You are on page 1of 8

Discussion

Discussion on ‘‘Nonlinear vibration of simply supported rectangular
cross-ply plates’’ by Gajbir Singh, K. Kanaka Raju, G. Venkateswara Rao
and N.G.R. Iyengar [Journal of Sound and Vibration 142 (1990)
213–226]
Adrian G. Radu
n
Mechatronics Department, ‘‘Politehnica’’ University of Timisoara, Blv. Mihai Viteazul Nr. 1, 300222 Timisoara, Romania
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 June 2010
Received in revised form
3 September 2010
Accepted 20 December 2010
Handling Editor: M.P. Cartmell
Available online 22 January 2011
1. Analysis
Large amplitude free vibration of cross-ply simply supported thin plates under von Ka´ rma´ n strain-displacement
hypothesis and classical laminated plate theory (CLPT) assumption, are investigated by Singh et al. [1] using direct
numerical integration (five-point Gauss rule) on the nonlinear to linear frequency-ratio expression. The strain and kinetic
energy, denoted U and T, respectively, of the rectangular plate of length a and width b with the xy coordinate plane passing
through the mid-plane, are expressed in Ref. [1] as follows:
U ¼
1
2
_
a
0
_
b
0
ðA
1,1
e
2
1
þ2A
1,2
e
1
e
2
þA
2,2
e
2
2
þA
6,6
e
2
6
þ2B
1,1
e
1
k
1
þ2B
2,2
e
2
k
2
þD
1,1
k
2
1
þ2D
1,2
k
1
k
2
þD
2,2
k
2
2
þD
6,6
k
2
6
Þdxdy
T ¼
1
2
_
a
0
_
b
0

N
r
k
t
k
_ _
_ w
2
dxdy (1)
In Eq. (1), r
k
and t
k
are the density and thickness of lamina number k, respectively (k=1,y,N, N being the total number of
plies), w represents the out of plane displacement, e
i
and k
i
are the von Ka´ rma´ n strains, and A
ij
, B
ij
, and D
ij
, represent the in-
plane, in-plane bending coupling and bending stiffness coefficients of the plate (i, j =1, 2 and 6).
The nonlinear free vibration response of the plate is obtained in Ref. [1] according to Refs. [2,3] by considering two sets
of harmonic solutions (Eqs. (8) and (9) in Ref. [1]), one for each set boundary conditions taken into account simply
supported with unmovable edges (Eq. (10) in Ref. [1]) and simply supported (Eq. (11) in Ref. [1]).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsvi
Journal of Sound and Vibration
0022-460X/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2010.12.018
n
Tel.:+40256403560; fax:+40256403523.
E-mail address: raduag@mec.upt.ro
Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 2682–2689
The equation of motion is obtained by Singh et al. [1] from the Lagrangian (L=U–T) as follows:

N
r
k
t
k
_ _
€ wþawþbw
2
þgw
3
¼0 (2)
and by equating the strain and potential energy expressed in Eq. (1) that yields

N
r
k
t
k
_ _
_
w
2
þaw
2
þ
2
3
bw
3
þ
1
2
gw
4
¼H (3)
where H is a constant. In Eqs. (2) and (3), the coefficients of the polynomial expressions are obtained by Singh et al. [1] as
follows:
a ¼T
8
þ
2T
1
T
2
T
5
ÀT
3
T
2
5
ÀT
2
1
T
6
T
3
T
6
ÀT
2
2
; b ¼T
9
þ3
T
2
T
4
T
5
þT
1
T
2
T
7
ÀT
3
T
5
T
7
ÀT
1
T
4
T
6
T
3
T
6
ÀT
2
2
g ¼T
10
þ2
2T
2
T
4
T
7
ÀT
3
T
2
7
ÀT
4
T
2
6
T
3
T
6
ÀT
2
2
(4)
where the T
k
coefficients (k=1,y,10) are expressed in terms of the stiffness coefficients A
ij
, B
ij
, and D
ij
, for each of the two
boundary conditions taken into account. In particular, the expression of T
8
given in Ref. [1] for the simply supported
boundary condition
T
8
¼
mp
a
_ _
4
D
1,1
þ2 ðD
1,2
þ2D
6,6
Þ
mp
a
_ _
2
np
b
_ _
2
þ
np
b
_ _
4
D
2,2
_ _
(5)
has drawn attention through the presence of the multiplication factor two in front of the square brackets that in fact
doubles the D
2,2
term. The coefficients in the T
8
expression (Eq. (5)) result from the corresponding terms in the strain
energy expression (Eq. (1)), i.e. from the terms containing the bending stiffness coefficients D
i,j
(i,j =1,2, and 6). The
assumed harmonic solution for the out of plane displacement in Ref. [1] is a double sine
wðx,y,tÞ ¼WðtÞsin
mp
a
x
_ _
sin
np
b
y
_ _
(6)
