Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION
1
volume of input data is reduced, LWT are capable of achieving the same level of
solution accuracy as a conventional 3D models.
2
Chapter-6 includes the conclusions and scope of work for future
3
CHAPTER - 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
4
predicts the deflections and stresses more accurately when compared to the
first-order theory
A.J.M. Ferreira, C.M.C. Roque et al. (2003), have modified the third-order
theory of Reddy for composite laminated plates using a new type of meshless
method, a finite point based on the multiquadric radial basis function method.
The method adopted by them allows a very accurate prediction of the field
variables. They derived and interpolated the Euler–Lagrange equations and
formulated the boundary conditions interpolations schematically. They tested
5
composite laminated plate and sandwich plate for consistency check of the
model. They compared their model with first-order shear-deformation and
multiquadrics interpolation proposed by A.J.M. Ferreira for composite beams
and proved to be even better for the analysis of composite laminates.
6
A. J. M. Ferreira (2005), presented a layerwise shear deformation theory for
composite laminated plates, discretized using multiquadrics. He developed a
meshless method which considers radial basis functions as the approximation
method for both the differential governing equations and the boundary
conditions. The combination of this layerwise theory and the multiquadrics
discretization method allows a very accurate prediction of the field variables.
Laminated composite and sandwich plates are analyzed.
A.J.M. Ferreira et al. (2008), presented static deformations and free vibration of
shear flexible isotropic and laminated composite Plates. They have done the
analysis based on a new numerical scheme, where collocation by radial basis
functions is viewed as a pseudospectral method to produce highly accurate
results. A cross-validation technique is used to optimize the shape parameter
for the basis functions. Numerical results for symmetric laminated composite
and sandwich plates are presented and discussed.
Wook and Reddy (2009), developed a finite element model based on LWT of
Reddy for the analysis of delamination in cross-ply laminated beams which was
able to capture accurate local stress fields and the strain energy release rates.
The influence of boundary conditions and number of layers on the strain
energy release rates and growth of delamination were studied
Neeraj Grover, D.K. Maiti (2012), proposed, formulated and validated a new
inverse hyperbolic shear deformation theory for a variety of numerical
examples of laminated composite and sandwich plates for the static and
buckling responses. This theory is based upon shear strain shape function
yields non-linear distribution of transverse shear stresses and also satisfies
traction free boundary conditions. A Navier type closed form solution
methodology is proposed for cross-ply simply supported plates which limits its
applicability. However, it provides accurate solution which is free from any
numerical/ computational error. The presented theory can be more accurately
applied for the modeling of laminated composite and sandwich plates at the
same computational cost as that of other shear deformation theories.
J.L. Mantari, A.S. Oktem, et al. (2012), presented a new shear deformation
theory for sandwich and composite plates. They proposed displace-ment field,
which is ‘‘m’’ parameter dependent, is assessed by performing several
computations of the plate governing equations. Therefore, their theory, which
gives accurate results, is relatively close to 3D elasticity bending solutions.
Their theory accounts for adequate distribution of the transverse shear strains
through the plate thickness and tangential stress-free boundary conditions on
the plate boundary surface, thus a shear correction factor is not required. Plate
9
governing equations and boundary conditions are derived and the Navier-type
exact solutions for static bending analysis are presented for sinusoidally and
uniformly distributed loads. The accuracy of their theory is ascertained by
comparing it with various available results in the literature.
D.A. Maturi, A.J.M. Ferreira et al. (2014), presented the static and free
vibration analysis of sandwich plates by the use of collocation with radial basis
functions and using a new layerwise theory with independent rotations in each
layer and performed thickness stretching. With this formulation, they have
computed transverse normal and shear deformations and stresses accurately.
10
The equations of motion were automatically implemented via a Unified
Formulation and interpolated with radial basis functions. Finally composite
laminated plate and sandwich plate examples were tested and discussed
The plates are straight and plane surface structures whose thickness is
slight compared to other dimensions geometrically. Statically plates have
simply supported and fixed boundary conditions, including elastic supports
and elastic restraints or in some cases point supports. The static or dynamic
loads are carried by plates are predominantly perpendicular to the plate
surface. The accurate prediction of the response characteristics of laminated
structures is a challenging task because of their intrinsic anisotropy,
heterogeneity and low ratio of the transverse shear modulus to the in-plane
Young’s modulus. Hence, it is necessary to analyze the bending characteristics
of laminated composite plates.
Several theories are formulated to perform the analysis of laminated
composited plates. In single-layer theories one single expression is used
through entire thickness to explain the displacement field of the plate. By this,
deformation of multilayer plate is described by equivalent single layer, thus
reducing 3D problem to 2D problem. In order to include transverse shear
deformation, classical (CLPT) and shear deformation theories have been
developed .The CLPT relied on the Love–Kirchhoff assumptions ignores the
transverse shear deformation. The classical laminate plate theory and the first
order shear deformation theory are the simplest equivalent single layer theories
and they adequately describe the kinematic behaviour of most laminates.
