Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Secm 2013 0153.aop PDF
Secm 2013 0153.aop PDF
Srinivasa Chikkol Venkateshappa*, Suresh Yalaburgi Jayadevappa and Prema Kumar Wooday
Puttiah
from plots of applied load vs. out-of-plane displacement. strain, εA = (ε1+ε2)/2, where ε1 and ε2 are strains at the two
Shadow moiré technique method was used to monitor the surfaces of the specimen at midspan in the direction of
whole-field out-of-plane deflections of the buckled plates. loading. Method V employs a plot applied load vs. strain
The maximum out-of-plane displacement was measured difference εD = (ε1-ε2).
by placing a dial indicator on the specimen. Detailed
experimental buckling studies on skew composite plates
are either very few or nil in the available literature. 2.2 Finite element solution
P P P P Fitted
Inflection Perfect plate P
point parabola x
Pth x
x x
Schematic Imperfect Pcr x x x
Pcr Pcr Pcr
diagram Experimental
plate
buckling Inflection point
load
residual stress at the cutting edges. The tests were measuring instrumentation consists of strain gauges and
conducted at standard laboratory conditions of 27°C LVDTs. The strain gauges were placed at each surface of
and 46% relative humidity. The material properties of the test plate at midspan. Two LVDTs were fixed symmetri-
the test plates are: for aluminum 7075-T6, E = 71.7 GPa, cally at midspan along the width of the test specimen to
μ = 0.33 and for glass epoxy, E1 = 38.07 GPa, E2 = 8.1 GPa, measure the out-of-plane deflection, and one more was
G 12 = 3.05 GPa, and ν12 = 0.22. The aspect ratio was varied fixed to the moving jaw of the universal testing machine
from 1.0 to 2.5. to measure the in-plane deflection. The testing was
carried out with unloaded edges completely free, and one
loaded edge restrained completely, and the other loaded
3.2 Experimental procedure edge restrained except translationally in the direction of
loading.
The fixture for holding the test specimen is shown in
Figure 2. The test specimen was inserted between the
end plates of the fixture, and the screws were tightened
properly so that no slippage of the test specimen occurs.
4 Results and discussion
The tests were conducted in a 40-t computerized univer-
sal testing machine after positioning properly the test 4.1 Isotropic skew plates
specimen using universal vice as shown in Figure 3. The
Isotropic plates made of aluminum 7075-T6 were tested
under uniaxial compression, varying the skew angle
from 0° to 45° and aspect ratio from 1.0 to 2.5. The exper-
2
3
imental values of the critical buckling load were deter-
mined in accordance with the Methods I to V. Classical
linear buckling analysis was performed using MSC/
A NASTRAN and the finite element solution for the critical
1
buckling load obtained. A typical plot of applied load
B 1
(P) vs. out-of-plane deflection (W) for a skew angle of
Detail B
15° and aspect ratio ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 is shown in
Figure 4. Figure 5 shows a typical buckled shape of the
test specimen. The values of the critical buckling load
Detail A obtained are tabulated in Table 1 and presented in the
form of a bar chart in Figure 6. The standard deviations
1: Specimen
are given within parentheses in Table 1 and are also
2: Clamping plates indicated in Figure 6. The following are observed from
3: Hexagonal socket screw with nut
Table 1 and Figure 6:
– Method IV yields the highest experimental value
Figure 2 Fixture for holding the specimen.
for critical buckling load, and Method III yields the
lowest value. The experimental values are in good
agreement with the finite element solution, the values
given by Method IV being closest to the finite element
solution. The percentage of discrepancy between the
finite element solution and Method IV is very small
and may be neglected for practical purposes.
– For a particular skew angle, the critical buckling load
decreases as the aspect ratio increases. The rate of
decrease is initially large and becomes smaller for
higher values of aspect ratio.
– For a particular aspect ratio, the critical buckling load
is observed to increase with the skew angle. The rate
of increase is initially small and becomes larger for
Figure 3 The experimental set-up. higher values of skew angle.
