CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

In the last decades, scientists have made considerable progress in

understanding behavior of composite laminates. It is noticed that anisotropic
multilayered structures posses transverse discontinuous mechanical properties
and higher transverse shear and transverse normal stress deformability. In
order to model such material behavior, two different approaches have arise,
that is equivalent single-layer theories (ESL) and layerwise theories (LWT). 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. Namely, CLPT based on
Kirchhoff's hypothesis, ignores the effect of transverse shear deformation. 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 (HSDT) which involve higher-order terms in Taylor's
expansion of the displacements in the thickness coordinate were developed.
In order to obtain the accurate prediction of stress distribution and
precisely model kinematics of laminated composites, three-dimensional states
of stresses have to be analyzed. In LWT displacement field is defined for each
layer, thus including discrete material and discrete shear effects into the
assumed displacement field. Also, it is noticed that LWT models have some
analyze advantages over the conventional 3D models. First, as LWT model
allows independent in-plane and through the thickness interpolation, the
element stiffness matrix can be computed much faster. Second, even the

1
volume of input data is reduced, LWT are capable of achieving the same level of
solution accuracy as a conventional 3D models.

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE WORK

• To develop a layerwise higher-order shear deformation theory for

laminated composite plates.
• To derive the equations of motion by using the principle of virtual work.
• To obtain analytical solution for the developed model using Navier’s
method for laminated composite plates.
• To determine the bending characteristics of laminated composite plates
for different aspect ratios (a/h), thickness ratios (z/h).
• To verify the accuracy of the proposed theory in predicting the
deflections, stresses of laminated composite plates with the solutions of
the other plate theories available in the literature.

1.2. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

Chapter-1, includes the introduction to laminated composite plates,

objectives of the work and organization of the thesis.

In chapter-2, the literature review along with the introduction to the

literature is presented. In this mainly focused on the work done related to
laminated composite plates, layerwise theory and the higher-order shear

The detailed formulation and derivation of equation of motions are based

on the principle of virtual work which is presented in chapter-3.

Chapter-4 includes the numerical solutions for the bending of laminated

composite plates based on Navier solution for higher order displacement
model is presented.

Chapter-5 includes the detailed results and discussion.

2
Chapter-6 includes the conclusions and scope of work for future

3
 CHAPTER - 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The expanding use of composite structures in lightweight applications

indicates the significance of developing appropriate models in order to predict
their static and damped dynamic response, as well as, to quantify the effect of
parameters, such as thickness and lamination, on this response. Laminated
composite are widely used in civil, mechanical, automobile and marine
engineering applications due to their high flexural stiffness and strength to
weight ratios, impressive damping performance. In addition to this, these
specially designed materials have long service life, corrosion and fatigue
resistance characteristics, higher energy absorption and self damping capacity.
These materials can be easily tailored to desired shape, size and weight.
Moreover, in both thick composite and sandwich composite structures the
static and damped dynamic response is strongly affected by increased inter
laminar shear caused by high thickness and inhomogeneity in properties
through the thickness. However, these effects cannot be adequately captured
by single-layer theories, thus, formulation of specialty layerwise theories is
essential in order to accurately predict the through-thickness displacement,
strain and stress fields.

2.1 STATIC BENDING BEHAVIOUR OF LAMINATED COMPOSITE PLATES

J.N.Reddy (1984), proposed higher-order shear deformation theory of laminated

composite plates which contains the same dependent unknowns as in the first-
order shear deformation theory of Whitney and Pagano but accounts for
parabolic distribution of the transverse shear strains through the thickness of
the plate. He obtained exact closed-form solutions of symmetric cross-ply
laminates and compared the results with three-dimensional elasticity solutions
and first-order shear deformation theory solutions. HSDT proposed by Reddy

4
predicts the deflections and stresses more accurately when compared to the
first-order theory

E. Carrera (1998), presented the dynamic analysis of multilayered plates using

layer-wise mixed theories with respect to existing two-dimensional theories.
They have employed Reissner’s mixed variational equation to derive the
differential equations, in terms of the introduced stress and displacement
variables, that govern the dynamic equilibrium and compatibility of each layer.
Several comparisons are made to their three-dimensional elasticity analysis
and to some available results, related to both layer-wise and equivalent single-
layer theories.

Rameshchandra P. Shimpi, Yuwaraj M. Ghugal (1999), presented a new

layerwise trigonometric shear deformation theory for the analysis of two-
layered cross-ply laminated beams. The number of primary variables in this
theory is even less than that of first-order shear deformation theory, and
moreover, it obviates the need for a shear correction factor. The sinusoidal
function in terms of thickness coordinate is used in this type of displacement
model to account for shear deformation. The novel feature of this theory is that
the transverse shear stress can be obtained directly from the use of
constitutive relationships, satisfying the shear-stress-free boundary conditions
at top and bottom of the beam and satisfying continuity of shear stress at the
interface. The effectiveness of the theory is demonstrated by applying it to a
two-layered cross-ply laminated beam

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.

A.R. Setoodeh, G. Karami (2003), presented a three-dimensional elasticity

based layer-wise finite element method (FEM) to study the static, free vibration
and buckling responses of general laminated thick composite plates. They have
implemented various mixed boundary conditions and free edge conditions
conveniently and accurately. Their methodology is employed in modeling the
laminated composite plates resting on Winkler and Pasternak types of elastic
foundations. Elastic line and point supports are also successfully incorporated
for thick plates. By employing this methodology, they studied the effects of
shear deformation for moderately thick and thick plates. This Layerwise 3D
model is capable of accurately describing the three-dimensional effects, such
as transverse shear and normal strains and geometric discontinuities at the
free edges or at the point supports.

Dorde Vuksanovic, Marina cetkovic (2005), presented solution for static

analysis of simply supported composite plate, based on generalized laminate
plate theory (GLPT). Their mathematical model assumes piece-wise linear
variation of in-plane displacement components and a constant transverse
displacement through the thickness. They also include discrete transverse
shear effect into the assumed displacement field, thus providing accurate
prediction of transverse shear stresses. With assumed displacement field,
linear strain-displacement relation, and constitutive equations of the lamina,
they derived equilibrium equations using principle of virtual displacements.
They followed Navier-type closed form solution of GLPT, is derived for simply
supported plate, made of orthotropic laminae, loaded by harmonic and uniform
distribution of transverse pressure.

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.

C. M. C. Roque et al. (2005), presented trigonometric layerwise deformation

theory for the analysis of free vibration of symmetric composite plates, a
meshless discretization method based on global multiquadric radial basis
functions. The equations of motion and the boundary conditions are derived
and interpolated by radial basis functions and applied to the free vibration
analysis of composite and sandwich plates. They compaired their results with
analytical and numerical solutions which show that the use of trigonometric
layerwise deformation theory discretized with multiquadrics provides very good
solutions for the free vibration of composite and sandwich plates.

M. Cetkovic, Dj. Vuksanovic (2008), proposed a model which assumes piece-

wise linear variation of in-plane displacement components and constant
transverse displacement through thickness of the plate. It also includes the
quadratic variation of transverse shear stresses within each layer of the plate.
Using the assumed displacement field, strain–displacement relations and 3D
constitutive equations of lamina, they derived equations of motion using
Hamilton’s principle. The parametric effects of plate aspect ratio, side-to-
thickness ratio, lamination angle schemes and degree of orthotropy on in-plane
stresses, transverse shearing stresses, displacements, fundamental frequencies
and critical buckling loads are shown. The model proposed by them is capable
of predicting both global and local response, of laminated composite and
sandwich plates accurately, when compared to 3D elasticity and LW models,
while ESL theories, such as classical (CLPT) and first-order shear deformation
7
theories (FSDT) are inapplicable for the analysis of highly anisotropic
laminates.

Theofanis S. Plagianakos, Dimitris A. Saravanos (2008), presented a higher-

order layerwise theoretical framework which enables prediction of the static
response of thick composite and sandwich composite plates. The displacement
field in each discrete layer through the thickness of the laminate includes
quadratic and cubic polynomial distributions of the in-plane displacements, in
addition to the linear approximations assumed by linear layerwise theories.
They formulated in-plane and interlaminar shear stiffness matrices of each
discrete layer and imposed interlaminar shear stress compatibility conditions
to ensure continuity of interlaminar shear stresses through the thickness. They
have used Ritz-type exact solution is further implemented to yield the
structural response of thick composite and sandwich composite plates.

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.

Luciano Demasi (2009), presented a generalized unified formulation for the

case of composite plates and Reissner’s Mixed variational theorem applied to
the case of layerwise theories. In his theory, each layer is independently
modeled. The compatibility of the displacements and the equilibrium of the
transverse stresses between two adjacent layers are enforced a priori. In his
theory, infinite combinations of the orders used for displacements ux, uy, uz
and out-of-plane stresses rzx, rzy, rzz can be freely chosen. In his work
numerical performances and properties of mixed layerwise theories and
8
generalized unified formulation are discussed. The mixed layerwise theories are
compared against mixed higher order theories and mixed zig-zag theories and
several discussions on numerical stability and the effect of the relative orders
used for the stresses and displacements are 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.

J.L. Mantari, C. Guedes Soares (2013), presented generalized layerwise

displacement base higher order shear deformation theory and its finite element
formulation for the bending analysis of symmetric laminated and sandwich
composite plates. Their generalized layerwise HSDT have limited DOFs,
because they are independent of the number of layers, and it accounts for non-
linear and constant variation of in-plane and transverse displacement
respectively through the plate thickness. Their results shows that some of the
new non-polynomial layerwise HSDTs, having the same or even less DOFs, are
more accurate than well-known non-polynomial layerwise HSDTs.

P. Phung-Van, T. Nguyen-Thoi et al. (2014), presented a cell-based smoothed

discrete shear gap method (CS-FEM-DSG3) based on the first-order shear
deformation theory (FSDT) using triangular element for static and dynamics
analyses of Mindlin plates. In their work, the CS-FEM-DSG3 is extended and
incorporated with a layerwise theory for static and free vibration analyses of
composite and sandwich plates. They showed that the results of the CS-FEM-
DSG3 agree well with the exact solutions and results of several other models
and it only needs to use the linear shape functions to give the results which are
much more accurate than those of the layerwise deformation theory using the
isogeometric finite element formulation with the quartic B-spline basis function
in deflection situation.

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

P. Phung-Van, Chien H. Thai et al. (2014), extended the ES-DSG3 and

incorporated with a layerwise theory for static and free vibration analyses of
composite and sandwich plates. In this theory, the behavior of each layer
follows the first-order shear deformation theory and the condition of
displacement continuity is imposed at the interfaces of layers. This hence does
not require shear correction factors and improves significantly the accuracy of
transverse shear stresses. The stiffness formulation of the ES-DSG3 is
performed by using the strain smoothing technique over the smoothing
domains associated with edges of elements for each layer. The accuracy and
reliability of the proposed method are confirmed in several numerical examples.

Shashank Pandey, S. Pradyumna (2015), developed a new layerwise plate

formulation based on a Cº higher-order finite element model for static and free
vibration analyses of laminated composite and sandwich plates. They proposed
layerwise theory which is developed for a three layered composite plates,
assumes higher-order displacement field for middle layer and first-order
displacement field for top and bottom layers. They used an eight-noded
isoparametric element to model the plate. The accuracy of the formulation is
assessed for linear static and free vibration analyses by comparing their results
with available 3D elasticity, finite element and analytical solutions.

In spite of the abundant literature on the subject, the choice of

mechanical response of composite plates under different types of loading in
static environments with general configuration and boundary condition is
critical. In this work, a layerwise HSDT is used to derive governing equations
and the Navier type solution is applied to solve them for simply supported
boundary conditions.
11
 CHAPTER – 3
THEORETICAL FORMULATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF LAYERWISE HSDT

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.

In order to obtain the accurate prediction of stress distribution and

precisely model kinematics of laminated composite plates, three-dimensional
state of stresses have to be analyzed. Despite conventional 3D elasticity theory,
new family of layerwise theories (LWT) have been developed. Namely, in LWT
displacement field is defined for each layer, thus including discrete material
and discrete shear effects into the assumed displacement field.

Fig:3.1: Layerwise kinematics of a n layer laminated composite plate

13
3.2. DISPLACEMENT MODEL

Consider a rectangular plate having width a, length b and thickness h along x,

y and z axes, respectively. The above figure shows the one dimensional
layerwise kinematics of three layered composite. The displacement components
𝑢(2) , 𝑣 (2) and 𝑤 (2) along x, y and z directions, respectively for the middle layer
are expanded using Taylor’s series in terms of thickness coordinate z (2) .

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

𝑤 (k) (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = 𝑤0 (𝑥, 𝑦) ...................Eq.(3.1)

ℎ𝑖
(𝑖)
(∑𝑛𝑖=𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝜃 ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟
2 (𝑚)
Where 𝛷𝑚 = { 𝑖=𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑖 (𝑖)
−(∑1 𝜃 ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟
2 (𝑚)

where 𝑢0 , 𝑣0 and 𝑤0 are the displacements of the middle plane along x, y

and z directions, respectively. The parameters 𝜃𝑥 and 𝜃𝑦 are the rotations of
normal to middle plane of kth layer about x and y axes, respectively (k=1, 2, 3).
and 𝑢0 ∗ , 𝑣0 ∗ , 𝜃𝑥 ∗ and 𝜃𝑦 ∗ are the higher-order terms in the Taylor’s series
expansion and represent higher-order transverse cross sectional deformation
modes of the middle layer.

3.2 Strain Displacements Relations

The Strain vector is given in the following equation:

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

3.4 STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONS

Laminated plate is made of laminae having a fibres oriented at an angle θ, measured

from the material x to global x axis. The stress strain relations of the laminae is
therefore defined in material coordinate system as:

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

C44 = G23; C55 = G13;

Since all quantities should be referred to a single coordinate system, there is a

need to establish transformation relations among stresses and strains in global
system to the corresponding quantities in material (local) coordinate system.
The constitutive matrix in global coordinate system will then be of the form:

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;

3.5 GOVERNING EQUATIONS OF MOTION

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.

The governing equations of motion for Layerwise HSDT will be derived

using the dynamic version of the principle of virtual displacements, i.e.


0
(U  V  K ) dt  0 ................. Eq.(3.5)

Where

18
U = virtual strain energy

V = virtual work done by applied forces

K = virtual kinetic energy

U + V = total potential energy. ................. Eq.(3.6 )

The virtual strain energy, work done and kinetic energy are given by :

 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:

V = -  qw0 dx dy ................ Eq.(3.6.b )

K  0 ................. Eq.(3.6 c)

Where

q = distributed load over the surface of the plate.

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 xk 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 
* * * *

Q x x  Q y sy  S y yz  Q y y  qw

 0 ]dx dy}dt  0
* * * *

...Eq (3.7)

where the in-plane force and moment resultants are defined as :

 *
 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)

By substituting Eq.(3.4) into Eq.(3.8), upon integration these expressions are

rewritten in a matrix form which defines the stress/strain relations of the
laminate are given by :

20
 N   0 
 *  * 
N   0 
     
   A | B | 0  
M    K 
 *   B | D | 0   * 
M   0 | 0 | L   K 
      

   
Q   
Q*   * 
    …Eq (3.9)

Where,

N  [Nx N y N xy ]t ; N*  [N*x N *y N*xy ]t

N, N* are called the in-plane force resultants

M  [Mx M y M xy ]t ; M*  [M*x M*y M*xy ]t

M, M* are called as moment resultants

Q  [Qx Q y ]t ; Q*  [Sx S y Q*x Q*y ]t

Q, Q* denotes the transverse force resultants

And also

k  [k x k y k xy ]t ; k *  [k x* k *y k xy* ]t

  [x y ]t ;  *  [ xz  yz x* y* ]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)

The elements of the B matrix are obtained by replacing H1 by H2, H3 by H4 and

H5 by H6 in the A matrix.

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

3.6 EQUATIONS OF MOTION IN TERMS OF DISPLACEMENTS

The equations of motion (3.7) can be expressed in terms of displacements

uo, v0, w0, x,y,u0*,v0*,x*,y* by substituting for the force and moment
resultants. For homogenous laminated composite plates, the equations of
motion in terms of displacements are expressed as

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   xy 
 x  x y 
2
      
  2 u 0*  2 v0    2θ x    θy   2  2θ y 
  B13   θ x    B14  θ x
* 2 2 *

 A16     B11    B12 

 xy x 2   x 2   xy   xy x 2  x 2
      
 2θ y   2 θ x*  2 θ y* 
  A   u 0   A   v 0   A   u 0   v 0 
* 2 2 2 2
 B15  B16   31   32  2  33 
xy  xy
 x 2   xy   y   y
2
xy 
  2 u 0*    2 v 0*    2 u 0*  2 v0 
*
 2θ x  2θ y
 A34    A35    A36     B31  B
 xy   y 2   y 2 xy  xy
32
y 2
    
  2θ x  2θ y   2θ x
*
 2θ y
*
  2 θ x*  2θ y* 
 B33     B34  B35  B36   
 y 2 xy   x y  y 2  y 2  xy 
   
0 . ...............................Eq.(3.11a)

  2u0    2 v0    2 u 0  2 v0    2 u 0*    2 v0* 
δv 0 : A21    A22    A23     A    A25  
  y 2   y 2 xy  24    y 2 
 xy       xy   
  2 u 0*  2 v0
*
  2θ x  2θ y   2θ x  2θ y   2θ x
*

 A26     B 21  B 22  B     B
 y 2 xy  xy y 2
23
 y 2 xy 
24
xy
  
 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 xy   x   x y   xy x
2

 
  2 u 0*    2 v0*    2 u 0*  2 v0 
*
 2θ x  2θ y
 A34    A35    A36     B31  B32
 x 2   xy   xy x 2  x 2 xy
    
  2θ x  2θ y   2θ y
*
  2 θ x*  2 θ y* 
  B34  θ x  B35
2 *

 B33    B36   
 xy x 2   x 2
 x  y  xy  x 2 
   
0 ...........................................Eq.(3.11b)

24
  θx  2 w 0   θy  2 w 0   2u 0 *   2v 0 * 
δw 0 : L 11     L 12    L 13    L 14  
 x 2   x  xy   x   x 
 x       
 3θ x *   3θ y *   θx  2 w 0   θy  2 w 0 
 L 15    L 16   L    L 22  
 x   x  21  y  xy   y  y 2 
       
 2u 0 *   2v 0 *   3θ x *   3θ 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 yx y 2

 2u0   2v0    2u 0  2v0    2 u 0*    2 v 0* 

δθ x : B11    B 21 
  x y
  B 31 
  xy  x 2
 
 B 41    B 51  
 x 2   xy 
 x
2
        
  2 u 0*  2v0    2θ x    θy    θy   2 * 
  D 13   θ x    D 14   θ x
* 2 2 2

 B 61     D 11    D 12  
 xy x 2   x 2   xy   xy 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  xy 
 xy  16
 xy x 2   xy 
23
   
   
  2 u 0*    2 v0*    2 u 0*  2v0
*
   2θ x    2θ y 
 B 43    B 53    B 63     D 31    
 xy   y 2   y 2 xy   xy   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   xy   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

   0 ........Eq.(3 .11d)

 x y 
 

25
   2u 0   2v    2u  2 v0    2 u 0*    2 v 0* 
δθ y : B12    B22  20   B32  20    B42    
 xy   B52  y 2 
 xy   y   y xy     
  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 xy   x 2   xy   xy 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   xy   xy x 2  x 2 xy
31 32

  2θ x  2θ y   2θ x
*
 2θ y
*
  2θ x *  2θ y * 
 D33   2   D34  D  D   
 xy x   x 2 35
x y
36
 xy 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  xy  43  xy 2  44  2  45  xy 
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 
 xy x
2 
x
2 xy  xy 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  
xy  xy x
2   xy   y 2   y 2 xy 
       
 2u *   2v *    2u *  v 0 
2 * 2
 θx
2
 θy
 A 64
 0 
 A 65
 0 
 A 66
 0
  B 61  B 62
 xy   y 2   y 2 xy  xy y
2
     
  2θ  θy 
2   2θ *    2θ *    2θ *  2θ * 
 B 63  x
   B 64 
x B  y   B 66
 x

y 
 y 2 xy   xy  65 
 y  2  
 y 2 xy 
       
 
 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  xy   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   xy 
 y xy   xy   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 xy   x 2   xy
 xy 
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 
 xy x   x   xy   xy
  2θ x    2θ y    2 θ x  2θ y    2θ x *    2θ y * 
 B61    B62
2 
   B63    
 B64  2 
  B65  
  xy   xy 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   
 xy
 x 
2
  x   y  

    L 3θ    Ny N xy 

*T *T

 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  xy  x 2   B44  x 2   B54  xy 
*
δθx : B14  2 
 x   xy       
  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   xy   xy 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   
xy 
46   56  2  66 
 y
2
 xy   y   y
2
xy 

 2θ x   2θ y    2θ  2θ y   2 *   2θ y * 
 D61  D62  2   D63  2x    D64   θ x   D65  
xy  y   y     xy   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

 3 L55 3θ x  L56 3θ y    0 ........Eq. (3.11h)

* *
 x  y 
 

28
   2u   2   2 2   2 *  2v * 
δθ y : B15 
* 0   B   v0   B   u0   v0   B   u0   B  0 
 xy  25  2  35  2 xy  45  xy  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 xy   xy   y 2  y 2 xy   xy 
         
  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 xy   x 2   xy   xy 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  xy   xy 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 
 xy x 2   x 2  65  xy   xy  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 
 

The Eq. (3.11) describes 9 second order partial differential equations in

terms of 9 generalized displacements. Once the displacements are determined
by solving Eq. (3.11) for a given problem, the strains and stresses can be
computed using Eq. (3.4) and (3.5).

29
 CHAPTER – 4

BENDING ANALYSIS OF LAMINATED COMPOSITE PLATES

USING LAYERWISE HSDT

In this chapter, analytical solutions are developed for laminated

composite plates based on the layerwise higher-order displacement model. The
closed form solutions are obtained for simply supported rectangular plates
using Navier’s method.

4.1 NAVIER SOLUTIONS FOR LAMINATED COMPOSITE PLATES USING

DISPLACEMENT MODEL

In the Navier method the displacements are expanded in a double Fourier

series in terms of unknown parameters. The choice of the trigonometric
functions in the series is restricted to those which satisfy the boundary
conditions of the problem. Substitution of the displacement expansions in the
governing equations result in an invertible set of algebraic equations among the
parameters of the displacement expansion.

The simply supported boundary conditions for the higher-order shear

deformation theory are:

At edges x = 0 and x = a

v0 = 0, w0 = 0, y = 0, Mx = 0, v0* = 0, y* = 0, Mx* = 0, Nx = 0, Nx* = 0,

…….. Eq. (4.1a)

At edges y = 0 and y = b

u0= 0, w0 = 0, x = 0, My = 0, u0* = 0, x* = 0, My* = 0, Ny = 0, Ny* = 0,

..…. Eq. (4.1b)

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)
m1 n 1

 
w0 ( x, y, t )   W mn (t ) sin x sin y ….. Eq. (4.2c)
m1 n 1

 
 x ( x, y , t )    X mn (t ) cos x sin y ….. Eq. (4.2d)
m1 n 1

 
 y ( x, y , t )   Y mn (t ) sin x cos y ….. Eq. (4.2e)
m1 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 )  
m1 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)
m1 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

Substitution of Eq. (4.2) in governing equation of motions in

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  
*

D14 2  D36  2  3L15  X mn*  D15  D36 Ymn*   0 ....Eq. (4.3d)

B12  B33 U mn  B 33  2  B22  2  Vmn  L 22 Wmn   D 21  D33  X mn  

D 33  2  D22  2  L22 Ymn  B42  B63 U mn*  
B63 2  B52  2  2L24 Vmn*  D36  D24  X mn*  
D 36  2  D 25  2  3L26 Ymn
*
0  ....Eq.(4.3e)

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)

 A51  A63 U mn  A 63  2 

 A52  2 Vmn  2 L42 Wmn   B 51  B63  X mn  
B 63 
 2  B52  2  2 L42 Ymn   A54  A66 U mn
*
 
A66  2  A55  2  4 L44 Vmn
*

 B54  B66  X mn
*
 
B66  2  B55  2  6 L46 Y *
mn 0 ....Eq. (4.3g)

B14  2  B36  2 U mn  B 24  B36  Vmn   3L51 Wmn   D 41 2  D63  2  3L51  X mn 

D 42  D63 Ymn   B44 2  B66  2  6 D53
s
U *
mn  B54  B66 Vmn
*
 
D 44  2  D66  2  9 L55 X *
mn  D45  D66 Ymn
*
  0 ....Eq. (4.3h)

B15  B36 U mn   B36  2  B25  2  Vmn  3L 62 Wmn   D 51  D63  X mn  

D 63  2  D52  2  3L62 Ymn  B45  B66 U mn*  
B66 2  B55  2  6L64 Vmn*  D54  D66  X mn*  
D 66  2  D55  2  9 D66 s Ymn
*
0  ....Eq. (4.3i)

and will show that the Navier’s solutions exists only if the following coefficients
become zero:

Collecting the coefficients Umn, Vmn, Wmn, Xmn, Ymn, U mn

* *
, Vmn *
, X mn *
, Ymn Eq. (4.3)

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 *

s11 = a11 ∗ 𝛼 2 + a66 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s12 = (a12 + 66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s13 = 0; s14 = b11 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b66 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s15 = (b12 + b66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s16 = a14 ∗ 𝛼 2 + a36 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s17 = (a13 + a36) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s18 = b14 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b36 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s19 = (b15 + b36) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s21 = (a21 + a66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s22 = a66 ∗ 𝛼 2 + a22 ∗ 𝛽 2 ;

s23 = 0; s24 = (b12 + b66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s25 = b66 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b22 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s26 = (a24 + a36) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s27 = a36 ∗ 𝛼 2 + a25 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s28 = (b24 + b36) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s29 = b36 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b25 ∗ 𝛽 2 ;

s31 = 0; s32 = 0;

34
s33 = l11 ∗ 𝛼 2 + l22 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s34 = l11 ∗ 𝛼;

s35 = l22 ∗ 𝛽; s36 = 2 ∗ l13 ∗ 𝛼;

s37 = 2 ∗ l24 ∗ 𝛽;

s38 = 3 ∗ l15 ∗ 𝛼; s39 = 3 ∗ l26 ∗ 𝛽;

s41 = b11 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b66 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s42 = (b21 + b66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s43 = l11 ∗ 𝛼; s44 = d11 ∗ 𝛼 2 + d33 ∗ 𝛽 2 + l11;

s45 = (d12 + d33) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s46 = b41 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b63 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 2 ∗ l13;

s47 = (b51 + b63) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s48 = d14 ∗ 𝛼 2 + d36 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 3 ∗ l15;

s49 = (d15 + d36) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s51 = (b12 + b66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s52 = b66 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b22 ∗ 𝛽 2 ;

s53 = l22 ∗ 𝛽; s54 = (d21 + d33) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s55 = d66 ∗ 𝛼 2 + d22 ∗ 𝛽 2 + l22; s56 = (b42 + b63) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s57 = b63 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b52 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 2 ∗ l24; s58 = (d24 + d36) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s59 = d36 ∗ 𝛼 2 + d25 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 3 ∗ l26;

s61 = a41 ∗ 𝛼 2 + a63 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s62 = (a42 + a63) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s63 = 2 ∗ l31 ∗ 𝛼; s64 = b41 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b63 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 2 ∗ l31;

s65 = (b42 + b63) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s66 = a44 ∗ 𝛼 2 + a66 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 4 ∗ l33;

s67 = (a45 + a66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s68 = b44 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b66 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 6 ∗ l35;

s69 = (b45 + b66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

35
s71 = (a51 + a63) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s72 = a63 ∗ 𝛼 2 + a52 ∗ 𝛽 2 ;

s73 = 2 ∗ l42 ∗ 𝛽; s74 = (b51 + b63) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s75 = b63 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b52 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 2 ∗ l42; s76 = (a54 + a66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s77 = a66 ∗ 𝛼 2 + a55 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 4 ∗ l44; s78 = (b54 + b66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s79 = b66 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b55 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 6 ∗ l46;

s81 = b14 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b36 ∗ 𝛽 2 ; s82 = (b24 + b36) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s83 = 3 ∗ l51 ∗ 𝛼; s84 = d41 ∗ 𝛼 2 + d63 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 3 ∗ l51;

s85 = (d42 + d63) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s86 = b44 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b66 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 6 ∗ l53;

s87 = (b54 + b66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s88 = d44 ∗ 𝛼 2 + d66 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 9 ∗ l55;

s89 = (d45 + d66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s91 = (b15 + b36) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽; s92 = b36 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b25 ∗ 𝛽 2 ;

s93 = 3 ∗ l62 ∗ 𝛽; s94 = (d51 + d63) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s95 = d63 ∗ 𝛼 2 + d52 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 3 ∗ l62; s96 = (b45 + b66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s97 = b66 ∗ 𝛼 2 + b55 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 6 ∗ l64; s98 = (d54 + d66) ∗ 𝛼 ∗ 𝛽;

s99 = d66 ∗ 𝛼 2 + d55 ∗ 𝛽 2 + 9 ∗ l66;

 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 

S S 22 S 23 S 24 S 25 S 26 S 27 S 28 S 29 
 21
 S31 S32 S33 S34 S35 S36 S37 S38 S39 
 
 S 41 S 42 S 43 S 44 S 45 S 46 S 47 S 48 S 49 
S   S51 S52 S53 S54 S55 S56 S57 S58 S59 
 
 S61 S62 S63 S64 S65 S66 S67 S68 S69 
S S72 S73 S74 S75 S76 S77 S78 S79 
 71 
 S81 S82 S83 S84 S85 S86 S87 S88 S89 
S S99 
 91 S92 S93 S94 S95 S96 S97 S98

36
 CHAPTER-5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In order to establish the usefulness of the present layerwise higher-order

shear deformation theories to model both thick and thin laminated composite
plates, computer programs are developed in C language for layerwise higher-
order displacement functions.

The effect of side-to-thickness ratio, aspect ratio and thickness ratio of

laminated composite plates are studied. The following material properties are
used for laminated composite plates

Material: Graphite Epoxy

Young's Modulus: E1=25 Gpa, E2=1Gpa

Shear Modulus: G12=G13=0.5Gpa, G23=0.2 Gpa

Poisson's Ratio: v12=v23=v13= 0.25

The deflection, internal stress-resultants and stresses are presented here in

non-dimensional form using the following multipliers

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.

 The Non-dimensionalized maximum deflection and stresses for three-

layer (00/900/00) simply supported cross ply square plate under
sinusoidal transverse load (a=b) are tabulated in table 5.1. It is evident
from Table 5.1 that the present method gives better results for shear
stresses than in normal stresses for thick (a/h = 4) plates. Additionally,
37
 for a/h≥10, the proposed theory performs best in terms of normal and
shear stresses with a global average error of 4%, and this error decreases
with the increase of a/h ratio.
 The Non-dimensionalized maximum deflection and stresses for three-
layer (00/900/00) simply supported cross ply rectangle plate under
sinusoidal transverse load (b=3a) are tabulated in table 5.2. It is evident
from Table 5.2 that the present method gives better results for shear
stresses than in normal stresses for thick (a/h = 4) plates. For thick (a/h
= 4) plates, the global average error is maximum 8.3% and for higher a/h
ratios, it decreases, and for moderately thick (a/h = 10) plates, it reaches
7.5%.
 The Non-dimensionalized maximum deflection and stresses for four layer
(00/900/00/900) simply supported cross ply square plate under
sinusoidal transverse load (a=b) are tabulated in table 5.3 which shows
that the present results are in good agreement with 3D-elasticity solution
in deflection, and normal stresses. However, there is a considerable
difference with 3D-elasticy solution for τ̅̅̅̅
xz stress for a/h = 3. Moreover,

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)

Source a/h Z/h (w

̅) ̅̅̅̅𝑥 )
(𝜎 ̅̅̅̅̅
(σy ) (τ̅̅̅̅
xy ) (τ̅̅̅̅
xz )
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(τyz )

0.5 0.823 0.497 -0.0536

Present 1.9434 0.245 0.201
-0.5 -0.087 -0.751 0.0540

3D-Elasticity 4 0.5 0.755 0.556 -0.0505

- 0.282 0.217
(1970) -0.5 -0.0921 -0.7867 0.0505

0.5 0.775 0.502 -0.0516

Karama (2009) 1.9440 0.220 0.191
-0.5 -0.0896 -0.804 0.0521

0.5 0.588 0.276 -0.0288

Present 0.7342 0.314 0.115
-0.5 -0.0843 -0.739 0.0290

3D-Elasticity 0.5 0.590 0.288 -0.0289

10 - 0.357 0.123
(1970) -0.5 -0.0852 -0.7632 0.0291

0.5 0.576 0.272 -0.0281

Karama (2009) 0.7230 0.272 0.108
-0.5 -0.0890 -0.767 0.0281

0.5 0.551 0.206 -0.0233

Present 0.5113 0.331 0.090
-0.5 -0.0844 -0.0741 0.0235
20
3D-Elasticity 0.5 0.552 0.210 -0.0234
-0.5 - 0.385 0.094
(1970) -0.0841 -0.752 0.0234

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

0.5 0.541 0.184 -0.0217

Present 0.4450 0.336 0.082
-0.5 -0.0836 -0.0745 0.0216

3D-Elasticity 0.5 0.541 0.185 -0.0216

50 - 0.393 0.084
(1970) -0.5 -0.0793 -0.0739 0.0215

0.5 0.540 0.183 -0.0216

Karama (2009) 0.4440 0.289 0.079
-0.5 -0.0841 -0.0762 0.0216

0.5 0.539 0.181 -0.0214

Present 0.4353 0.337 0.081
-0.5 -0.0801 -0.0714 0.0213

3D-Elasticity 0.5 0.539 0.181 -0.0213

100 - 0.395 0.083
(1970) -0.5 -0.0752 -0.0737 0.0212

0.5 0.538 0.180 -0.0213

Karama (2009) 0.4350 0.289 0.078
-0.5 -0.0823 -0.0741 0.0213

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 )

Present 2.6933 1.165 0.103 -0.0280 0.333 0.037

3D-Elasticity
2.820 1.100 0.119 -0.0281 0.387 0.033
(1970)

Karama (2009) 4 2.6838 1.097 0.104 -0.0272 0.298 0.036

HSDT (1985) 2.6411 1.036 0.103 -0.26 0.272 0.035

FSDT (1985) 2.3620 0.6 0.093 -0.020 0.188 0.031

Present 0.8922 0.719 0.041 -0.012 0.369 0.018

3D-Elasticity
0.9190 0.725 0.044 -0.0123 0.420 0.015
(1970)
Karama (2009) 0.8768 0.704 0.040 -0.0117 0.319 0.018
10
HSDT (1985) 0.8622 0.692 0.040 -0.012 0.286 0.017

FSDT (1985) 0.8030 0.621 0.037 -0.012 0.189 0.014

Present 0.6030 0.648 0.029 -0.0092 0.375 0.015

3D-Elasticity
20 0.6100 0.650 0.030 -0.0093 0.434 0.012
(1970)
Karama (2009) 0.5977 0.644 0.029 -0.0092 0.323 0.014

42
Touratier (1991) 0.5958 0.642 0.029 -0.0091 0.305 0.014

Present 0.5203 0.627 0.03 -0.0085 0.376 0.014

3D-Elasticity
50 0.5200 0.628 0.026 -0.0084 0.439 0.011
(1970)
Karama (2009) 0.5190 0.626 0.026 -0.0084 0.323 0.013

Present 0.5085 0.624 0.025 -0.0083 0.323 0.013

3D-Elasticity
0.5080 0.624 0.025 -0.0083 0.439 0.011
(1970) 100
Karama (2009) 0.5080 0.62 0.025 -0.0083 0.323 0.013

HSDT (1985) 0.5070 0.62 0.03 -0.0083 0.289 0.013

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 )

Present 1.921 0.740 0.635 0.048 0.254 0.269

3D-Elasticity
1.954 0.720 0.663 0.047 0.219 0.91
(1970) 4
Karama (2009) 1.919 0.699 0.637 0.046 0.226 0.253

HSDT (1985) 1.893 0.665 0.632 0.044 0.206 0.239

Present 0.730 0.561 0.395 0.028 0.335 0.177
3D-Elasticity
0.743 0.559 0.401 0.028 0.301 0.196
(1970) 10
Karama (2009) 0.724 0.553 0.393 0.027 0.294 0.163

HSDT (1985) 0.715 0.546 0.389 0.027 0.264 0.153

Present 0.511 0.543 0.306 0.023 0.362 0.142
3D-Elasticity
0.517 0.543 0.308 0.023 0.328 0.156
(1970) 20
Karama (2009) 0.509 0.541 0.306 0.023 0.316 0.121

44
HSDT (1985) 0.506 0.539 0.304 0.023 0.283 0.123

Present 0.435 0.539 0.271 0.021 0.372 0.128

3D-Elasticity
0.439 0.539 0.276 0.022 0.337 0.141
(1970) 100
Karama (2009) 0.435 0.538 0.270 0.021 0.324 0.118
HSDT (1985) 0.434 0.538 0.270 0.021 0.290 0.112

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 )

Present 2.513 0.823 0.129 -0.0301 0.245 0.039

3D-Elasticity
2.801 0.755 0.131 -0.0302 0.282 0.037
(1970)

Karama (2009) 2.38 0.775 0.156 -0.0312 0.220 0.037

4
HSDT (1985) 2.623 0.734 0.194 -0.286 0.272 0.037
FSDT (1985) 2.3620 0.437 0.165 -0.029 0.188 0.036

Present 0.883 0.588 0.136 -0.013 0.314 0.019

3D-Elasticity
0.857 0.590 0.138 -0.0137 0.357 0.025
(1970)
Karama (2009) 0.8618 0.576 0.130 -0.0129 0.272 0.019
10
HSDT (1985) 0.8532 0.568 0.131 -0.013 0.275 0.018

FSDT (1985) 0.7926 0.513 0.132 -0.013 0.253 0.017

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

Touratier (1991) 0.5958 0.541 0.124 -0.0168 0.393 0.015

Present 0.5183 0.540 0.129 -0.0183 0.289 0.016

3D-Elasticity
50 0.5185 0.541 0.124 -0.0171 0.336 0.013
(1970)
Karama (2009) 0.5165 0.539 0.127 -0.0190 0.395 0.015

Present 0.5036 0.538 0.123 -0.0187 0.289 0.015

3D-Elasticity
0.5051 0.539 0.123 -0.0187 0.337 0.012
(1970) 100
Karama (2009) 0.5036 0.539 0.123 -0.0187 0.282 0.016

HSDT (1985) 0.5025 0.538 0.125 -0.0187 0.245 0.014

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

-0.8 Z/h ratio

̅̅̅̅̅𝒙 ) through the laminate thickness Z/h for a

Fig 5.1 Variation of non dimesionalized normal stresses (𝝈
simply supported cross-ply square plate under sinusoidal transverse load

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

̅̅̅̅̅𝒙 ) Vs no of layers for simply supported

Fig 5.3 Non-dimensionalized max. transverse normal stress (𝝈
cross-ply laminated square plate

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

Fig 5.5 Non dimensionalised normal stresses, ̅̅̅

𝛔𝐱 versus aspect ratio (a/b) for different modulus ratios
(E1/E2) for simply supported cross-ply laminated square plate

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

Fig 5.6 Non dimensionalised normal stresses, ̅̅̅

𝛔𝐲 Vs aspect ratio (a/b) for different modulus ratios
(E1/E2) for simply supported cross-ply laminated square plate

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

̅̅̅̅̅𝒙 ) Vs aspect ratio (a/b) for different modulus ratios

Fig 5.8 Non dimensionalised normal stresses, (𝝈
(E1/E2) for simply supported cross-ply laminated square plate

55
 CHAPTER-6

CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK

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

 The theories can be extended to multidirectional layers with different

types of loading.
 These theories can be extended for problems of shells, FGM plates.
 Analytical formulations and solutions can be developed for different
boundary conditions.

57
 REFERENCES

1. Reddy JN. A simple higher-order theory for laminated composite

plates. J ApplMech 1984;51:745–52.
2. Carrera E. Mixed layer-wise models for multilayered plate analysis.
ComposStruct 1998;43(1):57–70.
3. Shimpi RP, Ghugal YM. A layerwise trigonometric shear
deformation theory for two layered cross-ply laminated beams. J
Reinf Plast Compos1999;18:1516–42
4. Ferreira AJM, Roque CMC, Martins PALS. Analysis of composite
plates using higher-order shear deformation theory and a finite
point formulation based on the multiquadric radial basis function
method. Composites: Part B 2003;34:627–36.
5. G. Karami and A.R. Setoodeh, Static, free vibration and buckling
analysis of anisotropic thick laminated composite plates on
distributed and point elastic supports using a 3-D layer-wise FEM,
J. of Engineering Structures, 2004;26(2):211-220.
6. Dorde Vuksanovic, Marina cetkovic, Bending, free vibrations and
buckling of laminated composite and sandwich plates using a
layerwise displacement model. Composite Structures 88 (2009)
219–227
7. Ferreira AJM. Analysis of composite plates using a layerwise shear
deformation theory and multiquadrics discretization. Mech Adv
Mater Struct 2005;12(2):99–112.
8. Roque CMC, Ferreira AJM, Jorge RMN. Modeling of composite and
sandwich plates by a trigonometric layerwise deformation theory
and radial basis functions. Composites: Part B 2005;36:559–72.
9. M. Cetkovic´, Dj. Vuksanovic Bending, free vibrations and buckling
of laminated composite and sandwich plates using a layerwise
displacement model Composite Structures 88 (2009) 219–227

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-

Xuan b,c, Static and free vibration analyses of composite and

sandwich plates by an edge-based smoothed discrete shear gap
method (ES-DSG3) using triangular elements based on layerwise
theory Composites: Part B 60 (2014) 227–238
20. Shashank Pandey, S. Pradyumna, A new C0 higher-order layerwise
finite element formulation for the analysis of laminated and
sandwich plates Composite Structures 131 (2015) 1–16
21. Dinghe Li, Yan Liu, Xiong Zhang. A layerwise/solid-element
method of the linear static and free vibration analysis for the
composite sandwich plates. Compos Part B: Eng 2013;52:187–98.
22. Shariyat M, Alipour MM. Semi-analytical consistent zigzag-
elasticity formulations with implicit layerwise shear correction
factors for dynamic stress analysis of sandwich circular plates with
FGM layers. Compos Part B: Eng 2013;49:43–63.
23. Robbins Jr DH, Reddy JN. Modeling of thick composites using a
layerwise laminate theory. Int J Numer Methods Eng
1993;36(4):655–77.
24. Tahani M. Analysis of laminated composite beams using layerwise
displacement theories. Compos Struct 2007;79:535–47.
25. Kant T, Swaminathan K. Analytical solutions for static analysis of
laminated and composite and sandwich plates based on refined
higher order shear deformation theory. Compos Struct
2002;56:329–43.
26. Kant T, Swaminathan K. Analytical solutions for static analysis of
laminated and composite and sandwich plates based on refined
higher order shear deformation theory. Compos Struct
2002;56:329–43.
27. Fiedler L, Lacarbonara W, Vestroni F. A generalized higher-order
theory for multi-layered, shear-deformable composite plates. Acta

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