where m and n represent the number of half sine waves in the x- and y-directions, respectively, and W(t) is the time
dependent amplitude. The von Ka´ rma´ n expression, Eq. (1) in Ref. [1], for the squared rotation about the y-axis that
multiplies the D
2,2
coefficient in the strain energy expression (Eq. (1)) is obtained using Eq. (6) as follows:
k
2
2
¼ À
@
2
w
@y
2
_ _
2
¼WðtÞ
2
np
b
_ _
4
sin
mp
a
x
_ _
sin
np
b
y
_ _ _ _
2
(7)
Within the considered boundary conditions, no other term in the strain energy expression can contribute with another
fourth power of the np/b term to multiply the D
2,2
coefficient and therefore this term should not be multiplied by two in
the expression of T
8
(Eq. (5)). The correct form of the T
8
is
T
8
¼
mp
a
_ _
4
D
1,1
þ2 D
1,2
þ2D
6,6
_ _
mp
a
_ _
2
np
b
_ _
2
þ
np
b
_ _
4
D
2,2
(8)
In fact, for the simply supported with unmovable edges boundary condition (all translations fixed on all edges), Singh et al.
obtain [1] the correct form of T
8
.
Considering a harmonic solution, w¼w
0
cosðotÞ, at maximum free response amplitude (w=w
0
), where w
0
is the mid-
plane displacement of the plate and where
_
w ¼0, Eqs. (2) and (3) yield the nonlinear to linear frequency ratio (o
NL
/o
L
) in
the form of quadratic polynomials in Eqs. (16) and (17), respectively [1]. The perturbation solution of Chandra and Raju
[4,5] and of Chandra [6] is also examined in Eq. (17) in Ref. [1]. Next, Singh et al. propose a direct numerical integration
procedure that leads to the expression in Eq. (22) of Ref. [1] for the nonlinear to linear frequency ratio as a ratio of two
improper integrals [7] that are solved by numerical integration using a five-point Gauss rule. For convenience, this
expression is reproduced below
o
NL
o
L
_ _
2
¼
_
wmax
0
dw=
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðH
L
Àaw
2
Þ=ð

N
r
k
t
k
Þ
_
_
wmax
0
dw=
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðH
NL
Àaw
2
Àð2=3Þbw
3
Àð1=2Þgw
4
Þ=

N
r
k
t
k
_ (9)
In Eq. (9), H
L
and H
NL
represent the constant term of Eq. (3) obtained for linear and nonlinear vibrations, respectively.
The linear natural frequency is obtained in Eq. (23) of Ref. [1] as a function of a (Eq. (4)) in which the incorrect T
8
term
has a major contribution. In this respect it must be noted that Jones [3] obtains analytical expressions for the linear natural
frequency of simply supported plates and in fact recovers the correct form of T
8
under a different notation (T
33
for anti-
symmetric cross-ply). Singh et al. [1] compute the linear frequency parameter denoted l
L
using the linear natural
frequency (o
L
) obtained in Eq. (23).
Initially suspecting a typing error in the published T
8
expression in Ref. [1], the linear frequency parameter, l
L
,
presented in Tables 5–10 [1] for the simply supported boundary case is verified. The results match the published results
A.G. Radu / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 2682–2689 2683
and are in concordance with those obtained using the expressions presented by Jones [3]. The nonlinear to linear
frequency ratios published in Tables 5–10 in Ref. [1] for simply supported symmetric and anti-symmetric four ply
composite plates are verified using a recent version of MathCAD
s
that has the capability of solving the so called ‘‘improper
integrals’’ [7] of the type obtained in Eq. (9). Two MathCAD built in integration methods are used: ‘‘Adaptive’’ that uses an
adaptive quadrature method, and ‘‘Singular endpoint’’ that uses an open-ended Romberg method, appropriate for integrals
which do not exist at one or both limits of integration [8]. Both methods yield the same result. All computations are
performed using the default 10
–3
‘‘zero tolerance’’ in MathCAD; occasionally a 10
–6
‘‘zero tolerance’’ was tested leading to
the conclusion that MathCAD numerical integration is robust.
