AIAA-2002-1517

Finite

Element

Modeling

of the Buckling
Cheryl
NASA

Research

Hampton,

VA

David

Hampton,

for

sandwich

predicting

described.

The

anisotropic

VA 20151

Charles

C. Rankin 4

from

conventional

panel

overall

modes

are

panel

compared

with

different

finite

element

element

solutions

element

models,

flexibility,
elements

layered shell/solid
for the face sheets

with

of

the

approaches

models
element.

shell/solid

and

with

respect

thickness

discretization,

the

indicate

study

provides

an accurate

that

solutions

sandwich

obtained

using

without

specialty
effective

and these

effects

may

analytical

solutions.

shear

aeronautical

Results

increased

increased
efficient

along

with

the

buckling

affect

not

be represented

Modeling

performance
and

aerospace

demand

for

aeronautical

concepts
concept

modeling

modeling

moduli,

panel

indicate
the

that

ratio

of

response

accurately

by

recommendations

are

Introduction

blends
of

the

passenger

type

wings

Due

pressurized

approach

air

of

and

travel,

suggest

aerospace

future

the projected
that

flight

more
vehicle

are needed.
An example
of a revolutionary
for an efficient,
large
transport
aircraft
is a

surface.

element

requirements
vehicles,

and

blended-wing-body

through-the-

sandwich

sheets,

elastic

The

element models,
with shell
and solid elements
for the

demonstrated.

face

principle

shell

using a recently
developed
Convergence
characteristics

are

of the

sandwich

results

using

transverse

and

and localized

Furthermore,

Finite

layered

element

overall

also provided.

type

approaches.

to in-plane

and

for

solutions

sandwich

the

with
Results

face-sheet-wrinkling

obtained
and

core.

both

response.

anisotropy

is

panels

thick

modeling

are

response

sandwich

analytical
and

Center

94304

buckling

approaches

buckling

and a very

buckling

core, and sandwich

specialty
sandwich

modeling

considers

sheets

Technology

CA

for predicting

of different

study

face

Jr. 3

Division

Chantilly,

Advanced

Company

23681

F. Knight,

Abstract
study

and Sciences

Systems

Palo Alto,

A comparative

Center

23681

VA

Norman

Lockheed-Martin

Panels

F. Moore 2

Engineering

Veridian

of Sandwich

A. Rose 1

Langley

Lockheed-Martin

Response

and

to the

centerbody
area

(BWB)
fuselage

shape
region,

and the cargo

of
into

of the

which

a single

lifting

BWB

which
area,

aircraft,
airplane,

includes

is non-circular.

both

the
the
The

Aerospace Engineer, Mechanics and Durability Branch. Member AIAA.

2Aerospace Engineer. Member ASME.
s Staff Scientist. Associate Fellow AIAA. Member ASME. Corresponding author.
4Staff Scientist. Associate FellowAIAA.
Copyright 2002 by the American Institute of Aeronantics and Astronautics, Inc. No copyright is asserted in the United States under Title 17, U.
S. Code. The U. S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental Purposes.
All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.

1
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

non-circular
centerbody
regionis challenging
fromthe strains.
They
present
linear
stress
solutions
for
standpoint
of structural
designsincethebasiccover thermally loaded, simply supported sandwich plates
panelstructure
carries
bothinternal
transverse
pressurewith laminated face sheets using an analytic, closedloadandnormalwingbending
andtorsionloads.In form solution.
Vonanch
and
Rammerstorfer
[9]
order to satisfy the performanceand weight presented
a Rayleigh-Ritz
solution
for face-sheet
requirements
fortheBWBaircraft,
andotheradvancedwrinkling of general unsymmetric sandwich panels with
concepts
thataresubjected
to bendingor pressureorthotropic face sheets. Comparison of their analytical
finite element
loadings,
advanced
sandwich-type
constructions
with results with unit-cell three-dimensional
composite
material
facesheets
andrelatively
thickcores results is used to verify their approach.
(seeFigure1) offera potential
design
advantage
over
conventional
metallicmaterialsandstiffenedskin Bert [10] summarized different theories for sandwich
construction
[1].
plates with laminated
composite
face sheets that account
for both

transverse

shear

and transverse

normal

effects.

Mostsandwich
structures
aredefined
usingathree-layerNoor et al. [11] presented an exhaustive reference list
typeof construction,
asillustrated
in Figure1. The (over 1300 citations) of analytical and computational
outerlayers
arethin,stift high-strength
material;
while proceduJces for sandwich structures. Librescu and Hause
themiddlelayerisa thick,weak,low-density
material.[12] presented
a further
survey
and extended
the
Initialanalytical
workonsandwich
structures
treated
the formulation
to include
buckling
and
postbuckling
three-dimensional
sandwich
structureas a pair of response of flat and curved sandwich
structures
membrane
facesheets
heldapartbyacorematerial
with subjected to mechanical and thermal loads. A Rayleigharelatively
largetransverse
shear
stiffness.
ThebendingRitz procedure for simply supported sandwich plates
stiffness
of thefacesheets
is ignored
andthecoreis was developed by Rao [13] where the bending stiffness
assumed
tobeinextensional
inthetransverse
direction of the face sheets was ignored. Kim and Hong [14]
andhasnegligible
stiffness
in thein-plane
directions.extended Rao's work to account for the face-sheet
Thistypeofmodel,
calleda sandwich
ofthefirstkind, bending stiffness. Hadi and Matthews [15] presented a
hasbeenappliedsuccessfully
in manyapplications.Rayleigh-Ritz
procedure
based on a zigzag
theory
and
in the face
sheets.
However,
a morerobustformulation
withadditionalaccounts for shear deformation
fidelityisneeded
tomodelcomplex
nonlinear
structuralComparisons
with other Rayleigh-Ritz
solutions
were
behavior
includinglocalfailuressuchasface-sheetpresented for sandwich panels with thin face sheets.
buckling
andface-sheet
disbond.A sandwich
of the Results are reported for different face-sheet stacking
second
kindaccounts
fortheout-of-plane
response
of sequences. Dawe and Yuan [16, 17] presented a finite
thefacesheets
andthefullthree-dimensional
behaviorstrip formulation using B-splines for sandwich panels
ofthecorematerial.
with anisotropic
face sheets.
However,
no comparative
numerical

studies

of different

finite

element

modeling

Earlyanalysis
workformetallicsandwich
structuresstrategies
for predicting
the buckling
response
of
includesPlantema[2], anddesignguidelinesfor sandwich panels have been identified in the literature.
sandwich
structures
aregivenin Ref.[3]. General
instabilityandface-sheet
wrinklingaredescribed
by The present paper describes the basic buckling behavior
Benson
andMayers
[4]. Oneaspect
oftheirworkwas and response of sandwich panels loaded in axial
related
to defininga stabilityboundary
between
face- compression
and compares
buckling
predictions
for
sheetwrinklingandgeneral
instability.Researchers
various
levels
of finite
element
modeling
fidelity.
havealsostudied
theanalysis
of sandwich
structuresBuckling results obtained from approximate analytical
withemphasis
ontheuseof composite
materialface expressions
are also compared
with buckling
results
sheets
andfoamcores.Finiteelement
formulations
for obtained from the finite element analyses. Different
sandwichpanelsare reviewedby Ha [5, 6]. finite element models of the sandwich panel are
Displacement-based
formulationsand hybrid considered including layered shell models, specialty
formulations
areconsidered
aswellasdifferent
through-sandwich element models, and layered shell/solid
the-thickness
kinematic
models.Nonumerical
studiesmodels. Numerical results obtained using the STAGS
arepresented.
Frostig[7] investigated
sandwich
panel (STructural Analysis of General Shells) nonlinear finite
buckling
usingahigher-order
theorywhichaccounts
for element code [18] for the three different finite element
different
boundary
conditions
ontheupperandlower modeling
approaches
are
presented
for
selected
facesheets.
Usingaclosed-form
solution,
hestudied
the sandwich panel design parameters. Parameters varied in
influence
onbuckling
of different
boundary
conditionsthe study include the face-sheet thickness and the core
forvarious
panelaspect
ratiosandforbothsoftandstiff thickness as well as modeling fidelity.
Particular
cores.Tessler
et al. [8] present
a {1,2}-order
theory
attention
is given to examining
the buckling
behavior
for
accounting

for transverse

shear

and normal

stresses

and

a specific

panel

aspect

2
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

ratio,

as

the

core

thickness

becomes
large.Theresultspresented
demonstrate
the parameters
interplay
between
finiteelement
models
withdifferent modeling
levelsof fidelityandthemodeling
requirements
for
accuratepredictionof sandwichpanelbuckling
response.
General
modeling
guidelines
areprovided. Sandwich
taken
Sandwich
Sandwich

panel

modes.

Three

study.

One

general

Panel

buckling

modes

is an overall

instability

mode

together

in the sense

that the length

of

the

planar

Another

into long

wavelength

of

the

the

wavelength
referred
short

to as an asymmetrical

material

is either

a short

wavelength

referred

panel

dimpling,
included

often

and assume
face sheets

and

of

with

and core materials

simply
by

loaded

supported

Brush

and

an analytical

model

deformation

for

of composite

face

sheets.

This

[21],

is used

herein

instability

loads

for

to determine

critical

that

face-sheet

with

buckling

mode

having

panel

into

given

shape

the

panel
such

non-dimensional
structural

response

planar

as Allen

for the

parameters
of

the

to

[22],

for
The

as its computational
modeling
is a full

of

three-

model,
in which solid threeused to model both the face
models

Recently,

as

This

sandwich

are

referred

an additional

the

in the STAGS

modeling

element

to as

kinematics

and

Sandwich

analysis

approach

for large-scale

as well

as for detailed

modeling

approaches

than

sandwich

models

layered

provide

sandwich

structure

analyses.

are described

to

uses

the

for capturing

sandwich
local

of the

cost
element

23],

for the analysis

element
models

stiflhess

models.

referred

[18,

specifically
Sandwich

computational

nonlinear

approach,

models

for less

panel.

Layered

Shell

Layered

shell

simulations

Details

for these

in the next sections.

finite

tj; the
Gc as

element
codes.
two-dimensional

b.

groups

derived
the
These

element

Models
models

of layers.

to the

laminate

layers

corresponds

group

of layers

Institute

of Aeronautics

exploit

analysis

the existing

features

plate

available

and shell

in most

The sandwich
panel is modeled
shell
elements
with
at least
The

first

of one
represents

and Astronautics

group

face

to the

3
American

layered

predictions.

approach

These

code.

on the

and

have

characterize

sandwich

load

sandwich

influence

dimensions
and Feng

as

approach

sandwich

buckling
response
are the face-sheet
thickness,
core thickness,
he, and the core shear stiffness,
Researchers,

element

behavior

buckling

a significant

core.

cost.

cost-effective

face-sheet-wrinkling

to

modeling

shell/solid

for general

referred

has been implemented

structure

predictions.

minimum

the

provide

The second

elements
for the face
finite elements
for

as well

finite element
elements
are

as layered

may

a modeling

third

finite

computational

embody

PANDA2

to herein

to the through-the-thickness
The

The

shell

panels

response

specialty
element
developed
of sandwich
structures.

effects

instabilities

typically
of their

herein

is

local

material.

and

local

three-dimensional
solid models
and they are
reserved
for detailed
local modeling
because

finite

orthotropic

model

for
the

the

core

approach

[20]

overall

panels

and

of

are

of this approach,

is related

sheets

face

Vinson

and

dimensional
dimensional

core

all edges

includes

wrinkling

computed

Parameters

as

cost,

panel

buckling

general

accuracy

are not

of the

on

incorporated

general

are

well

both

compression

predicting

face-sheet

configuration
panel.

Other

isotropic

as the analytical

instabilities
and the

These
models

[19].

sandwich
model,

and local

Buckling

core.

shell/solid

by in-plane

Almroth

of

buckling

the

is

panel

conditions

developed
shear

is

and

models

sandwich

behavior.

mode

stiflhess

overall

sandwich

This

as

homogeneous,

are referred

mode,

sandwich

the bending

models

of the global

modes

the

standard

and for thin

and provide

Accurate

modeling.

exploits

approach
uses standard
shell finite
sheets
and solid three-dimensional

disbond,

overall

of

the
may

instability

instability
of

the core

the

for predicting

panel

presented

Another

mode.

such

These

models,

a first approximation

study.

ignore

approach

with

shell

overall

prediction

approach

on
and

two.

through-the-thickness

modeling

elements.

that the core serves primarily

to move the
away from the midsurface
of the panel.
A

a sandwich
sheet

modes,

predictions

buckling

simple

wrinkling

and face-sheet

in the present

Analytical

mode.

is one where

or compressed.

failure

core crushing,

first

is commonly

Jitce-sheet-wrinkling

to as a symmetrical

sandwich

and

wrinkling
mode

stretched

core

detailed

panel

buckling

a local
the

representation

whereas

requires

on

dependent

mode,

or

generally

properties

between

general

has
The

is

and

instability

adequate

stiflhesses

short

and the

of

requires

panel.
of

panel

geometry

an interaction

prediction

is equal to one

sheets

mode,

buckling

- long

or

analyses.

depending

materials.

a sandwich

a general

mode,

modeling

approaches

constituent

panel

involve

extension
through
the
This
mode
is a short

panel-buckling

wavelength

the

buckles

consists

face

do not exhibit
any transverse
thickness
of the sandwich.

or

and

sandwich

mode

where

mode

sheets

of a half-wave

buckling

buckles

face

of

sandwich

in selecting

Modeling

element

three

and

an analyst
panel buckling

Element

finite

of

behavior

in this

buckling

the

wavelength

dimensions

possible

possible

considered

panel

where

core buckle

several

are

Finite

one

to guide

for sandwich

panel

geometry

involves

buckling

mode

Buckling

can be used
fidelity

of layers

sheet.
core

the

The

material,

laminate

finite
using
three

corresponds
next
and

group
the

of the other

of
last
face

sheet.Thisapproach
givesanequivalent
single-layer
resultusingclassical
lamination
theorytocompute
the Sandwich Element Models
sandwich
stiffness
coefficients.
Inthismodelalllayers A specialty finite element for sandwich panel analysis
havea common,
uniquerotationthroughthecross has been formulated by Riks and Rankin [23] and is
sectionof thesandwich.Because
thecorematerial described in the STAGS manual [18]. This specialty
generally
onlyoffersshearstiffness,
shear-flexible
Co element exploits the existing shell finite element
shellelements
aretypically
usedinlayered
shellmodels.technology available in the finite element code itself.
Shellelements
basedontheclassical
Kirchhoff-Love
The deformation
of the face sheets is modeled
by using
theory(C1shellelements)
canbeused;however,
such individual shell elements for each face sheet. Coupling
anapproach
ignoresthetransverse
shearflexibility between the two shell elements is carried out by
offered
bythesandwich
structure.
WithinSTAGS,
the applying an appropriate penalty function, consistent with
4-node
C1shellelement
is calledthe410element
(see the material behavior of the core, to enforce the
[24])andthe9-node
ANSCoshellelement
iscalled
the kinematics of the core as a function of the kinematics of
480element
(see[25,26]).Fullintegration
isusedfor the face sheets. The core is assumed to have generally
anisotropic
three-dimensional
elastic properties
whose
bothshellelements
(i.e.,2x2and3x3,respectively).
is defined
by the change
in distance
Finiteelement
formulations
forsandwich
panels
based deformation
between
adjacent
face sheets.
For this special
sandwich
onhigh-order
theories,
such
asFrostig
[7]andTessler
et
al. [8],

are not

available

included

in this study.

Layered

Shell/Solid

within

STAGS

and hence

not

element,
the face sheets are intrinsically
the standard
STAGS
410 quadrilateral
Multiple

The next level

each individual

of modeling
face sheet

the core material.

layered

These

shell/solid

multi-layer

models

models.

laminate

elements,

while

elements.

Multiple

thickness

uses shell elements

and solid elements

may

core
solid

be

deformation

Each

and

the

are referred
face

may

be a

modeled

using

shell

is

modeled

using

solid

elements

required

between

sheet

as

is

to
shell

element

intermediate

face

sheets

sheets

zero

thickness.

with

solid

is triggered

sheets.

Stifler

computationally

on a C o

analysis

Lagrangian

same

order,

give

with

shell

elements

standard

displacement-field

the

based

solid

elements

compatibility

translational
degrees
of freedom.
Combinations
4-node,
8-node
or 9-node
C o shell element
with
node,

20-node

or 27-node

give

translational

solid

element,

displacement

the 27-node
integration
(i.e.,

3x3

shell/solid
defined
adjacent

ANS

C o solid

is used
and

models,
solid

for both

3x3x3,

to coincide

element
the

shell

with

element.

sheets

are constrained

using

elements
layered

reference

surface

bounding

surface

In

addition,

the

associated
elements

detailed

is defined

in Figure

are

layered
element

rotational
with the
of the face

finite

the

STAGS

quadratic

also

a
panel

provides

characteristics

for

[21].

predictions

Finite

element

element

9-node

for

are

[20]

as

analyses,

analysis

code

shell models,
layered
element
models.
The

use the 4-node

C a 410
ANS C O 480 shell element.

cubic

in

and lower

Vinson

finite

approximation
the

analyzed

upper

of

using layered
and sandwich

is

panels
The

Analytical

nonlinear

shell
models
and the 9-node
element

2.

approach

in PANDA2

displacement

to zero.

and

sandwich

identical.

following

[18], are conducted

shell/solid
models,

is

this

element

and Discussion

study

implemented

of the

Results

this

the

840

strip model.

of the

using

two

provides

response

geometry

sheets

the

for sandwich

structures

assess

when

STAGS,

approach

approach

basic

made

obtained

is called

The
face

in the face

Within

modeling

attractive

Numerical

Full

the

a local

of the
the 8-

For

the

degrees
of freedom
of grid points
core and not connected
to the shell

for the

Within

used.

element

This

to

a spurious

conditions

are generally

are

for large-scale

capability

element).

results

sandwich

23].

of the

and solid

respectively).

the shell element

[18,

and solid elements

(480 element)
and
(883

with the
strain is

on whether

by the boundary

points

specialty

respectively,

compatibility.

STAGS,
the compatible
set of shell
are the 9-node ANS C o shell element

linearly
normal

depending

one or two

mode

normal

used

shear strain varies

and the transverse

face

to be either

leads

formulation,

face

adjacent

core

element

displacements.

as "phantom"

Between

the

integration

for

are treated

the

of integration
points through
the
sandwich
element
can be chosen

and the

incompatibility

through

through-thewherein the

constant.
The number
core thickness
of each

must
be considered
during
the modeling
For example,
the use of 4-node
C 1 shell
for the face sheets
with
an 8-node
solid
an

be stacked

core

element
process.
elements

to

may

to provide
a refined
of the core material

sheets, the transverse

thickness
coordinate

Displacement-field

the

elements

of the core
discretization

the

through
represent

accurately.

compatibility

to model
to model
to herein

sandwich

thickness
thickness

Models

modeled
using
shell elements.

for
the
element.

the

4-node

out-of-plane
element

For

shell
The

the

and

layered

shell/solid
models, the face sheets are modeled
using the
9-node
ANS 480 shell element
and the core is modeled

4
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

usingthe 27-node
ANS 883solidbrick elementsidentical single-layer orthotropic face sheets of a given
throughits thickness.This approach
providesa fiber orientation angle and isotropic core. The face
compatible
displacement
field betweenthe finite sheets have thickness tf equal to 0.2 mm and the core has
elements
inthefacesheets
andthose
inthecore.Forthe thickness hc equal to 10 mm (hJa 0.044). The
sandwich
element
models,
the840sandwich
elementsmechanical properties of the face-sheet material are:
[18,23]areused
through
thecorethickness.
E1 229.0
GPa,
E2 13.35
GPa,
G12 5.25
GPa and
v12 0.315

(i.e.,

E2/E1

0.058).

Core

material

data

are

Fullpanelmodels
aredefined
asfiniteelement
modelsgiven in Table 1. The fiber orientation of the face-sheet
oftheentiresandwich
panel.Spatial
discretization
ofthe material is varied from zero to ninety degrees where the
full panelis relatedtotheanticipated
buckling
mode. zero-degree
orientation
is parallel
to the loading
Thus,
some
knowledge
ofthepanelbuckling
response
is direction. For fiber orientation angles other than 0- and
needed
todevelop
thesefullpanelanalysis
models.
For 90-degrees, the face sheets exhibit anisotropic behavior
arectangular
panel,
thenumber
ofhalf-waves,
m, along
and the D16 and D26 bending
stiffness
terms become
the panel

length

mode

is

assuming

in a general-instability

function

of

a single

panel.

the

half-wave

Generally,

five

needs

ratio

the

refined

a/b,

width

points

buckling
mode,

to be sufficiently

wavelength

aspect

across

to six grid

are required
for accurate
capture
a face-sheet-wrinkling
mesh

panel-buckling

panel

per

of the

nonzero

and large

terms.

Consequently

stiffness

half-wave

terms

shapes

may

with

to represent

of half-waves

buckles.

These

of

strip

models

a localized

are defined

region

thickness

modeling

wrinkling

modes

model
wrinkling
panel

behavior

models.

the present

study

mm

through
used

and
the

length

of

wavelength
local

has

strip
25

models
away

layers

of

thickness
local

of the

buckling

with

edge

The
or x

a thin

state

equal
elements

integration

point

depends

layer.

are

In

the

to

zero.

results

case considers

for two

a square

orthotropic

face

on

studies

influence

and

the

boundary

predictions

loaded

in

considers

of different

condition

response

to

uniaxial
a rectangular

sheets

and an isotropic

the

influence

of different

on

the

The

core.
modeling

two

To

1: Square

Sandwich

researchers

case

buckling,

under

supported

uniaxial

225-mm

square

compressive
sandwich

stress

this

z=0

Edge

3 (x

z=0

along
and

a).

In addition,

has the transverse

2 and

element
are:

1 (x

4 (y

= 0y

a point

to
the

edge

Edge

displacement

buckling

Having

established

boundary

second

defined

case

a uniform

conditions
next.

for

All nodes

the

0);

b and

= 0z = 0

at the center

of

v set equal

to

These
boundary
state in the face

four

This

case

examines

for the buckling

calculations.
conditions
are:V
w = 0_

approaches

on the
with

(x

edges

of the

0 andx

a,

Edges

analyzed

stress,

study,

the

straightforward

of a simply
(a/b

shell

these

However,

1) with

sandwich

modeling

simply

for the layered

5
Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

state,

are simply

are

along

the

supported

These buckling
boundary
= 0 along Edges
1 and3
and,

b and y
approach

supported

to impose

stress
analyses

the thickness

panel

respectively);

2 and 4 (y

uniaxial
buckling

through

isotropic

American

finite

w = 0x

and

equal
state,

each

along

Edges

with

panel

the

along

stress

are
stress

in

points

end
(Edge

direction,

components

applied

grid

0, respectively);

edge

pre-buckling

pre-buckling

panel

have

of a panel

a uniform

loaded

in-plane

x=Oy=O

x=0y=0

the layered
17]

analysis

sheets.

Panel

[13-15,

all

by

in the longitudinal

conditions
to

configuration

response
predictions
for sandwich
panels
core thickness
and face-sheet
thickness.

Several

achieve

loaded

The

in-plane

oandw=O

along
Case

impose

the

approaches

sandwich

sandwich

This

is

zero to remove
rigid-body
motion.
conditions
result in a uniform
stress

single-layer

core.

modeling

compression.

increases.

shape

analysis

to the entire

stress

along
first

panel

has uniform
other

w=0

several

The

with

applications

for a given

face

buckling
different

panel

and an isotropic

the number

mode

for the

axis
as the

effects.

2).

u=u

the

analyzed

are presented.

sandwich

sheets

increases,

on

required

mode

In addition,

requirements

0 in Figure

models

load is determined.

cases

lines.

mode

Uo, applied

the panel
Numerical

those

sandwich

boundary
is

The

Therefore,

lengths,

over

anisotropic

buckling

in the buckling

modeling

without

full

sandwich

mode.

node

stiffness

to the loading

general-instability

complexities

models

the

relative

orientation

in the

shortening,

effects.

model

buckling

the

represent

core

different

that the lowest

with

of each

strip

strip

face-sheet-

has a width

One

nonzero,

modal

bending

D16 and D26 bending

wavelength
A local

from

model

thickness.

the

models,

ensure

this

short

obtained

strip

of a panel

the

that

be detected.

predictions

core

through

so

models

through-the-

short-wavelength

Local
slice

element

significant

readily

to verify

longitudinal
2.54

detail
can

is used

as finite

with

the

skewed,

fiber-angle

additional
Local

become

non-straight

face-sheet

to the other
when

become

predictions.
To
the finite element
short-

relative

u = w =

used

boundary

on the
shell/solid

0y

0, respectively).

finite

0
For

in the present
conditions
element

modeling

are

model.
approach

and the sandwichelementmodelingapproach,presentreferencesolutionthat usesa piecewise

independent
approximations
maybe madefor the quadratic
approximation
through
thecorethickness.
bending
rotations
ofeachfacesheet
andcore.Inthese
approaches,
thesimplysupported
boundary
conditionsThepredictedbucklingmodeshapeis a generalaredefined
sothatshear
deformations
areprevented
in instability
mode
witha skewed
singlehalf-wave
inboth
thecross-sectional
planes
alongthepaneledges
[15]. thex and y directions.
As the number
of grid points
Forthe sandwich
elementmodelingapproach,
the along each edge of the panel increases, the normalized
simplysupported
boundary
conditions
forbuckling
may buckling load converges from above, for all levels of the
beimposed
usingrigidlinks(multi-point
constraints),through-the-thickness
discretizations
and
planar
In addition
as the number
of sandwich
alongtheboundaries,
thattiethelowerfacesheet
tothe discretizations.
upperfacesheet similartothekinematics
relations
of element layers increases, the convergence
trends
are
classical
platetheory whenthepre-stress
loading
is an well behaved, consistent, and approach the reference
appliedin-planeforceandwhenconstraints
are solution. The buckling load predicted using eight layers
employed
toimpose
uniformendshortening.
Forthe of sandwich elements is 5% higher than the reference
buckling
calculations,
thedegrees
offreedom
associated
solution
obtained
using the layered shell/solid
approach.
withtheend-shortening
response
arepermitted
to be As the number of sandwich layers used to model the
free. Formodelswith multiplesandwich
elementscore thickness increases, the results are less sensitive to
throughthe corethickness,boundaryconditionsthe number of integration
points
used
through
the
Use
of one
imposed
alongthe paneledgesat intermediate
or thickness of each sandwich element.
"phantom"
facesheets
arethesame
asthose
imposed
on integration point gives a more flexible solution than the
thebounding
facesheets.
solution
obtained
using
two
integration
points.
However,

when

using

one

integration

point,

it

is

Results
of a convergence
studyconducted
usingthe possible in some situations to trigger a spurious mode.
sandwich
element
modeling
approach
to predictthe In such cases, two integration points should be used.
buckling
response
ofasquare
sandwich
panel
witha30degree
face-sheet
fiberorientation
angleareshownin Results of the present analysis approach, of Hadi and
Figure3. Theopensymbols
ondashed
linesdenote Matthews [15], and of Yuan and Dawe [17], expressed
results
obtained
usingmodels
withoneintegration
point in terms of the in-plane stress resultant, are shown in
(IP)through
thethickness
ofthesandwich
element,
and Figure 4 as a function of the fiber orientation in the face
thefilledsymbols
onsolidlinesdenote
results
obtainedsheet. The present results were generated using a full
usingmodels
withtwointegration
points.One,two, panel model with 25 grid points in each planar direction.
four,andeightlayersof sandwich
elements
were These 625 grid points were used to define a finite
analyzed
formeshes
withdifferentlevelsof in-planeelement mesh of either 576 4-node quadrilateral shell
discretization.Thepredictedbucklingloadsare elements or 169 9-node quadrilateral
shell elements.
normalized
by thesolution
obtained
usingthelayered Results of the present analysis are presented for layered
shell/solid
approach
withfoursolidelements
through shell models with and without shear deformation,
thecorethickness
anda 25x25planarmeshof nodes layered shell/solid
models,
and
sandwich
element
(i.e.,thebucklingloadusedin thenormalization
is models. The results shown in Figure 4 indicate that the
340.0N/mm).Thissolution
obtained
usingthehighest layered shell finite element models are stifler and
fidelitymodelis referred
to hereinasthereferencepredict higher buckling loads than the layered shell/solid
solution
andisdenoted
inFigure
3 bythe"x" symbol
on finite element model (reference solution). The results
asolidline.HadiandMatthews
[15]reported
avalueof shown in Figure 4 indicate that the layered shell model
(410
element
models)
467.8
N/mm,andYuanandDawe[17]reported
avalue without shear deformation
of 382.6N/mm. HadiandMatthews
[15] useda provides a much stifler solution (higher buckling loads)
Rayleigh-Ritz solution with trigonometric than the layered shell model with shear deformation
approximations
forthein-plane
variation
anda zigzag (480 element models) and the buckling load decreases as
theorythroughthe thickness.
Theirresultsgivea the fiber angle increases from zero (results indicated by
buckling
solution
stiflerthanthepresent
solution
dueto filled symbols). Results for the layered shell model with
shear deformation
(480 element
models)
indicate
a more
implicitboundary
conditions
fromthedisplacement
flexible
solution
(open
symbol
results)
than
that
fieldapproximations.
YuanandDawe[17]used
a finite
stripsolution
withB-spline
approximations
forthein- obtained using the 410 element. Results obtained for the
sandwich
element
model
(840 element
models)
with
plane variation and the through-the-thickness
approximations
for the in-planedisplacements
are rigid links along the boundary edges, denoted by the "x"
quadratic
andtheout-of-plane
displacements
arelinear. symbol, indicate a response similar to that predicted
The
Theirresults
aremuchimproved
duetotheirtreatmentusing a layered shell model with shear deformation.
of theboundary
conditions,
yetstill stiflerthanthe rigid links impose classical plate theory kinematics
6
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

alongthe boundaries
while internallythe shear thickness
witheachsandwich
element
having
oneortwo
flexibilityof the corematerialis includedin the integration
pointsin thethickness
direction
(openand
simulation.
Thebuckling
loadisnearlyconstant
uptoa filledsymbols,
respectively).
Thefiniteelement
models
fiberangleof30degrees
andthendecreases
asthefiber of thefull panelhave25gridpointsin eachplanar
angles
increases
fuxther.
direction.Thepresent
resultsbracket
the solutions
reported
by YuanandDawe[17]andappear
to be
Theresultsshownin Figure4 indicate
thatall finite converging
tothereference
solution.Asthenumber
of
element
models
of thepresent
studyandtheanalysissandwich
elements
through
thecorethickness
increases,
approach
ofYuanandDawe[17]predicta maximumthe sensitivity
to thenumberof integration
points
These
resultsillustrate
theeffectiveness
of
buckling
loadwhentheface-sheet
fiberorientation
angle decreases.
sandwich
element
formulation.
equalszerodegrees
anda progressive
decrease
in theSTAGS
bucklingloadoccursas thefiber orientation
angle
increases.HadiandMatthews
[15]andadditional Dueto thenatureof thisproblem
andthediffering
earlier
analyses
[13,14]usingaRayleigh-Ritz
approachresults
obtained
byvarious
researchers,
twoadditional
withtrigonometric
approximations,
however,
predict studies
wereperformed
to studytheeffectof theface
thatthebucklingloadincreases
withincrease
in the sheet
moduliratioandpanelaspect
ratioonthegeneral
face-sheet
fiberanglefrom0-degrees
upto40-degrees.
instability
response
of asandwich
panel.Results
were
Thenthebuckling
loaddecreases
rapidly
tothebuckling obtained
usingthesandwich
element
modeling
approach
load value for the 90-degreecase which is withfourelements
through
thecorethickness,
andtwo
approximately
halfthebuckling
loadvalueforthe0- integration
points
through
thethickness
ofeach
element.
degree
case.Thistrendis similartothetrendobtainedResults
forthepresent
square
panelwithE2/E1 0.058
for a laminate
composite
platewith anaspectratio are shown in Figure 7 along with results for a
greaterthanone(e.g.,AshtonandWhitney[27]). rectangular panel with an aspect ratio, a/b, equal to two,
However,for a squareplatewith thesematerial and face-sheet moduli ratio E2/E1 0.058, and for a
properties,
thebuckling
loaddecreases
asthefiberangle square panel with the transverse modulus, E2, doubled
increases.
YuanandDawe[17]reporta decrease
in _2/E1
0.116).
Results
for the square
panels
with
buckling
loadwithanincrease
in fiberangleforthe E2/E1
0.058 and 0.116 are shown
by the solid and
square
sandwich
panelunderconsideration
andindicate dashed lines, respectively, and results for the rectangular
thatRayleigh-Ritz
solutions
basedontrigonometricpanel are shown by the dotted line. As shown in Figure
series
overlyconstrain
thepanelasmaterial
anisotropy7, doubling the ratio of the face-sheet moduli ratio in the
increases.
Double
sine-series
solutions
forfinitepanels square panel causes an overall increase in the panel
withsimplysupported
boundary
conditions
andhaving buckling load. Increasing the panel aspect ratio to two,
symmetric
laminates
giveriseto artificialderivativewhile holding the face-sheet moduli ratio constant,
boundary
constraints
thatprevent
convergence
to the results in a variation in the buckling load with face-sheet
correctsolution[28,29]. StoneandChandler
[29] fiber angle similar to the variation obtained for a
report
thatbuckling
loadswillbeoverestimated
andmay composite plate with similar material properties and an
contribute
tomisleading
trends
orconclusions.
aspect ratio greater than one. For this case, the buckling
load increases

with

an increase

in face-sheet

fiber

angle

All finiteelement
results
fromthepresent
studyindicate up to 25 degrees, and then declines with increase in
thesame
buckling
modeshape
(general
instability)
for face-sheet fiber angle.
anyface-sheet
fiberorientation.Initially (0-degree
case)themodeshape
involves
onlyonehalf-wave
in Case 2: Rectangular Sandwich Panel
bothdirections.Astheangleincreases,
thebuckling The panel considered has a rectangular planform and is
modeshape
becomes
skewed
andtendsto followthe 508-mm long and 254-mm wide (a/b 2). Identical
fiberangle.At approximately
60degrees,
theskewedaluminum face sheets of thickness tf on an aluminum
modeshape
hastwolongitudinal
half-waves
andone honeycomb core of thickness hc define the sandwich
transverse
half-wave.
Thispattern
becomes
lessskewedpanel. Two face-sheet thicknesses are considered in this
astheface-sheet
fiberangleapproaches
90degrees.
In study: a thin face sheet with thickness equal to 0.508
Figure
5,contour
plotsoftheout-of-plane
displacement
mm and a thick face sheet with thickness
equal to 2.794
component
ofthebuckling
modeshape
areshownto mm. The core thickness is varied from very thin, equal
illustrate
thiseffectfordifferent
face-sheet
fiberangles. to the face-sheet thickness, to very thick, approaching
half

the

panel

width.

As

the core

thickness

increases,

Theeffectoffiberangle
onthebuckling
results
obtainedthe buckling response transitions
from
a general
usingthe sandwich
elementmodelingapproach
is instability mode to a short wavelength
face-sheetshownin Figure6. Results
areshownforallmodels wrinkling
mode.
Young's
modulus,
E, for the
usingoneandfoursandwich
elements
through
thecore aluminum alloy is equal to 68.95 GPa and Poisson's
7
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

ratiois equalto 0.3.Thehoneycomb

corematerial
is mode to a face-sheet-wrinkling
mode is approximately
treated
ashomogeneous
isotropic
material
withelastic hJa 0.020 for the thin face-sheet case and hJa 0.060
for the thick face-sheet
case.
mechanical
properties
givenin Table1.Comparative
studies
areperformed
foraspecific
panelgeometry
and
material
data.Analytical
results
arecomputed
asthe Linear buckling analysis results obtained from the full
firstlevelofanalysis
following
Vinson's[20]approachpanel layered shell models indicate overall panel
as implemented
in PANDA2[21]. Finiteelementbuckling regardless of the core thickness and the faceanalyses
arealsoconducted
usingSTAGS.Finite sheet thickness.
In all cases,
the buckling
mode
element
results
areobtained
usingfullpanel
models
and corresponds to an overall panel mode with two halflocalstripmodels.
All modeling
approaches
areusedin waves along the length and one half-wave across the
thefull panelmodels,
andonlythesandwich
elementpanel width. In addition, the buckling results obtained
modeling
approach
isused
inlocalstripmodels.
using
the 410 element
are higher
than the buckling
results

obtained

using

Inthepre-stress
condition,
thesandwich
panelisloaded expected.
Good
byauniform
endshortening,
Uo, applied to the sandwich
model results
and
face

sheets

Figure

on the ends

2).

For the

conditions
u=u

Edges

and
a).

panel has v

calculations,

z=0

along

3 (x

at x 0 and x

to all grid points

x=0

respectively);
Edge

buckling

applied

0andw=0

w=Oy=0

of the panel

u =-u

0 to remove

along

each

Edge

0 andw=0

In addition,
rigid

body

(y b

at the

(x
y

the finite

given

0,

panel

finite

present

element

study

and 21 grid

has

buckling
panel

across

(1,701

parametric

with

and

=0

along

core

center

of the

flexibility.

used

in the

PANDA2,

length

the

spatial

compared

during

are

(800

approach

is

anticipated

because

and low

computational

as compared

elements).

to 2.54

core

thickness

cost

One

used

the STAGS
however,

boundary
response.
wrinkling
local

strip

the PANDA2

those

the

through-the-thickness

predicted

PANDA2

are

quite

PANDA2

predictions,

modeling

model

face-sheet

is used

through

element.
The
state in the face
associated

For

values

small
correlate

For larger
STAGS

by

thin

core.

on the layered
from
for a

of hJa)

due

for modeling

to
the

the core material

or four

27-node

solid

(open
results

are

from

wrinkling

buckling

core

thickness

these

results

to panel

thickness

less than

with

thickness

hc/a,

the

PANDA2

from

a result

of hJa,

through

lower

allows

Apparently
made

in

on

the

thickness

that

thickness

of an

results

assumed

the thickness
a piecewise

the

face-sheet

the

Institute

of Aeronautics

core

models

and Astronautics

just

thick

to face-sheet

with

a ratio

greater

of core

than

50,

to be conservative,

as

The

response

local
using

strip model
25 sandwich

In addition,

in Figure
results

the
results

for moderately

thickness.

case

8
American

wrinkling

distribution

summarized

when

In addition,

displacement

of the core.

shell/solid
results

linear

linear

through

appear

to a
of the

between

of core thickness
For panels

results

analytical

the

in

that the

value

(hJa).

model

panel
curve

mode

agreement

50).

wrinkling

a solid

buckling

face-sheet

buckling
thin

strip

(for ratio

symbols,
overall

at a small

and

core

8 indicate

ratio

results

the local

elements

layered

a general-instability

to

length

excellent

one

the

filled

in Figure

occurs

either

through

as

panel

mode

panels

shown

an overall

wrinkling

shell/solid

using

PANDA2

shown

show

predictions

and

also

8. The results

wrinkling
line, and the

model

elements

8).

are

layered

is discretized

Figure

model

STAGS

In the

symbols

in

transition

the

shell/solid

brick

and

predictions

by the dashed

symbols.

models,

wrinkling

in

model,

shell/solid

line,

layered

model

wrinkling

PANDA2

dotted

the

with

Based

core

from

PANDA2

analytical

strip

are shown

full-panel

PANDA2
the

are much

model.

conservative.
the

shell

through-the-thickness

layered

8.

the

sandwich

values

loads

by

obtained

of

assumptions

to a transition

based

models

the

local

panel

local strip
sheets and

well with those

wrinkling

full
in Figure

shown

Figure

the

using

predictions

buckling

a width

through

investigate

model.

a very

values

shell
and

STAGS

respectively,

approach

with

the

thickness
is

of modeling

elements

point

by the

are

modeling

instability

conditions
loads

than

corresponds

shell
ease

strip

to

integration

STAGS

the

width.

obtained

shown

along

approaches.

mm and 25 sandwich
is

layered

behavior

STAGS

model

the panel

general

of this

the local

from

with

results

as

layered

results

structuJces

(increasing

in the

shear

represent

(3,200 elements)
has four
as the mesh
of 9-node

when

thickness
of each sandwich
model has a uniform
stress

PANDA2

half-waves
across

of the simplicity,

study,

equal

symmetric

to

to the other modeling

In the present

buckling

constant

A layered

attractive

This

is held

up to sixteen

elements

the panel

width.

adequate

and four half-waves

of 4-node
elements
number
of elements

panel

along

is

The mesh
times the

wrinkling.

full

grid points)

element,

the

motion.

the panel

studies

modes

length

for the

81 grid points

points

discretization
the

mesh

analytical

element

length

limitations

Results
The

shear-flexible
between

shell modeling
approach
quickly
tend to deviate
the analytical
results as the core thickness
increases

0);

and

the

for sandwich

However,

edge are:

x =0_

a point

is obtained

the boundary

along
and

a (see

the 480

correlation

8 show

obtained

correlate
a single

well
solid

that

the
for

using

the

with

the

element

through
thecorethickness
isused.Goodcorrelation
is Finally,
alsoshown
between
theresults
obtained
usingthelocal associated
stripmodelandresultsobtained
usingthe layered shell/solid
shell/solid
modelwhenfoursolidelements
through
the for the
corethickness
areused.Forthethickface-sheet
case sandwich
element
withtj-2.974 mm and hJa 0.4, the layered shell/solid
models

predict

higher

a buckling

load that is approximately

than the buckling

model.
indicate

The
that

shell/solid

models

convergent
sheet-wrinkling

even

for

behavior

between

the buckling

element

and four elements

Similar

results

to

of the layered

is evident

by the local

tj-2.974
mm
load predicted

is converging

behavior

approach

load predicted

results
for
the buckling

for

4-node

material

obtained

element

elements
face

quadrilaterals.

through

sheets

Figure

the

for the

and filled

element
well with
using

sandwich

results

results

increases

from
six

eight

predict

435.31

kN,

convergence.

Use

in a very

the

buckling

predicted

buckling

respectively,

with

were

performed

with

predicted

kN,

respectively.

of two

stiff
load

loads

Again

integration

points

per

powerful
general
for

eight

times

results

indicate

structures

exhibiting

strip models

the

single

layer

and

the

a single
model

as

in a large-scale
buckling

be

shell/solid
accuracy.
scale

quite
a

to achieve

panels
aspect

element
structures

modes

determine

of Aeronautics

ratio

modeling
provides

its general-instability

9
Institute

and Astronautics

four

by using
shell/solid

layers

of

approach

equal

the

levels

of

layered
solution

approach
an

to large-

to apply
However,
for

effective

buckling

the
cost

is over

of

expected
limits.

of

a solution

the computational
cost

60%

Approximately

of this cost differential

is not

are
with

only

is achieved

modeling

model

Extrapolation

are used.

American

to obtain

using

either

thickness

obtained

in the core.

element

at the

using

the

required

by

in

expended

solutions

accuracy

increases,

proportionally

require

computational

sandwich

elements

elements

the

sandwich

a layered
in the core.

obtained

In this case,

sense

stiffness
sandwich

in the core of a layered

obtained

element

for

element

through

of solution

structural

of solid

values

stiffness

global

of that

solid

effort

the

layers

of

increases

element

sandwich

sandwich

layer

of sandwich

effort

elements.

times

cost

of

in the

60%

layers

element

is

element

of the global

a single

Buckling

level

number

size

a single

of sandwich

solid

modeling

computational

the

with

four

solid

converges

The computational
effort
element
model is defined in

However,

a single

the same

four

computational

computational

with

that

large-scale

local

equal.

of two

for modeling

the

nearly

for the

to

of through-theto two to four,

mode response,

the sandwich

equations

with

elements

while

face-sheet-wrinkling

level.

approach

kN and 461.93

approach,

is not effective

element

sandwich

modeling

instability,

to

77.7 kN to

approach

of equations

with

of

approach

from

of using

the

of layers

number

sandwich

case

modeling

of through-the-thickness

increases

model

layers

respectively.

element

as

the

element

sandwich

is approximately

addition

value

appear

four,

number

from

number

per

layer

for the

the

the

a model

the

model,

the

as

number

The

analyses

results

These

per

to

that change

increases.
a sandwich

As the number

a slow

layer

the

for

Additional

of 479.28
the

layers
with

number

panel,

52.1 kN to 67.6 kN to

modeling

than

For

conducted

points

kN

decreases

shell/solid

of layers

kN

(same

sandwich

shell/solid
loads

approach

elements

0.4, indicate

element

predicting

unless

matrix

point

432.99

four

slowly

layer.

matrix.

and higher

indicating

model.

six and

extremely

two

evident.

two

The advantage

element
associated

each

through

for a single

using

but

sandwich

of

integration

buckling

converging
the

loads

is nearly

layer

of

number

elements

solution

a four

in

shell/solid

sandwich

the

from

to

shell/solid

quickly

perspective

the

of

analyses

thereby

layered

in turn

and hc/a

sandwich

73.7

of

one integration

Further

kN

which

response

as the

75.2

terms

Use

of the

for

layered

buckling

to

The
C 1 shell

of through-the-thickness

one

critical

point

is less

case

load

one to four.

and

thickness

and

face-sheet

the

0.1.

layered

discretization

changes

gives

approach.

are observed
for the thick
as the core
thickness

using

Similarly,

performed

hJa

the 4-node

the

plane

load

approach

and with results

thickness

behavior

in buckling

integration

model.

the

in a stifler

obtained

for the thick

an increase

results

strip

this convergent

example,

using

local
through

loads.
Similar trends
cases, However,

increases,
layer

the

element

buckling
face-sheet

one
results

element

as the number

modeling

9). Results

while

in the

from

more

symbols
case,

finite

increases

exploits

layered

is based on the ANS formulation

for a
element
and a 27-node
solid element.

buckling
kN

the

core

"phantom"

(open

approach

was

with

cost

and

approaches
case

formulation

computational
element

thickness
layers
increases
from one
respectively.
Clearly
for this wrinkling

sandwich

face-sheet

with

the analytical

points

the

with

in Figure

are

models
models

models,

layers
thin

models

one

models
element
element

thickness

for the

with

one or four

respectively,

correlate
integration

core

that

sandwich
obtained

either

intermediate

symbols,

9 show

In these

using

change

modeling

approach
C o shell

a fixed

76.8

of the

sandwich

face-sheet

element

modeling

the core thickness.

sandwich

is discretized

2%

the

element
thin

critical

face-

review

with

of grid points)

modeling

summarized
in Figure 9. The sandwich
have the same discretization
as the finite
with

For

The

wavelength

only

through

strip

kN.

shell/solid

load predictions

element
9-node

and hJa
0.4
by the layered

430.03

short

with

8%

a limited

because
use of the

large-scale
means

response.

to

Conclusions
A comparative
studyofdifferent
modeling
approaches
1.
for predicting
sandwich
panelbuckling
response
has
beenpresented.
Thestudyconsidered
sandwich
panels
with anisotropic
facesheets
anda verythickcore.
Resultsfromconventional
analyticalsolutionsfor
sandwichpaneloverallbucklingand face-sheetwrinklingtypemodes
werecompared
withsolutions
obtainedusingdifferentfinite elementmodeling 2.
approaches.
Thenumerical
analyses
wereconducted
usingtheSTAGS
nonlinear
finiteelement
code,
andthe 3.
analyticalresultswerecomputed
usingPANDA2.
Finiteelement
solutions
wereobtained
usinglayered
shellelement
models,
withandwithout
transverse
shear 4.
flexibility,layered
shell/solid
element
models,
thatuse
shellelements
forthefacesheets
andsolidelements
for
the core,and sandwich
modelsusinga recently
developed
specialty
sandwich
element.Convergence
characteristics
of theshell/solid
andsandwich
element5.
modelingapproaches
with respectto in-planeand
through-the-thickness
discretization,
weredemonstrated.
Results
ofthestudyindicate
thatthespecialty
sandwich
element
formulation
implemented
in STAGS
provides
an accurate
andeffectivemodelingapproach
for
predicting
bothoverallandlocalized
behavior.This 6.
modeling
approach
provides
theflexibilityformodeling
anentirepanelorformodeling
localdetailthrough
the
corethickness.Resultsof the studyindicatethat 7.
transition
froma general
instabilitymodeto a short
wavelength
face-sheet-wrinkling
modeoccursasthe
corethickness
isincreased.
Modeling
fidelitytocapture
bothpossiblemodesmustbe providednearthe 8.
transition
region. Furthermore,
resultsindicatethat
anisotropy
ofthefacesheets,
alongwiththeratioof
principle
elastic
moduli,significantly
affectthebuckling
response,
andtheseeffectsmaynot be accurately
represented
byanalytical
solutions.
9.

References
Allen,

Howard

Axel

F.

12.

New York,

Anon.,

Structural

HDBK-23A,

A.

Theory

S. and

June

Construction,

John

Composites,

of Defense,

Mayers,

Wrinkling

Mil-

Washington,

J. "General

of Sandwich

and Applications,"

AIAA

No. 4, April

1967, pp. 729-739.

Ha, K. H.,
Construction:

"Finite
Element
A Critical

Construction

(editors),

Constructions,
1989,

Instability

Plates

Unified

Journal,

Vol.

Analysis
Review,"

1, Karl-Axel

Reichard
International

5,

of Sandwich
in Sandwich

Olsson

and

Proceedings
Conference

Stockholm,

of
on

Sweden,

Ronnal

P.

the
First
Sandwich

June

19-21,

pp. 69-85.
K. H.,

Plates:

"Finite

An

Element

Overview,"

Analysis

of

Computers

and

Sandwich
Structures,

Vol. 37, No. 4, 1990, pp. 397-403.

Frostig,

Y.,

Flexible

Core

High-Order

Journal

of Solid

and Structures,

1998,

pp. 183-204.

Tessler,

"Buckling

A.,

and

Vonach,

M.

W.

52, 2001,
K.

and

Approach

Composite

Rammerstorfer,

Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001,

Noor,

Chapman
A.

K.,

G. J. Turvey

Models

Shells,"

Applied

Mechanics

3, March

1996,

pp. 155-199.

Librescu,
the

L. and Hause,
Modeling

and

Sandwich

Constructions:

Structures,

Vol.

and Astronautics

48, Nos.

of

S.,

for

Sandwich

Postbuckling

of

pp. 157-189.
and

Bert,

Sandwich

T., "Recent
Behavior

C.

W.,

Panels

Reviews,

and

and I. H. Marshall

1995,

W.

"Computational

and

and

and Hall,

"A

pp. 363-376.

Deformation

Burton,

G.,

Instability

Engineering

in Buckling
Plates,

F.

Wrinkling

Structural

"Shear

G., "A

Laminates,"

Mechanics,

Composite

Gendron,

3-4,

for Threein Thick

Plates,"

C. W.,

35, Nos.

pp. 67-84.

to the

Configuration,"

Accounting
Deformations

Sandwich

Bert,

with

International

Vol.

S., and

Sandwich

Vol.

Panels

Theory,"

Plate Theory
Thermoelastic

Composites
Structures,

of Sandwich

Annett,

{1,2}-Order
Dimensional

10
of Aeronautics

on

Sweden,

1966.
Sandwich

pp. 1-17.

Institute

(editors),

Conference

Stockholm,

Department

Face

Ha,

Reichard

1968.

Benson,

in

American

P.

International

J., Sandwich

Wiley,

and

Today
1, Karl-

1989, pp. 3-22.

Plantema,

D.C.,

Construction
Construction

Ronnal

Constructions,

(editors),
11.

and

of the First

Sandwich
19-21,

"Sandwich

in Sandwich

Olsson

Proceedings

General

Acknowledgement
Theworkofthesecond,
thirdandfourthauthors
was
supported
bytheNASALangley
Research
Center
under 10.
contracts
NAS1-00135,
GS-35F-0038J
(Task1730),
and
NAS1-99069,
respectively.

G.,

and Tomorrow,"

Vol.

and

49, No.

Developments
of

Advanced

Survey,"

1-3, January-March

Composite
2000,

13.Rao,K. M., "BucklingAnalysisof Anisotropic25.

Sandwich
PlatesFacedwith Fiber-Reinforced
Plastics,"
AIAA
Journal,
Vol. 23, No. 8, August
1985,
14.

pp. 1247-1253.

Kim,

C.

G.

Finite

15.

Bonding

Hadi,

Stiffness,"
1988,

Load

Approach
1998,

pp. 245-255.
D. J. and

Part I: Analysis,"

Sandwich

Mechanics

Vol.

of

26,

Deformation
Vol.

27.

An

of

and

with

the

28.

in Applied

Rankin,

C.

Laminated
in

Vol.

190,

19.

Brush,
Plates'

20.

Vinson,

Mechanics

C.,

Brogan,

29.

F. A.,

Local

David

W.,

4.0,

and

Sandwich

Panels

Subjected
Vol.

an

Analysis
Panel,"

AIAA

Rankin,

C.

Mechanics

and

December

1989,

Stone,

M.
Sine

Peshkam,

A.

M.,

Composite
to Uniaxial
24,

No.

10,

of

Honeycomb

or

Paper

No.

97-1142,

A.

C.

NASA

360

France,

Theory

V.,

Diaphragm

"Buckling

Ends,
Vol.

and

Series

Chandler,

H.

Solutions

Laminated

Part

13-15

77,

Nos.

D.,

Properties

Ecy, MPa
Ecz, MPa

Plates,"
Sciences,

to

the

38,

Composite

2001-1323,
and

CR-4358,

April

Brogan,

0.265
82.74

Gcyz, MPa

90.4

49.64

Vcxy

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.01

Voyz

pp.

2001.
The

Mechanics
Testbed
ES5: STAGS
Shell

1991.

11
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

Case 2

146
146

Strength

A.,

Gcxy, MPa
G .... MPa

Compression

F.

properties

0.6895
68.95

Modeling

Residual

Case

and Astronautics

in

Supported

International

Vol.

200
200

1997,

1998,

1-2,

"Errors

for Simply

1. Elastic mechanical
for core materials

April

May

I: Finite

in Applied

pp. 517-526.

(editor),

Dordrecht,

and

Prismatic

Methods'

Engineering,

of

pp. 1-30.

Colloquium

C. C., "Sandwich

a Damaged
Paper

Vautrin

EUROMECH

Rankin,

Vol.

Co., 1970.

Composite

Computer

of Mechanical

Ecx

of Bars,
1975.

via PANDA2

Computational
Structural
Structural
Element
Processor
Element,

with

J.

Publishing

Alto,

with

Application
of

Design

Publishers,

NASA

Mechanics,

Lockheed

Panels

Saint-Etienne,

E. and

Formulation,"

Voxz

Structures,

Academic

with

Structures

Double

Whitney,

Technomic

and

Feng,
Z., "Classification
of
Panel Behavior,"
in Mechanics

of the

Riks,

Elements',

of Applied

Finite-Length

Strip

Table

Shells'

Palo

of

Journal,

AIAA

Allen,
H. G. and
Structural
Sandwich

in

Shell

Engineering,

Loden,

Design

"Optimum

Sandwich

Cores,"

Kluwer
1-12.

J.
of

Plate

1996,

Center,

"Optimum
AIAA

Proceedings

and

Symmetrically

1986, pp. 1690-1696.

Foam
1997.

E.

D.

Computer

of General

Version

Technology

Sandwich

Compression,"

Composite

Journal

Plates',

Material

J. R.,

Bushnell,

J.

Dawe,

Journal

D. O. and Almroth,
B. O., Buckling
and Shells', McGraw-Hill,
New York,

October

ASME

Ashton,

Laminated

2000.

Honeycomb

held

and

Analysis

Manual,

Advanced

CA, June

ANS

pp. 5215-5231.

User

Martin

and

with

Applications,"

H., Structural

- STAGS

and

Structural
Processor

Park, K. C. and Stanley,

G. M., "A Curved C O Shell
Element
Based
on Assumed
Natural-Coordinate

Vibration

Local

Methods'

D. J., "Overall
Plates

II:

SRI

The Computational
Structural
Element

1990.

Laminated

42, No. 3, July

Engineering,

Sandwich

190, 2001,

Basic

Strains,"

the

Panels:

_bmputer

and

Part

Cabiness,

24.

Vol.

"Predicting

Sandwich

Plates

W. X. and Dawe,

Methods'

23.

26.

with

pp. 5197-5213.

Yuan,

of

Journal,

W. X., "Overall

of

Faceplates,

22.

Yuan,

Faceplates,

Buckling

21.

of

Plates

M.,
Testbed

108, 1986, pp. 278-290.

Structures,

Buckling

2001,

"Buckling

F. L.,

Shear

Composite

Applied

18.

AIAA

of Anlsotropic

Dawe,

S.,

pp. 982-988.

Including

Faces,"

17.

C.

Sandwich

B. K. and Matthews,

Buckling

16.

Hong,

Anisotropic

No. 8, August

ESI:

G.

CR-4357,

and

Unbalanced

Stanley,
Mechanics

No.

5,

Figure
1. Photograph
ofthicksandwich
panel
segment.

Face

sheet

tf

Core

Face

sheet

_dge

Edge
Edge

Edge

3
]

Figure

2. Sandwich

panel

geometry.

12
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

Layered
One

shell/solid

sandwich

- 1, 2, 4 layers

layer

- 2 IP

Two sandwich

layers

- 2 IP

Four

sandwich

layers

- 2 IP

Eight

sandwich

.- _- - One

sandwich

layers
layer

- 2 IP

N x

- 1 IP

.- ,_ - Two sandwich

layers

- 1 IP

.- _- - Four

sandwich

layers

- 1 IP

.- 43 - Eight

sandwich

layers

- 1 IP

1.6

ttttl
Z
1.3
Z

1.0

)[

Z
0.7

10

20

30

Number

Figure

3. Effect

degree

fiber angle.

of mesh

refinement

of grid points per edge

for sandwich

element

models

for the square

13
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

sandwich

panel

with

a 30-

--

Reference
-

.....

800 --

Hadi

solution

(layered

& Matthews

Yuan & Dawe

shell/solid)

[15]

[ 17]

Layered

shell model

using

STAGS

410

elements

----O--

Layered

shell model

using

STAGS

480

elements

-----)b-

Single-layer
with

rigid

sandwich

element

model

links

_-y

0
0

30

60

90

Ply layup

Figure

4.

Effect

of the square

of face-sheet

sandwich

fiber angle

angle, 0, degrees

on buckling

load

for layered

shell/solid

panel.

14
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

and layered

shell

models

>>>>>>>>_

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
ilililililililililililililililll

N
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

-1.0 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii

Figure
different

5.

a)0-degree
case

b) 40-degree

case

c) 60-degree

d) 90-degree

case

buckling

mode

Contour

face-sheet

plots

case

of the

out-of-plane

displacement

component

of the

fiber angles.

15
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

shape

for

--

Reference
-

Hadi

.....

solution

Yuan & Dawe

Single-layer

800 --

(layered

& Matthews

Four-layer

[ 17]
sandwich

sandwich

----O--

Single-layer

----V--

Four-layer

shell/solid)

[15]

sandwich
sandwich

element
element

model
model

element
element

model
model

- 2 IP
- 2 IP
N x

- 1 IP
- 1 IP

600 -Z

200 --

0
0

30

60

90

Ply layup angle,

Figure
element

6.

Effect

models

of face-sheet
of the square

fiber
sandwich

angle

0, degrees

on buckling

load

for layered

shell/solid

panel.

16
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

model

and

sandwich

E2/E

1 = 0.058,

a/b = 1

E2/E 1 = 0.116,

a/b = 1

E2/E

a/b = 2

1 = 0.058,

8OO

600
Z
..)

400

"'_

sss

SS--

200

30

60

90

Ply layup

Figure
buckling

7.

Effect

of face-sheet

load for a sandwich

fiber
element

angle,
model

aspect

angle, 0, degrees

ratio,

of the square

and face-sheet
sandwich

elastic

panel.

17
American

Institute

of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

modulus

ratio

(E2/E1)

on

[]

-.....
-

1000

STAGS
STAGS
STAGS
STAGS

solid/shell
solid/shell
solid/shell
solid/shell

model
model
model
model

- 1
-4
- 1
-4

solid - thin face sheet

solids - thin face sheet
solid - thick face sheet
solids - thick face sheet

PANDA2 panel buckling

PANDA2 face sheet wrinkling
- STAGS local strip model

800

600

[]
400
tf

2.794

mm

200

0 _.C___

-_ ......
_.0_

'-'
o
-._--4-"7 .............

o o }
-...04
[tf=

.15
Ratio

of core

Figure 8. Buckling load predictions

panel layered shell/solid model.

0.508

mm

.30
thickness

to panel

from analytical

model,

18
American Institute of Aeronautics

length,

[
.45

hc/a

local strip sandwich

and Astronautics

element model

and full

[]

STAGS sandwich model,

STAGS sandwich model,
STAGS sandwich model,
STAGS sandwich model,
-PANDA2 panel buckling
.....
PANDA2 wrinkling
- - STAGS local strip model

1 layer, 1 IP- thin face sheet

4 layers, 1 IP - thin face sheet
1 layer, 1 IP- thick face sheet
4 layers, 1 IP- thick face sheet

1000

800

z
600
_

400

tf = 2.794 mm

200

= 0.508 mm
..4--....

O,

"-0

..o-t_
-

-o--

--O-.o)[tfj,
_D

- - "0- - - - ..,0,

.15
Ratio of core thickness

.30
to panel length,

.45
hc/a

Figure 9. Buckling load predictions from analytical model, local strip sandwich element model and full
panel sandwich element model.

19
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics