On bending stiffness of composite tubes

F. Shadmehri, B. Derisi, S.V. Hoa

Concordia Center for Composites, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G1M8
Center for Research in Polymers and Composites (CREPEC), Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Available online 22 March 2011
Keywords:
Bending stiffness
Composite tubes
Non-classical beam theory
a b s t r a c t
Theoretical formulations are provided for the determination of stiffness of composite tubes. A three-
dimensional laminate theory is used to determine the equivalent exural stiffness hEIi for composite
tubes. The same theory is also used to determine the load versus axial strain of the tubes. An approximate
(more simplied) formulation is also presented. Values of the equivalent bending stiffness hEIi are com-
pared between the two formulations. Experimental work was carried out on four composite tubes made
of different lay-ups. The stiffness represented by the slope of the force-axial strains compares well
between theoretical formulation and experimental results.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The motivation for this work comes from the desire to substi-
tute support tubes made of aluminum as part of the landing gear
for helicopters. Helicopter landing gears consist of two skis run-
ning along the main direction of the helicopter, and two cross
tubes connecting the skis together. The cross tubes provide struc-
tural support for the weight of the helicopter and its payloads. Cur-
rently these cross tubes are made of aluminum. Due to various
reasons [13], there is a desire to substitute the aluminum tubes
using thermoplastic composite tubes. The substitution needs to
be able to match the stiffness, strength and deformation of the cur-
rent tube. References [2] and [3] address the deformation issue.
This paper presents formulation to determine the stiffness of com-
posite tubes.
2. Bending stiffness using moment of inertia approach
From classical bending theory of beams, the relation between
bending moment and curvature for a beam made of isotropic mate-
rial is given as:
M EIK 1
where M is bending moment, K is curvature, E is Youngs modulus, I
is the section second moment of inertia.
For the case of a tube of circular cross-section made of isotropic
material, Eq. (1) can be written as:
M
p
4
R
4
o
R
4
i
_ _
EK 2
where R
o
and R
i
are outside and inside radii of the tube.
For a circular cross-section beam made of composite materials
such that the thickness consists of many layers laid with bers
making different orientations with respect to the generator of the
tube as that shown in Fig. 1, it is desirable to determine the equa-
tion for its stiffness.
As a simple approximation method, one may tempt to use the
effective engineering properties of each group of layers construct-
ing the composite tube and multiply it by the second moment of
inertia of that particular group in order to get the bending stiffness
for that group. Eventually, the equivalent bending stiffness hEIi of
the composite tube would be obtained by adding the bending stiff-
ness of each group of layer, as
hEIi

N
n1
p R
n
o
_ _
4
R
4
i
_ _
4
_ _
4
E
n
3
where N is the total number of groups of layers, R
n
o
and R
n
i
are the
outer and inner radii of the nth group of the layers. E
n
is the effec-
tive engineering modulus of the group n in axial direction and can
be found to be [4]
E
n

A
11
A
12
A
2
12
A
22
h
n
4
where h
n
R
n
o
R
n
i
is the thickness of the particular group n for
which E
n
is calculated. In denition of E
n
in Eq. (4), subscripts 1
and 2 refer to the axial and circumferential directions respectively.
Also, it is assumed the nth group of the layers is symmetric which is
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.03.002

