This article was downloaded by:[Kant, Tarun]

On: 8 January 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 789308335]
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Thermal Stresses
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713723680
An Efficient Semi-Analytical Model for Composite and
Sandwich Plates Subjected to Thermal Load
Tarun Kant
a
; Sandeep S. Pendhari
a
; Yogesh M. Desai
a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai,
Mumbai, India
Online Publication Date: 01 January 2008
To cite this Article: Kant, Tarun, Pendhari, Sandeep S. and Desai, Yogesh M.
(2008) 'An Efficient Semi-Analytical Model for Composite and Sandwich Plates
Subjected to Thermal Load', Journal of Thermal Stresses, 31:1, 77 - 103
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/01495730701738264
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01495730701738264
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

Journal of Thermal Stresses, 31: 77103, 2008
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0149-5739 print/1521-074X online
DOI: 10.1080/01495730701738264
AN EFFICIENT SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE
AND SANDWICH PLATES SUBJECTED TO THERMAL LOAD
Tarun Kant, Sandeep S. Pendhari, and Yogesh M. Desai
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai, India
A simple, semi-analytical model with mixed (stresses and displacements) fundamental
variables starting from the exact three dimensional (3D) governing partial differential
equations (PDEs) of laminated composite and sandwich plates for thermo-mechanical
stress analysis has been presented in this paper. The plate is assumed simply supported
on all four edges. Two different temperature variations through the thickness of
plates are considered for numerical investigation. The accuracy and the effectiveness
of the proposed model are assessed by comparing numerical results from the present
investigation with the available elasticity solutions. Some new results for sandwich
laminates are also presented for future reference.
Keywords: Composites; Laminates; Sandwich; Semi-analytical; Thermal load
INTRODUCTION
Laminated composite and sandwich plates are extensively used due to their
high specic strength and high specic stiffness. With the advancement of the
technology of laminated materials, it is now possible to use these materials in
high temperature situations. However, composites have no yield-limit, unlike metals
and have a variety of failure modes, such as ber failure, matrix cracking, inter
ber failure and delamination, which give rise to a damage growing in service.
Moreover, composite and sandwich plates are subjected to signicant thermal
stresses due to different thermal properties of the adjacent laminas and therefore
accurate predictions of thermally induced deformations and stresses represent a
major concern in design of conventional structures.
Behavior of composite and sandwich plates can be characterized by a complex
3D state of stress. In many instances, these laminated structural elements are
moderately thick in relation to their span dimensions. For thick or moderately thick
structural elements, the normal to the mid surface is distorted due to inhomogeneity
in the transverse shear moduli, which is smaller than in-plane Youngs moduli,
Received 30 April 2007; accepted 11 August 2007.
Partial support of USIF Indo-US Collaborative Sponsored Research Project IND104 (95IU001)
is gratefully acknowledged. Suggestions of the reviewers, which have been incorporated in the nal
version of the paper, are very much appreciated.
Address correspondence to Tarun Kant, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India. E-mail: tkant@civil.iitb.ac.in
77
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

78 T. KANT ET AL.
resulting in signicant effects of transverse shear deformation and also transverse
normal deformation.
The 3D elasticity analysis of laminates with a large number of orthotropic/
isotropic layers becomes very complex [13]. Therefore, researchers have their
attention on two dimensional (2D) analytical models by introducing some
assumptions concerning the deformation of the transverse normals that are
dependent on the nature of problem under consideration.
Classical lamination plate theory (CLPT) is based on the main assumption
that the laminate is thin. As a consequence it is assumed that the normal to
the laminate mid surface remains straight, inextensible and normal during the
deformation. Maulbetsch [4] seems to have written the rst paper, available in the
literature, on thermal stresses in isotropic plates and Pell [5] is the rst who studied
thermal deections of anisotropic thin plates under arbitrary temperature loading.
On the other hand, the rst-order shear deformation theory (FOST), based on
Reissner [6] and Mindlin [7] approaches, considers effects of the transverse shear
deformation by assuming it to be constant through the thickness of laminates, has
been used by Reddy and Chao [8], Weinstein et al. [9], Rolfes et al. [10] and Argyris
and Tenek [11]. Due to the constant shear assumption, FOST is inadequate to
account for accurate shear distortion and a ctitious shear correction coefcient to
correct the shear strain energy is normally used. Further, several higher-order shear
deformation theories (HOSTs) with Taylor series-type expansion in the thickness
direction for the displacements have been developed for composite and sandwich
plates under thermal loading [1214].
CLPT, FOST and HOST are the equivalent single layer (ESL) theories in
which slope discontinuity in the inplane displacements and shear stress continuity
at the laminae interfaces are not satised. To overcome the discrepancy of ESL,
discrete layer theories (DLTs) and zig-zag theories have been developed for
thermomechanical analysis of composite and sandwich plates [15, 16].
The present article which starts from 3D equations and does not make any
kinetic or kinematic assumptions is mainly concerned with the formulation of a two-
point boundary value problem (BVP) governed by a set of coupled rst-order ODEs,
d
dz
y(z) = A(z)y(z) +p(z) (1)
in the interval h,2 z h,2 with any half of the dependent variables prescribed
at the edges z = h,2 under thermal loading. Here, y(z) is an n-dimensional vector
of fundamental variables whose number (n) equals the order of PDE, A(z) is a
n n coefcient matrix (which is a function of material properties in the thickness
direction) and p(z) is an n-dimensional vector of non-homogenous (loading) terms.
It is clearly seen that mixed and/or non-homogeneous boundary conditions are
easily admitted in this formulation.
THEORETICAL FORMULATION
A plate composed of a number of isotropic/orthotropic, linear elastic laminae
of uniform thickness with plan dimension o l and thickness h is considered
(Figure 1). The angle between the ber direction and reference axis, x is measured
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 79
Figure 1 Laminate geometry with positive set of lamina/laminate reference axes and ber orientation.
in anticlockwise direction as shown in Figure 1. Simply (diaphragm) supported
end conditions on all four edges are considered (Table 1). Plate is subjected to
only thermal load and all surfaces are free from any external stresses. Further,
it is assumed that the thermal load is distributed linearly through the thickness
(Figure 2).
AT(x, ,, z) = T
0
(x, ,) +
2z
h
T
1
(x, ,) (2)
Constitute Relations
Each lamina in the laminate has been considered to be in a 3D state of
stress so that the constitutive relation for a typical ith lamina with reference to the
principal material coordinate axes (1, 2 and 3) can be written as,
(a
1
)
i
=
_
1
E
1
o
1

v
21
E
2
o
2

v
31
E
3
o
3
+:
t1
T
_
i
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

80 T. KANT ET AL.
Table 1 Boundary conditions (BCs)
BC imposed on BC imposed on
displacement eld stress eld
Face x = 0, o v = n = 0
Face x = o,2 u = 0 t
xz
= 0
Face , = 0, l u = n = 0
Face , = l,2 v = 0 t
,z
= 0
Top face z = h,2 t
xz
= t
,z
= 0 and o
z
= 0
Bottom face z = h,2 t
xz
= t
,z
= o
z
= 0
(a
2
)
i
=
_

v
12
E
1
o
1
+
1
E
2
o
2

v
32
E
3
o
3
+:
t2
T
_
i
(a
3
)
i
=
_

v
13
E
1
o
1

v
23
E
2
o
2
+
1
E
3
o
3
+:
t3
T
_
i
(3)
(
12
)
i
=
_
t
12
G
12
_
i
(
13
)
i
=
_
t
13
G
13
_
i
and (
23
)
i
=
_
t
23
G
23
_
i
in which :
t1
T, :
t2
T, and :
t3
T are the free thermal strains that arise due to
temperature variation. These can also be written as,
_

_
o
1
o
2
o
3
t
12
t
13
t
23
_

_
i
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
C
11
C
12
C
13
0 0 0
C
22
C
23
0 0 0
C
33
0 0 0
C
44
0 0
S,m. C
55
0
C
66
_

_
i _

_
a
1
:
t1
T
a
2
:
t2
T
a
3
:
t3
T

12

13

23
_

_
i
(4)
where o
1
, o
2
, o
3
, t
12
, t
13
, t
23
are stresses and a
1
, a
2
, a
3
,
12
,
13
,
23
are linear
strain components with reference to the lamina coordinates 1, 2, and 3. C
mn
s
Figure 2 Through thickness temperature distribution.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 81
(m, n = 1, . . . , 6) are elasticity constants of the ith lamina with reference to the ber
axes (1, 2, 3) dened in Appendix A. Stress-strain relations for the ith lamina in
laminate coordinates (x, ,, z) can be written as,
_

_
o
x
o
,
o
z
t
x,
t
xz
t
,z
_

_
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Q
11
Q
12
Q
13
Q
14
0 0
Q
22
Q
23
Q
24
0 0
Q
33
Q
34
0 0
Q
44
0 0
S,m. Q
55
Q
56
Q
66
_

_
_

_
a
x
:
tx
T
a
,
:
t,
T
a
z
:
tz
T

x,
:
tx,
T

xz

,z
_

_
(5)
where o
x
, o
,
, o
z
, t
x,
, t
xz
, t
,z
are stresses; a
x
, a
,
, a
z
,
x,
,
xz
,
,z
are strain components
and :
tx
T, :
t,
T, :
tz
T, :
tx,
T are free thermal strains with respect to laminate axes
(x, ,, z) and Q
mn
s (m, n = 1, . . . , 6) are the transformed elasticity constants of the
ith lamina with reference to the laminate axes. Elements of matrix [Q] are dened
in Appendix B.
Strain-Displacement Relationship
General 3D linear strain-displacement relations can be written as,
a
x
=
cu
cx
a
,
=
cv
c,
a
z
=
cn
cz

x,
=
cu
c,
+
cv
cx

xz
=
cu
cz
+
cn
cx

,z
=
cv
cz
+
cn
c,
(6)
Equations of Equilibrium
The 3D differential equations of equilibrium are,
co
x
cx
+
ct
,x
c,
+
ct
zx
cz
+B
x
= 0
ct
x,
cx
+
co
,
c,
+
ct
z,
cz
+B
,
= 0 (7)
ct
xz
cx
+
ct
,z
c,
+
co
z
cz
+B
z
= 0
Here, B
x
, B
,
and B
z
are components of body force in x, , and z directions,
respectively.
Partial Differential Equations
Equations (5)(7) have a total of 15 unknowns, six stresses
(o
x
, o
,
, o
z
, t
x,
, t
xz
, t
,z
), 6 strains (a
x
, a
,
, a
z
,
x,
,
xz
,
,z
) and 3 displacements (u, v, n)
in 15 equations. After simple algebraic manipulations, a system of PDEs involving
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

82 T. KANT ET AL.
only 6 fundamental variables u, v, n, t
xz
, t
,z
and o
z
called primary variables are
obtained as follows:
cu
cz
=
1
(Q
55
Q
66
Q
56
Q
65
)
_
Q
65
t
,z
+Q
66
t
xz
_

cn
cx
cv
cz
=
1
(Q
55
Q
66
Q
56
Q
65
)
_
Q
55
t
,z
Q
56
t
xz
_

cn
c,
cn
cz
=
1
Q
33
_
o
z
Q
31
cu
cx
Q
34
cu
c,
Q
32
cv
c,
Q
34
cv
cx
_
+
T
Q
33
_
Q
31
:
tx
+Q
32
:
t,
+Q
33
:
tz
+Q
34
:
tx,
_
ct
xz
cz
=
_
Q
11
+
Q
13
Q
31
Q
33
_
c
2
u
cx
2
+
_
Q
41
Q
14
+
Q
13
Q
34
Q
33
+
Q
43
Q
31
Q
33
_
c
2
u
cxc,
+
_
Q
44
+
Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
c
2
u
c,
2
+
_
Q
14
+
Q
13
Q
34
Q
33
_
c
2
v
cx
2
+
_
Q
12
Q
44
+
Q
13
Q
32
Q
33
+
Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
c
2
v
cxc,
+
_
Q
42
+
Q
43
Q
32
Q
33
_
c
2
v
c,
2

_
Q
13
Q
33
_
co
z
cx

_
Q
43
Q
33
_
co
z
c,
B
x

__
Q
11
+
Q
13
Q
31
Q
33
_
:
tx
+
_
Q
12
+
Q
13
Q
32
Q
33
_
:
t,
+
_
Q
14
+
Q
13
Q
34
Q
33
_
:
tx,
_
cT
cx

__
Q
41
+
Q
43
Q
31
Q
33
_
:
tx
+
_
Q
42
+
Q
43
Q
32
Q
33
_
:
t,
+
_
Q
44
+
Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
:
tx,
_
cT
c,
ct
,z
cz
=
_
Q
41
+
Q
43
Q
31
Q
33
_
c
2
u
cx
2
+
_
Q
21
Q
44
+
Q
23
Q
31
Q
33
+
Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
c
2
u
cxc,
+
_
Q
24
+
Q
23
Q
34
Q
33
_
c
2
u
c,
2
+
_
Q
44
+
Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
c
2
v
cx
2
+
_
Q
24
Q
42
+
Q
23
Q
34
Q
33
+
Q
43
Q
32
Q
33
_
c
2
v
cxc,
+
_
Q
22
+
Q
23
Q
32
Q
33
_
c
2
v
c,
2

_
Q
43
Q
33
_
co
z
cx

_
Q
23
Q
33
_
co
z
c,
B
,

__
Q
21
+
Q
23
Q
31
Q
33
_
:
tx
+
_
Q
22
+
Q
23
Q
32
Q
33
_
:
t,
+
_
Q
24
+
Q
23
Q
34
Q
33
_
:
tx,
_
cT
c,

__
Q
41
+
Q
43
Q
31
Q
33
_
:
tx
+
_
Q
42
+
Q
43
Q
32
Q
33
_
:
t,
+
_
Q
44
+
Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
:
tx,
_
cT
cx
co
z
cz
=
ct
xz
cx

ct
,z
c,
B
z
(8)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 83
Inplane Variation of Primary Variables
The above PDEs dened by Eq. (8) can be reduced to a coupled rst-
order ODEs by using a double Fourier trigonometric series for primary variables
satisfying completely the simple (diaphragm) end conditions at all 4 edges, x = 0, o
and , = 0, l, as follows:
u(x, ,, z) =
_
mn
u
mn
(z) cos
mx
o
sin
n,
l
v(x, ,, z) =
_
mn
v
mn
(z) sin
mx
o
cos
n,
l
n(x, ,, z) =
_
mn
n
mn
(z) sin
mx
o
sin
n,
l
t
xz
(x, ,, z) =
_
mn
t
xzmn
(z) cos
mx
o
sin
n,
l
t
,z
(x, ,, z) =
_
mn
t
,zmn
(z) sin
mx
o
cos
n,
l
o
z
(x, ,, z) =
_
mn
o
zmn
(z) sin
mx
o
sin
n,
l
(9)
in the above both m, n are 1, 3, 5, 7, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Further, temperature variations along the inplane directions are also expressed
in sinusoidal form as
T(x, ,, z) =
_
m

T
m

n
(z) sin
m

x
o
sin
n

x
l
(10)
in which both m

, n

also assume integer values 1, 3, 5, 7, . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Linear First-Order Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs)
On substitution of Eqs. (9) and (10) in Eq. (8), the following 6 coupled rst-
order ODEs corresponding to each set of modal values m and n are obtained.
J
Jz
_

_
u
mn
(z)
v
mn
(z)
n
mn
(z)
t
xzmn
(z)
t
,zmn
(z)
o
zmn
(z)
_

_
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0 0 B
13
B
14
0 0
0 0 B
23
0 B
25
0
B
31
B
32
0 0 0 B
36
B
41
B
42
0 0 0 B
46
B
51
B
52
0 0 0 B
56
0 0 0 B
64
B
65
0
_

_
_

_
u
mn
(z)
v
mn
(z)
n
mn
(z)
t
xzmn
(z)
t
,zmn
(z)
o
zmn
(z)
_

_
+
_

_
0
0

6
_

_
which can be written in compact form as,
J
Jz
y(z) = B
i]
(z)y(z) +p(z) (11)
The elements of matrices B
i]
(z) and vector p(z) are given in the Appendix C.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

84 T. KANT ET AL.
T
a
b
l
e
2
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
B
V
P
i
n
t
o
I
V
P
s
S
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
e
d
g
e
;
z
=

h
,
2
F
i
n
a
l
e
d
g
e
;
z
=
h
,
2
I
n
t
g
.
u
v
n
t
x
z
t
,
z
o
z
u
v
n
t
x
z
t
,
z
o
z
L
o
a
d
t
e
r
m
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
1
1
Y
2
1
Y
3
1
Y
4
1
Y
5
1
Y
6
1
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
(
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
)
(
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
)
(
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
)
(
k
n
o
w
n
)
(
k
n
o
w
n
)
(
k
n
o
w
n
)
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
Y
1
2
Y
2
2
Y
3
2
Y
4
2
Y
5
2
Y
6
2
D
e
l
e
t
e
(
u
n
i
t
y
)
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
Y
1
3
Y
2
3
Y
3
3
Y
4
3
Y
5
3
Y
6
3
D
e
l
e
t
e
(
u
n
i
t
y
)
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
Y
1
4
Y
2
4
Y
3
4
Y
4
4
Y
5
4
Y
6
4
D
e
l
e
t
e
(
u
n
i
t
y
)
F
i
n
a
l
X
1
X
2
X
3
k
n
o
w
n
k
n
o
w
n
k
n
o
w
n
u
T
v
T
n
T
0
0
0
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 85
Equation (11), denes the governing two-point BVP in ODEs through
thickness of the laminate in the domain h,2 - z - h,2 with stress components
known at the top and bottom faces. The basic approach to the numerical integration
of the BVP dened in Eq. (11) is to transform the given BVP into a set of IVPsone
non-homogeneous and n,2 homogeneous. The solution of BVP dened by Eq. (11)
is then obtained by forming a linear combination of one non-homogeneous and n,2
homogeneous solutions so as to satisfy the boundary conditions at z = h,2 [17].
This gives rise to a system of n,2 linear algebraic equations, the solutions of which
determines the unknown n,2 components, X
1
, X
2
and X
3
(Table 2) at the starting
edge z = h,2. Then a nal numerical integration of Eq. (11) produces the desired
results. Availability of efcient, accurate and robust ODE numerical integrators
for IVPs helps in computing reliable values of the primary variables through the
thickness. Change in material properties are incorporated by changing coefcients
of material matrix appropriately for each lamina.
Secondary Relations
Secondary variables, o
x
, o
,
and t
x,
can be expressed in terms of primary
variables with the help of constitutive and strain-displacement relation as,
o
x
=
_
Q
13
Q
31
Q
33
Q
11
_
_
mn
u
mn
(z)
_
m
o
_
sin
mx
o
sin
n,
l
+
_
Q
13
Q
32
Q
33
Q
12
_
_
mn
v
mn
(z)
_
n
l
_
sin
mx
o
sin
n,
l
+
_
Q
14

Q
13
Q
34
Q
33
_
_
mn
u
mn
(z)
_
n
l
_
cos
mx
o
cos
n,
l
+
_
Q
14

Q
13
Q
34
Q
33
_
_
mn
v
mn
(z)
_
m
o
_
cos
mx
o
cos
n,
l
+
_
Q
13
Q
33
_
_
mn
o
zmn
(z) sin
mx
o
sin
m,
l
+
__
Q
13
Q
31
Q
33
Q
11
_
:
tx
+
_
Q
13
Q
32
Q
33
Q
12
_
:
t,
+
_
Q
13
Q
34
Q
33
Q
14
_
:
xt,
_

_
m

T(z) sin
m

x
o
sin
n

,
l
. . . . . . . . . (12)
o
,
=
_
Q
23
Q
31
Q
33
Q
11
_
_
mn
u
mn
(z)
_
m
o
_
sin
mx
o
sin
n,
l
+
_
Q
23
Q
32
Q
33
Q
22
_
_
mn
v
mn
(z)
_
n
l
_
sin
mx
o
sin
n,
l
+
_
Q
24

Q
23
Q
34
Q
33
_
_
mn
u
mn
(z)
_
n
l
_
cos
mx
o
cos
n,
l
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

86 T. KANT ET AL.
+
_
Q
24

Q
23
Q
34
Q
33
_
_
mn
v
mn
(z)
_
m
o
_
cos
mx
o
cos
n,
l
+
_
Q
23
Q
33
_
_
mn
o
zmn
(z) sin
mx
o
sin
m,
l
+
__
Q
23
Q
31
Q
33
Q
21
_
:
tx
+
_
Q
23
Q
32
Q
33
Q
22
_
:
t,
+
_
Q
23
Q
34
Q
33
Q
24
_
:
xt,
_

_
m

T(z) sin
m

x
o
sin
n

,
l
. . . . . . . . . (13)
t
x,
=
_
Q
43
Q
31
Q
33
Q
11
_
_
mn
u
mn
(z)
_
m
o
_
sin
mx
o
sin
n,
l
+
_
Q
43
Q
32
Q
33
Q
42
_
_
mn
v
mn
(z)
_
n
l
_
sin
mx
o
sin
n,
l
+
_
Q
44

Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
_
mn
u
mn
(z)
_
n
l
_
cos
mx
o
cos
n,
l
+
_
Q
44

Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
_
mn
v
mn
(z)
_
m
o
_
cos
mx
o
cos
n,
l
+
_
Q
43
Q
33
_
_
mn
o
zmn
(z) sin
mx
o
sin
m,
l
+
__
Q
43
Q
31
Q
33
Q
41
_
:
tx
+
_
Q
43
Q
32
Q
33
Q
42
_
:
t,
+
_
Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
Q
44
_
:
xt,
_

_
m

T(z) sin
m

x
o
sin
n

,
l
. . . . . . . . . (14)
NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION
A computer code is developed by incorporating the present formulation in
FORTRAN 90 for the analysis of composite and sandwich plates under thermal
load. Numerical investigations on various examples have been performed including
validation of the present semi-analytical formulation and solution of new problems.
The 3D elasticity solution presented by Bhaskar et al. [3] and Rohwer et al. [14]
and other analytical solutions available in the literature have been used for proper
comparison of the obtained results. Material properties used here have been
tabulated in Table 3.
Two thermal load cases are considered here for numerical studies.
1. Equal temperature rise of the bottom and the top surface of the plate with
sinusoidal inplane variations: AT(x, ,, h,2) = T
0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
, (Case A).
2. Equal rise and fall of temperature of the top and bottom surface of the plate with
sinusoidal inplane variations: AT(x, ,, h,2) = AT(x, ,, h,2) = T
0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
,
(Case B).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 87
Table 3 Material properties
Set Source Property
I Rohwer E
1
= 150.0GPa E
2
= 10.0GPa E
3
= 10.0GPa
et al. [14] v
12
= 0.30 v
13
= 0.30 v
23
= 0.30
G
12
= 5.0GPa G
13
= 5.0GPa G
23
= 3.378GPa
:
1
= 0.139E-6 k
1
:
2
= 9.0E-6k
1
:
3
= 9.0E-6k
1
II Bhaskar E
1
= 172.4GPa E
2
= 6.89GPa E
3
= 6.89GPa
et al. [3] v
12
= 0.25 v
13
= 0.25 v
23
= 0.25
G
12
= 3.45GPa G
13
= 3.45GPa G
23
= 1.378GPa
:
1
= 1.0 k
1
:
2
= 1125.0 k
1
:
3
= 1125.0 k
1
Face Sheet
III Khare E
1
= 172.4GPa E
2
= 6.89GPa E
3
= 6.89GPa
et al. [18] v
12
= 0.25 v
13
= 0.25 v
23
= 0.25
G
12
= 3.45GPa G
13
= 3.45GPa G
23
= 1.378GPa
:
1
= 0.1E-5k
1
:
2
= 2.0E-5k
1
:
3
= 0.1E-5k
1
Core Sheet
E
1
= 0.276GPa E
2
= 0.276GPa E
3
= 3.450GPa
v
12
= 0.25 v
31
= 0.25 v
32
= 0.25
G
12
= 0.1104GPa G
13
= 0.414GPa G
23
= 0.414GPa
:
1
= 0.1E-6k
1
:
2
= 0.2E-5k
1
:
3
= 0.1E-6k
1
Following normalizations have been used in all examples considered here for
the comparison of the results.
s =
o
h
u, v =
1
h:
1
T
0
s
3
(u; v) n =
h
3
n
:
1
T
0
o
4
o
z
=
o
z
E
2
:
1
T
0
_
o
x
; o
,
; t
x,
_
=
1
E
2
:
1
T
0
s
2
_
o
x
; o
,
; t
x,
_ _
t
xz
; t
,z
_
=
1
E
2
:
1
T
0
s
_
t
xz
; t
,z
_
(15)
in which bar over the variable denes its normalized value.
A convergence study on number of steps required for numerical integration
in the thickness direction of the laminate is performed rst for all examples. It is
observed in all examples that 2030 steps are enough for converged solution. Details
of the convergence studies are not presented here for the sake of brevity. Illustrative
examples considered in the present work are discussed next.
Example 1
A homogeneous, orthotropic plate with simple support end conditions
(Table 1) on all four edges and subjected to thermal load has been considered
to study the effect of the temperature distribution and validate the present
methodology. Material properties are presented in Table 3(I). The normalized
maximum stresses (o
x
, o
,
, t
x,
, t
xz
, t
,z
) and transverse displacement (n) for various
aspect ratios ranging from thick to thin plate are presented in Table 4 for both
type of thermal loads. Moreover, through thickness variations of transverse shear
stress (t
xz
), transverse normal stress (o
z
), in-plane normal stress (o
x
) and transverse
displacement (n) for an aspect ratio of 5 are shown in Figures 3 and 4 for
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

88 T. KANT ET AL.
T
a
b
l
e
4
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
(
o
x
,
o
,
,
t
x
,
,
t
x
z
a
n
d
t
,
z
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
r
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
n
)
o
f
s
q
u
a
r
e
h
o
m
o
g
e
n
e
o
u
s
o
r
t
h
o
t
r
o
p
i
c
p
l
a
t
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
l
o
a
d
C
a
s
e
A
:
A
T
(
x
,
,
,

h
,
2
)
=
T
0
s
i
n

x
o
s
i
n

,
l
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
o
x
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
o
,
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 6
_
1
0
t
x
,
_
0
,
0
,

h 2
_
1
0
t
x
z
_
0
,
l 2
,

0
.
3
h
_
1
0
2
t
,
z
_
o 2
,
0
,

0
.
3
h
_
1
0
2
n
_
o 2
,
l 2
,

h 2
_
4
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
0
.
4
1
4
3

0
.
7
4
4
6

0
.
9
5
9
8

3
.
7
9
4
3

6
.
2
9
7
9

6
.
0
3
0
9
1
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
1
2
6
1

0
.
2
0
9
2

0
.
2
2
3
3

0
.
2
8
6
4

0
.
4
2
1
8

0
.
3
7
8
0
2
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
0
4
8
4

0
.
0
5
3
8

0
.
0
5
4
7

0
.
0
1
8
8

0
.
0
2
6
9

0
.
0
2
3
6
C
a
s
e
B
:
A
T
(
x
,
,
,
h
,
2
)
=

A
T
(
x
,
,
,

h
,
2
)
=
T
0
s
i
n

x
o
s
i
n

,
l
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
o
x
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
o
,
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
1
0
t
x
,
_
0
,
0
,

h 2
_
t
x
z
_
0
,
l 2
,

0
.
3
h
_
t
,
z
_
o 2
,
0
,

0
.
3
h
_
1
0
2
n
_
o 2
,
l 2
,

h 2
_
4
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

2
.
0
1
6
4

2
.
0
5
3
8

3
.
5
5
6
6
0
.
9
2
3
9

0
.
8
6
1
6
9
.
0
2
2
6
1
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
4
8
4
5

0
.
5
6
3
8

0
.
6
3
8
0
0
.
2
5
6
5

0
.
2
5
1
7
1
.
4
0
4
2
2
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
1
1
9
8

0
.
1
4
4
8

0
.
1
4
0
5
0
.
0
6
6
0

0
.
0
6
5
7
0
.
2
9
1
6
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 89
Figure 3 Variation of normalized (a) transverse shear stress t
xz
(b) transverse normal stress o
z
(c) inplane normal stress o
x
(d) transverse displacement n through thickness of a homogeneous
orthotropic plate subjected to thermal load, AT(x, ,, h,2) = T
0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
(Case A).
case A and case B, respectively. 3D elasticity and HOST solutions given by Rohwer
et al. [14] are also plotted on same trace for comparison of the present solution. This
comparison clearly indicates that the present results are very close to the elasticity
solutions compared to HOST and thus proves the superiority of the present model.
Large value of t
xz
as compared to t
,z
(Table 4) is due to higher modulus values
of G
13
and E
1
as compared to G
23
and E
2
. Transverse normal stress (o
z
) shows
compression at the plate center (Figure 3b) and roughly cubic distribution of
transverse shear stress (t
xz
) through the thickness of plate (Figure 3a) is observed for
constant temperature (Case A). Moreover, in case B, the transverse normal stress
(o
z
) is found to be too small as compared to case A with compressive value in the
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

90 T. KANT ET AL.
Figure 4 Variation of normalized (a) transverse shear stress t
xz
(b) transverse normal stress o
z
(c) inplane normal stress o
x
(d) transverse displacement n through thickness of a homogeneous
orthotropic plate subjected to thermal load, AT(x, ,, h,2) = AT(x, ,, h,2) = T
0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
(Case B).
upper half and tensile value in the lower half of plate. And transverse shear stresses
t
xz
and t
,z
are found to be nearly same with opposite signs.
Example 2
Various three-layered, symmetric, cross-ply (0

,90

,0

), square laminates with

aspect ratios, s = 4, 10 and 20 and simple support end conditions on all four
edges (Table 1) subjected to constant (Case A) and varied (Case B) temperature
distribution through thickness and sinusoidal variations along the inplane directions
are considered here to show the ability of the present model to handle layered
structure. Material properties are presented in Table 3(II). Results for aspect ratios,
s = 4, 10 and 20 have been compared in Table 5 with elasticity solutions given by
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 91
T
a
b
l
e
5
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
(
o
x
,
o
,
,
t
x
,
,
t
x
z
a
n
d
t
,
z
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
r
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
n
)
o
f
t
h
r
e
e
l
a
y
e
r
e
d
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
(
0

,
9
0

,
0

)
s
q
u
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
t
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
l
o
a
d
C
a
s
e
A
:
A
T
(
x
,
,
,

h
,
2
)
=
T
0
s
i
n

x
o
s
i
n

,
l
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
o
x
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
o
,
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 6
_
t
x
,
_
0
,
0
,

h 2
_
t
x
z
_
0
,
l 2
,

0
.
4
h
_
t
,
z
_
o 2
,
0
,

0
.
4
h
_
1
0
n
_
o 2
,
l 2
,

h 2
_
4
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
8
0
.
7
5
1
6

4
9
.
9
1
1
9

1
1
.
6
8
2
4

3
3
.
3
0
8
8

5
1
.
0
3
4
4

2
6
.
5
0
0
0
1
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
6
.
1
0
9
0

9
.
8
9
2
7

0
.
8
2
4
7

5
.
3
3
7
4

9
.
8
1
8
1

0
.
6
8
7
5
2
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
1
.
2
3
0
0

2
.
5
5
4
7

0
.
1
6
1
4

1
.
3
3
3
4

2
.
5
2
6
7

0
.
0
4
3
0
C
a
s
e
B
:
A
T
(
x
,
,
,
h
,
2
)
=

A
T
(
x
,
,
,

h
,
2
)
=
T
0
s
i
n

x
o
s
i
n

,
l
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
o
x
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
o
,
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
t
x
,
_
0
,
0
,

h 2
_
t
x
z
_
0
,
l 2
,

0
.
4
h
_
t
,
z
_
o 2
,
0
,

0
.
4
h
_
n
_
o 2
,
l 2
,

h 2
_
4
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

7
3
.
9
4
9
6

5
3
.
5
0
5
9

9
.
8
1
1
3
2
1
.
2
0
3
0

3
2
.
1
7
5
0
2
.
6
6
7
9
1
E
x
a
c
t
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

7
3
.
9
3
7
5

5
3
.
5
0
6
2

9
.
8
1
1
3
2
1
.
2
0
2
5

3
2
.
1
7
5
0
2
.
6
6
8
0
1
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

1
0
.
2
6
3
0

1
0
.
1
4
3
6

0
.
7
6
2
9
6
.
0
5
4
1

6
.
6
0
0
8
0
.
1
7
3
9
1
E
x
a
c
t
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

1
0
.
2
6
0
0

1
0
.
1
4
0
0

0
.
7
6
2
9
6
.
0
5
1
0

6
.
6
0
1
0
0
.
1
7
3
9
2
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

2
.
4
5
5
0

2
.
6
2
8
1

0
.
1
4
3
7
1
.
6
9
9
2

1
.
7
3
8
1
0
.
0
3
0
3
1
E
x
a
c
t
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

2
.
4
5
5
0

2
.
6
2
7
5

0
.
1
4
3
8
1
.
6
9
9
0

1
.
7
3
8
0
0
.
0
3
0
3
1
B
h
a
s
k
a
r
e
t
a
l
.
[
3
]
.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

92 T. KANT ET AL.
Bhaskar et al. [3]. Present results are seen to be closest to the elasticity solutions.
Through thickness variations of transverse shear stress (t
xz
), transverse normal
stress (o
z
), inplane normal stress (o
x
) and inplane displacement (u) for an aspect
ratio of 5 have been presented in Figures 5 and 6 for case A and case B, respectively.
Solutions are only available for varied temperature (Case B) and solutions with
constant temperature (Case A) will be useful as benchmark solution in future.
Variation of transverse shear stress (t
xz
) for constant temperature (Case A) is found
to be smooth curved prole in the top and bottom lamina (0

) but almost linear

prole is observed in the middle lamina (90

) with zero value at the mid-surface

(Figure 5a), whereas for varied temperature (Case B), t
xz
varies smoothly in curved
fashion through the thickness (Figure 6a). Interesting distribution of transverse
Figure 5 Variation of normalized (a) transverse shear stress t
xz
(b) transverse normal stress o
z
(c) inplane normal stress o
x
(d) inplane displacement u through thickness of a 0

,90

,0

symmetric
composite plate subjected to thermal load, AT(x, ,, h,2) = T
0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
(Case A).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 93
Figure 6 Variation of normalized (a) transverse shear stress t
xz
(b) transverse normal stress o
z
(c) inplane normal stress o
x
(d) transverse displacement n through thickness of a 0

,90

,0

symmetric
composite subjected to thermal load, AT(x, ,, h,2) = AT(x, ,, h,2) = T
0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
(Case B).
normal stress (o
z
) is observed for this conguration in both types of loadings. In
case of constant temperature (Case A), o
z
in top and bottom lamina (0

) shows
compression whereas, o
z
in middle lamina (90

) shows tension at the plate center

(Figure 5b) and in case of varied temperature (Case B), o
z
in top lamina (0

) is
compressive, o
z
in bottom lamina (0

) is tensile and o
z
in middle lamina (90

)
has mixed behavior of compression and tension below and above the mid-surface
(Figure 6b) which proves the necessity of rened model to model the accurately such
highly non-linear behaviour. All variations are observed to be symmetric about the
mid-surface as expected.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

94 T. KANT ET AL.
T
a
b
l
e
6
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
(
o
x
,
o
,
,
t
x
,
,
t
x
z
a
n
d
t
,
z
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
r
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
n
)
o
f
f
o
u
r
l
a
y
e
r
e
d
u
n
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
(
0

,
9
0

,
0

,
9
0

)
s
q
u
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
t
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
l
o
a
d
C
a
s
e
A
:
A
T
(
x
,
,
,

h
,
2
)
=
T
0
s
i
n

x
o
s
i
n

,
l
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
o
x
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
o
,
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 6
_
1
0
t
x
,
_
0
,
0
,

h 2
_
t
x
z
_
0
,
l 2
,

0
.
2
5
h
_
t
,
z
_
o 2
,
0
,

0
.
2
5
h
_
1
0
2
n
_
o 2
,
l 2
,

h 2
_
4
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

2
.
0
6
5
1
2
.
5
5
2
7
2
.
5
5
2
7

2
.
0
6
5
1

3
.
6
2
6
1

1
.
4
8
8
1

1
.
5
4
2
9
1
.
5
4
2
9
1
.
4
8
8
1

7
.
2
8
3
7
1
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
5
6
6
3
0
.
5
1
2
7
0
.
5
1
2
7

0
.
5
6
6
3

0
.
6
3
2
2

0
.
4
0
4
8

0
.
4
0
4
2
0
.
4
0
4
2
0
.
4
0
4
8

0
.
4
5
8
2
2
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
1
4
4
9
0
.
1
2
1
4
0
.
1
2
1
4

0
.
1
4
4
9

0
.
1
3
9
9

0
.
1
0
3
5

0
.
1
0
3
3
0
.
1
0
3
3
0
.
1
0
3
4

0
.
0
2
8
7
C
a
s
e
B
:
A
T
(
x
,
,
,
h
,
2
)
=

A
T
(
x
,
,
,

h
,
2
)
=
T
0
s
i
n

x
o
s
i
n

,
l
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
o
x
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
o
,
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
1
0
t
x
,
_
0
,
0
,

h 2
_
t
x
z
_
0
,
l 2
,

0
.
2
h
_
t
,
z
_
o 2
,
0
,

0
.
2
h
_
1
0
2
n
_
o 2
,
l 2
,

h 2
_
4
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

2
.
1
0
0
8

1
.
6
4
9
6
1
.
6
4
9
6
2
.
1
0
0
8

3
.
2
4
0
8

1
.
0
7
2
6
0
.
6
9
8
6
0
.
6
9
8
6

1
.
0
7
2
6
8
.
9
0
9
8
1
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
5
4
7
9

0
.
3
7
1
9
0
.
3
7
1
9
0
.
5
4
7
9

0
.
6
8
9
4

0
.
2
8
1
8
0
.
1
8
7
0
0
.
1
8
7
0

0
.
2
8
1
8
1
.
5
4
4
7
2
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
1
3
8
5

0
.
0
9
0
3
0
.
0
9
0
3
0
.
1
3
8
5

0
.
1
6
4
3

0
.
0
7
1
4
0
.
0
4
7
6
0
.
0
4
7
6

0
.
0
7
1
4
0
.
3
4
2
2
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 95
Example 3
A 4-layered, unsymmetric, cross-ply (0

,90

,0

,90

), square composite plate

with equal thickness under the thermal load is considered in this example with
simple support end conditions (Table 1). Material properties are presented in
Table 3(I). Results of the maximum normalized stresses (o
x
, o
,
, t
x,
, t
xz
, t
,z
) and
transverse displacement (n) are presented in Table 6 for various aspect ratios and
through thickness variations of transverse shear stress (t
xz
), transverse normal stress
(o
z
), inplane normal stress (o
x
) and transverse displacement (n) are depicted in
Figure 7 Variation of normalized (a) transverse shear stress t
xz
(b) transverse normal stress o
z
(c) inplane normal stress o
x
(d) transverse displacement n through thickness of a 0

,90

,0

,90

unsymmetric composite plate subjected to thermal load, AT(x, ,, h,2) = T

0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
(Case A).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

96 T. KANT ET AL.
Figures 7 and 8 for an aspect ratio of 5 for case A and case B, respectively. 3D
elasticity solution given by Rohwer et al. [14] is used for comparison of the results
obtained through present investigations. Excellent agreements of present results
with elasticity solutions suggest that the formulation is capable to handle such
unsymmetric laminate congurations. It is also seen that transverse shear stress t
xz
has symmetry about mid plane with shear stress t
,z
(Table 6). Zig-zag variation
of transverse shear stress (t
xz
) through the thickness of plate is observed (Figure 7a
and 8a) and this is due to the abrupt change in stiffness between 0

and 90

layers
Figure 8 Variation of normalized (a) transverse shear stress t
xz
(b) transverse normal stress o
z
(c) inplane normal stress o
x
(d) transverse displacement n through thickness of a 0

,90

,0

,90

unsymmetric composite subjected to thermal load, AT(x, ,, h,2) = AT(x, ,, h,2) = T

0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
(Case B).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 97
T
a
b
l
e
7
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
(
o
x
,
o
,
,
t
x
,
,
t
x
z
a
n
d
t
,
z
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
r
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
n
)
o
f
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
t
h
r
e
e
l
a
y
e
r
e
d
(
0

/
c
o
r
e
/
0

)
s
q
u
a
r
e
s
a
n
d
w
i
c
h
p
l
a
t
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
l
o
a
d
C
a
s
e
A
:
A
T
(
x
,
,
,

h
,
2
)
=
T
0
s
i
n

x
o
s
i
n

,
l
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
o
x
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
o
,
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 6
_
1
0
t
x
,
_
0
,
0
,

h 2
_
1
0
2
t
x
z
_
0
,
l 2
,

0
.
4
h
_
1
0
2
t
,
z
_
o 2
,
0
,

0
.
4
h
_
1
0
3
n
_
o 2
,
l 2
,

h 2
_
4
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
4
5
0
5

0
.
5
3
1
5

3
.
8
6
4
0

2
.
4
3
8
0

0
.
4
6
2
0

1
.
1
2
8
0
1
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
0
7
4
1

0
.
0
8
5
7

0
.
6
1
5
0

0
.
4
0
8
0

0
.
7
6
1
0

0
.
0
2
6
0
2
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
0
1
8
6

0
.
0
2
1
4

0
.
1
5
3
6

0
.
1
0
2
6

0
.
0
1
9
1

0
.
0
0
1
6
C
a
s
e
B
:
A
T
(
x
,
,
,
h
,
2
)
=

A
T
(
x
,
,
,

h
,
2
)
=
T
0
s
i
n

x
o
s
i
n

,
l
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
o
x
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
o
,
_
o 2
,
l 2
;

h 2
_
1
0
t
x
,
_
0
,
0
,

h 2
_
t
x
z
_
0
,
l 2
,

0
.
4
h
_
t
,
z
_
o 2
,
0
,

0
.
4
h
_
1
0
2
n
_
o 2
,
l 2
,

h 2
_
4
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
6
2
7
1

0
.
7
9
0
4

2
.
7
4
4
0
0
.
1
2
5
9

0
.
1
4
2
5
5
.
6
0
2
4
1
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
1
3
1
7

0
.
1
6
5
1

0
.
2
5
3
0
0
.
0
3
8
2

0
.
0
3
9
4
0
.
5
1
3
9
2
0
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

0
.
0
3
5
1

0
.
0
4
4
1

0
.
0
4
9
4
0
.
0
1
0
9

0
.
0
1
1
1
0
.
1
0
0
2
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

98 T. KANT ET AL.
for both cases A and B. Variation of transverse normal stress (o
z
) is seen to be
antisymmetric about mid plane (Figure 8b).
Example 4
A symmetric square sandwich plate (0

,core,0

) with simple support end

conditions (Table 1) on all four edges and subjected to thermal load has been
considered here. Exact solution of this example is not available in the literature.
Material properties are presented in Table 3(III). Thickness of each face sheets is
one tenth of the total thickness of the plate. The normalized maximum stresses
Figure 9 Variation of normalized (a) transverse shear stress t
xz
(b) transverse normal stress o
z
(c) inplane normal stress o
x
(d) inplane displacement u through thickness of a 0

/core/0

symmetric
sandwich plate subjected to thermal load, AT(x, ,, h,2) = T
0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
(Case A).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 99
Figure 10 Variation of normalized (a) transverse shear stress t
xz
(b) transverse normal stress o
z
(c) inplane normal stress o
x
(d) transverse displacement n through thickness of a a 0

/core/0

symmetric sandwich subjected to thermal load, AT(x, ,, h,2) = AT(x, ,, h,2) = T

0
sin
x
o
sin
,
l
(Case B).
(o
x
, o
,
, t
x,
, t
xz
, t
,z
) and transverse displacement (n) for various aspect ratios, 4, 10
and 20 are presented in Table 7. Figures 9 and 10 show the through thickness
variations of transverse shear stress (t
xz
), transverse normal stress (o
z
), inplane
normal stress (o
x
) and transverse displacement (n) for an aspect ratio of 4 for
case A and case B, respectively. Theses results should serve as benchmark solutions
in future.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The dened variations of temperatures through the thickness of plate are
considered here so that present solutions can be compared with the available
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

100 T. KANT ET AL.
3D elasticity results. However, the technique is capable to handle any kind of
temperature variations. Further, the present model maintains the continuity of
transverse stresses and displacements at the laminae interfaces without involving any
complexity in the formulation and solution technique.
It is observed in all examples considered in the present study that variation
in transverse displacement (n) along the thickness is very small for an aspect ratio
equal/greater than 10 (thin plate). However, for thick plates with aspect ratios less
than 5, n varies signicantly (Figures 4d, 8d and 10d).
The variation of transverse normal stress (o
z
) here is quite different from what
is observed in the case of mechanical loading.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
An efcient, simple semi-analytical model based on solution of a two-point
BVP governed by a set of coupled rst-order ODEs through the thickness of plate
is proposed in this article for thermo-mechanical stress analysis. The shear traction
free conditions at the top and bottom of plate and continuity of transverse stresses
and displacement at the layer interfaces are exactly satised which is one of the
important features of the developed model. Moreover, the solution also ensures
the fundamental elasticity relationship between stress, strain and displacement
elds within the elastic continuum. It is shown through numerical investigations
that results obtained by present approach are highly accurate. Another important
feature of this approach is that both displacements and stresses are computed
simultaneously with the same degree of accuracy.
APPENDIX A
Coefcients of [C] Matrix
C
11
=
E
1
(1 v
23
v
32
)
A
C
12
=
E
1
(v
21
+v
31
v
23
)
A
C
13
=
E
1
(v
31
+v
21
v
32
)
A
C
22
=
E
2
(1 v
13
v
31
)
A
C
23
=
E
2
(v
32
+v
12
v
31
)
A
C
33
=
E
3
(1 v
12
v
21
)
A
C
44
= G
12
C
55
= G
13
C
66
= G
23
where A = (1 v
12
v
21
v
23
v
32
v
31
v
13
2v
12
v
23
v
31
)
APPENDIX B
Coefcients of [Q] Matrix
Q
11
= C
11
c
4
+2(C
12
+2C
44
)c
2
s
2
+C
22
s
4
Q
12
= C
12
(c
4
+s
4
) +(C
11
+C
22
4C
44
)c
2
s
2
Q
13
= C
13
c
2
+C
23
s
2
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 101
Q
14
= (C
11
C
12
2C
44
)c
3
s +(C
12
C
22
+2C
44
)cs
3
Q
22
= C
22
c
4
+2(C
12
+2C
44
)c
2
s
2
+C
11
s
4
Q
23
= C
23
c
2
+C
13
s
2
Q
24
= (C
12
C
22
+2C
44
)c
3
s +(C
11
C
12
2C
44
)cs
3
Q
33
= C
33
Q
34
= (C
31
C
32
)cs
Q
44
= (C
11
2C
12
+C
22
2C
44
)c
2
s
2
+C
44
(c
4
+s
4
)
Q
55
= C
55
c
2
+C
66
s
2
Q
56
= (C
55
C
66
)cs
Q
66
= C
55
s
2
+C
66
c
2
APPENDIX C
Coefcients of [B] Matrix
B
13
=
m
o
B
14
=
Q
66
Q
55
Q
66
Q
56
Q
65
B
13
=
n
l
B
15
=
Q
55
Q
55
Q
66
Q
56
Q
65
B
31
=
Q
31
Q
33
m
o
B
32
=
Q
32
Q
33
n
l
B
36
=
1
Q
33
B
41
=
_
Q
11

Q
13
Q
31
Q
33
_
m
2

2
o
2
+
_
Q
44

Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
n
2

2
l
2
B
42
=
_
Q
12

_
Q
13
Q
32
Q
33
_

_
Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
+Q
44
_
mn
2
ol
B
46
=
_
Q
13
Q
33
_
m
o
B
51
=
_
Q
21

_
Q
31
Q
23
Q
33
_

_
Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
+Q
44
_
mn
2
ol
B
52
=
_
Q
22

Q
23
Q
32
Q
33
_
n
2

2
l
2
+
_
Q
44

Q
43
Q
34
Q
33
_
m
2

2
o
2
B
56
=
_
Q
23
Q
33
_
n
l
B
64
=
m
o
B
65
=
n
l
Coefcients of p Vector

3
=
1
Q
33
_
Q
31
:
tx
+Q
32
:
t,
+Q
33
:
tz
+Q
34
:
tx,
_
T(z)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

102 T. KANT ET AL.

4
= B
x
(x, ,, z)
__
Q
11
+
Q
13
Q
31
Q
33
_
:
tx
+
_
Q
12
+
Q
13
Q
32
Q
33
_
:
t,
+
_
Q
14
+
Q
13
Q
34
Q
33
_
:
tx,
_
m

o
T(z)

5
= B
,
(x, ,, z)
__
Q
21
+
Q
23
Q
31
Q
33
_
:
tx
+
_
Q
22
+
Q
23
Q
32
Q
33
_
:
t,
+
_
Q
24
+
Q
23
Q
34
Q
33
_
:
tx,
_
n

l
T(z)

6
= B
z
(x, ,, z)
REFERENCES
1. V. B. Tungikar and K. M. Rao, Three-Dimensional Exact Solution of Thermal Stresses
in Rectangular Composite Laminate, Composite Structures, vol. 27, pp. 419430, 1994.
2. M. Savoia and J. N. Reddy, Three-dimensional Thermal Analysis of Laminated
Composite Plates, Int. J. Solids and Structures, vol. 32, pp. 593608, 1995.
3. K. Bhaskar, T. K. Varadan, and J. S. M. Ali, Thermoelastic Solutions for Orthotropic
and Anisotropic Composite Laminates, Composites: Part B, vol. 27B, pp. 415420, 1996.
4. J. L. Maulbetsch, Thermal Stresses in Plates, ASME J. Applied Mechanics, vol. 57,
pp. A141A146, 1935.
5. W. H. Pell, Thermal Deection of Anisotropic Thin Plates, Quart. Appl. Math., vol. 4,
pp. 2744, 1946.
6. E. Reissner, The Effect of Transverse Shear Deformation on the Bending of Elastic
Plates, ASME J. Applied Mechanics, vol. 12, pp. 6977, 1945.
7. R. D. Mindlin, Inuence of Rotatory Inertia and Shear Deformation on Flexural
Motions of Isotropic Elastic Plates, ASME J. Applied Mechanics, vol. 18, pp. 3138,
1951.
8. J. N. Reddy and W. C. Chao, Finite Element Analysis of Laminated Bimodulus
Composite Material Plates, Computers and Structures, vol. 12, pp. 245251, 1980.
9. F. Weinstein, S. Putter, and Y. Stavsky, Thermoelastic Stress Analysis of Anisotropic
Composite Sandwich Plates by Finite Element Method, Computers and Structures,
vol. 17, pp. 3136, 1983.
10. R. Rolfes, A. K. Noor, and H. Sparr, Evaluation of Transverse Thermal Stresses in
Composite Plates Based on First-order Shear Deformation Theory, Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 167, pp. 355368, 1998.
11. J. H. Argyris and L. Tenek, High Temperature Bending, Buckling and Postbuckling of
Laminated Composite Plates Using the Natural Mode Method, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 117, pp. 105142, 1994.
12. T. Kant and R. K. Khare, Finite Element Thermal Stress Analysis of Composite
Laminates Using A Higher-order Theory, J. Thermal Stresses, vol. 17, pp. 229255,
1994.
13. A. A. Khdeir and J. N. Reddy, Thermal Stresses and Deections of Cross-
ply Laminated Plates Using Rened Plate Theories, J. Thermal Stresses, vol. 14,
pp. 419439, 1991.
14. K. Rohwer, R. Rolfes, and H. Sparr, Higher-order Theories for Thermal Stresses in
Layered Plates, Int. J. Solids and Structures, vol. 38, pp. 36733687, 2001.
15. S. Xioping and S. Liangxin, Thermo-mechanical Buckling of Laminated Composite
Plates with Higher Order Transverse Shear Deformation, Computers and Structures,
vol. 53, pp. 17, 1994.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
K
a
n
t
,

T
a
r
u
n
]

A
t
:

1
2
:
0
5

8

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

A SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMPOSITE AND SANDWICH PLATES 103
16. J. S. M. Ali, K. Bhaskar, and T. K. Varadan, A New Theory for Accurate
Thermal/Mechanical Flexural Analysis of Symmetric Laminated Plates, Composite
Structures, vol. 45, pp. 227232, 1999.
17. T. Kant and C. K. Ramesh, Numerical Integration of Linear Boundary Value Problems
in Solid Mechanics by Segmentation Method, Int. J. Numerical Methods in Engineering,
vol. 17, pp. 12331256, 1981.
18. R. K. Khare, T. Kant, and A. K. Garg, Closed-form Thermo-mechanical Solutions
of Higher-order Theories of Cross-ply Laminated Shallow Shells, Composite Structures,
vol. 59, pp. 313340, 2003.