Author’s Accepted Manuscript

On the general framework of high order shear

deformation theories for laminated composite plate
structures: A novel unified approach

Tuan N. Nguyen, Chien H. Thai, H. Nguyen-Xuan

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

PII: S0020-7403(16)00018-7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.01.012
Reference: MS3205
To appear in: International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
Received date: 17 August 2015
Revised date: 7 January 2016
Accepted date: 8 January 2016
Cite this article as: Tuan N. Nguyen, Chien H. Thai and H. Nguyen-Xuan, On
the general framework of high order shear deformation theories for laminated
composite plate structures: A novel unified approach, International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.01.012
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 On the general framework of high order shear
deformation theories for laminated composite plate
structures: A novel unified approach
Tuan N. Nguyena , Chien H. Thaib , H. Nguyen-Xuanc,d,∗
a
Department of Computational Engineering, Vietnamese-German University, Binh Duong New
City, Vietnam
b
Division of Computational Mechanics, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
c
Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Technology (CIRTech), University of Technology
(HUTECH), Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
d
Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, 98 Kunja Dong, Kwangjin Ku,
Seoul, 143-747, South Korea

Abstract
This paper brings to the readers a unified framework on higher order shear
deformation theories (HSDTs), modelling and analysis of laminated composite
plates. The major objective of this work is to 1) unify all higher order shear defor-
mation theories in a unique formulation by a polynomial form; 2) propose the new
higher shear deformation models systematically based on a unified formulation.
In addition, the effect of thickness stretching is taken into account by considering
a quasi-3D theory. The principle of virtual displacements is exploited to derive a
weak form based on the generalized displacement fields of the higher order shear
deformation theories. Numerical results are computed by using isogeometric anal-
ysis and verified to show the accuracy and reliability of the present approach. It
is found that the unique formulation of a polynomial form can theoretically cover
all existing HSDTs models and is thus sufficient to describe the nonlinear and
parabolic variation of transverse shear stress. Moreover, the proposed higher order
shear deformation theories predict the proper responses for laminated composite
plates in comparison with the available ones in the literature.
Keywords: laminated composite plates, higher order shear deformation theory, a
unified formulation, quasi-3D theory, Isogeometric analysis

∗
Corresponding author. Email address: ngx.hung@hutech.edu.vn (H. Nguyen-Xuan).

Preprint submitted to International Journal of Mechanical Sciences February 18, 2016

1. Introduction
During the last haft century, laminated composite material is one of the most
widely used materials in tremendous scientific and engineering applications such
as vehicles, aerospace, aircraft, construction, submarine, vessels, etc. owing to
their adaptability and flexibility in variation of stacking sequence of fibre and
matrix. Laminated composite plates are made up of orthotropic laminae which
are adhered together. In these structures, stress-included failures occur through
three mechanisms which are dependent of the normal and transverse shear stresses
[1]. Therefore, it is essential to measure the normal and transverse shear tresses
through the plate’s thickness precisely. Pagano [2, 3] pioneered to analyse the
simple static problem using the three-dimension (3D) elasticity method. Noor
[4, 5] subsequently carried out the 3D solution for free vibration and stability of
multi-layered composite plate. Nevertheless, it is straightforward that the 3D solu-
tion is not a feasible tool to deal with complex geometries and arbitrary boundary
conditions. Consequently, several alternative approaches have been proposed to
facilitate a 3D model into a 2D model: equivalent single layer (ESL) theories [6],
layer-wise (LW) theories [7], zigzag (ZZ) theories [8], quasi-3D theories [9]. The
ESL theories considered in this paper are acknowledged to obtain the adequate
accuracy of the behaviour of thin or/and thick laminated composite plates [10].
The simplest ESL theories, Kirchhoff theory or classical plate theory (CPT) [11],
was first developed based on Kirchhoff-Love hypothesis that plane section per-
pendicular to the mid-plane of plates before deformation remains plane, rigid, and
perpendicular to the deformed mid-plane after deformation. Due to neglecting the
effect of shear strain on the deformation, CPT is only applicable to the thin plates.
For the moderate thick plate, CPT underestimates deflection and overestimates
natural frequencies and buckling load [12]. The first order shear deformation the-
ory (FSDT), or might namely as Reissner-Mindlin plate theory [13, 14] , was
developed to surmount this limitation by accounting for transverse shear defor-
mation effect. According to FSDT, plane section will still be plane after defor-
mation, however, are not normal to mid-plane after deformation. This assumption
causes the constant transverse shear stress through the plate’s thickness which vi-
olates the traction boundary conditions on the top and bottom surface of plates.
As a result, FSDT requires a shear correction factor (SCF) to satisfy the traction
boundary condition on the top and bottom surface of plates. The precision of
FSDT in prediction the behaviour of laminated composite plate strongly relies on
the accuracy of the SCF. Unfortunately, the exact value of SCF is rather cumber-
some to define for general problem, especially for laminated composite structures.

2
Moreover, FSDT also encounter a shear locking phenomenon when the thickness
to length ratio becomes very small. The disadvantage of CPT and FSDT urged
researchers to propose the higher order shear deformation theories. The HSDTs
possess transverse shear functions, the major objective of this paper, which are
capable to describe the nonlinear, parabolic variation of transverse shear stresses
through thickness of plate. The parabolic distributions of transverse shear stresses
avoid the usage of the SCF. Ambartsumian [15] initially proposed the first HSDT
for anisotropic plates and shallow shells. The third order polynomial was served
as transverse shear function is this research. The third order polynomial was later
exploited in [16, 17, 18, 19] for anisotropic materials and was adapted for com-
posite materials in [20, 21]. Afterwards, there are a vast number of HSDTs using
non polynomial function have been devised in the literature, i.g. trigonometric
HSDTs [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29], exponential HSDTs [30, 31, 32], hyper-
bolic HSDTs [33, 34, 35, 36, 37], combined or mixed HSDTs [38, 39, 40, 41]. It
was proved that HSDTs provide the much greater accurate deflections and normal
stresses than FSDT ones [20]. Up to now, the drawback of HSDTs is that there still
exists the error in comparison to the 3D solution, and the transverse shear stresses,
computed by constitutive equation, appear discontinuity at interface of two adja-
cent layers due to the fact that the material properties are different for each layer.
In fact, it can be managed by computing the transverse shear stresses based on
equilibrium equation which represent the realistic distribution of transverse shear
stresses of laminated composite plates [20, 42]. Moreover, in numerical method,
HSDTs requires C 1 continuity which has been very significantly solved by isoge-
ometric analysis [43, 44, 26].
It is known that all mentioned HSDTs neglect the thickness stretching effect
(normal deformation εz = 0), which causes the independent transverse displace-
ment through the plate thickness. As introduced by Koiter [45], the magnitude
of thickness stretching plays the same role as the shear deformation effect. In
order to consider thickness stretching effect, Carrera [46] introduced a Carrera
Unified Formulation (CUF). A vast number of quasi-3D theoris [47, 48, 49, 50]
have been utilized for analysing the thickness stretching effect in the literature
based on the CUF. Being different with the CUF, Zenkour [51] has proposed the
quasi-3D theory with four variables. Based on this theory, the authors have de-
veloped a quasi-3D model incorporating with nonlocal theory for size dependent
analysis of nanoplates [52].
Although there are considerable research efforts to introduce a vast number of
transverse shear functions, all available functions are seemingly dispersed. The
two novel contributions of present study in HSDTs are classified as: firstly, a uni-

3
fied formulation for transverse shear functions is presented which provides the
systematic scheme to derive the transverse shear functions. Secondly, four new
transverse shear functions are subsequently proposed for investigating laminated
composite plates based on the first idea. In addition, the effect of thickness stretch-
ing is taken into account by the quasi-3D theory [53]. The two simple static analy-
sis of symmetrically cross-ply laminated composite plates are performed to show
the superiority in the accuracy and efficiency of the present study. The weak form
are basically derived based on the principle of virtual displacements and solved by
the-state-of-the-art numerical method, isogeometric analysis (IGA), which merges
Computer Aided Design (CAD) geometric modelling with Finite Element Analy-
sis (FEA) by means of non-uniform rational B-splines (NURBS) basis functions.
The rest of paper is outlined as follows: a unified formulation of higher order
shear deformation theories is presented and verified in next section for laminated
composite plates. In Section 3, the efficiency of a unified formulation is examined
by proposing four new transverse shear functions. The effect of normal deforma-
tion based on the quasi-3D theory is further discussed in Section 4. Finally, some
remarkable conclusions are drawn.

2. On the general framework of high order shear deformation theories

2.1. A unified formulation
Let consider Ω as a mid-plane of a laminated composite plate depicted in Fig. 1
 T
in which u0 , v0 , w0 and β = βx βy stand for the displacement components
in the x, y, z directions and the rotations in the x − z and y − z planes (or the
y and the x axes), respectively. According to Zenkour [53], a generalized higher
order shear deformation displacement field accounting for the thickness stretching
effect can be expressed as
∂w0
u (x, y, z) = u0 (x, y) − z + f (z) βx (x, y)
∂x
∂w0 (1)
v (x, y, z) = v0 (x, y) − z + f (z) βy (x, y)
∂y
w (x, y, z) = w0 (x, y) + g (z) βz (x, y)

where an additional term βz accounts for the normal deformation and the function
f (z)
g (z) = describes the distribution of thickness stretching effect through the
dz
plate’s thickness.

