Analytical Solutions For The Static Analysis of Laminated Composite and Sandwich Plates Based On A Higher Order Refined Theory
Analytical Solutions For The Static Analysis of Laminated Composite and Sandwich Plates Based On A Higher Order Refined Theory
Analytical Solutions For The Static Analysis of Laminated Composite and Sandwich Plates Based On A Higher Order Refined Theory
0
x; y z
3
h
x
x; y;
vx; y; z v
0
x; y zh
y
x; y
z
2
v
0
x; y z
3
h
y
x; y;
wx; y; z w
0
x; y zh
z
x; y
z
2
w
0
x; y z
3
h
z
x; y:
1
Further if the variation of transverse displace-
ment 2component wx; y; z in Eq. (1) is assumed
constant through the plate thickness and thus setting
e
z
0, then the displacement eld may be expressed as
[22]
ux; y; z u
0
x; y zh
x
x; y
z
2
u
0
x; y z
3
h
x
x; y;
vx; y; z v
0
x; y zh
y
x; y
z
2
v
0
x; y z
3
h
y
x; y;
wx; y; z w
0
x; y:
2
The parameters u
0
; v
0
are the in-plane displacements
and w
0
is the transverse displacement of a point x; y
on the middle plane. The functions h
x
; h
y
are rotations
of the normal to the middle plane about y and x axes,
respectively. The parameters u
0
, v
0
, w
0
, h
x
, h
y
, h
z
and h
z
are the higher-order terms in Taylors series expansion
330 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344
and they represent higher-order transverse cross-sec-
tional deformation modes. Though the above two
theories were already reported earlier in the literature
and numerical results were presented using nite ele-
ment formulations, analytical formulations and solu-
tions are obtained for the rst time in this investigation
and so the results obtained using the above two theo-
ries are referred to as present (Model-1 and Model-2) in
all the tables and gures. In addition to the above, the
following higher order theories and the rst order
theory developed by other investigators and reported in
the literature for the analysis of laminated composite
and sandwich plates are also considered for the eval-
uation. Analytical formulations and numerical results
of these are also being presented here with a view to
have all the results on a common platform.
Model-3 [29]
ux; y; z u
0
x; y
z h
x
x; y
4
3
z
h
2
h
x
x; y
ow
0
ox
;
vx; y; z v
0
x; y
z h
y
x; y
4
3
z
h
2
h
y
x; y
ow
0
oy
;
wx; y; z w
0
x; y: 3
Model-4 [16]
ux; y; z u
0
x; y z
ow
b
0
ox
4z
3
3h
2
ow
s
0
ox
;
vx; y; z v
0
x; y z
ow
b
0
oy
4z
3
3h
2
ow
s
0
oy
;
wx; y; z w
b
0
x; y w
s
0
x; y:
4
Model-5 [13]
ux; y; z u
0
x; y zh
x
x; y;
vx; y; z v
0
x; y zh
y
x; y;
wx; y; z w
0
x; y:
5
In this paper the analytical formulations and solution
method followed using the higher order rened theory
(Model-1) are only presented in detail and the same
procedure is followed in obtaining the results using
other models. The geometry of a two-dimensional lam-
inated composite and sandwich plates with positive set
of coordinate axes and the physical middle plane dis-
placement terms are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
By substitution of the displacement relations given by
Eq. (1) into the straindisplacement equations of the
Fig. 1. Laminate geometry with positive set of lamina/laminate ref-
erence axes, displacement components and bre orientation.
Fig. 2. Geometry of a sandwich plate with positive set of lamina/
laminate reference axes, displacement components and bre orienta-
tion.
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344 331
classical theory of elasticity, the following relations are
obtained:
e
x
e
x0
zj
x
z
2
e
x0
z
3
j
x
;
e
y
e
y0
zj
y
z
2
e
y0
z
3
j
y
;
e
z
e
z0
zj
z
z
2
e
z0
z
3
j
y
;
c
xy
e
xy0
zj
xy
z
2
e
xy0
z
3
j
xy
;
c
yz
/
y
zj
yz
z
2
/
y
z
3
j
yz
;
c
xz
/
x
zj
xz
z
2
/
x
z
3
j
xz
;
6
where
e
x0
; e
y0
; e
xy0
ou
0
ox
;
ov
0
oy
;
ou
0
oy
ov
0
ox
;
e
x0
; e
y0
; e
xy0
ou
0
ox
;
ov
0
oy
;
ou
0
oy
ov
0
ox
;
e
z0
; e
z0
h
z
; 3h
z
;
j
x
; j
y
; j
z
; j
xy
oh
x
ox
;
oh
y
oy
; 2w
0
;
oh
x
oy
oh
y
ox
;
j
x
; j
y
; j
xy
oh
x
ox
;
oh
y
oy
;
oh
x
oy
oh
y
ox
;
j
xz
; j
yz
2u
oh
z
ox
; 2v
0
oh
z
oy
;
j
xz
; j
yz
oh
z
ox
;
oh
z
oy
;
/
x
; /
x
; /
y
; /
y
h
x
ow
0
ox
; 3h
x
ow
0
ox
;
h
y
ow
0
oy
; 3h
y
ow
0
oy
:
7
2.2. Constitutive equations
Each lamina in the laminate is assumed to be in
a three-dimensional stress state so that the constitu-
tive relation for a typical lamina L with reference to
the bre-matrix coordinate axes (123) can be written
as
r
1
r
2
r
3
s
12
s
23
s
13
C
11
C
12
C
13
0 0 0
C
12
C
22
C
23
0 0 0
C
13
C
23
C
33
0 0 0
0 0 0 C
44
0 0
0 0 0 0 C
55
0
0 0 0 0 0 C
66
L
e
1
e
2
e
3
c
12
c
23
c
13
L
;
8
where (r
1
; r
2
; r
3
; s
12
; s
23
; s
13
) are the stresses and (e
1
; e
2
;
e
3
; c
12
; c
23
; c
13
) are the linear strain components referred
to the lamina coordinates (123) and the C
ij
s are the
elastic constants or the elements of stiness matrix of
the Lth lamina with reference to the bre axes (12
3). In the laminate coordinates x; y; z the stress strain
relations for the Lth lamina can be written as
r
x
r
y
r
z
s
xy
s
yz
s
xz
Q
11
Q
12
Q
13
Q
14
0 0
Q
22
Q
23
Q
24
0 0
Q
33
Q
34
0 0
Q
44
0 0
symmetric Q
55
Q
56
Q
66
e
x
e
y
e
z
c
xy
c
yz
c
xz
L
; 9
where (r
x
; r
y
; r
z
; s
xy
; s
yz
; s
xz
) are the stresses and (e
x
; e
y
;
e
z
; c
xy
; c
yz
; c
xz
) are the strains with respect to the laminate
axes. Q
ij
s are the transformed elastic constants or
stiness matrix with respect to the laminate axes x; y; z.
The elements of matrices C and Q are dened in
Appendices A and B.
2.3. Governing equations of equilibrium
The equations of equilibrium for the stress analysis
are obtained using the principle of minimum potential
energy (PMPE). In analytical form it can be written as
follows [29]:
dU V 0; 10
where U is the total strain energy due to deformations, V
is the potential of the external loads, and U V P is
the total potential energy and d denotes the variational
symbol. Substituting the appropriate energy expression
in the above equation, the nal expression can thus be
written as
h=2
h=2
A
r
x
de
x
r
y
de
y
r
z
de
z
s
xy
dc
xy
s
yz
dc
yz
s
xz
dc
xz
dAdz
A
p
z
dw
dA
0; 11
where w
w
0
h=2h
z
h
2
=4w
0
h
3
=8h
z
is the
transverse displacement of any point on the top surface
of the plate and p
z
is the transverse load applied at the
top surface of the plate. Using Eqs. (1), (6) and (7) in Eq.
(11) and integrating the resulting expression by parts,
and collecting the coecients of du
0
, dv
0
, dw
0
, dh
x
, dh
y
,
dh
z
, du
0
, dv
0
, dw
0
, dh
x
, dh
y
, dh
z
the following equations
of equilibrium are obtained:
332 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344
du
0
:
oN
x
ox
oN
xy
oy
0;
dv
0
:
oN
y
oy
oN
xy
ox
0;
dw
0
:
oQ
x
ox
oQ
y
oy
p
z
0;
dh
x
:
oM
x
ox
oM
xy
oy
Q
x
0;
dh
y
:
oM
y
oy
oM
xy
ox
Q
y
0;
dh
z
:
oS
x
ox
oS
y
oy
N
z
h
2
p
z
0;
du
0
:
oN
x
ox
oN
xy
oy
2S
x
0;
dv
0
:
oN
y
oy
oN
xy
ox
2S
y
0;
dw
0
:
oQ
x
ox
oQ
y
oy
2M
z
h
2
4
p
z
0;
dh
x
:
oM
x
ox
oM
xy
oy
3Q
x
0;
dh
y
:
oM
y
oy
oM
xy
ox
3Q
y
0;
dh
z
:
oS
x
ox
oS
y
oy
3N
z
h
3
8
p
z
0
12
and the boundary conditions are of the form:
On the edge x constant
u
0
uu
0
or N
x
NN
x
; h
x
hh
x
or M
x
MM
x
;
v
0
vv
0
or N
xy
NN
xy
; h
y
hh
y
or M
xy
MM
xy
;
w
0
ww
0
or Q
x
QQ
x
; h
z
hh
z
or S
x
SS
x
;
u
0
uu
0
or N
x
NN
x
; h
x
hh
x
or M
x
MM
x
;
v
0
vv
0
or N
xy
NN
xy
; h
y
hh
y
or M
xy
MM
xy
;
w
0
ww
0
or Q
x
QQ
x
; h
z
hh
z
or S
x
SS
x
:
13
On the edge y constant
u
0
uu
0
or N
xy
NN
xy
; h
x
hh
x
or M
xy
MM
xy
;
v
0
vv
0
or N
y
NN
y
; h
y
hh
y
or M
y
MM
y
;
w
0
ww
0
or Q
y
QQ
y
; h
z
hh
z
or S
y
SS
y
;
u
0
uu
0
or N
xy
NN
xy
; h
x
hh
x
or M
xy
MM
xy
;
v
0
vv
0
or N
y
NN
y
; h
y
hh
y
or M
y
MM
y
;
w
0
ww
0
or Q
y
QQ
y
; h
z
hh
z
or S
y
SS
y
;
14
where the stress resultants are dened by
M
x
M
x
M
y
M
y
M
z
0
M
xy
M
xy
NL
L1
z
L1
z
L
r
x
r
y
r
z
s
xy
z z
3
dz; 15
Q
x
Q
x
Q
y
Q
NL
L1
z
L1
z
L
s
xz
s
yz
1 z
2
dz; 16
N
x
N
x
N
y
N
y
N
z
N
z
N
xy
N
xy
NL
L1
z
L1
z
L
r
x
r
y
r
z
s
xy
1 z
2
dz; 17
S
x
S
x
S
y
S
NL
L1
z
L1
z
L
s
xz
s
yz
z z
3
dz: 18
The resultants in Eqs. (15)(18) can be related to the
total strains in Eq. (6) by the following equations:
N
x
N
y
N
x
N
y
N
z
N
z
M
x
M
y
M
x
M
y
M
A
e
x0
e
y0
e
x0
e
y0
e
z0
e
z0
j
x
j
y
j
x
j
y
j
z
A
0
e
xy0
e
xy0
j
xy
j
xy
;
N
xy
N
xy
M
xy
M
xy
B
0
e
x0
e
y0
e
x0
e
y0
e
z0
e
z0
j
x
j
y
j
x
j
y
j
z
B
e
xy0
e
xy0
j
xy
j
xy
;
19
Q
x
Q
x
S
x
S
D
/
x
/
x
j
xz
j
xz
D
0
/
y
/
y
j
yz
j
yz
;
Q
y
Q
y
S
y
S
E
0
/
x
/
x
j
xz
j
xz
E
/
y
/
y
j
yz
j
yz
;
20
where the matrices A, A
0
, B, B
0
, D, D
0
, E, E
0
0
0; w
0
0; h
y
0; h
z
0; M
x
0;
N
x
0; N
x
0:
21
At edges y 0 and y b:
u
0
0; w
0
0; h
x
0; h
z
0; M
y
0;
u
0
0; w
0
0; h
x
0; h
z
0; M
y
0;
N
y
0; N
y
0:
22
Following Naviers solution procedure [2,3,30], the so-
lution to the displacement variables satisfying the above
boundary conditions can be expressed in the following
forms:
u
0
1
m1
1
n1
u
0
mn
cos ax sin by;
v
0
1
m1
1
n1
v
0mn
sin ax cos by;
w
0
1
m1
1
n1
w
0mn
sin ax sin by;
h
x
1
m1
1
n1
h
x
mn
cos ax sin by;
h
y
1
m1
1
n1
h
ymn
sin ax cos by;
h
z
1
m1
1
n1
h
zmn
sin ax sin by;
u
1
m1
1
n1
u
0mn
cos ax sin by;
v
1
m1
1
n1
v
0mn
sin ax cos by;
w
1
m1
1
n1
w
0mn
sin ax sin by;
h
1
m1
1
n1
h
xmn
cos ax sin by;
h
1
m1
1
n1
h
ymn
sin ax cos by;
h
1
m1
1
n1
h
zmn
sin ax sin by;
and the loading term is expanded as
p
1
m1
1
n1
p
z
mn
sin ax sin by; 23
where a mp=a, b np=b.
Substituting Eqs. (21)(23) into Eq. (12) and collect-
ing the coecients one obtains
X
1212
u
0
v
0
w
0
h
x
h
y
h
z
u
0
v
0
w
0
h
x
h
y
h
121
0
0
p
z
0
0
h=2p
z
0
0
h
2
=4p
z
0
0
h
3
=8p
121
24
for any xed values of m and n. The elements of coef-
cient matrix X are given in Appendix D.
4. Numerical results and discussion
In this section, various numerical examples solved are
described and discussed for establishing the accuracy of
the various theories for the stress analysis of laminated
composite and sandwich plates. The description of
the various displacement models compared is given in
Table 1. A shear correction factor of 5/6 is used in
computing results using WhitneyPaganos theory. For
all the problems a simply supported (diaphgram sup-
ported) plate is considered for the analysis. The trans-
verse loading considered is sinusoidal. Results are
obtained in closed form using Naviers solution tech-
nique for the above geometry and loading and the
accuracy of the solution is established by comparing the
Table 1
Displacement models (shear deformation theories) compared
Source Theory Year (Ref.) Degrees of freedom Transverse normal
deformation
Present (Model-1) HSDT 1988 ([23]) 12 Considered
Present (Model-2) HSDT 1988 ([22]) 9 Not considered
Reddy (Model-3) HSDT 1984 ([15]) 5 Not considered
Senthilnathan et al. (Model-4) HSDT 1987 ([16]) 4 Not considered
WhitneyPagano (Model-5) FSDT 1970 ([13]) 5 Not considered
334 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344
results with the exact elasticity solution wherever avail-
able in the literature.
The following sets of data are used in obtaining nu-
merical results.
Material 1 [28]
E
1
=E
2
25; E
2
E
3
10
6
psi 7 GPa;
G
12
G
13
0:5E
2
; G
23
0:2E
2
;
t
12
t
23
t
13
0:25:
Material 2 [28]
Face sheets
E
1
=E
2
25; E
2
E
3
10
6
;
G
12
G
13
0:5E
2
; G
23
0:2E
2
;
t
12
t
23
t
13
0:25:
Core
E
1
=E
3
0:08; E
2
=E
3
0:08; E
3
0:5 10
6
;
G
13
=E
3
G
23
=E
3
0:12; t
12
0:25;
t
23
t
13
0:02:
Material 3 [30]
Face sheets (graphite epoxy T300/934)
E
1
19 10
6
psi 131 GPa;
E
2
1:5 10
6
psi 10:34 GPa;
E
2
E
3
;
G
12
1 10
6
psi 6:895 GPa;
G
13
0:90 10
6
psi 6:205 GPa;
G
23
1 10
6
psi 6:895 GPa;
t
12
0:22; t
13
0:22; t
23
0:49:
Table 2
Nondimensionalized deections and stresses in a three-layer (0/90/0) simply supported square laminate under sinusoidal transverse load
a=h Theory ww rr
x
rr
y
a
ss
xy
2 Elasticity
b
0.938 0.669 0.0859
Present (Model-1) 4.9147 1.1355 0.5356 0.0754
Present (Model-2) 5.2158 1.0912 0.6334 0.0803
Model-3 5.1286 1.3112 0.5876 0.0889
Model-4 4.3088 1.3460 0.1493 0.0532
Model-5 5.2293 0.3597 0.7039 0.0488
4 Elasticity
b
0.755 0.556 0.0505
Present (Model-1) 1.8948 0.7648 0.4939 0.0487
Present (Model-2) 1.9261 0.7670 0.5079 0.0500
Model-3 1.9218 0.7344 0.5028 0.0497
Model-4 1.4852 0.7581 0.0902 0.0300
Model-5 1.7758 0.4370 0.4774 0.0370
10 Elasticity
b
0.590 0.285 0.0289
Present (Model-1) 0.7151 0.5836 0.2705 0.0279
Present (Model-2) 0.7176 0.5847 0.2712 0.0281
Model-3 0.7125 0.5684 0.2690 0.0277
Model-4 0.6041 0.5747 0.1649 0.0227
Model-5 0.6693 0.5134 0.2536 0.0252
20 Elasticity
b
0.552 0.210 0.0289
Present (Model-1) 0.5053 0.5504 0.2049 0.0231
Present (Model-2) 0.5058 0.5507 0.2050 0.0231
Model-3 0.5041 0.5460 0.2043 0.0230
Model-4 0.4746 0.5477 0.1759 0.0216
Model-5 0.4921 0.5318 0.1997 0.0223
50 Elasticity
b
0.541 0.185 0.0216
Present (Model-1) 0.4432 0.5406 0.1838 0.0216
Present (Model-2) 0.4433 0.5406 0.1838 0.0216
Model-3 0.4430 0.5399 0.1836 0.0216
Model-4 0.4382 0.5401 0.1790 0.0213
Model-5 0.4411 0.4480 0.1829 0.0215
100 Elasticity
b
0.539 0.181 0.0213
Present (Model-1) 0.4343 0.5392 0.1807 0.0214
Present (Model-2) 0.4343 0.5392 0.1807 0.0214
Model-3 0.4342 0.5390 0.1806 0.0214
Model-4 0.4330 0.5391 0.1795 0.0213
Model-5 0.4337 0.5384 0.1804 0.0213
a
Max value occurs at z h=6.
b
See [28].
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344 335
Core (isotropic)
E
1
E
2
E
3
2G 1000 psi 6:90 10
3
GPa;
G
12
G
13
G
23
500 psi 3:45 10
3
GPa;
t
12
t
13
t
23
0:
Results reported in tables and plots are using the
following nondimensional form:
uu u
100h
3
E
2
P
0
a
4
; vv v
100h
3
E
2
P
0
a
4
;
ww w
100h
3
E
2
P
0
a
4
; rr
x
r
x
h
2
P
0
a
2
;
rr
y
r
y
h
2
P
0
a
2
; ss
xy
s
xy
h
2
P
0
a
2
:
Unless otherwise specied within the table(s) the lo-
cations (i.e. x-, y-, and z-coordinates) for maximum
values of displacements, stresses and stress resultants for
the present evaluations are as follows:
In-plane displacement (u): 0; b=2; h=2.
In-plane displacement (v): a=2; 0; h=2.
Transverse displacement (w): a=2; b=2; 0.
In-plane normal stress r
x
: a=2; b=2; h=2.
In-plane normal stress r
y
: a=2; b=2; h=2.
In-plane shear stress s
xy
: 0; 0; h=2.
Example 1. A simply supported three-layered sym-
metric cross-ply (0/90/0) square plate under sinu-
soidal transverse load is considered. The layers have
equal thickness. Material set 1 is used. The numerical
results of transverse displacement and in-plane stresses
are given in Table 2. The numerical results of maxi-
mum in-plane stresses are compared with the exact
elasticity solution given by [28]. The results clearly
show that the values obtained using Model-2 and
Model-3 are in close agreement for all a=h ratios. For
a=h ratio equal to 2, Model-1 underpredicts deection
by 5.77%, Model-4 by 17.39% compared to the results
of Model-2. Fig. 3 shows the through the thickness
variation of in-plane displacement uu. It shows that the
results obtained using Model-1, Model-2 and Model-3
are in good agreement whereas the values predicted by
Model-4 and Model-5 dier from others considerably.
Table 3 shows the percentage of error with respect
to exact elasticity solution in computing the in-plane
stresses. The results show that even at slenderness ratio
as low as 2, Model-2 gives better accuracy compared to
other displacement models. The accuracy of all models
in predicting the in-plane stresses increases with in-
creasing slenderness ratio. Figs. 46 shows the through
the thickness variation of nondimensionalized in-plane
stresses rr
x
; rr
y
and ss
xy
for a=h ratio equal to 10. It shows
that the stress values obtained using Model-1 and
Model-2 are in excellent agreement.
Example 2. A simply supported three-layered sym-
metric (0/core/0) square sandwich plate with the
thickness of each face sheet equal to h=10 is considered.
Material set 2 is used. The numerical results of trans-
verse displacement and in-plane stresses for various
aspect ratios a=h are shown in Table 4. The numerical
results of maximum in-plane stresses are compared
with exact elasticity solution given by [28]. Table 5
shows the percentage of error with respect to exact
elasticity solution in computing the in-plane stresses for
various a=h ratios. The results show that the percentage
u
Fig. 3. Variation of nondimensionalized in-plane displacement uu
through the thickness z=h of a three-layer (0/90/0) simply sup-
ported square plate under sinusoidal transverse load.
Table 3
Error (%) in a three-layer symmetric cross-ply (0/90/0) laminate
a=h Theory rr
x
rr
y
ss
xy
2 Present (Model-1) 21.05 )19.94 )12.22
Present (Model-2) 16.33 )5.32 )6.52
Model-3 39.78 )12.17 3.49
Model-4 43.49 )77.68 )38.07
Model-5 )61.65 5.22 )43.19
4 Present (Model-1) 1.30 )11.17 )3.56
Present (Model-2) 1.59 )8.65 )0.99
Model-3 )2.06 )9.57 )1.58
Model-4 0.41 )83.78 )40.59
Model-5 )42.12 )14.14 )26.73
10 Present (Model-1) )1.08 )5.09 )3.46
Present (Model-2) )0.90 )4.84 )2.77
Model-3 )3.66 )5.61 )4.15
Model-4 )2.59 )42.14 )21.45
Model-5 )12.98 )11.02 )12.80
336 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344
of error got using the Model-4 and Model-5 is very
large compared to other models and the percentage of
error goes on reducing as the plate becomes thinner.
For a=h equal to 4, 10 and 20, Model-1 gives better
estimate of in-plane stresses rr
x
and rr
y
whereas Model-2
predicts the in-plane shear stress more accurately than
the other models for the above aspect ratios. For very
thin laminate (a=h 50 and above) Model-2 gives
better accurate results of all in-plane stresses as com-
pared to other models. The percentage error in pre-
dicting the in-plane stresses rr
x
and rr
y
using Model-1
increases as the sandwich plate becomes thinner. The
through the thickness variation of in-plane displace-
ments uu and vv for a=h ratio equal to 4 is shown in Figs.
7 and 8. From the gures it can be seen that the values
of in-plane displacements predicted by both Model-1
and Model-2 are same, there is a considerable dier-
ence in values of the above displacements predicted by
other models.
Example 3. A simply supported two-layer (0/90)
antisymmetric square laminate under sinusoidal trans-
verse load is considered. The layers have equal thick-
ness. Material set 1 is used. Numerical values of
nondimensionalized transverse displacement and in-
plane stresses are shown in Table 6. Three-dimensional
elasticity results are obtained using the method given
by [28]. The percentage error with respect to three-
dimensional elasticity solution is given in Table 7. The
results clearly indicate that the percentage error with
respect to three-dimensional elasticity solution in pre-
dicting the transverse displacement and in-plane stres-
ses is very much lesser in the case of Model-2 and the
prediction of in-plane normal stresses rr
x
, rr
y
by Model-
4 is very poor.
Fig. 5. Variation of nondimensionalized in-plane normal stress rr
y
D
; C
12
E
1
t
21
t
31
t
23
D
;
Table 8
Nondimensionalized deections and stresses in a ve-layer (0/90/core/0/90) simply supported square sandwich plate under sinusoidal transverse
load
a=h Theory ww
c
rr
x
rr
y
ss
xy
2 Present (Model-1) 43.2468 2.6494 4.5305 )0.7688
Present (Model-2) 44.9032 )3.5349 3.5349 0.5515
Model-3 30.2539 )2.0269 2.0269 0.2959
Model-4 30.2539 )2.8710 2.8709 0.2959
Model-5 8.6438 )0.6199 0.6199 0.0693
4 Present (Model-1) 14.1627 )1.6445 1.4931 0.2031
Present (Model-2) 14.3440 )1.5328 1.5328 0.2196
Model-3 8.7941 )0.9937 0.9937 0.1291
Model-4 8.7941 )1.2525 1.2524 0.1291
Model-5 2.9509 )0.6199 0.6199 0.0693
10 Present (Model-1) 3.3032 )0.8104 0.7606 0.0946
Present (Model-2) 3.3197 )0.7771 0.7771 0.0951
Model-3 2.3075 )0.6815 0.6815 0.0787
Model-4 2.3075 )0.7634 0.7631 0.0787
Model-5 1.3570 )0.6200 0.6200 0.0693
100 Present (Model-1) 1.0697 )0.6231 0.6226 0.0691
Present (Model-2) 1.0763 )0.6216 0.6216 0.0696
Model-3 1.0595 )0.6214 0.6214 0.0690
Model-4 1.0595 )0.6692 0.6691 0.0690
Model-5 1.0564 )0.6200 0.6200 0.0693
Table 9
Nondimensionalized deections and stresses in a simply supported square sandwich plate with orthotropic face sheets under sinusoidal transverse
loads
a=h Theory ww
0
rr
x
rr
y
ss
xy
2 Present (Model-1) 37.8550 )2.3560 0.3752 0.3172
Present (Model-2) 39.0218 )4.0665 0.5310 0.5184
Model-3 29.4799 )2.4689 0.3922 0.3583
Model-4 28.3619 )2.6684 0.2526 0.2750
Model-5 9.7795 )0.3814 0.1943 0.1440
4 Present (Model-1) 14.3218 )1.7931 0.2128 0.2702
Present (Model-2) 14.4949 )1.8204 0.3077 0.2783
Model-3 9.6703 )1.0558 0.2358 0.1978
Model-4 8.6085 )1.2193 0.1154 0.1257
Model-5 3.5348 )0.5176 0.1308 0.1077
10 Present (Model-1) 3.8714 )0.8536 0.1372 0.1363
Present (Model-2) 3.8899 )0.8344 0.1527 0.1352
Model-3 2.7265 )0.6913 0.1198 0.1069
Model-4 2.2887 )0.7558 0.0715 0.0779
Model-5 1.4854 )0.6301 0.0784 0.0777
100 Present (Model-1) 1.0740 )0.6657 0.0641 0.0694
Present (Model-2) 1.0806 )0.6647 0.0642 0.0699
Model-3 1.0591 )0.6642 0.0636 0.0689
Model-4 1.0531 )0.6651 0.0630 0.0686
Model-5 1.0515 )0.6629 0.0630 0.0690
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344 341
C
13
E
1
t
31
t
21
t
32
D
; C
22
E
2
1 t
13
t
31
D
;
C
23
E
2
t
32
t
12
t
31
D
; C
33
E
3
1 t
12
t
21
D
;
C
44
G
12
; C
55
G
23
; C
66
G
13
;
where
D 1 t
12
t
21
t
23
t
32
t
31
t
13
2t
12
t
23
t
31
and
e
1
r
1
E
1
t
21
r
2
E
2
t
31
r
3
E
3
;
e
2
r
2
E
2
t
32
r
3
E
3
t
12
r
1
E
1
;
e
3
r
3
E
3
t
13
r
1
E
1
t
23
r
2
E
2
;
c
12
s
12
G
12
; c
23
s
23
G
23
; c
13
s
13
G
13
;
t
12
E
1
t
21
E
2
;
t
31
E
3
t
13
E
1
;
t
32
E
3
t
23
E
2
:
Appendix B. Coecients of Q matrix
Q
11
C
11
c
4
2C
12
2C
44
s
2
c
2
C
22
s
4
;
Q
12
C
12
c
4
s
4
C
11
C
22
4C
44
s
2
c
2
;
Q
13
C
13
c
2
C
23
s
2
;
Q
14
C
11
C
12
2C
44
sc
3
C
12
C
22
2C
44
cs
3
;
Q
22
C
11
s
4
C
22
c
4
2C
12
4C
44
s
2
c
2
;
Q
23
C
13
s
2
C
23
c
2
;
Q
24
C
11
C
12
2C
44
s
3
c C
12
C
22
2C
44
c
3
s;
Q
33
C
33
;
Q
34
C
31
C
32
sc;
Q
44
C
11
2C
12
C
22
2C
44
c
2
s
2
C
44
c
4
s
4
;
Q
55
C
55
c
2
C
66
s
2
;
Q
56
C
66
C
55
cs;
Q
66
C
55
s
2
C
66
c
2
and
Q
ij
Q
ji
; i; j 1 to 6;
where
c cos a and s sin a:
Appendix C. Elements of A, A
0
, B, B
0
, D, D
0
, E,
E
0
matrices
A
NL
L1
Q
11
H
1
Q
12
H
1
Q
11
H
3
Q
12
H
3
Q
13
H
1
3Q
13
H
3
Q
11
H
2
Q
12
H
2
Q
11
H
4
Q
12
H
4
2Q
13
H
3
Q
12
H
1
Q
22
H
1
Q
12
H
3
Q
22
H
3
Q
23
H
1
3Q
23
H
3
Q
12
H
2
Q
22
H
2
Q
12
H
4
Q
22
H
4
2Q
23
H
2
Q
11
H
3
Q
12
H
3
Q
11
H
5
Q
12
H
5
Q
13
H
3
3Q
13
H
5
Q
11
H
4
Q
12
H
4
Q
11
H
6
Q
12
H
6
2Q
13
H
4
Q
12
H
3
Q
22
H
3
Q
12
H
5
Q
22
H
5
Q
23
H
3
3Q
23
H
5
Q
12
H
4
Q
22
H
4
Q
12
H
6
Q
22
H
6
2Q
23
H
4
Q
13
H
1
Q
23
H
1
Q
13
H
3
Q
23
H
3
Q
33
H
1
3Q
33
H
3
Q
13
H
2
Q
23
H
2
Q
13
H
4
Q
23
H
4
2Q
33
H
2
Q
13
H
3
Q
23
H
3
Q
13
H
5
Q
23
H
5
Q
33
H
3
3Q
33
H
5
Q
13
H
4
Q
23
H
4
Q
13
H
6
Q
23
H
6
2Q
33
H
4
Q
11
H
2
Q
12
H
2
Q
11
H
4
Q
12
H
4
Q
13
H
2
3Q
13
H
4
Q
11
H
3
Q
12
H
3
Q
11
H
5
Q
12
H
5
2Q
13
H
3
Q
12
H
2
Q
22
H
2
Q
12
H
4
Q
22
H
4
Q
23
H
2
3Q
23
H
4
Q
12
H
3
Q
22
H
3
Q
12
H
5
Q
22
H
5
2Q
23
H
3
Q
11
H
4
Q
12
H
4
Q
11
H
6
Q
12
H
6
Q
13
H
4
3Q
13
H
6
Q
11
H
5
Q
12
H
5
Q
11
H
7
Q
12
H
7
2Q
13
H
5
Q
12
H
4
Q
22
H
4
Q
12
H
6
Q
22
H
6
Q
23
H
4
3Q
23
H
6
Q
12
H
5
Q
22
H
5
Q
12
H
7
Q
22
H
7
2Q
23
H
5
Q
13
H
2
Q
23
H
2
Q
13
H
4
Q
23
H
4
Q
33
H
2
3Q
33
H
4
Q
13
H
3
Q
23
H
3
Q
13
H
5
Q
23
H
5
2Q
33
H
3
;
Fig. 9. Nondimensionalized deection ratio ww
c
= ww
0
as a function of
plate side-to-thickness ratio a=h of a ve-layer (0/90/core/0/90)
simply supported square sandwich plate under sinusoidal transverse
load.
342 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344
B
NL
L1
Q
44
H
1
Q
44
H
3
Q
44
H
2
Q
44
H
4
Q
44
H
3
Q
44
H
5
Q
44
H
4
Q
44
H
6
Q
44
H
2
Q
44
H
4
Q
44
H
3
Q
44
H
5
Q
44
H
4
Q
44
H
6
Q
44
H
5
Q
44
H
7
;
A
0
NL
L1
Q
14
H
1
Q
14
H
3
Q
14
H
2
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
1
Q
24
H
3
Q
24
H
2
Q
24
H
4
Q
14
H
3
Q
14
H
5
Q
14
H
4
Q
14
H
6
Q
24
H
3
Q
24
H
5
Q
24
H
4
Q
24
H
6
Q
34
H
1
Q
34
H
3
Q
34
H
2
Q
34
H
4
Q
34
H
3
Q
34
H
5
Q
34
H
4
Q
34
H
6
Q
14
H
2
Q
14
H
4
Q
14
H
3
Q
14
H
5
Q
24
H
2
Q
24
H
4
Q
24
H
3
Q
24
H
5
Q
14
H
4
Q
14
H
6
Q
14
H
5
Q
14
H
7
Q
24
H
4
Q
24
H
6
Q
24
H
5
Q
24
H
7
Q
34
H
2
Q
34
H
4
Q
34
H
3
Q
34
H
5
;
D
NL
L1
Q
66
H
1
Q
66
H
3
Q
66
H
2
Q
66
H
4
Q
66
H
3
Q
66
H
5
Q
66
H
4
Q
66
H
6
Q
66
H
2
Q
66
H
4
Q
66
H
3
Q
66
H
5
Q
66
H
4
Q
66
H
6
Q
66
H
5
Q
66
H
7
;
D
0
NL
L1
Q
56
H
1
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
2
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
6
Q
56
H
2
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
6
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
7
;
E
NL
L1
Q
55
H
1
Q
55
H
3
Q
55
H
2
Q
55
H
4
Q
55
H
3
Q
55
H
5
Q
55
H
4
Q
55
H
6
Q
55
H
2
Q
55
H
4
Q
55
H
3
Q
55
H
5
Q
55
H
4
Q
55
H
6
Q
55
H
5
Q
55
H
7
;
E
0
NL
L1
Q
56
H
1
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
2
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
6
Q
56
H
2
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
6
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
7
:
Appendix D. Coecients of matrix X
X
1;1
A
1;1
a
2
B
1;1
b
2
; X
1;2
A
1;2
ab B
1;2
ab;
X
1;3
0; X
1;4
A
1;7
a
2
B
1;5
b
2
;
X
1;5
A
1;8
ab B
1;6
ab;
X
1;6
A
1;5
a; X
1;7
A
1;3
a
2
B
1;3
b
2
;
X
1;8
A
1;4
ab B
1;4
ab; X
1;9
A
1;11
a;
X
1;10
A
1;9
a
2
B
1;7
b
2
; X
1;11
A
1;10
ab B
1;8
ab;
X
1;12
A
1;6
a;
X
2;2
A
2;2
b
2
B
1;2
a
2
; X
2;3
0;
X
2;4
A
2;7
ab B
1;5
ab;
X
2;5
A
2;8
b
2
B
1;6
a
2
; X
2;6
A
2;5
b;
X
2;7
A
2;3
ab B
1;3
ab; X
2;8
A
2;4
b
2
B
1;4
a
2
;
X
2;9
A
2;11
b; X
2;10
A
2;9
ab B
1;7
ab;
X
2;11
A
2;10
b
2
B
1;8
a
2
; X
2;12
A
2;6
b;
X
3;3
D
1;2
a
2
E
1;2
b
2
; X
3;4
D
1;1
a;
X
3;5
E
1;1
b; X
3;6
D
1;6
a
2
E
1;6
b
2
;
X
3;7
D
1;5
a; X
3;8
E
1;5
b;
X
3;9
D
1;4
a
2
E
1;4
b
2
; X
3;10
D
1;3
a;
X
3;11
E
1;3
b; X
3;12
D
1;7
a
2
E
1;7
b
2
;
X
4;4
A
7;7
a
2
B
3;5
b
2
D
1;1
; X
4;5
A
7;8
ab B
3;6
ab;
X
4;6
A
7;5
a D
1;6
a; X
4;7
A
7;3
a
2
B
3;3
b
2
D
1;5
;
X
4;8
A
7;4
ab B
3;4
ab; X
4;9
A
7;11
a D
1;4
a;
X
4;10
A
7;9
a
2
B
3;7
b
2
D
1;3
; X
4;11
A
7;10
ab B
3;8
ab;
X
4;12
A
7;6
a D
1;7
a;
X
5;5
A
8;8
b
2
B
3;6
a
2
E
1;1
; X
5;6
A
8;5
b E
1;6
b;
X
5;7
A
8;3
ab B
3;3
ab; X
5;8
A
8;4
b
2
B
3;4
a
2
E
1;5
;
X
5;9
A
8;11
b E
1;4
b; X
5;10
A
8;9
ab B
3;7
ab;
X
5;11
A
8;10
b
2
B
3;8
a
2
E
1;3
; X
5;12
A
8;6
b E
1;7
b;
X
6;6
D
3;6
a
2
E
3;6
b
2
A
5;5
; X
6;7
D
3;5
a A
5;3
a;
X
6;8
E
3;5
b A
5;4
b; X
6;9
D
3;4
a
2
E
3;4
b
2
A
5;11
;
X
6;10
D
3;3
a A
5;9
a; X
6;11
E
3;3
b A
5;10
b;
X
6;12
D
3;7
a
2
E
3;7
b
2
A
5;6
;
X
7;7
A
3;3
a
2
B
2;3
b
2
2D
3;5
; X
7;8
A
3;4
ab B
2;4
ab;
X
7;9
A
3;11
a 2D
3;4
a; X
7;10
A
3;9
a
2
B
2;7
b
2
2D
3;3
;
X
7;11
A
3;10
ab B
2;8
ab; X
7;12
A
3;6
a 2D
3;7
a;
X
8;8
A
4;4
b
2
B
2;4
a
2
2E
3;5
; X
8;9
A
4;11
b 2E
3;4
b;
X
8;10
A
4;9
ab B
2;7
ab; X
8;11
A
4;10
b
2
B
2;8
a
2
2E
3;3
;
X
8;12
A
4;6
b 2E
3;7
b;
X
9;9
D
2;4
a
2
E
2;4
b
2
2A
11;11
; X
9;10
D
2;3
a 2A
11;9
a;
X
9;11
E
2;3
b 2A
11;10
b;
X
9;12
D
2;7
a
2
E
2;7
b
2
2A
11;6
;
X
10;10
A
9;9
a
2
B
4;7
b
2
3D
2;3
;
X
10;11
A
9;10
ab B
4;8
ab;
B
0
NL
L1
Q
14
H
1
Q
24
H
1
Q
14
H
3
Q
24
H
3
Q
34
H
1
3Q
34
H
3
Q
14
H
2
Q
24
H
2
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
4
2Q
34
H
2
Q
14
H
3
Q
24
H
3
Q
14
H
5
Q
24
H
5
Q
34
H
3
3Q
34
H
5
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
4
Q
14
H
6
Q
24
H
6
2Q
34
H
4
Q
14
H
2
Q
24
H
2
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
4
Q
34
H
2
3Q
34
H
4
Q
14
H
3
Q
24
H
3
Q
14
H
5
Q
24
H
5
2Q
34
H
3
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
4
Q
14
H
6
Q
24
H
6
Q
34
H
4
3Q
34
H
6
Q
14
H
5
Q
24
H
5
Q
14
H
7
Q
24
H
7
2Q
34
H
5
;
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344 343
X
10;12
A
9;6
a 3D
2;7
a;
X
11;11
A
10;10
b
2
B
4;8
a
2
3E
2;3
;
X
11;12
A
10;6
b 3E
2;7
b;
X
12;12
D
2;4
a
2
E
4;7
b
2
3A
6;6
and X
i;j
X
j;i
i; j 1; 12:
References
[1] Reissner E, Stavsky Y. Bending and stretching of certain types of
heterogeneous aelotropic elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech
1961;28:40228.
[2] Timoshenko SP, Woinowsky-Krieger S. Theory of plates and
shells. New York: Mc-Graw Hill; 1959.
[3] Szilard R. Theory and analysis of plates (classical and numerical
methods). New Jersy: Prentice-Hall; 1974.
[4] Reissner E. The eect of transverse shear deformation on the
bending of elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1945;12(2):
6977.
[5] Mindlin RD. Inuence of rotary inertia and shear on exural
motions of isotropic, elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1951;
18:318.
[6] Hildebrand FB, Reissner E, Thomas GB. Note on the foundations
of the theory of small displacements of orthotropic shells. NACA
TN-1833, 1949.
[7] Nelson RB, Lorch DR. A rened theory for laminated ortho-
tropic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1974;41:17783.
[8] Librescu L. Elastostatics and kinematics of anisotropic and
heterogeneous shell type structures. The Netherlands: Noordho;
1975.
[9] Lo KH, Christensen RM, Wu EM. A higher order theory of plate
deformation, Part 1: Homogeneous plates. ASME J Appl Mech
1977a;44(4):6638.
[10] Lo KH, Christensen RM, Wu EM. A higher order theory of plate
deformation, Part 2: Laminated plates. ASME J Appl Mech
1977b;44(4):66976.
[11] Levinson M. An accurate simple theory of the statics and
dynamics of elastic plates. Mech Res Commun 1980;7:343.
[12] Murthy MVV. An improved transverse shear deformation theory
for laminated anisotropic plates. NASA Technical Paper-1903,
1981.
[13] Whitney JM, Pagano NJ. Shear deformation in heterogeneous
anisotropic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1970;37(4):10316.
[14] Kant T. Numerical analysis of thick plates. Comput Meth Appl
Mech Eng 1982;31:118.
[15] Reddy JN. A simple higher order theory for laminated composite
plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1984;51:74552.
[16] Senthilnathan NR, Lim KH, Lee KH, Chow ST. Buckling of
shear deformable plates. AIAA J 1987;25(9):126871.
[17] Kant T, Owen DRJ, Zienkiewicz OC. A rened higher order C
0
plate bending element. Comput Struct 1982;15:17783.
[18] Pandya BN, Kant T. A consistent rened theory for exure of a
symmetric laminate. Mech Res Commun 1987;14:10713.
[19] Pandya BN, Kant T. Higher order shear deformable theories for
exure of sandwich plates nite element evaluations. Int J Solids
Struct 1988a;24(12):126786.
[20] Pandya BN, Kant T. Flexure analysis of laminated composites
using rened higher order C
0
plate bending elements. Comput
Meth Appl Mech Eng 1988b;66:17398.
[21] Pandya BN, Kant T. A rened higher order generally orthotropic
C
0
plate bending element. Comput Struct 1988c;28:11933.
[22] Pandya BN, Kant T. Finite element stress analysis of laminated
composite plates using higher order displacement model. Compos
Sci Technol 1988d;32:13755.
[23] Kant T, Manjunatha BS. An unsymmetric FRC laminate C
0
nite
element model with 12 degrees of freedom per node. Eng Comput
1988;5(3):3008.
[24] Kant T, Manjunatha BS. On accurate estimation of transverse
stresses in multilayer laminates. Comput Struct 1994;50(3):
35165.
[25] Manjunatha BS, Kant T. A comparison of 9 and 16 node
quadrilateral elements based on higher order laminate theories for
estimation of transverse stresses. J Reinforced Plastics Compos
1992;11(9):9681002.
[26] Rohwer K. Application of higher order theories to the bending
analysis of layered composite plates. Int J Solids Struct 1992;
29(1):10519.
[27] Noor AK, Burton WS. Assessment of shear deformation theories
for multilayered composite plates. Appl Mech Rev 1989;42(1):
113.
[28] Pagano NJ. Exact solutions for rectangular bidirectional
composites and sandwich plates. J Compos Mater 1970;
4(1):2034.
[29] Reddy JN. Energy and variational methods in applied mechanics.
New York: Wiley; 1984.
[30] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates, theory and
analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1996.
344 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 56 (2002) 329344
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: