1359-8368(95)00015-1

ELSEVIER

Composites: Part B 27B (1996) 295-305

Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Limited
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
1359-8368/96/$15.00

Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes

under bending

J. F. Davalos*, H. A. Salim, P. Qiao, R. Lopez-Anido

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Constructed Facilities Center
(CFC), West Virginia University, Morgantown, West VirgifJia 26506-6103, USA

and E. J. Barbero
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and CFC, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6103, USA
(Received December 1994; accepted April 1995)

A comprehensive approach for the analysis and design of pultruded FRP beams in bending is presented. It is
shown that the material architecture of pultruded FRP shapes can be efficiently modeled as a layered system.
Based on the information provided by the material producers, a detailed procedure is preserited for the
computation of fiber volume fraction (Vr) of the constituents, including fiber bundles or rovings, continuous
strand mats, and cross-ply and angle-ply fabrics. Using the computed Vrs, the ply stiffnesses are evaluated
from selected micromechanics models. The wall or panel laminate engineering constants can be computed
from the ply stiffnesses and macromechanics, and it is shown that the predictions correlate well with coupon
test results. The bending response of various H and box sections is studied experimentally and analytically.
The mechanics of laminated beams (MLB) model used in this study can accurately predict displacements
and strains, and it can be used in engineering design and manufacturing optimization of cross-sectional
shapes and lay-up configurations. The experimental results agree closely. with the MLB predictions and
finite element verifications.
(Keywords: pultrusion; FRP shapes; modeling; micromechanics; laminated beams; experimental results; finite elements)

1. INTRODUCTION
Pultruded fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) beams and
columns are increasingly used in Civil Engineering
structures, due to their favorable properties like light
weight, corrosion resistance, and electromagnetic transparency. In the design of fRP structural members, both
stiffness and strength properties are equally important
and depend on the material system and the geometry of
the cross-section. While changes in the geometry of FRP
shapes can be easily related to changes iIi stiffness,
changes in the material constituents and fiber orientationsdo not lead to such obvious results. In addition,
shear deformations in pultruded FRP composite materials are usually significant}, and therefore, the modeling
of FRP structural components should account for shear
effects.
Because of the complexity of composite materials,
analytical and design tools developed for members of

* Member ICCE

conventional materials can not always be readily applied

to FRP shapes. On the other hand, numerical methods,
such as finite elements, are often difficult to use, require
specialized training, and are not always accessible to
design engineers. Therefore, to expand the structural
applications of pultruded sections, a comprehensive
engineering design method for FRP shapes should be
developed. Such a design tool should allow practitioners
to perform analyses of customized shapes as well as to
optimize innovative sections.
Although it is generally accepted that pultruded
sections can be sitnulated as laminated composites2 ,
there are no available guidelines for the computation of
the fiber. volume fractions (Vr) of the constituent
materials in the laminate. Therefore, this paper presents
practical formulae and examples that permit the evaluation of Vrs of fiber-bundles or rovings, coninuous strand
mats, and cross-ply and angle-ply fabrics. For pultruded
sections, it is not practical to evaluate the ply stiffnesses
experimentally, since the material is not produced
by lamination lay-up. This paper presents selected

Analysis and design of pu/truded FRP shapes: J. F. Davalos et al.

micromechanics formulae for the computation of the

laminae stiffnesses based on their respective Vfs. In
particular, the use of micromechanics formulae for
composites with periodic microstructure 3 is recommended. The ply stiffnesses can then be used in classical
lamination theory (CLT)4 to predict the laminate
stiffnesses. In this study, predictions with CLT are
favorably compared to experimental results of FRP
coupon samples cut from full-size sections.
Based on a formal engineering approach of first-order
shear deformation theory, the mechanics of thin-walled
laminated composite beams (MLB) was developed 5 .
Accounting for the cross-section geometry and material
anisotropy, this formulation permits the computation of
beam stiffness coefficients and shear correction factor,
that can be conveniently used in Timoshenko beam
equations. Then, the stress resultants are used to
compute ply stresses in a post-processing operation. In
this study, MLB is used as an efficient tool for the
analysis and design of pultruded FRP sections. The
predictions of MLB for H and box beams are v~lidated
with finite element analyses and an experImental
program.
The experimental study presented in this paper
includes two H and two box pultruded beams, which
are tested in bending to evaluate displacements and
strains. The samples are subjected to 3-point and 4-point
loadings, and the largest box section (10 x 10 x 3/4") is
tested at various span-to-depth ratios to evaluate shear
effects. The predictions of the MLB model agree well
with the experimental results, which are also verified with
finite element analyses using 8-node isoparametric shell
elements of ANSYS. Through the analytical and
experimental program described in this paper, an
efficient and comprehensive analysis and design
approach for pultruded FRP beams is illustrated. The
proposed approach intends to bridge a gap between the
sophisticated modeling of composite materials and the
requirement for a simple but consistent tool for
engineering design.
Since there are no simplified and yet rigorous design
guidelines for pultruded FRP members, it is significant
that this paper presents a practical method that can be
used for the analysis, design, and optimization of FRP
beams. The paper is organized in two major sections: (1)
Modeling considerations, which include prediction of
ply/laminate stiffnesses and member response; and (2)
analytical and experimental evaluations of FRP beams,
which include test results of coupon samples and full-size
members.

2. MODELING OF PULTRUDED FRP SHAPES

FRP shapes are not laminated structures in a rigorous
sense. -However, they are produced with material
architectures that can be simulated as laminated configurations. In this section, the following two issues are
discussed: (1) The modeling of FRP sections as

laminated composites require accurate predictions of

ply stiffnesses, which can be evaluated throu.gh micromechanics by estimating the Vf of the constituents; and
(2) the modeling of member response requires a relatively
simple, but accurate method that can be used in
engineering analysis and design, which can be accomplished by the proposed MLB model.

2.1. Prediction of material properties

Pultruded sections, such as H, box, and other shapes,

consist typically of arrangements of flat walls or panels.
Usually, the reinforcement used is E-glass, and the resin
or matrix is either vinylester or polyester. Although these
sections are not produced by lamination lay-up, the
arrangement of the constituent materials can be simulated as a layer system, and the stiffness properties of
each panel can be predicted by lamination theory in
terms of the ply stiffnesses computed through micromechanics. A typical pultruded section may include the
following four types of layers (Figure 1): (1) A thin layer
of randomly-oriented chopped fibers (Nexus) placed on
the surface of the composite. This is a resin-rich layer
primarily used as a protective coating, and its contribution to the laminate response can be neglected; (2)
continuous strand mats (CSM) of different weights
consisting of continuous randon11y-oriented fibers; (3)
stitched fabrics (SF) with different angle orientations,
and (4) roving layers that contain continuousunidirectional fiber bundles, which contribute the most to the
stiffness and strength of a section. Each layer is modeled
as a "homogeneous, linearly elastic, and generally
orthotropic material, and to evaluate its properties, the
information provided by the material producer and
pultrusion manufacturer are used to compute Vf of each
equivalent ply, as explained next.
2.1.1. Computation of fiber volume fraction. The Vf
for each ply, either a roving or a CSM or a SF layer, is

62.5/ft - 61 yield roving

15.5 oz 90 SF
1/2 oz CSM
1 oz CSM
12 oz 45 SF
62.5/ft - 61 yield
15.5 oz 90 SF
1 oz CSM

Nexus Veil

~=IIIIIIIII~~2:

8"

Figure 1

Total # of 61 yield rovings = 250

Lay-up of illustrative example

Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes: J. F. Davalos et al.

defined as the ratio of the volume of fibers present to the

total volume of the layer, and therefore, the relative
volumes of fiber and matrix are determined to evaluate
the ply stiffnesses. Similarly, the Vr of the whole section
can be defined. For the CSM and SF layers, which are
respectively specified in oz/ft 2 and oz/yd 2, the Vr can be
determined as follows:
w
(Vr )cSMjSF = pt
(1 )
where, w is the weight per unit area in Ib/in 2, P is the
unconsolidated density of the CSM or SF fibers in Ib/in 3,
and t is the 'as manufactured' thickness of the material
(inches) as provided by the material producer. Thus, as
an approximation, it is assumed that the thicknesses of
these constituents remain constant during part manufacturing, and that the voids are filled with resin. For the
roving layers, the Vr is defined as:

(Vr)r = nrA r

(2)

tr

== -

(3)

YPr

where, Y is the yield specified in yards/lb and converted

to in/lb, and Pr is the density of the fibers given by the
producer. Once the Vrs for all the typical layers are
computed, the ply stiffnesses are predicted using selected
micromechanics formulas.
2.1.2. Prediction ofply stiffness. Several formulae of
micromechanics of composites have been developed
and used over time 6 . The degree of correlation between
experimental data and theoretical predictions depends
on the accuracy of the model used. In this study, the
ply stiffnesses for the roving and stit,ched fabric layers
are computed using primarily a recent micromechanics
model for composites with periodic microstructure
developed by Luciano and Barbero 3. Detailed expressions for the computation of the elastic constants E l ,
E 2 , G I2 , and lI12 are given in the original paper along
with experimental correlations. As an illustration, the
expression for the computation of the in-plane shear
modulus G 12 is given by:
G 12

==

Gm

Vr [ -

S3

1]
G

Gm + Gm -

-1

(4)

where, the subscripts f and m refer to fiber and matrix

respectively, and S3 is given by
83

==

- G (1 + Vr)Gr + (1- Vr)G m

m (1 - Vr)G f + (1 + Vr)G m

12 -

0.49247 - 0.47603 Vr - 0.02748 Vf

In addition, the composite cylinders model 7 which is

based on the self-consistent theory8-IO, can provide

(5)

For comparative purposes and because of its popularity,

the elastic properties of roving and SF layers are also
computed by the mechanics of materials rule of mixtures
approach 4. For example, the expression for G12 is given
by
_
G 12 -

GmGr
(1 - Vr)Gr + VrG m

(6)

The stiffness of the CSM layers are estimated from the

approximate expressions ll for randomly oriented composites, based on the assumption that the material is
isotropic in the plane 12 . The following expressions given
in ref. 11 are used:
II

where, n r is the number of rovings per unit width (in-I)

provided by the manufacturer, tr is the assumed in situ
thickness of the roving-matrix layer, which is computed
by subtracting the thicknesses of the CSM and SF layers
from the pultruded laminate thickness; A r is the area of
one roving computed from:
Ar

reasonably accurate stiffness predictions for roving and

SF layers. The formula for G I2 given by the composite
cylinders model is

E
2G

== - - 1 (7)

where, Eland E 2 are computed from any of the micromechanics models described earlier, and E, G, and II are
equivalent isotropic elastic constants. Recent experimental results for CSM strips have shown that the
extensional stiffness, E, estimated with the above formula
is approximately 15% higher than the experimental
value 13 .
2.1.3. Prediction of panel stiffnesses. Once the ply
stiffnesses for each flat panel or wall section of a pultruded shape are computed through micromechanics
formulas, the stiffnesses of a panel can be computed
from classical lamintion theory (CLF)4. In particular,
the compliance matrix corresponding to the extensional
stiffness matrix, A, can be used to evaluate the laminate
engineering properties in terms of the transformed stiffness coefficients Qij. An example is given next to illustrate the computation of ply and laminate elastic
properties.
2.1.4. Example: elastic properties of a pultruded box
section. Using the manufacturer's information and

the micro/macromechanics approach described above,

the material properties of the box section shown in
Figure 1 are evaluated. This 4 x 8 x 1/4" pultruded
shape was manufactured using E-glass and vinylester
resin by Creative Pultrusions Inc., and it consists of six
CSM layers, two cross-ply and two angle-ply SF layers,
and two roving layers. The Vrs' of the constituent layers
are computed from equations (1) and (2) and the information given in Table 1. As explained before, the thickness of the roving layers is computed by subtracting the
thicknesses of the CSM and SF layers from the total
thickness of the laminate (0.25").
To evaluate the ply stiffnesses through micromechanics, the properties of fiber and resin are given in Table 2.
To obtain accurate results, the elastic properties of the

Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes: J. F. Davalos at al.

Table 1

Ply properties
Nominal weight*

No. of plies and type

Thickness (in)

2, 1/2oz CSM
4,1 oz CSM
2, 15.50z 90 SF
2, 12 oz 45 SF
2, 61 yield roving

2.17014 X 104.34028 x 10- 4

7.47492 X 10-4
5.88349 x 10-4

1/2oz/ft
loz/fe
15.50z/yd2
12.2oz/yd 2
61 yards/lb

0.0075*
0.0200*
0.0230*
0.0220*t
0.0325

4.9497 x 10- 3

0.315
0.236
0.353
0.291
0.793

* provided by material producer

.
.
t computed by subtracting the thicknesses of the CSM/SF layers from the lamInate thIckness

Table 2

The compliance matrix [a], which is the inverse of A,

becomes:

Material properties of the constituents

G (psi)

E (psi)

Material
E-glass fiber
Vinylester resin*

10.5 X 10
7.336 x 105

v
6

4.1833 X 10
2.3714 X 105

0.255
0.30

0.092
0.041

[a]

==

*obtained experimentally (Tomblin 1994)

vinylester resin were obtained experimentally by testing

all-resin rods in tension and torsion 14. The roving and SF
ply properties are computed from the micromechanics
formulae described above (e.g. equations (4)-(6)), and
the properties of the CSM layers are computed from
equation (7). The properties of the 45 SF layer are
computed by dividing the layer into two lamin~e of
opposite fiber orientation angles. The ply stiffnesses of
the constituent layers are summarized in Table 3, and it
can be observed that the extensional stiffneses computed
by the rule of mixtures formulae agree with those given
by the periodic microstucture and composite cylinders
models. However, for the in-plane shear stiffness, the G 12
value given by the rule of mixtures is approximately 34%
lower for the roving layer and 500/0 lower for the CSM
layers in relation to the other two models.
Using CLT, the engineering properties (Ex, Ey , vxy ,
and Gxy ) of the panel are computed by assembling the
_
transformed stiffness coefficients into the extensional
stiffness matrix A. The expressions for Ai} are given as 4
N

Ai}

==

L(Qij)ktk
k=I

i,}== 1,2,6

(8)

where, tk is the thickness of the k th ply, and for this

example, the stiffness matrix A becomes
6

Table 3

==

0.914 x 10
0.228 X 106

0.228 X 10
0.708 X 106
0

0.204

106

1.19 X 10-3.831 X 10- 7

-3.831 X 101.536 x 10- 6

0
0
4.902

]
10-6

From which, for example, Ex is simply given by

Ex == 1/( tall)' where t == 0.25 in. is the laminate thickness. Similarly, the remaining elastic properties are com6
X 10 psi, E y ==
Puted , and the results are: Ex ==6 3.361
.
6
2.604 X 10 psi, Gxy == 0.816 x 10 pSI, and v xy == 0.322.
The accuracy of these values can be evaluated by testing
coupon samples, as illustrated later in this paper. The
-modeling of FRP shapes is discussed in the next section.
2.2. Prediction of member response

In this study, the response ofFRP shapes in bending is

evaluated using a formal engineering approach to the
mechanics of thin-walled laminted beams (MLB), based
on kinematic assumptions consistent with Timoshenko's
beam theory. An overview of the MLB theory used is
presented next.
The three different methodologies that are available in
the literature to evaluate the stiffness of laminated
dI5 .

composite beam elements under flexure are d Iscusse

The approach proposed by WItney
et a.116 and T sal17
h
considers that the effective moduli -of a laminated beam
are the corresponding engineering constants of the
laminate. Hence, the effective beam moduli are obtained
from the reciprocals of the components of the laminate
compliance matrix, which is obtained by full inversion of
the laminate stiffness matrix. The basic assumption in
this approach is that the lateral force and moment stress
resultants in a beam element are zero. Lopez-Anido et al. I5
showed experimentally that this approach represents the.

Ply material properties computed by three micromechanics models

E I (10 6 psi)

(10 6 psi)

G I2 (106 psi)

Vl2

Lamina

PM

CC

ROM

PM

CC*

ROM

PM

CC

ROM

PM

CC

ROM

1/2oz CSM
1oz CSM
15.50z 90 fabric
12 oz 45 fabric
61 yield roving

2.093
1.710
4.118
3.505
8.469

2.132
1.758
4.276
3.674
8.438

2.077
1.727
4.181
3.576
8.478

2.093
1.710
1.183
1.056
3.374

2.123
1.758
1.141
1.022
3.093

2.077
1.727
1.092
1.006
2.796

0.407
0.402
0.389
0.396
0.343

0.412
0.407
0.281
0.284
0.262

00412

0.744
0.610
0.457
0.405
1.429

0.755
0.625

0.337
0.305
0.356
0.327
0.941

* E2 is an average of the computed upper and lowe: limi~s

.
Note: PM = periodic microstructure, CC = compOSIte cylInders, ROM = rule of mIxtures

0.404
0.284
0.287
0.264

00455

0.404
1.387

Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes: J. F. Davalos et al.

actual stiffness of laminated composite beam elements

under flexure for span-to-width ratios 2: 6. Therefore,
the approach is adopted in this study to model pultruded
structural shapes by first-order shear deformation theory
for thin- and moderately thick-walled laminated beams
with open or closed cross-sections 5
In the present model, the stiffnesses of a beam are
computed by adding the contribution of the stiffnesses of
the component panels, which in turn are obtained from
the effective beam moduli. The model accounts for
membrane stiffness and flexure stiffness of the walls, but
shear lag warping effects are not considered. The position
of the neutral axis is defined in such a way that the
behavior of a beam-column with asymmetric material
and/or cross-sectionalshape is completely described by
axial, bending, and shear stiffness coefficients (A z , D y , F y )
only. Furthermore, a shear correction factor is obtained
from energy equivalence. An overview of the mechanics
of laminated beams (MLB) theory is presented next.
The basic kinematic assumptions in MLB are: (1) The
contour does not deform in its own plane, and (2) a plane
section originally normal to the beam axis remains plane,
but not necessarily normal to the beam axis due to shear
deformation. Straight FRP beams with at least one axis
of geometric and material symmetry are considered. The
pultruded sections are modeled as assemblies of flat
walts. The compliance matrices [a]3x3' LB]3x3, [c5]3x3 are
obtained from classical lamination theory (eLT)I? For
each wall the position of the middle surface is defined by
the function (Figure 2):
(9)

where bi is the wall width, Yi is the position of the wall

centroid, and i is the orientation of the i th wall.
By defining stress resultant assumptions in each
wall compatible with beam theory without torsion

(Ns == M s == M sz == 0), and assuming that the off-axis

plies are balanced symmetric (Q16 == (316 == 0), the extensional, bending-extension coupling, bending, and shear
stiffnesses of the i th wall are expressed as: .
-

-1

Ai == (811~
-

Bi == (-{311 ~

)i'

Di == (a 11 ~

-1

)i'

-1

Fi == (a66 ) i

) i,

~ ==

where

-1

a11 b11 -

( 10)

f3r 1

where Ns ' Ms and Msz are laminate resultant force and

moments and a16 and {316 are compliance elements.
General expressions for the beam stiffness coefficients
are derived from the beam variational problem. Hence,
axial (A z ), bending (D x , D y ), and shear (Fx , F y ) stiffnesses
that account for the contribution of all the walls can be
computed as
n

Az

== LAibi
j=1

By

== L[Ai(Yi - Yn) + B i cos i]b i

i=1

Dy

6
n

[ - (

Ai (Yi - Yn)

+ b2)
12 sm <Pi
i 2

(11 )

+ 2B;(:Yi -

Yn) cos <Pi + Di COs <Pi] hi

Fy

2
== ~
~ Fjb j sin i
i=1

The beam bending-extension coupling coefficient (Bx or

By) can be eliminated by defining the location of the
neutral axis of bending (x n or Yn) as
n

L(YiAi + cos iBi)bi

Yn

i=I
== -------

Az

(12)

_.__.

. __.

.._.

. __._.._..__

_._._

__.

.._

_.

... 1 . . . - _

Figure 2 Cross-section geometry and reference coordinate systems

-.-&0

Analysis and design of pultruded

F~P

shapes: J. F. Davalos et al.

Introducing the coordinate y' == y - Yn, the extensional

and bending responses are decoupled. An explicit
expression for the static shear correction factor (Kx ; K y )
is derived from energy equivalence. As an approximation
in design, the shear correction factor for pultruded Hand
box sections can be taken as 1.0. General equations for
various FRP sections are presented in ref. 18.
Displacement and rotation functions can be obtained
by solving the Timoshenko beam theory equilibrium
equations. Deflections at discrete locations can be computed by employing energy methods that incorporate the
beam bending and shear stiffnesses. General formulae for
maximum bending deflections (8b ) and shear deflections
(8s ) for typical beam loadings and boundary conditions are
available in manuals. For example, the maximum deflection for a four-point loading of a beam of span Land
concentrated loads (P) applied at L/3 is:
23PL 3
PL
8== 8b +8s == 648D +3KF
y

y y

(b) H 6"x6"x1/4"

Figure 3 Layup configurations of pultruded H sections

[::Jp

(13)

20zCSM
6.25/1n -61 yield

30zCSM

(a) Box 4 I x4"x1/4"

iijiiiijjiijijjjjir

For a beam loaded in the z-y plane, the axial, shear,

and bending stress resultants are N z , V y, and My. Then,
the strains and curvature at the middle surface of the i th
wall are given as

1/20z
CSM 30zCSM
2 ot CSM
3 oz CSM

Veil

Gl-4.2/in -28 yield

.; l

__

2.B/in -28 yield

:::llllllll1a~

2.B/in -28 yield

30zCSM
30zCSM

...........
30zCSM - . ""%=ww,;-~.
;s'
"
,,,',, ,
3 oz CSM

2 oz CSM
~"'i:
>

r-2.8/in -28 yield

io--2.8/in -28 yield

,.,

3 ozCSM .
10zCSM

2.8/in -28 yield

Veil

(b) Box 101 x101 x3/4"

(14)

Figure 4 Layup configurations of pultruded box sections

and the stress resultants in the i th wall are

Nz(Si' z) == AiEz + Bi'Xz,

Nsz(Xi' z) == F/ysz,
Mz(Si' z) == BiEz + D/Xz
(15)

18"

14

211

th

Ply strains and stresses, at a location (Si' z) of the i

wall, can be obtained from the six stress resultants by
employing CLT 17 . The location of the shear center
S(x s,Ys) is defined in order to decouple bending and
torsion. Evaluation of deflections and ply stresses for an
H section were satisfactorily correlated with a refined
layered shell finite element model 5 The modeling concepts discussed in this section are used in this paper to
evaluate the response of H and box FRP sections tested
in bending.

III(

2~1

a"

Box 10x10x3/4

3. RESPONSE EVALUATION OF PULTRUDED

-I
Longitudinal

rsl

Transverse

Figure 5 Plan view of coupon samples cut from box section

FRP SHAPES
The responses of two H and two. box FRP beams are
evaluated experimentally and analytically. The beams
are tested in bending, and deflections and strains are
recorded. The test beams are analyzed using micromechanics 3 and macromechanics 4 in combination with
MLB 5 and shell finite elements 19 . The experimental and
analytical procedures and results are discussed in this
section.

3.1. Experimental evaluation

Four types of pultruded cross sections manufactured
using E-glass fibers and vinylester resin are evaluated in
this study. The sections include: two H (4 x 4 x 1/4" and
6 x 6 x 1/4") beams, each consisting of 7 layers; one box
beam (4 x 4 x 1/4") consisting of 3 layers; and one box
beam (10 x 10 x 3/4") consisting of 171ayers. The stacking sequence of the cross-sections of the test-samples are

Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes: J. F. Davaloset ai.

Table 4

Laminate properties comparisons of box lOx lOx 3/4" section

Eyy

Exx

Experimental
(COV)

Analytical
%Difference

2.044 x 10 psi
(9.06%)
1.991 x 106 psi
-2.6%

4.147 x 10 psi
(3.37%)
4.021 x 106 psi
-3.0%

Gxy

v xy

7.144 x 105 psi

(2.770/0)
7.250 x 105 psi
+1.5%

0.301
(2.03%)
0.294
-2.3%

COY = coefficient of variance

Note: %difference is based on the experimental results

Table 5

Engineering constants of laminae for H and box sections

E}

G 12

tk

Beam section

Layer*

(10 6 psi)

(10 6 psi)

(10 6 psi)

V12

(in)

H4x4x 1/4"

1.50z CSM
20z CSM
30 rovings (113 yield)
28 ravings (113 yield)
matrix

1.716
1.861
4.320
4.065
0.490

1.716
1.861
0.959
0.912
0.419

0.605
0.655
0.371
0.353
0.198

0.419
0.421
0.293
0.294
0.240

0.025
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.045

Box 4 x 4 x 1/4"

30z CSM
20z CSM
25 rovings (61 yield)

2.140
1.861
3.043

2.140
1.861
0.758

0.752
0.655
0.293

0.423
0.421
0.296

0.04
0.03
0.18

H6x6xl/4"

1.50z CSM
20z CSM
22 rovings (61 yield)
28 rovings (61 yield)
25 rovings (61 yield)
matrix

1.716
1.861
4.047
5.016
4.532
0.490

1.716
1.861
0.909
1.104
0.999
0.490

0.605
0.655
0.351
0.428
0.387
0.198

0.419
0.421
0.294
0.289
0.292
0.240

0.025
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.045

Box 10 x 10 x 3/4"t

1/20z CSM
1oz CSM
20z CSM
30z CSM
28 rovings (28 yield)
42 rovings (28 yield)

2.090
1.716
2.090
2.290
5.370
7.650

2.090
1.716
2.090
2.290
1.520
2.630

0.743
0.610
0.743
0.810
0.595
1.076

0.297
0.423
0.297
0.295
0.280
0.273

0.0075
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06375
0.06375

*The rovings are reported as the total number per panel

t vinylester material properties were obtained experimentally

shown in Figures 3 and 4. The 10 x 10 x 3/4" box section

was manufactured by Morison Molded Fiber Glass
Company of Bristol, VA, and the other three sections
were produced by Creative Pultrusions Inc. of Alum Bank,
PA. The experimental program included testing of coupon
samples, cut from one of the box beams, and fullmember samples.
3.1.1. Coupon testing. The laminate stiffnesses of the
walls or panels of the FRP beams used in this study can
be predicted using the micro/macromechanics approach
described in Section 2.1, and to validate the accuracy of
the proposed models, coupon samples were cut from the
10 x 10 x 3/4" box section and tested in tension and torsion. Samples of 2-inch widths were cut along the longitudinal and transverse directions of the box beam (see
Figure 5). The longitudinal samples were 18" long, and
the transverse samples were 8" long (limited by the 10"
dimension of the box beam). Eight longitudinal and
five transverse samples were tested in tension to determine the extensional stiffnesses, Ex and Ey , and Poisson's
ratio v xy ' The shear stiffness Gxy was determined from
torsion tests of 10 longitudinal samples. Using the
assumption of transverse isotropy20 and the measured
torque and angle of twist, the shear stiffness was computed from Saint Venant's torsion solution for rectangular

bars. The results are reported in Table 4, along with the

analytical predictions computed from micromechanics3
andCLT. The differences between the predicted and average computed values are less than 3%. Therefore, for the
other three sections tested in this study, the material properties were only evaluated analytically.
3.1.2. Member testing. The two H and two box
sections were tested in bending under 3-point and also
4-point loadings. For the 3-point test, the load was
applied at the midspan of the sample, and for the 4-point
test of the 10 x 10 x 3/4" box section, the concentrated
loads were applied at third points, where for the other
three sections, the loads were applied at 20" from each
end, with a distance between loads of 32". Both H beams
and the 4 x 4 x 1/4" box beam were tested for a span of
6ft; whereas the 10 x 10 x 3/4" box section was tested
for five spans: 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 feet. The samples
were tested in a load frame, and the load was applied
with a hydraulic jack and recorded using a load cell.
For all the samples, the maximum deflections at
midspans were recorded with linear variable differential
transducers (LVDTs), and the strains at midspan were
recorded with strain gages. For the two Hsections and
the 4 x 4 x 1/4" box section, which were tested 21 , only
the maximum strains at top and bottom flanges were

Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes: J. F.Davalos et al.

j------------------------------------------------------------------------------,

I
I
I

i Manufacturer's Information

~!
~l
V'I

!
!
I

g!

~odic Microstru~ !

!:
c.{

displacements were recorded with a computerized data

acquisition system. The analytical evaluations are presented
first, and the results of the experimental/analytical response
are presented and discussed at the end of this section.

I
I
I

-!

3.2. Analytical evaluations

Ply Mechan.ical Properties

I
I
IL

Based on the modeling of pultruded FRP shapes

discussed in Section 2, the computer program FRPBEAM
was developed by Qiao et al. 22 to model and analyze
FRP shapes in bending. The response of the four sections
tested in this study (Figures 3 and 4) are analyzed with
this program and also with the finite element program 19.
The computation of ply stiffnesses follows the procedure
presented in Section 2. A summary of the computed ply
properties are given in Table 5. The modeling of member
response are briefly discussed in this section.
The displacements and strains of the four sections
evaluated in this paper are predicted using the theory
described in Section 2 and implemented in the computer
program FRPBEAM. A flowchart of the computational
procedure is given in Figure 6, and the three major
modules are: (1) A preprocessor to evaluate the ply
properties, as discussed above; (2) a processor to
evaluate wall or panel stiffnesses with CLT (equation
(10)), beam stiffness coefficients and shear correction
factor with MLB (equation (11)), beam displacements
and rotations with Timoshenko beam theory (e.g.
equation (13)), panel midsurface strai:'ls and curvatures
(equation (14)), and panel stress resultants (equation
(15)); and (3) a post-processor to evaluate ply strains and
stresses with CLT. The computed pan~l stiffnesses of
webs and flanges of the test beams are given in Table 6,
and the beam stiffness coefficients and shear correction
factors are given in Table 7, where the membrane and
flexural components of the bending stiffness are listed
separately. It is interesting to observe that the membrane
component, which is the first term of D y in equation (11),

I
I

1I

------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------.
I

I
I

I
I

,
I

I
I

Panel Mechanical Properties

I
I
I
I
I

....
o

en
~l

Beam Stiffness Coefficients

o!

2!
Timoshenko
Beam Theory

Co il:

i1

Beam Displacements &

Panel Stress Resultants

:
l

,1_______________________________ _
~.

r---------------------------- ----C@--------------------------'

~l

o!

~l

Ply Strains & Stresses

~!

enl
01
Q.t

Figure 6 Computational flowchart of program FRPBEAM

measured, while for the 10 x 10 x 3/4" box section,

strains were also measured at five locations on one web
and at three locations on the opposite web. The tests
were conducted in the elastic range, and the strains and

Table 6

Panel stiffness coefficients of webs and flanges (given per unit width)
Flange
Extensional

Bending

Beam Section

(kip-injin

H 4 x 4 x 1/4"
Box 4 x 4 x 1/4"
H 6 x 6 x 1/4"
Box 10 x 10 x 3/4"

816.0
690.0
836.0
3010.0

Table 7

Web

(kip-in jin

Shear
2

P
)

3.72
3.13
3.92
134.00

(kip-injin

118.0
102.0
119.0
527.0

Extensional

Bending

(kip-injin

611.0
690.0
658.0
3010.0

(kip-in jin
3.61
3.13
3.88
134.00

Shear
2

(kip-injin 2 )
108.0
102.0
112.0
527.0

Beam stiffnesses, shear correction factors

Beam section

Membrane

Flexural

Total

Shear stiffness Fy
(1 061b-in 2 jin2 )

Shear correction
factor K y

H4x4x 1/4"
Box4x4xl/4"
H6x6xl/4"
Box 10 x 10 x 3/4"

28.783
24.271
93.325
1590.356

0.0298
0.0235
0.0470
2.4676

28.844
24.291
9.121
1598.200

0.406
0.762
0.641
10.061

0.9980
0.9959
0.9977
0.9959

Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes: J. F. Davalos et al.

Table 8

Deflectons and strains comparisons of FRP sections under 3-point loading

Maximum deflection (in/kip)

Maximum strain (fLE/kip)

Beam section

Span (ft)

Exp.

MLB

8MLB/8Exp.

FE

Exp.

MLB

EMLB/EExp.

FE

H4x4x 1/4"
Box 4 x 4 x 1/4"
H6x6xl/4"
Box 10 x 10 x 3/4"

6
6
6
14

0.315
0.327
0.112
0.06258

0.314
0.344
0.1116
0.06600

0.997
1.052
0.996
1.055

0.308
0.331
0.1102
0.06206

1232
1475
590
129

1330
1480
578
130

1.079
1.003
1.021
1.008

1400
1500
600
135

Table 9

Deflections and strains comparisons of FRP sections under 4-point loading

Maximum deflection (in/kip)

Maximum strain (fLE/kip)

Beam section

Span (ft)

Exp.

MLB

8MLB/8Exp.

FE

Exp.

MLB

EMLB/EExP.

FE

H4x4x 1/4"
Box 4 x 4 x 1/4"
H6x6xl/4"
Box 10 x 10 x 3/4"

6
6
6
14

0.2401
0.2515
0.0740
0.0504

0.2263
0.2525
0.0781
0.0532

0.943
1.004
1.055
1.054

0.210
0.246
0.0773
0.0510

810
910
322
77

738
823
321
78

0.911
0.904
0.997
1.013

750
830
315
75

is significantly larger than the flexural component (last

term of D y in equation (11 )). The total bending stiffnesses
in Table 7 are computed by equation (11), accounting for
the bending-extension effects (second term of D y in
equation (11)) in some of the sections which exhibited
minor lay-up asymmetries.
To verify the prediction accuracy with the FRPBEAM
program, the test beams are also analyzed with the
commercial finite element program ANSYS 19 using
Mindlin 8-node isoparametric layered shell elements
(SHELL 99), which include shear deformation. An
aspect ratio of one (length-to-width) is used to define
the mesh for each member, and the input material
properties used are taken from Table 5. The analytical
and experimental results are correlated next.
3.3. Comparison and discussion of results

As shown in Table 4, the panel or laminate stiffnesses

computed from the predicted laminae properties agree
closely with experimental results obtained for the coupon
samples of the 10 x 10 x 3/4" box section. These results
provide confidence in the computational procedure for

ply stiffnesses proposed in this paper. For all four FRP

sections and a maximum load of 1000 lbs., the predicted
maximum deflections and strains for the 3-point loading
case are compared to the experimental values in Table 8.
Similarly, the maximum deflections and strains for the
4-point loading case are given in Table 9. The results
indicate that the predicted values with MLB agree very
well with. the FE and experiinental v-alues, with
maximum differences of 5.5% for displacements and
7.90/0 for strains. The MLB and FE results match closely
the experimental values over the entire range of loading,
as illustrated by Figure 7 for the midspan displacement of
the 6 x 6 x 1/4" H section under 3-point loading, and by
Figure 8 for the maximum strains of the 10 x 10 x 3/4"
box section under 4-point loading.
To evaluate the shear effects, the 10 x 10 x 3/4" box
section was tested under five different spans (6, 8, 10, 12,
and 14 feet). The MLB explicit solution permits the
computation of the bending and shear components of
deflection, and as shown in Table 10, shear deflection for
the 3-point loading accounts for approximately 27% of

1000
1000
900
r--..

;S

'-'"
~

'"C
~
0

...J

r--..

g
~

500
400

300
200
100

- - e - Experimental

-------*---MLB

700
600
500

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

O. 1

- - e - Experimental

-------+e---. :MLB
- - . - FE (ANSYS)

O----.......-----.----r------,.--r----~-......----t

0.12

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Strain (JAS)

Center deflections (in)

Deflections comparison for the H6 x 6 x 1/4" section

P/2

400
300
200
100

---.- FE (ANSYS)

~o

800
I

600

Figure 7

P/2

900

800
700

~------------------~1t-1

Figure 8
section

Strains comparison at midspan for the 10 x 10 x 3/4" box

Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes: J. F. Davalos et al.

Table 10

Midspan deflection comparisons for box 10 x 10 x 3/4" section

3-point loading

4-point loading
Exp.

. Exp.

MLB
ratio

MLB

btotal

btotal

bshear

btotal

btotal

btotal

(in/kip)

(in/kip)

(%)

bshear

L (ft)

(bMLB/ b Exp .)

(in/kip)

(in/kip)

(%)

btotal ratio
(bMLB / b Exp .)

6
8
10
12
14

0.005621
0.011235
0.020172
0.033899
0.05041

0.005238
0.011077
0.020424
0.034156
0.053151

24.7
15.5
10.5
7.6
5.7

0.93
0.99
1.01
1.01
1.05

0.006320
0.013002
0.023672
0.039677
0.062582

0.006708
0.014036
0.025519
0.042875
0.066001

26.8
17.1
11.5
8.4
6.4

1.06
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.06

100

EXP p

0.05

,.-....

FE
+
MLB-

~
..........

:g 0.03

'i0

4-point bending

:s

0.02

CJ

0.01

:lIW

...

..

~ -100

0.0

10

11

12

13

10.00

Figure 9 Deflection comparisons for various spans of the lOx lOx

3/4" box section

In this paper a comprehensive analytical and experi~

mental program for the anaJysis and design of pultruded
FRP. shapes under bending is described. The interactive
computer program FRPBEAM is developed to carry out
the analysis of FRP beams, from the evaluation of ply
stiffnesses through micromechanics to the overall
member response through the mechanics of laminated
beams (MLB) model. The proposed approach can be
used as an efficient tool for engineering design by both
practicing engineers and pultrusion manufacturers.

'-'

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Bottom
10.0

Width (in)

Span (ft)

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

...

or

14

the total deflection for the 6-ft span, and it decreases to

about 60/0 for the 14-ft span. As with the other FRP
sections, the ratio of experimental to MLB predictions is
close to 1.0. The deflection comparisons with FE and
experimental results are shown graphically in Figure 9.
The longitudinal experimental and analytical strains for
three spans (6, 10, and 14ft) are compared in Figure 10,
showing close agreement. Figure lOa shows the strains
across the width of th.e top and bottom flanges, and
Figure lOb shows the strains across the depth of the two
apposite webs. To study the Poisson's effects, transverse
strains were also measured on top and bottom flanges,
and the experimental results were within 100/0 of the
MLB predictions.

.....

0.00 +---.......-----r----....------'T'"---r-----,.--~____i
6

..

Top

(a)

[J

oL

-50

tIJ

3-point bending

oL

:i~

'-"

50

0.04

'-'

-r---~~-~----..,...----,

----.

8.00

:5 6.00

.........",

(b)

'fJ

~4.00
~
2.00

a .00

.......-r,.,..,.~r-1'"'1"T'T"T-M-rrr..,.,.,""I'-r'rrr~r-r-r-l~~r-r-r-r-4

-100.00

-50.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

Microstrains/load (tJSJkip)
Exp:

6-ft

10-ft

* 14-ft

MLB

Figure 10 Longitudinal strains for the 10 x 10 x 3/4" box section: (a)

top and bottom flanges; (b) webs

The results of this study indicate that selected

micromechanics formulae can be used to accurately
predict the ply stiffnesses of the constituent materials of
the laminate, including fiber-bundles or rovings, continuous strand mats, and cross- and angle-ply fabrics.
These relatively simple formulae can provide accurate
results, provided that the constituent Vrs are correctly
estimated using the manufacturer's information and the
formulae given in this paper.
The experimental study discussed in this paper
includes H and box FRP sections, and the MLB model
predicts displacements and strains in excellent agreement
with the experimental results and finite element analyses

Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes: J. F. Davalos et ai.

with ANSYS19. The MLB model permits the computation ofshear and bending deflections separately, and has
the ability to analyze any cross-sectional shape with
some minor restrictions. Therefore, MLB can be used to
conduct parametric studies, and it can be extended to
optimization studies of existing and new shapes.
In this study, distortional effects, such as shear-lag
and warping, which can be particularly significant for
thin-walled sections, were not considered. Moreover, the
analysis is limited to linear-elastic response and does
not include failure or buckling considerations. These
additional concerns need to be addressed in the design of
FRP beams, and the present formulation can be used as
the basis for further work in this area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The FRP sections tested in this study' were partially
contributed by Creative Pultrusions, Inc. and Morrison
Molded Fiber Glass Company. The authors thank
Professor GangaRao and Mr Nagaraj for the use of
some of the experimental results presented in this paper.

7
8

9
10
11
12
13
14

15

16

17

REFERENCES

2
3
4
5
6

Mosallam, A.S. and Bank, L.C. Short-term behavior of pultrtided fiber-reinforced plastic frame. J. of Struct. Engrg 1992,
118(7), 1937
Barbero, E.J. Pultruded structural shapes: from the constituents
to the structural behavior. SAMPE J. 1991, 27(1), 25
Luciano, R. and Barbero, E.J. Formulae for the stiffness of composites with periodic microstructure. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1994,
31(21), 2933
Jones, R.M. 'Mechanics of composite materials', Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, New York, NY, 1975
Barbero, E.J., Lopez-Anido, R. and Davalos, J.F. On the
mechanics of thin-walled laminated composite beams. J. Compos. Mater. 1993, 27(8), 806-983
Chamis, C.C. Simplified composites micromechanics equations

18

19
20
21

22

for strength, fracture toughness, and environmental effects.

NASA TM-83696, USA, 1984
Hashin, Z. and Rosen, B.W. The elastic modeling of fiber-reinforced materials. J. Appl. Mecho 1964, (31), 223
Whitney, J.M. and Riley, M.B. (September, 1966). Elastic properties of fiber reinforced composite materials. AIAA J. 1966,
1537
Budiansky, B. Micromechanics. Computers and Struct. 1983, 16,
3
Christensen, R.M. A critical evaluation for a class of micromechanics models. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1990, 38, 379
Hull, D. 'An Introduction to Composite Materials', Cambridge
University Press
McCullough, R.L. 'Concept of Fiber-Resin Composites', Marcel Dekker, Inc., NY, 1971
Makkapati, S. Compressive strength of pultruded structural
FRP shapes, Master Thesis, West Virginia University, 1994
Tomblin, J.S. Compressive strength models for pultruded glass
fiber reinforced composites. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA, 1994
Lopez-Anido, R., Davalos, J.F. and Barbero E.J. Experimental
evaluation of stiffness of laminated composite beam elements
under flexure. J. Reinforced Plastics and Composites 1995, (14),
349
Whitney, J.M., Browning, C.E. and Mair, A. Analysis of the
flexure test for laminated composite materials. In 'Composite
Materials: Testing and Design (Third Conference)', ASTM
STP 546; American Society for Testing and Materials, 30, 1974
Tsai, S.W. 'Composites Design', Dayton, OH: Think Composites, 1988
Lopez-Anido, R. Analysis and design of orthotropic plates
stiffened by laminated beams for bridge superstructures. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA, 1994
'ANSYSUser;s Manual', Swanson Analysis System Inc., Houston, PA, 1992.
Davalos, J.F., Loferski, J.R., Holzer, S.M. and Yadama, V.
Transverse isotropy modeling of 3-D glulam timber beams. J.
Mater. In Civil Engrg 1991, ASCE, 3(2), 125
Nagaraj, V. and GangaRao, H.V.S. Static and fatigue response
of pultruded FRP beams without and with splice connections,
CFC Report, 94-183, Constructed Facilities Center, West Virgi~
nia University, Morgantown, WV, 1994
Qiao, P., Davalos, J.F. and Barbero, E.J. FRPBEAM: A computer program for analysis and design of FRP beams, CFC
Report, 94-191, Constructed Facilities Center, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, WV, 1994