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: f_shadme@encs.concordia.ca (F. Shadmehri), bijan_deris@
yahoo.ca (B. Derisi), hoasuon@alcor.concordia.ca (S.V. Hoa).
Composite Structures 93 (2011) 21732179
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Composite Structures
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ compst r uct
not always correct and may introduce some error in the calculation.
The accuracy of Eq. (3) will be discussed in the Comparison of re-
sults section.
3. Bending stiffness using non-classical composite beam theory
Due to the important effects of some non-classical features such
as transverse shear deformation, non-uniform twist, and warping
inhibition (see [513]), the non-classical composite beam theory
takes these elements into account. Although a circular cross-sec-
tion beam consisting of anisotropic material is considered as the
structural model of composite tube, the theory is general and is
applicable for any arbitrary cross-section shape.
3.1. Displacement eld
Two coordinate systems, namely (s, z, n) and (x, y, z), are used to
describe the beam geometry (see Fig. 2). The former is a local coor-
dinate attached to the mid-line of the beam wall thickness while
the latter is xed at the center of the cross section of the beam.
Assuming that all deformations are small (linear elasticity applica-
ble) and no in-plane deformation is allowed in cross section plane,
the three-dimensional displacement eld of a general point P on
the cross-section is assumed to be [79]
ux; y; z u
0
z y/z
vx; y; z v
0
z x/z
wx; y; z w
0
z h
x
z ys n
dx
ds
_ _
h
y
z xs n
dy
ds
_ _
/
0
zF
w
s nas 5
in which
h
x
z c
yz
z v
0
0
z
h
y
z c
xz
z u
0
0
z
as ys
dy
ds
xs
dx
ds
6
u
0
(z), v
0
(z), w
0
(z), h
x
(z), h
y
(z) and /(z) represent three rigid body
translations and three rotations along the x, y and z axes, respec-
tively. c
xz
(z) and c
yz
(z) denote the transverse shear strains in the
planes xz and yz respectively and the primes denote derivatives
with respect to the span of the beam (z-coordinate). The warping
function can be expressed as [7]
F
w

_
s
0
r
n
s Wds 7
where the torsional function W. and the quantity r
n
(s) are [8]
W
_
C
rns
hs
ds
_
C
ds
hs
; r
n
s xs
dy
ds
ys
dx
ds
8
where h(s) is the wall thickness of the beam.
3.2. Straindisplacement relations
Based on the assumed displacement eld, Eqs. (5) and (6), and
considering the assumption of a cross-section without any in-plane
deformation, only three strains contribute to the potential energy
of the beam, namely e
zz
, c
sz
and c
nz
. The axial strain, e
zz
, can be ob-
tained in terms of displacement variables as [8]
e
zz
n; s; z e
0
zz
s; z ne
n
zz
s; z 9
where
e
0
zz
s; z w
0
0
z h
0
x
zys h
0
y
zxs /
00
zF
w
s
e
n
zz
s; z h
0
y
z
dy
ds
h
0
x
z
dx
ds
/
00
zas 10
where a(s) is dened in Eq. (6) and is shown in Fig. 2.
The tangential shear strain component can be expressed as
c
sz
s; z c
0
sz
s; z 2
A
C
b
/
0
z 11
where
c
0
sz
s; z u
0
0
z h
y
z
_
dx
ds
v
0
0
z h
x
z
_
dy
ds
12
and A
C
is the cross-sectional area of the beam bounded by the mid-
line of the wall thickness and b is the circumference length of the
contour of the mid-line. The transverse shear strain is
c
nz
s; z u
0
0
z h
y
z
_
dy
ds
v
0
0
z h
x
z
_
dx
ds
13
Fig. 1. Cross section of composite tube showing nth group of layer.
v
0
(z)
a(s)
r
n
(s)
u
0
(z)
w
0
(z)
z
(z)
x

x
(z)
s
n
y

y
(z)
Fig. 2. Beam coordinate systems and displacement eld.
2174 F. Shadmehri et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 21732179
3.3. Constitutive equations
The constitutive equations of an orthotropic lamina referenced
to a non-principal material coordinate system can be written in
matrix form as
r
ss
r
zz
r
nn
r
zn
r
ns
r
sz
_

_
_

C
11
C
12
C
13
0 0 C
16
C
12
C
22
C
23
0 0 C
26
C
13
C
23
C
33
0 0 C
36
0 0 0 C
44
C
45
0
0 0 0 C
54
C
55
0
C
16
C
26
C
36
0 0 C
66
_

