Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION
1Lect., School of Civ. and Struct. Engrg., Nanyang Tech. Univ., Singapore 2263.
2St. Lect., School of Civ. and Struct. Engrg., Nanyang Tech. Univ., Singapore
2263.
3St. Lect., School of Civ. and Struct. Engrg., Nanyang Tech. Univ., Singapore
2263.
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 1995. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this technical note was submitted for review and possible publication on February
19, 1993. This technical note is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
120, No. 10, October, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/94/0010-3046/$2.00 + $.25
per page. Technical note No. 5598.
3046
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(10): 3046-3055
9 _ af _.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Karadeniz Technical University on 12/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
/ ", li[
I ( - - 2p ] '
l_
ELASTIC CONSTANTS
For thick-plate bending problems involving transverse shear, the six elas-
tic constants relating the applied moments (Mx, My, Mxy) and shear forces
(Q.~, Qy) to the curvatures (X~, • X~y) and shear rotations (+x, by) can be
wntten
My ~Dy Xy
= Dxy Xxy (1)
LQ, j Do (by
where X~ = a0x/Ox; Xy = aOylOy; ~y = oOxlOy + aOJOx; +x = ex - OwlOx;
by = Oy - Ow/Oy; and w, 0x, and 0y are the vertical displacement, and the
rotations of the original vertical line in the x- and y-direction, respectively.
Dx, D1, Dy, Dxy, Do,, and DQy are the equivalent material elastic constants
for the thick-plate bending element of the structural properties of a sandwich
panel. It is assumed implicitly in (1) that the actions of bending, twisting,
and shearing in the two principal directions are all uncoupled, and planes
originally normal to the midsurface remain plane but not necessarily normal
to the midsurface after deformation (Mindlin 1951).
The elastic constants can be found in Libove and Hubka (1951) for a
continuous corrugated core. The elastic constants relating the bending mo-
ments to curvatures are summarized as follows:
Eh 2t Eclc
Dx- 2(1 - v 2) + ~ p ' (2)
Eh 2t
Dy - 2(1 - p2) , (3)
3047
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(10): 3046-3055
Eh 2t
D~ = v 2(1 - vZ) ' (4)
1
Dxy = -~ Gh Zt, (5)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Karadeniz Technical University on 12/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where E, Ec, G, h, t, v, Ic, and 2p are the elastic modulus of the facing
plates, elastic modulus of the core, shear modulus of the facing plates, depth
of the panel between the centerlines, thickness of the facing plates, Poisson's
ratio of the facing plates, second moment of area of the core about the
midplane, and pitch of the core sitffeners, respectively.
The shear stiffness in the x-direction Dog for Z-sections is given by
~pE] htw
Dox = (6)
(Scg- Ec twg3)
where Go, tw, Sc, and g are the shear modulus of the core, web thickness
of the Z-section, first moment of area of the core about the midplane, and
depth of the Z-section, respectively.
When the core stiffener is not symmetric about a vertical plane, such as
a C- or Z-section, the shear stiffness in the y-direction given by Libove and
Hubka (1951) is not valid. The shear stiffness in the y-direction for a C-
section can be found in Fung et al. (1993).
DERIVATION OF Doy
As the core stiffeners are not continuous in the y-direction, the shear
stiffness D o, is much lower as compared with Dog. The formulas given by
Libove and Hubka (1951) are no longer valid if the cross section of the core
stiffeners is not symmetrical about a vertical plane, such as the C- or Z-
section. Until the present time, the derivation of the elastic constant Doy
for such cores has received little attention.
To determine the shear stiffness Doy for cores that are not symmetric
about a vertical plane, say a core of Z-sections, consider a representative
segment of the panel of length 2p in the y-direction subjected to a uniform
shear force Qy at the two ends (Fig. 2).
For the segment to be in equilibrium, there are horizontal forces of
magnitude H = Qyp/h at the ends of the segment along the top and bottom
facing plates. There may be additional horizontal forces forming pure bend-
ing moment in the segment (for example, consider a cantilever beam as
shown in Fig. 3). The contribution of these forces has been considered as
bending deformation with Dy. These forces are therefore irrelevent to the
calculation of the shear deformation of the segment.
In general, there are shear forces, horizontal forces, and bending moments
at the two ends (Fig. 2). Moreover, when two segments of panel are joined
together, they must satisfy both the equilibrium and compatibility conditions
at the interface. The equilibrium condition implies that the shear forces at
the two ends of a segment in the top and bottom plates must be equal and
opposite in direction of action ( V 1 =V3, V 2 V4, and V 1 -~- V 2
= = Qy).
From antisymmetry, the shear forces at the diagonal ends are the same as
3048
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(10): 3046-3055
2p
~=IM L P ~_
V1 M1 t M3 V3 71 Ia , -
H
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Karadeniz Technical University on 12/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Oy
-~} [--- tw
H V21M2 ,i j | M,, v, v= .=
tf
FIG. 2. Determination of DQy
well (V1 = V4, Vz = V3). Thus, all the shear forces are equal in magnitude
(V~ = V2 = I/3 = V4 = Qy/2).
Following the same argument, the bending moments are identical and
opposite in the direction at the two ends of a segment (M1 = M2 = M3 =
M,). The compatibility condition imposes that the slopes in the top and
bottom plates at the two ends of a segment must be identical. Thus, the
magnitude of the end moments can be determined as M1 = M2 = M3 =
M4 = Qya/2, where a is the distance from the web of the stiffener to the
connection point between the facing plate and the flange of the Z-section.
Again, from the consideration of antisymmety about the midplane, the
separations of the top and bottom plates at the two ends of the segment
are identical, and hence compatibility of movement is observed. It can be
seen, however, that the separation of the facing plates may not necessarily
equal to h.
From the foregoing discussion, the relative deformation of the panel can
be found. To eliminate rigid-body motion, it can be assumed that the center
location is fixed in space as shown in Fig. 4. It follows that the vertical
deflection (A1, A2) at the two ends and the horizontal displacement (An) of
the top plate can be determined by the unit load method as
- E1 2 ( p + a)2 -
+ ~QY (~h (2p + a) + p2g2~
--~-/ (7a)
Qy (/pag pZg2~
+ ~\2h (2p - a) + ~ - - - / (7b)
QY ( ~ (h - g ) + ~ -
An = Ecle
where I = t3/12 is the second moment of area per unit width of each facing
plate about its own midplane. The shear strain is
/Xl + A2 2An
- 2p h (8)
Therefore,
1 ~ 1 p2 1 (pag2
DQy Qy E1 6 + ~ \--hS- + 6h 2/ O)
3049
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(10): 3046-3055
i_ 2p _,_ ~/4 _1
v I
Qy(x+2p)/h Qy x/h
9Qy(x+2p)/h
---.~ i ~.~ ih
F,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Karadeniz Technical University on 12/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Qy x/h
4----, J ~-
II
, --...~
Qyp/h
Qy(x+p)/h p/h Qy
,4-..-
p/h
AH
~. ----I --~ |or
1 -~F-i
g" I } ~ rentre
b;afiis~umed
2p _
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Consider a Z-section with the following dimensions and properties:
h = 32.4 m m
g = 30 mm
t = tw = 1 . 2 m m
3050
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(10): 3046-3055
p = 37.5 mm
a = 12.5 m m
aI = 25 m m
E = Ec = 6 8 , 0 0 0 N / m m 2 ( a l u m i n u m )
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Karadeniz Technical University on 12/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
v = v~=0.3
Dx = 61,754,170Nmm
Dy = 47,066,169Nmm
D1 = 14,119,851Nmm
Dxy = 16,473,159Nmm
Dox = 16,170.68N/mm
Doy = 13.50112 N/mm
and the averaging effect on the number of effective stiffeners are addressed.
Finally, case 4 combines all the elastic constants and examines a panel,
simply supported along the four edges and subjected to uniformly distributed
loading.
x Y length
x y
3052
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(10): 3046-3055
0.7
0.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Karadeniz Technical University on 12/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.5
0.4
g
0.3
0.2
0.1
i t ! I I 1 I
Case 3
In case 3, the results confirm the accuracy of D~. However, DQx cannot
be verified as the shear rigidity in the x-direction is very high, and the shear
deformation is small compared with the flexural deformation. The larger
difference for the beam under pure bending is due to the averaging elastic
properties used in the thick-plate formulation. For instance, a 75-mm pitch
on a 200-mm wide beam is represented by 200/75 = 2.667 stiffeners in the
thick-plate calculation. The conventional finite-element model consists of
three discrete stiffeners instead. If the modified Dx (consisting of three
stiffeners) is used in the thick-plate analysis, as shown in case 3a and Fig.
6, significant reduction in the discrepancy is observed.
It can be calculated that the second moment of area of the Z-section is
16,200 mm 4. This value is required to obtain the modified elastic constant
Dx. The total second m o m e n t of area of the beam is therefore 3 • 16,200
+ 2 • 200 • 1.2 x (32.4/2) 2 = 174,571 mm 4 = /total" Thus, the modified
bending stiffness Dx for the thick-plate analysis is
/tot.1 D2
-~p E + ~ y = 63,590,095 N m m
3053
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(10): 3046-3055
This value is 3% higher than the Dx used in case 3. It is not surprising that
the predicted deflection differs by 4% as a result of the gross averaging
effect of the elastic properties. As more stiffeners are involved, as in a wide
panel, this averaging effect would diminish and no modification of Dr would
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Karadeniz Technical University on 12/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Case 4
To further verify the overall performance, a rectangular plate with all
four sides simply supported is considered in case 4. The agreement between
the calculated and the finite-element result is extremely good. Making use
of symmetry in the finite-element analysis, only half of the panel is modeled.
Over 2,000 four-node thin-plate bending elements are used, with over 13,000
degrees of freedom. In contrast, the thick-plate model using an 8 x 4 mesh
has 121 degrees of freedom and 32 eight-node elements. It is clear that the
saving in computational effort is significant. Deflection profiles along the
centerlines of the panel are shown in Fig. 7. The agreement between the
two modeling techniques is excellent.
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Allen, H. G. (1969). "The analysis and design of structural sandwich panels." Com-
monwealth and International Library, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, N.Y.
Fung, T. C., Tan, K. H., and Lok, T. S. (1993). "Analysis of C-core sandwich plate
decking." Proc., Third Int. Offshore and Polar Engrg. Conf., Vol. IV, Int. Soc.
of Offshore and Polar Engrs., Golden, Colo., 244-249.
Libove, C., and Batdorf, S. B. (1948). "A general small deflection theory for fiat
sandwich plates." Internal Rep. NACA TN 1526.
Libove, C., and Hubka, R. E. (1951). "Elastic constants for corrugated-core sand-
wich plates." Internal Rep. NACA TN2289.
Mindlin, R. D. (1951). "Influence of rotary inertia and shear on flexural motions of
isotropic, elastic plates." J. Appl. Mech., 18, 31-38,
Tan, K. H., Fung, T. C., and Lok, T. S. (1993). "A simplified thick plate analogy
for the analysis of all-steel sandwich panels." The Struct. Engr., 71(14), 253-258.
Tan, K. H., and Montague, P. (1991). "A simple grillage analogy for the analysis
of steel sandwich panels with penetrations." The Struct. Engr., 69, 271-276.
Tan, K. H., Montague, P., and Norris, C. (1989). "Steel sandwich panels: finite
element, closed solution and experimental comparisons on a 6 m by 2,1 m panel."
The Struct. Engr., 67(9), 159-266.
3054
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(10): 3046-3055
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
3055
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(10): 3046-3055