NOTES ON SANDWICH MATERIALS

Armando Esposito

PFP
Peppfet Publication
1 Sandwich Structure

The classical sandwich panel is constructed by three layers: the skins and the core.
The layers are joined by a specific adhesive.

Figure 1 - Sandwich panel

Generally, the core is of honeycomb orthotropic material; the following directions are
defined:

Figure 2 Core directions

2 Sandwich concepts

The basic concept of sandwich construction is to use thin, dense, strong materials for
the skins, bonded to a thick, lightweight core. Each component by itself is relatively
weak and flexible but when working together they provide an extremely stiff, strong
and lightweight structure. The honeycomb core completely supports the skins to
prevent the buckling failure of very thin facings that can work to their maximum yield
stress.

Figure 3 Sandwich panel approximated stress distribution

Generally, it is assumed that skins take the bending load (one skin in compression and
the other in tension) and the core takes the shear transversal loads. The usual
assumption is that the skins stresses are uniformly distributed and the honeycomb offers
no resistance to bending. In other words, the core bending modulus is considered
equal to zero. This assumption also leads to a uniform shear stress throughout the core
thickness.

The approximation of thin skin and weak core are valid if:

Figure 4 Properties definition

5.77

6 2
> 100
3
3 Basic formulas

3.1 Normal load

Figure 5 Normal load

Normal load per unit of length N is distributed in each of the three layers in proportion
with their Youngs modulus.

=
1 1 + 2 2 +

Stresses for each component of sandwich are given by:

1 1
1 = =
1 1 1 + 2 1 +

2 2
2 = =
2 1 1 + 2 1 +

= =
1 1 + 2 1 +

Where are membrane Youngs moduli. Generally, is considered equal to 0.

3.2 Transversal shear load

Figure 6 Transversal shear load

Generally, it Is assumed that the core alone provides the transverse shear stiffness
(valid for thin face and wake core, see section 2), with this assumption shear stress in
the core is calculated as:

Figure 7 Section

=
( 1 + + 2 )
2 2

For a more accurate calculation of stresses due to transversal shear see section 3.6.
3.3 Shear load

Figure 8 Shear load

Shear load per unit of length T is distributed in each of the three layers in proportion
with their shear stiffness.

=
1 1 + 2 2 +

The maximum shear stresses in each of three layers are calculated as follows:

3 1 3 1 1 1
1 = =
2 1 2 1 1 1 + 2 2 +

3 2 3 2 2 2
2 = =
2 2 2 2 1 1 + 2 2 +

3 3
= =
2 2 1 1 + 2 2 +

Where are membrane shear moduli. Generally, is considered equal to 0.

3.4 Bending moment

Figure 9 Bending moment

For a non-symmetrical cross-section, that is, one with dissimilar face sheets, the
bending stiffness includes terms to account for the position of the neutral axis being
off the midplane of the beam.

The neutral axis position can be calculated as follow:

1 1 1 + 2 2 2 +
=
1 1 + 2 2 +

Figure 10 Section

The flexural flexibility is given by:

1 13 2 23 3 2 + 2 2
= + + + 1 1 ( ) + 2 2 2 + ( )
12 12 12 2
Where:
=
=

The bending stress for each layer than can be calculated as follow:

1
1 = 1 1 =

2
2 = 2 2 =

= =

When > 6, bending stresses should be calculated as showed in section 3.6.

3.5 In plane moment Mz

Figure 11 In plane moment

The bending moment per unit of length Mz is distributed in each of the three layers in
proportion with their Youngs modulus.

=
1 1 + 2 2 +

The maximum stresses in each of three layers are calculated as follows:

6 1 1 1
1 =
1 1 1 + 2 2 +

6 2 2 2
2 =
2 1 1 + 2 2 +

6
=
1 1 + 2 2 +

Where are membrane Youngs moduli. Generally, is considered equal to 0.

3.6 Sandwich panel as a laminate
A sandwich can be treated as a laminate where the core is just another ply with small
or negligible stiffness and strength properties, with the thickness equal to the core
thickness. Standard classical laminate-plate theory (see Appendix B) can be used to
determine the corresponding A, B and D matrices. The presence of the core is
neglectable on matrix A, but will affect the B and D matrices significantly.

11 12 13 11 12 13 0 0
21 22 23 21 22 23 0 0
32 33 31 32 33 0
0
= 31 =[ ]
11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23
[ ] [ 31 32 33 31 32 33 ]
[ ] [ ]

0
11
12
13
11
12
13
0 21 22 23
21
22
23
0
32 33
31
32
33
= [

= 31 ]
11 12 13 11 12 13

21
22
23
21
22
23

[ ] [ 31 32 33

31
32
33 ] [ ] [ ]

Where: , , , , , , are loads for unit of length.

If skins are made of laminate composite material it is possible consider a uniform

material with equivalent properties (see Appendix C), membrane or bending global
property should be selected considering the type of studied problem.

Once midplane strains and plate curvatures have been calculated, with the inverted
laminate constitutive equation, stresses and strains for the ply k can be calculated as
follow (see appendix B):

0
0

[ ] = [ ]+[ ]
0

0
0
[ ] = [ ] [ ] + [ ] [ ]
0

[ ] = stiffness matrix of skins or core.

Shear stresses due to transversal shear can be calculated with the following formula:

() () 22
()

{ } = [ 31
() ()] { }
() 11 32

Where (see Appendix D):

[()] = ([ ] ( 1 ) + [ ]+1 ( )) [ ] +
=1

1
([ ] (2 1
2
) + [ ]+1 ( 2 2 )) [ ]
2
=1

[ ] = Stiffenss matrix of ply i in laminate reference

[ ], [ ] = Inverse laminate matrix (see Appendix B)
4 Sandwich panels FEM modelling (NASTRAN)

There are different ways to modelling sandwich panels with Nastran finite elements,
here will be showed three method:

1. Modelling with CQUAD4 and PSHELL cards.

2. Laminate modelling with CQUAD4 and PCOMPG cards. The core will be a simple
ply of laminate.
3. Skins modelled as laminate with CQUAD4 and PCOMPG cards and core
modelled with solid CHEXA elements (2.5D)

1 Modelling with CQUAD4 and PSHELL cards

Figure 12 Sandwich panel

This method models the sandwich panel with CQUAD elements whose properties are
specified with a PSHELL card. In the following is showed how to fill the PSHELL card
fields. For more details see reference [5].

Figure 13 PSHELL card

PID Property ID.

MID1 Material ID for membrane; for sandwich is the material ID of skins.

T Membrane thickness; for sandwich is the global thickness of skins t1 + t 2 .

MID2 Material ID for bending; for sandwich is the material ID of skins.

2 h t 3 h3
Bending moment of inertia, is the skins inertia: I = 3 (2 + 2) 12

MID3 Material ID for transversal shear; for sandwich is the material ID of core.

Transversal shear thickness ratio; the value hT must be used.

MSN Non-structural mass. For sandwich the value h core should be used.

Z1, Z2 Fibers distance for stress calculation; default values 2 , + 2 should

be used.

MID4 Material ID for membrane-bending coupling; equal to MID 1 and MID 2.

2 Modelling with CQUAD4 and PCOMPG cards

The core will be modelled as a simple ply of a laminate. To model a laminate the
properties of CQUAD4 must be specified with a card PCOMP or PCOMPG. PCOMP
and PCOMPG are similar but PCOMPG gives the possibility to specify an ID for each
ply. When in the structure are present run-outs PCOMPG gives better results.

Figure 14 PCOMP vs PCOMPG

The format of a PCOMPG card is showed in Figure 15, PCOMP cards are similar. For
more details see reference [5].

Figure 15 PCOMPG card

PID Property ID.

Z0 Distance from reference plane to bottom surface; default = -0.5 times

the element thickness.

NSN Non-structural mass.

SB Allowable shear stress of the bonding material (allowable interlaminar

shear stress). Required if FT is also specified.
FT Failure theory. The following theories are allowed:

HILL for the Hill theory

HOFF for the Hoffman theory

TSAI for the Tsai-Wu theory

STRN for the Maximum Strain theory

TREF Reference temperature.

GE Damping coefficient

LAM Laminate option. If blank all plies must be specified. For more details see
reference [5].

GPLYIDi Global ply ID.

MIDi Material ID of ply.

Ti Ply thickness.

THETAi Orientation angle of the longitudinal direction of each ply with the
material axis of the element.

SOUTi Stress or strain output request. (YES or NOT).

3 Skins modelled with CQUAD4 elements and core modelled with CHEXA elements

The skins are modelled with CQUAD elements with PSHELL or PCOMP/PCOMPG
properties cards (for PCOMP/PCOMPG see method 2), the core is modelled with
CHEXA elements using an orthotropic material.

Figure 16 2.5D modelling

4.1 CQUAD references
The references defined for a Nastran CQUAD element with a laminated material are
showed in the following figure:

Figure 17 - Coordinate references

o Xe,Ye,Ze is the element reference.

o Xm,Ym,Zm is the material reference where Xm is defined by the user, Zm is in

the direction of Ze and the ym axis follows the right-hand rule.

o 1,2 is the ply reference with 1 in the fibers direction and 2 in the matrix direction.

4.2 Layered composite Nastran output

A typical Nastran output for stresses in layered composite elements is the following:

Figure 18 Nastran output

Values for max and min principal stresses, maximum shear and angle are calculated
as follow:

Figure 19 Mohr circle

1 + 2 (1 2 )2
= + 2
+ 12
2 2

1 + 2 (1 2 )2
= + 2
+ 12
2 2

1 2
=
2

= +

Where:

1 2 12
= 1 [ ]
2 (1 2 )

=
5 Failure modes

Following are shown the various sandwich panel failure modes and their causes.

Yield or Ultimate failure of the Skin

Caused by insufficient panel thickness,

the skin failure is due to a plane stress
state that can be generated by a
combination of normal and shear
stresses.

Yield or Ultimate Core shear failure

Caused by insufficient core shear

strength or panel thickness, the core
shear failure is due to shear stresses,
produced by transversal loads, mainly
supported by the core.

Wrinkling of the skin

Skin buckles as a plate on an elastic

foundation. It may buckle inward or
outward, depending on relative
strengths of core in compression and
adhesive in flatwise tension.

Intracell buckling (dimpling)

Applicable to cellular cores only,

occurs with thin skins and large core
cells. This effect may cause failure
by propagating across adjacent
cells, thus inducing face wrinkling.
 Shear crimping

Caused by low core shear modulus or

low adhesive shear strength, shear
crimping is a form of global buckling
with a small wave length.

Overall buckling

It is the classical loss of structural stability

caused by insufficient panel thickness
or insufficient core shear rigidity.

Core compression

Caused by insufficient core

compressive strength, the core
compression failure is due to pressure
loads applied on the skin or to
excessive beam deflection.

6 Panels check

6.1 Yield or Ultimate failure of the Skin

The sandwich skin fails due to a plane stress state that can be generated by a
combination of normal and shear stresses.

If skins are made of classical metallic material the reserve factors can be calculated
as:


= ; =

Where:
; = maximum and minimum principal stress

; = material allowable stresses for tension and compression
If skins are made of composite laminate, to verify the skin failure the Hill method,
applied to each ply of laminate, can be used.

Figure 20 Lamina directions

The failure occurs if the following inequality is not verified.

1 2 2 2 1 2 12 2
( ) + ( ) ( )( ) + ( ) < 1
1 2 2

Where:

( ) 1 > 1 ( ) 2 > 1
1 = { 2 = {
( ) 1 < 1 ( ) 2 < 1

( ) 2 > 1
={ = (12 )
( ) 2 < 1

( ) , ( ) = ply allowable stresses for tension and compression in longitudinal direction

( ) , ( ) = ply allowable stresses for tension and compression in transversal direction

6.2 Yield or Ultimate Core shear failure
The transversal loads produce shear stresses mainly supported by the core. The core
shear stresses can be extracted from FEM by plotting the shear stresses and
(assuming XY in the element plane, see Figure 21).

Nastran gives in output the following shear stresses (see Figure 17 and Figure 18):

shear stress: This is the shear stress in the element plane. The greatest percentage
of this stress is reacted by the skins that have a shear modulus a lot higher than the
core ones. This shear stress should not be used to evaluate the core.

shear stress: This is a shear stress transverse to the plane element XY and applied
to the plane XZ of the material reference. Once the skin is considered a 2D orthotropic
thin plate, the shear XZ is reacted by the core. The absolute value must be compared
to the allowable shear strength of core.

shear stress: This is the shear stress transverse to the plane element XY and applied
to the plane YZ of the material reference. Once the skin is considered a 2D orthotropic
thin plate, the shear XZ is reacted by the core. The absolute value must be compared
to the allowable shear strength of core.

Figure 21 Transversal shear

If is on the W side and is on the L side the Reserve Factor can be calculated as
follow:


= ; =
| | | |

To estimate the effect of two shear stresses interaction the following quadratic criteria
can be considered (by AIRBUS).
1
=
2 2
(

) + (
)

It is recommended that stresses resulting from FE model should not be used if the
critical area has a concentrated load point or a boundary condition (attachment
point) where the stresses could be unrealistically high.

Stresses on attachment points should be evaluated by hand, using the reaction forces
extracted from FE model. The following procedure is suggested to evaluate the area
around a fitting loaded by a normal force FN:

Figure 22 Evaluation of core shear

The maximum core shear will take place at the fitting perimeter whose length is b (see
Figure 22). Assuming a trapezoidal distribution of shear, the core shear stress is given
by:

=

Where:
1 2
= ; = ( + + )
2 2

This calculation regards only the local panel failure, it is not necessarily related to the
fitting allowable that must be checked separately.
6.3 Wrinkling of the skin
Wrinkling is a very common failure mode of sandwich panels. This problem can be
seen like a panel buckling (the skin) over an elastic foundation (the core). The
deflection in post-buckling behaviour can cause compression on the core or rupture
of adhesive layer.

In literature, different formula can be founded to estimate the critical wrinkling of the
skin. The following method is the one used in ref.[1] .

1
3 1
1.817 ( ) = 0.43 ( ) 3

1 1
3 2
< 1.817 ( ) = 0.33 ( )
{

Where:
= core thickness
= skin thickness
= copression modulus of core in the transversal direction
= copression modulus of skin in the load direction
= shear modulus of core in the load direction

In case of biaxial load the following interaction, formula should be used:

_ = 1
3 3
(1 + ( ) )
_

In case of shear load the analysis should be performed respect maximum and
minimum principal stresses. Values of Es and Gc must be calculated in load direction.
The value of Gc respect an arbitrary direction can be calculated with the following
formula:
 Figure 23 Gc calculation direction

= 2 + 2

Jet Aviation Manual proposes the following semi-empirical formula for wrinkling check:

Figure 24 Sandwich core

1
2
16
=[
]
9 (1 )

= skin thickness
= core thickness
= core wall thickness
= cell size (diameter of circle inscribed in the core cell)
, = skin Young modulus in x and y direction

= core Young modulus in transversal direction

, =

RF should be calculated considering the higher compressive principal stress:

=
| _ |
When skins have different thickness or properties, wrinkling should be evaluated
separately for the two different sides.

For wrinkling evaluation, if skins are made of a laminate composite, an equivalent

homogeneous material should be considered.

6.4 Inter-cell Dimpling

This failure mode is basically a buckling of skin in the cell perimeter hence it happens
in honeycomb panels with thin skins and cell dimensions relatively big.

Figure 25 Load direction

In ref.[1] the following formula for dimpling check is used:

2 2 2 2
_ = [ ] ; _ = [ ]
(1 ) (1 )

Where:
, = Young modulus of skin in x and y direction

, = Poisson s coefficients of skin in x and y direction

= cell size (diameter of circle inscribed in the core cell)

= skin thickness

RF should be calculated considering the following interaction laws:

1
Bi axial compression loading =
_ + _
In case of shear load the analysis should be performed considering the principal
stresses.

HEXCEL suggest considering 1 1 in the formulas above.

Jet-aviation Manual propose a semi-empirical formula for dimpling check:

2
3
= [ ]
3

=
|min _ |

Where:

= copression modulus of skin in the load direction

= skin thickness
_ = maximum compressive principal load

When skins have different thickness or properties, dimpling should be evaluated

separately for the two different sides.

For dimpling evaluation, if skins are made of a laminate composite, an equivalent

homogeneous material should be considered.
6.5 Shear crimping
Shear crimping is a global instability of the sandwich with a small wave length.

Crimping can be checked as follow:

= : = ( ; )

Where:
= normal stress on sandwich panel
= core thickness
= sandwich total thickness
; = shear modulus of core in L and W direction

The RF is calculated as:

=

with compressive stress on sandwich.

In case of bi-axial compression load RF can be calculated with the following

interaction formula:
1
=

_ + _

In case of shear load the analysis should be performed considering the principal
stresses.

Value of Gc must be calculated in load direction (see Figure 23)

= 2 + 2
6.6 Core compression
This failure mode normally happens when pressure is applied on the skin, causing
internal compressive fields on the core.

The stresses on attachment points must be evaluated by hand, using the reaction
forces extracted from the FEM. Suppose that the fitting has a specific configuration
that submits a certain area A of the core to a compressive force (Figure 26).

Figure 26 Evaluation of core compression

The compressive stress will be simply:

The calculated compressive stress must be compared to the core compressive

allowable:

=

6.7 Overall buckling of panel
The overall buckling is the classical loss of structural stability caused by a compressive
field of stress.

Buckling is one of the critical failure modes for sandwich structure in particular for
relatively large panels. The reason is that it is hard to design against all possible failure
modes in the post-buckling regime and, as a result, buckling is usually considered to
coincide with final failure.

Analytic formulae for sandwich panel buckling are very complex due to different
stiffness of skins and core, not neglectable shear deformation and orthotropy.

For a uniform thickness plate where transverse shear effects are significant, the Kirchoff
hypothesis is no longer valid. Plane sections remain plane, but are no longer
perpendicular to the plate midplane (see Figure 27).

Figure 27 Bending of a sandwich panel under compression

It can be see that the critical compressive buckling load, is given by the following
relation:

=

1 +

Figure 28 Panel simply supported

Where, for simply supported edges, is given by:

2 2 2
()4
= [ + 2( + 2 )() + ]
2 11 12 33 22
2

With:
= core thickness
= Shear modulus aligned with loading direction ( or Gyz )

= Shear correction factor, for sandwich the value 1.0 can be used
=

= number of half waves in load direction

= coefficients of sandwich laminate matrix (see section 3.6)

It is recommended to study the overall buckling behaviour of the structure with a FE

model by solving the eigenvalue problem.

The linear buckling analysis of NASTRAN is not able to predict the post-buckling
behaviour caused, for instance, by loads out of the structure plane.
7 Sandwich deflection

In addition to the illustrated failure modes one other very important consideration is
on panel deflection. The deflection of a sandwich panel is made up from bending
and shear components.

The bending deflection is dependent on the relative tensile and compressive moduli
of the skin materials.

The shear deflection is dependent on the shear modulus of the core.

Figure 29 Sandwich deflection

Total deflection = Bending deflection + Shear deflection

Shear Modulus (MPa)

Material
Typical values
Steel 79300
Aluminium 25500
Honeycomb 69 - 690
Table 1- Shear modulus typical values

Since shear modulus of core is relatively low compared to other materials, for
sandwich panels the shear deformation is not neglectable so same load cases can
cause unexpected interferences with other surrounding structures. The displacement
field can be easily checked by plotting the total translational displacements of the
FEM Post Processing.
8 Honeycomb mechanics

A cellular solid consists of an interconnected network of solid struts or plates forming

edges and faces of cells. Honeycombs are the commonest two-dimensional
structures.

The most important feature of a cellular structure is the relative density, defined as the
density of cellular solid ( ) divided by the density of the walls material ( ).

relative density =

as the relative density increases, the cells walls become thicker. Relative density is
equivalent to the volume fraction of solid then for a hexagonal cell can be calculated
as follow:

Figure 30 Honeycomb cell

1 ( + 2)
= = = (2 + 4) =
2 2 + 2 2( + )
 Figure 31 Honeycomb reference

It can be see (Ref. [10]) that the elastic moduli of a cellular solid can be related to the
relative density. In particular, for a honeycomb with hexagonal cells, it can be seen:

In plane properties:

1 3 3
=( ) ( )
2 ( + )

2 3 + 3
=( ) ( )
3

12 3
+ 3
=( ) ( )
2
( ) (1 + 2 )

2
12 = ; 21 = 112

( + )

 Out of plane properties:

3
=

31 = 32 =

13

+

23 1 + 22

2 ( + )

Where:
, , = properties of the honeycomb walls material

The out of plane moduli depend linearly with density ( ) , while in-plane moduli scale
as ( )3 .
 APPENDIX

A. Constitutive equations for orthotropic ply

For an anisotropic orthotropic and transversely isotropic ply, considering plane stress
it is possible to write the following relation between strains and stresses:

Figure 32 Ply reference

1
0

11 12 13
1
[ ] =
0 [ ] = [ 21 22 23 ] = [] [ ]
31 32 33

1
0 0
[ ]

Where:
[] = flexibility matrix

0
1 1 11 12 13

[ ]=
[ ] = [21 22
23 ] = [] [ ]
0 31 32 33
1 1
[ 0 0 ]

Where:
[] = stiffness matrix

The independent constants are the Youngs modulus, and the shear modulus
and the Poissons ratio .the ratio is given by: = .
Generally, stress and strain are known in a reference different from principal ply one
(LT). Stiffness and flexibility matrix in an arbitrary reference rotated of a angle respect
principal ply reference, can be calculated using the following relations:

Figure 33 Arbitrary ply reference

x = L 2 + T 2 + 2 LT
2 2
{y = L + T 2 LT
xy = 2 L + T + LT ( 2 2 )

x = L 2 + T 2 + 2 LT
2 2
{y = L + T 2 LT
xy
2 = L + T + LT2 ( 2 2 )

These relations came from equilibrium and geometric considerations so it can be used
for both isotropic and orthotropic materials.

If the following matrix is defined:

2 2 2
[] = [ 2 2 2 ]
2 2

Then it is possible to write:

x L x L
y
[ ]=
y [] [ T] ; [ ] = [] [ T ]
xy LT xy LT
2 2
From that it follows:

x L L L x

[ y ] = [] [ T ] = [][E] [ T ] = [][ ] [ T ] = [][ ][]1 [ y ]
xy LT LT LT xy
2 2

Where [ ] is obtained from [E] (referred to principal axes) simply replacing the GLT with
2GLT. Defining the matrix []1 like the []1 matrix with the terms of third column
divided by 2, it is possible to write the following two relations:

x x x x x
1
[ y ] = [][ ][] [ y ] = [ ] [ y ] ;
[ y ] = [] [ y ]
xy xy xy xy xy

Where:
[ ] = [][E
][]1

[] = [ ]1

Below explicit expressions for [ ] and [] terms are given:

11 = 11 4 + 22 4 + (212 + 33 )2 2

12 = (11 + 22 33 )2 2 + 12 (4 + 4 )

22 = 11 4 + 22 4 + (212 + 33 )2 2

13 = (211 212 33 ) 3 (222 212 33 )3

23 = (211 212 33 )3 (222 212 33 ) 3

33 = 2(211 222 412 33 )2 2 + 33 (4 + 4 )

11 = 11 4 + 22 4 + 2(12 + 233 )2 2

12 = (11 + 22 433 )2 2 + 12 (4 + 4 )

22 = 11 4 + 22 4 + 2(12 + 233 )2 2

13 = (11 12 233 ) 3 (22 12 233 )3

23 = (11 12 233 )3 (22 12 233 ) 3

33 = (11 22 212 233 )2 2 + 33 (4 + 4 )

Flexibility matrix can be written in terms of elastic constants as follow:

1 21 12,1

1 2 1
1 1
12 1 21,2
[ 2 ] = [ 2 ]
12 1 2 2 12
12,1 21,2 1
[ 1 2 12 ]

Where:

1 = Young s modulus in direction 1

2 = Young s modulus in direction 2
12 , 21 = Poisson sratios
12 = Shear modulus

, = = Shear coupling coefficient in i direction

The following relations, between elastic constants and flexibility matrix terms, can be
founded considering pure normal stress states along x and y and a pure shear stress
state:
1 1
1 = ; 2 =
11 22
12 12
12 = 12 1 = ; 21 = 12 2 =
11 22
1
12 =
33
12,1 12
= 12 12,1 =
1 11
21,2 23
= 23 21,2 =
2 22
B. Classical laminate theory

Figure 34 - Laminate

The following assumptions are made for the remainder of this section:

The laminate thickness is very small compared to its other dimensions.

The laminate layers (plies) are perfectly bonded.
Lines perpendicular to the surface of laminate remain straight and
perpendicular to the surface after deformation.
The plies and laminate are linear elastic.
The through-the-thickness stresses and strains are negligible.

These assumptions are good ones as long as the laminate is not damaged and
undergoes small deflections.

If the displacement in x direction is designed as , the one in y direction is designed

as and the one in z direction is designed as (see Figure 35), the strains are defined
as:

= ; = ; = ( + )

the slope of the plate if it is bending is given as:

= ; =

 Figure 35 Displacements of a plate

Figure 36 Total displacement in a plate

The total in-plane displacement at any point in the plate is the sum of the normal
displacement plus the displacement introduced by bending. Denoting the
displacements of the midplane of the plate for x and y directions as 0 and 0
respectively, with the help of Figure 36 the total displacements are:

= 0 = 0 ; = 0 = 0

So, it is possible to write:

0 2
= = 2

0 2
= = 2

0 0 2
= + = + 2

Defining the midplane strains as:

0 0 0 0
0 = ; 0 = 0
; = +

and the plate curvatures as:

2 2 2
= ; = ; = 2
2 2

It is possible to write:

0
[ ] = [ 0 ] + [ ]
0

Then, for each ply, stresses are given by:

11 12 13 0 11 12 13
0
[ ] = [21 22 11 ] [ ] + [21 22 11 ] [ ]
31 32 33 0
31 32 33

Kx or Ky is the rate of change of slope of the bending plate in either the x or y direction,
respectively (see Figure 37). The plate curvature Kxy is the amount of bending in the x
direction along the y axis (i.e., twisting).

Figure 37 Curvature Kx definition

Figure 38 Curvature Kxy definition

 Figure 39 Direction of forces and moments

Since the stress in each ply varies through the thickness of the laminate, it will be
convenient to define stresses in terms of equivalent forces acting at the middle
surface, so forces and moments per units of length are defined as follow (see Figure
39):

2 2
;
2 2

2 2
;
2 2

2 2
;
2 2
 Figure 40 Cross section of laminate

Then it is possible to write:

0 0
2
0 0

[ ] = {[ ] [ ] + [ ] [ ] } = { [ ] [ ] + [ ] [ ] } =
2 0 1 0 1
=1

0
0 1
= {[ ] [ ] ( 1 ) + [ ] [ ] (2 1
2
)}
0 2
=1

0
2
0
[ ] = {[ ] [ ] + [ ] [ ] 2 } =

2 0

0
= { [ ] [ 0 ] + [ ] [ ] 2 } =
=1 1 0
1

0
0 1 2 1
= {[ ] [ ] ( 1 ) + [ ] [ ] (3 1
2 3
)}
0 2 3
=1
Since the middle surface strains and curvatures are not a part of th summations, the
laminate stiffness matrix and the hk terms can be combined to form new matrices:

= [ij ] ( 1 )

=1

1
= [ij ] (2 1
2
)
2
=1

1
= [ij ] (3 1
3
)
3
=1

n is the plies number and the quantity hk are showed in Figure 40. hk must be
considered positive if z is above the midplane and negative if z is below the midplane.

The relation between forces and moments per units of length, and midplane strains
and plate curvature is given by the following constitutive equation:

11 12 13 11 12 13 0
21 22 23 21 22 23 0
32 33 31 32 33 0
= 31
11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23

[ ] [ 31 32 33 31 32 33 ] [ ]

The relation between forces/moments and strains/curvatures can be inverted as
follow:

0
11
12
13
11
12
13
0 21 22 23
21
22
23
0
32 33
31
32
33
= 31
11 12 13 11 12 13

21
22
23
21
22
23

[ ] [ 31 32 33

31
32
33 ] [ ]

With:
[ ] = [ ] [ ][ ]1 [ ]
[ ] = [ ][ ]1

[ ] = [ ]1 [ ]
[ ] = [ ]1

Where:
[ ] = []1
[ ] = []1 []

[ ] = [][]1

[ ] = [] [][]1 []

Once midplane strains and plate curvatures have been calculated, with the inverted
laminate constitutive equation, stresses and strains for the ply k can be calculated as
follow:

0
0
[ ] = [ ] + [ ]
0

0
0
[ ] = [ ] [ ] + [ ] [ ]
0

where:
[ ] =

Typically for each ply a constant stress equal to ply midplane stress is considered.
C. In plane engineering constants for the laminate

The constitutive equations of laminate are given by:

0
11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23 0
32 33 31 32 33 0
= 31
11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23
[ ] [ 31 32 33 31 32 33 ] [ ]

To find the Youngs modulus for membrane deformation only the x-direction in-
plane load is applied and a relationship between and 0 is sought. The constitutive
equations now become:

11 12 13 11 12 13 0

0 21 22 23 21 22 23 0
0 = 31 32 33 31 32 33 0

0 11 12 13 11 12 13
0 21 22 23 21 22 23
[ 0 ] [ 31 32 33 31 32 33 ] [ ]

Using the Cramers rule to solve for 0 :

12 13 11 12 13
0 22 23 21 22 23 22 23 21 22 23
|0 32 33 31 32 33 | 32 33 31 32 33
0 12 13 11 12 13 | 13 11 12 13 |
| | | 12 |
0 22 23 21 22 23 22 23 21 22 23
0 32 33 31 32 33 32 33 31 32 33
0 = =
11 12 13 11 12 13 11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23 21 22 23 21 22 23
| 32 33 31 32 33 | | 31 32 33 31 32 33 |
31
11 12 13 11 12 13 12 13 11 12 13
| | | 11 |
21 22 23 21 22 23 21 22 23 21 22 23
31 32 33 31 32 33 31 32 33 31 32 33

Since:

= = 0

The Youngs modulus in x direction, for membrane deformation, can be founded as
follow:

11
12 13 11 12 13 11 12 13 11 12 13
21
22 23 21 22 23 21 22 23 21 22 23
| 31 32 33 | | |
32
31 33 31 32 33 31 32 33
11
12 13 11 12 13 12 13 11 12 13
| | | 11 |
21
22 23 21 22 23 21 22 23 21 22 23
1 31
32 33 31 32 33 32 33 31 32 33 1
= 0 = = 31
22 23 21 22 23 22 23 21 22 23
32 33 31 32 33 32 33 31 32 33
||12 13 11 12 13 |
|
|
| 12
13 11 12 13 |
|
22 23 21 22 23 22 23 21 22 23
32 33 31 32 33 32 33 31 32 33

Remembering that the engineering constants for membrane deformation are given
by:

0 0
= = 0 ; = = 0 ; = ; =
0 0

similarly, to , the following relations are obtained:

11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23
| |
31 32 33 31 32 33
12 13 11 12 13
| 11 |
21 22 23 21 22 23
1 32 33 31 32 33 1
= 0 = 31
11 13 11 12 13
31 33 31 32 33
| 13 11 12 13 |
| 11 |
21 23 21 22 23
31 33 31 32 33
 11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23
| |
31 32 33 31 32 33
12 13 11 12 13
| 11 |
21 22 23 21 22 23
32 33 31 32 33 1
= = 31
11 12 11 12 13
0

21 22 21 22 23
| 12 11 12 13 |
| 11 |
21 22 21 22 23
31 32 31 32 33

21 23 21 22 23
31 33 31 32 33
| 13 11 12 13 |
| 11 |
21 23 21 22 23
0 33 31 32 33
= 0 = 31
22 23 21 22 23
32 33 31 32 33
| 13 11 12 13 |
| 12 |
22 23 21 22 23
32 33 31 32 33

12 13 11 12 13
31 33 31 32 33
| 13 11 12 13 |
| 12 |
22 23 21 22 23
0 33 31 32 33
= 0 = 32
11 13 12 22 23
31 33 13 23 33
| 13 11 12 13 |
| 11 |
21 23 21 22 23
31 33 31 32 33

If , , are the moments for units of length applied on the plate, the respective
stresses are calculated as:

12 12 12
= ; = ; =
3 3 3

Remembering that curvatures are defined as:

2 2 2
= 2
= ; = 2
= ; = 2 =

It is possible to define stiffenesses for bending deformation:

12 12
= = 3 = = 3

12 12
= = 3 = = 3

12 12
= = 3 = = 3

Furthermore:

= = ; = =

To find the Youngs modulus for bending deformation only the moment is
applied and a relationship between and is sought. The constitutive equations
now become:

11 12 13 11 12 13 0
0
0 21 22 23 21 22 23 0
0 = 31 32 33 31 32 33 0

11 12 13 11 12 13
0 21 22 23 21 22 23
[ 0 ] [ 31 32 33 31 32 33 ] [ ]

Using the Cramers rule to solve for :

11 12 13 12 13
21 22 23 22 23
||31 32 33 32 33 |
|
21 22 23 22 23
31 32 33 32 33
=
11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23
| 31 32 33 |
31 32 33
11 12 13 11 12 13
| |
21 22 23 21 22 23
31 32 33 31 32 33
The Youngs modulus in x direction, for bending deformation, can be founded as
follow:

11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23
| |
31 32 33 31 32 33
12 13 11 12 13
| 11 |
21 22 23 21 22 23
12 12 31 32 33 31 32 33
= 3 = 3
11 12 13 12 13
21 22 23 22 23
| 32 33 32 33 |
| 31 |
21 22 23 22 23
31 32 33 32 33

similarly, to , engineering constants for bending deformation are obtained:

11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23
| |
31 32 33 31 32 33
12 13 11 12 13
| 11 |
21 22 23 21 22 23
12 12 31 32 33 31 32 33
= 3 = 3
11 12 13 11 13
21 22 23 21 23
| 32 33 31 33 |
| 31 |
11 12 13 11 12
31 32 33 31 33

11 12 13 11 12 13
21 22 23 21 22 23
| |
31 32 33 31 32 33
12 13 11 12 13
| 11 |
21 22 23 21 22 23
12 12 32 33 31 32 33
= = 3 31
3 11 12 13 11 13
21 22 23 21 23
| 32 33 31 33 |
| 31 |
11 12 13 21 23
21 22 23 31 33
 11 12 13 11 13
21 22 23 21 23
||31 32 33 31 33 |
|
21 22 23 21 23
31 32 33 31 33
= = =
11 12 13 12 13
21 22 23 22 23
||31 32 33 32 33 |
|
21 22 23 22 23
31 32 33 32 33

11 12 13 11 13
21 22 23 21 23
|31 32 33 31 33 |
| |
21 22 23 21 23
31 32 33 31 33
= = =
11 12 13 11 13
21 22 23 21 23
|31 32 33 31 33 |
| |
11 12 13 11 13
31 32 33 31 33

In general, membrane stiffnesses and bending stiffnesses are not the same, this cause
some problems on the selection of stiffness values to be used for certain problems. In
general, for bending problems the bending stiffnesses are used and for stretching
problems the membrane stiffnesses are used. However, in situations where both
behaviours occur simultaneously it is not always clear what values should be used and
it is not uncommon to use the values that give the most conservative results.
D. Transverse shear stresses

The transverse shear stresses are calculated from the three-dimensional equilibrium
equation of elasticity. Neglecting the body forces per unit volume, the three-
dimensional equilibrium equation of elasticity can be write as follow:

+ + =0


+ + =0


+ + =0

From the first two equations is possible to calculate and :

Figure 41 Transverse shear stresses

= ( + )
+

{ } =
0
+
= ( + ) { }
{
Reminding that:

0
[ ] = [ ] [ 0 ] + [ ] [ ] = [ ] 0 + [ ]
0

and defining the following matrices:

0 0 1 0 1 0
1 = [ ] ; 2 = [ ]
1 0 0 0 0 1

+ +

{ } = = =
0 0
+ +
{ } { }

0 0
= {[1 ][ ] [ + ] + [2 ][ ] [ + ]}
0

Figure 42 Plies

In order to calculate the stresses straight from the shear forces, some additional
assumption have to be made.

The influence of the in-plane force derivates is neglected, that is:

{} {}
=0 ; =0

 Figure 43 - Direction of forces and moments

Strain derivatives then reduce to the form (see Appendix B):

0 {} 0 {}
= [ ] ; = [ ]

{} {}
= [ ] ; = [ ]

Assuming separate cylindrical bending modes, the moment derivates reduce to the
simple resultant shear forces:

0


{ }={0} ;
{ } = { }

0 0

Then it is possible to write:

0 0
{ } = {[1 ][ ] [ + ] + [2 ][ ] [ + ]}
0

{} {}
{ } = {[1 ][ ][[ ] + [ ]] + [2 ][ ][[ ] + [ ]] }
0

1
{ } = {[1 ] [ ] [[ ]( 1 ) + [ ](2 1
2
)] { 0 } + [1 ][ ]+1 [[ ]( ) +
2
=1 0

0
1 2 1 2 2
+ [ ]( )] { 0 } + [2 ] [ ] [[ ]( 1 ) + [ ]( 1 )] { } +
2
2 2
0 =1 0

1 0
+[2 ][ ]+1 [[ ]( ) + [ ]( 2 2 )] { }}
2
0

{ } = {[1 ] [([ ] ( 1 ) + [ ]+1 ( )) [ ] +

=1

1
+ ([ ] (2 1
2
) + [ ]+1 ( 2 2 )) [ ] { 0 } +
2
=1 0
]

+[2 ] [([ ] ( 1 ) + [ ]+1 ( )) [ ] +

=1

0
1
+ ([ ] (2 1
2
) + [ ]+1 ( 2 2 )) [ ] { }
2
=1 0
] }

If the matrix [()] is defined as follow:

[()] = ([ ] ( 1 ) + [ ]+1 ( )) [ ] +
=1

1
([ ] (2 1
2
) + [ ]+1 ( 2 2 )) [ ]
2
=1

3 3

()
= [
( 1 ) + +1 ( )] +
=1 =1 =1
3 3
1
[ (2 1
2
) + +1 ( 2 2 )]
2
=1 =1 =1
It is possible to write the expression for shear stresses as:

0
22
{ } = [1 ][()] { 0 } + [2 ][()] { } = [ 31 ]{ }
11 32
0 0

At lower surface with = 2, function [()] = 0

At upper surface with = 2, function [()] = [][ ] [][ ] = 0 (see Appendix B)

Therefore, the transverse shear stresses become zero for the top and bottom surfaces
and fulfil the boundary conditions of transverse shear stresses going to zero at the
laminate surfaces.

Shear stresses in a coordinate system different from laminate coordinate system are:

23
{ } = [] { }
31

Where:

[] = [
]

With rotation clockwise angle respect laminate coordinate system.

9 References

[1] DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE STRUCTURES Christos Kassapoglou

[2] HEXCEL COMPOSITES HONEYCOMB SANDWICH DESIGN TECHNOLOGY

[3] BITZER, T. Honeycomb Technology

[4] NASA RP 1351 Basic Mechanics of Laminated Composites Plates

[5] MSC NASTRAN QUICK REFERENCE

[6] Composite material handbook Volume 6 SAE International

[7] MTS 006 Composite stress manual Aerospatiale

[8] Improved Transverse Shear Stiffnesses for Layered Finite Elements K. Rohwer

[9] Improved Transverse Shear Stresses in Composite Finite Elements Based on First

Order Shear Deformation Theory R. Rolfes and K. Rohwer

[10] Cellular solids: structure and properties Lorna J. Gibson, Michael F. Ashby