004s7949/90 s3.00 + 0.

00
PergFmm Press plc

Compuws & Sfructures Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 397-403, 1990

Printed in Gnat Britain.

FINITE ELEMENT

ANALYSIS OF SANDWICH
AN OVERVIEW

PLATES:

K. H. I-IA
Centre for Building Studies, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G lM8
(Receiued 17 October 1989)

Abstract-Many finite element models have been proposed for the analysis of sandwich plates. In general,
these elements can be classified into two broad streams. The first is based on the assumed filament
approach, and the second on the assumed-stress hybrid approach. Within each stream, the characteristics
of the elements vary greatly in terms of the formulation complexity, accuracy and applicability. An
overview is given of the state-of-the-art finite element analysis applied to sandwich plate structures.

INTRODUCTION

Sandwich construction is a special class of laminates

where the inner layers are often thicker and composed of more flexible materials. Common con:
figurations may consist of a single core bonded to two
stiff facings, or multiple cores with multiple facings.
Half-sandwich or open faced canstruction has only
one core and one facing. The structural efficiency
achieved by separating the stiff facings with a thick
core of low density material exacts a certain toll in
terms of increased transverse (thickness) shear fiexibility and increased susceptibility to local instability;
these are two issues among many that confront the
designer.
Transverse shear deformations are associated with
the bending behaviour of sandwich plate structures,
pa~icularly when the inner layers are thick and of
more flexible material. Because of this characteristic,
classical thin plate KirchhofI elements are not
applicable. Many finite element models have been
proposed for the analysis of sandwich plates. In
general, these elements can be classified into two
broad streams. The first is based on the assumed
displa~ment
approach, and the second on the
assumed-stress hybrid approach. Within each stream,
the characteristics of the elements vary greatly
in terms of formulation complexity, accuracy and
applicability.
It is the purpose of this paper to give an overview
of the state-of-the-art
finite element analysis of
sandwich plate structures. The underlying assumptions of the elements will be discussed and their range
of applicability indicated. The information presented
will be of use to researchers in the field as well as to
designers interested in a particular type of sandwich
construction. The primary interest will be on the
analysis of the overail behaviour of sandwich plates
and shells rather than on the local instability
phenomena.

The paper will progress in the following manner.

First, some general considerations in the analysis will
be discussed, then the existing finite element models,
classified in accordance with their formulation
approach and functional use, will be presented.
Undoubtedly, a survey of this type will not do justice
to al1 contributions, particularly with the theoretical
developments in the wider field of laminate construction, and for which the author apologizes.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

This section discusses the various aspects that

underlie the choice of a particular analysis technique
or element.
Efects of transverseshear deformations
Transverse shear defo~ations
occur to a certain
extent in any plate subjected to transverse loading,
but they are more significant in thick isotropic or
laminated composite plates and in sandwich plates
with soft cores. It is well known that they have no
effects on the stress resultants in simply supported
rectangular isotropic sandwich plates subjected to
uniform loading or edge moments.
In most
other situations, the stress distributions can be very
different from those obtained with thin plate
Kirchhoff theory.
Before embarking on a complex analysis, the
analyst is well advised to ascertain whether the effects
of transverse shear deformations
are significant
enough to warrant the extra analysis-effort. A rule of
thumb for preliminary design is that such effects can
be neglected if eqn (1) is satisfied [l].
SL2
> loo,
D

where S and D are the shear and bending stiffnesses,

respectively, and L is the length of the beam or plate.
397

398

K. H.

These material parameters can be derived for any

configuration of sandwich construction
(see, for
example, [2, 9).
The type of nodal degrees of freedom

Simple finite elements, possessing only the basic

geometrical nodal degrees of freedom (e.g. mid-plane
translations and section rotations which are easily
transformed) are suitable for the analysis of threedimensional systems composed of panels meeting
at an angle, e.g. folded plates, and panelized
construction. Finite element models with additional
degrees of freedom such as curvatures, higher order
derivatives of displacements or shear strains are
therefore more suitable for the analysis of flat plates
or shells. Also, these elements can be very accurate,
particularly when interlaminar shear stresses are of
special interest.
Special problems

Since interlaminar shear stresses are continuous

across layers, they should not be evaluated using an
individual layers elastic constants, but rather by
other means, such as equilibrium consideration, or
by using higher order assumed-stress elements. A
different problem, involving concentrated forces,
where the local transverse shear stresses are discontinuous, can also be tackled by more sophisticated
elements.
An additional complication arises in the case of
sandwich construction with unsymmetrical layers,
of which half-sandwich is the simplest type, where
bending
and in-plane
stretching
are coupled
(although such coupling tends to reduce the plate
effective stiffness, other considerations may prevail).
In finite element analysis, this coupling must be
included at the formulation stage, since a simple
superposition
of the bending
and stretching
behaviours is invalid for this case.
In general, finite element solutions for transverse
shear stresses and edge reactions are less accurate
than those for deflections and moments; this is
particularly true in the displacement formulation of
sandwich and Mindlin plate elements.
The specification of boundary conditions for many
refined elements can be complicated because of the
numerous degrees of freedom assigned across the
plate thickness. For sandwich construction with rigid
edge inserts or stiffeners, compatibility
requires
special consideration. It is unfortunate that developers of finite element models rarely address these
practical matters.
Assumptions in sandwich plate formulations

The variety of assumptions used in sandwich plate

formulation can be confusing. Obviously, the more
sophisticated formulations make fewer assumptions
at the cost of more complexity and analysis-effort.
A paper by Cook [4] investigates the effects of
some of these assumptions for three-layer sandwich

HA

plates of isotropic facings. The various degrees of

approximation are classified below to facilitate later
reference.
1. General assumptions. These are common to
most formulations: (a) the transverse deflection is
constant across the thickness; and (b) perfect bonding
between layers (the effects of elastic interlayer slips
on sandwich beam-columns were discussed by Fazio
et a1.[5]).
2. Materialproperties. Materials for the facing and

core can be: (a) isotropic; (b) orthotropic; or (c)

anisotropic.
3. Stress distribution in facing section. (a) Thin
facing theory: the face is treated as a solid membrane,
i.e. constant a,, by, Tag. (b) Thick facing theory: the
face is treated as a classical thin plate to allow for
stretching and local bending, i.e. linear distribution of
Q,, aY, rxY.(c) All five StreSS components o,, au, txy,
Txz3 tyl are defined, and are often allowed to vary
across the layer thickness.
4. Stress distribution in the core section. (a) Flexible
core: constant transverse shear stresses T,,, Tag. (b)
Stiff core: similar to 3(c) above.
5. Displacement variation. The approximations so
far are concerned with individual layer behaviour.
Since the layers are bonded together, certain quantities such as interlaminar shear stresses and displacements are continuous across layers. This, combined
with the need to enforce strain compatibility within
the layers (as required in the displacement finite
element formulation), necessitates an assumed kinematic deformation mode for the plate section. (a)
Linear variation (Fig. 1): the normal remains straight
across the entire cross-section of the plate, but not
necessarily perpendicular to the middle plane. (b)
Piece-wise linear variation with partial continuity
(Fig. 2). (c) Piece-wise linear variation with full
continuity (Fig. 3). (d) Quadratic or cubic variation
to allow for warping of the cross-section.
The discontinuity of the inplane displacements at
the layer interface shown in Fig. 2 arises from the
neglect of transverse shear deformations in the stiff
layers. In addition, if the small displacement u* in the
stiff layers is considered then we have the so-called
thick facing theory [i.e. assumption 3(b)], otherwise
the theory is for thin facings [i.e. assumption 3(a)].
This discussion also illustrates the interdependency
between the various assumptions.

l-5I

b!!3
z

uo -

_TW,X

Fig. 1. Linear displacement variation.

399

Finite element analysis of sandwich plates

laminated plates. Because the Reissner-Mindlin

element type forms part of the library of most large
scale structural analysis packages, it is worthwhile
to review its basic mechanism for the inclusion of
transverse shear deformations. With the assumption
5(a) described before, the displacement field is

Fig. 2. Piece-wise linear displacement with partial continuity.

6. Consideration of equilibrium. In the finite

element formulation
based on assumed stresses,
equilibrium may be enforced on: (a) the stresses at the
layers level; or (b) the resultant moments and forces;
and (c) the conditions of continuity of interlaminar
stresses and traction-free at the laminate exterior
surfaces.
Confusion is caused by the variety of combinations
of the above approximations, especially when the
assumptions underlying a particular formulation are
not explicitly stated. As an example, the combination
of the preceeding 2(c), 3(c), and 4(b) seems to be
highly sophisticated; however, when it is combined
with S(a), the resultant formulation may be acceptable for a composite laminate of similar material
stiffnesses, but may not be suitable for sandwich
construction
of multiple
cores with different
materials.
DEVELOPMENT

OF FINITE

ELEMENTS

Early theoretical work considering the effects of

transverse shear deformations
on homogeneous
plates was carried out by Reissner [6] and Mindlin [7],
and on sandwich plates by Libove and Batdorf [8].
The body of existing analytical theories is large, as
shown by the extensive surveys carried out by
Habip [9, lo], Bert and Francis [ll], and Bert [12].
Reissner-Mindlin

elements

References [6] and [7j and their subsequent extension by Medwadowski [13], Yang et al. [14], and
many others, provide the basis for the development
of finite element models of both homogeneous and

Ui
Fig. 3. Piece-wise linear displacement with full continuity.

w(x, y, z) = w(x, Y),

(2)

where the subscript 0 denotes the displacements of

the reference plane z = 0, and 8,, 0, are the average
rotations of the normals. The transverse shear strains
are
yXI=

w,++
U,= w,+ex

~~~=w~+~,~=w,~+e~, (3)
where the comma denotes partial differentiation with
respect to the variable that follows. To account for
the non-uniform
distribution of transverse shear
stresses, correction factors are introduced. In the case
of a homogeneous plate, the correlation factor of 1.2
is included in the definition of the transverse shear
stiffness
(4)
where G is the shear modulus, and h is the plate
thickness.
For the analysis of laminated or sandwich plates,
it is necessary to provide the proper material constants, expressed in terms of stress-strain relations for
the individual layers, or in terms of the plate resultant
forces and moments. Correction factors for this class
were derived by Whitney [ 15,161 based on energy
consideration.
The popularity of the Reissner-Mindlin
element
type arises partly from the simplicity in the
formulation which requires only Co displacement
continuity, and partly from its general applicability
to both thin and thick plates. The first order
Reissner-Mindlin elements may work well for laminated plates, but Khatua and Cheung [17] have
shown that the assumption of constant shear strain
may not be suitable for sandwich construction of
multiple cores having large differences in stiffnesses.
Because many of these elements (mostly for homogeneous plates, but also for the approximate analysis
of sandwich plates by means of equivalent stiffnesses)
have been reviewed by Hrabok and Hrudy [18],
the emphasis here will be on elements which were
either designed specifically for sandwich construction
or developed after 1983. We may add to the list
compiled in [ 181 the following recently developed
homogeneous thick plate elements, mainly of the

400

K. H. HA

first order Reissner/Mindlin

type, contributed by
Ghosh and Buragohain [19], Yuan and Miller [20],
Zienkiewicz
and Lefebvre [21], and Bhashyam
and Gallagher [22]. These elements do not seem to
suffer from the shear lock problem which plagues
earlier elements. For laminated plates, we may
include some earlier developments: those of Noor and
Mathers [23], Panda and Natarajan [24], Reddy [25],
and Lakshminarayana
and Murthy [26]. Ding [27]
adapted the Mindlin formulation to the optimum
design of three-layer unsymmetrical sandwich construction with a honeycombed core [combination
2(b), 3(c), 4(b) and WI.
With the assumption 5(b), whereby the cores
normal rotations 0, and 0, are expressed in terms of
the facing middle plane displacements, three-layer
sandwich elements for curved beams and shells were
developed by Abel and Popov [28], Monforton and
Schmit [29], and Ahmed [30,31]. This approach was
extended in [17] and by Ha and Fazio [32] to cover a
large variety of sandwich constructions composed of
thick or thin orthotropic multiple facings and flexible
cores. The generality of this approach [combination
2(b), 3(b), 4(a) and 5(b)] is achieved at the cost of
introducing in-plane displacements at all stiff layers
as degrees of freedom, which effectively allow for
variation of transverse shear stresses from one core to
another. A variation of this theme was used by
Chaudhuri [33] for the analysis of homogeneous
plates. By expressing the normal rotations in terms of
the in-plane displacements of the bottom surface,
Chaudhuri claimed that the terms w, and wg in eqn
(3) for the shear strains could be omitted. Whilst the
transverse shear strains would then be excessive even
for the case of thin plates, the results still seem to
converge.
Refined elements based on piece-wise linear layers
inplane displacements with full layer-compatibility
[approximation 5(c)] were developed by Mawenya
and Davies [34] for static analysis and by Owen and
Li [35, 361 for static, vibration and stability analysis.
These isoparametric elements are more general than
the one in [17] in that all five stress components are
considered in the individual layers [combination
2(b)/(c), 3(c), 4(b) and 5(c)]. Reference [34] uses the
normal rotations of layers as degrees of freedom,
whereas references [35,36] use the inplane displacements at both faces of the layers. These displacements
can be eliminated layer by layer, thus leaving those
associated with the top surface of the plate as master
degrees of freedom.
Standard Mindlin element formulation has been
used for large deflection analysis by Rajogopal ei
al. [37,38] and by Kumar and Rao [39] for free
vibrations of shells. An interesting variation of the
Mindlin formulation for moderately thick homogeneous plates was given by Bergan and Wang 1401,
where the normal rotations were found in terms of
the derivatives of w by enforcing the homogeneous
differential plate equilibrium equation.

Higher order displacement elements

Most of the elements discussed above are characterized by assumed linear or piece-wise linear displacements in the cross-section, and where the nodal
degrees of freedom include only displacements or
rotations. Higher order elements for thick laminated
plates, in the present context, allow for non-linear
warping of the plate cross-section by using extra
degrees of freedom. This warping function is often
selected to achieve a more realistic distribution of
transverse shear stresses vanishing at the exterior
surfaces. Since transverse shear stresses are no longer
assumed to be uniform, shear correction factors are
generally not required for this type of element.
In addition to the use of extra degrees of freedom,
higher order elements involve higher order resultant
moments and shears which have little physical
meaning.
Quadratic
warping functions
were used by
Engblom and Ochoa [41], with shear stresses being
obtained by integration of the equilibrium equation.
Parabolic variation of transverse shear strains was
assumed by Phan and Reddy [42] for plates, and by
Bhimaraddi et al. [43] for shells of revolution. Since
the warping functions chosen contain first derivatives
of w, both of these elements require C displacement
continuity, i.e. the set of degrees of freedom includes
w as well as the normal rotations. In contrast,
fo&ulation proposed by Pandya and Kant [44],
also of parabolic shear distribution, is Co continuity.
Furthermore,
by assuming linear variation
of
the thickness normal stress [approximation
l(a)
abandoned], all six stress components can be found.
A more complex three-dimensional formulation was
presented by Kim and Lee [45], and by Hwang and
Sun [46]; the latter, in particular, rely on a mixed
field iterative scheme for accurate determination of
interlaminar stresses.

Assumed stress and hybrid elements

The assumed-stress hybrid approach was pioneered

by Pian [47], and its variational basis was established
by Pian and Tong [48]. The approach is characterized
by independently assumed stress and displacement
fields, and hence construction of the element stiffness
matrix is more complex than its equivalent displacement-based counterpart.
Early application of this approach to sandwich
plate analysis was carried out by Lundgren [49]
(whose formulation,
however, used wr, wg as
degrees of freedom, and therefore the results do not
converge [48]), and by Barnard [50] and Ha 1511.The
last two elements use 17 independent stress parameters with nodal deflections and normal rotations
as degrees of freedom. The effectiveness of this type
of element for the analysis of three-dimensional
panelized sandwich plate structures was demonstrated by Fazio and Ha [52, 531. The triangular
elements developed by Bartelds and Ottens [54] and

401

Finite element analysis of sandwich plates

by Cook [55] were found to produce spurious
zero energy modes. Overall buckling analysis was
carried out by Cook [56] and Luo [57]. The simplest
rectangular elements, containing 9 and 11 stress
parameters in combination with linear edge displacements, without zero energy mode, were presented by
Fazio et al. [58].
All the elements previously mentioned, apart from
the elements of [55] which are essentially for homogeneous plates, art! for three-layer symmetric sandwich plates with thin facings and flexible core
[combination
2(b), 3(a), 4(a), 5(a) and 6(b)]. A
three-layer sandwich element with thick facings was
developed by Kraus [59] by su~rimposing thin facing
action with local bending in the faces [combination
2(b), 3(b), 4(a) and 5(b)]. The nodal degrees of
freedom are then the deflection, its slopes and normal
rotations.
The first application of hybrid formulation to the
general class of thick laminated plates was by Mau ef
al. [60], who developed a four-node element where
transverse shear stresses were assumed to be constant
span-wise but allowed to vary parabolically within
individual layers with full interlaminar continuity and
the laminate surface traction-free [combination 2(c),
3(c), 4(b), 5(c), 6(a) and 6(c)]. The number of degrees
of freedom per node is 2(n + 1) + 1 (where n is the
nutnber of layers), consisting of a transverse displacement and in-plane displacements at the layers
surfaces. Several four-node elements, applicable to
multilayer plates and satisfying interlayer stress continuity as well as laminate surface traction-free, were
subsequently developed by Spilker et al. [61--63]. The
last element (of [63]), by virtue of its higher order
through-thickness stress and displacement variations,
is applicable to very thick plates. All of these fournode elements suffer from spurious kinematic modes.
This deficiency was later corrected in the parametric
eight-node element by Spilker [64]. Its assumptions
and basic formulation are similar to those of [60];
however, with the increased number of nodes, the
in-plane variations of both stresses and displacements
are of higher order. The effort required for both
analytical development and numerical evaluation of
the element stiffness matrix far exceeds that of any
other elements discussed thus far.
Liou and Sun [65] extended Spilkers development [64] by further including transverse deflections
at the layers surfaces as additional degrees of freedom, and the resulting eight-node parametric element
can accurately predict the exact thr~-dimensional
elasticity solutions. Its application
to vibration
problems was discussed by Sun and Liou [66].
FINAL REMARKS
The present review has shown the wide spectrum of
existing finite element analysis capability ranging
from the simple three degrees of freedom per node to
the more extravagant 3(n + 1) per node. This variety

is, perhaps, necessary in order to match the variety of

requirements in practical design situations.
The simple elements will suffice for symmetric
three-layer sandwich construction of flexible core
and thin facings. Construction with multiple thin
stiff faces and cores possessing similar stiffnesses
can be transformed to standard three-lay& construction by means of equivalent stiffnesses [671.
When interlaminar stresses are of prime consideration, the three-dimensional formulation should be
considered.
Major emphasis has been given to the displacement-based and hybrid stress-based elements in
this review. However, one should be aware that
alternative formulation approaches exist, which can
provide certain specific advantages. As examples,
Gellert (681 used mixed/hybrid formulation, whereas
Haas and Lee [69] used assumed strain formulation,
to develop locking-free composite plate and shell
elements.
Other aspects pertaining to sandwich construction
and amenable to numerical treatment have not
received much attention. Among these, one may list:
constitutive relations for core and facing materials;
Iocal instability; delamination due to thermal or
hu~dity effects; influence of stiffeners; loss of bond;
creep, etc. Perhaps it is along these directions that
future developments will take place.
REFERENCES

1.

A. F. Johnson and G. D. Sims, Mechanical properties

and design of sandwich materials. ~a~pos~tes 17,
321-328 (1986).
H. G. Allen, Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich
Panels. Pergamon, Oxford (1969).
F. J. Plan&ma, Sandwich Construction. John Wiley,
New York (1966).

R. D. Cook, On certain approximations in sandwich

plate analysis. J. appl. Me&~ 33, 39-44 (1966).
P. Fazio. R. Hussein and H. K. Ha. Sandwich
beam-co&mm with interlayer slips. J. E&g Mech.
Diu., ASCE 108, 354366 (1982).
6. E. Reissner, On the theory of bending of elastic plates.
J. Math. Phvs. 23, 184191 (1944).
7. R. D. Mindin, Influence of &tar; inertia and shear on
flexural motions of isotropic, elastic plates. J. appl.
Mech. 18, 31-38 (1951).
8. C. Libove and S. B. Batdorf, A general small deflection
theory for sandwich plates. Nat1 Adv. Committee for
Aeronautics, Report 899, Washington, DC. (1948).
9. L. M. Habip, A review of recent Russian work on
sandwich structures. Int. J. mech. Sci. 6,483487 (1964).
10. L. M. Habip, A survey on modern developments in the
analysis of sandwich structures. Appl. Mech. Rev, 18,
93-98 (1965).
Il. C. W. Bert and P. H. Francis, Composite material
mechanics: structural mechanics. A?AA Jnl 12,
1173-I 186 (1974).
12. C. W. Bert,. A c&cal evaluation of new plate theories
applied to laminated composites. Corn& Struct. 2,
329-347 (1984).
13. S. J. ~~w~dowski,
A refined theory of elastic
orthotropic plates. J. appl. Mech. 25, 437.443 (1958).
14. P. C. Yang, C. H. Norris and Y. Stavsky, Elastic wave
propagation in heterogeneous plates. int. J. Soti&
Struct. 2, 665-684 (1966).

y.

402

H. HA

15. J. M. Whitney, Stress analysis of thick laminated composite and sandwich plates. J. Comp. Muter. 6,42-O

(1972).
16. J. M. Whitney, Shear correction factors for orthotropic
laminates under static load. J. appl. Mech. 40(2),

302-304 (1973).
17. T. P. Khatua and Y. K. Cheung, Bending and vibration
of multilayer sandwich beams and plates. Int. J. Numer.
Merh. Engng 6, 1l-24 (1973).
18. M. M. Hrabok and T. M. Hrudy, A review and
catalogue of plate bending finite elements. Comput.
Srruct. 19, 479-495 (1984).
19. S. K. Ghosh and D. N. Buragohain, Two triangular
elements for the analysis of thick, sandwich plates. In
Proceedings qf the International Conference on Finite
Elements in Computational Mechanics, Bombay, India,
2-6 December 1985 (Edited bv T. Kant). DD. 259-268.

Pergamon, Oxford (i985).

AA

20. F. G. Yuan and R. E. Miller, A rectangular finite

element for moderately thick flat plates. Comput. Struct.
30, 1375-1988 (1988).
21. 0. C. Zienkiewickz and D. Lefebvre, A robust tri-

angular plate bending element of Reissner-Mindlin

type. Inr. .I. Numer. Meth. Engng 26, 1169-I 184 (1988).
22. G. R. Bhashyam and R. H. Gallagher, An approach to
the inclusion of transverse shear deformation in finite
element plate bending analysis. Compur. Struct. 19,
35-40 (1984).
23. A. K. Noor and M. D. Mathers, Shear flexible finite

element models of laminated composite plates and

shells. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 11, 289-307 (1977).
24. S. Panda and R. Natarajan, Finite element analysis of
laminated composite plates. Int. J. Numer. Engng 14,
69-79 (1979).
25. J. N. Reddy, A penalty plate-bending

element for the

analysis of laminated anisotropic composite plates. Inr.
J. Numer. Merh. Engng 15, 1187-1206 (1980).
and S. Murthy, A shear26. H. V. Lakshminarayana
flexible triangular finite element model for laminated
composite plates. InI. .I. Numer. Merh. Engng 20,
591423 (1984).
27. Y. Ding, Optimum design of sandwich constructions.
Cornput. S&r.
25, 51-68 (1987).
28. J. F. Abel and E. P. PODOV.Static and dvnamic analysis

of sandwich structur& Proc. Conf. -Matrix Mkth.

Struct. Mech., Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH,
pp. 213-245 (1969).
29 G. R. Monforton and L. A. Schmit Jr, Finite element
analysis of sandwich plates and cylindrical shells with
laminated faces. Pro& Conf. Matrix Meth. Struct.
Mech.. Wrinht-Patterson
Air Force Base. OH.
pp. 573416 Tl969).
30 K. M. Ahmed, Free vibration of curved sandwich
beams by the method of finite element. J. Sound Vibr.
18, 61-74 (1971).
31. K. M. Ahmed, Static and dynamic analysis of sandwich
structures by the method of finite elements. J. Sound
Vibr. 18, 75-79 (1971).
32. H. K. Ha and P. Fazio, Displacement model for sand-

wich plate analysis. Report No. SBC-17, Dept. Civil

Engng, Sir George Williams University, Montreal (1971).
33. R. A. Chaudhuri. A simple and efficient shear-flexible
plate bending element. bornput. Slruct. 25, 817-824
(1987).
34. A. S. Mawenya

and J. D. Davies, Finite element

bending analysis of multilayer plates. Inr. J. Numer.
Merh. Engng 8, 215-225 (1974).
35. D. R. J. Owen and Z. H. Li, A refined analysis of
laminated plates by finite element displacement
methods-I. Fundamentals and static analysis. Comput.
Struct. 26, 907-914 (1987).
36. D. R. J. Owen and Z. H. Li, A refined analysis of

laminated

plates

by

finite

element

displacement

Vibration and stability. Comput. Swucr.

26, 915-923 (1987).
37. S. V. Rajagopal, G. Singh and Y. V. K. Sadasiva Rao,
Non-linear vibrations of sandwich plates. J. Sound Vibr.
methods-II.

110, 261-269 (1986).

38. S. V. Rajagopal, G. Singh and Y. V. K. Sadasiva Rao,
Large deflection and nonlinear vibration of multilayered
sandwich plates. AIAA Jnl 23, 13G133 (1987).
39. R. R. Kumar and Y. V. K. S. Rao, Free vibration of
multilayered thick composite shells. Comput. Srrucr. 28,
717-722 (1988).
40. P. G. Bergan and X. Wang, Quadrilateral plate bending
elements with shear deformations. Comput. Strucr. 19,

25-34 (1984).
41. J. J. Engblom and 0. 0. Ochoa, Through-the-thickness
stress predictions for laminated plates of advanced
composite materials. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 21,
1759-1776 (1985).
42. N. D. Phan and J. N. Reddy, Analysis of laminated
composites using a higher-ordered shear deformation
theory. Inc. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 21, 2201-2219
(1985).
43. A. Bhimaraddi, A. J. Carr and P. J. Moss, A shear
deformable finite element for the analysis of general
shells of revolution. Comput. Strucr. 31,299-308 (1989).
44. B. N. Pandya and T. Kant, Flexural analysis of laminated composites using refined higher-ordered Co plate
bending elements. Compur. Meth. appl. Mech. Engng 66,
173-198 (1988).
45. Y. H. Kim and S. W. Lee, A solid element formulation
for large deflection analysis of composite shell structures. Compul. Struct. 30, 269-274 (1988).
46. W. C. Hwang and C. T. Sun, A finite element iterative
approach for analysis of laminated composite structural
elements. Comput. Slruct. 31, 5562 (1989).
47. T. H. H. Pian, Derivation of element stiffness matrices
by assumed stress distribution. AIAA Jnl 2, 1333-1336
(1964).
48. T. H. H. Pian and P. Tong, Rationalization

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

in deriving
element stiffness matrix bv assumed stress approach.
Proc. 2nd Conf. Matrix -Methods in Struct:-Mech.,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, pp. 441469
(1968).
H. R. Lundgren, Buckling of multilayer plates by finite
element. Ph.D. thesis, Oklahoma State University, OK
(1967).
A. J. Barnard, The finite element method applied to the
analysis of sandwich plate and shell structures. M.Sc.
thesis, Loughborough University of Technology, U.K.
(1972).
H. K. Ha, Analysis of three-dimensional orthotropic
sandwich plate structures by finite element method.
Ph.D. thesis, Sir George Williams University, Montreal
(1972).
P. Fazio and H. K. Ha, Sandwich plate structure
analysis by finite element. J. struct. Diu., ASCE 100,
1243-1262 (1974).
H. K. Ha and P. Fazio, Flexural behaviour of
sandwich floor assembly. J. Bdlg Envnmt 13, 6147
(1978).
G. Bartelds and H. H. Ottens, Finite element analysis
of sandwich panels. Proc. IUTAM Symp. on High
Speed Computing of Elastic Structures, University of
Lievre, Vol. 1, pp. 357-382 (1971).
R. D. Cook, Two hybrid elements for analysis of thick,
thin and sandwich nlates. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 5,

277-288 (1972).
56. R. D. Cook, Finite element buckling analysis of homogeneous and sandwich plates. Int. J. Numer. Melh.
Engng 9, 39-50 (1975). _
57. J. W. Luo. A hvbrid/mixed finite element analysis for
buckling oi modkrateiy thick plates. Comput. Srrk. 15,
359-364 (1982).

Finite element analysis of sandwich plates

58. P. Fazio, K. Gowri and H. K. Ha, Rectangular hybrid
elements for the analysis of sandwich plate structures.
can. J. cio. Engng 14, 445-460 (1987).
59. H. D. Kraus, A hybrid stiffness matrix for orthotropic
sandwich plates with thick faces. Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Enpnp 11. 1291-1306 (1977).
60. S. T.-Ma;, P. Tong and T.H. H. Pian, Finite element
solutions for laminated plates. J. Comp. Muter. 6,
304-311 (1972).
61. R. L. Spilker, 0. Orringer and E. A. Witmer, Use of
hybrid stress finite element model for the static and
dynamic analysis of multilayer composite plates and
shells. MIT ASRL TR 181-2 (1976).
62. R. L. Spilker, S. Chou and 0. Orringer, Alternate
hybrid-stress elements for analysis of multilayer composite plates. J. Camp. Muter. 11, 51-70 (1977).
63. R. L. Spilker, A hybrid-stress formulation for thick
multilayer laminates. Comput. Struct. 11, 507-514
(1980).

403

64. R. L. Spilker, Hybrid-stress eight-node elements for thin

and thick multilayer laminated plates. Inr. J. Numer.
Met/z. Engng 18, 801328 (1982).
65. W. J. Liou and C. T. Sun, A three-dimensional hybrid
stress isoparametric element for the analysis of laminated composite plates. Cornput. Struct. 25, 241-249
(1987).
66. C. T. Sun and W. J. Liou, A three-dimensional hybridstress finite element formulation for free vibrations of
laminated composite plates. J. Sound Vibr. 119, l-14
(1987).
67. J. J. Azar, Rending theory for multilayer orthotropic
sandwich plates. AZAA Jnl6, 2166-2169 (1968).
68. M. Gellert, A new method for derivation of locking-free
plate bending finite elements via mixed/hybrid formulation. Znt. J. Numer. Meth. Engng X,1185-1200 (1988).
69. D. J. Haas and S. W. Lee, A nine-node assumed-strain
finite element for composite plates and shells. Comput.
Struct. 26, 445-452 (1987).