Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

A numerical study of free and forced vibration of composite sandwich beam

with viscoelastic core
H. Arvin, M. Sadighi, A.R. Ohadi *
Mechanical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez Ave., Tehran 15914, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this article, higher order theory for sandwich beam with composite faces and viscoelastic core is
Available online 7 October 2009 achieved by considering independent transverse displacements on two faces and linear variations
through the depth of the beam core. In addition, the effects of Young modulus, rotational inertia and core
Keywords: kinetic energy are considered to modify the ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory that is used frequently for sandwich
Composite beam. These assumptions have not been considered together in previous articles. A finite element code is
Finite element developed for structural response analysis of the free and forced vibration. The obtained results are com-
Sandwich beam
pared with the corresponding results of previous researches. The effects of impressive parameters includ-
Viscoelastic
Loss factor
ing fiber angle, thickness of faces and core thickness on the loss factors and natural frequencies of the
Vibration beam are examined. Frequency response of the beam for two cases, constant and frequency dependent
core shear modulus are obtained. Finally, time response of the beam is presented based on the Newmark
method. Obtained results show that, when the core is soft or hard, ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory cannot accu-
rately predict the frequency responses of the system in comparison with the presented theory in this
paper; whereas for moderately hard core, both methods lead to the same results. In addition, when
the beam is unsymmetrical about its neutral axis, i.e. one face sheet is weaker than the other face sheet,
the inaccuracy of the ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory increases, even at low frequencies.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Damping is a main material attribute, which is defined as loss of
energy. It can be used to control the amplitude of vibration. Indeed,
vibration of the body is dissipated by effect of internal damping and
amplitude of vibration decreases gradually. Applications of com-
posite materials have been developed in various industries widely
because of excellent and designable properties of these materials.
With consideration the vast uses of viscoelastic and composite
materials, investigating the vibrational aspects of structures, which
made of these materials is necessary. A typical viscoelastically
damped structure is a multilayered sandwich structure with
viscoelastic material as core. Damping in sandwich composite
structures depends on its viscoelastic core behaviour extremely
and vibration absorption and noise reduction is accessible by this
way.
Most of the previous researches adopted directly the theory
from ‘‘Mead & Markus” [1], to describe the vibration of a three-
layer beam. This theory assumes:
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 6454 3484; fax: +98 21 6641 9736.
E-mail address: a_r_ohadi@aut.ac.ir (A.R. Ohadi).
1. The two elastic surface layers are regarded as Euler beams.
2. The elastic surface layers have the same transverse displace-
ment and rotation, however different axial displacements along
the neutral axis of the layers are considered.
3. The viscoelastic core layer is only subjected to shear deforma-
tion associated with axial displacements, which are linearly dis-
tributed across the thickness of the core, and its normal stress
and strain are ignored.
4. There is no relative movement (slip) between the layers on the
interfaces, i.e. the same points on the interfaces of the layers
have the same longitudinal displacements.
In practice, it is often necessary to design damped structures
with complicated geometry, so it is natural to look to the finite
element method (FEM) for a solution. Sainsbury and Zhang [2] pre-
sented a new finite element method by combining the polynomial
shape functions of conventional FEM and Galerkin orthogonal
functions and use of ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory. Wang and Chen
[3] applied discrete layer annular finite element to derive the equa-
tions of motion for the three-layered annular plate with an incom-
pressible viscoelastic core layer and two polar orthotropic
laminated face layers. They presented the effects of material prop-
erties, radius to thickness ratio, stacking sequences and thickness

0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.09.047
 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008 997

of face layers, and thickness of the viscoelastic core layer on the effect of some important parameters such as fiber angle, geometri-
natural frequencies and modal loss factors of this system. Yim cal changes and stiffness of faces and core are studied.
et al. [4] investigated the damping behaviour of a 0° laminated
sandwich composite beam with a viscoelastic layer. They showed 2. Mathematical formulation
that the viscoelastic core thickness in the sandwich beam and
the length of the beam have greatly effected the damping loss fac- 2.1. Basic assumptions
tor and the extended Ni–Adams’ theory can be efficiently used to
identify the damping characteristics of the laminated sandwich For calculating natural frequencies, loss factors and frequency
composite beam. Cai et al. [5] obtained frequency response for a response of composite sandwich beam with viscoelastic core, the
beam with single passive constrained layer damping (PCLD) by following assumptions are considered in order to overcome the
using ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory and applying energy approach problems associated with ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory.
and Lagrange equation. In their conventional analytical approach,
only two admissible functions are used together with a longitudi- I. Face sheets have independent transverse displacements
nal static equilibrium equation of a section of base beam or con- with linear variations through thickness.
straining layer. They concluded that the conventional analytical II. Young modulus of viscoelastic core is considered.
approach works better for extremely ‘‘hard” viscoelastic material III. Isotropic materials are replaced with composite materials at
(VEM) layer than ‘‘hard” or ‘‘soft” VEM layer in the PCLD patch. face sheets.
Zhang and Chen [6] used ANSYS 7.0 to develop a 3-D finite element IV. Rotary inertia and longitudinal kinetic energy of core are
model for laminated composite beams with integral viscoelastic considered.
layers. They presented the comparisons of the effects of damping V. Time dependent viscoelastic core is assumed (only for forced
of fiber-reinforced composite materials, ply angle of compliant lay- vibration).
ers, and location of viscoelastic layers on the loss factor and fre-
quency of damped composite beams with previous studies. 2.2. Development of sandwich beams equation
Pradeep et al. [7] investigated the vibration and thermal buckling
behaviour of sandwich beams with composite facings and visco- To improve the ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory, a three-layer sand-
elastic core in comparison with sandwich plate. They examined wich beam with four nodes is proposed. The geometric layout of
the effects of fiber angle, aspect ratio and the core thickness on the element is shown in Fig. 1. Assumptions for this element are:
the performance of the beam and plate elements. They concluded
that there is a considerable difference between the predictions of 1. The two elastic surface layers are regarded as Euler beams.
mentioned elements for some fiber angles. 2. The elastic surface layers have different transverse displace-
One of the assumptions of ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory is that the ment, rotation and different axial displacement in the neutral
elastic surface layers have the same transverse displacement and axes of the layers.
rotation along the neutral axis of the core layer. This assumption 3. Normal stress and strain as well as shear stress and strain are
restricts the real response of beams. To improve that, Douglas considered.
and Yang [8] modeled the face sheets as two independent Euler 4. There is no relative movement (slip) between the layers on the
beams coupled by a complex-valued compressional spring (as interfaces.
the VEM). Thomas et al. [9] presented a finite element model for
the harmonic response of sandwich beams with thin or moderately Directions of coordinates in composite sandwich beam are pre-
thick viscoelastic cores. Nonlinear variation of displacements sented in Fig. 2.
through the thickness of the core has been assumed. Chen and The element displacements are given in forms:
Chan [10] used an integral finite element method for estimating ( t2
the dynamical characteristics of elastic–viscoelastic composite u01 ¼ u1  ðz  e1 Þh1 2
6 z 6 t22 þ t 1 e1 ¼ t1 þt
2
2
;
structures. In their presented method, frequency response of sand- ð1Þ
u03 ¼ u3  ðz þ e3 Þh3 t 3  t22 6 z 6  t22 e3 ¼ t3 þt
2
2

wich elastic–viscoelastic beam with isotropic face sheets is ob-

tained by considering independent transverse displacement in in which u01 and u03 are general longitudinal displacements, respec-
face sheets by energy method. tively, u1, u3, w1, w3, h1 and h3 are longitudinal and transverse dis-
Some other researches have been presented to improve ‘‘Mead placements and rotations of the neutral axis of the upper and
& Markus” assumptions, too. Douglas [11] expands his 1978 work lower face sheets, respectively, and t1, t2 and t3 are thickness of
with Yang to include rotary inertia and shear deformation in the upper face sheet, core layer and lower face sheet, respectively.
elastic layers. Bai and Sun [12] focused on slip at interfacial bonds
between layers of a sandwich. They recognized that the face sheets
must deform independently and higher order modeling of the core
is needed. They showed how their predicted results diverge from
‘‘Mead & Markus” for beams with low aspect ratios.
Researchers such as Johnson [13] and Austin [14] showed that
the ‘‘Mead & Markus” assumptions are most applicable for weak
constraining layers in bending. However, it is obviously clear from
above papers that ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory has several limitations.
The present article aims to overcome some of these problems.
This paper explore the accuracy of the ‘‘Mead & Markus” mod-
eling assumptions for full-coverage damping treatments and de-
fines the area that ‘‘Mead & Markus” assumptions can or cannot
predict acceptable results in both free and forced vibration of a
composite sandwich beam with a viscoelastic core. Finite element
analysis (FEA) is chosen so that the analysis could extend outside of
the area where exact elasticity solutions exist. In addition, the Fig. 1. Four nodes sandwich beam element with viscoelastic core.
998 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008

Fig. 2. Generally schematic of composite sandwich beam with viscoelastic core.

Assume that the core transverse and axial displacements are rxy ¼ rzy ¼ ryy ¼ 0; ezy ¼ 0; exy – eyy – 0 ð9Þ
linearly dependent on coordinate z, i.e.:
0 The strain energy of upper layer can be simplified as:
w02 ¼ a0 þ b z; u02 ¼ a þ bz ð2Þ
Z t2
þt1 Z L
in which a, b, a0 and b0 are constant values to be determined. By b 2
V1 ¼ ðrx1 ex1 þ rz1 ez1 þ 2rxz1 exz1 Þ dx dz ð10Þ
using the fourth assumption, we have: 2 t2
0
2

w02 Þt2 ¼ w1 ; w02 Þt2 ¼ w3 ; u02 Þt2 ¼ u01 Þt2 ; u02 Þt2 ¼ u03 Þt2 ð3Þ
2 2 2 2 2 2 in which b and L are width and length of beam, respectively.
Then, Eq. (2) is changed to: The constitutive relation for upper composite face sheet can be
    written as [16]:
u1 þ u3 t1 h1  t 3 h3 u1  u3 t 1 h1 þ t 3 h3
u02 ¼ þ þ þ z 8 9 2 38 9
2 4 t2 2t2
hw þ w i   ð4Þ < rx1 >
> = Q 11 Þ1 Q 13 Þ1 2Q 15 Þ1 < > ex1 >=
w1  w3 6 7
w02 ¼
1 3
þ z rz1 ¼ 4 Q 13 Þ1 Q 33 Þ1 2Q 35 Þ1 5 ez1 ð11Þ
2 t2 >
: > > >
rxz1 ; Q 15 Þ1 Q 35 Þ1 2Q 55 Þ1
:
exz1 ;
By considering the classical theory of the beam for face sheets,
h1 ¼ @w
@x
1
; h3 ¼ @w
@x
3
and regarding to the above mentioned displace- in which Q ij Þ1 , are reduced stiffness constants of the upper face
ments, strain–displacement relations can be calculated as [16]: sheet. By using strain–displacement, stress–strain relations and
8 0 Eq. (9), the strain energy of upper face sheet is derived as:
< ex1 ¼ @u1 ¼ @u1  ðz  e1 Þ @2 w1 ; ez1 ¼ @w1 ¼ 0
@x2 0 !2 1
@x @x @z
ð5Þ
: c ¼ 2e ¼ @w1 þ @u01 ¼ @w1  @w1  ¼ 0 ^ 11 Þ Z L
Q

@u1
2
@ 2 w1 A
xz1
xz1 @x @z @x @x
V1 ¼ 1 @ A1 þ I1 dx ð12Þ
8 2 0 @x @x2
0
< ex3 ¼ @u3 ¼ @u3  ðz þ e3 Þ @2 w3 ; ez3 ¼ @w3 ¼ 0
@x @x @x2 @z
ð6Þ 3
^ 11 Þ , A1 = bt1 and I1 ¼ b t1 are modified reduced stiffness
: c ¼ 2e ¼ @w3 þ @u03 ¼ @w3  @w3  ¼ 0 in which Q 1 12
xz3 xz3 @x @z @x @x constant, area and moment of inertia of upper face sheet, respec-
8 " # " # tively. These quantities are for y–z plane and the moment of inertia
@2 w @2 w @2 w @2 w
>
> @u02
@u1 @u3
@x þ @x
t 1 21 t 3 23 @u1 @u3
@x  @x
t 1 21 þt 3 23 is calculated with respect to the neutral axis of upper face sheet in
>
> ex2 ¼ @x ¼ þ @x @x
þ þ @x @x
z
>
> 2 4 t2 2t 2
y–z plane. By similar procedure, the strain energy of lower face
<
@w0 sheet can be obtained as:
>
>
>
ez2 ¼ @z2 ¼ w1tw 3

