Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245151771
CITATIONS READS
24 486
2 authors, including:
Ls Ramachandra
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
62 PUBLICATIONS 538 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Inelastic Response and Energy Dissipation in Ceramics using Deshpande and Evans Constitutive
Model View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ls Ramachandra on 13 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819–828
a r t i c l e in fo abstract
Article history: In the present paper, buckling loads of rectangular composite plates having nine sets of different
Received 20 December 2008 boundary conditions and subjected to non-uniform inplane loading are presented considering higher
Received in revised form order shear deformation theory (HSDT). As the applied inplane load is non-uniform, the buckling load is
20 December 2009
evaluated in two steps. In the first step the plane elasticity problem is solved to evaluate the stress
Accepted 18 January 2010
Available online 25 January 2010
distribution within the prebuckling range. Using the above stress distribution the plate buckling
equations are derived from the principle of minimum total potential energy. Adopting Galerkin’s
Keywords: approximation, the governing partial differential equations are converted into a set of homogeneous
Buckling linear algebraic equations. The critical buckling load is obtained from the solution of the associated
Non-uniform inplane loading
linear eigenvalue problem. The present buckling loads are compared with the published results
Parabolic loading
wherever available. The buckling loads obtained from the present method for plate with various
Ritz method
Galerkin method boundary conditions and subjected to non-uniform inplane loading are found to be in excellent
agreement with those obtained from commercial software ANSYS. Buckling mode shapes of plate for
different boundary conditions with non-uniform inplane loadings are also presented.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction side free and the other side simply supported, clamped or
rotationally restrained. Biggers and his co-workers have exploited
Often, plates are a part of complex structural system and hence the stiffness-tailoring concept to improve the buckling load
load coming on it may not be always uniform. For example, in the capacity of plates subjected to, compressive load [4], and shear
case of I-beam or wide flanged beam subjected to bending load [5]. Whereas, Baranski and Biggers [6] have used the same
moment at the ends or lateral loads on the flange, the web of the concept to study the postbuckling response of damaged compo-
beam is subjected to non-uniform inplane loads. The load exerted site plates. In a companion paper Xie and Biggers [7] have
on the aircraft wings, or on the stiffened plate in the ship extended the stiffness-tailoring concept to improve the compres-
structures or on the slabs of a multi-storey building by the sive buckling loads and ultimate loads of flat pates and curved
adjoining structures usually is non-uniform. The type of distribu- panels with cutouts. Buckling of moderately thick composite
tion in an actual structure depends on the relative stiffnesses of plates subjected to partial edge compression was studied by
the adjoining elements. Behaviour of structures subjected to non- Sundaresan et al. [8] within the framework of finite element
uniform inplane compressive loading and shear loading is method. Solving the prebuckling equations, authors’ obtained
important in aircraft, civil and ship-building industries. Much stress distributions within the plate and hence evaluated the
work has been reported in the literature on the buckling of geometric stiffness matrix. Bert and Devarakonda [9] studied
rectangular plates subjected to uniform inplane loading. However, buckling analysis of simply supported rectangular Kirchhoff plate
very few papers deal with the buckling of plates subjected to non- subjected to sinusoidal distribution of inplane loading by super-
uniform inplane loads. Buckling of plates subjected to sinusoidal position method based on more realistic but approximate stress
[1] and parabolic [2] inplane compressive loading was obtained distribution. In recent years, Kang and Leissa [10,11], Leissa and
by earlier researchers based on unrealistic inplane stress Kang [12] presented exact solutions for the Kirchhoff plate having
distribution. Wang et al. [3] have adopted Galerkin procedure two opposite edges simply supported subjected to linearly
with Legendre polynomials as shape function to analyse buckling varying inplane loading. They have considered all other possible
of rectangular plates subjected to linearly varying inplane edge boundary conditions on the unloaded edges. As the loaded edge is
compressive load with two loaded edges simply supported, one simply supported, authors assumed the transverse displacement
(w) to vary as sin((mpx)/a) (where a is the size of the plate along
x-direction and b along y-direction) and reduced the governing
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 91 3222 283444; fax: + 91 3222 282254. partial differential equation to an ordinary differential equation in
E-mail address: lsr@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in (L.S. Ramachandra). y with variable coefficients, for which an exact solution was
0020-7403/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2010.01.009
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
820 S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819–828
obtained in terms of power series (i.e., method of Frobenius). where f1 ¼ Fx þwo;x ; f2 ¼ Fy þ wo;y ; f(z)=z[1(4/3)(z/h)2]; h is the
Applying the boundary conditions at y= 0 and b yields the thickness of the plate. Fx is the rotation of normal to midplane
eigenvalue problem for finding the buckling load. Zhong and Gu about y-axis and Fy is the rotation of the normal to midplane about
[13] studied buckling analysis of Reissner–Mindlin plate with x-axis due to shear deformation alone. f1 and f2 are, respectively,
various thicknesses to width ratio and subjected to linearly the total rotation of normals to midplane about y- and x-axis. The
varying inplane load. For the case of linearly varying load the von Kármán nonlinear strain–displacement relations at a generic
stress field within the plate coincides with the applied inplane point z distance away from the midplane can be written as
load distribution. Gurdal et al. [14] worked on fiber orientation ex ¼ eox zwo;xx þf ðzÞf1;x
variation for flat rectangular composite laminates that possess
ey ¼ eoy zwo;yy þ f ðzÞf2;y
variable stiffness properties. The variable stiffness concept
provides flexibility to the designer for trade-offs between overall gxy ¼ eoxy 2zwo;xy þ f ðzÞf1;y þf ðzÞf2;x ð2Þ
panel stiffness and buckling load. Recently, Wang et al. [15]
obtained the buckling loads of thin rectangular plates under where
parabolic edge compression by differential quadrature (DQ)
method. Authors considered nine possible combinations of
gxz ¼ u;z þ w;x ¼ f 0 ðzÞf1 ; gyz ¼ v;z þ w;y ¼ f 0 ðzÞf2 ð3Þ
o o
boundary condition of the plate in their study. Jana and Bhaskar The superscript ‘o’ refers to strain in the middle plane. e e and x, y
[16] have solved the plane elasticity problem exactly by super- goxy are the reference surface strains and are defined as
position of Airy’s stress function represented by Fourier series. 1 1
They have also obtained the inplane stress distribution by the eox ¼ uo;x þ ðwo;x Þ2 ;
eoy ¼ vo;y þ ðwo;y Þ2 ; goxy ¼ uo;y þ vo;x þ wo;x wo;y ð4Þ
2 2
extended Kantorovich method based on the principle of minimum
The stress strain relations for the composite plate in the
complementary energy. Using these distributions, authors have
material co-ordinate axes are given by
obtained buckling loads for simply supported plate by Galerkin
method for various inplane load distributions. fsg ¼ ½Q feg
n o
From the above literature survey it is observed that, buckling fsgT ¼ sx sy tyz txz txy ;
loads of layered composite plates subjected to parabolically n o
distributed inplane loads are not available in the literature. In fegT ¼ ex ey gyz gxz gxy ð5Þ
this study, buckling loads of isotropic and composite plates
subjected to non-uniform inplane loads are evaluated for nine where [Q]ij is the reduced stiffness matrix in material co-ordinate
different sets of boundary conditions of the plate considering system, {s}T cartesian components of stress at any point and {e}T
higher order shear deformation theory proposed by Reddy [17]. In are the corresponding strains. The governing partial differential
the first step, the plane elasticity problem is solved to evaluate the equations of nonlinear buckling of plate are derived from the
stress distribution within the prebuckling range by Ritz proce- principle of minimum total potential energy and is stated as
dure. Using the above stress distribution and adopting multi-term ZZ
Galerkin’s approximation, the governing partial differential dð1Þ p ¼ f½ðnxx Nx Þ;x þ ðnxy Nxy Þ;y du þ ½ðnxy Nxy Þ;x
equations of plate buckling are converted into a set of homo- R
geneous linear algebraic equations. The critical buckling load is
þ ðnyy Ny Þ;y Þdv þ½Mx;xx þ 2Mxy;xy þ My;yy ðnxx Nx Þw;x
obtained from the solution of associated linear eigenvalue
þ ðnxy Nxy Þw;y ;x ðnxy Nxy Þw;x þ ðnyy Ny Þw;y g;y dw
problem. For the nine cases of boundary conditions, appropriate
þ ½Px;x þ Pxy;y Qxa df1 þ ½Pxy;x þPy;y Qya df2 gdxdy
beam functions are used as displacement field approximation in Z b Z b
Galerkin’s method. When the two loaded edges are simply
þ ðnxx Nx Þ þN x dudy þ ðnxy Nxy Þ þ N xy dvdy
supported and applied inplane load is uniform or linearly varying, 0 0
Z b Z b Z b
the plate buckles with a particular number of half-waves in the @@w
Mx dy Px @f1 dy Pxy @f2 dy
loading direction depending on the length to width ratio of 0 @x 0 0
the plate and in combination of two or more half-waves along the Z b
@Mxy @w @w
unloaded edge. Similarly if the applied inplane loading is non- þ Qx þ þ ðnxx Nx Þ þðnxy Nxy Þ dwdy
@y @x @y
uniform the buckling mode is a combination of two or more half- Z 0a Z a
waves in both loaded direction as well as the unloaded direction þ ðnyy Ny Þ þ N y dvdx þ ðnxy Nxy Þ þ N xy dudx
0 0
independent of boundary conditions. The buckling loads obtained Z a Z a Z a
@@w
by the present method are compared with those of Leissa and Kang My dx Py @f2 dx Pxy @f1 dx
@y
[12] and Wang et al. [15] wherever possible. The present results Z 0a 0 0
@Mxy @w @w
compare well with the literature values. The present results are þ Qy þ þ ðnyy Ny Þ þ ðnxy Nxy Þ dwdx ¼ 0
0 @x @y @x
also compared with the buckling loads obtained from commercial
ð6Þ
finite element software ANSYS and found to compare well.
The force and moment resultants are defined as
00 1 0 1 0 11 0 1
Nx Mx Px Z h=2 sx
BB N C B M C B P CC Bs C
@@ y A; @ y A; @ y AA ¼ @ y Að1; z; f ðzÞÞdz ð7Þ
2. Formulation Nxy Mxy Pxy h=2
txy
Consider a composite rectangular plate having length a and Z h=2
breadth b and made up of n layers of equal thickness. The co- ðQx ; Qy Þ ¼ ðtxz ; tyz Þdz ð8Þ
h=2
ordinate system is such that the middle plane coincides with the
x–y plane and the z-axis is perpendicular to the middle plane. Z h=2
Using Reddy’s higher order shear deformation theory, the ðQxa ; Qya Þ ¼ ðtxz ; tyz Þf 0 ðzÞdz ð9Þ
displacement field can be written as h=2
where f 0 (z)=(d/dz)(f(z)); Nx, Ny, Nxy, and Mx, My, Mxy are,
u ¼ u0 zw0;x þf ðzÞf1 ; v ¼ v0 zw0;y þf ðzÞf2 ; w ¼ wo ð1Þ respectively, the force and moment resultants; Px, Py, Pxy are
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819–828 821
membrane problem are given here for parabolically varying where Xm(x) and Yn(y) are the eigen functions of the beam having
uniaxial inplane load (see Fig. 1) as the following.For the same boundary conditions as that of two opposite edges of the
y y plate. This choice of functions satisfies all boundary conditions of the
x ¼ 0; a N xy ¼ 0 N x ¼ 4N 0 1 y ¼ 0; b N xy ¼ 0 N y ¼ 0
b b plate exactly. In present case following beam functions are adopted.
ð12Þ
The stress function is assumed in the form of a series: (a) Simply support along two opposite edges, at x =0 and x= a
ss mpx
F ¼ F0 þ a1 F1 þ a2 F2 þ a3 F3 þ a4 F4 þ ð13Þ Xm ðxÞ ¼ sin ðm ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .Þ ð16Þ
a
where a1,a2,a3, y are constants and are determined such that the (b) Clamped support along two opposite edges, at x= 0 and x= a
boundary conditions (12) are satisfied. In the present case, for
cc x 1 sinðxm =2Þ x 1
parabolic loading, the stress function is assumed as Xm ðxÞ ¼ cosxm þ coshxm ðm ¼ 2; 4; 6; . . .Þ
a 2 sinhðxm =2Þ a 2
y2 y y2 ð17Þ
F ¼ 2N 0 2 þ ðx2 axÞ2 ðy2 ybÞ2 ða1 þ a2 x þ a3 y þ Þ
3 b 2b
where xm are obtained as roots of
ð14Þ
tanðxm =2Þ þ tanhðxm =2Þ ¼ 0 ð18Þ
and
y
cc x 1 sinðxm =2Þ x 1
Xm ðxÞ ¼ sinxm coshxm ðm ¼ 3; 5; 7; . . .Þ
y y a a 2 sinhðxm =2Þ a 2
N x = 4 N0 (1 − ) where xn are obtained roots of
b b
tanðxm =2Þtanhðxm =2Þ ¼ 0 ð19Þ
(c) Clamped support along the edge, x =0 and simply supported
b at x =a
cs x 1 sinðxm =2Þ x 1
Xm ðxÞ ¼ sinxm sinhxm ðm ¼ 2; 3; 4; . . .Þ
2a 2 sinhðxm =2Þ 2a 2
x
ð20Þ
Fig. 1. Geometry and loading of the plate. where xm are obtained as roots of Eq. (19).
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
822 S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819–828
o o
The functions Yn(y) are similarly chosen by the condition at y= 0 w0;y ¼ uo ¼ vo ¼ wo ¼ f1 ¼ f2 ¼ 0 at y ¼ 0
and y= b by replacing x by y, a by b and m by n in respective ny Ny ¼ N y ; o o o
u ¼ w ¼ f1 ¼ Py ¼ My ¼ 0 at y ¼ b ð25Þ
equations, where m and n are, respectively, the number of nodal
lines along x and y directions. In all cases, only normal inplane
displacements are allowed and inplane tangential displacements Following displacement fields satisfy the above boundary condi-
and out of plane displacements are prevented.The boundary tions:
conditions for SSSS plate are X
i j
X mpx npy
u~ o ¼ Umn cos cos
a b
nxx Nx ¼ N x ; vo ¼ wo ¼ Px ¼ fo2 ¼ Mx ¼ 0 at x ¼ 0; a m¼1n¼1
X
i j
X
o
ny Ny ¼ N y ; uo ¼ wo ¼ f1 ¼ Py ¼ My ¼ 0 at y ¼ 0; b ð21Þ v~ o ¼ cs
Vmn Xm ðxÞXncs ðyÞ
m¼1n¼1
X
i j
X
Following displacement fields satisfy the above boundary condi- ~o¼
w cs
Wmn Xm ðxÞXncs ðyÞ
tions: m¼1n¼1
Xi Xj mpx npy
X
i j
X mpx npy o
f~ 1 ¼ Kmn cos cos
u~ o ¼ Umn cos sin a b
m¼1n¼1
a b m¼1n¼1
X
i j
X
j mpx npy o
X
i X f~ 2 ¼ cs
Lmn Xm ðxÞXncs ðyÞ ð26Þ
v~ o ¼ Vmn sin cos
m¼1n¼1
a b m¼1n¼1
X
i j
X
~o¼
w ss
Wmn Xm ðxÞXnss ðyÞ The displacement fields for other boundary conditions can be
m¼1n¼1
assumed by suitably combining the displacement functions
X
i j
X mpx npy
o described above.
f~ 1 ¼ Kmn cos sin
m¼1n¼1
a b
o X
i j
X mpx npy
f~ 2 ¼ Lmn sin cos ð22Þ
m¼1n¼1
a b
3. Numerical results and discussion
The boundary conditions for CCCC plate are
3.1. Prebuckling analysis
o o
w0;x ¼ uo ¼ vo ¼ wo ¼ f1 ¼ f2 ¼ 0 at x ¼ 0; a
o o
w0;y ¼ uo ¼ vo ¼ wo ¼ f1 ¼ f2 ¼ 0 at y ¼ 0; b ð23Þ In present case, non-uniform inplane loads are assumed to
vary according to parabolic and linearly varying functions.
Parabolically varying inplane load is represented by (see Fig. 1)
Following displacement fields satisfy the above boundary condi-
tions:
y y
j mpx npy N x ¼ 4N 0 1 ð27Þ
i X
X b b
u~ o ¼ Umn sin sin
m¼1 n¼1
a b
j mpx npy Linearly varying loads are defined as
i X
X
v~ o ¼ Vmn sin sin
m¼1 n¼1
a b h y i
j
Nx ¼ N0 1Z ; y A ð0; bÞ ð28Þ
i X
X b
~o¼
w cc
Wmn Xm ðxÞXncc ðyÞ
m¼1 n¼1
By taking various values of Z, we obtain different inplane
Xi X j mpx npy
o
f~ 1 ¼ Kmn sin sin load distribution (uniform (Z = 0), trapezoidal (Z =0.5), triangular
m¼1 n¼1
a b (Z =1), partial tension (Z = 1.5) and pure bending (Z =2.0)). Initially
o X
i j
X mpx npy the plate membrane equations are solved to determine the
f~ 2 ¼ Lmn sin sin ð24Þ stress distribution within the plate as described in Section 2.1.
m¼1 n¼1
a b
In the present case, the stress function is represented as a
truncated series with four terms (14). After evaluating
The boundary conditions for plate (CSCS) with clamped support at the constants ai (i =1,2,3), the stress distribution within the
x= 0, y= 0 and simple support at x= a, y=b are plate are obtained. The explicit expressions for constants ai for the
o o case of isotropic plate are given below. Similar expressions
w0;x ¼ uo ¼ vo ¼ wo ¼ f1 ¼ f2 ¼ 0 at x ¼ 0
in the case of composite plate are given in Appendix A
nxx Nx ¼ N x ; o
v ¼ w ¼ Px ¼o
fo2 ¼ Mx ¼ 0 at x ¼ a (Eqs. (A.7)–(A.9))
a/b
Leissa and Kang [12] 93.247 75.910 69.632 69.095 72.084 77.545 75.910
Energy method [12] 93.2 75.9 69.6 69.1 71.9 77.3 75.9
Present methodn 93.305 75.943 69.652 69.108 72.093 77.545 75.943
Present method 93.231 75.879 69.588 69.036 72.007 77.443 75.774
a/b
g=1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4
m=1 m =1 m= 1 m= 1 m= 1 m=1 m= 1 m= 2 m= 2 m=2
Leissa and Kang [12] 174.4 145.2 134.8 133.7 134.6 141.0 152.0 145.2 134.8 134.6
Energy method [12] 175.0 145.0 135.0 133.8 134.7 141.0 152.1 145.0 135.0 135.0
Present methodn 174.5 145.3 134.8 133.7 134.6 141.0 152.0 145.3 134.8 134.6
Present method 174.3 145.1 134.6 133.6 134.4 140.8 151.8 144.9 134.4 134.1
a/b
ARTICLE IN PRESS
g =2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0
Author's personal copy
m= 1 m=1 m =1 m= 1 m= 2 m= 2 m= 2 m= 3 m= 3 m=4
Leissa and Kang [12] 464.5 400.4 391.5 411.8 422.5 400.4 391.5 400.4 391.5 391.5
Energy method [12] 467.0 402.0 392.2 412.2 424.0 402.0 392.0 402.0 392.0 392.0
Present method* 467.2 401.5 392.1 412.1 424.1 401.5 392.1 401.5 392.1 392.1
Present method 466.9 401.3 391.8 411.7 422.4 400.3 391.0 399.6 389.7 387.9
n
Without Shear Deformation and inplane displacements.
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819–828
823
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
824 S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819–828
Buckling Coefficient
3.2. Buckling analysis
300
The following mechanical properties are assumed, E11 = E22,
G23 =G13 = G12 =E22/2.5, n12 = 0.25 for isotropic plate and E1 = E2 = 25, 250 η = 1.5
G12 =G13 = 0.5E2, G23 = 0.6E2, n12 = 0.25 for composite lamina in the
analysis. Dropping the nonlinear terms in the plate nonlinear 200
equations, the plate buckling equations are obtained. Using
displacement fields given in Section 2.2 and adopting Galerkin’s 150 η = 1.0
method, the governing partial differential equations of plate η = 0.5
buckling equations are converted into a set of linear homoge- 100
η=0
neous algebraic equations. For a nontrivial solution this is posed
as an eigenvalue problem, solving which critical buckling loads 50 m=1 m=2 m=3 m=4
are obtained. To validate the present formulation, the dimension-
less buckling load coefficients of a SCSC plate obtained by the
0
present method (neglecting shear deformation and considering 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
only w displacement) are compared with that of Leissa and Kang a/b
[12] in Table 1 for Z = 0, 1 and 2 and for various aspect ratios. The
buckling loads obtained by the present method considering Fig. 2. Variation of buckling coefficients of SCSC plate with the aspect ratio (a/b)
for different inplane load distributions.
higher order shear deformation and inplane displacements are
also given in the table. It is observed that the present results
without shear deformation compare well with the energy method
values. For uniform (Z = 0) compressive load, the present results
compare well with that of Leissa and Kang. For triangular (Z = 1)
and pure inplane (Z =2) loading, the present results obtained
without shear deformation compare well with that of Leissa and
Kang results for a/b o1.0. The dimensionless buckling load
coefficients for a simply supported isotropic plate (h/a= 0.01)
obtained by the present method are given in Table 2 for uniform
and parabolic load distributions. In case of plates with aspect
ratios a/b= 1 and 3 and subjected to uniformly distributed inplane
loads the converged value of buckling load is obtained by
considering one term in the displacement field approximations.
For parabolically distributed loads, 6 terms are required to obtain
the converged buckling load in the case of square plate. However
for the plate with aspect ratio a/b= 3, 15 terms are required to
obtain the converged buckling load. The number of terms
required to obtain the converged buckling load also varies
depending upon the boundary conditions. In all further
calculations 36 terms are considered.The variation of
dimensionless buckling load coefficients ki( = Ncrb2/p2D) of a
SCSC isotropic plate (a/h =100) with two opposite simply
supported edges subjected to linearly varying inplane load Fig. 3. Buckling modes for SCSC rectangular isotropic plate under uniform inplane
against aspect ratio of the plate is shown in Fig. 2, for various load distributions (Z = 0).
Table 2
Dimensionless buckling load of SSSS rectangular isotropic plate with uniform and parabolic in-plane loadings.
a/b= 1 a/b = 3
[1 1]/ (1) 3.997 [1 1] /(1) 5.252 [1 1]/ (1) 3.997 [1 1] /(1) 5.633
(1,1) [2 2] /(4) 5.251 (3,1) [3 3] /(9) 5.632
[2 3] /(6) 5.250 [4 3]/(12) 5.622
[3 2] /(6) 5.241 [5 3]/(15) 5.547
[3 3] /(9) 5.241 [6 3]/(18) 5.547
[4 3]/(12) 5.241 [6 4]/(24) 5.547
[3 4]/(12) 5.241 [6 5]/(30) 5.547
[6 6]/(36) 5.547
Ki( =Ncrb2/p2D).
Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819–828 825
Fig. 6. Buckling modes for SCSC rectangular isotropic plate under pure inplane
bending load distributions (Z = 2.0).
16
14
y
12
a/h = 100
Buckling Coefficient
a/h = 50
10 b a/h = 25
a a/h = 10
x
8
m=1 m=2 m=3
6
Fig. 4. Buckling modes for SCSC rectangular isotropic plate under triangular
2
inplane load distributions (Z = 1.0).
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
a/b
Fig. 7. Variation of buckling coefficients of SSSS plate with parabolic inplane
loading for different aspect ratios (a/b) and length to thickness (a/h) ratio.
16
y
14
a/h = 100
12 a/h = 50
Buckling Coefficient
b a/h = 20
x a/h = 10
10
16 y
14 a/h = 100
a/h = 50
b a/h = 20
Buckling Coefficient
12 a a/h = 10
x
4
Fig. 11. Buckling modes for SCSS rectangular isotropic plate under parabolic
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
inplane load distributions.
a/b
Table 3
Comparison of dimensionless buckling load coefficient ki of isotropic rectangular plate (a/h = 100) with different boundary conditions subjected to parabolic in-plane
loading.
SSSS Present 9.654 7.271 6.078 5.211 5.242 5.704 5.478 5.547
Wang et al.[15] 9.663 7.274 6.080 5.211 5.262 5.734 5.628 5.630
ANSYS 9.661 7.273 6.079 5.212 5.250 5.739 5.531 5.621
SSCS Present 17.02 12.03 9.401 7.035 6.254 6.023 5.768 5.671
Wang et al.[15] 17.02 12.03 9.399 7.045 6.277 6.058 5.825 5.756
ANSYS 17.02 12.03 9.399 7.041 6.285 6.065 5.825 5.744
SCSS Present 10.06 7.877 6.938 6.692 7.551 7.104 7.412 7.373
Wang et al.[15] 10.06 7.888 6.940 6.698 7.573 7.135 7.482 7.456
ANSYS 10.06 7.880 6.939 6.699 7.582 7.135 7.465 7.403
CSCS Present 30.65 21.01 15.82 10.95 9.032 8.127 7.063 6.495
Wang et al.[15] 30.69 21.02 15.83 10.96 9.054 8.153 7.123 6.571
ANSYS 30.70 21.01 15.82 10.95 9.062 8.163 7.121 6.557
SCSC Present 10.52 8.652 8.087 8.877 9.172 9.114 9.053 9.117
Wang et al.[15] 10.54 8.663 8.092 8.887 9.194 9.141 9.120 9.345
ANSYS 10.53 8.661 8.088 8.882 9.194 9.130 9.080 9.226
SSCC ‘Present 17.28 12.49 10.07 8.231 7.957 7.645 7.390 7.451
Wang et al.[15] 17.29 12.50 10.09 8.233 7.971 7.679 7.598 7.544
ANSYS 17.29 12.49 10.08 8.232 7.973 7.678 7.420 7.492
CCSC Present 17.58 13.04 10.94 9.814 9.847 9.340 8.309 9.205
Wang et al.[15] 17.59 13.06 10.95 9.821 9.868 9.393 9.367 9.352
ANSYS 17.58 13.05 10.94 9.817 9.867 9.378 9.323 9.235
CCCS Present 30.54 21.35 16.42 12.12 10.88 9.735 9.185 8.571
Wang et al.[15] 30.58 21.38 16.44 12.12 10.91 9.767 9.246 8.693
ANSYS 30.54 21.36 16.43 12.12 10.91 9.761 9.230 8.634
CCCC Present 31.01 21.74 17.15 13.66 13.55 11.58 11.17 10.77
Wang et al.[15] 31.03 21.80 17.17 13.71 13.58 11.63 11.26 10.92
ANSYS 31.01 21.76 17.16 13.68 13.57 11.61 11.21 10.79