Bo Peng

School of Aeronautics and Astronautics,

Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907
e-mail: peng69@purdue.edu

Johnathan Goodsell
Generalized Free-Edge Stress
Research Assistant Professor
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Analysis Using Mechanics of
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907
e-mail: jgoodsell@purdue.edu
Structure Genome
This work reveals the potential of mechanics of structure genome (MSG) for the free-
R. Byron Pipes edge stress analysis of composite laminates. First, the cross-sectional analysis special-
Fellow ASME
ized from MSG is formulated for solving a generalized free-edge problem of composite
Professor
laminates. Then, MSG and the companion code SwiftCompTM are applied to the free-
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
edge stress analysis of several composite laminates with arbitrary layups and general
Purdue University,
loads including extension, torsion, in-plane and out-of-plane bending, and their combina-
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2045
tions. The results of MSG are compared with various existing solutions for symmetric
e-mail: bpipes@purdue.edu
angle-ply laminates. New results are presented for the free-edge stress fields in general
laminates for combined mechanical loads and compared with three-dimensional (3D)
Wenbin Yu1 finite element analysis (FEA) results, which agree very well. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4034389]
Fellow ASME
Associate Professor
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2045
e-mail: wenbinyu@purdue.edu

1 Introduction warping of the cross sections which depends only on y and z (axis
notation according to Fig. 1). Most of the analytical approaches
Increasing use of composite laminates in the last several deca-
and several numerical methods [5–7] lie in this class. Since a gen-
des has stimulated intensive research efforts in many new prob-
eralized plane deformation state [8] must be satisfied by applying
lems encountered in the engineering application. Among the
the Q3D model, many methods only work for special classes of
problems, free-edge effect has aroused a persistent attention. Free-
laminate layer-ups or load cases and thus are often restricted to
edge effect states that due to a mismatch in elastic properties of
some limited applications. Only a few studies have been devoted
adjoining layers, full-scale 3D and highly concentrated stress
to study the interlaminar stresses due to combined loads in general
fields occur in the interfaces between two dissimilar layers along
layups.
the free edges of thermally and/or mechanically loaded laminates.
Pipes and Pagano developed approximate elasticity solutions
The stress fields are usually localized within the boundary region
for symmetric and balanced angle-ply composite laminates sub-
and exhibit steep stress gradients with a rapid decaying behavior
jected to uniaxial extension in 1974 [1]. This approach was later
toward the inner laminate region. However, they can result in
extended to loading conditions of uniform temperature change
destructive premature failures in the laminates due to delamina-
and anticlastic bending by Pipes and co-workers [9–11]. Early
tion, transverse cracking, etc., as the interlaminar material
works of analytic approaches include perturbation technique by
strength properties are usually weak [1,2]. Thus, it is important to
Hsu and Herakovich [12], the boundary layer theory by Tang and
obtain accurate 3D stress fields near the free edge for the optimum
Levy [13], etc.
design and prevention of premature failure of composite
Displacement-based equivalent single-layer (ESL) theories are
laminates.
developed by Pagano [14], Becker [15,16], and Murty and Kumar
Although the free-edge effect is known in 1970s, no analytical
[17]. Tahani and Nosier [18,19] studied cross-ply laminates under
solutions satisfying the 3D elasticity governing equations along
extension and thermal loading using layerwise (LW) theories.
with all the free-edge boundary conditions and the interlaminar
Based on the reduced elasticity displacement field of a long lami-
continuity conditions are known due to the inherent complexities
nated composite plate, Nosier and Bahrami [20,21] studied inter-
involved in the problem. Detailed reviews on the methods pro-
laminar stresses in antisymmetric angle-ply laminates under
posed for determining the free-edge stress fields have been pre-
extension and torsion. Nosier and Maleki [22] used a layerwise
sented in Refs. [3,4].
theory and an improved first-order shear deformation theory
To simplify the original 3D free-edge problem, a considerable
(IFSDT) for analyzing free-edge stresses in general composite
number of approaches have been developed based on quasi-3D
laminates subjected to extension loads. Sarvestani and Sarvestani
(Q3D) models or reduced 2D plate models, while a few numerical
[23] later generalized the solution to obtain interlaminar stress in
methods attempted 3D solutions directly.
general composite laminated subjected to extension, torsion, and
Approaches relied on Q3D models concerned with a long rec-
bending moment.
tangular composite laminate. These approaches adopt a hypothesis
Employing stress-based LW theories, Kassapoglou and Lagace
of zero gradients along the axial coordinate x and retain an axial
[24] developed force-balance method using the principle of mini-
1
mum complementary energy to assess the free-edge stress fields
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the
in symmetric laminated plates under uniaxial extension. A large
JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received July 23, 2016; final manuscript amount of development devoted to free-edge stresses analysis
received July 30, 2016; published online August 22, 2016. Editor: Yonggang Huang. have been formulated based on this procedure, of which Lin et al.

Journal of Applied Mechanics Copyright V

C 2016 by ASME OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 83 / 101013-1

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 The laminate geometry and coordinate system
[25] introduced bending and torsion into force-balance method for
general laminates. Yin [26,27] implemented Lekhnitskii’s stress
functions [8] investigated laminates with arbitrary layups under
uniaxial extension, bending, and torsion. Kim and Atluri [28,29]
also investigated interlaminar response for cross-ply and angle-
ply laminates under uniform thermal loading and mechanical
loads. Cho and Kim [30] used an iterative method applied to ana-
lyze free-edge interlaminar stresses of composite laminates which
are subject to extension, bending, twisting, and thermal loads. The
stresses, which satisfy the traction-free conditions not only at the
free edges but also at the top and bottom surfaces of laminates,
are obtained by using the complementary virtual work and the
extended Kantorovich method.
Tahani and Andakhshideh [31,32] developed an analytical
method based on a three-dimensional multiterm extended Kantor-
ovich method to calculate interlaminar stresses in thick rectangu-
lar composite laminated plates with arbitrary laminations and
general boundary conditions subjected to lateral loads. In 2016,
Dhanesh et al. [33] developed mixed-field multiterm extended
Kantorovich method to solve free-edge problem for symmetrical
and antisymmetrical laminates subjected to uniform extension,
bending, twisting, and thermal loading, which can satisfy all the
boundary conditions and the interfacial continuity conditions
exactly at all points.
Finite element method (FEM) is usually implemented in 2D
plate models to solve free-edge problem of laminates. The 2D
plate models include displacement-based ESL theories,
displacement-based LW theories, stress-based ESL theories, and
stress-based LW theories, which are reviewed by Carrera [34].
Using 2D theories to study the free-edge effects does not exert
restriction on the laminate layups and loads applied. However, in
2D plate theories, the through-thickness distributions of the dis-
placement or stress are assumed a priori, the boundary conditions
at the free edge are generally satisfied in an integral sense, which
can have adverse effects on the accuracy of the solution. D’Otta-
vio and his colleges [35,36] assessed various plate theories in Car-
rera’s unified formulation for free-edge problems and found that
only high-order LW models (fourth order in their study), either
displacement-based or stress-based, can provide results compare
well with full 3D finite element analysis (FEA). It is known that
high-order LW models require long computing time similar as 3D
FEA. Recently, Vidal et al. [37] developed a method which solves
the free-edge problem by an iterative process consisting of solving
a 2D plate problem and a 1D problem in the thickness direction
successively at each iteration. In the thickness direction, a fourth-
order expansion in each layer is considered.
The numerical methods directly solving the 3D free-edge prob-
lem usually focused on generation of new and efficient meshing
approaches [38], developing special purpose element for dealing
with the singular stress field [39,40]. A multiparticle finite element
is utilized by Nguyen and Caron [40] which is applied for general
laminates and is shown to be capable of simultaneously predicting
global and local responses.
In this paper, it is intended to provide a solution for the free-
edge problem of general composite laminates subjected to com-
bined mechanical loads using the recently discovered mechanics
101013-2 / Vol. 83, OCTOBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
of structure genome (MSG) [41,42]. MSG provides a unified
approach to link the original heterogeneous structures with micro-
scopic details and the hypothetical homogeneous continuum used
in the macroscopic structural analysis. For the free-edge problem
of a long laminate, this approach mathematically splits the origi-
nal 3D problem into a 2D cross-sectional analysis and a one-
dimensional (1D) beam analysis. First, MSG will carry out a
homogenization process to get the effective beam stiffness which
can be used in the 1D beam analysis to solve for the beam strains
(extension, twist, and bending in two directions) along the x direc-
tion. Then, the beam strains at any specific position along x can be
used for MSG to carry out a dehomogenization process to predict
the 3D stress, strain, and displacement fields. In this method, the
only assumption applied is that the laminate is long enough so
that the Saint-Venant principle can be adopted. In contrast to the
Q3D model, the deformation state is not necessarily to be x-
independent. In addition, there is no restriction on the geometry of
the analyzed cross section, which can be rectangular or more com-
plex shapes.
In this study, we first demonstrated that the cross-sectional
analysis specialized from MSG can be used to solve the free-edge
problem. Next, we will use SwiftCompTM, a general-purpose code
for constitutive modeling of composites implementing MSG to
analyze several commonly studied free-edge problems in the liter-
ature for comparison purpose. A general laminate subjected to a
combined load of forces and moments in three directions is also
studied and compared with 3D FEA results.
2 MSG-Based Free-Edge Stress Analysis
Although MSG can be used to analyze the free-edge problem of
initially twisted and curved laminates, here we only focus on
straight laminates for illustrative purpose. Consider a general lam-
inate of length L, width 2b, thickness h, and made of n layers of
lamina of thickness h0. The laminate is loaded at x ¼ 0 and x ¼ L.
An example is shown in Fig. 1. The laminate is clamped at x ¼ 0
and subjected to extension force N, shear forces Fy, Fz, bending
moments Mx, Mz, and torque Mxy at x ¼ L, of which the positive
directions of the forces and moments are shown in Fig. 1. Without
loss of generality, we choose the origin of orthonormal coordinate
system O–xyz in the y–z plane to be the geometry center of the
cross section of the laminate. On both the free edges and the top
and bottom surfaces of the laminate traction-free conditions exist.
The laminate is sufficiently long along the x direction so that in
the region away from the two ends the boundary effect can be
neglected by virtue of the Saint-Venant principle. Nevertheless,
the stress and strain fields are not necessarily independent of x due
to the loads applied. According to MSG, the cross section can be
considered as the structure genome because one can use the cross
section as the fundamental building block to build the laminate
along the x axis and the corresponding macroscopic structural
model is a 1D structural model along the x axis, usually called a
beam model. According to MSG, we need to first express the dis-
placements of the original 3D elasticity theory in terms of the dis-
placements of the 1D beam model as
Transactions of the ASME
 uðx; y; zÞ ¼ uðxÞ  zw ;x ðxÞ  yv ;x ðxÞ þ Uðx; y; zÞ
vðx; y; zÞ ¼ vðxÞ  z/ðxÞ þ Vðx; y; zÞ (1)
wðx; y; zÞ ¼ wðxÞ þ y/ðxÞ þ Wðx; y; zÞ

where uðx; y; zÞ; vðx; y; zÞ, and wðx; y; zÞ denote the displacements
of the 3D elasticity theory, uðxÞ; vðxÞ; wðxÞ represent the beam
displacements which are area average of the 3D displacements
over the cross section, and /ðxÞ describes the average twist of the
cross section such that

/ ¼ hw;y  v;z i (2)

where h•i represents area integration over the cross section.

Uðx; y; zÞ; Vðx; y; zÞ; Wðx; y; zÞ are the warping functions to express
the displacements which cannot be represented by the 1D kine-
matic variables (u; v; w, and /).
From Eq. (1), we can obtain the strains as

ex ðx; y; zÞ ¼ e þ zj2  yj3 þ U;x ðx; y; zÞ

ey ðx; y; zÞ ¼ V;y ðx; y; zÞ
ez ðx; y; zÞ ¼ W;z ðx; y; zÞ
(3)
cxy ðx; y; zÞ ¼ zj1 þ U;y ðx; y; zÞ þ V;x ðx; y; zÞ
cxz ðx; y; zÞ ¼ yj1 þ U;z ðx; y; zÞ þ W;x ðx; y; zÞ
cyz ðx; y; zÞ ¼ V;z ðx; y; zÞ þ W;y ðx; y; zÞ

with e ¼ u ;x ðxÞ; j1 ¼ / ;x ðxÞ; j2 ¼ w ;xx ðxÞ; and j3 ¼ v ;xx ðxÞ.

The elastostatic behavior of the laminate is governed by the fol-
lowing variational statement:

dP ¼ dW (4)

where d is the usual Lagrange variation, P is the strain energy in

laminate, and dW is the virtual work of applied loads. For linear
elastic materials, the strain energy P can be written as
Fig. 2 Comparison of interlaminar shear stress distribution for
ðL the ½45=245s laminate under tension
1
P¼ heT Deidx (5)
2 0

2D cross-sectional analysis defined in Eq. (7) and a 1D analysis of

where e ¼ ½ex ey ez cyz cxz cxy T containing six components of the
strain tensor, and D is the stiffness matrix of the materials in the
global coordinate system. The virtual work done by the applied
loads can be calculated as
ð (1) Perform a homogenization analysis over the 2D cross sec-
dW ¼ pduds (6)
s sis will be obtained, along with the dehomogenization
where s denotes the boundary surfaces of the laminate, and p is
the traction vector applied at s. Since the displacement vector u ¼
½u; v; wT at s can also be expressed in terms of u; v; w and warping
functions U, V, W. Note, here we neglect the effects of the body
force, which can be simply added if their effects on the free-edge
stress phenomena are not negligible.
According to MSG [42], it can be shown that the contribution
of the derivative terms U;x ; V;x ; W;x in Eq. (3) and dW to the varia-
tional statement in Eq. (4) can be neglected. Thus, the warping
functions are governed by the following variational statement
instead:
 
1 T 1
dE ¼ d he Dei ¼ dheT ri ¼ 0 (7)
2 2
where r ¼ ½rx ry rz syz sxz sxy T containing six components of
the stress tensor. Therefore, the original 3D problem is spilt into a
the reference line, which is the basic beam analysis and can be
solved analytically or numerically. To solve the generalized free-
edge problem using MSG, the following three steps are required:
tion, from which constitutive relations for the beam analy-
relations expressing the warping functions U, V, W in terms
of the beam strains (e, j1, j2, and j3).
(2) Solve the 1D beam problem subjected to the generalized
loads applied at the two ends to obtain beam strains.
(3) Perform a dehomogenization analysis to obtain 3D dis-
placements, stresses, and strains at the cross section of
interest with the beam strains obtained in step 2 as the
inputs.
Both homogenization (step 1) and dehomogenization (step 3)
have been implemented in a general-purpose multiscale constitu-
tive modeling code called SwiftCompTM, which will be used to
study a few examples to demonstrate the general solution pro-
vided by MSG for the free-edge stress problems.
3 Numerical Examples
In this section, the first two examples are used to assess the per-
formance of the present approach by comparison to some of the

Journal of Applied Mechanics OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 83 / 101013-3

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 3 A typical mesh pattern (mesh 2) of the 2D cross section
of the laminate

Table 1 Computation time using different mesh configurations

Mesh Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 4

bmin 0.16 0.08 0.02 0.02

hmin 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03
Node number 735 2059 4387 13,013
Element number 680 1960 4240 4240
Computation time(s) 0.93 2.43 5.53 12.90
Fig. 6 Interlaminar shear stress at y 5 b of ½45=245s laminate
under anticlastic bending

Fig. 4 Convergence study of the interlaminar shear stress dis-

tribution along z 5 h0 of the ½45=245s laminate under tension Fig. 7 Axial displacement term U at y 5 b of ½45=245s laminate
under anticlastic bending

Fig. 5 In-plane shear stress and interlaminar shear stress Fig. 8 Convergence of interlaminar normal stress distribution
approaching the free edge of the ½45=245s laminate under anti- of the ½30=60=245=45 laminate under combined loads: exten-
clastic bending sion, bending, and twisting

