Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Levy type Fourier analysis of thick cross-ply doubly curved panels

Ahmet Sinan Oktem a, Reaz A. Chaudhuri
a

b,*

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, 34349 Besiktas-Istanbul, Turkey
b
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Utah, 1225 S. Central Campus Drive,
Room 304, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0560, United States
Available online 2 August 2006

Abstract
A hitherto unavailable Levy type analytical solution to the problem of deformation of a nite-dimensional general cross-ply thick
doubly curved panel of rectangular plan-form, modeled using a higher order shear deformation theory (HSDT), is presented. A solution
methodology, based on a boundary-discontinuous generalized double Fourier series approach is used to solve a system of ve highly
coupled linear partial dierential equations, generated by the HSDT-based general cross-ply shell analysis, with the SS2-type simply supported boundary condition prescribed on two opposite edges, while the remaining two edges are subjected to the SS3-type constraint.
The numerical accuracy of the solution is ascertained by studying the convergence characteristics of deections and moments of a moderately thick cross-ply spherical panel. Hitherto unavailable important numerical results presented include sensitivity of the predicted
response quantities of interest to lamination, lamina material property, and thickness and curvature eects, as well as their interactions.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Thick laminate; Higher order shear deformation theory (HSDT); Doubly curved panel; Spherical shell; Cylindrical shell; Cross-ply; Analytical
solution; Boundary discontinuous double Fourier series; Boundary constraints

1. Introduction
Recent years have witnessed an increasing use of
advanced composite materials (e.g., graphite/epoxy, boron/
epoxy, Kevlar/epoxy, graphite/PEEK, etc.), which are
replacing metallic alloys in the fabrication of at/curved
panels because of many benecial properties, such as higher
strength-to-weight and stiness-to-weight ratios (resulting
in fuel economy), longer inplane fatigue (including sonic
fatigue) life and stealth characteristics (of military aircraft,
e.g., stealth ghter, F-117A Nighthawk and B-2 bomber),
enhanced corrosion resistance, and so on. Since the matrix
material is of relatively low shearing stiness as compared
to the bers, polymeric composite shell type structures are
highly prone to transverse shear related fatigue failures. A
reliable prediction of the response of these laminated shells
or doubly curved panels must account for transverse shear
deformation. Additionally, a solution to the problem of
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 801 581 6282; fax: +1 801 581 4816.
E-mail address: r.chaudhuri@m.cc.utah.edu (R.A. Chaudhuri).

0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.05.020

deformation of laminated shells of nite dimensions must

satisfy the prescribed boundary conditions, which introduce
additional complexities into the analysis. The present study
is intended to capture some of these intricacies of the
response of laminated composite structural components
through analysis of a model laminated shell boundary-value
problem.
The majority of the investigations on laminated shells
utilize either the classical lamination theory (CLT), or the
rst-order shear deformation theory (FSDT). Examples
of CLT-based analysis of laminated cylindrical and doubly
curved shells/panels include Bert and Reddy [1], Chaudhuri
et al. [2] and Chaudhuri and Kabir [3], while Chaudhuri
and Abu-Arja [4,5], Chaudhuri and Kabir [68], Kabir
and Chaudhuri [9,10], and Kabir et al. [11], have presented
double Fourier series based analytical solutions to moderately thick (FSDT-based) composite shell boundary-value
problems. Superiority of the FSDT over the CLT in prediction of the transverse deection of a moderately thick panel
notwithstanding, the former theory requires incorporation
of a shear correction factor, due to the fact that the FSDT

476

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

assumes a uniform transverse shear strain distribution

through the thickness, which violates equilibrium conditions at the top and bottom surfaces of the panel.
Noor and Burton [12] have presented an extensive survey on various computational models relating to laminated
shells. Approximate thick shell theories can be classied
into two categories: (a) discrete layer approach (see e.g.,
[13] and the references contained therein), and (b) continuous inplane displacement through thickness. The former
approach appears to be more suitable for numerical methods, such as the nite element methods (FEM). Additionally, post-processing type methods used in conjunction
with a discrete layer approach have yielded highly accurate
interlaminar shear stress distribution through the thickness
of symmetric and unsymmetric laminated shells [14,15].
Basset [16] appears to have been the rst to suggest that
the displacements can be expanded in power series of the
thickness coordinate, n3 = f (see Fig. 1). Following Bassets
lead, second- and higher-order shear deformation theories
(HSDT), involving continuous surface-parallel displacements through the thickness of thick laminated shells, have
been developed as special cases of the above (see e.g.,
[17,18] and the references contained therein).
In what follows, a hitherto unavailable HSDT-based
boundary-discontinuous double Fourier series solution to
the boundary value problem of general cross-ply doubly
curved panels, with the SS3 type simply supported boundary condition, prescribed at two opposite edges, while the
remaining two edges are subjected to the SS2 type simply
supported one is derived. The precise mathematical premises of the boundary-discontinuous type double Fourier
series approach to solution of completely coupled system
of partial dierential equations subjected to admissible general boundary conditions are available in Chaudhuri
[19,20]. The numerical accuracy of the present solution is
ascertained by studying its convergence characteristics,
and also by comparison with the available FSDT-based
analytical solution. Numerical results are presented to
understand the complex deformation behavior of symmet-

Fig. 1. Geometry of a laminated doubly curved panel.

ric and antisymmetric cross-ply cylindrical and spherical

panels.
2. Statement of the problem
Let (n1, n2, n3 = f) denote the orthogonal curvilinear
coordinates as shown in Fig. 1. The n1 and n2 curves are
lines of curvature on the shell mid-surface, n3 = f = 0,
while n3 = f is a straight line normal to the mid-surface.
The cross-ply shell under consideration is composed of a
nite number of orthotropic layers of uniform thickness.
Straindisplacement relations from the theory of elasticity
in curvilinear coordinates are given by [21,22]


1
1
g

u1;1 g1;2 u2 1 u3 ;
e1 n1 ; n2 ; n3 
1a
g2
R1
1 Rn31 g1


1
1
g

u2;2 g2;1 u1 2 u3 ;
e2 n1 ; n2 ; n3 
1b
g1
R2
1 Rn32 g2
e3 n1 ; n2 ; n3 u3;3 ;

1
g

e4 n1 ; n2 ; n3 
u3;2  2 u2 u2;3 ;
n3
R
2
1 R2 g2


1
g1


u3;1  u1 u1;3 ;
e5 n1 ; n2 ; n3
R1
1 Rn31 g1


1
1


u2;1  g1;2 u1
e6 n1 ; n2 ; n3
g2
1 Rn31 g1


1
1


u1;2  g1;2 u1 ;

g2
1 Rn32 g2

1c
1d

1e

1f

where ei (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) represents the components of the

strain tensor, and ui (i = 1, 2, 3) denotes the components of
the displacement vector along the (n1, n2, n3 = f) coordinates at a point, (n1, n2, n3 = f). The principal radii of normal curvature of the reference (middle) surface are denoted
by R1 and R2, while g1 and g2 are the rst fundamental
form quantities of the shell reference (middle) surface for
lines of curvature coordinates. In order to model the kinematic behavior of the shell, an additional set of simplifying
assumptions are invoked: (i) transverse inextensibility, (ii)
moderate shallowness (in regards to the normal curvatures), and (iii) negligibility of geodesic curvature. For a
cylindrical shell, the lines of principal curvature coincide
with the surface-parallel coordinate lines, while for a spherical shell, the same can be assumed upon neglect of the geodesic curvatures of the coordinate lines. The surfaceparallel displacements can be expanded in power series of
n3 = f as suggested by Basset [16]. Only keeping the cubic
terms and satisfying the conditions of transverse shear
stresses (and hence strains) vanishing at a point (n1, n2,
h/2) on the top and bottom surfaces of the shell, yields




f
4f3
1
u1 1
u1 f/1  2 /1 u3;1 ;
2a
R1
g1
3h

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488



u2




f
4f3
1
1
u2 f/2  2 /2 u3;2 ;
R2
g2
3h


u3 u3 ;

2b
2c

where ui (i = 1, 2, 3) denotes the displacements of a point on

the middle surface, while /1 and /2 are the rotations at
f = 0 with respect to the n2 and n1 axes, respectively. The
corresponding kinematic relations are given by

resultants), and higher-order stress couples (resultants of

the higher moment of stress). Qi, i = 4, 5, represents the
transverse shear stress resultants, while Ki, i = 4, 5 denotes
higher-order shear stress resultants. They are written as
follows:
N i Aij e0j Bij j0j Eij j2j ;

6a

f2 j21 ;

3a

M i Bij e0j Dij j0j F ij j2j ;

P i Eij e0j F ij j0j H ij j2j

e2 e02 fj02

f2 j22 ;

3b

Q1 A5j e0j D5j j1j ;

e1

e01

fj01

e4 e04 f2 j14 ;

3c

e5 e05 f2 j15 ;

3d

e6 e06 fj06 f2 j26 ;

3e

in which
e01 u1;1

u3
;
R1

4a

j01 /1;1 ;
4
j21  2 /1;1 u3;11 ;
3h
u3
0
e2 u2;2 ;
R2
j02 /2;2 ;
4
j22  2 /2;2 u3;22 ;
3h
e04 u3;2 /2 ;
4
j14  2 /2 u3;2 ;
h
e05 u3;1 /1 ;
4
j15  2 /1 u3;1 ;
h
e06 u2;1 u1;2 ;

4b

j06

4l

/2;1 /1;2 ;
4
j26  2 /2;1 /1;2 2u3;12 :
3h

4c

Q2

A4j e0j

K1

D5j e0j

D4j j1j ;

F 5j j1j

i; j 1; 2; 6

6b
6c
6d
6e

j 4; 5

K 2 D4j e0j F 4j j1j ;

6f
6g

in which Aij, Bij, Dij are the laminate rigidities (integrated

stinesses) shared by all laminated shell/plate theories,
such as CLT, FSDT and HSDT, while rigidities Eij, Fij,
Hij arise out of the higher order shear terms specic to
the present HSDT. These are given as follows:
N Z fk
X
k
Qij 1; f; f2 df;
7a
Aij ; Bij ; Dij
k1

4d

477

Eij ; F ij ; H ij

4e

N
X
k1

fk1

fk

Qij f3 ; f4 ; f6 df

7b

fk1
k

4f
4g
4h
4i
4j
4k

4m

for (i, j = 1, 2, 4, 5, 6), where Qin denotes the reduced elastic

stinesses of the kth lamina [23].
The stress resultants, moment resultants and higherorder moment and shear resultants in terms of components
of displacement and rotation can now be written as
follows:
N 1 A11 u1;1 a1 u3 A12 u2;2 a2 /1;1 a3 /2;2
 a4 u3;11  a5 u3;22 ;
N 2 A12 u1;1 a6 u3 A22 u2;2 a3 /1;1 a7 /2;2

8a

 a5 u3;11  a8 u3;22 ;
N 6 A66 u2;1 A66 u1;2 a9 /2;1 a9 /1;2  a10 u3;12 ;

8b
8c

M 1 B11 u1;1 b1 u3 B12 u2;2 b2 /1;1 b3 /2;2

The equilibrium equations for a moderately shallow

doubly curved panel can be written as shown below:

 b4 u3;11  b5 u3;22 ;
M 2 B12 u1;1 b6 u3 B22 u2;2 b3 /1;1 b7 /2;2

8d

N 1;1 N 6;2 0;
5a
N 6;1 N 2;2 0;
5b
4
4
Q1;1 Q2;2  2 K 1;1 K 2;2 2 P 1;11 P 2;22 2P 6;12
h
3h
N1 N2


q;
5c
R1 R 2
4
4
5d
M 1;1 M 6;2  Q1 2 K 1  2 P 1;1 P 6;2 0;
h
3h
4
4
M 6;1 M 2;2  Q2 2 K 2  2 P 6;1 P 2;2 0;
5e
h
3h

 b5 u3;11  b8 u3;22 ;
M 6 B66 u2;1 B66 u1;2 b9 /2;1 b9 /1;2  b10 u3;12 ;

8e
8f

where q is the distributed transverse load, and Ni, Mi, Pi,

i = 1, 2, 6 denote stress resultants, stress couples (moment

P 1 E11 u1;1 b11 u3 E12 u2;2 b12 /1;1 b13 /2;2

 b14 u3;11  b15 u3;22 ;
P 2 E12 u1;1 b20 u3 E22 u2;2 b13 /1;1 b16 /2;2

8g

 b15 u3;11  b17 u3;22 ;

P 6 E66 u2;1 E66 u1;2 b18 /2;1 b18 /1;2  b19 u3;12 ;

8h
8i

Q1
Q2
K1
K2

d 2 /1 d 2 u3;1 ;
d 1 /2 d 1 u3;2 ;
d 4 /1 d 4 u3;1 ;
d 3 /2 d 3 u3;2 :

8j
8k
8l
8m

478

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

The constants ai, bi, di, referred to in Eqs. (8) are given in
Appendix A.
Substitution of Eqs. (8) in equilibrium equations, given
by Eqs. (5), supplies the following ve highly coupled
fourth-order governing partial dierential equations:

f3 u3;122 A66 u1;22 a9 /1;22 0;

9a

A66 u2;11 f1 u1;12 a9 /2;11 f2 /1;12 f3 u3;112 A22 u2;22

a6 u3;2 a7 /2;22  a8 u3;222 0;
f4 /1;1 f5 /2;2 f6 u3;11 f7 u3;22 a4 u1;111 f8 u2;112

9b

f9 /1;111 f10 /2;112  f11 u3;1111 f12 u3;1122 f8 u1;122

0 < x1 < a; 0 6 x2 6 b;
1 X
1
X
u2
V mn sinax1 cosbx2 ;
0 < x1 < a; 0 6 x2 6 b;
1 X
1
X
u3
W mn sinax1 sinbx2 ;

12a

12b

m1 n1

0 6 x1 6 a; 0 6 x2 6 b;
1 X
1
X
X mn cosax1 sinbx2 ;
/1
0 6 x1 6 a; 0 6 x2 6 b;

9c

a2 u1;11 e1 u2;12 e2 u3;1 e3 /1;11 e4 /2;12 e5 /1;22

12c

/2

1
X

1
X

12d

Y mn sinax1 cosbx2 ;

m1 n0

9d

a9 u2;11 e1 u1;12 e5 /2;11 e4 /1;12 e7 u3;112 a7 u2;22

e12 u3;2 e9 /2;22 e10 u3;222 e11 /2 0;

U mn cosax1 sinbx2 ;

m0 n1

m0 n1

a8 u2;222 f10 /1;122 f13 /2;222  f14 u3;2222  a1 u1;1

e6 u3;111 e7 u3;122 a9 u1;22 e8 /1 0;

1 X
1
X

m1 n0

A11 u1;11 a1 u3;1 f1 u2;12 a2 /1;11 f2 /2;12  a4 u3;111

 a6 u2;2 f15 u3 q;

u1

9e

in which ai, ei, fi are constants, which are given in Appendix

A.
In what follows, a double Fourier series solution is
sought for the following mixed boundary condition. The
SS2 type simply supported boundary condition, prescribed
at the edges x1 = 0, a, is given as follows [18]:
u3 0; x2 u3 a; x2 0;

10a

M 1 0; x2 M 1 a; x2 0;

10b

/2 0; x2 /2 a; x2 0;

10c

u1 0; x2 u1 a; x2 0;

10d

N 6 0; x2 N 6 a; x2 0;

10e

P 1 0; x2 P 1 a; x2 0:

10f

At edges x2 = 0, b, the SS3 type simply supported condition

is prescribed as per the dictate of the Levy type solution
u3 x1 ; 0 u3 x1 ; b 0;

11a

M 2 x1 ; 0 M 2 x1 ; b 0;

11b

/1 x1 ; 0 /1 x1 ; b 0;

11c

N 2 x1 ; 0 N 2 x1 ; b 0;

11d

u1 x1 ; 0 u1 x1 ; b 0;

11e

P 2 x1 ; 0 P 2 x1 ; b 0:

11f

3. Method of solution
The displacement functions (particular solution) are
assumed to be in the form [18,20,24]:

0 6 x1 6 a; 0 6 x2 6 b;

12e

where
a

mp
;
a

np
:
b

13

It may be noted that the assumed solution functions,

given by Eqs. (12), satisfy the SS3 type simply supported
condition, given by Eqs. (11), at the edges, x2 = 0, b, a priori. The total number of unknown Fourier coecients
introduced in Eqs. (12) numbers 5mn + 2m + 2n. The next
operation is comprised of partial dierentiation of the
assumed particular solution functions. The procedure for
dierentiation of these functions is based on Lebesgue integration theory that introduces boundary Fourier coecients arising from discontinuities (complementary
boundary constraints [19,20]) of the particular solution
functions at the edges x1 = 0, a. As has been noted by
Chaudhuri [20], the boundary Fourier coecients serve
as complementary solution to the problem under investigation. The procedure imposes certain boundary constraints
in the form of equalities and complementary boundary
constraints in the form of inequalities, the details of which
are available in Chaudhuri [19,20], and will not be further
discussed here in the interest of brevity of presentation. The
partial derivatives of these functions are obtained as
follows:
1 X
1
X
u1
U mn cosax1 sinbx2 ;
14a
m0 n1

u1;1 

1 X
1
X

aU mn sinax1 sinbx2 :

14b

m1 n1

The above function u1 and its rst partial derivative,

u1,1, are not satised a priori at the edges, at x1 = 0, a,
thus violating the boundary constraints and complementary boundary constraints, respectively, at these edges.
Therefore, for further dierentiation, u1,1 is rst

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

expanded in double Fourier series, in the form suggested

by Chaudhuri [19,20] in order to satisfy the
complementary boundary constraint (inequality), while
u1 is forced to vanish at these edges (boundary constraints). The second partial derivative is then obtained
as follows [20]:
u1;11

1
1 X
1
X
X
 2

1

a U mn cm 
an wm bn
an sinbx2
2
m1
m1 n1

 cosax1 sinbx2 :

15

The partial derivative of u2 are given as follows:

1
1
u2;1 c0
4
2

1
X

cn cosbx2

n1

wm d0  cosax1

1
2

1 X
1
X

aV m0 cmc0

aV mn cmcn
16

0; 1; m odd;

17

1; 0; m even;

n , 
bn , cn and
and where the boundary Fourier coecients a
dn , are as dened in Appendix B. The remaining particular
solution functions or their partial derivatives do not have
any boundary discontinuities, and therefore, can be dierentiated term by term. This step generates additional
4n + 2 unknowns.
Introduction of the displacement functions and their
appropriate derivatives into the governing partial dierential equations will supply 5mn + 2m + 2n equations as
given below:
1 X
1
X

cosax1 sinbx2

m1 n1


a2 A11  b2 A66 U mn

3

m1 n1

m1 n1

18b



a6 b a8 b3 f8 a2 b V mn


 f6 a2  f15 f7 b2 f11 a4  f12 a2 b2 f14 b4 W mn




 f4 a  f9 a3  f10 ab2 X mn  f5 b  b13 b3  f10 a2 b Y mn

a4 acm 
an w m 
bn
1 X
1
X
qmn sinax1 sinbx2 ;
18c

m1 n1

m1 n1





 a9 a2 a7 b2 V mn e12 b  e7 a2 b  e10 b3 W mn


e4 abX mn  e5 a2  e11 e9 b2 Y mn


aa9 cmcn wm dn 0;


sinbx2

18e

A66 2
A11
an 0;
b U 0n a9 b2 X 0n 
2
2

19a

19b
ha
i
a2
9
sinbx2 b2 U 0n  e8  e5 b2 X 0n  an 0;
19c
2
2
n1
1
ha
i
X
a9
9
sinax1 a2 V m0  e11  e5 a2 Y m0 acmc0 wm d0 0:
2
2
m1
1
X

19d

The remaining equations are supplied by the geometric

and natural boundary conditions. u3 and /2 geometric
boundary conditions given by Eqs. (10a) and (10c), respectively, at the edges, x1 = 0 and a, are satised a priori. Satisfying the geometric boundary conditions given by Eq.
(10d) such that u1 should vanish at the edges, x1 = 0, a,
and equating the coecients of sin(ax1), yield the following
algebraic equations:
For all values of n = 1, 2, . . .
1
X
wm U mn 0;
20a
m1

abf1 V mn a2 a  f3 ab2 a4 a W mn  a9 b2 a2 a X mn

abf2 Y mn A11 cm 
18a
an w m 
bn 0;
1 X
1
X
sinax1 cosbx2 fabf1 U mn




 A66 a2 A22 b2 V mn a6 b  f3 a2 b a8 b3 W mn


f2 abX mn  a9 a2 a7 b2 Y mn

aA66 cmcn wm dn 0;
1 X
1
X


sinax1 sinbx2 a1 a a4 a3 f8 ab2 U mn

18d



A66 2
A66
2

a V m0 a9 a Y m0
acmc0 wm d 0 0;
sinax1
2
2
m1

m1

in which
cm ; wm



abe1 V mn  e6 a3 e7 ab2  e2 a W mn


e8  e3 a2  e5 b2 X mn  e4 abY mn

a2 cm an wm bn 0;
1 X
1
X
sinax1 cosbx2 fabe1 U mn

n1
1
X

m1 n1



cosax1 sinbx2  a2 a2 b2 a9 U mn

m1 n1

1
X

1
X

wm dn  cosax1 cosbx2 ;

1 X
1
X

479

U 0n

1
X

cm U mn 0:

20b

m1

The rest of the equations are obtained from satisfying the

natural boundary conditions. The natural boundary conditions M1 = 0 and P1 = 0 at x1 = 0, a, are satised a priori.
Satisfying N6 = 0 at these edges yield the following
equations:
(
1
1
X
X
A66
A66
cn A66
bU 0n a9 bX 0n
cosbx2
aV mn H
2
2
n1
m1
1
1
1
X
X
X
A66
bU mn H A66
cmcn wm dn H
aY mn a9 H
m1
m1
m1
)
1
1
X
X

bX mn a9 H 
abW mn a10 H 0;
21a
m1

X
A66
m1

m1

aV m0 cmc0 wm d0 H aY m0 a9 H

A66
c0 0;
4
21b

480

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

START

Calculate
Deflections
Moments
etc.
-Number of
plies
-Thickness
of plies
-Lamination
Angles, etc.

-Calculate Stiffness
(A, B, D, E, F, H
Matrices)
-Calculate other
constants

Find Umn, Vmn, Wmn,

Xmn, Ymn
NO
Check
Convergence

Substitute Umn, Vmn,

etc. in Boundary
Equations and Solve
Linear Algebraic
Equations
Find Boundary
Fourier Coefficients

YES

STOP

Solve Umn, Vmn,

Wmn, Xmn, Ymn in
terms of Boundary
Fourier
Coefficients

Number of
Terms for
Calculation

( an , bn , etc.)
Fig. 2. Flow chart for numerical solution.
m

in which H 1 and H 1 , represent the condition of

N6 = 0, at the edges, x1 = 0, a, respectively. In a more useful form, Eqs. (21a) and (21b) can be written as follows:
For all values of n = 1, 2, . . .
1
X

fA66 aV mn bU mn  aY mn a9 bX mn a9

m1;3;5...


abW mn a10 A66 dn wm 0;
22a
1
X
fA66 aV mn bU mn  aY mn a9 bX mn a9  abW mn a10

m2;4;6...

A66
A66cn gcm
cn bU 0n bX 0n a9 0;
22b
2


1
X
A66
aV m0 cmc0 wm d0  aY m0 a9 wm 0;
2
m1;3;5...


1
X
A66
aV m0 cmc0 wm d0  aY m0 a9 wm
2
m2;4;6...

A66
c0 0:
4

22c

22d

This step generates 4n + 2 equations.

On equating the coecients of sin (ax1) sin(bx2),
sin(ax1), etc., the above operations, result in, in total,
5mn + 2m + 6n + 2 linear algebraic equations in as many

unknowns. In the interest of the computational eciency,

Eqs. (18) and (22) are solved for Umn, Vmn, Wmn, Xmn,
Ymn and U0n, X0n, Vm0 and Ym0 in terms of the boundary
Fourier coecients an , bn , cn and dn , in a manner outlined
in Fig. 2. These coecients are then substituted in geometric
boundary equations, given by Eqs. (20) and (22). Resulting
equations are then solved for an , bn , cn and dn . This useful
step will reduce the size of problems under consideration
by an order or more of magnitude.
4. Numerical results and discussion
To illustrate the validity of the analytical procedure presented in the preceding section, the present study investigates cross-ply type laminated shells (curved panels) of
rectangular plan-form. In what follows, numerical results
pertaining to displacements and moments of symmetric
([0/90/0] and [0/90/90/0]) and antisymmetric [0/
90] cross-ply spherical as well as cylindrical (either R1 =
1 or R2 = 1) panels of square plan-form, subjected to
uniformly distributed transverse loads are presented. Two
dierent types of material properties are used in these
numerical calculations. These are given as follows:
Material type I: E1 = 175.78 GPa (25,000 ksi), E1/E2 = 25,
G12/E2 = G13/E2 = 0.5, G23/E2 = 0.2, m12 =
0.25.

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

Material type II: E1 = 105.47 GPa (15,000 ksi), E1/E2 = 15,

G12/E2 = G13/E2 = 0.4286, G23/E2 = 0.3429,
m12 = 0.40.
Here E1 and E2 are the surface-parallel Youngs moduli of
a 0 lamina in x1 and x2 coordinate directions, respectively,
and G12 denotes surface parallel shear modulus. G13 and
G23 are transverse shear moduli in the x1x3 and x2x3
planes, respectively, whereas m12 is the major Poissons
ratio on the x1x2 surface. The following quantities are
used to normalize the results:
u3

103 E2 h3
u3 ;
q0 a4

M 1

103
M 1;
q0 a2

in which a is assumed equal to 812.8 mm (32 in.) and q0 denotes the uniformly distributed transverse load and equals
to 689.5 kPa (100 psi). u3 and M 1 are computed at the center of the panel with the exceptions of Figs. 19 and 20.
Before presenting numerical results for spherical and
cylindrical panels, those pertaining to at (R1 = 1 and
R2 = 1) symmetric and antisymmetric cross-ply plates
with the same boundary conditions have been reproduced
rst [24]. Fig. 3 displays the convergence (with m = n) of
normalized transverse displacement (deection), u3 and
moment, M 1 , of a moderately thick (a/h = 10) and moderately deep (R1/a = R2/b = 10) antisymmetric cross-ply [0/
90] spherical (R1 = R2) panel of square (a = b) plan-form,
computed using the present HSDT with the material type I.
Rapid and more or less monotonic convergence is observed
for the normalized central deection, u3 . Although the convergence plot of the central moment, M 1 , exhibits an initially oscillatory behavior, the oscillations die down very
rapidly, rendering the convergence plot practically monotonic for m, n P 10 (Fig. 3). These converged results are
in full agreement with their FSDT-based counterparts.
Material Type I 0/90 Lamination Spherical Panel
a/h=10; R/a=R/b=10
180
160
140
120
100
u3*
M*1

80
60
40
20
0
0

10

20
m=n

30

40

Fig. 3. Convergence of normalized central deection, u3 and moment M 1 ,

of an antisymmetric cross-ply [0/90] spherical panel.

481

Table 1
Comparison of u3 , based on FSDT and HSDT, of symmetric and
antisymmetric cross-ply moderately deep (R/a = 10) spherical panels for
various a/h ratios and material types I and II


a/h
%Error HSDTFSDT  100
HSDT

[0/90]

3
5
10
20

[0/90/0]

[0/90/90/0]

II

II

II

3.740
2.650
1.020
0.200

4.710
2.790
0.930
0.220

18.050
17.660
10.550
4.360

11.950
9.610
4.440
1.550

20.510
18.810
11.430
4.760

12.880
9.160
3.890
1.290

Table 2
Comparison of M 1 , based on FSDT and HSDT, of symmetric and
antisymmetric cross-ply moderately deep (R/a = 10) spherical panels for
various a/h ratios and material types I and II


a/h
%Error HSDTFSDT  100
HSDT

[0/90]

3
5
10
20

[0/90/0]

[0/90/90/0]

II

II

II

6.940
1.930
0.210
0.200

3.230
0.810
0.060
0.100

8.710
6.230
2.800
0.410

2.710
2.350
1.090
0.190

11.890
9.680
4.600
1.050

0.300
1.510
0.980
0.220

Tables 1 and 2 present the variation of central deection, u3 , and moment, M 1 , of antisymmetric [0/90] and
symmetric ([0/90/0] as well as [0/90/90/0]) cross-ply
moderately deep (R/a = 10) spherical panels computed on
the basis of FSDT, and HSDT shell theories, with respect
to a/h ratio for the aforementioned two sets of material
properties, respectively. The shear correction factors,
K 21 K 21 5=6 are assumed in the present FSDT computations. The percentage of error is dened by


HSDT  FSDT


 100:
%Error 
HSDT
Relative inaccuracy of the FSDT with respect to the HSDT
is self-evident in the case of thick (a/h < 10) symmetric
cross-ply panels, while the former may, in general, be considered acceptable for thick antisymmetric [0/90] panels
(Table 1). The FSDT may also be considered acceptable
for moderately thick (10 6 a/h 6 20) antisymmetric
[0/90] and intermediate modulus (material type II) symmetric laminates (Table 1). Table 1 further shows that
the FSDT based u3 values for high modulus (material I)
symmetric laminates are in substantial error (more than
10%) with respect to their HSDT counterparts even for
a/h = 10. The dierence between two theories increases
with the increase of a/h ratio (for thick and very thick regime) and as well as the number of layers increase as seen
in Tables 1 and 2. The reason lies in the fact that the eect
of interlaminar shear (unmatched properties through the
thickness) increases with the increase of the number of layers. It is further noteworthy from Table 1 that a far more
pronounced thickness shear eect is observed in the computed central deection of symmetric ([0/90/0] and

482

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

[0/90/90/0]) shells, as compared to their antisymmetric

[0/90] counterparts in the very thick regime. For example,
u3 values computed using the FSDT are in relative errors of
only 3.74% and 4.71% with respect to their HSDT counterparts for very thick (a/h = 3) antisymmetric [0/90] shells
constructed of materials I and II, respectively. In contrast,
u3 values computed using the FSDT are in relative errors of
18.05% and 11.95% with respect to their HSDT counterparts for very thick (a/h = 3) symmetric [0/90/0] shells
constructed of materials I and II, respectively. The same
trend continues with very thick (a/h = 3) [0/90/90/0]
shells, in which case u3 values computed using the FSDT
are in relative errors of 20.51% and 12.88% with respect

to their HSDT counterparts for materials I and II, respectively. Additional results are shown in Table 1. There is
reason to believe [8,25] that eect of thickness is compensated, to a certain extent, by the bendingstretching coupling eect, a characteristic of antisymmetric laminates.
Same conclusion can be inferred for the dierence between
the two theories with regard to the computed central moment, M 1 , as shown in Table 2. These results conrm the
earlier assertion that eect of thickness is compensated,
to a certain extent, by the bendingstretching coupling effect, a characteristic of antisymmetric laminates [8,25].
Figs. 4 and 5 present the variations of central deection,
u3 , of [0/90] spherical panels, with a/h and R/a ratios,
Spherical Panel Material Type I a/h=10

Material Type I 0/90 Lamination

20

30
R/a=20
R/a=60
R/a=100
Plate

25

16

u*3

u3*

20

18

0/90
0/90/0
0/90/90/0

14

15

12

10

10
8

5
0

10

20

30

40

50

a/h
Fig. 4. Variation of normalized central deection, u3 , with a/h ratio, of an
antisymmetric cross-ply [0/90] spherical panel for dierent R/a ratios.

20

40

60

80

100

R/a
Fig. 6. Variation of normalized central deection, u3 of a spherical panel
with R/a ratio for dierent laminations.

Material Type I
0/90 Lamination Cylindrical Panel (R1=)

Material Type I 0/90 Lamination

30

25

25

u3*

20
15
10

a/h=5
a/h=20
a/h=50
a/h=100

20

u*3

a/h=5
a/h=20
a/h=40
a/h=100

15

10
0

0
0

20

40

60
R/a

80

100
u3 ,

Fig. 5. Variation of normalized central deection,

with R/a ratio, of an
antisymmetric cross-ply [0/90] spherical panel for dierent a/h ratios.

20

40

60
R2 / a

80

100

Fig. 7. Variation of normalized central deection, u3 , with R2/a ratio, of

an antisymmetric cross-ply [0/90] cylindrical panel for dierent a/h
ratios.

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

respectively. In both the plots, membrane action due to the

eect of curvature plays an important role, particularly for
the ratio R/a 6 40. As can be seen in Fig. 6, this membrane
action has a complex interaction with a beam-column/tiebar eect caused by the bendingstretching coupling present in the antisymmetric [0/90] panels, as has been
explained earlier.
Figs. 7 and 8 plot the variations of central deection, u3 ,
of antisymmetric cross-ply [0/90] cylindrical panels,
(R1 ! 1) and (R2 ! 1), with respect to the R/a ratio.
Figs. 9 and 10 present similar variations with respect to
the a/h ratio. The interaction of the cylindrical curvature

with the surface-parallel boundary constraint is particularly visible in these gures. While the cylindrical shell with
R2 ! 1 exhibits a response characteristic similar to its
spherical counterpart (Fig. 10), the other (Fig. 9) shows a
dierent behavior. Moreover, for the cylindrical shell with
R1 ! 1 type, membrane action has no eect in the thick
and moderately thick regimes as shown in Fig. 7.
Plots of central moment, M 1 , of spherical panels with
respect to R/a and a/h ratios for dierent types of laminations, are displayed in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. The
normalized central moment is virtually independent of R/
a, for R/a > 20 in case of both symmetric and antisymmetric spherical panels. However, the normalized central

Material Type I Cylindrical Panel (R2=) 0/90

Lamination
30

30

25

25

15
10

Material Type I 0/90 Lamination

Cylindrical Panel (R2=)

20

u3*

u*3

20
a/h=5
a/h=20
a/h=50
a/h=100

483

R/a=10
R/a=50
R/a=100

15
10

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

R1 / a

30

40

50

a/h

Fig. 8. Variation of normalized central deection, u3 , with R1/a ratio, of

an antisymmetric cross-ply [0/90] cylindrical panel for dierent a/h
ratios.

Fig. 10. Variation of normalized central deection, u3 , with a/h ratio, of
an antisymmetric cross-ply [0/90] cylindrical panel for dierent R/a
ratios.

Material Type I 0/90 Lamination

Cylindrical Panel (R1=)

Material Type I Spherical Panel a/h=10

150

27

140

23

130

R/a=10
R/a=50
R/a=100

u3*

21
19

M 1*

25

0/90
0/90/0
0/90/90/0

120
110

17
100

15

90

13
0

10

20

30

40

50

a/h
Fig. 9. Variation of normalized central deection, u3 , with a/h ratio, of an
antisymmetric cross-ply [0/90] cylindrical panel for dierent R/a ratios.

20

40

60
R/a

80

100

Fig. 11. Variation of normalized central moment, M 1 , with R/a ratio, of a

spherical panel for dierent laminations.

484

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

Material Type I 0/90/0 Lamination Spherical Panel

Material Type I Spherical Panel R/a=10

140
140

120
120
R/a=10
R/a=50
Plate

100

0/90
0/90/0
0/90/90/0

80

M *1

M*1

100

80

60
60

40

40
10

20

30

40

Fig. 12. Variation of normalized central moment,

spherical panel for dierent laminations.

20

30

40

50

a/h

a/h
M 1 ,

10

50

with a/h ratio, of a

moment is greatly inuenced by the a/h ratio, as has been

shown in Fig. 12. Variations of the central moment, M 1 ,
of [0/90], [0/90/0] and [0/90/90/0] spherical panels
with the a/h ratio for dierent R/a ratios are individually
displayed in Figs. 1315, respectively.
Figs. 16 and 17 present the variations of normalized central deections, u3 , of moderately thick (a/h = 10) antisymmetric [0/90] and symmetric [0/90/0] cross- ply (one
spherically and two cylindrically) curved panels with
respect to R/a ratio, respectively. It should be noted that
the response of the [0/90] spherical panel is almost identical to its cylindrical counterpart with R2 ! 1 in the
entire range of the R/a ratio. A similar trend is also
observed for symmetric [0/90/0] laminates, the dierence

Fig. 14. Variation of normalized central moment, M 1 , with a/h ratio, of a

symmetric cross-ply [0/90/0] spherical panel for dierent R/a ratios.

Material Type I 0/90/90/0 Lamination

Spherical Panel
140

120

100
R/a=10
R/a=50
Plate

M*1

80

60

40

Material Type I 0/90 Lamination Spherical Panel

160

10

20

30

40

50

a/h
140

Fig. 15. Variation of normalized central moment, M 1 , with a/h ratio, of a

symmetric cross-ply [0/90/90/0] spherical panel for dierent R/a ratios.

M 1*

120
R/a=10
R/a=50
Plate

100
80
60
40
0

10

20

30

40

50

a/h

Fig. 13. Variation of normalized central moment, M 1 , with a/h ratio, of an

antisymmetric cross-ply [0/90] spherical panel for dierent R/a ratios.

between the spherical and R2 ! 1 type cylindrical geometries being negligible, which is, as expected, especially true
in the atter regime (R/a > 40). Fig. 18 presents the variation of normalized central deections, u3 , of moderately
deep (R/a = 10) antisymmetric [0/90] cross-ply (one
spherically and two cylindrically) curved panels with
respect to a/h. Again, the response of the [0/90] spherical
panel is almost identical to its cylindrical counterpart with
R2 ! 1 in the entire range of the a/h ratio.
Variations
response
quantities
of
 of the normalized



3

interest, u1 u1 10q Ea24h u1 , u3 , /1 /1 10q Ea23h /1 , and
0

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

485

Material Type I 0/90 Lamination R/a=10

Material Type I 0/90 Lamination a/h=10

20

30

19

25

18

u*3

Sphere
R1 = Inf
R2 = Inf

16

u3*

20

17

15

15

10

14

13

Sphere
R1 = Inf
R2 = Inf

0
0

12
0

20

40

60

80

10

20

30

40

50

a/h

100

R/a
u3 ,

Fig. 16. Variation of normalized central deection,

with R/a ratio, of
moderately thick [0/90] spherical and cylindrical panels.

Fig. 18. Variation of normalized central deection, u3 , with a/h ratio, of
moderately deep [0/90] spherical and cylindrical panels.

Material Type I 0/90 Lamination

Spherical Panel a/h=5 R/a=50

Material Type I 0/90/0 Lamination a/h=10

11

5
4

10.8

u1 =5*u1*
u3 =u3* /10
M1 =M1* /30
1*

3
10.6

2
1

10.4

u3*

Sphere
R1 = Inf
R2 = Inf

10.2

0
-1 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-2

10

-3
9.8

-4
-5

9.6
0

20

40

60

80

100

x1 / a

R/a
Fig. 17. Variation of normalized central deections, u3 , with R/a ratio, of
moderately thick [0/90/0] spherical and cylindrical panels.

Fig. 19. Variations of displacements, rotation, and moment along the

center line, x2 = b/2, of a thick (a/h = 5) very shallow (R/a = 50) [0/90]
spherical panel.

M 1 , computed at x2 = b/2 and along x1 = 0 to a, of a thick

(a/h = 5) antisymmetric relatively at (R/a = 50) spherical
panel, and its symmetric counterpart, are shown in Figs.
19 and 20, respectively. In all of these plots, the deection,
u3 , assumes, as expected, its maximum magnitude at the
center of the panel, where the surface-parallel displacement, u1 , and rotation, /1 , vanish. In the case of antisymmetric panels, /1 reaches its maxima at the appropriate
edges as given by the boundary condition (i.e., at x1 = 0
and a), where u1 , u3 , and M 1 vanish. It is noteworthy that
while the spatial variations of u1 , u3 , /1 , and M 1 of an antisymmetric [0/90] spherical panel are similar to their at

plate counterparts, the same is not true for the spherical

panel of symmetric [0/90/0] construction. This is mainly
because of bendingstretching coupling eect prevalent in
antisymmetric panels. Furthermore, the magnitudes of u1
and /1 of the spherical panel of [0/90] lamination are
greater than their [0/90/0] counterparts. Additionally,
these plots clearly indicate absence of any anomaly in the
matter of exactly satisfying the boundary conditions, as
dictated by the boundary discontinuous double Fourier
series approach used in the present analysis.
The eect of the lamina material orthotropy (E1/E2) on
the normalized central deection of one antisymmetric and

486

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

Material Type I 0/90/0 Lamination

Spherical Panel a/h=5 R/a=50
3
2.5

u1 =20*u1*
u3 =u3*/10
M1 =M1* /40
1*

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-1
x1 / a
Fig. 20. Variations of displacements, rotation, and moment along the
center line, x2 = b/2, of a thick (a/h = 5) very shallow (R/a = 50) [0/90/
0] spherical panel.

Material Type I Spherical Panel a/h=5 R/a=50

40

u3*

35
0/90
0/90/0
0/90/90/0

30

25

20
0

10

15

20

25

E1 / E2
Fig. 21. Variation of normalized central deection, u3 , with E1/E2 ratio, of
a thick (a/h = 5) very shallow (R/a = 50) spherical panel for dierent
laminations.

two symmetric cross-ply thick and very shallow spherical

panels is illustrated in Fig. 21. These plots clearly show that
bendingstretching coupling prevalent in a [0/90] type
laminate has a softening eect of the beam-column type,
which consequently, increases the normalized central
deection.
5. Summary and conclusions
A heretofore unavailable Levy type analytical solution
to the problem of deformation of a nite-dimensional

general cross-ply thick doubly curved panel of rectangular plan-form is presented. A solution methodology,
based on a boundary-discontinuous generalized double
Fourier series approach that assures well-posedness of
the Fourier formulation and existence of the Fourier series solution, is used to solve a system of ve highly coupled linear partial dierential equations, with the SS2type simply supported boundary condition. Numerical
results presented here on cross-ply laminates demonstrate
fast convergence, and comparison with the available
FSDT-based analytical solution testies to the accuracy
and eciency of the method presented. The key conclusions that emerge from the numerical results can be summarized as follows:
(i) The CLT and the FSDT (with appropriate shear correction factor incorporated) under-predict the computed normalized deections as compared to their
HSDT counterparts in the thicker panel regime (a/
h 6 10), while the opposite is true in the case of computed normalized moments.
(ii) The FSDT may, in general, be considered acceptable
for moderately thick unsymmetric and intermediate
modulus symmetric cross-ply panels, 10 6 a/h 6 20
and beyond. The FSDT based u3 values for high
modulus symmetric cross-ply panels are, in contrast,
in substantial error (more than 10%) with respect to
their HSDT counterparts for a/h = 10.
(iii) Bendingstretching coupling prevalent in a [0/90]
type laminate has a softening eect of the beam-column type, which consequently increases the normalized central deection.
(iv) The eect of the transverse shear deformation is compensated to a certain extent by the bendingstretching
coupling eect a characteristic of unsymmetric
laminates.
(v) The bendingstretching type coupling has a highly
pronounced interaction with the type of surfaceparallel boundary restraint, imposed by the SS2
at two opposite edges. For example, the interaction
of the membrane action due to the cylindrical curvature with the surface-parallel boundary constraint
is quite noticeable. While the cylindrical shell with
R2 ! 1 exhibits a response characteristic similar
to its spherical counterpart, the other (R1 ! 1)
shows a dierent behavior. Moreover, for the cylindrical shell with R1 ! 1 type, membrane action
has no eect in the thick and moderately thick
regimes.
(vi) The radius-to-length ratio R/a has a pronounced
eect on the response of curved cross-ply panels. This
eect is progressively more pronounced for R/a < 40
for a given a/h.
(vii) The membrane action due to the eect of curvature
has a complex interaction with the bendingstretching type coupling eect, caused by the asymmetry
of lamination.

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

Appendix A. Denition of certain constants

A11 A12
4E11
4E12

; a2 B11  2 ; a3 B12  2 ;
R1
R2
3h
3h
4E11
4E12
A12 A22
a4
; a5
; a6

;
R1
R2
3h2
3h2
4E22
4E22
4E66
a7 B22  2 ; a8
; a9 B66  2 ;
3h
3h2
3h
8E66
;
A1a
a10
3h2
B11 B12
4F 11

; b2 D11  2 ;
b1
R1
R2
3h
4F 12
4F 11
4F 12
b3 D12  2 ; b4
; b5
;
2
3h
3h
3h2
B12 B22
4F 22
4F 22

; b7 D22  2 ; b8
;
b6
R1
R2
3h
3h2
4F 66
8F 66
E11 E12
b9 D66  2 ; b10
; b11

;
2
R1
R2
3h
3h
4H 11
4H 12
4H 11
b12 F 11 
; b13 F 12 
; b14
;
2
2
3h
3h
3h2
4H 12
4H 22
4H 22
b15
; b16 F 22 
; b17
;
2
2
3h
3h
3h2
4H 66
8H 66
E12 E22
; b19
; b20

; A1b
b18 F 66 
2
2
R1
R2
3h
3h
4D44
4D55
4F 44
d 1 A44  2 ; d 2 A55  2 ; d 3 D44  2 ;
h
h
h
4F 55
A1c
d 4 D55  2 ;
h
4E12 4E66
e1 B12 B66  2  2 ;
3h
3h
4d 4 4b11
4b12
e 2 b1  d 2 2  2 ; e 3 b2  2 ;
h
3h
3h
4b13 4b18
4b18
e 4 b3 b9  2  2 ; e 5 b9  2 ;
3h
3h
3h
4b14
4b15 4b19
e6 b4 2 ; e7 b5  b10 2 2 ;
3h
3h
3h
4d 4
4b16
4b17
e8 d 2 2 ; e9 b7  2 ; e10 b8 2 ;
h
3h
3h
4d 3
4d 3 4b20
A1d
e11 d 1 2 ; e12 b6  d 1 2  2 ;
h
h
3h
f1 A12 A66 ; f 2 a3 a9 ; f 3 a10  a5 ;
4d 4 a2 a3
f4 d 2  2   ;
R1 R2
h
4d 3 a3 a7
f5 d 1  2   ;
R1 R2
h
4d 4 4b11 a4 a5
f6 d 2  2 2 ;
R1 R2
h
3h
4d 3 4b20 a5 a8
f7 d 1  2 2 ;
R1 R2
h
3h
4E12 8E66
4b12
4b13 8b18
f8
2 ; f 9 2 ; f 10 2 2 ;
3h2
3h
3h
3h
3h
4b14
8b15 8b19
4b16
f11 2 ; f 12  2  2 ; f 13 2 ;
3h
3h
3h
3h
4b17
a1 a6
A1e
f14 2 ; f 15   :
R1 R2
3h

a1

487

Appendix B. Denition of boundary Fourier coecients

The unknown boundary Fourier coecients are dened
as follows:
Z b
4
an
u1;1 a; x2  u1;1 0; x2  sinbx2 dx2 ;
B1a
ab 0
Z b
bn  4
u1;1 a; x2 u1;1 0; x2  sinbx2 dx2 ;
B1b
ab 0
Z b
4
cn
u2 a; x2  u2 0; x2  cosbx2 dx2 ;
B1c
ab 0
Z b
4
u2 a; x2 u2 0; x2  cosbx2 dx2 :
B1d
dn 
ab 0
References
[1] Bert CW, Reddy VS. Cylindrical shells of bimodulus composite
materials. ASCE J Eng Mech 1982;108:67588.
[2] Chaudhuri RA, Balaraman K, Kunukkasseril VX. Arbitrarily laminated anisotropic cylindrical shells under uniform pressure. AIAA J
1986;24:18518.
[3] Chaudhuri RA, Kabir HRH. A boundary-continuous-displacement
based Fourier analysis of laminated doubly-curved panels using
classical shallow shell theories. Int J Eng Sci 1992;30:164764.
[4] Chaudhuri RA, Abu-Arja KR. Exact solution of shear-exible
doubly curved anti-symmetric angle-ply shells. Int J Eng Sci
1988;26:587604.
[5] Chaudhuri RA, Abu-Arja KR. Static analysis of moderately thick
anti-symmetric angle-ply cylindrical panels and shells. Int J Solids
Struct 1991;28:116.
[6] Chaudhuri RA, Kabir HRH. On analytical solutions to boundaryvalue problems of doubly-curved moderately-thick orthotropic shells.
Int J Eng Sci 1989;27:132536.
[7] Chaudhuri RA, Kabir HRH. Sensitivity of the response of moderately thick cross-ply doubly-curved panels to lamination and boundary constraint, Part-I: Theory, Part-II: Application. Int J Solids
Struct 1992;30:27386.
[8] Chaudhuri RA, Kabir HRH. Eect of boundary constraint on the
frequency response of moderately thick doubly curved cross-ply
panels using mixed Fourier solution functions. J Sound Vib
2005;283:26393.
[9] Kabir HRH, Chaudhuri RA. Free vibrations of anti-symmetric
angle-ply nite doubly curved shells. Int J Solids Struct 1991;28
:1732.
[10] Kabir HRH, Chaudhuri RA. On Gibbs-phenomenon-free Fourier
solution for nite shear-exible laminated clamped curved panels. Int
J Eng Sci 1994;32:50120.
[11] Kabir HRH, Khalee AM, Chaudhuri RA. Frequency response of a
moderately thick anti-symmetric cross-ply cylindrical panel with
mixed type of Fourier solution functions. J Sound Vib 2003;259:
80926.
[12] Noor AK, Burton WS. Assessment of computational models for
multilayered composite shells. Appl Mech Rev 1990;43:6797.
[13] Seide P, Chaudhuri RA. Triangular nite element for analysis of thick
laminated shells. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1987;24:156379.
[14] Chaudhuri RA, Seide P. An approximate method for prediction of
transverse shear stresses in a laminated shell. Int J Solids Struct
1987;23:114561.
[15] Chaudhuri RA. A semi-analytical approach for prediction of interlaminar shear stresses in laminated general shells. J Solids Struct
1990;26:499510.
[16] Basset AB. On the extension and exure of cylindrical and spherical
thin elastic shells. Philos Trans Roy Soc, London, Ser A 1890;181:
43380.

488

A.S. Oktem, R.A. Chaudhuri / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 475488

[17] Librescu L, Khdeir AA, Frederick D. A shear deformable theory of

laminated composite shallow shell-type panels and their response
analysis I, free vibration and buckling. Acta Mech 1989;76:133.
[18] Chaudhuri RA, Kabir HRH. Fourier solution to higher-order theory
based laminated shell boundary-value problem. AIAA J 1995;33:
16818.
[19] Chaudhuri RA. On boundary-discontinuous double Fourier series
solution to a system of completely coupled P.D.E.s. Int J Eng Sci
1989;27:100522.
[20] Chaudhuri RA. On the roles of complementary and admissible
boundary constraints in Fourier solutions to boundary-value problems of completely coupled rth order P.D.E.s. J Sound Vib 2002;251:
261313.

[21] Seide P. Small elastic deformations of thin shells. Leyden, The

Netherlands: Noordho International Publishing; 1975.
[22] Chaudhuri RA. A degenerate triangular shell element with constant
cross-sectional warping. Comput Struct 1988;28:31525.
[23] Jones RM. Mechanics of composite materials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia,
PA: Taylor and Francis; 1999.
[24] Oktem AS, Chaudhuri RA. Levy type analysis of cross-ply plates
based on higher-order theory. Compos Struct, in press, doi:10.1016/
j.compstruct.2005.09.012.
[25] Abu-Arja KR, Chaudhuri RA. Inuence of transverse shear deformation on scaling of cross-ply cylindrical shells. J Compos Mater
1989;23:67394.