DOI 10.

1515/secm-2013-0153      Sci Eng Compos Mater 2013; aop

Srinivasa Chikkol Venkateshappa*, Suresh Yalaburgi Jayadevappa and Prema Kumar Wooday
Puttiah

Experimental and finite element studies

on buckling of skew plates under uniaxial
compression
Abstract: Experimental studies were made on isotropic 1 Introduction
skew plates made of aluminum 7075-T6 and laminated
composite skew plates under uniaxial compression
Skew plates are widely used as structural components
with unloaded edges completely free and one loaded
in civil, aerospace, automotive, and marine engineering
edge restrained completely and the other loaded edge
structures. The common application areas of skew plates
restrained except translationally in the direction of load-
include ship hulls, wings of airplanes, and parallelogram
ing. Experimental values of the buckling load have been
slabs in buildings and bridges. Experience shows that such
determined using five different methods. The buckling
structures fail frequently on account of instability arising
load has also been determined using CQUAD8 finite ele-
from the slenderness of the components. The use of fiber-
ment of MSC/NASTRAN. Comparison is made between
reinforced composite materials has increased multifold in
the various experimental values of buckling load and
recent years due to their light weight, high strength, and
the finite element solution. The effects of the skew angle
stiffness. The application areas of composite materials are
and the aspect ratio on the critical buckling load of iso-
now expanding from the traditional areas such as mili-
tropic skew plates made of aluminum 7075-T6 have been
tary aircraft to various other areas such as automobiles,
studied. The effects of the skew angle, aspect ratio, and
robotics, day-to-day appliances, building industry, etc. As
the laminate stacking sequence on the critical buckling
the components and structures composed of laminated
load of laminated composite skew plates have also been
composite materials are usually very thin and hence more
studied. The critical buckling load is found to increase
prone to buckling, their design requires accurate assess-
with the increase in the skew angle and decrease with
ment of the critical buckling loads.
the increase in aspect ratio. Method IV yields the highest
Few analytical solutions are available for skew plates
value for critical buckling load and Method III the lowest
that to for simple cases. When the analytical methods
value for critical buckling load. Among the various experi-
[1–12] have failed to provide solutions, the numerical tech-
mental values, the one given by Method IV is closest to
niques such as finite element [13–30], finite-strip element
the finite element solution, and the discrepancy between
method [31], spline finite-strip method [32, 33], and differ-
them is less than about 5% in the case of isotropic skew
ential quadrature methods [34–37] have been employed
plates and about 10–15% in the case of laminated compos-
for the analysis of skew plates. There are few experimen-
ite skew plates.
tal studies on the buckling of rectangular plates. Chailleux
et al. [38] used experimental techniques for determining
Keywords: critical buckling load; finite element analysis;
the critical buckling loads of columns and square plates
isotropic skew plate; laminated composite skew plate.
made of composite materials. Chai et  al. [39] conducted
experimental investigation on the buckling load of lami-
*Corresponding author: Srinivasa Chikkol Venkateshappa,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, GM Institute of Technology, nated rectangular plates under unidirectional loading
Davangere 577006, Karnataka, India, e-mail: srinivas@gmit.info using linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) and
Suresh Yalaburgi Jayadevappa: Department of Mechanical strain gauges to measure the out-of-plane deflection and
Engineering, J.N.N. College of Engineering, Shivamogga 577204, surface strain, respectively. The experimental buckling
Karnataka, India
loads were in good agreement with the finite element
Prema Kumar Wooday Puttiah: Department of Civil Engineering,
Reva Institute of Technology and Management, Bangalore 560064,
solutions. Chai et  al. [40] used laser-based holography
Karnataka, India; and Member of Academic Council, Reva University, and strain gauges to evaluate the buckling load. Tuttle
Bangalore, Karnataka, India-560064 et  al. [41] determined experimentally the buckling loads

Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy

Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM
2      S.C. Venkateshappa et al.: Experimental and FE studies on buckling of skew plates

from plots of applied load vs. out-of-plane displacement.
Shadow moiré technique method was used to monitor the
whole-field out-of-plane deflections of the buckled plates.
The maximum out-of-plane displacement was measured
by placing a dial indicator on the specimen. Detailed
experimental buckling studies on skew composite plates
are either very few or nil in the available literature.
strain, εA = (ε1+ε2)/2, where ε1 and ε2 are strains at the two
surfaces of the specimen at midspan in the direction of
loading. Method V employs a plot applied load vs. strain
difference εD = (ε1-ε2).
2.2 Finite element solution

A classical linear buckling analysis was made using MSC/

NASTRAN software. CQUAD8 (eight-node isoparametric
2 Determination of the critical curved shell element with 6 degree of freedom per node)
buckling load was employed in the present study. The CQUAD8 element
has been preferred to CQUAD4 element in the present
study as the former is more accurate as revealed by the
2.1 Experimental procedure
investigation reported in paper [43].