4
 Figure 1: Geometry of laminated composite plate.

Based on the displacement field Eq. (1), the normal strains and shear strains
are given as

∂u0 ∂ 2 w0 ∂βx
εxx = −z + f (z)
∂x ∂x2 ∂x
∂v0 ∂ 2 w0 ∂βy
εyy = −z + f (z)
∂y ∂y 2 ∂y  
∂u0 ∂v0 ∂ 2 w0 ∂βx ∂βy
γxy = + − 2z + f (z) + (2)
∂y ∂x ∂x∂y ∂y ∂x
εz = g  (z) βz
∂βz
γxz = f  (z) βx + g (z)
∂x
 ∂βz
γyz = f (z) βy + g (z)
∂y

5
 The constitutive equation of k th orthotropic layer in its local coordinate for the
quasi-3D theory is given by
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
(k)
σ1 ⎡ ⎤(k) ε(k)
⎢ (k) ⎥ C11 C12 0 C13 0 0 ⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢ σ2 ⎥ ⎢ C21 C22 0 C23 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ε(k) ⎥
⎢ (k) ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2(k) ⎥
⎢ τ12 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 C66 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ γ12 ⎥
⎥ ⎢
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (3)
⎢ σ (k) ⎥ ⎢ C31 C32 0 C33 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ε(k) ⎥
⎢ 3 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 3 ⎥
⎢ (k) ⎥ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 C55 0 ⎦ ⎢ (k) ⎥
⎣ τ13 ⎦ ⎣ γ13 ⎦
(k)
τ23 0 0 0 0 0 C44 (k)
γ23
where
E1 (1 − ν23 ν32 ) E1 (ν21 + ν31 ν23 ) E1 (ν31 + ν21 ν32 )
C11 = C12 = C13 =
Δ Δ Δ
E2 (1 − ν13 ν31 ) E2 (ν32 + ν12 ν31 ) E3 (1 − ν12 ν21 )
C22 = C23 = C33 =
Δ Δ Δ
C44 = G23 C55 = G13 C66 = G12 Δ = 1 − ν12 ν21 − ν23 ν32 − ν31 ν13 − 2ν12 ν32 ν13
Using transformation equations, the constitutive equation of k th layer in the
global coordinate system (x, y, z) is given by
⎡ ⎤(k) ⎡ ⎤(k) ⎡ ⎤(k)
σxx C 11 C 12 C 16 C 13 0 0 εxx
⎢ σyy ⎥ ⎢ C 12 C 22 C 26 C 23 0 ⎥ ⎢
0 ⎥ ⎢ εyy ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ τxy ⎥ ⎢ C 16 C 26 C 66 C 36 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ γxy ⎥
⎢ σz ⎥ = ⎢ C 13 C 23 C 36 C 33 0 0 ⎥ ⎢
⎥ ⎥ (4)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ εz ⎥
⎣ τxz ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 C 55 C 45 ⎦ ⎣ γxz ⎦
τyz 0 0 0 0 C 45 C 44 γyz

where the transformed elastic coefficients C ij are given in [54]

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 4 ⎤
C 11 c 2c2 s2 s4 4c2 s2
⎢ C 12 ⎥ ⎢ c2 s2 c 4 + s4 c 2 s2 −4c2 s2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 4 ⎥
⎢ C 22 ⎥ ⎢ s 2c 2 2
s c 4
4c 2 2
s ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
⎢ C 16 ⎥ ⎢ −c s cs (c − s ) cs 2cs (c − s ) ⎥
3 2 2 3 2 2
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ C 26 ⎦ ⎣ −cs3 cs (s2 − c2 ) c3 s 2cs (s2 − c2 ) ⎦
2
⎧⎡C 66 ⎤ ⎡ c2 s2 ⎤⎫−2c⎡2 s2 c2 s2 (c2 − s2 )
⎤
⎨ C 44 C 13 ⎬ c 2 s2    
⎣ C 45 ⎦ ; ⎣ C 36 ⎦ = ⎣ cs −cs ⎦ C 44 C 13
; ; C 33 = C33
⎩ ⎭ 2 2 C55 C23
C 55 C 23 s c
(5)

6
here c = cos θ, s = sin θ and θ is a stacking sequence. In case of HSDTs (g (z) =
0), the constitutive equation is simplified for plane stress condition as given in
Reddy [10].
The weak form of static analysis of laminated composite plates is derived by
using the principle of virtual displacements according to Reddy [10]. For sake of
brevity, the weak form can be simply expressed as:
      
T T h
δεp Dp εp dΩ + δεs Ds εs dΩ = δw0 + g δβz qdΩ (6)
Ω Ω Ω 2
where q is the transverse loading per unit area and
⎡ ⎤
∂u0
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
ε0 ⎢ ∂x ⎥
⎢ ε1 ⎥ ⎢ ∂v0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
εp = ⎣ ⎦ ; ε0 = ⎢ ∂y ⎥
ε2 ⎢ ∂u0 ∂v0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
ε3 ⎣ ∂y + ∂x ⎦
0
⎡ 2 ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ (7)
∂ w0 ∂βx
⎢ ∂x2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ∂ 2w ⎥ ⎢ ∂x ⎥ 0
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ ∂βy ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ 0
ε1 = − ⎢ ∂y 2 ⎥ ; ε2 = ⎢ ∂y ⎥ ; ε3 = ⎢
⎣ 0
⎥
⎦
⎢ ∂ 2w ⎥ ⎢ ∂βx ∂βy ⎥
⎢ 2 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ∂x∂y ⎦ ⎣ ∂y + ∂x ⎦ βz
0 0
and ⎡ ⎤
A B E J  s1 
⎢ B D F L ⎥ D D s12
Dp = ⎢
⎣ E
⎥;D = (8)
F H O ⎦ s Ds12 Ds2
J L O P
here
Aij , Bij , Dij , Eij , Fij , Hij, Jij , Lij , Oij , Pij =
h
2  
1, z, z 2 , f (z) , zf (z) , f (z)2 , g  (z) , zg  (z) , f (z) g  (z) , g  (z)2 C ij dz
−h
2
h
2  
Dijs1 , Dijs12 , Dijs2 = f  (z)2 , f  (z) g (z) , g(z)2 C ij dz
−h
2
(9)

7
 Obviously, the weak form for HSDTs can be easily obtained from Eq. (6)
by omitting ε3 in Eq. (7) and the function g (z) in Eq. (9). Additionally, the
second derivative of displacement variable exists in the weak form. Hence, the
quasi-3D and HSDTs require C 1 -continuity of the approximation of displacement
variables. In this paper, the C 1 -continuity requirements will be naturally acquired
by exploiting IGA with its non-uniform rational B-Spline (NURBS) functions.
For sake of brevity, interested readers are encouraged to refer to several technical
papers [44, 26, 55] for complete application of NURBS functions in analysis of
composite plates.
As setting g (z) = 0, the popular HSDT models are well known. Indeed, there
are an enormous number of HSDTs which neglect the effect of thickness stretch-
ing have been presented in the literature. Moreover, it can be seen in Eq. (1) that
the function g (z) is explicitly equal to the derivative of function f (z). As a con-
sequence, for sake of simplicity, we consider a generalized approach for the trans-
verse shear function f (z) of the HSDT models. The effect of thickness stretching
based on the quasi-3D theory would be extensively investigated in Section 4.
From Eq. (2), it is straightforward that f (z) represents the nonlinear distribu-
tion of the transverse shear strains and stresses through the thickness of laminated
composite plates. The transverse shear functions f (z) are determined to fulfill
the tangential stress-free boundary conditions at the top and bottom surfaces of
the plates. Initially, polynomial functions were used by Ambartsumain [15] and
afterwards Kaczkowski [16], Panc [17], Reissner [18] and Levinson [19], Murthy
[21], Reddy [20] also proposed the different polynomial functions, namely KPR
model and LMR model in Table 1, respectively. In the aspect of mathematics, the
polynomial form is the simplest and most convenient function, thus be used to fa-
cilitate mathematical difficulty of HSDTs in closed-form solution. Consequently,
the LMR model [19, 21, 20] was widely used in the analysis of laminated com-
posite plate due to its simplicity. Moreover, in order to find the optimal function
yielding the best accurate solutions, it is easy to optimize this kind of function
by choosing polynomial coefficients. Recently, Nguyen-Xuan [44] proposed a
fifth order shear deformation theory for analysis of composite sandwich plates.
Following polynomial functions, the trigonometric functions were subsequently
proposed in the work of Levy [22], Stein [23], Touratier [24] (LST model). Then
numerous trigonometric functions and their inverse functions were presented in
literature [25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. Based on Fourier development series, Kamara [30]
implied that exponential function is very much richer than trigonometric func-
tion. Therefore, Kamara [30], Aydogdu [31] and Mantari3 [32] proposed three
exponential function to consider the shear deformation effects. In the process of

8
investigating the shear deformation effects, many complex functions were further
introduced in the literature such as hyperbolic functions [36], mixed functions
[39]. A variety of transverse shear functions are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Various transverse shear functions of analysis shear deformation effect

Model f (z)

Polynomial functions
h2 z3
Ambartsumain [15] z−
f (z) =
8 6
Kaczkowski [16], Panc [17] 5z 5z 3
f (z) = − 2
and Reissner [18] (KPR) 4 3h
Levinson [19], Murthy [21] 4z 3
f (z) = z − 2
and Reddy [20] (LMR) 3h
7z 2z 3 2z 5
Nguyen-Xuan [44] f (z) = − 2 + 4
8 h h
Trigonometric functions
Levy [22], Stein [23] h  πz 
f (z) = sin
and Touratier [24] (LST) π h
 πz 
Arya [25] f (z) = sin
h  
2z
Thai1 [26] f (z) = −z + htan−1
h  
mh
2 1
Mantari1 [27] f (z) = tan (mz) − mzsec ;m=
 2  5h
mh π
Mantari2 [27] f (z) = tan (mz) − mzsec2 ;m=
  2 2h
rh 4r
Grover1 [28] f (z) = cot−1 −z ; r = 0.46
 rzz h (4r
 r +
2
 1) r r
Grover2 [28] f (z) = z sec − z sec 1 + tan ; r = 0.1
h  2 2 2
−1 rz 16rz 3
Nguyen [29] f (z) = htan − 2 2 ;r=1
h 3h (r + 4)
Hyperbolic functions
z   
1
Soldatos [33] f (z) = h sinh − z cosh
h 2

9
 h  πz 
sinh −z
Meiche [34] f (z) = π  πh −z
cosh −1
2   
3π π 3π 2 1
Akavci1 [35] f (z) = h tanh − zsech
2  2h  2 2
πz π   π  π 
Akavci2 [35] f (z) = zsech − zsech 1 − tanh
h 
2 4 2 4
h 2z 4 z3
Mahi [36] f (z) = tanh −
2 h
 rz  3cosh2 (1) h2
2r
Grover3 [37] f (z) = sinh−1 −z √ ;r=3
h h r2 + 4
Exponential functions

z 2
−2
Karama [30] f (z) = z × e h
−2  z 2
Aydogdu [31] f (z) = z × 3 log 3 h
 2
z
−2
Mantari3 [32] f (z) = z × 2.85 h + 0.028z
Combination functions
1  πz 
 πz  cos
Mantari4 [38] f (z) = sin × e2 h + πz
h  
z 2h
z  m cosh
f (z) = sinh ×e h
h ⎛ ⎞
Mantari5 [39]
     1
m cosh⎝ ⎠
z 1 1 2 ; m = −6
− cosh + msinh2 ×e
h 2 2 
z
z  m cosh
f (z) = sinh ×e h
h ⎛ ⎞
Mantari6 [39]
     1
m cosh⎝ ⎠
z 1 1 2 ; m = −7
− cosh + msinh2 ×e
h 2 2

10
 
nz 
m cos
f (z) = h
⎡ z × e n  ⎤
n
Mantari7 [40] m cos 1  n  m cos
−z × ⎣e 2 − mn sin ×e 2 ⎦ ; m = 1, n = 2.9
2 2
  πz 
−1
Thai2 [41] f (z) = tan sin
  hπz 
Thai3 [41] f (z) = sinh−1 sin
h

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 LMR Model

Thai1 Model
z/h

0 Mahi Model
Kamara Model
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
f'(z)
Figure 2: The derivative of typical transverse shear functions.

It can be seen from Table 1 that the numerous transverse shear functions are
proposed to give the mechanical response of the laminated composite plates as
much close as possible to the exact 3D elasticity solution [2, 3]. Nevertheless,
from the first simple polynomial function Ambartsumain [15], these functions
become more and more complicated (e.g., [40, 39, 35]). Consequently, it turns
out unnecessary burdensome to address the shear deformation effects in analysis

11
of laminated composite plates. From the beginning our objective was so robust, to
propose a unified, simple formulation which can represent all existing transverse
shear functions. For this purpose, Fig. 2 illustrates the first derivative of typical
transverse shear functions. In general, despite the fact that the models presented
Fig. 2 are completely different from the mathematical perspective, their derivative
which describe the shear deformation effect are symmetric and even through the
thickness of plates. On account of this observation, it is supposed that all existing
transverse shear functions can be approximated by a unified and novel polynomial
forms as follows

∞
f (z) ≈ d2n−1 z 2n−1 = d1 z + d3 z 3 + d5 z 5 + d7 z 7 . . . (10)
n=1

which yields the derivative f  (z) is even and symmetric function through thick-
ness direction.

∞

f (z) ≈ (2n − 1) d2n−1 z 2n−2 = d1 + 3d3 z 2 + 5d5 z 4 + 7d7 z 6 . . . (11)
n=1

The fact is that there are the variety forms of transverse shear functions are
proposed in the literature, however, their derivatives are in the parabolic shape
as shown in Fig. 2 which can be covered by the polynomial function given in
Eq. (11). Furthermore, since it is possible to infinitely select the coefficients
d1 , d3 , d5 . . ., the transverse shear function given in Eq. (10) might contain many
unknown functions.
For example, let us determine the coefficients d1 , d3 , d5 in Eq. (10) in order de-
fine an equivalent model of the first trigonometric model (LST model [22, 23, 24]).
In order to determine three coefficients, three independent equations which are
obtained by equalizing Eq. (10) and an original function at three specific value
are required. Therefore, the polynomial coefficients d1 , d3 , d5 can be defined by

12
solving the system equations as follows
⎧  
⎪ 2 4 h π (0)
⎪
⎪ z = 0 : d1 + 3d3 (0) + 5d5 (0) = sin
⎪
⎪ π h ⎡  ⎤
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ h
⎪
⎪  2  4 π
⎪
⎪ h h h h ⎢ 4 ⎥
⎪
⎨ z = : d1 + 3d3 + 5d5 = sin ⎢ ⎥
4 4 4 π ⎣ h ⎦
(12)
⎪
⎪ ⎡  ⎤
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪  2  4
h
⎪
⎪ ⎢ π
⎪
⎪ h h h h 2 ⎥
⎪ z = : d1 + 3d3
⎪ + 5d5 = sin ⎢⎣ h ⎦
⎥
⎪
⎪ 2 2 2 π
⎩

1.6384 0.732
which gives d1 = 1, d3 = − 2
, d5 = .
h h4
The list of three coefficients d1 , d3 , d5 of the fifth order approximation for all
existing transverse shear functions are given in Table 2. It is clear that the trans-
verse shear function proposed by Kamara [30] and Aydogdu [31] are exactly iden-
tical from viewpoint of mathematical equivalence. Fig. 3 shows the transverse
shear functions of two typical models and their cubic, quintic approximation. It
is evident that two models well converge with quintic approximation and LST
model [22, 23, 24] converges more rapidly than Grover3 counterpart [37] due to
its simplicity.
0.5 0.5
LST Model
0.4 LST Cubic App. 0.4
LST Quintic App.
0.3 0.3
Grover3 Model
0.2 Grover3 Cubic App. 0.2
Grover3 Quintic App. LST Model
0.1 0.1 LST Cubic App.
LST Quantic App.
z/h
z/h

0 0 Grover3 Model
Grover3 Cubic App.
-0.1 -0.1
Grover3 Quantic App.
-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3

-0.4 -0.4

-0.5 -0.5
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
f(z) f'(z)

Figure 3: The transverse shear functions and their approximated functions.

13
 Table 2: The approximated quintic polynomial functions f (z) = d1 z + d3 z 3 + d5 z 5 .

Model d1 d3 d5

Polynomial functions
Ambartsumain [15] 0.125h2 −0.1667 0
Kaczkowski [16], Panc [17] 1.6667
1.25 − 0
and Reissner [18] (KPR) h2

Levinson [19], Murthy [21] 1.3333

1 − 0
and Reddy [20] (LMR) h2
2 2
Nguyen-Xuan [44] 0.875 − 2
h h4

Trigonometric functions
Levy [22], Stein [23] 1.6384 0.732
1 −
and Touratier [24] (LST) h2 h4
3.1416 5.147 2.2998
Arya [25] − 3
h h h5
2.4 2.56
Thai1 [26] 1 − 2
h h4
2.0134 × 10−3 2.6667 × 10−3 4.2971 × 10−5
Mantari1 [27] −
h h3 h5
1.5708 1.2184 2.1025
Mantari2 [27] −
h h3 h5
Grover1 [28]
0.005 2.087 × 10−5
Grover2 [28] −3.7565 × 10−3
h2 h4
1.3961 0.15059
Nguyen [29] 1 −
h2 h4

Hyperbolic functions
0.1667 8.4205 × 10−3
Soldatos [33] −0.1276
h2 h4
1.0851 0.5958
Meiche [34] −1
h2 h4
1.5629 0.5306
Akavci1 [35] 1.0063 −
h2 h4
0.2115 2.7653
Akavci2 [35] 1.0227 − −
h2 h4

14
 1.8208 1.1698
Mahi [36] 1 −
h2 h4
1.3359 3.6729 4.5402
Grover3 [37] −
h h3 h5

Exponential functions
1.96 1.504
Karama [30] 1 −
h2 h4
1.96 1.504
Aydogdu [31] 1 − 2
h h4
2.0491 1.6282
Mantari3 [56] 1.028 −
h2 h4

Combination functions
6.7504 19.29 24.694
Mantari4 [38] −
h h3 h5
3.0569 × 10−3 6.8003 × 10−3 6.5385 × 10−3
Mantari5 [39] −
h h3 h5
1.2004 × 10−3 2.9078 × 10−3 3.1373 × 10−3
Mantari6 [39] −
h h3 h5
10.097 13.947
Mantari7 [40] 3.214 −
h2 h4
3.1416 10.413 14.937
Thai2 [41] −
h h3 h5
3.1416 8.0458 9.2569
Thai3 [41] −
h h3 h5

According to Table 2, it is obvious that all available functions listed in Ta-

ble 1 can be explicitly approximated in form of a unified polynomial form. It
is predicted that the present approach is theoretically capable of covering all re-
maining shear functions in literature as well as new unknown shear functions. The
accuracy and efficiency of the proposed unified formulation for transverse shear
functions is demonstrated by two following numerical examples.

2.2. Numerical validations

In order to show the accuracy of the present unified framework, let us consider
symmetric cross-ply three layers [00 /900 /00 ] and four layers [00 /900 /900 /00 ] square
composite plates. The length to thickness ratio is taken as a/h = 4 unless speci-
fied mention. The composite
 πx  plates
 πy  are subjected to sinusoidally distributed load
q (x, y) = q0 sin sin with full simply supported boundary conditions
a a

15
as shown in Fig. 4. The material properties, the normalized deflection and stresses
are defined according to the exact 3D elasticity solution of Pagano [2, 3]
• Material properties:
E1 = 25E2 , E3 = E2 , G12 = G13 = 0.5E2 , G23 = 0.2E2 , ν12 = ν23 =
ν13 = 0.25.

• For three layers [00 /900 /00 ]:

 
100E2 h3  a a  h2 a a h
w= w0 , , 0 , σ xx = σxx , ,−
q 0 a4  2 2  q 0 a2  2 2 2
h2 a a h h2 h
σ yy = σ yy , , − , τ xy = τxy 0, 0, −
q0 a 2 2 2 6 q0 a 2 2
h  a  h a 
τ xz = τxz 0, , 0 , τ yz = τyz , 0, 0
q0 a 2 q0 a 2

• For four layer [00 /900 /900 /00 ]:

 
100E2 h3  a a  h2 a a h
w= w0 , , 0 , σ xx = σxx , ,
q 0 a4  2 2  q0 a2  2 2 2
h2 a a h h2 h
σ yy = σ yy , , , τ xy = τ xy 0, 0,
q 0 a2 2 2 4 q 0 a2 2
h  a  h a 
τ xz = τxz 0, , 0 , τ yz = τyz , 0, 0
q0 a 2 q0 a 2

According to Reddy [20] and Wu et al. [42], it is stated that the shear stress
obtained by using the constitutive equation are on the low accuracy than using
the equilibrium equation compared to 3D solution [2, 3]. In addition, the shear
stress computed by the equilibrium equation gives the unique value transverse
shear stress which means no stress discontinuity. Hence, in this study the shear
stresses are computed by integrating the equilibrium equation as follows

τxz = −  (σxx,x + τxy,y )dz
(13)
τyz = − (τxy,x + σyy,y )dz

The convergence of the normalized deflection and stresses of three layers

[0 /900 /00 ] square composite plate is first investigated in Table 3. In this paper,
0

the composite plate is modelled with 17 × 17 elements as tested in [44]. Table 3

presents the normalized results with respect to the order (2n − 1) of the approxi-
mation in Eq. (10). The trigonometric model (Mantari1 [27]), exponential model

16
 Figure 4: Geometry of square laminated plate under sinusoidally distributed load.

(Kamara [30]), hyperbolic model (Grover3 [37]) and mixed model (Mantari6 [39])
are used to show the convergence of the present unified approach. The percentage
errors compared between the equivalent polynomial with original model are given
in parenthesis. It is observed that trigonometric model (Mantari1 [27]) converges
rapidly with only fifth order polynomial whereas the others require the 7th order
of approximated polynomial functions for an excellent convergence. Henceforth
the following numerical results are gained by approximating 7th order polynomial
functions.
Table 3: The convergence of the deflection and stresses of three layer [00 /900 /00 ] square compos-
ite plate with respect to the approximation order (2n − 1).

Model Order 3 5 7 Original

Mantari1 [27] w 1.9218 (0.0208) 1.9214 (0.0000) 1.9214 (0.0000) 1.9214
σ xx 0.7310 (0.0821) 0.7304 (0.0000) 0.7304 (0.0000) 0.7304
σ yy 0.5017 (0.0000) 0.5017 (0.0000) 0.5017 (0.0000) 0.5017
τ xy 0.0495 (0.0000) 0.0495 (0.0000) 0.0495 (0.0000) 0.0495
τ xz 0.2813 (0.0710) 0.2815 (0.0000) 0.2815 (0.0000) 0.2815
τ yz 0.2023 (0.0000) 0.2023 (0.0000) 0.2023 (0.0000) 0.2023
Kamara [30] w 1.9218 (1.1013) 1.9416 (0.0823) 1.9433 (0.0051) 1.9432
σ xx 0.7310 (5.3599) 0.7767 (0.5567) 0.7722 (0.0259) 0.7724
σ yy 0.5017 (0.0199) 0.5012 (0.1196) 0.5018 (0.0000) 0.5018
τ xy 0.0495 (3.6965) 0.0516 (0.3891) 0.0514 (0.0000) 0.0514
τ xz 0.2813 (4.4560) 0.2686 (0.2599) 0.2693 (0.0000) 0.2693
τ yz 0.2023 (0.1481) 0.2025 (0.0494) 0.2027 (0.0494) 0.2026

17
 Grover3 [37] w 1.9218 (1.6932) 1.9201 (1.7801) 1.9625 (0.3888) 1.9549
σ xx 0.7310 (9.1248) 0.8369 (4.0403) 0.7916 (1.5912) 0.8044
σ yy 0.5017 (0.2598) 0.491 (1.8785) 0.5022 (0.3597) 0.5004
τ xy 0.0495 (6.6038) 0.0535 (0.9434) 0.0528 (0.3774) 0.053
τ xz 0.2813 (9.1156) 0.2540 (1.4740) 0.2583 (0.1939) 0.2578
τ yz 0.2023 (0.1981) 0.1990 (1.4364) 0.2027 (0.3962) 0.2019
Mantari6 [39] w 1.9218 (1.2334) 1.9370 (0.4523) 1.9464 (0.0308) 1.9458
σ xx 0.7310 (8.7391) 0.8120 (1.3733) 0.8001 (0.1124) 0.8010
σ yy 0.5017 (0.4807) 0.4969 (0.4807) 0.4995 (0.0401) 0.4993
τ xy 0.0495 (5.8935) 0.0528 (0.3802) 0.0526 (0.0000) 0.0526
τ xz 0.2813 (7.7778) 0.2597 (0.4981) 0.2610 (0.0000) 0.2610
τ yz 0.2023 (0.1981) 0.2011 (0.3962) 0.2019 (0.0000) 0.2019

For comparison, Table 4 expresses the numerical results of the rest of the
transverse shear functions for three layers [00 /900 /00 ] square composite plate.
The unified models which are equivalent to original models are called U-Model.
The normalized results of four layers [00 /900 /900 /00 ] square composite plate are
obtained in Table 5. Two significant observations are drawn from Table 4 and
Table 5 as follows
(i) The present unified approach is highly effective and applicable, irrespective
of the complexity of transverse shear functions. There always exists a poly-
nomial function corresponding to an original transverse shear function so
that the results are almost coincide.
(ii) In the current HSDT framework, the deflection and stresses obtained based
on the generalized displacement field Eq. (1), are not affected by the linear
combinations of transverse shear functions f1 (z) = αf (z) where α are
constants. For instant, the KPR Model [16, 17, 18] and LMR [19, 21, 20]
10
are the linear combination of Ambartsumain [15] with coefficient α = 2
h
8
and α = 2 , respectively. As an consequence, the static results of three
h
models are exactly identical as shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Similarly,
the model of LST [22, 23, 24] and Arya [25] are equivalent with coefficient
π
α= .
h

18
Table 4: The normalized deflection and stresses of three layers [00 /900 /00 ] square composite plate
using original and unified model.

Model w σ xx σ yy τ xy τ xz τ yz
3D Pagano [2]) 2.0060 0.7550 0.5560 0.0505 0.2560 0.2170
Ambartsumain [15] 1.9218 0.7310 0.5017 0.0495 0.2813 0.2023
KPR [16, 17, 18] 1.9218 0.7310 0.5017 0.0495 0.2813 0.2023
LMR [19, 21, 20] 1.9218 0.7310 0.5017 0.0495 0.2813 0.2023
Nguyen-Xuan [44] 1.9405 0.8015 0.4986 0.0525 0.2623 0.2017
LST [22, 23, 24] 1.9346 0.7520 0.5021 0.0505 0.2753 0.2027
U-LST 1.9346 0.7520 0.5021 0.0505 0.2753 0.2027
Arya [25] 1.9346 0.7520 0.5021 0.0505 0.2753 0.2027
U-Arya 1.9346 0.7520 0.5021 0.0505 0.2753 0.2027
Thai1 [26] 1.9515 0.7914 0.5012 0.0524 0.2626 0.2024
U-Thai1 1.9541 0.7867 0.5018 0.0523 0.2628 0.2027
Mantari2 [27] 1.8859 0.6878 0.4986 0.0474 0.2934 0.2008
U-Mantari2 1.8860 0.6885 0.4986 0.0474 0.2933 0.2008
Grover1 [28] 1.9526 0.7981 0.5007 0.0527 0.2604 0.2022
U-Grover1 1.9566 0.7914 0.5016 0.0526 0.2606 0.2026
Nguyen.V.H [29] 1.9248 0.7350 0.5019 0.0497 0.2801 0.2024
U-Nguyen.V.H 1.9248 0.7350 0.5019 0.0497 0.2801 0.2024
Soldatos [33] 1.9204 0.7291 0.5016 0.0495 0.2819 0.2023
U-Soldatos 1.9204 0.7291 0.5016 0.0495 0.2819 0.2023
Meiche [34] 1.9082 0.7136 0.5007 0.0487 0.2863 0.2018
U-Meiche 1.9082 0.7136 0.5007 0.0487 0.2863 0.2018
Akavci1 [35] 1.9315 0.7457 0.5021 0.0502 0.2770 0.2026
U-Akavci1 1.9315 0.7457 0.5021 0.0502 0.2770 0.2026
Akavci2 [35] 1.8598 0.6871 0.4956 0.0468 0.2977 0.1997
U-Akavci2 1.8600 0.6859 0.4956 0.0468 0.2977 0.1997
Mahi [36] 1.9410 0.7599 0.5024 0.0510 0.2724 0.2028
U-Mahi 1.9413 0.759 0.5025 0.0509 0.2725 0.2028
Aydogdu [31] 1.9432 0.7724 0.5018 0.0514 0.2693 0.2026
U-Aydogdu 1.9433 0.7722 0.5018 0.0514 0.2693 0.2026
Mantari3 [56] 1.9438 0.7745 0.5017 0.0515 0.2687 0.2026
U-Mantari3 1.9439 0.7743 0.5017 0.0515 0.2687 0.2026
Mantari4 [38] 1.9424 0.8208 0.4964 0.0534 0.2546 0.2007
U-Mantari4 1.9457 0.8165 0.4972 0.0533 0.2547 0.2010
Mantari5 [39] 1.9461 0.7892 0.5006 0.0521 0.2644 0.2023

19
 U-Mantari5 1.9463 0.7888 0.5007 0.0521 0.2644 0.2023

Table 5: The normalized deflection and stresses of four layers [00 /900 /900 /00 ] square composite
plate using original and equivalent model.