_
_

_
e
ss
e
zz
e
nn
c
zn
c
ns
c
sz
_

_
_

_
14
where C
ij
are dened in [16]. Replacing strains from Eqs. (9) and
(10) into Eq. (14) and integrating though the thickness of the lam-
inate (n), the stress resultants and stress couples are obtained.
Assuming that hoop stress resultants, N
ss
, shear stress resultant
N
ns
, and through thickness normal stress resultant, N
nn
, are negligi-
bly small in comparison with others, one can get the following
expressions for stress resultants
N
zz
N
sz
_ _

K
11
K
12
K
13
K
14
K
21
K
22
K
23
K
24
_ _
e
0
zz
c
0
sz
/
0
e
n
zz
_

_
_

_
; N
nz
A
44
c
nz
15
and for stress couples as
L
zz
L
sz
_ _

K
41
K
42
K
43
K
44
K
51
K
52
K
53
K
54
_ _
e
0
zz
c
0
sz
/
0
e
n
zz
_

_
_

_
16
where K
ij
are reduced stiffness coefcients dened in Appendix A.
The one-dimensional stress resultants and couples for composite
beam (with arbitrary closed cross-section shape) are dened in
[8,9] as
T
z
z; t
_
C
N
zz
ds
M
y
z; t
_
C
xN
zz
L
zz
dy
ds
_ _
ds
M
x
z; t
_
C
yN
zz
L
zz
dx
ds
_ _
ds
Q
x
z; t
_
C
N
sz
dx
ds
N
zn
dy
ds
_ _
ds
Q
y
z; t
_
C
N
sz
dy
ds
N
zn
dx
ds
_ _
ds
B
w
z; t
_
C
F
w
sN
zz
asL
zz
ds
M
z
z; t
_
C
N
sz
Wds
17
in Eq. (17) T
z
, Q
x
and Q
y
represent the axial force and shear forces in
the x and y directions, respectively. The bending and twist moments
about the x, y and z axes are denoted by M
x
, M
y
and M
z
respectively.
B
w
is the bimoment [8].
Considering the circular cross-section of the composite tube,
the geometric terms in Eq. (17) can be adapted as (see Fig. 3)
dx
ds
sin/;
dy
ds
cos/; ds R d/ 18
Substituting Eqs. (15) and (16) into Eq. (17) along with Eqs. 6, 7 and
18, one can write the one-dimensional stress resultants and
couples as
T
z
M
y
M
x
Q
x
Q
y
B
w
M
z
_

_
_

a
11
a
12
a
13
a
14
a
15
a
16
a
17
a
21
a
22
a
23
a
24
a
25
a
26
a
27
a
31
a
32
a
33
a
34
a
35
a
36
a
37
a
41
a
42
a
43
a
44
a
45
a
46
a
47
a
51
a
52
a
53
a
54
a
55
a
56
a
57
a
61
a
62
a
63
a
64
a
65
a
66
a
67
a
71
a
72
a
73
a
74
a
75
a
76
a
77
_

_
_

_
w
0
0
h
0
y
h
0
x
u
0
0
h
y
_ _
v
0
0
h
x
_ _
/
00
/
0
_

_
_

_
19
in which a
ij
are composite beam stiffness coefcients including the
effect of the material anisotropy along with geometry properties of
the cross-section of the beam (see references [8,9] for denition of
a
ij
).
3.4. Lay-up technique
Eq. (19) gives the one-dimensional stress resultants and couples
for the most general case of a composite tube. In the case that the
composite tube is made by automated ber placement technique
(AFP), layup conguration can be characterized by h(y) = h (y)
(see Fig. 3). This layup conguration, quoted as circumferential
uniform stiffness (CUS) in [515], simplies Eq. (19) and
accordingly reduces it to the form
T
z
M
z
_ _

a
11
a
17
a
71
a
77
_ _
w
0
0
/
0
_ _
20
M
y
M
x
Q
x
Q
y
B
w
_

_
_

a
22
0 0 a
25
0
0 a
33
a
34
0 0
0 a
43
a
44
0 0
a
52
0 0 a
55
0
0 0 0 0 a
66
_

_
_

_
h
0
y
h
0
x
u
0
0
h
y
_ _
v
0
0
h
x
_ _
/
00
_

_
_

_
21
in which a
ij
are calculated using Eq. (18) for circular cross-section
and listed in Appendix A.
It can be seen that from Eqs. (20) and (21), there are two inde-
pendent coupling groups. In the rst group, Eq. (20), the extension
behavior of the tube couples with twisting while in the second
group, Eq. (21), there are bending-transverse shear couplings.
Fig. 3. Geometry and layup conguration (CUS) of composite tube.
F. Shadmehri et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 21732179 2175
3.5. Equivalent bending stiffness
Assuming that the composite tube is under bending, an equiva-
lent bending stiffness can be calculated. This equivalent value can
be used to match the stiffness requirement in design procedure. By
taking the inverse, Eq. (21) gets the form of
h
0
y
h
0
x
u
0
0
h
y
_ _
v
0
0
h
x
_ _
/
00
_

_
_

a
55
a
22
a
55
a
2
25
0 0
a
25
a
22
a
55
a
2
25
0
0
a
44
a
33
a
44
a
2
34
a
34
a
33
a
44
a
2
34
0 0
0
a
34
a
33
a
44
a
2
34
a
33
a
33
a
44
a
2
34
0 0
a
25
a
22
a
55
a
2
25
0 0
a
22
a
22
a
55
a
2
25
0
0 0 0 0
1
a
66
_

_
_

_
M
y
M
x
Q
x
Q
y
B
w
_

_
_

_
22
If the only applied load is M
x
, the relation between the curvature
and this moment would be
h
0
x

a
44
a
33
a
44
a
2
34
M
x
23
Comparing Eq. (23) with its counterpart from isotropic beam theory
where h
0
x

1
EI
M
x
, one can see that the equivalent bending stiffness
for composite tube is
hEIi
a
33
a
44
a
2
34
a
44
24
The equivalent bending stiffness, Eq. (24), can be written in con-
junction with denition of a
ij
and k
ij
(see Appendix A) in terms of
laminate stiffness coefcients as
hEIiRp R
2
A
22

A
12
A
33
A
12
A
13
A
23

A

A
23
A
23
A
11
A
13
A
12

A
_ _ _
A
66

A
16
A
33
A
16
A
13
A
36

A

A
36
A
11
A
36
A
13
A
16

A
_ _
R
2
A
22

A
12
A
33
A
12
A
13
A
23

A

A
23
A
23
A
11
A
13
A
12

A
_ _
A
44

A
2
45
A
55
_ _
R
2
A
26

A
12
A
33
A
16
A
13
A
36

A

A
23
A
36
A
11
A
13
A
16

A
_ _
2
2R B
22

A
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

A
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ _
A
66

A
16
A
33
A
16
A
13
A
36

A

A
36
A
11
A
36
A
13
A
16

A
_ _
2R B
22

A
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

A
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ _
A
44

A
2
45
A
55
_ _
2R A
26

A
12
A
33
A
16
A
13
A
36

A

A
23
A
36
A
11
A
13
A
16

A
_ _
B
26

A
16
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

A
36
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ _
D
22

B
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

B
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ _
A
66

A
16
A
33
A
16
A
13
A
36

A

A
36
A
11
A
36
A
13
A
16

A
_ _
D
22

B
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

B
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ _
A
44

A
2
45
A
55
_ _
B
26

A
16
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

A
36
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ _
2
__
A
66

A
16
A
33
A
16
A
13
A
36

A

A
36
A
11
A
36
A
13
A
16

A
_ _
A
44

A
2
45
A
55
_ _ _ _
25
where A A
11
A
33
A
2
13
and R is the average radius of the tube. As a
special case, the equivalent bending stiffness for tubes with cross
ply lamination, in which(A
i6
= B
i6
= D
i6
= A
45
= B
45
= D
45
= B
33
=
B
66
= 0, i = 1, 2, 3), is simplied as
hEIi Rp R
2
A
66
A
22

A
12
A
33
A
12
A
13
A
23

A

A
23
A
23
A
11
A
13
A
12

A
_ _ _

R
2
A
44
A
22

A
12
A
33
A
12
A
13
A
23

A

A
23
A
23
A
11
A
13
A
12

A
_ _

2RA
66
B
22

A
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

A
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ _

2RA
44
B
22

A
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

A
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ _

A
66
D
22

B
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

B
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ _

A
44
D
22

B
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

B
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
_ __
= A
66
A
44

26
Furthermore, Eq. (26) can be used to nd out the relation between
the curvature and the moment in an isotropic tube. Considering the
denition of A
ij
,B
ij
,D
ij
for isotropic material (see Appendix A), Eq.
(26) would be simplied as
hEIiRp
R
2
EH
1m2m1
9m
3
3m
2
12m4
42m1
_ _

H
3
Em1
121m2m1
_ _
27
where H and m are the thickness of the tube and Poissons ratio
respectively. Assuming m = 0.3, Eq. (27) will be simplied to
hEIi E R
3
H p 0:102
H
R
_ _
2
1
_ _
28
Comparing hEIi for the isotropic tube (Eq. (3)) with the denition of
EI as
EI E
p
4
R
4
o
R
4
i
_ _
E R
3
H p
1
4
H
R
_ _
2
1
_ _
29
One can see that the contribution of term (H/R)
2
is deferent in Eqs.
(28) and (29). Consequently, although calculation of hEIi and EI
leads to approximately the same value for bending stiffness, they
are not exactly the same. The reason for this is because Eq. (29) is
derived based on one-dimensional stress-strain relation whereas
Eq. (27) is based on three-dimensional stress-strain relation, where
Poissons ratio can enter into the picture.
4. Comparison and justication of two methods
In order to validate the equation for the equivalent bending
stiffness obtained from non-classical composite beam theory, Eq.
(25), four composite tubes were made and tested in three-point
and four-point bending arrangements and the axial strain mea-
sured experimentally and compared with this theory. The results,
presented in numerical and experimental results section below,
show a very good agreement between this theory and experiment
thus validating the theory.
In the following, the comparison between the two formulations
(i.e. non-classical composite beam theory and moment of inertia
approach) is presented and comments on appropriateness as well
as precision of both methods are made.
Table 1 shows the equivalent bending stiffness for four compos-
ite tubes calculated using Eq. (3) (moment of inertia approach) and
Eq. (25) (non-classical composite beam theory), in addition with
the material properties shown in Table 2.
As can be seen from Table 1, for tube number 1 (featuring cross-
ply layup), moment of inertia approach (2nd approach) predicts
the bending stiffness of the tube very close to the value offered
by the non-classical composite beam theory (1st approach). How-
ever, for the other three tubes, in which the lay-ups are different
from cross-ply lamination, the predicted bending stiffness by the
2176 F. Shadmehri et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 21732179
2nd approach is about 20% off from the value by 1st approach
which is more precise while being validated by experiment (see
numerical and experimental results). As a conclusion, one can
say that while the non-classical composite beam theory predicts
well the bending stiffness of the composite tube regardless of lam-
ination, the moment of inertia approach may only be used for the
case of cross-ply tubes.
In summary, the bending stiffness obtained by non-classical
composite beam theory is preferred to the one obtained by mo-
ment of inertia approach because it is in closer agreement with
experimental results. This is due to more comprehensive and com-
plex model of composite beam offered in non-classical composite
beam theory approach.
5. Numerical and experimental results
In an effort to come up with thermoplastic composite tubes that
may exhibit similar performance as aluminum tubes with similar
dimensions, four thermoplastic tubes were fabricated and tested.
These tubes have the lay-up sequence as shown in Table 1. The
evolution from one lay-up sequence to another was based on the
experience learned. The tubes were made of Carbon AS4/PEKK
thermoplastic composite materials [1] using automated ber
placement machine. The material properties are shown in Table 2.
In the experiments, the relations between the applied load
(either for four-point bending or three-point bending) versus the
axial strain at the bottom (at mid-length) of the tubes were ob-
tained. The theoretical formulation corresponding to these cases
are presented below.
Assuming the case of pure bending, the axial strain on the outer
bottom surface of the composite tube can be calculated using Eq.
(9) as a function of applied moment (M
x
) as follows:
e
zz