Higher-order theories represent the kinematics better, without shear correction
factors and yield more accurate inter laminar stress distributions.On the other
hand, FSDT based on Raissner and Mindlin, assume constant transverse shear
stresses in the thickness direction, giving a need for shear correction factors to
adjust for unrealistic variation of the shear strain/stress. In order to overcome
the limitations of CLPT and FSDT, Higher-order Shear Deformation Theories
12
(HSDT) which involve higher-order terms in Taylor's expansion of the
displacements in the thickness coordinate were developed. The HSDT has been
developed by Reddy, Matsunaga , Kant and Swaminathan and Liu et al. , etc.
These models can disregard shear correction factors and give more accurate
and stable transverse shear stresses.
13
3.2. DISPLACEMENT MODEL
DISPLACEMENT FIELD
2 3
𝑢(k) (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = 𝑢0 (𝑥, 𝑦) + 𝑧 (k) 𝜃𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑦) + (𝑧 (k) ) 𝑢0 ∗ (𝑥, 𝑦) + (𝑧 (k) ) 𝜃𝑥 ∗ (𝑥, 𝑦) + 𝛷𝑥
2 3
𝑣 (k) (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = 𝑣0 (𝑥, 𝑦) + 𝑧 (k) 𝜃𝑦 (𝑥, 𝑦) + (𝑧 (k) ) 𝑣0 ∗ (𝑥, 𝑦) + (𝑧 (k) ) 𝜃𝑦 ∗ (𝑥, 𝑦) + 𝛷𝑦
14
(𝑘)
∂𝑢
( )
∂𝑥
∂𝑣
𝜖xx (𝑘) ( )
∂𝑦
𝜖yy
∂𝑢 ∂𝑣
𝜖 (𝑘) = 𝛾xy = ( )+( )
𝛾xz ∂𝑦 ∂𝑥
{ 𝛾yz } ∂𝑣 ∂𝑤
( )+( )
∂𝑧 ∂𝑥
∂𝑣 ∂𝑤
( )+( )
{ ∂𝑧 ∂𝑦 }
∗ (𝑘)
𝜖xx (𝑘) 𝜖xx 𝑚(𝑘) 𝜖xx 𝑓(𝑘) 𝜖xx (𝑓)
{𝜖xy } = {𝜖xy } + 𝑧 (𝑘) {𝜖xy } + [𝑧 𝑘 ]2 {𝜖xy }
𝛾xy 𝛾xy 𝛾xy 𝛾xy
∗
𝜖xx (𝑓) (𝑘)
+ [𝑧 𝑘 ]3 {𝜖xy }
𝛾xy
∂𝑤𝑜
𝛾xz (𝑘) + 𝜃𝑥 𝑘
∂𝑥
{𝛾 } = ∂𝑤
yz 𝑜
+ 𝜃𝑦 𝑘
{ ∂𝑦 }
∂𝑢𝑜
𝜖xx (𝑓)
∗ (𝑘) ∂𝑥
∂𝑣𝑜
{𝜖xy } =
𝛾xy ∂𝑦
∂𝑢𝑜 ∂𝑣𝑜
+
{ ∂𝑦 ∂𝑥 }
15
(∂𝜃𝑥 )∗
𝜖xx (𝑘) ∂𝑥
(∂𝜃𝑦 )∗
{𝜖xy } = ∂𝑦
................. Eq.(3.2 d)
𝛾xy (∂𝜃𝑥 )∗ (∂𝜃𝑦 )∗
{ + }
∂𝑦 ∂𝑥
k k k
σ1 C11 C12 0 0 0 ε1
σ C C 0 0 0 ε
2 21 22 2
τ12 0 0 C33 0 0 γ12
................. Eq.(3.3)
τ 0
13
0 0 C44 0 γ13
τ 23 0 0 0 0 C55 γ 23
In which
= (1, 2, 12, 13, 23)t are the stress components of k-th laminae in
material coordinates
=(( 1 , ε 2 , 12, 13, 23)t) are the strain vectors k-th laminae in material
coordinates and
Cij’s are matrix of material elastic coefficients for k-th laminae, given as,
E1 E2
C11 = ; C22 = ;
1 − v12 ∗ v21 1 − v12 ∗ v21
16
v21 ∗ E1
C12 = ; C33 = G12;
1 − v12 ∗ v21
k k
σ x Q11 Q12 0 0 0
k
ε x
σ y Q 21 Q 22 0 0 0 ε y
γ
τ xy 0 0 Q 33 0 0
0 xy ................. Eq.(3.4)
τ yz
0 0 Q 44 0 γ yz
τ xz 0 0 0 0 Q 55
γ xz
where,
Q11=C11*Cos[θ]4+2*C12*Sin[θ]2*Cos[θ]2+4*C33*Sin[θ]2*Cos[θ]2+C22*Sin[θ]4;
Q12=(C11+C22-4*C33)*Sin[θ]2*Cos[θ]+C12(Sin[θ]4+Cos[θ]4);
Q22=C11*Sin[θ]4+(2*C12+4*c33)*Sin[θ]2*Cos[θ]2+C22*Cos[θ]4;
Q13=(C11-c12-2*c66)*Sin[θ]*Cos[θ]3+(C12-C22+2*C33)Sin[θ]3*Cos[θ];
Q23=(C11-C12-2*C33)*Sin[θ]3*Cos[θ]+(C12-C22+2*C33)Sin[θ]*Cos[θ]3;
17
Q33=(C11+C22-2*C12-2*C33)Sin[θ]2*Cos[θ]2+C33(Sin[θ]4+Cos[θ]4);
Q44=C44*Cos[θ]2+C55*Sin[θ]2;
Q45=(C55-C44)*Cos[θ]*Sin[θ];
Q55=C55*Cos[θ]2+c44*Sin[θ]2;
The work done by actual forces in moving through virtual displacements, that
are consistent with the geometric constraints of a body is set to zero to obtain
the equation of motion and this is known as energy principle. It is useful in
deriving governing equations and the boundary conditions and obtaining
approximate solutions by virtual methods. For simple mechanic systems, for
which the free body diagram is set up, the vector approach provides an easy
and direct way of deriving governing equations. However, for complicated
systems the procedure becomes more cumbersome and intractable. In such
cases, energy principles provide alternative means to obtain the governing
equations and their solutions. In the present study, the principle of virtual
work is used to derive the equations of motion of laminated plates.
0
(U V K ) dt 0 ................. Eq.(3.5)
Where
18
U = virtual strain energy
h /2
U =
x x y y
xy xy
xz xz yz
yz dz
dx dy
A
h / 2
................. Eq.(3.6 a)
The virtual work done due to an external load (q) and due to in-plane forces
and shear forces applied to the plate is given as:
K 0 ................. Eq.(3.6 c)
Where
On substituting for U, V and K from Eq. (3.6 a, b, c) in to the virtual work
statement in Eq. (3.6) and integrating through the thickness of the laminate, it
is obtained as:
19
N
T
M xk sx N x xx M x k x N y yy M y k sy
* * * *
x xx
0
N y yy M y k y N xy xy M xy k sxy
* * * *
N xy xy M xy k xy Qx sx S x xz
* * * *
...Eq (3.7)
*
Nx | Nx h x
l
Ny
*
| N y y 1 | z 2 dz
*
N xy | N xy hl 1 xy
…Eq (3.8a)
*
M x | M x h
l x
*
M y | M y y Z | Z dz
3
*
M xy | M xy hl 1 xy …Eq (3.8b)
and the transverse force resultants and the inertias are given by :
* h
l
Q x
Sx Qx xz
1 | Z | Z 2 dz
Q x Sx *
Q y yz
hl 1
…Eq (3.8c)
20
N 0
* *
N 0
A | B | 0
M K
* B | D | 0 *
M 0 | 0 | L K
Q
Q* *
…Eq (3.9)
Where,
And also
k [k x k y k xy ]t ; k * [k x* k *y k xy* ]t
21
K th
Q11 H 1 Q12 H 1 Q13 H 1 Q11 H 3 Q12 H 3 Q13 H 3 layer
Q23 H 3
Q22 H 1 Q23 H 1 Q12 H 3 Q22 H 3
n Q33 H 1 Q13 H 3 Q23 H 3 Q33 H 3
A
K 1 Q11 H 5 Q12 H 5 Q13 H 5
Q22 H 5 Q23 H 5
Sym m etric Q33 H 5
…Eq (3.10a)
K th
Q11 H 2 Q12 H 2 Q13 H 2 Q11 H 4 Q12 H 4 Q13 H 4 layer
Q23 H 4
Q22 H 2 Q23 H 2 Q12 H 4 Q22 H 4
n Q33 H 2 Q13 H 4 Q23 H 4 Q33 H 4
B
K 1 Q11 H 6 Q12 H 6 Q13 H 6
Q22 H 6 Q23 H 6
Sym m etric Q33 H 6
…Eq (3.10b)
K th
Q11 H 2 Q12 H 2 Q13 H 2 Q11 H 4 Q12 H 4 Q13 H 4 layer
Q23 H 4
Q22 H 2 Q23 H 2 Q12 H 4 Q22 H 4
n Q33 H 2 Q13 H 4 Q23 H 4 Q33 H 4
B
K 1 Q11 H 6 Q12 H 6 Q13 H 6
Q22 H 6 Q23 H 6
Sym m etric Q33 H 6
…Eq (3.10c)
22
The elements of the D are obtained by replacing H1 by H3, H3 by H5 and H5 by
H7 in A matrix.
K th
Q11 H 3 Q12 H 3 Q13 H 3 Q11 H 5 Q12 H 5 Q13 H 5 layer
Q23 H 5
Q22 H 3 Q23 H 3 Q12 H 5 Q22 H 5
n Q33 H 3 Q13 H 5 Q23 H 5 Q33 H 5
D
K 1 Q11 H 7 Q12 H 7 Q13 H 7
Q22 H 7 Q23 H 7
Sym m etric Q33 H 7 ….Eq (3.10d)
K th
Q55 H 1 Q45 H 1 Q55 H 2 Q45 H 2 Q55 H 3 Q45 H 3 layer
Q44 H 3
Q44 H 1 Q45 H 2 Q44 H 2 Q45 H 3
n Q55 H 2 Q45 H 3 Q55 H 4 Q45 H 4
L
K 1 Q44 H 3 Q45 H 4 Q44 H 4
Q55 H 5 Q45 H 5
Sym m etric Q44 H 5
…Eq (3.10 e)
1 i
Where Hi = (hK hKi 1 ), i 1,2,3,......,7
i
23
2u0 2 v0 2 u 0 2 v0 2 u 0* 2 v0*
A13 A14 A15
δu 0 : A11 A12 x y x 2 x 2 xy
x x y
2
2 u 0* 2 v0 2θ x θy 2 2θ y
B13 θ x B14 θ x
* 2 2 *
2u0 2 v0 2 u 0 2 v0 2 u 0* 2 v0*
δv 0 : A21 A22 A23 A A25
y 2 y 2 xy 24 y 2
xy xy
2 u 0* 2 v0
*
2θ x 2θ y 2θ x 2θ y 2θ x
*
A26 B 21 B 22 B B
y 2 xy xy y 2
23
y 2 xy
24
xy
2θ y 2 θ x* 2 θ y*
A u 0 A v 0 A u 0 v 0
* 2 2 2 2
B 25 B 26 31 2 32 33
y 2 y 2 xy x x y xy x
2
2 u 0* 2 v0* 2 u 0* 2 v0
*
2θ x 2θ y
A34 A35 A36 B31 B32
x 2 xy xy x 2 x 2 xy
2θ x 2θ y 2θ y
*
2 θ x* 2 θ y*
B34 θ x B35
2 *
B33 B36
xy x 2 x 2
x y xy x 2
0 ...........................................Eq.(3.11b)
24
θx 2 w 0 θy 2 w 0 2u 0 * 2v 0 *
δw 0 : L 11 L 12 L 13 L 14
x 2 x xy x x
x
3θ x * 3θ y * θx 2 w 0 θy 2 w 0
L 15 L 16 L L 22
x x 21 y xy y y 2
2u 0 * 2v 0 * 3θ x * 3θ y *
L 23 L 24 L 25 L 26 q
y y y y
2wo 2wo 2wo
Nx 2 N xy Ny 0 ........Eq.(3.11c)
x 2 yx y 2
B 61 D 11 D 12
xy x 2 x 2 xy xy x 2 x 2
2θ y* 2 * 2θ y*
D θx B u 0 B 2v0 2u0 2v0
2
D 15 13
y 2
B 33
y 2 xy
xy 16
xy x 2 xy
23
2 u 0* 2 v0* 2 u 0* 2v0
*
2θ x 2θ y
B 43 B 53 B 63 D 31
xy y 2 y 2 xy xy D 32 y 2
2θ x 2θ y 2θ x *
2θ y
*
2θ * 2θ y*
D 33 D 34 D 35 D x
y 2 x y xy y 2 36
y 2
x y
L 11 θx
w 0
x
L 12
θy
w 0
y
L 13 2u 0 * L 14 2v 0 * L 15 3θ x * L 16 3θ
y
*
M xT M xy
T
25
2u 0 2v 2u 2 v0 2 u 0* 2 v 0*
δθ y : B12 B22 20 B32 20 B42
xy B52 y 2
xy y y xy
2 u 0* 2 v 0 * 2θ x 2θ y 2θ x 2θ y 2θ x *
B62 D D D D
2
21
22
2 23
2
24
y x y x y y y x y x y
2θ y 2θ x * 2 θ y *
B13 u 0 B23 v0 B33 u 0 v 0
* 2 2 2 2
D 25 D
y 2
26
y 2 xy x 2 xy xy x 2
2 u 0* 2 v 0* 2 u 0* 2 v 0* 2θ x 2θ y
B43 2
B
53
B
63 D D
x xy xy x 2 x 2 xy
31 32
2θ x 2θ y 2θ x
*
2θ y
*
2θ x * 2θ y *
D33 2 D34 D D
xy x x 2 35
x y
36
xy x 2
w w
L 21 θx 0 L 22 θy 0 L 23 2u 0
x y
*
M Ty M xy T
*
L 24 2v 0 L 25 3θ x L 26 3θ y
*
*
y
x
0
......Eq.(3.11e)
26
2u 2 2 2 2 * 2 *
δu 0 : A 41
* 0 A v0 A u0 v0 A u0 A v0
x 2 42 xy 43 xy 2 44 2 45 xy
x
x
2u * v 0
2 * 2
θx
2
θy 2θ θy
2 2 *
A 46
0
B 41 B 42 B 43 x
B θx
xy x
2
x
2 xy xy x
2 44 2
x
2 *
θy 2θ * 2θ * 2u 2v 2u 2
y 0 v0
A 61
0
A 62
0
A 63
x
B 45 B 46
xy xy x
2 xy y 2 y 2 xy
2u * 2v * 2u * v 0
2 * 2
θx
2
θy
A 64
0
A 65
0
A 66
0
B 61 B 62
xy y 2 y 2 xy xy y
2
2θ θy
2 2θ * 2θ * 2θ * 2θ *
B 63 x
B 64
x B y B 66
x
y
y 2 xy xy 65
y 2
y 2 xy
2 L 31 θx
w 0
x
w
L 32 θy 0 L 33 2u 0 * L 34 2v 0 * 2 L 35 3θ x * L 36 3θ y *
y
N x*T N xy *T
0 ........ Eq. (3.11f )
x y
27
* 2u 0 2 v0 2 u 0 2 v0 2 u 0* 2 v 0*
δv0 : A 51 A 52
2
A 53 y 2 A 54 xy A 55 y 2
x y y x y
u0 v0 θx θy θy
B53 θ2x
2 * 2 * 2 2 2 2
A 56 B51
B52
2 xy
y xy xy y y
2
2θ x * 2θ y * 2θ x * 2θ y *
A 61 u 0 A 62 v0
2 2
B54 B B
y 2 y 2 xy x 2 xy
xy
55 56
2u 0 2 v0 2 u 0* 2 v 0* 2 u 0* 2 v0
*
A 63 2
A
64 2
A
65
A
66
x 2
xy x x xy xy
2θ x 2θ y 2 θ x 2θ y 2θ x * 2θ y *
B61 B62
2
B63
B64 2
B65
xy xy x 2
x x x y
2θ x θy
- 2 L 41 θx w 0 L 42 θy w 0 L 43 2u 0* L 44 2v 0*
* 2 *
B66
xy
x
2
x y
2 L 45 3θ x
* * y
0 ........Eq. (3.11g)
46 y
x
u0
2
v0
2
u 0 v0
2 2
2 u 0* 2 v 0*
B24
B34 xy x 2 B44 x 2 B54 xy
*
δθx : B14 2
x xy
u0 v0 θx θy θy
D 43 θ x
2 * 2 * 2 2 2 2
B64 2
D 41
D 42
2
2
x y x x x y x y x
θx
2 * θy
2 *
θx θy
2 * 2 *
u0
2
2 v0
D 44 D D B
16
B
2 xy xy x 2 26 2
x
45 46
x y y
2u 0 2 v0 2 u 0* 2 v 0* 2 u 0* 2 v 0*
B36 B B B
xy
46 56 2 66
y
2
xy y y
2
xy
2θ x 2θ y 2θ 2θ y 2 * 2θ y *
D61 D62 2 D63 2x D64 θ x D65
xy y y xy y 2
x y
D66
2θ x * 2θ y *
3
L51 θx
w 0
x
L52 θy
w 0
y
L53 2u 0*
y 2
x y D 2v s *
54 0
M x M xy
* T *T
28
2u 2 2 2 2 * 2v *
δθ y : B15
* 0 B v0 B u0 v0 B u0 B 0
xy 25 2 35 2 xy 45 xy 55 y 2
y y
2u * 2v * 2θ x 2θ y 2θ θy
2 2θ *
B 65
0
0
D 51 D 52 D 53 x
D 54
x
y 2 xy xy y 2 y 2 xy xy
2θ * 2θ * 2θ * 2u 2v 2u 2
y x y 0 0 0 v0
D 55 D 56 B16 B 26 B 36
y 2 y 2 xy x 2 xy xy x 2
2u * 2v * 2u * 2v * 2θ x 2θ y
B 46
0
B
0
B 66
0
0
D 61 D 62
x 2 56 xy xy x
2 2
x
x y
2θ θy
2 2θ * 2θ * 2θ * 2θ *
D 63 x
D 64 x
D
y
D 66
x y
xy x 2 x 2 65 xy xy x 2
- 3 L 61 θx
w 0
x
w
y
L 62 θy 0 L 63 2u 0 * L 64 2v 0 *
*T M *T
* * M y xy
3 L65 3θ x L66 3θ y 0. .......Eq. (3.11i)
y x
29
CHAPTER – 4
At edges x = 0 and x = a
At edges y = 0 and y = b
30
The simply supported boundary conditions shown in Eq. (4.1) are
considered for solutions of laminated composite plates using displacement
model. The boundary conditions in Eq. (4.1) are satisfied by the following
expansions:
u 0 ( x, y , t ) U mn (t ) cos x sin y ….. Eq. (4.2a)
m 1 n 1
v0 ( x , y , t ) V mn (t ) sin x cos y ….. Eq. (4.2b)
m1 n 1
w0 ( x, y, t ) W mn (t ) sin x sin y ….. Eq. (4.2c)
m1 n 1
x ( x, y , t ) X mn (t ) cos x sin y ….. Eq. (4.2d)
m1 n 1
y ( x, y , t ) Y mn (t ) sin x cos y ….. Eq. (4.2e)
m1 n 1
u 0 ( x, y , t )
*
U
m 1 n 1
*
mn (t ) cos x sin y ….. Eq. (4.2f)
Vo ( x, y, t )
*
V
m 1 n 1
*
mn (t ) sin x cos y ….. Eq. (4.2g)
x * ( x, y , t )
m1 n 1
*
X mn (t ) cos x sin y ….. Eq. (4.2h)
y * ( x, y , t ) Y
m 1 n 1
*
mn (t ) sin x cos y ….. Eq. (4.2i)
31
The mechanical are also expanded in double Fourier sine series as:
q ( x, y , t ) Qmn (t ) sin x sin y ….... Eq. (4.2k)
m1 n 1
Where
a b
4
ab 0
Qmn (z, t) = q( x, y, t ) sin x sin y dxdy ….. Eq. (4.2l)
0
m n
Where = and =
a b
A 11
2
A66 2 U mn A12 A33 Vmn B11 2 B33 2 X mn B12 B33 Ymn
A 14
2
A36 2 U *
mn
*
' mn
A15 A36 V B14 2 B36 2 X mn
*
B15 B36 Ymn
*
0......Eq. (4.3a )
A21 A33 U mn A33 2 A22 2 Vmn B21 B33 X mn B33 2 B22 2 Ymn
A24 A36 U mn* A36 2 A25 2 Vmn* B24 B36 X mn* B36 2 B25 2 Ymn* 0 ....Eq. (4.3b)
L11
2 L22 2 Wmn L11 X mn L 22 Ymn 2L13 U mn
*
2 L24 Vmn
*
3L15 X mn
*
3L26 Ymn
*
Qmn . . . .Eq. (4.3c)
B 11
2
B33 2 U mn B21 B33 Vmn L11 Wmn D11 2 D33 2 L11 X mn
D12 D33 Ymn B41 2 B63 2 2L13s U mn *
B51 B63 V'mn
*
32
A
41
2
B33 2 U mn A 42 A63 Vmn 2L31 Wmn B41 2 B63 2 2L31 X mn
B42 B63 Ymn A44 2 A66 2 4 D33 U mn*
A45 A66 Vmn* B44 2 B66 2 6L35 B45 B66 Ymn* 0 ....Eq.(4.3f)
and will show that the Navier’s solutions exists only if the following coefficients
become zero:
one obtains :
33
S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 U mn 0
