Arch Appl Mech (2011) 81:1507–1522

DOI 10.1007/s00419-010-0497-5

O R I G I NA L

Slimane Merdaci · Abdelouahed Tounsi ·

Mohammed Sid Ahmed Houari · Ismail Mechab ·
Habib Hebali · Samir Benyoucef

Two new refined shear displacement models

for functionally graded sandwich plates

Received: 4 August 2010 / Accepted: 6 December 2010 / Published online: 1 January 2011
© Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract Two refined displacement models, RSDT1 and RSDT2, are developed for a bending analysis of
functionally graded sandwich plates. Unlike any other theory, the number of unknown functions involved is
only four, as against five in case of other shear deformation theories. The developed models are variationally
consistent, have strong similarity with classical plate theory in many aspects, do not require shear correction
factor, and give rise to transverse shear stress variation such that the transverse shear stresses vary parabolically
across the thickness satisfying shear stress-free surface conditions. The accuracy of the analysis presented is
demonstrated by comparing the results with solutions derived from other higher-order models. The function-
ally graded layers are assumed to have isotropic, two-constituent material distribution through the thickness,
and the modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s ratio of the faces, and thermal expansion coefficients are assumed to
vary according to a power-law distribution in terms of the volume fractions of the constituents. The core layer
is still homogeneous and made of an isotropic ceramic material. Numerical results for deflections and stresses
of functionally graded metal–ceramic plates are investigated. It can be concluded that the proposed models
are accurate and simple in solving the bending behavior of functionally graded plates.
Keywords Functionally graded plates · Shear deformation · Higher-order theories

1 Introduction

In recent decades, a new class of plates/shells made up of functionally graded materials (FGM), in which
the material properties continuously vary through the thickness, has become popular in various engineering
applications. Because of the feature of continuously distributed material properties in FGM plates/shells, some
drawbacks of conventional multilayered composite plates/shells resulting from the abrupt change of material
properties at the interfaces between adjacent layers have been overcome, such as residual stress concentration,
delamination, and matrix cracking. Consequently, this class of FGM plates/shells can provide more stable
working performance than the conventional multilayered composite plates/shells usually achieve and has been
successfully applied in various advanced industries. Therefore, developing theoretical methodologies and

S. Merdaci · A. Tounsi (B) · M. S. A. Houari · I. Mechab · H. Hebali · S. Benyoucef

Laboratoire des Matériaux et Hydrologie, Université de Sidi Bel Abbes, BP 89 Cité Ben M’hidi
22000 Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria
E-mail: tou_abdel@yahoo.com

A. Tounsi
Département de génie civil, Faculté des Sciences de l’Ingénieur, Université Sidi Bel Abbes,
Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria

M. S. A. Houari · I. Mechab
Département de génie civil, Université de Mascaraa, Mamounia, Algeria
1508 S. Merdaci et al.

numerical modeling for the analysis of this class of FGM plates and shells has attracted considerable attention
from researchers [1–7].
In the classical plate theory (CPT), which is the simplest theory of plates, the normals to their midplane
remain straight and perpendicular to the plane after deformation. This is the result of neglecting the transverse
shear strains. The displacement field in the CPT is
∂w0 ∂w0
u(x, y, z) = u0 − z , v(x, y, z) = v0 − z , w(x, y, z) = w0 (x, y) (1)
∂x ∂y
where u, v, and w are displacements along the x, y, and z coordinate directions, respectively, and u 0 , v0 , and
w0 are the midplane displacements.
However, in thick and moderately thick plates, the transverse shear strains have to be taken into account.
There are numerous plate theories that include these strains. The first-order shear deformation plate theory
(FSDPT), which is known as the Mindlin plate theory [8–10], considers the displacement field as linear
variations of midplane displacements:

u(x, y, z) = u0 + zθx , v(x, y, z) = v0 + zθy , w(x, y, z) = w0 (x, y) (2)

In this theory, the relation between the resultant shear forces and the shear strains depends on shear correction
factors [11–13]. This theory is also used for FGM plates as is described by Sladek et al. [14].
Some other plate theories, e.g., higher-order shear deformation theories (HSDT), which include the effect
of transverse shear strains, are reported in the literature.
Higher-order theories based on series expansions were developed by Donnel [15], Reissner [16], and Lo
et al. [17,18] and were modified by Levinson [19], Murthy [20], and Reddy [21]. The displacement field in
these theories is

u(x, y, z) = u0 + zθx + z2 ψx + z3 ξx , v(x, y, z) = v0 + zθy + z2 ψy + z3 ξy , w(x, y, z) = w0 + zθz + z2 ψz

(3)

Reddy [21,22] put forward a parabolic shear deformation plate theory (PSDPT) which considers not only the
transverse shear strains, but also their parabolic variation across the plate thickness. As a result, there is no
need to use shear correction coefficients in computing the shear stresses. In this theory,
 
∂w0 4z2
u(x, y, z) = u0 − z + z 1 − 2 θx ,
∂x 3h
 
∂w0 4z2
v(x, y, z) = v0 − z + z 1 − 2 θy , w(x, y, z) = w0 (x, y) (4)
∂y 3h
Touratier [23] used sinusoidal shear deformation plate theory (SSDPT) for describing the parabolic distribution
of transverse shear strains across the plate thickness and took the displacement field in the form

∂w0 h  πz  ∂w h  πz 
u(x, y, z) = u0 − z + sin θx , v(x, y, z) = v0 − z + sin θy , w(x, y, z) = w0 (x, y)
∂x π h ∂y π h
(5)

Soldatos [24] employed hyperbolic shear deformation plate theory (HSDPT) for this purpose:
 z  
∂w0 1
u(x, y, z) = u0 − z + h sinh − z cosh θx ,
∂x h 2
 z   (6)
∂w 1
v(x, y, z) = v0 − z + h sinh − z cosh θy , w(x, y, z) = w0 (x, y)
∂y h 2

Karama et al. [25] used an exponential shear deformation plate theory (ESDPT):
∂w0 ∂w
+ ze−2(z/h) θx , v(x, y, z) = v0 − z + ze−2(z/h) θy , w(x, y, z) = w0 (x, y) (7)
2 2
u(x, y, z) = u0 − z
∂x ∂y
Two new refined shear displacement models for functionally graded sandwich plates 1509

Table 1 Displacement models

Model Theory Unknown function

CPT Classical plate theory 3
FSDPT First shear deformation plate theory [8–10] 5
PSDPT Parabolic shear deformation plate theory [21,22] 5
SSDPT Sinusoidal shear deformation plate theory [23] 5
HSDPT Hyperbolic shear deformation plate theory [24] 5
ESDPT Exponential shear deformation plate theory [25] 5
TSDPT Trigonometric shear deformation plate theory [26] 5
RSDT1 Refined shear deformation plate theory 1 (present) 4
RSDT2 Refined shear deformation plate theory 2 (present) 4

Ferreira et al. [26] assumed the displacement field in the form

∂w0  πz  ∂w0  πz 
u(x, y, z) = u0 − z + sin θx , v(x, y, z) = v0 − z + sin θy , w(x, y, z) = w0 (x, y) (8)
∂x h ∂y h
The description of various plate theories is given in Table 1. There are also many comparison studies on the
behavior of transverse shear stresses in composite plates [27–31].
In this study, two new displacement models for an analysis of simply supported FGM sandwich plates are
proposed. The plates are made of an isotropic material with material properties varying in the thickness direc-
tion only. Analytical solutions for bending deflections of FGM plates are obtained. The governing equations
are derived from the principle of minimum total potential energy. Numerical results for displacements and
stresses are presented for a metal–ceramic FG plate. To make the study reasonable, displacements and stresses
are given for different homogenization schemes and exponents in the power-law that describes the variation
of the constituents.

2 Problem formulation

Consider the case of a uniform thickness, rectangular FGM sandwich plate composed of three microscopically
heterogeneous layers as shown in Fig. 1. The top and bottom faces of the plate are at z = ±h/2, and the edges
of the plate are parallel to axes x and y.
The sandwich plate is composed of three elastic layers, namely, “Layer 1”, “Layer 2”, and “Layer 3” from
bottom to top of the plate (Fig. 2). The vertical ordinates of the bottom, the two interfaces, and the top are
denoted by h1 = −h/2, h2 , h3 , h4 = h/2, respectively.
Two homogenization techniques are used to find the effective properties at each point in FGM layer. The
rule of mixtures is the conventional and simple technique, which is widely used in composite materials. In
this technique, the effective property of FGM can be approximated based on an assumption that a composite
property is the volume weighted average of the properties of the constituents. Another widely used approach
for characterization of the material gradation is the micromechanics technique. In this technique, the effec-
tive elastic moduli of an FGM are determined from the volume fractions and shapes of the constituents.
The Mori–Tanaka method [32] and self-consistent method [33] are two popular schemes of micromechanics
technique.

Fig. 1 Geometry of rectangular FGM sandwich plate with uniform thickness in rectangular Cartesian coordinates
1510 S. Merdaci et al.

Fig. 2 The material variation along the thickness of the FGM sandwich plate

Recently, Chehel Amirani et al. [34] studied the free vibration of sandwich beam with FG core, and they
showed that there is insignificant difference between the results obtained by these two techniques (microme-
chanics technique and the rule of mixtures technique). Hence, in the following sections, the rule of mixtures
technique is used for its simplicity.
The volume fraction of the FGMs is assumed to obey a power-law function along the thickness direction:
 
z − h1 k
V (1) = , z ∈ [h1 , h2 ] (9a)
h2 − h1
V (2) = 1, z ∈ [h2 , h3 ] (9b)
 
(3) h − h4 k
V = , z ∈ [h3 , h4 ] (9c)
h3 − h4

where V (n) , (n = 1, 2, 3) denotes the volume fraction function of layer n; k is the volume fraction index
(0 ≤ k ≤ +∞), which indicates the material variation profile through the thickness.
The effective material properties like Young’s modulus E, Poisson’s ratio ν, and thermal expansion coef-
ficient α then can be expressed by the rule of mixture [31–35] as

P(n) (z) = P2 + (P1 − P2 ) V(n) (10)

where P (n) is the effective material property of FGM of layer n. P2 and P1 denote the property of the bottom
and top faces of layer 1 (h1 ≤ z ≤ h2 ), respectively, and vice versa for layer 3 (h3 ≤ z ≤ h4 ) depending on
the volume fraction V(n) (n = 1, 2, 3). For simplicity, Poisson’s ratio of plate is assumed to be constant in this
study for that the effect of Poisson’s ratio on the deformation is much less than that of Young’s modulus [36].

2.1 Present refined shear deformation theory

Unlike the other theories, the number of unknown functions involved in the present refined shear deformation
theory is only four, as against five in case of other shear deformation theories [21–26]. The theory presented is
variationally consistent, does not require a shear correction factor, and gives rise to transverse shear stress vari-
ation such that the transverse shear stresses vary parabolically across the thickness, satisfying shear stress-free
surface conditions.

2.1.1 Assumptions of the present plate theory

Assumptions of the present plate theory are as follows:

(i) The displacements are small in comparison with the plate thickness, and, therefore, strains involved are
infinitesimal.
(ii) The transverse displacement w includes two components of bending wb , and shear ws . These components
are functions of coordinates x, y only.

w(x, y, z) = wb (x, y) + ws (x, y) (11)

(iii) The transverse normal stress σ z is negligible in comparison with in-plane stresses σ x and σ y .
Two new refined shear displacement models for functionally graded sandwich plates 1511

(iv) The displacements u in x-direction and v in y-direction consist of extension, bending, and shear com-
ponents.

U = u0 + ub + us , V = v0 + vb + vs (12)
The bending components ub and vb are assumed to be similar to the displacements given by the classical plate
theory. Therefore, the expression for ub and vb can be given as
∂wb ∂wb
ub = −z , vb = −z (13)
∂x ∂y
The shear components us and vs give rise, in conjunction with ws , to the parabolic variations of shear strains
γ xz , γ yz and hence to shear stresses τ xz , τ yz through the thickness of the plate in such a way that shear stresses
τ xz , τ yz are zero at the top and bottom faces of the plate. Consequently, the expression for us and vs can be
given as
∂ws ∂ws
us = −f(z) , vs = −f(z) (14)
∂x ∂y

2.1.2 Displacement field and constitutive equations

In the present analysis, displacement field models satisfying the condition of zero transverse shear stresses on
the top and bottom surface of the plate are considered. Based on the assumptions made in preceding section,
the displacement field can be obtained using Eqs. (11)–(14) as
∂wb ∂ws
u(x, y, z) = u0 (x, y) − z − f(z)
∂x ∂x
∂wb ∂ws
v(x, y, z) = v0 (x, y) − z − f(z)
∂y ∂y
w(x, y, z) = wb (x, y) + ws (x, y) (15a)
where the function f(z) is chosen in the form RSDT1 and RSDT2
h  πz 
f(z) = z − sin for the RSDT1 model and (15b)
 π h 
 
−1 5 z 2
f(z) = z + for the RSDT2 model (15c)
4 3 h
The strains associated with the displacements in Eq. (15) are
ε x = ε 0x + zkbx + f(z)ksx
ε y = ε 0y + zkby + f(z)ksy
γ xy = γ 0xy + zkbxy + f(z)ksxy
(16)
γ yz = g(z)γ syz
γ xz = g(z)γ sxz
εz = 0
where
∂u0 ∂ 2 wb ∂ 2 ws
ε 0x = , kbx = − 2 , ksx = − 2
∂x ∂x ∂x
∂v 0 ∂ 2w
b ∂ 2w
s
ε 0y = , kby = − 2 , ksy = − 2
∂y ∂y ∂y
(17)
∂u0 ∂v0 ∂ 2 wb ∂ 2 ws
γ 0xy = + , kbxy = −2 , ksxy = −2
∂y ∂x ∂x∂y ∂x∂y
∂ws ∂ws df(z)
γ syz = , γ sxz = , g(z) = 1 − f  (z) and f  (z) =
∂y ∂x dz
1512 S. Merdaci et al.

For elastic and isotropic FGMs, the constitutive relations can be written as:
⎧ ⎫(n) ⎡ ⎤(n) ⎧ ⎫(n)
⎨σx ⎬ Q11 Q12 0 ⎨ εx ⎬  (n)  (n)  (n)
⎣ ⎦ τ yz Q44 0 γ yz
σy = Q12 Q22 0 εy and = (18)
⎩τ ⎭ ⎩γ ⎭ τ zx 0 Q55 γ zx
xy 0 0 Q 66 xy
   
where σ x , σ y , τ xy , τ yz , τ yx and εx , εy , γ xy , γ yz , γ yx are the stress and strain components, respectively.
Using the material properties defined in Eq. (10), stiffness coefficients, Qij , can be expressed as
E(z)
Q11 = Q22 = , (19a)
1 − ν2
ν E(z)
Q12 = , (19b)
1 − ν2
E(z)
Q44 = Q55 = Q66 = , (19c)
2 (1 + ν)

2.1.3 Equilibrium equations

The equilibrium equations are derived by using the virtual work principle, which can be written for the
plate as
h/2  
 
σ x δε x + σ yδε y + τ xy δγ xy + τ yz δγ yz + τ xz δγ xz ddz − qδWd = 0 (20)
−h/2  

where  is the top surface.

Substituting Eqs. (17) and (18) into Eq. (20) and integrating through the thickness of the plate, Eq. (20)
can be rewritten as
 
Nx δε 0x + Ny δε 0y + Nxy δε 0xy + Mbx δkbx + Mby δkby + Mbxy δkbxy + Msx δksx

 
+ Msy δksy + Msxy δksxy + Ssyz δγ syz + Ssxz δγ sxz d − q (δwb + δwb ) d = 0 (21)

where
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎨ Nx, Ny, Nxy, ⎪
⎪ ⎬ 3 n+1
h
⎨1 ⎬
 (n)
Mbx , Mby , Mbxy , = σ x , σ y , τ xy z dz, (22a)
⎪
⎩ s ⎪
⎭ n=1 ⎩ f(z) ⎭
Mx , My , Mxy ,
s s
hn

3 n+1
h
    (n)
Ssxz , Ssyz = τ xz , τ yz g(z)dz. (22b)
n=1 h
n

where hn+1 and hn are the top and bottom z-coordinates of the nth layer.
The governing equations of equilibrium can be derived from Eq. (21) by integrating the displacement
gradients by parts and setting the coefficients δu0 , δv0 , δwb , and δws zero separately. Thus, one can obtain the
equilibrium equations associated with the present shear deformation theory,
∂Nx ∂Nxy
δu : + =0
∂x ∂y
∂Nxy ∂Ny
δv : + =0
∂x ∂y
∂ 2 Mbx ∂ 2 Mbxy ∂ 2 Mby (23)
δwb : + 2 + +q=0
∂x2 ∂x∂y ∂y2
∂ 2 Msx ∂ Mxy
2 s ∂ My
2 s
∂Ssxz ∂Ssyz
δws : +2 + + + +q=0
∂x2 ∂x∂y ∂y2 ∂x ∂y
Two new refined shear displacement models for functionally graded sandwich plates 1513

Using Eq. (18) in Eq. (22), the stress resultants of a sandwich plate made up of three layers can be related to
the total strains by
⎧ ⎫ ⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
⎨N ⎬ A B Bs ⎨ ε ⎬
Mb = ⎣ A D Ds ⎦ kb , S = As γ , (24)
⎩ s⎭ Bs Ds Hs ⎩ ks ⎭
M
where
 t  t  t
N = Nx , Ny , Nxy , Mb = Mbx , Mby , Mbxy , Ms = Msx , Msy , Msxy , (25a)
 t  t  t
ε = ε 0x , ε 0y , γ 0xy , kb = kbx , kby , kbxy , ks = ksx , ksy , ksxy , (25b)
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
A11 A12 0 B11 B12 0 D11 D12 0
A = ⎣ A12 A22 0 ⎦ , B = ⎣ B12 B22 0 ⎦ , D = ⎣ D12 D22 0 ⎦ , (25c)
0 0 A66 0 0 B66 0 0 D66
⎡ s s ⎤ ⎡ s s ⎤ ⎡ s s ⎤
B11 B12 0 D11 D12 0 H11 H12 0
Bs = ⎣ Bs12 Bs22 0 ⎦ , Ds = ⎣ Ds12 Ds22 0 ⎦ , Hs = ⎣ Hs12 Hs22 0 ⎦ , (25d)
0 0 Bs66 0 0 Ds 0 0 Hs66
 s66 
 t  t A44 0
S = Ssxz , Syzs , γ = γ xz , γ yz , As = (25e)
0 As55
The stiffness coefficients Ai j and Bi j , etc., are defined as
⎧ s s s
⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎨ A11 B11 D11 B11 D11 H11 ⎪
⎪ ⎬  3 n+1
h
⎨ 1 ⎬
(n)  
ν (n)
A12 B12 D12 Bs12 Ds12 Hs12 = Q11 1, z, z2 , f(z), zf(z), f2 (z) dz, (26a)
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭ n=1 ⎩ 1−ν (n) ⎭
A66 B66 D66 Bs66 Ds66 Hs66 hn 2

and
    (n) E(z)
A22 , B22 , D22 , Bs22 , Ds22 , Hs22 = A11 , B11 , D11 , Bs11 , Ds11 , Hs11 , Q11 = (26b)
1 − ν2
3 n+1
h
 E(z)  2
A44 = A55 =
s s
g(z) dz, (26c)
2 (1 + ν)
n=1 h
n

Substituting from Eq. (24) into Eq. (23), we obtain the following equation
A11 d11 u0 + A66 D22 u0 + (A12 + A66 ) d12 v0 − B11 d111 wb − (B12 + 2B66 ) d122 wb
 
− Bs12 + 2Bs66 d122 ws − Bs11 d111 ws = 0, (27a)
A22 d22 v0 + A66 d11 v0 + (A12 + A66 ) d12 u0 − B22 d222 wb − (B12 + 2B66 ) d112 wb
 
− Bs12 + 2Bs66 d112 ws − Bs22 d222 ws = 0, (27b)
B11 d111 u0 + (B12 + 2B66 ) d122 u0 + (B12 + 2B66 ) d112 v0 + B22 d222 v0
− D11 d1111 wb − 2 (D12 + 2D66 ) d1122 wb
 
− D22 d2222 wb − Ds11 d1111 ws − 2 Ds12 + 2Ds66 d1122 ws − Ds22 d2222 ws + q = 0, (27c)
   
Bs11 d111 u0 + Bs12 + 2Bs66 d122 u0 + Bs12 + 2Bs66 d112 v0 + Bs22 d222 v0
 
− Ds11 d1111 wb − 2 Ds12 + 2Ds66 d1122 wb
 
− Ds22 d2222 wb − Hs11 d1111 ws − 2 Hs12 + 2Hs66 d1122 ws
− Hs22 d2222 ws + As55 d11 ws + As44 D22 ws + q = 0 (27d)
where dij , dijl , and dijlm are the following differential operators:
∂2 ∂3 ∂4
dij = , dijl = , dijlm = , (i, j, l, m = 1, 2). (28)
∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xl ∂xi ∂xj ∂xl ∂xm
1514 S. Merdaci et al.

Table 2 Effects of volume fraction exponent on the dimensionless center deflections w of the different sandwich square plates

k Theory w
1-0-1 1-1-1 1-2-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
0 RSDT1 0.07790303811 0.07790303811 0.07790303811 0.07790303811 0.07790303811
RSDT2 0.07790968813 0.07790968813 0.07790968813 0.07790968813 0.07790968813
SSDPT 0.07790303807 0.07790303807 0.07790303807 0.07790303807 0.07790303807
PSDPT 0.07790968816 0.07790968816 0.07790968816 0.07790968816 0.07790968816
ESDPT 0.07788354292 0.07788354292 0.07788354292 0.07788354292 0.07788354292
FSDPT 0.07791247898 0.07791247898 0.07791247898 0.07791247898 0.07791247898
CPT 0.07375297775 0.07375297775 0.07375297775 0.07375297775 0.07375297775
1 RSDT1 0.1960374616 0.1567130768 0.1349817311 0.1734597228 0.1457900983
RSDT2 0.1960877843 0.1567290438 0.1349767793 0.1734932520 0.1457976301
SSDPT 0.1960374616 0.1567130769 0.1349817309 0.1734597228 0.1457900984
PSDPT 0.1960877844 0.1567290438 0.1349767793 0.1734932520 0.1457976300
ESDPT 0.1959726863 0.1566865529 0.1349765996 0.1734142440 0.1457710326
FSDPT 0.1970326068 0.1573574490 0.1353900656 0.1742772559 0.1462971232
CPT 0.1900076715 0.1516443991 0.1301649070 0.1681029962 0.1407897697
2 RSDT1 0.2847866148 0.2106743313 0.1692408728 0.2432596500 0.1894930926
RSDT2 0.2849023821 0.2107090884 0.1692362771 0.2433313416 0.1895109912
SSDPT 0.2847866147 0.2106743312 0.1692408729 0.2432596502 0.1894930926
PSDPT 0.2849023822 0.2107090885 0.1692362770 0.2433313416 0.1895109914
ESDPT 0.2846544269 0.2106306182 0.1692373618 0.2431765984 0.1894644155
FSDPT 0.2866053575 0.2117059201 0.1698485201 0.2446474625 0.1902760723
CPT 0.2774864509 0.2051804639 0.1641354702 0.2372843702 0.1841018127
3 RSDT1 0.33606390476 0.2451013158 0.1903941485 0.2872645148 0.2166927584
RSDT2 0.3362423053 0.2451555605 0.1903936675 0.2873727377 0.2167221065
SSDPT 0.3360639047 0.2451013157 0.1903941486 0.2872645149 0.2166927582
PSDPT 0.3362423057 0.2451555604 0.1903936678 0.2873727377 0.2167221065
ESDPT 0.3358662857 0.2450389560 0.1903877377 0.2871449685 0.2166528932
FSDPT 0.3385070153 0.2464129618 0.1911365619 0.2890830374 0.2176651224
CPT 0.3277910123 0.2393880264 0.1851437261 0.2809355606 0.2110929376
4 RSDT1 0.3645156376 0.2676028572 0.2043026094 0.3148758215 0.2343233353
RSDT2 0.3647438193 0.2676739215 0.2043068289 0.3150142476 0.2343624668
SSDPT 0.3645156376 0.2676028570 0.2043026094 0.3148758214 0.2343233354
PSDPT 0.3647438192 0.2676739214 0.2043068289 0.3150142475 0.2343624667
ESDPT 0.3642648216 0.2675240666 0.2042922485 0.3147257766 0.2342737088
FSDPT 0.3673781636 0.2691212885 0.2051427391 0.3170123902 0.2354305210
CPT 0.3554038421 0.2617581963 0.1989684794 0.3083085881 0.2285939705
5 RSDT1 0.3808987521 0.2829700265 0.2139890657 0.3328492117 0.2463510788
RSDT2 0.3811637994 0.2830548580 0.2139976337 0.3330115755 0.2463980407
SSDPT 0.3808987518 0.2829700267 0.2139890657 0.3328492118 0.2463510789
PSDPT 0.3811637995 0.2830548581 0.2139976336 0.3330115758 0.2463980407
ESDPT 0.3806073603 0.2828776167 0.2139748350 0.3326747772 0.2462935437
FSDPT 0.3840228475 0.2846437675 0.2149026487 0.3352208361 0.2475567882
CPT 0.3710315287 0.2770365513 0.2086012118 0.3261019295 0.2405318530

3 Numerical procedure

Rectangular plates are generally classified in accordance with the type of support used. We are here concerned
with the exact solution of Eqs. (27) for a simply supported FGM plate. The following boundary conditions are
imposed at the side edges:

∂wb ∂ws
v0 = wb = ws = 0, = = 0, Nx = 0, and Mbx = Msx = 0 at x = −a/2, a/2 (29a)
∂y ∂y
∂wb ∂ws
u0 = wb = ws = 0, = = 0, Ny = 0, and Mby = Msy = 0 at y = −b/2, b/2 (29b)
∂x ∂x

To solve this problem, Navier presented the external force in the form of a double trigonometric series:

∞ 
 ∞
q(x, y) = Qmn sin(λx) sin(μy), (30)
m=1 n=1
Two new refined shear displacement models for functionally graded sandwich plates 1515

Table 3 Effect of aspect ratio a/b on the dimensionless deflection of the FGM sandwich plates (k = 2)

Scheme Theory w
a/b = 1/4 a/b = 1/2 a/b = 1 a/b = 2 a/b = 4
1-0-1 RSDT1 0.9969487918 0.7220474258 0.2847866148 0.04731604979 0.004696775151
RSDT2 0.9971662339 0.7222323307 0.2849023821 0.04736267860 0.004710865830
SSDPT 0.9969487920 0.7220474250 0.2847866147 0.04731604981 0.004696775152
PSDPT 0.9971662333 0.7222323307 0.2849023822 0.04736267860 0.004710865836
ESDPT 0.9967004829 0.7218362747 0.2846544269 0.04726282514 0.004680712612
FSDPT 1.000369588 0.7249555641 0.2866053575 0.04804539476 0.004913455447
CPT 0.9832045874 0.7103653138 0.2774864509 0.04439783213 0.003840642913
1-1-1 RSDT1 0.7373495071 0.5340534666 0.2106743313 0.03502513094 0.003484312462
RSDT2 0.7374145671 0.5341088300 0.2107090884 0.03503928186 0.003488764638
SSDPT 0.7373495069 0.5340534665 0.2106743312 0.03502513095 0.003484312464
PSDPT 0.7374145672 0.5341088299 0.2107090885 0.03503928183 0.003488764639
ESDPT 0.7372676359 0.5339838061 0.2106306182 0.03500736583 0.003478760284
FSDPT 0.7392894224 0.5357027175 0.2117059201 0.03543905667 0.003607568722
CPT 0.7270062108 0.5252619877 0.2051804639 0.03282887426 0.002839868011
1-2-1 RSDT1 0.5911853821 0.4283566592 0.1692408728 0.02830262572 0.002870630758
RSDT2 0.5911763680 .4283490588 0.1692362771 0.02830103401 0.002870451258
SSDPT 0.5911853821 0.4283566594 0.1692408729 0.02830262573 0.002870630758
PSDPT 0.5911763677 0.4283490590 0.1692362770 0.02830103402 0.002870451258
ESDPT 0.5911791916 0.4283513263 0.1692373618 0.02830093719 0.002869802080
FSDPT 0.5923274069 0.4293276835 0.1698485201 0.02854689519 0.002943894726
CPT 0.5815734307 0.4201868035 0.1641354702 0.2626167525 0.002271771210
2-1-2 RSDT1 0.8520081128 0.6170098414 0.2432596500 0.04035420666 0.003985126198
RSDT2 0.8521426842 0.6171242912 0.2433313416 0.04038313961 0.003993935885
SSDPT 0.8520081129 0.6170098416 0.2432596502 0.04035420667 0.003985126198
PSDPT 0.8521426839 0.6171242911 0.2433313416 0.04038313963 0.003993935884
ESDPT 0.8518521982 0.6168772430 0.2431765984 0.04032070217 0.003974940331
FSDPT 0.8546183984 0.6192289358 0.2446474625 0.04091073613 0.004150458876
CPT 0.8407584601 0.6074479882 0.2372843702 0.03796549925 0.003284212734
2-2-1 RSDT1 0.6624694062 0.4799279728 0.1894930926 0.03161151851 0.003180507179
RSDT2 0.6625027250 0.4799563575 0.1895109912 0.03161893158 0.003182984212
SSDPT 0.6624694062 0.4799279729 0.1894930926 0.03161151850 0.003180507181
PSDPT 0.6625027246 0.4799563571 0.1895109914 0.03161893159 0.003182984211
ESDPT 0.6624158502 0.4798823781 0.1894644155 0.03159975960 0.003176712041
FSDPT 0.6639413614 0.4811794560 0.1902760723 0.03192599388 0.003274505457
CPT 0.6523192260 0.4713006404 0.1841018127 0.02945629002 0.002548121971

where λ = mπ/a and μ = nπ/b, and m and n are mode numbers. For the case of a sinusoidally distributed
load, we have

m = n = 1, and q11 = q0 (31)

where q0 represents the intensity of the load at the plate center.

Following the Navier solution procedure, we assume the following solution form for (u0 , v0 , wb , ws ) that
satisfies the boundary conditions,
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪ u0 ⎪⎪ ⎪ Umn cos(λx) sin(μy) ⎪
⎪
⎪v ⎬ ⎪
⎪ ⎨ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎨ 0 Vmn sin(λx) cos(μy) ⎬
= , (32)
⎪
⎪ wb ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ Wbmn sin(λx) sin(μy) ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ ws ⎪ ⎭ ⎩W sin(λx) sin(μy)
⎭
smn

where Umn , Vmn , Wbmn , and Wsmn are arbitrary parameters to be determined using Eqs. (27). One obtains the
following operator equation,

[K] {} = {P}, (33)

where {} and {F} denotes the columns

 
{}T = {Umn , Vmn , Wbmn , Wsmn } , and {F}T = 0, 0, −qmn , −qmn . (34)
1516 S. Merdaci et al.

Table 4 Effects of volume fraction exponent on the dimensionless axial stress σ x of the FGM square plate

k Theory σx
1-0-1 1-1-1 1-2-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
0 RSDT1 1.995500426 1.995500426 1.995500426 1.995500426 1.995500426
RSDT2 1.995500426 1.994322048 1.994322048 1.994322048 1.994322048
SSDPT 1.995500425 1.995500425 1.995500425 1.995500425 1.995500425
PSDPT 1.994322050 1.994322050 1.994322050 1.994322050 1.994322050
ESDPT 1.996604668 1.996604668 1.996604668 1.996604668 1.996604668
FSDPT 1.975763081 1.975763081 1.975763081 1.975763081 1.975763081
1 RSDT1 0.9440725801 0.7538738155 0.6475971685 0.8353570262 0.6551706776
RSDT2 0.9436998270 0.7535245180 0.6472490279 0.8350075555 0.6548254747
SSDPT 0.9440725801 0.7538738160 0.6475971682 0.8353570255 0.6551706779
PSDPT 0.9436998278 0.7535245180 0.6472490281 0.8350075555 0.6548254739
ESDPT 0.9444208532 0.7542072962 0.6479324979 0.8356868855 0.6554995708
FSDPT 0.9376502754 0.7483351152 0.6423380702 0.8295550361 0.6497427808
2 RSDT1 1.377021358 1.018781385 0.8158819124 1.177554594 0.8339863401
RSDT2 1.376618511 1.018389504 0.8154785470 1.177177220 0.8335924793
SSDPT 1.377021358 1.018781385 0.8158819132 1.177554596 0.8339863401
PSDPT 1.376618512 1.018389505 0.8154785470 1.177177220 0.8335924801
ESDPT 1.377389894 1.019156727 0.8162743708 1.177908115 0.8343626608
FSDPT 1.369340749 1.012525005 0.8099760802 1.170951433 0.8278288024
3 RSDT1 1.625907776 1.187845692 0.9198385532 1.393221446 0.9434577978
RSDT2 1.625518635 1.187448435 0.9194123216 1.392856605 0.9430467085
SSDPT 1.625907776 1.187845692 0.9198385524 1.393221447 0.9434577978
PSDPT 1.625518639 1.187448433 0.9194123224 1.392856605 0.9430467093
ESDPT 1.626253731 1.188225350 0.9202550185 1.393558668 0.9438501347
FSDPT 1.617583809 1.181332560 0.9136476671 1.386361424 0.9369686216
4 RSDT1 1.762667930 1.298330162 0.9882021870 1.528387607 1.013728625
RSDT2 1.762292931 1.297939361 0.9877663216 1.528043627 1.013311427
SSDPT 1.762667929 1.298330161 0.9882021862 1.528387607 1.013728625
PSDPT 1.762292931 1.297939361 0.9877663216 1.528043625 1.013311426
ESDPT 1.762991992 1.298702144 0.9886288593 1.528700743 1.014125945
FSDPT 1.753847661 1.291724923 0.9818700906 1.521441899 1.007062407
5 RSDT1 1.840255874 1.373757679 1.035815027 1.616230779 1.061363472
RSDT2 1.839886083 1.373376155 1.035375225 1.615906291 1.060944155
SSDPT 1.840255874 1.373757679 1.035815026 1.616230780 1.061363472
PSDPT 1.839886083 1.373376155 1.035375225 1.615906292 1.060944155
ESDPT 1.840568006 1.374119203 1.036245885 1.616521740 1.061761942
FSDPT 1.830967205 1.367120584 1.029405719 1.609248520 1.054588346

and
⎡ ⎤
a11 a12 a13 a14
⎢ a12 a22 a23 a24 ⎥
[K ] = ⎣ ,
a34 ⎦
(35)
a13 a23 a33
a14 a24 a34 a44
in which:
 
a11 = − A11 λ2 + A66 μ2
a12 = −λμ (A12 + A66 )
a13 = λ[B11 λ2 + (B12 + 2B66 )μ2 ]
a14 = λ[Bs11 λ2 + (Bs12 + 2Bs66 )μ2 ]
 
a22 = − A66 λ2 + A22 μ2 (36)
a23 = μ[(B12 + 2B66 )λ + B22 μ ]
2 2

a24 = μ[(Bs12 + 2Bs66 )λ2 + Bs22 μ2 ]

 
a33 = − D11 λ4 + 2(D12 + 2D66 )λ2 μ2 + D22 μ4
 
a34 = − Ds11 λ4 + 2(Ds12 + 2Ds66 )λ2 μ2 + Ds22 μ 4
 
a44 = − Hs11 λ4 + 2(Hs11 + 2Hs66 )λ2 μ2 + Hs22 μ4 + As55 λ2 + As44 μ2
Two new refined shear displacement models for functionally graded sandwich plates 1517

Table 5 Effects of volume fraction exponent on the dimensionless transverse shear stress τ x z of the FGM sandwich square plates

k Theory τ xz
1-0-1 1-1-1 1-2-1 2-1-2 2-2-1
0 RSDT1 0.2461800786 0.2461800786 0.2461800786 0.2461800786 0.2461800786
RSDT2 0.2385722368 0.2385722368 0.2385722368 0.2385722368 0.2385722368
SSDPT 0.2461800789 0.2461800789 0.2461800789 0.2461800789 0.2461800789
PSDPT 0.2385722369 0.2385722369 0.2385722369 0.2385722369 0.2385722369
ESDPT 0.2537964511 0.2537964511 0.2537964511 0.2537964511 0.2537964511
FSDPT 0.1591549430 0.1591549430 0.1591549430 0.1591549430 0.1591549430
1 RSDT1 0.3410283239 0.2846232298 0.2705450198 0.3015504090 0.2817627605
RSDT2 0.3343263458 0.2777698981 0.2628693010 0.2951461351 0.2743788976
SSDPT 0.3410283240 0.2846232299 0.2705450198 0.3015504093 0.2817627607
PSDPT 0.3343263457 0.2777698979 0.2628693008 0.2951461353 0.2743788976
ESDPT 0.3476999716 0.2916193263 0.2784338151 0.3080068645 0.2892704933
FSDPT 0.2687950153 0.2185983558 0.1999301764 0.2362456185 0.2107277991
2 RSDT1 0.4142621883 0.3048004591 0.2819062066 0.3344535292 0.3002035928
RSDT2 0.4091869511 0.2989262010 0.2745137059 0.3295841212 0.2933103754
SSDPT 0.4142621886 0.3048004593 0.2819062070 0.3344535294 0.3002035934
PSDPT 0.4091869513 0.2989262011 0.2745137056 0.3295841214 0.2933103755
ESDPT 0.4191527749 0.3108541107 0.2896048956 0.3393349480 0.3072458023
FSDPT 0.3489166061 0.2496834427 0.2185983556 0.2817339056 0.2362456186
3 RSDT1 0.4750163773 0.3168735258 0.2881994693 0.3562078083 0.3113186472
RSDT2 0.4713253791 0.3118723402 0.2811258564 0.3526990656 0.3048721239
SSDPT 0.4750163779 0.3168735260 0.2881994691 0.3562078077 0.3113186471
PSDPT 0.4713253798 0.3118723400 0.2811258568 0.3526990654 0.3048721236
ESDPT 0.4783140082 0.3220483081 0.2956225587 0.3596557495 0.3179071857
FSDPT 0.4100262941 0.2687950151 0.2293038042 0.3117467960 0.2514714278
4 RSDT1 0.5282678443 0.3250024098 0.2921729400 0.3721411748 0.3188535037
RSDT2 0.5254079891 0.3207031564 0.2853784402 0.3697033242 0.3127535851
SSDPT 0.5282678446 0.3250024101 0.2921729400 0.3721411748 0.3188535041
PSDPT 0.5254079892 0.3207031562 0.2853784403 0.3697033241 0.3127535852
ESDPT 0.5305159115 0.3294543459 0.2993375496 0.3744402084 0.3250796249
FSDPT 0.4581733210 0.2817339055 0.2362456189 0.3330334714 0.2615868441
5 RSDT1 0.5759064640 0.3309424574 0.2949192557 0.3845927855 0.3243713954
RSDT2 0.5733659296 0.3271941912 0.2883554168 0.3829703775 0.3185308111
SSDPT 0.5759064646 0.3309424577 0.2949192561 0.3845927854 0.3243713955
PSDPT 0.5733659295 0.3271941916 0.2883554169 0.3829703777 0.3185308112
ESDPT 0.5776291873 0.3348184848 0.3018629250 0.3860033781 0.3303214867
FSDPT 0.4970866716 0.2910748156 0.2411118073 0.3489166061 0.2687950150

4 Numerical results

In this study, two new shear deformation theories for FGM sandwich plates are considered, and comparisons
are made with solutions obtained using other shear deformation theories available in the literature. Symmetric
and non-symmetric sandwich plates are examined. Note that the core of the plate is fully ceramic, while the
bottom and top surfaces of the plate are metal rich.
In the following, we note that several kinds of sandwich plates are used:
• The (1-0-1) FGM sandwich plate: The plate is symmetric and made of only two equal thickness FGM
layers, i.e., there is no core layer. Thus, h1 = h2 = 0.
• The (1-1-1) FGM sandwich plate: Here, the plate is symmetric and made of three equal thickness layers.
In this case, we have, h1 = −h/6, h2 = h/6.
• The (1-2-1) FGM sandwich plate: The plate is symmetric and we have: h1 = −h/4, h2 = h/4
• The (2-1-2) FGM sandwich plate: Here, the plate is also symmetric, and the thickness of the core is half
the face thickness. In this case, we have h1 = −h/10, h2 = h/10.
• The (2-2-1) FGM sandwich plate: In this case, the plate is not symmetric, and the core thickness is the
same as one face while it is twice the other. Thus, h1 = −h/10, h2 = 3h/10
The FG plate is taken to be made of aluminum and alumina with the following material properties:
• Metal (Aluminum, Al): E M = 70 × 109 N/m2 ; ν = 0.3
• Ceramic (Alumina, Al2 O3 ): E C = 380 × 109 ; N/m2 ; ν = 0.3.
1518 S. Merdaci et al.

(a) 2,5 (b) 2,5

ceramic
2,0 2,0 ceramic
k=0.5
k=2 k=0.5
k=5 k=2
1,5 metal 1,5 k=5
metal
w w
metal
1,0 metal 1,0

0,5 0,5

ceramic ceramic
0,0 0,0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
a/h a/h
(c) 2,5 (d) 2,5
ceramic
2,0 ceramic 2,0 k=0.5
k=0.5 k=2
k=2 k=5
1,5 k=5 1,5 metal
metal w
w
metal metal
1,0 1,0

0,5 0,5

ceramic ceramic
0,0 0,0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
a/h a/h

(e) 2,5

2,0 ceramic
k=0.5
k=2
1,5 k=5
metal
w
metal
1,0

0,5

ceramic
0,0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
a/h
Fig. 3 Dimensionless center deflection (w) as a function of side-to-thickness ratio (a/h) of an FGM sandwich plate for various
values of k and different types of sandwich plates. a The (1-0-1) FGM sandwich plate. b The (1-1-1) FGM sandwich plate. c The
(1-2-1) FGM sandwich plate. d The (2-1-2) FGM sandwich plate, e The (2-2-1) FGM sandwich plate

The various non-dimensional parameters used are

 
a b
• center deflection w = 10hEa q
2
0
w ,
2 2 ,
0 
10h2 a b h
• axial stress σ x = a 2 q σ x 2 , 2 , 2 ,
0  
• shear stress τ x z = aqh τx z 0, b2 , 0 ,
0
• thickness coordinate z = z/h.
where the reference value is taken as E 0 = 1 GPa. We also take the shear correction factor K = 5/6 in FSDPT.
Numerical results are presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 using different plate theories. Additional results are plotted
in Figs. 3, 4, 5 using the present new shear deformation theory (RSDT1). It is assumed, unless otherwise stated,
that a/h = 10 and a/b = 1.
Table 2 contains the dimensionless center deflection w for an FG sandwich plate subjected to a sinusoidally
distributed load. The deflections are considered for k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and different types of sandwich
plates. Table 2 shows that the effect of shear deformation is to increase the deflection. The difference between
Two new refined shear displacement models for functionally graded sandwich plates 1519

(a) 0,5 (b) 0,5

0,4 ceramic 0,4 ceramic
k=0.5 k=0.5
0,3 0,3 k=2
k=2
0,2 k=5 0,2 k=5
metal metal
0,1 0,1
z 0,0 z 0,0
-0,1 -0,1
-0,2 -0,2
-0,3 -0,3
-0,4 -0,4
-0,5 -0,5
-2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5
σx σx
(c) 0,5 (d) 0,5
0,4 ceramic 0,4 ceramic
k=0.5 k=0.5
0,3 k=2 0,3 k=2
0,2 k=5 0,2 k=5
metal metal
0,1 0,1
z 0,0 z 0,0
-0,1 -0,1
-0,2 -0,2
-0,3 -0,3
-0,4 -0,4
-0,5 -0,5
-2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
σx σx
(e) 0,5 ceramic
0,4
k=0.5
0,3 k=2
k=5
0,2
metal
0,1
z 0,0
-0,1
-0,2
-0,3
-0,4
-0,5
-2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
σx

Fig. 4 Variation of axial stress σ x through the plate thickness for various values of k and different types of sandwich plates:
a The (1-0-1) FGM sandwich plate. b The (1-1-1) FGM sandwich plate. c The (1-2-1) FGM sandwich plate. d The (2-1-2) FGM
sandwich plate, e The (2-2-1) FGM sandwich plate

the shear deformation theories is insignificant for fully ceramic plates (k = 0). It can be observed that the
results obtained by the present refined theories RSDT1 and RSDT2 are identical to those of sinusoidal shear
deformation plate theory (SSDPT) and parabolic shear deformation plate theory (PSDPT), respectively.
Table 3 compares the deflections of different types of the FGM rectangular sandwich plates with k = 2.
The deflections decrease as the aspect ratio a/b increases and this irrespective of the type of the sandwich
plate.
Table 4 lists values of axial stress σ x for k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and different types of sandwich plates.
All theories (RSDT1, RSDT2, PSDPT, SSDPT, ESDPT, and FSDPT) give the same axial stress σ x for a fully
ceramic plate (k = 0). In general, the axial stress increases with the volume fraction exponent k. However, the
fully ceramic plates (k = 0) give the largest axial stresses. It is to be noted that the CPT yields identical axial
stresses as the FSDPT and so Table 4 lacks the results of CPT.
Table 5 shows similar results of transverse shear stress τ x z for a FGM sandwich plate subjected to a
sinusoidally distributed load. The results show that the transverse shear stresses as per the FSDPT may be
indistinguishable. As the volume fraction exponent increases for FG plates, the shear stress will increase and
the fully ceramic plates give the smallest shear stresses.
1520 S. Merdaci et al.

(a) 0,5 (b) 0,5

0,4 ceramic 0,4 ceramic
k=1 k=1
0,3 k=2 0,3 k=2
0,2 metal 0,2 metal

0,1 0,1
z 0,0 z 0,0
-0,1 -0,1
-0,2 -0,2
-0,3 -0,3
-0,4 -0,4
-0,5 -0,5
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35
τ xz τ xz

(c) 0,5 (d) 0,5

0,4 ceramic 0,4 ceramic
k=1 k=1
0,3 k=2 0,3 k=2
0,2 metal 0,2 metal

0,1 0,1
z 0,0 z 0,0
-0,1 -0,1
-0,2 -0,2
-0,3 -0,3
-0,4 -0,4
-0,5 -0,5
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35
τ xz τ xz

(e) 0,5
0,4 ceramic
k=1
0,3 k=2
0,2 metal

0,1
z 0,0
-0,1
-0,2
-0,3
-0,4
-0,5
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35
τ xz

Fig. 5 Variation of transverse shear stress τ x z through the plate thickness for various values of k and different types of sandwich
plates: a The (1-0-1) FGM sandwich plate. b The (1-1-1) FGM sandwich plate. c The (1-2-1) FGM sandwich plate. d The (2-1-2)
FGM sandwich plate, e The (2-2-1) FGM sandwich plate

It can be observed that the results obtained by the present two models RSDT1 and RSDT2 are identi-
cal to those of the sinusoidal shear deformation plate theory (SSDPT) and the parabolic shear deformation
plate theory (PSDPT), respectively. In general, the fully ceramic plates give the smallest deflections and shear
stresses and the largest axial stresses. As the volume fraction exponent increases for FGM sandwich plates,
the deflection, axial stress, and shear stress will increase.
Figure 3 shows the variation of the center deflection with side-to-thickness ratio for different types of FGM
sandwich plates. The FGM plate deflection is between those of plates made of ceramic (Al2 O3 ) and metal
(Al). It can be observed that deflection of metal-rich FGM plate is more when compared to ceramic-rich plate.
This can be accounted to the Young’s modulus of ceramic ( Al2 O3; 380 GPa) being high when compared to
that of metal (Al; 70 GPa).
Figure 4 contains the plots of the axial stress σ x through the thickness of the FGM sandwich plates. The
stresses are tensile above the midplane and compressive below the midplane except for the nonsymmetric
(2-2-1) FGM plate. The axial stress is continuous through the plate thickness. The results demonstrate a non-
linear variation of the axial stress through the plate thickness for FGM plates. It is important to observe that the
maximum stress depends on the value of the volume fraction exponent kand the kind of the sandwich plate.
Two new refined shear displacement models for functionally graded sandwich plates 1521

In Fig. 5, we have plotted the through the thickness distributions of the transverse shear stress τ x z : The
maximum value occurs at a point on the midplane of the plate, and its magnitude for a FG plate is larger than
that for a homogeneous (ceramic or metal) plate. Because of the non-symmetry of the (2-2-1) FGM plate,
the maximum value of the transverse shear stress, τ x z (Fig. 5d), occurs as discussed before at a point on the
midplane of the plate.
It is important to observe that the stresses (Figs. 4, 5) for a fully ceramic plate are the same as that for a
fully metal plate. This is because the plate for these two cases is fully homogeneous and the stresses do not
depend on the modulus of elasticity.

5 Conclusion

In this study, two new shear deformation theories were proposed to analyze the static behavior of FGM sand-
wich plates. Unlike any other theory, the theory presented gives rise to only four governing equations resulting
in considerably lower computational effort when compared with the other higher-order theories reported in the
literature having more number of governing equations. Bending and stress analysis under transverse load were
analyzed, and results were compared with previous other shear deformation theories. The developed theories
give parabolic distribution of the transverse shear strains and satisfy the zero traction boundary conditions on
the surfaces of the plate without using shear correction factors. The accuracy and efficiency of the present
theories has been demonstrated for static behavior of symmetric and non-symmetric functionally graded sand-
wich plates. All comparison studies demonstrated that the deflections and stresses obtained using the present
two new shear deformation theories (with four unknowns) and other higher shear deformation theories such
as PSDPT and SSDPT (with five unknowns) are almost identical. The extension of the present theory is also
envisaged for general boundary conditions and plates of a more general shape. In conclusion, it can be said that
the proposed theories RSDT1 and RSDT2 are accurate and simple in solving the static behaviors of symmetric
and non-symmetric FGM sandwich plates.

References

1. Wu, C.P., Li, H.Y.: An RMVT-based third-order shear deformation theory of multilayered functionally graded material
plates. Compos. Struct. 92, 2591–2605 (2010)
2. Şimşek, M.: Fundamental frequency analysis of functionally graded beams by using different higher-order beam
theories. Nucl. Eng. Des. 240, 697–705 (2010)
3. Ying, J., Lü, C.F., Lim, C.W.: 3D thermoelasticity solutions for functionally graded thick plates. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A
10(3), 327–336 (2009)
4. Lü, C.F., Lim, C.W., Chen, W.Q.: Exact solutions for free vibrations of functionally graded thick plates on elastic founda-
tions. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 16, 576–584 (2009)
5. Lü, C.F., Lim, C.W., Chen, W.Q.: Semi-analytical analysis for multi-directional functionally graded plates: 3-D elasticity
solutions. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 79, 25–44 (2009)
6. Wu, C.P., Huang, S.E.: Three-dimensional solutions of functionally graded piezothermo-elastic shells and plates using a
modified Pagano method. Comput. Mater. Continua 12, 251–282 (2009)
7. Vel, S.S., Batra, R.C.: Three-dimensional exact solution for the vibration of functionally graded rectangular plates. J. Sound
Vib. 272, 703–730 (2004)
8. Reissner, E.: The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates. J. Appl. Mech. 12, 69–77 (1945)
9. Mindlin, R.D.: Influence of rotatory inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic elastic plates. J. Appl. Mech. 18,
31–38 (1951)
10. Reissner, E.: On the theory of bending of elastic plates. J. Math. Phys. 23, 184–191 (1944)
11. Nath, Y., Shukla, K.K.: Non-linear transient analysis of moderately thick laminated composite plates. J. Sound Vib.
247(3), 509–526 (2001)
12. Hui-Shen, S.: Nonlinear bending of simply supported rectangular Reissner–Mindlin plates under transverse and in-plane
loads and resting on elastic foundations. Eng. Struct. 22, 847–856 (2000)
13. Kant, T., Swaminathan, K.: Analytical solutions for the static analysis of laminated composite and sandwich plates based
on a higher order refined theory. Compos. Struct. 56, 329–344 (2002)
14. Sladek, J., Sladek, V., Hellmich, Ch., Eberhardsteiner, J.: Analysis of thick functionally graded plates by local integral
equation method. Commun. Numer. Meth. Eng. 23, 733–754 (2007)
15. Donnel, L.H.: A theory for thick plates. In: Proc. Second U.S. Nat. Congr, pp. 369–373. Appl. Mech. ASME Publ. Univ.
Michigan, Michigan (1955)
16. Reissner, E.: On the derivation of boundary conditions for plate theory. In: Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 276, Ser. A, No. 1364,
pp. 178–186 (1963)
17. Lo, K.H., Christensen, R.M., Wu, E.M.: A higher-order theory of plate deformation. Pt. 1: Homogeneous plates. ASME J.
Appl. Mech. 44, 663–668 (1977)
1522 S. Merdaci et al.

18. Lo, K.H., Christensen, R.M., Wu, E.M.: A higher-order theory of plate deformation. Pt. 2: Laminated plates. ASME J. Appl.
Mech. 44, 669–676 (1977)
19. Levinson, M.: An accurate simple theory of the statics and dynamics of elastic plates. Mech. Res. Commun. 7, 343–350 (1980)
20. Murthy, M.V.V.: An Improved Transverse Shear Deformation Theory for Laminated Anisotropic Plates. NASA Techn. Paper,
pp. 1–37 (1981)
21. Reddy, J.N.: A simple higher order theory for laminated composite plates. J. Appl. Mech. 51, 745–752 (1984)
22. Reddy, J.N.: A refined nonlinear theory of plates with transverse shear deformation. Int. J. Solids Struct. 20(9),
881–896 (1984)
23. Touratier, M.: An efficient standard plate theory. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 29(8), 901–916 (1991)
24. Soldatos, K.P.: A transverse shear deformation theory for homogenous monoclinic plates. Acta Mech. 94(3–4),
1995–2200 (1992)
25. Karama, M., Afaq, K.S., Mistou, S.: Mechanical behaviour of laminated composite beam by new multi-layered laminated
composite structures model with transverse shear stress continuity. Int. J. Solids Struct. 40(6), 1525–1546 (2003)
26. Ferreira, A.J.M., Roque, C.M.C., Jorge, R.M.N.: Analysis of composite plates by trigonometric shear deformation theory
and multiquadrics. Comput. Struct. 83, 225–2237 (2005)
27. Idlbi, A., Karama, M., Touratier, M.: Comparison of various laminated plate theories. Compos. Struct. 37(2), 173–184 (1997)
28. Altenbach, H.: Theories for laminated and sandwich plates. Mech. Compos. Mater. 34(3), 243–252 (1998)
29. Reddy, J.N., Wang, C.M.: An overview of the relationships between solutions of the classical and shear deformation plate
theories. Compos. Sci. Technol. 60, 2327–2335 (2000)
30. Benatta, M.A., Mechab, I., Tounsi, A., Adda Bedia, E.A.: Static analysis of functionally graded short beams including
warping and shear deformation effects. Comput. Mater. Sci. 44, 765–773 (2008)
31. Sallai, B.O., Tounsi, A., Mechab, I., Bachir, B.M., Meradjah, M., Adda, E.A.: A theoretical analysis of flexional bending of
Al/Al2O3 S-FGM thick beams. Comput. Mater. Sci. 44, 1344–1350 (2009)
32. Mori, T., Tanaka, K.: Average stress in matrix and average elastic energy of materials with misfitting inclusions.
Acta Metall. 21, 571–574 (1973)
33. Hill, R.: A self-consistent mechanics of composite materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 13, 213–222 (1965)
34. Chehel Amirani, M., Khalili, S.M.R., Nemati, N.: Free vibration analysis of sandwich beam with FG core using the element
free Galerkin method. Compos. Struct. 90, 373–379 (2009)
35. Chi, S., Chung, Y.: Mechanical behavior of functionally graded material plates under transverse load—part I: analysis. Int.
J. Sol. Struct. 43, 3657–3674 (2006)
36. Delale, F., Erdogan, F.: The crack problem for a nonhomogeneous plane. J. Appl. Mech. 50, 609 (1983)