Analytical solutions for free vibration of laminated composite and

sandwich plates based on a higher-order rened theory

T. Kant
*
, K. Swaminathan
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400 076, India
Abstract
Analytical formulations and solutions to the natural frequency analysis of simply supported composite and sandwich plates
hitherto not reported in the literature based on a higher-order rened theory developed by the rst author and already reported in
the literature are presented. The theoretical model presented herein incorporates laminate deformations which account for the eects
of transverse shear deformation, transverse normal strain/stress and a nonlinear variation of in-plane displacements with respect to
the thickness coordinate thus modelling the warping of transverse cross-sections more accurately and eliminating the need for
shear correction coecients. In addition, few higher-order theories and the rst-order theory developed by other investigators and
already available in the literature are also considered for the evaluation. The equations of motion are obtained using Hamilton's
principle. Solutions are obtained in closed form using Navier's technique and by solving the eigenvalue equation. The comparison of
the present results with the available elasticity solutions and the results computed independently using the rst-order and the other
higher-order theories available in the literature shows that this rened theory predicts the fundamental and higher frequencies more
accurately than all other theories considered in this paper. After establishing the accuracy of present results for composite plates,
new results for sandwich laminates using all the theories considered in this paper are also presented which may serve as a benchmark
for future investigations. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Free vibration; Higher-order theory; Shear deformation; Sandwich plates; Analytical solutions
1. Introduction
Laminated composite plates are being increasingly
used in the aeronautical and aerospace industry as well
as in other elds of modern technology. To use them
eciently a good understanding of their structural and
dynamical behaviour and also an accurate knowledge of
the deformation characteristics, stress distribution, nat-
ural frequencies and buckling loads under various load
conditions are needed. The Classical Laminate Plate
Theory [1], which is an extension of Classical Plate
Theory [2,3] neglects the eects of out-of-plane strains.
The greater dierences in elastic properties between bre
laments and matrix materials lead to a high ratio of in-
plane young's modulus to transverse shear modulus for
most of the composite laminates developed to date.
Because of this reason the transverse shear deformations
are much pronounced for laminated plates than for
isotropic plates. Thus the Classical Laminate Plate
Theory (CLPT) which ignores the eect of transverse
shear deformation becomes inadequate for the analysis
of multilayer composites. In general the CLPT often
underpredicts deections and overpredicts natural fre-
quencies and buckling loads. The rst-order theories
(FSDTs) based on Reissner [4] and Mindlin [5] assume
linear in-plane stresses and displacements respectively
through the laminate thickness. Since the FSDT ac-
counts for layerwise constant states of transverse shear
stress, shear correction coecients are needed to rectify
the unrealistic variation of the shear strain/stress
through the thickness and which ultimately dene the
shear strain energy. Many studies have been carried out
using FSDT for the free vibration analysis of composite
plates [613].
In order to overcome the limitations of FSDT,
higher-order shear deformation theories (HSDTs) that
involve higher-order terms in the Taylor's expansions
of the displacements in the thickness coordinate were
developed. In these higher-order theories with each
additional power of the thickness coordinate an
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Kant), swami@
vasnet.co.in (K. Swaminathan).
0263-8223/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 8 2 2 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 8 0 - X
additional dependent unknown is introduced into the
theory. Hildebrand et al. [14] were the rst to introduce
this approach to derive improved theories of plates and
shells. Nelson and Lorch [15], Librescu [16] presented
higher-order displacement based shear deformation
theories for the analysis of laminated plates. Lo et al.
[17,18] have presented a closed form solution for a
laminated plate with higher-order displacement model
which also considers the eect of transverse normal
deformation. Levinson [19] and Murthy [20] presented
third-order theories neglecting the extension/compres-
sion of transverse normal but used the equilibrium
equations of the rst-order theory used by Whitney
and Pagano [8] in the analysis which are variationally
inconsistent. Kant [21] was the rst to derive the
complete set of variationally consistent governing
equations for the exure of a symmetrically laminated
plate incorporating both distortion of transverse nor-
mals and eects of transverse normal stress/strain by
utilizing the complete three-dimensional generalized
Hooke's law and presented results for isotropic plate
only. Reddy [22] derived a set of variationally consis-
tent equilibrium equations for the kinematic models
originally proposed by Levinson and Murthy. Using
the theory of Reddy, Senthilnathan et al. [23] presented
a simplied higher-order theory by introducing a fur-
ther reduction of the functional degrees of freedom by
splitting up the transverse displacement into bending
and shear contributions. Kant et al. [24] are the rst to
present a nite element formulation of a higher-order
exure theory. This theory considers three-dimensional
Hooke's law, incorporates the eect of transverse
normal strain in addition to transverse shear defor-
mations. Symmetric and unsymmetric composite and
sandwich plates Pandya and Kant [2529], Kant and
Manjunatha [30,31] and Manjunatha and Kant [32]
have extended this theory and presented C nite ele-
ment formulations and solutions for the stress analysis
of symmetric and unsymmetric laminated composite
and sandwich plates. Later Mallikarjuna [33], Malli-
karjuna and Kant [34] and Kant and Mallikarjuna
[35,36] presented a simple C nite element formulation
and solutions using a set of higher order displacement
models for the free vibration analysis of general lami-
nated composite and sandwich plate problems. Solu-
tions of this theory for the free vibration analysis of
laminated composite and sandwich beams were pre-
sented by Kant and Gupta [37], Kant et al. [38], and
Marur and Kant [39]. Using the higher-order theory of
Reddy [22] free vibration analysis of isotropic, ortho-
tropic and laminated plates was carried out by Reddy
and Phan [40]. A mixed shear exible nite element
based on a higher-order theory was developed by
Putcha and Reddy [41]. Vibration frequencies for an-
isotropic rectangular plates with dierent boundary
conditions were obtained. Noor and Burton [42] pre-
sented a complete list of references of FSDTs and
HSDTs for the static, free vibration and buckling
analysis of laminated composites. Srinivas et al. [43],
Srinivas and Rao [44] and Noor [45] presented exact
three dimensional elasticity solutions for the free vi-
bration of isotropic, orthotropic and anisotropic com-
posite laminated plates which serve as benchmark
solutions for comparison by many researchers. The
present paper deals with the analytical formulations
and solutions hitherto not reported in literature of the
rened theory already proposed by the senior author as
applied to free vibration of laminated composite and
sandwich plate problems with simply supported edge
conditions. Comparison of results with the three-
dimensional elasticity solutions available in the litera-
ture shows that this theory predicts the fundamental
and higher frequencies more accurately than all other
theories considered in this paper. After establishing the
accuracy of the present results for composite plates,
benchmark results for multilayer sandwich plates are
presented.
2. Theoretical formulation
2.1. Displacement models
In order to approximate the three-dimensional elas-
ticity problem to a two-dimensional plate problem, the
displacement components u(x; y; z; t); v(x; y; z; t) and
w(x; y; z; t) at any point in the plate space are expanded
in a Taylor's series in terms of the thickness coordinate.
The elasticity solution indicates that the transverse shear
stress vary parabolically through the plate thickness.
This requires the use of a displacement eld in which the
in-plane displacements are expanded as cubic functions
of the thickness coordinate. In addition, the transverse
normal strain may vary nonlinearly through the plate
thickness. The displacement eld which satises the
above criteria may be assumed in the form [30]:
u(x; y; z; t) = u
o
(x; y; t) zh
x
(x; y; t) z
2
u
+
o
(x; y; t) z
3
h
+
x
(x; y; t);
v(x; y; z; t) = v
o
(x; y; t) zh
y
(x; y; t) z
2
v
+
o
(x; y; t) z
3
h
+
y
(x; y; t);
w(x; y; z; t) = w
o
(x; y; t) zh
z
(x; y; t) z
2
w
+
o
(x; y; t) z
3
h
+
z
(x; y; t):
(1)
Further if the variation of transverse displacement
component w(x; y; z) in Eq. (1) is assumed constant
through the plate thickness and thus setting e
z
= 0, then
the displacement eld may be expressed as [29]:
u(x; y; z) = u
o
(x; y) zh
x
(x; y) z
2
u
+
o
(x; y) z
3
h
+
x
(x; y);
v(x; y; z) = v
o
(x; y) zh
y
(x; y) z
2
v
+
o
(x; y) z
3
h
+
y
(x; y);
w(x; y; z) = w
o
(x; y):
(2)
74 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385
The parameters u
o
; v
o
are the in-plane displacements and
w
o
is the transverse displacement of a point (x; y) on the
middle plane. The functions h
x
; h
y
are rotations of the
normal to the middle plane about y- and x-axes, re-
spectively. The parameters u
+
o
; v
+
o
; w
+
o
; h
+
x
; h
+
y
; h
+
z
and h
z
are the higher-order terms in the Taylor's series expan-
sion and they represent higher-order transverse cross-
sectional deformation modes. Though the above two
theories were already reported earlier in the literature
and numerical results were presented using nite ele-
ment formulations, analytical formulations and solu-
tions are obtained for the rst time in this investigation
and so the results obtained using the above two theories
are referred to as present (Model-1 and Model-2) in all
the Tables. In addition to the above, the following
higher-order theories and the rst-order theory devel-
oped by other investigators and reported in the litera-
ture for the analysis of laminated composite and
sandwich plates are also considered for the evaluation.
Analytical formulations and numerical results of these
are also being presented here with a view to have all the
results on a common platform.
Model-3 [46]
u(x; y; z) = u
o
(x; y) z h
x
(x; y)
_

4
3
z
h
_ _
2
h
x
(x; y)
_

ow
o
ox
__
;
v(x; y; z) = v
o
(x; y) z h
y
(x; y)
_

4
3
z
h
_ _
2
h
y
(x; y)
_

ow
o
oy
__
;
w(x; y; z) = w
o
(x; y):
(3)
Model-4 [23]
u(x; y; z) = u
o
(x; y) z
ow
b
o
ox

4z
3
3h
2
ow
s
o
ox
;
v(x; y; z) = v
o
(x; y) z
ow
b
o
oy

4z
3
3h
2
ow
s
o
oy
;
w(x; y; z) = w
b
o
(x; y) w
s
o
(x; y):
(4)
Model-5 [8]
u(x; y; z) = u
o
(x; y) zh
x
(x; y);
v(x; y; z) = v
o
(x; y) zh
y
(x; y);
w(x; y; z) = w
o
(x; y):
(5)
In this paper, the analytical formulations and solu-
tion method followed using the higher-order rened
theory (Model-1) is only presented in detail and the
same procedure is followed in obtaining the results using
other models. The geometry of a two-dimensional lam-
inated composite plate with positive set of coordinate
axes and the physical middle plane displacement terms
are shown in Fig. 1. By substitution of these displace-
ment relations into the strain-displacement equations of
the classical theory of elasticity, the following relations
are obtained.
e
x
= e
xo
zj
x
z
2
e
+
xo
z
3
j
+
x
;
e
y
= e
yo
zj
y
z
2
e
+
yo
z
3
j
+
y
;
e
z
= e
zo
zj
z
z
2
e
+
zo
z
3
j
+
y
;
c
xy
= e
xyo
zj
xy
z
2
e
+
xyo
z
3
j
+
xy
;
c
yz
= /
y
zj
yz
z
2
/
+
y
z
3
j
+
yz
;
c
xz
= /
x
zj
xz
z
2
/
+
x
z
3
j
+
xz
;
(6)
where
(e
xo
; e
yo
; e
xyo
) =
ou
o
ox
;
ov
o
oy
;
ou
o
oy
_

ov
o
ox
_
;
(e
+
xo
; e
+
yo
; e
+
xyo
) =
ou
+
o
ox
;
ov
+
o
oy
;
ou
+
o
oy
_

ov
+
o
ox
_
;
(e
zo
; e
+
zo
) = (h
z
; 3h
+
z
);
(j
x
; j
y
; j
z
; j
xy
) =
oh
x
ox
;
oh
y
oy
; 2w
+
o
;
oh
x
oy
_

oh
y
ox
_
;
(j
+
x
; j
+
y
; j
+
xy
) =
oh
+
x
ox
;
oh
+
y
oy
;
oh
+
x
oy
_

oh
+
y
ox
_
;
(j
xz
; j
yz
) = 2u
+
o
_

oh
z
ox
; 2v
+
o

oh
z
oy
_
;
(j
+
xz
; j
+
yz
) =
oh
+
z
ox
;
oh
+
z
oy
_ _
;
Fig. 1. Laminate geometry with positive set of lamina/laminate ref-
erence axes, displacement components and bre orientation.
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385 75
(/
x
; /
+
x
; /
y
; /
+
y
) = h
x
_

ow
o
ox
; 3h
+
x

ow
+
o
ox
; h
y

ow
o
oy
; 3h
+
y

ow
+
o
oy
_
:
(7)
2.2. Constitutive equations
Each lamina in the laminate is assumed to be in a
three-dimensional stress state so that the constitutive
relation for a typical lamina L with reference to the -
bre-matrix coordinate axes (1 2 3) can be written as
r
1
r
2
r
3
s
12
s
23
s
13
_

_
_

_
L
=
C
11
C
12
C
13
0 0 0
C
12
C
22
C
23
0 0 0
C
13
C
23
C
33
0 0 0
0 0 0 C
44
0 0
0 0 0 0 C
55
0
0 0 0 0 0 C
66
_

_
_

_
L
e
1
e
2
e
3
c
12
c
23
c
13
_

_
_

_
L
;
(8)
where (r
1
; r
2
; r
3
; s
12
; s
23
; s
13
) are the stresses and
(e
1
; e
2
; e
3
; c
12
; c
23
; c
13
) are the linear strain components
referred to the lamina coordinates (1 2 3) and the
C
ij
's are the elastic constants or the elements of stiness
matrix of the Lth lamina with reference to the bre axes
(1 2 3). In the laminate coordinates (x; y; z) the
stress strain relations for the Lth lamina can be written
as:
r
x
r
y
r
z
s
xy
s
yz
s
xz
_

_
_

_
L
=
Q
11
Q
12
Q
13
Q
14
0 0
Q
22
Q
23
Q
24
0 0
Q
33
Q
34
0 0
Q
44
0 0
symmetric Q
55
Q
56
Q
66
_

_
_

_
L
e
x
e
y
e
z
c
xy
c
yz
c
xz
_

_
_

_
L
;
(9)
where (r
x
; r
y
; r
z
; s
xy
; s
yz
; s
xz
) are the stresses and
(e
x
; e
y
; e
z
; c
xy
; c
yz
; c
xz
) are the strains with respect to the
laminate axes. Q
ij
's are the transformed elastic constants
or stiness matrix with respect to the laminate axes
x; y; z. The elements of matrices [C[ and [Q[ are dened in
Appendices A and B.
2.3. Hamilton's principle
Hamilton's principle [46] can be written in analytical
form as follows:
d
_
t
2
t
1
[K (U V )[ dt = 0; (10)
where U is the total strain energy due to deformations, V
the potential of the external loads, K the kinetic energy
and U V = P is the total potential energy. Substitut-
ing the appropriate energy expressions the nal expres-
sion can be written as
0 =
_
t
0
_ h
2

h
2
_
A
(r
x
de
x
_
r
y
de
y
r
z
de
z
s
xy
dc
xy
s
yz
dc
yz
s
xz
dc
xz
) dA dz
_
A
p

z
dw dA
_
dt

d
2
_
t
0
_ h
2

h
2
_
A
q[( _ u
o
)
2
(_ v
o
)
2
( _ w
o
)
2
[ dA dz dt;
(11)
where q is the mass density of the material and p

z
the
transverse load applied at the top surface of the plate.
Using Eqs. (1), (6) and (7) in Eq. (11) and integrating the
resulting expression by parts, and collecting the coe-
cients of du
o
, dv
o
, dw
o
, dh
x
, dh
y
, dh
z
, du
+
o
, dv
+
o
, dw
+
o
, dh
+
x
,
dh
+
y
, dh
+
z
the following equations of motion are obtained:
du
o
:
oN
x
ox

oN
xy
oy
= I
1
u
o
I
2

h
x
I
3
u
+
o
I
4

h
+
x
;
dv
o
:
oN
y
oy

oN
xy
ox
= I
1
v
o
I
2

h
y
I
3
v
+
o
I
4

h
+
y
;
dw
o
:
oQ
x
ox

oQ
y
oy
p

z
= I
1
 w
o
I
2

h
z
I
3
 w
+
o
I
4

h
+
z
;
dh
x
:
oM
x
ox

oM
xy
oy
Q
x
= I
2
u
o
I
3

h
x
I
4
u
+
o
I
5

h
+
x
;
dh
y
:
oM
y
oy

oM
xy
ox
Q
y
= I
2
v
o
I
3

h
y
I
4
v
+
o
I
5

h
+
y
;
dh
z
:
oS
x
ox

oS
y
oy
N
z

h
2
(p

z
) = I
2
 w
o
I
3

h
z
I
4
 w
+
o
I
5

h
+
z
;
du
+
o
:
oN
+
x
ox

oN
+
xy
oy
2S
x
= I
3
u
o
I
4

h
x
I
5
u
+
o
I
6

h
+
x
;
dv
+
o
:
oN
+
y
oy

oN
+
xy
ox
2S
y
= I
3
v
o
I
4

h
y
I
5
v
+
o
I
6

h
+
y
;
dw
+
o
:
oQ
+
x
ox

oQ
+
y
oy
2M
+
z

h
2
4
(p

z
)
= I
3
 w
o
I
4

h
z
I
5
 w
+
o
I
6

h
+
z
;
dh
+
x
:
oM
+
x
ox

oM
+
xy
oy
3Q
+
x
= I
4
u
o
I
5

h
x
I
6
u
+
o
I
7

h
+
x
;
dh
+
y
:
oM
+
y
oy

oM
+
xy
ox
3Q
+
y
= I
4
v
o
I
5

h
y
I
6
v
+
o
I
7

h
+
y
;
dh
+
z
:
oS
+
x
ox

oS
+
y
oy
3N
+
z

h
3
8
(p

z
)
= I
4
 w
o
I
5

h
z
I
6
 w
+
o
I
7

h
+
z
;
(12)
76 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385
and the boundary conditions are of the form:
On the edge x = constant
u
o
= u
o
or N
x
=

N
x
; h
x
=

h
x
or M
x
=

M
x
;
v
o
= v
o
or N
xy
=

N
xy
; h
y
=

h
y
or M
xy
=

M
xy
;
w
o
= w
o
or Q
x
=

Q
x
; h
z
=

h
z
or S
x
=

S
x
;
u
+
o
= u
+
o
or N
+
x
=

N
+
x
; h
+
x
=

h
+
x
or M
+
x
=

M
+
x
;
v
+
o
= v
+
o
or N
+
xy
=

N
+
xy
; h
+
y
=

h
+
y
or M
+
xy
=

M
+
xy
;
w
+
o
= w
+
o
or Q
+
x
=

Q
+
x
; h
+
z
=

h
+
z
or S
+
x
=

S
+
x
:
(13)
On the edge y = constant
u
o
= u
o
or N
xy
=

N
xy
; h
x
=

h
x
or M
xy
=

M
xy
;
v
o
= v
o
or N
y
=

N
y
; h
y
=

h
y
or M
y
=

M
y
;
w
o
= w
o
or Q
y
=

Q
y
; h
z
=

h
z
or S
y
=

S
y
;
u
+
o
= u
+
o
or N
+
xy
=

N
+
xy
h
+
x
=

h
+
x
or M
+
xy
=

M
+
xy
;
v
+
o
= v
+
o
or N
+
y
=

N
+
y
h
+
y
=

h
+
y
or M
+
y
=

M
+
y
;
w
+
o
= w
+
o
or Q
+
y
=

Q
+
y
; h
+
z
=

h
+
z
or S
+
y
=

S
+
y
;
(14)
where the stress resultants are dened by
M
x
M
+
x
M
y
M
+
y
M
z
0
M
xy
M
+
xy
_

_
_

_
=

NL
L=1
_
z
L1
z
L
r
x
r
y
r
z
s
xy
_

_
_

_
[ z z
3
[ dz; (15)
Q
x
Q
+
x
Q
y
Q
+
y
_ _
=

NL
L=1
_
z
L1
z
L
s
xz
s
yz
_ _
[ 1 z
2
[ dz; (16)
N
x
N
+
x
N
y
N
+
y
N
z
N
+
z
N
xy
N
+
xy
_

_
_

_
=

NL
L=1
_
z
L1
z
L
r
x
r
y
r
z
s
xy
_

_
_

_
[ 1 z
2
[ dz; (17)
S
x
S
+
x
S
y
S
+
y
_ _
=

NL
L=1
_
z
L1
z
L
s
xz
s
yz
_ _
[ z z
3
[ dz; (18)
and the inertias are given by
I
1
; I
2
; I
3
; I
4
; I
5
; I
6
; I
7
=
_ h
2

h
2
q 1; z; z
2
; z
3
; z
4
; z
5
; z
6
_ _
dz: (19)
The resultants in Eqs. (15)(18) can be related to the
total strains in Eq. (6) by the following equations:
N
x
N
y
N
+
x
N
+
y
N
z
N
+
z
M
x
M
y
M
+
x
M
+
y
M
+
z
_

_
_

_
= [A[
e
xo
e
yo
e
+
xo
e
+
yo
e
zo
e
+
zo
j
x
j
y
j
+
x
j
+
y
j
z
_

_
_

_
[A
/
[
e
xyo
e
+
xyo
j
xy
j
+
xy
_

_
_

_
;
N
xy
N
+
xy
M
xy
M
+
xy
_

_
_

_
= [B
/
[
e
xo
e
yo
e
+
xo
e
+
yo
e
zo
e
+
zo
j
x
j
y
j
+
x
j
+
y
j
z
_

_
_

_
[B[
e
xyo
e
+
xyo
j
xy
j
+
xy
_

_
_

_
;
(20)
Q
x
Q
+
x
S
x
S
+
x
_

_
_

_
= [D[
/
x
/
+
x
j
xz
j
+
xz
_

_
_

_
[D
/
[
/
y
/
+
y
j
yz
j
+
yz
_

_
_

_
;
Q
y
Q
+
y
S
y
S
+
y
_

_
_

_
= [E
/
[
/
x
/
+
x
j
xz
j
+
xz
_

_
_

_
[E[
/
y
/
+
y
j
yz
j
+
yz
_

_
_

_
;
(21)
where the matrices [A[; [A
/
[; [B[; [B
/
[; [D[; [D
/
[; [E[; [E
/
[
are the matrices of plate stinesses whose elements are
dened in Appendix C.
3. Analytical solutions
Here the exact solution of Eqs. (12)(21) for cross-ply
rectangular plates are considered. Assuming that the
plate is simply supported in such a manner that normal
displacement is admissible, but the tangential displace-
ment is not, the following boundary conditions are ap-
propriate:At edges x = 0 and x = a:
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385 77
v
o
= 0; w
o
= 0; h
y
= 0; h
z
= 0;
M
x
= 0; v
+
o
= 0; w
+
o
= 0; h
+
y
= 0;
h
+
z
= 0; M
+
x
= 0; N
x
= 0; N
+
x
= 0:
(22)
At edges y = 0 and y = b:
u
o
= 0; w
o
= 0; h
x
= 0; h
z
= 0;
M
y
= 0; u
+
o
= 0; w
+
o
= 0; h
+
x
= 0;
h
+
z
= 0; M
+
y
= 0; N
y
= 0; N
+
y
= 0:
(23)
Following Navier's solution procedure [2,3,47] the so-
lution to the displacement variables satisfying the above
boundary conditions can be expressed in the following
forms:
u
o
=

m=1

n=1
u
omn
cos ax sin by e
ixt
;
v
o
=

m=1

n=1
v
omn
sin ax cos by e
ixt
;
w
o
=

m=1

n=1
w
omn
sin ax sin by e
ixt
;
h
x
=

m=1

n=1
h
xmn
cos ax sin by e
ixt
;
h
y
=

m=1

n=1
h
ymn
sin ax cos by e
ixt
;
h
z
=

m=1

n=1
h
zmn
sin ax sin by e
ixt
;
u
+
o
=

m=1

n=1
u
+
omn
cos ax sin by e
ixt
;
v
+
o
=

m=1

n=1
v
+
omn
sin ax cos by e
ixt
;
w
+
o
=

m=1

n=1
w
+
o
mn
sin ax sin by e
ixt
;
h
+
x
=

m=1

n=1
h
+
x
mn
cos ax sin by e
ixt
;
h
+
y
=

m=1

n=1
h
+
y
mn
sin ax cos by e
ixt
;
h
+
z
=

m=1

n=1
h
+
zmn
sin ax sin by e
ixt
;
p

z
= 0;
(24)
where a = mp=a, b = np=b, and x is the natural fre-
quency of the system.
Substituting Eqs. (22)(24) into Eq. (12) and collect-
ing the coecients one obtain
([X[ k[M[)
u
o
v
o
w
o
h
x
h
y
h
z
u
+
o
v
+
o
w
+
o
h
+
x
h
+
y
h
+
z
_

_
_

_
= 0; where k = x
2
(25)
for any xed values of m and n. The elements of coef-
cient matrix [X[ and [M[ are given in Appendices D and
E. The matrix [M[ refers to mass matrix.
4. Numerical results and discussion
The various models compared in the present study
are given in Table 1. A shear correction factor of 5/6 is
used in computing results using WhitneyPagano's
theory. The nondimensionalized natural frequencies x
of general rectangular composite and sandwich plates
with simple supports are considered for comparison.
The nondimensionalized natural frequencies computed
using various models for two, four, six and 10 layer
antisymmetric cross-ply laminate with layers of equal
thickness are given in Table 2.
The orthotropic material properties of individual
layers in all the above laminates considered are E
1
=E
2
=
open, E
2
= E
3
, G
12
= G
13
= 0:6E
2
, G
23
= 0:5E
2
, t
12
=
t
13
= t
23
= 0:25. Three-dimensional elasticity solutions
given by Noor [45] is considered for comparison. For all
the laminate types considered, at lower range of E
1
=E
2
ratio equal to 3 and 10 the error in KantManjunatha
Table 1
Displacement models (shear deformation theories) compared
Source Theory Year (Ref.) Degrees of freedom Transverse normal deformation
Present (Model-1) HSDT 1988 [30] 12 Considered
Present (Model-2) HSDT 1988 [29] 9 Not considered
Reddy HSDT 1984 [22] 5 Not considered
Senthilnathan et al. HSDT 1987 [23] 4 Not considered
WhitneyPagano FSDT 1970 [8] 5 Not considered
78 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385
theory is less compared to other theories. Whereas for
two, four and six layer laminates at higher range of
E
1
=E
2
ratio equal to 2040, the theory of PandyaKant
gives better accurate results in comparison to other
theories and the percentage error in computation using
Reddy's and Senthilnathan's theory is very much higher.
The variation of natural frequencies with respect to side-
to-thickness ratio a/h is presented in Table 3. The results
show that for thick plates the results of KantManju-
natha and PandyaKant theories are in good agreement
and a considerable dierence exists between the results
obtained using these theories and the models of Reddy,
Senthilnathan et al., and WhitneyPagano.
The variation of fundamental frequency with re-
spect to the various parameters like the side-to-thick-
ness ratio (a=h), thickness of the core to thickness of
the ange (t
c
=t
f
) and the aspect ratio (a=b) of a ve-
layer sandwich plate with antisymmetric cross-ply face
Table 3
Variation of nondimensionalized fundamental frequencies x = (xb
2
=h)

q=E
2
_
with a=h for a simply supported cross-ply square laminated plate
E
1
=E
2
= 40; G
12
= G
13
= 0:6E
2
; G
23
= 0:5E
2
; t
12
= t
13
= t
23
= 0:25
Lamination and
number of layers
Source a/h
2 4 10 20 50 100
(0=90) Present (Model-1) 5.0918 7.9081 10.4319 11.0663 11.2688 11.2988
Present (Model-2) 5.0746 7.8904 10.4156 11.0509 11.2537 11.2837
[22]
a
5.7170 8.3546 10.5680 11.1052 11.2751 11.3002
[23]
a
5.7170 8.3546 10.5680 11.1052 11.2751 11.3002
[8]
a
5.2085 8.0889 10.4610 11.0639 11.2558 11.2842
(0=90=90=0) Present (Model-1) 5.4033 9.2870 15.1048 17.6470 18.6720 18.8357
Present (Model-2) 5.3929 9.2710 15.0949 17.6434 18.6713 18.8355
[22]
a
5.5065 9.3235 15.1073 17.6457 18.6718 18.8356
[23]
a
6.0017 10.2032 15.9405 17.9938 18.7381 18.8526
[8]
a
5.4998 9.3949 15.1426 17.6596 18.6742 18.8362
a
Results using these theories are computed independently and are found to be same as the results reported in earlier references.
Table 2
Nondimensionalized fundamental frequencies x = (xb
2
=h)

q=E
2
_
for a simply supported antisymmetric cross-ply square laminated plates with
a=h = 5
Lamination and
number of layers
Source E
1
=E
2
3 10 20 30 40
(0=90)
1
3D Elasticity [45] 6.2578 6.9845 7.6745 8.1763 8.5625
Present (Model-1) 6.2336 ()0.39)
a
6.9741 ()0.15) 7.7140 (0.51) 8.2775 (1.24) 8.7272 (1.92)
Present (Model-2) 6.1566 ()1.62) 6.9363 ()0.69) 7.6883 (0.18) 8.2570 (0.99) 8.7097 (1.72)
[22]
b
6.2169 ()0.65) 6.9887 (0.06) 7.8210 (1.91) 8.5050 (4.02) 9.0871 (6.13)
[23]
b
6.2169 ()0.65) 6.9887 (0.06) 7.8210 (1.91) 8.5050 (4.02) 9.0871 (6.13)
[8]
b
6.1490 ()1.74) 6.9156 ()0.99) 7.6922 (0.23) 8.3112 (1.65) 8.8255 (3.07)
(0=90)
2
3D Elasticity [45] 6.5455 8.1445 9.4055 10.1650 10.6798
Present (Model-1) 6.5146 ()0.47) 8.1482 (0.05) 9.4675 (0.66) 10.2733 (1.07) 10.8221 (1.33)
Present (Model-2) 6.4319 ()1.74) 8.1010 ()0.53) 9.4338 (0.30) 10.2463 (0.80) 10.7993 (1.12)
[22]
b
6.5008 ()0.68) 8.1954 (0.62) 9.6265 (2.35) 10.5348 (3.64) 11.1716 (4.60)
[23]
b
6.5008 ()0.68) 8.1954 (0.62) 9.6265 (2.35) 10.5348 (3.64) 11.1716 (4.60)
[8]
b
6.4402 ()1.61) 8.1963 (0.64) 9.6729 (2.84) 10.6095 (4.37) 11.2635 (5.47)
(0=90)
3
3D Elasticity [45] 6.61 8.4143 9.8398 10.6958 11.2728
Present (Model-1) 6.5711 ()0.59) 8.3852 ()0.35) 9.8346 ()0.05) 10.7113 (0.14) 11.3051 (0.29)
Present (Model-2) 6.4873 ()1.86) 8.3372 ()0.92) 9.8012 ()0.39) 10.6853 ()0.10) 11.2838 (0.10)
[22]
b
6.5552 ()0.83) 8.4041 ()0.12) 9.9175 (0.79) 10.8542 (1.48) 11.5007 (2.02)
[23]
b
6.5552 ()0.83) 8.4041 ()0.12) 9.9176 (0.79) 10.8542 (1.48) 11.5007 (2.02)
[8]
b
6.4916 ()1.79) 8.3883 ()0.31) 9.9266 (0.88) 10.8723 (1.65) 11.5189 (2.18)
(0=90)
5
3D Elasticity [45] 6.6458 8.5625 10.0843 11.0027 11.6245
Present (Model-1) 6.6019 ()0.66) 8.5163 ()0.54) 10.0438 ()0.40) 10.9699 ()0.30) 11.5993 ()0.22)
Present (Model-2) 6.5177 ()1.93) 8.4680 ()1.10) 10.0107 ()0.73) 10.9445 ()0.53) 11.5789 ()0.39)
[22]
b
6.5842 ()0.93) 8.5126 ()0.58) 10.0674 ()0.17) 11.0197 (0.15) 11.6730 (0.42)
[23]
b
6.5842 ()0.93) 8.5126 ()0.58) 10.0674 ()0.17) 11.0197 (0.15) 11.6730 (0.42)
[8]
b
6.5185 ()1.92) 8.4842 ()0.91) 10.0483 ()0.36) 10.9959 ()0.06) 11.6374 (0.11)
a
Numbers in parentheses are the percentage error with respect to three-dimensional elasticity values.
b
Results using these theories are computed independently and are found to be same as the results reported in earlier references.
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385 79
sheets using all the models are given in tabular form
in Tables 46. The following of material properties are
used for the face sheets and the core [47]:
Face sheets (GraphiteEpoxy T300/934)
E
1
= 19 10
6
psi (131 GPa);
E
2
= 1:5 10
6
psi (10:34 GPa); E
2
= E
3
;
G
12
= 1 10
6
psi (6:895 GPa);
G
13
= 0:90 10
6
psi (6:205 GPa);
G
23
= 1 10
6
psi (6:895 GPa); t
12
= 0:22;
t
13
= 0:22; t
23
= 0:49;
q = 0:057 lb=inch
3
(1627 kg=m
3
):
Core properties (Isotropic)
E
1
= E
2
= E
3
= 2G = 1000 psi (6:89 10
3
GPa);
G
12
= G
13
= G
23
= 500 psi (3:45 10
3
GPa);
t
12
= t
13
= t
23
= 0;
q = 0:3403 10
2
lb=inch
3
(97 kg=m
3
):
The results clearly show that for all the parameters
considered, the frequency values predicted by models of
KantManjunatha and PandyaKant are in good agree-
ment and those of Reddy, Senthilnathan et al., and
WhitneyPagano theories are higher than those predicted
by KantManjunatha and PandyaKant models. For the
same sandwich plate, the variation of fth mode natural
frequencies with respect to various parameters are shown
Table 4
Nondimensionalized fundamental frequencies x = (xb
2
=h)

(q=E
2
)
f
_
of an antisymmetric (0=90=core=0=90) sandwich plate with a=b = 1 and
t
c
=t
f
= 10
a=h Present Model-1 Present Model-2 [22]
a
[23]
a
[8]
a
2 1.1941 1.1734 1.6252 1.6252 5.2017
4 2.1036 2.0913 3.1013 3.1013 9.0312
10 4.8594 4.8519 7.0473 7.0473 13.8694
20 8.5955 8.5838 11.2664 11.2664 15.5295
30 11.0981 11.0788 13.6640 13.6640 15.9155
40 12.6821 12.6555 14.4390 14.4390 16.0577
50 13.6899 13.6577 15.0323 15.0323 16.1264
60 14.3497 14.3133 15.3868 15.3868 16.1612
70 14.7977 14.7583 15.6134 15.6134 16.1845
80 15.1119 15.0702 15.7660 15.7660 16.1991
90 15.3380 15.2946 15.8724 15.8724 16.2077
100 15.5093 15.4647 15.9522 15.9522 16.2175
a
Results using these theories are computed independently and are reported newly as benchmark results for sandwich plates.
Table 5
Nondimensionalized fundamental frequencies x = (xb
2
=h)

(q=E
2
)
f
_
of an antisymmetric (0=90=core=0=90) sandwich plate with a=b = 1 and
a=h = 10
t
c
=t
f
Present Model-1 Present Model-2 [22]
a
[23]
a
[8]
a
4 8.9948 8.9690 10.7409 10.7409 13.9190
10 4.8594 4.8519 7.0473 7.0473 13.8694
20 3.1435 3.1407 4.3734 4.3734 12.8946
30 2.8481 2.8466 3.4815 3.4815 11.9760
40 2.8266 2.8255 3.1664 3.1664 11.2036
50 2.8625 2.8614 3.0561 3.0561 10.5557
100 3.0290 3.0276 3.0500 3.0500 8.4349
a
Results using these theories are computed independently and are found to be same as the results reported in earlier references.
Table 6
Nondimensionalized fundamental frequency x = (xb
2
=h)

(q=E
2
)
f
_
of an antisymmetric (0=90=core=0=90) sandwich plate with t
c
=t
f
= 10 and
a=h = 10
a=b Present Model-1 Present Model-2 [22]
a
[23]
a
[8]
a
0.5 15.0316 15.0128 21.450 21.6668 39.484
1.0 4.8594 4.8519 7.0473 7.0473 13.8694
1.5 2.8188 2.8130 4.1587 4.1725 9.4910
2.0 2.4560 2.4469 3.6444 3.6582 10.1655
2.5 1.5719 1.5660 2.3324 2.3413 6.5059
3.0 1.3040 1.2976 1.9242 1.9216 5.6588
5.0 0.8187 0.8102 1.1541 1.1550 3.6841
a
Results using these theories are computed independently and are found to be same as the results reported in earlier references.
80 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385
inFigs. 24. The results clearly indicate that evenat higher
modes of vibration, the natural frequency values obtained
using the theories of KantManjunatha and Pandya
Kant are in good agreement and is very much lesser
compared to other higher-order and rst-order theories
considered in the present investigation.
5. Conclusion
Analytical formulations and solutions to the natural
frequency analysis of simply supported composite and
sandwich plates hitherto not reported in the literature
based on a higher-order rened theory developed by the
rst author and already reported in the literature are
presented. The displacement eld of this theory takes
into account both the transverse shear and normal de-
formations thus making it more accurate than the rst-
order and other higher-order theories considered. For
laminated composite plates the solutions of this higher-
order rened theory are found to be in excellent agree-
ment with the three-dimensional elasticity solutions and
the percentage error with respect to three-dimensional
elasticity solutions is very much less compared to other
shear deformation theories used for comparison in this
study. For sandwich plates the results of KantManju-
natha and PandyaKant theories are in good agreement
whereas the rst-order theory and the theories of Reddy
Fig. 2. Nondimensionalized fth mode natural frequency ( x) versus
side-to-thickness ratio (a=h) of a simply supported ve-layer sandwich
plate with antisymmetric cross-ply face sheets.
Fig. 3. Nondimensionalized fth mode natural frequency ( x) versus
thickness of core to thickness of face sheet ratio (t
c
=t
f
) of a simply
supported ve-layer sandwich plate with antisymmetric cross-ply face
sheets.
Fig. 4. Nondimensionalized fth mode natural frequency ( x) versus
aspect ratio (a=b) of a simply supported ve-layer sandwich plate with
antisymmetric cross-ply face sheets.
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385 81
and Senthilnathan et al., overestimates the natural fre-
quencies at fundamental and at all other modes. The
main aim of this entire investigation is to bring out
clearly the accuracy of the various shear deformation
theories in predicting the natural frequencies so that the
claims made by various investigators regarding the su-
premacy of their models are put to rest.
Appendix A. Coecients of [C] matrix
C
11
=
E
1
(1 t
23
t
32
)
D
; C
12
=
E
1
(t
21
t
31
t
23
)
D
;
C
13
=
E
1
(t
31
t
21
t
32
)
D
; C
22
=
E
2
(1 t
13
t
31
)
D
;
C
23
=
E
2
(t
32
t
12
t
31
)
D
; C
33
=
E
3
(1 t
12
t
21
)
D
;
C
44
= G
12
; C
55
= G
23
; C
66
= G
13
;
where
D = (1 t
12
t
21
t
23
t
32
t
31
t
13
2t
12
t
23
t
31
);
and
e
1
=
r
1
E
1
t
21
r
2
E
2
t
31
r
3
E
3
;
e
2
=
r
2
E
2
t
32
r
3
E
3
t
12
r
1
E
1
;
e
3
=
r
3
E
3
t
13
r
1
E
1
t
23
r
2
E
2
;
c
12
=
s
12
G
12
; c
23
=
s
23
G
23
; c
13
=
s
13
G
13
;
t
12
E
1
=
t
21
E
2
;
t
31
E
3
=
t
13
E
1
;
t
32
E
3
=
t
23
E
2
:
Appendix B. Coecients of [Q] matrix
Q
11
= C
11
c
4
2(C
12
2C
44
)s
2
c
2
C
22
s
4
;
Q
12
= C
12
(c
4
s
4
) (C
11
C
22
4C
44
)s
2
c
2
;
Q
13
= C
13
c
2
C
23
s
2
;
Q
14
= (C
11
C
12
2C
44
)sc
3
(C
12
C
22
2C
44
)cs
3
;
Q
22
= C
11
s
4
C
22
c
4
(2C
12
4C
44
)s
2
c
2
;
Q
23
= C
13
s
2
C
23
c
2
;
Q
24
= (C
11
C
12
2C
44
)s
3
c (C
12
C
22
2C
44
)c
3
s;
Q
33
= C
33
;
Q
34
= (C
31
C
32
)sc;
Q
44
= (C
11
2C
12
C
22
2C
44
)c
2
s
2
C
44
(c
4
s
4
);
Q
55
= C
55
c
2
C
66
s
2
;
Q
56
= (C
66
C
55
)cs;
Q
66
= C
55
s
2
C
66
c
2
;
and
Q
ij
= Q
ji
; i; j = 1 to 6;
where
c = cos a; s = sin a:
Appendix C. Elements of [A[; [A
/
[; [B[; [B
/
[; [D[; [D
/
[; [E[;
[E
/
[ matrices
[A[ =

NL
L=1
Q
11
H
1
Q
12
H
1
Q
11
H
3
Q
12
H
3
Q
13
H
1
3Q
13
H
3
Q
11
H
2
Q
12
H
2
Q
11
H
4
Q
12
H
4
2Q
13
H
3
Q
12
H
1
Q
22
H
1
Q
12
H
3
Q
22
H
3
Q
23
H
1
3Q
23
H
3
Q
12
H
2
Q
22
H
2
Q
12
H
4
Q
22
H
4
2Q
23
H
2
Q
11
H
3
Q
12
H
3
Q
11
H
5
Q
12
H
5
Q
13
H
3
3Q
13
H
5
Q
11
H
4
Q
12
H
4
Q
11
H
6
Q
12
H
6
2Q
13
H
4
Q
12
H
3
Q
22
H
3
Q
12
H
5
Q
22
H
5
Q
23
H
3
3Q
23
H
5
Q
12
H
4
Q
22
H
4
Q
12
H
6
Q
22
H
6
2Q
23
H
4
Q
13
H
1
Q
23
H
1
Q
13
H
3
Q
23
H
3
Q
33
H
1
3Q
33
H
3
Q
13
H
2
Q
23
H
2
Q
13
H
4
Q
23
H
4
2Q
33
H
2
Q
13
H
3
Q
23
H
3
Q
13
H
5
Q
23
H
5
Q
33
H
3
3Q
33
H
5
Q
13
H
4
Q
23
H
4
Q
13
H
6
Q
23
H
6
2Q
33
H
4
Q
11
H
2
Q
12
H
2
Q
11
H
4
Q
12
H
4
Q
13
H
2
3Q
13
H
4
Q
11
H
3
Q
12
H
3
Q
11
H
5
Q
12
H
5
2Q
13
H
3
Q
12
H
2
Q
22
H
2
Q
12
H
4
Q
22
H
4
Q
23
H
2
3Q
23
H
4
Q
12
H
3
Q
22
H
3
Q
12
H
5
Q
22
H
5
2Q
23
H
3
Q
11
H
4
Q
12
H
4
Q
11
H
6
Q
12
H
6
Q
13
H
4
3Q
13
H
6
Q
11
H
5
Q
12
H
5
Q
11
H
7
Q
12
H
7
2Q
13
H
5
Q
12
H
4
Q
22
H
4
Q
12
H
6
Q
22
H
6
Q
23
H
4
3Q
23
H
6
Q
12
H
5
Q
22
H
5
Q
12
H
7
Q
22
H
7
2Q
23
H
5
Q
13
H
2
Q
23
H
2
Q
13
H
4
Q
23
H
4
Q
33
H
2
3Q
33
H
4
Q
13
H
3
Q
23
H
3
Q
13
H
5
Q
23
H
5
2Q
33
H
3
_

_
_

_
;
82 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385
[B[ =

NL
L=1
Q
44
H
1
Q
44
H
3
Q
44
H
2
Q
44
H
4
Q
44
H
3
Q
44
H
5
Q
44
H
4
Q
44
H
6
Q
44
H
2
Q
44
H
4
Q
44
H
3
Q
44
H
5
Q
44
H
4
Q
44
H
6
Q
44
H
5
Q
44
H
7
_

_
_

_
;
[A
/
[ =

NL
L=1
Q
14
H
1
Q
14
H
3
Q
14
H
2
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
1
Q
24
H
3
Q
24
H
2
Q
24
H
4
Q
14
H
3
Q
14
H
5
Q
14
H
4
Q
14
H
6
Q
24
H
3
Q
24
H
5
Q
24
H
4
Q
24
H
6
Q
34
H
1
Q
34
H
3
Q
34
H
2
Q
34
H
4
Q
34
H
3
Q
34
H
5
Q
34
H
4
Q
34
H
6
Q
14
H
2
Q
14
H
4
Q
14
H
3
Q
14
H
5
Q
24
H
2
Q
24
H
4
Q
24
H
3
Q
24
H
5
Q
14
H
4
Q
14
H
6
Q
14
H
5
Q
14
H
7
Q
24
H
4
Q
24
H
6
Q
24
H
5
Q
24
H
7
Q
34
H
2
Q
34
H
4
Q
34
H
3
Q
34
H
5
_

_
_

_
;
[D[ =

NL
L=1
Q
66
H
1
Q
66
H
3
Q
66
H
2
Q
66
H
4
Q
66
H
3
Q
66
H
5
Q
66
H
4
Q
66
H
6
Q
66
H
2
Q
66
H
4
Q
66
H
3
Q
66
H
5
Q
66
H
4
Q
66
H
6
Q
66
H
5
Q
66
H
7
_

_
_

_
;
[D
/
[ =

NL
L=1
Q
56
H
1
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
2
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
6
Q
56
H
2
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
6
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
7
_

_
_

_
;
[E[ =

NL
L=1
Q
55
H
1
Q
55
H
3
Q
55
H
2
Q
55
H
4
Q
55
H
3
Q
55
H
5
Q
55
H
4
Q
55
H
6
Q
55
H
2
Q
55
H
4
Q
55
H
3
Q
55
H
5
Q
55
H
4
Q
55
H
6
Q
55
H
5
Q
55
H
7
_

_
_

_
;
[E
/
[ =

NL
L=1
Q
56
H
1
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
2
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
6
Q
56
H
2
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
3
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
4
Q
56
H
6
Q
56
H
5
Q
56
H
7
_

_
_

_
:
Appendix D. Coecients of matrix [X[
X
1;1
= A
1;1
a
2
B
1;1
b
2
; X
1;2
= A
1;2
ab B
1;2
ab;
X
1;3
= 0; X
1;4
= A
1;7
a
2
B
1;5
b
2
;
X
1;5
= A
1;8
ab B
1;6
ab; X
1;6
= A
1;5
a;
X
1;7
= A
1;3
a
2
B
1;3
b
2
; X
1;8
= A
1;4
ab B
1;4
ab;
X
1;9
= A
1;11
a; X
1;10
= A
1;9
a
2
B
1;7
b
2
;
X
1;11
= A
1;10
ab B
1;8
ab; X
1;12
= A
1;6
a:
X
2;2
= A
2;2
b
2
B
1;2
a
2
; X
2;3
= 0;
X
2;4
= A
2;7
ab B
1;5
ab; X
2;5
= A
2;8
b
2
B
1;6
a
2
;
X
2;6
= A
2;5
b; X
2;7
= A
2;3
ab B
1;3
ab;
X
2;8
= A
2;4
b
2
B
1;4
a
2
; X
2;9
= A
2;11
b;
X
2;10
= A
2;9
ab B
1;7
ab; X
2;11
= A
2;10
b
2
B
1;8
a
2
;
X
2;12
= A
2;6
b:
X
3;3
= D
1;2
a
2
E
1;2
b
2
; X
3;4
= D
1;1
a;
X
3;5
= E
1;1
b; X
3;6
= D
1;6
a
2
E
1;6
b
2
;
X
3;7
= D
1;5
a; X
3;8
= E
1;5
b;
X
3;9
= D
1;4
a
2
E
1;4
b
2
; X
3;10
= D
1;3
a;
X
3;11
= E
1;3
b; X
3;12
= D
1;7
a
2
E
1;7
b
2
X
4;4
= A
7;7
a
2
B
3;5
b
2
D
1;1
;
X
4;5
= A
7;8
ab B
3;6
ab; X
4;6
= A
7;5
a D
1;6
a;
X
4;7
= A
7;3
a
2
B
3;3
b
2
D
1;5
;
X
4;8
= A
7;4
ab B
3;4
ab; X
4;9
= A
7;11
a D
1;4
a;
X
4;10
= A
7;9
a
2
B
3;7
b
2
D
1;3
;
X
4;11
= A
7;10
ab B
3;8
ab; X
4;12
= A
7;6
a D
1;7
a:
X
5;5
= A
8;8
b
2
B
3;6
a
2
E
1;1
;
X
5;6
= A
8;5
b E
1;6
b; X
5;7
= A
8;3
ab B
3;3
ab;
X
5;8
= A
8;4
b
2
B
3;4
a
2
E
1;5
;
X
5;9
= A
8;11
b E
1;4
b; X
5;10
= A
8;9
ab B
3;7
ab;
X
5;11
= A
8;10
b
2
B
3;8
a
2
E
1;3
; X
5;12
= A
8;6
b E
1;7
b:
X
6;6
= D
3;6
a
2
E
3;6
b
2
A
5;5
;
X
6;7
= D
3;5
a A
5;3
a; X
6;8
= E
3;5
b A
5;4
b;
X
6;9
= D
3;4
a
2
E
3;4
b
2
A
5;11
;
X
6;10
= D
3;3
a A
5;9
a; X
6;11
= E
3;3
b A
5;10
b;
X
6;12
= D
3;7
a
2
E
3;7
b
2
A
5;6
:
[B
/
[ =

NL
L=1
Q
14
H
1
Q
24
H
1
Q
14
H
3
Q
24
H
3
Q
34
H
1
3Q
34
H
3
Q
14
H
2
Q
24
H
2
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
4
2Q
34
H
2
Q
14
H
3
Q
24
H
3
Q
14
H
5
Q
24
H
5
Q
34
H
3
3Q
34
H
5
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
4
Q
14
H
6
Q
24
H
6
2Q
34
H
4
Q
14
H
2
Q
24
H
2
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
4
Q
34
H
2
3Q
34
H
4
Q
14
H
3
Q
24
H
3
Q
14
H
5
Q
24
H
5
2Q
34
H
3
Q
14
H
4
Q
24
H
4
Q
14
H
6
Q
24
H
6
Q
34
H
4
3Q
34
H
6
Q
14
H
5
Q
24
H
5
Q
14
H
7
Q
24
H
7
2Q
34
H
5
_

_
_

_
;
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385 83
X
7;7
= A
3;3
a
2
B
2;3
b
2
2D
3;5
;
X
7;8
= A
3;4
ab B
2;4
ab; X
7;9
= A
3;11
a 2D
3;4
a;
X
7;10
= A
3;9
a
2
B
2;7
b
2
2D
3;3
;
X
7;11
= A
3;10
ab B
2;8
ab; X
7;12
= A
3;6
a 2D
3;7
a:
X
8;8
= A
4;4
b
2
B
2;4
a
2
2E
3;5
;
X
8;9
= A
4;11
b 2E
3;4
b; X
8;10
= A
4;9
ab B
2;7
ab;
X
8;11
= A
4;10
b
2
B
2;8
a
2
2E
3;3
; X
8;12
= A
4;6
b 2E
3;7
b:
X
9;9
= D
2;4
a
2
E
2;4
b
2
2A
11;11
;
X
9;10
= D
2;3
a 2A
11;9
a; X
9;11
= E
2;3
b 2A
11;10
b;
X
9;12
= D
2;7
a
2
E
2;7
b
2
2A
11;6
:
X
10;10
= A
9;9
a
2
B
4;7
b
2
3D
2;3
;
X
10;11
= A
9;10
ab B
4;8
ab; X
10;12
= A
9;6
a 3D
2;7
a:
X
11;11
= A
10;10
b
2
B
4;8
a
2
3E
2;3
;
X
11;12
= A
10;6
b 3E
2;7
b;
X
12;12
= D
2;4
a
2
E
4;7
b
2
3A
6;6
;
X
i;j
= X
j;i
(i; j = 1; 12):
Appendix E. Coecients of mass matrix [M[
M
1;1
= I
1
; M
1;2
= 0; M
1;3
= 0; M
1;4
= I
2
;
M
1;5
= 0; M
1;6
= 0; M
1;7
= I
3
; M
1;8
= 0;
M
1;9
= 0; M
1;10
= I
4
; M
1;11
= 0; M
1;12
= 0:
M
2;2
= I
1
; M
2;3
= 0; M
2;4
= 0; M
2;5
= I
2
;
M
2;6
= 0; M
2;7
= 0; M
2;8
= I
3
; M
2;9
= 0;
M
2;10
= 0; M
2;11
= I
4
; M
2;12
= 0:
M
3;3
= I
1
; M
3;4
= 0; M
3;5
= 0; M
3;6
= I
2
;
M
3;7
= 0; M
3;8
= 0; M
3;9
= I
3
; M
3;10
= 0;
M
3;11
= 0; M
3;12
= I
4
:
M
4;4
= I
3
; M
4;5
= 0; M
4;6
= 0; M
4;7
= I
4
;
M
4;8
= 0; M
4;9
= 0; M
4;10
= I
5
; M
4;11
= 0;
M
4;12
= 0:
M
5;5
= I
3
; M
5;6
= 0; M
5;7
= 0; M
5;8
= I
4
;
M
5;9
= 0; M
5;10
= 0; M
5;11
= I
5
; M
5;12
= 0:
M
6;6
= I
3
; M
6;7
= 0; M
6;8
= 0; M
6;9
= I
4
;
M
6;10
= 0; M
6;11
= 0; M
6;12
= I
5
; M
7;7
= I
5
;
M
7;8
= 0; M
7;9
= 0; M
7;10
= I
6
; M
7;11
= 0;
M
7;12
= 0:
M
8;8
= I
5
; M
8;9
= 0; M
8;10
= 0; M
8;11
= I
6
;
M
8;12
= 0; M
9;9
= I
5
; M
9;10
= 0; M
9;11
= 0;
M
9;12
= I
6
:
M
10;10
= I
7
; M
10;11
= 0; M
10;12
= 0;
M
11;11
= I
7
; M
11;12
= 0; M
12;12
= I
7
;
M
i;j
= M
j;i
(i; j = 1 to 12):
References
[1] Reissner E, Stavsky Y. Bending and stretching of certain types of
heterogeneous aelotropic elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech
1961;28:4028.
[2] Timoshenko SP, Woinowsky-Krieger S. Theory of plates and
shells. New York: Mc-Graw Hill; 1959.
[3] Szilard R. Theory and analysis of plates (Classical and numerical
methods). New Jersy: Prentice-Hall; 1974.
[4] Reissner E. The eect of transverse shear deformation on the
bending of elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1945;12(2):6977.
[5] Mindlin RD. Inuence of rotary inertia and shear on exural
motions of isotropic, elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1951;
18:318.
[6] Yang PC, Norris CH, Stavsky Y. Elastic wave propagation in
heterogeneous plates. Int J Solids Struct 1966;2:66584.
[7] Whitney JM. The eect of transverse shear deformation on the
bending of laminated plates. J Compos Mater 1969;3:53447.
[8] Whitney JM, Pagano NJ. Shear deformation in heterogeneous
anisotropic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1970;37(4):10316.
[9] Ambartsumyan SA. Theory of anisotropic plates. Westport
Connecticut: Technomic Publishing Company; 1970.
[10] Sun CT, Whitney JM. Theories for the dynamic response of
laminated plates. AIAA J 1973;11:17883.
[11] Bert CW, Chen TLC. Eect of shear deformation on vibration of
antisymmetric angle ply laminated rectangular plates. Int J Solids
Struct 1978;14:46573.
[12] Reddy JN. Free vibration of antisymmetric angle ply laminated
plates including transverse shear deformation by the nite element
method. J Sound Vibration 1979;4:56576.
[13] Noor AK, Burton WS. Stress and free vibration analysis of
multilayer composite plates. Compos Struct 1989;11:183204.
[14] Hildebrand FB, Reissner E, Thomas GB. Note on the foundations
of the theory of small displacements of orthotropic shells. NACA
TN-1833, 1949.
[15] Nelson RB, Lorch DR. A rened theory for laminated ortho-
tropic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1974;41:17783.
[16] Librescu L. Elastostatics and kinematics of anisotropic and
heterogeneous shell type structures. The Netherlands: Noordho;
1975.
[17] Lo KH, Christensen RM, Wu EM. A higher order theory of plate
deformation, Part 1: Homogeneous plates. ASME J Appl Mech
1977;44(4):6638.
[18] Lo KH, Christensen RM, Wu EM. A higher order theory of plate
deformation, Part 2: Laminated plates. ASME J Appl Mech
1977;44(4):66976.
[19] Levinson M. An accurate simple theory of the statics and
dynamics of elastic plates. Mech Res Commun 1980;7:343.
[20] Murthy MVV. An improved transverse shear deformation theory
for laminated anisotropic plates. NASA Technical Paper-1903,
1981.
[21] Kant T. Numerical analysis of thick plates. Comput Meth Appl
Mech Eng 1982;31:118.
84 T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385
[22] Reddy JN. A simple higher order theory for laminated composite
plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1984;51:74552.
[23] Senthilnathan NR, Lim KH, Lee KH, Chow ST. Buckling of
shear deformable plates. AIAA J 1987;25(9):126871.
[24] Kant T, Owen DRJ, Zienkiewicz OC. A rened higher order C
plate bending element. Comput Struct 1982;15:17783.
[25] Pandya BN, Kant T. A consistent rened theory for exure of a
symmetric laminate. Mech Res Commun 1987;14:10713.
[26] Pandya BN, Kant T. Higher order shear deformable theories for
exure of sandwich plates nite element evaluations. Int J Solids
Struct 1988;24(12):126786.
[27] Pandya BN, Kant T. Flexure analysis of laminated composites
using rened higher order C plate bending elements. Comput
Meth Appl Mech Eng 1988;66:17398.
[28] Pandya BN, Kant T. A rened higher order generally orthotropic
C plate bending element. Comput Struct 1988;28:11933.
[29] Pandya BN, Kant T. Finite element stress analysis of laminated
composite plates using higher order displacement model. Compos
Sci Technol 1988;32:13755.
[30] Kant T, Manjunatha BS. An unsymmetric FRC laminate C nite
element model with 12 degrees of freedom per node. Eng Comput
1988;5(3):3008.
[31] Kant T, Manjunatha BS. On accurate estimation of transverse
stresses in multilayer laminates. Comput Struct 1994;50(3):35165.
[32] Manjunatha BS, Kant T. A comparison of 9 and 16 node
quadrilateral elements based on higher order laminate theories for
estimation of transverse stresses. J Reinforced Plastics Compos
1992;11(9):9681002.
[33] Mallikarjuna. Rened theories with C nite elements for free
vibration and transient dynamics of anisotropic composite and
sandwich plates. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Powai, India, 1988.
[34] Mallikarjuna, Kant T. Free vibration of symmetrically laminated
plates using a higher order theory with nite element technique.
Int J Numer Meth Eng 1989;28:187589.
[35] Kant T, Mallikarjuna . A higher order theory for free vibration of
unsymmetrically laminated composite and sandwich plates nite
element evaluations. Comput Struct 1989;32:112532.
[36] Kant T, Mallikarjuna . Vibration of unsymmetrically laminated
plates analysed by using a higher order theory with a C nite
element formulation. J Sound Vibration 1989;134:116.
[37] Kant T, Gupta A. A nite element model for a higher order shear
deformable beam theory. J Sound Vibration 1988;125:193202.
[38] Kant T, Marur SR, Rao GS. Analytical solution to the dynamic
analysis of laminated beams using higher order rened theory.
Compos Struct 1998;40:19.
[39] Marur SR, Kant T. Free vibration analysis of bre reinforced
composite beams using higher order theories and nite element
modelling. J Sound Vibration 1996;194:33751.
[40] Reddy JN, Phan ND. Stability and vibration of isotropic and
laminated plates according to higher order shear deformation
theory. J Sound Vibration 1985;98:15770.
[41] Putcha NS, Reddy JN. Stability and natural vibration analysis of
laminated plates by using a mixed element based on a rened plate
theory. J Sound Vibration 1986;104:285300.
[42] Noor AK, Burton WS. Assessment of shear deformation theories
for multilayered composite plates. Appl Mech Rev 1989;42(1):
113.
[43] Srinivas S, Joga CV, Rao AK. An exact analysis for vibration of
simply supported homogeneous and laminated thick rectangular
plates. J Sound Vibration 1970;12:18799.
[44] Srinivas S, Rao AK. Bending vibration and buckling of simply
supported thick orthotropic plates and laminates. Int J Solids
Struct 1970;6:146381.
[45] Noor AK. Free vibrations of multilayered composite plates.
AIAA J 1973;11:10389.
[46] Reddy JN. Energy and variational methods in applied mechanics.
New York: Wiley; 1984.
[47] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates, theory and
analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1996.
T. Kant, K. Swaminathan / Composite Structures 53 (2001) 7385 85