Analysis of lament-wound ber-reinforced sandwich pipe under

combined internal pressure and thermomechanical loading

M. Xia
*
, K. Kemmochi, H. Takayanagi
Department of Composite Materials, National Institute of Materials and Chemical Research, Agency of Industrial Science and Technology (AIST),
Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), 1-1, Higashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8565, Japan
Abstract
This is a presentation based on the classical laminated-plate theory of an elastic solution for the thermal stress and strain in a
lament-wound ber-reinforced sandwich pipe subjected to internal pressure and temperature change. The sandwich pipe is created
using resin material for the core layer and reinforced materials with an alternate-ply for the skin layers. Considering the complicated
material properties of the skin layers reinforced by alternate-ply composites, the thermal stress analysis is based on treating typical
sandwich pipes that are three-dimensional, cylindrical, and orthotropic. A computer program was developed to conduct stress and
deformation analyses of sandwich pipe with dierent winding angles. Moreover, an optimum winding angle of the lament-wound
ber-reinforced materials was designed by using a netting approach analysis. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Orthotropic analysis; Alternate-ply composite structure; Sandwich cylindrical pipe; Internal pressure; Thermal stress
1. Introduction
The development of sandwich-type pipes for many
industrial products utilizing composites has already re-
ceived considerable attention. Among their applications,
a common feature of such products is that they must
safely undergo a certain working pressure. As lament-
wound pipes made of ber-reinforced plastics have
many potential advantages over pipes made from con-
ventional materials, a number of researchers have in-
vestigated failure mechanisms of lament-wound pipes.
For thin-walled cylindrical-pressure vessels with a ratio
of applied hoop-to-axial stress of two to one, an opti-
mum winding angle of 55 was noted, and many ex-
perimental failure analyses were conducted for lament-
wound pipe with a 55-winding angle [14]. Rosenow [5]
used the classical laminated-plate theory to predict the
stress and strain response of pipes with winding angles
varying from 15 to 85, and he compared them to ex-
perimental results. In thin-walled lament-wound shells,
a 55-winding angle was shown to be optimum for the
hoop-to-axial stress ratio of two, but the optimum angle
had to be about 75 in the case of pressure without axial
loading. Spencer and Hull [6] and Uemura and Fuku-
naga [7] have investigated, respectively, the failure
mechanism in carbon ber-reinforced plastics (CFRP)
and glass ber-reinforced plastics (GFRP) pipes wound
at dierent winding angles. The maximum weepage
stress was found to be around 55, and negative axial
strains were observed within a range of 35 to 50. Wild
and Vickers [8] have developed an analytical procedure
based on the theory of orthotropic cylindrical sheets and
modeled both plane-stress and plane-strain states of
cylindrical sheets comprising a number of cylindrical
sublayers, each of which is cylindrically orthotropic. The
optimum winding angle was shown to play an important
part in the design of lament-wound cylindrical shells.
Most previous studies on cylindrical ber-reinforced
composite structures have focused on thin-walled cy-
lindrical shells. However, only limited studies have been
published dealing with thick-walled cylindrical pipe be-
haviors [913]. Roy [9] presented a thermal stress anal-
ysis of a thick laminated ring assumed to be cylindrically
orthotropic. The analysis was based on treating the ring
with orthotropic materials in the state of plane stress in
the hoop and axial (h r) plane. Ben [10] has reported
an accurate, nite-cylindrical element method to obtain
thermal stresses and the deformation for thick-walled
cylindrical pipes. In his work, the eects of thermal re-
sidual stresses on the design of thick-walled FRP cy-
lindrical pipes were discussed. Ben did not consider axial
loading of cylinders with closed ends in his mechanical
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-0298-6798; fax: +81-0298-61-
6798.
E-mail address: xia@home.nimc.go.jp (M. Xia).
0263-8223/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 8 2 2 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 3 7 - 9
analyses of cylindrical pipes under internal pressure. In
recent years, a nite element method has become
available for analyzing mechanical behaviors of cylin-
drical ber-reinforced composite structures [1113].
Kitao and Akiyama [14] have analyzed and evaluated
the progress of failure in thick-walled, lament-wound
(FW) pipes with dierent winding-angles. Using the
nite Hankel and the Laplace transforms, the elasto-
dynamic solution for the thermal shock stresses in an
orthotropic thick cylindrical shell has been reported by
Cho et al. [15]. The concept of an elastic-plastic stress
eld was predicted in a coated-continuous ber com-
posite subjected to thermomechanical loading by You
et al. [16].
At present, the National Institute of Materials and
Chemical Research in the Agency of Industrial Science
and Technology (AIST) of the Ministry of Inter-
national Trade and Industry (MITI) is carrying out a
study on FW sandwich pipes used for geothermal de-
velopment, such as transportation of underground
water with high temperature. Sandwich composite
pipes, composed of two skin layers and a core layer,
can be suitably tailored with optimum material prop-
erties by making eective use of each material property
in the moldings. There are few investigations on the
mechanical properties of sandwich pipes, and there is
almost no literature reporting on the stress and defor-
mation analysis of sandwich composite pipes. We are
attempting to provide an analytical foundation for the
investigation of stress and deformation in a lament-
wound sandwich pipe under combined internal pressure
and temperature change. Considering the especially
complicated material properties of the skin layers re-
inforced by alternate-ply composites, our analysis is
based on treating typical sandwich pipes that are three-
dimensional, cylindrical and orthotropic. With an al-
ready developed computer model, we conducted stress
and deformation analysis of the sandwich pipe using
dierent winding angles.
2. Analysis procedure
The sandwich pipe is created using non-reinforced
materials for the core layer and alternate-ply materials
for the skin layers. The alternate-ply skin layers are
those in which the principal material directions of the
adjacent layer have an opposite ber orientation (/)
with respect to the axial direction. The adjacent two lay-
ups are assumed here to behave together as an ortho-
tropic unit. In this paper, the orthotropic unit of the
lay-up angle (/) is referred to as an orthotropic layer
of angle /. Figs. 1 and 2 show the cylindrical coordi-
nates and conguration notations for the sandwich
composite pipe.
2.1. Stress analysis
Subjected to axisymmetric thermomechanical loading
and internal pressure, the circumferential displacement
u
(k)
h
is zero. The stresses and strains are independent of
/, and there is no shearextension coupling. Therefore,
the equilibrium equation for the current axisymmetric
problem can be expressed as
dr
(k)
r
dr

r
(k)
r
r
(k)
h
r
= 0X (1)
The radial and hoop strains, e
(k)
r
and e
(k)
h
, can be given in
the radial displacement u
(k)
r
, we obtain
e
(k)
r
=
du
(k)
r
dr
and e
(k)
h
=
u
(k)
r
r
X (2)
Fig. 1. Filament-wound sandwich pipe in cylindrical coordinates.
Fig. 2. Cross section of a sandwich pipe.
274 M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283
The axial strains e
(k)
z
of all layers are equal to a constant,
e
0
.
Using the cylindrical coordinate system shown in
Fig. 1, the stress and strain transformation of the kth layer
with the orthotropic alternate-ply material is given by
r
(k)
r
= C
(k)
11
e
(k)
r
C
(k)
12
e
(k)
h
C
(k)
13
e
0
n
(k)
r
DTY
r
(k)
h
= C
(k)
12
e
(k)
r
C
(k)
22
e
(k)
h
C
(k)
23
e
0
n
(k)
h
DTY
r
(k)
z
= C
(k)
13
e
(k)
r
C
(k)
23
e
(k)
h
C
(k)
33
e
0
n
(k)
z
DT
(3a)
and
n
(k)
r
= a
(k)
r
C
(k)
11
a
(k)
h
C
(k)
12
a
(k)
z
C
(k)
13
Y
n
(k)
h
= a
(k)
r
C
(k)
12
a
(k)
h
C
(k)
22
a
(k)
z
C
(k)
23
Y
n
(k)
z
= a
(k)
r
C
(k)
13
a
(k)
h
C
(k)
23
a
(k)
z
C
(k)
33
Y
(3b)
where C
(k)
ij
are the stiness constants and a
(k)
i
are the
thermal expansion coecients (1, 2 and 3 represent r, h
and z directions, respectively).
Substituting the expressions for the stress in Eq. (1)
and using Eq. (2), we get
d
2
u
(k)
r
dr
2

1
r
du
(k)
r
dr

C
(k)
22
aC
(k)
11
r
2
u
(k)
r
=
a
(k)
e
0
r

g
(k)
DT
r
Y (4a)
where
a
(k)
= C
(k)
23
_
C
(k)
13
_
aC
(k)
11
Y (4b)
and
g
(k)
= n
(k)
r
_
n
(k)
h
_
aC
(k)
11
X (4c)
When C
(k)
22
aC
(k)
11
b 0, if b
(k)
=

C
(k)
22
aC
(k)
11
_
, the solution
for Eqs. (4a)(4c) can be obtained under the following
two conditions:
(a) If b
(k)
,= 1, which is anisotropic
u
(k)
r
= A
(k)
r
b
(k)
B
(k)
r
b
(k)

a
(k)
e
0
g
(k)
DT
_ _
r
1 b
(k)
_ _
2
X (5)
(b) If b
(k)
= 1, which is isotropic or isotropic in
(r h) planer
u
(k)
r
=
a
(k)
e
0
g
(k)
DT
_ _
r
2
ln r A
(k)
r B
(k)
arX (6)
When C
(k)
22
aC
(k)
11
` 0, if b
(k)
=

C
(k)
22
aC
(k)
11
_
, the solu-
tion for Eq. (4a)(4c) is
u
(k)
r
= A
(k)
cos(b
(k)
ln r) B
(k)
sin(b
(k)
ln r)

a
(k)
e
0
g
(k)
DT
_ _
r
1 b
(k)
_ _
2
X (7)
where A
(k)
and B
(k)
are unknown constants of integra-
tion, and to be determined from the boundary condi-
tions and the contact conditions at each interface
between the core and skin layers.
2.2. Transformation from ply to laminate properties
The o-axis stiness constants in Eq. (1), C
(k)
ij
, can
be calculated from the on-axis stiness constants, C
(k)
ij
,
by using a stiness transformation matrix A
ij
_
, written
as
C
(k)
ij
_ _
= A
kl
[ [ C
(k)
ij
_ _
Y (8a)
where
C
(k)
ij
_ _
= C
(k)
33
Y C
(k)
23
Y C
(k)
13
Y C
(k)
22
Y C
(k)
12
Y C
(k)
11
_ _
T
Y (8b)
C
(k)
ij
_ _
= C
(k)
xx
Y C
(k)
yy
Y C
(k)
zz
Y C
(k)
xy
Y C
(k)
xz
Y C
(k)
yz
Y G
(k)
zz
_ _
T
X (8c)
Based upon the classical laminated-plate theory, the
stiness transformation matrix A
ij
_
for the coordinate
system between the on-axis and the cylindrical axis
shown in Fig. 3 is given by
A
kl
[ [ =
m
4
n
4
0 2m
2
n
2
0 0 4m
2
n
2
m
2
n
2
m
2
n
2
0 m
4
n
4
0 0 4m
2
n
2
0 0 0 0 m
2
n
2
0
n
4
m
4
0 2m
2
n
2
0 0 4m
2
n
2
0 0 0 0 n
2
m
2
0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0
_

_
_

_
(k)
Y
(9)
where m = cos / and n = sin /, and / is the cylindrical
angle of the laments from the pipe axis.
To dene the three-dimensional alternate-ply mate-
rial properties, the material modulus matrix elements
C
ij
(i
Y
j = xY yY z) and G
zz
in Eq. (8a)(8c) are needed.
Their values can be calculated from engineering con-
stants, dened by
E
x
Y E
y
Y E
z
Y t
xy
Y t
zx
Y t
zy
Y G
xx
Y G
yy
Y G
zz
X
Fig. 3. Relation of coordinate system between principal material axis
and cylindrical axes.
M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283 275
For the most general case of orthotropic ply-oriented
properties, these values would have to be experimentally
measured or estimated using micromechanics. For uni-
directional orientation ber composites, the ber dis-
tributions are very similar in the y and z directions.
Therefore, assuming transverse isotropy, and based on
equivalent properties in the yz plane for unidirectional
material, we get:
E
y
= E
z
Y
G
yy
= G
zz
Y
t
zx
= t
yx
Y
where x and y refer to material principal axes along ber
and transverse directions, respectively.
The conversion of engineering constants to modulus
matrix elements are obtained from
D = S
xx
S
yy
S
zz
2S
xy
S
yz
S
xz
S
yy
S
2
xz
S
xx
S
2
yz
S
zz
S
2
xy
Y
(10a)
C
xx
= (S
yy
S
zz
S
2
yz
)aDY C
xy
= (S
xz
S
yz
S
xy
S
zz
)DY
C
yy
= (S
xx
S
zz
S
2
xz
)aDY C
xz
= (S
xy
S
yz
S
xz
S
yy
)DY
C
zz
= (S
xx
S
yy
S
2
xy
)aDY C
yz
= (S
xy
S
xz
S
xx
S
yz
)aDY
(10b)
where
S
xx
= 1aE
x
Y S
xy
= t
yx
aE
x
Y
S
yy
= 1aE
y
Y S
xz
= t
yx
aE
x
Y
S
zz
= 1aE
z
Y S
yz
= t
zy
aE
y
X
(10c)
The laminate-oriented coecients of thermal expansion,
which represent non-mechanical strains, can be given by
a
r
a
h
a
z
_
_
_
_
_
_
(k)
=
m
2
n
2
0
n
2
m
2
0
0 0 1
_
_
_
_
a
x
a
y
a
z
_
_
_
_
_
_
(k)
Y (11a)
where m = cos / and n = sin /.
Considering that the ber distributions are very
similar in the y and z directions, we get
a
z
= a
y
X (11b)
2.3. Boundary conditions
Assuming that the interfaces between the core and
skin layers are perfectly bound, the continuance of dis-
placements and tractions along the interfaces and trac-
tion-free boundary conditions provides a homogeneous
equation.
The traction condition (pressure p
0
) at the inner
surface and the traction-free condition at the outer
surface are written as
r
(1)
r
(r
0
) = p
0
Y
r
(n)
r
(r
a
) = 0X
(12)
where r
0
and r
a
are the inner and outer radii, as shown in
Fig. 2, respectively.
Continuity conditions for the displacements and
stresses in the interfaces lead to
u
(k)
r
(r
k
) = u
(k1)
r
(r
k
) k = 1Y 2Y F F F Y nY
r
(k)
r
(r
k
) = r
(k1)
r
(r
k
) k = 1Y 2Y F F F Y nX
(13)
For a cylinder with closed ends, the axial equilibrium is
satised by the following relation:
2p

n
k=1
_
r
k
r
k1
r
(k)
z
(r)r dr = pr
2
0
p
0
X (14)
Eqs. (12)(14) can give a set of equations to determine
unknown constants A
(k)
, B
(k)
, and axial strain e
0
in
Eqs. (5)(7). The simultaneous equation, for the sand-
wich pipe (n = 3) shown in Fig. 2, can be written as
follows:
k
11
k
12
k
13
k
14
k
15
k
16
k
17
k
21
k
22
k
23
k
24
k
25
k
26
k
27
k
31
k
32
k
33
k
34
k
35
k
36
k
37
k
41
k
42
k
43
k
44
k
45
k
46
k
47
k
51
k
52
k
53
k
54
k
55
k
56
k
57
k
61
k
62
k
63
k
64
k
65
k
66
k
67
k
71
k
72
k
73
k
74
k
75
k
76
k
77
_

_
_

_
A
(1)
A
(2)
A
(3)
B
(1)
B
(2)
B
(3)
e
0
_

_
_

_
=
d
1
d
2
d
3
d
4
d
5
d
6
d
7
_

_
_

_
Y (15)
where k
ij
and d
j
(iY j = 1Y F F F Y 7) in two conditions of
C
(k)
22
aC
(k)
11
b 0 and C
(k)
22
aC
(k)
11
` 0 are given in Appendix A.
Once values of A
(k)
, B
(k)
(k = 1Y 2Y 3), and e
0
obtained
from Eq. (15) are known, the strains, stresses and
displacements are thus determined from Eqs. (2), (3a),
(3b), (5)(7).
3. Numerical results and discussion
A computer procedure based on the above analysis
has been incorporated into a FORTRAN program that
allows user input of geometric parameters and material
properties for the core and skin layers, and of the in-
ternal pressure load and temperature changes. The
program can calculate stress, strain, and deformation of
lament-wound sandwich pipes.
The procedure is applied to an example of a com-
posite sandwich pipe with an isotropic-core layer and
orthotropic-skin layers. The conguration notation of
the sandwich pipe is shown in Fig. 2, which has an inner
radius (r
0
) of 50 mm, a core-layer thickness (t
c
) of 20
276 M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283
mm, and a 2 mm skin-layer thickness (t
f
). In the present
study, the rst and third skin layers (inner layer and
outer layer) of the sandwich pipe are made of the same
material that is based on carbon ber/epoxy (T300/934)
and E-glass/epoxy [17]. The material properties used in
this study are given in Table 1.
Netting analysis is a simplied approach to the design
of cylindrical lament-wound structures under external
applied loading [18]. Netting analysis assumes that all
strength and stiness properties are derived from the
bers alone and that no forces are transmitted by resin.
The analysis gives the optimum winding angle written as
a
opt
= tan
1

r
h
r
z
X
_
(16)
For a thin-walled pressure cylinder with closed ends, the
hoop stress is twice the axial stress. Using Eq. (16), the
optimal winding angle a
opt
is equal to 54X7. Hull [4]
described the deformation and failure modes in glass-
reinforced polyester pipe wound at 55. He has tested
pipes wound at 55 and has shown that this angle was an
optimum winding angle.
With the exception of a thin-walled laminate-ply cyl-
inder, the stress distribution through the wall of a la-
ment-wound cylinder will not be uniform. The ratio of
hoop-to-axial stress will also vary with the winding angle.
Fig. 4 shows the curve of a
opt
= tan
1
(r
h
ar
z
)
0X5
on the
inner layer of the composite pipe with T300/934. The
pipe is subjected to the combination of a 100 K-tem-
perature increase and an internal pressure of 0.1 GPa.
The optimal winding angle, which is on the crossings of
a curve and a straight line, can be obtained from Fig. 4.
The value of the optimum winding angle for the com-
posite pipe is about 58. It can be certied that the de-
sign of an optimal winding angle is independent of an
internal pressure or a thermomechanical loading sub-
jected alone.
Table 1
Material properties of skin layers and resin
Properties T300/934 E-glass/epoxy Resin (core)
E
x
(GPa) 141.6 43.4 1.2
E
y
(GPa) 10.7 15.2 1.2
G
zz
(GPa) 3.88 6.14 0.46
m
yx
0.268 0.29 0.30
m
zy
0.495 0.38 0.30
a
x
(10
6
K
1
) 0.006 2.32 110
a
y
(10
6
K
1
) 30.04 35.19 110
Fig. 4. Estimation of optimum winding angle under the loading con-
ditions: a 100 K increase superimposed on an internal pressure of
0.1 GPa.
Fig. 5. Stress distributions within a sandwich pipe at DP = 0X1 GPa:
(a) radial, (b) hoop, and (c) axial.
M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283 277
The analysis of the sandwich pipe was carried out
under the internal pressure of 0.1 GPa and with a 100
K-temperature increase, respectively. The stress distri-
butions through the wall of the sandwich pipe with a 60-
winding angle is observed in the axial, hoop, and radial
directions when the internal pressure is 0.1 GPa, as shown
in Fig. 5. Fig. 5(a) shows that the radial stress through the
wall of the sandwich pipe is subjected to a compressive
stress froma given internal pressure of 0.1 GPa to zero. In
Fig. 5(b) and (c), the stresses in the hoop and axial di-
rections are tensile stresses. The skin layers are subjected
to much higher stresses than the core layer. The values of
stress distributions are larger at the inner layer than at the
outer layer. Fig. 6 gives stress distributions through the
wall of the sandwich pipe under the 100 K-temperature
increase. Compared with the internal pressure loading,
the hoop and axial stresses acting on the core and inner
layers are the compressive thermal stresses.
Analyses of the hoop and axial stresses in the skin
layers are obtained from Figs. 710. The stresses acting
on the pipe vary with the design of the winding angle.
The eect of the winding angle on stress variation is
much larger for the carbon ber (T300/934) than for the
glass ber (E-Glass/Epoxy) because the carbon ber
material has larger anisotropic properties.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the hoop stress curves varying with
the winding angles under the internal pressure and the
thermomechanical loading, respectively. In case of the
internal pressure loading, as shown in Fig. 7(a), the hoop
stresses in the inner layer will increase when the winding
angle increases. Fig. 7(b) shows that the variations of the
hoop stresses in the outer layer are quite small. This is
because the outer layer is subjected to low stress, which
is transmitted from the internal pressure. Both inner and
outer skin layers of the pipe are subjected to tensile
stresses. For the thermomechanical loading, as shown in
Fig. 8(a), the stresses of the inner layer decrease when
the winding angle is increased and can be subjected from
Fig. 6. Stress distributions within a sandwich pipe at DT = 100 K:
(a) radial, (b) hoop, and (c) axial.
Fig. 7. Inuence of winding angle on hoop stress of (a) inner and
(b) outer layers at DP = 0X1 GPa.
278 M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283
the tensile to the compressive thermal stresses. As shown
in Fig. 8(b), the stresses of the outer layers increase when
the winding angle is increased.
The axial stress curves of pipe under the internal
pressure and the thermomechanical loading are shown
in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. In Fig. 9(a), the axial
stresses in the inner layer increase when the winding
angle is increased and have the largest values at about
35, whereas variations of the stresses in the outer layers
are reversed, as shown in Fig. 9(b). Fig. 10(a) shows that
the thermal stresses in the inner layer decrease with the
winding angle and obtain the smallest value at about
50. The thermal stresses in the outer layer have a
maximum value at around 45, as shown in Fig. 10(b).
The strain curve in the axial direction varying with
the winding angle is shown in Fig. 11. For the pipe
subjected to the internal pressure, the axial strain of the
cylinder must be greater than zero for the isotropic
sandwich pipe or the pipe with low anisotropic property.
As shown in Fig. 11(a), the axial strain for T300/934 is
negative within a 15 to 55 range of winding angles
because of the eect of the anisotropic elasticity on the
axial strain. This result has also been obtained in other
experiments [57]. Fig. 11(b) shows that the thermal
strains increase when the winding angle is increased.
Fig. 12 shows the inuence of the core material on the
hoop stress of the pipe with T300/934 when the internal
pressure is 0.1 GPa. The hoop stress decreases while
increasing the modulus of the core layer. In the mean-
while, the dierence of the hoop stress between the inner
and outer layers becomes smaller when the modulus of
the core layer is increased. This is because the core layer
material with a high degree of stiness intensies the
transfer of the force due to the internal pressure from
the inner to outer layers. For the core material with very
low stiness, the internal pressure is applied primarily to
the inner layer so that the outer layer is subjected to
smaller loading. The outer layer undergoes the maxi-
mum stress value when the modulus of the core material
is about 2 GPa.
4. Conclusions
This research presents a method to analyze the
stresses and strains of a lament-wound sandwich pipe
subjected to internal pressure and thermomechanical
loading. This procedure is based on the classical lami-
nated-plate theory. The sandwich pipe is considered in
3D analysis and in an orthotropic-material model. The
calculating method developed here provides a basis for
predicting the elastic behavior of the lament-wound
sandwich pipe.
Fig. 8. Inuence of winding angle on hoop stress of (a) inner and
(b) outer layers at DT = 100 K.
Fig. 9. Inuence of winding angle on axial stress of (a) inner and
(b) outer layers at DP = 0X1 GPa.
M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283 279
The design of the optimum winding angle can be
obtained from netting analysis, which depends upon
geometry and construction materials. For a thick-walled
laminate-ply sandwich pipe, a 55-winding angle is no
longer an ideal arrangement.
Under internal pressure, the axial strain of a pipe
with T300/934 changes from positive to negative with
respect to the winding angle. Because the core layer with
a high degree of stiness intensies the connection be-
tween the inner and outer layers, both hoop stress and
the dierence of stress between the inner and outer
layers decrease while increasing the modulus of the core
layer. For the sandwich composite pipe construction
with low core stiness, the inuence of the core material
on the strength of the pipe is quite large.
Appendix A
(1) When C
(k)
22
aC
(k)
11
b 0:
k
11
= b
(1)
C
(1)
11
_
C
(1)
12
_
r
b
(1)
1
0
Y
k
14
=
_
b
(1)
C
(1)
11
C
(1)
12
_
r
b
(1)
1
0
Y
k
17
=
a
(1)
1 (b
(1)
)
2
C
(1)
11
_
C
(1)
12
_
C
(1)
13
Y
k
12
= k
13
= k
15
= k
16
= 0Y
d
1
= p
0

g
(1)
1 (b
(1)
)
2
C
(1)
11
_
_
C
(1)
12
_
n
(1)
r
_
DTY
k
21
= r
b(1)
1
Y k
22
= r
1
Y k
23
= 0Y
k
24
= r
b(1)
1
Y k
25
= 1ar
1
Y k
26
= 0Y
Fig. 10. Inuence of winding angle on axial stress of (a) inner and
(b) outer layers at DT = 100 K.
Fig. 11. Inuence of winding angle on axial strain under the condition
of (a) DP = 0X1 GPa and (b) DT = 100 K.
Fig. 12. Inuence of core stiness on hoop stress behavior.
280 M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283
k
27
=
a
(1)
r
1
1 (b
(1)
)
2

a
(2)
r
1
2
ln r
1
Y
d
2
=
g
(2)
r
1
2
ln r
1
_

g
(1)
r
1
1 (b
(1)
)
2
_
DTY
k
31
= 0Y k
32
= r
2
Y k
33
= r
b(3)
2
Y
k
34
= 0Y k
35
= 1ar
2
Y k
36
= r
b(3)
2
Y
k
37
=
a
(2)
r
2
2
ln r
2

a
(3)
r
2
1 (b
(3)
)
2
Y
d
3
=
g
(3)
r
2
1 (b
(3)
)
2
_

g
(2)
r
2
2
ln r
2
_
DTY
k
41
= b
(1)
C
(1)
11
_
C
(1)
12
_
r
b
(1)
1
1
Y
k
42
= C
(2)
11
_
C
(2)
12
_
Y
k
44
=
_
b
(1)
C
(1)
11
C
(1)
12
_
r
b
(1)
1
1
Y
k
45
= C
(2)
12
_
C
(2)
11
__
r
2
1
Y
k
47
=
a
(1)
1 (b
(1)
)
2
C
(1)
11
_
C
(1)
12
_
C
(1)
13

a
(2)
ln r
1
C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
_ _
a
(2)
C
(2)
11
2C
(2)
13
2
Y
k
43
= k
46
= 0Y
d
4
=
g
(2)
ln r
1
C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
_ _
g
(2)
C
(2)
11
2
_
_
_

g
(1)
1 (b
(1)
)
2
C
(1)
11
_
C
(1)
12
_
n
(1)
r
_
n
(2)
r
_
_
_
_
DTY
k
51
= k
54
= 0Y
k
52
= C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
Y
k
53
= b
(3)
C
(3)
11
_
C
(3)
12
_
r
b
(3)
1
2
Y
k
55
= C
(2)
12
_
C
(2)
11
_
ar
2
2
Y
k
56
=
_
b
(3)
C
(3)
11
C
(3)
12
_
r
b
(3)
1
2
Y
k
57
=
a
(2)
ln r
2
C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
_ _
a
(2)
C
(2)
11
2C
(2)
13
2

a
(3)
1 (b
(3)
)
2
C
(3)
11
_
C
(3)
12
_
C
(3)
13
Y
d
5
=
g
(3)
1 (b
(3)
)
2
C
(3)
11
_
_
C
(3)
12
_

g
(2)
ln r
2
C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
_ _
g
(2)
C
(2)
11
2
n
(2)
r
_
n
(3)
r
_
_
DTY
k
61
= k
62
= k
64
= k
65
= 0Y
k
63
= b
(3)
C
(3)
11
_
C
(3)
12
_
r
b
(3)
1
a
Y
k
66
=
_
b
(3)
C
(3)
11
C
(3)
12
_
r
b
(3)
1
a
Y
k
67
=
a
(3)
1 (b
(3)
)
2
C
(3)
11
_
C
(3)
12
_
C
(3)
13
Y
d
6
=
g
(3)
1 (b
(3)
)
2
C
(3)
11
_
_
C
(3)
12
_
n
(3)
r
_
DTY
k
71
=
2(b
(1)
C
(1)
13
C
(1)
23
)
1 b
(1)
r
b
(1)
1
1
_
r
b
(1)
1
0
_
Y
k
72
= C
(2)
13
_
C
(2)
23
_
r
2
2
_
r
2
1
_
Y
k
73
=
2 b
(3)
C
(3)
13
C
(3)
23
_ _
1 b
(3)
r
b
(3)
1
a
_
r
b
(3)
1
2
_
Y
k
74
=
2 b
(1)
C
(1)
13
C
(1)
23
_ _
1 b
(1)
r
b
(1)
1
1
_
r
b
(1)
1
0
_
Y
k
75
= 2 C
(2)
23
_
C
(2)
13
_
ln(r
2
ar
1
)Y
k
76
=
2 b
(3)
C
(3)
13
C
(3)
23
_ _
1 b
(3)
r
b
(3)
1
a
_
r
b
(3)
1
2
_
Y
k
77
=
a
(1)
C
(1)
13
C
(1)
23
_ _
1 (b
(1)
)
2
_
_
C
(1)
33
_
_
(r
2
1
r
2
0
)
a
(2)
C
(2)
13
_
C
(2)
23
_
(r
2
2
ln r
2
_
r
2
1
ln r
1
)a2 (r
2
2
r
2
1
)a4

a
(2)
C
(2)
13
_
2
_
C
(2)
33
_
r
2
2
_
r
2
1
_

a
(3)
[C
(3)
13
C
(3)
23
[
1 (b
(3)
)
2
_
C
(3)
33
_
(r
2
a
r
2
2
)Y
d
7
= p
0
r
2
0

g
(1)
C
(1)
13
C
(1)
23
_ _
1 (b
(1)
)
2
_
_
_
_
_
n
(1)
z
_
_
(r
2
1
r
2
0
)
g
(2)
C
(2)
13
_
C
(2)
23
_
(r
2
2
ln r
2
_
r
2
1
ln r
1
)a2 (r
2
2
r
2
1
)a4

g
(2)
C
(2)
13
a2
_
n
(2)
z
_
r
2
2
_
r
2
1
_

g
(3)
[C
(3)
13
C
(3)
23
[
1 (b
(3)
)
2
_
n
(3)
z
_
(r
2
a
r
2
2
)
_
_
_
DTY
(2) When C
(k)
22
aC
(k)
11
` 0:
M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283 281
k
11
=
_
b
(1)
C
(1)
11
sin(b
(1)
ln r
0
) C
(1)
12
cos(b
(1)
ln r
0
)
__
r
0
Y
k
14
= b
(1)
C
(1)
11
cos(b
(1)
ln r
0
)
_
C
(1)
12
sin(b
(1)
ln r
0
)
__
r
0
Y
k
17
=
a
(1)
1 (b
(1)
)
2
C
(1)
11
_
C
(1)
12
_
C
(1)
13
Y
k
12
= k
13
= k
15
= k
16
Y
d
1
= p
0

g
(1)
1 (b
(1)
)
2
C
(1)
11
_
_
C
(1)
12
_
n
(1)
r
_
DTY
k
21
= cos(b
(1)
ln r
1
)Y
k
22
= r
1
Y
k
24
= sin(b
(1)
ln r
1
)Y
k
25
= 1ar
1
Y
k
27
=
a
(1)
r
1
1 (b
(1)
)
2

a
(2)
r
1
2
ln r
1
Y
k
23
= k
26
= 0Y
d
2
=
g
(2)
r
1
2
ln r
1
_

g
(1)
r
1
1 (b
(1)
)
2
_
DTY
k
31
= k
34
= 0Y
k
32
= r
2
Y
k
33
= cos(b
(3)
ln r
2
)Y
k
35
= 1ar
2
Y
k
36
= sin(b
(3)
ln r
2
)Y
k
37
=
a
(2)
r
2
2
ln r
2

a
(3)
r
2
1 (b
(3)
)
2
Y
d
3
=
g
(3)
r
2
1 (b
(3)
)
2
_

g
(2)
r
2
2
ln r
2
_
DTY
k
41
=
_
b
(1)
C
(1)
11
sin(b
(1)
ln r
1
) C
(1)
12
cos(b
(1)
ln r
1
)
__
r
1
Y
k
42
= C
(2)
11
_
C
(2)
12
_
Y
k
44
= b
(1)
C
(1)
11
cos(b
(1)
ln r
1
)
_
C
(1)
12
sin(b
(1)
ln r
1
)
__
r
1
Y
k
45
= C
(2)
12
_
C
(2)
11
__
r
2
1
Y
k
47
=
a
(1)
1 (b
(1)
)
2
C
(1)
11
_
C
(1)
12
_
C
(1)
13

a
(2)
ln r
1
C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
_ _
a
(2)
C
(2)
11
2C
(2)
13
2
Y
k
43
= k
46
= 0Y
d
4
=
g
(2)
ln r
1
C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
_ _
g
(2)
C
(2)
11
2
_
_
_

g
(1)
1 (b
(1)
)
2
C
(1)
11
_
C
(1)
12
_
n
(1)
r
_
n
(2)
r
_
_
_
_
DTY
k
51
= k
54
= 0Y
k
52
= C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
Y
k
53
= b
(3)
C
(3)
11
sin(b
(3)
ln r
2
)
_
C
(3)
12
cos(b
(3)
ln r
2
)
__
r
2
Y
k
55
= C
(2)
12
_
C
(2)
11
__
r
2
2
Y
k
56
= b
(3)
C
(3)
11
cos(b
(3)
ln r
2
)
_
C
(3)
12
sin(b
(3)
ln r
2
)
__
r
2
Y
k
57
=
a
(2)
ln r
2
C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
_ _
a
(2)
C
(2)
11
2C
(2)
13
2

a
(3)
1 (b
(3)
)
2
C
(3)
11
_
C
(3)
12
_
C
(3)
13
Y
d
5
=
g
(3)
1 (b
(3)
)
2
C
(3)
11
_
_
_
_
C
(3)
12
_

g
(2)
ln r
2
C
(2)
11
C
(2)
12
_ _
g
(2)
C
(2)
11
2
n
(2)
r
_
n
(3)
r
_
_
_
_
DTY
k
61
= k
62
= k
64
= k
65
= 0Y
k
63
=
_
b
(3)
C
(3)
11
sin(b
(3)
ln r
a
) C
(3)
12
cos(b
(3)
ln r
a
)
__
r
a
Y
k
66
= b
(3)
C
(3)
11
cos(b
(3)
ln r
a
)
_
C
(3)
12
sin(b
(3)
ln r
a
)
__
r
a
Y
k
67
=
a
(3)
1 (b
(3)
)
2
C
(3)
11
_
C
(3)
12
_
C
(3)
13
Y
d
6
=
g
(3)
1 (b
(3)
)
2
C
(3)
11
_
_
C
(3)
12
_
n
(3)
r
_
DTY
k
71
=
2
1 (b
(1)
)
2
b
(1)
C
(1)
23
_ _
C
(1)
13
_
r
1
sin(b
(1)
ln r
1
)
_
r
0
sin(b
(1)
ln r
0
)
_
C
(1)
13
(b
(1)
)
2
_
C
(1)
23
_
r
1
cos(b
(1)
ln r
1
)
_
r
0
cos(b
(1)
ln r
0
)
__
Y
k
72
= C
(2)
13
_
C
(2)
23
_
r
2
2
_
r
2
1
_
Y
k
73
=
2
1 (b
(3)
)
2
b
(3)
C
(3)
23
_ _
C
(3)
13
_
r
a
sin(b
(3)
ln r
a
)
_
r
2
sin(b
(3)
ln r
2
)
_
C
(3)
13
(b
(3)
)
2
_
C
(3)
23
_
r
a
cos(b
(3)
ln r
a
)
_
r
2
cos(b
(3)
ln r
2
)
__
Y
k
74
=
2
1 (b
(1)
)
2
C
(1)
13
(b
(1)
)
2
_ _
C
(1)
23
_
r
1
sin(b
(1)
ln r
1
)
_
r
0
sin(b
(1)
ln r
0
)
_
b
(1)
C
(1)
13
_
C
(1)
23
_
r
1
cos(b
(1)
ln r
1
)
_
r
0
cos(b
(1)
ln r
0
)
__
Y
282 M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283
k
75
= 2 C
(2)
23
_
C
(2)
13
_
ln(r
2
ar
1
)Y
k
76
=
2
1 (b
(3)
)
2
C
(3)
13
(b
(3)
)
2
_ _
C
(3)
23
_
r
a
sin(b
(3)
ln r
a
)
_
r
2
sin(b
(3)
ln r
2
)
_
b
(3)
C
(3)
13
_
C
(3)
23
_
r
a
cos(b
(3)
ln r
a
)
_
r
2
cos(b
(3)
ln r
2
)
__
Y
k
77
=
a
(1)
C
(1)
13
C
(1)
23
_ _
1 (b
(1)
)
2
_
_
C
(1)
33
_
_
(r
2
1
r
2
0
) a
(2)
C
(2)
13
_
C
(2)
23
_
(r
2
2
ln r
2
_
r
2
1
ln r
1
)a2 (r
2
2
r
2
1
)a4

a
(2)
C
(2)
13
a2
_
C
(2)
33
_
r
2
2
_
r
2
1
_

a
(3)
[C
(3)
13
C
(3)
23
[
1 (b
(3)
)
2
_
C
(3)
33
_
(r
2
a
r
2
2
)Y
d
7
= p
0
r
2
0

g
(1)
C
(1)
13
C
(1)
23
_ _
1 (b
(1)
)
2
_
_
_
_
_
n
(1)
z
_
_
(r
2
1
r
2
0
) g
(2)
C
(2)
13
_
C
(2)
23
_
(r
2
2
ln r
2
_
r
2
1
ln r
1
)a2 (r
2
2
r
2
1
)a4

g
(2)
C
(2)
13
a2
_
n
(2)
z
_
r
2
2
_
r
2
1
_

g
(3)
[C
(3)
13
C
(3)
23
[
1 (b
(3)
)
2
_
n
(3)
z
_
(r
2
a
r
2
2
)
_
_
_
DTY
References
[1] Soden PD, Kitching R, Tse PC. Experimental failure stresses for
55 lament wound glass ber reinforced plastic tubes under
biaxial loads. Composites 1989;20:12535.
[2] Soden PD, Leadbetter D, Griggs PR, Eckold GC. The strength of
a lament wound composite under biaxial loading. Composites
1978;9:24750.
[3] Mistry J, Gibson AG, Wu Y-S. Failure of composite cylinders
under combined external pressure and axial loading. Comp Struct
1992;22:193200.
[4] Hull D, Legg MJ, Spencer B. Failure of glass/polyester lament
wound pipe. Composites 1978;9:1724.
[5] Rosenow MWK. Wind angle eects in glass ber-reinforced
polyester lament wound pipes. Composites 1984;15:14452.
[6] Spencer B, Hull D. Eect of winding angle on the failure of
lament wound pipe. Composites 1978;9:26371.
[7] Uemura M, Fukunaga H. Probabilistic burst strength of lament-
wound cylinders under internal pressure. J Comp Mater
1981;15:46280.
[8] Wild PM, Vickers GW. Analysis of lament-wound cylindrical
shells under combined centrifugal pressure and axial loading.
Composites Part A 1997;28:4755.
[9] RoyAjit K. Response of thick laminated composite rings to
thermal stress. Comp Struct 1991;18:12539.
[10] Ben G. Structural analyses of thick-walled cross-ply laminated
FRP cylindrical shells. Trans Jpn Soc Mech Eng Part A (in
Japanese) 1991;57:14127.
[11] Kim K, Voyiadjis GZ. Buckling strength prediction of CFRP
cylindrical panels using nite element Method. Composites Part A
1999;30:1093104.
[12] Kweon JH. Post-failure analysis of composite cylindrical panels
under compression. J Rein Plas Comp 1998;17:166581.
[13] Lifshitz JM, Dayan H. Filament-wound pressure vessel with thick
metal line. Comp Struct 1995;32:31323.
[14] Kitao K, Akiyama H. Failure of thick-wall lament wound plastic
pipes under internal pressure. J Soc Mater Sci Japan (in Japanese)
1994;43:113440.
[15] Cho H, Kardomateas GA, Valle CS. Elastodynamic solution for
the thermal shock stresses in an orthotropic thick cylindrical shell.
ASME J Appl Mech 1998;65:18493.
[16] You L, Long S, Rohr L. Elasticplastic stress led in a coated
continuous brous composite subjected to thermomechanical
loading. ASME J Appl Mech 1999;66:7507.
[17] Goetschel DB, Radford DW. Analytical development of through-
thickness properties of composite laminates. J Adv Mater
1997;29(7):3746.
[18] Chiao TT. Design for commercial lament winding. SPE J
1966;22(4):437.
M. Xia et al. / Composite Structures 51 (2001) 273283 283