Several procedures have been used by different inves-

tigators to evaluate the critical buckling load of rectan-
gular plates [42]. These are depicted in Figure 1. The
procedures use applied load vs. deflection, applied load
vs. end shortening, and applied load vs. strain plots. In
the present study, five different methods are used, which
are designated as Method I, Method II, etc. Method I
employs a plot of applied load (P) vs. out-of-plane deflec-
tion (W) at midspan. Method II employs a plot of applied
load (P) vs. end shortening in the direction of applied
load (Δ). Method III employs a plot of applied load (P)
vs. square of out-of-plane deflection (W2). Method IV
uses a plot of applied load (P) versus average in-plane
strain in the direction of load. Method V uses a plot of
applied load (P) vs. surface strain difference at midspan
in the direction of load. Method IV utilizes the fact that
the surface strain on one side of the specimen becomes
tensile when the specimen has buckled. In this method,
the applied load is plotted against the algebraic mean
3 Present experimental work
3.1 Test specimens
For isotropic plate, the aluminum 7075-T6 material
supplied by the Rio-Tinto Alcon, Canada was used. The
composite plate specimens were made using unidirec-
tional glass fiber, epoxy-556 resin, hardener (HY951),
and polyvinyl alcohol (releasing agent) supplied by
Ciba Geigy India Ltd. The specimens were fabricated
by hand lay-up technique. The fiber weight percent-
age is 50:50. The appropriate ASTM procedures were
followed while preparing the test specimens. At least
three replicate specimens were tested, and the result
was taken as the average of the tested specimens. The
plate specimens were prepared carefully so as to avoid

Methods used to determine critical buckling load

Method I Method II Method III Method IV Method V

P P P P Fitted
Inflection Perfect plate P
point parabola x
Pth x
x x
Schematic Imperfect Pcr x x x
Pcr Pcr Pcr
diagram Experimental
plate
buckling Inflection point
load

WCenter End shortening Δ W2 εA ε1–ε2

Applied load vs. Applied load vs.

Applied load vs. Applied load vs. Applied load vs.
Description deflection squared average strain curve
deflection curve end shortening strain difference curve
curve ε +ε
(P vs. WCenter) (P vs. Δ) (P vs. εA= 1 2 ) (P vs. εD=ε1–ε2)
(P vs. W2Center) 2

Figure 1 Methods used to determine critical buckling load.

Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy

Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM
 S.C. Venkateshappa et al.: Experimental and FE studies on buckling of skew plates      3
residual stress at the cutting edges. The tests were
conducted at standard laboratory conditions of 27°C
and 46% relative humidity. The material properties of
the test plates are: for aluminum 7075-T6, E = 71.7 GPa,
μ = 0.33 and for glass epoxy, E1 = 38.07 GPa, E2 = 8.1 GPa,
G 12 = 3.05 GPa, and ν12 = 0.22. The aspect ratio was varied
from 1.0 to 2.5.
3.2 Experimental procedure
The fixture for holding the test specimen is shown in
Figure 2. The test specimen was inserted between the
end plates of the fixture, and the screws were tightened
properly so that no slippage of the test specimen occurs.
The tests were conducted in a 40-t computerized univer-
sal testing machine after positioning properly the test
specimen using universal vice as shown in Figure 3. The
2
3
A NASTRAN and the finite element solution for the critical
1
B 1
Detail B
Detail A
1: Specimen
2: Clamping plates
3: Hexagonal socket screw with nut
Figure 2 Fixture for holding the specimen.
Figure 3 The experimental set-up.
Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy
Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM
measuring instrumentation consists of strain gauges and
LVDTs. The strain gauges were placed at each surface of
the test plate at midspan. Two LVDTs were fixed symmetri-
cally at midspan along the width of the test specimen to
measure the out-of-plane deflection, and one more was
fixed to the moving jaw of the universal testing machine
to measure the in-plane deflection. The testing was
carried out with unloaded edges completely free, and one
loaded edge restrained completely, and the other loaded
edge restrained except translationally in the direction of
loading.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Isotropic skew plates
Isotropic plates made of aluminum 7075-T6 were tested
under uniaxial compression, varying the skew angle
from 0° to 45° and aspect ratio from 1.0 to 2.5. The exper-
imental values of the critical buckling load were deter-
mined in accordance with the Methods I to V. Classical
linear buckling analysis was performed using MSC/
buckling load obtained. A typical plot of applied load
(P) vs. out-of-plane deflection (W) for a skew angle of
15° and aspect ratio ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 is shown in
Figure 4. Figure 5 shows a typical buckled shape of the
test specimen. The values of the critical buckling load
obtained are tabulated in Table 1 and presented in the
form of a bar chart in Figure 6. The standard deviations
are given within parentheses in Table 1 and are also
indicated in Figure 6. The following are observed from
Table 1 and Figure 6:
– Method IV yields the highest experimental value
for critical buckling load, and Method III yields the
lowest value. The experimental values are in good
agreement with the finite element solution, the values
given by Method IV being closest to the finite element
solution. The percentage of discrepancy between the
finite element solution and Method IV is very small
and may be neglected for practical purposes.
– For a particular skew angle, the critical buckling load
decreases as the aspect ratio increases. The rate of
decrease is initially large and becomes smaller for
higher values of aspect ratio.
– For a particular aspect ratio, the critical buckling load
is observed to increase with the skew angle. The rate
of increase is initially small and becomes larger for
higher values of skew angle.
4      S.C. Venkateshappa et al.: Experimental and FE studies on buckling of skew plates

