Composite Strucrures 33 (1995) 211-225

0 1995 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0263-8223/95/$9.50
0263-8223(95)00119-O

ELSEVIER

Ben.ding of curved sandwich beams

Sture Smidt
SINTEF Materials Techmology,I? 0. Box 124, 0314 Oslo, Norway and Department of Lightweight Structures, KTH, 10044
Stockholm, Sweden

Curved sandwich beams in bending are analyzed with analytical elasticity

mlethods and compared
to simple
analytical
formulae
and FEM
calculations. Solutions to Airys stress function in polar co-ordinates
are
used to obtain the stress distributions
in the radial and circumferential
directions. Plane stress and plane strain solutions are given with isotropic
and orthotropic material models. It is shown that the properties of the core
can have a significant influence on the circumferential
stresses of the faces,
but that the radial stress of the core is nearly constant with varying core
properties. The radius of curvature can have a large influence on the
circumferential
stresses of the faces when the radius of curvature to
sandwich thickness ratio is small to moderate. It is shown that simple
analytical methods can be utilised to calculate the radial stresses in the core
and the circumferential
stresses of the faces for beams with large to
moderate radii of curvature and thin to moderately thick faces.

INTRODUCTION

encountered
in such constructions
are investigated in this paper.
In most structural sandwiches the difference
in Youngs modulus of the faces and the core is
so large that a bending moment is resisted by
in-plane forces in the faces. The bending stiffness of the faces themselves
or the core
contributes very little to the overall bending
stiffness, only a few percent in most practical
sandwiches with thin faces and a weak and light
core material. In a curved sandwich loaded in
bending the faces are curved and a transverse
force must act on the core to maintain equilibrium in the radial direction. Most common
composite materials used as face materials possess poor strength in the transverse direction
compared to the in-plane direction. Foam and
honeycomb
core materials have low strength
compared to the in plane strength properties of
the faces. Hence, contrary to plane sandwich
panels and beams, the transverse tensile or
compressive strength of the core and face materials can be the critical factor for determining
the overall bending strength in curved sandwich
panels and beams. This is demonstrated
with
the experimental work presented in Ref.3.
With a bending
moment
that tends to
increase the radius of curvature,
hereafter

Sandwich constructilon
is utilised more and
more today in structural members. Most design
criteria are suitable for straight or plane sandwich members only. However, in many types of
sandwich constructions
there are corners and
curvatures. Train wagons, boat hulls, aircraft,
advanced racing cars, containers and storage
tanks with a square cross section, to mention
but a few, have round or square corners. The
loading of curved sandwich structures can be
divided into several different elementary cases.
One main load case is left when shear loading,
compressive and tensile forces are not taken
into consideration;
pure bending of the curved
sandwich. This leads to a different load distribution in the curved part as compared to classical
sandwich bending theory on plane structural
sandwich members.
In Refs 1 and 2 the bending of multi-layered
curved beams is trea.ted and the resulting analytical method is suitable for sandwich beams.
However, no results are shown that would be
typical for a curved sandwich where Youngs
modulus usually is several orders of magnitude
higher in the faces than in the core. Sandwich
applications and the special stress distributions
211

S. Smidt

212

called an opening moment, tensile forces act on

the core and on the interface between the faces
and core. With a bending moment that tends to
decrease the radius of curvature, called a closing
moment, compressive forces act on the core.
Formulae for calculating the transverse and
circumferential
stresses of curved sandwich
beams based on elasticity solutions are given in
the plane stress and the plane strain case.
Results are shown with isotropic and cylindrical
orthotropic material models in the plane strain
case.

ASSUMPTIONS

AND RESTRICTIONS

A state of plane stress or strain, linear elastic

isotropic or orthotropic
materials and perfect
bonding between the layers is assumed. The
stresses are a function of radius only, not the
circumferential
co-ordinate, so that end effects
are not taken into consideration.
Even if the
bending
forces are not applied exactly as
described in the elasticity solution the stress
levels calculated will be valid some distance
from the ends because of St. Venants principle.

REFERENCE

CALCULATIONS

The in plane stresses of a straight sandwich

beam with thin face approximation can be calculated as4

where subscript f and c refers to the faces and

core, respectively, M is the bending moment per
unit width and the thicknesses t and d are
defined in Fig. 1. With thick face approximation
the in-plane stresses are4
of=

(24

i&E,
c
g=Dy

t,
--<zI
2

dt,2
tf
D=2Df+D,,+DO=Ef6+EC-+Ef12

tfd2
2

w
and the Ej are the Youngs moduli.
The radial stresses of a curved beam can be
calculated as3
or=

(R,+z)d

tc

tc

--z=

R,=R+tf+t,/2

(3)

where z is the radial co-ordinate measuredfrom

the cores centreline Rx. Equation (3) differs
from eqn (29) of Ref.3 (p.63) in that t, is substituted with d in the equation for the in-plane
stresses of the faces which is a better approximation, see eqn (4)
A4

fJfl%

Fig. 1. Definition of curved sandwich bent by pure couples, M is bending moment per unit width, layers 1 and 3
are the faces and layer 2 is the core.

(2-b)

where the bending stiffness D is

All calculations on curved sandwich beams have

been compared to calculations based on thin
and thick face theory for straight beams, eqns
(1) and (2), respectively, and equilibrium considerations on curved sandwich beams based on
thin-walled tube theory, eqn (3). Refer to Fig. 1
for a definition of a curved sandwich beam.

t,
2

-=s{t,+d}*

-.

tftc

tf-d

(4)

Using d is a better approximation because the

distance d is the distance between the force
resultants of the in-plane stresses of the faces
when the in-plane stress is considered constant
through
the thickness as in the thin face
approximation.
It is common practice to use d
rather than t, as is done in.4
Equation (3) can be derived on the assumption that the faces are the walls in a cylindrical
tank with a pressure difference on the inside

Bending of curved sandwich beams

and outside. In this case the stresses of the walls

are known from bending moment considerations on the sandwich, eqn (l), and the pressure
difference which is the same as the radial stress
of the sandwichs core can be calculated on the
assumption that the walls are thin. The faces
can be treated one by one, see Fig. 2.
The equilibrium equation between the inner
pressure p and the force on the tank wall per
unit length F is

(5)
where R is the radius between centroids of the
tank wall, M is the bending moment per unit
width of the curved sandwich beam and d is the
distance between centroids of the faces of the
curved sandwich bealm. The equilibrium equation in the parentheses
can be obtained by
rearranging
eqn (1) and using the thin face
approximation.

213

REFERENCE FEM MODEL

A finite element model was made to validate
the analytical calculations. The element mesh of
the model is shown in Fig. 3. The model is twodimensional
with plane deformation,
linear
elastic material properties and a linear elastic
analysis was performed.
The elements were
8-noded isoparametric with second order shape
functions. To avoid any stress concentrations
the nodes at the left edge were coupled to give
a straight edge when loaded with the bending
moment.

AIRYS STRESS FUNCTION IN

CYLINDRICAL CO-ORDINATES,
ISOTROPIC CASE
The biharmonic
equation
function can be written

with

Airys

v40=o

stress

(6)

Assuming
axisymmetry
and plane stress or
strain the stress function (I+ has the following
form:

internal pressure p

-_

(Di=Ai

lnr +Bj?

lnv + CiY2

(7)

e_-_-

where A, B, and C are constants and r is the

radial co-ordinate.
The following set of equations can be solved
to get the radial and circumferential
stresses in
a curved sandwich plate. The stresses are1

force on tank wall F

section through cylindrical tank

Fig. 2.

Section through upper half of cylindrical

tank

1 a@D,
cl?=- y -=aY A,rP2+Bi(1

a2@j

GOi=-=ar2

-Airp2

+2 lnr)+2Ci

+B,(3 + 2 lnr) + 2Ci. (8.b)

Tr@i=O(plane sections remain plane)

line

Fig. 3.

The

element mesh of the FEM

curved sandwich beam.

model

of a

(8.a)

(8.c)

where oti, bgi and z,@are radial, circumferential

and shear stresses respectively, A, B and C are
constants of integration to be determined by the
boundary conditions and subscript i points at
the respective layer as in Fig. 1.
The displacements can be obtained using the
stress-strain and then the strain-displacement
relations with the plane stress assumption in

S. Smidt

214

The bending moment per unit with of the

beam M can be calculated as

Hookes law.
ui=E~~1[-(1+vi)r-1Ai+2(1-vi)(rlnr)Bi

jl1;6B dr= 1: ( -A3rp1

-(l+Vi)di+2(1_Vi)&i]
+Hi Sin0+Ki

COSf3

Vj=4r0E~71Bi+Fir+Hi

COS@-Ki

sin8

(9.b)

u,=E,[-(1+vJr-1Ai+2(1-vj-2v;)
+

Vi)rBi

2(1 -Vi_2V~)dTi]

+Hi sinO+Ki cos0

+2C,r)dr+

R1(-A2rp1+B2(3r+2rlnr)
s R2

+2C2r)dr+

R(-AIr~1+B1(3r+2rInr)
s RI

+ 2CIr)

dr= -M.

(114

The system of equations

is written out in
Appendix 1 for the case with three layers as in
a typical sandwich. The equations for the plane
stress
and plane
strain
assumptions
are
included.

(lO.a)

vi=4(1_v?)reEi_lBi+Fir+Hi

COS@

sin 6.

-Ki

(lO.b)

Boundary conditions are needed to give enough

equations to solve the system. The radial stresses equal zero on the free boundaries.
The
radial stresses and the displacements
must be
equal at the boundaries between the layers to
keep the layers together. Assume rz number of
layers, then the boundary conditions are
r=Ro;

C&,,=O

(1l.a)

r=R,;

CT,=0

(1l.b)

r=Ri;

i=l,2,3...,n-1;

AIRYS STRESS FUNCTION, CYLINDRICAL

ORTHOTROPIC CASE
The stress-strain relations for an orthotropic
material in engineering constants, plane stress
assumption:
(12.a)

1
vi.0
aB=bg--cr=a2208+a12c7r
E,
Ee

(12.b)

o~=o~+~;

l&=l.&++1; vti=ve+1.

(12.c)
(1l.c)

The circumferential stress resultant at any cross

section must equal zero since there is only a
pure bending moment on the beam, eqn (1l.d).

where the Poissons ratio

tion in direction 8 caused
direction r, E is strain and
The stress function for

vre means the contracby a tensile loading in

G is shear modulus.
the plane stress case is

RI
(1l.d)
s R n Go

dr=o

Equation

lnr)

(9.a)

where u and v are the radial and circumferential

displacements
respectively, E is Youngs modulus, v is Poissons ratio and F, H and K are
constants of integration.
The plane strain solution can be obtained by
solving for the displacements u and v with the
plane strain assumption.2 This alters eqns (9.a)
and (9.b) to

(r lnr)Bi-(1

+&(3r+2r

a4

a22 -CD-2a22-ar4

1 a3
r ar3

@-al1

a2

- @
r2 ar2

(1l.d) is satisfied because

+a11 -)-+D=O

(13)

where
(1l.e)

1
aii=Ei

(14)

Bending of curved sandwich beams

and 1 and 2 correspond
which has the solution1

215

to r and 8, respectively,

1 a3
1 a2
CD
r &.3 @-PII--r2 ar2

P22$Q-2j3z2--

@=Sr2+P+K+Dr1--K

(15)

where

(16)
and S, T and D are clonstants of integration.
We obtain
o,=2Si+

&=a,-?,

q(1 +Ki)&-

(21)

The solution is1

+Di(l-Ki)~-(~+~~,

(17.a)

Ok=2Si + TiKi(l +KJv-l

-D&(1

where

O=Sr2+ Trl+K+Drl-K.

(22)

where

-KJ,c(~+~~),

(17.b)

zr0i--0.

l/2

(23)

(17.c)

With the plane

placements are1

stress

assumption

ui=2Si(E~-vei/~:Bi)r+TiKi1(1

the dis-

by the substitution

of variables

&=ap

+Ki)

(24)

We obtain
(E~-Ki~ei/E~~i)lK~-DiK~(l-Ki)
(E,-l-KiVei/Eei)r-Ki+Hi

sin8+Ji

o~=2Si+Ti(l+Ki)lK,-1+Di(l-Ki)r-+~,
COS6

(%.a)
ui=2Sire(E&-E,?)

+Fir+Hi

(25.a)
Oei=2Si + TiKi(l +Ki)fi-l
-D,K,(l

cosO+Ji sine,
(l&b)

where e H and J are constants of integration.

The stress-strain relations for an orthotropic
material in engineer:ing constants use the plane
strain assumption:

-Ki)r-(lfKi),

-0.
zrC?i-

(25.c)

The displacements
u=2S(jL

are then (see Appendix

(l-b&r)

Er

~ _ (vre+hzvze)

(PII +Kp,,)-D(1

u=2S(j&

E,

&g=

(1-VezV_7e>
Ee

oe-

-K)K-vK

sin8+Jcos8

-P12)0r+Fr+H

co&-Jsin0

w=o.
(19.a)

(be + %zvze)
E,
(19.b)
(19.c)

The stress function can then be written, ref. eqn

(13)

2)

+p12)r+ T(l +K)K-$:

(Pll-Kp,,)+H
E=

(25.b)

(26.a)
(26.b)
(26.~)

Boundary conditions

are:

r=&;

cr,l =o,

(27.a)

r=R,;

C&=0,

(27.b)

r=Ri;

i=l,2,3...,n-1;

%i=u,+ 1,
RO
a0 dr=O
s Rl
&I
rbg dr= -M.
s R,

c~=c~+~;
bi=vr+1;

(27.~)
(27.d)

(27.e)

S. Smidt

216

Equation
(1l.e)

(27.d) is trivially

satisfied,

see eqn

RESULTS
The results are obtained by solving the system
of equations on a computer. The results are
compared to that of identical straight beams to
see the effects of curvature. The results are also
compared to simple analytical calculations. The
analysis is based on the plane strain assumption
because that is the most likely state of stress in
broad sandwich beams and panels. The geometrical and material parameters are shown in
Table (1).
The geometrical
parameters
are chosen to
represent common sandwich structural members. The Youngs modulus ratios correspond to
glass fibre reinforced plastic faces to a medium
density foam core (40) and aluminium faces to
a high density foam core (500).

General overview of stresses in a curved

sandwich beam
The stresses of a curved sandwich
beam
obtained from analytical and numerical solutions have been compared as an example to give
a general overview of the stresses through the
thickness in Fig. 4. The stresses are normalised
by the results obtained by the thin face approximation. The geometry and material data of the
example sandwich beam are as follows:
Rld=3,
v,=o3,

t&=55,

Ef/E,=500,

v,=o3.

The parameters of the example were chosen to

show the effect of curvature on the stresses.
It can bee seen from Fig. 4 that the results from
the plane strain approximation with Airys stress
function were in excellent agreement with plane
strain FEM results. The stress levels from the
FEM solution were taken well away from any
stress concentrations.
Circumferential
stress

Table 1. Geometrical parameters and material properties

Radius of curvature
R/d

to sandwich thickness ratios

1

l-2

1.6

25

12

5.5

3-3

40

500

2-5

3.5

10

Face to core thickness ratios tc/tI

Face to core Youngs modulus

ratios Ef/E,

Poissons ratios for faces and core

0.3

Circumferential stress of the sandwich faces

Radial stress of sandwich

CT/oeq(1)

OOeq
(3)
.1

1.6

E,/E,= 500

1.4
1.2

63elasticity
n FEM
* eq (2)
- cq (1)

1
0.8
0.6

:::
8::
8.:
0:3 I

0.4
O$
2.9

3.2

3.5

3.8

4.1

2.9

Fig. 4.

Stresses of the reference

3.2

3.5

3.8

4.1

R/d

R/d
4

Q/E,= 500
e elasticity
n FJEM

b)

FEM model, see Fig. 3, at the symmetry line compared

solutions.

to the elasticity and analytical

217

Bending of curved sandwich beams

results with eqns (1) and (2) did not agree very
well which shows the effect of curvature. Radial
stress results with eqn (3) agree fairly well with
the elasticity and FE:M solutions. The circumferential stress of the core is not negligible and
is shown in comparison to the radial stress of
the core in Fig. 4(b).

Parameter study, elasticity solution, plane

strain, isotropic case
To find the theoretical
stresses of a curved
sandwich beam in bending the stress levels can
be approximated
by the eqns (l)-(3).
The
obtained results can be multiplied with the
values shown in the graphs in Figs 5-7 in the
isotropic case and 8-9 in the orthotropic case to
give more accurate values. The values obtained
with the elasticity solution are only valid far
from any stress concentrations or boundary conditions which are incompatible with the stress
field.
The ratio of maximum radial stress between
the plane strain elasticity solution and the simple analytical formula of eqn (3) is plotted in
Fig. 5. The elasticity solution gives lower stresses than eqn (3) for all parameter combinations.
A high Youngs modulus ratio between the
faces and core and thin faces compared to the
core thickness gives the highest stress ratios.
Note that in the case of the EfIE,=500 stiffness
ratio the thickest faces give the lowest radial
stresses and that in the EpIE,=40 case the thinnest face gives the lowest radial stresses.
The ratio of maximum circumferential
stress

in the faces of a curved beam with the elasticity

solution and the maximum normal stress of a
straight sandwich beam with the thin face
approximation
is plotted in Figs 6 and 7. The
bending stress in the faces of a straight sandwich beam with thin face approximation
is
calculated using eqn (1). The value of the circumferential
stress as the radius of curvature
reaches infinity is calculated using the formula
for straight sandwich beams with thick faces.
The bending stress of a straight sandwich beam
with thick faces is calculated using eqn (2.ac).
It is shown that the radius of curvature can
have a significant influence on the circumferential stress of the faces. Beams with a high
ratio of Youngs moduli between the faces and
the core (EfIE,) are most sensitive to the ratio
between the radius of curvature and the sandwich thickness (R/d). The positive radial stress
of the core caused by a opening moment causes
a contraction of the core in the circumferential
direction as a function of Poissons ratio for the
core material. The contraction relaxes the circumferential
stresses of the inner face and is
significant in sandwiches with low face to core
Youngs modulus ratio.
In Figs 6 and 7 the discontinuity of the slope
in the curves for R/d= 10 shows the transition
from finite to infinite radius of curvature. The
curves are drawn continuous to ease readability.
The results are calculated with the plane strain
assumption because it will be closest to reality
in real constructions like wide beams and panels. In2 it is stated that the plane strain and
plane stress solutions will be close to one
another.

Radial stress of core

Radial stress of core

O(elast) Oeq (3)

qelast) Oes (3)

1
E,lE,=40

0.6

L----d0

6
Wd

Fig. 5.

The maximum

10

10

R/d

radial stress of the core, plane strain elasticity solution compared

to eqn (3).

218

S. Smidt
Circumferential stress

Circumferential stress

O(elast) %q (1)

O(elast) Oeq (1)

EflE,= 40
l+ /E,= 500

@f

R/d+-

0.5
0

J
0

10

R/d

The maximum

Fig. 6.

circumferential

to eqn (1).

Circumferential stress
~elsst) Oeq (1)

a(elast) Oeq (1)

h/E,=

1.6 -

3-

Ef/E,= 500

40

R/d + =

R/d +

10

00

The maximum

circumferential

0.8 7
0

10

R/d

R/d

Fig. 7.

10

stress of the inner face, plane strain elasticity solution compared

Circumferential stress

2.8 -2.6 -2.4 -2.2 -2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1,

0

6
R/d

stress of the outer face, plane strain elasticity solution compared

Parameter study, elasticity solution, plane

strain orthotropic case
A typical sandwich with orthotropic
materials
usually has the strong and stiff direction of the
faces in the faces own plane and the strong and
stiff direction of the core normal to the sandwich. Examples are laminated fibre reinforced
plastics for the faces and honeycomb core materials. Therefore the in-plane Youngs modulus
of the core has been varied. The ratio of the
maximum radial stress between the elasticity
solution and eqn (3) has been plotted in Fig. 8.
The ratio of the maximum circumferential stress
between the elasticity solution and straight
beam thin face approximation has been plotted
in Fig. 9. The radial Youngs modulus has been
kept constant and the ratio between the circum-

to eqn (1).

ferential and radial Youngs modulus has been

10, 05 and 01.
Figure 8 shows that eqn (3) can be used as a
conservative estimate of the radial stresses. The
contribution
to the bending stiffness from the
core decreases as the EfJE, ratio increases and
as the stiffness of the core in the 8 and z directions decreases. The radial stresses increases as
the EjEc ratio increases and as the stiffness of
the core in the 0 and z directions decreases.
This effect is most pronounced in the sandwich
with the smallest EAE, ratio.
The influence on the maximum circumferential stress in the inner face from decreasing the
stiffness of the core in the 0 and z directions
follows different patterns for different combinations of variables, see Fig. 9. With a Youngs
modulus ratio between the r direction and the 8

Bending of curved sandwich beams

dominating cores the increase in stresses follows

the corresponding
increase
in stresses
of
straight beams. When the Youngs modulus
ratio between the Y direction and the 13 and z

and z directions changed from 1-O to 0.5 there is

very little change in c:ircumferential stress of the
faces in sandwiches where the faces dominates
the bending stiffness. In sandwiches with more

Radial stress

Radial stress

qelast) %q (3)
l-

Telast) %q (3)

10

10

R/d

R/d

Fig. 8.

219

(a) The maximum radial stress of the faces as a function

of E,e/E,

and R/d compared

to eqn (3)

Radial stress
~(elast) %q (3)

0.1
,/c
1s
0:s

t&f = 12

\l.O

10

Fig. 8.

(b) The maximum radial stress of the faces as a function

of EJE,,

Radial stress

Radial stress

G(elast) Oeq (3)

qelast) Oeq (3)

10

10

(c) The maximum radial stress of the faces as a function

and R/d compared

to eqn (3).

10

R/d

R/d

Fig. 8.

6
R/d

R/d

of EJE,

and R/d compared

to eqn (3).

220

S. Smidt
Radial stress

Radial stress

O(elast) %q (3)
1,

qelast) Oeq (3)

1,

0.9 --

0.8 --

10

Fig. 8.

(d) The maximum

radial stress of the faces as a

O(ela.st) Oeq (1)

t&f = 25

Fig. 9.

&

(a) The maximum

&/Ecr

circumferential

t;

function of Eco/Ec, and R/d compared to eqn (3).

cJ@Ist) %q (1)
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
-__----1
0.9 a
0
2

E&./E,=40
0.1
0.5 &e/E,
1.0

%I=&

L
4

----

R/d

lo-

to eqn (1).

Circumferential stress
qelast) Oeq (1)
1.8
1.7
1.6

O(elast) Oeq (1)

L
1.8 -1

0.9 3
0
(b) The maximum

t,/tf = 25

stress of the inner face, plane strain elasticity solution compared

Circumferential stress

Fig. 9.

10

Circumferential stress

Circumferential stress

1-E

6
R/d

R/d

circumferential

R/d

10

stress of the inner face, plane strain elasticity solution compared

directions is changed from 03 to 0.1 there is a

marked decrease in circumferential
stresses of
the faces for low radius of curvature to sandwith thickness (R/d) ratios.

to eqn (1).

CONCLUSIONS
The circumferential
stresses in the faces of a
curved sandwich beam depend on the geometri-

Bending of curved sandwich beams

221

Circumferentid stress
qelast) Oeq (11)

1000

R/d

Fig. 9.

(c) The maximum

circumferential

stress of the inner face, plane strain elasticity solution compared

Circumferential stress

Circumferential stress

o(elast) Oeq (1)

qelast) %q (1)
5.4
4.9
4.4 i;\

(d) The maximum

1.8.

10~

R/d

Fig. 9.

to eqn (1).

circumferential

1:
Ill
0

10

stress of the inner face, plane strain elasticity solution compared

cal and material parameters

as in a straight
beam when the radius of curvature is large compared to the sandwich thickness. The stresses
are strongly influenced by the radius of curvature as shown in FGgs 6, 7 and 9. A stress
increase factor of over 5 times compared to the
straight beam with tlhe thin face approximation
is observed in the parameter range studied. A
reduced stiffness of the core material in the
circumferential
and z directions in the orthotropic case reduces the circumferential
stresses
in the faces.
The radial stresses in the core of a curved
sandwich beam are influenced mainly by the
radius of curvature and only slightly by the
material parameters
and face thickness when
the radius of curvature is moderate to large
compared to the sandwich thickness. When the
radius of curvature is small, however, the radial
stresses decrease as compared to eqn (3) and
are influenced by the geometrical and material

R/d

to eqn (1).

parameters, see Figs 5 and 8. Orthotropy of the

core material makes the radial stresses of the
core closer to values obtained by eqn (3) as the
stiffness in the circumferential
and z directions
of the core decrease.
It is concluded that the simple analytical formulae (1) and (2) can be used to calculate the
in-plane stresses of the faces for large radius of
curvature to sandwich thickness ratios (R/d).
The radial stresses of the core can be conservatively estimated by eqn (3) in the parameter
range studied.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express appreciation to his
colleagues at the Department
for Lightweight
Structures, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
and
SINTEF
Materials
Technology,
Norway for support and encouragement
when

222

S. Smidt

carrying out this work. The work has been

financially supported by The Research Council
of Norway (NRF) and The Nordic Fund for
Technology and Industrial Development
(NI).
An industry group with participants from Denmark, Norway and Sweden has assisted the
experimental
work with materials, helped in
producing test specimens and participated
in
valuable discussions as the work has progressed.
The industry group consisted of Amat AS,
Barracuda Technologies AEJ Barracuda Technologies AS, Danyard AS, Devold AMT AS,
Karlskronavarvet
AB, Kvrner Mandal AS and
Seanor Engineering AS.

REFERENCES
Lo, K. H. & Conway, H. D., Bending of multi-layered
curved bars. Znt. J. Me&. Sci., 17 (1975) 283291.
Lo, K. H. & Conway, H. D., Plane stress and plane
strain assumptions in the stress analysis of laminated
bodies. Znt. .Z.Me&. Sci., 18 (1976) 14.
Smidt, S., Curved sandwich beams and panels: theoretical and experimental studies. Report 930, Department
of Lightweight Structures,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 1993.
Zenkert, D., An introduction to sandwich construction.
Paper 92, Department of Lightweight Structures, Royal
Institute of Technology, Sweden, 1992.
Timoshenko
& Goodier,
Theory of elasticity, 3rd
edition, McGraw-Hill, 1987.
Lekhnitskii, S. G., Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic
Body, Holden-Day, Inc., San Francisco, 1963.

APPENDIX 1. SOLUTION FOR A CURVED SANDWICH WITH ISOTROPIC MATERIALS

Suppose there are three layers as in most practical sandwiches. The eqns (S.a)(&b) with boundary
conditions (ll.a)(ll.f),
assuming plane stress, can then be written
A1R&2+B1(1+21nR0)+2C1=0

(A.1.a)

A3RF2+B3(1

(A.1.b)

+2 lnR,)+2&=0

A1R~2+B1(1+21nR1)+2C1-AzR~1-B2(l+21nR1)-2C2=0

(A.1.c)

A2R~2+B2(l+21nR2)+2C2-A,R~2-B3(1+21nR2)-2C3=0

(A.1.d)

E~[-(~+v~)R~~A~+~(~-v)(R~

lnRi)Bi-(1+v1)R1B1+2(1-vl)RIC1]+H1

-E2l[-(l+~~)R1~A~+2(1-~~)(R~

sin&+K1

co&

lnR1)B2-(1+v2)R1B2+2(1-v2)R1C2]
(A.1.e)

- H2 sin 13,-K2 cos 13~

=0
E~1[-(1+~~)R~1A2+2(1-~2)(R2lnR2)B2-(1+~Z)R2B2+2(1-~2)R2C2]+H2sin8~+K2~~~6~
-ET~[ - (1 + v3)RZ1A3 +2(1-

v3)(R2 lnR2)B3 - (1 + v3)R2B3 +2(1-

v3)R2C3]

-H3 sin&---K3 cos&=O

4R&Ec1B1

+F,R,

(A.1.f)

+H, cos&-KI

sin&-4R10~E~1B2-F2R1-H2

4R28kE21B2+FwR2+H2cose~-K2sin8k-4R2e~E31Bg-F3R2-H3

COS&++K~

sin&=0

(A-1-g)

co&+&

sir&=0

(A.1.h)

[(B3+C3)R~--A3lnR2+B,R~lnRz]-[(B,+C3)R~--A3lnR,+B,R~lnR3]
+ [(B,+ C2)R:--A2

lnR, +B2Rf lnRr] - [(B2 +C,)Rz-A,

lnR2 +B2Rg lnR2]

+[(B1+C1)R02-A1lnRo+B1R02lnRo]-[(B1+C1)R:-A1lnRl+B1R~lnR1]=-M.

(A.1.i)

This can be treated as 9 equations with 9 unknowns (Ai, Bi and Ci (i = {1,2,3}) since the boundary
conditions do not influence the stresses and the system of equations can be solved by putting the Fi,
Hi and Ki = 0, (i = 1, 2 and 3) to obtain the stresses. The deflections can then be calculated by giving
boundary conditions that are compatible with the stress field.
Equations (A.l.e)(A.l.h)
with the plane strain assumption become
E~1[-(1+v1)R&41+2(1-vIDIRl+H1

vl-2vf)(R,

lnR1)BI-(1+v1)R1B1+2(1-vI-2vf)R1C1]

sin&++Kr cos&-E~1[-(1+~2)R~1A2+2(1-~2-2~~)(R1

-(~+V~)R~B~+~(~-V~-~V~)R~C~]+V~D~R~-H~~~~B~-K,~~~B~=O

lnR,)B,
(A.2.a)

223

(A.2.b)

(A.2.c)

(A.2.d)

APPENDIX 2. CALCULATION OF THE DISPLACEMENTS

CASE WITH PLANE STRAIN ASSUMPTION
The displacements

can be expressed as follows

cOse+vo

u,=U+U~

U and V IN THE ORTHOTROPIC

sine,

(A.3.a)

ue=I/-uosine+uoc0se+03r,

(A.3.b)

W=WO.

(A.3.c)

The functions

U and .V are connected

to the stresses as6

~=/&lcJ~+kr~

(A.4.a)

1av
u
; ,,+-=Blzo,+Pm%

(A.4.b)

1 au
av
---&+r--=o.

v
(A.4.c)

u and V can be found

U by putting eqns (25.a)

3U
y=B11(2S+

using the stress-strain

and then the strain-displacement

and (25.b) into (A.4.a) gives

T(l -tK)p-+D(l

-K)r-

(l-tK)) + &(2S

+ X(1

+K)rX-

relations.

-DK(l

-Q-Q

To obtain

+K))

(A.5.a)
8U
d,2s(p11

u=2s(k

+fkz)+

+P&+

T(1 +K)fiP1(fill

T(l +K)K-fl(&

To obtain VbY rearranging

8V
--

ae

-r

P120,+p22a.B--

8V
-=rP12fl,+rp220e-

ae

+KP12)

+D(l

+p12)-D(l

-K)r-(+K)(&l
-K)KplrpK(flII

eqn (A.4.b) and then substituting

-KP12)

(A.5.b)

--I@~~) +fl(e)

(A.5.c)

eqns (25.a) (25.b) and (A.5.c) gives

U
r )

(A.6.a)

(A.6.b)

S. Smidt

224
i3V

(A.6.c)
~=2~(r~l2+rB22)+~(1+K)rK-(B12+r~~22)+D(1-K)~-(l+K)(r~l
8V
-&=wBIP

+ P22)r+

7x1

+wyp12

+KP22)

+D(l

-K)r-K(p12-Kp22)

-2S(Pll+Pl2)r-T(1+K)K-l~(Pll+KBl2)+D(1-K)K-1r-K(Pll-KP12)-fl(~)

(A-6-d)

8V
~=wBll

-P22)7+4(1

+wQll~-l

-KP,,)

+D(l

-K)r-K(P1lK-l

-KP22) -fl(@

(A.6.e)

where

(M-1-~P22)=pll

p;:;

V=2S(P,,-Bzz)re-lfi(e)

;;$I

22

=(pll)l2(p22)l~2_((p22)l/2(p11)1/2=~

de+f,(r).

(A.64

(fws)

equals zero and putting the results for U and V into (A.4.c) gives

The shearing deformation

1au
- -=,
Y ae

-822

11

1 a
G fi(O)

(A.7.a)

(A.7.b)

~=2s(lr,l-822)~-3f2(r)

(A.7.c)

1 au
av
;ae+jy-y=;z

1 a
fi(e)+32(~)+3f1(~)

de-

(A.7.d)

fh(r)=o

which has the solution5

f2(r)=Fr

andf#)=Hsine+JcosR

The displacements

(A-8)

are then

u=2S(P11+P12)~+T(1+K)K-1r(P11+KP12)-D(1-K)K-1r-K(P11-KP12)+Hsin8+Jc0se
(A.9.a)
u=2S(P11-fi22)@r+Fr+Hc0s8-Jsin8

(A.9.b)

w=o.

(A.9.c)

The relationship
as

1
1
a 11=- , u22=E,
&
VI.8

1
and CZAR=EZ

Vt+

a12=--=__,

Er

constants E, and vii can be expressed

between the constants aG and the engineering

E8

13=

V,_
Er

(A. 10.a)

vzrand

E,

a23= _F=

_v,8.
0

EZ

(A. 10.b)

Bending of curved sandwich beams

225

Then in engineering constants

(A.1l.a)

(A.1l.b)

(A.1l.c)