See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268457840

Homogenization of Piecewise Straight Corrugated Plates

Conference Paper  in  Collection of Technical Papers - AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference · April 2013
DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-1608

CITATIONS READS
5 327

2 authors:

Zheng Ye Wenbin Yu
Baker Hughes Incorporated Purdue University
10 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS    256 PUBLICATIONS   5,216 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multiscale Structural Mechanics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zheng Ye on 17 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Homogenization of piecewise straight corrugated plates

Zheng Ye∗, Wenbin Yu†

Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-4130

By using the variational asymptotic method (VAM), we derived an analytical solution

for the homogenization of piecewise straight corrugated plates. The VAM is used to carry
out an asymptotic analysis of the shell energy for solving the fluctuating functions. The
corrugation’s gradient discontinuity in corrugated plate plays an additional condition in
solving fluctuating functions, thus a different case from continuous scenario needs to be
studied. After solving fluctuating functions, the equivalent plate stiffnesses can be obtained
analytically. Different from other methods which lack of ability to recover the local fields,
such as displacement, strain and stress fields, of original corrugated plates, VAM keeps
the connection between the original corrugated plate and the equivalent plate through
fluctuating functions. The homogenized equivalent plate stiffnesses are compared with the
literature and commercial FEM software ANSYS as validations of the present theory.

INTRODUCTION
Corrugated structures can bear more bending load in the direction normal to the corrugation. The
expanded application of corrugated shapes has included fiberboards, folded roofs, containers, flexible wings,
and etc.1–14 Although it is conceivable to use the commercial finite element analysis (FEA) to analyze
corrugated structures by meshing all the corrugations with shell or solid elements, it is not an efficient or
even a practical way to finish prototype in a timely manner which requires a large computational cost.
To avoid the time-consuming finite element analysis of corrugated plates by directly meshing all the
repeating details using shell or solid elements, many studies have focused on replacing the original corrugated
plate, both for corrugation’s gradient continuous and discontinuous, with a flat plate (such as in figure 1)
with corresponding equivalent plate stiffnesses obtained from the unit cell (UC) of corrugated shape and
implemented in structural analysis for overall behavior. In the past few decades, several approaches have
been suggested in the literature, such as free body diagram for equivalent flexural stiffnesses,15–18 beam
model,19 free body diagram to several load cases for equivalent membrane rigidities,20–23 energy methods
through Castigliano’s theorem,24–26 homogenization method,27 VAPAS,28 a recent historical review of this
method can be found by Luo.29

y (x2) y (x2)

(TXLYDOHQWSODWHVWLIIQHVV

ABDPDWUL[

x (x1) x (x1)
h

Figure 1. Homogenization of corrugated plate.

The variational asymptotic method (VAM), first developed by Berdichevsky30 and applied in various
homogenization problems31–34 very recently, is used to attack corrugated plate homogenization problem. It
∗ Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. Student Member of AIAA.
† Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. Associate Fellow, AIAA; Fellow, ASME;
Member AHS.

1 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

can be shown that using VAM, the equivalent stiffnesses can be obtained without applying any boundary
conditions and does not require several free body diagram analyses as others did. Another advantage of this
method is that it can not only obtain the equivalent stiffnesses but also recover the displacement, strain
and stress fields. To systematically solve this problem and generate the new ability in VAMUCH code31 for
engineer usage, we split the work load into three parts. The first part, which has been done previously, is
to solve a continuous gradient corrugation problem analytically; The second part, which will be covered in
this paper, is to homogenize a piecewise straight corrugated plate (gradient discontinuity) by VAM; The last
part, which will be done in future, is to use finite element method to formulate and solve this problem in
VAMUCH. The procedure to solve the piecewise straight corrugation problem is quite similar to what we
did in gradient continuous corrugation case. Those steps are followed. First, the corrugated shell geometry
and the shell strain energy are constructed. Then, VAM is used to minimize the shell energy and assess the
fluctuating functions. After solving fluctuating functions, the equivalent plate stiffnesses can be obtained
analytically. Several examples are compared with available results in the literature as well as the three-
dimensional analysis using the commercial finite element package ANSYS. Based on the comparison, the
VAM is proved to be an efficient and yet accurate way to model corrugated plates.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we give the equations of shell theory describing
the corrugated structures. In section 3, the variational asymptotic method is used to carry out an asymptotic
analysis of the shell strain energy to obtain the leading terms of the energy and the minimizing functions
which yield the equivalent plate stiffnesses. The present results are compared with those available in the
literature through serval examples in section 4 and the conclusions are in section 5.

h
3

X=

3 1 X,
- 1
2 2

Figure 2. Unit cell of piecewise straight corrugated plate.