M
x
hEIi
R
H
2
_ _
30
For the case of three-point bending M
x

PL
4
and for four-point bend-
ing M
x

PLa
4
at the mid-length of the tube where P is the applied
load, L is the length of the tube and a is the distance between the
loading points in four-point bending test. Consequently, the relation
between the applied force and axial strain on the outer bottom sur-
face (at mid-length) of the composite tube for three-point bending
test gets the form of
P
e
zz

4hEIi
L R
H
2
_ _ 31
and for the four-point bending test
P
e
zz

4hEIi
L a R
H
2
_ _ 32
The stiffness of each of these tubes subjected to bending is com-
pared with that determined using non-classical method as follows:
Tube 1: Tube 1 has the lay-upsequence of [90
20
/0
20
] with90 layers
on the inside of the wall thickness. There are a 40 layers
total. The tube has ID = 28 mm and OD = 32 mm. It is sub-
jected to four-point bending, with a support span of
890 mm, and distance between loading points of 300 mm.
Strain gages were placed at the bottom of the tube to mea-
sure strains. Fig. 4 shows the relation between the applied
load and axial strain at mid-length (bottom) of the tube.
Tube 2: Tube 2 has the lay-up sequence [(90
10
/0
10
)
3
/(45/45)
25
]
with 90 layers on the inside. It has 110 layers total. The
inside diameter is ID = 56 mm, and OD = 78 mm. It is sub-
jected to three-point bending, with a span of 890 mm.
Fig. 5 shows the applied load versus axial strain (mid-
length-bottom).
Tube 3: Tube 3 has the lay-up sequence [90
30
/(25/25)
45
/90
5
/(30/
30)
20
/90
5
/(45/45)
20
] with 90 layers on the inside. It
has 210 layers total, with ID = 56 mm, and OD = 98 mm.
It is subjected to three-point bending, with a span of
890 mm. The applied load versus axial strain curves are
shown in Fig. 6.
Tube 4: Tube 4 has the lay-up sequence of [ Ring/(90)
20
/(25/
25)
20
/(90)
5
/(30/30)
25
/(90)
5
/(45/45)
10
] with a thin
aluminum ring (1 mm thick) on the inside. It has 140 lay-
ers total plus the ring. The inside diameter is ID = 56 mm,
and OD = 76 mm. It is subjected to three-point bending
with a span of 890 mm. The applied load versus axial
strain curve is shown in Fig. 7.
It can be seen that for the slopes of the initial parts of the curves
(representing the bending stiffness of the tubes), the theoretical re-
sults agree well with experimental results.
Table 1
Comparison of the equivalent bending stiffness of the composite tube hEIi using two
formulations.
Tube
#
Lay-up
a
1st
approach
b
2nd
approach
c
Difference
%
1 [90
20
/0
20
] 26,817 27,464 2.4
2 [(90
10
/0
10
)
3
/45
25
] 71,038 58,737 17.3
3 [90
10
/25
45
/90
5
/3 0
20
/90
5
/
45
20
]
222,853 169,607 23.9
4 [90
20
/25
20
/90
5
/3 0
25
/90
5
/
45
10
]
84,071 62,142 26.1
a
Fiber angle is dened with respect to axial direction of the tube (z-coordinate).
Lay-up starts from the inside of the tube.
b
Non-classical composite beam theory.
c
Moment of inertia approach.
Table 2
Material properties of carbon AS4/PEKK [1]
Material properties Value
0 Tension strength (MPa) 2411.6
0 Tension modulus (GPa) 138.3
90 Tension strength (MPa) 44
90 Tension modulus (GPa) 10.1
0 Compression strength (MPa) 1561
0 Compression modulus (GPa) 119.55
90 Compression strength (MPa) 237.2
90 Compression modulus (GPa) 11
Interlaminar shear strenght (MPa) 99.9
In-plane shear strenght (MPa) 175
In-plane shear modulus (GPa) 5.56
Poison ratio v12 and v13 0.31
Poison ratio v23 0.33
F
o
r
c
e