22.5

Skew-15-a/b=1.0
20.0
Skew-15-a/b=1.5
17.5 Skew-15-a/b=2.0
Skew-15-a/b=2.5
15.0
Load (kN)

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Out of plane deflection, WCenter (mm)

Figure 4 A typical plot of applied load (p) vs. out-of-plane deflection (wcenter) for isotropic skew plate (α = 15°).

The experimental values of the critical buckling load were

Figure 5 A typical buckled shape of the tested specimen (α = 15°,
a/b = 2.0).
4.2 Laminated composite skew plates
Laminated composite skew plates were tested in uni-
axial compression, varying the skew angle from 0° to
45°, aspect ratio from 1.0 to 2.5, and stacking sequence.
The number of layers was kept constant at 20, and the
total thickness of the laminate was 2.0 mm. Four lami-
nate stacking sequences viz., antisymmetric angle-ply
[+0°/-0°/…/-0°], antisymmetric angle-ply [+45°/-45°/…/-
45°], antisymmetric angle-ply [+90°/-90°/…/-90°], and
antisymmetric cross-ply [0°/90°/…/90°] were considered.
determined according to Methods I to V. Classical linear
buckling analysis was performed and the finite element
solution for the critical buckling load determined. The
values of the critical buckling load for various values of
skew angle = 0°, 15°, 30°, and 45° and aspect ratio are tab-
ulated in Tables 2–5 and plotted in the form of bar chart
in Figures 7–10 for antisymmetric angle-ply [+0°/-0°/…/-
0°], antisymmetric angle-ply [+45°/-45°/…/-45°], antisym-
metric angle-ply [+90°/-90°/…/-90°], and antisymmetric
cross-ply [0°/90°/…/90°]. The standard deviations are
presented in Tables 2–5 and indicated in Figures 7–10. The
following are observed from Tables 2–5 and Figures 7–10.
– Method IV yields the highest experimental value for
critical buckling load, and Method III yields the lowest
experimental value. The experimental values are in
good agreement with the finite element solution, the
value given by Method IV being closest to the finite
element solution. The percentage of discrepancy
between the finite element solution and Method IV is
about 10–15%.
– The critical buckling load is observed to decrease
sharply as the aspect ratio increases from 1.0 to 2.5 for
all the stacking sequences.
– The critical buckling load has the highest value for
antisymmetric angle-ply [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] and the
lowest for antisymmetric angle-ply [+90°/-90°/…/
-90°]. The critical buckling load depends on the
stiffness of the cross-section of the laminate among
other factors such as boundary conditions, etc.
The stiffness of the cross-section depends upon the

Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy

Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM
 S.C. Venkateshappa et al.: Experimental and FE studies on buckling of skew plates      5

Table 1 Critical buckling load for isotropic skew plate (aluminum 7075-T6).