Model w σ xx σ yy τ xy τ xz τ yz
3D Pagano [3]) 1.9540 0.7200 0.6630 0.0467 0.2190 0.2910
Ambartsumain [15] 1.8936 0.6617 0.6305 0.0439 0.2269 0.2804
KPR [16, 17, 18] 1.8936 0.6617 0.6305 0.0439 0.2269 0.2804
LMR [19, 21, 20] 1.8936 0.6617 0.6305 0.0439 0.2269 0.2804
Nguyen-Xuan [44] 1.9218 0.7232 0.6341 0.0469 0.2174 0.2768
LST [22, 23, 24] 1.9088 0.6796 0.6332 0.0449 0.2237 0.2799
U-LST 1.9088 0.6796 0.6332 0.0449 0.2237 0.2799
Arya [25] 1.9088 0.6796 0.6332 0.0449 0.2237 0.2799
U-Arya 1.9088 0.6796 0.6332 0.0449 0.2237 0.2799
Thai1 [26] 1.9258 0.7121 0.6366 0.0466 0.2183 0.2768
U-Thai1 1.9274 0.7072 0.6373 0.0465 0.2186 0.2770
Mantari1 1.8931 0.6612 0.6304 0.0439 0.2270 0.2804
U-Mantari1 [27] 1.8931 0.6612 0.6304 0.0439 0.2270 0.2804
Mantari2 [27] 1.8520 0.6249 0.6229 0.0418 0.2339 0.2796
U-Mantari2 1.8522 0.6256 0.6229 0.0418 0.2338 0.2796
Nguyen.V.H [29] 1.8970 0.6651 0.6311 0.0441 0.2262 0.2803
U-Nguyen.V.H 1.8970 0.6651 0.6311 0.0441 0.2262 0.2803
Soldatos [33] 1.8920 0.6601 0.6302 0.0438 0.2272 0.2804
U-Soldatos 1.8920 0.6601 0.6302 0.0438 0.2272 0.2804
Meiche [34] 1.8779 0.6469 0.6276 0.0430 0.2297 0.2803
U-Meiche 1.8779 0.647 0.6276 0.0430 0.2297 0.2803
Akavci1 [35] 1.9049 0.6742 0.6325 0.0446 0.2246 0.2801
U-Akavci1 1.9049 0.6742 0.6326 0.0446 0.2246 0.2801
Akavci2 1.8332 0.6272 0.6184 0.0415 0.2349 0.2806
U-Akavci2 [35] 1.8331 0.626 0.6185 0.0414 0.2349 0.2806
Mahi [36] 1.9147 0.6859 0.6345 0.0452 0.2225 0.2794
U-Mahi 1.9148 0.6850 0.6346 0.0452 0.2225 0.2794
Grover3 [37] 1.9257 0.7220 0.6373 0.0471 0.2170 0.2745
U-Grover3 1.9303 0.7086 0.6393 0.0468 0.2176 0.2750
Karama [30] 1.9193 0.6970 0.6350 0.0458 0.2208 0.2789
U-Kamara 1.9193 0.6967 0.6350 0.0458 0.2208 0.2789

20
 Aydogdu [31] 1.9193 0.697 0.6350 0.0458 0.2208 0.2789
U-Aydogdu 1.9193 0.6967 0.6350 0.0458 0.2208 0.2789
Mantari3 [56] 1.9201 0.6988 0.6351 0.0459 0.2205 0.2788
U-Mantari3 1.9201 0.6985 0.6351 0.0458 0.2205 0.2788
Mantari4 [38] 1.9196 0.7377 0.6344 0.0476 0.2153 0.2730
U-Mantari4 1.9221 0.7331 0.6353 0.0475 0.2154 0.2733
Mantari5 [39] 1.9237 0.7114 0.6355 0.0465 0.2187 0.2776
U-Mantari5 1.9238 0.7109 0.6356 0.0464 0.2187 0.2776
Mantari6 [39] 1.9242 0.7215 0.6353 0.0469 0.2173 0.2763
U-Mantari6 1.9246 0.7205 0.6355 0.0469 0.2173 0.2764

It is worth noting that the proposed unified polynomial function has endowed with
a unified linkage for HSDTs models available in literature. It brings to readership
a new idea for further researches on laminated composite plate analysis. As afore-
mentioned discussion, the superiority of the proposed unified formulation is the
flexibility in choosing the polynomial coefficients. Furthermore, it is essential to
observe from Table 4 and Table 5 that although extensive research efforts have
been made to propose various transverse shear functions, there is a relatively gap
between all existing model and the benchmark results (exact 3D elasticity solu-
tion of Pagano [2, 3]), especially transverse shear stresses. Based on the idea of
polynomial functions, in next Section, we illustrate a typical way to determine the
transverse shear function of polynomial form. In fact, this choice is not a general
case, and therefore the readership could utilize an optimization tool such as ge-
netic algorithms, particle swarm optimization, etc, to find new optimal functions
in future researches.

3. A novel approach to transverse shear function

3.1. On polynomial transverse shear function
According to two observations of the preceding numerical examples, we pro-
pose the novel polynomial transverse shear function presented as the following
form
f (z) = z + d3 z 3 + d5 z 5 + d7 z 7 . . . (14)
The traction boundary condition at top and bottom surfaces of plate is appar-
ently the requisite requirement. Therefore, there are not much more two unknown

21
coefficients needed to be determined. For instant, let us consider the quintic poly-
nomial as follows
f (z) = z + d3 z 3 + d5 z 5 (15)
Due to the zero-traction boundary condition at top and bottom of plate, Eq. (15)
yields  
16 3h2
d5 = − 4 1 + d3 (16)
5h 4
Consequently, there is only the value of d3 of the quintic polynomial in Eq. (15)
that needs to be optimized to achieve the most accurate solution in comparison
with the exact 3D solution of Pagano [2, 3]. Here we find out the optimal d3 to
minimize the average error of symmetric cross-ply three layers [00 /900 /00 ] plates
subjected a sinusoidal load. The exact 3D solutions are given in Table 4. The vari-
ation of average error with respect to d3 is illustrated in Fig. 5. The average error
of two polynomial models derived from Reddy [20] (PHSDT [20]) and Nguyen-
Xuan et al. [44] (PHSDT [44]) in comparison with the present method is given
in Fig. 5. It can be observed that the minimum average error is obtained as d3 is
17
equal to − .
10h2
In case of using 7th polynomial form, two coefficients d3 and d5 need to be
optimized and the last one is computed by
 
64 3d3 5d5
d7 = − 6 1 + 2 + (17)
7h 4h 16h4

The variation of average error with respect to two coefficients d3 and d5 of

symmetric cross-ply three layers [00 /900 /00 ] square plates is depicted in Fig. 6.
87 169
As a consequence, two coefficients d3 and d5 are decided as − and ,
20h 2 10h4
respectively.
Generally, in order to obtain an optimal polynomial function for multi-
objective optimization of general layers and stacking sequences, the optimization
tool should be strongly recommended. Eventually, with aforementioned ideas, we
introduce four new transverse shear functions as follows
17 3 22 5
• present 1: f (z) = z − z + z
10h 2 25h4
11 3 52 5
• present 2: f (z) = z − z + z
5h2 25h4

22
 25
present
PHSDT []
PHSDT [4]
20
Average error (%)

15

10

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
d3/h2
d3
Figure 5: The variation of average error with respect to 2 of three layers [00 /900 /00 ] square
h
composites plates.

23
 55
50
45
40
Average error (%)

35
30
25
20
15 20
19
10 18
5 17 4
0 16 d5/h
0 -1 15
-2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 14
d3/h2 -8

d3 d5
Figure 6: The variation of average error with respect to 2 and 4 of three layers [00 /900 /00 ]
h h
square composites plates.

24
 87 3 169 5 138 7
• present 3: f (z) = z − z + z − 6z
20h 2 10h4 5h
11 3 2 8 7
• present 4: f (z) = z − z + 4 z5 + z
5h 2 h 35h6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
LMR
0.1 Nguyen-Xuan
present 1
z/h

0 present 2
present 3
-0.1
present 4
-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
f'(z)
Figure 7: The derivative of the novel polynomial transverse shear functions and two existing
polynomial functions.

It is apparent that such proposed functions above are completely flexible by mean
of polynomial coefficients. Thus, the readership could choose a better polynomial
function for analysis of multilayer composite plates. Despite the fact that these
functions are not defined by an optimization tool, the following results obtained
are greatly accurate and reliable. In fact, using optimization tool is out of our
research’s scope in this paper.

3.2. Numerical validations

In order to show the accuracy of the present formulation, let us consider sym-
metric cross-ply three layers [00 /900 /00 ] and four layers [00 /900 /900 /00 ] square
composite plates as tested in the previous section. Fig. 7 depicts the derivative of

25
the proposed functions in comparison to existing ones. It is conscious of the fact
that all proposed models in Fig. 7 are normalized to be the same unit peak. It is
interesting that the present model 3 behaves quite specially, expand at the top, bot-
tom surface and contract at the centre which leads to the prediction of improving
the accuracy of the present model 3.
Let us consider the three layers [00 /900 /00 ] square composite plates. The
loading type and boundary conditions are sinusoidal load and full simply sup-
ported, respectively. Table 6 presents the comparison of the deflection and five
stresses term. Various researches on investigating laminated composite plates
using zigzag theory (ZZ [57, 58, 8]), layer-wise theory (LW [59]), global-local
theory using four-node quadrilateral and three-node triangular element (GL [42])
and exponential high order shear deformation theory (EHSDT [32]), hyperbolic
high order shear deformation theory (HHSDT [39, 37]), trigonometric high order
shear deformation theory (THSDT [27, 26]), polynomial high order shear defor-
mation theory (PHSDT [60, 20]) are compared to the present results. The exact
3D elasticity solution of Pagano [2] are taken as the benchmark results. The nor-
malized forms are used as given in the previous example. The percentage errors
are computed for deflection and stresses in parenthesis and the average error is
also computed in the last column.
Table 6: Comparison of the normalized deflection and stresses of three layer [00 /900 /00 ] square
composite plate subjected to sinusoidal load

Model w σ xx σ yy τ xy τ xz τ yz Avr. err.

Exact [2] 2.0060 0.7550 0.5560 0.0505 0.2560 0.2170
ZZ [57] 1.9646 0.7843 0.5220 0.0515 0.2387 0.1901
(2.0638) (3.8808) (6.1151) (1.9802) (6.7578) (12.3963) 5.5323
ZZ [58] 1.9597 0.7819 0.5195 0.0510 0.2335 0.1885
(2.3081) (3.5629) (6.5647) (0.9901) (8.7891) (13.1336) 5.8914
ZZ [8] 1.9254 0.7770 0.5145 0.0505 0.2243 0.1797
(4.0179) (2.9139) (7.4640) (0.0000) (12.3828) (17.1889) 7.3279
LW [59] 2.0140 0.8310 0.5490 0.0526 0.2330 0.2140
(0.3988) (10.0662) (1.2590) (4.1584) (8.9844) (1.3825) 4.3749
GL-PT [42] 2.0724 0.7669 0.5764 0.0523 0.2576 0.2152
(3.3101) (1.5762) (3.6691) (3.5644) (0.6250) (0.8295) 2.2624
GL-PQ [42] 2.0557 0.8435 0.5610 0.0522 0.2569 0.2205
(2.4776) (11.7219) (0.8993) (3.3663) (0.3516) (1.6129) 3.4049
EHSDT [32] 1.9427 0.7910 0.5010 0.0520 0.2230 0.1930
(3.1555) (4.7682) (9.8921) (2.9703) (12.8906) (11.0599) 7.4561

26
 HHSDT [39] 1.9470 0.7920 0.5010 0.0524 0.2280 0.1950
(2.9412) (4.9007) (9.8921) (3.7624) (10.9375) (10.1382) 7.0953
HHSDT [37] 1.9550 0.8079 0.5015 0.0532 0.2438 0.2019
(2.5424) (7.0066) (9.8022) (5.3465) (4.7656) (6.9585) 6.0703
THSDT [27] 1.9222 0.7330 0.5020 0.0500 0.2020 0.1830
(4.1775) (2.9139) (9.7122) (0.9901) (21.0938) (15.6682) 9.0926
THSDT [26] 1.9515 0.7955 0.5020 0.0526 0.1974 0.2331
(2.7168) (5.3642) (9.7122) (4.1584) (22.8906) (7.4194) 8.7103
PHSDT [44] 1.9405 0.8056 0.4994 0.0526 0.1945 0.2295
(3.2652) (6.7020) (10.1799) (4.1584) (24.0234) (5.7604) 9.0149
PHSDT [20] 1.9218 0.7340 - - 0.1830 -
(4.1974) (2.7815) - - (28.5156) - 11.8315
present 1 1.9364 0.7573 0.5020 0.0507 0.2739 0.2027
(3.4696) (0.3046) (9.7122) (0.3960) (6.9922) (6.5899) 4.5774
present 2 1.9417 0.7950 0.4995 0.0522 0.2639 0.2020
(3.2054) (5.2980) (10.1619) (3.3663) (3.0859) (6.9124) 5.3383
present 3 1.9816 0.7538 0.5064 0.0523 0.2583 0.2036
(1.2164) (0.1589) (8.9209) (3.5644) (0.8984) (6.1751) 3.4890
present 4 1.9410 0.7966 0.4992 0.0523 0.2636 0.2019
(3.2403) (5.5099) (10.2158) (3.5644) (2.9688) (6.9585) 5.4096

Comparing the average error, it indicates that all present results are in excel-
lent agreement with the exact solution [2] for both fifth order and seventh order
polynomial. As would be expected, the present model 3 attain the best solution
among four present models and there is only GL-PQ model [42] can obtain the
better results than the present model 3. Among all high order shear deformation
models, all four present models gains the lower average errors and also obtain the
more precise shear stress. The distribution of stresses through the plate’s thick-
ness are plotted in Fig. 8 for the present model 3 and two existing polynomial
transverse shear functions by [20, 44]. Obviously, the present model 3 not only
obtains the most precise results at specific point but also provides the almost exact
stress’s distribution through the plate’s thickness in comparison with 3D elasticity
[2] as illustrated in Fig. 8. Since the shear stress τ xz and τ yz are computed by the
equilibrium equation Eq. (13), there is no shear stress discontinuity phenomenon
at interface between two adjacent layers. It should be noticed that the plotting of
3D solutions [2] are extracted from the paper of Wu et al. [42].
Next the static behaviours of a four layers [00 /900 /900 /00 ] square simply

27
 0.5 0.5
3D Pagano 3D Pagano
0.4 0.4 LMR
LMR
Nguyen-Xuan
Nguyen-Xuan
0.3 0.3 present 3
present 3
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

z/h
z/h

0 0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3
-0.4 -0.4
-0.5 -0.5
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
ZZ [[

0.5 0.5
3D Pagano
0.4 0.4
LMR
Nguyen-Xuan 0.3
0.3
present 3
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 3D Pagano

LMR
z/h
z/h

0 0 Nguyen-Xuan
present 3
-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3
-0.4 -0.4
-0.5 -0.5
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
! Z[ ! Z\
0.5
3D Pagano
0.4 LMR
Nguyen-Xuan
0.3
present 3
0.2

0.1
z/h

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
28
-0.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
! [\
 
Figure 8: Stress distribution of three layers 00 /900 /00 square composite plate under sinusoidal
load.
supported composite plate under sinusoidal load is investigated. Table 9 presents
some referred results using zigzag theory (ZZ [57, 58, 8]), layer-wise theory
([61, 62, 63, 64, 65]),e.g. Although present model 3 is nominated as the best
choice for three layers composite plates as discussed in previous example, for
four layers the present model 4 attains the most accurate results, the average error
is merely 1.8766%, even better than some LW and ZZ results as expressed in Ta-
ble 7. The rest of all present models also agree very well to 3D solution and the
present model 2 yields the better solution than other HSDT models even though
it is a simple fifth polynomial function. Fig. 9 illustrates the distribution of stress
through thickness of plates based on two existing polynomial function by [20, 44]
and the present model 3 and 4.
Table 7: Comparison of the normalized deflection and stresses of four layer [00 /900 /900 /00 ]
square composite plate subjected to sinusoidal load

Model w σ xx σ yy τ xy τ xz τ yz Avr. err.

Exact [3] 1.9540 0.7200 0.6630 0.0467 0.2190 0.2910
ZZ [57] 1.9283 0.7115 0.6510 0.0474 0.2362 0.2758
(1.3153) (1.1806) (1.8100) (1.4989) (7.8539) (5.2234) 3.1470
ZZ [58] 1.9273 0.7089 0.6454 0.0490 0.2332 0.2746
(1.3664) (1.5417) (2.6546) (4.9251) (6.4840) (5.6357) 3.7679
ZZ [8] 1.9016 0.7149 0.6391 0.0467 0.2366 0.2913
(2.6817) (0.7083) (3.6048) (0.0000) (8.0365) (0.1031) 2.5224
LW [61] 1.9060 0.6419 0.6257 0.0443 0.2169 -
(2.4565) (10.8472) (5.6259) (5.1392) (0.9589) - 5.0056
LW [62] 1.9075 0.6432 0.6228 0.0441 0.2166 -
(2.3797) (10.6667) (6.0633) (5.5675) (1.0959) - 5.1546
LW [63] 1.9091 0.6429 0.6265 0.0443 0.2173 -
(2.2979) (10.7083) (5.5053) (5.1392) (0.7763) - 4.8854
LW [64] 1.8931 0.6408 0.8506 0.0436 0.2160 -
(3.1167) (11.0000) (28.2956) (6.6381) (1.3699) - 10.0841
LW [65]) 1.9366 0.7201 0.6605 0.0467 0.2194 0.2915
(0.8895) (0.0153) (0.3710) (0.0000) (0.1689) (0.1821) 0.2711
HHSDT [39] 1.9247 0.7140 0.6370 0.0467 0.2350 0.2580
(1.4995) (0.8333) (3.9216) (0.0000) (7.3059) (11.3402) 4.1501
HHSDT [28] 1.9257 0.7255 0.6390 0.0472 0.2500 0.2698
(1.4483) (0.7639) (3.6199) (1.0707) (14.1553) (7.2852) 4.7239
THSDT [27] 1.8940 0.6640 0.6310 0.0440 0.2060 0.2390
(3.0706) (7.7778) (4.8265) (5.7816) (5.9361) (17.8694) 7.5437

29
 THSDT [28] 1.9262 0.7210 0.6386 0.0471 0.2442 0.2654
(1.4227) (0.1389) (3.6802) (0.8565) (11.5068) (8.7973) 4.4004
THSDT [26] 1.9258 0.7164 0.6381 0.0467 0.2396 0.2624
(1.4432) (0.5000) (3.7557) (0.0000) (9.4064) (9.8282) 4.1556
PHSDT [44] 1.9218 0.7274 0.6355 0.0470 0.2371 0.2589
(1.6479) (1.0278) (4.1478) (0.6424) (8.2648) (11.0309) 4.4603
PHSDT [20] 1.8939 0.6806 0.6463 0.0450 0.2109 0.2390
(3.0757) (5.4722) (2.5189) (3.6403) (3.6986) (17.8694) 6.0459
present 1 1.9114 0.6842 0.6336 0.0451 0.2229 0.2798
(2.1801) (4.9722) (4.4344) (3.4261) (1.7808) (3.8488) 3.4404
present 2 1.9220 0.7173 0.6345 0.0466 0.2181 0.2775
(1.6377) (0.3750) (4.2986) (0.2141) (0.4110) (4.6392) 1.9293
present 3 1.9247 0.6673 0.6435 0.0456 0.2215 0.2721
(1.4995) (7.3194) (2.9412) (2.3555) (1.1416) (6.4948) 3.6253
present 4 1.9218 0.7189 0.6343 0.0467 0.2180 0.2774
(1.6479) (0.1528) (4.3288) (0.0000) (0.4566) (4.6735) 1.8766

4. An enhancement with thickness stretching effect

This section aims to additionally investigate the effect of thickness stretching
based on the quasi-3D theory with an arbitrary function f (z) from the previous
f (z)
sections and the function g (z) = . Without the loss of generality, we only il-
dz
lustrate the performance of the present approach using the function f (z) of HSDT
model 3 derived from the previous section
87 3 169 5 138 7
f (z) = z − z + z − 6z (18)
20h 2 10h4 5h
In order to assess the effect of thickness stretching, let us consider the exam-
ple of symmetric cross-ply three layers [00 /900 /00 ] in the previous Section. The
effect of thickness stretching is presented in Table 8 by comparing the normalized
deflection and stresses. As shown in Table 8, considering the thickness stretching
effect provides the excellent agreement of transverse shear stresses τxz and τyz .
Also, the average error given by the quasi-3D theory is smaller than one obtained
by the HSDT model 3.

30
 0.5 0.5
LMR LMR
0.4 Nguyen-Xuan 0.4 Nguyen-Xuan
present 3 present 3
0.3 0.3 present 4
present 4
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
z/h

z/h
0 0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3

-0.4 -0.4

-0.5 -0.5
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
ZZ [[

0.5 0.5
LMR
0.4 Nguyen-Xuan 0.4
present 3
0.3 0.3
present 4
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 LMR

Nguyen-Xuan
z/h
z/h

0 0
present 3
-0.1 -0.1 present 4

-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3
-0.4 -0.4
-0.5 -0.5
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
! Z[ ! Z\
0.5
LMR
0.4 Nguyen-Xuan
present 3
0.3
present 4
0.2

0.1
z/h

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
31
-0.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
! [\

Figure 9: Stress distribution of four layers [00 /900 /900 /00 ] square composite plate under sinu-
soidal load.
 Table 8: The effect of thickness stretching on deflection and stresses of three layer [00 /900 /00 ]
square composite plate subjected to sinusoidal load

Model w σ xx σ yy τ xy τ xz τ yz Avr. err.

Exact [2] 2.0060 0.7550 0.5560 0.0505 0.2560 0.2170
present HSDT 3 1.9816 0.7538 0.5064 0.0523 0.2583 0.2036
(1.2164) (0.1589) (8.9209) (3.5644) (0.8984) (6.1751) 3.4890
present quasi-3D 1.9505 0.7554 0.4939 0.0515 0.2567 0.2138
(2.7661) (0.0562) (11.1733) (1.9733) (0.2568) (1.4649) 2.9484

5. Conclusions
We have presented a novel unified framework of HSDTs for laminated com-
posite plate structures. All existing transverse shear functions of HSDT models
are mathematically represented by a unique polynomial formulation regardless of
the complexity of these functions. In other words, a polynomial form is com-
pletely sufficient to consider the nonlinear and parabolic distribution of transverse
shear stresses. The weak form is constructed by using the principle of virtual dis-
placements and the numerical results are obtained by using the state-of-the-art of
isogeometric analysis. The numerical results show the accuracy and reliability of
the unified formulation. It is significant that the proposed unified polynomial is
potentially capable to provide the readership a general perspective on the close
connection of all transverse shear function existing in the literature. Based on
a unified formulation, the unknown coefficients of a polynomial function can be
optimized to obtain the more accurate results. Therefore, in order to bring to the
readership a new viewpoint on constructing a new higher order shear deformation
theory, we depicted a typical way to devise several new transverse shear functions.
The quasi-3D theory is developed based on the new transverse shear function to
involve the normal deformation in the displacement field. The proposed transverse
shear functions and the proposed quasi-3D theory anticipate the better agreement
to 3D elasticity solution in comparison with other HSDT models, even yield the
more accurate results compared to some zigzag theories or layer-wise theories.
Finally, for further researches, the paper opens more promising ideas for finding
optimal transverse shear functions under the polynomial form.

Acknowledgement
This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Tech-
nology Development (NAFOSTED) under Grant No. 107.02-2014.24.

32
References
[1] Khandan R, Noroozi S, Sewell P, Vinney J. The development
of laminated composite plate theories: a review. Journal of
Materials Science 2012;47(16):5901–10. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1007/
s10853-012-6329-y}. URL http://link.springer.com/10.
1007/s10853-012-6329-y.

[2] Pagano NJ. Exact solutions for rectangular bidirectional composites and
sandwich plates. Journal of composite materials 1970;4(1):20–34. URL
http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/4/1/20.short.

[3] Pagano N, Hatfield HJ. Elastic Behavior of Multilayered Bidirectional

Composites. AIAA Journal 1972;10(7):931–3. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.2514/
3.50249}. URL http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.
50249.

[4] Noor AK. Free vibrations of multilayered composite plates. AIAA Journal
1973;11(7):1038–9. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.2514/3.6868}. URL http://
arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.6868.

[5] Noor AK. Stability of multilayered composite plates. Fibre Science and
Technology 1975;8(2):81–9. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/0015-0568(75)
90005-6}. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/0015056875900056.

[6] Reddy JN. Analysis of functionally graded plates. International Jour-

nal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2000;47(1-3):663–84. URL
http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/˜ernesto/S2013/EP/
MaterialsforStudents/Pendley/Reddy2000-FGPlates.
pdf.

[7] Thai CH, Ferreira AJM, Wahab MA, Nguyen-Xuan H. A generalized lay-
erwise higher-order shear deformation theory for laminated composite and
sandwich plates based on isogeometric analysis. Acta Mech 2016;:1–26doi:
\bibinfo{doi}{10.1007/s00707-015-1547-4}. URL http://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s00707-015-1547-4.

[8] Sahoo R, Singh B. A new trigonometric zigzag theory for static anal-
ysis of laminated composite and sandwich plates. Aerospace Science

33
 and Technology 2014;35:15–28. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.ast.2014.
03.001}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S1270963814000406.

[9] Thai CH, Zenkour AM, Abdel Wahab M, Nguyen-Xuan H. A sim-

ple four-unknown shear and normal deformations theory for function-
ally graded isotropic and sandwich plates based on isogeometric analy-
sis. Composite Structures 2016;139:77–95. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.
compstruct.2015.11.066}. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0263822315010697.

[10] Reddy JN. Mechanics of Laminated Composite Plates and Shells: Theory
and Analysis, Second Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2 edition ed.; 2003.
ISBN 9780849315923.

[11] Kirchhoff G. ber das gleichgewicht und die bewegung einer elastischen
scheibe. Journal fr die reine und angewandte Mathematik 1850;40:51–88.
URL http://eudml.org/doc/147439.

[12] Cosentino E, Weaver P. An enhanced single-layer variational formulation

for the effect of transverse shear on laminated orthotropic plates. European
Journal of Mechanics - A/Solids 2010;29(4):567–90. doi:\bibinfo{doi}
{10.1016/j.euromechsol.2009.12.004}. URL http://linkinghub.
elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0997753809001429.

[13] Reissner E. The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of

elastic plates. Journal of applied Mechanics 1945;12:69–77.

[14] Mindlin RD. Influence of rotatory inertia and shear on flexural motions of
isotropic elastic plates. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1951;18:31–8.

[15] Ambartsumian SA. On the theory of bending of anisotropic plates

and shallow shells. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Me-
chanics 1960;24(2):500–14. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/0021-8928(60)
90052-6}. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/0021892860900526.

[16] Kaczkowski Z. Plates-statistical calculations. Warsaw: Arkady 1968;.

[17] Panc V. Theories of elastic plates. 2; Springer Science & Business Media;
1975.

34
[18] Reissner E. On transverse bending of plates, including the effect
of transverse shear deformation. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 1975;11(5):569–73. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/0020-7683(75)
90030-X}. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/002076837590030X.

[19] Levinson M. An accurate, simple theory of the statics and dynamics of

elastic plates. Mechanics Research Communications 1980;7(6):343–50.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/009364138090049X.

[20] Reddy JN. A Simple Higher-Order Theory for Laminated Compos-

ite Plates. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1984;51(4):745–52. doi:
\bibinfo{doi}{10.1115/1.3167719}. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.
1115/1.3167719.

[21] Murthy M. An improved transverse shear deformation theory for laminated

antisotropic plates 1981;.

[22] Levy M. Mémoire sur la théorie des plaques élastiques planes. Journal de
mathématiques pures et appliquées 1877;:219–306.

[23] STEIN M. Nonlinear theory for plates and shells including the effects of
transverse shearing. AIAA Journal 1986;24(9):1537–44. doi:\bibinfo{doi}
{10.2514/3.9477}. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.9477.

[24] Touratier M. An efficient standard plate theory. International Journal

of Engineering Science 1991;29(8):901–16. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/
0020-7225(91)90165-Y}. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/002072259190165Y.

[25] Arya H, Shimpi RP, Naik NK. A zigzag model for laminated
composite beams. Composite structures 2002;56(1):21–4. URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0263822301001787.

[26] Thai CH, Ferreira A, Bordas S, Rabczuk T, Nguyen-Xuan H. Isogeometric

analysis of laminated composite and sandwich plates using a new inverse
trigonometric shear deformation theory. European Journal of Mechanics -
A/Solids 2014;43:89–108. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.euromechsol.2013.

35
 09.001}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0997753813000934.

[27] Mantari J, Oktem A, Guedes Soares C. A new trigonometric

shear deformation theory for isotropic, laminated composite and
sandwich plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures
2012;49(1):43–53. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.09.008}.
URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S002076831100309X.

[28] Grover N, Singh BN, Maiti DK. New Nonpolynomial Shear-Deformation

Theories for Structural Behavior of Laminated-Composite and Sandwich
Plates. AIAA Journal 2013;51(8):1861–71. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.2514/
1.J052399}. URL http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.
J052399.

[29] Nguyen VH, Nguyen TK, Thai HT, Vo TP. A new inverse trigonometric
shear deformation theory for isotropic and functionally graded sandwich
plates. Composites Part B: Engineering 2014;66:233–46. doi:\bibinfo{doi}
{10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.05.012}. URL http://linkinghub.
elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1359836814002108.

[30] Karama M, Afaq KS, Mistou S. Mechanical behaviour of laminated com-

posite beam by the new multi-layered laminated composite structures model
with transverse shear stress continuity. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 2003;40(6):1525–46. URL http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0020768302006479.

[31] Aydogdu M. A new shear deformation theory for laminated compos-

ite plates. Composite Structures 2009;89(1):94–101. doi:\bibinfo{doi}
{10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.07.008}. URL http://linkinghub.
elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0263822308002420.

[32] Mantari J, Oktem A, Guedes Soares C. Static and dynamic anal-

ysis of laminated composite and sandwich plates and shells by us-
ing a new higher-order shear deformation theory. Composite Struc-
tures 2011;94(1):37–49. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.07.
020}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0263822311002753.

36
[33] Soldatos KP. A transverse shear deformation theory for homogeneous
monoclinic plates. Acta Mechanica 1992;94(3-4):195–220. URL http:
//link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01176650.

[34] El Meiche N, Tounsi A, Ziane N, Mechab I, Adda.Bedia EA. A new

hyperbolic shear deformation theory for buckling and vibration of func-
tionally graded sandwich plate. International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences 2011;53(4):237–47. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2011.
01.004}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0020740311000142.

[35] Akavci SS, Tanrikulu AH. Buckling and free vibration analyses of laminated
composite plates by using two new hyperbolic shear-deformation theories.
Mechanics of Composite Materials 2008;44(2):145–54. doi:\bibinfo{doi}
{10.1007/s11029-008-9004-2}. URL http://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007/s11029-008-9004-2.

[36] Mahi A, Adda Bedia EA, Tounsi A. A new hyperbolic shear defor-
mation theory for bending and free vibration analysis of isotropic, func-
tionally graded, sandwich and laminated composite plates. Applied
Mathematical Modelling 2014;doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.apm.2014.10.
045}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0307904X14005393.

[37] Grover N, Maiti D, Singh B. A new inverse hyperbolic shear deformation

theory for static and buckling analysis of laminated composite and sandwich
plates. Composite Structures 2013;95:667–75. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/
j.compstruct.2012.08.012}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.
com/retrieve/pii/S0263822312003789.

[38] Mantari J, Oktem A, Guedes Soares C. A new higher order shear de-
formation theory for sandwich and composite laminated plates. Compos-
ites Part B: Engineering 2012;43(3):1489–99. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/
j.compositesb.2011.07.017}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.
com/retrieve/pii/S1359836811003179.

[39] Mantari J, Guedes Soares C. Analysis of isotropic and multilayered plates

and shells by using a generalized higher-order shear deformation theory.
Composite Structures 2012;94(8):2640–56. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.

37
 compstruct.2012.03.018}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.
com/retrieve/pii/S0263822312001316.

[40] Mantari J, Granados E, Guedes Soares C. Vibrational analysis of advanced

composite plates resting on elastic foundation. Composites Part B: Engi-
neering 2014;66:407–19. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.
05.026}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S135983681400239X.

[41] Thai CH, Kulasegaram S, Tran LV, Nguyen-Xuan H. Generalized

shear deformation theory for functionally graded isotropic and sand-
wich plates based on isogeometric approach. Computers & Struc-
tures 2014;141:94–112. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.04.
003}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0045794914000911.

[42] Wu Z, Chen R, Chen W. Refined laminated composite plate element based

on globallocal higher-order shear deformation theory. Composite Struc-
tures 2005;70(2):135–52. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.
08.019}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0263822304002867.

[43] Tran LV, Phung-Van P, Lee J, Wahab MA, Nguyen-Xuan H.

Isogeometric analysis for nonlinear thermomechanical stability
of functionally graded plates. Composite Structures 2016;:doi:
\bibinfo{doi}{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.001}. URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0263822316000131.

[44] Nguyen-Xuan H, Thai CH, Nguyen-Thoi T. Isogeometric finite ele-

ment analysis of composite sandwich plates using a higher order shear
deformation theory. Composites Part B: Engineering 2013;55:558–
74. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.06.044}. URL
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S1359836813003557.

[45] Koiter WT. A Consistent First Approximation in the General Theory of Thin
Elastic Shells: Foundations and linear theory. Laboratorium voor Toegepaste
Mechanica der Technische Hogeschool; 1959.

38
[46] Carrera E, Miglioretti F, Petrolo M. Accuracy of refined fi-
nite elements for laminated plate analysis. Composite Structures
2011;93(5):1311–27. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.11.
007}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0263822310003818.

[47] Carrera E, Brischetto S, Cinefra M, Soave M. Effects of thickness

stretching in functionally graded plates and shells. Compos Pt B-
Eng 2011;42(2):123–33. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compositesb.2010.
10.005}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S135983681000171X.

[48] Ferreira AJM, Roque CMdC, Carrera E, Cinefra M, Polit O. Analysis of

sandwich plates by radial basis functions collocation, according to Mu-
rakami’s Zig-Zag theory. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2012;14(5):505–24.
doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1177/1099636212449083}. URL http://jsm.
sagepub.com/content/14/5/505.

[49] Neves A, Ferreira A, Carrera E, Cinefra M, Roque C, Jorge R,

et al. A quasi-3D hyperbolic shear deformation theory for the static
and free vibration analysis of functionally graded plates. Compos
Struct 2012;94(5):1814–25. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.
12.005}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0263822311004739.

[50] Ganapathi M, Makhecha DP. Free vibration analysis of multi-layered

composite laminates based on an accurate higher-order theory. Compos
Pt B-Eng 2001;32(6):535–43. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/S1359-8368(01)
00028-2}. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1359836801000282.

[51] Zenkour AM. Bending analysis of functionally graded sandwich plates

using a simple four-unknown shear and normal deformations theory. J
Sandwich Struct Mater 2013;15(6):629–56. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1177/
1099636213498886}. URL http://jsm.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/
10.1177/1099636213498886.

[52] Nguyen NT, Hui D, Lee J, Nguyen-Xuan H. An efficient com-

putational approach for size-dependent analysis of functionally graded

39
 nanoplates. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En-
gineering 2015;297:191–218. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.cma.2015.
07.021}. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S004578251500239X.

[53] Zenkour AM. Benchmark trigonometric and 3-D elasticity solu-

tions for an exponentially graded thick rectangular plate. Arch
Appl Mech 2007;77(4):197–214. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1007/
s00419-006-0084-y}. URL http://link.springer.com/10.
1007/s00419-006-0084-y.

[54] Zenkour AM. Simplified Theory for Hygrothermal Response of Angle-

Ply Composite Plates. AIAA Journal 2014;52(7):1466–73. doi:
\bibinfo{doi}{10.2514/1.J052631}. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.
2514/1.J052631.

[55] Tran LV, Thai CH, Le HT, Gan BS, Lee J, Nguyen-Xuan H. Iso-
geometric analysis of laminated composite plates based on a four-
variable refined plate theory. Engineering Analysis with Boundary El-
ements 2014;47:68–81. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.enganabound.2014.
05.013}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0955799714001465.

[56] Mantari J, Guedes Soares C. Static response of advanced compos-

ite plates by a new non-polynomial higher-order shear deformation
theory. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 2014;78:60–
71. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2013.10.020}. URL
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S0020740313003007.

[57] Sahoo R, Singh B. A new inverse hyperbolic zigzag theory for the static
analysis of laminated composite and sandwich plates. Composite Struc-
tures 2013;105:385–97. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.05.
043}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0263822313002626.

[58] Sahoo R, Singh B. A new shear deformation theory for the static analysis of
laminated composite and sandwich plates. International Journal of Mechan-
ical Sciences 2013;75:324–36. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2013.

40
 08.002}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0020740313002142.

[59] Ren JG. A new theory of laminated plate. Composites Science and Tech-
nology 1986;26(3):225–39. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/0266-3538(86)
90087-4}. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/0266353886900874.

[60] Nguyen-Xuan H, Tran LV, Thai CH, Kulasegaram S, Bordas S. Isogeomet-

ric analysis of functionally graded plates using a refined plate theory. Com-
posites Part B: Engineering 2014;64:222–34. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/
j.compositesb.2014.04.001}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.
com/retrieve/pii/S1359836814001449.

[61] Thai CH, Ferreira A, Carrera E, Nguyen-Xuan H. Isogeometric analysis of

laminated composite and sandwich plates using a layerwise deformation the-
ory. Composite Structures 2013;104:196–214. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/
j.compstruct.2013.04.002}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.
com/retrieve/pii/S0263822313001542.

[62] Ferreira AJM. Analysis of Composite Plates Using a Layerwise The-

ory and Multiquadrics Discretization. Mechanics of Advanced Ma-
terials and Structures 2005;12(2):99–112. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1080/
15376490490493952}. URL http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
abs/10.1080/15376490490493952.

[63] Ferreira A, Fasshauer G, Batra R, Rodrigues J. Static deformations and vi-

bration analysis of composite and sandwich plates using a layerwise theory
and RBF-PS discretizations with optimal shape parameter. Composite Struc-
tures 2008;86(4):328–43. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.
07.025}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0263822308002511.

[64] Rodrigues J, Roque C, Ferreira A, Carrera E, Cinefra M. Ra-

dial basis functionsfinite differences collocation and a Unified For-
mulation for bending, vibration and buckling analysis of laminated
plates, according to Murakamis zig-zag theory. Composite Struc-
tures 2011;93(7):1613–20. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.
01.009}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0263822311000237.

41
[65] Moleiro F, Mota Soares C, Mota Soares C, Reddy J. A lay-
erwise mixed least-squares finite element model for static analy-
sis of multilayered composite plates. Computers & Structures
2011;89(19-20):1730–42. doi:\bibinfo{doi}{10.1016/j.compstruc.2010.10.
008}. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0045794910002403.

42