

z/h Present Shimpi and Ghugal [19] Manjunatha and Kant [5] Pagano [20]

0.5 1.0000 0.9803 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

0.4 0.9886 0.9688 0.9869 0.9911 0.9737
0.3 0.9571 0.9373 0.9552 0.9660 0.9605
0.2 0.9097 0.8897 0.9087 0.9274 0.9211
0.1 0.8500 0.8298 0.8508 0.8777 0.8684
0.0 0.7815 0.7609 0.7848 0.8197 0.7894
0.1 0.6525 0.6393 0.6581 0.6951 0.6711
0.2 0.4574 0.4500 0.4578 0.4869 0.4605
0.3 0.2499 0.2467 0.2432 0.2590 0.2500
0.4 0.0768 0.0759 0.0716 0.0754 0.0789
0.5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

by equilibrium equations, for the aspect ratio 4.

(c) For aspect ratio 10, the model of Manjunatha
and Kant [5], using constitutive relations, under-
estimates the maximum value of this stress by
36.15% and that of Lu and Liu [12] under-
predicts it by 5.13% as compared to that
obtained by LTSDT-II. The value of this stress
in LTSDT-II, obtained by equilibrium equa-
tions, is in excellent agreement with other solu-
tions as can be seen from Table 5 for aspect ratio
10.
for the aspect ratio of 4. An improved through the
thickness variation of this stress is obtained by the pre-
sent model as compared to that given by the LTSDT-I
model. The results for this stress component obtained
by the present model LTSDT-II are in good comparison
with those of HOSTB5 model of Manjunatha and Kant
[5], ETB, and exact solution of cylindrical bending of
plate obtained by Pagano [20].
The above discussion in respect of the numerical
example, validates the efficacy of the LTSDT-II model.

This difference in transverse shear stresses obtained

by use of constitutive relations (CR) and equilibrium
equations (EQL) is well known in the bending analysis
of laminated beams/plates [5,21]. Since the displacement
solution can not give these stresses accurately when
constitutive relations are used, many authors [22] sug-
gested use of stress equilibrium equations of elasticity to
obtain the transverse shear and transverse normal
stresses through the thickness of the laminated beams
more accurately, but their approach has been adversely
commented upon by Liu and Li [11], Bisegna and Sacco
[23]. Furthermore, this approach is more tedious com-
pared to the approach using constitutive relations.
The discrepancy in the shear stresses obtained by
constitutive relations and by integration of equilibrium
equations is much less in the present case as compared
to other attempts [5]. Furthermore, overall distribution
of the shear stress obtained via constitutive relations is
reasonably accurate.
The difference between results is due to the two dif-
ferent approaches used to evaluate the stresses.
5.5. Transverse normal stress
The transverse normal stress is obtained by direct
integration of equilibrium equations of two dimensional
elasticity. The comparison of through thickness varia-
tion of this stress component is presented in the Table 6
6. Conclusions
In this paper a new model has been presented for
cross-ply [90/0] laminated composite beam. This model
is an improvement over the earlier model developed by
the authors. The earlier model suffered from the defect
in that there was an unbalanced small resultant force
along the lengthwise direction of the beam. This defi-
ciency has been removed in the present model. The dis-
placement based model LTSDT-II presented in this
paper has following advantages:
1. It is a displacement based layerwise model.
2. The number of displacement variables is less than
that in first order shear deformation theory. It
contains only two variables.
3. Transverse shear stress satisfies continuity condi-
tions at layer interface and zero shear stress con-
ditions at top and bottom surfaces of the beam.
4. The model does not require the use of shear cor-
rection factor.
5. Constitutive relations are satisfied in both the lay-
ers in respect of inplane stress and transverse shear
stress.
6. It is possible to get reasonable accuracy of trans-
verse shear stress even when the shear stress is
obtained by the use of constitutive relations.
1282 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283

7. The governing differential equations and the (c) Constants C1, C2, C3 are as follows:
boundary conditions are variationally consistent.
8. The use of the present model gives accurate results,

Eð2Þ
as has been seen from the numerical example stu- C1 ¼
Eð1Þ þ Eð2Þ
died. 8

 9
> 
 
>
>
> sin  C 2 sin >
>
>
> 1  2
1 þ 2
>
>
<
ð1Þ 

>
>
=
Appendix E 1 þ 2


 þ2 C2 ð2Þ cos
>
>
E   1 þ 2
>
>
>
>

 >
>
(a) Layer 1 integration constants A1, A2, A3, A4 are as >
> 2 1  2
>
>
: cos ;
follows:  1  2

 


3 ð1Þ 1

2 ð2 Þcos
A1 ¼ b h E þ þ G 0:5 þ

24 4 2 C 2 ¼ ð1 Þ
1  2

G 0:5 


cos
8
 9 1þ2

>
> 1
>
>
>
> C1 þ >
>
9
>
> 8 2 > 8


>
<
2 
 >
>
= > 
>
1 þ 2

>
> sin  C 2 sin >
>
3
A2 ¼ b h E ð1Þ
þC2 1 þ sin >
> 1
 2

1 þ 2
>
>
> >
 >
<  >
=
>
>
>
 
1 þ2
> >
> Eð1 Þ 1 þ 2


>
> 1 þ 2

>
> C3 ¼ þ2 C 2 cos
> > Eð1Þ þ Eð2Þ >
: þ
C 2

cos
1 þ 2

; >
>
ð2Þ 

>
  1
þ 2
 > >
>
>
> E 1  2

> >
>
: 2 cos ;
E ð 1 Þ  1  2

8 2

9
>
> C1 1 þ 2

> >
<  2C1 C2 cos =
3 ð1Þ 2 

1 þ 2

A3 ¼ b h E
> C 2
1 þ 2

> (d) Constants D, D
, D1, D2, D3, D
3 are as follows:
>
:þ 1þ sin >
;
4  0:5 þ

D ¼ ðA1 þ A2 Þ ¼ D
Eð2Þ b h3




b h Gð1Þ C2  2 1 þ 2


ð1Þ 


A4 ¼ 1þ sin E 1

2 1

2
4 1 þ 2
 0:5 þ


D¼ þ þ þ  þ
Eð2Þ 24 4 2 24 4 2



A2 þ B2 A3 þ B3
(b) Layer 2 integration constants B1, B2, B3, B4 are as D1 ¼ ; D2 ¼ ;
A1 þ B1 A2 þ B2
follows:

A4 þ B4
  D3 ¼
1

2 A2 þ B2
B1 ¼ b h3 Eð2Þ  þ
24 4 2
D
3 ¼ D3 h2
8
 9
>
> 1
1 >
>
>
> C3  >
> (e) Constants S,
, l1, l2,
are as follows:
>
> 8 2 >
>
>
<
2 h
i >
=
3 ð2Þ 1  2


B2 ¼ b h E þ 1 þ sin
> 1  2
>
>
>
>
 

>
>
>
S ¼ L=h
>
> 1  2

>
>
>
: 
cos >
;

 1  2 1 Eð2Þ  Eð1Þ

¼
8 2

9 4 Eð2Þ þ Eð1Þ
>
> C3 1  2

 >>
< þ 2 C3 cos = h i
3 ð2Þ 2 
  1  2
 l1 ¼ 1 þ D1 = D2  D1 þ D
3
2
B3 ¼ b h E

>
> 1 1  2

>
>
:þ 1  sin ;
4  0:5 
h i
l2 ¼ 1= D2  D1 þ D
3
2



b h Gð2Þ
 2 1  2


B4 ¼ 1 sin
4 1  2
 0:5 

¼ S=
 R.P. Shimpi, Y.M. Ghugal / Composites Science and Technology 61 (2001) 1271–1283
References
[1] Bresse JAC. Cours de mecanique applique. Paris: Mallet-Bache-
lier, 1859.
[2] Rayleigh JWSLord. The theory of sound. London: Macmillan
Publishers, 1877.
[3] Timoshenko SP. On the correction for shear of the differential
equation for transverse vibrations of prismatic bars. Philosophi-
cal Magazine, Series 6 1921;41:742–6.
[4] Kant T, Manjunatha BS. Refined theories for composite and
sandwich beams with C0 finite elements. Computers and Struc-
tures 1989;33:755–64.
[5] Manjunatha BS, Kant T. Different numerical techniques for the
estimation of multiaxial stresses in symmetric / unsymmetric
composite and sandwich beams with refined theories. Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites 1993;12:2–37.
[6] Maiti DK, Sinha PK. Bending and free vibration analysis of
shear deformable laminated composite beams by finite element
method. Composite Structures 1994;29:421–31.
[7] Vinayak RU, Prathap G, Naganarayana BP. Beam elements
based on a higher order theory — I: formulation and analysis of
performance. Computers and Structures 1996;58:775–89.
[8] Lo KH, Christensen RM, Wu EM. A higher order theory for
plate deformations, Part 2: laminated plates. ASME Trans Jour-
nal of Applied Mechanics 1977;44:669–76.
[9] Levy M. Memoire sur la theorie des plaques elastiques planes.
Journal des Mathematiques Pures et Appliquees 1877;30:219–
306.
[10] Stein M. Nonlinear theory for plates and shells including the
effects of transverse shearing. AIAA Journal 1986;24:1537–44.
[11] Liu D, Li X. An overall view of laminate theories based on dis-
placement hypothesis. Journal of Composite Materials 1996;
30:1539–61.
1283
[12] Lu X, Liu D. An interlaminar shear stress continuity theory for
both thin and thick composite laminates. ASME Trans Journal
of Applied Mechanics 1992;59:502–9.
[13] Li X, Liu D. Zig-zag theory for composite laminates. AIAA
Journal 1994;33:1163–5.
[14] Ambartsumyan SA. Theory of anisotropic plates., Technomic
Publication, Stamford, CT, 1969 (Translated from Russian edi-
tion by T. Cheron and edited by J. E. Ashton).
[15] Reddy JN. A generalisation of two-dimensional theories of lami-
nated composite plates. Communications in Applied Numerical
Methods 1987;3:173–80.
[16] Reddy JN, Robbins DH Jr. Theories and computational models
for composite laminates. Applied Mechanics Reviews 1994;
47:147–69.
[17] Vinson JR, Chou TW. Composite materials and their use in
structures. London: Applied Science, 1975 (Chapter 6, pp. 234–
235).
[18] Icardi U. Eight-noded zig-zag element for deflection and stress
analysis of plates with general lay-up. Composites Part B
1998;29B:411–25.
[19] Shimpi RP, Ghugal YM. A layerwise trigonometric shear defor-
mation theory for two layered cross-ply laminated beams. Jour-
nal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 1999;18:1516–42.
[20] Pagano NJ. Exact solution for composite laminates in cylindrical
bending. Journal of Composite Materials 1969;3:398–411.
[21] Cho M, Parmerter RR. Efficient higher order composite plate
theory for general lamination configurations. AIAA Journal
1993;31:1299–306.
[22] Lo KH, Christensen RM, Wu EM. Stress solution determination
for high order plate theory. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 1978;14:655–62.
[23] Bisegna P, Sacco E. A layerwise laminate theory rationally
deduced from the three-dimensional elasticity. Trans ASME,
Journal of Applied Mechanics 1997;64:538–45.