Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered

Sandwich Panels with Laminated

Anisotropic Composite Facings
SENTHIL S. VEL,* VINCENT CACCESE AND HUYUE ZHAO
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maine
Orono, ME 04469, USA
(Received August 13, 2004)
(Accepted December 19, 2004)
ABSTRACT: A newly developed theory for the analysis of tapered sandwich panels
with laminated anisotropic facings is presented. Unlike sandwich panels of uniform
depth, the response of tapered sandwich panels is counterintuitive. For example,
prior studies have demonstrated that a tapered cantilever sandwich beam having
constant dimensions at the clamped edge and subjected to a tip load has an optimum
taper angle where the tip deflection is a minimum. The decrease in tip deflection
with increasing taper angle, despite the reduction in core thickness, is due to the
participation of the facings in resisting transverse shear loads. In the present work,
we systematically develop a tapered sandwich theory that is simple to use, yet
accurately predicts the stresses and deflection of both symmetric and nonsymmetric
tapered sections. A novel feature of the analytical model is that the elastic rigidities
of tapered sandwich composites are expressed in terms of the familiar A, B, and D
matrices that are widely used to analyze the response of laminated plates and
sandwich beams of uniform depth. It is shown that the stiffness matrix for a tapered
sandwich member exhibits a total of 12 elastic couplings that are absent in sandwich
beams of uniform depth. The analytical model predicts large interlaminar shear
and normal stresses near the root of the tapered sandwich beam, which can cause
delamination failure between the facings and the core. Numerical results obtained
using the tapered sandwich theory and two-dimensional finite element models are
in good agreement for several case studies.
KEY WORDS: sandwich construction, honeycomb core, tapered composite, finite
element analysis
INTRODUCTION
S
ANDWICH CONSTRUCTION IS one of the most functional forms of composite structures
developed by the composite industry. It has attained broad acceptance in aerospace
and many other industries and is widely employed in aircraft and space vehicles, ships,
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: senthil.vel@maine.edu
Journal of COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Vol. 39, No. 24/2005 2161
0021-9983/05/24 216123 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0021998305052033
2005 SAGE Publications
boats, cargo containers, and in residential construction. Sandwich construction provides
several key benefits over the conventional structures, such as very high bending stiffness,
low weight, cost effectiveness, and durability. The major advantage of this structural type
is a very high stiffness-to-weight ratio and high bending strength. A typical sandwich beam
or panel usually consists of honeycomb, foam, or low-density wood cores sandwiched
between isotropic or laminated facings. When laminated facings are used, they may be
designed to have quasi-isotropic, orthotropic, or anisotropic properties. The facings
are designed to carry primarily the bending stresses while the core resists the transverse
shear loads and increases the flexural stiffness of the structure by holding the facings apart.
The structural analysis of constant-thickness sandwich composite structures is discussed
in books by Whitney [1] and Vinson [2], the emphasis being on the importance of including
the shear flexibility of the core.
In many applications, such as in the design of aerospace vehicles, it is necessary to use
variable-thickness sandwich construction, either locally or globally, for functional and/or
aerodynamic reasons. The tapered sandwich connection, where the facings are drawn
together at the support to connect the sandwich component to a framework is another
reason for using a variable-thickness construction. Use of tapered connection in sandwich
structural components typically leads to a substantial reduction in construction depth.
This type of connection was studied experimentally and analytically by Caccese and
Gauthier [3,4] for its potential use in the aeroshell structure of the NASA X-38. Kuczma
and Vizzini [5] have investigated the failure modes and load distributions in tapered
sandwich-to-laminate specimens under tensile, compressive, and bending loads and
the experimental data were correlated with three-dimensional finite element models. In
general, experiments have shown that initial damage in tapered sandwich connections
occurs at the root of the taper resulting in delamination of the facings from the core.
When dealing with homogeneous beams of variable thickness, it is usually assumed that
the constant-thickness momentcurvature relationships of beam theory are still valid,
provided we use the bending rigidity based on the local thickness. Huang and Alspaugh [6]
used a constant-thickness sandwich theory, with stiffnesses that varied in accordance with
the local thickness, to study sandwich beams of variable thickness. It was shown by Libove
and Lu [7,8] that this approach can lead to significant errors since the membrane stresses
in the facings have a transverse shear component, which alters the transverse shear load in
the core and hence its transverse shear deformation. The theory was extended by Paydar
and Libove [9,10] to study the general bending of isotropic sandwich plates of variable
thickness and by Lu [11] to analyze the tapered sandwich beams consisting of fiber-
reinforced anisotropic facings and honeycomb core. Peled and Frostig [12] have rigorously
developed a theory for the analysis of tapered sandwich beams with transversely flexible
core. Their analysis accounts for higher-order effects in the form of nonlinear displace-
ment fields through the thickness of the sandwich beam, which are pronounced in the
vicinity of concentrated loads or supports as well as at the ends of tapered transition zones.
In their theory, the core and facings are assumed to be isotropic and the elastic coupling
effects due to anisotropic facings are not explored. Thomsen and Vinson [13] have
presented a high-order sandwich theory for the analysis of tapered sandwich beams or
plates, which enables the face sheets to deflect differently under the action of external
loading, thus making it possible to quantify the localized bending effects.
In order to design and use tapered sandwich composite construction in practical
applications, it is important to accurately compute the stresses and deflections. Reliable
estimates of the stresses, in conjunction with a good failure theory, are necessary to predict
2162 S. S. VEL ET AL.
the maximum load-carrying capacity of tapered sandwich structures. The objective of the
present investigation is to develop a simple tapered sandwich theory in which the reference
surface strains and curvatures are related to the applied loads through the familiar A, B,
and D matrices that are widely used to analyze the response of laminated plates and
sandwich beams of uniform depth. It is rigorously demonstrated that unlike sandwich
panels of uniform thickness, tapered sandwich structures exhibit bending-shear and
extension-shear elastic couplings. For example, bending-shear coupling implies that a
bending moment will cause shear deformation of the core in a tapered sandwich beam.
This is because the longitudinal force in the plane of facing, caused by the bending
moment, has a vertical component that alters the shear force in the core. Although the
bending-shear coupling effect is well known [7,10], there are additional elastic couplings
that exist for tapered sandwich beams. In our tapered sandwich formulation, we
systematically derive a total of 12 elastic stiffnesses that couple the transverse shear
deformation to the force and moment resultants. Six of the twelve elastic couplings are due
to the inclination of the facings in tapered sandwich construction, irrespective of whether
the facings are isotropic or anisotropic, whereas the remaining six elastic couplings are
present only when the tapered sandwich beam has anisotropic laminated facings.
Recently, Vel et al. [14] presented a theory for tapered sandwich composites with
isotropic facings. In the present work, we consider tapered sandwich structures consisting
of laminated anisotropic facings and a honeycomb core. The flexural strains in the facings
are assumed to vary linearly as a function of the thickness coordinate. The transverse shear
and normal strains of each facing lamina are obtained in terms of the flexural strains by
assuming that the facings are in a state of plane stress. The constitutive equations are used
to obtain the stiffness matrix for the tapered sandwich structure, which relates the force
and moment resultants to the flexural strains of the facings and transverse shear strains of
the core. The deflection is computed through a strain energy approach using Castiglianos
second theorem. The shear and peeling stresses at the interface between the core and the
facings, which may cause delamination at the interface, are computed by integrating
the three-dimensional equilibrium equations along a straight path that is perpendicular
to the facings. The proposed theory accurately predicts the stresses and deflection of
both symmetric and nonsymmetric tapered sections. Results for the cylindrical bending of
tapered sandwich plates using the proposed theory are in agreement with two-dimensional
plane strain finite element models for several case studies.
PROBLEM FORMULATION
The analytical development of tapered composite members begins with the general
depiction of a tapered sandwich beam as shown in Figure 1. We use a rectangular
Cartesian coordinate system, denoted by x-y-z in Figure 1, to describe the deformation of
a tapered sandwich beam with laminated anisotropic facings. The thickness is assumed to
vary linearly along the span (x-direction). It is assumed that the facings are relatively thin
compared to the core and therefore behave as membranes. It is assumed that the core is
inextensible in the thickness direction and it can resist transverse shear stresses. Since each
facing is inclined to the horizontal axis, it is advantageous to use a separate local
coordinate system, denoted by s-y-n in Figure 1(a), such that the s- and n-axes are parallel
and normal to the facing, respectively. The angle of inclination of the facing is taken as
positive counter-clockwise with respect to the x-axis. The angle of inclination of the top
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2163
and bottom facings are denoted by
t
and
b
, respectively. Each facing consists of
orthotropic laminae with the principal material direction of lamina k oriented at an angle

k
relative to the s-axis of the facing. The sandwich structure is composed of N distinct
layers numbered from bottom to top as shown in Figure 1(b). The core is denoted as layer
number C and the top and bottom facings consist of C1 and NC distinct laminae,
respectively. The z-coordinate of the top surface of the kth layer is designated z
k 1
with
the bottom surface of the layer being z
k
. In general, the z
k
(k = 1, 2, . . . , N) are functions of
the x-coordinate, since the sandwich structure is tapered.
ANALYTICAL MODEL
Since the facings are relatively thin compared to the core, it is assumed that the facing
laminae are in a state of plane stress. This is a reasonable assumption since the stress
components in the plane of the facing are generally much larger than the stress
components perpendicular to the facing surface. Since the facings are inclined, the plane
stress conditions are
o
nn
= t
sn
= t
yn
= 0, (1)
where o denotes the normal stress components and t the shear stress components.
Figure 1. Coordinate system and layer numbering for a tapered sandwich composite beam with laminated
facesheets.
2164 S. S. VEL ET AL.
It is assumed that the laminated facings are made of orthotropic laminae with
the principal material direction of each lamina oriented at angle with respect to the
s-coordinate direction. The stressstrain relations for an orthotropic lamina in the
(s, y, n) coordinate system are
o
ss
o
yy
o
nn
t
yn
t
sn
t
sy
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
=
C
11
C
12
C
13
0 0 C
16
C
12
C
22
C
23
0 0 C
26
C
13
C
23
C
33
0 0 C
36
0 0 0 C
44
C
45
0
0 0 0 C
45
C
55
0
C
16
C
26
C
36
0 0 C
66
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
c
ss
c
yy
c
nn
,
yn
,
sn
,
sy
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
, (2)
where C
ij
are the elastic stiffness components. The stiffness components C
ij
can be
obtained in terms of the Youngs moduli E
1
, E
2
, E
3
, Poissons ratios v
23
, v
13
, v
13
, shear
moduli G
23
, G
12
, G
13
, and fiber orientation (e.g., see [15], pp. 5761).
The stresses in the (x, y, z) and (s, y, n) coordinate systems are related as:
o { ]
syn
= R [ ] o { ]
xyz
,
o { ]
xyz
= T [ ] o { ]
syn
,
(3)
and the corresponding relations between the strains are
c { ]
syn
= T [ ]
T
c { ]
xyz
,
c { ]
xyz
= R [ ]
T
c { ]
syn
,
(4)
where o { ]
xyz
= {o
xx
, o
yy
, o
zz
, t
yz
, t
xz
, t
xy
]
T
, {c]
xyz
= {c
xx
, c
yy
, c
zz
, ,
yz
, ,
xz
, ,
xy
]
T
, o { ]
syn
=
{o
ss
, o
yy
, o
nn
, t
yn
, t
sn
, t
sy
]
T
, and c { ]
syn
= {c
ss
, c
yy
, c
nn
, ,
yn
, ,
sn
, ,
sy
]
T
are the stress and strain
components in the (x, y, z) and (s, y, n) coordinate systems, respectively. Matrices [R]
and [T] are coordinate transformation matrices that are defined in terms of the facing
inclination angle as
R [ ] =
cos
2
0 sin
2
0 2 cos sin 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
sin
2
0 cos
2
0 2 cos sin 0
0 0 0 cos 0 sin
cos sin 0 cos sin 0 cos
2
sin
2
0
0 0 0 sin 0 cos
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
, (5)
T [ ] =
cos
2
0 sin
2
0 2 cos sin 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
sin
2
0 cos
2
0 2 cos sin 0
0 0 0 cos 0 sin
cos sin 0 cos sin 0 cos
2
sin
2
0
0 0 0 sin 0 cos
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
. (6)
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2165
As in the case of uniform sandwich beams of constant depth (see [1,2]), an analytical
model for tapered beams is developed by assuming that the strains in the facings are linear
functions of the thickness coordinate. The strains in the facings c
xx
, c
yy
, and ,
xy
are taken
to be linear functions of the z-coordinate as follows:
c
xx
= c
0
xx
(x) zk
0
xx
(x),
c
yy
= c
0
yy
(x) zk
0
yy
(x),
,
xy
= ,
0
xy
(x) zk
0
xy
(x).
(7)
It is noted that the transverse normal strain c
zz
, and the transverse shear strains ,
xz
and
,
yz
in the facings can be obtained from c
xx
, c
yy
, and ,
xy
as shown here by recognizing that
the facings are in a state of plane stress. The stresses in the (s, y, n) coordinate system
are obtained through o { ]
syn
= [C] c { ]
syn
= [C][T]
T
{c]
xyz
. The three plane stress conditions
in Equation (1) are enforced to obtain c
zz
, ,
xz
, and ,
yz
in terms of c
xx
, c
yy
, and ,
xy
as:
c
zz
=
C
13
cos
2
C
33
sin
2

c
xx

C
23
(cos
2
sin
2
)

c
yy

C
36
(cos
2
sin
2
)
cos
,
xy
,
,
xz
=
2(C
13
C
33
) cos sin

c
xx

2C
23
cos sin

c
yy

2C
36
sin

,
xy
,
,
yz
= ,
xy
tan ,
(8)
where
= C
13
sin
2
C
33
cos
2
. (9)
The stressstrain relations in the (x, y, z) coordinate system for an inclined facing lamina,
computed using Equations (8), (4)
1
, (2), (3)
2
are
o
xx
o
yy
o
zz
t
yz
t
xz
t
xy
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
=
~
QQ
11
~
QQ
12
~
QQ
16
~
QQ
21
~
QQ
22
~
QQ
26
~
QQ
31
~
QQ
32
~
QQ
36
~
QQ
41
~
QQ
42
~
QQ
46
~
QQ
51
~
QQ
52
~
QQ
56
~
QQ
61
~
QQ
62
~
QQ
66
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
c
xx
c
yy
,
xy
8
>
<
>
:
9
>
=
>
;
, (10)
where
~
QQ
ij
are the plane stress reduced stiffnesses for an inclined facing lamina, defined as:
~
QQ
11
= C
2
13
C
11
C
33

cos
2
,,
~
QQ
12
= C
13
C
23
C
12
C
33

cos
2
C
12
C
13
C
11
C
23

sin
2

cos
2
,,
~
QQ
16
= C
13
C
36
C
16
C
33

cos
3
C
13
C
16
C
11
C
36

cos sin
2

,,
~
QQ
21
= C
13
C
23
C
12
C
33

,,
~
QQ
22
= C
2
23
C
22
C
33

cos
2
C
13
C
22
C
12
C
23

sin
2

,,
~
QQ
26
= C
23
C
36
C
26
C
33

cos
2
C
13
C
26
C
12
C
36

sin
2

,cos ,
2166 S. S. VEL ET AL.
~
QQ
31
= C
2
13
C
11
C
33

sin
2
,,
~
QQ
32
= C
13
C
23
C
12
C
33

cos
2
C
12
C
13
C
11
C
23

sin
2

sin
2
,,
~
QQ
36
= C
13
C
36
C
16
C
33

cos
2
C
13
C
16
C
11
C
36

sin
2

sin
2
,cos ,
~
QQ
41
= C
16
C
33
C
13
C
36

sin ,,
~
QQ
42
= C
23
C
36
C
26
C
33

cos
2
sin C
13
C
26
C
16
C
23

sin
3

,,
~
QQ
46
= C
2
36
C
33
C
66

cos
2
sin C
13
C
66
C
16
C
36

sin
3

,cos ,
~
QQ
51
= C
2
13
C
11
C
33

cos sin ,,
~
QQ
52
= C
13
C
23
C
12
C
33

cos
3
sin C
12
C
13
C
11
C
23

cos sin
3

,,
~
QQ
56
= C
13
C
36
C
16
C
33

cos
2
sin C
13
C
16
C
11
C
36

sin
3

,,
~
QQ
61
= C
13
C
36
C
16
C
33

cos ,,
~
QQ
62
= C
23
C
36
C
26
C
33

cos
3
C
13
C
26
C
16
C
23

cos sin
2

,,
~
QQ
66
= C
2
36
C
33
C
66

cos
2
C
13
C
66
C
16
C
36

sin
2

,.
(11)
It should be noted that the reduced stiffnesses
~
QQ
ij
vary from lamina to lamina since they
depend on the elastic constants C
ij
of the lamina.
The core is made of an orthotropic material and its primary function is to space and
stabilize the facings and transfer shear between them. The in-plane stresses o
xx
, o
yy
, and
t
xy
of the core are assumed to be negligible compared to that in the facings. The transverse
shear stresses t
xz
and t
yz
in the core are assumed to be constant throughout the thickness
and they are related to the core shear strains by
t
(C)
xz
= G
c
13
,
c
xz
,
t
(C)
yz
= G
c
23
,
c
yz
,
(12)
where G
c
13
and G
c
23
are the transverse shear moduli of the core, and ,
c
xz
and ,
c
yz
are the transverse shear strains of the core. The stress resultants are defined as:
N
x
, N
y
, N
xy

=
Z
z
N
(x)
z
0
(x)
o
xx
, o
yy
, t
xy

dz,
Q
x
, Q
y

=
Z
z
N
(x)
z
0
(x)
t
xz
, t
yz

dz,
M
x
, M
y
, M
xy

=
Z
z
N
(x)
z
0
(x)
z o
xx
, o
yy
, t
xy

dz,
(13)
where the quantities N
x
, N
y
, and N
xy
are the in-plane force resultants, Q
x
and Q
y
are
the transverse shear force resultants, and M
x
, M
y
, and M
xy
are the moment resultants,
as depicted in Figure 2. Substitution of the facing stresses from Equation (10) and the
core stresses from Equation (12) into Equation (13) leads to the following matrix
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2167
equation for the resultant forces and moments in terms of the reference surface strains and
curvatures and core shear strains
N
x
N
y
Q
y
Q
x
N
xy
M
x
M
y
M
xy
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
=
A
11
A
12
0 0 A
16
B
11
B
12
B
16
A
21
A
22
0 0 A
26
B
21
B
22
B
26
A
41
A
42
A
44
0 A
46
B
41
B
42
B
46
A
51
A
52
0 A
55
A
56
B
51
B
52
B
56
A
61
A
62
0 0 A
66
B
61
B
62
B
66
B
11
B
12
0 0 B
16
D
11
D
12
D
16
B
21
B
22
0 0 B
26
D
21
D
22
D
26
B
61
B
62
0 0 B
66
D
61
D
62
D
66
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
c
0
xx
c
0
yy
,
c
yz
,
c
xz
,
0
xy
k
0
xx
k
0
yy
k
0
xy
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
, (14)
where A
ij
, D
ij
, and B
ij
are the stiffnesses which have the definitions
A
ij
x ( ), B
ij
x ( ), D
ij
x ( )

=
X
N
k=1
k,=C
Z
z
k
(x)
z
k1
(x)
~
QQ
(k)
ij
1, z, z
2

dz, (15)
except for A
44
and A
55
which are defined as
A
44
(x), A
55
(x) [ ] = G
c
23
, G
c
13

z
C1
x ( ) z
C
x ( ) ( ). (16)
z
y
x
N
x
Q
y
N
y
N
x
Q
y
N
y
N
xy
Q
x
N
xy
Q
x
N
xy
N
xy
M
xy
M
xy
M
xy
M
xy
M
y
M
x
M
y
(a)
(b)
M
x
z
y
x
Figure 2. (a) Force and (b) moment resultants on a sandwich element.
2168 S. S. VEL ET AL.
Alternatively, the reference surface strains, curvatures, and core shear strains can be
related to the resultant force and moment resultants by inverting the matrix in
Equation (14):
c
0
xx
c
0
yy
,
c
yz
,
c
xz
,
0
xy
k
0
xx
k
0
yy
k
0
xy
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
=
a
11
a
12
0 0 a
16
b
11
b
12
b
16
a
21
a
22
0 0 a
26
b
21
b
22
b
26
a
41
a
42
a
44
0 a
46
b
41
b
42
b
46
a
51
a
52
0 a
55
a
56
b
51
b
52
b
56
a
61
a
62
0 0 a
66
b
61
b
62
b
66
b
/
11
b
/
12
0 0 b
/
16
d
11
d
12
d
16
b
/
21
b
/
22
0 0 b
/
26
d
21
d
22
d
26
b
/
61
b
/
62
0 0 b
/
66
d
61
d
62
d
66
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
N
x
N
y
Q
y
Q
x
N
xy
M
x
M
y
M
xy
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
, (17)
where a
ij
, b
ij
, b
/
ij
, and d
ij
the elastic compliances of tapered sandwich panels.
Analysis of Sandwich Beam Bending and Cylindrical Bending
There are two cases of sandwich structures that can be treated as one-dimensional
problems: (1) tapered sandwich beams, and (2) cylindrical bending of tapered sandwich
panels. If the width of the beam along the y-axis is smaller than the length along the x-axis,
it is treated as a sandwich beam. For a statically determinate sandwich beam in bending,
the transverse shear force resultant Q
x
and bending moment M
x
are known, whereas
the other loads are assumed to vanish, i.e., N
x
= N
y
= Q
y
= N
xy
= M
y
= M
xy
= 0. In this
case, the reference surface strains, curvatures, and transverse shear strains can be computed
from Equation (14) and the stresses are computed using Equation (10). A sandwich plate
that is very long along the y-axis and of finite dimension along the x-axis is considered to
be in cylindrical bending. It is assumed that all derivatives with respect to y are zero and
the midsurface of the tapered member deforms into a cylindrical shape. For a statically
determinate sandwich plate in cylindrical bending, the transverse shear load Q
x
and
bending moment M
x
are assumed to be known, whereas N
x
= Q
y
= N
xy
= M
xy
= 0,
c
0
yy
= k
0
yy
= 0 and c
0
xx
, N
y
, ,
c
yz
, ,
c
xz
, ,
0
xy
, k
0
xx
, M
y
, and k
0
xy
are determined from
Equation (14).
After the in-plane stresses in the facing laminae and transverse shear stresses in the core
have been determined, an energy method is used to calculate the deflections at key
locations along the span of the tapered sandwich beam. The general expressions for the
total strain energy in the top and bottom facings and the core are
U
0
=
1
2
X
N
k=1
k,=C
Z
L
L
Z
z
k
(x)
z
k1
(x)
o
(k)
ss
c
(k)
ss
o
(k)
yy
c
(k)
yy
o
(k)
zz
c
(k)
zz
t
(k)
xy
,
(k)
xy
t
(k)
yz
,
(k)
yz
t
(k)
sy
,
(k)
sy
h i
dz dx

1
2
Z
L
L
Z
z
C
(x)
z
C1
(x)
t
(C)
xz
,
(C)
xz
t
(C)
yz
,
(C)
yz
h i
dz dx, (18)
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2169
where it is assumed that the sandwich panel extends from x = L to x = L. If the
sandwich beam is subjected to vertical forces P
i
(i =1, 2, 3, . . . ) at various locations
along the span of the beam, using Castiglianos second theorem, the corresponding
transverse deflections o
i
are
o
i
=
oU
0
oP
i
. (19)
The transverse shear stress t
ns
in the facings is computed by integrating the three-
dimensional equilibrium equations along a straight path that is perpendicular to the
facings:
t
ns
=
Z
o
ss, s
t
sy, y

dn,
t
yn
=
Z
t
ys, s
o
yy, y

dn.
(20)
The integration constants in Equation (20) are determined by recognizing that t
ns
and t
yn
vanish on the top surface z =z
0
(x) and bottom surface z =z
N
(x) of the sandwich member.
Once the transverse shear stresses t
ns
and t
yn
have been determined in the facings, the
transverse normal stress is obtained by integrating the three-dimensional equilibrium
equation perpendicular to the facings as follows
o
nn
=
Z
t
ns, s
t
yn, y

dn. (21)
ELASTIC COUPLINGS
The eight-by-eight matrix in Equation (14), consisting of the components A
ij
, B
ij
,
and D
ij
, is the stiffness matrix for a tapered sandwich composite. It is referred to as the
ABD matrix. If the sandwich composite is of uniform depth, the elastic stiffnesses
A
41
= A
42
= A
51
= A
52
= A
46
= A
56
= 0, B
41
= B
42
= B
46
= B
51
= B
52
= B
56
= 0, and
A
ij
= A
ji
, B
ij
= B
ji
, D
ij
= D
ji
. Therefore, the equations that relate the in-plane force
resultants and bending moments to the midsurface strains and curvatures become
uncoupled from the equations that relate the transverse shear forces to the transverse shear
strains of the core:
N
x
N
y
N
xy
M
x
M
y
M
xy
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
=
A
11
A
12
A
16
B
11
B
12
B
16
A
12
A
22
A
26
B
12
B
22
B
26
A
16
A
26
A
66
B
16
B
26
B
66
B
11
B
12
B
16
D
11
D
12
D
16
B
12
B
22
B
26
D
12
D
22
D
26
B
16
B
26
B
66
D
16
D
26
D
66
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
c
0
xx
c
0
yy
,
0
xy
k
0
xx
k
0
yy
k
0
xy
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
,
Q
y
Q
x
( )
=
A
44
0
0 A
55
" #
,
c
yz
,
c
xz
( )
.
(22)
2170 S. S. VEL ET AL.
Equations (22) are the classical equations for a sandwich composite of uniform depth [1,2].
A detailed discussion of the physical significance of the elastic stiffnessses A
ij
, B
ij
, D
ij
in Equation (22) can be found in most books on laminated composite materials (e.g.,
see [1518]).
Unlike sandwich composites of uniform depth, tapered sandwich composites exhibit
bending-transverse shear and axial extension-transverse shear elastic couplings. For
example, the bending-transverse shear coupling implies that a bending moment will cause
transverse shear deformation of the core in tapered sandwich beams. This is illustrated
by considering a symmetric tapered sandwich beam with facings inclined at an angle
to the horizontal and subjected to a bending moment M
x
and transverse shear force
Q
x
as depicted in Figure 3(a). Assuming that the core has negligible bending stiff-
ness, the bending moment is transmitted as a longitudinal force F in the plane of
the facings. The forces in the facings have a transverse shear component due to their
angle of inclination which alters the transverse shear force in the core, as demonstrated in
Figure 3(b) where a statically equivalent set of forces is shown. Thus, a bending moment
M
x
will influence the transverse shear strain in the core. In our analytical model, the
compliance b
51
in Equation (17) signifies the existence of bendingtransverse shear
coupling. Similarly, a resultant axial force N
x
alters the transverse shear force in the core
in an unsymmetric sandwich beam as depicted in Figure 3(c) and (d), resulting in axial
extensiontransverse shear coupling. In the present analytical model, the compliance
a
51
in Equation (17) signifies the existence of the axial extensiontransverse shear
coupling. Although the bendingtransverse shear coupling is well known [7,10], there
are additional elastic couplings for tapered sandwich beams. In our analytical model
Q
x
M
x
F=M
x
/h cosf
Q
x
c
F
Q
x
F
t
=N
x
h
b
/(h
b
+h
t
)cosf
F
b
=N
x
h
t
/(h
b
+h
t
)
Q
x
c
(a)
(c)
=Q
x
+2M
x
tanf/h
=Q
x
-N
x
h
b
tanf /(h
b
+h
t
)
h
x
z
x
z
h
b
h
t
N
x
(b)
(d)
f
f
Figure 3. (a) and (b) Bendingtransverse shear elastic coupling and (c) and (d) Extensiontransverse shear
elastic coupling.
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2171
for tapered sandwich members, there are a total of 12 elastic stiffnesses, namely A
41
, A
42
,
A
46
, A
51
, A
52
, A
56
, B
41
, B
42
, B
46
, B
51
, B
52
, B
56
, which couple the transverse shear forces
Q
x
and Q
y
to the strains c
0
xx
, c
0
yy
, ,
0
xy
and curvatures k
0
xx
, k
0
yy
, k
0
xy
, as is evident
from Equation (14). Alternatively, the 12 elastic compliances a
41
, a
42
, a
46
, a
51
, a
52
, a
56
,
b
41
, b
42
, b
46
, b
51
, b
52
, and b
56
in Equation (17) couple the force and moment resultants
N
x
, N
y
, N
xy
, M
x
, M
y
, and M
xy
to the transverse shear strains ,
c
yz
and ,
c
xz
of the core.
These twelve elastic coupling stiffnesses, which are intrinsic to tapered sandwich
composites, are identically zero for sandwich composites of uniform depth.
Unsymmetric or asymmetric sandwich panels are the most general cases of tapered
sandwich composites. For certain special tapered sandwich panels, such as symmetric
or antisymmetric panels, some of the elastic coupling coefficients are identically zero.
A tapered sandwich laminate is said to be symmetric if it exhibits symmetry in both
geometry (distances of facing laminae from middle surface, layer thicknesses, and
inclination angle of facings) and material properties (lamina material and fiber
orientation) about the midsurface. Antisymmetry of a sandwich laminate requires
symmetry in geometry and laminae material but layers that are equidistant from the
midsurface have fiber orientations that are mirror images about the xz plane.
Elastic Couplings Due to Inclination of the Facings
Six of the twelve elastic coupling stiffnesses, namely A
51
, A
52
, A
46
, B
51
, B
52
, and B
46
,
are due to the inclination of the facings and can be nonzero even when the facings are
isotropic. The physical significance of these coupling stiffnesses are discussed next.
IN-PLANE EXTENSIONTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING A
51
To understand the physical significance of the elastic stiffness A
51
, consider a
deformation wherein the sandwich member is in a state of axial deformation c
0
xx
>0 and
c
0
yy
=,
0
xy
=k
0
xx
=k
0
yy
=k
0
xy
=,
c
yz
=,
c
xz
=0. Since the transverse shear strains ,
c
yz
are ,
c
xz
of the
core are prescribed to be zero, the core shear stress t
c
xz
= 0. The longitudinal strain c
xx
causes normal stresses o
t
s
and o
b
s
in the plane of the top and bottom facings, respectively,
as shown in Figure 4(a). Due to the inclination of the facings, o
t
s
and o
b
s
have vertical
components that contribute to the transverse shear force Q
x
. Said differently, a transverse
shear force Q
x
has to be applied in addition to the axial force N
x
in order to produce an
extensional strain c
0
xx
. If the tapered sandwich section is symmetric, the vertical component
of o
s
in the facings are equal and opposite, and therefore Q
x
= 0. That is, A
51
=0 for
symmetric sandwich members. This is also evident from Equation (11). Since
~
QQ
51
is an odd
function of , the net contribution of the top and bottom facings to A
51
is zero for
symmetric tapered sandwich panels.
BENDINGTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING B
51
Consider the deformation wherein the tapered sandwich composite is in a state of
flexural deformation k
0
xx
>0, c
0
xx
=c
0
yy
=,
0
xy
=k
0
yy
=k
0
xy
=,
c
yz
=,
c
xz
=0. This deformation will
cause a compressive normal stress o
s
in the top facing and tensile normal stress o
s
in
the bottom facing as shown in Figure 4(b). The vertical component of the normal stresses
o
s
in the facings contribute to the transverse shear force Q
x
. That is, a transverse shear
force Q
x
has to be applied in addition to a bending moment M
x
to produce a bending
curvature k
0
xx
.
2172 S. S. VEL ET AL.
IN-PLANE EXTENSIONTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING A
52
Consider a deformation wherein the sandwich member is in a state of axial deforma-
tion c
0
yy
>0 and c
0
xx
= ,
0
xy
= k
0
xx
= k
0
yy
= k
0
xy
= ,
c
yz
= ,
c
xz
= 0. The longitudinal strain c
yy
causes normal stresses o
t
y
and o
b
y
in the plane of the top and bottom facings, respectively,
(a) Stresses required to produce
t
s

b
s

b
s

t
s

t
s

b
s

t
s

b
s

t
y

b
y

t
y

b
y

t
yy

b
yy

t
y

b
y

t
sy

b
sy

b
sy

t
sy

t
sy

b
sy

b
sy

t
sy

0
x

(b) Stresses required to produce

0
x

(c) Stresses required to produce

0
y
(d) Stresses required to produce
0
y

(e) Stresses required to produce

0
xy
(f) Stresses required to produce
0
xy

Figure 4. Elastic coupling rigidities (a) A

51
, (b) B
51
, (c) A
52
, (d) B
52
, (e) A
46
, and (f) B
46
.
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2173
as shown in Figure 4(c). In addition, the axial constraint c
0
xx
= 0 causes reactive stresses
o
t
s
and o
b
s
, in the top and bottom facings, respectively, that contribute to the transverse
shear force Q
x
. That is, a transverse shear force Q
x
has to be applied in addition to the
axial force N
y
to produce an extensional strain c
0
yy
. If the tapered sandwich section is
symmetric, the vertical component of o
s
in the facings are equal and opposite, and
therefore Q
x
=0. That is, A
52
=0 for symmetric sandwich members which is also evident
from Equation (11), since
~
QQ
52
is an odd function of .
BENDINGTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING B
52
Consider the deformation wherein the tapered sandwich composite is in a state of
flexural deformation k
0
yy
>0, c
0
xx
= c
0
yy
= ,
0
xy
= k
0
xx
= k
0
xy
= ,
c
yz
= ,
c
xz
= 0. The constraint
k
0
xx
= 0 causes a compressive normal stress o
t
s
in the top facing and tensile normal stress o
b
s
in the bottom facing as depicted in Figure 4(d). The vertical component of the normal
stresses in the facings contribute to the transverse shear force Q
x
. That is, a transverse
shear force Q
x
has to be applied in addition to a bending moment M
y
to produce a
bending curvature k
0
yy
.
IN-PLANE SHEARTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING A
46
Consider the in-plane shear deformation wherein ,
0
xy
>0 and c
0
xx
= c
0
yy
= k
0
xx
= k
0
yy
=
k
0
xy
= ,
c
yz
= ,
c
xz
= 0. The shear strain ,
0
xy
causes shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
in the plane of the
top and bottom facings, respectively, as shown in Figure 4(e). The shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
on the surfaces perpendicular to the y-axis have a vertical component, which contribute to
the transverse shear force Q
y
. That is, a transverse shear force Q
y
has to be applied in
addition to the shear force N
xy
to produce a shear strain ,
0
xy
. If the tapered sandwich
section is symmetric, the vertical component of t
sy
in the facings are equal and opposite,
and therefore Q
y
=0. That is, A
46
=0 for symmetric sandwich members.
TWISTINGTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING B
46
Consider the deformation wherein the tapered sandwich composite is in a state
of twisting deformation k
0
xy
>0, c
0
xx
= c
0
yy
= ,
0
xy
= k
0
xx
= k
0
yy
= ,
c
yz
= ,
c
xz
= 0. Such a
deformation causes shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
in the top and bottom facings as depicted
in Figure 4(f ). The vertical component of the shear stresses in the facings on the surfaces
perpendicular to the y-axis contribute to the transverse shear force Q
y
. That is, a
transverse shear force Q
y
has to be applied in addition to a twisting moment M
xy
to
produce a twisting curvature k
0
xy
.
Elastic Couplings Due to Inclined Anisotropic Facings
Six of the twelve elastic coupling stiffnesses, namely A
41
, A
42
, A
56
, B
41
, B
42
, and B
56
,
are nonzero only if the laminated inclined facings contain one or more angle-ply
anisotropic laminae. The physical significance of these coupling stiffnesses are discussed
next.
IN-PLANE EXTENSIONTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING A
41
To study the physical significance of the elastic stiffness A
41
, we consider the axial
deformation c
0
xx
>0, c
0
yy
= ,
0
xy
= k
0
xx
= k
0
yy
= k
0
xy
= ,
c
yz
= ,
c
xz
= 0. Since the facing
2174 S. S. VEL ET AL.
laminae are anisotropic, the nonzero longitudinal strain c
xx
and constraint ,
0
xy
= 0 lead
to shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
in the top and bottom facings, respectively, as depicted in
Figure 5(a). The shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
in the plane of the facings have a vertical
component on the surface perpendicular to the y-axis that contributes to the transverse
shear force Q
y
. If the tapered sandwich section is symmetric, the vertical components of t
sy
in the facings are equal and opposite, and therefore Q
y
=0. That is, A
41
=0 for symmetric
sandwich members.
IN-PLANE EXTENSIONTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING A
42
To study the physical significance of the elastic stiffness A
42
, we consider the axial
deformation c
0
yy
>0, c
0
xx
= ,
0
xy
= k
0
xx
= k
0
yy
= k
0
xy
= ,
c
yz
= ,
c
xz
= 0. Since the facing
laminae are anisotropic, the nonzero longitudinal strain c
yy
and constraint ,
0
xy
= 0
lead to shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
in the top and bottom facings, respectively, as shown in
Figure 5(a). The shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
in the plane of the facings have a vertical
component on the surface perpendicular to the y-axis that contributes to the transverse
shear force Q
y
. If the tapered sandwich section is symmetric, the vertical components of
t
sy
in the facings are equal and opposite, and therefore Q
y
=0. That is, A
42
=0 for
symmetric sandwich members.
IN-PLANE SHEARTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING A
56
To study the physical significance of the elastic stiffness A
56
, we consider the in-plane
shear deformation ,
0
xy
>0, c
0
xx
=c
0
yy
=k
0
xx
=k
0
yy
=k
0
xy
=,
c
yz
=,
c
xz
=0. The nonzero shear
strain ,
0
xy
and constraint c
0
xx
lead to normal stresses o
t
s
and o
b
y
in the top and bottom
facings, respectively, as shown in Figure 5(a). The normal stresses o
t
s
and o
b
s
have a vertical
component that contributes to the transverse shear force Q
x
. If the tapered sandwich
section is symmetric, the vertical components of o
s
in the facings are equal and opposite,
and therefore Q
x
=0. That is, A
56
=0 for symmetric sandwich members.
t
s

b
s

t
y

b
y

t
sy

b
sy

t
sy

b
sy

t
s

b
s

t
y

b
y

t
sy

b
sy

t
sy

b
sy

(a) Stresses required to produce or or

0
x

0
xy

0
y
(b) Stresses required to produce or or
0
x

0
y

0
xy

Figure 5. Elastic coupling rigidities A

41
, A
42
, A
56
, B
41
, B
42
, and B
56
.
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2175
BENDINGTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING B
41
To study the physical significance of the elastic stiffness B
41
, we consider the bending
deformation k
0
xx
>0, c
0
xx
= c
0
yy
= ,
0
xy
= k
0
yy
= k
0
xy
= ,
c
yz
= ,
c
xz
= 0. The longitudinal strain
c
xx
in the anisotropic facings and constraint ,
0
xy
= 0 lead to shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
in the
top and bottom facings, respectively, as depicted in Figure 5(b). The shear stresses t
t
sy
and
t
b
sy
in the plane of the facings have a vertical component on the surface perpendicular to
the y-axis that contributes to the transverse shear force Q
y
. If the tapered sandwich section
is antisymmetric, the vertical component of t
sy
in the facings are equal and opposite, and
therefore Q
y
=0. That is, B
41
=0 for antisymmetric sandwich members.
BENDINGTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING B
42
To study the physical significance of the elastic stiffness B
42
, we consider the bending
deformation k
0
yy
>0, c
0
xx
= c
0
yy
= ,
0
xy
= k
0
xx
= k
0
xy
= ,
c
yz
= ,
c
xz
= 0. Since the facing laminae
are anisotropic, the nonzero longitudinal strain c
yy
in the facings and constraint ,
0
xy
= 0
lead to shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
in the top and bottom facings, respectively, as depicted in
Figure 5(b). The shear stresses t
t
sy
and t
b
sy
in the plane of the facings have a vertical
component on the surface perpendicular to the y-axis that contributes to the transverse
shear force Q
y
. If the tapered sandwich section is antisymmetric, the vertical component of
t
sy
in the facings are equal and opposite, and therefore Q
y
=0. That is, B
42
=0 for
antisymmetric sandwich members.
TWISTINGTRANSVERSE SHEAR COUPLING B
56
To study the physical significance of the elastic stiffness B
56
, we consider the twisting
deformation k
0
xy
>0, c
0
xx
= c
0
yy
= ,
0
xy
= k
0
xx
= k
0
yy
= ,
c
yz
= ,
c
xz
= 0. The nonzero shear
strain ,
0
xy
in the anisotropic facings and constraint c
0
xx
= 0 lead to normal stresses o
t
s
and o
b
y
in the top and bottom facings, respectively, as shown in Figure 5(b). The normal
stresses o
t
s
and o
b
s
have a vertical component that contributes to the transverse shear force
Q
x
. If the tapered sandwich section is antisymmetric, the vertical component of o
s
in the
facings are equal and opposite, and therefore Q
x
=0. That is, B
56
=0 for antisymmetric
sandwich members.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We present results for tapered sandwich structural members composed of a honeycomb
core and orthotropic facings. In order to validate the simplifying assumptions of our
analytical model, we compare the stresses and deflection for one-dimensional cylindrical
bending problems, wherein the midsurface strains and curvatures are only a function of
x, with results obtained from a refined two-dimensional plane strain (the xz plane)
finite element model. To this end, we consider the three-point bending of symmetric
and unsymmetric tapered sandwich members shown in Figure 6(a) and (b), respectively,
having a constant taper angle , length 2L, and core depth at midspan of H. The sandwich
members are simply supported at the edges x =L and subjected to a concentrated
point force 2P at midspan. The properties of the core correspond to that of Hexcel
HRP-3/16-5.5, with shear moduli G
C
13
= 131 MPa and G
C
23
= 76 MPa. The facing laminae
are made of unidirectional fiber-reinforced graphitepolymer material of ply thickness
0.15 mm, and having the following Youngs moduli, shear moduli, and Poissons ratio in
the principal material directions: E
1
= 155 GPa, E
2
= E
3
= 12.1 GPa, G
23
= 3.2 GPa,
2176 S. S. VEL ET AL.
G
12
= G
13
= 4.4 GPa, v
23
= 0.458, v
13
= v
12
= 0.248 [18]. Only one-half of the tapered
sandwich panel (0 _ x _ L) is analyzed due to symmetry. The finite element analysis is
performed using ABAQUS/Standard [19] using approximately 60,000 eight-noded
quadratic plane strain elements. The finite element mesh contains four elements through
the thickness of each facing lamina in order to obtain accurate results for the interlaminar
shear and normal stresses in the facings.
Consider the three-point bending of the simply supported symmetric sandwich structure
shown in Figure 6(a) with dimensions L=80 mm and H=60 mm. Each facing is made of
6 layers of graphitepolymer fiber-reinforced laminae with orientations [0
2
/90
2
/0
2
]. The
depth of the sandwich structure at midspan (x =0) is kept constant as the taper angle is
varied from 0

to 20

. The deflection o at the center (x=0, z =0) of the tapered sandwich

structure is shown in Figure 7 as a function of the taper angle . It is observed that the
analytical model overestimates the transverse deflection compared to the finite element
model. However, it should be noted that due to application of the point load at the top
surface, the transverse deflection here (z =H/2) is larger than at the midsurface (z =0) in
the finite element model. The change in thickness of the core cannot be accounted for in
our analytical model. The reader is referred to Peled and Frostig [12] for a refined model
that incorporates thickness distension of the core. It is observed that as the taper angle
increases, the deflection gradually decreases for small taper angles and then begins to
sharply increase for large taper angles. The finite element model exhibits a similar trend.
The initial decrease in the deflection can be attributed to the participation of the facings
in transverse shear load. As the taper angle increases further, this effect is offset by an
increase in deflection due to the decrease in bending stiffness caused by the reduction in
cross section near the edges.
Figure 6. Simply supported (a) symmetric and (b) unsymmetric tapered sandwich panels subjected to a
concentrated load.
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2177
Figure 8(a)(d) depict the axial variation of the longitudinal stress o
ss
on the bottom
surface of the bottom facing for taper angles =0

, 10

, 15

, and 20

. The analytical and

finite element results are in good agreement for taper angles =0

and 10

, expect near
the midspan x =0. The stress singularity at the midspan may be due to the abrupt change
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Analytical
FEA
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
x/L x/L
x/L x/L
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000

s
s
/
P

(
m
-
2
)

s
s
/
P

(
m
-
2
)

s
s
/
P

(
m
-
2
)

s
s
/
P

(
m
-
2
)
= 0

= 10

= 15

= 20

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Figure 8. Comparison of analytical and FEA longitudinal stress at the bottom surface for various taper angles
(symmetric tapered sandwich panel, H=60mm, L=80mm).
0 5 10 15 20
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Analytical
FEA

/
P

(
1
0

8

m
/
N
)
f
Figure 7. Comparison of analytical and FEA deflection for various taper angles (symmetric tapered sandwich
panel, H=60 mm, L =80mm).
2178 S. S. VEL ET AL.
in taper angle at that location. This causes a three-dimensional state of stress in the
facings, which is not well captured by our analytical model that is based on the plane stress
assumption for the facings. The finite element results are more accurate since it does not
assume a simple stress state in the facings. For larger taper angles, the results are in good
agreement away from the midspan and at support points. The discrepancy in stresses
at the edges can be attributed to the fact that for large taper angles, the facing thick-
ness is comparable to the core thickness at the support points and hence the facings
cannot be treated as membranes. For example, for a taper angle of 20

, the facing
thickness of 0.9 mm is comparable to the core thickness of 1.7 mm at the edges. There is
good agreement between the analytical and finite element results for the interlaminar
shear stress t
ns
at the interface between the honeycomb core and bottom facing, shown in
Figure 9 as a function of the axial coordinate x, even at the simply supported edges. In the
finite element analysis, stresses are computed at the nodes by averaging the values at
the neighboring integration points. It is observed that there is a significant increase in the
magnitude of the interlaminar shear stress t
ns
at the edges as the taper angle increases. The
interlaminar transverse normal stress component o
nn
(peel stress) at the interface between
the core and the bottom facing, depicted in Figure 10 for a taper angle of 20

, also exhibits
a similar trend. These severe interlaminar stress concentrations, which occur at the root of
a tapered sandwich member, may lead to premature delamination failure at the interface
between the core and the facings and endanger structural integrity. There is a lack of
experimental work focusing on the response at the root of tapered sandwich members.
It is recommended that a thorough experimental study be performed where the material
properties of the facing, core, and adhesive are accurately categorized. That would lead
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
x/L
Analytical
FEA
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
x/L
x/L x/L
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-400
-300
-200
-100
0

n
s
/
P

(
m
-
2
)

n
s
/
P

(
m
-
2
)

n
s
/
P

(
m
-
2
)

n
s
/
P

(
m
-
2
)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
= 0
= 10
= 15
= 20

Figure 9. Comparison of analytical and FEA interlaminar shear stress between the core and the bottom facing
for various taper angles (symmetric tapered sandwich panel, H=60mm, L =80mm).
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2179
to a practical approach for ascertaining a design value for the failure strength at that
location.
Next, we compare the analytical and finite element results for different core stiffnesses.
The core shear modulus is assumed as G
C
13
= 131o MPa and G
C
23
= 76oMPa, where o is a
parameter that allows us to vary the core stiffness. The deflection is computed for taper
angle =15

and different core stiffness parameters o = 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3,
4, 6, and 10. There is good agreement between the analytical and finite element deflection
o at the center of the tapered sandwich panel as shown in Figure 11 for all core shear
moduli considered.
The unsymmetric tapered sandwich composite depicted in Figure 6(b) is considered
next. The dimensions are chosen to be L=80 mm, H=85 mm and each facing consists of
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Core shear modulus G
xz
(MPa)
Analytical
FEA

/
P

(
1
0

8

m
/
N
)
Figure 11. Comparison of analytical and FEA deflection o at x =0, z =0 for different core transverse shear
moduli (symmetric tapered sandwich panel, H=60mm, L=80mm).
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50

n
n
/
P

(
m
-
2
)
x/L
Analytical
FEA
Figure 10. Comparison of analytical and FEA interlaminar peel stress between the core and the bottom facing
for various taper angles (symmetric tapered sandwich panel, H=60mm, L =80 mm).
2180 S. S. VEL ET AL.
6 layers of graphitepolymer fiber-reinforced laminae with orientations [0
2
,90
2
,0
2
].
The deflection at the center of the unsymmetric panel (x = 0, z = H,2) is shown in
Figure 12 for taper angles = 0

, 15

, 30

, and 45

. The analytical and finite element

results are in good agreement, except for = 45

. The analytical model predicts that

the deflection is a minimum at - 39

, which does not correlate well with the finite

element model. The longitudinal stress o
ss
at the bottom surface and the transverse
shear stress t
ns
at the interface between the core and the bottom facing are shown in
Figure 13 for a taper angle of = 30

. The comparison between the analytical and finite

element results for the stresses in an unsymmetric sandwich panel are observed to be
qualitatively similar to the symmetric laminate, with the largest discrepancy occurring
at the midspan x =0.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
2
4
6
8
Analytical
FEA

/
P

(
1
0

8

m
/
N
)
f
Figure 12. Comparison of analytical and FEA deflection for various taper angles (unsymmetric tapered
sandwich panel, H=60mm, L =80mm).
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
x/L
Analytical
FEA

s
s
/
P

(
m

2
)
(a)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
x/L

s
s
/
P

(
m

2
)
(b)
Figure 13. Comparison of analytical and FEA (a) longitudinal stress at the bottom surface and (b) interlaminar
shear stress between the core and the bottom facing (unsymmetric tapered sandwich panel, H=60mm,
L =80mm).
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2181
CONCLUSIONS
We have developed a tapered sandwich theory in which the force and moment resultants
are related to the reference surface strains and curvatures through the familiar A, B, and
D matrices. We also have systematically derived a total of 12 elastic stiffnesses that couple
the force and moment resultants to the transverse shear deformation. Six of the twelve
elastic couplings are due to the tapered sandwich construction itself, irrespective of
whether the facings are isotropic or anisotropic, whereas the remaining six elastic
couplings are present only for anisotropic laminated facings. The physical significance of
the elastic couplings are discussed in detail. Due to the kinematic assumptions, the current
model is more accurate when the facings are relatively thin compared to the core. The
stresses are inaccurate in the vicinity of concentrated loads or at locations where there is an
abrupt change in taper angle.
Results from the tapered sandwich theory show good comparison with finite
element models for several case studies. The deflection of a symmetric simply supported
member initially decreases for the increasing taper angle and there is an optimum
taper angle where the deflection is a minimum. This decrease in deformation with
increasing taper angle is due to the participation of the facings in resisting transverse shear
loads. Severe interlaminar stress concentrations are observed near the root of a tapered
sandwich beam, which may lead to delamination failure at the interface between the core
and the facings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded in part by the Office of Naval Research under grant number
N00014-01-1-0916. Dr Roshdy Barsoum of ONR is the cognizant program officer.
The authors also gratefully acknowledge the advice and assistance of engineers at NASA/
JSC especially Tammy Gafka and Ron Baccus.
REFERENCES
1. Whitney, J.M. (1987). Structural Analysis of Laminated Anisotropic Plates, Technomic Publishing
Company, Lancaster, PA.
2. Vinson, J.R. (1999), The Behavior of Sandwich Structures of Isotropic and Composite Materials,
Technomic Publishing Company, Lancaster, PA.
3. Caccese, V. and Gauthier, R. (1998). Strength and Stability of Composite Sandwich Panels for
the NASA X-38, Report to MSTF-NASA Space Grant under Grant No. MSTF 96-48,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, August 1998.
4. Caccese, V. and Gauthier, R. (1998). Strength of the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle Aeroshell
Composite Panels, Report to NASA JSC under Grant No. NGT 9-7, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, July 1998.
5. Kuczma, S.K. and Vizzini, A.J. (1999). Failure of Sandwich to Laminate Tapered Composite
Structures, AIAA Journal, 37: 227231.
6. Huang, S.N. and Alspaugh, D.W. (1974). Minimum Weight Sandwich Beam Design, AIAA
Journal, 12: 16171618.
7. Libove, C. and Lu, C.H. (1989). Beamlike Bending of Variable-thickness Sandwich Plates, AIAA
Journal, 27: 500507.
2182 S. S. VEL ET AL.
8. Lu, C.H. and Libove, C. (1991). Beam-like Harmonic Vibration of Variable-thickness Sandwich
Plates, AIAA Journal, 29: 299305.
9. Paydar, N. and Libove, C. (1986). Stress Analysis of Sandwich Plates with Unidirectional
Thickness Variation, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 53: 609613.
10. Paydar, N. and Libove, C. (1988). Bending of Sandwich Plates of Variable Thickness, Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 55: 419424.
11. Lu, C.H. (1994). Bending of Anisotropic Sandwich Beams of Variable Thickness, Journal of
Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 7: 364374.
12. Peled, D. and Frostig, Y. (1994). High-order Bending of Sandwich Beams with Transverse
Flexible Core and Nonparallel Skins, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 120: 12551269.
13. Thomsen, O.T. and Vinson, J.R. (2002). Modeling of Tapered Sandwich Panels using a High-
order Sandwich Theory Formulation, AIAA Journal, 40: 18671875.
14. Vel, S.S., Caccese, V. and Zhao, H. (2002). Modeling and Analysis of Tapered Sandwich Beams,
In: Proceedings of the American Society for Composites, Seventeenth Technical Conference,
Purdue University, 2123 October.
15. Herakovich, C.T. (1997). Mechanics of Fibrous Composites, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
16. Reddy, J.N. (2003). Mechanics of Laminated Composite Plates and Shells: Theory and Analysis,
2nd edn, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
17. Jones, R.M. (1998). Mechanics of Composite Materials, 2/E, Taylor & Francis Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA.
18. Hyer, M.W. (1998). Stress Analysis of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
19. Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., 2002. ABAQUS Users Manual, Version 6.3.
Elastic Coupling Effects in Tapered Sandwich Panels 2183