K
N
Strain %
Fig. 4. Applied load versus axial strain (at mid-length bottom) of tube 1.
F. Shadmehri et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 21732179 2177
6. Conclusion
Theoretical formulations for bending stiffness of composite
tubes, using non-classical composite beam theory and moment of
inertia approach have been presented. Comparison between two
theories have been made and it has been shown that non-classical
composite beam theory predicts the bending stiffness of composite
tubes more precisely than moment of inertia approach. This is due
to consideration of the more realistic model for composite tube in
non-classical composite beam theory than moment of inertia ap-
proach. For validation purposes, four composite tubes have been
manufactured and tested. The theoretical results obtained using
non-classical composite beam theory agree well with experimental
results. It was also shown that the moment of inertia approach
only works well for the case of cross-ply laminates but not well
when ber of other orientations are involved.
Acknowledgements
The nancial supports from the Natural Sciences and Engineer-
ing Research Council of Canada, Bell Textron Canada Ltd., Delastek
Ltd., and CRIAQ are appreciated. The fabrication of the tubes was
done at the Aerospace Manufacturing Center of the National Re-
search Council of Canada, which is appreciated.
Appendix A
The denition of k
ij
are as follows:
K
11
A
22

A
12
A
33
A
12
A
13
A
23

A

A
23
A
23
A
11
A
13
A
12

A
K
12
A
26

A
12
A
33
A
16
A
13
A
36

A

A
23
A
36
A
11
A
13
A
16

A
K
21
K
13
2K
12
A
C
b
K
14
B
22

A
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

A
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
K
41
K
22
A
66

A
16
A
33
A
16
A
13
A
36

A

A
36
A
11
A
36
A
13
A
16

A
K
23
2K
22
A
C
b
K
24
B
26

A
16
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

A
36
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
K
42
K
43
2K
24
A
C
b
K
44
D
22

B
12
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

B
23
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
K
51
B
26

B
16
A
33
A
12
A
13
A
23

A

B
36
A
11
A
23
A
13
A
12

A
K
52
B
66

B
16
A
33
A
16
A
13
A
36

A

B
36
A
11
A
36
A
13
A
16

A
K
53
2K
52
A
C
b
K
54
D
26

B
16
A
33
B
12
A
13
B
23

A

B
36
A
11
B
23
A
13
B
12

A
A
44
A
44

A
2
45
A
55
where
A A
11
A
33
A
2
13
A
ij
; B
ij
; D
ij

N
k1
_
n
k
n
k1
C
ij
1; n; n
2
dn
The denition of composite tube stiffness coefcients (a
ij
) in Eqs.
(20), (21) are as follows:
F
o
r
c
e


K
N
Strain %
Fig. 5. Applied load versus axial strain (at mid-length bottom) of tube 2.
F
o
r
c
e


K
N
Strain %
Fig. 6. Applied load versus axial strain (at mid-length bottom) of tube 3.
F
o
r
c
e


K
N
Strain %
Fig. 7. Applied load versus axial strain (at mid-length bottom) curve of tube 4.
2178 F. Shadmehri et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 21732179
a
11

_
K
11
ds 2pRK
11
a
17

_
K
13
ds 2pRK
13
a
22

_
x
2
K
11
2xK
14
dy
ds
K
44
dy
ds
dy
ds
_ _
ds pRK
11
R
2
2RK
14
K
44

a
25

_
xK
12
dy
ds
K
24
dy
ds
dy
ds
_ _
ds pRK
12
RK
24

a
33

_
y
2
K
11
2yK
14
dx
ds
K
44
dx
ds
dx
ds
_ _
ds pRK
11
R
2
2RK
14
K
44

a
34

_
yK
12
dx
ds
K
24
dx
ds
dx
ds
_ _
ds pRK
12
RK
24

a
44

_
K
22
dx
ds
dx
ds
A
44
dy
ds
dy
ds
_ _
ds pRA
44
K
22

a
55

_
K
22
dy
ds
dy
ds
A
44
dx
ds
dx
ds
_ _
ds pRA
44
K
22

a
66

_
K
11
F
2
w
2K
14
F
w
asK
44
as
2
_ _
ds 0
a
77

_
2
A
c
b
K
23
ds 2pR
2
K
23
For isotropic material, A
ij
,B
ij
and D
ij
are
A
11

EHm1
1m2m1
A
12

EHm
21m2m1
A
13

EHm
1m2m1
A
22
A
11
A
23
A
13
A
33
A
11
A
44

EH
21m
A
55
A
44
A
66
A
44
D
11
D
22

EH
3
m1
121m2m1
A
16
A
26
A
36
A
45
B
12
B
22
B
23
B
26
0
References
[1] Derisi B. Development of thermoplastic composite tubes for large deformation.
PhD thesis, Concordia University; 2008.
[2] Derisi B, Hoa SV, Xu D, Hojjati M, Fews R. Composite tube exhibiting large
deformation under bending. J Compos Mater 2010;44(16):200520.
[3] Derisi B, Hoa SV, Xu D, Hojjati M, Fews R. Development of carbon/PEKK
thermoplastic composite tubes for large deformation. J Thermoplast Compos
2011;24:2949.
[4] Hyer M. Stress analysis of ber-reinforced composite materials. Destech
Publications; 2009.
[5] Librescu L, Song O. Thin-walled composite beams theory and
application. Springer; 2006.
[6] Librescu L, Song O. Behavior of thin-walled beams made of advanced
composite materials and incorporating non-classical effects. Appl Mech Rev
1991;44(11):S17480. part 2.
[7] Song O. Modeling and response analysis of thin-walled beam structures
constructed of advanced composite materials. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University; 1990.
[8] Na S. Control of dynamic response of thin-walled composite beams using
structural tailoring and piezoelectric actuation. PhD thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University; 1997.
[9] Qin Z. Vibration and aeroelasticity of advanced aircraft wings modeled as thin-
walled beams dynamics, stability and control. PhD thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University; 2001.
[10] Shadmehri F, Haddadpour H, Kouchakzadeh MA. Flexuraltorsional behavior
of thin-walled composite beams with closed cross-section. Thin-Wall Struct
2007;45(78):699705.
[11] Qin Z, Librescu L. Dynamic aeroelastic response of aircraft wings modeled as
anisotropic thin-walled beams. J Aircraft 2003;40(3).
[12] Librescu L, Na SS. Dynamic response control of thin-walled beams to blast
pulses using structural tailoring and piezoelectric actuation. J Appl Mech
1998;65(2):497504.
[13] Song O, Librescu L. Free vibration of anisotropic composite thin-walled beams
of closed cross-section contour. J Sound Vib 1993;167(1):12947.
[14] Chandra R, Chopra I. Experimental-theoretical investigation of the vibration
characteristics of rotating composite beams. J Aircraft 1992;29(4).
[15] Reheld LW, Atilgan AR. Toward understanding the tailoring mechanisms for
thin-walled composite tubular beams. In: Proceedings of the rst USSR-USA
symposium on mechanics of composite materials; 1989. p. 18796.
[16] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells theory and
analysis. CRC Press LLC; 1977.
F. Shadmehri et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 21732179 2179