SHELL FORMULATION OF CORRUGATED PLATES

The piecewise straight corrugated plate can be described using the shell theory as the thickness h is small.
Note the piecewise straight corrugated plate can also be described as being composed of plates with different
coordinate systems. However, the authors believe it is theoretically more advantageous to describe it as a
shell with discontinuous shapes. For the convenience to formulate an equivalent plate theory, we choose a
Cartesian coordinate system xi with base vectors êi (Here and throughout the paper, Greek indices assume
values 1 and 2 while Latin indices assume 1, 2, and 3. Repeated indexes are summed over their ranges except
where explicitly indicated). We also describe the mid-plane of the equivalent plate using x, y coordinates
with x = x1 and y = x2 . The mid-surface of the shell can be described using a position vector such that

r(x1 , x2 ) = x1 ê1 + x2 ê2 + x3 ê3 (1)

We choose xα as the two parameters to describe the shell mid-surface. x3 will be a function of xα if there
are corrugations along both x = x1 and y = x2 directions. For the purpose to work out the problem
analytically, we restrict our consideration to the case of periodic corrugations in one direction x, with two

2 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

straight segments as in figure 2. The tangent vectors aα of the shell surface can be obtained by differentiating
∂r
the position vector with respect to xα , aα = ∂x α
, so that

a1 = ê1 + φê3 a2 = ê2 (2)

For later uses, we also write aα = rαi êi , which implies

r11 = 1 r12 = 0 r13 = φ r21 = 0 r22 = 1 r23 = 0 (3)

φ is a piecewise constants:
dx3 (x)
φ= (4)
dx
The metric tensor, or so-called the first quadratic form, of the shell surface, aαβ , is define as

aαβ = aα · aβ (5)

so that
a11 = 1 + φ2 a12 = 0 a22 = 1
1
a11 = a12 = 0 a22 = 1 (6)
1 + φ2
a = det ∥aαβ ∥ = 1 + φ2

Note that aαβ are the contravariant components of the surface metric tensor so that aαβ aγβ = δαγ . All the
components of aγβ and aγβ are evaluated as piecewise constants for the straight corrugated segments.
The normal vector of the shell mid-surface can be obtained as:
a1 × a2 −φê1 + ê3 −φ 1
n̂ = = √ = √ ê1 + √ ê3 (7)
|a1 × a2 | 1 + φ2 a a

If we also write n̂ = ni êi , we have

φ 1
n1 = − √ n2 = 0 n3 = √ (8)
a a

The curvature tensor, or the so-called second quadratic form, of the shell mid-surface is defined as

bαβ = aα,β · n̂ (9)

with comma in the subscripts denoting the partial derivative. Hence, for flat plate sections have

b11 = b12 = b22 = b11 = b21 = b12 = b22 = 0 (10)

Note bα αγ
β = a bγβ .
According to Ref. 35, the Christoffel’s symbols can be evaluated according to the following equation:
1 γδ
Γγαβ = a (aαδ,β + aβδ,α − aαβ,δ ) (11)
2
All components of Γγαβ are vanished by using Eq. 6.
The corrugated plate has a very special feature as the structure can be viewed as formed by repeating a
single unit cell (figure 2), we denote by
x
X= , −1/2 ≤ X ≤ 1/2 (12)
ε
the dimensionless “cell coordinate”. Following the common practice in homogenization literature, the be-
havior of the corrugated plate should be considered as functions of cell coordinate X, and slow coordinates x
and y. All the geometric characteristics we just introduced are completely captured by the unit cell and the

3 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

same set of geometric characteristics remain the same over the entire structure. Hence the shell geometry
should be viewed as functions of X only, e.g.

dx3 (X)
φ= (13)
εdX
To evaluate the problem analytically, we constrain the corrugation is composed by two different straight
segments. With the superscript with parenthesis denote the segment, x3 (X) can be decomposed:
 ( )
 (1) P − 2ε 1 P

 3x (X) = φ (1)
εX − − ≤X≤
2 2 ε
( ε) (14)

 P+2 P 1
 x(2)
3 (X) = φ (2)
εX − < X ≤
2 ε 2

Denoting the displacement field as ui (X, x, y) expressed in the base vectors êi , we can obtain the extension
strain measures γαβ and bending measures ραβ following the definition given in Ref. [35] as:

1( i )
γ αβ = rα ui,β + rβi ui,α
2 (15)
1( )
ραβ = (ni ui,α ),β +(ni ui,β ),α
2
γ
where ραβ is simplified due to bα i
β = Γαβ = 0. We need to point out that u = ui because it is expressed in
1
the Cartesian coordinate systems êi . Because X is related with x = x according to Eq. (12), the derivative
of the displacement field with respect to x1 can be expressed as
∂ui ∂ui ∂ui ∂X ∂ui 1
= = | + | = u′i + ui,1 (16)
∂x1 ∂x ∂X ∂x x=const ∂x X=const ε

with u′i = ∂u
∂X |x=const and ui,1 = ∂x |X=const . We also denote ui,2 = ∂x2 = ∂y .
i ∂ui ∂ui ∂ui

The elastic behavior of the shell will be governed by its strain energy density according to the following
expression:
( ( )2 )
Φ =µh σ aαβ γαβ + aαβ aγδ γαγ γβδ
µh3 ( ( αβ )
)2 (17)
+ σ a ραβ + aαβ aγδ ραγ ρβδ
12
where the first part is the extension energy and second part is the bending energy. µ is shear modulus,
σ = ν/(1 − ν) with ν denoting the Poisson’s ratio.

HOMOGENIZATION OF CORRUGATED PLATES

To model the corrugated plate, described using a shell theory as above, to be an equivalent plate described
as flat surface in terms of x, y, let us start by expressing the shell displacement components in the Cartesian
coordinate system xi in the following form

uα (X, x, y) =vα (x, y) − x3 (X)v3,α + εψα (X, x, y)

(18)
u3 (X, x, y) =v3 (x, y) + εψ3 (X, x, y)

If we choose the coordinate, x3 in such a way that

∫ 1
2
⟨x3 ⟩ ≡ x3 dX = 0 (19)
− 12

and also define vi as the average of ui over the cell such that

vi (x, y) = ⟨ui (X, x, y)⟩ (20)

4 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

then we require
⟨ψi (X, x, y)⟩ = 0 (21)
We also point out that ψi (X, x, y) are periodic in X with the period 1, noting −1/2 ≤ X ≤ 1/2.
Substituting Eq. (18) into Eq. (15), we obtain

γ11 =v1,1 − x3 v3,11 + ψ1′ + φψ3′ + ε (ψ1,1 + φψ3,1 )

2γ12 =v1,2 + v2,1 − 2x3 v3,12 + ψ2′ + ε (ψ1,2 + φψ3,2 + ψ2,1 )
γ22 =v2,2 − x3 v3,22 + εψ2,2
1
ρ11 = U1′ + U1,1 (22)
ε
1
2ρ12 =U1,2 + U2,1 + U2′
ε
ρ22 =U2,2

with
√
U1 = n1 (v1,1 − x3 v3,11 + ψ1′ ) + n3 ψ3′ + av3,1
+ ε(n1 ψ1,1 + n3 ψ3,1 ) (23)
U2 = n1 (v1,2 − x3 v3,12 ) + n3 v3,2 + ε(n1 ψ1,2 + n3 ψ3,2 )

Thus, the leading term of extension strains Eq. (22) are

0
γ11 =v1,1 − x3 v3,11 + ψ1′ + φψ3′
0
2γ12 =v1,2 + v2,1 − 2x3 v3,12 + ψ2′ (24)
0
γ22 =v2,2 − x3 v3,22

Considering
φ′ = 0 (25)
The leading term of bending strains Eq. (22) are

1 φ φ2 + a
ρ011 = √ ψ3′′ − √ ψ1′′ + v3,11 √
ε a ε a a
√
2ρ012 =2 av3,12 (26)
1
ρ022 = √ v3,22
a
0
γ22 , ρ022 , 2ρ012 are constants respect with ψi , 2γ12
0 0
relate to ψ2 only, and γ11 , ρ011 relate to ψ1 , ψ3 .
Substituting the strain field in Eq. (22) into Eq. (17), we can obtain the strain energy as of vi and ψi as
⟨ √ ⟩
J= Φ a
⟨ ( ( )2 )⟩
√ 1 1 2 2 2 2
= µh a σ γ11 + γ22 + 2 γ11 + γ12 + γ22
a a a
⟨ ( ( )2 )⟩
µh3 √ 1 1 2 2 2 2
+ a σ ρ11 + ρ22 + 2 ρ11 + ρ12 + ρ22 (27)
12 a a a
⟨ ( (γ )2 ( ) )⟩
√ 11 1 + 2σ 2 2 2
= µh a (1 + σ) + νγ22 + γ22 + γ12
a 1+σ a
⟨ 3 ( (ρ )2 ( 1 + 2σ ) )⟩
µh √ 11 2 2 2
+ a (1 + σ) + νρ22 + ρ22 + ρ12
12 a 1+σ a
Note here both material parameters (µ, σ) and shell thickness (h) could be functions of X. But for simplicity,
we assume they are constant in the rest of the paper.
Our objective of homogenization is to construct an equivalent classical plate model for the corrugated
plate. More specifically, we are trying to find a strain energy density which can be expressed in terms of

5 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

vα,β and v3,αβ . To this end, we need to eliminate ψi , which can be achieved using the variational asymptotic
method (VAM)35 according to asymptotic analysis of the energy functional of different orders. Here we are
focusing on finding the first approximation of the fluctuating function.
Let us focus on solving ψ2 first. The first approximation of the strain energy in Eq. (27) related with ψ2
is: ⟨ ( )⟩
1 ( 0 )2 h2 ( 0 )2
J2 = µh √ 2γ12 + 2ρ12 (28)
2 a 12
0
We need to minimize 2γ12 in Eq. (28) over periodic functions ψ2 (X) subject to the constraints Eq. (21). The
constraints can be taken care of by introducing the Lagrange multipliers. The corresponding Euler-Lagrange
equation is: ( )′
1
√ 2γ12 − λ2 = 0
0
(29)
a
along with boundary conditions
1
⌊ψ2 ⌋ = 0, ⌊ √ 2γ12
0
⌋=0 (30)
a
with the floor square brackets denoting the difference between the end values in the whole domain, for
(2) (1)
example ⌊ψi ⌋ = 0 denotes two conditions, one is for periodic boundary condition ψi ( 12 ) − ψi (− 21 ) = 0
(1) (2)
and another is for continuity ψi ( pε ) − ψi ( pε ) = 0. The second condition in Eq. (30) leads to λ2 = 0 and
(1) (2)
two integral constants from Eq. (29) c2 = c2 . Hence:
1
√ 2γ12
0
= c2 (31)
a
Thus: √
0
2γ12 = ac2 (32)
√
v1,2 + v2,1 − 2x3 v3,12 + ψ2′ = ac2 (33)
Integrating Eq. (33) over the cell length, we obtain the constant c2 :
⟨√ ⟩
v1,2 + v2,1 = a c2 (34)
(v1,2 + v2,1 )
c2 = √ (35)
⟨ a⟩
With c2 and the first condition in Eq. (30), ψ2 can be solved explicitly, but for the equivalent plate stiffnesses,
the solution of c2 is enough at this stage.
The first approximation of the strain energy in Eq. (27) related with ψ1 and ψ3 is:
⟨ ( 0 )2 ( 0 )2 ⟩
√ γ11 0 µh 3√
ρ11
J1 = µh a (1 + σ) + νγ22 + a (1 + σ) + νρ022 (36)
a 12 a

Similarly, we use Lagrange multiplier to take care of the constraints of ψ1 and ψ3 in Eq. (21). The corre-
sponding Euler-Lagrange equations are:
( ( 0 ) ( )′ )′
1 γ11 h2 ρ011 φ
√ 0
+ νγ22 + 0
+ νρ22 − λ1 = 0,
a a 12ε a a
( ( 0 ) ( 0 ) ′ )′ (37)
2
φ γ11 h ρ 1
√ 0
+ νγ22 − 11
+ νρ022 − λ3 = 0.
a a 12ε a a
along with boundary conditions
( 0
) ( )′
1 γ11 h2 ρ011 φ
⌊ψ1 ⌋ = 0 ⌊√ 0
+ νγ22 + + νρ022 ⌋=0
a a 12ε a a
( 0 ) ( )′
φ γ11 h2 ρ011 1
⌊ψ3 ⌋ = 0 ⌊√ 0
+ νγ22 − + νρ022 ⌋=0 (38)
a a 12ε a a
( 0 )( )
ρ φ ′ 1
⌊ 11 + νρ022 δψ1 − δψ3′ ⌋ = 0
a a a

6 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 To evaluate the fifth condition in Eq. (38), we need the geometry relation of the angle changing between
the two segment as shown in figure 3. As we formulate the corrugated plate under classical plate theory, no
shear effect lead to the changing of the angle and ∆α = 0.

Figure 3. Edge rigidity constraint ∆α = 0.

The angle changing between two segments is defined by

du(1) du(2)
K(1) + K(2) +
ds(1)
· ds(2)
= cos(α + ∆α) (39)
|K(1) + du(1)
ds(1)
| |K(2) + du(2)
ds(2)
|

where s(1) and s(2) are arc lengths measuring from the conjunction for segment (1) and segment (2), respec-
tively. For small displacement with neglecting high order term, Eq. (39) is rewritten as
( ) ( )
du(2) du(1) (1) du
(1)
(2) du
(2)
K(1)
· (2) + K(2) · (1) − cos α K · (1) + K · (2) = −∆α sin α (40)
ds ds ds ds

Here
1 φ(1)
K(1) = − √ ê1 − √ ê3
a(1) a(1)
1 φ(2)
K(2) = √ ê1 + √ ê3
a(2) a(2)
(1) (1) (1)
(41)
du(1) du1 (1) du2 (1) du3 (1)
= K ê 1 + K ê 2 + K ê3
ds(1) dxi i dxi i dxi i
(2) (2) (2)
du(2) du (2) du (2) du (2)
= 1 Ki ê1 + 2 Ki ê2 + 3 Ki ê3
ds(2) dxi dxi dxi
Plug Eq. (18) in Eq. (41) then into Eq. (40), gives the edge condition
( )
φ(1) φ(2) (1) ′ φ
(1)
(2) ′ φ
(2)
(1) ′ 1 (2) ′ 1
(1)
− (2) (v1,1 − x3 v3,11 ) + ψ1 (1)
− ψ1 (2)
− ψ3 + ψ3 =0 (42)
a a a a a(1) a(2)

Revising fifth condition at discontinuous points in Eq. (38) with Eq. (42) gives

ρ011
⌊ + νρ022 ⌋ = 0 (43)
a
(1) (2)
The second and fourth conditions in Eq. (38) leads to λ1 = λ3 = 0 and integral constants c1 = c1 ,
(1) (2)
c3 = c3 . Hence:
(
0
) ( )′
1 γ11 h2 ρ011 φ
√ 0
+ νγ22 + + νρ022 = c1 , (44)
a a 12ε a a
( 0 ) ( )′
φ γ11 h2 ρ011 1
√ + νγ22 −
0 0
+ νρ22 = c3 . (45)
a a 12ε a a

7 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Integrate (φ × (44) − (45)) over the cell length with considering the condition in Eq. (43) conclude:
c3 = 0. (46)
Then Eqs. (44) and (45) can be simplified as:
( 0 )′
ρ11 0 12φε
+ νρ22 = c1 2 , (47)
a h
( 0 )
γ11 c1
0
+ νγ22 =√ . (48)
a a
Integrate Eq. (47)
 ( (1) )
(1)

 ρ 0
12x3 (1) 1 P


11
+ νρ0
= c + c4 − ≤X≤
 a(1) 22 1
h2 2 ε
( (2) ) (49)

 ρ011
(2)

 0 12x3 (2) P
<X≤
1
 + νρ22 = c1 + c4
a(2) h2 ε 2
Rewriting Eq. (49) considering Eq. (26)
( )′ ( )

 ′ (1) φ(1) 0 (1) 12 (1) √ (1) (1)
√ 1 P

 ψ 3 − γ = ε c x
1 2 3 a + c a(1) − (v
3,11 + νv 3,22 ) − ≤X≤
a(1) 11 h 4
2 ε
( ) ( ) (50)
12 (2) √ (2) √
 ′

 ′ φ(2) 0 (2) P 1
 ψ3 − (2)
γ = ε c1 2 x3 a + c4
(2)
a − (v3,11 + νv3,22 )
(2) <X≤
a(2) 11 h ε 2
Integrating over the cell length with the edge condition Eq. (42), gives ⌊ψ3′ − φa γ11
0
⌋ = 0. Evaluate Eq. (49)
(1) (2)
at discontinuous points with condition Eq. (43). Thus, c4 = c4 , and:
1
c4 = √ (v3,11 + νv3,22 ) (51)
⟨ a⟩
√
Note here ⟨x3 a⟩ = 0.
(1) (2)
Integrate Eq. (50) considering c4 . Similarly, c5 = c5 when using edge condition Eq. (42). It gives:
∫ X √ 
φ 12ε P adY
ψ3′ − γ11
0
= − 2 c1 A + ε  ε √ − X  (v3,11 + νv3,22 ) + c5 . (52)
a h ⟨ a⟩

with ∫ X √
A(X) = − ax3 dY (53)
P
ε

φ × (48) + (52) gives

∫ X √ 
c1 φ 12ε P adY
ψ3′ + νφγ22
0
= √ − 2 c1 A + ε  ε √ − X  (v3,11 + νv3,22 ) + c5 , (54)
a h ⟨ a⟩

Integrating over the cell length, we obtain

⟨∫ √ ⟩
⟨ ⟩ X
adY
φ 12ε P
c5 = −c1 √ + c1 ⟨A⟩ − ε ε
√ (v3,11 + νv3,22 ), (55)
a h2 ⟨ a⟩
Here, notice ⟨ψ3′ ⟩ = 0 and ⟨φx3 ⟩ = 0. Substitute c5 into Eq. (54):
( ⟨ ⟩)
φ φ 12ε
ψ3′ = −νφγ22 0
+ c1 √ − √ − 2 c1 (A − ⟨A⟩)
a a h
∫ X √ ⟨∫ √ ⟩ 
adY − P adY
X (56)
P
+ ε ε √ ε − X  (v3,11 + νv3,22 ),
⟨ a⟩

8 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Rewrite Eq. (48) as √
v1,1 − x3 v3,11 + ψ1′ + φψ3′ = c1 a − νaγ22
0
, (57)
Substitute Eq. (56) into Eq. (57) and integrate over the cell length:
⟨ ⟩
12ε 1
v1,1 + νv2,2 = 2 c1 ⟨φA⟩ + c1 √ , (58)
h a
Thus
(v1,1 + νv2,2 )
c1 = (59)
C
where ⟨ ⟩
ε 1
C = 12 ⟨φA⟩ 2 + √ (60)
h a

EQUIVALENT PLATE ENERGY

Now, everything is ready to compute the equivalent plate energy. It is convenient to split the strain
energy in Eq. (27) into three parts. J1 is associated with the energy in Eq. (36), J2 with that in Eq. (28),
and J3 is ⟨ ⟩
√ 0 2 µh3 √
J3 = µh a(1 + ν)(γ22 ) + a(1 + ν)(ρ022 )2 . (61)
12
Let us compute J1 first. Using Eq. (48) and Eq. (49)
⟨ ( )2 ( )2 ⟩
√ c1 µh3 √ 12x3
J1 = µh a (1 + σ) √ + a (1 + σ) c1 2 + c4 . (62)
a 12 h

Substituting Eqs. (51) and (59) into Eq. (62) gives

⟨ ( )2 ( )2 ⟩
1 (v1,1 + νv2,2 ) µh3 √ (v1,1 + νv2,2 ) 12x3 (v3,11 + νv3,22 )
J1 = µh √ (1 + σ) + a (1 + σ) + √
a C 12 C h2 ⟨ a⟩
( ⟨ ⟩ ) ⟨ ⟩ (63)
1 1 12 1
=(v1,1 + νv2,2 ) µ(1 + σ) 2 h √
2
+ ε ⟨φA⟩ + (v3,11 + νv3,22 ) µh(1 + σ) √
2
.
C a h a
Rewrite Eq. (28) as ⟨ ( )⟩
µh 1 ( )2 h2 ( √ )2
J2 = √ 0
2γ12 + 2 av3,12 . (64)
2 a 12
Substituting Eqs. (33) and (35) into Eq. (64) gives
µh µh3 ⟨√ ⟩
J2 =(v1,2 + v2,1 )2 √ + v3,12
2
a . (65)
2 ⟨ a⟩ 6
0
Substituting γ22 in Eq. (24) and ρ022 in Eq. (26) into Eq. (61) gives
( ⟨ ⟩)
⟨√ ⟩ ⟨√ 2 ⟩ h2 1
2 2
J3 =v2,2 µh(1 + ν) a + v3,22 µh(1 + ν) ax3 + √ . (66)
12 a
If we set
ϵxx = v1,1 , 2ϵxy = v1,2 + v2,1 , ϵyy = v2,2 ,
(67)
κxx = −v3,11 , κxy = −v3,12 , κyy = −v3,22 ,
in  T   

 ϵ 
 A11 0 A13 B11 0 B13   ϵ 



xx 
  
xx 


 2ϵ 
  0 A22 0 0 B22 0   2ϵ 


 xy 
   xy 

  A13  
1 ϵyy  0 A33 B13 0 B33 
 ϵyy
J= B , (68)
2 κxx 


  11 0 B13 D11 0 D13 
 κxx 




2κxy    2κxy  

 
  0 B22 0 0 D22 0   


 
 
 

κyy B13 0 B33 D13 0 D33 κyy

9 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

we obtain the following relations for the equivalent plate stiffnesses:
⟨ ⟩
E 12ε⟨φA⟩ Eh 1 1
A11 = + √ , A13 = νA11 ,
1 − ν 2 hC 2 1 − ν2 a C2
1 √
A22 = µh √ , A33 = Eh⟨ a⟩ + ν 2 A11 ,
⟨ a⟩
B11 = B13 = B22 = B33 = 0 (69)
Eh3 1
D11 = √ , D13 = νD11 ,
12(1 − ν ) ⟨ a⟩
2
⟨ ⟩
µh3 √ ⟨ √ ⟩ Eh3 1
D22 = ⟨ a⟩, D33 = Eh (x3 )2 a + √ + ν 2 D11 .
12 12 a
1
The physical meaning of √ is the ratio of the projected length to the arc length of corrugation in one
⟨ a⟩ ⟨ √ ⟩
UC (such as ε/2L in Figure 4). The leading term in D33 , h (x3 )2 a has the meaning of moment of inertia
in y-axis. In this case, we can conclude the leading parts of equivalent bending rigidities have the same forms
from Huber15 which derived from free body diagram. It is also noticed that, without coupling terms, the
effective stiffnesses in piecewise continuous case are exactly the same with our continuous gradient case in
previous work. Thus, it is safe to expand these equations to the corrugation’s gradient discontinuous case of
corrugated unit cell, such as trapezoidal corrugated plate showed in the next section.
The equivalent plate stiffnesses can be used as inputs to carry out a plate analysis to obtain the displace-
ment (vi ) and strain fields (ϵxx , 2ϵxy , ϵyy , κxx , 2κxy , κyy ). Then, these results can be used to recover the local
displacement field using Eq. (18) and local strain field using Eqs. (24) and (26) with ψi solved explicitly.
The expression of local strain fields is given as
√
0
γ11 =c1 a − νa(ϵyy + x3 κyy ),
√
a
0
2γ12 =2 √ ϵxy ,
⟨ a⟩
0
γ22 =ϵyy + x3 κyy ,
( )
(κxx + νκyy ) 12 1 (70)
ρ011 = − a √ − 2 c1 x3 − √ νκyy ,
⟨ a⟩ h a
√
2ρ12 = − 2 aκxy ,
0

1
ρ022 = − √ κyy .
a

The local stress fields can be recovered using the constitutive relations corresponding to the strain energy in
Eq. (17).

VALIDATION EXAMPLE
The proposed equivalent stiffnesses properties of piecewise continuous corrugated are compared with the
results from literature as well as finite element models. This example is originally taken from Samanta and
Mukhopadhyay36 and cited in Xia et. al.37 The parameters describe the profile of the mid-surface of this
trapezoidal corrugation (Figure 4) are: ε = 0.1016 m, T = 0.0127 m, h = 0.00635 m, θ = 45◦ and material
properties are taken to be isotropic E = 21 GPa, ν = 0.3.
The equivalent plate stiffnesses obtained using different approaches are listed in Table 1. VAPAS is a 3D
elasticity numerical code introduced in Ref. [28[ for equivalent plate modeling of panels with microstructures.
Corrugated structures can be considered as a special case of such panels and the results obtained can be
used as benchmark for the present study. It is seen from Table 1 that the results obtained by the present
approach have a good agreement with those predicted by VAPAS and Xia et. al.
To validate the equivalent plate stiffnesses, a square trapezoidal corrugated plate with 9 corrugations is
subjected to a uniformly distributed load of 100 Pa in ANSYS. Element SURF154 is overlaid onto element
SHELL181 of the corrugated area to enforce the load directions. To get rid of rigid body movements, besides
constraining out of plane movements of four edges, the displacements along four edges were under constraint

10 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 L

T
θ

/2 h

Figure 4. Unit cell of trapezoidal corrugated plate.

Table 1. Equivalent plate stiffnesses of trapezoidal corrugation.

Xia et. al.37 VAPAS Present

A11 (MN/m) 4.289 4.118 4.150
A13 (MN/m) 1.287 1.235 1.245
A22 (MN/m) 42.489 43.297 42.489
A33 (MN/m) 161.354 161.338 161.479
D11 (N·m) 407.917 414.865 407.917
D13 (N·m) 122.375 124.844 122.375
D22 (N·m) 208.032 210.328 208.033
D33 (N·m) 16824 16588 16251

11 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

simultaneously. The analytical equation of the deflection surface is in Eq. 71:
∞ ∞
16p0 ∑ ∑ Sin[mπx/r]Sin[nπy/s]
w(x, y) = 6
( ) (71)
π m=1 n=1 mn D 11
4
m 4
+ 2 (D13 +2D
2 2
2 2
22 )m n
+ D33 n4
r r s s4

where p0 is the pressure, r, s the length and width of the whole corrugated plate. The deflections w along the
center lines of the corrugated plate obtained by different methods are shown in Figure 6. For this case, the
predictions from all the equivalent plate stiffnesses have a good agreement with ANSYS results (Figure 5).
Deflection at geometric center point are also compared in Table 2 and slightly better of present theory can
be noticed.

Figure 5. Deflections of a trapezoidal corrugated plate calculated in ANSYS.

0.00000

-0.00001

-0.00002
Deflection (m)

-0.00003

-0.00004

ANSYS
-0.00005
Current

Xia et. al.

-0.00006 VAPAS

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

x (m)

Figure 6. Deflections along the center line show the best agreement between current method and ANSYS.

12 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Table 2. Deflection of simply supported trapezoidal corrugated plate at geometric center

Xia et. al. VAPAS Present

−4
Deflection (×10 m) -0.575 -0.583 -0.599
Error to ANSYS (%) -3.10 -1.85 0.84

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the variational asymptotic method is used to construct an equivalent plate model for
piecewise straight corrugated plates. The obtained equivalent properties show no couplings among extension
and bending stiffnesses. The theory handles corrugation shape as long as the shell thickness is small in
comparison to the size of the corrugation. The advantage of this method is that it not only presents a
complete set of effective plate stiffnesses but also the complete set of recovery relations of the local fields. A
couple of examples illustrate the validity of present method. In comparison to the other approaches in the
literature for equivalent plate modeling of corrugated structures, the new points of this work are:
1. A complete set of analytical formulas for stiffnesses of the equivalent plate are obtained. These formulas
are valid for any piecewise straight corrugated shell with corrugations along one directions.
2. It is proved that corrugation’s gradient continuity or discontinuity cases can be handled by the same
set of equivalent stiffnesses equations without coupling effects involved.
3. The complete set of the displacement, strain, and stress fields within the original corrugated shell in
terms of the equivalent plate behavior can be recovered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is financially supported, in part, by the Liebherr-Aerospace company. The views and conclu-
sions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the
official policies or endorsement, either expressed or implied, of the sponsor. Technical discussions with Prof.
Victor Berdichevsky at Wayne State University are also greatly appreciated.

References
1 D. W. Mccready and D. L. Katz. A study of corrugated fiberboard the effect of adhesive on the strength of corrugated

board. Technical report, Deaprtment of Engineering, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, 1939.
2 E. O. Jr Seaquist. Bending of rectangular corrugated sandwich plates. PhD thesis, Iowa State University of Science and

Technology, 1964.
3 G. A. Baum, D. C. Brennan, and C. C. Habeger. Orthotropic elastic constants of paper. Tappi Journal, 64:97–101, 1981.
4 L. A. Carlsson, T. Nordstrand, and B. Westerlind. On the elastic stiffnesses of corrugated core sandwich. Journal of

Sandwich Structures and Materials, 3:253–267, 2001.

5 C. C. Liang, M. F. Yang, and P. W. Wu. Optimum design of metallic corrugated core sandwich panels subjected to blast

loads. Ocean Engineering, 28:825–861, 2001.

6 J. F. Davalos, P. Z. Qiao, X. F. Xu, J. Robinson, and K. E. Barth. Modeling and characterization of fiber-reinforced

plastic honeycomb sandwich panels for highway bridge applications. Composite Structures, 52:441 – 452, 2001.
7 N. Buannic, P. Cartraud, and T. Quesnel. Homogenization of corrugated core sandwich panels. Composite Structures,

59:299 – 312, 2003.

8 Z. Aboura, N. Talbi, S. Allaoui, and M. L. Benzeggagh. Elastic behavior of corrugated cardboard: experiments and

modeling. Composite Structures, 63:53 – 62, 2004.

