J. Sound Vib.

(1970) 13 (2), 211-228

FREE VIBRATIONS OF ORTHOTROPIC SANDWICH CONICAL

SHELLS WITH VARIOUS BOUNDARY CONDITIONSt
D. J.

WILKINS, JR

Fort Worth Division a/General Dynamics Corporation

Fort Worth, Texas, U.S.A.

C. W.

BERT AND

D. M.

EOLE

School ofAerospace and Mechanical Engineering,

University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
(Received 2 June 1969)

In this paper is presented an analysis of axisymmetric and unsymmetric free vibrations

of conical or cylindrical shells with various boundary conditions. The shell construction
may be either homogeneous or symmetrical sandwich, and the facing and core may be
either isotropic or specially orthotropic. Love's first-approximation shell theory, with
transverse shear strain added, was used and solutions were obtained by Galerkin's method.
Comparisons were made with existing experimental results for the following boundary
conditions: freely supported at both ends; clamped-clamped; and free-free.
1. INTRODUCTION

Although sandwich construction is being used more widely in shell configurations for
aerospace structures, only a limited number of the vibrational analyses referenced in a
recent bibliography [1] considered orthotropic facings, as exemplified by fiber-reinforced
composites. However, some did allow for the commonly used hexagonal-cell honeycomb
core by considering the simpler effect of an orthotropic core. The first sandwich-shell vibration analyses to consider orthotropic facings and core were done independently by Azar [2],
Vasitsyna [3] and Baker and Herrmann [4]. Azar treated axisymmetric free vibrations of
freely supported arbitrary open-ended shells of revolution, such as conical and paraboloidal
shell frusta but excluding cylinders. Vasitsyna analyzed free vibrations of circular cylinders,
while Baker and Herrmann considered the same case with the addition of a general state
of initial stress. Later, Bacon and Bert [5] extended Azar's work to include unsymmetric
modes.
Most of the above analyses used freely supported edges, while a few considered clamped
edges. None of them considered free edges. In fact, until very recently, the most difficult
case that had been analyzed for free edges was that of a homogeneous, isotropic, conical
shell. Hu [6] formulated his analysis to include both membrane and bending effects, with
solutions by Galerkin's method. However, the only numerical results which he published
for free-free boundary conditions included only membrane effects and they were not compared with any experimental results. A Rayleigh-Ritz analysis by Hu et al. [7] considered
the conical shell to be inextensional, i.e, the membrane strains were identically zero. For
a free-free shell, such an analysis yields only two meridional modes. Their results compared

t This research was submitted by the first author in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering at the University of Oklahoma, 1969.
15
211

212

D. J. WILKINS, JR, C. W. BERT AND D. M. EGLE

favorably for the two lowest meridional modes found in their previous experiments [8]
for low values of circumferential wave number, n.
Sewall's analysis, mentioned in a report by Mixson [9], was said to have been solved by
a Rayleigh-Ritz technique, and his results, for the lowest unsymmetric mode only, agreed
quite well with Mixson's experimental values for homogeneous, isotropic, conical shells.
A later Rayleigh-Ritz analysis by Naumann [10] compared favorably with various published
results for free-free isotropic conical shells.
The analysis of Krause [11], for the same type of shell, included both membrane and
bending effects, and used a modified Galerkin method in which it was not necessary to
satisfy the force and moment boundary conditions. However, Krause's results did not
appear to agree as well with the experimental values of [8] as did those obtained by the
much simpler analysis of [7].
The case of a sandwich conical frustum with orthotropic facings, perfectly rigid core and
free edgeswas analyzed by Bert et al. [12] using a simple inextensional theory and the RayleighRitz method. For the two lowest meridional modes, their analysis agreed well with their
experimental results for a free-free, orthotropic, sandwich shell.
The analysis reported herein was directed toward conical frusta, with the cylinder as a
special case, for symmetric and unsymmetric modes. Orthotropic facings and core and all
components of translational and rotatory inertia were included. The problem was formulated such that the boundary conditions need not be specified until the final step. Three
sets of end conditions were investigated: clamped-clamped, freely supported, and free-free.
2. FORMULATION

Expressions for the kinetic and potential energies of a symmetrical sandwich conical
shell with orthotropic facings and core were derived from basic principles, using Love's
first-approximation shell theory with the addition of transverse shear. Hamilton's principle
was employed to derive the differential equations of motion and the boundary conditions,
and then Galerkin's method was applied to the equations of motion.
All of the following assumptions are made in the analysis.
(i) The core is capable of resisting transverse shear, but not bending, extension, or inplane shear.
(ii) The facings resist extension, bending, and transverse and in-plane shear.
(iii) The facings are identical, so that the sandwich is of symmetrical construction.
(iv) Both the core and the facings are linearly elastic and can be orthotropic.
(v) The facings and core furnish both translational and rotatory inertia effects.
(vi) The shell thickness is small compared to the smallest radius of curvature of the
shell, so that zlr may be neglected when compared to unity.
(vii) In the expression for the radius, r, the term ZCOSlX is neglected.
(viii) All deflections are small, so that strain-displacement relations can be linearized.
(ix) Lines which are straight and normal to the middle surface before deformation
remain straight during deformation, but do not necessarily remain normal to the
middle surface.
(x) The facing rotation, t/J~, is assumed to be identical in the inner and outer facings, in
view of hypothesis (vi). The same assumption also applies to '-Po.
(xi) The core is incompressible in the thickness direction.
(xii) All material damping, thermal, and initial-stress effects, as well as interactions
with surrounding fluid, are neglected.

VIBRATIONS OF SANDWICH CONICAL SHELLS

213

r
Ro

_____ l. J _
Figure 1. Shell geometry.

The above-mentioned derivation of the energiesand the application of Hamilton's principle

are explainedin Appendix I. The shellgeometry is shown in Figure 1. The resulting equations
of motion may be written as
- 27]1 (u,xx + sin ex'u,x) - 27]12 '2 U,OO + 27]2 sirr' ex'2 U+
+ 2(7]2 + 7]12) sin ex '2 V,e - (27]12 + 7]3) 'V,xo + 27]2 sin ex cos ex'2 W- 7)3 cos ex'w,x + mUm = 0,

(1)

- (2YJ12 + 7]13) 'U,xo - 2 sin ex(YJ2 + 7]12H2 U'O - 27Jdv,xx +

+ 'sin e.:v,x) + 2[cos2 ex(7]5 + 7]16) + sin? e.:YJ12H v - 27]2 v'oo- 2h2 + 7]5 + 7]16] cos a'2 W,e - 2TJ5 cos e.:'!J;o - 21)16 cos (1.Ne +

+ l1W m =

'2

(2)

0,

",'2

7]3 cos ex'u,x + 2TJ2 sin ex cos

U+ 2[1)2 + 7]5 + 7]16] cos ",'2 V'O _ 2h4 + TJI5](W,xx + ?; sin exw,x) - 2(Y/5 + 7]16) '2 W,oe +
+ 27]2 cos? ex'2 W- 2TJ5 '~&,o - 2Y/l!fi~,x + 'sin e.:!fi~) - 27]16 '!fie,o_ 27]15(!fix,x + ?; sin ",!J;x) + mW m = 0,
_
_
_
_

(3)

27]5 cos e.:'v + 2Y/5 {w,o- 2"714C!fio.xx + {sin "'!fie.x)27]7 ?;2tj.Je,OO + 2(Y/5 + Y/14sin2 0(,2) !fie - (Y/8 +2Y/14) ?;!fi~.xe
2(7]7 + "714) sin ",,2!fi~,o - TJJJC!fio.xx + 'sin ex!fie.x) 'l}11 ?;2t/ie.oo + (27]5htcos2 a + 7]13 sin2e.:) ?;2!fio-

_ (1]10 + "713) '!fix.xII - ('1]11

+ "713) sin ex'2 !J;x,o + 21' t/ie,ll = 0,

21]4 W'X - (7]8 + 27]J4Ht/ie.xo + 2(Y/7 + '1]14) sin ex'2!fiti,o _ 27J6(!fi;,x + 'sin rx!fi;) + 2[7)4 + 7]7 sin? 1X?;2] t/J~ - 21]14 '2 t/J;,oo _ (1]10 + 1]13Hv e.xo + (1]11 + 7)13) sin ex'2 t/io,o - "79(!fix,xx +
'
+ ~ sin ext/ix.x) + 1]11'sin2cx!fix - 1]13 '2 !{Ix,oo + 2J'!fi;.fl = 0,

(4)

(5)

214

D. J. WILKINS, JR, C. W. BERT AND D. M. EGLE

- 2'1]16 COS OC'V + 2'l]16 'W,e - 7]dtf;L,x + ~ sin ocif;o,x) +

+ (27]5htcos2 oc + 7]13 sin2oc) '2!f;o -7]11 '2!f;o,e(j - (7]10 + 7]13) t!f;;.xe- (7]11 + '1]13) sin c.:t2!f;;.fJ - 27]12 h2(if;e.xx + ~ sin oc!f;fJ.x) +
+ 2(7]5112 cos! oc~2 + 7]16 + "'l12 h2sin? a~2)!f;fJ - 27]2 h2'2 if;e.fJfJ- ('1]3 h2 + 27]12 h2) t!f;x.xfJ - 2h2sin 0'.(7]2 + 7]12) ~2 if;x.e + J!f;e,tt = 0,

(6)

+,

(7] 10 + 7]13) '!f;o.xe + (7]11 + 'lJ13) sin oc~2 if;o,fJ - 7]9(tf;;,xx

sin oc!f;;,x) + 'lJ11 'sin 2ex.f; - 'lJ13 ~2 f;,ee- h 2 ('lJ ) + 27]12) 'if;e.xfJ + 2h2sin OC(7]2 + 'lJIZ) ~2 fe.(j - 21]1 h2(if;x.xx +
+ {sinex."'x.x) + 2(1)2h2sin2 oc~2 + r/l5)f.~ - 2'lJ12h2 ~2fx.(j(j +
+ Jfx.tt = O.

+ 2'1]15 w,x -

(7)

The application of Hamilton's principle also provides the complete set of boundary
conditions at x = 0 and x = L, written as either

u=o,
or
(8)

either

v=o,
or
(9)

either

w=o,
or
(10)

either
or

M",e = (27]14 + 'lJ13)(fo.x - sin octf~,(j) + (7]13 + 2h27]12)(fe,x - sin a'fe + ~!fx.(J) = 0; (11)
either
or

+ 7]9) !f;;,,,, + (7]8 + 'lJlo)(sin oct!f;; + 'if1e,e) +

+(7]9 + 2h 27)1) -Px.x + ('lJ1O + h27]3) (sin IXNx + tif;e.(j) =

M x = (27]6

O.

(12)

The circumferential dependence and the time dependence are removed from equations
(1-12) by assuming
u(x, (J, t) = U(x) cos nO sin wt,

vex, (J, t) = Vex) sin nO sin wt,

w(x, (J, t) = W(x) cos nO sin wt,

tP!J(x,
tP;(x,
tPe(x,

(J,

t)

='

!Po(x) sin nO sin wt,

ne

!p;(x) cos sin wt,

e, t) = Vie(x) sin nO sin wt,
ifiix, 0, t) = !Px(x) cos nO sin wt.
(J,

t)

(13)

VIBRATlONS OF SANDWICH CONICAL SHELLS

215

In order to use Galerkin's method to solve the equations of motion, modal shapes must
be assumed. This step is accomplished symbolically by letting

fi~

2:m As", rPS III(E),

fie

2: A6mrP6",(E),

w= 2: A 3mrP3m(E),
m

(14)

III

fi.< =

L
A7tn rP7m( E),
m

where rP"II> rP2m, .., rP7111 are functions satisfying the appropriate end conditions. The use
of these dummy functions allows the problem to be completely formulated without regard
to boundary conditions. The specific steps in the application of Galerkin's method and the
entire computer code are given in detail in reference [13]. In this study, three boundary conditions are to be investigated : freely supported; clamped-clamped; free-free.
The freely-supported boundary condition is defined here as zero displacement in the
circumferential and normal directions and zero meridional stress resultant and moment at
each end of the shell. Thus,
(15)
The set of assumed modal functions for the freely-supported boundary condition is written
as
M,

0=

m=1

A1IIIR-v'o"cosm7TE,
fi~ =

Ml

V" =

L A 2111 sin m7TE,

m.=;1

fix =

M4

fiB =

m=1

m=1

W = L A 3msin m7TE,
m=1

2:

AS/IlR-v'o"COSln7TE,

m~1

M6

fie

M3

loiS

A 6/1l sin m7TE,

(16)

M7

2:

III =J

A 7mR- v'oxCOSln7TE.

A 4m sin m7TE,

The clamped-clamped boundary condition may be defined as zero displacement and

rotation at both ends. The assumed solutions then immediately can be written as
M.

0=

L A1m sin m7TE,

ni ce!

loll

fi~ =

V" = InL
A 2msin m7TE,
;;" 1
M3

m=1

fiB =

L A 4msin m7T,

m-l

2:

m=1

A smsin mne,

M6

fie =

W = L A l m sin m7T,
M4

loiS

m=1

A 6m sin m7T,

M7

fix =

11I =1

A7msin m7TE.

(17)

216

D. J. WILKINS, JR, C. W. BERT AND D. M. EOLE

For the free-free boundary condition, the forces and moments must be zero at each end;
that is,
(18)
Unfortunately, no set of simple trigonometric series will satisfy the rather involved differential
equations represented by equation (18). From a physical argument, one comes to the conclusion that whatever series is used for the displacements and rotations, it must not be zero
at the ends. A "free end" implies, certainly, that the displacements and rotations cannot
be constrained.
The simplest form which is non-zero at the ends is an appropriate series of cosine terms.
Thus, for the free-free boundary conditions, the series are taken as
M1

0=

2:

AIm cos

mne,

m=O

v=

$~ =

M2

n1=O

A 2m c o s 1n1l' ,

M~

m=O

A sm cos m7T,

M6

$0=
1>1 3

J1!= L A 3m COS 1n1l' ,

m=O

A 6m R
.

(19)

COS 1n1l' ,

M7

m=O

$>: = L A 7m cos 1n7T.

M4

m=O

;Po = L A 4mR coSm7TE,

m=O

Six-term assumed modes were used throughout the present investigation.

3. EVALUATION
The theory was first evaluated for the simplest case that can be considered, which is the
case of a homogeneous, isotropic cylinder.
For the freely-supported case, the experiments of Bray and Egle [14] and the analysis
of Egle and Soder [15] were used for comparison. Bray and Egle tested a steel cylinder
with a radius of 584 in. and length of 11907 in. with 0020-in. wall thickness. They found
the lowest natural frequency to be at 11 = 7 with a value of 380 Hz. The present analysis
predicts a lowest natural frequency of 3802 Hz at n = 7.
As a check case for the analysis, Egle and Soder used a steel cylinder for which Hu, Gormley
and Lindholm [16] have published experimental results. The dimensions were R o = 100 in. and
TABLE 1

Frequencies for afreely-supported sandwich cone

II

2
5
6
7
12
14

m=l
Present Reference
[15]
analysis
63309
1597
1678
206'5
58106
7925

6335
159'9
1680
2060
5811
79.J.8

m=2
Present Reference
[15]
analysis

4833
3707
3255
5955
8025

4831
3705
3251
5949
801'8

m=3
Present Reference
[15]
analysis

9610
7244
581'4
632'9
825'4

9606
724'0
580'8
6323
8247

m=4
Present Reference
[15]
analysis

70H
868'3

7064
8676

217

VIBRATIONS OF SANDWICH CONICAL SHELLS

L = 480 in . with wall thickness = 003 in. A comparison between the present analysis and

Egle and Soder's analysis is given in Table 1. The excellent agreement between the two
different analytical approaches supports Egle and Soder's contention that the experimental
shell was not actually freely supported, since the experimental frequencies were somewhat
higher than the analyses predict.
700

r---,.---,.---,--,.---,--,.----.,
m=3

60 0

m= 2
m=1

100

10

12

14

Circumferential wave number, n

Figure 2. Natural frequencies for a freely-supported sandwich cone. (0) m= I, (0)

1tI=

2, () III = 3,

(ll) m = 4, (0 ) m = 5. Results from 25 experiments.

TABLE

Analyticalfrequencies for a freely-supported

sandwich cone(Hz )
n

m=l

m=2

m =3

0
2
3

4065
134-8
86'8
85'7
113'3
1537
2015
256'2
3173
3846
5359
13198

6249
3109
212-8
165-4
1606
1889
2365
2941
358'7
429'7
5894
1412-8

655-5
439 9
331'9

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
20

264'7

2356
2415
2757
3295
3954
469'3
636'3
15024

To evaluate the clamped-clamped boundary condition for homogeneous cylinders, the

analytical results of Forsberg [17] were employed. For clamped ends with axial constraint,
one point was picked from two of his curves. For a radius -to-thickness ratio of 100, and a
length-to-radius ratio of 5, the lowest dimensionless frequency (w/wQ in Forsberg's notation)
at n = 4 has a value of 0065. The present analysis wasrun withR o = 200in.,L = lOOOin. and
t = ;} 005 in. (I = of wall thickness for a homogeneous shell). Material properties for steel were
used. For n = 4, the lowest natural frequency was found to be 00668 (non-dimensionalized).

218

D. J. WILKINS, JR, C. W. BERT AND D. M. EGLE

To non-dimensionalize, the frequency was multiplied by RoV p'(l- vB"i)/E;. The clampedclamped boundary condition was checked at another point for which the radius-to-thickness
ratio was 20 and the length-to-radius ratio was 2. Forsberg gave the dimensionless lowest
natural frequency as 032 at n = 3. For the present program, R o = 200 in., L = 400 in. and
t = 025 in. For n = 3, a frequency value of 0325 was found.
m=3
m=2

10

Circumferential wove number.

12

14

Figure 3. Natural frequencies for a clamped-clamped sandwich cone. (0) m == 1, (D) m == 2, () m = 3,

= 5. Results from 25 experiments.

(6) m = 4, (0) m

TABLE

Analytical frequencies for clamped-clamped

sandwich cone (Hz)
11

0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
20

m=1

m=2

m=3

4065
177'2
1260
110-7
1267
163-5
212-3
2691
3327
4026
5599
13689

6618
340'1
2543
209'7
197'7
2148
2545
3100
376-1
450'2
617'7
1473-8

6884
474'7
376-9
314-7
2845
284-0
3097
3566
41%
4948
671-3
1575-9

For the free-free boundary condition, a cylinder tested by Watkins and Clary [18] was
used for comparison. The steel cylinder was 42 in. long with a 14-in. radius and a wall thickness of 0007 in. At n = 10, the lowest natural frequency was reported as 323 Hz. The present
analysis gave a value of 343 Hz. However, while the second lowest frequency at n = 10 was
reported as 328 Hz, the present analysis gave a value of 831 Hz.
The only experimental work found that treats a sandwich cylinder or cone is the work
of Bert et al. [12]. Consequently, although their work was concerned only with the free-free

219

VIBRATIONS OF SANDWICH CONICAL SHELLS

aoo

7 00

6 00

3,

5 01)

cQ)

=>

cr

40 0

:>

:::I

0
2

300

200

10 0 -

10

I~

14

Circ umferential wove number, o

Figure 4. Natural frequencies for a free-free sandwich cone.

(0) 111

= J. (0) 111 = 2, to)

111

= 3,

(.c.) 11l = 4,

(0) m = 5. Results from 25 experiments.

TABLE

Analyticalfrequencies for free-free sandwich cone (Hz)

m=1

m =2

m=3

m=4

026
13-3
350
65'3
101-8
1433
1911
2457
3067
13057

7247
179'9
1302
1157
1338
1756
229'7
2905
3578
14407

7905
384'4
2606
2131
199'7
21704
260'5
3225
396'7
15597

8052

Jl

ot
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9
20

m=5

4125

929'3

3397

901-8

366'7

913'1

4668
16890

956'8

t For n = 0 there are torsion modes at 324 and 40-8.

boundary condition, the present analysis was run using data for their shell for both the freelysupported and clamped-clamped conditions. The shell geometry and material properties
for the shell reported in [12] are
C(.

Vex=

v;(J = 0,20,
= 10,
p' = 0265 X 10- 3 lb-sect/in",

5'07,

R o = 2245 in.,

K;=

L = 72'5 in .,
t = 00105 in.,
It = 015 in.,
E~ =

G."

Ee = 364 x
lb /irr',
G;x = Go. = G~(J = 10 X 106 Ib/in 2,
106

x;

= 32 X 104 Ib/in 2,

G(Jz = 183 X 104 Ib/in 2 ,

K; =K(J = 1,0,
p = 03368 X 1O- 5 1b-sec 2/in 4

220

D. J. WILKINS , JR, C. W. BERT AND D. M. EGLE

The results were as expected, with the frequencies for the freely-supported case being
higher than those for the free-free case, and the frequencies for the clamped-clamped case
being higher than those for the freely-supported case. These results are shown in Figure 2
and Table 2 for the freely-supported case, and in Figure 3and Table 3for the clamped-clamped
case.

r=

-1,0

~
o
~

m ol

~
"0
It>

.!::!
"0

...

+10

2:

- 1' 0

0 25

0 75

050

10

Figure 5. Modal shapes for a free-free sandwich cone with

In =

1 and m = 2 and various values of n,

For the free-free case, the analysis and experiments are compared in Figure 4, the analytical
frequencies are tabulated in Table 4, and the analytical mode shapes are shown in Figures 5
and 6. These results indicate that the inability to satisfy the boundary conditions for the
free-free case has resulted in good agreement only for the lowest natural frequency for
each value of circumferential wave number.
4. CLOSURE

It should be noted here'that there seems to be some inconsistency in the reporting of data
for the free-free case. For other boundary conditions, the meridional mode number, m, can
simply be thought of as indicating the number of half-waves in the deflected shape of a
generator of the shell. The modes can then conveniently be identified since the lowest frequency will always have m = 1, the second lowest, 111 = 2, etc. However, upon studying the

221

VIBRATIONS OF SANDWICH CONICAL SHELLS

-10

#B

m=3

Cll

;0:;

Cll
"tl

-o

.~

+10

m=4

025

050

075

1-0

Figure 6. Modal shapes for a free-free sandwich cone with m = 3 and m = 4 and various values of

11.

free-free modal shapes of Figures 5 and 6, it is seen that the number of half waves (and the
number of nodes) varies with n for the lowest frequency, second lowest frequency, etc.
This means that a simple identifying number can no longer be used, but the modal shape
must be shown for each frequency. Consequently, in this work, the designation m = 1
denotes only a lowest natural frequency and tells nothing about the actual modal shape.
Similarly, m = 2 denotes the second lowest frequency, etc.
The evaluations of the present theory for the freely-supported and clamped-clamped
boundary conditions show generally good agreement with available experimental and
analytical data.
For die free-free boundary condition, however, the theory seems to give good agreement
for only the lowest natural frequency associated with each circumferential wave number.
REFERENCES
1. N. L. ROUST 1968 Hexcel Corporation, Dublin, Calif. Vibration and fatigue sandwich bibli-

ography.
2. J. J. AZAR 1965 University ofOklahoma, Norman, Okla., unpublished Ph.D, dissertation. Axisym-

metric free vibrations of sandwich shells of revolution.

3. T. N. VASITSYNA 1965 Raschety Elementov Aoiatsionnykk Konstruktsiy, Trekhsloynyye Panell
i Ubutochky, Collection of Articles, No.4 (Ed. A. Ya, Aleksandrov, E. I. Grigolyuk and

222

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

D. J. WILKINS, JR, C. W. BERT AND D. M. EGLE

L. M. Kurshin). Moscow: Izd-vo Mashinostroyeniye. Flexure and free vibration of cylindrical

sandwich shells of unsymmetric construction.
E. H. BAKER and G. HERRMANN 1966 AIAA J. 4, 1063. Vibrations of orthotropic cylindrical
sandwich shells under initial stress.
M. D. Bacon and C. W. Bert 1967 AIAA J. 5,413. Unsymmetric free vibrations of orthotropic
sandwich shells of revolution.
W. C. L. Hu 1965 NASA TN D-3466 Free vibrations of conical shells.
W. C. L. Hu, J. F. GORMLEY and U. S. LINDHOLM 1967. Int. J. mech, Sci. 9, 123. An experimental
study and inextensional analysis of vibrations of free-free conical shells.
W. C. L. Hu, J. F. GORMLEY and U. S. LINDHOLM 1966 NASA CR384. Flexural vibrations of
conical shells with free edges.
J. S. MIXSON 1967 J. Spacecr. Rockets 4,414. Modes of vibration of conical frustum shells with
free ends.
E. C. NAUMANN 1968 NASA TN D-4772. On the prediction of vibratory behavior of free-free
truncated conical shells.
F. A. KRAUSE 1969 Air Force Space and Missile Systems Organization, Los Angeles Air Force
Station, Los Angeles, Calif. SAMSO TR 68-37. Natural frequencies and mode shapes of the
truncated conical shell with free edges.
C. W. BERT, B. L. MAYBERRY and J. D. RAY 1968 U.S. Army Aviation Materiel Laboratories,
Ft. Eustis, Va. USAAVLABS TR 68-85. Vibration evaluation of sandwich conical shells with
fiber-reinforced composite facings. Also, C. W. BERT and J. D. RAY 1969 Int. J. mech. Sci. 11,
767. Vibrations of orthotropic sandwich conical shells with free edges.
D. J. WILKINS, JR. 1969 University of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla., unpublishedPh.D, dissertation.
Free vibrations of orthotropic sandwich conical shells with various boundary conditions.
F. M. BRAY and D. M. EOLE 1970 J. Sound Vib. 12, 153. An experimental investigation of the
free vibration of thin cylindrical shells with discrete longitudinal stiffening.
D. M. EOLE andK. E. SODER, JR. 1969 NASA CR-I3I6. A theoretical analysis of the free vibration of discretely stiffened cylindrical shells with arbitrary end conditions.
W. C. L. Hu, J. F. GORMLEY and U. S. LINDHOLM 1967. Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, Tex. Contract NASr-94(06), Tech. Rep. No.9. An analytical and experimental study
of vibrations of ring-stiffened cylindrical shells.
K. FORSBERG 1964 AIAA J. 2,2150. Influence of boundary conditions on the modal characteristics of thin cylindrical shells.
J. D. WATKINS and R. R. CLARY 1965 NASA TN D2729. Vibrational characteristics of some
thin-walled cylindrical and conical frustum shells.

APPENDIX I
DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS OF MOTION
FOR AN ORTHOTROPIC SANDWICH SHELL

The six strain components for the co-ordinate system shown in Figure I are

eee = Ojr) (ue.e + Ux sin ct +- liz cos ct),

ee: = Ojr) (uz,e - Ue cos ct) +- ue,z,
exe = (ljr) (ux,e - Ue sin ct) +- Ue,x,

(AI)

where r = R o +- x sin ct +- zcos ct, and the subscripted u's are total displacements in the x,
8, and z directions.
In view of hypothesis (vi), the term zcos ctin the expression for r will be neglected as noted
in hypothesis (vii). In all that follows r is replaced by

r ,.., R o + x sin ct

(A2)

VIBRATIONS OF SANDWICH CONICAL SHELLS

223

and, for later convenience, the following definition is made:

,=

(R a + x sin /X)-l.

(A3)

The displacements are now defined in terms of the middle-surface displacements and the
angles of rotation of normals to the middle surface in the meridional and circumferential
directions. For the core, these angles are denoted by !flx and tf'h while for the facings, they
are !fl; and !flIJ. The assumption is made that the core is incompressible in the thickness
direction.
For the core,
U~ = u(x, t) + ztfix, t),

e,

e,

ue = vex, e, t) + Ztfo(x, e, t),

U~ = w(x, e, t),

(A4)

so that equations (AI) become, for the core,

e;x = U, x + Ztfx.x,
eoe = '(v,e + sin /XU + cos /xw)
e~z =

+ z'(!flo ,0 + sin /X!flx),

0,

ee" = '(w,o - cos /Xv - zcos /xlpO) + !flo,

e~x = w'x + !flx,
e;e = '(u,e - sin /Xv) + v,x + zWtfx,e - sin (/,tfo)

+ tfo.x].

(AS)

For the outer and inner facings, respectively,

u~, u~ =
u~,

uh =

u~, u~ =

u(x, fJ, t) htfx(x, e, t) + (z =F 11) t/;;(x, 0, t),

vex, fJ, t) htfe(x, fJ, t) + (z =F 11) t/;IJ(x, 0, t),
w(x, fJ, t).

(A6)

Equations (AI), for the facings, are now written,

u.; h!flx,x + (z T h) tf;.x,

= '{v,o htfo,e + (z T h)tfIJ,e + sin /X[u htfx +

e~x, e~x =

e~o, eho

+ (z T h)!fl;] + cos /Xw},

e~z, e~"

e~o, e~o

0,

'{u,o htfx.o + (z T h)tf;,e - sin /X[v htfe +

+ (z T h)!fl8]) + v'x h!flo.x + (z T h) tfIJ,x'

(A7)

Core strainenergy
Due to hypothesis (i), the core strain energy is the energy due to transverse shear strain
only, so that

V" = ~

JJ f (G~x e~x + Go", eo",)

x

or

dZ'-l dfJ dx,

(A8)

z
I,

VC =

f JJ [GzxCe~x)2 +
x

-I.

G ol eez)2]dz'-l dO dx.

(A9)

224

D. J. WILKINS, JR, C. W. BERT AND D. M. EGLE

Squaring e;x and e9z from equations (AS), and integrating over z, gives

v c = JJ [hK" GzxCw,~ + 2w,xtP" + tP;') + hKoGOza2 w,~ +

0

'2 cos2av + {I + (h '2 cos- IX)/3} tf;~ 2

- 2'2 cos ctVW,o

+ 2'w,o tf;o - 2' cos avtf;o)]

,-1 dOdx.

(AIO)

It is noted that the term in braces in equation (AIO)is hereafter replaced by 1, sinceh 2 ,2

<l

1.

Facing strain energy

Since the facings resist bending, extension, in-plane shear and transverse shear, all five
non-zero strain components contribute to the strain energy. Formally written,
Vf

:2I

f Jf

(0'
0
xx

0
+ o Ixx eIxx + 0'000 eoo0 + aooI eoo
i
+
exx

x 0 ::

+ 0'~/1 e~o + O'~o e~o + uOzeo:: + O'~:r e~z +

+ a~x e~x + O';x e;x) dz,-I dB dx.

(All)

The necessary stress-strain relations are given by

O'xx = E~(ex" + Vex eoo),

O'xo = G~o e"o,

= E6(exx + v~o exx),

uOz = Gex eo:,

0'00

u"x =

G~xe::x,

(AI 2)

where E; = E~/(1 - Vex v;o) and Eo = e/(1 - vox v;o). The superscripts a and i have been
omitted in equations (AI2) since they apply both to the outer and inner facings.
Substitution of equations (AI2) into equation (All) results in

JJJ{E~[(e~x)2 + (e~x)2] +

vf = ~

B9[(eeo)2 +

(e~o)2] +

+(B~ Vex

+ B8 v~o)(e~"eeo + e~x e~o) + G~e[(e~o)2 +

+ (e~of] + Go:: [(ee,,)2 + (e~"Y] + G~;x[(e~x)2 +
+ (e;x)2]}dz,-1 dBdx.

(AI3)

The strains are now substituted from equations (A7) and the integration over z is performed, with the inner facing terms integrated from -h - 2t to -h, and the outer facing
terms integrated from h to h + 2t. The following integrals are necessary:

,.,.21
J

-h

dz= +

11+21

-h

J zdz=- J
11

.r

zdz=+2t(h+t);

-h-2t

,.+2t

11

dz=+2t;

-1I-2t

-h

Z2 dz =

-11-21

Z2 dz =

+ (2t/3)(3h2 + 6ht + 4t 2).

(AI4)

VIBRATIONS OF SANDWICH CONICAL SHELLS

225

The expression for the facing strain energy is thus obtained as

yr =

IIu {2tE;[u,~ + h2!J1LJ + 4ht2.E;[t/J;." !J1x.x] +

x

+ (8/3) t 3 E;[!J12xJ + 2tEf, '2[V,~ + h2 !f;~.u + sinz cx.u 2 +

+ h2sinzat/J~ + coszawz + 2 sin cx.v,u U+ 2 cos etV,u W+
+ 2h2 sin et!f;u.u t/Jx + 2 sin IX cos IXUW] + 4ht2 Eo ,Z[!f;o.u !f;o.u +
+ sin IX!f;O.O!f;; + sin et!f;o.u!f;x + sin- a!f;x !f;;] +
+ (8/3) t 3 Eo '2[!f;0~u + sin z cx.ifi2 + 2 sin cx.!f;o.u ifi;] +
+ 2t(E; VOx + Eov;u) nu,,,v,u + sin aU,x U+ cos au,xW+
+ hZ!f;"." if!u,u + h2 sin ex!f;x, x ifix] + 2ht Z(E; VOx +
+ EO v;u) '[!f;x.x if;o.u + if!;.x ifiu.e + sin cx.(!f;x,x!f;; +
+ if!;.x !J1x)] + (8/3) t 3(E; Vex + Eo v;u) ntft;.xtfto.o +
+ sin cx.!J1;.x!J1;] + 2tG;e['Z u,~ + h2!f;~.e + ,Z sinz av2+
+ h2 sirr' rx!J1~ + v,~ + h2 !f;L sin aU,e v +
2
+ 2'u,e v,x - 2'z h sin cx.tftx,e tfte + 2'h2tft".e !f;u.x-

'2
2,2

'2

'2

- 2' sin aVV,x - 2"1 sin IX!f;U t/Je,x] + 4ht2G;o[ if;x.e !f;;,u sin rt-tftx,e!J1o + 'ifx.e tft!J.x sin at/J;.e!f;o +
2
+ 'iKe tfte,x + '2 sin rt-tfte t/Jo - 'sin extfto !f;e,x - 'sin atft!J !f;e.:< + !f;o,:< tftL] + (8/3) t 3 G;e['2 tft;;o +
+ '2 sin2 at/Jfl + if;o~x - 2,2 sin rxifJ;.e tfto +
+ n!f;;.e if;L" - sin rt-tfto tfte.x] + 2tKeGoz['2 w,~ +
+ cosZav 2 + cos? eyN 'f~ +!J1? cos etVW,u +
+ nif;o w,O - cos avt/Je + 2ht'Z cos! rt-tftu !f;o] +
+ 2tK; G;x[W,~ + 2w,xif;; + t/J;2]} d8dx.

- ,2

'2

2''2
2'

'2

2'2

,-I

(A1S)

Total strainenergy
The total strain energy is formed by adding equation (AlO) and equation (A1S) and
collecting like terms.
y =

I Jhi [u,~ + h if;~,x] +

2

'l]2

'2[V,~ + h2 tft~.u + sin2lXuZ+

{J

+ hZsin2 rt-if;~ + cos' etW2 + 2 sin cx.v,e U +

+ 2 cos av,u W+ 2h2 sin rt-tfte.(J!f;x + 2 sin rt- cos lXUW] +
+ 'l]3 nu,x V,e + sin /XU,x U+ cos au,xW + h2tftx.x if;u.(J +
+ hZsin cx.tftx.x if;x] + 7]4[W,~ + 2w,x!J1; + tft2] + 'l]sW w,~ +
+ cos? rt-v 2 + cos? ah2 if;~ + !f;? cos etVW,(J +

'2

'2

2,2

+ 2NJo w,e - 2' cos lXVtftO + 2ht'ZCOS2lX1f(J VJo] +

+ 'l]6[tft;~X] + YJ7 '2[!f;0~e + sin2 a!f;;Z + 2 sin cx.tfto,(J tft;] +

+ YJa nif;;,xif;e.e + sin atft;,xif;;] + 'rJ9[tft;."tftx.xl +
+ 'rJIO n!f;x.xif;fJ.(J + sinrt-!f;x.xif;; + tft;.xif;e,(J +
+ sin cx.if;;,xtftx] + 1)11 ,Z[!f;e,e if;!J,e + sin tXtftu.(J tft; +

226

D. J. WILKINS, JR, C. W. BERT AND D. M. EGLE

+ sin cx.r/Jo.o r/J~ + sin 2 rxt/lx t/l~] + 7)d~2 u,~ + '2 11 2 t/l~,o + '2 sin 2 rxv 2 +
+ ~2 h 2 sin21Xr/J~ + v,i + h2 r/JL - 2'2 sin cx.U,f) v+
+ 2~u,e v,x- 2~21t2 sin 1X00x,fi 0/8 + 2'h2t/lx.fJ r/Je.x - 2' sin cx.vv,x - 2~h2 sin cx.r/Jo !fro,xl + 7J13 [~2 !frx.fi t/l~.f) - ~2 sin rx!frx, 0 t/lo + 'iflx.fi !frL" - {? sin rx!fr;.o iflo +
+ N;,e t/le.x + sin 2 cx.!fro!fro- 'sin 1X1hJ!frL2
- ~ sin cx.!fre iflo.x + !fro.x o/e.x] + T]I4(~2 o/~,fi + '2 sin? et.!fre +
+ r/J&~x - 2~2 sin rt.r/J;,fi iflo + 2 'iflL 0 t/le.x - 2' sin Ci.1f& !frL] +
+ 7)dr/Ji + 2iflx w,x + w,iJ + 7)16[,2 w,~ + '2 COS2cx.V2 + ifl~ +
+ 2'w,0!fre - 2~2 cos rxW,fi V - 2' cos rxvr/Jo]} '-1 dO dx.
(A16)

'2

Total kinetic energy

The total kinetic energy for the composite shell consists of the sum of the translational
and rotatory kinetic energy of the core and facings. This can be expressed as

T=

f f{/n(u,i + v,; + w,~) + J(if1i.t + ifiL)+ 2JI[(if1;.1)2 + CtPL)2]} '-1 d8 dx, (A17)
x

in which
Iii = 2(ph

+ 2p' t),

= (2/3) ph3,
J' = 2p' t[(t 2/3) + (11 + t)2].
J

(A1S)

Application of Hamilton's principle

Hamilton's principle requires that the first variation of the time-integrated difference
between the potential and kinetic energies be zero:

J(V-T)dt=O,
t1

(A19)

11

Performing this operation after combining equation (AI6) and equation (AI?) gives the
equations of motion and the boundary conditions, which are shown as equations (1)-(12).

APPENDIX II
NOMENCLATURE

E~, E~

arbitrary dimensionless constants (eigenvectors) in equation (14)

facing elastic modulus in x and 8 directions, respectively (lb/in")

E~, E~

== E~j(l

A tm

Vox v~o),

E~/(1 - v~x v~o) (lb/in")

strain components (in.jin.)

Fx , Po normal stress resultant (normal force) in x and 8 directions, respectively (lb/in.)
FxfJ shear stress resultant in x-() plane (Ib/in.)
f natural frequency (Hz)
Gz:x , Go. core shear modulus in z-x and 8-z planes, respectively (lb/in")
G~Xl G;.. G~8 facing shear modulus in z-x, 8-2, and x-8 planes, respectively (lbjin 2)
h core half-thickness (in.)
elj

VIBRATIONS OF SANDWICH CONICAL SHELLS

J
J'

K"" K o
K;,

K~

L
Me

M"
Me
m

In
n

Q", Q e
R
Ro
Ro
r
T
Vex)

V
u

V
V e , yf

V
v
W

W
w
x
z
ex
~

mass moment of inertia of core about core middle surface per unit surface area
(lb-sec-/in.)
mass moment of inertia of one facing about core middle surface per unit surface
area (lb-see'jin.)
core transverse shear coefficient in z-x and 8-z planes, respectively (dimensionless)
facing transverse shear coefficient in z-x and 8-z planes, respectively (dimensionless)
shell slant length (in.)
upper summation limit in assumed mode series
bending moment (in-lb/in.)
twisting moment (in-lb/in.)
meridional mode number; summation index
composite shell mass per unit surface area (Ib-sec-jlrr')
number of circumferential full-waves
transverse shear stress resultant in z-x and f)-z planes, respectively (lb/in.)
== Ro + E sin et (dimensionless)
radius of the middle surface at the small end of the shell (in.)
== Ro/L (dimensionless)
== Ro + x sin et + z cos /l( (in.) (see assumptions)
half-thickness of one facing (in.); time (sec)
total kinetic energy(in-lb)
normal mode form of u (in.)
U/L (dimensionless)
middle surface displacement in x-direction (in.)
strain energy (in.-lb); normal mode form of (in.); volume (in")
strain energy of core and facing, respectively (in.-lb)
Y/L (dimensionless)
middle-surface displacement in 8-direction (in.)
normal mode form of w (in.)
= W/L (dimensionless)
middle surface displacement in z-direction (in.)
meridional co-ordinate (see Figure 1)
thickness co-ordinate (see Figure 1)
cone semi-vertex angle (see Figure 1)
s=x/L (dimensionless)
== (R o + x sin OC)-I (in-I)

'Y]I ==2tE;
'Y]2 =2tE~
'Y]3
2t(E~ vo" + Eo v~e)
'Y]4 ==2tK;a;,.
'Y]s ==2tKiGo

'Y]6 ==

4t 2
31)1

41 2
'Y]7 ==T'Y]2
41 2
n == T'Y]3
16

227

228

D. J. WILKINS, JR, C. W. BERT AND D. M. EOLE

1]9

=o2ht1]1

1]10

htn,

1]11

=0

2ht1]2

1]12

=o2tG~e

1]13

=0

1]14

=0

1]15

ss.o.;

2ht1] 12

4t 2

1]16

,
).lex,

f)

).Ixe
p
p'
ull

1>/J

!fix, !fi~

s: f~
!fie, !fie
fe, fe
w

31]12

=ohKeGez
angular circumferential co-ordinate
major and minor Poisson's ratios, respectively (dimensionless)
density of core material (lb-sec'/in")
density of facing material (lb-sec-jin")
stress (lb/in 2)
assumed mode functions
angle of rotation in the meridional direction of the normal to the middle surface for
the core and facing, respectively (radians)
normal mode form of !fix and !fi~, respectively (radians)
angle of rotation in the circumferential direction of the normal to the middle surface
for the core and facings, respectively (radians)
normal mode form of !fie and !fie' respectively (radians)
circular frequency (rad/sec)