J. Adhesion Sci. Technol., Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.

437 452 (2000)

VSP 2000.

Comparison of the stress transfer in single- and multi- ber

composite pull-out tests
SHAO-YUN FU 1; and BERND LAUKE 2
1 Advanced Materials Research Center, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue,

Singapore 639798, Republic of Singapore

2 Institute for Polymer Research Dresden e.V., Hohe Strasse 6, 01069 Dresden, Germany

Received in nal form 26 March 1999

AbstractAnalyses of the elastic stress transfer taking place across the ber matrix interface are
presented for single- and multi- ber composite pull-out tests. The multi- ber composite is treated as
a three-cylinder assemblage consisting of a central ber, a matrix annulus, and a composite medium.
The forms of the ber axial stress and the interface shear stress distributions along the embedded ber
length are determined for single- and multi- ber composite pull-out tests and their dependences on
the ber volume fraction, the dimensions of the specimen, the ber-to-matrix modulus ratio, and the
embedded ber aspect ratio are displayed. The stress transfer for a perfectly bonded interface for the
two pull-out tests is compared and the difference is clearly shown. In addition, for the single- ber
composite pull-out test, the present theory is compared with some existing theories.
Keywords: Stress transfer; ber pull-out test; single- ber composite model; multi- ber composite
model; ber axial stress; interface shear stress.

1. INTRODUCTION

The incorporation of short bers into brittle matrices can improve their mechanical
properties, due to the bridging of crack surfaces by strong intact bers in a zone
behind the crack tip [1 4]. During the loading of composites, bers that bridge
crack surfaces are pulled out from the matrix. Stress transfer takes place across
the ber matrix interface during ber pull-out in the neighborhood of the crack.
The mechanical properties of the composites depend critically on the ef ciency
of the stress transfer during the ber pull-out process. On the other hand, it is
well recognized that the mechanical behavior of many composite materials depends
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Professor Dr. Hans-Jrg Jacobasch, the Ex-director of
the Institute for Polymer Research Dresden, Germany.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: assyfu@ntu.edu.sg

438

S.-Y. Fu and B. Lauke

largely on the properties of the ber matrix interface. The ber pull-out test has
been well accepted as one of the most important test methods developed as a means
of evaluating the bond quality at the ber matrix interface and for evaluating the
ability of stress transfer between the ber and the matrix. From the ber pull-out
test, information can be acquired about the in uence of the ber matrix interface
in short- ber-reinforced elastic- or brittle-matrix composite materials (e.g. shortglass- ber-reinforced epoxy composite, etc.) on their mechanical properties [5 7].
Therefore, research work on ber pull-out from a matrix is of great importance.
At present, a large body of research work exists on single- ber composite pullout [8 15]. However, real composites are generally multi- ber ones and the pullout ber is surrounded by a composite medium. But for the single- ber composite
pull-out test the in uence of the composite medium surrounding the pull-out ber
has been ignored. Due to the in uence of the composite medium, the stress transfer
for a multi- ber composite pull-out test would be very different from that for
a single- ber composite pull-out test. Therefore, research work on multi- ber
composite pull-out is essential especially for understanding the stress transfer in
real composites. Unfortunately, little work has been done on multi- ber composite
pull-out [16, 17].
In the present paper, the ber axial stress and the ber matrix interface shear
stress are derived as functions of the ber axial position using the shear-lag approach
for both the single- and the multi- ber composite pull-out tests. A perfectly bonded
ber matrix interface is considered. Analyses of the stress transfer are presented
for both the single- and the multi- ber composite pull-out tests. The difference in
stress transfer is clearly shown between the single- and multi- ber composite pullout tests. The effects of ber volume fraction, specimen dimension, ber-to-matrix
modulus ratio, and embedded ber aspect ratio on the stress transfer are studied in
detail.

2. THEORY

2.1. The single- ber composite pull-out model

Consider a single ber with radius a embedded in a coaxial matrix cylinder of outer
radius b and length L. The ber and the matrix are assumed to be perfectly elastic
and isotropic. Let the x direction be parallel to the ber axis, and the embedded and
loaded ends of the ber be located at x D 0 and x D L, respectively (see Fig. 1a).
The ber volume fraction is Vf D a 2 =b2 . The applied stress p is assumed to be
parallel to the ber axis. Under the action of the external stress p , the specimen
displaces elastically. The solution of equation (A14) (see Appendix A) gives the
ber axial stress as
F .x/ D

A13
p C C11 sinh.x/ C C12 cosh.x/;
A12

(1)

Comparison of the stress transfer in single- and multi- ber composite pull-out tests

439

Figure 1. Schematic illustrations of (a) the single- ber composite pull-out test and (b) the threecylinder multi- ber composite pull-out test.

where A12 and A13 are given in Appendix A. is given by 2 D A12 ; it is a function
of the elastic properties and the geometric factors of the composite constituents. For
the boundary conditions, i.e. F .0/ D 0 and F .L/ D p , we obtain

C11 D p 1 A13 =A12 C A13 cosh.L/=A12 = sinh.L/

(2)
A13
C12 D
p :
(3)
A12
From equation (A12) we deduce the interface shear stress F .x/ as

a
F .x/ D C11 cosh.x/ C C12 sinh.x/ :
2

(4)

2.2. The multi- ber composite pull-out model

To analyze the stress transfer in the multi- ber composite pull-out test, the specimen
is treated as a three-cylinder composite where a ber is located at the center of
a coaxial shell of the matrix which, in turn, is surrounded by a trans-isotropic
composite medium with an outer radius c, as shown in Fig. 1b. The matrix has a
radius b and the ber has a radius a. The ber volume fraction is Vf D a 2 =b2 . When
an external stress (p ) is applied on the ber, stress transfers from the ber to the
matrix and, in turn, to the composite medium via the interface shear stresses, F .x/
and m .b; x/. The ber axial stress can be obtained by solving equation (B36) (see
Appendix B) as
F .x/ D a 2 p =B15 C C21 sinh.x/ C C22 cosh.x/;

(5)

440

S.-Y. Fu and B. Lauke

where the coef cient is a function of the elastic properties and the geometric
factors of the composite constituents and is given by
q

1
2
2 D
B 22 C B22
4B23 ;
(6)
2
where B22 and B23 are given in Appendix B. C21 and C22 are determined by the
boundary conditions F .0/ D 0 and F .L/ D p :

C21 D p 1 a 2 =B15 C a 2 cosh.L/=B15 = sinh.L/

(7)
C22 D a 2 p =B15 :

From equation (B22), the ber matrix interface shear stress is given by

a
F .x/ D C21 cosh.x/ C C22 sinh.x/ :
2

(8)

(9)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The following values of the parameters, unless noted otherwise, are used throughout
the paper: a D 10 m, b D 20 000 m for the single- ber composite pull-out
model and 20 m for the multi- ber composite pull-out model, c D 20 000 m,
L D 100 m, Ef =Em D 40; f D 0:25 and m D 0:35.
Figure 2 shows that the ber axial stress for the single- ber pull-out test is higher
than that for the multi- ber composite pull-out test. For the multi- ber model, as
the value of b increases, namely the ber volume fraction .Vf D a 2 =b 2 ) decreases,
the normalized ber axial stress increases and gradually approaches that for the

Figure 2. Reduction of the multi- ber composite pull-out model .a D 10 m, c D 20 000 m

and various b values) to the single- ber pull-out model .a D 10 m and b D 20 000 m) as the
ber volume fraction .V f D a 2 =b 2 ) decreases, namely Vf D 0:25; 0:0625; 0:0156; : : : . (- - - - - -)
Single- ber pull-out model; () multi- ber composite pull-out model.

Comparison of the stress transfer in single- and multi- ber composite pull-out tests

441

Figure 3. (a) Fiber axial stress and (b) interface shear stress distributions along the embedded ber
length for various ber volume fractions, namely Vf D 0:01; 0:25, and 0.444 (dashed and solid lines
as in Fig. 2).

single- ber model. Eventually, when b=a D 2000 (namely V f D 2:5 107 ), the
multi- ber model reduces to the single- ber one.
The normalized ber axial stress and the normalized interface shear stress as
functions of the ber axial distance are shown in Fig. 3 for various values of Vf .
Figure 3a shows that as Vf increases, the ber axial stress increases for the single ber composite model, while for the multi- ber composite model it decreases over
the whole embedded ber length. This results in completely different trends for the
interface shear stress distributions between the two composite models (Fig. 3b). The
multi- ber composite model predicts that the interface shear stress has the minimum
value at the embedded ber end .x D 0) and has the maximum value at the loaded

442

S.-Y. Fu and B. Lauke

Figure 4. (a) Fiber axial stress and (b) interface shear stress distributions along the embedded ber
length for various specimen dimension-to- ber radius ratios (where b D 20 m for the multi- ber
composite pull-out model), namely 20, 200, and 2000 (dashed and solid lines as in Fig. 2).

ber end .x D L/. Furthermore, the maximum shear stress increases with the
increase of ber volume fraction. The single- ber composite model predicts that for
a relatively large Vf (e.g. 0.25 or 0.444), the interface shear stress at the embedded
end .x D 0/ has the maximum value and decreases to the minimum and afterwards
slightly increases along the embedded ber length until the loaded end .x D L/.
For a small ber volume fraction (e.g. 0.01), the interface shear stress is relatively
uniformly distributed along the embedded ber length. It is also observed (see
Fig. 3b) that the interface shear stress nearby the embedded end for the single- ber
composite model increases rapidly with increasing Vf .

Comparison of the stress transfer in single- and multi- ber composite pull-out tests

443

Figure 5. (a) Fiber axial stress and (b) interface shear stress distributions along the embedded ber
length for various ber-to-matrix modulus ratios, namely Ef =Em D 10, 40, and 80 (dashed and solid
lines as in Fig. 2).

Figure 4 shows the dependence of the stress transfer on the specimen dimension.
As the specimen dimension increases, the ber axial stress decreases for the single ber composite model, while the ber axial stress increases for the multi- ber composite model. Nonetheless, the in uence of specimen dimension is relatively small
for the single- ber composite model but signi cant for the multi- ber composite
model. This results in the observation that the in uence of specimen dimension on
the interface shear stress is small for the single- ber composite model while it is
signi cant for the multi- ber composite model (Fig. 4b). When the specimen dimension is large, the interface shear stress for the multi- ber composite model is
relatively large at the loaded ber end .x D L/ and is very small at the embedded
ber end .x D 0/ (Fig. 4b).

444

S.-Y. Fu and B. Lauke

Figure 6. (a) Fiber axial stress and (b) interface shear stress distributions along the embedded ber
length for various embedded ber aspect ratios, namely L=2a D 5, 12.5, and 25 (dashed and solid
lines as in Fig. 2).

The effect of the ber-to-matrix modulus ratio on the stress transfer is exhibited in
Fig. 5. Figure 5a shows that the ber axial stress increases as Ef =Em increases for
the single- ber composite model, while the ber axial stress decreases as Ef =Em
increases for the multi- ber composite model. The corresponding interface shear
stress increases with increasing Ef =Em at x=L < ca. 0.58 for the single- ber
composite model and F .x/ decreases with increasing Ef =Em at x=L < ca. 0.92
for the multi- ber composite model, while it decreases with increasing Ef =Em at
x=L > ca. 0.58 for the single- ber composite model and F .x/ increases with
increasing Ef =Em at x=L > ca. 0.92 for the multi- ber composite model (Fig. 5b).
Figure 6 reveals the effect of the embedded ber aspect ratio on the stress transfer.
As can be seen in Fig. 6a, the ber axial stress decreases with increasing L=a for

Comparison of the stress transfer in single- and multi- ber composite pull-out tests

445

Figure 7. Comparison of the present theory for the single- ber composite pull-out test with other
existing theories [9, 11, 16].

both the single- and the multi- ber composite models. The corresponding interface
shear stress also decreases with increasing of L=a (see Fig. 6b). This is obvious
because the stress transfer from the embedded end to the loaded end for a longer
embedded ber length needs a lower interface shear stress.
Figure 7 presents a comparison of the ber axial stress distribution along the
embedded ber length for the single- ber composite pull-out test between the
present theory and the existing theories [9, 11, 16]. It can be seen from Fig. 7
that the ber axial stress obtained with the present theory is close to that of refs [9]
and [16] while it is higher than that of ref. [11] when the specimen dimension is
small .b=a D 2/. This is understandable, because the theory of Fu et al. [11] was
developed for, and thus suitable for, cases of a large specimen dimension-to- ber
radius ratio (this ratio must be high so that the assumption that the shear stress inside
the matrix is inversely proportional to the distance from the ber axis, and thus the
shear stress on the outer matrix surface equals approximately zero, is met). When
the specimen dimension is large .b=a D 2000/, the results obtained from the three
theories are close to each other.
4. CONCLUSIONS

In the present paper, the elastic stress transfer in both single- and multi- ber
composite pull-out tests has been studied in detail by taking into account the effects
of ber volume fraction, specimen dimension, ber-to-matrix modulus ratio, and
embedded ber aspect ratio. The results have shown that the ber axial stress
increases with the increase of ber volume fraction, the decrease of specimen
dimension and the increase of ber-to-matrix modulus ratio for the single- ber
composite model, but with the decrease of ber volume fraction, the increase of

446

S.-Y. Fu and B. Lauke

specimen dimension and the decrease of ber-to-matrix modulus ratio for the multi ber composite model. It was also shown that the ber axial stress increases
with the decrease of embedded ber aspect ratio for both the single- and the
multi- ber composite models. The effects of various factors on the corresponding
interface shear stress were also studied. For the single- ber pull-out model, the
interface shear stress has a relatively uniform distribution along the embedded ber
length when the ber volume fraction is small (namely, the specimen dimension
is relatively large), and the shear stress has the maximum value at the embedded
ber end when the ber volume fraction is relatively large (namely, the specimen
dimension is relatively small) and the maximum shear stress increases sharply with
the increase of ber volume fraction. The interface shear stress for the multi- ber
pull-out model has the minimum value at the embedded ber end and the maximum
value at the loaded ber end. In addition, the present theory for the single- ber
composite pull-out test was compared with some existing theories.

REFERENCES
D. B. Marshall, B. N. Cox and A. G. Evans, Acta Metall. 33, 2013 2021 (1985).
D. B. Marshall and B. N. Cox, Acta Metall. 35, 2607 2619 (1987).
A. G. Evans and R. M. McMeeking, Acta Metall. 34, 2435 2441 (1986).
C. K. Leung and V. C. Li, Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc. 10, 1164 1178 (1989).
P. S. Chua and M. R. Piggott, Composites Sci. Technol. 22, 107 119 (1985).
B. K. Larson, L. T. Drzal and P. Sorousian, Composites 21, 205 215 (1990).
E. Mder and K. H. Freitag, Composites 21, 397 402 (1990).
J. K. Kim, C. Baillie and Y. W. Mai, J. Mater. Sci. 27, 3143 3154 (1992).
L. M. Zhou, J. K. Kim and Y. W. Mai, J. Mater. Sci. 27, 3155 3166 (1992).
L. M. Zhou, J. K. Kim and Y. W. Mai, Composites Sci. Technol. 45, 153 160 (1993).
S. Y. Fu, B. L. Zhou, X. Chen, C. F. Xu, G. H. He and C. W. Lung, Composites 24, 5 11 (1993).
S. Y. Fu, B. L. Zhou, X. Chen, G. H. He and C. W. Lung, Composites 24, 13 17 (1993).
W. Beckert and B. Lauke, Computational Mater. Sci. 5, 470 475 (1996).
Z. F. Li and D. T. Grubb, J. Mater. Sci. 29, 189 202 (1994).
Y. Yue and W. L. Cheung, J. Mater. Sci. 27, 3173 3180 (1992).
J. K. Kim, L. M. Zhou, S. J. Bryan and Y. W. Mai, Composites 25, 470 475 (1994).
A. Hampe, G. Kaliske and C. Marotzke, Seventh International Conference on Composite
Interfaces, 10 13 May 1998, Fujisawa, Shonan, Japan, Preprint pp. 33 34.
18. J. K. Kim and Y. W. Mai, J. Mater. Sci. 30, 3024 3032 (1995).
19. M. Zhou and Y. W. Mai, Philos. Mag. Lett. 68, 511 (1993).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

APPENDIX A. THE SINGLE-FIBER COMPOSITE PULL-OUT MODEL

Assume that an external load is applied to the single ber composite specimen as
shown in Fig. 1a. The specimen will be displaced elastically when it is loaded.
For a thin ber, the axial displacement and strain are assumed to be independent
of the radial position. The stress components in the radial and circumferential
directions are neglected, since they are small compared with the axial stress

Comparison of the stress transfer in single- and multi- ber composite pull-out tests

447

components [18, 19]. For the pull-out ber and the matrix, the relationships of
the displacements, strains, and axial stresses are as follows:
"F .x/ D
"m .r; x/ D

F .x/
duF .x/
D
Ef
dx

(A1)

m .r; x/
dum .r; x/
;
D
Em
dx

(A2)

where ; u, and " denote axial stress, displacement, and strain, respectively. The
subscripts F and m denote the ber (average) and matrix, respectively. x and
r are the axial position and the radial position in the matrix, respectively. Ef and
Em are the ber and matrix modulus, respectively. Since the displacement at the
ber matrix interface .r D a/ is continuous (perfect adhesion), we have
uF .x/ D um .a; x/:

(A3)

The shear stress in the matrix has the Lam form [18, 19]:
m .r; x/ D

Pm
C qm r;
r

(A4)

where pm and qm are constants. Using the boundary conditions, i.e. m .a; x/ D
F .x/ [where F .x/ is the ber matrix interface shear stress and the negative sign
denotes that the direction of m .a; x/ is opposite to that of F .x/] and m .b; x/ D 0,
we obtain
m .r; x/ D

.b 2 r 2 /=r
F .x/:
.b 2 a 2 /=a

(A5)

Also, the shear stress in the matrix can be expressed as

m .r; x/ D Gm

dum .r; x/
;
dr

(A6)

where Gm is the shear modulus of the matrix and equals Em =[2.1 C m /] (where
denotes Poissons ratio). Then we obtain
um .r; x/ um .a; x/ D

b 2 ln.r=a/ .1=2/.r 2 a 2 /
F .x/:
Gm .b 2 a 2 /=a

(A7)

Combination of equations (A1)(A3) and (A7) yields

m .r; x/
F .x/ b 2 ln.r=a/ .1=2/.r 2 a 2 / dF .x/
:
D

Em
Ef
Gm .b 2 a 2 /=a
dx

The average matrix axial stress is de ned by

Z b
2
M .x/ D 2
m .r; x/r dr:
b a2 a

(A8)

(A9)

448

S.-Y. Fu and B. Lauke

Thus,
Em
Em dF .x/
F .x/ A11
;
Ef
Gm dx

(A10)

ab 2 2b2 ln ba .b2 a 2 /
a
D
:
2
2
2
2.b a /
4

(A11)

M .x/ D
where
A11

Equilibrium of the ber matrix interface shear stress and the ber axial stress
requires
dF .x/
2
D F .x/:
a
dx
Mechanical equilibrium of the composite requires

(A12)

a 2 p D .b 2 a 2 /M .x/ C a 2 F .x/:

(A13)

d2 F .x/
A12 F .x/ C A13 p D 0;
dx 2

(A14)

Combination of equations (A10), (A12), and (A13) yields

where

A12 D 2Gm a 2 =.b 2 a 2 / C Em =Ef =.aEm A11 /

A13 D 2Gm a= .b2 a 2 /Em A11 :

(A15)
(A16)

The solution of equation (A14) is given by equation (1).

APPENDIX B. THE MULTI-FIBER COMPOSITE PULL-OUT MODEL

The shear stresses in the matrix [m .r; x/] and in the composite medium [c .r; x/]
have the Lam form [18, 19]:
m .r; x/ D pm =r C qm r

(B1)

c .r; x/ D pc =r C qc r;

(B2)

where the subscript c denotes the composite medium. pm ; qm ; pc, and qc are
constants to be determined. The boundary condition for m .r; x/ is m .a; x/ D
pm =a C qm a D F .x/, where the negative sign denotes that the direction of
m .b; x/ is opposite to that of F .x/. m .b; x/ D pm =b C qm b, then we obtain
m .r; x/ D

b.r 2 a 2 /=r
a.b 2 r 2 /=r

.b;
x/
F .x/:

m
b2 a 2
b2 a 2

(B3)

Comparison of the stress transfer in single- and multi- ber composite pull-out tests

449

The boundary conditions for c .r; x/ are c .b; x/ D pc =b C qc b D m .b; x/ and

c .c; x/ D pc=c C qc c D 0, where the negative sign indicates that the direction of
c .b; x/ is opposite to that of m .b; x/. Then we obtain
c .r; x/ D

.c2 r 2 /=r
m .b; x/:
.c2 b 2 /=b

(B4)

For the pull-out ber, the matrix, and the composite medium, the relationships of
the displacements, strains, and axial stresses are as follows:
F .x/
duF .x/
D
Ef
dx

(B5)

"m .r; x/ D

m .r; x/
dum .r; x/
D
Em
dx

(B6)

"c .r; x/ D

c .r; x/
duc .r; x/
;
D
Ec
dx

(B7)

"F .x/ D

where Ec is the modulus of the composite and is given by

Ec D Ef Vf C Em .1 V f /:

(B8)

Also, the shear stresses, m .r; x/ and c .r; x/, can be expressed as
m .r; x/ D Gm

dum .r; x/
dr

(B9)

duc .r; x/
;
(B10)
dr
where Gc is the composite shear modulus and equals Ec =[2.1 C c/] and c D
f Vf C m .1 V f /. From equation (B9), we obtain
Z r
1
um .r; x/ um .a; x/ D
m .r; x/ dr
a Gm
1
r
1 2 a.r 2 a 2 / ab 2 ln a
F .x/
D
Gm
b2 a 2

1
b.r 2 a 2 / a 2 b ln ar
2
m .b; x/ :
C
(B11)
b2 a 2
c .r; x/ D Gc

Thus, we obtain

m .r; x/ F .x/
dum .r; x/ dum .a; x/
dum .r; x/ duF .x/

Em
Ef
dx
dx
dx
dx
1
1 2 a.r 2 a 2 / ab 2 ln ar dF .x/
D
Gm
b2 a 2
dx

450

S.-Y. Fu and B. Lauke

1
b.r 2
2

a 2 / a 2 b ln
b2 a2

r
a

dm .b; x/
;
dx

(B12)

where the continuity condition of the displacement at the ber-matrix interface, i.e.
uF .x/ D um .a; x/, is employed. The average matrix axial stress is de ned by
Z b
2
M .x/ D 2
m .r; x/r dr:
(B13)
b a2 a
Combination of equations (B12) and (B13) gives
M .x/ D

Em
Em dF .x/
Em dm .b; x/
F .x/ C B11
;
C B12
Ef
Gm dx
Gm
dx

where
B11

(B14)

a 4b4 ln.b=a/ C 3b 4 4a 2 b2 C a 4
D
4.b 2 a 2 /2

(B15)

b b4 4a 2 b2 ln.b=a/ a 4
:
D
4.b 2 a 2 /2

(B16)

B12

From equation (B10), we obtain

1
c .r; x/ dr
b Gc
1
r
1 2 .r 2 b 2 / C c2 ln b
m .b; x/:
D
Gc
.c2 b 2 /=b

uc .r; x/ uc .b; x/ D

Thus,

(B17)

c .r; x/ m .b; x/
duc .r; x/ duc .b; x/
duc .r; x/ dum .b; x/

Ec
Em
dx
dx
dx
dx
D

1 12 .r 2 b2 / C c2 ln
Gc
.c2 b 2 /=b

r
b

dm .b; x/
;
dx

(B18)

where the continuity condition of the displacement on the matrix composite

cylinder surface, i.e. um .b; x/ D uc .b; x/, is used. The average composite-medium
axial stress is de ned by
Z c
2
C .x/ D 2
c .r; x/r dr:
(B19)
c b2 b
Combining equations (B18) and (B19), we obtain
C .x/ D

Ec
Ec dm .b; x/
m .b; x/ B13
;
Em
Gc
dx

(B20)

Comparison of the stress transfer in single- and multi- ber composite pull-out tests

where
B13

b 4c 4 ln.c=b/ 3c 4 C 4b 2 c2 b 4
:
D
4.c2 b 2 /2

451

(B21)

Equilibria of the interface shear stresses, the shear tractions on the cylinder surface,
and the axial stresses in the constituents require
dF .x/
2
D F .x/
a
dx

(B22)

dC .x/
2b
m .b; x/:
D 2
c b2
dx

(B23)

a 2 p D .c2 b2 /C.x/ C .b 2 a 2 /M .x/ C a 2 F .x/:

(B24)

d2 F .x/
d2 C.x/
B

.x/
B
C
C
a 2 p D 0;
15 F
16
dx 2
dx 2

(B25)

The mechanical equilibrium condition between the external and internal stresses
requires

Inserting equation (B12) into equation (B20) and combining the resultant equation
with equations (B14), (B22), (B23), and (B24), we obtain
B 14
where
B14

Em 2
Ec 2
a
2
2
.b a / C B 17
.c b /
D B11
Gm
Gm
2
B15 D

B 16
where

Em 2
Ec 2
.b a 2 / C
.c b 2 / C a 2
Ef
Ef

c2 b 2
Em 2
Ec
Ec
2
2
2
B12
.b a / C B18
.c b / ;
D
B13
Gm
Gm
Gc
2b

(B26)

(B27)

(B28)

B17 D

.1=2/a.b 2 a 2 / ab 2 ln.b=a/
b2 a 2

(B29)

B 18 D

.1=2/b.b 2 a 2 / a 2 b ln.b=a/
:
b2 a 2

(B30)

Inserting equation (B12) into equation (B20) and combining the resultant equation
with equation (B14), we get
C .x/ D B19

d2 F .x/
C B20 F .x/ C B 21 M .x/;
dx 2

(B31)

452

S.-Y. Fu and B. Lauke

where
B 19

Ec a
Ec
Ec B11 a
D B17
B18
B 13
Gm 2
Gm
Gc B12 2

(B32)

Ec
Ec
Ec
Gm
D
B18
B 13
Ef
Gm
Gc B12 Ef

(B33)

B20

B21

Ec
Ec
Gm
:
D B18
B13
Gm
Gc B12 Em

(B34)

Differentiating equation (B24) and equation (B31) twice and combining the resultant equations, we obtain

2
c2 b 2
a2
d C .x/
d4 F .x/
d F .x/
B21
B21
: (B35)
1C 2
D B 19
C B20 2
2
2
4
2
b a
b a
dx
dx
dx 2
Combination of equations (B25) and (B35) gives

d4 F .x/
d2 F .x/
B
C
C B23 F .x/ B24 p D 0;
22
dx 4
dx 2
where
B22

a2
c2 b 2
B
=B
B
B
B
B
D B20 2
C
1
C
21
19
14
21
16
19
b a2
b2 a2
B23

c 2 b2
B
B
B
D B15 1 C 2
21
16
19
b a2
B24 D B23 a 2 =B15 :

The solution of equation (B36) is given by equation (5).

(B36)

(B37)

(B38)
(B39)