9 N. Talbi, A. Batti, R. Ayad, and Y. Q. Guo. An analytical homogenization model for finite element modelling of

corrugated cardboard. Composite Structures, 88:280 – 289, 2009.

10 R. Haj-Ali, J. Choi, B. S. Wei, R. Popil, and M. Schaepe. Refined nonlinear finite element models for corrugated

fiberboards. Composite Structures, 87:321–333, 2009.

11 J. Viguié, P. J. Dumont, L. Orgéas, P. Vacher, I. Desloges, and E. Mauret. Surface stress and strain fields on compressed

panels of corrugated board boxes. an experimental analysis by using digital image stereocorrelation. Composite Structures,
93:2861–2873, 2011.
12 T. Yokozeki, S. Takeda, T. Ogasawara, and T. Ishikawa. Mechanical properties of corrugated composites for candidate

materials of flexible wing structures. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 37:1578–1586, 2006.

13 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 13 C. Gentilinia, L. Nobilea, and K. A. Seffen. Numerical analysis of morphing corrugated plates. Procedia Engineering,

1:79–82, 2009.
14 C. Thill, J. A. Etches, I. P. Bond, K. D. Potter, and P. M. Weaver. Composite corrugated structures for morphing wing

skin applications. Smart Materials and Structures, 19:124009, 2010.

15 M. T. Huber. Die theorie des kreuzweise bewehrten eisenbetonplatten. Der Bauingenieur, 4:354–360, 1923.
16 E. Seydel. Shear buckling of corrugated plates. Jahrbuch die Deutschen Versuchsanstalt fur Luftfahrt, 9:233–245, 1931.
17 S. G. Lekhnitskii. Anisotropic plates. Technical report, DTIC Document, 1968.
18 R. Szilard. Theory and analysis of plates. Prentice-Hall, 1974.
19 B. Abbés and Y. Q. Guo. Analytic homogenization for torsion of orthotropic sandwich plates: Application to corrugated

cardboard. Composite Structures, 92:699–706, 2010.

20 O. A. Marzouk and G. Abdel-Sayed. Linear theory of orthotropic cylindrical shells. Journal of the Structural Division,

99:2287–2306, 1973.
21 J. M. Davies. Calculation of steel diaphragm behavior. Journal of the Structural Division, 102:1411–1430, 1976.
22 M. N. El-Atrouzy and G. Abdel-Sayed. Prebuckling analysis of orthotropic barrel-shells. Journal of the Structural

Division, 104:1775–1786, 1978.

23 J. T. Easley. Buckling formulas for corrugated metal shear diaphragms. Journal of the Structural Division, 101:1403–1417,

1975.
24 D. Briassoulis. Equivalent orthotropic properties of corrugated sheets. Computers and Structures, 23:129–138, 1986.
25 K. M. Liew, L. X. Peng, and S. Kitipornchai. Buckling analysis of corrugated plates using a mesh-free galerkin method

based on the first-order shear deformation theory. Computational Mechanics, 38:61–75, 2006.
26 L. X. Peng, K. M. Liew, and S. Kitipornchai. Analysis of stiffened corrugated plates based on the FSDT via the mesh-free

method. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 49:364 – 378, 2007.

27 I. V. Andrianov, A. A. Diskovsky, and E. G. Kholod. Homogenization method in the theory of corrugated plates.

Technische Mechanik, 18:123–133, 1998.

28 C. Y. Lee and W. Yu. Homogenization and dimensional reduction of composite plates with in-plane heterogeneity.

International Journal of Solids and Structures, 48:1474–1484, 2011.

29 S. Luo and J. C. Suhling. The bending stiffnesses of corrugated board. Mechanics of Cellulosic Materials, 145:15–26,

1992.
30 V. L. Berdichevsky. Variational-asymptotic method of constructing a theory of shells. Journal of Applied Mathematics

and Mechanics, 43(4):664–687, 1979.

31 W. Yu and T. Tang. Variational asymptotic method for unit cell homogenization of periodically heterogeneous materials.

International Journal of Solids and Structures, 44:3738 – 3755, 2007.

32 W. Yu and T. Tang. A variational asymptotic micromechanics model for predicting thermoelastic properties of hetero-

geneous materials. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 44:7510 – 7525, 2007.
33 Z. Ye and W. Yu. On homogenization of random heterogeneous materials. In 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC

Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Orlando, Florida, April 12–15 2010. AIAA.
34 Z. Ye and W. Yu. A new approach to bounding effective properties of random heterogeneous materials. In 52nd

AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Denver, Colorado, Apr 4 – 7
2011. AIAA.
35 V. L. Berdichevsky. Variational principles of continuum mechanics: ii. applications. Springer Verlag, 2009.
36 A. Samanta and M. Mukhopadhyay. Finite element static and dynamic analyses of folded plates. Engineering Structures,

21:277 – 287, 1999.

37 Y. Xia, M. I. Friswell, and E. I. Saavedra Flores. Equivalent models of corrugated panels. International Journal of Solids

and Structures, 49(13):1453 – 1462, 2012.

14 of 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats