Sayyad 2020 HSDT

Original Article
Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials

0(0) 1–30
On the buckling ! The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
of advanced sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1099636220925084
composite sandwich journals.sagepub.com/home/jsm
rectangular plates
Atteshamuddin S Sayyad1 and

Yuwaraj M Ghugal2
Abstract
In this paper, higher order closed-formed analytical solutions for the buckling analysis of
functionally graded sandwich rectangular plates are obtained using a unified shear defor-
mation theory. Three-layered sandwich plates with functionally graded skins on top and
bottom; and isotropic core in the middle are considered for the study. The material
properties of skins are varied through the thickness according to the power-law dis-
tribution. Two types of sandwich plates (hardcore and softcore) are considered for the
detail numerical study. A unified shear deformation theory developed in the present
study uses polynomial and non-polynomial-type shape functions in terms of thickness
coordinate to account for the effect of shear deformation. In the present theory, the
in-plane displacements consider the combined effect of bending rotation and shear
rotation. The parabolic shear deformation theory of Reddy and the first-order shear
deformation theory of Mindlin are the particular cases of the present unified formula-
tion. The governing differential equations are evaluated from the principle of virtual
work. Closed-formed analytical solutions are obtained by using the Navier’s technique.
The non-dimensional critical buckling load factors are obtained for various power-law
coefficients, aspect ratios and skin-core-skin thickness ratios.
Keywords
Unified formulation, shear deformation, functionally graded sandwich, rectangular
plates, critical buckling load factors
1
Department of Civil Engineering, SRES’s Sanjivani College of Engineering, Savitribai Phule Pune University,
Kopargaon, India
2
Department of Applied Mechanics, Government College of Engineering, Karad, India
Corresponding author:
Atteshamuddin S Sayyad, SRES’s College of Engineering, Kopargaon 423601, Maharashtra, India.
Email: attu_sayyad@yahoo.co.in
2 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(0)
Introduction
Nowadays, layered composite structures are widely used in many engineering
structures due to their attractive structural properties. Laminated composite struc-
tures are often subjected to delamination problems. This problem can be avoided
by using structures made of advanced composite materials like functionally graded
materials (FGMs). FGMs are formed by varying the material properties with a
specific gradient. The variation of material properties can be either unidirectional
or bidirectional. These structures are subjected to different types of loadings such
as static (out-of-plane and in-plane) and dynamic. Bending analysis of these struc-
tures is carried out against out-of-plane loading, buckling analysis against in-plane
loading and vibration analysis against dynamic loading. Therefore, accurate struc-
tural analysis of functionally graded (FG) sandwich plates is required to predict
their correct bending, buckling and vibration behavior. In the view of this,
researchers have developed higher order shear deformation theories for the struc-
tural analysis of sandwich plates made of FGMs. Classical plate theory (CPT)
developed by Kirchhoff [1] and first-order shear deformation theory (FSDT) devel-
oped by Mindlin [2] are inaccurate for the analysis of thick FGM sandwich plates.
The CPT neglects the effect of shear deformation, whereas FSDT do not satisfy the
shear stress free conditions at the top and bottom surfaces of the plate. This led to
the development of higher order theories for the analysis of sandwich plates.
Research on higher order theories for laminated composite and sandwich beams
and plates are well documented by Sayyad and Ghugal [3,4]. Also, Jha et al. [5],
Swaminathan et al. [6] and Sayyad and Ghugal [7] presented a critical review on
modeling and analysis of FG beams and plates.
Swaminathan and Naveenkumar [8] have presented buckling analysis of FG
sandwich plates using third-order shear deformation theories. Analytical solutions
for critical buckling loads are obtained using the Navier’s solution procedure.
Meiche et al. [9] presented buckling and free vibration analysis of symmetric and
anti-symmetric FG sandwich plates using four variable hyperbolic shear deforma-
tion theory (HSDT). Mantari and Monge [10] obtained analytical solutions for the
buckling, free vibration and bending behavior of simply supported FG sandwich
plates using a hyperbolic unified formulation based on Carrera’s unified formula-
tion (CUF). Zenkour [11,12] presented bending, buckling and free vibration anal-
ysis of FG sandwich plates using higher order and lower order shear deformation
theories. Analytical solutions are obtained using the Navier-type solution. Neves
et al. [13] developed the higher order shear deformation theory considering the
thickness stretching for the static, free vibration and buckling analysis of FG
sandwich plates by a meshless technique. The CUF method is employed to
obtain the governing equations and associated boundary conditions which are
then interpolated by radial basis functions to obtain an algebraic system of equa-
tions. Nguyen et al. [14] developed a new inverse trigonometric shear deformation
theory (TSDT) for the static, buckling and free vibration analysis of FG sandwich
plates. Deflection, stresses, critical buckling loads and natural frequencies are
Sayyad and Ghugal 3
obtained using Navier’s solution procedure. Akavci [15] developed a new hyper-
bolic shear and normal deformation plate theory for the static, free vibration and
buckling analysis of the simply supported FG sandwich plates resting on elastic
foundation. The closed-form solutions are obtained by using Navier’s technique.
Meziane et al. [16] have developed four variable plate theories for the buckling and
free vibration analysis of exponentially graded sandwich plates. Nguyen et al. [17]
have developed a four-variable hyperbolic shear deformation plate theory for the
static, buckling and free vibration analysis of symmetric and anti-symmetric FG
sandwich plates using Navier’s method and finite element method. Meksi et al. [18]
have developed a new five-variable HSDT and obtained analytical solutions for the
static, free vibration and buckling analysis of FG sandwich plates. Neves et al. [19]
studied the thickness stretching effect on the buckling analysis of FGM sandwich
plates by a meshless technique based on collocation with radial basis functions.
Nguyen et al. [20] studied vibration and buckling analysis of FG sandwich plates
with improved transverse shear stiffness based on the FSDT. Sayyad and Ghugal
[21] have developed a unified shear deformation theory for the bending analysis of
single-layer FG beams and plates. Recently, Sayyad and Ghugal [22] have pre-
sented bending analysis of FG sandwich beams and plates using five-degree-of-
freedom theories. Nguyen et al. [14] presented vibration and buckling analysis of
FG sandwich plates using first-order shear deformation theory. Merdaci et al. [23]
have developed a four-unknown plate theory for the bending analysis of FG sand-
wich plates. Fekrar et al. [24] developed a four-unknown plate theory for the
buckling analysis of FG composite plates. Tounsi et al. [25] developed a three-
unknown non-polynomial-type plat theory for the buckling analysis of FG sand-
wich plates. Abdelaziz et al. [26] developed a simple HSDT for the buckling of FG
sandwich plate with various boundary conditions. Sekkal et al. [27], Driz et al. [28],
Tounsi et al. [29] and Achouri et al. [30] developed a new plate theory for the
buckling analysis of isotropic, orthotropic and FG sandwich plates which contains
undetermined integral terms and four-unknown variables. Mahmoud and Tounsi
[31] developed a five-variable higher order plate theory considering effects of thick-
ness stretching for the buckling analysis of FG sandwich plates. Bourada et al. [32]
developed a four-variable higher order plate theory buckling analysis of sigmoid
FG plates. Soltani et al. [33] have developed a new HSDT for the buckling analysis
of FG plate resting on elastic foundation.
Important observation in the buckling analysis of layered plates

Composite layered plate structures are often subjected to in-plane loads which lead
to the buckling of these structures. For the pure buckling of plates, in-plane load
must act along the neutral plane and not along the centroidal plane. In case of
isotropic, single-layer orthotropic, symmetric laminated and sandwich structures,
neutral plane coincides with centroidal plane; therefore, these structures undergo
pure buckling phenomena. But, in antisymmetric and arbitrary lay-ups, neutral
plane shifted from mid-plane to either side. In this case, if the in-plane load is
acting along the centroidal plane, it causes bending of structures due to eccentricity
and not buckling. Leissa [34] has discussed the buckling issues of anti-
symmetrically laminated composite plates under in-plane loading conditions.
Further, exact elasticity solutions for buckling of composite plates are not avail-
able in the literature to assess the validity of various refined theories.
Based on the aforementioned literature review and observation, it can be noted
that the studies on buckling analysis of FG sandwich plates are limited in the
literature. Therefore, this is the main focus of the present study. In this study,
closed-formed analytical solutions for symmetric FG sandwich beams and plates
are obtained using a unified shear deformation theory. Sandwich plates have FG
skins and two types of homogenous isotropic core (hardcore and softcore).
The present theory uses polynomial [35] and non-polynomial [36–38]-type shape
functions in terms of thickness coordinate to account for the effect of transverse
shear deformation. The governing equations are evaluated from the principle of
virtual work. Buckling solutions are obtained by using the Navier’s technique for
various power-law coefficients, aspect ratios and skin-core-skin thickness ratios.
Mathematical formulation
An FG sandwich plate as shown in Figure 1 is considered in the mathematical
formulation. The plate has FG skins and homogenous core; the plate has length a,
width b and thickness h in x-, y- and z-directions, respectively; h1, h2, h3 and h4 are
the thickness coordinates of each layer measured from the mid-plane. The plate is
loaded with in-plane forces. The four different relations between the thickness of
skins and thickness of core are considered in the present study (1-0-1, 2-1-2, 1-2-1
Figure 1. Geometry, coordinate system and material gradation of functionally graded sandwich
plates.
Sayyad and Ghugal 5
and 1-1-1). These layer configurations are chosen based on the increasing ratio of
thickness of core (hc) to thickness of skin (hs), i.e. hc/hs ¼ 0, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0.
The simple rule of mixture is used for the gradation of material properties
across the thickness
ðnÞ
Type AðhardcoreÞ: E ðzÞ ¼ Em þ ðEc Em ÞVðnÞ
ðnÞ
(1)
Type BðsoftcoreÞ: E ðzÞ ¼ Ec þ ðEm Ec ÞVðnÞ
where V(n) represents function of volume fraction for nth layer; Em represents
Young’s modulus of metal, whereas Ec represents Young’s modulus of ceramic.
Functions of volume fraction for FG skins and homogenous core are assumed
as follows
p
Vð1Þ ¼ hzh 1
2 h1
for z 2 ½h1 ; h2
Vð2Þ ¼ 1 for z 2 ½h2 ; h3 (2)
p
Vð3Þ ¼ hzh 4
3 h4
for z 2 ½h3 ; h4
where p is the power-law coefficient. Variations of Young’s modulus of FG sand-