For data presented in Tables 5–7 in Ref. [1] the following properties of the lamina are considered: E
1
=206.84Â10
9
,
E
2
=5.171Â10
9
, G
12
=2.5855Â10
9
Pa, n
12
=0.25 and r=2564.856 kg/m
3
. For data presented in Tables 8–10 in Ref. [1] the
following properties of the lamina are considered: E
1
=4.905Â10
10
, E
2
=4.905Â10
9
, G
12
=2.4525Â10
9
Pa, n
12
=0.25 and
r=1500 kg/m
3
. Composite cross-ply square plates of side a=b=0.3048 (m) and four plies of equal thickness
(t
k
=0.001016 m, k=1,y,4) are examined first for each material (Tables 5 and 8 in Ref. [1]). Next, rectangular plates with
the aspect ratio (a/b) of two (Tables 6 and 9 in Ref. [1]) and four (Tables 7 and 10 in Ref. [1]) are considered. The length to
thickness ratio (a/h) of the plate of 75, 150 and 300, respectively, places the analysis within the Kirchhoff hypothesis of the
CLPT. The nonlinear to linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
) are computed for both, the first (m=n=1) and second (m=2, n=1)
mode of the composite plates for various values of the deformation to plate thickness ratio (w/h). The obtained results are
presented in Tables 1–6 together with the corresponding results obtained by Singh et al. [1] in Tables 5–10, respectively.
The linear frequency parameters (l
L
) for the first two modes as well as the relative errors of the published [1] nonlinear to
linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
), taking current results as reference, are also presented in Tables 1–6.
Tables 1–6 show significant differences in the first mode results for all studied cases; the relative error increases with
deformation to plate thickness ratio (w/h) reaching over 12% for the rectangular plates (a/b=4) with symmetric ply
arrangements. It must be noted that the nonlinear to linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
) values published in Tables 1–6 in
Ref. [1] were not obtained even when considering the incorrect form of the T
8
coefficient (Eq. (6)).
Given the observed differences, verification of current procedure as well as of the numerical integration scheme
become imperative. This check is done for the clamped boundary condition studied by Sigh et al., i.e. using the published
expressions of the T
1
–T
10
from Ref. [1] and confronted with those in Ref. [9]. First, the two-ply square plate, under clamped
boundary condition, used as a test case by Singh et al. in Table 4 is examined. Material properties are those used in Ref. [2]
and backtracked to Ref. [10] as: E
1
=4.873Â10
10
, E
2
=2.467Â10
10
, G
12
=9.715Â10
9
Pa, n
12
=0.25 and r=1564 kg/m
3
. The
same dimensions are considered for the square plate (a/b=1) in Tables 1 and 4. The solution procedures presented in
Eqs. (16)–(18) and (22) [1] are used and the obtained results are presented in Table 7 together with those presented in Table 4
of Ref. [1]. The relative error taking the present results as reference, are also presented in Table 8. As seen in Table 8, the
nonlinear to linear frequency ratios obtained from simple polynomial expressions obtained by Singh et al. in Eqs. (15)–(17)
[1] yield a relative error that is less than 0.5% for maximum displacement to thickness ratio (w/h). The relative errors in
Table 8 for Eq. (9) results are slightly higher but still under 2%. However, the linear frequency parameter value, l
L
=2.2022,
reported in Table 4 of Ref. [1] is not obtained; the computed value of the linear frequency parameter is l
L
=2.2968.
Table 1
Nonlinear to linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
) of a square (a/b=1) cross-ply plate; E
1
/E
2
=40; G
12
/E
2
=0.5; n
12
=0.25 (a/h=75).
w/h o
NL
/o
L
[0/90/0/90] [0/90/90/0]
n=1 Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%) Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%)
Table 5 Eq. (9) Table 5 Eq. (9)
m=1 l
L
=6.0425 l
L
=6.6004
0.25 1.0634 1.0840 –1.90 1.0535 1.0709 –1.63
0.50 1.2388 1.3010 –4.78 1.2038 1.2575 –4.27
0.75 1.4832 1.5952 –7.02 1.4172 1.5156 –6.49
1.00 1.7679 1.9315 –8.47 1.6691 1.8145 –8.01
1.50 2.4000 2.6663 –9.99 2.2355 2.4750 –9.68
2.00 3.0729 3.4401 –10.67 2.8439 3.1758 –10.45
m=2 l
L
=17.3056 l
L
=24.0576
0.25 1.0820 1.0779 0.39 1.0435 1.0463 –0.27
0.50 1.3025 1.2963 0.48 1.1678 1.7130 –0.44
0.75 1.6010 1.5962 0.30 1.3480 1.3561 –0.60
1.00 1.9416 1.9400 0.08 1.5643 1.5755 –0.71
1.50 2.6850 2.6916 –0.24 2.0584 2.0761 –0.85
2.00 3.4666 3.4827 –0.46 2.5955 2.6195 –0.91
A.G. Radu / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 2682–2689 2684
Next, the results presented in Table 11 of Ref. [1] for a rectangular six layered cross-ply composite plate are computed and
compared with the published results [1]. The material properties are the same as those used in Tables 8–10. The obtained
results for the nonlinear to linear frequency ratio (o
NL
/o
L
) for various displacement to thickness ratio (w/h) as well as the
relative error taking the present results as Ref. are presented in Table 9 for a rectangular plate (a/b=2). The obtained maximum
error is 1.07%.
Some other minor inconsistencies have been observed in Ref. [1] and are listed below. The b coefficient in the
denominator expression in Eq. (21b) should be 2/3 (and obviously not 3/3) as it results from Eq. (17) and as is correctly
given in Eq. (22) alias current Eq. (9). Also Ref. [14] in [1] was published by Hemisphere Publishing Corporation and not by
McGraw-Hill.
Table 2
Nonlinear to linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
) of a rectangular (a/b=2) cross-ply plate; E
1
/E
2
=40; G
12
/E
2
=0.5; n
12
=0.25 (a/h=150).
w/h o
NL
/o
L
[0/90/0/90] [0/90/90/0]
n=1 Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%) Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%)
Table 6 Eq. (9) Table 6 Eq. (9)
m=1 l
L
=4.3264 l
L
=2.9509
0.25 1.0645 1.0274 3.62 1.1327 1.1773 –3.79
0.50 1.2427 1.2107 2.65 1.4674 1.5884 –7.62
0.75 1.4905 1.4903 0.02 1.8946 2.0978 –9.69
1.00 1.7787 1.8221 –2.38 2.3652 2.6501 –10.75
1.50 2.4178 2.5604 –5.57 3.3634 3.8088 –11.69
2.00 3.0976 3.3435 –7.36 4.3949 4.9981 –12.07
m=2 l
L
=6.0425 l
L
=6.6004
0.25 1.0795 1.0848 –0.49 1.0672 1.0716 –0.41
0.50 1.2942 1.3036 –0.72 1.2519 1.2598 –0.63
0.75 1.5857 1.6000 –0.89 1.5077 1.5198 –0.80
1.00 1.9193 1.9386 –0.99 1.8042 1.8208 –0.91
1.50 2.6486 2.6778 –1.09 2.4600 2.4852 –1.02
2.00 3.4166 3.4557 –1.13 3.1561 3.1901 –1.07
Table 3
Nonlinear to linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
) of a rectangular (a/b=4) cross-ply plate; E
1
/E
2
=40; G
12
/E
2
=0.5; n
12
=0.25 (a/h=300).
w/h o
NL
/o
L
[0/90/0/90] [0/90/90/0]
n=1 Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%) Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%)
Table 7 Eq. (9) Table 7 Eq. (9)
m=1 l
L
=4.1552 l
L
=2.4855
0.25 1.0653 1.0199 4.45 1.1707 1.2332 –5.07
0.50 1.2454 1.2013 3.67 1.5838 1.7422 –9.09
0.75 1.4956 1.4826 0.88 2.0951 2.3540 –10.10
1.00 1.7863 1.8178 –1.73 2.6489 3.0072 –11.91
1.50 2.4303 2.5644 –5.23 3.8099 4.3637 –12.69
2.00 3.1148 3.3566 –7.20 5.0011 5.7478 –12.99
m=2 l
L
=4.3264 l
L
=2.9510
0.25 1.0820 1.0970 –1.37 1.1669 1.1791 –1.03
0.50 1.3025 1.3279 –1.91 1.5727 1.5933 –1.30
0.75 1.6010 1.6347 –2.06 2.0761 2.1063 –1.43
1.00 1.9416 1.9823 –2.05 2.6222 2.6620 –1.49
1.50 2.6849 2.7375 –1.92 3.7681 3.8274 –1.55
2.00 3.4666 3.5302 –1.80 4.9444 5.0233 –1.57
A.G. Radu / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 2682–2689 2685
Since its publication, Ref. [1] has accumulated at least 26 citations [11–36]. In Ref. [11] the direct integration method
presented by Singh et al. [1] is used for solving the dynamic finite element equation of uniform fixed, hinged and fixed–
hinged beams. Pulngern et al. [12] use the direct numerical integration method (DNIM) presented in Ref. [1] to validate
analytical and experimental free vibration of simply supported spring steel beams. Refs. [13–15] present improved
integration methods for the nonlinear to linear frequency ratio (o
NL
/o
L
) of simply supported and clamped isotropic and
(0/90)
3
cross-ply rectangular plates. The fixed boundary condition results in [1] are used for validation; no comparison
with the published results in question for the simply supported boundary condition. Refs. [16–26] cite Ref. [1] without any
use of the DNIM or comparison with specific results. Refs. [27,28] use the simply supported isotropic square plate results of
Singh et al. for validation. Moorthy et al. [29] add damping to the equation of motion obtained in [1] to study the resulting
chaos behavior of the (0/90)
3
cross-ply rectangular plate under fixed boundary condition. Refs. [30–36] use the clamped
square isotropic plate results from Table 3 and/or [0/90] cross-ply plate results from Table 4 of Singh et al. in fact only the
results of Eq. (16) (and not Eq. (22)) in Ref. [1], for validation. After examining all 26 citations, it can be concluded that the
questioned numerical results of Singh et al. [1] have been accidentally or maybe deliberately avoided in all citing papers.
Table 4
Nonlinear to linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
) of a rectangular (a/b=1) cross-ply plate; E
1
/E
2
=10; G
12
/E
2
=0.5; n
12
=0.25 (a/h=75).
w/h o
NL
/o
L
[0/90/0/90] [0/90/90/0]
n=1 Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%) Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%)
Table 8 Eq. (9) Table 8 Eq. (9)
m=1 l
L
=3.4809 l
L
=3.6841
0.25 1.0556 1.0702 –1.36 1.0498 1.0629 –1.24
0.50 1.2113 1.2552 –3.49 1.1907 1.2306 –3.24
0.75 1.4315 1.5112 –5.27 1.3922 1.4654 –4.99
1.00 1.6906 1.8080 –6.49 1.6314 1.7400 –6.24
1.50 2.2715 2.4642 –7.82 2.1722 2.3520 –7.64
2.00 2.8941 3.1609 –8.44 2.7553 3.0052 –8.32
m=2 l
L
=9.5926 l
L
=12.4517
0.25 1.0729 1.0704 0.23 1.0441 1.0470 –0.27
0.50 1.2718 1.2681 0.29 1.1701 1.1754 –0.45
0.75 1.5446 1.5426 0.13 1.3524 1.3607 –0.61
1.00 1.8589 1.8599 –0.05 1.5711 1.5826 –0.73
1.50 2.5499 2.5586 –0.34 2.0699 2.0880 –0.87
2.00 3.2804 3.2978 –0.53 2.6118 2.6363 –0.93
Table 5
Nonlinear to linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
) of a rectangular (a/b=2) cross-ply plate; E
1
/E
2
=10; G
12
/E
2
=0.5; n
12
=0.25 (a/h=150).
w/h o
NL
/o
L
[0/90/0/90] [0/90/90/0]
n=1 Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%) Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%)
Table 9 Eq. (9) Table 9 Eq. (9)
m=1 l
L
=2.3982 l
L
=1.8227
0.25 1.0588 1.0324 2.56 1.0986 1.1331 –3.05
0.50 1.2222 1.2026 1.63 1.3579 1.4502 –6.37
0.75 1.4516 1.4604 –0.60 1.7013 1.8585 –8.46
1.00 1.7204 1.7675 –2.66 2.0877 2.3104 –9.64
1.50 2.3206 2.4544 –5.45 2.9210 3.2728 –10.75
2.00 2.9620 3.1865 –7.05 3.7908 4.2696 –11.21
m=2 l
L
=3.4809 l
L
=3.6841
0.25 1.0663 1.0707 –0.41 1.0595 1.0634 –0.37
0.50 1.2489 1.2570 –0.64 1.2250 1.2322 –0.59
0.75 1.5022 1.5145 –0.81 1.4573 1.4685 –0.76
1.00 1.7961 1.8129 –0.92 1.7293 1.7446 –0.88
1.50 2.4466 2.4723 –1.04 2.3360 2.3595 –1.00
2.00 3.1375 3.1722 –1.09 2.9840 3.0157 –1.05
A.G. Radu / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 2682–2689 2686
Table 6
Nonlinear to linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
) of a rectangular (a/b=4) cross-ply plate; E
1
/E
2
=10; G
12
/E
2
=0.5; n
12
=0.25 (a/h=300).
w/h o
NL
/o
L
[0/90/0/90] [0/90/90/0]
n=1 Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%) Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%)
Table 10 Eq. (9) Table 10 Eq. (9)
m=1 l
L
=2.2385 l
L
=1.5263
0.25 1.0613 1.0280 3.24 1.1259 1.1696 –3.74
0.50 1.2310 1.2046 2.19 1.4458 1.5700 –7.91
0.75 1.4683 1.4744 –0.41 1.8572 2.0648 –10.06
1.00 1.7455 1.7954 –2.78 2.3117 2.6028 –11.18
1.50 2.3624 2.5118 –5.95 3.2788 3.7337 –12.18
2.00 3.0204 3.2733 –7.72 4.2796 4.8958 –12.59
m=2 l
L
=2.3982 l
L
=1.8227
0.25 1.0729 1.0851 –1.13 1.1224 1.1343 –1.05
0.50 1.2718 1.2928 –1.62 1.4346 1.4539 –1.32
0.75 1.5446 1.5729 –1.80 1.8373 1.8649 –1.48
1.00 1.8589 1.8935 –1.82 2.2834 2.3195 –1.56
1.50 2.5498 2.5954 –1.76 3.2337 3.2872 –1.63
2.00 3.2804 3.3359 –1.67 4.2182 4.2893 –1.66
Table 7
Nonlinear to linear frequency ratios (o
NL
/o
L
) for square (a/b=1) cross-ply [0/90] clamped plate (a/h=150); fiberglass reinforced plastic [2].
w/h o
NL
/o
L
m=1 Ref. [1] Current results Ref. [1] Current results Ref. [1] Current results Ref [1] Current results
n=1 Eq. (16) Eq. (17) Eq. (18) Eq. (22)
0.3 1.0674 1.0681 1.0343 1.0346 1.0510 1.0515 1.0480 1.0513
0.6 1.2481 1.2503 1.1309 1.1321 1.1909 1.1927 1.1827 1.1905
0.9 1.5016 1.5058 1.2757 1.2781 1.3932 1.3966 1.3762 1.3896
1.2 1.7974 1.8036 1.4544 1.4582 1.6350 1.6400 1.6069 1.6263
1.5 2.1179 2.1261 1.6561 1.6614 1.9011 1.9079 1.8610 1.8866
1.8 2.4534 2.4636 1.8734 1.8801 2.1827 2.1913 2.1304 2.1620
2.1 2.7985 2.8106 2.1014 2.1095 2.4746 2.4849 2.4099 2.4475
2.4 3.1501 3.1642 2.3370 2.3465 2.7735 2.7855 2.6965 2.7400
2.7 3.5062 3.5222 2.5781 2.5890 3.0773 3.0910 2.9882 3.0376
3.0 3.8655 3.8834 2.8233 2.8356 3.3848 3.4001 3.2836 3.3389
Table 8
Relative error between Ref. [1] and current results of Table 7.
w/h Relative error (%)
m=1 Current results vs. Ref. [1]
n=1 Eq. (16) Eq. (17) Eq. (18) Eq. (22)
0.3 –0.06 –0.03 –0.05 –0.31
0.6 –0.18 –0.11 –0.15 –0.66
0.9 –0.28 –0.19 –0.24 –0.97
1.2 –0.34 –0.26 –0.31 –1.20
1.5 –0.39 –0.32 –0.36 –1.36
1.8 –0.41 –0.35 –0.39 –1.46
2.1 –0.43 –0.38 –0.42 –1.54
2.4 –0.45 –0.40 –0.43 –1.59
2.7 –0.45 –0.42 –0.44 –1.63
3.0 –0.46 –0.43 –0.45 –1.67
A.G. Radu / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 2682–2689 2687
2. Conclusion
Large amplitude vibration of simply supported rectangular cross-ply plates paper of Singh et al. [1] is re-visited. One of
the presented coefficients for simply supported boundary conditions, namely T
8
, is found to be erroneously determined.
The observed error influences the nonlinear to linear frequency ratio results for the first mode of the simply supported
cross-ply symmetric and anti-symmetric square and rectangular plates. The present computations are performed using
MathCAD to solve the obtained improper integrals. However, the published results were not recovered even when
considering the erroneous expression for T
8
and therefore the numerical integration scheme has been validated for the
current numerical development for the simply supported boundary condition case with unmovable edges. For these cases
the results are found to be close to the published results in [1]. Although the source of the erroneous first mode results of
the simply supported plates published in [1] could not be identified exactly, and cannot be identified without access to the
original computer code, the fact that these results could not be recovered under the stated material and geometrical
parameters is undoubtedly demonstrated.
References
[1] G. Singh, K.K. Raju, G.V. Rao, N.G.R. Iyengar, Non-linear vibration of simply supported rectangular cross-ply plates, Journal of Sound and Vibration 142
(1990) 213–226.
[2] I.S. Raju, G. Venkateswara Rao, K. Kanaka Raju, Effect of longitudinal or in-plane deformation and inertia on the large amplitude flexural vibrations of
slender beams and thin plates, Journal of Sound and Vibration 49 (1976) 415–422.
[3] R.M. Jones, Mechanics of Composite Materials, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, 1975.
[4] R. Chandra, B.B. Raju, Large amplitude flexural vibration of cross-ply laminated composite plates, Fibre Science and Technology 8 (1975) 243–264.
[5] R. Chandra, B.B. Raju, Large deflection vibration of angle ply laminated plates, Journal of Sound and Vibration 40 (1975) 393–408.
[6] R. Chandra, Large deflection vibration of cross-ply laminated plates with certain edge conditions, Journal of Sound and Vibration 47 (1976) 509–514.
[7] H. Jefereys, B.S. Jefereys, Methods of Mathematical Physics, second ed, Cambridge University Press, London, 1950.
[8] MathCAD User’s Guide 2000 MathCAD Professional MathCAD 2000 Standard, MathSoft, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 1999.
[9] G. Singh, K.K. Raju, N.G.R. Iyengar, Large amplitude free vibration of simply supported antisymmetric cross-ply plates, AIAA Journal 29 (1991)
784–790.
[10] B.W. Rosen, N.F. Dow, Z. Hashin, Mechanical properties of fibrous composites, NASA CR-31 Technical Report, 1964.
[11] G. Singh, G. Venkateswara Rao, N.G.R. Iyengar, Re-investigation of large-amplitude free vibrations of beams using finite elements, Journal of Sound
and Vibration 143 (1990) 351–355.
[12] T. Pulngern, S. Chucheepsakul, M.W. Halling, Analytical and experimental studies on the large amplitude free vibrations of variable-arc-length
beams, Journal of Vibration and Control 11 (2005) 923–947.
[13] S.R.R. Pillai, B. Nageswara Rao, Large-amplitude vibration of thin plates, Journal of Sound and Vibration 149 (1991) 509–512.
[14] S.R.R. Pillai, B. Nageswara Rao, Improved solution for the non-linear vibration of simply supported rectangular cross-ply plates, Journal of Sound and
Vibration 150 (1991) 517–519.
[15] S.R.R. Pillai, B. Nageswara Rao, Reinvestigation of non-linear vibrations of simply supported rectangular cross-ply plates, Journal of Sound and
Vibration 160 (1993) 1–6.
[16] A.K. Noor, C.M. Andersen, J.M. Peters, Reduced-basis technique for nonlinear vibration analysis of composite panels, Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 103 (1993) 175–186.
[17] J.-Y. Yang, L.-W. Chen, Large amplitude vibration of antisymmetric imperfect cross-ply laminated plates, Composite Structures 24 (1993) 149–159.
[18] M. Sathyamoorthy, Nonlinear vibrations of plates: an update of recent research developments, Applied Mechanics Reviews 49 (1996) S55–S62.
[19] O. Barton Jr., R. Reiss, Vibration of antisymmetric laminated plates using eigensensitivity analysis, Computers and Structures 64 (1997) 425–439.
[20] K. Sivakumar, N.G.R. Iyengar, K. Deb, Free vibration of laminated composite plates with cutout, Journal of Sound and Vibration 221 (1999) 443–465.
[21] K. Sivakumar, N.G.R. Iyengar, K. Deb, Optimum design of laminated composite plates with cutouts undergoing large amplitude oscillations, Advanced
Composite Materials 8 (1999) 295–313.
[22] R.-D. Chien, C.-S. Chen, Nonlinear vibration of laminated plates on a nonlinear elastic foundation, Composite Structures 70 (2005) 90–99.
[23] K. Jayakumar, D. Yadav, B. Nageswara Rao, Nonlinear vibration analysis for a generic coupled-laminated plate with surface bonded or embedded
induced strain actuators, Journal of Sound and Vibration 301 (2007) 846–863.
[24] C.-S. Chen, The nonlinear vibration of an initially stressed laminated plate, Composites Part B 38 (2007) 437–447.
[25] M.K. Singha, R. Daripa, Nonlinear vibration of symmetrically laminated composite skew plates by finite element method, International Journal of
Non-Linear Mechanics 42 (2007) 1144–1152.
[26] A. Lal, B.N. Singh, R. Kumar, Nonlinear free vibration of laminated composite plates on elastic foundation with random system properties,
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 50 (2008) 1203–1212.
Table 9
Result comparison for frequency ratio (o
NL
/o
L
) variation with amplitude for a six-layered anti-symmetric cross-ply rectangular (a/b=2) plate; E
1
/E
2
=10;
G
12
/E
2
=0.5; n
12
=0.25 (a/h=150).
w/h o
NL
/o
L
m=1 Ref. [1] Current results Relative error (%)
n=1 Table 11
À2 2.8099 2.8371 –0.96
À1.5 2.2479 2.2683 –0.90
À1 1.7201 1.7327 –0.73
À0.5 1.2672 1.2722 –0.40
0.5 1.0785 1.0817 –0.30
1 1.4412 1.4523 –0.76
1.5 1.931 1.9501 –0.98
2 2.4744 2.5012 –1.07
A.G. Radu / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 2682–2689 2688
[27] L. Azrar, R. Benamar, M. Potier-Ferry, An asymptotic-numerical method for large-amplitude free vibrations of thin elastic plates, Journal of Sound and
Vibration 220 (1999) 695–727.
[28] A. Harada, Y. Kobayashi, G. Yamada, Reduced-order nonlinear modal equations of plates based on the finite element method, JSME International
Journal Series C 45 (2002) 79–86.
[29] R.I.K. Moorthy, A. Kakodkar, H.R. Srirangarajan, Chaotic response of a composite plate, Computers & Structures 57 (1995) 699–701.
[30] C.-S. Chen, W.-S. Cheng, R.-D. Chien, J.-L. Doong, Large amplitude vibration of an initially stressed cross ply laminated plates, Applied Acoustics 63
(2002) 939–956.
[31] C.-S. Chen, C.-P. Fung, Non-linear vibration of initially stressed hybrid composite plates, Journal of Sound and Vibration 274 (2004) 1013–1029.
[32] C.-S. Chen, Large amplitude vibration of initially stressed orthotropic plates, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 24 (2005) 1073–1083.
[33] C.-S. Chen, C.-P. Fung, R.-D. Chien, Nonlinear vibration of orthotropic plates with initial stresses on a two-parameter elastic foundation, Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites 25 (2006) 283–301.
[34] R.-D. Chien, C.-S. Chen, Nonlinear vibration of laminated plates on an elastic foundation, Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 852–860.
[35] C.-S. Chen, C.-P. Fung, R.-D. Chien, Nonlinear vibration of an initially stressed laminated plate according to a higher-order theory, Composite
Structures 77 (2007) 521–532.
[36] C.-S. Chen, A.-H. Tan, R.-D. Chien, Non-linear oscillations of orthotropic plates on a non-linear elastic foundation, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites 28 (2009) 851–867.
A.G. Radu / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 2682–2689 2689