101013-4 / Vol. 83, OCTOBER 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 9 Distribution of the interlaminar stresses along the width
of the ½30=60=245=45 laminate under combined loads: exten-
sion, bending, and twisting
established reference results both analytically and numerically.
The last example is a laminate with a general layup subject to a
combined loading which cannot be easily handled by most exist-
ing approaches in the literature. Thus, the results of the last exam-
ple are compared with 3D FEA instead.
Journal of Applied Mechanics
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 10 Distribution of the interlaminar stress at the free edge
of the ½30=60=245=45 laminate under combined loads: exten-
sion, bending, and twisting
3.1 Extension of a [45/245]s Laminate. First, a symmetrical
½45=  45s laminate under a uniform axial strain of e ¼ 0.01
is considered, of which the aspect ratio b=h0 ¼ 8 and the
assumed layer material properties are: E11 ¼ 137.895 GPa,
E22 ¼ E33 ¼ 14.479 GPa, G12 ¼ G13 ¼ G23 ¼ 5.861 GPa, and
 12 ¼  13 ¼  23 ¼ 0.21. This example is from the work of Pipes
and Pagano who solved the problem employing both approximate
analytic solutions [1] and finite difference formulation [5], which
was also used by many other researchers [33,43] for comparison
and validation. The interlaminar shear stress sxz is presented and
compared with these published results in Fig. 2 along the free
edge and the interface. It is shown that the result of current
method agrees most closely with the result of Dhanesh et al. [33].
Convergence study is also carried out to show the efficiency and
the effectiveness of MSG. With the pattern of the mesh shown in
Fig. 3, four meshes of different configurations listed in Table 1
are used to carry out the convergence study, where bmin and hmin
denote the minimum element size along y and z directions, respec-
tively. The computation time in Table 1 is the total running time
of the homogenization and the dehomogenization process using a
quad core central processing unit (CPU) with a clock speed of
2.62 GHz and 256 GB RAM. Figure 4 shows the convergence of
the interlaminar shear stress sxz along the interface. It can be
observed that stresses converge consistently with the increasing of
the mesh density, and despise the mesh employed, the singularity
of the stress is captured properly.
OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 83 / 101013-5
 3.2 Anticlastic Bending of a [45/245]s Laminate. A
½45=  45s laminate under anticlastic bending example from Ref.
[10] is analyzed. Under anticlastic bending, the transverse curva-
ture arises solely from the Poisson’s effect, and the Poisson-
induced transverse curvature jy can be shown to be a function of
the primary curvature jx ðjx ¼ j2 in Ref. [10]). The layer material
properties are E11 ¼ 174.6 GPa, E22 ¼ E33 ¼ 7.929 GPa,
G12 ¼ G13 ¼ G23 ¼ 4.482 GPa,  12 ¼  13 ¼ 0.34, and  23 ¼ 0.45.
The dimensions of the laminate are b ¼ 12.7 mm, h0 ¼ 0.127 mm,
and length L ¼ 152.4 mm, with b=h0 ¼ 100. The applied primary
curvature jx ¼ 1 in this example. In Figs. 5–7, the stress distribu-
tions and displacement warping term U(y, z) using MSG are com-
pared with the analytical solutions and FEA results of Ref. [10].
Two meshes, mesh 1 and mesh 2, are studied by MSG, which con-
tain 20,400 four-node quadrilateral elements and eight-node quad-
rilateral elements, respectively, with the same configuration. In
the 3D FEA, a global–local submodeling approach is used. The
submodel is of dimension b  b  4h0 and contains 544,000
eight-node solid brick elements. More details of the 3D FEA
mesh can be found in Ref. [10]. It is shown that the results of
MSG model with mesh 1 and 3D FEA have very good correspon-
dence, of which linear elements are used in both models. With
quadratic elements in mesh 2, MSG model predicts more acute
interlaminar stress at the free-edge and interface closing to the ana-
