Accepted Manuscript

Vibration and stability analysis of functionally graded sandwich beams by a multi-layer

finite element

Volkan Kahya, Muhittin Turan

PII: S1359-8368(17)34300-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.011
Reference: JCOMB 5619

To appear in: Composites Part B

Received Date: 12 December 2017

Revised Date: 2 April 2018
Accepted Date: 5 April 2018

Please cite this article as: Kahya V, Turan M, Vibration and stability analysis of functionally
graded sandwich beams by a multi-layer finite element, Composites Part B (2018), doi: 10.1016/
j.compositesb.2018.04.011.

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 proof before it is published in its final 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.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Vibration and stability analysis of functionally graded sandwich beams

by a multi-layer finite element

Volkan Kahya*, Muhittin Turan

1
Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, 61080

PT
Trabzon, Turkey
2
Bayburt University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, 69000 Bayburt, Turkey

RI
Abstract

This paper presents a finite element model based on the first-order shear deformation

SC
theory for free vibration and buckling analyses of functionally graded (FG) sandwich

U
beams. The present element has 3N+7 degrees-of-freedom for an N-layer beam.
AN
Lagrange’s equations are employed for derivation of the equations of motion. Two

types of FG sandwich beams are considered: (a) Type A with FG faces and
M

homogeneous ceramic core, and (b) Type B with homogeneous ceramic and metal faces

and FG core. Natural frequencies and buckling loads are calculated numerically for
D

different boundary conditions, power-law indices, and span-to-height ratios. Accuracy

TE

of the present element is demonstrated by comparisons with the results available, and
EP

discussions are made on the results given in graphs and tables for the sandwich beams

considered.
C

Keywords: Functionally graded material; Finite element method; Free vibration;

AC

Buckling; First-order shear deformation theory

1. Introduction

Functionally graded materials (FGMs) are special composites in which two or more

materials varies spatially to have a desired property gradation. Due to their superior

*
Corresponding author,
E-mail: volkan@ktu.edu.tr, Tel: +90 (462) 377 2631
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

characteristics, FGMs have been preferably used for specific applications in space

planes, space structures, civil structures, nuclear reactors, turbine rotors, flywheels,

gears, and thermal barrier systems. Due to high demand to these advanced materials,

research on understanding mechanical behavior of FGMs have become most popular in

PT
recent years.

A numerous research on FGM structures have been found in the literature.

RI
Researchers employed different analytical [1–13] and numerical [14–29] techniques to

SC
solve the problems related to bending, buckling and vibration of FGM beams, plates and

other structures as well as exact elasticity solutions [30–35].

U
In the last few decades, the use of sandwich structures has received great
AN
attention due to their attractive properties. Unlike laminated composites, the problems

of delamination, matrix cracking, stress concentrations at interfaces, and any other

M

damage mechanisms can be eliminated by using functionally graded sandwich beam

D

and plate structures. Regarding to FGM sandwich beams, whose use is quite common,

we encounter two typical types in the literature: (a) sandwich beams with homogeneous
TE

core and FGM faces, and (b) sandwich beams with FGM core and homogeneous faces.
EP

Compared to single-layer FGM beams, studies on FGM sandwich beams are rare

in the literature. Therefore, the topic is of great importance, and is still worth of
C

studying on. Among existing literature related to FGM sandwich beams, we can
AC

mention the following analytical works: Nguyen and Nguyen [36] presented a new

hyperbolic shear deformation theory for bending, buckling, and free vibration of FGM

sandwich beams. Nguyen et al. [37,38] gave analytical solutions for buckling and free

vibration analyses of FGM sandwich beams with various boundary conditions based on

an inverse hyperbolic shear deformation theory including the effects of transverse shear
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and normal deformations. Bennai et al. [39] presented a new refined hyperbolic shear

and normal deformation beam theory for free vibration and buckling response of FGM

sandwich beams with various boundary conditions. Mu and Zhao [40] developed an

analytical model for fundamental frequencies of sandwich beams with FGM face sheets

PT
and metallic foam core. Osofero et al. [41] studied the bending behavior of simply

supported FG sandwich beams by quasi-3D shear deformation theories.

RI
In addition to aforementioned analytical works, the followings used different

SC
numerical methods for analysis of FGM sandwich beams. Vo et al. [42] proposed a

finite element (FE) model for free vibration of FGM sandwich beams based on a higher-

U
order shear deformation theory (HSDT). Vo et al. [43,44] also presented FE and Navier
AN
solutions for bending of FGM sandwich beams based on a quasi-3D parabolic shear

deformation theory. Yarasca et al. [45] proposed a FE model based on hybrid shear and
M

normal deformation theory for the static analysis of FGM single layer and sandwich
D

beams. Bui et al. [46] employed mesh-free radial point interpolation method for natural

frequencies of sandwich beams with inhomogeneous FG core. Apetre et al. [47]

TE

presented several sandwich beam theories in available to study their suitability of

EP

application to 1D sandwich plates with FGM core using Fourier-Galerkin method and

FE model. Amirani et al. [48] calculated the natural frequencies of a sandwich beam
C

with FG core through the element free Galerkin method. Simsek and Al-Shujairi [49]
AC

studied free and forced vibration of FGM sandwich beams under the action of double

moving harmonic loads travelling with constant velocity by using Timoshenko beam

theory. Karamanli [50] studied the elasto-static behavior of two-directional simply

supported FGM sandwich beams based on a quasi-3D theory by using the symmetric

smoothed particle hydrodynamics method. Mashat et al. [51] studied the free vibration
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of FGM layered beams by various theories and finite elements based on Carrera’s

unified formulation. Trinh et al. [52] obtained fundamental frequencies of FGM

sandwich beams of various boundary conditions using the state space method based on

different beam theories. Wattanasakulpong et al. [53] investigated free vibration

PT
analysis of layered FGM beams using an improved third-order shear deformation theory

with experimental validation. Yang et al. [54] employed the mesh-free boundary

RI
domain integral equation method for investigating the effects of material composition,

SC
material gradient, layer thickness proportion, thickness to length ratio and boundary

conditions on the free vibration behavior of FGM sandwich beams. Allahverdizadeh et

U
al. [55] obtained nonlinear fundamental frequency and modal loss factor ratio of FGM
AN
sandwich beams under different boundary conditions. Setoodeh et al. [56] carried out

free vibration analysis of FGM sandwich beams on elastic foundation under thermal
M

environment using differential quadrature method based on layer-wise theory.

D

Since the research on FGM sandwich beams are limited, this study aims first to

present some benchmark results for natural frequencies and buckling loads of FGM
TE

sandwich beams with employing FEM. In addition, unlike most of the studies available
EP

for FGM sandwich beams, a multilayered finite element based on FSDT using layer-

wise approach is presented in this study. To the best of the authors, the work using such
C

an approach for analysis of FGM sandwich beams is rare. The present multilayered
AC

element includes 3N+7 degrees-of-freedom (DOFs) where N is the number of layers.

This element was first proposed by Yuan and Miller [57] for bending of laminated

composite beams, and adopted several authors for free and forced vibrations and

buckling of laminated composite beams [58–61]. Governing equations of motion are

derived with use of the Lagrange’s equations. Two different types of FGM sandwich
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

beams are considered: a) FG faces and homogeneous core (Type-A), and b)

homogeneous faces and FG core (Type-B). Accuracy and validity of the present

element is demonstrated through comparisons with the results available for buckling

loads and natural frequencies of FGM sandwich beams with different end conditions,

PT
power-law indices, and span-to-height ratios.

2. Theory and formulation

RI
2.1. Material properties

SC
Consider a beam shown in Fig. 1 with length of L and rectangular cross-section of b × h.

It is made of a mixture of two constituents such as ceramic and metal located at its top

U
and bottom surfaces, respectively. The x-, y- and z-axes are located along the length,
AN
width, and height of the beam, respectively. The beam is loaded by an axial

compressive force N0 at its ends. All formulations are performed under the assumption
M

of a linear elastic behavior and small deformations of materials. The gravity is not
D

considered. Material properties vary continuously through-the-thickness according to

TE

the power-law rule given by

P ( z ) = ( Pc − Pm ) Vc ( z ) + Pm (1)
EP

where Pc and Pm are the corresponding material properties of the metal and ceramic

constituents, e.g., Young’s modulus E, Poisson’s ratio ν, and mass density ρ,

C

respectively. Vc ( z ) denotes the volume fraction of the ceramic phase within the beam.
AC

In this study, two different types of sandwich beams are considered: (a) sandwich

beam with FG faces and ceramic core (Type A) shown in Fig. 1b, and (b) sandwich

beam with homogeneous faces and FG core (Type B) shown in Fig. 1c. For Type A

beam, the volume fraction of ceramic constituent Vc ( z ) is defined by

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

k
 z − h0 
V (z) = 
(1)
 z ∈ [ h0 , h1 ] (bottom)
 h1 − h0 
c

Vc(2) ( z ) = 1 z ∈ [ h1 , h2 ] (core) (2)

k
 z − h3 
V (3)
(z) =   z ∈ [ h2 , h3 ] (top )
 h2 − h3 
c

PT
and for Type B beam, it becomes

Vc(1) ( z ) = 0 z ∈ [ h0 , h1 ] (bottom)

RI
k
 z − h1 
V ( z) = 
(2)
 z ∈ [ h1 , h2 ] (core) (3)
 h2 − h1 
c

SC
Vc(3) ( z ) = 1 z ∈ [ h2 , h3 ] (top)

where k is a non-negative number indicating the power-law exponent.

U
AN
2.2. Finite element model

Fig. 2 shows five-node single-layer beam finite element with four equally spaced nodes
M

and a node at the middle. It has ten DOFs including three longitudinal, four transversal

and three rotational displacements which are measured at neutral axis of the beam. The
D

nodal displacement vector can, thus, be given as

TE

u = {u1 u2 u3 w1 w2 w3 w4 φ1 φ2 φ3 }T (4)

where u, w and φ are the axial and the transverse displacements, and the total bending
EP

rotation of the cross-sections at any point on the neutral axis, respectively. Note that φ is
C

geometrically unrelated to the slope ∂ w/∂ x to take into account the shear deformation.
AC

According to FSDT, the displacements at any point within the beam in case of

plane stress can be given by

u ( x, z , t ) = u 0 ( x, t ) − z φ 0 ( x, t ),
(5)
w( x, z , t ) = w0 ( x, t )
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

where t denotes time. Subscript “0” indicates the value at the neutral axis. The strain-

displacement relations are

∂u ∂u ∂w
ε xx = = u,0x − zφ,0x , γ xz = + = w,0x − φ 0 (6)
∂x ∂z ∂x

where εxx and γxz are the normal and shear strains, respectively. (⋅), x denotes the

PT
derivative with respect to x. Since the material behavior obeys Hooke’s law, the

RI
constitutive relations can be written as

σ xx = E ( z )ε xx , τ xz = KG ( z )γ xz (7)

SC
where σxx and τxz are the normal and shear stresses, respectively. K is the shear

U
correction factor, E(z) is the Young modulus, and G(z) = E(z) / [2 (1 + ν(z))] is the shear
AN
modulus.

The strain energy of the beam can be given by

M

1 L
(σ xxε xx + τ xzγ xz ) dAdx
2 ∫0 ∫A
U= (8)
D

where A is the cross-sectional area. Substituting Eqs. (6) and (7) into Eq. (8) yields
TE

1 L
 A0 (u,0x ) 2 − 2 A1u,0xφ,0x + A2 (φ,0x ) 2 + B0 [( w,0x ) 2 − 2 w,0xφ 0 + (φ 0 ) 2 ] dx
2 ∫0 
U= (9)
EP

where the stiffness coefficients are defined as

[ A0 , A1 , A2 ] = ∫ E ( z )[1, z , z 2 ]dA, B0 = ∫ KG ( z )dA

C

(10)
A A
AC

The work done by the axial compressive force N0 can be expressed as

1 L
V=
2 ∫0
N 0 ( w,0x ) 2 dx (11)

The kinetic energy is

1 L
T= ∫ ∫ ρ ( z )(u& 2 + w& 2 ) dAdx (12)
2 0 A
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

where dot denotes the derivative with respect to time. Taking the derivative with respect

to time in Eqs. (5), and substituting the result into Eq. (12) gives

1 L
T= ∫  I 0 (u& 0 ) 2 − 2 I1u& 0φ&0 + I 2 (φ&0 ) 2 + I 0 ( w& 0 ) 2  dx (13)
2 0

where the inertia coefficients are

PT
[ I 0 , I1 , I 2 ] = ∫ ρ ( z )[1, z , z 2 ]dA (14)
A

RI
Assume the solutions to u 0 ( x, t ) , w0 ( x, t ) and φ 0 ( x, t ) as

SC
3
u 0 ( x, t ) = ∑ ϕi ( x ) ui (t ),
i =1
4
w0 ( x, t ) = ∑ψ i ( x ) wi (t ), (15)

U
i =1
3
AN
φ 0 ( x, t ) = ∑ ϕi ( x) φi (t )
i =1

where ui (t ) , wi (t ) and φi (t ) are the generalized nodal displacements, and ϕi ( x ) and

M

ψ i ( x) are the shape functions. A cubic polynomial for ψ i ( x) and a quadratic

D

polynomial for ϕi ( x ) , which are given in Appendix A, are used to make sure the
TE

consistency.
EP

The governing equations of motion can be obtained by the use of the Lagrange’s

equations. Letting
C

L = T − (U + V ) (16)
AC

which is the Lagrangian, the Lagrange’s equations are defined by

d  ∂L  ∂L
 − =0 (17)
dt  ∂q&i  ∂qi

in which qi denotes the generalized coordinates corresponding to unknowns ui, wi and

φi. Substituting Eqs. (9), (11) and (13) into Eq. (16) with considering Eqs. (15) leads to
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

&& + (k − N 0g)u = 0
mu (18)

where the element mass matrix m, the stiffness matrix k, and the geometric stiffness

matrix g for a single-layer element are defined as

m11 0 m13  k 11 0 k 13  0 0 0
   23 
k  , g = 0 g 22 0 

PT
m =  0 m 22 0  , k =  0 k 22 (19)
m13 0 m 33  k13 k 23T k 33  0 0 0 
 

RI
which are given in Appendix B.

Now, the element matrices of the present multilayered beam can be obtained by

SC
transferring the local matrices of the Nth layer into a new form involving the DOFs of

U
the layer (N–1) plus the three rotations from the layer N. It is, then, added to the
AN
matrices of (N–1)th layer, which is also modified to include the rotations of layer N.

These combined matrices are, then, further altered to include the DOFs of the layer (N–
M

2), and so on in sequence until the matrices for all layers have been assembled into

single overall mass, stiffness, and geometric stiffness matrices which are, respectively,
D

given by
TE

M e = R (1) m (1) R (1) + T(1) (R (2) m (2) R (2) + T(2) (R (3) m (3) R (3) + K
T T T T T

+ T( N − 2) (R ( N −1) m ( N −1) R ( N −1) + T( N −1) m ( N ) T( N −1) )T( N − 2) )K)T(2) )T(1) ,

T T T
EP

K e = R (1) k (1) R (1) + T(1) (R (2) k (2) R (2) + T(2) (R (3) k (3) R (3) + K
T T T T T

(20)
C

( N − 2)T ( N −1)T ( N −1) ( N −1) ( N −1)T ( N −1) ( N − 2)

+T (R k R +T k (N)
T )T (2)
)K)T )T , (1)
AC

T T T T T
G e = R (1) g (1) R (1) + T(1) (R (2) g (2) R (2) + T(2) (R (3) g (3) R (3) + …
T T T
+ T( N -2) (R ( N -1) g ( N -1) R ( N -1) + T( N -1) g ( N ) T( N -1) )T( N -2) )…)T(2) )T(1)

where R ( k ) and T( k ) transformation matrices with dimensions 10 × (10 + 3N − 3i ) and

(7 + 3N − 3i ) × (10 + 3N − 3i ) , respectively, and they are defined as [59]

All Rij( k ) = 0 except Rii( k ) = 1 (i = 1 − 10) (21)

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

All Tij( k ) = 0 except Ti ((ik+)7) = −h( k ) / 2, Ti ((ik+)10) = −h( k +1) / 2 (i = 1 − 3),

(22)
Tii( k ) = 1 (i = 1 − 7), Ti ((ik+)3) = 1 (i = 3N − 3k + 1)

Details for derivation of the element matrices of multi-layer beam can be found in

[57,59,61].

PT
2.3. Free vibration and buckling problem

For the beam with length of L, the matrix equation of motion can be written as

RI
&& + (K - N G)U = 0
MU (23)
0

SC
where M, K and G are the global mass, stiffness and geometric stiffness matrices,

respectively, and U is the vector of unknowns. For free vibration of the beam without

U
axial loading, ignoring G matrix and assuming u = Ueiωt in Eq. (23), we have the
AN
following eigenvalue problem:

(K − ω 2M)U = 0 (24)
M

where ω denotes the natural frequencies of the beam. For buckling analysis, ignoring
D

M matrix and assuming u = Ueλ x , the stability equation becomes

TE

(K − λG)U = 0 (25)

where λ = (N0)cr is the critical buckling load. The natural frequencies and buckling loads
EP

of the beam can be obtained by non-trivial solutions of Eqs. (24) and (25).
C

3. Results and discussion

AC

Some numerical examples are given and discussed here for the purpose of validation of

the present element. Unless otherwise stated, a FGM beam composed of aluminum (Al)

as metal and alumina (Al2O3) as ceramic is considered for which Em = 70GPa, ρm =

2702kg/m3, νm = 0.3, Ec = 380GPa, ρc = 3960kg/m3, and νc = 0.3 [62]. Boundary

conditions for the beam are assumed to be clamped-clamped (C-C), simply supported
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(S-S) and clamped-free (C-F). The shear correction factor is K = 5/6 for rectangular

cross-sections. Natural frequencies and critical buckling loads are given in the following

normalized form:

L2 ρm 12 L2
ω n = ωn , N cr = N cr (26)
h Em Em h3

PT
In order to show the convergence of the present finite element, Table 1 gives the

RI
normalized fundamental frequencies and critical buckling loads of Type A and Type B

beams with different end conditions for L / h = 5 and k = 1. It is assumed the face-core-

SC
face thickness ratio is 1-1-1. As can be seen, the present element rapidly converges

U
when the number of elements increases. Twelve elements seem to be enough for the
AN
desired accuracy in numerical calculations.

Tables 2-5 present the natural frequencies and critical buckling loads of Type A
M

beam with comparison of the results given by various higher-order theories. Seven

different skin-core-skin thickness ratios and two different slenderness ratios (L / h) are
D

assumed. According to these tables, when the thickness of ceramic core increases, the
TE

normalized fundamental frequencies and critical buckling loads increase, too. For k = 0,
EP

i.e., full ceramic beam, the fundamental frequencies and buckling loads of the beam are

not affected by the change of the core layer’s thickness. For comparison purpose, results
C

given by Nguyen et al. [37] and Vo et al. [42] based on a refined higher-order theory are
AC

used. As can be seen, the results are in perfect agreement although the present element

is based on FSDT.

Variation of the normalized fundamental frequencies and the critical buckling

loads of Type A beam with the slenderness L / h for different boundary conditions and

(1-1-1) face-core-face thickness ratio are given by Fig. 4. As can be seen, as the power-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

law index increases, the normalized fundamental frequencies and critical buckling loads

decrease. In addition, the normalized fundamental frequencies and the critical buckling

loads increase with increasing the slenderness. In case of L / h > 10 for S-S and C-F

beams, and L / h > 20 for C-C beam, the curves become approximately constant, i.e.,

PT
there is no significant change in the results.

In Fig. 5, variation of the normalized fundamental frequencies and critical

RI
buckling loads of Type A beam with the power-law exponent is plotted for various face-

SC
core-face thickness ratios. When k value increases, i.e. the beam becomes more

metallic, the normalized fundamental frequencies and the critical buckling loads

U
decrease first, and then approach to a constant value. The greatest values are obtained
AN
for (1-8-1) beam. This result shows us the ceramic core layer has strong effect on the

results. Results are also affected by the boundary conditions. C-C beam gives greater
M

results than the others, i.e., S-S and C-F beams. In addition, considering Fig. 4 and
D

Tables 2-5, any change in the thickness of FG face has little effect on the results for

Type A beam.
TE

Fig. 6 shows variation of the normalized fundemantal frequencies and critical

EP

buckling loads with the face-to-core thickness ratio hf / hc for Type A beams with L / h =

5. For k = 0, i.e. full ceramic beam, the results do not change with hf / hc ratio. When the
C

face-to-core thickness ratio incerases, the nornalized fundamental frequencies and

AC

crtical buckling loads decrease. This result agrees with that of Fig. 5. As can be seen, up

to hf / hc = 1, the results decrease drastically except k = 0 case, hovewer, beyond this

value, there is no significant change in the resuls have been observed.

Fig. 7 gives the comparison of results obtained by the present study to the

analytical ones based on a higher-order theory given in Nguyen et al. [37] for Type B
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

beam and L / h = 5. As seen, the agreement between the results is excellent. The

normalized fundamental frequencies and the critical buckling loads decrease with

increasing the power-law exponent for Type B beam as in the case of Type A beam.

Tables 6-9 present the normalized fundemantal frequencies and critical buckling

PT
loads of Type B beam with diferent face-core-face thickness ratios and boundary

conditions. Notice that for k = 0 and k = 10 cases, we have ceramic-metal bi-layer

RI
beams. When k increases, the fundamental frequencies and buckling loads approach to

SC
an asymptote. As can be seen from the table, the greatest values for the results are

generally obtained in case of the (1-8-1) beam.

U
Variation of the normalized fundamental frequencies and critical buckling loads
AN
with the power-law exponent for Type B beams with different end conditions and face-

core-face thickness ratios is given in Fig. 8. Similar to Type A beam, (1-8-1) case gives
M

greater results than the other face-core-face thickness ratios. When the thickness of core
D

layer decreases, the fundamental frequencies and buckling loads decrease, too. Again,

we can see from this figure, as the power-law exponent increases, the fundamental
TE

frequencies and buckling loads decrease. For k = 0, for which the core is full ceramic
EP

and ceramic-metal bi-layer beam we have, contrary to Type A beam (see Fig. 5),

different values for the fundamental frequencies and buckling loads are obtained for the
C

face-core-face thickness ratios arrangements considered. As previously mentioned when

AC

interpreting the results of Tables 6-9, the fundamental frequencies and buckling loads

approach to an asymptote as the power-law exponent k increases, in which case the core

layer becomes metal.

In Fig. 9, variation of the normalized fundamental frequencies and critical

buckling loads with the face-to-core thickness ratio hf / hc is given. For the cases in
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

which the more ceramic content is inclued, the results decrease with increasing hf / hc.

Contrary, the results increase with increasing hf / hc when the metallic characteristic is

dominant on the beam, i.e., greater k values. When k increase, the curves go to an

asymptote.

PT
4. Conclusions

A multilayered finite element based on FSDT is presented for free vibration and

RI
buckling analyses of FG sandwich beams. Element matrices are derived with using the

SC
Lagrange’s equations. Some numerical results are given for two different types of FG

sandwich beams with different end conditions, power-law indices and face-core-face

U
thickness ratios. According to the results of this study, the following conclusions can be
AN
drawn:

• The results obtained for the fundamental frequencies and critical buckling loads by
M

the present element agree well with the reference solutions considered. It implies that
D

the proposed finite element is appropriate and efficient for accurately obtaining
TE

vibration and buckling response of FG sandwich beams without the need to use any

other higher-order theories.

EP

• Thickness of the core layer has a great effect on the results compared to that of the

face layers.
C

• More ceramic content in the sandwich beam causes greater fundamental frequencies
AC

and buckling loads.

• For Type B beams, fundamental frequencies and buckling loads are getting closer to

an asymptotic value when the power-law index increases, i.e., when metallic

characteristic becomes dominant within the beam.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• The element presented here can furtherly be used in analyses of FG sandwich beams

under static and thermal loads. Since it is constituted by layer-wise manner, the

present element can easily consider the inter-laminar defects (slip or delamination),

which are the subsequent research of the authors.

PT
Appendix A

Shape functions ϕi ( x ) , ψ i ( x ) and θi ( x) are given by

RI
ϕ1 = (1 − ξ )(1 − 2ξ ), ϕ 2 = 4ξ (1 − ξ ), ϕ3 = −ξ (1 − 2ξ ),
ψ 1 = (1 − ξ ) ( 2 − 3ξ ) (1 − 3ξ ) / 2, ψ 2 = 9ξ ( 2 − 3ξ ) (1 − ξ ) / 2, (A1)

SC
ψ 3 = −9ξ (1 − ξ ) (1 − 3ξ ) / 2, ψ 4 = ξ ( 2 − 3ξ ) (1 − 3ξ ) / 2

where ξ = x / L and L is the element length.

U
AN
Appendix B

The elements of the mass, stiffness and geometric stiffness matrices are, respectively,
M

given by

 4 2 −1  −4 −2 1
D

I0 L   I1 L 
m =
11
16 2  , m = 13
−16 −2  ,
30  30 
TE

 sym 4   sym −4 
 128 99 −36 19  (B1)
  4 2 −1
648 −81 −36  I2L 
16 2 
I0 L   , m33 =
EP

m =
22

1680  648 99  30
   sym 4 
 sym 128 
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 7 −8 1   −7 8 −1 
A0   A1 
k =
11
 16 −8 , k = 13
 −16 8  ,
3L 3L
 sym 7   sym −7 
 148 −189 54 −13   83 44 −7 
 432 −297 54    
B0  B0  −99 108 −9 
k =
22
, k =
23
, (B2)
40 L  432 −189  120  9 −108 99 
   

PT
 sym 148   7 −44 −83
70 A2 + 4 L2 B0 −80 A2 + 2 L2 B0 10 A2 − L2 B0 
1  
k 33 = 160 A2 + 16 L2 B0 −80 A2 + 2 L2 B0 

RI
30 L 
 sym 70 A2 + 4 L2 B0 


SC
 444 −567 162 −39 
 1296 −891 162 
N
g 22 = 0  (B3)
120 L  1296 −567 

U
 
 sym 444 
AN
References

[1] Aydogdu M, Taskin V. Free vibration analysis of functionally graded beams with
M

simply supported edges. Mater Des 2007;28:1651–6.

D

doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2006.02.007.
TE

[2] Li XF. A unified approach for analyzing static and dynamic behaviors of

functionally graded Timoshenko and Euler-Bernoulli beams. J Sound Vib

EP

2008;318:1210–29. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2008.04.056.

[3] Sina SA, Navazi HM, Haddadpour H. An analytical method for free vibration
C

analysis of functionally graded beams. Mater Des 2009;30:741–7.

AC

doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2008.05.015.

[4] Li XF, Wang BL, Han JC. A higher-order theory for static and dynamic analyses

of functionally graded beams. Arch Appl Mech 2010;80:1197–212.

doi:10.1007/s00419-010-0435-6.

[5] Giunta G, Belouettar S, Carrera E. Analysis of FGM beams by means of classical

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and advanced theories. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2010;17:622–35.

doi:10.1080/15376494.2010.518930.

[6] Thai HT, Vo TP. Bending and free vibration of functionally graded beams using

various higher-order shear deformation beam theories. Int J Mech Sci

PT
2012;62:57–66. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2012.05.014.

[7] Li SR, Cao DF, Wan ZQ. Bending solutions of FGM Timoshenko beams from

RI
those of the homogenous Euler-Bernoulli beams. Appl Math Model

SC
2013;37:7077–85. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2013.02.047.

[8] Li SR, Batra RC. Relations between buckling loads of functionally graded

U
timoshenko and homogeneous euler-bernoulli beams. Compos Struct 2013;95:5–
AN
9. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.07.027.

[9] Nguyen TK, Vo TP, Thai HT. Static and free vibration of axially loaded
M

functionally graded beams based on the first-order shear deformation theory.

D

Compos Part B Eng 2013;55:147–57. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.06.011.

[10] Kim J, Reddy JN. Analytical solutions for bending, vibration, and buckling of
TE

FGM plates using a couple stress-based third-order theory. Compos Struct

EP

2013;103:86–98. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.03.007.

[11] Hadji L, Daouadji TH, Tounsi A, Bedia EA. A n-order refined theory for bending
C

and free vibration of functionally graded beams. Struct Eng Mech 2015;54.
AC

doi:10.12989/sem.2015.54.5.923.

[12] Hadji L, Khelifa Z, El Abbes AB. A new higher order shear deformation model

for functionally graded beams. KSCE J Civ Eng 2016;20:1835–41.

doi:10.1007/s12205-015-0252-0.

[13] Kim J, Reddy JN. Modeling of functionally graded smart plates with gradient
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

elasticity effects. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2017;24:437–47.

doi:10.1080/0145935X.2016.1199188.

[14] Chakraborty A, Gopalakrishnan S, Reddy JN. A new beam finite element for the

analysis of functionally graded materials. Int J Mech Sci 2003;45:519–39.

PT
doi:10.1016/S0020-7403(03)00058-4.

[15] Şimşek M. Static Analysis of a Functionally Graded Beam Under a Uniformly

RI
Distributed Load By Ritz Method. Int J Eng Appl Sci 2009;1:1–11.

SC
[16] Tornabene F. Free vibration analysis of functionally graded conical, cylindrical

shell and annular plate structures with a four-parameter power-law distribution.

U
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2009;198:2911–35.
AN
doi:10.1016/j.cma.2009.04.011.

[17] Alshorbagy AE, Eltaher MA, Mahmoud FF. Free vibration characteristics of a
M

functionally graded beam by finite element method. Appl Math Model

D

2011;35:412–25. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2010.07.006.

[18] Kocatürk T, Şimşek M, Akbaş SD. Large displacement static analysis of a

TE

cantilever Timoshenko beam composed of functionally graded material. Sci Eng

EP

Compos Mater 2011;18:21–34. doi:10.1515/SECM.2011.005.

[19] Kocatürk T, Akbaş ŞD. Post-buckling analysis of Timoshenko beams with

C

various boundary conditions under non-uniform thermal loading. Struct Eng

AC

Mech 2011;40:347–71. doi:10.12989/sem.2011.40.3.347.

[20] Pradhan KK, Chakraverty S. Free vibration of Euler and Timoshenko

functionally graded beams by Rayleigh-Ritz method. Compos Part B Eng

2013;51:175–84. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.02.027.

[21] Vo TP, Thai HT, Nguyen TK, Inam F. Static and vibration analysis of
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

functionally graded beams using refined shear deformation theory. Meccanica

2014;49:155–68. doi:10.1007/s11012-013-9780-1.

[22] Li SR, Wan ZQ, Zhang JH. Free vibration of functionally graded beams based on

both classical and first-order shear deformation beam theories. Appl Math Mech

PT
(English Ed 2014;35:591–606. doi:10.1007/s10483-014-1815-6.

[23] Filippi M, Carrera E, Zenkour AM. Static analyses of FGM beams by various

RI
theories and finite elements. Compos Part B Eng 2015;72:1–9.

SC
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.12.004.

[24] Jin C, Wang X. Accurate free vibration analysis of Euler functionally graded

U
beams by the weak form quadrature element method. Compos Struct
AN
2015;125:41–50. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.01.039.

[25] Kim J, Reddy JN. A general third-order theory of functionally graded plates with
M

modified couple stress effect and the von Kármán nonlinearity: theory and finite
D

element analysis. Acta Mech 2015;226:2973–98. doi:10.1007/s00707-015-1370-

y.
TE

[26] Giunta G, Belouettar S, Ferreira AJM. A static analysis of three-dimensional

EP

functionally graded beams by hierarchical modelling and a collocation meshless

solution method. Acta Mech 2016;227:969–91. doi:10.1007/s00707-015-1503-3.

C

[27] Tornabene F, Brischetto S, Fantuzzi N, Bacciocchi M. Boundary conditions in

AC

2D numerical and 3D exact models for cylindrical bending analysis of

functionally graded structures. Shock Vib 2016;2016.

doi:10.1155/2016/2373862.

[28] Kahya V, Turan M. Finite element model for vibration and buckling of

functionally graded beams based on the first-order shear deformation theory.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Compos Part B Eng 2017. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.10.039.

[29] Zhao Y, Huang Y, Guo M. A novel approach for free vibration of axially

functionally graded beams with non-uniform cross-section based on Chebyshev

polynomials theory. Compos Struct 2017;168:277–84.

PT
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.02.012.

[30] Sankar B V. An elasticity solution for functionally graded beams. Compos Sci

RI
Technol 2001;61:689–96. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00007-0.

SC
[31] Sankar B V., Tzeng JT. Thermal Stresses in Functionally Graded Beams. AIAA J

2002;40:1228–32. doi:10.2514/2.1775.

U
[32] Ding HJ, Huang DJ, Chen WQ. Elasticity solutions for plane anisotropic
AN
functionally graded beams. Int J Solids Struct 2007;44:176–96.

doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.04.026.
M

[33] Daouadji TH, Henni AH, Tounsi A, El Abbes AB. Elasticity solution of a
D

cantilever functionally graded beam. Appl Compos Mater 2013;20:1–15.

doi:10.1007/s10443-011-9243-6.
TE

[34] Celebi K, Tutuncu N. Free vibration analysis of functionally graded beams using
EP

an exact plane elasticity approach. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C J Mech Eng Sci

2014;228:2488–94. doi:10.1177/0954406213519974.
C

[35] Chu P, Li XF, Wu JX, Lee KY. Two-dimensional elasticity solution of elastic
AC

strips and beams made of functionally graded materials under tension and

bending. Acta Mech 2015;226:2235–53. doi:10.1007/s00707-014-1294-y.

[36] Nguyen TK, Nguyen BD. A new higher-order shear deformation theory for

static, buckling and free vibration analysis of functionally graded sandwich

beams. J Sandw Struct Mater 2015;17:613–31. doi:10.1177/1099636215589237.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[37] Nguyen T-K, Vo TP, Nguyen B-D, Lee J. An analytical solution for buckling and

vibration analysis of functionally graded sandwich beams using a quasi-3D shear

deformation theory. Compos Struct 2016;156.

doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.074.

PT
[38] Nguyen T-K, Truong-Phong Nguyen T, Vo TP, Thai H-T. Vibration and

buckling analysis of functionally graded sandwich beams by a new higher-order

RI
shear deformation theory. Compos Part B Eng 2015;76:273–85.

SC
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.02.032.

[39] Bennai R, Atmane HA, Tounsi A. A new higher-order shear and normal

U
deformation theory for functionally graded sandwich beams. Steel Compos Struct
AN
2015;19:521–46. doi:10.12989/scs.2015.19.3.521.

[40] Mu L, Zhao G. Fundamental Frequency Analysis of Sandwich Beams with

M

Functionally Graded Face and Metallic Foam Core. Shock Vib 2016;2016.
D

doi:10.1155/2016/3287645.

[41] Osofero AI, Vo TP, Nguyen TK, Lee J. Analytical solution for vibration and
TE

buckling of functionally graded sandwich beams using various quasi-3D theories.

EP

J Sandw Struct Mater 2016;18:3–29. doi:10.1177/1099636215582217.

[42] Vo TP, Thai HT, Nguyen TK, Maheri A, Lee J. Finite element model for
C

vibration and buckling of functionally graded sandwich beams based on a refined

AC

shear deformation theory. Eng Struct 2014;64:12–22.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.029.

[43] Vo TP, Thai HT, Nguyen TK, Inam F, Lee J. Static behaviour of functionally

graded sandwich beams using a quasi-3D theory. Compos Part B Eng

2015;68:59–74. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.08.030.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[44] Vo TP, Thai HT, Nguyen TK, Inam F, Lee J. A quasi-3D theory for vibration and

buckling of functionally graded sandwich beams. Compos Struct 2015;119:1–12.

doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.08.006.

[45] Yarasca J, Mantari JL, Arciniega RA. Hermite-Lagrangian finite element

PT
formulation to study functionally graded sandwich beams. Compos Struct

2016;140:567–81. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.015.

RI
[46] Bui TQ, Khosravifard A, Zhang C, Hematiyan MR, Golub M V. Dynamic

SC
analysis of sandwich beams with functionally graded core using a truly meshfree

radial point interpolation method. Eng Struct 2013;47:90–104.

U
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.041.
AN
[47] Apetre NA, Sankar B V., Ambur DR. Analytical modeling of sandwich beams

with functionally graded core. J Sandw Struct Mater 2008;10:53–74.

M

doi:10.1177/1099636207081111.
D

[48] Chehel Amirani M, Khalili SMR, Nemati N. Free vibration analysis of sandwich

beam with FG core using the element free Galerkin method. Compos Struct
TE

2009;90:373–9. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.03.023.
EP

[49] Şimşek M, Al-shujairi M. Static, free and forced vibration of functionally graded

(FG) sandwich beams excited by two successive moving harmonic loads.

C

Compos Part B Eng 2017;108:18–34. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.098.

AC

[50] Karamanlı A. Bending behaviour of two directional functionally graded

sandwich beams by using a quasi-3d shear deformation theory. Compos Struct

2017;174:70–86. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.04.046.

[51] Mashat DS, Carrera E, Zenkour AM, Al Khateeb SA, Filippi M. Free vibration of

FGM layered beams by various theories and finite elements. Compos Part B Eng
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2014;59:269–78. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.12.008.

[52] Trinh LC, Vo TP, Osofero AI, Lee J. Fundamental frequency analysis of

functionally graded sandwich beams based on the state space approach. Compos

Struct 2016;156:263–75. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.010.

PT
[53] Wattanasakulpong N, Gangadhara Prusty B, Kelly DW, Hoffman M. Free

vibration analysis of layered functionally graded beams with experimental

RI
validation. Mater Des 2012;36:182–90. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.10.049.

SC
[54] Yang Y, Lam CC, Kou KP, Iu VP. Free vibration analysis of the functionally

graded sandwich beams by a meshfree boundary-domain integral equation

U
method. Compos Struct 2014;117:32–9. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.06.016.
AN
[55] Allahverdizadeh A, Eshraghi I, Mahjoob MJ, Nasrollahzadeh N. Nonlinear

vibration analysis of FGER sandwich beams. Int J Mech Sci 2014;78:167–76.

M

doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2013.11.012.
D

[56] Setoodeh AR, Ghorbanzadeh M, Malekzadeh P. A two-dimensional free

vibration analysis of functionally graded sandwich beams under thermal

TE

environment. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C J Mech Eng Sci 2012;226:2860–73.
EP

doi:10.1177/0954406212440669.

[57] Fuh-Gwo Y, Miller RE. A new finite element for laminated composite beams.
C

Comput Struct 1989;31:737–45. doi:10.1016/0045-7949(89)90207-1.

AC

[58] Bassiouni AS, Gad-Elrab RM, Elmahdy TH. Dynamoc Analysis for Laminated

Composite Beams. Compos Struct 1999;44:81–7.

[59] Kahya V. Dynamic analysis of laminated composite beams under moving loads

using finite element method. Nucl Eng Des 2012;243:41–8.

doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.12.015.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[60] Kahya V. Finite element dynamic analysis of laminated composite beams under

moving loads. Struct Enginerering Mech 2012;42:729–45.

[61] Kahya V. Buckling analysis of laminated composite and sandwich beams by the

finite element method. Compos Part B Eng 2016;91:126–34.

PT
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.01.031.

[62] Şimşek M. Fundamental frequency analysis of functionally graded beams by

RI
using different higher-order beam theories. Nucl Eng Des 2010;240:697–705.

SC
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.12.013.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 Convergence of the present element for FGBs with different end conditions (L / h = 5, k = 1)
Normalized fundamental frequency Normalized buckling load
N
C-C S-S C-F C-C S-S C-F
Type A
4 7.8720 3.9048 1.4159 81.5062 24.2931 6.3882
6 7.8651 3.9041 1.4158 81.1318 24.2839 6.3881
8 7.8638 3.9040 1.4158 81.0642 24.2823 6.3875
10 7.8634 3.9039 1.4158 81.0454 24.2818 6.3880
12 7.8632 3.9039 1.4158 81.0385 24.2817 6.3880
14 7.8631 3.9039 1.4158 81.0354 24.2812 6.3881

PT
16 7.8631 3.9039 1.4158 81.0339 24.2816 6.3878
20 7.8631 3.9039 1.4158 81.0328 24.2815 6.3878
Type B
4 7.2473 3.6228 1.3162 65.0269 19.6722 5.2003

RI
6 7.2399 3.6221 1.3161 64.7339 19.6647 5.2001
8 7.2384 3.6220 1.3161 64.6810 19.6635 5.2001
10 7.2379 3.6219 1.3161 64.6661 19.6631 5.2001

SC
12 7.2377 3.6219 1.3161 64.6608 19.6630 5.2001
14 7.2376 3.6219 1.3160 64.6585 19.6631 5.1996
16 7.2376 3.6219 1.3160 64.6574 19.6630 5.1998
20 7.2375 3.6219 1.3161 64.6565 19.6628 5.2001

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 Normalized fundamental frequencies of FG sandwich beams with various boundary conditions
and face-core-face thickness ratios (L/h = 5, Type A)
BC k Theory 1-0-1 1-1-1 1-2-1 1-8-1 2-1-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
S-S 0 Present 5.2219 5.1983 5.1884 5.1908 5.2051 5.2081 5.1972
FEM(1) 5.1528 5.1528 5.1528 5.1528 5.1528 5.1528 5.1528
Analytical(2) 5.1528 5.1528 5.1528 - 5.1528 5.1528 5.1528
0.5 Present 4.1680 4.3658 4.5123 4.8831 4.3330 4.2735 4.4419
FEM 4.1268 4.3303 4.4798 4.8422 4.2945 4.2351 4.4051
Analytical 4.1254 4.3294 4.4791 - 4.2943 4.2340 4.4045
1 Present 3.6056 3.9075 4.1419 4.7216 3.8531 3.7622 4.0243

PT
FEM 3.5735 3.8755 4.1105 4.6795 3.8187 3.7298 3.9896
Analytical 3.5736 3.8756 4.1105 - 3.8206 3.7298 3.9911
2 Present 3.0930 3.4477 3.7639 4.5574 3.3821 3.2635 3.6025
FEM 3.0680 3.4190 3.7334 4.5142 3.3514 3.2365 3.5692
Analytical 3.0682 3.4190 3.7334 - 3.3546 3.2366 3.5719

RI
5 Present 2.7644 3.0425 3.4065 4.3946 2.9984 2.8635 3.2233
FEM 2.7446 3.0181 3.3771 4.3501 2.9746 2.8439 3.1928
Analytical 2.7450 3.0182 3.3771 - 2.9790 2.8441 3.1966
10 Present 2.7132 2.9014 3.2641 4.3226 2.8835 2.7490 3.0858

SC
FEM 2.6932 2.8808 3.2356 4.2776 2.8669 2.7355 3.0588
Analytical 2.6936 2.8810 3.2357 - 2.8716 2.7357 3.0630
C-C 0 Present 10.0864 9.9430 9.8821 9.8849 9.9810 10.0008 9.9331
FEM 10.0678 10.0678 10.0678 10.0678 10.0678 10.0678 10.0678

U
Analytical 10.0726 10.0726 10.0726 - 10.0726 10.0726 10.0726
0.5 Present 8.3036 8.6346 8.8544 9.4479 8.5739 8.4902 8.7520
FEM 8.3600 8.7423 8.9942 9.5731 8.6673 8.5720 8.8648
AN
Analytical 8.3606 8.7442 8.9969 - 8.6688 8.5736 8.8654
1 Present 7.2963 7.8689 8.2594 9.2115 7.7534 7.6106 8.0619
FEM 7.3661 7.9580 8.3705 9.3076 7.8390 7.6865 8.1554
Analytical 7.3707 7.9623 8.3747 - 7.8428 7.6910 8.1593
2 Present 6.3272 7.0656 7.6294 8.9672 6.9075 6.7088 7.3352
M

FEM 6.4095 7.1373 7.7114 9.0343 6.9908 6.7826 7.4105

Analytical 6.4139 7.1412 7.7149 - 6.9939 6.7867 7.4138
5 Present 5.6227 6.3163 7.0112 8.7221 6.1581 5.9272 6.6449
FEM 5.7264 6.3889 7.0691 8.7605 6.2737 6.0293 6.7188
D

Analytical 5.7315 6.3925 7.0723 - 6.2765 6.0335 6.7216

10 Present 5.4367 6.0310 6.7548 8.6136 5.8892 5.6619 6.3712
FEM 5.5375 6.1240 6.8087 8.6391 6.0527 5.8059 6.4641
TE

Analytical 5.5429 6.1278 6.8119 - 6.0555 5.8104 6.4668

C-F 0 Present 1.9077 1.9036 1.9020 1.9022 1.9048 1.9052 1.9034
FEM 1.8952 1.8952 1.8952 1.8952 1.8952 1.8952 1.8952
Analytical 1.8953 1.8953 1.8953 - 1.8953 1.8953 1.8953
EP

0.5 Present 1.5141 1.5885 1.6443 1.7841 1.5764 1.5535 1.6171

FEM 1.5069 1.5821 1.6384 1.7764 1.5696 1.5466 1.6108
Analytical 1.5064 1.5819 1.6383 - 1.5693 1.5463 1.6104
1 Present 1.3063 1.4171 1.5052 1.7221 1.3976 1.3633 1.4609
FEM 1.3007 1.4115 1.4992 1.7145 1.3918 1.3575 1.4549
C

Analytical 1.3008 1.4115 1.4993 - 1.3919 1.3576 1.4550

2 Present 1.1187 1.2466 1.3633 1.6594 1.2237 1.1794 1.3040
FEM 1.1143 1.2416 1.3582 1.6518 1.2188 1.1746 1.2986
AC

Analytical 1.1143 1.2416 1.3582 - 1.2189 1.1747 1.2987

5 Present 1.0008 1.0978 1.2309 1.5978 1.0841 1.0337 1.1644
FEM 0.9973 1.0935 1.2257 1.5897 1.0806 1.0303 1.1597
Analytical 0.9974 1.0936 1.2258 - 1.0807 1.0304 1.1598
10 Present 0.9848 1.0467 1.1784 1.5705 1.0439 0.9933 1.1146
FEM 0.9812 1.0431 1.1734 1.5624 1.0416 0.9909 1.1106
Analytical 0.9813 1.0432 1.1734 - 1.0417 0.9910 1.1106
(1)
Vo et al. [42]
(2)
Nguyen et al. [37]
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Normalized fundamental frequency of FG sandwich beams with various boundary conditions and
face-core-face thickness ratios (L/h = 20, Type A)
BC k Theory 1-0-1 1-1-1 1-2-1 1-8-1 2-1-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
S-S 0 Present 5.4658 5.4641 5.4634 5.4636 5.4646 5.4649 5.4639
FEM(1) 5.4603 5.4603 5.4603 5.4603 5.4603 5.4603 5.4603
Analytical(2) 5.4603 5.4603 5.4603 - 5.4603 5.4603 5.4603
0.5 Present 4.3179 4.5352 4.7006 5.1102 4.5000 4.4320 4.6199
FEM 4.3148 4.5324 4.6979 5.1067 4.4970 4.4290 4.6170
Analytical 4.3132 4.5315 4.6972 - 4.4960 4.4278 4.6158
1 Present 3.7171 4.0352 4.2913 4.9267 3.9800 3.8792 4.1627

PT
FEM 3.7147 4.0328 4.2889 4.9233 3.9774 3.8768 4.1602
Analytical 3.7147 4.0328 4.2889 - 3.9775 3.8768 4.1603
2 Present 3.1782 3.5410 3.8792 4.7414 3.4777 3.3485 3.7074
FEM 3.1764 3.5389 3.8769 4.7382 3.4754 3.3465 3.7049
Analytical 3.1764 3.5389 3.8769 - 3.4756 3.3465 3.7051

RI
5 Present 2.8454 3.1128 3.4944 4.5588 3.0789 2.9325 3.3050
FEM 2.8439 3.1111 3.4921 4.5554 3.0773 2.9310 3.3028
Analytical 2.8440 3.1111 3.4921 - 3.0776 2.9311 3.3030
10 Present 2.8057 2.9676 3.3426 4.4784 2.9674 2.8198 3.1632

SC
FEM 2.8041 2.9662 3.3406 4.4749 2.9662 2.8188 3.1613
Analytical 2.8042 2.9662 3.3406 - 2.9665 2.8188 3.1616
C-C 0 Present 12.2350 12.2170 12.2096 12.2115 12.2222 12.2245 12.2161
FEM 12.2228 12.2228 12.2228 12.2228 12.2228 12.2228 12.2228

U
Analytical 12.2243 12.2243 12.2243 - 12.2243 12.2243 12.2243
0.5 Present 9.6937 10.1740 10.5367 11.4399 10.0957 9.9470 10.3605
FEM 9.6942 10.1800 10.5460 11.4459 10.1001 9.9501 10.3668
AN
Analytical 9.6916 10.1788 10.5455 - 10.0985 9.9484 10.3647
1 Present 8.3563 9.0673 9.6342 11.0383 8.9427 8.7205 9.3497
FEM 8.3594 9.0722 9.6411 11.0421 8.9474 8.7241 9.3550
Analytical 8.3601 9.0729 9.6419 - 8.9479 8.7248 9.3555
2 Present 7.1515 7.9689 8.7216 10.6324 7.8239 7.5377 8.3387
M

FEM 7.1563 7.9727 8.7262 10.6336 7.8293 7.5417 8.3430

Analytical 7.1568 7.9732 8.7268 - 7.8293 7.5422 8.3431
5 Present 6.3996 7.0127 7.8665 10.2309 6.9297 6.6048 7.4412
FEM 6.4064 7.0170 7.8692 10.2298 6.9389 6.6116 7.4461
D

Analytical 6.4071 7.0174 7.8696 - 6.9387 6.6121 7.4459

10 Present 6.3020 6.6862 7.5286 10.0539 6.6747 6.3483 7.1226
FEM 6.3086 6.6924 7.5311 10.0519 6.6889 6.3590 7.1296
TE

Analytical 6.3094 6.6928 7.5315 - 6.6887 6.3595 7.1293

C-F 0 Present 1.9505 1.9499 1.9504 1.9495 1.9504 1.9504 1.9495
FEM 1.9496 1.9496 1.9496 1.9496 1.9496 1.9496 1.9496
Analytical 1.9496 1.9496 1.9496 - 1.9496 1.9496 1.9496
EP

0.5 Present 1.5402 1.6175 1.6774 1.8239 1.6053 1.5809 1.6482

FEM 1.5397 1.6175 1.6766 1.8229 1.6048 1.5805 1.6477
Analytical 1.5392 1.6171 1.6764 - 1.6045 1.5801 1.6473
1 Present 1.3258 1.4392 1.5308 1.7579 1.4195 1.3835 1.4844
FEM 1.3253 1.4388 1.5304 1.7573 1.4191 1.3831 1.4844
C

Analytical 1.3253 1.4388 1.5304 - 1.4191 1.3831 1.4844

2 Present 1.1334 1.2627 1.3842 1.6913 1.2403 1.1940 1.3222
FEM 1.1330 1.2623 1.3831 1.6911 1.2398 1.1937 1.3217
AC

Analytical 1.1330 1.2623 1.3831 - 1.2398 1.1937 1.3217

5 Present 1.0145 1.1098 1.2459 1.6262 1.0979 1.0456 1.1784
FEM 1.0145 1.1096 1.2456 1.6257 1.0977 1.0453 1.1781
Analytical 1.0145 1.1096 1.2456 - 1.0977 1.0454 1.1781
10 Present 1.0007 1.0581 1.1918 1.5975 1.0582 1.0055 1.1279
FEM 1.0005 1.0578 1.1915 1.5969 1.0581 1.0053 1.1276
Analytical 1.0005 1.0578 1.1915 - 1.0581 1.0053 1.1276
(1)
Vo et al. [42]
(2)
Nguyen et al. [37]
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4 Normalized critical buckling loads of FG sandwich beams with various boundary conditions and
face-core-face thickness ratios (L/h = 5, Type A)
BC k
Theory 1-0-1 1-1-1 1-2-1 1-8-1 2-1-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
S-S 0
Present 48.5905 48.1523 47.9691 48.0132 48.2775 48.3339 48.1306
FEM(1) 48.5959 48.5959 48.5959 48.5959 48.5959 48.5959 48.5959
Analytical(2) 48.5964 48.5964 48.5964 - 48.5964 48.5964 48.5964
0.5 Present 27.6787 31.5671 34.3605 41.5890 30.7992 29.7869 32.9245
FEM 27.8574 31.8784 34.7653 41.9897 31.0728 30.0301 33.2536
Analytical 27.8380 31.8650 34.7546 - 31.0577 30.0146 33.2336
1 Present 19.4857 24.3266 28.1421 38.4631 23.3039 22.0171 26.1083

PT
FEM 19.6525 24.5596 28.4447 38.7838 23.5246 22.2108 26.3611
Analytical 19.6541 24.5602 28.4440 - 23.5250 22.2121 26.3611
2 Present 13.4369 18.1906 22.5714 35.4435 17.1449 15.7626 20.1868
FEM 13.5801 18.3587 22.7863 35.6914 17.3249 15.9152 20.3750
Analytical 13.5820 18.3596 22.7859 - 17.3254 15.9167 20.3751

RI
5 Present 10.0122 13.5836 17.9412 32.5909 12.8395 11.5171 15.5726
FEM 10.1460 13.7212 18.0914 32.7725 13.0270 11.6676 15.7307
Analytical 10.1488 13.7226 18.0915 - 13.0279 11.6697 15.7313
10 Present 9.3292 12.1121 16.2440 31.3722 11.6069 10.3549 14.0279

SC
FEM 9.4515 12.2605 16.3783 31.5265 11.8370 10.5348 14.1995
Analytical 9.4543 12.2621 16.3789 - 11.8380 10.5370 14.2002
C-C 0 Present 151.9426 147.8945 146.2149 146.4849 148.9976 149.5367 147.6590
FEM 152.1470 152.1470 152.1470 152.1470 152.1470 152.1470 152.1470

U
Analytical 152.1588 152.1588 152.1588 - 152.1588 152.1588 152.1588
0.5 Present 90.8635 102.3356 109.9390 130.2102 99.9504 97.3130 106.0949
FEM 92.8833 105.6790 114.1710 134.2870 102.9120 99.9860 109.6030
AN
Analytical 92.8202 105.6331 114.1312 - 102.8605 99.9361 109.5284
1 Present 65.5503 81.1635 92.3982 122.0472 77.6545 74.0105 86.3848
FEM 67.4983 83.8177 95.7287 125.3860 80.1670 76.2634 89.2208
Analytical 67.5184 83.8267 95.7230 - 80.1730 76.2801 89.2223
2 Present 45.9691 62.3940 76.0661 114.0148 58.4671 54.3375 68.5304
M

FEM 47.7010 64.4229 78.5608 116.6580 60.6056 56.2057 70.7563

Analytical 47.7247 64.4352 78.5570 - 60.6127 56.2259 70.7590
5 Present 33.9501 47.5431 61.9478 106.3066 44.1224 40.1136 53.8895
FEM 35.5493 49.2763 63.7824 108.2970 46.3743 42.0033 55.8271
D

Analytical 35.5811 49.2949 63.7847 - 46.3852 42.0298 55.8338

10 Present 30.9059 42.4612 56.5736 102.9857 39.4849 35.7615 48.6357
FEM 32.3019 44.3374 58.2461 104.6920 42.1935 37.9944 50.7315
TE

Analytical 32.3345 44.3593 58.2532 - 42.2062 38.0239 50.7406

C-F 0 Present 13.0597 13.0262 13.0154 13.0172 13.0372 13.0395 13.0254
FEM 13.0594 13.0594 13.0594 13.0594 13.0594 13.0594 13.0594
Analytical 13.0595 13.0595 13.0595 - 13.0595 13.0595 13.0595
EP

0.5 Present 7.3184 8.3831 9.1645 11.1776 8.1762 7.8898 8.7594

FEM 7.3314 8.4051 9.1940 11.2021 8.1951 7.9068 8.7839
Analytical 7.3263 8.4016 9.1913 - 8.1912 7.9026 8.7789
1 Present 5.1126 6.4005 7.4456 10.2865 6.1335 5.7791 6.8875
FEM 5.1245 6.4166 7.4639 10.3093 6.1490 5.7921 6.9050
C

Analytical 5.1246 6.4166 7.4638 - 6.1490 5.7922 6.9050

2 Present 3.5078 4.7449 5.9179 9.4342 4.4805 4.1051 5.2823
FEM 3.5173 4.7564 5.9348 9.4531 4.4927 4.1156 5.2952
AC

Analytical 3.5175 4.7564 5.9347 - 4.4927 4.1157 5.2952

5 Present 2.6210 3.5217 4.6705 8.6368 3.3481 2.9904 4.0513
FEM 2.6298 3.5310 4.6806 8.6493 3.3609 3.0004 4.0620
Analytical 2.6301 3.5311 4.6806 - 3.3609 3.0006 4.0621
10 Present 2.4602 3.1390 4.2177 8.2968 3.0370 2.6957 3.6477
FEM 2.4683 3.1488 4.2267 8.3073 3.0527 2.7077 3.6595
Analytical 2.4685 3.1489 4.2268 - 3.0528 2.7078 3.6596
(1)
Vo et al. [42]
(2)
Nguyen et al. [37]
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5 Normalized critical buckling loads of FG sandwich beams with various boundary conditions and
face-core-face thickness ratios (L/h = 20, Type A)
BC k
Theory 1-0-1 1-1-1 1-2-1 1-8-1 2-1-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
S-S 0
Present 53.2368 53.2027 53.1889 53.1927 53.2126 53.2175 53.1990
FEM(1) 53.2364 53.2364 53.2364 53.2364 53.2364 53.2364 53.2364
Analytical(2) 53.2364 53.2364 53.2364 - 53.2364 53.2364 53.2364
0.5 Present 29.7051 34.0638 37.2883 45.5479 33.2193 32.0366 35.6168
FEM 29.7175 34.0862 37.3159 45.5742 33.2376 32.2629 35.6405
Analytical 29.6965 34.0722 37.3054 - 33.2217 32.0368 35.6202
1 Present 20.7099 25.9424 30.2095 41.8775 24.8640 23.4078 27.9349

PT
FEM 20.7212 25.9588 30.2307 41.9004 24.8796 23.4211 27.9540
Analytical 20.7213 25.9588 30.2306 - 24.8793 23.4212 27.9537
2 Present 14.1876 19.1884 23.9757 38.3632 18.1278 16.5946 21.3798
FEM 14.1973 19.3116 23.9900 38.3831 18.1404 16.6050 21.3927
Analytical 14.1974 19.2000 23.9899 - 18.1400 16.6051 21.3923

RI
5 Present 10.6079 14.2191 18.8784 35.0733 13.5389 12.0783 16.3722
FEM 10.6171 14.2284 18.8874 35.0856 13.5523 12.0883 16.3834
Analytical 10.6176 14.2285 18.8874 - 13.5520 12.0886 16.3829
10 Present 9.9762 12.6718 17.0350 33.6737 12.2921 10.8954 14.7404

SC
FEM 9.9847 12.6819 17.0443 33.6843 12.3084 10.9075 14.7525
Analytical 9.9850 12.6820 17.0445 - 12.3081 10.9075 14.7520
C-C 0 Present 208.9713 208.4540 208.2434 208.3022 208.6042 208.6710 208.4300
FEM 208.9510 208.9510 208.9510 208.9510 208.9510 208.9510 208.9510

U
Analytical 208.9515 208.9515 208.9515 - 208.9515 208.9515 208.9515
0.5 Present 117.1146 134.1438 146.6616 178.7981 130.8289 126.2506 140.1871
FEM 117.3030 134.4810 147.1040 179.2350 131.1240 126.5080 140.5450
AN
Analytical 117.2200 134.4255 147.0614 - 131.0594 126.4422 140.4622
1 Present 81.8189 102.4175 119.0983 164.5994 98.1503 92.4717 110.2103
FEM 81.9927 102.6650 119.4220 164.9490 98.3880 92.6741 110.4830
Analytical 81.9944 102.6655 119.4215 - 98.3839 92.6754 110.4792
2 Present 56.1284 75.9272 94.7308 150.9870 71.6952 65.6915 84.5269
M

FEM 56.2773 76.1020 94.9563 151.2500 71.8900 65.8489 84.7291

Analytical 56.2793 76.1030 94.9558 - 71.8837 65.8505 84.7230
5 Present 41.9370 56.3541 74.7362 138.1998 53.5764 47.8511 64.8288
FEM 42.0775 56.4958 74.8903 138.3880 53.7820 48.0070 65.0007
D

Analytical 42.0814 56.4973 74.8903 - 53.7751 48.0095 64.9930

10 Present 39.3625 50.2277 67.4903 132.7595 48.5974 43.1349 58.3732
FEM 39.4930 50.3811 67.6270 132.9170 48.8510 43.3233 58.5607
TE

Analytical 39.4962 50.3827 67.6281 - 48.8443 43.3252 58.5529

C-F 0 Present 13.3730 13.3684 13.3743 13.3623 13.3724 13.3723 13.3620
FEM 13.3730 13.3730 13.3730 13.3730 13.3730 13.3730 13.3730
Analytical 13.3730 13.3730 13.3730 - 13.3730 13.3730 13.3730
EP

0.5 Present 7.4535 8.5457 9.3647 11.4465 8.3369 8.0392 8.9406

FEM 7.4543 8.5512 9.3634 11.4424 8.3385 8.0405 8.9422
Analytical 7.4490 8.5477 9.3607 - 8.3345 8.0363 8.9372
1 Present 5.1948 6.5071 7.5801 10.5169 6.2368 5.8707 7.0047
FEM 5.1944 6.5083 7.5815 10.5174 6.2378 5.8713 7.0096
C

Analytical 5.1944 6.5083 7.5815 - 6.2378 5.8713 7.0096

2 Present 3.5573 4.8101 6.0189 9.6276 4.5460 4.1598 5.3611
FEM 3.5574 4.8110 6.0134 9.6321 4.5457 4.1603 5.3615
AC

Analytical 3.5574 4.8110 6.0134 - 4.5457 4.1603 5.3615

5 Present 2.6592 3.5629 4.7316 8.8017 3.3936 3.0269 4.1035
FEM 2.6605 3.5637 4.7323 8.8025 3.3948 3.0275 4.1043
Analytical 2.6606 3.5637 4.7323 - 3.3948 3.0276 4.1042
10 Present 2.5027 3.1752 4.2693 8.4498 3.0821 2.7309 3.6947
FEM 2.5032 3.1759 4.2698 8.4500 3.0832 2.7317 3.6952
Analytical 2.5033 3.1759 4.2698 - 3.0831 2.7317 3.6952
(1)
Vo et al. [42]
(2)
Nguyen et al. [37]
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 6 Normalized fundamental frequencies of FG sandwich beams with various boundary conditions
and face-core-face thickness ratios (L / h = 5, Type B)
BC k 1-1-1 1-2-1 1-8-1 2-1-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
S-S 0 3.8479 4.1067 4.7161 3.5374 3.6943 3.6891
0.5 3.6964 3.8362 4.1749 3.5245 3.6178 3.6027
1 3.6219 3.7022 3.8906 3.5203 3.5795 3.5674
2 3.5564 3.5913 3.6596 3.5175 3.5431 3.5436
5 3.5048 3.5222 3.5432 3.5111 3.5083 3.5273
10 3.4831 3.5007 3.5089 3.5013 3.4907 3.5126
C-C 0 7.7722 8.2312 9.2180 7.0124 7.4510 7.4135

PT
0.5 7.4263 7.6626 8.2018 6.9001 7.2623 7.1418
1 7.2377 7.3570 7.6421 6.8318 7.1564 6.9962
2 7.0381 7.0536 7.1244 6.7438 7.0375 6.8370
5 6.8031 6.7357 6.6878 6.6018 6.8850 6.6193

RI
10 6.6583 6.5516 6.4554 6.4938 6.7868 6.4636
C-F 0 1.3950 1.4906 1.7195 1.2889 1.3401 1.3393
0.5 1.3416 1.3936 1.5209 1.2871 1.3138 1.3112

SC
1 1.3161 1.3464 1.4174 1.2877 1.3009 1.3011
2 1.2950 1.3093 1.3356 1.2898 1.2896 1.2966
5 1.2820 1.2918 1.3012 1.2928 1.2806 1.2984
10 1.2790 1.2907 1.2958 1.2935 1.2771 1.2991

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7 Normalized fundamental frequencies of FG sandwich beams with various boundary conditions
and face-core-face thickness ratios (L / h = 20, Type B)
BC k 1-1-1 1-2-1 1-8-1 2-1-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
S-S 0 3.9706 4.2473 4.9177 3.6818 3.8160 3.8157
0.5 3.8220 3.9732 4.3464 3.6837 3.7437 3.7435
1 3.7526 3.8417 4.0509 3.6903 3.7098 3.7207
2 3.6986 3.7433 3.8226 3.7039 3.6815 3.7180
5 3.6739 3.7108 3.7438 3.7254 3.6636 3.7417
10 3.6760 3.7231 3.7459 3.7374 3.6602 3.7580
C-C 0 8.9241 9.5401 11.0203 8.2557 8.5743 8.5704

PT
0.5 8.5854 8.9206 9.7446 8.2503 8.4077 8.3977
1 8.4248 8.6212 9.0820 8.2583 8.3281 8.3380
2 8.2950 8.3899 8.5624 8.2782 8.2589 8.3180
5 8.2219 8.2924 8.3588 8.3087 8.2074 8.3452

RI
10 8.2109 8.2980 8.3389 8.3211 8.1905 8.3613
C-F 0 1.4159 1.5150 1.7543 1.3136 1.3610 1.3610
0.5 1.3633 1.4172 1.5507 1.3142 1.3354 1.3355

SC
1 1.3385 1.3705 1.4453 1.3170 1.3234 1.3271
2 1.3196 1.3355 1.3640 1.3219 1.3134 1.3267
5 1.3109 1.3245 1.3366 1.3302 1.3074 1.3360
10 1.3125 1.3294 1.3376 1.3348 1.3063 1.3422

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 8 Normalized critical buckling loads of FG sandwich beams with various boundary conditions and
face-core-face thickness ratios (L / h = 5, Type B)
BC k 1-1-1 1-2-1 1-8-1 2-1-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
S-S 0 23.5900 27.6656 38.3737 18.7563 21.2291 21.1692
0.5 20.9100 22.7526 27.4410 18.0339 19.8649 19.2095
1 19.6630 20.5447 22.6885 17.6981 19.2050 18.3549
2 18.5601 18.7238 19.0629 17.3786 18.5796 17.6378
5 17.6396 17.4249 16.9226 17.0238 17.9844 17.0061
10 17.2481 16.9499 16.1736 16.7983 17.6998 16.6525
C-C 0 79.0492 91.6131 122.1338 60.6352 70.8756 70.2264

PT
0.5 69.4120 74.8685 88.0078 57.1383 65.7765 62.3172
1 64.6610 66.9950 72.7239 55.2830 63.1401 58.5010
2 60.0015 59.8317 60.2058 53.2040 60.3811 54.7110
5 55.0921 53.1471 50.7920 50.4255 57.1944 50.3268

RI
10 52.3961 49.7574 46.5152 48.5782 55.3363 47.6271
C-F 0 6.1991 7.2966 10.2521 4.9957 5.5876 5.5838
0.5 5.5123 6.0141 7.3128 4.8348 5.2437 5.1035

SC
1 5.2001 5.4472 6.0475 4.7672 5.0814 4.9053
2 4.9375 4.9987 5.1066 4.7139 4.9355 4.7575
5 4.7515 4.7307 4.6155 4.6736 4.8150 4.6665
10 4.6952 4.6700 4.4829 4.6544 4.7691 4.6309

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 9 Normalized critical buckling loads of FG sandwich beams with various boundary conditions and
face-core-face thickness ratios (L / h = 20, Type B)
BC k 1-1-1 1-2-1 1-8-1 2-1-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
S-S 0 25.1180 29.5926 41.7254 20.3183 22.6508 22.6472
0.5 22.3543 24.4062 29.7422 19.6994 21.2715 20.7409
1 21.1072 22.1221 24.5973 19.4493 20.6288 19.9664
2 20.0741 20.3417 20.7993 19.2687 20.0599 19.4163
5 19.3827 19.3402 18.8932 19.1660 19.6113 19.1364
10 19.2113 19.1719 18.4331 19.1393 19.4603 19.0608
C-C 0 99.1956 116.7577 164.0512 79.9383 89.4111 89.3433

PT
0.5 88.2053 96.2290 117.0165 77.3640 83.9010 81.6653
1 83.2105 87.1565 96.7712 76.2863 81.3121 78.4919
2 79.0083 79.9870 81.7149 75.4320 78.9823 76.1313
5 76.0293 75.6980 73.8573 74.7858 77.0497 74.6746

RI
10 75.1303 74.7256 71.7332 74.4795 76.3189 74.1007
C-F 0 6.2984 7.4244 10.4736 5.1009 5.6817 5.6817
0.5 5.6083 6.1233 7.4668 4.9462 5.3371 5.2062

SC
1 5.2958 5.5518 6.1756 4.8870 5.1767 5.0107
2 5.0396 5.1068 5.2238 4.8425 5.0351 4.8769
5 4.8682 4.8618 4.7515 4.8224 4.9260 4.8147
10 4.8322 4.8240 4.6395 4.8186 4.8896 4.7994

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

z
y

Ceramic
x
h/2

h/2

PT
Metal b
L

RI
a) FG beam

z z

SC
Metal h3
x h2 y

U
h Ceramic C h1
h0
AN
L Metal b

b) Type A beam
M

z z
D

h3
Ceramic
TE

x h2 y
h
h1
Metal
h0
L b
EP

c) Type B beam
C

Fig. 1 Geometry of FGM beams considered

AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

w1 w2 w3 w4

φ1 u1 φ2 u2 φ3 u3 x

PT
L/3 L/3 L/3
L/2 L/2

RI
Fig. 2 One-layer beam element with ten DOFs

SC
X3N+5 (N) X3N+6 X3N+7

:
U
AN
:

X11 (2) X12 X13

M

X4 X5 X6 X7
X8 X1 (1) X9 X2 X10 X3
D
TE

Fig. 3 Multilayered beam element

C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 4 Variation of the normalized fundemantal frequencies and the critical buckling loads with the
slenderness L/h (Type A, 1-1-1)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 5 Variation of the normalized fundemantal frequencies and the critical buckling loads with the
C

power-law exponent (Type A, L / h = 5)

AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 6 Variation of the normalized fundemantal frequencies and the critical buckling loads with the face-
to-core thickness ratio hf / hc (Type A, L / h = 5)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Fig. 7 Variation of the normalized fundemantal frequencies and the critical buckling loads with the
power-law exponent (Type B, L / h = 5)
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 8 Variation of the normalized fundemantal frequencies and the critical buckling loads with the
C

power-law exponent (Type B, L / h = 5)

AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 9 Variation of the normalized fundemantal frequencies and the critical buckling loads with the face-
to-core thickness ratio hf / hc (Type B, L / h = 5)