>
>
2
h i h i 0 !2 1
> 0 0
: c ¼ c ¼ 2exz2 ¼ @w2 þ @u2 ¼ u1 u3 þ ðt1 þt2 Þh1 þðt3 þt2 Þh3 þ h1 h3 z ^ 11 Þ Z L  2 2
2 xz2 @x @z t2 2t 2 t2 Q 3 @ A3 @u3 @ w3 Adx
V3 ¼ þ I3 ð13Þ
ð7Þ 2 0 @x @x2

in which ex1, ex3, ez1, ez3, cxz1, cxz3, ex2, ez2 and c2 are upper face bt 3
^ 11 Þ , A3 = bt3 and I3 ¼ 3 are modified reduced stiffness
in which Q 3 12
sheet longitudinal, lower face sheet longitudinal, upper face sheet
constant, area and moment of inertia of lower face sheet, respec-
transverse, lower face sheet transverse, upper face sheet shear,
tively. These quantities are for y–z plane and the moment of inertia
lower face sheet shear, core longitudinal, core transverse and core
is calculated with respect to the neutral axis of lower face sheet in
shear strains, respectively.
y–z plane.
With assumption that the core material is orthotropic, its
2.3. Equations of motion
stress–strain relationship can be written as [16]:
To obtain the equations of motion by the Hamilton’s principle 8 9 2 38 9
>
< rx2 >= Q 11 Þ2 Q 13 Þ2 0 < ex2 >
> =
[15], the strain and kinetic energy of sandwich layers are needed.
The strain energy of each layer is [15]: rz2 ¼ 64 Q 13 Þ2 Q 33 Þ2 0 5 ez2
7
ð14Þ
>
: > > >
Z Z Z rxz2 ; 0 0 2Q 55 Þ2
:
exz2 ;
1
V¼ ðrij eij Þ dV ð8Þ
2 v in which Qij)2, are stiffness coefficients. By using strain–displace-
rij and eij are stress and strain, respectively. With ignoring the stress ment and stress–strain relations, the strain energy of core layer is
in y direction: derived as:
 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008 999

0 0 " #2 8 9 8 9
Z 2 2
> w1 > > ½Nf1  >
1 L @u1
þ @u 3
t 1 @ w21  t 3 @@xw23 > > > >
V2 ¼ @ðQ 11 Þ @A2
2
@x
@x
þ @x < u = < ½N  >
> > > =
2 2 4 1 1
0 u¼ ¼ fqe g ð19Þ
1 > > >
> w3 > > ½Nf3  >
>
" 2 2 # 2  2 >
: >
; : > >
;
@u1
 @u t 1 @ w21 þ t 3 @@xw23 u3 ½N3 
A þ Q 33 Þ A2 w1  w3
3

þ I2 @x @x
þ @x 2
t2 2t2 t2 where [Nf1], [N1], [Nf3] and [N3] are the shape functions as:
" 2 2 #  8
@u1
þ @u 3
t 1 @ w21  t 3 @@xw23 w1  w3 >
> ½Nf1  ¼ fð1  3n2 þ 2n3 Þ ðn  2n2 þ n3 Þl 0 0 0 0 ð3n2  2n3 Þ ðn2 þ n3 Þl 0 0 0 0g
þ 2Q 13 Þ2 A2 @x @x
þ @x Q 55 Þ2 >
< ½N  ¼ f0 0 ð1  nÞ 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0g
2 4 t2 1

 2  2 !! >
>
>
:
½Nf3  ¼ f0 0 0 ð1  3n2 þ 2n3 Þ ðn  2n2 þ n3 Þl 0 0 0 0 ð3n2  2n3 Þ ðn2 þ n3 Þl 0g
u1  u3 ðt 1 þ t 2 Þh1 þ ðt 3 þ t 2 Þh3 h1  h3 ½N3  ¼ f0 0 0 0 0 ð1  nÞ 0 0 0 0 0 ng
 A2 þ þ I2 dx
t2 2t 2 t2
ð20Þ
ð15Þ x
in which n ¼ l is the element length and x is the coordinate along
l
,
bt3
in which A2 = bt2 and I2 ¼ 122 are area and moment of inertia of core the length.
layer, respectively. To obtain the stiffness and mass matrices of the sandwich beam
The kinetic energy of the beam is: element, by substituting the element displacements into the strain
Z Z Z  0 2  0 2  0 2 energy of the different layers, the strain energy in terms of the no-
1 @u1 @u2 @u3 dal displacements will be derived as:
T¼ þ q2 q1 þ q3
2 @t @t @t
v 1 e T e e
 0 2  0 2  0 2 ! Ve ¼
2
fq g ½K fq g ð21Þ
@w1 @w2 @w3
þ q1 þ q2 þ q3 dV ð16Þ
@t @t @t Using Eqs. (20), (21), (12), (13), and (15) the stiffness matrices may
be obtained for the upper and lower face sheet and core layer,
in which T indicates the kinetic energy, q1 is the density of upper respectively. The stiffness matrix for one element is obtained by
face sheet, q2 is the density of core layer, q3 is the density of lower summation of the stiffness matrices of three layers, as:
face sheet and @t@ is the partial derivative of time. By substituting dis-
placement of layers into Eq. (16), kinetic energy of beam is obtained ½K e  ¼ ½K e 1 þ ½K e 3 þ ½K e 2 ð22Þ
as: e e e e
in which [K ], [K ]1, [K ]3 and [K ]2 are the stiffness matrices for the
0 element, the upper and lower face sheets and core layer, respec-
Z !2
1 L  2 _ _ _ _ tively. By substituting the element displacement into the kinetic en-
T¼ @q A1 ðu_ 1 Þ2 þ q I1 h_ 1 þ q A2 u1 þ u3 þ t 1 h1  t3 h3
2 1 1 2
2 4 ergy of the different layers, the kinetic energy in terms of the nodal
0
displacements will be derived:
!2
u_ 1  u_ 3 t1 h_ 1 þ t 3 h_ 3  2
2 1 e T e e
þ q2 I2 þ þ q3 A3 ðu_ 3 Þ þ q3 I3 h_ 3 Te ¼ fq_ g ½M fq_ g ð23Þ
t2 2t 2 2
  Using Eqs. (23), (17), and (20), the mass matrix for one element will
w_1þw _3 2
þ q1 A1 ðw _ 1 Þ 2 þ q 2 A2 be obtained.
2
 2 ! By assembling stiffness and mass matrices of elements, the stiff-
_
w1  w3 _ 2 ness and mass matrices of structure are obtained. Then, based on
þ q2 I2 þ q3 A3 ðw _ 3 Þ dx ð17Þ
t2 the assembled matrices and the vector of the nodal degrees of free-
dom ({q}), the potential and kinetic energies of the sandwich struc-
in which q1I1 = J1, q2I2 = J2 and q3I3 = J3 are inertial moments of the tures can be obtained using Eqs. (21) and (23), respectively. By
layers, and q1A1 = m1, q2A2 = m2 and q3A3 = m3 are mass per unit of determining the work done by external transverse force, f(x, t),
length of the layers. using Eq. (19) and employing Lagrange equation, the general equa-
By using the Hamilton’s principle [15] and Eqs. (12), (13), (15) tion of motion of the composite sandwich structures with visco-
and (17), the equations of the motion can be obtained. elastic core is obtained:
8 9
>
> 0 >
>
>
> . >
>
3. Finite element implementation >
> . >
>
>
> . >
>
>
> R >
>
>
>
L
f ðx; tÞ½Nf dx >
>
The discretized element displacement vector consists of two > 0
> 1 >
>
< =
nodal displacement vectors as: €g þ ½Kfqg ¼
½Mfq 0 ð24Þ
>
> 0 >
>
( ) >
> >
>
>
> >
>
qi >
> 0 >
>
fqe g ¼ >
> >
>
qj >
> 0 >
>
>
> >
>
: ;
¼ f wi1 hi1 ui1 wi3 hi3 ui3 wj1 hj1 uj1 wj3 hj3 uj3 g
T 0
ð18Þ in which [K] and [M] are the stiffness and mass matrices, respec-
RL
tively, and 0 f ðx; tÞ½Nf1 dx represents the external load term. In
The displacement within the element should be uniquely deter- deriving this equation, it is considered that the external transverse
mined by the 12 nodal displacements and rotations together with force has been applied on the upper face sheet tip point of the beam.
the interpolation method. According to the mechanical behaviour Since the viscoelastic materials have the complex shear modu-
dictated by the assumptions and the number of the nodal displace- lus, Eq. (24) is not suitable for obtaining the time response of the
ments, the representations for the element displacements and rota- sandwich beam structure with viscoelastic core. If for convenience,
tions within the element are given by the Hermite polynomials. the strain energy of the viscoelastic core is calculated in the
Eventually, the element displacement ‘‘u”, can be determined in Laplace domain, the shear strain energy will be in the form of,
 RL 2
terms of the displacements of the two nodes as: V v ðsÞ ¼ G ðsÞA
2
2
c dx; where G*(s) indicates the complex shear
0 2
1000 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008

modulus in the Laplace domain and a bar over a variable c 2 repre- The results for natural frequencies and loss factors are pre-
sents the Laplace transform of the variable. So, by applying the in- sented in Tables 2 and 3. In these tables, four different cases have
verse Laplace transform to this relation, the relation that includes been presented:
convolution integral will be appeared. By calculating the strain
energies of the face sheets and kinetic energy of the structure (such Case I: Only shear modulus of core has been considered.
as mentioned before), and implementing the finite element meth- Case II: Shear modulus, rotary inertia, and longitudinal kinetic
od, the suitable equation for deriving time response will be ob- energy of core have been considered.
tained [10]: Case III: Both shear and Young moduli of core have been
Z considered.
t
€g þ ½K f fqg þ ½K v  Case IV: Shear and Young moduli, rotary inertia, and longitudinal
½Mfq Gðt  sÞfqð
_ sÞgds ¼ fFg ð25Þ
0 kinetic energy of core have been considered.

in which Kf is the stiffness matrix of the face sheets, [Kv] is the stiff-
ness matrix of the core layer that is obtained by eliminating shear
modulus from the previous core stiffness matrix, [Ke]2, and G(t) rep-
resents the relaxation function of the viscoelastic core. Using New-
mark integral method [17], Eq. (25) can be solved in the time
domain.
4. Simulation and results
4.1. Free vibration analysis
In this section, the free vibrations of sandwich beams are con-
sidered. Loss factors of the beam can be obtained from the eigen-
value problem. The eigen-frequencies of the system are
calculated from the stiffness and mass matrices ([K] and [M] in
Eq. (24)). Since the core shear modulus is the complex value, these
eigenvalues are complex. For each eigenvalue, the ratio of the
imaginary part to the real part is the loss factor and the square root
of the real part represents the natural frequency. Primarily, the
natural frequencies and loss factors of clamped-free beam with iso-
tropic face sheets and isotropic viscoelastic core are calculated and
compared with the corresponding results obtained by Sainsbury
and Zhang [2]. After that, natural frequencies and loss factors of
the composite sandwich beam with viscoelastic core are presented.
Finally, the effects of geometric parameters and Young modulus on
natural frequencies and loss factors are studied.
4.1.1. Case study #1 – validation
A sandwich clamped-free beam with isotropic face sheets and
isotropic viscoelastic core has been considered. Geometric and
mechanical properties of the beam are presented in Table 1.
By comparison the results in Tables 2 and 3, it can be seen that
all above cases give very close results with Ref. [2] and considering
Young modulus, longitudinal and rotary inertia in strain and ki-
netic energy in this example affect results slightly.
4.1.2. Case study #2 – composite sandwich beam with viscoelastic
core
In this section, natural frequencies and loss factors of a
clamped-free sandwich beam with composite face sheets and iso-
tropic viscoelastic core are obtained. The face sheets material is
graphite–epoxy (T300/5208). Geometric and mechanical proper-
ties of the beam are presented in Fig. 2 and Table 4.
The results for natural frequencies and loss factors are pre-
sented in Table 5. Cases II and IV are same as the previous section.
It can be seen from this table that considering Young modulus in
strain energy cannot affect results considerably.
4.1.2.1. Effects of geometric parameters on loss factors and natural
frequencies. Effects of various geometric parameters on loss factors
and natural frequencies are studied. Primarily, the face sheets
thicknesses are considered constant (4 mm) and core thickness is
varied among 4–20 mm. Fiber angles of face sheets are considered
30°.
For Case IV loss factors and natural frequencies of the first four
modes are presented in Fig. 3. It can be seen that by increasing
thickness of core, loss factors are increased and natural frequencies
are decreased.
Then, the effects of fiber angles of face sheets are investigated.
Core and face sheets thicknesses are 20 mm and 4 mm, respec-
tively. The fiber angles of face sheets are varied between 0° and
90°.

Table 1
Geometric and mechanical properties of sandwich beam with isotropic face sheets and viscoelastic core (length and width of the beam are L = 177.8 (mm) and b = 12.7 (mm),
respectively) [2].

Thickness (mm) Young modulus E (MPa) Density q (kg/m3) Poisson’s ratio m Shear modulus G* (MPa)
4
Upper face sheet t1 = 1.52 7.037  10 2770 0.3 –
Core layer t2 = 0.127 E* = 2G*(1 + m) 970 0.49 7.037  101 (1 + 0.3i)
Lower face sheet t3 = 1.52 7.037  104 2770 0.3 –

Table 2
Natural frequencies for the first five modes – Case study #1. Table 3
Loss factors for the first five modes – Case study #1.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
mode mode mode mode mode 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
(Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) mode mode mode mode mode
Results of [2] 65.03 299.69 750.4 1405.4 2279.36 Results of [2] 0.08170 0.07210 0.04630 0.02670 0.01720
Case I (10 elements) 65.01 299.59 750.26 1406.1 2283.8 Case I (10 elements) 0.08181 0.07230 0.04642 0.02681 0.01724
Case II (10 elements) 65.009 299.57 750.09 1405.5 2282.2 Case II (10 elements) 0.08181 0.07230 0.04642 0.02681 0.01724
Case I (40 elements) 64.986 299.49 749.94 1404.7 2278.1 Case I (40 elements) 0.08165 0.07204 0.04623 0.02671 0.01721
Case II (40 elements) 64.985 299.47 749.77 1404.1 2276.5 Case II (40 elements) 0.08165 0.07205 0.04623 0.02671 0.01721
Case III (10 elements) 65.01 299.60 750.27 1406.1 2283.8 Case III (10 elements) 0.08181 0.07230 0.04642 0.02681 0.01725
Case IV (10 elements) 65.009 299.57 750.09 1405.5 2282.2 Case IV (10 elements) 0.08181 0.07230 0.04642 0.02681 0.01725
Case III (40 elements) 64.986 299.49 749.95 1404.7 2278.1 Case III (40 elements) 0.08181 0.07230 0.04642 0.02681 0.01725
Case IV (40 elements) 64.985 299.47 749.77 1404.1 2276.5 Case IV (40 elements) 0.08181 0.07230 0.04642 0.02681 0.01725
 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008 1001

Table 4
Mechanical and geometric properties of sandwich beam with composite face sheets and isotropic viscoelastic core [18] – Case study #2.

Fiber angle (degree) Young modules Eii (MPa) Density q (kg/m3) Poisson’s ratio m12 Shear modules G12 (MPa)
E11 E22
Upper face sheet /1 = 30 141,200 9720 1536 0.28 5530
Core layer – E*=2G*(1 + m) 970 0.49 7.037  101 (1 + 0.3i)
Lower face sheet /3 = 30 141,200 9720 1536 0.28 5530

Table 5
Natural frequencies and loss factors of sandwich beam with composite face sheets and isotropic viscoelastic core – Case study #2.

1st mode 2nd mode (Hz) 3rd mode (Hz) 4th mode (Hz) 5th mode (Hz)
Case II (50 elements) Natural frequency (Hz) 6.70350 22.31795 43.80478 71.44883 107.07917
Loss factor 0.21463 0.19634 0.16835 0.12532 0.09288
Case IV (50 elements) Natural frequency (Hz) 6.70358 22.31863 43.80716 71.45456 107.08980
Loss factor 0.21464 0.19635 0.16836 0.12535 0.09291

Fig. 3. Effects of core thickness of composite sandwich beam with isotropic
viscoelastic core on loss factors (marked with ‘‘g, D”) and natural frequencies
(marked with ‘‘f”) – shear and Young moduli, rotary inertia and longitudinal kinetic
energy of core have been considered (Case IV) – Case study #2 (see Fig. 2 and Table
4 for geometrical and mechanical properties).
Fig. 4. Effects of face sheets fiber angle of composite sandwich beam with isotropic
viscoelastic core on loss factors (marked with ‘‘g, D”) and natural frequencies
(marked with ‘‘f”) – shear and Young moduli, rotary inertia and longitudinal kinetic
energy of core have been considered (Case IV) – Case study #2 (see Fig. 2 and Table
4 for geometrical and mechanical properties).

quencies between present study and ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory is

Results for loss factors and natural frequencies (for Case IV) are
presented in Fig. 4. It can be seen that by increasing the fiber angles
of face sheets, loss factors are increased and natural frequencies are
decreased.
Finally, the total thickness of beam are considered constant
(28 mm) and face sheets thicknesses are varied between 2 and
12 mm. Fiber angles of face sheets are considered 30°. Results for
loss factors and natural frequencies for Case IV are presented in
Fig. 5. It is obvious that by increasing the face sheets thicknesses,
loss factors will be decreased and natural frequencies will be
increased.
4.1.3. Comparison of natural frequencies of current method and ‘‘Mead
& Markus” theory
For three cases of core: 1 – the core shear modulus is considered
7.037  (1 + 0.3i)  101 (MPa) (soft core), 2 – the core shear mod-
ulus is considered 7.037  (1 + 0.3i) (MPa) (moderately hard core)
and 3 – the core shear modulus is considered 7.037  (1 +
0.3i)  101 (MPa) (hard core), comparison of results for natural fre-
presented in Table 6. Geometric and mechanical properties of the
beam are presented in Fig. 2 and Table 4. Results in Table 6 show
that, in all cases, ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory is reliable in low fre-
quency range.
4.2. Frequency response analysis
In this section, the frequency response solution of composite
sandwich beam is compared with those from Ref. [5] to show the
correctness of current research. Then frequency response of com-
posite sandwich beam with viscoelastic core is presented. All of
these results are obtained for neutral axis of sandwich core at
the tip point of the beam.
4.2.1. Case study #3 – validation
A beam with single passive constrained layer damping (PCLD)
patch is taken as a numerical example to demonstrate the effec-
tiveness of the method presented in this paper. Schematic of the
beam is shown in Fig. 6. Cai et al. [5] have analyzed this sandwich
1002 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008

Fig. 6. General schematic of multilayer beam with PCLD patch [5].