wich plate made of ceramic and metal according to the power-law are shown in
Figures 2 and 3.
Kinematics
The mathematical formulation of the present unified theory is based on the fol-
lowing kinematical assumptions: (1) In-plane displacements consist of extension,
bending and shear components. (2) In-plane displacements considered the effect of
transverse shear deformation. (3) Transverse displacement consists of only bending
components. (4) Effect of transverse normal strain is neglected (ez ¼ 0). Therefore,
the displacement field of the present theory is
@w0 ðx; yÞ
uðx; y; zÞ ¼ u0 ðx; yÞ z
@x

@w0 ðx; yÞ
þ R /ðx; yÞ þ
@x
@w0 ðx; yÞ (3)
vðx; y; zÞ ¼ v0 ðx; yÞ z
@y

@w0 ðx; yÞ
þ R wðx; yÞ þ
@y
wðx; yÞ ¼ w0 ðx; yÞ
where ðu0 ; v0 ; w0 Þ are the x-, y- and z-directional displacements of any point on the
mid-plane, respectively, while / and w are the unknown functions that represent
Figure 2. Thickness variation of Young’s modulus of FG sandwich plate (Type A: hardcore) for
various skin-core-skin thickness ratios.
the effect of transverse shear strain on the mid-plane of the plate. R represents a
shape function in terms of thickness coordinate (z) which determines the distribu-
tion of transverse shearing strain/stress across the beam/plate thickness. The selec-
tion of the shape function is based on the following conditions
Z
þh=2
dR
R ¼0 and ¼0 (4)
h=2 dz z¼h=2
Different theories can be obtained by choosing their respective shape functions:

h i
Parabolic shear deformation theory (PSDT): R ¼ z 1 ð4=3Þð zÞ2 ; z ¼ z=h.
TSDT: R ¼ ðh=pÞsinðp
zÞ.
HSDT: R ¼ z coshð1=2Þ h sinhð zÞ . h i
Exponential shear deformation theory (ESDT): R ¼ z exp 2ð zÞ2 .
FSDT: R ¼ z.
CPT: R ¼ 0.
Sayyad and Ghugal 7
Figure 3. Thickness variation of Young’s modulus of FGM sandwich plate (Type B: softcore) for
various skin-core-skin thickness ratios.
Equation (3) yields the following kinematic relations using linear theory of elasticity
8 9 8 0 9 8 9 8 9
> ex > > 1 > > > ( ) ( )
< ex ex >
2 1
< ex >
> = > < >
= < ex >
> = > = cxz dR c0xz
ey ¼ ey 0
þ z ey 1
þ R ey ey
2 1
and ¼ (5)
:c >
> ; > > > > > > > cyz dz c0yz
: 0 >
; >
: 1 >
; >
: 1 >
;
xy cxy cxy cxy cxy
2
where
8 9 8 9 8 1 9 8 9
>
> 0 >
> > > > ex >
e @u =@x = > >
= >< @ w0 =@x >
2 2
< x = < 0 < =
e0y ¼ @v0 =@y ; e 1
y ¼ @ w0 =@y
2 2
>
> > > > > 1 > > >
: c0xy >
; : @u0 =@y þ @v0 =@x ; > : cxy > ; : 2@ 2 w0 =@x@y ;
8 9 8 9 (6)
>
> 2 > ( ) ( )
< ex > = >< @/=@x >
= c0xz / þ @w0 =@x
2
ey ¼ @w=@y ; ¼
>
> > > > c0yz w þ @w0 =@y
; : @/=@y þ @w=@x ;
: c2xy >
Hooke’s law and stress resultants

The stress–strain relations, accounting for transverse shear deformation in the nth
layer of FG plate, can be expressed as
2 3n 2 3n 2 3n
rx Q11 ðzÞ Q12 ðzÞ 0 0 0 ex
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 ry 7 6 Q12 ðzÞ Q22 ðzÞ 0 0 0 7 6 ey 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 syz 7 ¼ 6 0 0 Q44 ðzÞ 0 0 7 6 cyz 7 (7)
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 sxz 7 60 0 0 Q55 ðzÞ 0 7 6c 7
4 5 4 5 4 xz 5
sxy 0 0 0 0 Q66 ðzÞ cxy
where (rx ; ry ; sxy ; sxz ; syz ) are the stresses and (ex ; ey ; cxy ; cxz ; cyz ) are the strains. The
stiffness coefficients Qij(z) for FG plates are as follows
EðnÞ ðzÞ lEðnÞ ðzÞ

Q11 ðzÞ ¼ Q22 ðzÞ ¼ ; Q12 ðzÞ ¼ ;
1 l2 1 l2
(8)
EðnÞ ðzÞ
Q44 ðzÞ ¼ Q55 ðzÞ ¼ Q66 ðzÞ ¼
2ð1 þ lÞ
The stress resultants of an FG sandwich plate are determined by integrating

stress expressions over the thickness of the plate
8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9
>
> N c >
> Z >1 >
> > >
> Ncy >
> Z >1 >
> >
< x = þh=2 < = < = þh=2 < =
Mx ¼
c
z rx dz; Mcy ¼ z ry dz
>
> > h=2 > > > > h=2 > >
: Ms > ; :R>
> ; : Ms >
> ; :R>
> ;
x y
8 9 8 9 (9)
>
> Nc > Z >1 >
> ( ) ( )
< xy > = þh=2 <
>
= Qsxz Z þh=2 sxz dR
Mxy ¼
c
z sxy dz; ¼ dz
>
> > h=2 > > Qsyz dz
: Ms > ; :R>
> ; h=2 syz
xy
Using stress–strain relations, following expressions of stress resultants can be

obtained
8 9 2 3
>
> N c >
> A B s
C
< = 6 7
Mc ¼ 6 7
4 B D E 5 fDg and
>
> >
>
: Ms ; C Es F (10)
( s ) " #( )
Qxz Acc55 0 c0xz
¼
Qsyz 0 Acc44 c0yz
Sayyad and Ghugal 9
in which
2 3 2 3
A11 A12 0 As11 As12 0
6 7 6 7
A ¼ 4 A12 A22 0 5; C ¼ 4 As12 As22 0 5 (11)
0 0 A66 0 0 As66
2 3
B11 B12 0
6 7
B ¼ 4 B12 B22 0 5;
0 0 B66
2 3 (12)
ðB11 As11 Þ ðB12 As12 Þ 0
6 7
Bs ¼ 4 ðB12 As12 Þ ðB22 As22 Þ 0 5
0 0 ðB66 As66 Þ
2 3
Bs11 Bs12 0
6 7
E ¼ 4 Bs12 Bs22 0 5;
0 0 Bs66
2 3 (13)
ðBs11 Ass11 Þ ðBs12 Ass12 Þ 0
6 7
Es ¼ 4 ðBs12 Ass12 Þ ðBs22 Ass22 Þ 0 5
0 0 ðBs66 Ass66 Þ
2 3
ðD11 Bs11 Þ ðD12 Bs12 Þ 0
6 7
D ¼ 4 ðD12 Bs12 Þ ðD22 Bs22 Þ 0 5;
0 0 ðD66 Bs66 Þ
2 3 (14)
Ass11 Ass12 0
6 7
F ¼ 4 Ass12 Ass22 0 5
0 0 Ass66
T T
Nc ¼ Ncx Ncy Ncxy ; Mc ¼ Mcx Mcy Mcxy ;
T (15)
Ms ¼ Msx Msy Msxy
n oT
fDg ¼ e0x e0y c0xy e1x e1y c1xy e2x e2y c2xy (16)
where FG sandwich plate stiffnesses are defined as follows

Z þh=2
Aij Bij Dij ¼ Qij ðzÞ 1 z z2 dz (17)
h=2
Z þh=2
Asij Bsij ¼ Qij ðzÞR 1 z dz (18)
h=2
Z þh=2
fAssij g ¼ Qij ðzÞR2 dz (19)
h=2
Z þh=2
2
dR
fAccij g ¼ Qij ðzÞ dz (20)
h=2 dz
Governing equations and boundary conditions

The principle of virtual work stated in equation (21) is employed to derive the five
governing equations associate with the present unified theory
N Z
X hkþ1 Z b Z a h i
rxðkÞ dex þ rðkÞ
x dey þ s ðkÞ
xy dcxy þ s ðkÞ
xz dc xz þ s ðkÞ
yz dcyz dx dy dz
k¼1 hk 0 0
Z bZ Z bZ !
a a
@ 2 dw 0 @ dw
2
0 @ dw
2
0 @ dw
2
qðx; yÞ dw dx dy þ N0xx þ Nxy þ Nyx þ Nyy ¼0
0 0 0 0 @x2 @x@y @x@y @y2
(21)
where N0xx and N0yy are the in-plane compressive loads perpendicular to the edges
(x ¼ 0 and x ¼ a) and (y ¼ 0 and y ¼ b), respectively. N0xy and N0yx are the distributed
loads parallel to the edges (x ¼ 0 and x ¼ a) and (y ¼ 0 and y ¼ b), respectively.
Using equations (3) through (20), the following governing differential equations
are obtained by applying fundamental lemma of calculus
@Ncx @Ncxy
du0 : þ ¼0
@x @y
@Ncy @Ncxy
dv0 : þ ¼0
@y @x
!
@ 2 Mcx @ 2 Mcxy @ 2 Mcy
dw0 : þ2 þ
@x2 @x@y @y2
! !
@ 2 Msx @ 2 Msxy @ 2 Msy @Qsxz @Qsyz
þ2 þ þ (22)
@x2 @x@y @y2 @x @y
!
@ 2 w0 0 @ w0
2
0 @ w0
2
0 @ w0
2
þ q N0xx þ N þ N þ N ¼0
@x2 xy
@x@y yx
@x@y yy
@y2
@Msx @Mxy s
d/: þ Qsxz ¼ 0
@x @y
@Msy @Msxy
dw: þ Qsyz ¼ 0
@y @x
Sayyad and Ghugal 11
The boundary conditions are of the form
at x ¼ 0, and x ¼ a at y ¼ 0 and y ¼ b
Either Ncx ¼ 0 or u0 ¼ 0 Either Ncxy ¼ 0 or u0 ¼ 0

Either Ncxy ¼ 0 or v0 ¼ 0 Either Ncy ¼ 0 or v0 ¼ 0
Either Msx Mcx ¼ 0 or @w0 =@x ¼0 Either Msy Mcy ¼ 0 or @w0 =@y ¼ 0
Either Vx ¼ 0 or w0 ¼ 0 Either Vy ¼ 0 or w0 ¼ 0
Either Msx ¼ 0 or / ¼ 0 Either Msxy ¼ 0 or / ¼ 0
Either Msxy ¼ 0 or w ¼ 0 Either Msy ¼ 0 or w ¼ 0
where
! !
@Mcx @Mcxy @Msx @Msxy
Vx ¼ þ2 þ2 ;
@x @y @x @y
! ! (23)
@Mcx @Mcxy @Msx @Msxy
Vy ¼ þ2 þ2
@y @x @y @x
Substitution of the stress resultants from equation (9) into equation (22) leads to
the following governing equations in terms of unknown variables
@ 2 u0 @ 2 u0 @ 2 v0
du0 : A11 A 66 ðA 12 þ A 66 Þ
@x2 @y2 @x@y
@ w0
3
ðAs11 B11 Þ ðAs12 B12 þ 2As66 2B66 Þ (24)
@x3
@ 3 w0 @2/ @2/ @2w
As 11 As 66 ðAs 12 þ As 66 Þ ¼0
@x@y2 @x2 @y2 @x@y
@ 2 u0 @ 2 v0 @ 2 v0
dv0 : ðA12 þ A66 Þ A66 2 A22 2
@x@y @x @y
@ w0
3
ðAs22 B22 Þ ðAs12 B12 þ 2As66 2B66 Þ (25)
@y3
@ 3 w0 @2/ @2w @2w
2 ðAs12 þ As66 Þ As66 2 As22 2 ¼ 0
@x @y @x@y @x @y
@ 3 u0 @ 3 u0 @ 3 v0
dw0 :ðAs11 B11 Þ þ ðAs12 B12 þ 2As66 2B66 Þ þ ðAs22 B22 Þ 3
@x 3 @x@y 2 @y
@ 3 v0 @ 4 w0
þ ðAs12 B12 þ 2As66 2B66 Þ 2 þ ðAss11 2Bs11 þ D11 Þ
@x @y @x4
@ 4 w0
þ2½ðAss12 2Bs12 þ D12 Þ þ 2ðAss66 2Bs66 þ D66 Þ
@x2 @y2
@ 4 w0 @ 2 w0 @ 2 w0 @3/
þ ðAss22 2Bs22 þ D22 Þ Acc55 Acc44 þ ðAss11 Bs11 Þ 3
@y 4 @x 2 @y 2 @x
@3/ @/ @3w
þ ðAss12 Bs12 þ 2Ass66 2Bs66 Þ Acc55 þ ðAss22 Bs22 Þ 3
@x@y2 @x @y
@3w @w
þ ðAss12 Bs12 þ 2Ass66 2Bs66 Þ 2 Acc44
@x @y @y !
@ 2
w0 @ 2
w 0 @ 2
w 0 @ 2
w 0
¼ qðx; yÞ N0xx þ N0xy þ N0yx þ N0yy
@x2 @x@y @x@y @y2
(26)
@ 2 u0 @ 2 u0 @ 2 v0
d/: As11 As 66 ðAs 12 þ As 66 Þ
@x2 @y2 @x@y
@ w0
3
@ 3 w0
ðAss11 Bs11 Þ ðAss 12 Bs 12 þ 2Ass 66 2Bs 66 Þ
@x3 @x@y2
(27)
@w0 @ /2
@ /
2
þ Acc55 Ass11 2 Ass66 2
@x @x @y
@ w
2
þ Acc55 / ðAss12 þ Ass66 Þ ¼0
@x@y
@ 2 u0 @ 2 v0 @ 2 v0 @ 3 w0
dw: ðAs12 þ As66 Þ As66 2 As22 2 ðAss22 Bs22 Þ
@x@y @x @y @y3
@w0
þ Acc44 ðAss12 Bs12 þ 2Ass66 2Bs66 Þ
@y
(28)
@ 3 w0 @2/
2 ðAss12 þ Ass66 Þ
@x @y @x@y
@ w
2
@ w
2
Ass66 2 Ass22 2 þ Acc44 w ¼ 0
@x @y
Closed-formed analytical solutions

In the present study, critical buckling load factors for the simply supported FG
sandwich plates are obtained using the analytical solution procedure given by
Navier. The following simply supported boundary conditions for the plate sub-
jected to in-plane forces are assumed
v0 ¼ w ¼ Mcx ¼ Msx ¼ w ¼ 0 at x ¼ 0 and x¼a

(29)
u0 ¼ w ¼ Mcy ¼ Msy ¼/¼0 at y ¼ 0 and y¼b
Sandwich plates are subjected to in-plane loading only; transverse load is

assumed as zero (q ¼ 0).
N0xx ¼ k1 N0 ; N0yy ¼ k2 N0 and qðx; yÞ ¼ N0xy ¼ N0yx ¼ 0 (30)
where k1 and k2 are the non-dimensional in-plane load parameters. The governing
equations of the present unified theory will be satisfied with the following form of
unknown variables
X
1 X
1
u0 ðx; yÞ ¼ umn cos ax sin by
m¼1;3;5 n¼1;3;5
X1 X1
v0 ðx; yÞ ¼ vmn sin ax cos by
m¼1;3;5 n¼1;3;5
X1 X
1
w0 ðx; yÞ ¼ wmn sin ax sinby (31)
m¼1;3;5 n¼1;3;5
X
1 X1
/ðx; yÞ ¼ /mn cos ax sin by
m¼1;3;5 n¼1;3;5
X1 X1
wðx; yÞ ¼ wmn sin ax cos by
m¼1;3;5 n¼1;3;5
where a ¼ mp=a, b ¼ np=b, m and n are the half-wave numbers along the x and y
directions, respectively. umn ; vmn ; wmn ; /mn and wmn are the unknown coefficients.
Substituting equations (30) and (31) into the set of governing equations (24) to (28)
yields the following equations from which one can obtain critical buckling load for
uniaxial and biaxial in-plane loading
82 3 2 39
>
> K K K K K 0 0 0 0 0 >
>
>
> >
7>
11 12 13 14 15
>
> 6 7 6 >
>
> 6
>6 12K K K K K 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 >
>
< 22 23 24 25 7 6 7=
6 7 6 7
6 K13 K23 K33 K34 K35 7 N0 6 0 0 N33 0 0 7
>
> 6 7 6 7>>
>
> 6K K34 K44 K45 7 60 0 0 0 07 >
>
> 4 14 K24 5 4 5>>
>
>
> >
>
: K15 K25 K35 K45 K55 0 0 0 0 0 ;
8 9 8 9 (32)
>
> u >
mn > >
> > 0 >
>
> > >
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >0>
> >
>
< vmn = > < > =
wmn ¼ 0
>
> > >
> > >
>
>
> /mn >> >
> 0>>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
: ; : >
> > ;
wmn 0
Equation (32) can be written in more compact form as follows
½K N0 ½N fDg ¼ f0g (33)

where
K11 ¼ A11 a2 þ A66 b2 ; K12 ¼ ðA12 þ A66 Þab;

K13 ¼ ðAs11 B11 Þa þ ðAs12 B12 þ 2Ass66 2Bs66 Þa2 b;
3
K14 ¼ As11 a2 þ As66 b2 ; K15 ¼ ðAs12 þ As66 Þab; K22 ¼ A66 a2 þ A22 b2 ;
K23 ¼ A11 a3 þ ðAs12 B12 þ 2Ass66 2Bs66 Þa2 b;
K24 ¼ ðAs12 þ As66 Þab; K25 ¼ As66 a2 þ As22 b2 ;
K33 ¼ ðAss11 2Bs11 þ D11 Þa4 þ 2½ðAss12 2Bs12 þ D12 Þ þ 2ðAss66 2Bs66 þ D66 Þ
ðAss22 2Bs22 þ D22 Þb4 þ Acc55 a2 þ Acc44 b2 ;
K34 ¼ ðAss12 Bs12 þ 2Ass66 2Bs66 Þab2 þ ðAss11 Bs11 Þa3 þ Acc55 a;
K35 ¼ ðAss12 Bs12 þ 2Ass66 2Bs66 Þa2 b þ ðAss22 Bs22 Þb3 þ Acc44 b;
K44 ¼ ðAss11 a2 þ Ass66 b2 þ Acc55 Þ; K45 ¼ ðAss12 þ Ass66 Þab;
K55 ¼ ðAss66 a2 þ Ass22 b2 þ Acc44 Þ;
N33 ¼ k1 a2 þ k2 b2
(34)
A non-trivial solution of equation (33) can be obtained from j½K N0 ½Nj equal
to zero, from which the critical buckling load factors of FG sandwich plates can be
derived.
Figure 4. FG sandwich plates subjected to in-plane compressive forces.
Table 1. Thickness coordinates of four types of FG sandwich plates.
Layer configurations (LC) Thickness coordinates
1-0-1 h1 ¼ h/2, h2 ¼ 0, h3 ¼ 0 and h4 ¼ h/2

2-1-2 h1 ¼ h/2, h2 ¼ h/10, h3 ¼ h/10 and h4 ¼ h/2
1-1-1 h1 ¼ h/2, h2 ¼ h/6, h3 ¼ h/6 and h4 ¼ h/2
1-2-1 h1 ¼ h/2, h2 ¼ h/4, h3 ¼ h/4 and h4 ¼ h/2
Table 2. Non-dimensional uniaxial critical buckling load factor (Ncr) in a Type A (hardcore) FG
sandwich square plate (k1 ¼ 1, k2 ¼ 0, a/h ¼ 10).
Present models Comparison with known solutions
LC p PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT Ref. [29] Ref. [19] Ref. [31] Ref. [12]
1-0-1 0 13.005 13.006 13.009 13.018 13.121 13.737 13.328 12.953 12.984 13.006
1 5.1671 5.1685 5.1671 5.1702 5.1731 5.3325 5.1918 5.0612 5.1619 5.1684
5 2.6582 2.6600 2.6580 2.6621 2.6534 2.7308 2.6643 2.6365 2.6539 2.6600
10 2.4873 2.4893 2.4871 2.4916 2.4853 2.5699 2.5021 2.4719 2.4821 2.4892
2-1-2 0 13.005 13.006 13.009 13.018 13.121 13.737 13.328 12.953 12.984 13.006
1 5.8401 5.8412 5.8400 5.8427 5.8483 6.0273 5.8677 5.7112 5.8346 5.8411
5 3.0426 3.0441 3.0424 3.0426 3.0363 3.1070 3.0422 3.0081 3.0402 3.0440
10 2.7463 2.7404 2.7462 2.7463 2.7388 2.8034 2.7449 2.7208 2.7430 2.7484
1-1-1 0 13.005 13.006 13.009 13.018 13.121 13.737 13.328 12.953 12.984 13.006
1 6.4647 6.4654 6.4647 6.4665 6.4781 6.6815 6.5011 6.3150 6.4591 6.4653
5 3.5795 3.5806 3.5794 3.5818 3.5755 3.6573 3.5807 3.5301 3.5787 3.5806
10 3.1947 3.1959 3.1946 3.1973 3.1889 3.2592 3.1944 3.1578 3.1935 3.1945
1-2-1 0 13.005 13.006 13.009 13.018 13.121 13.737 13.328 12.953 12.984 13.006
1 7.5066 7.5063 7.5066 7.5066 7.5321 7.7841 7.5656 7.3202 7.4999 7.5062
5 4.7347 4.7349 4.7347 4.7347 4.7379 4.8572 4.7421 4.6470 4.7340 4.7348
10 4.2799 4.2803 4.2799 4.2799 4.2803 4.3822 4.2832 4.2055 4.2800 4.3817
PSDT: parabolic shear deformation theory; TSDT: trigonometric shear deformation theory; HSDT: hyper-
bolic shear deformation theory; ESDT: exponential shear deformation theory; FSDT: first-order shear
deformation theory; CPT: classical plate theory.
Table 3. Non-dimensional uniaxial critical buckling load factor (Ncr) in a Type B (softcore) FG
sandwich square plate (k1 ¼ 1, k2 ¼ 0, a/h ¼ 10).
Comparison with
Present models known solutions
Ref. [14] Ref. [14]

LC p PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT (k ¼ 1) (k ¼ 5/6)
1-0-1 0 6.2867 6.2870 6.2878 6.2898 6.3137 6.4532 – –

1 9.9617 9.9422 9.8600 9.9247 10.286 10.936 9.8498 10.165
5 12.623 12.611 12.361 12.600 12.849 13.537 12.485 12.719
10 12.863 12.857 12.587 12.853 13.038 13.698 12.773 12.914
2-1-2 0 6.2867 6.2870 6.2878 6.2898 6.3137 6.4532 – –
1 9.1623 9.1320 9.1652 9.1034 9.5836 10.241 8.9896 9.4620
5 11.981 11.942 11.985 11.902 12.395 13.161 11.426 12.252
10 12.351 12.318 12.354 12.284 12.712 13.465 11.713 12.571
1-1-1 0 6.2867 6.2870 6.2878 6.2898 6.3137 6.4532 – –
1 8.4847 8.4538 8.4877 8.4258 8.9440 9.5871 8.3464 8.8255
5 11.251 11.193 11.256 11.134 11.811 12.611 10.684 11.664
10 11.685 11.629 11.690 11.570 12.208 13.009 10.990 12.060
1-2-1 0 6.2867 6.2870 6.2878 6.2898 6.3137 6.4532 – –
1 7.4603 7.4412 7.4623 7.4268 7.8942 8.4845 7.3942 7.7858
5 9.9346 9.8750 9.9401 9.8186 10.620 11.411 9.5741 10.475
10 10.381 10.314 10.387 10.249 11.074 11.886 9.9063 10.925
Numerical examples, results and discussion

Numerical examples
Closed-form analytical solutions for the buckling analysis of two types of symmet-
ric FG sandwich plates are obtained using a unified shear deformation theory.
Plates are subjected to uniaxial or biaxial in-plane loading as shown in Figure 4.
The four types of layer configurations are considered for the detailed numerical
study (see Table 1).
Numerical results
The following non-dimensional forms are used for the purpose of presenting the
critical buckling load factors
N0 a2
Ncr ¼ ðFG sandwich plate; E0 ¼ 1 GPaÞ (35)
100 h3 E0
sandwich rectangular plate with 1-2-1 layer configuration (p ¼ 2, k1 ¼ 1, k2 ¼ 0).
Present models
a/b a/h PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT
1.0 4 5.1704 5.1700 5.1706 5.1710 5.2257 6.1730

10 5.9870 5.9868 5.9870 5.9869 5.9991 6.1730
20 6.1255 6.1252 6.1254 6.1254 6.1286 6.1730
50 6.1645 6.1648 6.1654 6.1651 6.1658 6.1730
100 6.1720 6.1720 6.1712 6.1659 6.1746 6.1730
1.5 4 2.8242 2.8239 2.8242 2.8243 2.8471 3.2199
10 3.1492 3.1492 3.1492 3.1492 3.1538 3.2199
20 3.2020 3.2019 3.2019 3.2019 3.2032 3.2199
50 3.2171 3.2171 3.2170 3.2168 3.2180 3.2199
100 3.2184 3.2219 3.2192 3.2168 3.2201 3.2199
2.0 4 2.1505 2.1504 2.1506 2.1506 2.1659 2.4113
10 2.3654 2.3653 2.3654 2.3654 2.3684 2.4113
20 2.3998 2.3997 2.3997 2.3997 2.4005 2.4113
50 2.4091 2.4094 2.4095 2.4093 2.4100 2.4113
100 2.4098 2.4111 2.4109 2.4088 2.4105 2.4113
2.5 4 1.8665 1.8664 1.8665 1.8666 1.8790 2.0766
10 2.0399 2.0398 2.0398 2.0398 2.0423 2.0766
20 2.0673 2.0672 2.0673 2.0673 2.0681 2.0766
50 2.0747 2.0752 2.0751 2.0745 2.0757 2.0766
100 2.0754 2.0768 2.0762 2.0740 2.0763 2.0766
Following are the properties of ceramic and metal used for the FG material
Ceramic (Alumina): Ec ¼ 380 GPa, m ¼ 0.3
Metal (Aluminum): Em ¼ 70 GPa, m ¼ 0.3
Discussion of numerical results

Example 1: Uniaxial buckling solutions
In this example, critical buckling load factors are obtained for FG sandwich square
and rectangular plates subjected to uniaxial compressive force as shown in
Figure 4(a). It is to be noted, in case of a rectangular plate, in-plane compressive
forces are applied along x-direction. The numerical results are obtained for differ-
ent layer configurations (LC), power-law coefficients and aspect ratios. Two types
of FG plates (softcore and hardcore) are analyzed using various higher order and
lower order plate models derived from the present unified theory. Numerical
results are presented in Tables 2 through 7. For the validation of the present
Present models
1.0 4 5.2574 5.1767 5.2654 5.1094 6.8527 10.095

10 8.7924 8.7538 8.7961 8.7204 9.3849 10.095
20 9.7345 9.7226 9.7356 9.7121 9.9080 10.095
50 10.036 10.033 10.036 10.032 10.065 10.095
100 10.081 10.079 10.080 10.079 10.086 10.095
1.5 4 3.1607 3.1194 3.1647 3.0847 3.9246 5.2659
10 4.7566 4.7409 4.7580 4.7272 4.9929 5.2659
20 5.1285 5.1239 5.1289 5.1199 5.1949 5.2659
50 5.2435 5.2426 5.2435 5.2420 5.2543 5.2659
100 5.2604 5.2602 5.2603 5.2598 5.2647 5.2659
2.0 4 2.5009 2.4709 2.5038 2.4454 3.0434 3.9436
10 3.6091 3.5986 3.6101 3.5895 3.7654 3.9436
20 3.8542 3.8512 3.8545 3.8486 3.8975 3.9436
50 3.9291 3.9285 3.9290 3.9281 3.9361 3.9436
100 3.9398 3.9397 3.9399 3.9398 3.9426 3.9436
2.5 4 2.2118 2.1863 2.2142 2.1648 2.6647 3.3961
10 3.1272 3.1187 3.1280 3.1113 3.2533 3.3961
20 3.3246 3.3222 3.3248 3.3201 3.3592 3.3961
50 3.3845 3.3842 3.3845 3.3838 3.3904 3.3961
100 3.3931 3.3929 3.3932 3.3936 3.3950 3.3961
Figure 5. Variation of Ncr with respect to a/h ratio in a Type A (hardcore) FG sandwich rect-
angular plate with 1-2-1 layer configuration (p ¼ 2).
Figure 6. Variation of Ncr with respect to a/h ratio in a Type B (softcore) FG sandwich rect-
angular plate with 1-2-1 layer configuration (p ¼ 2).
unified formulation, the present results are compared with those presented by
Zenkour [12], Neves et al. [19], Nguyen et al. [14], Tounsi et al. [29] and
Mahmoud and Tounsi [31].
Tables 2 and 3 show comparison of non-dimensional critical buckling load
factors obtained using all present models such as PSDT, TSDT, HSDT, ESDT,
FSDT and CPT. It is pointed out that the critical buckling load factors predicted
by all higher order models are in excellent agreement with those available in the
other references. FSDT and CPT overestimate the critical buckling load factors
due to neglect of shear deformation. The non-dimensional critical buckling load
factors increases with an increase in power-law coefficients for homogenous soft-
core, whereas those decreases with an increase in power-law coefficients for
homogenous hardcore. Critical buckling load factors are presented for four
types of layer configurations. In case of homogenous softcore, the critical buckling
load factor is maximum for 1-0-1 and minimum for 1-2-1, which means buckling
load decreases with increase in thickness of the core. Similarly, in case of
sandwich square plate with 2-1-2 layer configuration (k1 ¼ 1, k2 ¼ 0).
Present models
a/h p PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT
4 1 5.0226 5.0282 5.0221 5.0357 5.0595 6.0273

2 3.6842 3.6904 3.6836 3.6842 3.6760 4.2700
5 2.7442 2.7519 2.7435 2.7442 2.7121 3.1070
10 2.4815 2.4482 2.4808 2.4815 2.4433 2.8034
10 1 5.8401 5.8412 5.8400 5.8427 5.8483 6.0273
2 4.1639 4.1651 4.1638 4.1639 4.1624 4.2700
5 3.0426 3.0441 3.0424 3.0426 3.0363 3.1070
10 2.7463 2.7404 2.7462 2.7463 2.7388 2.8034
20 1 5.9794 5.9797 5.9793 5.9801 5.9816 6.0273
2 4.2430 4.2434 4.2430 4.2430 4.2427 4.2700
5 3.0906 3.0911 3.0906 3.0906 3.0890 3.1070
10 2.7889 2.7874 2.7889 2.7889 2.7870 2.8034
50 1 6.0198 6.0203 6.0196 6.0196 6.0199 6.0273
2 4.2672 4.2656 4.2657 4.2672 4.2663 4.2700
5 3.1045 3.1039 3.1044 3.1045 3.1045 3.1070
10 2.8011 2.8007 2.8011 2.8011 2.8007 2.8034
100 1 6.0237 6.0273 6.0254 6.0247 6.0255 6.0273
2 4.2707 4.2678 4.2689 4.2707 4.2722 4.2700
5 3.1063 3.1072 3.1064 3.1063 3.1061 3.1070
10 2.8020 2.8034 2.8028 2.8020 2.8018 2.8034
homogenous hardcore, the critical buckling load factor is minimum for 1-0-1 and
maximum for 1-2-1.
Tables 4 and 5 show critical buckling load factors for rectangular plates.
Numerical results are presented for various a/b ratios, a/h ratios and p ¼ 2.
Examination of these tables reveals that the non-dimensional critical buckling
load is maximum for thin plate and minimum for thick plate. Non-dimensional
critical buckling load factors are decreasing with increase in a/b ratios. Figures 5
and 6 show variation of critical buckling load factors with respect to a/h ratio for
hardcore and softcore FG sandwich rectangular plates, respectively, with 1-2-1
layer configuration and p ¼ 2.
Tables 6 and 7 show non-dimensional critical buckling load factors in an FG
sandwich square plate with 2-1-2 layer configuration. Critical buckling load factor
is determined for various aspect ratios and power-law coefficients. Critical buck-
ling load factors predicted by CPT are independent of the aspect ratio. Figures 7
and 8 show variation of critical buckling load factors with respect to power-law
Present models
4 1 5.9151 5.8413 5.9223 5.7739 7.1671 10.241

2 7.0674 6.9650 7.0769 6.8666 8.4840 11.998
5 8.1643 8.0573 8.1739 7.9514 9.4925 13.161
10 8.6272 8.5319 8.6362 8.4371 9.8265 13.465
10 1 9.1623 9.1320 9.1652 9.1034 9.5836 10.241
2 10.787 10.746 10.790 10.706 11.252 11.998
5 11.981 11.942 11.985 11.902 12.395 13.161
10 12.351 12.318 12.354 12.284 12.712 13.465
20 1 9.9481 9.9391 9.9490 9.9305 10.068 10.241
2 11.670 11.658 11.671 11.646 11.802 11.998
5 12.845 12.833 12.846 12.822 12.961 13.161
10 13.168 13.158 13.168 13.148 13.268 13.465
50 1 10.193 10.191 10.193 10.190 10.213 10.241
2 11.945 11.942 11.945 11.940 11.967 11.998
5 13.109 13.107 13.110 13.106 13.129 13.161
10 13.416 13.415 13.416 13.413 13.434 13.465
100 1 10.230 10.228 10.229 10.227 10.236 10.241
2 11.945 11.984 11.985 11.984 11.996 11.998
5 13.149 13.147 13.148 13.147 13.155 13.161
10 13.453 13.451 13.453 13.450 13.456 13.465
Figure 7. Variation of Ncr with respect to p in a Type A (hardcore) FG sandwich square plate
with 2-1-2 layer configuration.
Figure 8. Variation of Ncr with respect to p in a Type B (softcore) FG sandwich square plate with
2-1-2 layer configuration.
22
Table 8. Non-dimensional biaxial critical buckling load factor (Ncr) in a Type A (hardcore) FG sandwich square plate (k1 ¼ 1, k2 ¼ 1, a/h ¼ 10).
Present models Comparison with known solutions
LC p PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT Ref. [29] Ref. [19] Ref. [31] Ref. [12]
1-0-1 0 6.5025 6.5030 6.5045 6.5090 6.5605 6.8685 6.6640 6.4765 6.4921 6.5030
1 2.5836 2.5843 2.5836 2.5851 2.5866 2.6663 2.5959 2.5306 2.5809 2.5842
5 1.3291 1.3300 1.3290 1.3311 1.3267 1.3654 1.3321 1.3182 1.3269 1.3300
10 1.2437 1.2447 1.2436 1.2458 1.2427 1.2850 1.2511 1.2359 1.2410 1.2447
2-1-2 0 6.5025 6.5030 6.5045 6.5090 6.5605 6.8685 6.6640 6.4765 6.4921 6.5030
1 2.9201 2.9206 2.9200 2.9214 2.9242 3.0137 2.9338 2.8556 2.9173 2.9206
5 1.5213 1.5221 1.5212 1.5213 1.5182 1.5535 1.5211 1.5040 1.5201 1.5220
10 1.3732 1.3702 1.3731 1.3732 1.3694 1.4017 1.3724 1.3604 1.3715 1.3742
1-1-1 0 6.5025 6.5030 6.5045 6.5090 6.5605 6.8685 6.6640 6.4765 6.4921 6.5030
1 3.2324 3.2327 3.2324 3.2333 3.2391 3.3408 3.2505 3.1575 3.2295 3.2327
5 1.7898 1.7903 1.7897 1.7909 1.7878 1.8287 1.7903 1.7650 1.7893 1.7903
10 1.5974 1.5980 1.5973 1.5987 1.5945 1.6296 1.5972 1.5789 1.5968 1.5972
1-2-1 0 6.5025 6.5030 6.5045 6.5090 6.5605 6.8685 6.6640 6.4765 6.4921 6.5030
1 3.7533 3.7532 3.7533 3.7533 3.7661 3.8921 3.7828 3.6601 3.7499 3.7531
5 2.3674 2.3675 2.3674 2.3674 2.3690 2.4286 2.3710 2.3235 2.3670 2.3674
10 2.1400 2.1402 2.1400 2.1400 2.1402 2.1911 2.1417 2.1027 2.1400 2.1908
PSDT: parabolic shear deformation theory; TSDT: trigonometric shear deformation theory; HSDT: hyperbolic shear deformation theory; ESDT: exponential shear
deformation theory; FSDT: first-order shear deformation theory; CPT: classical plate theory.
Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(0)
Table 9. Non-dimensional biaxial critical buckling load factor (Ncr) in a Type B (softcore) FG sandwich square plate (k1 ¼ 1, k2 ¼ 1, a/h ¼ 10).
Comparison with
Sayyad and Ghugal
Present models known solutions
Ref. [14] Ref. [14]

LC p PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT (k ¼ 1) (k ¼ 5/6)
1-0-1 0 3.1434 3.1435 3.1439 3.1449 3.1569 3.2266 – –

1 4.9809 4.9711 4.9300 4.9624 5.1430 5.4680 4.9249 5.0826
5 6.3115 6.3055 6.1805 6.3000 6.4245 6.7685 6.2428 6.3597
10 6.4315 6.4285 6.2935 6.4265 6.5190 6.8490 6.3866 6.4571
2-1-2 0 3.1434 3.1435 3.1439 3.1449 3.1569 3.2266 – –
1 4.5812 4.5660 4.5826 4.5517 4.7918 5.1205 4.4948 4.7310
5 5.9905 5.9710 5.9925 5.9510 6.1975 6.5805 5.7132 6.1261
10 6.1755 6.1590 6.1770 6.1420 6.3560 6.7325 5.8566 6.2857
1-1-1 0 3.1434 3.1435 3.1439 3.1449 3.1569 3.2266 – –
1 4.2424 4.2269 4.2439 4.2129 4.4720 4.7936 4.1732 4.4127
5 5.6255 5.5965 5.6280 5.5670 5.9055 6.3055 5.3424 5.8319
10 5.8425 5.8145 5.8450 5.7850 6.1040 6.5045 5.4952 6.0301
1-2-1 0 3.1434 3.1435 3.1439 3.1449 3.1569 3.2266 – –
1 3.7302 3.7206 3.7312 3.7134 3.9471 4.2423 3.6971 3.8929
5 4.9673 4.9375 4.9701 4.9093 5.3100 5.7055 4.7870 5.2375
10 5.1905 5.1570 5.1935 5.1245 5.5370 5.9430 4.9531 5.4628
PSDT: parabolic shear deformation theory; TSDT: trigonometric shear deformation theory; HSDT: hyperbolic shear deformation theory; ESDT: exponential shear
deformation theory; FSDT: first-order shear deformation theory; CPT: classical plate theory.
23
Table 10. Non-dimensional biaxial critical buckling load factor (Ncr) in a Type A (hardcore) FG sandwich rectangular plate
24
with 1-2-1 layer configuration (p ¼ 2, k1 ¼ 1, k2 ¼ 1).
Present models
1.0 4 2.5852 2.5850 2.5853 2.5855 2.6129 3.0865

10 2.9935 2.9934 2.9935 2.9935 2.9996 3.0865
20 3.0628 3.0626 3.0627 3.0627 3.0643 3.0865
50 3.0823 3.0824 3.0827 3.0826 3.0829 3.0865
100 3.0860 3.0860 3.0856 3.0830 3.0873 3.0865
1.5 4 1.9552 1.9550 1.9552 1.9553 1.9711 2.2292
10 2.1802 2.1802 2.1802 2.1802 2.1834 2.2292
20 2.2168 2.2167 2.2167 2.2167 2.2176 2.2292
50 2.2272 2.2273 2.2272 2.2270 2.2279 2.2292
100 2.2281 2.2305 2.2287 2.2280 2.2293 2.2292
2.0 4 1.7204 1.7203 1.7205 1.7205 1.7327 1.9291
10 1.8923 1.8923 1.8923 1.8923 1.8947 1.9291
20 1.9198 1.9197 1.9198 1.9198 1.9204 1.9291
50 1.9273 1.9275 1.9276 1.9274 1.9280 1.9291
100 1.9278 1.9289 1.9287 1.9270 1.9284 1.9291
2.5 4 1.6091 1.6090 1.6091 1.6091 1.6199 1.7902
10 1.7585 1.7584 1.7585 1.7585 1.7606 1.7902
20 1.7822 1.7821 1.7822 1.7822 1.7828 1.7902
50 1.7885 1.7890 1.7889 1.7884 1.7894 1.7902
100 1.7891 1.7903 1.7899 1.7879 1.7900 1.7902
PSDT: parabolic shear deformation theory; TSDT: trigonometric shear deformation theory; HSDT: hyperbolic shear deformation theory;
ESDT: exponential shear deformation theory; FSDT: first-order shear deformation theory; CPT: classical plate theory.
Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 0(0)
coefficient (p) for hardcore and softcore FG sandwich square plates, respectively,
with 2-1-2 layer configuration.
Example 2: Biaxial buckling solutions

In this example, higher order biaxial buckling solutions for the FG sandwich
square and rectangular plates are discussed. Figure 4(b) shows the directions of
compressive force acting on the plate. In biaxial buckling analysis, a simply sup-
ported FG sandwich plate is subjected to bi-directional in-plane compressive
forces. Tables 8 through 13 give the non-dimensional critical buckling load factors
for different types of FG sandwich plates using PSDT, TSDT, HSDT, ESDT,
FSDT and CPT. The present results are compared with Zenkour [12], Neves
et al. [19], Nguyen et al. [14], Tounsi et al. [29] and Mahmoud and Tounsi [31]
wherever possible. Critical buckling load factors are obtained for various values of
power-law coefficients, a/h ratios, a/b ratios and thickness of the core with respect
to skins.
Tables 8 and 9 show the effect of power-law coefficient and layer configurations
on the critical buckling load factor, Tables 10 and 11 show the effect of a/b and a/h
Table 11. Non-dimensional biaxial critical buckling load factor (Ncr) in a Type B (softcore) FG
Present models
1.0 4 2.6287 2.5884 2.6327 2.5547 3.4264 5.0475

10 4.3962 4.3769 4.3981 4.3602 4.6925 5.0475
20 4.8673 4.8613 4.8678 4.8561 4.9540 5.0475
50 5.0180 5.0165 5.0180 5.0160 5.0325 5.0475
100 5.0405 5.0395 5.0400 5.0395 5.0430 5.0475
1.5 4 2.1882 2.1596 2.1909 2.1356 2.7170 3.6456
10 3.2930 3.2821 3.2940 3.2727 3.4566 3.6456
20 3.5505 3.5473 3.5508 3.5445 3.5964 3.6456
50 3.6301 3.6295 3.6301 3.6291 3.6376 3.6456
100 3.6418 3.6417 3.6417 3.6414 3.6448 3.6456
2.0 4 2.0007 1.9767 2.0031 1.9564 2.4347 3.1549
10 2.8873 2.8789 2.8881 2.8716 3.0123 3.1549
20 3.0834 3.0810 3.0836 3.0789 3.1180 3.1549
50 3.1433 3.1428 3.1432 3.1425 3.1489 3.1549
100 3.1519 3.1518 3.1519 3.1518 3.1541 3.1549
2.5 4 1.9067 1.8848 1.9088 1.8662 2.2972 2.9277
10 2.6958 2.6885 2.6965 2.6822 2.8045 2.9277
20 2.8660 2.8640 2.8662 2.8622 2.8959 2.9277
50 2.9177 2.9174 2.9177 2.9170 2.9228 2.9277
100 2.9251 2.9249 2.9252 2.9255 2.9267 2.9277
Table 12. Non-dimensional biaxial critical buckling load factor (Ncr) in a Type A (hardcore) FG
Present models
4 1 2.5113 2.5141 2.5111 2.5179 2.5298 3.0137

2 1.8421 1.8452 1.8418 1.8421 1.8380 2.1350
5 1.3721 1.3760 1.3718 1.3721 1.3561 1.5535
10 1.2408 1.2241 1.2404 1.2408 1.2217 1.4017
10 1 2.9201 2.9206 2.9200 2.9214 2.9242 3.0137
2 2.0820 2.0826 2.0819 2.0820 2.0812 2.1350
5 1.5213 1.5221 1.5212 1.5213 1.5182 1.5535
10 1.3732 1.3702 1.3731 1.3732 1.3694 1.4017
20 1 2.9897 2.9899 2.9897 2.9901 2.9908 3.0137
2 2.1215 2.1217 2.1215 2.1215 2.1214 2.1350
5 1.5453 1.5456 1.5453 1.5453 1.5445 1.5535
10 1.3945 1.3937 1.3945 1.3945 1.3935 1.4017
50 1 3.0099 3.0102 3.0098 3.0098 3.0100 3.0137
2 2.1336 2.1328 2.1329 2.1336 2.1332 2.1350
5 1.5523 1.5520 1.5522 1.5523 1.5523 1.5535
10 1.4006 1.4004 1.4006 1.4006 1.4004 1.4017
100 1 3.0119 3.0137 3.0127 3.0124 3.0128 3.0137
2 2.1354 2.1339 2.1345 2.1354 2.1361 2.1350
5 1.5532 1.5536 1.5532 1.5532 1.5531 1.5535
10 1.4010 1.4017 1.4014 1.4010 1.4009 1.4017
ratios on the critical buckling load factor, and Tables 12 and 13 show the effect of
a/h ratios and the power-law coefficient on critical buckling load factors. The
present results are compared with those presented by Zenkour [12], Neves et al.
[19], Nguyen et al. [14], Tounsi et al. [29] and Mahmoud and Tounsi [31] and found
in excellent agreement.
From these tables, it is pointed out that the non-dimensional critical buckling
load factor is minimum for homogenous hardcore and maximum for homoge-
nous softcore. Non-dimensional critical buckling load factors decrease with
increase in thickness of homogenous softcore (maximum for 1-0-1 and minimum
for 1-2-1), whereas the opposite nature of variation is observed in the case of
homogenous hardcore (minimum for 1-0-1 and maximum for 1-2-1). Among all
models, TSDT and HSDT show critical buckling load factors in close agreement
to PSDT. ESDT slightly underestimates the critical buckling load factor as com-
pared to PSDT. FSDT and CPT overestimate the critical buckling load factor
due to neglect of transverse shear deformation. Critical buckling load factors are
constant for all aspect ratios when predicted by CPT. Finally, from Tables 8
through 13, it is concluded that for square plates, biaxial buckling load is exactly
half of the uniaxial buckling load.
Table 13. Non-dimensional biaxial critical buckling load factor (Ncr) in a Type B (softcore) FG
Present models
4 1 2.9576 2.9207 2.9612 2.8870 3.5836 5.1205

2 3.5337 3.4825 3.5385 3.4333 4.2420 5.9990
5 4.0822 4.0287 4.0870 3.9757 4.7463 6.5805
10 4.3136 4.2660 4.3181 4.2186 4.9133 6.7325
10 1 4.5812 4.5660 4.5826 4.5517 4.7918 5.1205
2 5.3935 5.3730 5.3950 5.3530 5.6260 5.9990
5 5.9905 5.9710 5.9925 5.9510 6.1975 6.5805
10 6.1755 6.1590 6.1770 6.1420 6.3560 6.7325
20 1 4.9741 4.9696 4.9745 4.9653 5.0340 5.1205
2 5.8350 5.8290 5.8355 5.8230 5.9010 5.9990
5 6.4225 6.4165 6.4230 6.4110 6.4805 6.5805
10 6.5840 6.5790 6.5840 6.5740 6.6340 6.7325
50 1 5.0965 5.0955 5.0965 5.0950 5.1065 5.1205
2 5.9725 5.9710 5.9725 5.9700 5.9835 5.9990
5 6.5545 6.5535 6.5550 6.5530 6.5645 6.5805
10 6.7080 6.7075 6.7080 6.7065 6.7170 6.7325
100 1 5.1150 5.1140 5.1145 5.1135 5.1180 5.1205
2 5.9725 5.9920 5.9925 5.9920 5.9980 5.9990
5 6.5745 6.5735 6.5740 6.5735 6.5775 6.5805
10 6.7265 6.7255 6.7265 6.7250 6.7280 6.7325
Conclusions
Higher order buckling solutions for FG sandwich plates are presented in this study
using a unified shear deformation theory. FG sandwich plates with homogenous
hardcore and softcore are considered for the analysis. Analytical solutions are
obtained by using Navier’s technique. The non-dimensional critical buckling
load factors are obtained for various power-law coefficients, aspect ratios and
skin-core-skin thickness ratios. From the numerical study and discussion, follow-
ing conclusions are drawn:
1. The minimum value of non-dimensional critical buckling load factors belongs to

fully metal plates, whereas the maximum value of critical buckling load factors
is for fully ceramic plate.
2. In case of softcore sandwich plates, non-dimensional critical buckling load
factor decreases with increase in thickness of the core, i.e. critical buckling
load factor is maximum for 1-0-1 and minimum for 1-2-1. It is also concluded
that the critical buckling load factor increases with an increase in power-law
coefficient.
3. In case of hardcore sandwich plates, non-dimensional critical buckling load
factors increases with increase in thickness of the core, whereas decreases with
an increase in power-law coefficient.
4. Thin plate predicts higher non-dimensional buckling load factors whereas thick
plate predicts a lower value of it.
5. Non-dimensional critical buckling load factors decrease with an increase in the
a/b ratio in case of a rectangular plate.
It is important to note that all conclusions are made from non-dimensional

values of critical buckling load factors (Ncr). Actual dimensional critical buckling
load factor values are of opposite sense and can be obtained from equation (35)
100 h3 E0
N0 ¼ Ncr
a2
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
ORCID iD
Atteshamuddin S Sayyad https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3702-4167
References
1. Kirchhoff GR. Uber das gleichgewicht und die bewegung einer elastischen Scheibe. J
Reine Angew Math 1850; 40: 51–88.
2. Mindlin RD. Influence of rotatory inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic,
elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1951; 18: 31–38.
3. Sayyad AS and Ghugal YM. On the free vibration analysis of laminated composite and
sandwich plates: a review of recent literature with some numerical results. Compos
Struct 2015; 129: 177–201.
4. Sayyad AS and Ghugal YM. Bending, buckling and free vibration of laminated com-
posite and sandwich beams: a critical review of literature. Compos Struct 2017; 171:
486–504.
5. Jha DK, Kant T and Singh RK. A critical review of recent research on functionally
graded plates. Compos Struct 2013; 96: 833–849.
6. Swaminathan K, Naveenkumar DT, Zenkour AM, et al. Stress, vibration and buckling
analyses of FGM plates – a state-of-the-art review. Compos Struct 2015; 120: 10–31.
7. Sayyad AS and Ghugal YM. Modeling and analysis of functionally graded sandwich
beams: a review. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2019; 26: 1776–1795.
8. Swaminathan K and Naveenkumar DT. Higher order refined computational models for
the stability analysis of FGM plates – analytical solutions. Eur J Mech A Solids 2014;
47: 349–361.
9. Meiche NE, Tounsi A, Ziane N, et al. A new hyperbolic shear deformation theory for
buckling and vibration of functionally graded sandwich plate. Int J Mech Sci 2011; 53:
237–247.
10. Mantari JL and Monge JC. Buckling, free vibration and bending analysis of function-
ally graded sandwich plates based on an optimized hyperbolic unified formulation. Int J
Mech Sci 2016; 119: 170–186.
11. Zenkour AM. A comprehensive analysis of functionally graded sandwich plates: part 1
– deflection and stresses. Int J Solids Struct 2005; 42: 5224–5242.
12. Zenkour AM. A comprehensive analysis of functionally graded sandwich plates: part 2
– buckling and free vibration. Int J Solids Struct 2005; 42: 5243–5258.
13. Neves AMA, Ferreira AJM, Carrera E, et al. Static, free vibration and buckling analysis
of isotropic and sandwich functionally graded plates using a quasi-3D higher-order
shear deformation theory and a meshless technique. Compos Part B 2013; 44: 657–674.
14. Nguyen T-K, Vo TP and Thai HT. Vibration and buckling analysis of functionally
graded sandwich plates with improved transverse shear stiffness based on the first-order
shear deformation theory. Proc IMechE Part C J Mech Eng Sci 2014; 228: 2110–2131.
15. Akavci SS. Mechanical behavior of functionally graded sandwich plates on elastic foun-
dation. Compos Part B 2016; 96: 136–152.
16. Meziane MAA, Abdelaziz HH and Tounsi A. An efficient and simple refined theory for
buckling and free vibration of exponentially graded sandwich plates under various
boundary conditions. J Sandw Struct Mater 2014; 16: 293–318.
17. Nguyen K, Thai HT and Vo TP. A refined higher-order shear deformation theory for
bending, vibration and buckling analysis of functionally graded sandwich plates. Steel
Compos Struct 2015; 18: 91–120.
18. Meksi R, Benyoucef S, Mahmoudi A, et al. An analytical solution for bending, buckling
and vibration responses of FGM sandwich plates. J Sandw Struct Mater 2019; 21:
727–757.
19. Neves AMA, Ferreira AJM, Carrera E, et al. Buckling analysis of sandwich plates with
functionally graded skins using a new quasi-3D hyperbolic sine shear deformation
theory and collocation with radial basis functions. Z Angew Math Mech 2012; 92:
749–766.
20. Nguyen VH, Nguyen TK, Thai HT, et al. A new inverse trigonometric shear deforma-
tion theory for isotropic and functionally graded sandwich plates. Compos Part B 2014;
66: 233–246.
21. Sayyad AS and Ghugal YM. A unified shear deformation theory for the bending of
isotropic, functionally graded, laminated and sandwich beams and plates. Int J Appl
Mech 2017; 9: 1–36.
22. Sayyad AS and Ghugal YM. A unified five-degree-of-freedom theory for the bending
analysis of softcore and hardcore functionally graded sandwich beams and plates. J
Sandw Struct Mater. Epub ahead of print 4 April 2019. DOI: 10.1177/
1099636219840980.
23. Merdaci S, Tounsi A, Houari MSA, et al. Two new refined shear displacement models
for functionally graded sandwich plates. Arch Appl Mech 2011; 81: 1507–1522.
24. Fekrar A, Meiche N, Bessaim A, et al. Buckling analysis of functionally graded hybrid
composite plates using a new four variable refined plate theory. Struct Eng Mech 2012;
13: 91–107.
25. Tounsi A, Houari MSA and Bessaim A. A new 3-unknowns non-polynomial plate
theory for buckling and vibration of functionally graded sandwich plate. Struct Eng
Mech 2016; 60: 547–565.
26. Abdelaziz HH, Meziane MAA, Bousahla AA, et al. An efficient hyperbolic shear defor-
mation theory for bending, buckling and free vibration of FGM sandwich plates with
various boundary conditions. Struct Eng Mech 2017; 25: 693–704.
27. Sekkal M, Fahsi B, Tounsi A, et al. A novel and simple higher order shear deformation
theory for stability and vibration of functionally graded sandwich plate. Struct Eng
Mech 2017; 25: 389–401.
28. Driz H, Benchohra M, Bakora A, et al. A new and simple HSDT for isotropic and
functionally graded sandwich plates. Struct Eng Mech 2018; 26: 387–405.
29. Tounsi A, Atmane HA, Khiloun M, et al. On buckling behavior of thick advanced
composite sandwich plates. Compos Mater Eng Int J 2019; 1: 1–19.
30. Achouri F, Benyoucef S, Bourada F, et al. Robust quasi 3D computational model for
mechanical response of FG thick sandwich plate. Struct Eng Mech 2019; 70: 571–589.
31. Mahmoud SR and Tounsi A. A new shear deformation plate theory with stretching
effect for buckling analysis of functionally graded sandwich plates. Struct Eng Mech
2017; 24: 569–578.
32. Bourada F, Amara K, Bousahla AA, et al. A novel refined plate theory for stability
analysis of hybrid and symmetric S-FGM plates. Struct Eng Mech 2018; 68: 661–675.
33. Soltani K, Bessaim A, Houari MSA, et al. A novel hyperbolic shear deformation theory
for the mechanical buckling analysis of advanced composite plates resting on elastic
foundations. Struct Eng Mech 2019; 30: 13–29.
34. Leissa AW. Conditions for laminated plates to remain flat under inplane loading.
Compos Struct 1986; 6: 261–270.
35. Reddy JN. A simple higher order theory for laminated composite plates. ASME J Appl
Mech 1984; 51: 745–752.
36. Levy M. Memoire sur la theorie des plaques elastique planes. J Math Pure Appl 1877;
30: 219–306.
37. Soldatos KP. A transverse shear deformation theory for homogeneous monoclinic
plates. Acta Mech 1992; 94: 195–200.
38. Karama M, Afaq KS and Mistou S. A new theory for laminated composite plates. Proc
IMechE Part L J Mater Des Appl 2009; 223: 53–62.

Sayyad 2020 HSDT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sayyad 2020 HSDT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Original Article

Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials

Atteshamuddin S Sayyad1 and

Important observation in the buckling analysis of layered plates

where p is the power-law coefficient. Variations of Young’s modulus of FG sand-

Different theories can be obtained by choosing their respective shape functions:

Hooke’s law and stress resultants

EðnÞ ðzÞ lEðnÞ ðzÞ

The stress resultants of an FG sandwich plate are determined by integrating

Using stress–strain relations, following expressions of stress resultants can be

where FG sandwich plate stiffnesses are defined as follows

Governing equations and boundary conditions

The boundary conditions are of the form

Either Ncx ¼ 0 or u0 ¼ 0 Either Ncxy ¼ 0 or u0 ¼ 0

Closed-formed analytical solutions

v0 ¼ w ¼ Mcx ¼ Msx ¼ w ¼ 0 at x ¼ 0 and x¼a

Sandwich plates are subjected to in-plane loading only; transverse load is

N0xx ¼ k1 N0 ; N0yy ¼ k2 N0 and qðx; yÞ ¼ N0xy ¼ N0yx ¼ 0 (30)

Equation (32) can be written in more compact form as follows

½K N0 ½N fDg ¼ f0g (33)

K11 ¼ A11 a2 þ A66 b2 ; K12 ¼ ðA12 þ A66 Þab;

Figure 4. FG sandwich plates subjected to in-plane compressive forces.

Table 1. Thickness coordinates of four types of FG sandwich plates.

Layer configurations (LC) Thickness coordinates

1-0-1 h1 ¼ h/2, h2 ¼ 0, h3 ¼ 0 and h4 ¼ h/2

Ref. [14] Ref. [14]

1-0-1 0 6.2867 6.2870 6.2878 6.2898 6.3137 6.4532 – –

Numerical examples, results and discussion

a/b a/h PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT

1.0 4 5.1704 5.1700 5.1706 5.1710 5.2257 6.1730

Discussion of numerical results

a/b a/h PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT

1.0 4 5.2574 5.1767 5.2654 5.1094 6.8527 10.095

a/h p PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT

4 1 5.0226 5.0282 5.0221 5.0357 5.0595 6.0273

a/h p PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT

4 1 5.9151 5.8413 5.9223 5.7739 7.1671 10.241

Present models known solutions

Ref. [14] Ref. [14]

1-0-1 0 3.1434 3.1435 3.1439 3.1449 3.1569 3.2266 – –

a/b a/h PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT

1.0 4 2.5852 2.5850 2.5853 2.5855 2.6129 3.0865

Example 2: Biaxial buckling solutions

a/b a/h PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT

1.0 4 2.6287 2.5884 2.6327 2.5547 3.4264 5.0475

a/h p PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT

4 1 2.5113 2.5141 2.5111 2.5179 2.5298 3.0137

a/h p PSDT TSDT HSDT ESDT FSDT CPT

4 1 2.9576 2.9207 2.9612 2.8870 3.5836 5.1205

1. The minimum value of non-dimensional critical buckling load factors belongs to

It is important to note that all conclusions are made from non-dimensional

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like