S S 22 S 23 S 24 S 25 S 26 S 27 S 28 S 29 V 0
21 mn
S 31 S 32 S 33 S 34 S 35 S 36 S 37 S 38 S 39 Wmn Qmn
S 41 S 42 S 43 S 44 S 45 S 46 S 47 S 48 S 49 X mn 0
S 51
S 52 S 53 S 54 S 55 S 56 S 57 S 58 S 59 Ymn 0 ….Eq. (4.3j)
U * 0
S 61 S 62 S 63 S 64 S 65 S 66 S 67 S 68 S 69
mn
S S 72 S 73 S 74 S 75 S 76 S 77 S 78 S 79 Vmn
*
0
71 X *
S 81 S 82 S 83 S 84 S 85 S 86 S 87 S 88 S 89 mn 0
S S 99
Ymn 0
*
91 S 92 S 93 S 94 S 95 S 96 S 97 S 98
The elements Sij and (i=1,2….9 and j=1,2…9) are given in the following and
solutions for the above equations for each m,n =1, 2….gives Umn, Vmn, Wmn, X-
mn, Ymn, *
U mn *
, Vmn *
, X mn *
, Ymn , which are used to compute uo , vo , wo , x ,
y , u o * , vo * , x * , y *
s31 = 0; s32 = 0;
34
s33 = l11 ∗ 𝛼 2 + l22 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s34 = l11 ∗ 𝛼;
s37 = 2 ∗ l24 ∗ 𝛽;
35
s71 = (a51 + a63) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s72 = a63 ∗ 𝛼 2 + a52 ∗ 𝛽 2 ;
36
CHAPTER-5
10 E 2 h 3 10 10 h2 h
m1 4
, m 2 2
, m3 , m 4 2
, m5
qa qa qa qa qa
The numerical results obtained from the bending analysis are tabulated in the
tables 5.1-5.3.
for a/h≥10, the proposed theory performs best in vertical deflection and
normal stresses, and the shear stresses are in good agreement with 3D-
elasticy solution. The global average error is 4% and it even decreases
with a/h ratio increases (a/h≥10). The present model performs better
than above mentioned theories as compared to the exact 3D solution
except for the shear stress xz , which is higher than all the above
τ̅̅̅̅
mentioned theories and the exact three-dimensional solution. Therefore,
combinations of the above-mentioned shear strain shape functions,
perhaps, can be helpful to alleviate the produced error.
The Non-Dimensionalized Maximum Deflection and stresses for four
layer (00/900/00/900) simply supported cross ply rectangle plate under
sinusoidal transverse load (b=3a) are tabulated in table 5.4
38
5.1 Effect of side-to-thickness ratio, aspect ratio on the deflection and
stresses of a laminated composite plate
Fig 5.1 and 5.2 shows the variation of non dimensionalised maximum
center deflections against thickness coordinate ratio (z/h) as a function
of aspect ratio (a/b) and side-to-thickness ratio (a/h) respectively which
shows that the present results are in good agreement with 3D-elasticity
solution in deflection.
Fig 5.3 shows the variation of non dimensionalised maximum normal
stresses as a function of no of layers cross-ply laminated plates under
sinusoidal transverse load. The 2-layered plate experiences larger
stresses than those of 4, 6 and 8 layered plates therefore the stress
concentration is reduced in the latter.
Fig 5.4 shows the effect of aspect ratio on the transverse deflections w
̅ . It
is observed that the non-dimensional deflection is maximum for E1/E2
=1 (and aspect ratio=1), and the minimum for E1/E2=11 (and aspect
ratio=5).
Fig 5.5, Fig 5.6 and Fig 5.7 shows the effect of aspect ratio on the normal
stresses ̅̅̅
σx , ̅̅̅
σy and shear stress τ̅̅̅̅.
xy The stresses are maximum at E1/E2
=11 (and aspect ratio=1) and minimum at E1/E2 = 1(and aspect ratio=5).
This is because the plate area increases as the aspect ratio increases and
hence, the applied load per unit area decreases.
Fig. 5.8 shows the variation of non-dimensionalized maximum normal
stress ̅̅̅
σx against aspect ratio as a function of side to thickness ratio.
When a sinusoidal load is applied, it is observed that the non-
dimensionalised maximum normal stress ̅̅̅
σx decreases with the increase
of aspect ratio. This is due to the increase of stiffness of the plate.
39
Table 5.1 Non-Dimensionalized Maximum Deflection and stresses for three-layer (00/900/00) simply
supported cross ply square plate under sinusoidal transverse load (a=b)
40
0.5 0.548 0.205 -0.0231
Karama et al. 0.5080 0.285 0.086
-0.5 -0.0879 -0.765 0.0231
41
Table 5.2 Non-Dimensionalized Maximum Deflection and stresses for three-layer (00/900/00) simply
supported cross ply rectangle plate under sinusoidal transverse load (b=3a)
Source a/h (w
̅) ̅̅̅̅𝑥 )
(𝜎 ̅̅̅̅̅
(σy ) (τ̅̅̅̅
xy ) (τ̅̅̅̅
xz )
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(τ yz )
42
Touratier (1991) 0.5958 0.642 0.029 -0.0091 0.305 0.014
43
Table 5.3 Non-Dimensionalized Maximum Deflection and stresses for three-layer (00/900/900/00) simply
supported cross ply square plate under sinusoidal transverse load (a=b)
Source a/h (w
̅) ̅̅̅̅𝑥 )
(𝜎 ̅̅̅̅̅
(σy ) (τ̅̅̅̅
xy ) (τ̅̅̅̅
xz )
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(τyz )
44
HSDT (1985) 0.506 0.539 0.304 0.023 0.283 0.123
45
Table 5.4 Non-Dimensionalized Maximum Deflection and stresses for three-layer (00/900/900/00) simply
supported cross ply square plate under sinusoidal transverse load (b=3a)
Source a/h (w
̅) ̅̅̅̅𝑥 )
(𝜎 ̅̅̅̅̅
(σy ) (τ̅̅̅̅
xy ) (τ̅̅̅̅
xz )
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(τ yz )
46
Present 0.5870 0.551 0.124 -0.0152 0.331 0.016
3D-Elasticity
0.5870 0.552 0.127 -0.0156 0.385 0.015
(1970)
20
Karama (2009) 0.5837 0.548 0.127 -0.0152 0.285 0.015
47
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 a/h=4
a/h=10
0 a/h=20
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
48
Non dimensionalised deflection, W 2.5
1.5
Present
Karama (2009)
HSDT (1985)
1 FSDT (1985)
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 a/h 80 100 120
Fig 5.2 Non dimensionalised deflection, 𝐰 ̅ Vs side to thickness ratio, a/h for a simply supported
cross-ply square plate under sinusoidal transverse load
49
0.84
0.82
x
Non dimensionalised stresses,
0.8
0.78
0.76 stresses
0.74
0.72
0.7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
No of layers
50
60
Non dimensionalised deflection, W
50
E1/E2=1
E1/E2=2
40
E1/E2=3
E1/E2=4
30 E1/E2=5
E1/E2=6
20 E1/E2=7
E1/E2=8
E1/E2=9
10
E1/E2=10
E1/E2=11
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Aspect ratio, a/b
Fig 5.4 Non dimensionalised displacement, 𝐰̅ versus aspect ratio (a/b) for different modulus ratios
(E1/E2) for simply supported cross-ply laminated square plate
51
3.5
Non dimensionalised normal stress, x
3
E1/E2=1
2.5 E1/E2=2
E1/E2=3
E1/E2=4
2
E1/E2=5
E1/E2=6
1.5 E1/E2=7
E1/E2=8
1 E1/E2=9
E1/E2=10
E1/E2=11
0.5
0
1 2 3 Aspect ratio,
4 a/b 5
52
3.5
y
3
Non dimensionalised normal stress,
E1/E2=1
2.5 E1/E2=2
E1/E2=3
E1/E2=4
2
E1/E2=5
E1/E2=6
1.5 E1/E2=7
E1/E2=8
1 E1/E2=9
E1/E2=10
E1/E2=11
0.5
0
Aspect ratio, a/b
1 2 3 4 5
53
𝛕𝐱𝐲
̅̅̅̅
3.5
3
Non dimensionalised shear stress,
E1/E2=1
2.5 E1/E2=2
E1/E2=3
E1/E2=4
2
E1/E2=5
E1/E2=6
1.5 E1/E2=7
E1/E2=8
1 E1/E2=9
E1/E2=10
E1/E2=11
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Aspect ratio, a/b
Fig 5.7 Non dimensionalised shear stresses, (𝛕 𝐱𝐲 ) Vs aspect ratio (a/b) for different modulus ratios
̅̅̅̅
(E1/E2) for simply supported cross-ply laminated square plate
54
0.9
0.8
0.7
Non dimensionalised stresses, x
0.6
0.5
3D-Elasticity (1970)
Present
0.4
Karama (2009)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
a/h=4 a/h=10 a/h=20 a/h=50 a/h=100 Side to thickness ratio
55
CHAPTER-6
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
A new layerwise higher order shear deformation theory for laminated
composite plates is presented. The displacements of the each layer are
expressed in terms of layerwise HSDT functions of the thickness. The
displacement field of the present theory contains nine unknowns, as in the
higher order shear deformation theory. However, the present theory accounts
for adequate distribution of the transverse shear strains through the plate
thickness and tangential stress-free boundary conditions on the plate
boundary surface, therefore a shear correction factor is not required. Naviers
solution is adopted for finding the analytical solutions.
The accuracy of the present theory is ascertained by comparing it with
various available results in the literature. The results show that the present
model performs better than all the existing theories for analyzing the static
behaviour of multilayered composite plates.
From this work, the following conclusions are drawn
Increase in side-to-thickness ratio reduces transverse shear deformation
effect and maximum center deflection.
As no of layers increases, the stress concentration gets reduced.
As the modulus ratio goes on increasing, the transverse deflections tend
to decrease.
The stresses are maximum at high modulus ratios than at low modulus
ratios. This is because the plate area increases as the aspect ratio
increases and hence, the applied load per unit area decreases.
When the stiffness of the plate increases, the non-dimensionalised
normal stress decreases under sinusoidal load.
56
6.2 SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK
57
REFERENCES
58
10. Plagianakos TS, Saravanos DA. Higher order layerwise laminate
theory for the prediction of interlaminar shear stresses in thick
composite and sandwich composite plates. Compos Struct
2009;87(1):23–34.
11. Ferreira AJM, Fasshauer GE, Batra RC, Rodrigues JD. Static
deformations and vibration analysis of composite and sandwich
plates using a layerwise theory and RBF-PS discretizations with
optimal shape parameter. Compos Struct 2008;86(4):328–43
12. Demasi L. 16 Mixed plate theories based on the generalized unified
formulation. Part II: Layerwise theories. Compos Struct
2009;87(1):12–22.
13. Na WJ, Reddy JN. Delamination in cross ply laminated beams
using the layer wise theory. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
(Building and Housing)2009;10(4):451–80.
14. Neeraj Grover, D.K. Maiti, A new inverse hyperbolic shear
deformation theory for static and buckling analysis of laminated
composite and sandwich plates. Composite Structures 95 (2012)
15. J.L. Mantari, A.S. Oktem, C. Guedes Soares, A new higher order
shear deformation theory for sandwich and composite laminated
plates Composites: Part B 43(2012) 1489-1499
16. Mantari JL, Soares CG. Generalized layerwise HSDT and finite
element formulation for symmetric laminated and sandwich
composite plates.Compos Struct 2013;105:319–31
17. Nguyen-Thoi T, Phung-Van P, Luong-Van H, Nguyen-Van H,
Nguyen-Xuan H. A cell-based smoothed three-node Mindlin plate
element (CS-MIN3) for static and free vibration analyses of plates.
Comput Mech 2013;50(1):65–81.
18. Maturi DA, Ferreira AJM, Zenkour AM, Mashat DS. Analysis of
sandwich plates with a new layerwise formulation. Compos Part B:
Eng 2014;56:484–9.
59
19. P. Phung-Van a, Chien H. Thai b, T. Nguyen-Thoi a,c,⇑, H. Nguyen-
60
Mech 2010;209(1–2):85–98.
28. Mantari JL, Oktem AS, Soares CG. Static and dynamic analysis of
laminated composite and sandwich plates and shells by using a
new higher-order shear deformation theory. Compos Struct
2011;94(1):37–49.
29. Mantari JL, Oktem AS, Soares CG. A new higher order shear
deformation theory for sandwich and composite laminated plates.
Compos Part B Eng 2012;43(3):1489–99.
30. Maturi DA, Ferreira AJM, Zenkour AM, Mashat DS. Analysis of
sandwich plates with a new layerwise formulation. Compos Part B
Eng 2014;56:484–9.
31. Carrera E. Evaluation of layerwise mixed theories for laminated
plates analysis. Am Inst Aeronaut Astronaut 1998;36(5):830–9.
32. Carrera E. Mixed layer-wise models for multilayered plate analysis.
Compos Struct 1998;43(1):57–70.
33. Carrera E. An assessment of mixed and classical theories on global
and local response of multilayered orthotropic plates. Compos
Struct 2000;50(2): 183–98.
34. Carrera E, Ciuffreda A. A unified formulation to assess theories of
multilayered plates for various bending problems. Compos Struct
2005;69(3):271–93.
35. Carrera E, Ciuffreda A. Bending of composites and sandwich plates
subjected to localized lateral loadings: a comparison of various
theories. Compos Struct 2005;68(2):185–202.
36. Pandit MK, Sheikh AH, Singh BN. An improved higher order zigzag
theory for the static analysis of laminated sandwich plate with soft
core. Finite Elem Anal Des 2008;44(9–10):602–10.
37. Zhen W, Wanji C. A C0-type higher-order theory for bending
analysis of laminated composite and sandwich plates. Compos
Struct 2010;92(3):653–61.
61
62