{q} = {q0}eixt. Using Eq. (24) and above considerations, the fre-
quency response is obtained as:
8 9
> 0 >
>
> >
>
>
> .. >
>
>
> . >
>
>
> >
>
>
> f ½Nf >
>
>
> 0 1 jxf >
>
>
< >
=
2
ðx ½M þ ½KÞfq0 g ¼ 0 ð26Þ
Fig. 5. Effects of face sheets thickness of composite sandwich beam with isotropic > >
>
> 0 >
>
viscoelastic core on loss factors (marked with ‘‘g, D”) and natural frequencies >
> >
>
(marked with ‘‘f”) – shear and Young moduli, rotary inertia and longitudinal kinetic >
> 0 >
>
>
> >
>
energy of core have been considered (Case IV) – Case study #2 (see Fig. 2 and Table >
> >
>
>
> 0 >
>
4 for geometrical and mechanical properties). >
: >
;
0
beam by using various methods. Dimensions and material proper- The results are presented in Figs. 7 and 8. All results from Ref. [5]
ties of the beam are presented in Table 7. are based on ‘‘Mead & Markus” assumptions. By comparison of re-
The frequency response at an observing point xf, subject to a sults in Figs. 7 and 8, it is observed that in both cases the natural fre-
point force at a given excitation location, xf = L is investigated using quencies of system those obtained from current paper is lower than
the current finite element method. Here, we consider x1 = 0 and those from Ref. [5] especially in low frequency range. Also, the
x2 = 0.4 (m) as given in Ref. [5]. This means that the coverage rate amplitude of frequency response at resonant frequencies in Ref.
of PCLD patch is further increased to 100% (fully coverage). Two [5] for both the cases are lower than the corresponding results of
cases of core are considered as represented in Table 7. Assume that present study even at low frequencies. In next section, the fre-
a harmonic transverse point load, f(x, t) = f0d(x – xf)eixt, is applied at quency response of composite sandwich beam with viscoelastic
the tip point of the beam, where x is the circular frequency of exci- core is examined.
tation and f0 is the amplitude of the external load. Then the load–
RL
work term in Eq. (24) becomes 0 f0 dðx  xf Þeixt ½Nf1  dx, and this 4.2.2. Case study #4 – frequency response of composite sandwich
equation is simplified to f0 eixt ½Nf1 jxf . The magnitude of the applied beam with constant core shear modulus
external harmonic force is assumed as f0 = 1(N). In harmonic exci- Frequency response at tip point of the composite sandwich
tation, the vector of the nodal degrees of freedom is considered as beam with constant core shear modulus is presented in Fig. 9.

Table 6
Comparison of natural frequencies results of composite sandwich beam face sheets and isotropic viscoelastic core between current research and ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory.

1st mode (Hz) 2nd mode (Hz) 3rd mode (Hz) 4th mode (Hz)
Soft core ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory (50 elements) 6.70351 22.318202 43.8051 71.45477
Case II (50 elements) 6.70350 22.31795 43.80478 71.44883
Case IV (50 elements) 6.70358 22.31863 43.80716 71.45456
Percent of difference 0.00029 0.00148 0.00192 0.00104
Moderately hard core ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory (50 elements) 13.06845 48.95344 98.97852 148.26744
Case II (50 elements) 13.06822 48.95012 98.97442 148.25434
Case IV (50 elements) 13.07052 48.95425 98.98173 148.27351
Percent of difference 0.00409 0.00324 0.00165 0.01584
Hard core ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory (50 elements) 15.81159 86.58708 207.28561 344.60192
Case II (50 elements) 15.81091 86.56876 207.23144 344.51448
Case IV (50 elements) 15.86097 86.74695 207.49198 344.75274
Percent of difference 0.04375 0.09946 0.18429 0.31133

Table 7
Mechanical and geometric properties of beam with PCLD patch (length and width of the beam are L = 400 (mm) and b = 30 (mm), respectively) [5].

Thickness (mm) Young modulus E (MPa) Density q (kg/m3) Poisson’s ratio v Shear modulus G* (MPa)
3
Upper face hc = 2 49  10 7500 0.3 –
Core layer Soft hv = 1 E* = 2G*(1 + v) 1000 0.49 0.895 + 1.3067i
Hard 9.89 + 14.4394i
Lower face hb = 4 70  103 2110 0.3 –
 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008 1003

Fig. 7. Comparison of frequency response of neutral axis tip point of sandwich Fig. 8. Comparison of frequency response of neutral axis tip point of sandwich
beam with isotropic face sheets and soft viscoelastic core between current research beam with isotropic face sheets and hard viscoelastic core between current
(Case IV) and Ref. [5] – Case study #3 (see Fig. 10 and Table 7 for geometrical and research (Case IV) and Ref. [5] – Case study #3 (see Fig. 10 and Table 7 for
mechanical properties). geometrical and mechanical properties).

The schematic of the beam is shown in Fig. 2 and the geometric and
mechanical properties of the beam are presented in Table 4. The
dashed lines are the results for composite sandwich beam with
damping and solid lines are the results for composite sandwich
beam without damping. In the latter case, the imaginary part of
the core shear modulus is neglected. It can be seen that the effect
of damping appears only near the resonance frequencies, as
expected.
In ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory, transverse displacement through the
depth of beam is considered constant, whereas in this paper linear
variation of this displacement is assumed. Transverse displacements
of two face sheets, for three cases of core (soft core, G* = 7.037 
(1 + 0.3i)  101 (MPa); moderately hard-core, G* = 7.037 
(1 + 0.3i) (MPa); and in the case of hard core, G* = 7.037  (1 +
0.3i)  101 (MPa)) are obtained and presented in Figs. 10–12. Figs.
10–12 show that independency of the transverse displacement, in
upper and lower face sheets, results in none equal transverse dis-
placement in the case of soft-core, specially in higher frequencies
(f > 150 Hz), and in the case of hard and moderately hard-core this
independency yields in equivalence of w1 and w3, specially in low
frequencies.
Now shear and Young moduli of upper face sheet are considered
10 times weaker than lower face sheets’, which presented in Table
4 and other properties are the same as before (Fig. 2). Comparison
of frequency response between present research and ‘‘Mead &
Markus” theory for tip point of composite sandwich beam is pre-
sented in Fig. 13, for upper weaker face sheet. For comparison fre-
quency response of two other cases of core, those mentioned above
(moderately hard and hard-core) are presented in Figs. 14 and 15.
Fig. 13 shows that in frequencies higher than 150 Hz and when the
core is soft, the obtained frequency responses differ from the ones
obtained using ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory, whereas in Fig. 15 the

Fig. 9. Frequency response of neutral axis tip point of composite sandwich beam with isotropic viscoelastic core (Case IV) – Damping effect – Case study #4 (see Fig. 2 and
Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties; core shear modulus = 7.037  (1 + 0.3i)  101 (MPa)).
1004 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008

Fig. 10. Frequency response of neutral axis tip point of face sheets of composite sandwich beam with soft isotropic viscoelastic core (Case IV) – Case study #4 (see Fig. 2 and
Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties; core shear modulus = 7.037  (1 + 0.3i)  101 (MPa)).

Fig. 11. Frequency response of neutral axis tip point of face sheets of composite sandwich beam with moderately hard isotropic viscoelastic core (Case IV) – Case study #4
(see Fig. 2 and Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties, core shear modulus = 7.037  (1 + 0.3i) (MPa)).

Fig. 12. Frequency response of neutral axis tip point of face sheets of composite sandwich beam with hard isotropic viscoelastic core (Case IV) – Case study #4 (see Fig. 2 and
Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties, core shear modulus = 7.037  (1 + 0.3i)  101 (MPa)).
 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008 1005

Fig. 13. Comparison of frequency response of neutral axis tip point of unsymmetrical composite sandwich beam with soft viscoelastic core between current paper (Case IV)
and ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory – Case study #4 (see Fig. 2 and Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties, core shear modulus = 7.037  (1 + 0.3i)  101 (MPa), upper
face sheet moduli is 10 times weaker than lower face sheet).

Fig. 14. Comparison of frequency response of neutral axis tip point of unsymmetrical composite sandwich beam with moderately hard viscoelastic core between current
paper (Case IV) and ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory – Case study #4 (see Fig. 2 and Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties, core shear modulus = 7.037  (1 + 0.3i) (MPa),
upper face sheet moduli is 10 times weaker than lower face sheet).

difference can also be seen in hard-core even at low frequencies.
The mentioned differences are due to independency of transverse
displacement and considering the Young modulus of core for soft
and hard-cores, respectively. It is worth noting that for moderately
hard-core the results of the presented method and ‘‘Mead & Mark-
us” theory are exactly the same, as indicated in Fig. 14.
It can be concluded that in the cases of soft and hard-core
‘‘Mead & Markus” theory faces problems in obtaining the fre-
quency response, however, in moderately hard-core these men-
tioned reasons do not affect the predicted frequency response
using ‘‘Mead & Markus” theory.
4.2.3. Case study #5 – frequency response of composite sandwich
beam with frequency dependent core shear modulus
In this section, frequency response of the composite sandwich
beam with frequency dependent core shear modulus is presented.
All the geometric and mechanical properties of this example are
the same as Fig. 2 and Table 4 except for core shear modulus. Eq.
(27) gives the dependent shear modulus of acrylic core [9].
Gðf Þ ¼ ð21461ðf Þ0:579 þ 21634ðf Þ0:601 iÞ  106 ðMPaÞ ð27Þ
For investigating the effect of frequency dependent core shear mod-
ulus on the frequency response, comparison is done with the case
that material has the constant shear modulus. For this purpose,
the average of frequency dependent core shear modulus is
calculated in the interested frequency region, i.e. 0–100 (Hz). For
example, regarding to Eq. (27), the magnitude of shear modulus
at 0 (Hz) is G(0) = 0 (MPa) and the corresponding value at 100
(Hz) is G(100) = (3.0878 + 3.4446i)  101 (MPa). So, the average
value can be determined as, G ¼ Gð0ÞþGð100Þ
2
¼ ð1:5439 þ 1:7223iÞ
101 ðMPaÞ. This new case is called as Case V. All other properties
of this case are the same as Case IV. Consequently, the FRF values
are obtained for constant and frequency dependent shear modulus
1006 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008

Fig. 15. Comparison of frequency response of neutral axis tip point of unsymmetrical composite sandwich beam with hard viscoelastic core between current (Case IV)), and
‘‘Mead & Markus” theory – Case study #4 (see Fig. 2 and Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties, core shear modulus = 7.037  (1 + 0.3i)101 (MPa), upper face
sheet moduli is 10 times weaker than lower face sheets).

Fig. 16. Comparison of frequency response of neutral axis tip point of composite sandwich beam with frequency dependent (G(f) = (21461(f)0.579 + 21634(f)0.601i)  106
(MPa) and constant (G ¼ Gð0ÞþGð100Þ
2
¼ ð1:5439 þ 1:7223i)  101 (0 6 f 6 100 (Hz)), (MPa)) shear modulus viscoelastic core (Case IV (shear modulus = G(f)), Case V (shear
modulus=G), Case VI (Case IV without damping) and Case VII (Case V without damping) –Case study #5 (see Fig. 2 and Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties).

and comparison is made. Frequency response of beam for four dif-
ferent cases (see Section 4.1.1): Case IV, Case VI (Case IV without
damping), Case V and Case VII (Case V without damping), are pre-
sented in Fig. 16. It can be seen that the effect of frequency depen-
dent shear modulus of core is considerable and by using the
equivalent shear core modulus a significant error in amplitude of
frequency response and magnitude of frequencies occurs. However,
damping indicates valuable reduction in displacement at the reso-
nance frequencies.
elastic material behaviour. Time dependent core relaxation func-
tion is presented in Eq. (28) [10] and the density of this
viscoelastic material is 789.5 kg/m3. The other mechanical and
geometrical properties of beam and its layers are same as Fig. 2
and Table 4. The time step is considered 0.002 s. In this section,
Case II (see Section 4.1.1) is investigated. The unite force is applied
in 0.1 s and then is removed. Time response is presented in Fig. 17.
GðtÞ ¼ ð34:41 þ 70:887  e193:39t þ 2312:3  e16345:9t

4.3. Forced vibration analysis þ 17444  e485918:4t Þ  103 ðMPaÞ ð28Þ

Finally, in this section, the time response of composite sand- The zoomed region (between 0.2 and 0.3 s) clearly indicates the
wich beam with time dependent viscoelastic core modulus sub- damping effect on reducing the magnitude of displacement at tip
jected to transient excitation is studied using the finite element of the beam. In addition, the effects of the fiber angle of composite
method. The time dependent modulus model represents the visco- skins on time response are studied in Fig. 18. This figure shows that
 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008 1007

Fig. 17. Time response of neutral axis tip point of composite sandwich beam with time dependent (shear modulus = (34.41 + 70.887  e193.39t + 2312.3 
e16345.9t + 17444  e485918.4t  103 (MPa)) viscoelastic core. Shear modulus, rotary inertia and longitudinal kinetic energy of core have been considered (Case II) (see
Fig. 2 and Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties).

Fig. 18. Effect of fiber angle of composite skins on time response of neutral axis tip point of composite sandwich beam with time dependent (shear
modulus = (34.41 + 70.887  e193.39t + 2312.3  e16345.9t + 17444  e485918.4t)  103 (MPa)) viscoelastic core. Shear modulus, rotary inertia and longitudinal kinetic
energy of core have been considered (Case II) (see Fig. 2 and Table 4 for geometrical and mechanical properties).

by decreasing the fiber angle of face sheets, time response and
transverse displacement at tip of the beam will be reduced
significantly.
5. Conclusions
The present study follows a higher order theory for composite
sandwich beam with viscoelastic core to improve the ‘‘Mead &
Markus” theory. In the presented theory, independent transverse
displacements on two faces and linear variations through the
depth of the beam core have been assumed. In addition, Young
modulus, rotational inertia and kinetic energy of core are consid-
ered. The effects of these modifications on the natural frequencies,
loss factors and frequency and time responses of the composite
sandwich beam have been studied.
Obtained results show that by increasing the fiber angles of face
sheets and/or core’s thickness, loss factors are increased and natu-
ral frequencies are decreased. Decrease of the natural frequencies
can be only observed for soft cores, whereas for the hard cores,
the natural frequencies will be increased (which is not presented
in this paper).
Since the transverse displacements of upper and lower face
sheets are independent, none equal transverse displacements will
be obtained in the case of the soft core, specially in higher frequen-
cies (f > 150 Hz). However, in the case of hard and moderately hard
core, this independency yields in equivalent transverse displace-
ments, specially in low frequencies. Simulation results indicate
that, when the core is soft or hard, the presented theory predicts
the frequency responses of the system more accurately than the
‘‘Mead & Markus” theory; whereas for moderately hard core, both
1008 H. Arvin et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 996–1008
methods lead to the same results. In addition, when the beam is
unsymmetrical about its neutral axis, i.e. one face sheet is weaker
than the other face sheet, the inaccuracy of the ‘‘Mead & Markus”
theory increases, even at low frequencies.
Finally, in the case of frequency dependent core shear modulus,
the simplified modulus which obtained by averaging of frequency
dependent modulus in the interested frequency domain, result in
significant inaccuracy in the frequency response and the magni-
tude of natural frequencies.
References
[1] Mead DJ, Markus S. The forced vibration of a three layer, damped sandwich
beam with arbitrary boundary conditions. Vib Acoust 1969;10(2):163–75.
[2] Sainsbury MG, Zhang QJ. The Galerkin element method applied to the vibration
of damped sandwich beams. Comput Struct 1999;71:239–56.
[3] Wang HJ, Chen LW. Vibration and damping analysis of a three-layered
composite annular plate with a viscoelastic mid-layer. Compos Struct
2002;58:563–70.
[4] Yim JH, Cho SY, Seo YJ, Jang BZ. A study on material damping of 0° laminated
composite sandwich cantilever beams with a viscoelastic layer. Compos Struct
2003;60:367–74.
[5] Cai C, Zheng H, Liu GR. Vibration analysis of a beam with PCLD Patch. Appl
Acoust 2004;65:1057–76.
[6] Zhang SH, Chen HL. A study on the damping characteristics of laminated
composites with integral viscoelastic layers. Compos Struct 2006;74:63–9.
[7] Pradeep V, Ganesan N. Vibration and thermal buckling of composite sandwich
beams with viscoelastic core. Compos Struct 2007;81:60–9.
[8] Douglas BE, Yang JCS. Transverse compressional damping in the vibratory
response of elastic–viscoelastic–elastic beams. AIAA 1978;16(9):925–30.
[9] Thomas TB, Richard AM, Carlos EO. A finite element model for harmonically
excited viscoelastic sandwich beams. Comput Struct 1998;66:104–13.
[10] Chen Q, Chan YW. Integral finite element method for dynamical analysis of
elastic–viscoelastic composite structures. Comput Struct 2000;74:51–64.
[11] Douglas BE. Compressional damping in three-layer beams incorporating
nearly incompressible viscoelastic cores. Sound Vib 1986;104(2):343–7.
[12] Bai JM, Sun CT. The effect of viscoelastic adhesive layers on structural damping
of sandwich beams. Mech Struct Mach 1995;23(1):1–16.
[13] Johnson CD. Design of passive damping systems. ASME 50th Anniversary of the
Design Engineering Division. J Mech Des Vib Acoust 1995;117:171–6.
[14] Austin EM, Inman DJ. Studies on the kinematics assumptions for sandwich
beams. In: Proceedings of SPIE smart structures and materials. LP Davis,
Passive Damping and Isolation, SPIE, 3045; 1997 (February). p. 173–83.
[15] Meirovitch L. Principles and techniques of vibrations. 1st ed. Prentice Hall;
1997.
[16] Vinson JR, Sierakowski RL. The behavior of structures composed of composite
materials. 1st ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1987.
[17] Hughes TJR. The finite element method: linear static and dynamic
analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1987.
[18] Kollar LP, Springer GS. Mechanics of composite structures. Cambridge
University Press; 2003.