lytical solution. There is small discrepancy between the analytical
solution and the numerical solutions, which is probably due to the
assumptions made in the analytical approach: D45 ¼ ry ¼ rz ¼ 0.
3.3 [30/60/245/45] Laminate Under a Combined Load. In
this section, a general laminate ½30=60=  45=45 subjected to a
combined load is considered and compared with result from 3D
FEA. The cross-sectional geometry and the layer material proper-
ties in this case are the same as the first example. The laminate
has a total thickness of h ¼ 4 mm and length L ¼ 160 mm. The
laminated is clamped at x ¼ 0 and subjected to a combined load
applied at x ¼ L consisting of N ¼ 100 N, Fz ¼ 1 N, and Mxy ¼
Mx ¼ 0:1 N  m. Two different meshes, mesh 1 and mesh 2, are
used to study the convergence speed of the present method. Mesh
1 uses 1960 four-node quadrilateral elements, and method 2 uses
8400 four-node quadrilateral elements to discretize the cross sec-
tion. To avoid the lengthy computing time of 3D FEA, a
global–local modeling approach is used, in which mesh 1 is used
for the cross section of global modeling. The submodel is centered
at x ¼ 80 mm and had a dimension of 2b  b  h with mesh 2
used in the cross section. The global 3D model contains 1,046,640
C3D8R elements, and the submodel contains 672,000 C3D8R ele-
ments in ABAQUS. The distribution of the interlaminar stresses
along the width and through the thickness is compared at location
x ¼ 80 mm in Figs. 8–10, respectively. The results using mesh 2
are presented in Figs. 9 and 10. It can be seen that the results
obtained by MSG are in close agreement with those obtained by
3D FEA. Figure 8 also shows that with the same mesh configura-
tion, MSG predicts more acute interlaminar stress at the free edge
compared with 3D FEA, which means MSG can achieve a faster
convergence compared with 3D FEA. It is noteworthy that the
integral of rz at each interface vanishes which satisfies the self
equilibrium condition of the transverse normal stress.
4 Conclusions
The present work demonstrated that the MSG cross-sectional
analysis can be used to solve general free-edge stress problems of
composite laminates. MSG can handle long laminates with arbi-
trary layups subjected to combined mechanical loads including
extension, shear forces, bending moments, and torque, and it does
not require the laminate subjected to constant loads along the x
direction as what has been usually assumed in existing approaches
based on Q3D models. Compared with approaches based on 2D
plate models, in the formulation of MSG no ad hoc assumptions
on displacement or stress are used. In addition, there is no
101013-6 / Vol. 83, OCTOBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
restriction on the geometry of the cross section of the laminate.
MSG has been implemented in SwiftCompTM, which provides a
general-purpose tool for multiscale constitutive modeling of com-
posites. As demonstrated in this paper, SwiftCompTM provides an
effective tool for general free-edge stress analysis for composite
laminates which can achieve the accuracy of the much more
expensive 3D FEA at the efficiency of simple 2D cross-sectional
analyses. SwiftCompTM can be freely accessed in the cloud.2
Acknowledgment
This research was supported, in part, by the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research and by the Institute of Advanced Composites
Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI). The views and conclusions
contained herein are those of the author and should not be inter-
preted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorse-
ment, either expressed or implied, of the sponsors.
References
[1] Pipes, R. B., and Pagano, N., 1974, “Interlaminar Stresses in Composite
Laminates—An Approximate Elasticity Solution,” ASME J. Appl. Mech.,
41(3), pp. 668–672.
[2] Chan, W., and Ochoa, O., 1987, “An Integrated Finite Element Model of Edge-
Delamination Analysis for Laminates due to Tension, Bending, and Torsion
Loads,” 28th AIAA/ASME/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Material
Conference, Monterey, CA, Apr. 6–8, AIAA Paper No. 1987-0704.
[3] Mittelstedt, C., and Becker, W., 2007, “Free-Edge Effects in Composite Lami-
nates,” ASME Appl. Mech. Rev., 60(5), pp. 217–245.
[4] Kant, T., and Swaminathan, K., 2000, “Estimation of Transverse/Interlaminar
Stresses in Laminated Composites—A Selective Review and Survey of Current
Developments,” Compos. Struct., 49(1), pp. 65–75.
[5] Pipes, R. B., and Pagano, N., 1970, “Interlaminar Stresses in Composite Lami-
nates Under Uniform Axial Extension,” J. Compos. Mater., 4(4), pp. 538–548.
[6] Wang, A., and Crossman, F. W., 1977, “Some New Results on Edge Effect in
Symmetric Composite Laminates,” J. Compos. Mater., 11(1), pp. 92–106.
[7] Wang, S., and Yuan, F.-G., 1983, “A Singular Hybrid Finite Element Analysis
of Boundary-Layer Stresses in Composite Laminates,” Int. J. Solids Struct.,
19(9), pp. 825–837.
[8] Leknitskii, S. G., and Fern, P., 1963, Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic
Elastic Body, Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA.
[9] Pipes, R. B., Goodsell, J., Ritchey, A., Dustin, J., and Gosse, J., 2010,
“Interlaminar Stresses in Composite Laminates: Thermoelastic Deformation,”
Compos. Sci. Technol., 70(11), pp. 1605–1611.
[10] Goodsell, J., Pagano, N. J., Kravchenko, O., and Pipes, R. B., 2013,
“Interlaminar Stresses in Composite Laminates Subjected to Anticlastic Bend-
ing Deformation,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 80(4), p. 041020.
[11] Goodsell, J., and Pipes, R. B., 2016, “Free-Edge Interlaminar Stresses in Angle-
Ply Laminates: A Family of Analytic Solutions,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 83(5),
p. 051010.
[12] Hsu, P. W., and Herakovich, C. T., 1977, “Edge Effects in Angle-Ply Compos-
ite Laminates,” J. Compos. Mater., 11(4), pp. 422–428.
[13] Tang, S., and Levy, A., 1975, “A Boundary Layer Theory—Part II: Extension
of Laminated Finite Strip,” J. Compos. Mater., 9(1), pp. 42–52.
[14] Pagano, N., 1974, “On the Calculation of Interlaminar Normal Stress in Com-
posite Laminate,” J. Compos. Mater., 8(1), pp. 65–81.
[15] Becker, W., 1993, “Closed-Form Solution for the Free-Edge Effect in Cross-
Ply Laminates,” Compos. Struct., 26(1), pp. 39–45.
[16] Becker, W., 1994, “Closed-Form Analysis of the Free Edge Effect in Angle-Ply
Laminates,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 61(1), pp. 209–211.
[17] Murty, A. K., and Kumar, H. H., 1989, “Modelling of Symmetric Laminates
Under Extension,” Compos. Struct., 11(1), pp. 15–32.
[18] Tahani, M., and Nosier, A., 2003, “Edge Effects of Uniformly Loaded Cross-
Ply Composite Laminates,” Mater. Des., 24(8), pp. 647–658.
[19] Tahani, M., and Nosier, A., 2003, “Free Edge Stress Analysis of General Cross-
Ply Composite Laminates Under Extension and Thermal Loading,” Compos.
Struct., 60(1), pp. 91–103.
[20] Nosier, A., and Bahrami, A., 2006, “Free-Edge Stresses in Antisymmetric
Angle-Ply Laminates in Extension and Torsion,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 43(22),
pp. 6800–6816.
[21] Nosier, A., and Bahrami, A., 2007, “Interlaminar Stresses in Antisymmetric
Angle-Ply Laminates,” Compos. Struct., 78(1), pp. 18–33.
[22] Nosier, A., and Maleki, M., 2008, “Free-Edge Stresses in General Composite
Laminates,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 50(10), pp. 1435–1447.
[23] Sarvestani, H. Y., and Sarvestani, M. Y., 2012, “Free-Edge Stress Analysis of
General Composite Laminates Under Extension, Torsion and Bending,” Appl.
Math. Modell., 36(4), pp. 1570–1588.
2
https://cdmhub.org/resources/scstandard
Transactions of the ASME
 [24] Kassapoglou, C., and Lagace, P., 1986, “An Efficient Method for the Calcula-
tion of Interlaminar Stresses in Composite Materials,” ASME J. Appl. Mech.,
53(4), pp. 744–750.
[25] Lin, C.-C., Hsu, C.-Y., and Ko, C.-C., 1995, “Interlaminar Stresses in General
Laminates With Straight Free Edges,” AIAA J., 33(8), pp. 1471–1476.
[26] Yin, W.-L., 1994, “Free-Edge Effects in Anisotropic Laminates Under Exten-
sion, Bending and Twisting, Part I: A Stress-Function-Based Variational
Approach,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 61(2), pp. 410–415.
[27] Yin, W.-L., 1994, “Free-Edge Effects in Anisotropic Laminates Under Exten-
sion, Bending, and Twisting, Part II: Eigenfunction Analysis and the Results for
Symmetric Laminates,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 61(2), pp. 416–421.
[28] Kim, T., and Atluri, S. N., 1994, “Interlaminar Stresses in Composite Laminates
Under Out-of-Plane Shear/Bending,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1700–1708.
[29] Kim, T., and Atluri, S., 1995, “Analysis of Edge Stresses in Composite Lami-
nates Under Combined Thermo-Mechanical Loading, Using a Complementary
Energy Approach,” Comput. Mech., 16(2), pp. 83–97.
[30] Cho, M., and Kim, H. S., 2000, “Iterative Free-Edge Stress Analysis of Com-
posite Laminates Under Extension, Bending, Twisting and Thermal Loadings,”
Int. J. Solids Struct., 37(3), pp. 435–459.
[31] Tahani, M., and Andakhshideh, A., 2012, “Interlaminar Stresses in Thick Rec-
tangular Laminated Plates With Arbitrary Laminations and Boundary Condi-
tions Under Transverse Loads,” Compos. Struct., 94(5), pp. 1793–1804.
[32] Andakhshideh, A., and Tahani, M., 2013, “Free-Edge Stress Analysis of Gen-
eral Rectangular Composite Laminates Under Bending, Torsion and Thermal
Loads,” Eur. J. Mech. - A/Solids, 42, pp. 229–240.
[33] Dhanesh, N., Kapuria, S., and Achary, G., 2016, “Accurate Prediction of Three-
Dimensional Free Edge Stress Field in Composite Laminates Using Mixed-
Field Multiterm Extended Kantorovich Method,” Acta Mech., epub.
Journal of Applied Mechanics
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[34] Carrera, E., 2002, “Theories and Finite Elements for Multilayered, Anisotropic,
Composite Plates and Shells,” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., 9(2), pp. 87–140.
[35] D’Ottavio, M., Vidal, P., Valot, E., and Polit, O., 2013, “Assessment of Plate
Theories for Free-Edge Effects,” Composites, Part B, 48, pp. 111–121.
[36] Wenzel, C., D’Ottavio, M., Polit, O., and Vidal, P., 2015, “Assessment of Free-
Edge Singularities in Composite Laminates Using Higher-Order Plate Ele-
ments,” Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct., 23, pp. 1–44.
[37] Vidal, P., Gallimard, L., and Polit, O., 2015, “Assessment of Variable Separa-
tion for Finite Element Modeling of Free Edge Effect for Composite Plates,”
Compos. Struct., 123, pp. 19–29.
[38] Esquej, R., Castejon, L., Lizaranzu, M., Carrera, M., Miravete, A., and Mir-
albes, R., 2013, “A New Finite Element Approach Applied to the Free Edge
Effect on Composite Materials,” Compos. Struct., 98, pp. 121–129.
[39] Icardi, U., and Bertetto, A. M., 1995, “An Evaluation of the Influence of Geom-
etry and of Material Properties at Free Edges and at Corners of Composite Lam-
inates,” Comput. Struct., 57(4), pp. 555–571.
[40] Nguyen, V.-T., and Caron, J.-F., 2009, “Finite Element Analysis of Free-Edge
Stresses in Composite Laminates Under Mechanical and Thermal Loading,”
Compos. Sci. Technol., 69(1), pp. 40–49.
[41] Yu, W., 2015, “Structure Genome: Fill the Gap Between Materials Genome
and Structural Analysis,” 56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Kissimmee, FL, Jan. 5–9, AIAA Paper
No. 2015-0201.
[42] Yu, W., 2016, “A Unified Theory for Constitutive Modeling of Composites,” J.
Mech. Mater. Struct., 11(4), pp. 379–411.
[43] Mittelstedt, C., and Becker, W., 2007, “The Pipes–Pagano-Problem Revisited:
Elastic Fields in Boundary Layers of Plane Laminated Specimens Under Com-
bined Thermomechanical Load,” Compos. Struct., 80(3), pp. 373–395.
OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 83 / 101013-7