Skew angle (α) Aspect ratio (a/b)  Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

Experimental values   FEM (CQUAD8)

Method I  Method II  Method III  Method IV  Method V

0°  1.0  20.00 (0.20)  19.50 (0.22)  19.20 (0.23)  20.20 (0.28)  20.10 (0.30)  20.66
  1.5  8.20 (0.15)  8.00 (0.18)  7.80 (0.16)  8.40 (0.17)  8.30 (0.19)  9.09
  2.0  4.43 (0.10)  4.25 (0.11)  4.05 (0.12)  4.63 (0.13)  4.50 (0.15)  5.08
  2.5  2.75 (0.10)  2.65 (0.11)  2.55 (0.12)  2.95 (0.13)  2.83 (0.14)  3.23
15°  1.0  20.20 (0.21)  20.10 (0.23)  20.00 (0.22)  20.40 (0.25)  20.30 (0.24)  20.93
  1.5  9.05 (0.16)  9.00 (0.16)  8.80 (0.15)  9.25 (0.17)  9.15 (0.18)  9.42
  2.0  4.95 (0.11)  4.75 (0.12)  4.55 (0.13)  5.05 (0.14)  4.98 (0.15)  5.19
  2.5  3.10 (0.10)  3.00 (0.09)  2.90 (0.11)  3.15 (0.12)  3.12 (0.13)  3.26
30°  1.0  24.20 (0.22)  24.00 (0.23)  23.8 (0.24)  24.40 (0.29)  24.25 (0.31)  24.65
  1.5  10.00 (0.17)  9.92 (0.18)  9.70 (0.16)  10.10 (0.18)  10.03 (0.20)  10.35
  2.0  4.95 (0.12)  4.65 (0.13)  4.50 (0.14)  5.04 (0.16)  4.97 (0.17)  5.44
  2.5  2.95 (0.10)  2.85 (0.11)  2.65 (0.12)  3.05 (0.13)  2.99 (0.14)  3.31
45°  1.0  28.10 (0.23)  27.90 (0.25)  27.60 (0.25)  28.30 (0.35)  28.12 (0.36)  28.66
  1.5  11.48 (0.18)  11.10 (0.19)  10.90 (0.18)  11.68 (0.20)  11.50 (0.23)  11.75
  2.0  5.20 (0.13)  5.00 (0.14)  4.75 (0.13)  5.40 (0.16)  5.30 (0.16)  5.62
  2.5  3.10 (0.10)  2.95 (0.10)  2.70 (0.10)  3.20 (0.11)  3.15 (0.12)  3.30

The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.

30
-Standard deviation
-Average values
25
Method I
Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

20 Method III
Method IV
Method V
15 FEM

10

0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0 15 30 45
Skew angle (α) and aspect ratio (a/b)

Figure 6 Critical buckling load for isotropic skew plate (aluminum 7075-T6).

contribution made by extensional stiffness, coupling 5 Conclusions

stiffness, and bending stiffness terms [44]. The
stiffness is maximum when all the plies have 0° fiber
orientation and minimum when all the plies have
90° fiber orientation with respect to the direction
of loading. The critical buckling loads for the other
stacking sequences lie between the previously
mentioned maximum and minimum values.
– The critical buckling load for any stacking sequence
increases as the skew angle increases and becomes
maximum when the skew angle is 45°.
The following conclusions are made based on the present
study.
– For both isotropic skew plates and laminated composite
skew plates, Method IV yields the highest experimental
value for the critical buckling load, and Method III
yields the lowest experimental value. The experimental
values are in good agreement with the finite element
solution, the values given by Method IV being closest

Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy

Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM
6      S.C. Venkateshappa et al.: Experimental and FE studies on buckling of skew plates

Table 2 Critical buckling load for laminated skew plate (α = 0°).

Aspect  Antisymmetric   Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

ratio (a/b) laminate stacking  
Experimental values  FEM (CQUAD8)
sequence  
Method I  Method II  Method III  Method IV  Method V

1.0  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   9.00 (0.19)  8.92 (0.18)  8.91 (0.18)  9.12 (0.20)  9.10 (0.20)  10.11
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]   3.49 (0.07)  3.48 (0.07)  3.47 (0.07)  3.52 (0.08)  3.50 (0.07)  3.88
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]   1.85 (0.04)  1.82 (0.03)  1.79 (0.03)  1.92 (0.04)  1.91 (0.04)  2.14
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   5.50 (0.11)  5.45 (0.11)  5.40 (0.10)  5.56 (0.11)  5.55 (0.11)  6.11
1.5  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   3.90 (0.08)  3.85 (0.07)  3.78 (0.08)  4.00 (0.08)  3.95 (0.08)  4.49
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]   1.42 (0.03)  1.40 (0.03)  1.39 (0.03)  1.50 (0.03)  1.45 (0.03)  1.66
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]   0.83 (0.02)  0.82 (0.02)  0.81 (0.02)  0.85 (0.02)  0.84 (0.02)  0.95
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   2.33 (0.05)  2.30 (0.05)  2.25 (0.05)  2.40 (0.05)  2.35 (0.05)  2.71
2.0  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   2.25 (0.05)  2.20 (0.05)  2.15 (0.04)  2.30 (0.05)  2.28 (0.05)  2.52
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]   0.78 (0.02)  0.77 (0.02)  0.75 (0.02)  0.80 (0.02)  0.79 (0.02)  0.90
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]   0.43 (0.02)  0.42 (0.02)  0.40 (0.02)  0.45 (0.02)  0.44 (0.02)  0.53
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   1.37 (0.03)  1.36 (0.03)  1.35 (0.03)  1.39 (0.03)  1.38 (0.03)  1.52
2.5  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   1.43 (0.03)  1.42 (0.03)  1.41 (0.03)  1.45 (0.03)  1.44 (0.03)  1.61
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]   0.45 (0.02)  0.44 (0.02)  0.42 (0.02)  0.46 (0.02)  0.46 (0.02)  0.57
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]   0.30 (0.01)  0.29 (0.01)  0.29 (0.01)  0.31 (0.01)  0.30 (0.01)  0.34
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   0.70 (0.02)  0.65 (0.02)  0.62 (0.02)  0.80 (0.02)  0.75 (0.02)  0.97

The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.

Table 3 Critical buckling load for laminated skew plate (α = 15°).

Aspect  Antisymmetric   Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

ratio(a/b) laminate stacking  
Experimental values  FEM (CQUAD8)
sequence  
Method I  Method II  Method III  Method IV  Method V

1.0  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   10.62 (0.22)  10.44 (0.22)  10.51 (0.21)  10.94 (0.22)  10.83 (0.22)  12.33
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]  4.12 (0.09)  4.07 (0.08)  4.09 (0.08)  4.22 (0.09)  4.17 (0.09)  4.73
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]  2.18 (0.05)  2.13 (0.05)  2.11 (0.05)  2.30 (0.05)  2.27 (0.05)  2.62
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   6.49 (0.07)  6.38 (0.07)  6.37 (0.07)  6.67 (0.07)  6.60 (0.07)  7.45
1.5  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   4.60 (0.09)  4.50 (0.09)  4.46 (0.09)  4.80 (0.10)  4.70 (0.10)  5.47
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]  1.68 (0.04)  1.64 (0.04)  1.63 (0.04)  1.80 (0.04)  1.73 (0.04)  2.03
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]  0.98 (0.02)  0.96 (0.02)  0.96 (0.02)  1.02 (0.02)  1.00 (0.02)  1.16
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   2.75 (0.09)  2.69 (0.09)  2.66 (0.09)  2.88 (0.09)  2.80 (0.09)  3.31
2.0  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   2.66 (0.09)  2.57 (0.09)  2.54 (0.09)  2.76 (0.09)  2.71 (0.09)  3.07
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]  0.92 (0.03)  0.90 (0.03)  0.89 (0.02)  0.96 (0.02)  0.94 (0.02)  1.11
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]  0.51 (0.02)  0.49 (0.02)  0.47 (0.02)  0.54 (0.02)  0.52 (0.02)  0.65
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   1.62 (0.03)  1.59 (0.03)  1.59 (0.03)  1.67 (0.03)  1.64 (0.03)  1.86
2.5  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   1.69 (0.03)  1.66 (0.03)  1.66 (0.03)  1.74 (0.03)  1.71 (0.03)  1.97
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]  0.53 (0.02)  0.51 (0.02)  0.50 (0.02)  0.55 (0.02)  0.54 (0.02)  0.69
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]  0.35 (0.02)  0.34 (0.02)  0.34 (0.02)  0.37 (0.02)  0.36 (0.02)  0.42
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   0.83 (0.03)  0.76 (0.03)  0.73 (0.03)  0.96 (0.03)  0.89 (0.03)  1.19

The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.

to the finite element solution. The percentage of
discrepancy between the finite element solution and
Method IV is very small and may be neglected for all
practical purposes in the case of isotropic skew plates
(<4%) and is within acceptable limits (10–15%) in the
case of laminated composite skew plates.
– For a particular skew angle, the critical buckling load
decreases as the aspect ratio increases, the rate of
decrease being initially large and becomes smaller
for higher values of aspect ratio. A similar trend is
observed in both isotropic and laminated composite
skew plates for all stacking sequences.

Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy

Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM
 S.C. Venkateshappa et al.: Experimental and FE studies on buckling of skew plates      7

Table 4 Critical buckling load for laminated skew plate (α = 30°).

Aspect  Antisymmetric   Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

ratio (a/b) laminate stacking  
Experimental values  FEM (CQUAD8)
sequence  
Method I  Method II  Method III  Method IV  Method V

1.0  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   11.97 (0.24)  11.77 (0.25)  11.76 (0.24)  12.31 (0.26)  12.19 (0.27)  14.15
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]   4.64 (0.09)  4.59 (0.10)  4.57 (0.10)  4.75 (0.12)  4.69 (0.12)  5.43
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]   2.46 (0.06)  2.40 (0.07)  2.36 (0.06)  2.59 (0.07)  2.56 (0.07)  3.00
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   7.32 (0.15)  7.19 (0.16)  7.13 (0.15)  7.51 (0.16)  7.44 (0.17)  8.55
1.5  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   5.19 (0.10)  5.08 (0.10)  4.99 (0.09)  5.40 (0.11)  5.29 (0.12)  6.29
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]   1.89 (0.04)  1.85 (0.04)  1.83 (0.03)  2.03 (0.05)  1.94 (0.04)  2.33
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]   1.10 (0.02)  1.08 (0.02)  1.07 (0.02)  1.15 (0.03)  1.13 (0.03)  1.33
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   3.10 (0.06)  3.04 (0.06)  2.97 (0.05)  3.24 (0.07)  3.15 (0.06)  3.80
2.0  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   2.99 (0.06)  2.90 (0.06)  2.84 (0.05)  3.11 (0.07)  3.06 (0.07)  3.53
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]   1.04 (0.02)  1.02 (0.02)  0.99 (0.02)  1.08 (0.02)  1.06 (0.02)  1.27
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]   0.57 (0.01)  0.55 (0.01)  0.53 (0.01)  0.61 (0.01)  0.59 (0.01)  0.75
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   1.82 (0.03)  1.80 (0.03)  1.78 (0.03)  1.88 (0.03)  1.85 (0.03)  2.14
2.5  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   1.90 (0.04)  1.87 (0.03)  1.86 (0.03)  1.96 (0.04)  1.93 (0.04)  2.26
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]   0.60 (0.01)  0.58 (0.01)  0.55 (0.01)  0.62 (0.01)  0.61 (0.01)  0.79
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]   0.39 (0.01)  0.38 (0.01)  0.38 (0.01)  0.42 (0.01)  0.40 (0.01)  0.48
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   0.93 (0.02)  0.86 (0.02)  0.82 (0.02)  1.08 (0.02)  1.01 (0.02)  1.36

The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.

Table 5 Critical buckling load for laminated skew plate (α = 45°).

Aspect  Antisymmetric   Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

ratio (a/b) laminate stacking  
Experimental values  FEM (CQUAD8)
sequence  
Method I  Method II  Method III  Method IV  Method V

1.0  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   14.04 (0.28)  13.74 (0.29)  13.54 (0.27)  14.59 (0.29)  14.38 (0.29)  17.19
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]  5.44 (0.11)  5.36 (0.12)  5.27 (0.11)  5.63 (0.12)  5.53 (0.12)  6.60
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]  2.89 (0.06)  2.80 (0.06)  2.72 (0.06)  3.07 (0.07)  3.02 (0.07)  3.65
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   8.58 (0.17)  8.39 (0.16)  8.21 (0.16)  8.90 (0.18)  8.77 (0.18)  10.39
1.5  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   6.08 (0.12)  5.93 (0.12)  5.75 (0.12)  6.40 (0.13)  6.24 (0.12)  7.63
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]  2.22 (0.05)  2.16 (0.04)  2.11 (0.04)  2.40 (0.05)  2.29 (0.05)  2.82
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]  1.29 (0.03)  1.26 (0.03)  1.23 (0.03)  1.36 (0.03)  1.33 (0.03)  1.62
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   3.63 (0.07)  3.54 (0.07)  3.42 (0.07)  3.84 (0.08)  3.71(0.08)  4.61
2.0  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   3.51 (0.07)  3.39 (0.07)  3.27 (0.07)  3.68 (0.07)  3.60 (0.08)  4.29
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]  1.22 (0.02)  1.19 (0.02)  1.14 (0.02)  1.28 (0.02)  1.25 (0.02)  1.54
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]  0.67 (0.02)  0.65 (0.02)  0.61 (0.02)  0.72 (0.02)  0.70 (0.02)  0.91
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   2.14 (0.03)  2.09 (0.02)  2.05 (0.02)  2.22 (0.03)  2.18 (0.03)  2.59
2.5  [+0°/-0°/…/-0°]   2.23 (0.03)  2.19 (0.03)  2.14 (0.03)  2.32 (0.03)  2.28 (0.03)  2.74
  [+45°/-45°/…/-45°]  0.70 (0.02)  0.68 (0.02)  0.64 (0.02)  0.74 (0.02)  0.72 (0.02)  0.97
  [+90°/-90°/…/-90°]  0.46 (0.01)  0.45 (0.01)  0.43 (0.01)  0.50 (0.01)  0.47 (0.01)  0.58
  [0°/90°/…/90°]   1.09 (0.02)  1.00 (0.02)  0.94 (0.02)  1.28 (0.03)  1.19 (0.02)  1.66

The numbers in parentheses represent the standard deviation.

– For a particular aspect ratio, the critical buckling load
is observed to increase with the skew angle, the rate of
increase being initially small and becomes larger for
higher values of skew angle in the case of isotropic skew
plates. A similar trend exists in the case of laminated
composite skew plates for all stacking sequences.
– The critical buckling load is maximum for
antisymmetric angle-ply [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] and
minimum for antisymmetric angle-ply [+90°/-90°/…/
-90°]. The critical buckling loads for the remaining
stacking sequences lie between the aforesaid
maximum and minimum values.

Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy

Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM
8      S.C. Venkateshappa et al.: Experimental and FE studies on buckling of skew plates

10
-Standard deviation
9 -Average values
Method I
8
Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

7 Method III
Method IV
6 Method V
FEM
5

0
[+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ]

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Antisymmetric laminate stacking sequence and aspect ratio (a/b)

Figure 7 Critical buckling load for laminated skew plate (α = 0°).

12.5
-Standard deviation
-Average values
Method I
10.0
Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

Method III
Method IV
7.5 Method V
FEM

5.0

2.5

0 [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ]

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Antisymmetric laminate stacking sequence and aspect ratio (a/b)

Figure 8 Critical buckling load for laminated skew plate (α = 15°).

15.0
-Standard deviation
-Average values
12.5 Method I
Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

Method III
10.0 Method IV
Method V
FEM
7.5

5.0

2.5

0 [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ]

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Antisymmetric laminate stacking sequence and aspect ratio (a/b)

Figure 9 Critical buckling load for laminated skew plate (α = 30°).

Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy

Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM
 S.C. Venkateshappa et al.: Experimental and FE studies on buckling of skew plates      9

18
-Standard deviation
16 -Average values
Method I
14 Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN

Method III
12 Method IV
Method V
10 FEM

0
[+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ]

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Antisymmetric laminate stacking sequence and aspect ratio (a/b)

Figure 10 Critical buckling load for laminated skew plate (α = 45°).

Acknowledgments: The first author would like to thank the a/b Aspect ratio
t Plate thickness
Management and Principal Dr. S.G. Hiremath of GM Institute
NL Number of layers in the laminate
of Technology, Davangere, Karnataka, India, for the kind E Modulus of elasticity of the material of isotropic plate
encouragement and support provided. The second author μ Poisson’s ratio of the material of isotropic plate
would like to thank the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru El Young’s modulus of the lamina in the longitudinal direc-
College of Engineering, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India, for tion
the kind encouragement and support provided. The third Et Young’s modulus of the lamina in the transverse direction
Glt In-plane shear modulus of the lamina
author would like to thank the Management, Principal Dr.
α Skew angle of the plate
N. Ranaprathap Reddy and Head of the Department of Civil θ Fiber orientation angle of the lamina
Engineering Dr. Y. Ramalinga Reddy, Reva Institute of Tech- Pcr Critical buckling load
nology and Management, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, for ν12 Major Poisson’s ratio
the kind encouragement and support provided. W Out-of- plane deflection
Δ In-plane displacement
ε Normal strain
Nomenclature
a Plate length
b Plate width Received July 6, 2013; accepted November 2, 2013

References
[1] Asthon JE. J. Appl. Mech. 1969, 36, 139–140. [12] Fried I, Schmitt K. Aeronaut J. 1972, 76, 166–169.
[2] Durvasula S. AIAA J. 1970, 8, 178–181. [13] Lee YJ, Lin HJ, Lin CC. Compos Struct 1989, 12,133–148.
[3] Prabhu MSS, Durvasula S. Appl. Mech. Res. 1972, 26, 255–271. [14] Liao CL, Lee ZY. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 1993, 36, 1825–1847.
[4] Kennedy JB, Prabhakara MK. Aeronaut. Quart. 1978, 29, 161–174. [15] Krishna Reddy AR, Palaninathan R. Thin Wall Struct. 1995, 22,
[5] Mizusawa T, Kajita T, Naruoka M. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 241–259.
1980, 15, 87–96. [16] Wang S. Compos Struct 1997, 37, 5–19.
[6] Kamal K, Durvasula S. Defense. Sci. J. 1991, 41, 69–77. [17] Sarath Babu C, Kant T. Compos Struct. 1999, 46, 115–124.
[7] Kitipornchai S, Xiang Y, Wang CM, Liew KM. Int. J. Numer. Meth. [18] Hu HT, Tzeng WL. Thin Wall Struct. 2000, 38, 53–77.
Eng. 1993, 36, 1299–1310. [19] Kant T, Babu CS. Compos Struct. 2000, 49, 77–85.
[8] York CB, Williams FW. Comput. Struct. 1995, 56, 625–635. [20] Huyton P, York CB. J. Aerospace Eng. 2001, 14, 92–101.
[9] Jaunky N, Knight Jr. NF, Ambur DR. AIAA J. 1995, 33, 2414–2417. [21] Singha MK, Ramachandra LS, Bandyopadhyay JN. Compos
[10] Wang S. Thin Wall Struct. 1997, 28, 21–41. Struct 2001, 54, 453–458.
[11] Azhari M, Shahidi AR, Saadatpour MM. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2004, [22] Singha MK, Ramachandra LS, Bandyopadhyay JN. AIAA J 2001,
7, 61–70. 39, 1618–1623.

Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy

Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM
10      S.C. Venkateshappa et al.: Experimental and FE studies on buckling of skew plates

[23] Huyton P, York CB. AIAA J. 2002, 1572–1581.
[24] Ganapathi M, Prakash T, Sundararajan N. J. Eng. Mech. 2006,
132, 902–905.
[25] Hsuan-The H, Chia-Hao Y, Fu-Ming L. Composites, Part B 2006,
37, 26–36.
[26] Partha D, Singha MK. Thin Wall Struct. 2006, 44, 937–942.
[27] Chakrabarti A, Sheikh AH. Int. Shipbuilding Prog. 2007, 54,
63–81.
[28] Prakash T, Singha MK, Ganapathi M. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30,
22–32.
[29] Civalek O. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2007, 43, 1013–1022.
[30] Rupesh D, Singha MK. Int. J. Nonlinear Mech. 2009, 44,
138–146.
[31] Thangam Babu PV, Reddy DV. Comput. Struct. 1978, 8, 599–607.
[32] Tham LG, Szeto HY. Comput. Struct. 1990, 36, 729–735.
[33] Mizusawa T, Kajita T. Comput. Struct. 1986, 22, 987–994.
[34] Darvizeh M, Darvizeh A, Sharma CB. Steel Compos. Struct.
2002, 2, 99–122.
[35] Wang X, Tan M, Zhou Y. Thin Wall Struct. 2003, 41, 15–29.
[36] Karami G, Ali Shahpari S, Malekzadeh P. Compos. Struct. 2003,
59, 393–402.
[37] Civalek O. Eng. Struct. 2004, 26, 171–186.
[38] Chailleux A, Hans Y, Verchery G. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 1975, 17,
489–498.
[39] Chai GB, Banks WM, Rhodes J. Compos. Struct. 1991, 19, 41–65.
[40] Chai GB, Hoon KH, Chin SS. Mech. Struct. Mach. 1996, 24,
439–452.
[41] Tuttle M, Singhatanadgid P, Hinds G. Exp. Mech. 1999, 39,
191–201.
[42] Singer J, Arbocz J, Weller T. Buckling Experiments: Experimental
Methods in Buckling of Thin-Walled Structures, Volume 1 & 2,
John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, 2002.
[43] Srinivasa CV, Suresh YJ, Prema Kumar WP. Int. J. Comput. Appl.
2012, 37, 35–47.
[44] Jones RM. Mechanics of Composite Materials, McGraw-Hill:
New York, 1975.

Authenticated | srinivas@gmit.info author's copy

Download Date | 12/22/14 5:40 PM