22.5
Skew-15-a/b=1.0
20.0
Skew-15-a/b=1.5
17.5 Skew-15-a/b=2.0
Skew-15-a/b=2.5
15.0
Load (kN)
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Out of plane deflection, WCenter (mm)
Figure 4 A typical plot of applied load (p) vs. out-of-plane deflection (wcenter) for isotropic skew plate (α = 15°).
Table 1 Critical buckling load for isotropic skew plate (aluminum 7075-T6).
Skew angle (α) Aspect ratio (a/b) Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN
0° 1.0 20.00 (0.20) 19.50 (0.22) 19.20 (0.23) 20.20 (0.28) 20.10 (0.30) 20.66
1.5 8.20 (0.15) 8.00 (0.18) 7.80 (0.16) 8.40 (0.17) 8.30 (0.19) 9.09
2.0 4.43 (0.10) 4.25 (0.11) 4.05 (0.12) 4.63 (0.13) 4.50 (0.15) 5.08
2.5 2.75 (0.10) 2.65 (0.11) 2.55 (0.12) 2.95 (0.13) 2.83 (0.14) 3.23
15° 1.0 20.20 (0.21) 20.10 (0.23) 20.00 (0.22) 20.40 (0.25) 20.30 (0.24) 20.93
1.5 9.05 (0.16) 9.00 (0.16) 8.80 (0.15) 9.25 (0.17) 9.15 (0.18) 9.42
2.0 4.95 (0.11) 4.75 (0.12) 4.55 (0.13) 5.05 (0.14) 4.98 (0.15) 5.19
2.5 3.10 (0.10) 3.00 (0.09) 2.90 (0.11) 3.15 (0.12) 3.12 (0.13) 3.26
30° 1.0 24.20 (0.22) 24.00 (0.23) 23.8 (0.24) 24.40 (0.29) 24.25 (0.31) 24.65
1.5 10.00 (0.17) 9.92 (0.18) 9.70 (0.16) 10.10 (0.18) 10.03 (0.20) 10.35
2.0 4.95 (0.12) 4.65 (0.13) 4.50 (0.14) 5.04 (0.16) 4.97 (0.17) 5.44
2.5 2.95 (0.10) 2.85 (0.11) 2.65 (0.12) 3.05 (0.13) 2.99 (0.14) 3.31
45° 1.0 28.10 (0.23) 27.90 (0.25) 27.60 (0.25) 28.30 (0.35) 28.12 (0.36) 28.66
1.5 11.48 (0.18) 11.10 (0.19) 10.90 (0.18) 11.68 (0.20) 11.50 (0.23) 11.75
2.0 5.20 (0.13) 5.00 (0.14) 4.75 (0.13) 5.40 (0.16) 5.30 (0.16) 5.62
2.5 3.10 (0.10) 2.95 (0.10) 2.70 (0.10) 3.20 (0.11) 3.15 (0.12) 3.30
30
-Standard deviation
-Average values
25
Method I
Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN
20 Method III
Method IV
Method V
15 FEM
10
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0 15 30 45
Skew angle (α) and aspect ratio (a/b)
Figure 6 Critical buckling load for isotropic skew plate (aluminum 7075-T6).
1.0 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 9.00 (0.19) 8.92 (0.18) 8.91 (0.18) 9.12 (0.20) 9.10 (0.20) 10.11
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 3.49 (0.07) 3.48 (0.07) 3.47 (0.07) 3.52 (0.08) 3.50 (0.07) 3.88
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 1.85 (0.04) 1.82 (0.03) 1.79 (0.03) 1.92 (0.04) 1.91 (0.04) 2.14
[0°/90°/…/90°] 5.50 (0.11) 5.45 (0.11) 5.40 (0.10) 5.56 (0.11) 5.55 (0.11) 6.11
1.5 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 3.90 (0.08) 3.85 (0.07) 3.78 (0.08) 4.00 (0.08) 3.95 (0.08) 4.49
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 1.42 (0.03) 1.40 (0.03) 1.39 (0.03) 1.50 (0.03) 1.45 (0.03) 1.66
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.83 (0.02) 0.82 (0.02) 0.81 (0.02) 0.85 (0.02) 0.84 (0.02) 0.95
[0°/90°/…/90°] 2.33 (0.05) 2.30 (0.05) 2.25 (0.05) 2.40 (0.05) 2.35 (0.05) 2.71
2.0 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 2.25 (0.05) 2.20 (0.05) 2.15 (0.04) 2.30 (0.05) 2.28 (0.05) 2.52
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 0.78 (0.02) 0.77 (0.02) 0.75 (0.02) 0.80 (0.02) 0.79 (0.02) 0.90
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.43 (0.02) 0.42 (0.02) 0.40 (0.02) 0.45 (0.02) 0.44 (0.02) 0.53
[0°/90°/…/90°] 1.37 (0.03) 1.36 (0.03) 1.35 (0.03) 1.39 (0.03) 1.38 (0.03) 1.52
2.5 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 1.43 (0.03) 1.42 (0.03) 1.41 (0.03) 1.45 (0.03) 1.44 (0.03) 1.61
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 0.45 (0.02) 0.44 (0.02) 0.42 (0.02) 0.46 (0.02) 0.46 (0.02) 0.57
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.30 (0.01) 0.29 (0.01) 0.29 (0.01) 0.31 (0.01) 0.30 (0.01) 0.34
[0°/90°/…/90°] 0.70 (0.02) 0.65 (0.02) 0.62 (0.02) 0.80 (0.02) 0.75 (0.02) 0.97
1.0 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 10.62 (0.22) 10.44 (0.22) 10.51 (0.21) 10.94 (0.22) 10.83 (0.22) 12.33
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 4.12 (0.09) 4.07 (0.08) 4.09 (0.08) 4.22 (0.09) 4.17 (0.09) 4.73
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 2.18 (0.05) 2.13 (0.05) 2.11 (0.05) 2.30 (0.05) 2.27 (0.05) 2.62
[0°/90°/…/90°] 6.49 (0.07) 6.38 (0.07) 6.37 (0.07) 6.67 (0.07) 6.60 (0.07) 7.45
1.5 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 4.60 (0.09) 4.50 (0.09) 4.46 (0.09) 4.80 (0.10) 4.70 (0.10) 5.47
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 1.68 (0.04) 1.64 (0.04) 1.63 (0.04) 1.80 (0.04) 1.73 (0.04) 2.03
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.98 (0.02) 0.96 (0.02) 0.96 (0.02) 1.02 (0.02) 1.00 (0.02) 1.16
[0°/90°/…/90°] 2.75 (0.09) 2.69 (0.09) 2.66 (0.09) 2.88 (0.09) 2.80 (0.09) 3.31
2.0 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 2.66 (0.09) 2.57 (0.09) 2.54 (0.09) 2.76 (0.09) 2.71 (0.09) 3.07
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 0.92 (0.03) 0.90 (0.03) 0.89 (0.02) 0.96 (0.02) 0.94 (0.02) 1.11
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.51 (0.02) 0.49 (0.02) 0.47 (0.02) 0.54 (0.02) 0.52 (0.02) 0.65
[0°/90°/…/90°] 1.62 (0.03) 1.59 (0.03) 1.59 (0.03) 1.67 (0.03) 1.64 (0.03) 1.86
2.5 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 1.69 (0.03) 1.66 (0.03) 1.66 (0.03) 1.74 (0.03) 1.71 (0.03) 1.97
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 0.53 (0.02) 0.51 (0.02) 0.50 (0.02) 0.55 (0.02) 0.54 (0.02) 0.69
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.35 (0.02) 0.34 (0.02) 0.34 (0.02) 0.37 (0.02) 0.36 (0.02) 0.42
[0°/90°/…/90°] 0.83 (0.03) 0.76 (0.03) 0.73 (0.03) 0.96 (0.03) 0.89 (0.03) 1.19
to the finite element solution. The percentage of – For a particular skew angle, the critical buckling load
discrepancy between the finite element solution and decreases as the aspect ratio increases, the rate of
Method IV is very small and may be neglected for all decrease being initially large and becomes smaller
practical purposes in the case of isotropic skew plates for higher values of aspect ratio. A similar trend is
(<4%) and is within acceptable limits (10–15%) in the observed in both isotropic and laminated composite
case of laminated composite skew plates. skew plates for all stacking sequences.
1.0 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 11.97 (0.24) 11.77 (0.25) 11.76 (0.24) 12.31 (0.26) 12.19 (0.27) 14.15
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 4.64 (0.09) 4.59 (0.10) 4.57 (0.10) 4.75 (0.12) 4.69 (0.12) 5.43
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 2.46 (0.06) 2.40 (0.07) 2.36 (0.06) 2.59 (0.07) 2.56 (0.07) 3.00
[0°/90°/…/90°] 7.32 (0.15) 7.19 (0.16) 7.13 (0.15) 7.51 (0.16) 7.44 (0.17) 8.55
1.5 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 5.19 (0.10) 5.08 (0.10) 4.99 (0.09) 5.40 (0.11) 5.29 (0.12) 6.29
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 1.89 (0.04) 1.85 (0.04) 1.83 (0.03) 2.03 (0.05) 1.94 (0.04) 2.33
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 1.10 (0.02) 1.08 (0.02) 1.07 (0.02) 1.15 (0.03) 1.13 (0.03) 1.33
[0°/90°/…/90°] 3.10 (0.06) 3.04 (0.06) 2.97 (0.05) 3.24 (0.07) 3.15 (0.06) 3.80
2.0 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 2.99 (0.06) 2.90 (0.06) 2.84 (0.05) 3.11 (0.07) 3.06 (0.07) 3.53
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 1.04 (0.02) 1.02 (0.02) 0.99 (0.02) 1.08 (0.02) 1.06 (0.02) 1.27
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.57 (0.01) 0.55 (0.01) 0.53 (0.01) 0.61 (0.01) 0.59 (0.01) 0.75
[0°/90°/…/90°] 1.82 (0.03) 1.80 (0.03) 1.78 (0.03) 1.88 (0.03) 1.85 (0.03) 2.14
2.5 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 1.90 (0.04) 1.87 (0.03) 1.86 (0.03) 1.96 (0.04) 1.93 (0.04) 2.26
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 0.60 (0.01) 0.58 (0.01) 0.55 (0.01) 0.62 (0.01) 0.61 (0.01) 0.79
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.39 (0.01) 0.38 (0.01) 0.38 (0.01) 0.42 (0.01) 0.40 (0.01) 0.48
[0°/90°/…/90°] 0.93 (0.02) 0.86 (0.02) 0.82 (0.02) 1.08 (0.02) 1.01 (0.02) 1.36
1.0 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 14.04 (0.28) 13.74 (0.29) 13.54 (0.27) 14.59 (0.29) 14.38 (0.29) 17.19
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 5.44 (0.11) 5.36 (0.12) 5.27 (0.11) 5.63 (0.12) 5.53 (0.12) 6.60
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 2.89 (0.06) 2.80 (0.06) 2.72 (0.06) 3.07 (0.07) 3.02 (0.07) 3.65
[0°/90°/…/90°] 8.58 (0.17) 8.39 (0.16) 8.21 (0.16) 8.90 (0.18) 8.77 (0.18) 10.39
1.5 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 6.08 (0.12) 5.93 (0.12) 5.75 (0.12) 6.40 (0.13) 6.24 (0.12) 7.63
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 2.22 (0.05) 2.16 (0.04) 2.11 (0.04) 2.40 (0.05) 2.29 (0.05) 2.82
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 1.29 (0.03) 1.26 (0.03) 1.23 (0.03) 1.36 (0.03) 1.33 (0.03) 1.62
[0°/90°/…/90°] 3.63 (0.07) 3.54 (0.07) 3.42 (0.07) 3.84 (0.08) 3.71(0.08) 4.61
2.0 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 3.51 (0.07) 3.39 (0.07) 3.27 (0.07) 3.68 (0.07) 3.60 (0.08) 4.29
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 1.22 (0.02) 1.19 (0.02) 1.14 (0.02) 1.28 (0.02) 1.25 (0.02) 1.54
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.67 (0.02) 0.65 (0.02) 0.61 (0.02) 0.72 (0.02) 0.70 (0.02) 0.91
[0°/90°/…/90°] 2.14 (0.03) 2.09 (0.02) 2.05 (0.02) 2.22 (0.03) 2.18 (0.03) 2.59
2.5 [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] 2.23 (0.03) 2.19 (0.03) 2.14 (0.03) 2.32 (0.03) 2.28 (0.03) 2.74
[+45°/-45°/…/-45°] 0.70 (0.02) 0.68 (0.02) 0.64 (0.02) 0.74 (0.02) 0.72 (0.02) 0.97
[+90°/-90°/…/-90°] 0.46 (0.01) 0.45 (0.01) 0.43 (0.01) 0.50 (0.01) 0.47 (0.01) 0.58
[0°/90°/…/90°] 1.09 (0.02) 1.00 (0.02) 0.94 (0.02) 1.28 (0.03) 1.19 (0.02) 1.66
– For a particular aspect ratio, the critical buckling load – The critical buckling load is maximum for
is observed to increase with the skew angle, the rate of antisymmetric angle-ply [+0°/-0°/…/-0°] and
increase being initially small and becomes larger for minimum for antisymmetric angle-ply [+90°/-90°/…/
higher values of skew angle in the case of isotropic skew -90°]. The critical buckling loads for the remaining
plates. A similar trend exists in the case of laminated stacking sequences lie between the aforesaid
composite skew plates for all stacking sequences. maximum and minimum values.
10
-Standard deviation
9 -Average values
Method I
8
Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN
7 Method III
Method IV
6 Method V
FEM
5
0
[+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ]
12.5
-Standard deviation
-Average values
Method I
10.0
Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN
Method III
Method IV
7.5 Method V
FEM
5.0
2.5
0 [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ]
15.0
-Standard deviation
-Average values
12.5 Method I
Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN
Method III
10.0 Method IV
Method V
FEM
7.5
5.0
2.5
0 [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ]
18
-Standard deviation
16 -Average values
Method I
14 Method II
Critical buckling load (Pcr) in kN
Method III
12 Method IV
Method V
10 FEM
0
[+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ] [+0° /-0° /…/-0°] [+45°/-45°/…/-45°] [+90°/-90°/…/-90°] [0°/90°/…/90° ]
Acknowledgments: The first author would like to thank the a/b Aspect ratio
t Plate thickness
Management and Principal Dr. S.G. Hiremath of GM Institute
NL Number of layers in the laminate
of Technology, Davangere, Karnataka, India, for the kind E Modulus of elasticity of the material of isotropic plate
encouragement and support provided. The second author μ Poisson’s ratio of the material of isotropic plate
would like to thank the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru El Young’s modulus of the lamina in the longitudinal direc-
College of Engineering, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India, for tion
the kind encouragement and support provided. The third Et Young’s modulus of the lamina in the transverse direction
Glt In-plane shear modulus of the lamina
author would like to thank the Management, Principal Dr.
α Skew angle of the plate
N. Ranaprathap Reddy and Head of the Department of Civil θ Fiber orientation angle of the lamina
Engineering Dr. Y. Ramalinga Reddy, Reva Institute of Tech- Pcr Critical buckling load
nology and Management, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, for ν12 Major Poisson’s ratio
the kind encouragement and support provided. W Out-of- plane deflection
Δ In-plane displacement
ε Normal strain
Nomenclature
a Plate length
b Plate width Received July 6, 2013; accepted November 2, 2013
References
[1] Asthon JE. J. Appl. Mech. 1969, 36, 139–140. [12] Fried I, Schmitt K. Aeronaut J. 1972, 76, 166–169.
[2] Durvasula S. AIAA J. 1970, 8, 178–181. [13] Lee YJ, Lin HJ, Lin CC. Compos Struct 1989, 12,133–148.
[3] Prabhu MSS, Durvasula S. Appl. Mech. Res. 1972, 26, 255–271. [14] Liao CL, Lee ZY. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 1993, 36, 1825–1847.
[4] Kennedy JB, Prabhakara MK. Aeronaut. Quart. 1978, 29, 161–174. [15] Krishna Reddy AR, Palaninathan R. Thin Wall Struct. 1995, 22,
[5] Mizusawa T, Kajita T, Naruoka M. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 241–259.
1980, 15, 87–96. [16] Wang S. Compos Struct 1997, 37, 5–19.
[6] Kamal K, Durvasula S. Defense. Sci. J. 1991, 41, 69–77. [17] Sarath Babu C, Kant T. Compos Struct. 1999, 46, 115–124.
[7] Kitipornchai S, Xiang Y, Wang CM, Liew KM. Int. J. Numer. Meth. [18] Hu HT, Tzeng WL. Thin Wall Struct. 2000, 38, 53–77.
Eng. 1993, 36, 1299–1310. [19] Kant T, Babu CS. Compos Struct. 2000, 49, 77–85.
[8] York CB, Williams FW. Comput. Struct. 1995, 56, 625–635. [20] Huyton P, York CB. J. Aerospace Eng. 2001, 14, 92–101.
[9] Jaunky N, Knight Jr. NF, Ambur DR. AIAA J. 1995, 33, 2414–2417. [21] Singha MK, Ramachandra LS, Bandyopadhyay JN. Compos
[10] Wang S. Thin Wall Struct. 1997, 28, 21–41. Struct 2001, 54, 453–458.
[11] Azhari M, Shahidi AR, Saadatpour MM. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2004, [22] Singha MK, Ramachandra LS, Bandyopadhyay JN. AIAA J 2001,
7, 61–70. 39, 1618–1623.
[23] Huyton P, York CB. AIAA J. 2002, 1572–1581. [35] Wang X, Tan M, Zhou Y. Thin Wall Struct. 2003, 41, 15–29.
[24] Ganapathi M, Prakash T, Sundararajan N. J. Eng. Mech. 2006, [36] Karami G, Ali Shahpari S, Malekzadeh P. Compos. Struct. 2003,
132, 902–905. 59, 393–402.
[25] Hsuan-The H, Chia-Hao Y, Fu-Ming L. Composites, Part B 2006, [37] Civalek O. Eng. Struct. 2004, 26, 171–186.
37, 26–36. [38] Chailleux A, Hans Y, Verchery G. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 1975, 17,
[26] Partha D, Singha MK. Thin Wall Struct. 2006, 44, 937–942. 489–498.
[27] Chakrabarti A, Sheikh AH. Int. Shipbuilding Prog. 2007, 54, [39] Chai GB, Banks WM, Rhodes J. Compos. Struct. 1991, 19, 41–65.
63–81. [40] Chai GB, Hoon KH, Chin SS. Mech. Struct. Mach. 1996, 24,
[28] Prakash T, Singha MK, Ganapathi M. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 439–452.
22–32. [41] Tuttle M, Singhatanadgid P, Hinds G. Exp. Mech. 1999, 39,
[29] Civalek O. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2007, 43, 1013–1022. 191–201.
[30] Rupesh D, Singha MK. Int. J. Nonlinear Mech. 2009, 44, [42] Singer J, Arbocz J, Weller T. Buckling Experiments: Experimental
138–146. Methods in Buckling of Thin-Walled Structures, Volume 1 & 2,
[31] Thangam Babu PV, Reddy DV. Comput. Struct. 1978, 8, 599–607. John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, 2002.
[32] Tham LG, Szeto HY. Comput. Struct. 1990, 36, 729–735. [43] Srinivasa CV, Suresh YJ, Prema Kumar WP. Int. J. Comput. Appl.
[33] Mizusawa T, Kajita T. Comput. Struct. 1986, 22, 987–994. 2012, 37, 35–47.
[34] Darvizeh M, Darvizeh A, Sharma CB. Steel Compos. Struct. [44] Jones RM. Mechanics of Composite Materials, McGraw-Hill:
2002, 2, 99–122. New York, 1975.