Original Article

Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials

0(0) 1–43
Stress analysis in ! The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
transverse loading sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1099636218816107
of soft core sandwich journals.sagepub.com/home/jsm

plates with various

boundary conditions

Isa Ahmadi

Abstract
In this paper, the transverse loading of sandwich plate is formulated to study the
three-dimensional stress field in the sandwich plates for various edge conditions. The
formulation is based on the weak formulation approach. A complete three-dimensional
displacement field is considered and the weak formulation approach is employed to
obtain the governing equations of the plate using the three dimensional equilibrium
equations of elasticity. An analytical solution is presented for governing equations when
two opposite edges of plate are simply supported. A one-step stress recovery scheme
is used to compute the out-of-plane stresses in the sandwich plates. A comparison is
made with the predictions of exact elasticity solutions in the open literature and very
good agreements are achieved. The distribution of stresses is investigated for various
boundary conditions and the log-linear procedure is employed to study the order of
stress singularity at free and clamped edge of the plate. It is seen that the present
approach accurately predicts the distribution of out-of-plane stresses and local con-
centration of stresses in the vicinity of free and clamped edges of sandwich structures.

Keywords
Three-dimensional stresses, sandwich plate, transverse loading, boundary conditions,
stress singularity

Advanced Materials and Computational Mechanics Lab., Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran
Corresponding author:
Isa Ahmadi, Advanced Materials and Computational Mechanics Lab., Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran.
Email: i_ahmadi@znu.ac.ir
2 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

Introduction
The application of sandwich structures with laminated composite face sheets is
increasing especially in aerospace industries which require strong, stiff and light-
weight structural components. In the sandwich structures with laminated compos-
ite face sheets, the transverse strength and moduli of the faces are very low
compared to the in-plane strength and moduli. The poor transverse strength of
core, face and core–face interface makes the sandwich structures risky for delam-
ination. Delamination of sandwich and composite structures is due to the existence
of out-of-plane normal and shear stresses, and often occurs at loading level much
lower than the predictions of the classical laminate theories and two-dimensional
finite element analysis. It is due to the fact that in the sandwich and composite
structures, the out-of-plane stresses increase sharply in the vicinity of the edges at
the interface of layers with different mechanical properties. The equivalent single
layer theories and two-dimensional finite elements analysis are not able to correctly
predict the concentration of transverse stresses in the edges. Due to poor interfacial
strength, the out-of-plane stresses which sharply increase near the edges may cause
edge delamination in the sandwich and composite structures. The sharp gradient
and possible singularity of stress field near the free edges of sandwich structures
make it a challenging problem, and various approximate analytical and semi-
analytical models and numerical methods are presented to overcome this issue.
Pipes and Pagano [1] used the finite difference method and the quasi-
three-dimensional formulation and developed the first numerical work for analysis
of the interlaminar stresses in laminated plates which are subjected to uniform
axial strain. Pagano [2] presented a three-dimensional elasticity solution for
simply supported rectangular cross-ply-laminated plates which are subjected to
transverse loading conditions. Altus et al. [3] used the finite difference method
and studied the stresses near the free edge of angle-ply laminate subjected to uni-
axial load. By employing the Lekhnitskii’s stress functions, Wang and Choi [4, 5]
developed an exact elasticity solution and studied the boundary layer stresses and
stress singularity at the free edges of multi-layered composite plates. Kassapoglou
and Lagace [6] used the principle of minimum complementary energy and assumed
stress functions for the analysis of the interlaminar stresses in the symmetric lam-
inate subjected to uniaxial loading.
Lee and Liu [7] presented a theory for laminated composite plates which sat-
isfies the continuity of interlaminar normal and shear stresses at the interfaces.
Roubins and Reddy [8] proposed a two-dimensional layerwise finite element model
for laminated composite plates which is capable of the prediction of interlaminar
stresses and other localized stresses. Kim and Atluri [9] introduced an approximate
solution to investigate the free edges stress response of composite beam under
bending and out-of-plane shear. Zhu and Lam [10] employed a layerwise
method and Rayleigh–Ritz formulation to study the local free-edge stresses in
bending of composite laminates. Mistou et al. [11] employed the discrete layer
theory and developed a composite beam model which automatically satisfies the
Ahmadi 3

continuity of transverse shear stresses. Vel and Batra [12] presented an analytical
solution for laminated composite plate with cross-ply layer stacking which is
subjected to doubly sinusoidal transverse loading. Mittelstedt and Becker [13]
presented a closed-form solution for analysis of the stress field in the vicinity of
free corners of cross-ply and angle-ply composite laminate. Mistou and Karama
[14] investigated the edge effect in the sandwich plate with experimental, analytical
and finite element method. Mittelstedt and Becker [15] presented a literature survey
on three-dimensional stress singularity at the free edges from 1967 to 2007 includ-
ing approximate closed-form analyses, as well as numerical investigations.
Duong and Hung [16] studied the interlaminar stresses and delamination of
plies in the laminated composite which is subjected to bending and extension.
Zenkour [17] used the three-dimensional elasticity equations and presented an
elasticity solution for analysis of simply-supported cross-ply laminated plate sub-
jected to transverse loading conditions used the variation principle and the finite
difference method to study the interlaminar stresses and nonlinear dynamic
response in laminated plate with interfacial damage and simply supported edges.
Kant et al. [18] developed a semi-analytical model to accurate the estimation of
stresses and displacements in cross-ply composite and sandwich laminates.
Kashtalyan and Menshykova [19] proposed a three-dimensional elasticity solution
for sandwich panels with a functionally graded core subjected to transverse load-
ing. Miri and Nosier [20] studied the boundary-layer effect in long and thin cross-
ply-laminated cylindrical panel subjected to uniform axial extension using the
layerwise theory and theory of elasticity. Tahani and Andakhshideh [21] employed
the three-dimensional multi-term extended Kantorovich method (3DMTEKM)
and the principle of minimum total potential energy to study the interlaminar
stresses in thick rectangular-laminated plates subjected to transverse loading.
Rao et al. [22] used the variational asymptotic method to study the interlaminar
stresses in composite honeycomb sandwich plates subjected to mechanical loading
conditions. Sarvestani and Sarvestani [23] studied the free edge stresses in general
composite laminate subjected to combine mechanical loading includes extension,
torsion and bending.
Viyand et al. [24] presented an analytical method to study the interlaminar
stresses in the long symmetric-laminated plate subjected to shearing load. Thai
et al. [25] investigated the bending behavior of laminated composites using layer-


wise C continuous eight-node finite element method. Khandelwal et al. [26] used a
refined higher order shear deformation theory (RHSDT) and derived a
displacement-based C
continuous 2D finite element model to evaluate the
through-the-thickness distribution of transverse stresses in soft-core sandwich lam-
inates. Alibeigloo [27] studied a simply supported sandwich panel with functionally
graded material (FGM) core subjected to thermo-mechanical load based on theory
of elasticity. Kang et al. [28] studied the interlaminar stresses in laminated com-
posite shell with two simply supported ends which is subjected to electric, thermal
and mechanical loads. Ahmadi [29] presented a layerwise formulation and studied
4 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

the interlaminar and free edge stresses in thick-laminated composite panel which is
subjected to pure extension load.
Huang et al. [30] studied the free edge stresses in symmetric composite plate
subjected to uniform axial tension using the extended Kantorovich method. Their
predictions satisfy the traction-free surface and free edge stress boundary condi-
tions. Dhanesh et al. [31] employed the mixed-field multi-term extended
Kantorovich method and evaluated the free edge stresses field in composite lam-
inate subjected to thermo-mechanical loading. Antretter et al. [32] studied the local
stress field very close to the free edges of bilayered compounds with special empha-
sis on the fulfillment of the boundary conditions. Ahmadi [33] studied the inter-
laminar free edge stresses in thick-laminated composite cylinder subjected to non-
uniform axi-symmetric radial pressure. Atashipour et al. [34] employed the com-
bined Fourier-differential quadrature approach to develop an exact solution for
the symmetric laminated cross-ply plates. Goodsell and Pipes [35] developed a
family of unified analytical solutions for the analysis of free edge stresses in
cross-ply and angle-ply long laminate subjected to uniaxial extension, uniform
temperature change and anticlastic bending.
Shah and Batra [36] used the stress recovery scheme and third-order shear and
normal deformable plate/shell theory to predict the stress singularities near the
edges of doubly curved composite–laminated shells subjected to tangential and
normal tractions on the shell surfaces. Ahmadi [37] studied the edge stresses in
thick sandwich cylinder subjected to distributed hygro-thermal loading by layer-
wise formulation. Wang and Yuan [38] presented an accurate stress analysis of
sandwich beam using the three-layer model in which the differential quadrature
method is used for the analysis of core. Hajikazemi and Van Paepegem [39] pre-
sented a variational solution to exactly predict the free edge stress and displace-
ment fields in symmetric composite laminate strips subjected to thermo-mechanical
loading. Recently, Ahmadi [40] studied the free edge stresses in thick-laminated
cylindrical shell panel with general layer stacking subjected to pure bend-
ing moment.
In this paper, a new three-dimensional formulation is presented to study the
three-dimensional and edge stresses in the soft core sandwich plates with finite
length which are subjected to transverse loading conditions. A general three-
dimensional displacement field is considered for the plate and the layerwise dis-
cretization approach, three-dimensional equilibrium equation of elasticity and the
weak formulation method is employed to obtain the governing equations of the
plate. The governing equations are obtained as a set of two-dimensional partial
differential equations in terms of the displacements, and an analytical method is
presented to solve the governing equations of the plate for various edge boundary
conditions when two apposite edges are simply supported. The three-dimensional
displacement and stresses are obtained and the accuracy of predictions is validated
by the available results in the open literature. In the numerical results, the distri-
bution of stresses in sandwich plates is studied for various layer stacking and edge
Ahmadi 5

Figure 1. Sandwich plate, coordinate system, dimensions and transverse loading.

conditions, and the singularity of stresses at the core–face interface in the free and
clamped edge is investigated.

Problem description
A thick rectangular sandwich or laminated plate with length L, width W and thick-
ness h is subjected to transverse load. The plate geometry, coordinate system and
loading conditions of the plate are shown in Figure 1. The x and y coordinate are in
the length and width direction of the plate and z is the thickness coordinate which is
located on the mid plane of the plate. The edges of the plate are located at x ¼ 0 and
x ¼ L, and y ¼ 0 and y ¼ W. The plate is subjected to distributed transverse load q(x,
y) which is applied on the top surface of the plate at z ¼ h/2.

