Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e in fo
abstract
Article history:
Received 20 December 2008
Received in revised form
20 December 2009
Accepted 18 January 2010
Available online 25 January 2010
In the present paper, buckling loads of rectangular composite plates having nine sets of different
boundary conditions and subjected to non-uniform inplane loading are presented considering higher
order shear deformation theory (HSDT). As the applied inplane load is non-uniform, the buckling load is
evaluated in two steps. In the rst step the plane elasticity problem is solved to evaluate the stress
distribution within the prebuckling range. Using the above stress distribution the plate buckling
equations are derived from the principle of minimum total potential energy. Adopting Galerkins
approximation, the governing partial differential equations are converted into a set of homogeneous
linear algebraic equations. The critical buckling load is obtained from the solution of the associated
linear eigenvalue problem. The present buckling loads are compared with the published results
wherever available. The buckling loads obtained from the present method for plate with various
boundary conditions and subjected to non-uniform inplane loading are found to be in excellent
agreement with those obtained from commercial software ANSYS. Buckling mode shapes of plate for
different boundary conditions with non-uniform inplane loadings are also presented.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Buckling
Non-uniform inplane loading
Parabolic loading
Ritz method
Galerkin method
1. Introduction
Often, plates are a part of complex structural system and hence
load coming on it may not be always uniform. For example, in the
case of I-beam or wide anged beam subjected to bending
moment at the ends or lateral loads on the ange, the web of the
beam is subjected to non-uniform inplane loads. The load exerted
on the aircraft wings, or on the stiffened plate in the ship
structures or on the slabs of a multi-storey building by the
adjoining structures usually is non-uniform. The type of distribution in an actual structure depends on the relative stiffnesses of
the adjoining elements. Behaviour of structures subjected to nonuniform inplane compressive loading and shear loading is
important in aircraft, civil and ship-building industries. Much
work has been reported in the literature on the buckling of
rectangular plates subjected to uniform inplane loading. However,
very few papers deal with the buckling of plates subjected to nonuniform inplane loads. Buckling of plates subjected to sinusoidal
[1] and parabolic [2] inplane compressive loading was obtained
by earlier researchers based on unrealistic inplane stress
distribution. Wang et al. [3] have adopted Galerkin procedure
with Legendre polynomials as shape function to analyse buckling
of rectangular plates subjected to linearly varying inplane edge
compressive load with two loaded edges simply supported, one
ARTICLE IN PRESS
820
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819828
2. Formulation
Consider a composite rectangular plate having length a and
breadth b and made up of n layers of equal thickness. The coordinate system is such that the middle plane coincides with the
xy plane and the z-axis is perpendicular to the middle plane.
Using Reddys higher order shear deformation theory, the
displacement eld can be written as
u u0 zw0;x f zf1 ;
v v0 zw0;y f zf2 ;
w wo
where
3
o o
x, y
1
1
eoy vo;y wo;y 2 ; goxy uo;y vo;x wo;x wo;y 4
2
2
The stress strain relations for the composite plate in the
material co-ordinate axes are given by
fsg Q feg
n
o
fsgT sx sy tyz txz txy ;
n
o
fegT ex ey gyz gxz gxy
0
0
Z b
Z b
Z b
@@w
Mx
Px @f1 dy
Pxy @f2 dy
dy
@x
0
0
0
Z b
@Mxy
@w
@w
nxx Nx
Qx
dwdy
nxy Nxy
@y
@x
@y
Z 0a
Z a
nyy Ny
Qy
dwdx 0
nxy Nxy
@x
@y
@x
0
6
The force and moment resultants are dened as
00
1 0
1 0
11
0
1
Mx
Px
sx
Nx
Z h=2
BB N C B M C B P CC
Bs C
@@ y A; @ y A; @ y AA
@ y A1; z; f zdz
h=2
Nxy
Mxy
Pxy
txy
Qx ; Qy
h=2
txz ; tyz dz
h=2
Qxa ; Qya
h=2
h=2
where f 0 (z)=(d/dz)(f(z)); Nx, Ny, Nxy, and Mx, My, Mxy are,
respectively, the force and moment resultants; Px, Py, Pxy are
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819828
@2 F
;
@x2
nxx
@2 F
;
@y2
nxy
@2 F
;
@x@y
Aij
h=2
Q ij dz
11
h=2
where
F0 2N 0
y2 y y2
2
3 b 2b
which gives
N yy
@2 F0
0;
@x2
N xx
N xy
@2 F0
0
@x@y
@2 F0
y
y
4N 0
1
b
b
@y2
The remaining functions F1, F2, F3 are chosen such that the
stresses corresponding to them vanish at the boundary.
Substituting Eqs. (11) and (14) into Eq. (10) and carrying out
integration, an expression in second degree in a1, a2 and a3 is
obtained. Then, the strain energy function V is minimized with
respect to the constants a1, a2 and a3. Then the constants a1, a2
and a3 are evaluated from the 3 algebraic equations resulting
from the condition, (qV/qa1)= 0, (qV/qa2) =0, (qV/qa3)=0.
2.2. Plate buckling analyses
The critical buckling load of composite rectangular plate with
various boundary conditions and subjected to parabolically
varying inplane compressive load is obtained using Galerkins
method. In the present investigation following nine sets of
boundary conditions are considered: SSSS, SSCS, SCSS, CSCS, SCSC,
SSCC, CCSC, CCCS and CCCC, where S stands for simply supported
edge and C for clamped edge. The letters indicate the boundary
conditions on the edge of the plate in the anti-clockwise fashion
starting from the left hand corner. In the Galerkins method, the
out-of-plane displacement eld w(x,y) satisfying the boundary
conditions of the plate is expressed as the product of beam
function as [19]
wx; y
1 X
1
X
Xm xYn y
15
m1n1
where Xm(x) and Yn(y) are the eigen functions of the beam having
the same boundary conditions as that of two opposite edges of the
plate. This choice of functions satises all boundary conditions of the
plate exactly. In present case following beam functions are adopted.
(a) Simply support along two opposite edges, at x =0 and x= a
F F0 a1 F1 a2 F2 a3 F3 a4 F4
13
where a1,a2,a3, y are constants and are determined such that the
boundary conditions (12) are satised. In the present case, for
parabolic loading, the stress function is assumed as
y2 y y2
F 2N 0
2 x2 ax2 y2 yb2 a1 a2 x a3 y
3 b 2b
14
mpx
m 1; 2; 3; . . .
16
a
(b) Clamped support along two opposite edges, at x= 0 and x= a
ss
Xm
x sin
cc
Xm
x cosxm
x 1
sinxm =2
x 1
coshxm
a 2
sinhxm =2
a 2
m 2; 4; 6; . . .
17
where xm are obtained as roots of
tanxm =2 tanhxm =2 0
18
and
y
y
N x = 4 N0 (1 )
b
b
821
cc
Xm
x sinxm
x 1
sinxm =2
x 1
coshxm
a 2
sinhxm =2
a 2
m 3; 5; 7; . . .
b
x
Fig. 1. Geometry and loading of the plate.
19
x 1
sinxm =2
x 1
sinhxm
2a 2
sinhxm =2
2a 2
m 2; 3; 4; . . .
20
where xm are obtained as roots of Eq. (19).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
822
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819828
nxx Nx N x ;
ny Ny N y ;
fo2
uo wo f1 Py My 0
21
at y b
25
at x 0; a
at y 0; b
at y 0
uo wo f1 Py My 0
ny Ny N y ;
u~ o
Mx 0
w0;y uo vo wo f1 f2 0
v~ o
mpx
npy
Umn cos
cos
a
b
m1n1
j
i
X
X
j
i
X
X
cs
Vmn Xm
xXncs y
m1n1
j
i
X
X
u~ o
j
i
X
X
v~ o
Vmn sin
mpx
a
m1n1
j
i
X
X
~o
w
cos
f~ 1
o
npy
b
f~ 2
ss
Wmn Xm
xXnss y
mpx npy
Kmn cos
sin
a
b
m1n1
j
i
X
X
f~ 2
Lmn sin
mpx
a
m1n1
cos
cs
Wmn Xm
xXncs y
m1n1
j
i
X
X
mpx
npy
Kmn cos
cos
a
b
m1n1
j
i
X
X
cs
Lmn Xm
xXncs y
26
j
i
X
X
j
i
X
X
m1n1
m1n1
f~ 1
~o
w
npy
b
22
3. Numerical results and discussion
at x 0; a
at y 0; b
w0;x uo vo wo f1 f2 0
w0;y uo vo wo f1 f2 0
N x 4N 0
mpx npy
u~ o
Umn sin
sin
a
b
m1 n1
j
i X
X
j
i X
X
v~ o
Vmn sin
m1 n1
~o
w
o
f~ 1
j
i X
X
m1 n1
j
i X
X
h
y i
Nx N0 1Z
;
b
cc
Wmn Xm
xXncc y
Kmn sin
m1 n1
npy
sin
b
mpx npy
o
f~ 2
Lmn sin
sin
a
b
m1 n1
i
X
j
X
24
w0;x uo vo wo f1 f2 0
nxx Nx N x ;
v w Px
fo2
y
y
1
b
b
27
mpx npy
sin
a
b
mpx
at x 0
Mx 0
at x a
y A 0; b
28
a1
29
a2
30
a3
31
a/b
0.4
m= 1
0.5
m =1
0.6
m= 1
0.7
m =1
0.8
m= 1
0.9
m= 1
1.0
m =2
93.247
93.2
93.305
93.231
75.910
75.9
75.943
75.879
69.632
69.6
69.652
69.588
69.095
69.1
69.108
69.036
72.084
71.9
72.093
72.007
77.545
77.3
77.545
77.443
75.910
75.9
75.943
75.774
a/b
g=1
0.4
m=1
0.5
m =1
0.6
m= 1
0.65
m= 1
0.7
m= 1
0.8
m=1
0.9
m= 1
1.0
m= 2
1.2
m= 2
1.4
m=2
174.4
175.0
174.5
174.3
145.2
145.0
145.3
145.1
134.8
135.0
134.8
134.6
133.7
133.8
133.7
133.6
134.6
134.7
134.6
134.4
141.0
141.0
141.0
140.8
152.0
152.1
152.0
151.8
145.2
145.0
145.3
144.9
134.8
135.0
134.8
134.4
134.6
135.0
134.6
134.1
a/b
g =2
0.3
m= 1
0.4
m=1
0.5
m =1
0.6
m= 1
0.7
m= 2
0.8
m= 2
1.0
m= 2
1.2
m= 3
1.5
m= 3
2.0
m=4
464.5
467.0
467.2
466.9
400.4
402.0
401.5
401.3
391.5
392.2
392.1
391.8
411.8
412.2
412.1
411.7
422.5
424.0
424.1
422.4
400.4
402.0
401.5
400.3
391.5
392.0
392.1
391.0
400.4
402.0
401.5
399.6
391.5
392.0
392.1
389.7
391.5
392.0
392.1
387.9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
g =0
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819828
Table 1
Comparision of dimensionless buckling load coefcient ki for SCSC rectangular plate (a/h = 100) subjected to linearly varying inplane load.
823
ARTICLE IN PRESS
824
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819828
=2
400
Buckling Coefficient
450
m=1
350
m=2
m=3
m=4
m=6
m=5
300
250
= 1.5
200
150
= 1.0
100
= 0.5
=0
50
m=1
m=2
m=3
m=4
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
a/b
2.0
2.5
3.0
Fig. 2. Variation of buckling coefcients of SCSC plate with the aspect ratio (a/b)
for different inplane load distributions.
Fig. 3. Buckling modes for SCSC rectangular isotropic plate under uniform inplane
load distributions (Z = 0).
Table 2
Dimensionless buckling load of SSSS rectangular isotropic plate with uniform and parabolic in-plane loadings.
a/b= 1
a/b = 3
Uniform
Parabolic
Uniform
Parabolic
Mode
(m n)/term
Buckling
coefcient (ki)
Modes
(m n)/terms
Buckling
coefcient (ki)
Mode
(m n)/term
Buckling
coefcient (ki)
Modes
(m n)/terms
Buckling
Coefcient (ki)
[1 1]/ (1)
3.997
(1,1)
[1 1] /(1)
[2 2] /(4)
[2 3] /(6)
[3 2] /(6)
[3 3] /(9)
[4 3]/(12)
[3 4]/(12)
5.252
5.251
5.250
5.241
5.241
5.241
5.241
[1 1]/ (1)
3.997
(3,1)
[1 1] /(1)
[3 3] /(9)
[4 3]/(12)
[5 3]/(15)
[6 3]/(18)
[6 4]/(24)
[6 5]/(30)
[6 6]/(36)
5.633
5.632
5.622
5.547
5.547
5.547
5.547
5.547
Ki( =Ncrb2/p2D).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819828
825
16
Buckling Coefficient
14
12
10
8
m=1
a/h = 100
a/h = 50
a/h = 25
a/h = 10
m=3
m=2
4
Fig. 4. Buckling modes for SCSC rectangular isotropic plate under triangular
inplane load distributions (Z = 1.0).
2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
a/b
2.0
2.5
3.0
Fig. 5. Buckling modes for SCSC rectangular isotropic plate under partial inplane
tension load distributions (Z = 1.5).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
826
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819828
16
y
Buckling Coefficient
14
12
a/h = 100
a/h = 50
a/h = 20
a/h = 10
b
x
10
m=1
m=3
m=2
6
4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
a/b
2.0
2.5
3.0
16
y
a/h = 100
a/h = 50
a/h = 20
a/h = 10
14
Buckling Coefficient
Fig. 10. Buckling modes for SSSS rectangular isotropic plate under parabolic
inplane load distributions.
12
m=2
m=1
10
m=3
m=4
8
6
4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
a/b
2.0
2.5
3.0
Fig. 11. Buckling modes for SCSS rectangular isotropic plate under parabolic
inplane load distributions.
Fig. 12. Buckling modes with for SCSC rectangular isotropic plate under parabolic
inplane load distributions.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819828
827
Table 3
Comparison of dimensionless buckling load coefcient ki of isotropic rectangular plate (a/h = 100) with different boundary conditions subjected to parabolic in-plane
loading.
Support
SSSS
SSCS
SCSS
CSCS
SCSC
SSCC
CCSC
CCCS
CCCC
Source
Present
Wang et
ANSYS
Present
Wang et
ANSYS
Present
Wang et
ANSYS
Present
Wang et
ANSYS
Present
Wang et
ANSYS
Present
Wang et
ANSYS
Present
Wang et
ANSYS
Present
Wang et
ANSYS
Present
Wang et
ANSYS
a/b
al.[15]
al.[15]
al.[15]
al.[15]
al.[15]
al.[15]
al.[15]
al.[15]
al.[15]
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
9.654
9.663
9.661
17.02
17.02
17.02
10.06
10.06
10.06
30.65
30.69
30.70
10.52
10.54
10.53
17.28
17.29
17.29
17.58
17.59
17.58
30.54
30.58
30.54
31.01
31.03
31.01
7.271
7.274
7.273
12.03
12.03
12.03
7.877
7.888
7.880
21.01
21.02
21.01
8.652
8.663
8.661
12.49
12.50
12.49
13.04
13.06
13.05
21.35
21.38
21.36
21.74
21.80
21.76
6.078
6.080
6.079
9.401
9.399
9.399
6.938
6.940
6.939
15.82
15.83
15.82
8.087
8.092
8.088
10.07
10.09
10.08
10.94
10.95
10.94
16.42
16.44
16.43
17.15
17.17
17.16
5.211
5.211
5.212
7.035
7.045
7.041
6.692
6.698
6.699
10.95
10.96
10.95
8.877
8.887
8.882
8.231
8.233
8.232
9.814
9.821
9.817
12.12
12.12
12.12
13.66
13.71
13.68
5.242
5.262
5.250
6.254
6.277
6.285
7.551
7.573
7.582
9.032
9.054
9.062
9.172
9.194
9.194
7.957
7.971
7.973
9.847
9.868
9.867
10.88
10.91
10.91
13.55
13.58
13.57
5.704
5.734
5.739
6.023
6.058
6.065
7.104
7.135
7.135
8.127
8.153
8.163
9.114
9.141
9.130
7.645
7.679
7.678
9.340
9.393
9.378
9.735
9.767
9.761
11.58
11.63
11.61
5.478
5.628
5.531
5.768
5.825
5.825
7.412
7.482
7.465
7.063
7.123
7.121
9.053
9.120
9.080
7.390
7.598
7.420
8.309
9.367
9.323
9.185
9.246
9.230
11.17
11.26
11.21
5.547
5.630
5.621
5.671
5.756
5.744
7.373
7.456
7.403
6.495
6.571
6.557
9.117
9.345
9.226
7.451
7.544
7.492
9.205
9.352
9.235
8.571
8.693
8.634
10.77
10.92
10.79
Table 4
Dimensionless buckling coefcients kc of rectangular cross-ply laminated (0/90/0)
plate (a/h = 100) with different boundary conditions subjected to parabolic inplane loading.
Support
SSSS
SSCS
SCSS
CSCS
SCSC
SSCC
CCSC
CCCS
CCCC
Source
Present
ANSYS
Present
ANSYS
Present
ANSYS
Present
ANSYS
Present
ANSYS
Present
ANSYS
Present
ANSYS
Present
ANSYS
Present
ANSYS
a/b
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
35.69
35.71
70.38
70.58
35.73
35.83
133.31
133.51
35.77
35.79
70.31
70.45
70.38
70.42
133.21
133.33
133.31
133.71
41.50
41.55
77.54
78.35
44.88
44.92
145.92
146.28
49.90
49.90
80.79
80.85
83.93
84.01
148.60
148.75
150.69
150.83
54.42
55.61
90.73
91.80
73.53
73.75
162.35
162.63
103.66
103.73
105.81
105.97
127.51
127.63
174.49
175.38
193.26
194.21
87.38
88.87
119.68
120.27
146.77
147.53
192.89
192.68
199.42
201.91
162.17
163.37
218.13
219.35
233.96
234.51
296.00
298.12
154.26
156.81
171.89
173.19
224.23
227.41
247.03
248.00
281.31
284.20
249.86
252.18
315.11
318.14
342.35
344.11
406.95
410.17
227.32
229.55
246.06
248.09
301.95
304.66
333.43
337.21
424.48
428.98
336.10
340.27
437.39
443.24
436.43
438.44
525.41
532.82
conditions are compared with the ANSYS results and that of Wang
et al. [15] in Table 3. The small difference of values between the
three results is due to the reason that in the present method shear
deformation and inplane displacement have been considered,
where as Wang et al. [15] have not considered the same. Critical
buckling coefcients kc(Ncra2/E22p2h3) of 3-layered cross-ply
3.3. Conclusions
Leissa and Kang used power series (i.e., method of Frobenius)
method to obtain the buckling load of the plate with linearly
varying inplane loads. Authors mentioned in their conclusion that
whenever the inplane edge loading is more general than linearly
varying ((i.e., Ny = f(y)) the method is not fruitful and suggested
rst to solve the plane elasticity problem to determine Nx, Ny and
Nxy. In present study, the buckling load of a composite plate
subjected to parabolically distributed compressive inplane loads
are reported for the rst time. For this case, rst plane elasticity
problem is solved to determine the stress distributions within the
plate. Using the above stress distribution and adopting Galerkins
approximation the critical buckling loads are evaluated. Beam
functions are used as shape functions in the Galerkin technique. It
is observed that, whenever the plate restrained condition
increases, the number of terms required is more to get the
converged buckling load. When the two loaded edges are simply
supported and applied inplane load is uniform or linearly varying,
the plate buckles with a particular number of half-waves in the
loading direction depending on the length to width ratio of the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
828
S. Kumar Panda, L.S. Ramachandra / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 52 (2010) 819828
where
p1 uo;x 0:5wo;x 2 ; q1 vo;x 0:5wo;y 2 ;
p2 wo;xx ; q2 wo;yy ; r2 2wo;xy ;
o
o
o
o
p3 f1;x ; q3 f2;y ; r3 f1;y f2;x
a1
A:7
a2
A:8
a3
A:9
Appendix A
Nonlinear governing partial differential equations of cross-ply
composite plate in displacement variables are,
A11 uo;xx A66 uo;yy A12 A66 vo;xy A11 wo;xx A66 wo;yy wo;x A12 A66 wo;y wo;xy 0
A:1
A12 A66 uo;xy A66 vo;xx A22 vo;yy A66 wo;xx A22 wo;yy wo;y A12 A66 wo;x wo;xy 0
A:2
o
D11 wo;xxxx 2D12 wo;xxyy D22 wo;yyyy 4D66 wo;xxyy E11 f1;xxx
o
E22 wo;yyy E12 2E66 wo;xxy F66 f2;xx F22 f2;yy F12 F66 f1;xy H44 f2 0
A:4
o
E11 wo;xxx E12 2E66 wo;xyy F11 f1;xx F66 f1;yy F12 F66 f2;xy H55 f1 0
A:5
References
[1] van der Neut A. Buckling caused by thermal stresses. In: High temperature
effects in aircraft structures. AGARDograph 1958;28:21547.
[2] Benoy MB. An energy solution for buckling of rectangular plate under nonuniform inplane loading. Aeronautical Journal 1969;73:9747.
[3] Wang JTS, Biggers SB, Dickson JN. Buckling of composite plates with a free
edge in edgewise bending and compression. AIAA Journal 1984;22(3):3948.
[4] Biggers SB, Srinivasan S. Postbuckling response of piece-wise uniform tailored
composite plates in compression. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites 1994;13(9):80321.
[5] Biggers SB, Pageau SS. Shear buckling response of tailored composite plates.
AIAA Journal 1994;32(5):11003.
[6] Baranski AT, Biggers Jr. SB. Postbuckling analysis of tailored composite plates
with progressive damage. Composite and Structures 1999;46:24555.
[7] Xie D, Biggers Jr. SB. Postbuckling analysis with progressive damage modeling
in tailored composite plates and shells with a cutout. Composites and
Structures 2003;59(2):199216.
[8] Sundaresan P, Singh G, Rao VG. Buckling of moderately thick rectangular
composite plate subjected to partial edge compression. International Journal
of Mechanical Science 1998;40(11):110517.
[9] Bert CW, Devarakonda KK. Buckling of rectangular plates subjected to
nonlinearly distributed inplane loading. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 2003;40:4097106.
[10] Kang JH, Leissa AW. Vibration and buckling of SSFSSF rectangular plates
loaded by in-plane moments. International Journal of Structural Stability and
Dynamics 2001;1(4):52743.
[11] Kang JH, Leissa AW. Exact solution for the buckling of rectangular plates
having linearly varying in-plane loading on two opposite simply supported
edges. International Journal of Mechanical Science 2005;42:422038.
[12] Leissa AW, Kang JH. Exact solution for vibration and buckling of an SSC
SSC rectangular plate loaded by linearly varying inplane stresses. International Journal of Mechanical Science 2002;44:19259455.
[13] Zhong H, Gu C. Buckling of simply supported rectangular ReissnerMindlin
plates subjected to linearly varying inplane loading. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 2006;132(5):57881.
[14] Gurdal Z, Tatting BF, Wu CK. Variable stiffness composite panels: effects of
stiffness variation on the in-plane and buckling response. Composite: Part A,
Applied Science and Manufacturing 2008;39:91122.
[15] Wang X, Wang Xinfeng, Shi X. Accurate buckling loads of thin rectangular
plates under parabolic edge compressions by the differential quadrature
method. International Journal of Mechanical Science 2007;49:44753.
[16] Jana P, Bhaskar K. Stability analysis of simply-supported rectangular plates
under non-uniform uniaxial compression using rigorous and approximate
plane stress solutions. Thin-Walled Structure 2006;44:50716.
[17] Reddy JN. A simple higher-order theory for laminated composite plates.
Journal of Applied Mechanics 1984;51(4):74552.
[18] Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of elastic stability, 2e. New York: McGrawHill; 1961.
[19] Warburton GB. The vibration of rectangular plates. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineering, Series A 1954;168(12):37184.