Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
1007/s12206-021-0625-x
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
Original Article
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x
Keywords:
· Shear stresses in the torsion problems
of laminated composite metal bars
· Laminated composites
· Torsion problems
· Shear stresses
· Torsion of laminated composites
Correspondence to:
Mario Acosta-Flores
mario.acosta@uaem.mx
Citation:
Acosta-Flores, M., Eraña-Díaz, M. L.,
Jiménez-López, E., García, J. C., Delfín-
Vázquez, J. J., Lucero-Velázquez, B.
(2021). Analytical method for determining
maximum shear stresses in laminated
composite metal bars subjected to torsion.
Journal of Mechanical Science and
Technology 35 (7) (2021) ?~?.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x
Received September 7th, 2020
Revised March 23rd, 2021
Accepted April 11th, 2021
† Recommended by Editor
Seungjae Min
© The Korean Society of Mechanical
Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH
Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021
DOI 10.
Analytical method for determining
maximum shear stresses in laminated
composite metal bars subjected to
torsion
Mario Acosta-Flores1, Marta Lilia Eraña-Díaz1, Eusebio Jiménez-López2, Juan Carlos García3,
Juan José Delfín-Vázquez4 and Baldomero Lucero-Velázquez4
1
Faculty of Chemical Sciences, Autonomous University of Morelos State, Av. Universidad 1001, Colonia
2
Chamilpa 62209, Cuernavaca, Morelos, México, Technological University of the South of Sonora-ULSA
Northwest-IIMM, Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, km 14 s/n, between 8 and 9 Col. Nuevo México, Valle del Yaqui,
3
Cd. Obregón, Cajeme, Sonora, C.P. 850950, México, Research Center in Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Autonomous University of Morelos State, Av. Universidad 1001, Colonia Chamilpa 62209,
4
Cuernavaca, Morelos, México, Mechanical Engineering Division, Cajeme Higher Technological Institute,
International Highway to Nogales Km 2, C.P 85000, Cd. Obregón, Sonora, México
Abstract In this study, a novel method for determining stresses in the torsion problems of
laminated composite trimetallic and bimetallic bars was developed and evaluated via experi-
mental and numerical analyses. The objective of this method is to transform a real transversal
section of a model for a laminated composite bar into a hypothetical virtual section that is ho-
mogenous and isotropic. An analogy with the transformed-section method for solving compos-
ite beams under flexion was conducted. The shear stresses (maximum on external surfaces
and interfaces) in laminated composite bars were undergoing torsion. Isotropic symmetric and
asymmetric laminated composite bars were examined analytically, and the results of their re-
spective experimental and numerical tests were analyzed. The proposed method exhibits dif-
ferences between 2 % and 12 % compared with the experimental results and between 2 % and
10 % compared with the results obtained using the finite element method.
1. Introduction
The study of the mechanical behavior of structural composite materials has become an im-
portant field in the last decades. While analyzing straight beams subjected to torsion with vari-
able cross sections, Saint-Venant derived the equations that govern the general torsion prob-
lem [1, 2]. Subsequently, Prandtl formulated the Saint-Venant function and proposed Prandtl’s
membrane analogy method for solving the mechanical problems of beams with irregular cross
sections subjected to torsional loads [3]. At present, solutions for different beams subjected to
torsion have been applied to certain engineering designs [3-6].
The torsion problems of composite rectangular bars have led to considerable research and
have produced many relevant studies [7-12]. In general, most of the proposed methods provide
numerical solutions. The result of a numerical simulation of the torsional behavior of concrete
beams with different reinforcements under diverse torsional forms was presented in Ref. [10].
In an experimental study on cylindrical specimens conducted in Ref. [11], the fracture of a uni-
directional reinforced carbon fiber polymeric composite was investigated under torsion.
The effects of torsion and flexion have been combined in some studies, and they have also
been solved in numerical form [13-18]. The developed analytical equations can be solved using
the finite element method (FEM), and the results have been compared with those of the theo-
retical and experimental studies of Chandra and Chopra [14] for beam I, i.e., laminated com-
posite materials subjected to flexion and torsion loads. Savoia and Tullini [16] performed studies
on composite materials subjected to torsion. They analyzed elastic response in inhomogene-
1
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
Fig. 1. Strains and stresses are linear.
ous anisotropic beams and torsional response in composite
beams with an arbitrary cross section. Maddur [17] obtained for
the beams-I of laminated composite of fiber-reinforced sub-
jected to torsional loads, static deformation response.
Appropriate theories have been developed for the torsional
analysis of laminated composite beams [19-22]. Swanson ana-
lyzed thin laminated rods with a rectangular cross section, ho-
mogenizing, without changing cross section, this model was
based on Prandtl’ membrane analogy [21]. A mechanical be-
havior study on rectangular laminated composites subjected to
torsion that used experimental results and computational simu-
lations was presented by Nikopour and Selvadurai [22]. A
model for predicting the coupled bending and torsional warping
response of laminated composites and sandwich beams was
constructed by Lezgy-Nazargah et al. [23]; the model’s solution
was numerical.
The published technical literature regarding the analysis of
the torsion problems of composites beams indicates that most
of these problems are solved numerically. In the current study,
a new analytical method for determining maximum shear
stresses in laminated composite metal bars subjected to tor-
sion is presented. This information should be considered in
design processes. The proposed method aims to transform the
real physical transversal sections of some symmetrical and
asymmetrical laminated composite bar models subjected to
pure torsion into a virtual model of a homogeneous and iso-
tropic material under the same conditions and then solve this
model. The proposed approach is an analogy of the approxi-
mate method for the transformed section used to determine
normal stresses in composite beams subjected to flexion [4].
The maximum shear stresses obtained using the proposed
method were compared with the shear stresses that were ex-
perimentally determined using strain gauges on metal lami-
nated composite bars subjected to torsion. The results were
also compared with those obtained numerically via the finite
element method (FEM).
2. Analytical method
The proposed method for stress analysis in composite metal
bars subjected to torsion consists of the following steps.
1) A real physical model (subjected to pure torsion) is trans-
formed into a hypothetical model of a homogeneous and iso-
2
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x
tropic material (subjected to the same boundary conditions).
Mechanical strength is compensated using a correlation factor
wherein the cross section of the real beam is transformed into
a hypothetical model.
2) The newly transformed section of the bar is discretized,
enabling the application of Prandtl’s membrane analogy
method.
3) The new transformed section is solved analytically to de-
termine maximum shear stresses in straight bars with a rec-
tangular cross section.
4) Finally, the maximum value of shear stresses on the sur-
faces and interfaces of a real bar is obtained using an “n” trans-
formation relation.
2.1 Definition of the problem
The method proposed in this work considered a composite
bar formed by elastic and linear metallic materials subjected to
pure torsion, and analytically determining maximum shear
stresses was necessary.
Trimetallic and bimetallic composite bars were used. The first
bar was made with two brass layers and an aluminum layer in
the center. The second bar had two aluminum layers and one
brass layer in the center. The third bar consisted of two copper
layers and one aluminum layer in the center. The fourth bar
was composed of two aluminum layers with a copper layer in
the center. The fifth bar was made of one brass layer and one
aluminum layer.
The problem assumed the following hypothesis: the strain
state varies linearly with the distance to the neutral axis of the
bar (Fig. 1). The following restrictions were imposed.
a) The symmetric composite bars were made of three layers.
b) The asymmetric composite bar was made of two layers.
c) The problem was pure torsion.
d) The problem was linear [24].
e) The laminated layers were considered isotropic.
f) The union between layers was perfect.
g) Consequently, deformations were continuous through the
layers [25].
3. Torsion problem solution
A prismatic bar with a constant arbitrary cross section was
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x

considered. This bar was subjected to equal and opposite tor- Table 1. Bar torsion parameter, functions of h and b.
sion moments applied at its ends. The displacement compo-
b/t Bar torsion parameter ( μ )
nents exhibit the following form:
1 0.208

u = θψ ( y, z ) , v = θ xz, w = θ xy 1.5 0.231

1.75 0.239
where ψ is the warping function; θ , which is a constant, is 2 0.246
the angle of twist per unit of length of the bar; and u, v, and w, 2.5 0.258
are the displacements in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. 3 0.267
If the straight bar torsion problems with a variable cross sec- 4 0.282
tion subjected to a T torque are considered, then the displace- 6 0.299
ments in x(u) are different from zero. When the Saint-Venant
8 0.307
semi-inverse method is used [1], the formulated torsion prob-
10 0.313
lem satisfies the equilibrium and is solved by introducing a
single stress function φ ( y, z ) . Prandtl’s stress function yields α 0.333
the following equation:

∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ
+ = −2θG . (1)
∂y 2 ∂z 2

Thus,

∂φ ∂φ
τ xy = and τ xz = − (2)
∂z ∂y

where φ ( x, z ) is Prandtl’s stress function, and G is the shear Fig. 2. Bar with a rectangular transverse cross section (b = base and t =
modulus. thickness).
When the stress function φ is considered a surface over
the bar cross section and the equilibrium around axle x is ana- T
lyzed, the following expression is inferred [3]: τ max = (5)
μbt 2

T = 2∬φ dzdy . (3) where

τ max = Maximum shear stress
T = Torque
Eq. (3) indicates that the torque is equal to two times the vol- b = Base
ume between the stress function φ and the cross-section t = Thickness
plane. µ = Bar torsion parameter, Table 1.
For Prandtl’s membrane analogy [3-5], the equilibrium differ-
ential equation, i.e., Eq. (1), is equivalent to the next differential
equation, which describes a membrane displacement covering 3.1 Maximum shear stresses in trimetallic and
an area in which the frontier is equal to the bar cross section bimetallic laminated composite bars under
subjected to torsion. torsion
Consider a composite bar with three layers made from the
d 2x d 2x p same isotropic material forming two cross Secs. 1 and 2. If only
2
+ 2 =− (4)
dy dz S the rectangular components are considered, then the maxi-
mum shear stresses for the transformed sections (shown in Fig.
where p is the uniform pressure applied to the membrane, S is 3) where, to the total section, is added or subtracted the little
the tensile strength per length unit in the membrane, and x is corresponding area sections.
the membrane displacement that considers the initial state in
the “yz” plane in the origin, as shown in Fig. 2, for a bar with a TT t
rectangular cross section. τ max = , (6)
⎡⎣ μ1b1t12 ± μ 2b2t22 ⎤⎦
When the maximum shear stress of a bar with a rectangular
cross section is required to be determined, the solution equa-
tion used [3] is with

3
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x

Fig. 3. Graphical consideration for a calculation of shear stresses.

b1,2 nb
μ1,2 = (7)
h1,2
t1
where t2
τ max = Maximum shear stress t1
T = Torque b
t1
b1 = Base 1
b2 = Base 2 (nb1−b1) t2 n 2 =G 2 G1
t = Maximum value of thickness t1 or t2 t1
t1 = Thickness 1
b b
t2 = Thickness 2
µ1,2 = Bar torsion parameters. t1

4. Transformed or virtual model t2

Considering a symmetric or asymmetric bar made from two
isotropic materials being subjected to torsion and knowing the
materials properties, the transverse section bar is transformed
into a virtual model made from isotropic and homogeneous
materials but with the same mechanical resistance as the real
model. This transformation is possible through the following
relations:
G2 G1
n2 = or n1 =
G1 G2
where n1 and n2 are the transformation relations for layers 1
and 2, respectively.
G1 and G2 are the shear moduli of the materials forming the
composite bar.
Through the relation expressed as Eq. (8), the virtual model,
which exhibits a different geometric function from the values
Material 1
t1
Material 2 nb
n 1 =G 1 G2
transformation if G1 G2
Fig. 4. Geometric virtual transformations of a single type of material for the
transformation relation wherein the shear modulus of one material is
greater than that of the other material (G1 > G2).
(8)
used with the G1 and G2 properties, is obtained. If G1 > G2 are
considered sections of the virtual model, then they must be
solved as shown in Fig. 4. In the subsequent case, when G1 <
G2, the models are presented in Fig. 5. The section width of the
elements to be transformed is multiplied by n. The section will
be wide if n > 1, and it will be narrow if n < 1. Notably, the width
changes of the components and the distance y to the centroid
of each element remain the same.

4
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x

t1
t2
t1
nb
t1
n 2 =G 2 G 1
t2
t1
nb
b
t1
t2
Material 1 t1
b
Material 2
n 1 =G 1 G 2
transformation if G G 2
1

Fig. 5. Virtual geometric transformations of a single kind of material, for the transformation relations where the material 1 shear module is inferior to the mate-
rial 2 (G1 < G2).

The analysis is similar to bimetallic composite bars. In Eq. rial in accordance with the experimental results are determined
(6), however, the transformed section is asymmetrical. using Eqs. (12) and (13).

τ max int 1 exp = G1K exp hint , (12)

4.1 Maximum shear stresses at the interface
τ max int 2 exp = G2 K exp hint (13)
(analytical and experimental methods)
The maximum analytical shear stresses at the interface of where
each material calculated using the analytical method was de-
termined through Eqs. (9) and (10), as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. γ max exp
K exp = (14)
0.5hT
τ max int 1 ana = Khint , (9)
τ max int 2 ana = n2 Khint (10) where
τ max int 1 exp , τ max int 2 exp = The maximum shear stresses at the in-
where terface of materials 1 and 2, experimental results
γ max exp = Maximum shear strain of the trimetallic composite,
τ max ana experimental method
K ana = (11)
0.5hT Kexp = Relation of γmax exp with respect to the distance to the
neutral axis of the bar
where hT = Total height of the bar
τ max int 1 ana , τ max int 2 ana = Maximum shear stresses at the inter- hint = Height to interface.
face for materials 1 and 2, analytical method
τ max ana = Maximum shear stress of the trimetallic composite,
5. Method evaluation and example
analytical method
Kana = Relation of τ max ana with respect to the distance to the To evaluate the proposed method, four trimetallic composite
neutral axis of the bar bars and one bimetallic composite bar subjected to pure tor-
hT = Total height of the bar sion were analyzed. The first bar was made of brass-
hint = Height to interface aluminum-brass (B-A-B), the second of aluminum-brass-
n2 = G2 / G1 , transformation relation. aluminum (A-B-A), the third of copper-aluminum-copper (C-A-
C), the fourth of aluminum-copper-aluminum (A-C-A), and the
The maximum shear stresses at the interface of each mate- fifth of brass-aluminum (B-A), as shown in Fig. 6. The me-

5
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x

Table 2. Elastic properties of aluminum, brass, and copper obtained in a laboratory and transformation relations.

Copper shear Brass shear modulus Aluminum shear n

modulus of elasticity of elasticity G (Gpa) modulus of elasticity
G (Gpa) G (Gpa) Gbrass/Galuminum Galuminum/Gbrass Gcopper/Galuminum Galuminum/Gcopper

37.6 38.46 25.94 1.482652274 0.674466979 1.449498843 0.689893617

Fig. 6. Rectangular section composite bars: B-A-B, A-B-A, C-A-C, A-C-A, and B-A.

Fig. 7. Transformed sections for the B-A-B bar and the graphical solution. Models B1 and B2.

chanical properties of the materials used were experimentally
obtained in a laboratory, and the transformation ratio used for
the test specimens was determined using Eq. (8). The results
are presented in Table 2.
Depending on the transformation ratio used, a correspon-
dence will occur with the graphical solution because of the
considerations applied to Eq. (6), as shown in Figs. 7-11
(cases B1 and B2, A1 and A2, C1 and C2, A3 and A4, and B3 and
B4).
The results were analytically obtained using Eq. (6). They

6
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x

Fig. 8. Transformed sections for the the A-B-A bar and the graphical solution. Models A1 and A2.

Fig. 9. Transformed sections for the C-A-C bar and the graphical solution. Models C1 and C2.

were then evaluated and compared with the experimental re-
sults obtained for the composite bars manufactured and
equipped with strain gauges (rosette type), as shown in Figs.
12 and 13, with the numerical analysis via FEM.
To obtain the maximum shear stresses, points were instru-
mented at half of the width of the bar (b) and at y = t/2 of each
bar. A specimen was subjected to torsion on a test bench, as
shown in Fig. 14. To obtain the shear stresses Tmax, two points
were instrumented with the rosettes located at a certain posi-
tion on the xz plane, one on each surface. First, the state of the

7
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x

Fig. 10. Transformed sections for the A-C-A bar and the graphical solution. Models A3 and A4.

Fig. 11. Transformed sections for the B-A bar and the graphical solution. Models B3 and B4.

major deformations was obtained with the elements oriented at
45°, two for each rosette. The average shear deformation, γmax,
was determined, and τmax was subsequently obtained using
Eqs. (15) and (16).
γ max = ε −45° + ε 45° ,
τ max = Gγ max
where G is the material’s shear modulus wherein each rosette
was installed.
The numerical model with FEM (Academic ANSYS) was lin-
ear. The bar was attached to the centroid of the cross section at
the end of the bar. A torque, which was equal to the one used in
(15) the analytical model and in the experimental tests, was applied
(16) to the centroid at the other end of the bar, as shown in Fig. 12.

8
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x

Table 3. Bar torsion parameters of the B-A-B, A-B-A, C-A-C, A-B-A, and B-
A composite metallic bars.

b h
Coefficient μ
tranformed transformed
(b/a)
(m) (m)
Brass-aluminum-brass bar
0.0249 0.0076 0.2697
(a) 0.0080 0.0025 0.2684
0.0121 0.0025 0.2918
0.0369 0.0076 0.2920
Aluminum-brass-aluminum bar
0.0249 0.0076 0.2700
0.0120 0.0026 0.2902
0.0168 0.0076 0.2494
0.0081 0.0026 0.2680
Cupper-aluminum-cupper bar
2.4900 0.7320 0.2717
0.7722 0.2500 0.2665
3.6105 0.7320 0.2929
1.1205 0.2500 0.2873
Aluminum-cupper-aluminum bar
2.5500 0.9220 0.2606
1.1462 0.2500 0.2886
(b) 1.7592 0.9220 0.2418
0.7908 0.3120 0.2560
Fig. 12. (a) Composite bar modeled via FEM; (b) composite bar equipped Brass-aluminum bar
with strain gauges (rosette type).
2.4900 0.7320 0.2717
1.1462 0.3120 0.2760
1.7592 0.9220 0.2418
0.7908 0.3120 0.2560

6. Discussion and analysis of results

Fig. 13. Composite bars equipped with strain gauges.
Fig. 14. Torsion test performed on a test blench.
The results of the bar torsion parameters (Table 3) and the
maximum shear stresses at the boundaries and at the interface,
which were obtained using the proposed method (Eqs. (6), (9)
and (10)), those obtained experimentally (Eqs. (12), (13) and
(16)), and those obtained via FEM, are provided in Tables 4-8
and graphically presented in Figs. 15-19.
All the tables show the maximum shear stresses obtained
using the proposed method (with configurations B1 and B2, A1
and A2, C1 and C2, A3 and A4, and B3 and B4) and those ob-
tained experimentally and numerically. In addition, the tables
provide the shear stresses at the interfaces of each component.
Analysis was performed by considering the different torque
values applied to two configurations of the composite bars.
With regard to the interface shear stresses, the analytical and
experimental results exhibited linearity, and the differences
between them were 0-9 %.
The results were highly similar, presenting minimal differ-
ences ranging from 2 % to 6 %. For the B-A-B bar, the differ-
ences were between 4 % and 13 %; for the A-B-A bar, the
differences were between 2 % and 5 %; for the C-A-C bar, the
differences were between 6 % and 8 %; for the A-C-A bar, the
differences were between 3 % and 12 %;for the B-A bar, the
differences were between 2 % and 10 %.

9
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x

Table 4. Analytical and experimental results obtained from models B1 and B2. Composite B-A-B bar.

τ ana Deviation Deviation

τ ana Brass Experimental Experimental
Aluminum interface values vs values vs
τ max Deviation interface , Averange Averange
τ max τ max average average Average Average Analytical Analytical
γ max τ max Analytica Analytica analytical analytical τ exp τ exp Analytical Analytica Models B1 y Models B1 y
γ exp
Experime Experimen l Model l Model Deviatio Deviation models τ max models Aluminum Brass Models l Models B2 (aluminum B2 (brass
Torque ntal Test tal Test B1 B2 n with B1 with B2 B1 y B2 FEM with FEM Interface interface interface B1 y B2 B1 y B2 interface) interface)
(Nm) (μ) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (%) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (μ) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (%)

0.1962 13 499980 511736 473105 -2.30 5.68 492421 500000 1.54 4.28 110928 164467 109251 161981 1.53 1.54
0.3924 26 999960 1023473 946210 -2.30 5.68 984842 1010000 2.55 8.55 221855 328934 218502 323961 1.53 1.54
0.5886 38.5 1480710 1535209 1419316 -3.55 4.33 1477262 1510000 2.22 12.66 328516 487076 327753 485942 0.23 0.23
0.7848 51.5 1980690 2046945 1892421 -3.24 4.66 1969683 2020000 2.55 16.94 439444 651543 437004 647922 0.56 0.56
0.981 64.5 2480670 2558682 2365526 -3.05 4.87 2462104 2500000 1.54 21.22 550372 816010 546255 809903 0.75 0.75
1.3734 91 3499860 3582154 3311736 -2.30 5.68 3446945 3530000 2.41 29.93 776493 1151270 764757 1133864 1.53 1.54
2.0601 135 5192100 5373231 4967605 -3.37 4.52 5170418 5320000 2.89 44.41 1151941 1707928 1147135 1700795 0.42 0.42

Table 5. Analytical and experimental results obtained from models A1 and A2. Composite A-B-A bar. Analytical and experimental results obtained from model
C2. Composite C-A-C bar.

Deviation Deviation
τ ana τ ana Experimental Experimental
Aluminum Brass values vs values vs
τ max Deviation interface interface Average Average
τ max τ max average average Average Average Analytical Analytical
γ max τ max Analytica Analytica analytical analytical τ exp τ exp Analytical Analytica Models A1 y Models A1 y A2
γ exp
Experime Experimen l Model l Model Deviatio Deviation models τ max models Aluminum Brass Models l Models A2 (aluminum (brass
Torque ntal Test tal Test A1 A2 n with A1 with A2 A1 y A2 FEM with FEM Interface interface interface A1 y A2 A1 y A2 interface) interface)
(Nm) (μ) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (%) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (μ) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (%)
0.1962 18.5 479890 501917 543453 -4.39 -11.70 522685 479890 -8.19 6.25 162082 240311 176536 261741 -8.19 -8.19
0.3924 37 959780 1003833 1086907 -4.39 -11.70 1045370 959780 -8.19 12.50 324164 480623 353072 523483 -8.19 -8.19
0.5886 55 1426700 1505750 1630360 -5.25 -12.49 1568055 1426700 -9.01 18.58 481866 714439 529608 785224 -9.01 -9.01
0.7848 73 1893620 2007667 2173813 -5.68 -12.89 2090740 1893620 -9.43 24.66 639567 948255 706144 1046966 -9.43 -9.43
0.981 92 2386480 2509583 2717266 -4.91 -12.17 2613425 2386480 -8.68 31.07 806030 1195062 882680 1308707 -8.68 -8.68
1.5696 145.5 3774270 4015333 4347626 -6.00 -13.19 4181480 3774270 -9.74 49.14 1274753 1890016 1412288 2093931 -9.74 -9.74
1.962 182.5 4734050 5019167 5434533 -5.68 -12.89 5226850 4734050 -9.43 61.64 1598918 2370639 1765360 2617414 -9.43 -9.43

Table 6. Analytical and experimental results obtained from models C1 and C2. Composite C-A-C bar.

Deviation Deviation
τ ana τ ana Experimental Experimental
Aluminum Copper values vs values vs
τ max Deviation interface interface Average Average
τ max τ max average average Average Average Analytical Analytical
γ max τ max Analytica Analytica analytical analytical τ exp τ exp Analytical Analytica Models C1 y Models C1 y C2
γ exp
Experime Experimen l Model l Model Deviatio Deviation models τ max models Aluminum Copper Models l Models C2 (aluminum (copper
Torque ntal Test tal Test C1 C2 n with C1 with C2 C1 y C2 FEM with FEM Interface interface interface C1 y C2 C1 y C2 interface) interface)
(Nm) (μ) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (%) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (μ) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (%)
0.1962 14 526400 547875 508278 -3.9197 3.56539 528076.49 538888 2.05 4.78142 124030.05 179781.4 124408.18 180354 -0.3039418 -0.317470334
0.3924 28.5 1071600 1095750 1016556 -2.204 5.41477 1056153 1080000 2.26 9.73361 252489.75 365983.6 248816.37 360708 1.476344952 1.462574838
0.5886 42 1579200 1643625 1524834 -3.9197 3.56539 1584229.5 1620000 2.26 14.3443 372090.16 539344.3 373224.55 541062 -0.3039418 -0.317470334
0.7848 56 2105600 2191500 2033112 -3.9197 3.56539 2112305.9 2160000 2.26 19.1257 496120.22 719125.7 497632.73 721416 -0.3039418 -0.317470334
0.981 70 2632000 2739375 2541390 -3.9197 3.56539 2640382.4 2700000 2.26 23.9071 620150.27 898907.1 622040.92 901770 -0.3039418 -0.317470334
1.3734 98.5 3703600 3835125 3557946 -3.4295 4.09378 3696535.4 3780000 2.26 33.6407 872640.03 1264891 870857.28 1262478 0.204711556 0.191114001
2.0601 146 5489600 5752688 5336918 -4.5733 2.86086 5544803.1 5660000 2.08 49.8634 1293456.3 1874863 1306285.9 1893717 -0.98214628 -0.995582781

10
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x

Table 7. Analytical and experimental results obtained from models A3 and A4. Composite A-C-A bar.

Deviation Deviation
τ ana Experimental Experimental
τ ana Cooper values vs values vs
τ max Aluminum interface Average Average
average Deviation interface Average Analytical Analytical
γ max τ max τ max τ max analytical average τ exp τ exp Average Analytical Models A3 y A4 Models A3 y A4
γ exp
Experimental Experimental Analytical Analytical Deviation Deviation models A3 τ max analytical Aluminum Copper Analytical Models A3 (aluminum (copper
Torque Test Test Model A3 Model A4 with A3 with A4 y A4 FEM models with Interface interface interface Models A3 y A4 interface) interface)
(Nm) (μ) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (%) (%) (Pa) (Pa) FEM (%) (μ) (Pa) (Pa) y A4 (Pa) (Pa) (%) (%)
0.25 16 415040 434565 468385 4.49 -11.39 451475 420000 -6.97 5.40 140179 207837 152485 226082 -8.07 -8.07
0.5 32 830080 869131 936770 4.49 -11.39 902951 835000 -7.53 10.81 280358 415674 304970 452164 -8.07 -8.07
0.75 48 1245120 1303696 1405156 4.49 -11.39 1354426 1245000 -8.08 16.21 420537 623510 457455 678247 -8.07 -8.07
1 64 1660160 1738261 1873541 4.49 -11.39 1805901 1660000 -8.08 21.62 560716 831347 609940 904329 -8.07 -8.07
1.25 80.5 2088170 2172827 2341926 3.90 -10.84 2257376 2088200 -7.49 27.19 705276 1045679 762425 1130411 -7.50 -7.50
1.5 96 2490240 2607392 2810311 4.49 -11.39 2708852 2495000 -7.89 32.42 841074 1247021 914910 1356493 -8.07 -8.07
1.75 112 2905280 3041957 3278697 4.49 -11.39 3160327 2910000 -7.92 37.83 981254 1454858 1067395 1582576 -8.07 -8.07
2 129 3346260 3476523 3747082 3.75 -10.70 3611802 3340000 -7.53 43.57 1130194 1675684 1219880 1808658 -7.35 -7.35

Table 8. Analytical and experimental results obtained from models B3 and B4. Composite B-A bar.

Deviation
Deviation average
γ max τ max τ max τ max τ max average analytical
γ max Experimental Experiment Experiment Analytical Analytical τ max analytical models with
Experimental Test al Test al Test Model B3, Model B4, Deviation τ max FEM models FEM,
Torque Test Brass Aluminum Brass Aluminum Brass Aluminum Deviation with B4 FEM, Brass Aluminum with FEM, Aluminum
(Nm) (μ) (μ) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) with B4 (%) (%) (Pa) (Pa) Brass (%) (%)
0.25 23 32 884580 830080 954192 881257 -7.30 -5.81 981100 804740 -2.74 9.51

0.5 47 64 1807620 1660160 1908383 1762515 -5.28 -5.81 1963100 1611300 -2.79 9.38

0.75 71 96 2730660 2490240 2862575 2643772 -4.61 -5.81 2944900 2411700 -2.80 9.62

1 95 129 3653700 3346260 3816767 3525029 -4.27 -5.07 3938200 3219300 -3.08 9.50

1.25 120 162 4615200 4202280 4770958 4406287 -3.26 -4.63 4917700 4036400 -2.98 9.16

1.5 143 193 5499780 5006420 5725150 5287544 -3.94 -5.32 5901300 4829900 -2.98 9.48

Fig. 15. Experimental and analytical results of B-A-B composite bar. Fig. 17. Experimental and analytical results of C-A-C composite bar.

Fig. 16. Experimental and analytical results of A-B-A composite bar. Fig. 18. Experimental and analytical results of A-C-A composite bar.

11
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
Fig. 19. Experimental and analytical results of B-A composite bar.
7. Conclusions
A method for determining maximum shear stresses on the
external surfaces and at the interface for each material in tor-
sion problems for laminated composite trimetallic and bimetallic
bars is presented. The model is based on the transformation of
the cross sections of laminated metal composite bars. The
following conclusions are drawn on the basis of the experimen-
tal tests and the numerical analyses.
·This method enables computing the maximum shear
stresses in torsion problems for symmetrical and asym-
metrical composite laminated beams.
·The proposed method allows obtaining efficient results for
determining maximum shear stresses on external sur-
faces (Figs. 15-17) and the interface. The shear stress
values for each component exhibit minimal approximate
differences between the experimental and numerical
analysis results. Differences of 2 %-10 % are recorded for
the five specimens (Tables 4-8): B-A-B, A-B-A, C-A-C, A-
C-A, and B-A. This finding is probably due to the manu-
facturing quality of the bars and the effectiveness of the
experimental test, which have not affected the solution of
the proposed method because the models are ideal, and
thus, the differences are insignificant.
·The results exhibit linearity in the distribution of shear
stresses in y.
·The results indicate that the selection of configuration for
virtual model solutions is irrelevant regardless of how the
transformation ratio is used (models B1 or B2, A1 or A2, C1
or C2, A3 or A4, and B3 or B4; see Tables 4-8).
·Symmetric and asymmetric composite bars have been
evaluated. Thus, the method can be possibly applied to
bars with more layers and different thicknesses.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de
Morelos and the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores
de Monterrey for their support to this research.
References
[1] J. N. Reddy, Mechanics of Composite Materials, Selected
12
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x
Works of N. J. Pagano, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Springer
(1994).
[2] I. Todhunter and K. Pearson, A History of the Theory of Elastic-
ity and the Strength of Materials, Vols. I & II, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press (2014).
[3] A. C. Ugural and S. K. Fenster, Advanced Strength and Ap-
plied Elasticity, Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1995).
[4] S. Timoshenko, Resistencia de Materiales, ESPASA-CALPE,
Madrid (1954).
[5] A. P. Boresi, K. Chong and J. D. Lee, Elasticity in Engineering
Mechanics, 3rd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, United States of
America (2011).
[6] F. P. Beer, R. Johnston, J. T. DeWolf and D. F. Mazurek,
Mecánica de Materiales, 5ta Ed., McGraw Hill (2006).
[7] M. Schulz and F. C. Filippou, A generalized warping torsion
formulation, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 124 (3) (1998)
339-347.
[8] Z. Friedman and J. B. Kosmatka, Torsion and flexure of a
prismatic isotropic beam using the boundary element method,
Journal of Computers and Structures, 74 (4) (2000) 479-494.
[9] F. Du, S. Alghamdi, B. Riabbans and T. Tan, An experimental
study on the fracture of a unidirectional carbon fiber-reinforced
composite under quasistatic torsion, Composites Part B, 172
(1) (2019) 547-554.
[10] M. Y. Alabdulhady, L. H. Sneed, O. I. Abdelkarim and M. A.
ElGawady, Finite element study on the behavior of RC beams
strengthened with PBO-FRCM composite under torsion, Com-
posite Structures, 179 (1) (2017) 326-339.
[11] M. Di Paola, A. Pirrotta and R. Santoro, Line element-less
method (LEM) for beam torsion solution, Acta Mechanica, 195
(1) (2008) 349-364.
[12] X. Rongqiao, H. Jiansheng and C. Weiqiu, Saint-Venat tor-
sion orthotropic bars with inhomogeneous rectangular cross
section, Journal of Composite Structures, 92 (6) (2010) 1449-
1457.
[13] P. Qiao, G. Zou and J. F. Davalos, Flexural-torsional buckling
of FRP composite cantilever I-beams, Journal of Composite
Structures, 60 (2) (2003) 205-217.
[14] R. Chandra and I. Chopra, Experimental and theoretical
analysis of composite I-beams with elastic couplings, AIAA
Journal, 29 (12) (1991), 2197-2206.
[15] M. Di Paola, A. Pirrotta and M. Santoro, De Saint-Venant
flexure-torsion problem handled by line element-less method
(LEM), Acta Mechanica, 217 (2011) 101-118.
[16] M. Savoia and N. Tullini, Torsional response of inhomogene-
ous and multilayered composite beams, Journal of Composite
Structures, 25 (1-4) (1993) 587-594.
[17] S. S. Maddur and S. K. Chaturvedi, Laminated composite
open profile sections: non-uniform torsion of I, Journal of Com-
puters and Structures, 50 (2) (2000) 159-169.
[18] D. Gaspari and M. Aristodemo, Torsion and flexure analysis
of orthotropic beams by a boundary element model, Engineer-
ing Analysis with Boundary Elements, 29 (9) (2005) 850-858.
[19] Y. Park, H. Kwon and D. Shin, Bending analysis of symmetri-
cally laminated composite open section beam by Vlasov-type
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
thin-walled beam theory, Korean Society of Civil Engineers
Journal, 20 (1) (2000) 125-141.
[20] A. H. Sheikh and O. T. Thomsen, An efficient beam element
for the analysis of laminated composite beams of thin-walled
open and closed cross sections, Journal of Composites Sci-
ence and Technology, 68 (10-11) (2008) 2273-2281.
[21] S. R. Swanson, Torsion of laminated rectangular rods, Jour-
nal of Composite Structures, 42 (1) (1998) 23-31.
[22] H. Nikopour and A. P. S. Selvadurai, Torsion of a layered
composite strip, Composite Structures, 95 (2013) 1-4.
[23] M. Lezgy-Nazargah, P. Vidal and O. Polit, A penalty-based
multifiber finite element model for coupled bending and tor-
sional-warping analysis of composite beams, European Jour-
nal of Mechanics - A/Solids, 80 (2020) 103915.
[24] A. J. Durelli, Introduction to the Theoretical and Experimental
Analysis of Stress and Strain, McGraw-Hill, New York (1958).
[25] S. W. Tsai and H. T. Hahn, Introduction to Composite Materi-
als, Technomic Publishing Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania
(1980).
Mario Acosta Flores was born in Cuer-
navaca, Morelos, México. He obtained
his M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engi-
neering from the Autonomous National
University of Mexico in 2000 and 2010,
respectively. He has extensive experi-
ence in experimental mechanics since
2002. He has worked on projects involv-
ing structural redesign for international, bombardier, among
others. He is currently a Research Professor at the Autono-
mous University of the State of Morelos, Mexico. His research
interests are composite materials, experimental analysis of
effort in scale models, thermal effort, and biomechanics.
Marta L. Eraña Díaz was born in
Tamaulipas, México. She obtained her
B.S. in Mathematics Applied to Com-
puter Science from the University
Autonomous Metropolitan, Mexico City.
She obtained her M.S. in Cognitive Sci-
ences in 2016 and her Ph.D. in Engi-
neering and Applied Sciences in 2020
from the University Autonomous of Morelos State in Cuer-
navaca, Mexico. Her research interest includes the design and
development of technological tools.
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0625-x
Eusebio Jiménez López obtained his
B.S. in Industrial–Mechanical Engineer-
ing from Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora
in 1994. He obtained his M.S. in Me-
chanical Engineering from Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México in 1998
and his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering
from the Autonomous National University
of Mexico in 2013. He is currently a Professor at the Universi-
dad Tecnológica de Sonora and La Salle Norwest University.
Juan Carlos García holds a Ph.D. in
Applied Sciences and Engineering. He is
a Researcher at the Mechanical Tech-
nology Department of the Center for
Research in Engineering and Applied of
the State University of Morelos. Dr. Gar-
cia is an expert in mechanical technology
applied to turbines. He has been apply-
ing computational fluid dynamics (Fluent) and finite element
analysis (ANSYS) to the diagnosis of turbomachinery failures.
Juan José Delfín Vázquez is a me-
chanical–electrical engineer graduate
from the Technological Institute of
Sonora (1979). He obtained his M.S. and
Ph.D. in Engineering from the National
Autonomous University of Mexico in
2004 and 2014, respectively. He is cur-
rently a Professor–Researcher at the
Superior Technological Institute of Cajeme (Mechanical Engi-
neering Division).
Baldomero Lucero Velázquez obtained
his B.S. in Industrial–Mechanical Engi-
neering from Instituto Tecnológico de
Sonora in 1992, his M.S. in Mechanical
Engineering from Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México in 2004, and his
Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from
Guanajuato University in 2012. He is
currently a Professor at Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Ca-
jeme and Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de
Monterrey.
13