Discretization of equilibrium equations

A general three-dimensional deformation field as u ¼ u(x, y, z), v ¼ v(x, y, z), and
w ¼ w(x, y, z) is considered for the plate where u, v and w are the displacement
components in the x, y and z-direction for a material point initially is located at
(x, y, z). In order to formulate the problem, it is assumed that the plate thickness is
divided into arbitrary number, N, of imagined parallel layers, so that each imag-
ined layer in the sandwich plate is homogeneous. The imagined layers are so-called
numerical layers. The N1 interfaces of N numerical layers and the bottom and
top surfaces of the plate made (N þ 1) surfaces are called numerical surfaces. The
numerical layers and numerical surfaces are numbered from the bottom surface to
the top surface of the plate, so that the ith numerical surface are located at z ¼ zi,
(h/2  zi  h/2, z1 ¼ h/2). The displacement components in the x-, y- and
z- direction of a material point which initially are located on the ith numerical
6 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

surface at (x, y, zi) are supposed to be Ui(x, y), Vi(x, y), and Wi(x, y), respectively.
Now, the displacements of a material point at point (x, y, z) can be interpolated as

X
Nþ1
uðx; y; zÞ ¼ Uk Uk ðx; yÞ ¼ fUðzÞgfUðx; yÞg
k¼1
X
Nþ1
vðx; y; zÞ ¼ Uk Vk ðx; yÞ ¼ fUðzÞgfVðx; yÞg (1)
k¼1
X
Nþ1
wðx; y; zÞ ¼ Uk Wk ðx; yÞ ¼ fUðzÞgfWðx; yÞg
k¼1

where {U(z)} is the matrix of interpolation functions which is defined as

fUðzÞg ¼ fU1 ðzÞ; U2 ðzÞ; . . .; UNþ1 ðzÞg (2)

And, for example, {U(x, y)} is the displacement matrix of numerical layers as

fUðx; yÞg ¼ fU1 ðx; yÞ; U2 ðx; yÞ; . . . ; UNþ1 ðx; yÞgT (3)

The linear interpolation function for the kth numerical layer is defined as:
Uk(z) ¼ (zzk)/tk1 for zk1  z  zk, and Uk(z) ¼ (zkþ1z)/tk for zk  z  zkþ1
where tk is the thickness of kth numerical layer. Uk(z) ¼ 0 for z  zk1 or z  zkþ1.
In the absence of body forces, the static equilibrium equations in the x-, y- and
z-directions in the terms of stresses can be considered as

rx;x þ rxy;y þ rxz;z ¼ 0

rxy;x þ ry;y þ ryz;z ¼ 0 (4)
rxz;x þ ryz;y þ rz;z ¼ 0

where partial derivation to spatial coordinates is denoted by a comma. In order to

obtain the weak form of equation (4), the equilibrium equations in equation (4) are
multiplied by Uk(z), k ¼ 1,2,. . ., N þ 1, and integrated over the plate thickness. The
integration by parts is applied to the terms that contain partial derivation with
respect to z-coordinate and the subsequent results are written in the matrix form as
Z h=2 Z h=2 h=2

fUg0 rxz dz þ ðfUgT rxz Þ
T T
ðfUg rx;x þ fUgTrxy;y Þdz  ¼0
h=2 h=2 h=2
Z h=2 Z h=2 h=2

fUg0 ryz dz þ ðfUgTryz Þ
T
ðfUgT rxy;x þ fUgTry;y Þdz  ¼0 (5)
h=2 h=2 h=2
Z h=2 Z h=2 
h=2
fUg0 rz dz þ ðfUgT rz Þh=2 ¼ 0
T
ðfUgT rxz;x þ fUgTryz;y Þdz 
h=2 h=2
Ahmadi 7

in which the superscript T denotes the transpose of matrix, and fUg0 is the deriv-
ative of fUg with respect to z-coordinate as
 
0 dU1 ðzÞ dU2 ðzÞ dUNþ1 ðzÞ
fUg ¼ ; ; . . .; (6)
dz dz dz

The last terms in equations (5) represent the effect of traction on the bottom and
top surfaces of the plate on the governing equations. The top surface of the plate is
subjected to transverse load q(x, y), and the bottom surface is considered to be
traction free, i.e. rz(z ¼ h/2) ¼ q(x, y), and rz(z ¼ h/2) ¼ rxz(z ¼ h/2) ¼ ryz(z ¼
h/2) ¼ 0. The interpolation matrix at z ¼ h/2 and z ¼ h/2 is {U(z ¼ h/
2)}T ¼ {0,0,0,. . .,1}T ¼ dNþ1, and {U(z ¼ h/2)}T¼{1,0,0,. . .,0}T ¼ d1.
Now, in order to simplify the governing equations, the stress resultants are
defined as
Z h=2
ðfMx g; fMy g; fMxy gÞ ¼ ðfUgT rx ; fUgT ry ; fUgT rxy Þdz
h=2
Z h=2
ðfRx g; fRy gÞ ¼ ðfUgT rxz ; fUgT ryz Þdz (7)
h=2
Z h=2
ðfUg0 rxz ; fUg0 ryz ; fUg0 rz Þdz
T T T
ðfQx g; fQy g; fNz gÞ ¼
h=2

Substituting equation (7) into equation (5) and considering the applied load on
the plate give the governing equations of the plate as

fMx g; x þ fMxy g; y  fQx g ¼ f0g

fMxy g; x þ fMy g; y  fQy g ¼ f0g (8)
fRx g; x þ fRy g; y  fNz g ¼ dNþ1 qðx; yÞ

where {0} denotes a (N þ 1) column matrix in which all components are zero. The
above equations totally include a set of 3(N þ 1) partial differential equations in x
and y-coordinates, and derivations of z-coordinate are eliminated from the gov-
erning equations.
The appropriate boundary conditions regarding to the free, simple and clamped
edges must be obtained. The natural boundary conditions in the plate edges must
be imposed in the weak form. Hence, the interpolation functions {U(z)}T are
multiplied to the strong form of the natural boundary conditions and integrated
over the plate thickness. For example, the boundary conditions at edges x ¼ 0 and
x ¼ L can be obtain by an appropriate combination of the following equations
Z h=2
fUgT rx dz ¼ fMx g ¼ f0g; or ​ fUg ¼ f0g
h=2
8 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

Z h=2
fUgT rxz dz ¼ fRx g ¼ f0g; or ​ fWg ¼ f0g at x ¼ 0 and x ¼ L
h=2
Z h=2 (9)
fUgT rxy dz ¼ fMxy g ¼ f0g; or ​ fVg ¼ f0g
h=2

The boundary conditions at the edges that are parallel to x-axis, i.e. at y ¼ 0 and
y ¼ W can be obtained by the same procedure as
Z h=2
fUgT ry dz ¼ fMy g ¼ f0g; or fVg ¼ f0g
h=2
Z h=2
fUgT ryz dz ¼ fRy g ¼ f0g; or fWg ¼ f0g at y ¼ 0 and y ¼ W (10)
h=2
Z h=2
fUgT rxy dz ¼ fMxy g ¼ f0g; or ​ fUg ¼ f0g
h=2

Displacement formulation
By considering the small displacement assumptions, the strain components of the
plate can be obtained by substituting the discrete form of the displacement field (1)
into the infinitesimal strain–displacement relations as

ex ¼ u;x ¼ fUðzÞgfUg;x cxy ¼ u;y þ vx ¼ fUðzÞgfUg;y þ fUðzÞgfVg;x

ey ¼ v;y ¼ fUðzÞgfVg;y cxz ¼ u;z þ wx ¼ fUðzÞgfUg þ fUðzÞgfWg;x (11)
ez ¼ w;z ¼ fUðzÞgfWg cyz ¼ v;z þ wy ¼ fUðzÞgfVg þ fUðzÞgfWg;y

where fUg0 is the derivative of {U} with respect to z-coordinate and is defined in
equation (6), and for example {U},x denotes the partial derivative of {U} as
fUg;x ¼ fU1;x ; U2;x ; . . . ; UNþ1;x gT (12)
It is supposed that the fibers of the fibrous layers in the sandwich faces are
oriented in the length (x-coordinate) or width (y-coordinate) directions. The
stress–strain relation for a fibrous layer in which its fibers are oriented in the x-
or y-directions can be considered as

8 9ðkÞ 2 3ðkÞ 8 9ðkÞ

> rx > C11 C12 C13 0 0 0 >
> e >
>
>
> >
> >
>
x >
>
>
> r >
> 6 C12 C22 C23 0 0 7
0 7 > > e >
>
>
<
y >
= 6 < e >
> y
=
rz 6 C13 C23 C33 0 0 0 77
¼6
z
6 0 7 (13)
> ryz >
> > 0 0 C44 0 0 7 > > c >
>
> >
>
6 > yz > >
> rxz >
> >
4 0 0 0 0 C55 0 5 > >
> c >
xz >
>
: ; >
: >
rxy 0 0 0 0 0 C66 cxy ;
Ahmadi 9

where superscript (k) refers to kth numerical layer. The stress–strain relations for
the isotropic core material are the same as equation (13). In isotropic material,
C11=C22=C33, C12=C13=C23, and C44=C55=C66. By considering the stress–
strain relation as equation (13), the strains component are substituted from equa-
tion (11) into equation (13), and the subsequent results for stresses are substituted
into equation (7), and the stress resultants are obtained in the terms of the dis-
placement components as

fMx g ¼ ½D11 fUg;x þ ½D12 fVg;y þ ½B13 fWg

fMy g ¼ ½D12 fUg;x þ ½D22 fVg;y þ ½B23 fWg
fMxy g ¼ ½D66 ðfUg;y þ fVg;x Þ
fNz g ¼ ½B13 T fUg;x þ ½B23 T fVg;y þ ½A33 fWg
(14)
fQy g ¼ ½B44 T fWg;y þ ½A44 fVg
fQx g ¼ ½B55 T fWg;x þ ½A55 fUg
fRy g ¼ ½D44 fWg;y þ ½B44 fVg
fRx g ¼ ½D55 fWg;x þ ½B55 fUg

where [Apq], [Bpq] and [Dpq] are defined as follows

R h=2
½Apq T ¼ h=2 Cpq fUg T fUgdz
R h=2
½Bpq T ¼ h=2 Cpq fUgT fUgdz (15)
R h=2
½Dpq T ¼ h=2 Cpq fUgT fUgdz

Now, the stress resultants are substituted from equation (14) into equation (8)
and the governing equations of the plate are obtained as

½D11 fUg;xx þ ½D66 fUg;yy  ½A55 fUg þ ð½D12  þ ½D66 ÞfVg;xy

(16a)
þ ð½B13   ½B55 T ÞfWg;x ¼ f0g

ð½D12  þ ½D66 ÞfUg;xy þ ½D66 fVg;xx þ ½D22 fVg;yy  ½A44 fVg

(16b)
þ ð½B23   ½B44 T ÞfWg;y Þ ¼ f0g

ð½B55   ½B13 T ÞfUg;x þ ð½B44   ½B23 T ÞfVg;y

(16c)
½D55 fWg;xx þ ½D44 fWg;yy  ½A33 fWg ¼ qðx; yÞdNþ1
10 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

The governing equations of the plate in equation (16) are a set of 3(N þ 1)
partial differential equations in the terms of displacement components of numer-
ical layers.

Solution procedure
The governing equations of the plate are solved for various edge conditions. A four
letter notation as FF-SS is used to denote the plate edges boundary conditions in
which 1 to 4th letters shows the boundary conditions plate at x ¼ 0, x ¼ L, y ¼ 0
and y ¼ W, respectively, and clamped, simple and free edge are denote by C, S and
F, respectively. In ‘SS-SS boundary conditions’ section, a solution is presented for
fully simply supported boundary condition, and in ‘FF-SS and CC-SS boundary
conditions’ section, it is supposed that the edges at x ¼ 0 and x ¼ L are free or
clamped and the edges at y ¼ 0 and y ¼ W are simply supported.

SS-SS boundary conditions

The edges of the plate at x ¼ 0, x ¼ L, y ¼ 0 and y ¼ W are considered to be simply
supported. The simply supported boundary conditions are considered as

fWg ¼ fVg ¼ fMx g ¼ f0g at x ¼ 0; and x ¼ L

(17)
fWg ¼ fUg ¼ fMy g ¼ f0g at y ¼ 0; and y ¼ W

For the case of SS-SS boundary conditions, the displacement field of the plate is
considered as
  mpx npy
Uðx; yÞ ¼ fUgmn cos sin
L W
  mpx npy
Vðx; yÞ ¼ fVgmn sin cos m; n ¼ 1; 2; 3; ; . . . (18)
L W
  mpx npy
Wðx; yÞ ¼ fWgmn sin sin
L W

where the dummy index means summation. {U}mn, {V}mn and {W}mn are the
column matrixes which include N þ 1 unknown constants and must be obtained
in the solution. The displacement field in equation (18) satisfies the simply sup-
ported boundary conditions of the plate in equation (17). Now, by substituting
equation (18) into equation (16), the governing equation of the plate is rewritten as
   
p2 m 2 p2 n2 p2 mn

 2 ½D11   2 ½D66   ½A55  fUgmn  ½D12  þ ½D66  fVgmn

L  W  LW
pm
þ ½B13   ½B55 T fWgmn ¼ f0g
L
Ahmadi 11

 
p2 mn
p2 m2 p2 n2
 ½D  þ ½D66  fUgmn  ½D66  þ 2 ½D22  þ ½A44  fVgmn
LW  12  L2 W
pn
þ ½B23   ½B44 T fWgmn ¼ f0g

W    (19)
pm pn
½B55   ½B13 T fUgmn  ½B44   ½B23 T fVgmn
L  W 
p2 m2 p2 n2
þ  2 ½D55   2 ½D44   ½A33  fWgmn ¼ qmn dNþ1
L W

where the transverse load q (x,y) is written in the form of Fourier series as

X1 X 1
mpx npy
qðx; yÞ ¼ qmn sin sin
m¼1 n¼1
L W
Z LZ W (20)
4 mpx npy
qmn ¼ qðx; yÞsin sin
LW 0 0 L W

Equations (19) are written in the matrix form as a set of algebraic equations as
2 38 9 8 9
½K11  ½K12  ½K13  > < fUgmn >
= > < f0g > =
6 7
4 ½K12  ½K22  ½K23  5 fVgmn ¼ f0g (21)
>
: >
; > : >
;
½K31  ½K32  ½K33  fWgmn fFq g

in which
p2 m 2 p2 n2
½K11  ¼  ½D 11   ½D   ½A55 Þ
L2 W2 66
2
p mn
½K12  ¼ ð½D12  þ ½D66 Þ
LW
pm
½K13  ¼ ð½B   ½B55 T ÞfWmn g
L 13 
p2 mn
½K21  ¼ ð½D12  þ ½D66 Þ
LW
p2 m 2 p2 n2 (22)
½K22  ¼  2 ½D66   2 ½D22   ½A44 
L W
pn
½K23  ¼ ð½B23   ½B44 T Þ
W
pm
½K31  ¼ ð½B55   ½B13 T Þ
L
pn
½K32  ¼  ð½B44   ½B23 T Þ
W
p2 m 2 p2 n2
½K33  ¼  2 ½D55   2 ½D44 Þ  ½A33 
L W
12 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

and {Fq} is defined as

fFq g ¼ qmn dNþ1 (23)

Equation (21) is a set of 3(N þ 1) algebraic equations and the unknown con-
stants {U}mn, {V}mn and {W}mn must be obtained by the solution of equation (21).

FF-SS and CC-SS boundary conditions

For the case in which the two opposite edges of the plate are simply supported (S),
and the two other edges are free (F) or clamped (C), the governing equations of the
plate (equation (16)) can be solved analytically. For FF-SS or CC-SS boundary
conditions, the displacement field and the applied transverse load are considered
as follows

fUðx; yÞg ¼ fUðxÞgn sinbn y

fVðx; yÞg ¼ fVðxÞgn cosbn y n ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . :
fWðx; yÞg ¼ fWðxÞgn sinbn y
(24)
qðx; yÞ ¼ qn ðxÞsinðbn yÞ
Z
2 W
qn ðxÞ ¼ qðx; yÞsinðbn yÞdy
W 0

where {U(x)}n, {V(x)}n and {W(x)}n are the matrix of unknown functions as

fUðxÞgn ¼ fU1 ðxÞ; U2 ðxÞ; . . . ; UNþ1 ðxÞgTn (25)

and bn¼np/W. By substituting equation (24) into equation (16), the governing
equations of the plate are obtained as

ð½D11 fU00 gn  ðb2n ½D66  þ ½A55 ÞfUgn  bn ð½D12  þ ½D66 ÞfV0 gn

þ ð½B13   ½B55 T ÞfW0 gn Þsinbn y ¼ 0
ðbn ð½D12  þ ½D66 ÞfU0 gn þ ½D66 fV00 gn  ðb2n ½D22  þ ½A44 ÞfVgn
(26)
þ ðbn ð½B23   ½B44 T ÞfWgn Þcosbn y ¼ 0
ð½B55   ½B13 T ÞfU0 gn  bn ð½B44   ½B23 T ÞfVgn þ ½D55 fW00 gn
ðb2n ½D44  þ ½A33 ÞfWgn Þsinbn y ¼ qn ðxÞdNþ1 sinbn y

where the prime on {U(x)}n, {V(x)}n and {W(x)}n means the differentiation with
respect to x-coordinate. The simply supported boundary conditions at y ¼ 0 and
y ¼ W are satisfied by the chosen displacement field in equation (24), and for
Ahmadi 13

example, the displacement form of free boundary conditions at x ¼ 0 and x ¼ L can

be obtained as

fMx g ¼ ð½D11 fUg n  bn ½D12 fVgn þ ½B13 fWgn Þsinbn y ¼ f0g

fMxy g ¼ ½D66 ðbn fUgn þ fVg n Þcosbn y ¼ f0g x ¼ 0; L (27)
fRx g ¼ ð½D55 fWg n þ ½B55 fUgÞsinbn y ¼ f0g

To solve equation (26), the new variable {X(x)}n is considered as

n oT
fXðxÞgn ¼ fUgTn fUg Tn fVgTn fVg Tn fWgTn fWg Tn (28)

By employing equation (28), the governing equations of the plate are written as

fXg n ¼ ½An fXgn þ fFðxÞgn (29)

where [A]n is a 6(N þ 1)6(N þ 1) matrix, and {F} is a 6(N þ 1) column matrix as
2 3
½0 ½I ½0 ½0 ½0 ½0
6 7
6 a21 ½0 ½0 a24 ½0 a25 7
6 7
6 ½0 ½0 ½0 ½I ½0 ½0 7
6 7
½An ¼ 6 7
6 ½0 a42 a43 ½0 a44 ½0 7 (30)
6 7
6 ½0 ½0 ½0 ½0 ½I ½0 7
4 5
½0 a62 a63 ½0 a65 ½0
fFðxÞgTn ¼ ff0g ; f0g ; f0g ; f0gT ; f0gT ; fFq gg
T T T

where the coefficients which are used in equation (30) are defined as

a21 ¼ ½D11 1 ðb2n ½D66  þ ½A55 Þ

a24 ¼ bn ½D11 1 ð½D12  þ ½D66 Þ
a24 ¼ ½D11 1 ð½B13   ½B55 T Þ
a42 ¼ bn ½D66 1 ð½D12  þ ½D66 Þ
a43 ¼ ½D66 1 ðb2n ½D22  þ ½A44 Þ (31)
1 T
a45 ¼ bn ½D66  ð½B23   ½B44  Þ
a62 ¼ ½D55 1 ð½B55   ½B13 T Þ
a63 ¼ bn ½D55 1 ð½B44   ½B23 T Þ
a65 ¼ ½D55 1 ðb2n ½D44  þ ½A33 Þ
14 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

Using the matrix of eigen-vectors of [A]n, the coupled differential equations in

equation (29) are changed to decoupled equations which are solved analytically,
and then the analytical solution for equation (29) is found as
Z
fXðxÞgn ¼ ½Qn ½expðKxÞfKgn þ ½Qn ½expðKxÞ ½expðKxÞ1 ½Qn 1 fFðxÞgn dx

(32)
where [Q]n and [K]n are the matrix of eigen-vectors and eigen-value of [A]n as

½An ½Qn ¼ ½Qn ½Kn (33)

and [exp(Kx)] is a diagonal matrix which is defined as

½expðKxÞ ¼ diagðexpðk1 xÞ; expðk2 xÞ; . . .; expðk6ðNþ1Þ xÞÞ (34)

where k1 to k6(Nþ1) are the eigen-values and {K}n is the matrix of unknown con-
stants of integration and must be obtained by imposing the boundary conditions to
the solution. For the case in which the applied load is uniform in the length of the
plate, i.e. qn(x)¼qn, the solution of equation (32) is obtained as

fXðxÞgn ¼ ½Un ½expðKxÞfKgn  ½An fFgn (35)

The unknown constants of integration in {K}n must be determined by imposing

the boundary conditions at x ¼ 0 and x ¼ L. For example, the free edge boundary
conditions of the plate can be written using equation (27) as

½D11 fUg n  bn ½D12 fVgn þ ½B13 fWgn ¼ f0g

½D66 ðbn fUgn þ fVg n Þ ¼ f0g x ¼ 0; L (36)
½D55 fWg n þ ½B55 fUgn ¼ f0g

In terms of the displacement matrix {X}n, equation (38) can be written as

½PfXn ðx ¼ 0Þg ¼ f0g

(37)
½PfXn ðx ¼ LÞg ¼ f0g

where [P] is defined as

2 3
½0 ½D11  bn ½D12  ½0 ½B13  ½0
6 7
½P ¼ 4 bn ½D66  ½0 ½0 ½D66  ½0 5 (38)
½B55  ½0 ½0 ½0 ½0 ½D55 
Ahmadi 15

By substituting {X}n from equation (32) into equation (39), a set of linear
algebraic equations will be obtained. The unknown parameters {K}n are obtained
by the solution of these algebraic equations and the solution for displacements is
completed by obtaining {K}n and

X
1
fXðx; yÞg ¼ fXðx; yÞgn (39)
n¼1

Calculation of stresses
In this study, the in-plane stresses are calculated by stress–strain relations (equa-
tion (13)). The out-of-plane strains which are obtained from strain–displacement
relations may be discontinuous at the numerical surfaces because the continuity of
derivatives of displacement components with respect to z-coordinate at the inter-
faces is not warranted. So the out-of-plane stresses which are obtained from the
stress–strain relation may be discontinue at the interfaces. In an alternative
method, the out-of-plane stresses are obtained in a one-step stress recovery
scheme by integrating the equilibrium equations. The in-plane stresses are
substituted from stress–strain relations in the equilibrium equations and the sub-
sequent results are integrated in the z direction to obtain the out-of-plane stresses
rz, rxz and ryz. More details can be found in Ahmadi [29]. For example, in order to
obtain the out-of-plane normal stress rz at z ¼ zn, (n ¼ 1,2,. . .,N þ 1), the third
equation of equation (4) is integrated as
R zn R zn
rðnÞ
z ¼  h=2 ðrxz;x þ ryz;y Þdz ¼  h=2 C55 ðfUgfWg;x þ fUgfUgÞ;x Þdz
R zn (40)
 h=2 C44 ðfUgfWg;y þ fUgfVgÞ;y Þdz

where rz(n) represents the out-of-plane normal stress at the nth numerical surface.
By definition of the following matrices
Rz
fAnpq g ¼ z1n Cpq fUðzÞgdz
R z (41)
fBnpq g ¼ z1n Cpq fUðzÞgdz

rz(n) can be obtained as

rðnÞ
z ¼ ðfB55 gfWg;xx þ fB44 gfWg;yy þ fA55 gfUg;x þ fA44 gfVg;y Þ
n n n n
(42)

Also rxz and ryz at z=zn can be obtain as

16 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

ðnÞ
rxz ¼ ðfBn11 gfUg;xx þ fBn12 gfVg;xy þ fAn13 gfWg;x þ fBn66 gðfUg;yy þ fVg;xy ÞÞ
ðnÞ
ryz ¼ ðfBn11 gfUg;xy þ fBn12 gfVg;yy þ fAn23 gfWg;y þ fBn66 gðfUg;xy þ fVg;xx ÞÞ
(43)

Numerical results show that the out-of-plane stresses which are obtained from
integration of equilibrium equations satisfy the traction conditions at the top and
bottom surfaces of the plate more exactly [29].

Numerical results and discussions

In the numerical results, sandwich and composite plate with various layer-stacking
and boundary conditions which are subjected to transverse load is studied. Various
numerical results are presented for the distribution of out-of-plane and in-plane
stresses. The length of the plate is L, the width is W and the thickness of plate is h.
The core thickness is hc and the face thickness is hf, and h ¼ hc þ 2hf. The distrib-
uted transverse load q(x, y) is applied to the top surface of the plate and the bottom
surface is stress free.

Verification of results
In order to verify the accuracy of the method, the predictions of present method
are compared with the predictions of exact elasticity solution of Pagano [2], and
the solution of Vel and Batra [12] and Atashipour et al. [34]. Pagano [2] presented
an exact elasticity solution for the orthotropic-laminated plate in which all edges
are simply supported and subjected to transverse load. Vel and Batra [12] pre-
sented an analytical three-dimensional solution for the laminated plate subjected to
transverse load for various set of boundary conditions. Atashipour et al. [34]
developed an elasticity solution for static bending of symmetric-laminated ortho-
tropic plates.
For abbreviation, in this study the simply, clamped and free boundary condi-
tions are shown by S, C and F, respectively. As said previously, a four-letter
notation such as FF-SS is used to indicate the edge boundary conditions of the
plate in which 1 to 4th letter shows the edge boundary conditions at x ¼ 0, x ¼ L,
y ¼ 0 and y ¼ W, respectively.
In Table 1, the predictions of the present method for square [0/90/0] simply
supported- (SS-SS) laminated plate for various length to thickness ratios, L/h, are
compared with the predictions of Pagano [2] and Atashipour et al. [34]. The plate is
subjected to double sinusoidal distributed load q(x, y) ¼ q0sin(px/L)sin(py/W) on
the top surface at z ¼ h/2. Also, the prediction of classical laminate theory (CLT) [2] is
included in Table 1. The mechanical properties of lamina are chosen as [2, 13] and
[41]; E1 ¼ 25  106 psi, E2 ¼ E3 ¼ 106 psi, G12 ¼ G13 ¼ 0.5  106 psi, G23 ¼ 0.2  106 psi,
 12 ¼  13 ¼  23 ¼ 0.25. The dimensionless stresses are defined as: (r*xz,r*yz) ¼
 Ahmadi

Table 1. Comparison of the predictions of present method with the predictions of Pagano [2] and Atashipour et al. [34] for square [0/90/0]
simply supported plate.

r*x r*y r*xz r*yz r*xy

L/h (L/2,W/2,h/2) (L/2,W/2,h/2) (0,W/2,0) (W/2,0,0) (0,0, h/2)

2 Pagano [2] 1.436/0.938 0.669/0.742 0.164 0.2591 0.0859/.0702

Atashipour [34] 1.4360/0.9374 0.6685/0.7424 0.164 0.2591 0.0859/þ0.0702
Present 1.4358/0.9372 0.6627/0.7370 0.1639 0.2591 0.0859/0.0702
4 Pagano [2] 0.801/0.755 0.534/0.556 0.256 0.2172 0.0511/þ0.0505
Atashipour [34] 0.8008/0.7548 0.5341/0.5563 0.2559 0.2172 0.0511/þ0.0505
Present 0.8009/0.7548 0.5332/0.5554 0.2559 0.2172 0.0511/þ0.0505
10 Pagano [2] 0.590 0.285/0.288 0.357 0.1228 þ0.0289
Atashipour [34] 0.5906/0.5898 0.2845/0.2882 0.3573 0.1228 0.0288/þ0.0290
Present 0.5906/0.5899 0.2845/0.2882 0.3573 0.1228 0.0288/þ0.0290
20 Pagano [2] 0.552 0.210 0.385 0.0938 þ0.0234
Atashipour [34] 0.5524/0.5525 0.2092/0.2101 0.3846 0.0938 þ0.0234
Present 0.5524/0.5525 0.2092/0.2102 0.3846 0.0938 0.0234/þ0.0234
50 Pagano [2] 0.541 0.185 0.393 0.0842 þ0.0216
Atashipour [34] 0.5409/0.5410 0.1845/0.1846 0.3934 0.0842 0.0216
Present 0.5410/0.5410 0.1845/0.1847 0.3934 0.0842 1
100 Pagano [2] 0.539 0.181 0.395 0.0828 þ0.0213
Atashipour [34] 0.5393 0.1808 0.3947 0.0828 þ0.0214
Present 0.5393/0.5393 0.1808/0.1809 0.3947 0.0828 1
CLT [2] 0.539 0.180 0.395 0.0823 þ0.0213
17
18 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

Table 2. Dimensionless deflection at (x ¼ L/2, y ¼ W/2, z ¼ 0) in [0/90/0] SS-SS plate subjected to

sinusoidal-distributed transverse load (W ¼ 3L).

L/h¼2 L/h¼4 L/h¼10 L/h¼20 L/h¼50 L/h¼100

Pagano [2] 8.17 2.82 0.919 0.61 0.52 0.508

Atashipour et al. [34] 8.1659 2.8211 0.9189 0.6095 0.5205 0.5077
Present, p¼10 8.15 2.8191 0.9187 0.9695 0.5205 0.5077
Present, p¼50 8.1652 2.821 0.9189 0.6095 0.5205 0.5077
Present, p¼80 8.1656 2.8211 0.9189 0.6095 0.5205 0.5077
Present, p¼100 8.1657 2.8211 0.9189 0.6095 0.5205 0.5077

(r*xz,r*yz)h/Lq0, (r*x,r*y,r*xy) ¼ (rx,ry,rxy)h2/L2q0 and r*z ¼ rz/q0, and the dimension

displacement is defined as w*=100E2h3w/L4q0.
As seen in Table 1, there are very good agreements between the predictions of
present solution and the predictions of Pagano [2] and Atashipour et al. [34] for L/
h ¼ 2 to L/h ¼ 100. The prediction of CLT for the in-plane stresses for large length
to thickness ratio (L/h ¼ 100) is in good agreement with the prediction of present
solution and the predictions of Pagano [2] and Khdeir and Reddy [41].
The deflection of thick [0/90/0] simply supported plate (W ¼ 3L) at the plate
center w*(x ¼ L/2, y ¼ W/2, z ¼ 0) is presented in Table 2 and is compared with the
predictions of Pagano [2] and Atashipour et al. [34] for various L/h ratios. In
Table 2, p is the number of numerical layer in each physical layer of the [0/90/0]
plate, and the total number of the numerical layer is N ¼ 3p. By increasing the
number of numerical layers, p, the prediction of present solution for all L/h ratios
is equal to the predictions of Atashipour et al. [34] up to four decimal digits.
In Figure 2, the predictions of present solution for the distribution of out-of-
plane shear stresses r*xz(0,W/2, z) and r*yz(L/2,0, z) in simply supported [0/90/0]
plate are compared with the predictions of Pagano [2]. r*xz is presented in a square
plate with L ¼ W ¼ 4h, and r*yz is presented in a plate with L ¼ 4h and W ¼ 3L. As
seen, the predictions of present solution for interlaminar shear stresses are in good
agreement with the predictions of exact elasticity solution of Pagano [2].
The distribution of dimensionless deflection w*(L/2,y, 0) and shear stress
r*yz(L/2,y,0) along the y axis of [0/90/0] plate with SSSF boundary conditions
which is subjected to compressive transverse load as q ¼ q0sin(px/L) is presented
in Figure 3(a), and the distribution of interlaminar normal stress r*z(L/2,W/2, z) in
[0/90/0] plate with simply supported boundary conditions is presented in Figure 3
(b). Figure 3 compares the predictions of present solution with the predictions of
Atashipour et al. [34]. Very good agreement is seen between the predictions of
present method and predictions of Atashipour et al. [34].
The distribution of out-of-plane shear stresses in the vicinity of clamped edge,
free edge and simply supported edge in the plates with CCSS, SSSS and FFSS
boundary conditions which is subjected to doubly sinusoidal transverse load on the
top surface of the plate are presented in Figures 4 and 5, and are compared with
Ahmadi 19

0.5

Present
Pagano (1970)
0.1667
σyz σxz
z/h

-0.1667

-0.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
σ*xz, σ*yz

Figure 2. Comparison of prediction of present method with predictions of Pagano [2] for rxz
(0, W/2, z) and ryz (L/2, 0, z).

the predictions of Vel and Batra [12]. Through-the-thickness distribution of trans-

verse shear stresses rxz(0.05L,0.5W, z) and ryz(0.05L, 0, z) in the vicinity of the
edge of [0/90] square plate, L ¼ W ¼ 5h, is presented in Figure 4(a) and (b), respec-
tively. Also the distribution of rxz(0.05L, 0.5W,z) through-the-thickness of [0/90/0]
square plate (L ¼ W ¼ 5h) in the vicinity of clamped, simple and free edges is
presented in Figure 5. The maximum of stresses is depicted in these Figures. The
predictions of present method for distribution of stresses in the vicinity of clamped,
simply and free edges are in very good agreement with the predictions of analytical
solution of Vel and Batra [12].
The normalized displacement and stresses in [0/90] and [0/90/0] plates with
various boundary conditions subjected to distributed sinusoidal load q(x, y)
=q0sin(px/L)sin(py/W) on upper surface are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respec-
tively. Same as Vel and Batra [12], the normalized displacement and stresses on the
specific points are defined as
   
100E2 h2 L L L L
½uðzÞ; vðzÞ ¼ u ; ; z ; v ; ; z
q0 L3 4 2 2 4
3
 
100E2 h L L
w ðzÞ ¼ w ; ;z
q0 L4 2 2
    
10E2 L L h L L h
e ¼ u3 ; ;  u2 ; ; 
q0 h 2 2 2 2 2 2
"      #
  10h2 L W L W L
 x ðzÞ; r
r  y ðzÞ; r
 xy ðzÞ ¼ rx ; ; z ; ry ; ; z ; rxy ; 0; z
q0 L2 2 2 2 2 8
20 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

(a) 0.5

0
w*, Present
-0.5
w*, Atashipour et al.
σ* , Present
W*, σ*yz

yz
-1
*
σ , Atashipour et al.
yz
-1.5

-2

-2.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
y/W

(b) 0.5

Atashipour et al.
Pressent
z/h

-0.5
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
*
σ*z

Figure 3. Comparison of predictions of present method with the predictions of Atashipour

et al. [34] (a) w*(L/2,y,0) and r*yz(L/2,y,0) in [0/90/0] SSSF plate, (b) r*z (L/2,W/2, z) in [0/90/0]
SSSS plate (L ¼W ¼ 5h).

"    #
  10h L L W
r  xz ðzÞ ¼
 yz ðzÞ; r ryz ; 0; z ; rxz ; ;z
q0 L 2 8 2
  (44)
1 L L
 z ðz Þ ¼ r z
r ; ;z
q0 2 2

In Table 3 and 4, the predictions of present solution for stresses and displace-
ment are compared with the predictions of analytical solution (Vel and Batra [12])
and the predictions of higher order shear deformation theory (HSDT), first-order
Ahmadi 21

(a) 0.5
CC, (σxz)max=1.7968q0, Present
0.4
SS, (σxz)max=1.5903q0, Present
0.3 FF, (σxz)max=0.2160q0, Present
0.2 CC, (σxz)max=1.798q0, Vel & Batra (1999)
SS, (σxz)max=1.590q0, Vel & Batra (1999)
0.1
FF, (σxz)max=0.216q0, Vel & Batra (1999)
z/h

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
σ (0.05L,0.5W,z)/(σ )
xz xz max

(b)
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
z/h

-0.1 CC, (σyz)max=0.0987q0, Present

-0.2 SS, (σyz)max=0.2535q0, Present

-0.3 CC, (σyz)max=0.099q0, Vel & Batra (1999)

SS, (σyz)max=0.0254q0, Vel & Batra (1999)
-0.4

-0.5
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
σ (0.05L,0,z) /(σ )
yz yz max

Figure 4. Influence of boundary conditions on through-the-thickness distribution of interlam-

inar shear stresses in the vicinity of edge of [0/90] plate, (L ¼W ¼ 5h), comparison of predictions
with the predictions of Vel and Batra [12], a) rxz(0.05L,0.5W, z), b) ryz(0.05L, 0, z).

shear deformation theory (FSDT) and classical-laminated plate theory (CLPT)

(Khdeir and Reddy [41]).
Table 5 shows the dimensionless deflection w** ¼ 100wE1h3/q0L4 at the center of
square [0/90]s simply supported carbon/epoxy composite plate for various length
to thickness ratios and compares the predicted results with the predictions of CLT
and FSDT. The typical mechanical properties of carbon/epoxy lamina are chosen
as Table 6. The difference between the prediction of CLT, FSDT and present
method increases by decreasing the L/h ratio. For L/h ¼ 5, the difference in pre-
dictions of CLT and present method for deflection of plate center is about 100%,
22 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

0.5

0.4

0.3
CC, (σxz)max=1.8101q0, Present
0.2
SS, (σxz)max=1.4524q0, Present
0.1
FF, (σxz)max=0.2514q0, Present
z/h

0 CC, (σxz)max=1.811q0, Vel & Batra (1999)

-0.1 SS, (σxz)max=1.453q0, Vel & Batra (1999)
-0.2 FF, (σxz)max=0.252q0, Vel & Batra (1999)

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
σ (0.05L,0.5W,z)/(σ )
xz xz max

Figure 5. Influence of boundary conditions on through-the-thickness distribution of rxz in [0/90/

0] plate, (L ¼W ¼ 5h), comparison of predictions with Vel and Batra [12].

and the difference in predictions of FSDT and present method is about 3.8%. The
shear correction factor for FSDT is chosen as k ¼ 5/6.
It is seen that there are very good agreements between the predictions of present
formulation and the predictions of available exact solutions in the open literature.
In the next sections, numerical results are presented for the distribution of
stresses in the sandwich and composite plates for various boundary conditions
and layers stacking. The elastic properties of the face and core are chosen as
Table 6. At first, fully simply supported sandwich plate is studied.

SS-SS boundary conditions

The stress distribution in thick sandwich and composite plates in which all edges at
x ¼ 0, x ¼ L, y ¼ 0 and y ¼ W are simply-supported are studied in this section. The
applied transverse load is considered to be double sinusoidal distributed load as q
(x, y)=q0sin(px/L)sin(py/W) which is applied to the top surface of the plate.
Through-the-thickness distribution of dimensionless normal stresses r*x(L/2,
W/2, z), r*y(L/2, W/2, z) and r*z(L/2, W/2, z), and out-of-plane shear stresses
r*xz(L, W/2, z) and r*yz(L/2, 0, z) in [0/core/90] and [0/core/0] and [90/0/0/90]
plates (L ¼ W ¼ 5h) is presented in Figures 6 to 8, respectively.
The sequence of the layers in the bracket is written from the bottom surface to
the top surface of the plate. The core and face thickness in [0/core/90] and [0/core/
0] sandwich plate is considered to be hc=0.8h and hf=0.1h, and the thickness of
physical layers in [90/0/0/90] plate is considered to be 0.25h. As it is expected, the
out-of-plane shear stresses vanish at the bottom and top surfaces of the plates. The
out-of-plane normal stress rz vanishes at the bottom traction free surface of the
plates. At the center of the plate on the top surface (L/2, W/2, h/2), rz is exactly
Table 3. Displacement and stresses in [0/90] laminated plate (L ¼W ¼ 5h) subjected to sinusoidal transverse load on the top surface.

BC v ðh w
 ð0Þ r
 x ðh r r
 z ð0Þ r
 xy ðh r
 yz ð0Þ r
 xz ð0Þ e
Ahmadi

u ð2hÞ 2Þ 2Þ  y ð2hÞ 2Þ

CC-SS Vel ans 1.047 1.341 1.217 4.630 5.723 0.579 0.313 0.875 1.550 2.267
Batra [12]
Present 1.047 1.341 1.127 4.630 5.722 0.579 0.313 0.875 1.550 5.268
(1.0465) (1.3407) (1.2170) (4.6297) (5.7224) (0.5790) (0.3131) (0.8746) (1.5501) (5.2676)
HSDT [41] – – 1.088 5.679 5.505 – – 2.095 – –
FSDT [41] – – 1.257 3.911 5.153 – – 1.958 – –
CLPT [41] – – 0.429 4.800 2.914 – – – –
FF-SS Vel & 0.565 3.291 2.753 2.660 12.877 0.359 0.108 1.541 0.416 6.233
Batra [12]
Present 0.565 3.209 2.753 2.661 12.876 0.358 0.108 1.5403 0.415 6.233
(0.5647) (3.2902) (2.7526) (2.6613) (12.8762) (0.3583) (0.1082) (1.5403) (0.4152) (6.2325)
HSDT [41] – – 2.624 3.171 13.551 – – 4.457 – –
FSDT [48] – – 2.777 2.469 11.0907 – – 3.901 – –
CLPT [41] – – 1.777 2.403 11.849 – – – –
SS-SS Vel and 1.870 1.899 1.712 7.671 7.894 0.495 0.527 1.211 1.216 4.733
Batra [12]
Present 1.867 1.898 1.712 7.671 7.894 0.495 0.527 1.211 1.216 4.733
(1.8670) (1.8982) (1.7115) (7.6711) (7.8940) (0.4954) (0.5270) (1.2110) (1.2157) (4.7330)
HSDT [41] – – 1.667 8.385 8.385 – – 3.155 – –
FSDT [41] – – 1.758 7.157 7.157 – – 2.729 – –
CLPT [41] – – 1.064 7.157 7.157 – – – –
Note: The table shows a comparison of the results for various boundary conditions (the predictions with four decimal digits are presented in parentheses).
23
24 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

Table 4. Displacement and stresses in [0/90/0] laminated plate (L ¼W ¼ 5h) subjected to

sinusoidal transverse load on top surface.

CC SS FF

Vel and Present Vel and Present Vel and Present

Batra [12] N ¼ 3  22 Batra [12] N ¼ 3  22 Batra [12] N ¼ 3  22

u ðh
2Þ 0.319 0.319 0.614 0.614 0.108 0.108
(0.3188) (0.6137) (0.1078)
u ð2hÞ 0.331 0.331 0.620 0.620 0.114 0.114
(0.3312) (0.6200) (0.1135)
v ðh
2Þ 1.053 1.052 1.353 1.353 5.015 5.014
(1.0523) (1.3532) (5.0141)
v ð2hÞ 1.044 1.043 1.346 1.346 5.007 5.006
(1.0431) (1.3455) (5.0063)
 ð0Þ
w 1.180 1.180 1.525 1.525 5.307 5.306
(1.1793) (1.5251) (5.3064)
 x ðh
r 2Þ 4.235 4.236 6.987 0.6987 2.043 2.046
(4.2357) (6.9866) (2.0462)
 x ð2hÞ
r 4.504 4.504 7.180 7.180 2.232 2.236
(4.5043) (7.1804) (2.2358)
 y ðh
r 6Þ 3.726 3.724 4.784 4.780 17.247 17.246
(3.7236) (4.7804) (17.2460)
 y ð6hÞ
r 3.573 3.571 4.639 4.638 17.102 14.101
(3.5710) (4.6380) (17.1005)
 z ðh
r 6Þ 0.495 0.495 0.496 0.492 0.496 0.496
(0.4949) (0.4962) (0.4962)
 z ð6hÞ
r 0.701 0.701 0.726 0.726 0.790 0.790
(0.7013) (0.7264) (0.7900)
 xy ðh
r 2Þ 0.256 0.256 0.404 0.404 0.059 0.059
(0.2562) (0.4037) (0.0591)
 xy ð2hÞ
r 0.257 0.257 0.403 0.4.03 0.061 0.61
(0.2566) (0.4034) (0.0612)
 yz ð0Þ
r 1.470 1.470 1.911 1.911 5.917 5.918
(1.4697) (1.9111) (5.9179)
 xz ð0Þ
r 2.093 2.092 2.653 2.653 0.617 0.617
(2.0923) (2.6527) (0.6173)
e 4.694 4.694 4.715 4.715 4.715 4.715
(4.6937) (4.7146) (4.7150)
Note: The table shows the comparison of results for various boundary conditions (the predictions with four
decimal digits are presented in parentheses).

equal to the applied transverse load at this point, i.e. r*z(L/2, W/2, h/2) ¼ q(L/2,
L/2)/q0 ¼ 1.
It is seen that the predictions of present method for out-of-plane stresses exactly
satisfy the traction conditions on the top and bottom surfaces of the plate. The
Ahmadi 25

Table 5. Comparison of the dimensionless deflection w**¼100wE1h3/q0L4 at the center of

square [0/90]s simply supported plate for various L/h ratios (p ¼ 30).
L/h ¼ L/h ¼
1000 500 L/h ¼ 100 L/h ¼ 50 L/h ¼ 30 L/h ¼ 20 L/h ¼ 15 L/h ¼ 10 L/h ¼ 8 L/h ¼ 5

CLT 9.6689 9.6689 9.6689 9.6689 9.6689 9.6689 9.6689 9.6689 9.6689 9.6689
FSDT 9.6691 9.6697 9.6929 9.7651 9.9359 10.2678 10.7292 12.0281 13.3170 18.6735
Present 9.8287 9.7472 9.8239 9.8941 10.0596 10.3808 10.8265 12.0748 13.3038 18.2917
(p ¼ 30),
z ¼ 0.5h
Present 9.8287 9.7472 9.8239 9.8942 10.0604 10.3851 10.8400 12.1430 13.4703 19.3815
(p ¼ 30),
z ¼ 0.5h
Present 9.8287 9.7473 9.8245 9.8964 10.0662 10.3963 10.8552 12.1472 13.4294 18.7466
(p ¼ 30),
z¼0

Table 6. Mechanical properties of carbon/epoxy lamina and core material.

Material E1 (GPa) E2 ¼ E3 (GPa) G12 ¼ G13 (GPa) G23 (GPa)  12 ¼  13  23

Carbon/epoxy 136 9.8 4.7 4.26 0.28 0.15

Core 3 3 1.0714 1.0714 0.4 0.4

0.5
0.4

σ
x
σ
y
z/h

0
σ
z
σ
xz
σ
yz

-0.4
-0.5
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
σ*
Figure 6. Distribution of stresses through the thickness in [0/core/90] sandwich plate
(L ¼W ¼ 5h, hc ¼ 0.8h, hf ¼ 0.1h).
26 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

0.5
0.4

σx

σy
z/h

0
σz

σxz

σyz
-0.4
-0.5
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
*
σ
Figure 7. Distribution of stresses through the thickness in [0/core/0] sandwich plate
(L ¼W ¼ 5h, hc ¼ 0.8h, hf ¼ 0.1h).

0.5

0.25
σ
x
σ
y
z/h

0
σ
z
σ
xz
-0.25 σ
yz

-0.5
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
σ*
Figure 8. Distribution of stresses through the thickness in [90/0/0/90] composite
plate (L ¼W ¼ 5h).

equivalent single layer theories such as classical laminate theory and first-order
shear deformation theory are not able to predict the distribution of out-of-plane
stresses in the plate thickness and cannot satisfy the stress conditions at the top and
bottom surfaces. As seen in Figure 8, the distribution of in-plane normal stress ry
in 90-plies of [90/0/0/90] plate is not linear.
Ahmadi 27

(a) 3.5
z=-0.5h
3
z=-0.5hc
2.5
z=0
2 z=0.5hc
1.5 z=0.5h
1
σz
*

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L

(b) 4.5
4 z=-0.5h
3.5 z=-0.5hc
3 z=0
2.5 z=0.5hc
2 z=0.5h
σz
*

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L

Figure 9. Out-of-plane normal stress rz distribution along the length of FFSS sandwich plate at
y ¼ W/2, (a) [0/core/0] sandwich plate, (b) [90/core/0] sandwich plate.

FF-SS boundary conditions

It is considered that the edges of the plate at x ¼ 0 and x ¼ L are free and the edges
at y ¼ 0 and y ¼ W are simply supported. A distributed transverse load is applied
on the top surface of the plate which is uniform in the length of the plate and is
sinusoidally distributed in the width of the plate as q(x, y)=q0sin(py/W). At first,
[0/core/0] and [90/core/0] sandwich plates in which the core thickness is hc=0.6h
and the face thickness is hf=0.2h are considered. The dimensions of the plate are
considered to be W ¼ 2L ¼ 6h.
In order to study the stresses in the vicinity of free edges at x ¼ 0 and x ¼ L, the
distribution of the out-of-plane normal stress along the length of [0/core/0] and
28 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

[90/core/0] sandwich plates at section y ¼ 0.5W is shown in Figure 9. These figure

shows the distribution of rz at section y ¼ 0.5W along the length of the plate at the
core–face interfaces (z=0.5hc), at the mid plane (z ¼ 0) and at the top and
bottom surfaces (z=0.5h). As seen in Figure 9, the predicted normal stress rz
on the top surface of plate along the line y ¼ W/2 is exactly equal to the applied
transverse load, i.e. rz(x, y ¼ 0.5W, z ¼ 0.5h)=q(x, y ¼ 0.5W,)=q0, and rz vanishes
on the traction free bottom surface of the plate. As seen, rz increases in the vicinity

0.4
z=-0.5h
0.3 z=-0.5hc
0.2 z=0
z=0.5hc
0.1
σxz

0
*

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L

Figure 10. Out-of-plane shear stress rxz distribution along the length of FFSS [0/core/0]
sandwich plate at y ¼ W/2.

0.5

0.3
x= 0.5L
x=0.94 L
x=0.98 L
z/h

0 x=0.99 L
x= L
x=L (Hooke law)

-0.3

-0.5
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
*
σ
z

Figure 11. Out-of-plane normal stress rz distribution through-the-thickness of FFSS [0/core/0]

sandwich plate at y ¼ W/2.
Ahmadi 29

of free edges at the core–face interfaces and its maximum is at the free edges. In
Figure 9, on the free edge of the sandwich plates at the points (x ¼ 0, y ¼ 0.5W,
z ¼ 0.5hc) and (x ¼ L, y ¼ 0.5W, z ¼ 0.5hc), the out-of-plane normal stress r*z
increases sharply to about r*z=3 in [0/core/0] plate, and r*z=3.9 in [90/core/
0] plate.
The distribution of out-of-plane shear stress rxz along the length of [0/core/0]
plate at section y ¼ 0.5W is shown in Figure 10. The shear stress rxz vanishes far
from the free edges and increases in the vicinity of the free edges of the plate.

0.5

0.3

x= 0.5L
x=0.94 L
z/h

0 x=0.98 L
x=0.99 L
x= L
x=L (Hooke law)
-0.3

-0.5
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
σ*
z

Figure 12. Out-of-plane normal stress rz distribution through-the-thickness of FFSS [90/core/0]

sandwich plate at y ¼ W/2.

0.5
x= 0.5L
x=0.94 L
0.3 x=0.98 L
x=0.99 L
x= L
x=L (Hooke law)
z/h

-0.3

-0.5
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
σ*
z

Figure 13. Out-of-plane normal stress rz distribution through-the-thickness of FFSS [0/core/90]

sandwich plate at y ¼ W/2.
30 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

The distribution of the out-of-plane normal stress rz through the thickness of [0/
core/0], [90/core/0] and [0/core/90] sandwich plates is presented in Figures 11 to 13,
respectively. In these figures, rz is presented at section y ¼ 0.5W, through the plate
thickness along the lines (x ¼ 0.5L, y ¼ 0.5W, z), (x ¼ 0.94L, y ¼ 0.5W, z),
(x ¼ 0.98L, y ¼ 0.5W, z), (x ¼ 0.99L, y ¼ 0.5W, z) and (x ¼ L, y ¼ 0.5W, z).
In these figures, z=0.5hc=0.3h are the core–face interfaces of the sandwich
plates. As seen in Figures 11 to 13, in the predictions of present solution,

0.5

0.3
x= 0.5L
x=0.94 L
x=0.98 L
z/h

0 x=0.99 L

-0.3

-0.5
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
σ*
xz

Figure 14. Out-of-plane shear stress rxz distribution through-the-thickness in FFSS [0/core/0]
sandwich plate at y ¼ W/2.

0.5

0.3
x= 0.5L
x=0.94 L
x=0.98 L
z/h

0 x=0.99 L

-0.3

-0.5
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
*
σ
xz

Figure 15. Out-of-plane shear stress distribution through-the-thickness in FFSS [90/core/0]

sandwich plate at y ¼ W/2.
Ahmadi 31

0.5

0.3
[0/core/0]
[90/core/0]
[90/core/90]
z/h

0 [0/core/90]

-0.3

-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
σ*
yz

Figure 16. Distribution of ryz through-the-thickness of various sandwich plates at (x ¼ L/2, y ¼ 0).

(a) 0.5

0.3
z/h

0 [0/core/0]
[90/core/0]
[90/core/90]
[0/core/90]
-0.3

-0.5
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
*
σ
x

(b) 0.5

[0/core/0]
0.3 [90/core/0]
[90/core/90]
[0/core/90]
z/h

-0.3

-0.5
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
*
σ
y

Figure 17. Distribution of in-plane stress rx(x ¼ L/2, y ¼ W/2, z) and ry(x ¼ L/2, y ¼ W/2, z)
through-the-thickness of various FFSS sandwich plates, a) rx, b) ry.
32 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

the traction boundary conditions at the bottom and top surfaces, i.e. rz(z=0.5h)
=0 and rz(z ¼ 0.5h)=q0 are satisfied. rz increased sharply in the vicinity of free
edges of the plate, especially near the core–face interfaces. In this study, the out-of-
plane stresses are obtained from the integration of equilibrium equations. In
Figures 11 to 13, the prediction of Hooke’s law for rz at the free edge of the
plates is depicted. There is a difference between the predictions of the integration
method and the prediction of Hooke’s law at the free edges. The maximum of out-
of-plane normal stress rz is at the top face of the plate in the vicinity of the core–
face interface. The maximum of r*z is tensile for [0/core/0] and [90/core/0] plates
and its maximum is compressive for [0/core/90] plate.

(a) 0.4

0.3 z=-0.5h
z=-0.5hc
0.2 z=0
z=0.5h
0.1 c
σxz

0
*

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L

(b) 2

1.5 z=-0.5h
z=-0.25h
1 z=0
z=0.25h
0.5
σxz

0
*

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L

Figure 18. Out-of-plane shear stress rxz at the interface of layers in CCSS plate, (a) [0/core/0]
sandwich plate, (b) [90/0/0/90] composite plate, (y ¼ W/2).
Ahmadi 33

Through-the-thickness distributions of the out-of-plane shear stress rxz at sec-

tion y ¼ 0.5W of [0/core/0] and [90/core/0] sandwich plates are shown in Figures 14
and 15, respectively. As seen in Figures 14 and 15, in the vicinity of free edge
(x ¼ 0.99L), the out-of-plane shear stress rxz increases at the core–face interface of
sandwich plate, especially at core/0-layer interface (z/h ¼ 0.3). Through-the-
thickness distribution of ryz at the simply supported edge (x ¼ L/2, y ¼ 0, z) is
presented in Figure 16 for various sandwich plates. The effect of stacking sequence
on the distribution of stress is seen in this figure. The distribution of the in-plane
normal stress, ry(x ¼ L/2, y ¼ W/2, z) and rx(x ¼ L/2, y ¼ W/2, z) in various sand-
wich plates is presented in Figure 17.

(a) 0.5

0.25
x= 0.5L
x=0.94 L
x=0.98 L
z/h

0
x=0.99 L

-0.25

-0.5
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
σ*
z

(b) 0.5

0.3
x= 0.5L
x=0.75 L
x=0.90 L
z/h

0 x=0.95 L
x= 0.99L

-0.3

-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
*
σ
z

Figure 19. Out-of-plane normal stress distribution through-the-thickness of CC-SS plate, (a)
[90/0/0/0] composite plate, (b) [0/core/0] sandwich plate, y ¼ W/2, W ¼ 2L ¼ 6h.
34 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

CC-SS boundary conditions

The edges of the plate at x ¼ 0 and x ¼ L are clamped and the edges at y ¼ 0 and
y ¼ W are simply supported. This set of edge condition is shown by CC-SS. The
top surface of the plate is subjected to transverse load q=q0sin(py/W) and the
length and width of the plate are chosen as W ¼ 2L ¼ 6h.

0.5

0.3
x=0.75 L
x=0.90 L
x=0.95 L
z/h

0
x=0.99 L
x= 0.995L

-0.3

-0.5
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 * -0.4 -0.2 0
σ
xz

Figure 20. Out-of-plane shear stress distribution at vicinity of clamped edge of CCSS [0/core/0]
sandwich plate at y ¼ W/2, W ¼ 2L ¼ 6h.

0.5

0.3

x= 0.5L
x=0.75 L
z/h

0 x=0.90 L
x=0.95 L
x=L

-0.3

-0.5
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4
σ*
x

Figure 21. Distribution of in-plane stress rx through-the-thickness in CCSS [0/core/0]

plate, (y ¼ 0.5W).
Ahmadi 35

The distributions of the out-of-plane shear stress rxz along the length of [0/core/
0] and [90/0/0/90] plates at the mid plane, the core–face interfaces and the top
surface of plate at section y ¼ 0.5W are shown in Figure 18. As seen, the maximum
of out-of-plane shear stress rxz is at the clamped edges (x ¼ 0, x ¼ L) of the plate.
Distributions of rz in [0/core/0] sandwich plate and [90/0/0/0] composite plate
with CC-SS boundary conditions are presented in Figure 19. This figure shows the
distribution of rz through the plate thickness along the lines (x ¼ 0.5L, y ¼ 0.5W,
z), (x ¼ 0.94L, y ¼ 0.5W, z), (x ¼ 0.98L, y ¼ 0.5W, z) and (x ¼ 0.99L, y ¼ 0.5W, z).
The pattern of distribution of rz in the vicinity of the clamped edge is completely
different than its distribution in the plate center. Also the distribution of out-of-
plane shear stress rxz through-the-thickness of [0/core/0] sandwich plate in the
vicinity of clamped edge is shown in Figure 20.
Through-the-thickness distribution of the in-plane stress rx in [0/core/0] plate is
shown in Figure 21. At the center of the plate, rx is tensile on the top surface and is
compressive on the bottom surface of the plate, and in the vicinity of clamped
edge, rx is compressive on the top surface and is tensile on the bottom surface of
the plate.
Figure 22 shows the through-the-thickness distribution of the out-of-plane
shear stress rxz in the vicinity of clamped edge, x ¼ 0.99L, of sandwich and com-
posite plates for various layer stackings.
In order to study the effect of boundary conditions on the distribution of out-
of-plane stresses, the distribution of rz and rxz along the length of [90/core/0]
sandwich plate for FF-SS, SS-SS, CC-SS and CF-SS edge conditions is presented
in Figures 23 and 24, respectively.

0.5

0.3 [0/core/0]
[90/core/0]
[90/core/90]
[0/core/90]
z/h

0 [90/0/0/90]
[0/90/90/0]

-0.3

-0.5
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
σ*
xz

Figure 22. Distribution of rxz at the vicinity of clamped edge (x ¼ 0.99L) in CCSS plates with
various layer stackings (y ¼ 0.5W).
36 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

(a) 4
z=0.5hc,FF-SS
3 z=0.5hc,SS-SS
z=0.5hc,CC-SS
z=0.5hc,CF-SS
2
σz
*

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/L

(b) 1

0.5

z=0, FF-SS
0
σz
*

z=0, SS-SS
z=0, CC-SS
z=0, CF-SS
-0.5

-1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/L

Figure 23. Effect of boundary conditions on the distribution of out-of-plane normal stress rz in
[90/core/0] sandwich plate, (a) rz at z ¼ 0.5hc, (b) rz at z ¼ 0.

Singularity of stresses
Some researchers reported the singularity of stresses at the points that the inter-
faces of layers with dissimilar mechanical properties intersect at the laminate edges.
These points are named interface-corner points [42]. In the previous sections, it is
seen that the out-of-plane stresses increase sharply at the interface-corner points.
Hence, the possible singularity of predictions for out-of-plane stresses at these
points is investigated in this section.
The distribution of stress along the radial distance r from a singularity can be
expressed as [36] and [42]

rðrÞ ¼ Ark þ oðrkþ1 Þ (45)

Ahmadi 37

(a)
0.8 z=0.5hc,FF-SS
z=0.5hc,SS-SS
0.6
z=0.5hc,CC-SS
0.4 z=0.5hc,CF-SS
0.2
σz
*

-0.2

-0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/L

(b) 1
z=-0.5hc,FF-SS
z=-0.5hc,SS-SS

0.5 z=-0.5hc,CC-SS
z=-0.5hc,CF-SS
σxz
*

-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/L

Figure 24. Effect of boundary conditions on the distribution of out-of-plane shear stress rxz in
[90/core/0] plate, (a) rxz at z ¼ 0.5hc, (b) rxz at z ¼ 0.5hc.

0.3
Calculated
0.2
Fitted
0.1

0
*
log σz

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
logσ*=- 0.7375logx- 1.87
z
-0.4

-0.5
-3 -2.8 -2.6 -2.4 -2.2 -2 -1.8
log x

Figure 25. logr*z-logx plot at the vicinity of free edge (x ¼ 0, y ¼ W/2, z ¼ hc/2) of [0/core/0]
sandwich plate (W ¼ 2L ¼ 6h).
38 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

where A and k are constants and o(r-kþ1) represents the terms of order –kþ1 and
higher terms. k shows the order of singularity of stress. It is clear that in very small
distance to singularity, the singular terms is dominant and r can be approximat-
ed as

r ¼ Ark
(46)
logr ¼ logA  klogr

-0.22 Calculated
Fitted

-0.24
log σxz

* -0.26

-0.28
logσ* =- 0.092logx- 0.5154
xz
-0.3

-0.32
-3.4 -3.2 -3 -2.8 -2.6 -2.4 -2.2 -2
log x

Figure 26. logr*xz-logx plot at the vicinity of clamped edge (x ¼ 0, y ¼ W/2, z¼hc/2) of [0/core/
0] sandwich plate (W ¼ 2L ¼ 6h).

0.2
Calculated, z=-hc/2
0.1 Fitted, z=-hc/2
log σ* =- 0.1246 log x- 0.3661 Calculated, z=hc/2
xz

0 Fitted, z=hc/2
log σ*xz

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3 log σ* =- 0.1183 log x- 0.5809

xz

-0.4
-3.1 -3 -2.9 -2.8 -2.7 -2.6 -2.5 -2.4 -2.3 -2.2 -2.1
log x

Figure 27. Log r*xz-logx plot at the vicinity of clamped edge (x ¼ 0, y ¼ W/2, z¼hc/2) of [0/
core/90] sandwich plate (W ¼ 3L ¼ 6h).
Ahmadi 39

Hence, in the vicinity of the singularity, logr versus logr plot can be considered
by a line with slope –k. Therefore, the logr–logr plot near the singular point must
be fitted by a line as equation (46). If the linear distribution with negative slope
fitted with the computed stress well, the stress may be singular [42]. This procedure
is named log-linear procedure [42], in which unknown k and A can be obtained
from the fitted line.
As seen in Figure 9, rz increases sharply at the free edge in core–face interface
z=hc/2 of [0/core/0] sandwich plate. Hence, the log-linear procedure is employed
in Figure 25 to study the singularity of stress at point (x ¼ 0, y ¼ W/2, z=hc/2) of

(a) 6.2

5.8

5.6
z

5.4

5.2

5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
x

(b) 11.8

11.6

11.4

11.2
z

11

10.8

10.6

10.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
x

Figure 28. Exaggerated deformed xz cross-section of the sandwich plate (y ¼ W/2), a) [90/core/
0], b) [0/core/0], h ¼ 1 mm, b ¼ 2a ¼ 6h, q0¼1 MPa, Exaggeration factor ¼500.
40 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

[0/core/0] sandwich plate (W ¼ 2L ¼ 6h). The distance r is considered along the x

axis at the core–face interface. It is seen in Figure 25 that the logr*z-log x plot is
linear in the vicinity of the free edge along the core–face interface, z=hc/2. In
Figure 25, the slope of fitted line to the logr*z vs. log x plot is 0.7375.
Therefore, a singularity of order k=0.7375 can be estimated for this point.
The singularity of rxz at the same point, i.e. (x ¼ 0, y ¼ W/2, z=hc/2) in the
clamped edge of [0/core/0] sandwich plate with the same dimension and CF-SS
boundary condition is investigated in Figure 26. The slope of the fitted line to log
r*xz-log x plot is 0.092, so the order of singularity of rxz at this point is estimated
to be k=0.092.
The logr*xz-logx plot for [0/core/90] sandwich plate (W ¼ 2L ¼ 6h) with CF-SS
boundary conditions in the vicinity of the clamped edge at z=hc/2 and z=hc/2 is
presented in Figure 27. As seen in Figure 27, the slope of the fitted line for 0/core
interface (z=-hc/2) is k=0.1183 and the slope of fitted line for core/90 interface
(z=hc/2) is k=0.1246.

Deformed shape
The exaggerated deformed shape of xz cross-section of [90/core/0] and [0/core/0]
sandwich plates (W ¼ 2L ¼ 6h) with FF-SS boundary conditions in section y ¼ W/2
is shown in Figure 28. The deformation of the plate is exaggerated as 500 times.
Figure 28 shows the effect of the stacking sequence on the deformation of the free
edges of the plates.

Conclusions
A new formulation is presented for the analysis of three-dimensional and edge
stresses in sandwich plates which are subjected to distributed transverse loading
conditions. Employing the weak formulation, the equilibrium equations of elastic-
ity are discretized in terms of the displacements. An analytical solution is presented
for the governing equations for the plate that two opposite edges are simply
supported and other edges are free, simply or clamped. In order to increase the
accuracy in prediction of stresses, a one-step stress recovery scheme is used to
compute the out-of-plane stresses. The predictions of present method for stresses
and displacements are examined by the available predictions of exact elasticity
solutions in the literature and very good agreements are achieved. The results
are focused on the prediction of boundary layer stresses in the vicinity of free
and clamped edges of sandwich plates. It is seen that the presented formulation
can predict the concentration of stresses at the interface of layers in the vicinity of
edges. The log-linear procedure is employed to study the order of singularity of
stress at free and clamped edge of the plate.
Ahmadi 41

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
Isa Ahmadi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3327-1504

References
1. Pipes RB and Pagano NJ. Interlaminar stresses in composite materials under uniform
axial extension. J Compos Mater 1970; 4: 538–548.
2. Pagano NJ. Exact solutions for rectangular bidirectional composites and sandwich
plates. J Compos Mater 1970; 4: 20–34.
3. Altus E, Rotem A and Shmueli M. Free edge effect in angle ply laminates – a new three-
dimensional finite difference solution. J Compos Mater 1980; 14: 21–30.
4. Wang SS and Choi I. Boundary-layer effects in composite laminates. Part I: free-edge
stress singularities. J Appl Mech 1982; 49: 541–548.
5. Wang SS and Choi I. Boundary layer effects in composite laminates. Part II: free-edge
stress solutions and basic characteristic. J Appl Mech 1982; 49: 549–560.
6. Kassapoglou C and Lagace PA. An efficient method for the calculation of interlaminar
stresses in composite materials. J Appl Mech1986; 53: 744–750.
7. Lee CY and Liu D. Interlaminar stress continuity theory for laminated composite anal-
ysis. AIAA J 1991; 29: 2010–2012.
8. Roubins DH and Reddy JN. Modelling of thick composites using a layerwise laminate
theory. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1993; 36: 655–677.
9. Kim T and Atluri SN. Interlaminar stresses in composite laminates under out-of-plane
shear/bending. AIAA J 1994; 32: 1700–1708.
10. Zhu C and Lam YC. A Rayleigh-Ritz solution for local stresses in composite laminates.
Compos Sci Technol 1998; 58: 447–461.
11. Mistou S, Karama M, Lorrain B and Faye JP. Analysis of sandwich composite beams
with a new transverse shear stress continuity model. J Sandwich Struct Mater 1999;
1: 96–110.
12. Vel SS and Batra RC. Analytical solution for rectangular thick laminated plates sub-
jected to arbitrary boundary conditions. AIAA J 1999; 37: 1464–1473.
13. Mittelstedt C and Becker W. Three-dimensional closed-form analysis of the stress field
at rectangular corners of layered plates. Arch Appl Mech 2003; 73: 63–74.
14. MistoU S And Karama M. Edge effects on sandwich composite by analytical, finite
element, and experimental approach. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2004; 6: 343–355.
15. Mittelstedt C and Becker W. Free-edge effects in composite laminates. Appl Mech Rev
2007; 60: 217–245.
16. Duong NT and Hung ND. Interlaminar stresses and delamination of composite lami-
nates under extension and bending. Struct Eng Mech 2007; 25: 733–751.
42 Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 0(0)

17. Zenkour AM. Three-dimensional elasticity solution for uniformly loaded cross-ply lam-
inates and sandwich plates. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2007; 9: 213–238.
18. Kant T, Gupta AB, Pendhari SS, et al. Elasticity solution for cross-ply composite and
sandwich laminates. Compos Struct 2008; 83: 13–24.
19. Kashtalyan M and Menshykova M. Three-dimensional elasticity solution for sandwich
panels with a functionally graded core. Compos Struct 2009; 87: 36–43.
20. Miri AK and Nosier A. Out-of-plane stresses in composite shell panels: layerwise and
elasticity solutions. Acta Mech 2011; 220: 15–32.
21. Tahani M and Andakhshideh A. Interlaminar stresses in thick rectangular laminated
plates with arbitrary laminations and boundary conditions under transverse loads.
Compos Struct 2012; 94: 1793–1804.
22. Rao MP, Harursampath D and Renji K. Prediction of inter-laminar stresses in com-
posite honeycomb sandwich panels under mechanical loading using variational asymp-
totic method. Compos Struct 2012; 94: 2523–2537.
23. Sarvestani HY and Sarvestani MY. Free-edge stress analysis of general composite
laminates under extension, torsion and bending. Appl Math Modell 2012; 36: 1570–1588.
24. Viyand DM, Sarvestani HY and Nosier A. Stress analysis in symmetric composite
laminates subjected to shearing loads. Int J Mech Sci 2013; 75: 16–25.
25. Thai ND, D’Ottavio M and Caron JF. Bending analysis of laminated and sandwich
plates using a layer-wise stress model. Compos Struct 2013; 96: 135–142.
26. Khandelwal RP, Chakrabarti A and Bhargava P. Accurate calculation of transverse
shear stresses for soft-core sandwich laminates. Acta Mech 2014; 225: 2877–2891.
27. Alibeigloo A. Three-dimensional thermo-elasticity solution of sandwich cylindrical
panel with functionally graded core. Compos Struct 2014; 107: 458–468.
28. Kang WB, Li YD, Chen W, Wang X, et al. Interlaminar stresses in piezoelectric lam-
inated composite shells under electric, thermal and mechanical loads. Eur J Mech A/
Solids 2015; 54: 198–208.
29. Ahmadi I. Edge stresses analysis in thick composite panels subjected to axial loading
using layerwise formulation. Struct Eng Mech 2016; 57: 733–762.
30. Huang B, Wang J, Du J, et al. Extended Kantorovich method for local stresses in
composite laminates upon polynomial stress functions. Acta Mech Sin 2016;
32: 854–865.
31. Dhanesh N, Kapuria S and Achary GGS. Accurate prediction of three-dimensional free
edge stress field in composite laminates using mixed-field multiterm extended
Kantorovich method. Acta Mech 2016; 228: 2895–2919.
32. Antretter T, Fischer FD, Rammerstorfer FG and Zickler GA. Free edges at bilayered
compounds-a short analytical and numerical reconsideration. Arch Appl Mech 2016;
86: 2053–2061.
33. Ahmadi I. Interlaminar stress analysis in general thick composite cylinder subjected to
nonuniform distributed radial pressure. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2017; 24: 773–788.
34. Atashipour SR, Girhammar UA and Al-Emrani M. Exact Lévy-type solutions for
bending of thick laminated orthotropic plates based on 3-D elasticity and shear defor-
mation theories. Compos Struct 2017; 163: 129–151.
35. Goodsell J and Pipes RB. Free-edge interlaminar stresses in angle-ply laminates: a
family of analytic solutions. J Appl Mech 2016; 83: 051010
Ahmadi 43

36. Shah PH and Batra RC. Stress singularities and transverse stresses near edges of doubly
curved laminated shells using TSNDT and stress recovery scheme. Eur J Mech A/Solids
2017; 63: 68–83.
37. Ahmadi I. Edge stresses analysis in laminated thick sandwich cylinder subjected to
distributed hygrothermal loading. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2018; 20: 425–461.
38. Wang X and Yuan Z. Accurate stress analysis of sandwich panels by the differential
quadrature method. Appl Math Modell 2017; 43: 548–565.
39. Hajikazemi M and Van Paepegem W. A variational model for free-edge interlaminar
stress analysis in general symmetric and thin-ply composite laminates. Compos Struct
2018; 184: 443–451.
40. Ahmadi I. Free edge stress prediction in thick laminated cylindrical shell panel subjected
to bending moment. Appl Math Modell 2019; 65: 507–525.
41. Khdeir AA and Reddy JN. Analytical solutions of refined plate theories of cross-ply
composite laminates. J Pressure Vessel Technol 1991; 113: 570–578.
42. Raju IS and Crews JH. Jr., Interlaminar stress singularities at a straight free edge in
composite laminates. Comput Struct 1981; 14: 21–28.