Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Assessment of third order smeared and zigzag theories for buckling and vibration of at angle-ply hybrid piezoelectric panels
P.C. Dumir, P. Kumari, S. Kapuria *
Department of Applied Mechanics, IIT Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
A recently developed improved third order theory (ITOT) for angle-ply hybrid piezoelectric plates in cylindrical bending is extended to include geometric non-linearity in the Von Karman sense. The transverse deection is approximated non-uniformly to explicitly account for the transverse strain due to temperature and electric potential. The coupled non-linear equations of motion and the boundary conditions are derived using the extended Hamiltons principle. The non-linear theory is used to obtain the buckling and free vibration response of symmetrically laminated hybrid angle-ply panels under inplane electrothermomechanical loading. This theory and the third order zigzag theory with additional layerwise terms for inplane displacements are assessed in direct comparison with the exact 2D piezothermoelasticity solutions for forced harmonic response, buckling and free vibration response under initial inplane electro-thermomechanical loading. The comparison establishes the accuracy of the results of the zigzag theory and its superiority over the ITOT for the dynamic and buckling response of angle-ply hybrid panels. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Available online 29 March 2009 Keywords: Angle-ply Hybrid panel Non-linear Buckling Forced vibration

1. Introduction Angle-ply composite and sandwich laminates with embedded or surface-bonded piezoelectric layers acting as sensors and actuators are widely used in adaptive structures for active vibration suppression, acoustic control, shape control, etc. Reviews of various laminate theories developed for thermoelectrical response of laminated smart composite structures have been presented in Refs. [1,2]. Analytical coupled 2D piezothermoelasticity solutions for cylindrical bending of angle-ply hybrid piezoelectric simply supported at panels under electro-thermomechanical load has been presented for static [3], dynamic [4] and buckling [5] response. These solution have revealed that there is signicant effect of transverse shear stress, layerwise distortion of midplane normal and coupling due to piezoelectric and pyroelectric effects. The classical laminate theory (CLT) [6], rst order shear deformation theory (FSDT) [79] and third order theory (TOT) [1013] have been presented based on single expression of displacements across the thickness. These theories do not account for the slope discontinuities in inplane displacements, and violate shear stress continuity conditions at the layer interfaces. This discontinuity has been incorporated in discrete layerwise theories (DLT) [14], which are accurate but inefcient as the number of variables increases in proportion to the number of layers. Kapuria and his coworkers have

* Corresponding author. Fax: +91 11 26581119. E-mail address: kapuria@am.iitd.ac.in (S. Kapuria). 0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.03.019

presented efcient zigzag theories (ZIGT) for dynamic and buckling of hybrid beams [15] and plates [16,17] in which the expressions are taken layerwise and the transverse normal strain due to temperature and potential is directly accounted for in the approximation of deection. The number of variables are reduced to those of the smeared TOT by satisfying interface and boundary conditions on transverse shear stresses. These theories yield very accurate results for hybrid cross-ply laminates. Recently, the author presented an improved TOT (ITOT) considering the deformability of thickness due to thermoelectric eld and assessed this theory and the ZIGT for static and free vibration response of angle-ply hybrid plates in cylindrical bending. The ITOT was found to be an improvement over the conventional TOT based on uniform approximation of deection across the thickness, but the ZIGT is found to be superior to the ITOT for static electromechanical response of angle-ply hybrid composite and sandwich panels. Neither the results based on the analytical solution of the ITOT and ZIGT nor the assessment of their accuracy with respect to the exact 2D piezothermoelasticity solution are available in the literature for the forced vibration and thermoelectromechanical buckling response of angle-ply hybrid plates. The analytical results of the ITOT and ZIGT are also needed for validating the nite element solution of the corresponding theory. The present study is aimed to ll this void in the literature. The objective herein is to extend the linear ITOT [19] for hybrid panels to include geometric non-linearity due to deection in the sense of Von Karman and use the theory to obtain the initial buckling response of symmetrically laminated hybrid angle-ply panels

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

347

Nomenclature A; A; A ; Al ; Al panel stiffness and thermomechanical matrices a; h; L length, thickness, number of plies damping coefcient c1 Dx ; Dy ; Dz ; Ex ; Ey ; Ez electric displacements and electric eld piezoelectric strain and stress constants dij ; eij stress resultants F1; F2 F3; Fj 6 b F F 3 ; bj 6 Gj ; Hj Gij ; Y i ; mechanical and electric loads mechanical and electric damping loads resultants of Dz ; Dx  p3 ; p3 qji S u; pyroelectric constants charge density on the actuated surface thickness ratio a=h w; T; / displacements, temperature, potential

Rk ; Rkj ; Rkl 2 2 matrices of cubic layerwise functions

v;

mij ; Q ij shear modulii, elastic modulii, Poissons ratios, re-

duced stiffenesses I; Il ; I; Il inertia matrices k0 ; u0x ; u0y ; w0x ; w0y mid-surface layer and its displacement variables L; L; L; b Ln matrices of differential operators K; M; K G stiffness matrix, mass matrix, geometric stiffness matrix Nx ; M x ; P x ; Sj ; Nxy ; Pxy stress resultants of rx and sxy x N0 ; N0 x xy b P; P p1 ; z p2 z initial stress resultants load vectors force applied per unit area on the top and bottom surfaces vector of primary variables, nth Fourier components of U

V x ; Q x ; Q j ; V j ; Q y stress resultants of szx and syz x x zk1 z coordinate of bottom of kth layer i ai ; b thermal expansion coefcients, stresstemperature coefcients 0   bj ; bj ; bjw ; bjl ; bjl ; cl panel electromechanical and electrothermal matrices 0 cjl ; Ejj ; Ejj panel pyroelectric and dielectric matrices  gii ; gii electric permittivities r; s; e; c stresses and strains 0 e0 ; e0 ; c0 ; T 0 ; /j 0 initial uniform strains, temperature and pox y xy tential Wj/ ; WlT ; Wj/ ; WlT interpolation functions and related integral functions xn natural frequency for nth spatial mode

U0 ; U0 s a

unknown output voltages, known input voltages differentiation w.r.t. time

U; U n

under inplane electro-thermomechanical loading. This theory and the ZIGT of Kapuria and Achary [18] are assessed by direct comparison with the available 2D exact solution for forced vibration response [20] under electromechanical loading and buckling response [5] under inplane electro-thermomechanical loading of simply supported hybrid angle-ply at panels of highly inhomogeneous, composite and sandwich laminates. 2. Formulation of ITOT Consider an angle-ply L-layered hybrid piezoelectric at panel (Fig. 1) of span a along axis x, thickness h along z axis and of innite length along y axis. The midplane of the panel is at z 0. The layers can be orthotropic elastic with a principal material axis along z, or piezoelectric with orthorhombic class mm2 symmetry with poling along principal material axis z. The material symmetry direction 1 of the kth layer from bottom is at an angle hk to the x-axis and the z-coordinate of its bottom surface is denoted as zk1 . Thus, the bottom face of the rst layer is at z z0 h=2 and the top face of the Lth layer is at z zL h=2. The interface between the kth and the k 1th layer is named as the kth interface with z zk . 2.1. Approximations for e, r, T, /, w, u Consider cylindrical bending of the panel under electrothermomechanical load, wherein all entities are independent of y. Let ux x; z; t; uy x; z; t be the inplane displacements and wx; z; t be the transverse displacement. The Lagrangian strains ex ; ey ; ez ; cxy ; cyz ; czx are related to the displacements, including geometric non-linearity due to the deection w0 x; t w0 x; 0; t of the midplane, by

A subscript comma denotes differentiation. Let / be the electric potential and Ex /;x ; Ey 0; Ez /;z , be the components of the electric eld. Unlike most other studies, the inplane electric eld Ex is not considered as zero, since it may be applied by actuation or may be induced by the piezoelectric coupling. The linear constitutive equations of orthorhombic piezoelectric material of class mm2 symmetry with poling along z-direction for the stresses rx ; ry ; sxy ; syz ; szx and electric displacements Dx ; Dz , using the assumption of transverse normal stress rz 0, are given by

b  r Q e T /;z bT; s Q c ^/;x e3 e 2 T ry Q 12 ex Q 26 cxy 32 /;z b e ^T c g11 /;x ; Dz 3 e g33 /;z p3 T    e Dx e
where

! ! ex czx rx szx ; c ; r e ; s cxy cyz sxy syz " Q " b Q Q 11 Q 16 Q 55 Q 45 # Q 16 ; Q 66 # Q 45 ; Q 44 T e3 ! 31 e ; 36 e !  e ^ 15 e 14 e "  b  b1 6 b # 3

"

"

ex ux;x w2 ; ey 0; ez w;z 0;x

cxy uy;x ; cyz uy;z ; czx ux;z wx

1 2

 Q ij ; ij ; bi and gii for axes x; y, at angle hk to the principal matee  rial axes 1, 2, are related to the reduced modulii Q ij , piezoelectric strain constants eij , stresstemperature coefcients bi and electric permittivities gii for the principal material axes 1, 2. The temperature T and the potential / are approximated as piecewise linear across the thickness in terms of values T l at nT points at zlT ; l 1; 2; . . . ; nT ; and values /j at n/ points at zj/ , j 1; 2; . . . ; n/ , respectively:

T WlT zT l x; t;

/ Wj/ z/j x; t

348

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

where WlT z; Wj/ z are linear interpolation functions for T and /, and summation convention is used for indices l and j. w is approximated by integrating constitutive equation for ez , by including only the predominant thermal and potential contributions due   to expansion coefcient a3 and piezoelectric coefcient d33 , i.e.,   ez w;z d33 /;z a3 T )

with

h iT T   u1 uT w0;x wT /j;x ; u2 w0 /j 0 0 h i h i f1 z I2 zI1 Rk z Rkj z ; f 2 z 1 Wj/ z 1 ! ; " # " #

16

w w0 x; t W

j j / z/ x; t

l l T zT x; t

where I1 ; Rkj ; Rkl are the rst column of the matrices I2 ; Rkj ; Rkl : 1 1

5 I1

Rz  where Wj/ z 0 d33 Wj/;z z dz is a piecewise linear function and Rz  WlT z 0 a3 WlT z dz is a piecewise quadratic function. For the improved third order theory ITOT, the inplane displacements ux and uy are approximated as

1 0

Rkj 1

Rkj 11 Rkj 21

Rkl 1

Rkl 11 Rkl 21

17

The elements with indices j mean a sequence of elements with j 1 to n/ . Substituting u; w from Eq. (15) in Eq. (1) yields

u u0 x; t zw0d zw0 x; t z2 nx; t z3 gx; t

where

e f1 z1 Rkl zT l;xx w2 I1 ; c f3 z2 Ckl zT l;x e e 1 0;x

where Ckl z Rkl z WlT zI1 and 1;z

1 2

18

u "

ux uy

! ; #

" u0

u0x u0y

# ; w0

"

w0x w0y

# ; n

nx ny

! ; 7

1 u1;x ; e 

h 2 wT e 0

/j;x

iT

h i f 3 z Rk z Rkj z Wj/ zI1 ;z 1;z 19

! g w0;x g x ; w0d gy 0
Using Eqs. (5) and (6) in Eq. (2)2 yields

2.2. Governing non-linear differential equations Let p1 ; p2 be the forces per unit area applied on the bottom and z z top surfaces of the panel. Let the idealised distributed linear viscous resistance acting on the top surface of the panel, possibly due to viscous resistance of the surrounding medium, be ji _ c1 wx; zL ; t per unit area. Let Aji be an internal surface z z/ , where ji / is prescribed and qji is the extraneous surface charge density on  this surface. The total number of such prescribed potentials is n/ . Considering unit width of the panel in direction y and using the P R zk notation h i L k1 z . . .dz, the extended Hamiltons principle k1 can be expressed as

b b s Q k w0 2zn 3z2 g ^k Wj/ z Q k Wj/ z/jd e b Q k WlT zT ld 8

The conditions of zero transverse shear stresses at bottom and top surfaces are imposed to express n and g in terms of u0 and w0 .

w0 2z0 n 3z2 g Dj1 /jd Dl3 T ld ; 0 Dj2 /jd Dl4 T ld

where

w0 2zL n 3z2 g L 9

Z
0

hqduT u qdw w deT r dcT s Dx d/;x Dz d/;z i _ p1 dwx; z0 ; t fp2 c1 wx; zL ; tgdwx; zL ; t z z

Dj1 Wj/ z0 I2 ~1 Wj/ z0 ; e b ~1 Q 1 1 ^1 ; e e Dl3 WlT z0 I2 ;

Dj2 Wj/ zL I2 ~L Wj/ zL e 10

b ~L Q L 1 ^L e e Dl4 WlT zL I2

Dz x; z0 ; td/1 Dz x; zL ; td/n/ qji d/ji dx hduT r szx dw Dx d/ija 0 0

I2 is a 2 2 identity matrix. The solution of Eqs. (9) gives n and g as

8 du0 ; dw0 ; dw0 ; d/j

20

n C 1 w0 C / /jd C T T ld ; l1 j1
where

g C 2 w0 C / /jd C T T ld l2 j2
D z0 zL zL z0

11

Using Eqs. (15) and (18), the inertia and strain energy terms in Eq. (20) are expressed as

hqduT u qdww deT r dcT si C 2 zL z0 I2 =3D; C/ j2 CT l2 z0 Dj2 zL Dl3 z2 Dj2 =2D; 0 z2 Dl3 =2D; L zL Dj1 =3D 12 1 2   duT Iu1 Il T l;x duT Iu2 Il T l dT F 1 dT F 2 e1 e2 w0;x dw0;x Nx
The inertia matrices I; I ; I; Il are dened by
T I; Il hqf1 zf1 z; Rkl zi; 1 T I; Il hqf2 zf2 z; WlT zi
l

C 1 z2 z2 I2 =2D; 0 L C/ j1 CT l1 z2 Dj1 L z2 Dl4 0

21

z0 Dl4 =3D

It results in the following expression of u for ITOT which is of the same form as in zigzag theory of Kapuria and Achary [17], viz.,

22

u u0 x; t zw0d x; t R zw0 x; t R

kj

z/jd x; t

kl

zT ld x; t 13

where unlike Ref. [17], the functions Rk z; Rkj z; Rkl z for ITOT are the same for all the layers:

Rk z zI2 z2 C 1 z3 C 2 ; Rkl z z2 C T z3 C T l1 l2

Rkj z z2 C / z3 C / ; j1 j2 14

I11 6 6 6 I21 6 6 6I 6 31 I6 6 6 I41 6 6 6 6 I51 4 2 I4 Ij61 I33 Ij63

I12 I22 I32 I42 I52 Ij62 Ij36 Ijj 66

0 0

I13 I23 I33 I43 I53 3 Ij63

I14 I24 I34 I44 I54 Ij64

I15 I25 I35 I45 I55

Ij16

7 0 7 Ij26 7 7 7 0 Ij36 7 7 7; 7 j0 7 I46 7 7 0 7 Ij56 7 5

0

6 7 6 Il 7 6 27 6 7 6 l 7 6 I3 7 6 7 l I 6 7; 6 Il 7 6 47 6 7 6 l 7 6 I5 7 4 5 Ijl 6 23

Il1

The ITOT and the existing theory ZIGT can henceforth be presented in unied manner. Eqs. (5) and (13) can be written as

5;

 u f1 zu1

Rkl zT l;x ; 1

 w f2 zu2 W

l l T zT

15

Ij65 Ijj 66 2 3 l I3 Il 4 5 Ijl 6

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

349

The stress resultants F 1 and F 2 are dened by

F1

T hf1 z

ri NT Mx PT Sjx

iT

F2

T hf3 z

si Q T Q jx

iT

2.3. Electromechanical dynamic equations in terms of primary eld variables Using e; c; T; / from Eqs. (18) and (4) into Eq. (2) yields r; s; Dx ; Dz , which are then substituted in Eqs. (24) and (26) to obtain the following constitutive equations of the panel:
0 0 1 F 1 A1 bj /j Al T l;xx cl T l A w2 e 0;x 2 0 0 2 bj /j;x Al T l;x F 2 Ae 0 T 0 1 Gj bj 1 Ejj /j bjl T l;xx cjl T l bjw w2 e 0;x 2 j  jT 2 Ejj0 /j0 bjl T l  Hx b e ;x ;x

24 N N x Nxy T hri; P Px Pxy hR z Q Q x Q y

T T k

M x hzrx i;
T

V x hszx i

hRk zT ;z

Q jx hfRkj zgT 1;z

ri; si and j W/ zIT si 1

Sjx

hRkj zT 1

ri

25

32

Using Eq. (4), the electric eld terms in Eq. (20) are expressed in terms of resultants Hj ; Gj as

hDx d/;x Dz d/;z i d/j;x Hjx d/j Gj ; Gj hWj/;z zDz i

Hjx hWj/ zDx i; 26

The loading terms in Eq. (20) are expressed as

   F 3 b 3 dw0 F j6 b j6 d/j Nx du0x Nxy du0y V x dw0 F F      M x dw0;x Px dw0x Pxy dw0y Sjx d/j;x Hjx V j/ d/j ja 0 27

where A; A; A are the panel stiffnesses, Al ; Al are the panel ther0 0 momechanical coefcients, bj ; bj ; bjw are the panel electrome chanical coupling matrices, bjl ; bjl ; cl are the panel electro0 0 thermal matrices, cjl is the panel pyroelectric matrix, and Ejj ; Ejj are the panel dielectric elements. These are dened in terms of the material constants by [21]
T A; Al ; A hf1 zQ f1 z; Rkl z; I1 i; 1 T b A; Al hf3 z Q f3 z; Ckl zi; T bj hf1 zT Wj/;z zi; e3
0 0 0

 bjl hWj/ z^T Ckl zi e

where an over-bar in this expression means values at the ends, F F V j/ hWj/ zszx i. The loads F 3 ; F j6 ; b 3 ; b j6 , are dened by

bjl hWj/;z z3 Rkl zi e 1 33

F3 bj F6 F j6

p1 z

p2 ; z

_ b 3 c1 w0 cj0 /j0 cl T l ; _ _ F T /
0 _0 cjj /j /

 cjl hp3 Wj/;z zWlT zi  Ejj hg11 Wj/ zWj/ zi

0 0

_ cj/ w0 p1 z

_ cjl T l ; T

0   cl hf1T zbWlT zi; bj hf3T z^Wj/ zi e

j / z0

p2 z

j / zL

DzL djn/ Dz0 dj1 qji djji

28

 Ejj hg33 Wj/;z zWj/;z zi; bjw h3 Wj/;z I1 i e

with

cj/ c1 Wj/ zL ;
0 0

clT c1 WlT zL cjl c1 Wj/ zL WlT zL T

cjj c1 Wj/ zL Wj/ zL ; /

29

The panel constitutive Eqs. (32) are substituted into Eq. (30) to yield the coupled non-linear electromechanical equations in terms of primary variables u0x ; u0y ; w0 ; w0x ; w0y and /j :

and dij is Kroneckers delta. Using Eqs. (21), (26) and (27) in Eq. (20) yields the following equations of motion

b L U bU LU Ln U P P L_
where

::

34

I11 u0x I12 u0y I13 w0;x I14 w0x

0 0 I15 w0y Ij16 /j;x Il1 T l;x Nx;x 0 I21 u0 I22 u0 I23 w0;x I24 w0 x y x

I25 w0y Ij26 /j;x Il2 T l;x Nxy;x 0 I31 u0x ;x I32 u0y ;x I33 w0;xx I33 w0 I34 w0x ;x
0 0 0 0 I35 w0y ;x Ij36 /j;xx Ij36 /j Il3 T l;xx Il3 T l

h iT U u0x u0y w0 w0x w0y /1 /2 . . . /n/ T P P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 1 P 2 . . . P n/ 6 6 6 h iT b b b b b b b b b P P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 1 P 2 . . . P n/

6 6 6

35

L and L are symmetric matrices of linear differential operators in L x. b contains damping related terms. L; L and b are given by L

M x;xx Nx;x w0;x Nx w0;xx F 3 b 3 0 F I41 u0 I42 u0 I43 w0;x I44 w0 I45 w0
x y x y

30

L11 A11 ;xx ; L12 A12 ;xx ; L13 A13 ;xxx ; L14 A14 ;xx ; L15 A15 ;xx ; L22 A22 ;xx ; L23 A23 ;xxx ; L24 A24 ;xx ; L25 A25 ;xx ;
0

L34 A34 ;xxx A12 ;x L35 A35 ;xxx A13 ;x L44 A22 A44 ;xx L45 A23 A45 ;xx L55 A33 A55 ;xx L1;5j0 Aj16 ;xxx bj1 ;x L2;5j0 Aj26 ;xxx bj2 ;x  L3;5j0 Aj36 ;xxxx Aj14 bj3 bj1 ;xx  L4;5j0 Aj46 ;xxx Aj24 bj2 bj4 ;x
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

P x;x Q x 0 I51 u0x I52 u0y I53 w0;x I54 w0x I55 w0y
0 0 Ij56 /j;x

0 0 Ij46 /j;x

Il4 T l;x Il5 T l;x

0

P xy;x Q y 0
0

Ij61 u0x ;x

Ij62 u0y ;x

Ij63 w0;xx
0 0

Ij63 w0

Ij64 w0x ;x

Ij65 w0y ;x Ijj /j;xx Ijj /j Ijl T l;xx Ijl T l 66 66 6 6 Q jx;x Sjx;xx Hjx;x Gj F j6 b j6 0 F
and boundary conditions which are prescribed values of one factor in the following products:

36

L33 A33 ;xxxx A11 ;xx  L5;5j0 Aj56 ;xxx Aj34 bj3 bj5 ;x
j L5j;5j0 Ajj ;xxxx Ajj bjj b6j 66 44 6
0 0 0 0

u0x Nx ;

u0y Nxy ;

w0;x M x ; Il3 T l;x

w0x Px ; Nx w0;x Ij64 w0x

w0y Pxy ;

/j;x Sjx 31

w0 Mx;x I31 u0x I32 u0y I33 w0;x I34 w0x I35 w0y /j Ij61 u0x
0 0 Ijj /j;x 66 0 0 Ij36 /j;x

Ij62 u0y

Ij63 w0;x Sjx;x

Ij65 w0y

 j bjj b4j Ejj ;xx Ejj 4

0

Ijl T l;x 61

Q jx

Hjx

for j; j 1; . . . ; n/ . Ln U are non-linear terms due to geometric nonlinearity, which are given by

350

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

1 Ln U1 A11 w2 ;x 0;x 2 1 Ln U3 Nx w0;xx Nx;x w0;x A31 w2 ;xx 0;x 2 1 Ln U2 A21 w2 ;x ; 0;x 2 1 Ln U4 A41 w2 ;x 0;x 2 1 Ln U5 A51 w2 ;x ; 0;x 2 1 1 Ln U5j bjw w2 Aj61 w2 ;xx 0;x 0;x 2 2 P 1 Il1 T l;x Al1 T l;xxx cl1 T l;x P 2 Il2 T l;x Al2 T l;xxx cl2 T l;x P 3 F 3 Il3 T l;xx Il3 T l Al3 T l;xxxx cl3 T l;xx Al1 T l;xx P 4 Il4 T l;x Al4 T l;xxx cl4 Al2 T l;x P 5 Il5 T l;x Al5 T l;xxx cl5 Al3 T l;x  P j6 F j6 Ijl T l;xx Ijl T l Ajl bjl bjl cjl T l;xx 6 6 4 6 cjl T l Ajl T l;xxxx 6 b _ P 3 clT T l b _ P j6 cjl T l T 38

3. Analytical solution for simply supported angle-ply panels 3.1. Linear dynamic response Analytical solution for the linear dynamic response is obtained for a simply supported angle-ply panel in cylindrical bending for the following boundary conditions at x 0; a:

37

Nx 0; Pxy 0;

N xy 0; / 0;
j

w0 0; Sjx 0;

M x 0;

P x 0; 39

j 1; . . . ; n/

b The non-zero elements of load vectors P and the P are given by

The solution of Eq. (34), without the non-linear terms, satisfying the boundary conditions (39), is expanded in Fourier series as:

w0 ; /j ; T; Nx ; Nxy ; Mx ; Px ; Pxy ; Sjx ; Gj ; piz ; qj

1 X n1

 w0 ; /j ; T; N x ; Nxy ; M x ; Px ; Pxy ; Sjx ; Gj ; piz ; qj n sin nx 40

u0x ; u0y ; w0x ; w0y ; V x ; Q x ; Q y ; Q jx ; Hjx

1 X n1

 u0x ; u0y ; w0x ; w0y ; V x ; Q x ; Q y ; Q jx ; Hjx n cos nx

 with n np=a. Substitution of the above expansions in Eq. (34) yields governing equations of motion for the nth Fourier component, which are solved for steady state response under harmonic electromechanical loading following the procedure discussed in Ref. [16]. The transverse shear stresses s are calculated by integrating the 3D equations of motion.

Fig. 1. Geometry of a hybrid angle-ply innite panel.

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

351

Fig. 2. Congurations of hybrid panels for numerical study.

3.2. Buckling and free vibration under initial stresses Consider an angle-ply symmetrically laminated panel subjected to initial uniform inplane normal strains e0 ; e0 0, shear strain c0 , x y xy uniform temperature rise T 0 and actuation potentials independent of x, y coordinates. This initial equilibrium state is denoted by superscript 0 . For the symmetrically laminated panel under symmetrical loading about x-plane,

N0 A11 bT E1 b1s e0 A12 bT E1 b2s c0 x xy x 1s ss 1s ss bT bT E1 Esa U0 bT E1 F 0 c1 bT E1 Cs T 0 a 1a 1s ss 1s ss 6s 1s ss N0 A21 bT E1 b1s e0 A22 bT E1 b2s c0 x xy xy 2s ss 2s ss bT bT E1 Esa U0 bT E1 F 0 c2 bT E1 Cs T 0 2a 2s ss a 2s ss 6s 2s ss
Let the solution for just after buckling/vibration under initial stresses be denoted by ^ on the entities. The size of the buckling/vibration mode U is described by an arbitrary small parameb ter . Thus, U U 0 U with U given by Eq. (35)1. Substituting this solution into Eq. (34), using Eq. (41), N 0 0, N 0 0, and considxy;y x;x ering the rst order terms in , yield the following equations for U:
:: T L U LU 0 0 N 0 w0;xx 0 0 0 x h iT P 0 0 0 0 0 F j6 :

46

w0 0; 0

w 0 w0 0 x y

41

Considering this, the panel constitutive Eqs. (32) and governing differential equations (30)6 yield

N0 A11 e0 A12 c0 bj1 /j 0 c1 T 0 x xy x N0 A21 e0 A22 c0 bj2 /j 0 c2 T 0 x xy xy E /

jj0 j0 0
0 0

42
P nh

47

bj1 0 x

e c
Pnh
l l1 1 ;

bj2 0 xy

F j0 6 T T

c T0
l l1 2

where c1

c2
n

Pnh

c and cj

l1

cjl . Dening
T T 43
n

U /1 /2 . . . /n/
bk b1 k b2 k . . . bk / F0 6

F6 F1 6

C c1 c2 . . . cn/
F2 6 . . . F 6/

For a set of zero incremental potential at the actuator locations, zero incremental electric displacement at the unknown potential locations and zero incremental temperature, the incremental load F j6 is zero for index j corresponding to such surfaces. This yields the following governing equations for buckling/vibration under initial stresses:
:: T L U LU 0 0 N 0 w0;xx 0 0 0 0 x

with k 1; 2, Eq. (42)4 can be written in matrix form as

48

EU

b1 0 x

e c

b2 0 xy

CT 0

44

U0 is partitioned into a set of unknown output voltages U0 at zj/ s s

where / is not prescribed and a set of known input actuation voltages U0 at the actuated surfaces. Accordingly, Eq. (44) is partitioned a and arranged as

The inertia term is zero for the buckling case. The solution of Eq. (48) for the nth spatial buckling/vibration mode for the simply supported panel with boundary conditions Eq. (39) is taken

Ess Eas

Esa Eaa

!"

U0 s U
0 a

b1s b1a

e0 x

b2s b2a

"

c0 xy

F0 6s F0 6a

! Cs T0

Table 1  Exact 2D results [20] for fundamental natural frequency x1 for panels (a)(c). S Open circuit condition (a) 5 10 20 5.92813 8.11357 9.25291 (b) 6.40411 8.03394 8.70043 (c) 3.05690 4.62089 5.66809 Closed circuit condition (a) 5.87107 8.00641 9.11085 (b) 6.33834 7.93293 8.58158 (c) 3.02339 4.53374 5.52172

Ca

45

Solving Eq. (45) for U0 and substituting it into Eq. (42) yields the s initial stress resultants N 0 ; N 0 , in terms of the known loading x xy parameters

352

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

   Fig. 3. Distributions of u; w; rx for panel (a) x=x1 :8;  0:1. c

   Fig. 4. Distributions of u; w; rx for panel (c) x=x1 :8;  0:1. c

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

353

 Fig. 5. Amplitude wm and phase

j for panel (a) under load cases (H1) and (H2).

 Fig. 6. Amplitude wm and phase

j for panel (b) under load cases (H1) and (H2).

354

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

 Fig. 7. Amplitude wm and phase

j for panel (c) under load cases (H1) and (H2).

 Fig. 8. % error of ZIGT and ITOT for amplitude wm and phase

j0 under load case (H1).

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

355

 Fig. 9. % error of ZIGT and ITOT for amplitude wm and phase

j0 under load case (H2).

as given in Eq. (40), without the summations over n. Substituting them in Eq. (48) yields

M U n KU n K G U n 0
n

49

where U is the nth Fourier component of U and K G is the geometric  x stiffness matrix with the only non-zero element K G 3; 3 n2 N 0 . K and M are the symmetric stiffness and inertia matrices. For synchronous free vibration of natural frequency xn , considering U n U n cos xn t, and partitioning U into the unknown and known parts e Us and Ua , Eq. (49) can be written for U n u0xn u0yn w0n w0xn w0yn Un T as s

ply hybrid panels. Three congurations of panels are considered as shown in Fig. 2. Panel (a) is a test panel with layers having highly inhomogeneous stiffness in tension and shear. Panels (b) and (c) are composite and sandwich panels. Unless otherwise stated, the ply-angle h is taken as 15 and 30 for panels (b) and (c), respectively. The interface between elastic substrate and piezoelectric layer is electrically grounded. The material constants Y 1 ; Y 2 ; Y 3 ; G12 ; G23 ; G31 (GPa); m12 ; m13 ; m23 ; q kg=m3 ; 106 a1 ; a2 ; a3 K1 ); and thermal conductivities k1 ; k2 ; k3 (W/mK) for the materials are: Material 1: 6.9, 6.9, 6.9, 2.76, 2.76, 2.76; 0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 1578; 35.6, 35.6, 35.6; 0.12, 0.12, 0.12 Material 2: 224.25, 6.9, 6.9, 56.58, 1.38, 56.58; 0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 1578; 0.25, 35.6, 35.6; 7.2, 1.44, 1.44 Material 3: 172.5, 6.9, 6.9, 3.45, 1.38, 3.45; 0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 1578; 0.57, 35.6, 35.6; 1.92, 0.96, 0.96 Material 4: 181.0, 10.3, 10.3, 7.17, 2.87, 7.17; 0.28, 0.28, 0.33, 1578; 0.02, 22.5, 22.5; 1.5, 0.5, 0.5 Face: 131.1, 6.9, 6.9, 3.588, 2.3322, 3.588; 0.32, 0.32, 0.49, 1000; 0.0225, 22.5, 22.5; 1.5, 0.5, 0.5 Core: 0:0002208; 0:0002001; 2:760; 0:01656; 0:4554; 0:5451; 0:99;
3 105 ; 3 105 ; 70; 30:6; 30:6; 30:6; 3:0; 3:0; 3:0

e e e e e e e K K G x2 M U n K kK x2 M U n 0 n 0 n 0 G

50

For the case of free vibration under initial stresses, k 1; e K K G evaluated for the initial stresses, i.e., N 0 and N 0 . Eq. (50) G x xy represents a generalised eigenvalue problem, whose eigenvalues yield the natural frequencies xn for the nth spatial mode. For the case of buckling, x 0; K is evaluated for the initial stresses corG responding to unit value of the initial loading parameters and the eigenvalue k gives the buckling load factor. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors are obtained by QR algorithm after reducing to Heissenberg form using NAG subroutines. 4. Numerical results 4.1. Forced vibration The accuracy of the ZIGT and ITOT for steady state forced damped response is established by direct comparison with the exact 2D piezoelasticity [20] solution for simply supported at angle-

PZT-5A: 61.0, 61.0, 53.2, 22.6, 21.1, 21.1; 0.35, 0.38, 0.38, 7600; 1.5, 1.5, 2.0; 1.8, 1.8, 1.8, and d31 ; d32 ; d33 ; d15 ; d24 pm=V; g11 ; g22 ; g33 (nF/m); p3 C=m2 K 171; 171; 374; 584; 584; 15:3; 15:3; 15:0; 0:0007 Two harmonic load cases are considered for the steady state forced response:

356

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

 Fig. 10. Variations of exact 2D results of wm and % error in ZIGT and ITOT with ply-angle h for hybrid panel (b) x=x1 :8;  0:1. c

(H1) Pressure p2 p0 sinpx=a cos xt on the top surface which z is under open circuit condition with Dz 0. (H2) Actuation potential /n/ /0 sinpx=a cos xt applied to the top surface. The bottom surface is grounded /1 0 for both load cases. The results for these two load cases are non-dimensionalized with S a=h; Y 0 6:9 GPa for panels (a), (c) and Y 0 10:3 GPa for panel (b); d0 374:0 1012 CN1 for all panels; q0 1578 kg=m3 for panels (a), (b) and q0 1000 kg=m3 for panel (c):
3    H1: u; w 100u; w=SY 0 =hS p0 ; rx rx =S2 p0    H2: u; w u=10; w=S=Sd0 /0 ; rx rx h=Y 0 d0 /0

The dimensionless damping parameter  is dened as  c c c1 S=2q0 ax1 , where x1 is the fundamental natural frequency. The  natural frequency is non-dimensionalized as xn xn aSq0 = Y 0 1=2 . The exact 2D results are obtained using given methodology  of Ref. [20] for the dimensionless undamped natural frequency x1 for the rst bending mode is presented for ready reference in Table 1 for hybrid panels (a)(c) for both open and close circuit conditions of the top surface. The through-the-thickness distributions of the dimensionless   inplane displacement ux , deection and inplane normal stress rx , for angle-ply hybrid panels (a) and (c) under both load cases are c plotted in Figs. 3 and 4 for n 1; x=x1 :8;  0:1 and S 10. The ZIGT accurately predicts the zigzag variation of the inplane displacements and also the non-uniform distribution of deection across the thickness in case of potential load case (H2) quite accurately. The ITOT in spite of inclusion of the transverse piezoelectric

normal strain is unable to predict these distributions of the displacements accurately and yields inaccurate results for displacements and stresses.  The amplitude wm and phase lag j of the mid-surface deection at the centre of the panel, for the two load cases are presented for S 10 in Figs. 57 as a function of the forcing frequency x, for spatial mode n 1 for panels (a)(c). The undamped case  0 and c damped cases with  0:1; 0:2 are considered. The percentage erc  rors of wm and j in the ZIGT and the ITOT are plotted in Figs. 8 and 9 for the two load cases for the damped case of  0:1 for thick c S 5, moderately thick S 10 and thin S 20 panels. It is observed from Figs. 8 and 9 that the ZIGT predicts the amplitude and phase of the forced harmonic response very accurately for all panels for all load cases for the whole frequency range except for small errors for thick S 5 panels in the neighbourhood of the natural frequency x1 . In contrast, the errors in the ITOT for both amplitude and phase are quite large in the whole range of frequency for moderately thick and thick panels with the error increasing in the neighbourhood of x1 . The error is especially large for panels (a) and (c) having layers of drastically different material properties. In the range of x > x1 , the error in the deection amplitude for the ITOT is moderately larger for the potential load case 2 compared to the mechanical load case 1. Even for the thin panels with  S 20, the maximum error in the ITOT for wm is large being 41.2%, 49.3% for load case (H1) and 49.3%, 56.4% for load case (H2) for panels (a) and (c), respectively, for damping parameter  0:1. c  The error in wm in the ITOT is large since it is the cumulative effect of the errors in predicting the static deection, the natural frequency and the dynamic magnication factor for the forced response.

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

357

 Fig. 11. Variations of exact 2D results of wm and % error in ZIGT and ITOT with ply-angle h for sandwich panel (c) x=x1 :8;  0:1. c

 The variation of 2D exact result for amplitude wm and % error of ZIGT and ITOT with the ply-angle h are presented for load cases (H1) and (H2) in Figs. 10 and 11 for hybrid panels (b) and (c). As expected, the deection amplitude xm in both load cases increases as the ply-angle h increases from 0 to 90 , due to reduction in the stiffness in span direction. It is observed that for the hybrid composite panel, for ply-angle h P 15 (which is mostly the case in  practice) the ZIGT yields more accurate prediction of wm than the ITOT, the error decreasing with the ply-angle. In contrast, the error in the ITOT reaches a maximum for ply-angle of around 30 and 40 for load cases (H1) and (H2), respectively and reduces thereafter. For the hybrid sandwich panel (c), the ZIGT yields very accurate

results for the entire range of h, while the ITOT results have very large error in the whole range of h. 4.2. Buckling and free vibration Simply supported hybrid panels of three different symmetric laminate congurations a1 ; b1 and (c), as shown in Fig. 2, are
Table 3  Exact 2D results and % errors of ZIGT and ITOT for /cr . S Panel a1 Exact % error ZIGT ITOT 13.21 7.41 4.59 1.23 0.47075 0.62385 0.70778 0.81684 Panel b1 Exact % error ZIGT 4.18 2.55 1.66 0.48 ITOT 10.26 6.30 4.08 1.18 0.12779 0.21623 0.28814 0.42805 Panel (c) Exact % error ZIGT 0.88 0.76 0.67 0.30 ITOT 46.48 33.38 23.68 7.84

Table 2 e Exact 2D results and % errors of ZIGT and ITOT for cr and N xcr . Panel S Exact cr e a1 5 7.5 10 20 5 7.5 10 20 5 7.5 10 20 0.3984 0.5052 0.5582 0.6216 0.4127 0.5388 0.6068 0.6939 0.4197 0.7079 0.9414 1.3940 N xcr 2.9319 3.7174 4.1074 4.5740 4.0628 5.3048 5.9746 6.8317 1.6060 2.7084 3.6020 5.3337 % error in cr ; N xcr e ZIGT 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.57 0.48 0.34 0.09 0.17 0.05 0.15 0.11 ITOT 9.84 3.13 3.28 0.85 6.44 4.15 2.73 0.79 44.96 32.44 23.04 7.64

5 7.5 10 20

0.22872 0.29324 0.32611 0.36638

3.00 1.99 1.32 0.35

Table 4 Exact 2D results and % errors of ZIGT and ITOT for T cr and T for panels S 20. cr Load case Panel 2D exact % error ZIGT T cr T1 T2 b1 (c) b1 (c) 14.9297 23.3025 6.9964 5.3246 T cr 13.6266 20.2656 6.7016 5.1522 T cr 8.50 12.85 3.91 3.02 T cr 0.25 0.21 0.32 0.23 ITOT T cr 7.87 6.30 3.23 4.87 T cr 0.94 7.74 1.03 8.38

b1

(c)

358

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

Fig. 12. % error of buckling temperature for panels b1 and (c) under load cases (T1) and (T2).

   Fig. 13. Distributions of u; rx ; szx for critical buckling mode for panel (c) for load case (M).

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

359

   Fig. 14. Distributions of u; rx ; szx for thermal buckling mode for panel (c) under load case (T2).

considered for comparing the results with exact 2D piezothermoelasticity solution [5]. Panel a1 is a highly inhomogeneous at panel and panel b1 is a hybrid composite panel. Unless otherwise stated, the ply-angle h is taken as 30 for both panels b1 and (c). The top and the bottom of substrate are grounded. Four pre-buckling/pre-vibration load cases are considered: (M) Inplane strain e0 e0 with c0 0. The top and bottom surx xy faces are grounded. (V) Applied actuation potentials at top and bottom surfaces /zL /z0 /0 with immovable ends e0 c0 0. x xy

(T1) Uniform temperature rise T 0 of the panel with top and bottom surfaces under closed circuit condition /z0 /zL 0 with immovable ends. (T2) Uniform temperature rise T 0 with top and bottom surfaces under open circuit condition Dz z0 Dz zL 0 with immovable ends. For load case (M), the lowest value of the strain e0 for buckling is denoted as ecr and the corresponding inplane forces are denoted as N xcr . For load case (V), the critical value of potential /0 for buckling is denoted as /cr . For load cases (T1) and (T2), the critical

 Fig. 15. Effect of the ply-angle on N xcr and /cr and % error in ZIGT and ITOT for panel b1 .

360

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

 Fig. 16. Effect of the ply-angle on N xcr and /cr and % error in ZIGT and ITOT for panel (c).

value of T 0 for buckling is denoted as T cr . The results for these cases are non-dimensionalized as follows with S a=h; d0 374 1012 CN1 ; a0 22:5 106 K1 Y 0 6:9 GPa for laminates a1 and (c) and 10:3 GPa for laminate b1 . For load cases (M) and (V):

Nxcr N xcr S3 =Y 0 a;

cr ecr S2 ; e

 /cr /cr d0 S3 =a

   rx rx S2 h=Y 0 maxw; u; w Su; w= maxw; 3  szx szx S h=Y 0 maxw

For load cases (T1) and (T2):

T cr a0 T cr S2 ;

  u; w Su; w= maxw

  rx rx S2 h=Y 0 maxw; szx szx S3 h=Y 0 maxw

where maxw denotes the largest value of w through the thickness. In all cases, the lowest buckling parameter corresponds to mode n 1. The exact 2D results of cr and N xcr and % errors of the ZIGT and e ITOT for load case (M) are presented in Table 2 for hybrid panels a1 ; b1 and (c) for S 5; 7:5; 10 and 20. It is observed that the e ZIGT yields highly accurate results for cr for all laminate congurations with a maximum error of 0.6% even for thick panels with S 5. In contrast, ITOT results have errors upto 9.8%, 6.4% and 45.0% for panels a1 , b1 and (c), respectively. Even for thin panels with S 20, the error in ITOT is 7.6% for sandwich panel (c). The exact 2D results and % errors of the 1D theories for the critical electric potential are presented in Table 3 for the three panel congu-

rations. It is revealed that the maximum error in the ZIGT for moderately thick panels with S 10 is 1.7% whereas the error in ITOT is 4.6%, 4.1%, 23.7% for panels a1 ; b1 and (c), respectively. The governing equations of motion in the 1D theories do not incorporate the pre-buckling transverse normal strain e0 , whereas z the exact 2D piezothermoelasticity solution of Ref. [5] formulated based on the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses incorporates this effect. To ascertain the effect of e0 , the 2D results for buckling temz perature are obtained considering as well as neglecting e0 , which z are denoted as T cr and T , respectively. These results and the % ercr ror of the ZIGT and ITOT results with respect to T cr and T are listed cr in Table 4 for panels b1 and (c) for S 20 for both the thermal load cases (T1) and (T2). It is observed that the initial e0 can have z signicant effect on the buckling temperature, depending on the laminate conguration. Therefore, for ascertaining the error due to displacement approximations across the laminate thickness in the 1D theories, the errors in the 1D theories for the buckling temperature should be considered with respect to 2D results, T , cr excluding the effect of e0 . z The variation of % error in buckling temperatures with the thickness parameter h=a, is presented in Fig. 12 for panels b1 and (c) for the two thermal load cases with close and open circuit conditions. It is revealed that though the buckling temperatures of panels under close and open circuit conditions are considerably different (as can be seen from Table 4), the errors in the 1D theories in the two cases differ only marginally. The maximum error in the ZIGT for the buckling temperature is 1.6% for the given cases, whereas the error in the ITOT is 3.5% and 24.6% for moderately thick S 10 panels b1 and (c), respectively.

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

361

Fig. 17. Effect of the ply-angle on T and % error in ZIGT and ITOT for load case (T1). cr

The through-the-thickness distributions of modal inplane dis   placement u, normal stress rx and transverse shear stress szx for the critical buckling mode at x locations where they are maximum are compared in Fig. 13 for the hybrid sandwich panel for load case (M) for S 5 and 10. Similar distributions for thermal load case (T2) are presented in Fig. 14 for panel (c) with S 10. It is observed that the ZIGT distributions are in excellent agreement with the exact modal distributions even for the thick case with S 5. In contrast, the distributions obtained from ITOT have large error even for S 10. The 2D exact results for critical load N xcr and critical  electric potential /cr and % errors of the 1D theory results are plotted against ply-angle h in Figs. 15 and 16 for hybrid composite panel b1 and sandwich panel (c), respectively. Similar plots for the buckling temperature T cr under load case (T1) are presented in  Fig. 17. As expected, N xcr ; /cr and T for buckling decrease with cr the increase in ply-angle. The variations of % error in the 1D theo ries for N xcr , /cr and T with ply-angle follow similar trend as the cr  steady state deection amplitude wm . The % errors in the ZIGT and the ITOT results for the fundamen tal exural frequency x1 of initially stressed hybrid composite panel b1 and sandwich panel (c) are plotted in Fig. 18 for initial mechanical load (M) with e0 =ecr 0:25; 0:75 and potential load case (V) with /0 =/cr 0:25; 0:25 and thermal load (T1) with  T 0 =T cr 0:25; 0:25. As in the case of T cr , for the same reasons, the errors in the 1D theories for the natural frequencies under inin tial thermal loads are obtained with respect to 2D results, x ,

excluding the effect of e0 . It is revealed that the ZIGT yields very z accurate results with a maximum error of 2.7% even for thick panels with S 7:5. In contrast, the error in the ITOT for moderately thick sandwich panel (c) with S 10 is 13.8%, 13.9% and 16.9% for load case (M), (V) and (T1), respectively. The error in the 1D theories for the frequency increases with h=a; e0 =ecr ; /0 =/cr and T 0 =T cr .

5. Conclusions From the numerical study, it is inferred that the efcient ZIGT is generally the most accurate of the two theories, ZIGT and ITOT, compared herein, for steady state harmonic, buckling and free vibration of initially stressed hybrid response for angle-ply panels. The ZIGT yields very accurate prediction of steady state forced response under harmonic electromechanical loads, the critical inplane strain, potential and temperature for buckling and the natural frequencies under initial stresses due to inplane electrothermomechanical loads of highly heterogeneous composite as well as sandwich laminates. In contrast, the ITOT results have quite large errors even for moderately thick (S 10) and even thinner panels in case of inhomogeneous composite and sandwich angleply laminates. The inaccuracy in the ITOT results is essentially due to the absence of layerwise terms in the approximation of inplane displacement in the theory.

362

P.C. Dumir et al. / Composite Structures 90 (2009) 346362

Fig. 18. Percent error in x1 of initially stressed hybrid panels b1 and (c).

References
[1] Saravanos DA, Heyliger PR. Mechanics and computational models for laminated piezoelectric beams, plates and shells. Appl Mech Rev 1999;52:30520. [2] Tauchert TR, Ashida F, Noda N, Adali S, Verijenko V. Developments in thermopiezoelasticity with relevance to smart composite structures. Compos Struct 2000;48:318. [3] Dube GP, Upadhyay MM, Dumir PC, Kumar S. Piezothermoelastic solution for angle-ply laminated plate in cylindrical bending. Struct Eng Mech 1998;06:52942. [4] Chen WQ, Ying J, Cai JB, Ye GR. Benchmark solution of imperfect angle-ply laminated rectangular plates in cylindrical bending with surface piezoelectric layers as actuator and sensor. Comput Struct 2004;82:177384. [5] Dumir PC, Kapuria S, Kumari P, Nath JK. Two-dimensional benchmark solution for buckling and vibration of simply supported hybrid piezoelectric angle-ply at panel. Z Angew Math Mech 2008;88:4257. [6] Ishihara M, Noda N. Nonlinear dynamic behaviour of a piezothermoelastic laminated plate with anisotropic material properties. Acta Mech 2003;166:10318. [7] Chandrashekhara K, Agarwal AN. Active vibration control of laminated composite plates using piezoelectric devices: a nite element approach. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 1993;4:496508. [8] Varelis D, Saravanos DA. Nonlinear coupled mechanics and initial buckling of composite plates with piezoelectric actuators and sensors. Smart Mater Struct 2002;11:3306. [9] Varelis D, Saravanos DA. Coupled buckling and postbuckling analysis of active laminated piezoelectric composite plates. Int J Solids Struct 2004;41:151938. [10] Mitchell JA, Reddy JN. A rened hybrid plate theory for composite laminates with piezoelectric laminae. Int J Solids Struct 1995;32:234567.

[11] Correia VMF, Gomes MAA, Suleman A, Soares CMM. Modelling and design of adaptive composite structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2000;185:32546. [12] Kapuria S, Achary GGS. A coupled consistent third order theory for hybrid piezoelectric plates. Compos Struct 2005;70:12033. [13] Shen HS. Thermal postbuckling of shear deformable laminated plates with piezoelectric actuators under complex loading condition. Int J Solids Struct 2001;38:770321. [14] Heyliger PR, Ramirez G, Saravanos DA. Coupled discrete-layer nite elements for laminated piezoelectric plates. Commun Numer Methods Eng 1994;10:97181. [15] Kapuria S. An efcient coupled theory for multilayered beams with embedded piezoelectric sensory and active layers. Int J Solids Struct 2001;38:917999. [16] Kapuria S, Ahmed A, Dumir PC. An efcient coupled zigzag theory for dynamic analysis of piezoelectric composite and sandwich beams with damping. J Sound Vib 2005;279:34571. [17] Kapuria S, Achary GGS. A coupled zigzag theory for the dynamics of piezoelectric hybrid cross-ply plates. Arch Appl Mech 2005;75:4257. [18] Kapuria S, Achary GGS. Nonlinear zigzag theory for electro-thermomechanical buckling of piezoelectric composite and sandwich plates. Acta Mech 2006;184:6176. [19] Kumari P, Nath JK, Dumir PC, Kapuria S. An improved third order theory and assessment efcient zigzag theory for angle-ply at hybrid panels. Compos Struct 2008;83:22636. [20] Kumari P, Nath JK, Dumir PC, Kapuria S. 2D exact solutions for at hybrid piezoelectric and magnetoelastic angle-ply panels under harmonic load. Smart Mater Struct 2007;16:111. [21] Kumari P. 2D exact solutions and third order zigzag theory for hybrid angleply at panels, M.Tech. thesis, IIT Delhi, Department of Applied Mechanics; 2007.