Uni-axial compression; Other BC’s

• Of particular interest (for use with stiffeners):

y
free

ss ss b
ss x

a
choice of λ is important!
• Use:
mx ny
w   Amn sin sin w
a b
• to substitute in governing equation:
4w 4w 4w 2w 2w
D11 4  2( D12  2 D66 ) 2 2  D22 4  Nx 2  Ny 2
x x y y x y
y
Buckling shape versus y
 Uni-axial compression; 3 sides ss,
one unloaded side free
• λ is chosen so that the “free” condition is
represented (e.g. if λ=1=> simply-supported)

ny λ=1 λ=1/2

sin
b
1
λ=5/12

0.5 1 y/b
 Uni-axial compression; 3 sides ss,
one unloaded side free
• Current choice of w does not satisfy all BC’s:

w( x  0)  w( x  a)  0 OK
w( y  0)  0
OK
 w
2
 w 2
M x   D11  D  0 at x  0, a
x 2
12
y 2 OK
2w 2w
M y   D12 2  D22 2  0 at y  0, b ???!!
x y

• Expression for the buckling load

 2 D11 m 4  2( D12  2D66 )m 2 2 ( AR) 2  D22 ( AR) 4 4 
No 
a2m2
Uni-axial compression; 3 sides ss, one
unloaded side free
• Comparison with exact solution
1
Nxcrit (N/mm)
0.9 λ=1/2
0.8 D11 1.13
0.7 D12 0.56 λ=5/12
D22 1.13 Nm
0.6
0.5
D66 0.68 exact
0.4
0.3 infinitely long
0.2 plate
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length/Width
Infinitely long plate, 3 sides ss, one
unloaded side free
• exact solution:
free
12 D66
N xcrit  ss ss b
b2 ss
a

• approximate solution:
4 2 2 2 2 exact: Nxcrit=0.032 N/mm
N xcrit  2  D66  2 D12
b b λ Nxcrit Δ(%)
≈ 6.9-9.9 1/2 0.047 46.9
D11 1.13
D12
D22
0.56
1.13 Nm 5/12 0.036 12.5
D66 0.68
b=50.8 cm
Buckling of rectangular plate under
shear
• simply supported plate*

Nxy x

Nxy

a D16=D26=Bij=0
y

*Whitney, J.M., Structural Analysis of Laminated Anisotropic Plates,

Technomic Publishing, 1987, section 5.7
 Buckling under shear (cont’d)
• Galerkin solution
• Governing equation:
4w 4w 4w 2w
D11 4  2( D12  2 D66 ) 2 2  D22 4  2 N xy
x x y y xy

• assume solution w in the form:

mx ny
w   Amn sin sin characteristic
a b functions

• multiply governing equation by the characteristic functions,

integrate over the domain of the plate and set the result
equal to zero (satisfied for m,n=1,2,…)
 4w 4w 4w 2w  mx ny
   11 x 4
D  2( D12  2 D66 )
x 2 y 2
 D 22
y 4
 2 N xy 
xy 
sin
a
sin
b
dxdy  0
 Buckling under shear (cont’d)
• Substituting for w and carrying out the integrations:
 D m  2( D  2 D )m n ( AR)  D n ( AR) A  32mn( AR) b N T A  0
4
11
4
12 66
2 2 2
22
4 4
mn
3 2
xy ij ij

ij
Tij  for m  i odd and n  j odd
(m  i )(n 2  j 2 )
2 2
(AR)=a/b, aspect ratio
Tij  0 otherwise

• Equation breaks down to two sets of homogeneous

equations, one for m+n odd and one for m+n even; each
is of the form: [E]{Amn}= Nxy [H] {Amn}
• => two generalized eigenvalue problems

• Lowest eigenvalue corresponds to buckling load; note

that for specially orthotropic plates the eigenvalues are in
pairs of positive and negative numbers of same
magnitude
Buckling under combined loads
• Combined compression and shear, simply-
supported all around
Nxy
x
ss

b ss ss
ss
Nx Nxy Nx
a
y
 Buckling under compression and
shear
• approximate solution (2 terms):
x y 2x 2y Single term
w  w1 sin sin  w2 sin sin won’t work for
a b a b shear!

• satisfies displacement (and force) BC’s:

w(x  0)  w(x  a)  0
w(y  0)  w(y  b)  0
2w 2w
M x   D11 2  D12 2  0 at x=0,a no need to satisfy force BC’s for
x y
energy minimization approach
2w 2w
M y   D12 2  D22 2  0 at y=0,b (but need more terms)
x y

• w1, w2 are unknown

 Energy minimization
• Minimize:
1    2 w   2 w  2 w 
2 2 2
2w 2w  2w   2w  2w 2w
 c    D11  2   2 D12 2  D22  2   4 D66    4 D16 2  4 D26 2 dxdy 
2   x  x y 2   y    x  y   x  x  y  y  x  y
 
 w  w w
2
1
2  Nx   dxdy   N xy
 x  x y
dxdy

• integrations carried over the entire plate

• Nx, Nxy constant
N xy
• k
Nx
• D16=D26=0
 Some intermediate results
2
 2w  2 
4
 2x  2y  2 16 
4
4x  4y 
 2   w1 4 
1  cos 1  cos   w2 4 
1  cos 1  cos 
 x  4b  a  b  4b  a  b 
4 4 1  x 3x  y 3y 
2w1 w2 4  cos  cos  cos  cos 
b 4 a a  b b 
… similarly for other integrands

• carrying out the integrations:

2
 2w  2  2 4
a b 4 4 2
 2w  2  2 4
0 0  x 2  dxdy  w1 4a 4 ab  w2 a 4 ab
a b 4 4

0 0  y 2  dxdy  w1 4b 4 ab  w2 b 4 ab
 

a b
 2w 2w  4 2 4
4

0 0  x 2 y 2 dxdy  w1 4a 2b 2 ab  w2 a 2 b 2 ab
2

2  2 
2
 w 
a b 2 2

2
0 0  x  dxdy  w1 4a 2 ab  w2 a 2 ab
a b
 2w  4 2 4
4

0 0  xy  dxdy  w1 4a 2b 2 ab  w2 a 2b 2 ab

2

a b
 w w  w1 w2 2  2a 2a  2b 2b  w1 w2 2  2a 2a  2b 2b 
0 0  x y dxdy  2ab  3    3     2ab  3    3   
 Final energy expression
  2 4 2 4
4
  2 4 2 4 
4

 11  1
D w 3
b  w2 3
b   2( D12  2 D66  1
) w  w2 
 
1  4 a a   4 ab ab  
c   
2  2  4
2 4
4
 
 22  1 4b3
D w a  w 2 3
a  
  b  
No  2 2 2 
2
  32 
 w1 4a b  w2 a b   kN o w1w2   9 
2    

No=Nxcrit=-Nx

• to determine w1, w2,

 c
0
w1
 c
0
w2
 System of equations
• which lead to
1 w1 4 b  4 w1 w1 4 a  w1 2 b 32
D11 3
 2( D12  2D66 )  D22 3 
 No  kN o w2  0
2 2a 2ab 2b  4 a 9

1 8w2 4 b 8 4 w2 8w2 4 a  w2 2 b 32

D11  2( D12  2 D66 )  D22   No  kN o w1  0
2 a3 ab b3  a 9

• homogeneous system of two eqns in the

two unknowns w1, w2
• trivial solution w1=w2=0 corresponds to in-
plane deformations of the plate
 System of equations
• Setting
1  4b 4  4a 
K1   D11 3  2( D12  2 D66 )  D22 3 
4 a ab b 

• and using matrix notation eigen value

  2b 32 
 K1 0   w1    k  w 
4a 9  1
0     No   
 16 K1  w2   32 k  2 b  w2 
 9 a 

A x α B x

generalized eigen-value problem of the form:

Ax  B x
~ ~ ~ ~
Solution to the eigenvalue problem
• pre-multiply both sides of the equation by B-1
1 1
B Ax  B B x
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

C I
~ ~

• obtain standard eigen value problem:

Cx  x
~ ~ ~

• the eigenvalues are obtained as solutions to:


det C   I  0
~ ~

 For our specific example
  2b 32 
1 1  k
B   a 9 
~
 4 b 2  32   32 k
2
 2b 
 k
4a 2  9   9 4a 

and after some rearranging, the standardized eigenvalue problem has

the form,
 2b 32 
 16 k   w    4 2
b  32 
2
 1  w1 
 a 9 
   N o 
1
 k   
 2 2
  
16  2   1 w2 
32
 k b w  4 a 9 K
 9 4a 
eigenvalue α
 Determination of buckling load(s)
• the eigenvalue is the solution to:
  2b  4 2 b  512(32) 2
        k 0
 a  a  81

• solving for α and substituting in terms of No:

 a2 a4 
 D  2( D12  2 D66 ) 2  D22 4 
2  11
  b b  65536 a 2 2 
No  2 5  9  k 
a 8192 a 2
 81  b
4 2

2 k 2

81 b  2 4

two solutions: use the lowest

 Special cases: Pure compression
• Nxy=0 => k=0
2  a2 a4 
N o  2  D11  2( D12  2 D66 ) 2  D22 4 
a  b b 

comparing with exact solution found earlier, this

expression is identical to the exact solution for m=1
(but not so accurate for m>1)
Special case: Comparison to exact
solution
3.5
Buckling load
3
(N/mm) width
2.5
2 length

1.5 approx.
1
0.5 exact
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Aspect ratio (length/width)

D11 0.66
D12 0.47
D22 0.66 Nm
D66 0.49
 Special cases: Pure Shear
• set k very large
 a2 a4 
 D  2( D12  2 D66 ) 2  D22 4 
2  11
  b b  65536 a 2 2 
No  2 5  9  k 
a 8192 a 2 2  81  4 2
b 
2 k
81 b  2 4

Nxy ±  a2 a4 
 D  2( D12  2 D66 ) 2  D22 4 
2  11

 Nok  2 
b b 
a 32 a
9 b 2

9 4 b  a2 a4 
N xycrit   D11  2( D12  2 D66 ) 2  D22 4 
32a 3  b b 

Typically, 27% higher than exact solution!

 Shear buckling: Comparison of various
methods(1)

81047

including transverse
shear effects (see
sandwich buckling)

(1) S. Simonian & C. de Winter

K relation: equation just derived
Interpolation: see sandwich buckling under shear
 Shear buckling: Comparison of various
methods

81047

including transverse
shear effects (see
sandwich buckling)

(1) S. Simonian & C. de Winter

K relation: equation just derived
Interpolation: see sandwich buckling under shear
 Shear buckling: Comparison of various
methods

81047

including transverse
shear effects (see
sandwich buckling)

(1) S. Simonian & C. de Winter

K relation: equation just derived
Interpolation: see sandwich buckling under shear
 Shear buckling: Comparison of various
methods

81047

including transverse
shear effects (see
sandwich buckling)

(1) S. Simonian
K relation: equation just derived
Interpolation: see sandwich buckling under shear
 Interaction curve: Buckling under
combined compression and shear

• Even though the present solution is

approximate, it is expected to be quite
accurate in providing the interaction curve
when both compression and shear are
applied
 Buckling interaction curve:
Combined compression and shear
Nxy/Nxycrit
1
0.9
0.8
0.7 exact
0.6
0.5
For a given applied Nx, can
0.4 determine the Nxy that will
approx.
0.3 cause the plate to buckle when
0.2 both Nx and Nxy act
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Nx/Nxcrit

Here, Nxcrit and Nxycrit refer  N xy 

2 “exact”
Nx
to the buckling when   1 interaction
N xcrit N 
each load is applied  xycrit  curve
individually
 Buckling under various loads and
Boundary Conditions(1)
ss  2 D11 m 4  2( D12  2D66 )m 2 ( AR) 2  D22 ( AR) 4 
ss b ss No 
a 2m2
ss

2
ss No  D11 D22 K 
aD 
1/ 4
b2
c c    22  4 2( D12  2 D66 ) 3
b ss b  D11  K   2 0<λ<1.662
 2
D11 D22 4
m 4  8m 2  1 2( D12  2 D66 ) 2 λ>1.662
K  
2 (m 2  1) D11 D22 m2  1

c aD 
1/ 4
2 m2 2( D12  2D66 ) 16 2
ss    22  No  D11 D22 K  K  
b ss b  D11  b2 2 D11 D22 3 m2
c

2 4 8( D12  2 D66 )
1/ 4 No  D11 D22 K  K    42 0<λ<1.094
c aD  b 2
 3 D11 D22
2
c    22 
b c b  D11  m 4  8m 2  1 2( D12  2 D66 ) 2
c K 2 2   2 λ>1.094
 (m  1) D11 D22 m 1

free 1/ 4
2
ss b ss aD  No  D11 D22 K  K
12 D66

1
   22  2
 2
2
b  D11  b D11 D22
ss

(1) NASA/DoD Adv Composites Design Guide, vol II, 1983

 Buckling under various loads and
boundary conditions(1)
2
1/ 4 Mo  D11 D22 K 
a  D22  b 2
M M   
ss b  D11 
ss b ss  m 2 2( D12  2 D66 ) 2  m 2 8( D12  2 D66 ) 2 
K  0.047 2 b 2  2   2  2   16 2 
ss  D11 D22 m   D11 D22 m 


ss  2 D11 m 4  2( D12  2D66 )m 2 n 2 ( AR) 2  D22 n 4 ( AR) 4 

ss ss No 
b ss a 2 (m 2  kn 2 ( AR) 2 )

1/ 4
4
N xycrit  D  D 
3 1/ 4
(K )
aD 
11 22
ss b2
   22 
1/ 4
ss ( D  2 D66 ) 1 D 
b ss b  D11  K  8.2  5 12 A    11 
ss D11 D22 (  B )
 D22 
10 
( D  2 D66 )
A  0.27  0.185 12
D11 D22
a=b; 2
( D12  2 D66 )  ( D  2 D66 ) 
0<β≤1 B  0.82  0.46  0.2 12 
D11 D22  D11 D22 


(1) NASA/DoD Adv Composites Design Guide, vol II, 1983

 Effect of BC’s on buckling load of a
square plate under compression
2.5 No No
Buckling load b=a
(normalized
2
to SS all
around) a
1.5

0.5

0
SS all around CCL,SSU SSL,CCU CC all around

Biggest difference is less than 2.5 to 1 (compare to beams with 4 to 1 ratio)