Composites Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.

321-342, 1995
Copyright 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights retu~ved
0961-9526/95 $9.50 + .00

Pergamon

0961-9526(94) 00101-4

FLEXURAL-TORSIONAL
THIN-WALLED COMPOSITE

STABILITY OF
I-SECTION BEAMS

Mahesh D. Pandey, Mohammad Z. Kabir and Archibald N. Sherbourne

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3GI

(Received 13 December 1993; final version accepted 16 September 1994)

Abstract--An analytical study of optimal fibre direction for improving the lateral buckling
strength of thin-walled composite open-section members is presented. Based on a Vlasov-type
linear hypothesis, beam stiffness coefficients, which account for cross-section geometry and for
the material anisotropy of the section as well as the geometrical characteristics of columns, are
obtained. Uniformly distributed load, transverse concentrated load, unequal end moments,
tip-loaded cantilever and columns with different types of loading, are considered. The results show
that, in some cases, the web fibre angle makes a remarkable contribution to increasing the
buckling load compared with the unidirectional orientation of the pultrusion process.
NOMENCLATURE
bf

flange width

elastic modulus of fibre and matrix

Ef, E,
Ell, E22 elastic modulus of composite material in principal directions
G
hw
H

H~,Hc
JG, I ~
k
L
n,.q, Z

r(s), q(s)
si
S
/w, tf
/4, U, W

U,V,W
X, y, Z

xts), y(s)
0

o,
Vf, Vra
O)

1,2,3

shear modulus
web depth
beam/column depth
structural bending-twisting coupling parameters
flexural stiffnesses about x and y axes
torsional and warping rigidities
vertical displacement of the point of application of the load
beam/column length
local coordinate system
coordinates of any point on the contour measured from pole in h, g coordinate
system
contour coordinate of each segment
contour coordinate system
thickness of web and flange
displacements in h, g, z
displacements in x, y, z directions
global coordinate system
coordinate of generic point on the contour of a section from centroid
angle the tangent to the contour makes with the x-axis
fibre angle with respect to the z-axis
moment gradient factor
Poisson's ratio of fibre and matrix
twist angle about z-axis
warping function
material principal directions

1. INTRODUCTION

Thin-walled elements are widely used as structural components in many types of metal
structure within the fields of civil, mechanical and aeronautical engineering. Because of
the slenderness of these structures and their components, their design will often be
governed by stability considerations.
The problem of torsional and torsional-flexural instability of isotropic beams with
thin-walled open cross sections has received much attention in the recent literature. Little
work has been done to address the lateral buckling of composite members. Mottram
(1992), in a recent investigation, tested a simple-support pultruded I-beam subjected to a
central point load. He showed that the classical solution and experimental results are in
321
C0 5:3-G

322

M.D. Pandey et al.

Cont .

(a)

n, U

"a~Nqb~__

I Origin

P,W
Pole

(b)

1)
Y

Beamloadsexternal I
~'P
m

. J

~---]/X

m~o/J

.i =

mx

Beam internal ~ J
.,"Pole line
forces- ~ N
~ " / d x

Fig. 1. Kinematicsof beam section: (a) coordinatesystems,(b) internal forcesand external loads
in beam.
good agreement for the lateral buckling load. Following the theory of Bauld and Tzeng
(1984), the present study attempts to predict the lateral buckling capacity of beams
including the influence of load forms, support conditions and lamination architecture.
In this work three coordinate systems are used: an orthogonal Cartesian global
system (x, y, z) for the beam; an orthogonal local coordinate system (~, ~, z) for plate
segments of the beam, where the h axis is normal to the midsurface of any plate segment
and the g axis is tangential to the midsurface along the contour line of the beam cross
section; and a contour coordinate axis, S, where S is measured along the contour of the
cross section from a judiciously chosen origin. These coordinate systems are depicted in
Fig. 1.
2. ANALYSIS
2.1. Energy equation

A suitable stability criterion for elastic structures subject to static conservative

loading, widely adopted by many researchers in the field of elastic stability, is the energy

Stability of composite I-section beams

323

criterion. For all practical purposes, a positive definite second variation of the total
potential with respect to all kinematically admissible perturbations about the equilibrium
position implies that the equilibrium configuration is stable.
Equilibrium states are defined by the condition that the first variation of the total
potential energy, Ha-, is zero (Langhaar, 1962). If a structure is subjected to external
forces, Pi, the corresponding displacements being qi, the total potential energy can be
represented by the following equation:
11T = U s - 1-Iw.

(1)

l'I s is the internal strain energy and I-Iw represents the total work done by the external
forces. Referring to the constitutive relationships for beam stress and displacement (see
Appendix A), which have been defined (Bauld and Tzeng, 1984), the i n t e r n a l strain
energy, in terms of active bar forces and bar displacements in the principal coordinates is
Hs = i ( N W '

+ M y U" - M x V " + M~4J" + Tsck') dz

(2)

in which (') denotes differentiation with respect to z, N is the axial force, Mx, My are the
bending moments acting about the x and y axes, respectively, M~ is the warping moment,
so called by Timoshenko and Gere (1961), or the bimoment as designated by Vlasov
(1961) and T~ is the Saint Venant torsion or free warping. The work done by the e x t e r n a l
loads is
D

FIw

= .t

( W n + U v x + Vvy + dp~ + U ' m y

V ' m x + ck'mo,)dz,

where n, the axial load, acts through the origin of the (x, y) coordinate system; Vx, Vy,
transverse loads, act through the pole; the torque r acts about a normal axis through
pole; mx and my are bending moments which act about the x, y, axes and m~ is
warping moment (see Fig. lb). Substituting the constitutive relationship into eqn (2),
expression for the total potential energy, FIT, becomes
I-IT

= 1 ( A W ' 2

(3)
the
the
the
the

+ I x x V " 2 + lyyUtt2 + Io~ck"2 + JGd)'2 + 2HcV"ck' - 2HsU"ck'

+ 2Hqck'ck" - 2 W n - 2Uv~ - 2Vvy - 24~r - 2 U ' m y + 2 V ' m ~ - 24~'m,~)dz.

(4)

2.2. S t a b i l i t y e q u a t i o n s
As mentioned earlier, for the stable state the total potential energy must be a
minimum and the second variation of H x should be positive definite. Therefore, applying
the calculus of variation to the second variation of eqn (4), the differential equations
governing the stability condition at the bifurcation point are
A ( ~ 2 W " = O,
Iy.ve52U" ' -

HsO24~ " = O,

(5)

I x x d 2 V "' + H~2~ "" = O,

I,,,,,,~2dp"' - H ~ 2 V " + H s ~ Z U "" - JG~2dp" = O,

where the coefficients are defined in Appendix A. Equations (5) have been simplified
considerably by assuming coincidence of the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system,
the origin of the contour coordinate system and the location of the pole, P. Since the
expression for the potential energy of the external forces (eqn (3)) is a linear functional of
the displacement components, it makes no contribution to the second variation, i.e.
dfzI'Iw = 0. Consequently, 32I'IT = d;21~s.

324

M . D . Pandey et al.

2.3. Torsional-flexural rigidities of 1-section beam

For a typical I-beam (see Fig. 2) the centroid, principal pole and principal origin
coincide. The contour has five branches, numbered as shown, for which the principal
coordinate functions are given in Table 1.
The warping, torsional, and flexural components are
_L
2 3
1
3
_l._
3
Io, o, = 2 4 : A l l f h w b f + 6 D l l f b f + 1 2 D l l w h w ,

JG

4D33h w,

= 8Daafb f +
1

Ixx = 2Allfbfhw

1.

._L

(6)

+ 2 D l l f b f + 12:t411whW,

Iyy = 6 ~ l l l f b f + DllwhW,

H~ = 2Dl3,,,hw,
H c = 4 D l 3 w b f.

Q : QI

(a)

hw

._tw

____~

tf
~l- -

br

(b)

b f/2

s4,

,s 5

bf/2

hw/2

Pole

S3

sI

-hw/2

s2

b f/2

Fig. 2. Typical I-section beam: (a) cross section, (b) contour coordinate system.

Table 1. Principal coordinate functions for an I-section

Branch
1
2
3
4
5

Range of S t
0
bf/2
-h~/2
0
0

bf/2

0
0

180

h~/2
bf/2
b f~2

180

90
0

q(s)

r(s)

to

s I - bf/2
bf/2 - s2
0
-s 4
s5

-hw/2
-hw/2
s3
hw/2
hw/2

s I - bf/2
bf/2 - s2
s3
s4
s5

hw/2
-hw/2
0
-hw/2
h w/2

h w / 2 ( b f / 2 - sl)
hw/2(s 2 - bf/2)
0

(-hw/2)s 4
(h W/2)s 5

Stability of composite I-section beams

325

3. LATERALBUCKLINGOF I-SECTION BEAMS

The aim of this section is the optimization of the fibre orientations for improving the
lateral buckling strength of pultruded I-section composite beams. The equilibrium
differential equations at the instant of lateral buckling can be obtained from eqn (4) as
follows:

IyyJU"" + MJdp" = O,

(7)

I ~ d p ~ - JG&~ + Me~U" = O,
where M is the internal moment produced by external loads. The coupling terms, H s and
He, have been ignored for simplicity. The elastic buckling loads for a few problems are
calculated.

3.1. Lateral buckling of simply supported beams

3.1.1. Uniform distributed load (UDL). The torsional-flexural differential equation
can be obtained from eqn (7) for three positions of the loads as follows (see Fig. 3a):
dp"'-otdp"- [ , S q z ( L - 2 )
(a)

+qk]q~=Oo,j
,zlo,

(8,

Ly

/q

(kN/m)

L
(b) Y4

P(kN)

L
(c)

Ay
1

M (kN.m)

L
(d)

y
P (kN.m)

0
t

14

L
Fig. 3. Parametric study: (a) simplysupported (uniform distributed load), (b) simplysupported
(point load), (c) end moments(-1 -</z _< 1), (d) tip-loadedcantileverbeam.

M.D. Pandeyet al.

326

where k is - h w / 2 , O, +hw/2 for loads applied at the level of the centroid of the bottom
flange, the section centroid and the centroid of the top flange, respectively, and
JG
ot = / - ~ ,

1
,8 = I~-'---~"

(9)

Taking 4, = al sin(7~z/L) + a2 sin(27~z/L), and using the Galerkin method (Gallagher,

1975), the critical UDL, q, is obtained as
28.46~F

qcr=~

'7[ 2 Io,(~/~y

yya~ [4~- ~

+0.212k

2_~)

1.44k /~yy]

+ l-~.%/SGj.

(10)

3.1.2. Concentrated transverse load. In this case, the beam is subjected to a

transverse point load P at distance a from one support (see Fig. 3b). The equilibrium
differential equation from eqn (7) may be written as follows:
0 " - otdp" - flM2dp = O.
(11)
Defining an orthogonal polynomial 4~(z) = A l Z + A2Z2 -[- A3Z 3 "at"A 4 Z 4, and applying
the boundary conditions 4~(z) = 0" -- 0 at z = 0, L, the function 0(z) satisfies the total
boundary conditions and is obtained as 4~(z) = A I ( Z - 2 z 3 + z4). Using the Galerkin
method, the critical point load P is obtained as
4.342 x~yyJG
-)L2

Per =

[~/

2.33 - 1.75~ - 2.8~ 2 + 3.5~ 3 - ~4 + ((7/0 + 2.8br2 - 70(Io, j L 2 j G ) ]

~6 _ 4.4~5 + 4.89~4 + 2.75~3 _ 6.286~2 + 2.2

J'
(12)

where ~ = a/L. For the central point load, ~ = 0.5, the standard solution (Timoshenko
and Gere, 1961) is obtained as
17.17
Pcr=--~

.~/

7t2 I~,
I + L2 j G .

Iy~yJG

(13)

,q

Cases (a) and (b) represent two common loading systems which may be applied to
symmetric multi-span continuous beams. Figure 4 shows a simple example of a two-span
beam under separate symmetric point and uniformly distributed load systems. Using the
superposition principle, the critical buckling load may be calculated by modelling each
single segment between supports and inflection points as a simply supported beam under
uniformly distributed load, transverse concentrated load or a combination of the two,
from relationships obtained in cases (a) and (b) above. The accuracy of the analytical
method for the central point-load has been verified against experimental results obtained
by Mottram (1992) for a pultruded I-beam made of E-glass/vinyl ester. For the given
geometry and material properties of the beam in his paper, the maximum buckling load
was obtained analytically as 5.68 kN compared to a value from test data of 5.75 kN
assumed by Mottram (1992) to be his largest critical load.
3.1.3. Lateral buckling o f beams subjected to end moments. In this case the general
expression for the bending moment is

where/z _< 1 is the ratio of applied end moments assuming that the larger end moment is
acting at the right-hand support (see Fig. 3c). The equilibrium differential equation
becomes
~p"' - o~p" - t i M 2 0 = O.
(15)

Stability of composite I-section beams

327

/ / / /

tv

Case: Q

Case: @

B.M.D.

B.M.D.

(a)

II

@
B.M.D.

(b)

@+@

Fig. 4. Lateral buckling load cases for simply supported symmetric multi span beams (point load
and UDL).

The following equation can be written as the general solution for the critical moments
(Pandey, 1988):
M2r = A t M t 2 + A w M 2
(16)
In this equation the first term indicates the buckling moment for I ~ = 0 and the second
term shows the buckling moment when J G = 0; A t and Aw are buckling coefficients which
depend upon the bending moment distribution and support conditions. M t and Mw are
defined as the uniform moments for buckling under uniform torsion and pure warping
stresses respectively, expressed as follows:

mt

=Tt

~z2

Jo,
(17)

Mw -- V

Using finite element analysis, the buckling coefficients A t and Aw for different boundary
conditions have been computed (Sherbourne and Pandey, 1989) in terms of the moment
gradient, a. These parameters represent the effects of moment gradient and lateral end
restraint on the buckling moment and are independent of beam geometry and material
properties.

328

M.D. Pandey et al.

The results for four types of lateral support condition, (1) simple, (2) warping fixed,
(3) lateral bending and (4) completely fixed, for moment gradients in the range
- 1 _< g _< 1, are shown in Appendix B.
3.2. Tip-loaded cantilever beams
The equilibrium differential equation for the tip-loaded cantilever beam (Fig. 3d) can
be expressed as
p2z2

I . . ~ " - JG~" -

- - ~
i.

= 0,

(18)

where the origin of axes is set at the free end. Defining a dimensionless coordinate
( = z / L , eqn (19), for function ~(0, takes the form
"~" -- r ~ -- Kp2(2~ = O,

(19)

where r = jGL2/I,o,o, p 2 = L4p2/(IyyJG) and ( . ) = d/d(. Assuming an orthogonal

polynomial function for ~ as
~ ( 0 = Ao + A I ( + A 2 ( 2 + A 3 ( 3 + A 4 ( 4,
(20)
and applying the following boundary conditions:
at

( =0:

at(=

~ =

1:

0,

- k~ =

0,

(21)

~=~=0,

the function }(0 satisfies all boundary conditions and can be taken as
1(1 + 2 ) ( 4]

(22)

Using the Galerkin method, the critical value for the tip-load, after some simplification,
can be expressed as
eo,=y

x/~JG
L~

(23)

where
y = 5.08

~J

1 +

19.3 [(x + 13)(~c + 3).]

+ i-o?

"

(24)

Equation (23) has been verified against results obtained by Timoshenko and Gere (1961)
for the range 0.1 __ r < 40.
3.3. Stability o f thin-walled composite columns
If P is the compressive force and Mx and My are the bending moments which, for the
case of eccentric compression, are the product of the force P and the corresponding
eccentricities e~ and ey (see Fig. 5), the general equilibrium differential equations of
column stability in principal coordinates for an I-section are obtained as
Iyy U 'm + PU" + P(ay - ex)tb" = O,
Ixx U ~" + P V " - P(ax - ey)tb" = O, (25)

i-(
..~

p exKx -

eyKy

+R2-J-~Gp)dp"-P(ay-ex)U " +P(ax-ey)e"=O.

329

Stability of compositeI-sectionbeams
Z

A
~
I

jY

,.J

Fig. 5. Columnunder axial load P and biaxial momentsMx and My.

In eqns (25), ax and ay are the coordinates of the shear centre relative to the centroid of
the section and are zero for a doubly symmetric I-section; R 2, Kx, and Ky are geometrical
characteristics with dimensions of length and are defined as follows (Bauld and Tzeng,
1984):

R2 =

1I

K~

( q 2 D 1 1 )+

All r 2 +

dc

All,] ds,

~--~xxfc[AllY(r2-q2 + All/Dllx)-- 2rDll COS0(S)] ds,

1 l [c AllX (r 2 + q 2 D
l ) + 2rDllsin0(s) ] ds.
~yy
+ lAll,]

(26)

Using the definitions of the principal coordinate functions for an I-section (Table 1), the
parameters R 2, K x and Ky are given by
R 2 = 1 [ ~Allfbf
1
( 2hw + _~) + 2Dllfbf + 12A l l

h3+Dllwhw]

1
2+
gx -'~~x [aAllfbfhw(hw
b~ff3)- Ollfbfh.]

K y = ~ [.~Allfbf(hw2

(27)

~.~)+~Dll,b~].l

3.3.1. Stability equations for hinged and fixed columns. Consider the stability
problem of a hinged column whose end sections are restrained as regards all in-plane
displacements; it has the following boundary conditions:
For z = 0, L:

U = V = ~b = 0,

U" = V" =

~b"= 0,

(28)

where L is the length of the member. To satisfy the boundary conditions of eqn (28), the
following functions are chosen:
U = A sin nrtz
L '

V = B sin nrtz
L '

~ = CsinmtZ
L '

(29)

330

M.D. Pandey et al.

where A, B and C are undetermined displacement amplitudes and n is an arbitrary

positive integer; n = 1, 2, 3 . . . . . Substituting eqn (29) into eqns (25), using the notation
2 = (nrt/L) and dropping the common factor 22 sin(Zz), one obtains, for the constants A,
B and C, a homogeneous system of algebraic equations. For non-trivial solutions, the
determinant of the coefficients of this system must vanish, i.e.

P - Px

IP(ay -

e~)

- P ( a x - ey)

-P(a,: - ey)

= O,

(30)

P ( e ~ K ~ + e y K y ) + R 2 ( t ' - P~,)

where

Px = / ~ 2 ,

py = i.,~2,

P~ = ~2 ( I ~ 22 + J G ) .

Equation (30) is quite general and allows the critical values of the load parameter for
an arbitrary open section contour to be determined.
The stability of a column with rigidly built-in ends has the following boundary
conditions:
Forz=O,L:

U= V=$=O,

U'=

V' = ( o ' = 0 .

(31)

The functions U, V and ~ are taken in the form (Vlasov, 1961)

U = A(1 - cos 2AZ),

V = B(1 - cos 22z),

~b = (7(1 - cos 2AZ).

(32)

Substituting eqns (32) into eqns (25) one obtains, after appropriate manipulation, a
homogeneous system of algebraic equations similar to eqns (30), the difference being only
that 2 = 2 n n / L .
4. RESULTS
4.1.
It is intended to conduct a parametric study of some typical cases in order to find the
maximum lateral buckling load and associated fibre orientation with respect to the
longitudinal direction of the beam for pultruded I-sections (Fig. 6). Results are obtained
for:
(a) Lateral stability o f beams
--Uniformly Distributed Loaded (UDL) on a simply supported beam;
--centrally loaded simply supported beam;
--ratio of end moments (p is negative when moments are of opposite sign);
-1 < p < 1;
--tip-loaded cantilever beam.
(b) Buckling o f c o l u m n s
The geometry of a typical I-section has been adopted from Standard Profiles
fabricated by the Canadian Pultrusion Company (1992) and is shown in Fig. 7. All
computations in this study are carried out for glass/polyester materials with the following
elastic constants:
elastic modulus: Ef = 68.9 GPa, E m = 3.45 GPa
Poisson's ratio: Yf 0.2, Vm = 0.3.
~---

Figure 8 shows the influence of fibre volume fraction on the mechanical properties of the
I-section beam. As can be seen, the growth of the warping, I ~ , , torsional, JG, and
flexural, Iyy, components are essentially linear in the range 0-80% of fibre volume
fraction in the composite mixture. This means that the optimal fibre angle is invariant for
different fibre volumes within this range. Therefore, a typical fibre volume fraction of
60% is selected for subsequent cases.

Stability of composite I-section beams

331

(a)

P
Z

(b)

- 2--2~

Fig. 6. Material and structural coordinate system: (a) material and structural coordinates in
flange, (b) material and structural coordinates in web ( x , y , z: structural principal axes; 1, 2, 3:
material principal axes).
y,v
tf = 9.53 mm

hw = 203.2 mm

X, U

tw = 9.53 mm

IJ-

I
I

bf = hw/2

Fig. 7. Glass/polyester I-section beam (dimensions and coordinate system).

332

M. D. Pandey et !.

(a)
1400 -Iyy
1200
1000

so0~

6004O0
20O I

10

20

10

20

30
40
50
60
70
Fibre volume fraction (%)

80

90

100

I
I
l,
I
I
30
40
50
60
70
Fibre volume fraction (%)

I
80

I
90

I
100

(b)
35O0
3OOO
2500
2000
1500 1000500 -

Fig. 8. Influence of fibre volume fraction on mechanical properties: (a) fiexural and torsional
stiffness, Iyy, JG, (b) warping stiffness, I,~,~.

4.2. Sensitivity o f fibre angle on mechanical components

In Fig. 9a,b the variation of the warping, torsional and flexural section properties
with fibre angle is shown. Referring to eqn (10), the warping rigidity, I,~,~, which involves
the unidirectional stiffnesses, All and DI~, reach their maximum values at a fibre angle
of 0 in both flanges and web. The torsional stiffness, JG, which is expressed in terms of
twisting stiffness, D33, attains its maximum value at a fibre angle of _+45 in both flanges
and web. However, in the 0 fibre direction, the flexural rigidity, Iyy, is a maximum. Since
the bending and warping stiffnesses are provided largely by the top and bottom flanges,
the fibres are placed at 0 in the flanges.
4.3. Example 1
In this example, a pultruded I-section beam with the geometric and material
properties mentioned in Section 4.1 is subjected to the following loads and boundary
conditions:

(a) Uniform Distributed Load (UDL) and simply supported ends,

(b) transverse point load and simply supported ends,
(c) tip-loaded cantilever.

Stability o f c o m p o s i t e I-section b e a m s

333

(a)

1400
-

Iyy

- -

1200
1 ooo

~. 800
Z
600
400
200
.....

I. . . . .
15

F ....
~. . . . .
i. . . .
30
45
60
Fibre angle ( d e g r e e s )

J ....

75

90

(b)
800 -700

b
,

""

x
\
xx

600
i

x\

500

\\

\
\
X
\\

400

\
\
x

3O0

xx
x

20O
100

I
15

I
I
l
30
45
60
Fibre angle ( d e g r e e s )

75

90

Fig. 9. V a r i a t i o n o f w a r p i n g , t o r s i o n a l a n d flexural stiffness with fibre angle (fibre v o l u m e

fraction = 60070): (a) flexual a n d t o r s i o n a l stiffness, Iyy, JG, (b) w a r p i n g stiffness, I ~ .

Figure 10a and b show the variation of buckling load for a UDL with fibre orientation in
the web for two differential aspect ratios, L / H = 6, 12. In this case, the optimal fibre
direction is _+45 in the web and the figures also show that, for longer span beams, the
buckling load is more sensitive to the web fibre angle. At the optimal angle, the buckling
load improves by more than 2070 when the UDL is placed at the centre of the top flange,
and about 1570 when the load acts through the centroid of the section, both with respect
to its value at 0 . These values drop to 6.370 and 4.370, respectively, for the shorter span
when L / H = 6. The influence of web fibre angle on the buckling load for a transverse
point load, P, is depicted in Fig. 11 for two locations of the load with respect to the end
supports. As can be seen, the curves indicate little sensitivity of the fibre angle to the
buckling load. Figure 12 illustrates the relationship between the critical tip-load and web
fibre angle for two cantilever beams. It is seen that the maximum buckling load is
associated with optimal fibre angles in the web of 0 or 90 . Therefore, the predominantly
unidirectional fibre-orientation arrangement in pultruded sections is optimal for
cantilever beams.

4.4. Example 2
A pultruded I-section beam, with the previously defined geometry and material
properties, is subjected to a terminal-moment gradient (Fig. 3d) under the following

334

M.D.

P a n d e y et a l .

(a)
500

450

- - - Load at the top

400

......... Load at the bottom

Load at the centre

350
r~
~ 300
-250
200

15

30

45

60

75

90

150

W e b fibre angle ( d e g r e e s )

(b)
35

-----'s"

---

30

Load at the bottom

Load at the centre

......... Load at the top

25

o
~

2o
.."" ..............................

t.

10

. ......

,.....

15

"'"'-......
'". ...............

15

30

45

60

75

90

W e b fibre angle ( d e g r e e s )
Fig. 10. S i m p l y - s u p p o r t e d b e a m u n d e r ( U D L ) : (a) L / H

= 6, (b) L / H

= 12.

boundary conditions, as described in Appendix B:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Simply Supported (SS)

Warping Fixed (WF)
Lateral Bending Fixed (LBF)
Completely Fixed (CF).

Figure 13a-d shows the variation of critical end-moment with web fibre angle for the four
types of boundary condition considered. In all cases, the maximum load is obtained by
placing fibres at :t:45 in the web. In some cases, the orientation of the web fibres has
significant influence on improving the load capacity of the beam. For example, for equal
end-moments, (/z = 1), and a simply supported beam, the critical load obtained by
placing +45 fibres in the web is greater by about 20% than in the unidirectional, 0 fibre
angle. Table 2 shows the effects of moment gradient and lateral end resistance on
improving the beam buckling capacity in an optimal design as compared with the
pultrusion process. Although the results are shown for symmetric end conditions, the
calculations can just as easily be done for mixed boundary conditions.
In the case of warping fixed boundaries, since the effect of the St. Venant torsion,
JG, has been ignored, the +45 web fibre angle does not significantly influence the
solution.

335

Stability o f c o m p o s i t e I-section b e a m s
(a)

360
340
L/H = 6
320
Z

---

~ 300

a=0.25L
a = 0.5L

o
~a~ 280
._=
~ 260
~ 240
:~ 220
200
180

15

30
45
60
W e b fibre angle (degrees)

75

90

(b)
l O0

L/H = 12
90

80
o

--

a = 0.5L

---

a=0.25L

70

e~

-~ 6o
50

40

15

30
45
60
W e b fibre angle (degrees)

75

90

Fig. 11. P o i n t - l o a d s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d b e a m .

80 r

~ 60
L/H = 6

50

-~ 4o

- - -

L/H

= 12

e~

-~ 30
~

20
10
I

15

30
45
60
W e b fibre angle (degrees)

Fig. 12. T i p - l o a d e d cantilever b e a m .

75

90

336

M . D . Pandey et al.
30

(a)

e.

25

20

...................

m
...
(.3 10

5
0

(b)

I
15

q/~=l
........ a = O
--- a=-I

..................

I
I
I
30
45
60
W e b fibre angle ( d e g r e e s )

i
75

P
90

I
75

I
90

I
75

I
90

60

50

z
-~

40

o=

3o
-~

2o
~/,L=

lO

t
15

(c)

---u=O
........ f l = - I
I
I
q
30
45
60
W e b fibre a n g l e ( d e g r e e s )

50

~ . 4O

30

20
~ u = l

...9,

"E
t~

........ u = O
- - - /.*=-1

10

I
15

(d)

I
I
I
30
45
60
W e b fibre a n g l e ( d e g r e e s )

100

8O

60
o

E
4o

"E

~p=l

20

........ / ~ = 0
--u=-I
I
15

I
I
q
30
45
60
Web fibre angle (degrees)

I
75

q
90

Fig. 13. Variation of critical end-moment with web fibre angle: (a) simply-supported beam,
(b) warping fixed, (c) lateral bending fixed, (d) completely fixed.

337

Stability of composite I-section beams

Table 2. Percentage increase in lateral buckling load for +_45 web fibre
angle relative to 0 web fibre angle

B.C.

SS-SS
07o

WF-WF
%

LBF-LBF
070

CF-CF
070

/.t = +1
= 0
/a = -1

20.5
19
18.6

6
5.2
4

17.3
16.7
18.5

7
6.3
5.3

9080

SS-SS

~',
~

~; 70

----

\x

...... LBF-LBF
\,,,

~ 60

WF-WF

---

CF-CF

E
0

50

~ 40

IC
-1.0

-0.5
0
0.5
Moment gradient factor ~

I
1.0

Fig. 14. Variation of moment gradient factor for +45 web fibre angle and 0 flanges angles.

The variation of the moment gradient factor, p, with critical end-moment is shown
in Fig. 14 for the optimal web fibre angle (+_45). It is seen that the critical moment
distribution for the different boundary condition is:
- 0 . 8 for SS-SS and W F - W F
(b) - 0 . 8 __ p _< - 0 . 6 for C F - C F
(c) p = - 0 . 6 for LBF-LBF.
(a) p =

4.5.

Example 3

The lateral stability of a pultruded column with variable fibre angles in both web and
flange is investigated. For the previously defined geometry and material properties, an
I-section with (a) hinged and (b) fixed ends, which have been defined in eqns (29) and (32),
is subjected to an eccentric end-load. Figure 15 shows the Euler critical loads, Px and Py,
for buckling about the x a n d y axes, respectively, and Pt, which is the critical load for pure
torsional buckling for a hinged end column. As can be seen, Px and Py are maximal for
0 fibre angles; however, for the longer column, the maximum torsional buckling load is
obtained with +_40 fibre angles in both flanges and web. By comparing two figures,
15a and 15b, one can observe that when the loading system is involved with torsion, the
fibre angle in both flanges and web should be changed in order to maximize the critical
load.
Figure 16 shows the effects of fibre angle on the buckling load of hinged end
columns for two aspect ratios. It is seen that when the load is applied along the centroidal
axes, i.e. ex = ey = 0, the Euler critical case, the predominantly unidirectional fibre
orientation gives the highest critical load. The results for eccentric thrust are shown in
Table 3.

338

M.D.

Pandey

et al.

(a)
8000
7000

Px, L/H = 12

x
x

"--

'-" 6000
Z

X
x

_o
"~

5000

....... Py, L / H = 1 2

\
\

---

\
\

4000

Px, L/H = 6

--

Py, L / H = 6

\
\
x

3000
2000
1000

30
45
60
Fibre angle (degrees)

15

75

90

(b)
800 700 " - - - - ~ - "-.,

600 -

" ,,

500 -

L/H = 12

- -

L/H = 6

xx
x

400 -

x
x

300 200
lOO

I
15

I
I
I
30
45
60
Fibre angle (degrees)

I
75

I
90

Fig. 15. Euler buckling loads Px and Py and pure torsional l o a d s versus fibre angle in hinged end
columns: (a) critical Euler l o a d s Px and Py versus fibre angle in hinged end c o l u m n s , (b) critical
l o a d in pure torsion versus fibre angle in hinged end c o l u m n s .

The variation in critical buckling load with fibre angle for fixed ended columns is
shown in Fig. 17. In this case, the unidirectional pultruded fibres generally give the best
results.
5. C O N C L U D I N G

REMARKS

The investigation presented here is a theoretical view of the elastic, lateral-torsional

buckling of composite, open-section, pultruded I-shaped members with the purpose of
optimizing the fibre orientation. The Galerkin method, a reliable variational method, is
applied to the equilibrium differential equation for the solution of the problem.
Parametric studies reveal that beam boundary conditions have significant effects on
optimal fibre angles. Although the buckling load is sensitive to the aspect ratio, L/H, the
optimal fibre angle for maximum load will remain relatively constant over a range of L / H
beyond a certain value.
Some noteworthy conclusions regarding the relationship of the lateral buckling load
to fibre orientation are as follows: for I-section beams with predominantly unidirectional
flange fibres, it is found that the web fibre angle has an important influence on improving
the lateral buckling load as the beam span becomes longer. For aspect ratios, L/H, about
12 and higher, the optimal fibre angles for maximum lateral buckling load are: 0 in the
flanges and +45 in the web for simply-supported (UDL) beams and for beams subjected

Stability of composite I-section beams

339

(a)
500 450 ~

L/H = 6

400-

z
_

350 _ - .

300 - - "

"" -..

-\~"
~
.%

Ooooi
100 '

~ - ~

ex=ey=0

"- - ex = bf/2, ey =0
...... e x = 0, e y = h w / 2

........

".

50 --

~"'~ ':'~-

15

30

45

....

l
60
(degrees)

Fibre angle

75

90

(b)
140
L/H=
120

12

--

- - - ex = bf/2, ey =0

100

- ....

ex=ey=O

~
N~
" ' -

80 -

....... e x = 0, e y = h w / 2
.

---

ex = bf/2, ey = hw/2

60]-

40 [

:~:~=~225_2~
2~
........................

20

15

30

45

60
(degrees)

75

90

Fibre angle

Buckling load versus fibre angle in hinged end columns: (a) hinged ends, same fibre angle
in both flanges and web L / H = 6, (b) hinged ends, same fibre angle in both flanges and web
F i g . 16.

L / H := 12.

Table 3. Variation in critical load for hinged columns

(Euler)
Eccentricity

ex = ey = 0

e x = 0, ey = h w / 2

Optimal fibre angle for

maximum buckling load
Increase in critical load

0
0%

30
21%

ex = bf/2,

0
0%

ey =

ex = b f / 2 , ey = hw/2

35
16%

to terminal-moment gradients with various end conditions. In the case o f transverse point
loads, there is slight sensitivity o f the fibre angle to the buckling load. Nevertheless,
I-sections with predominantly unidirectional flange and web fibre orientations represent
optimal designs for tip-loaded cantilever beams. In long-span columns, L / H >_ 12, with
hinged ends, the maximum lateral-torsion buckling load is obtained by placing 0 fibres
in both flange and web for axial loading, 30 fibres in the flanges and web when the load
is applied along the y-axis, at ey = hw/2, and 35 fibres throughout for flexural-torsional
buckling. However, pultruded sections with predominantly unidirectional fibres represent
near-optimal designs for fixed end columns.

M . D . Pandey et al.

340
(a)

2000

--

L/H = 6

1800
1600

ex=ey=0

~- 1400
Z
~'~ 1200 = - ~ ' ' - - ,

- - - ex = bf/2, ey =0
--N

....... ex = O, ey = hw/2

10oo
o

600
400 ~

:":'~ 2-':..~..:....

200

"" - ,~,,.~
~ ~,..~.,..~..~....

15

30
45
60
Fibre angle (degrees)

-75

90

(b)
50O
L/H = 12

450
400[

ex = ey = 0

350 -

"-" 300 [ - - ' - ,

..

- - - ex = bf/2, ey =0
~

....... ex = O, ey = hw/2

250
o 200

hw/2 I

150
100
50
15

30
45
60
Fibre angle (degrees)

75

90

Fig. 17. Buckling load versus fibre angle in fixed end columns: (a) fixed ends, same fibre angles
in both flange and web L / H = 6, (b) fixed ends, same fibre angles in both flanges and web
L / H = 12.

Acknowledgement--The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Higher Education of Iran for support by way
of a Fellowship to the second author. Other research costs were underwritten by NSERC of Canada grant
A-1582 to the third author.

REFERENCES
Bauld, N. R. and Tzeng, L. (1984). A Vlasov theory for fibre-reinforced beams with thin-walled open
cross-section. Int. J. Solids Struct. 20(3), 277-297.
Bleich, F. 0952). Buckling Strength o f Metal Structures. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Canadian Pultrusion Company, Canada. (April 1992). Fibre Glass Structural Pultruded Shapes.
Gallagher, R. (1975). Finite Element Analysis Fundamentals. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Langhaar, H. L. (1962). Energy methods in Applied Mechanics. Wiley, New York.
Mottram, J. T. (1992). Lateral-torsional buckling of pultruded I-beam. Composites 23(2), 81-92.
Nethereot, D. A. and Rockey, K. C. (1971). A unified approach to the elastic lateral buckling of beams. The
Struct. Engr 51(4), 321-330.
Pandey, M. D. (1988). Lateral stability of beams in computer aided design. M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Sherbourne, A. N. and Pandey, M. D. (1989). Elastic, lateral-torsional stability of beams; moment modification factor. J. Constr. Steel Res. 13, 337-356.
Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M. (1961). Theory o f Elastic Stability. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tsal, S. W. and Hahn, H. T. (1980). Introduction to Composite Materials. Technomic Publishing Co.,
Westport, CT.
Vlasov, V. Z. (1961). Thin-walled elastic beams. Office of Technical Services, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
Washington 25, DC, TT-61-11400.

341

Stability of composite I-section beams

APPENDIX A

Constitutive relationships for beam stress resultants and beam displacements, in principle coordinates, are
given as follows (Bauld and Tzeng 1984):

I I i!0 o0
My

lyy

-Hs

"

M~

I~,~,

Hq

"

T~

Hc

-H,

Hq

JG

(AI)

\ ~' /

where

A = iAlldS,

(A2)

Ixx = I (Ally2 + DII cs20)ds'

(A3)

lyy = I (Allx2 + D11 sin20) ds'

(A4)

I'' = i (Allt2 + OllqE)ds'

(A5)

JG = 4 I D3~ ds,

(A6)

H~ = 2 I Dl~ sin O(s) ds,

(A7)

H~ = 2 ,l DI3 cos O(s) ds.

(A8)

In these relationships Aij and D o are extensional and bending stiffnesses of a lamina, respectively, and are
expressed as
N

A = ~ (Qij)k(Zk - Zk-O,
k=l
1

(A9)
N

D~j= ~ k~l (O.,)(z~ - zLO.

The Q~j, known as the transformed reduced elastic constants, are often defined in terms of a diffferent set of
orthotropic constants, Qo, which are invariant with respect to the axis of rotation in the plane of a lamina (Tsai
and Hahn, 1980).
The reduced stiffnesses, Qe, are defined in terms of engineering constants as follows:
El i

O" = -"d-'

Ez2

k'l 2 E22

Qt2 = "----~,

022 = --d-'

Q33 = G,2,

d = 1 - v,2v2,.

(AIO)

APPENDIX B
The buckling coefficient for various support conditions and moment gradients can be expressed by the
following formulae (Pandey, 1988):
1

- - = AI + A2/z + A3/z 2
At

(B1)

and
l
--

Aw

= B1 + B2g + B3bt2.

(B2)

The coefficient A I... A3 and B 1... B3 are obtained by the method of least-squares curve fitting and are tabulated
in Tables B1 and B2.

M . D . Pandey et al.

342

Notation denoting support conditions

The following classification is assigned to the various types of lateral end restraint:

Notation

Type of lateral restraint

1
2
3
4

Simple support
Warping fixed
Lateral bending fLxed
Completely fixed

and the support conditions for them can be described in the following table (Nethercot and Rockey, 1971):
Table BI. Boundary conditions for various supports
Boundary degree of freedom

Simple

Lateral displacement: U
Lateral rotation: U
Twist: ~b
Warping: ~b

Warping fLxed

0
-0
--

Lateral bending fixed

Completely fixed

0
0
0
--

0
0
0
0

0
-0
0

Buckling coeffwients for symmetrical boundary conditions

Table B2. Coefficients of parabolic curves for At
Support

AI

A2

A3

1-1
2-2
3-3
4-4

0.3175
0.2892
0.0788
0.0788

0.4202
0.3979
0.1000
0.1000

0.2604
0.2451
0.0727
0.0727

Table B3. Coefficient of parabolic curves for A w

Support

B1

B2

B3

1-1
2-2
3-3
4-4

0.2799
0.0527
0.0579
0.0176

0.4312
0.0875
0.0752
0.0263

0.2866
0.0536
0.0612
0.0182