Vibration of Non-Homogeneous Plate Subject

JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL
Pages 13 26
Vibration of Non-Homogeneous Plate Subject

to Thermal Gradient
Anupam Khanna* and Narinder Kaur
Department of Mathematics, Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana, Haryana,
India
Paper submission history:
First submission received on 19th September 2013, Revised version received on 15th
November 2013, Accepted for publication on 18th 18 December 2013.
ABSTRACT
A mathematical model is developed for the use of design engineers to analyze
temperature-thickness coupling problem of a non-homogeneous isotropic visco
elastic rectangular plate. Here, authors considered that temperature varies biparabolic i.e. parabolic in x and parabolic in y direction while thickness of
plate varies linearly in one direction. The non-homogeneity of the plates
material is characterized by assuming an exponential variation of poissons ratio
of the plates material. The first two modes of time period and deflection are
reported here for various combinations of frequency parameters i.e. nonhomogeneity constant, thermal gradient, taper constant and aspect ratio of the
plate. Numerical results for time period and deflection for both the modes of
vibration are shown in tabular form.
1. NOMENCLATURE
aLength of rectangular plate
bWidth of rectangular plate
x, yCoordinate in the plane of plate
h Thickness of the plate
Mx, My Bending moment
Mxy Twisting moment
E Youngs modulus
G Shear modulus
n Poisson ratio
Visco-elastic operator
D
D1Flexural rigidity
rMass density per unit volume of the plate material
tTime
hVisco-elastic constant
w(x,y,t)Deflection of plate i.e.amplitude
W(x,y)Deflection function
T(t)Time function
bTaper constant in x direction
a1Non-homogeneity constant
aThermal gradient
KTime Period
* Corresponding author e-mail: rajieanupam@gmail.com (A Khanna)
Vol. 33 No. 1 2014
13
Vibration of Non-Homogeneous Plate Subject to Thermal Gradient

2. INTRODUCTION
Most of the mechanical structures i.e. missiles, nuclear reactor etc. work under the
influence of temperature which changes the mechanical properties of the material of
structure. In these days, it becomes the subject of interest for scientists and
researchers to know that how temperature variation affects the vibrational properties
of the structures. Therefore, it becomes the need of hour to study the effect of
different temperature variations i.e. linear, parabolic etc. on the vibration for the
betterment of the structures. Due to variation in temperature, non-homogeneity
develops in the material.
With the advancement of technology, plates of different shape and size with
nonuniform thickness are extensively used in various engineering and
mechanical structures. With suitable variation in thickness, these plates have
considerably greater capability for variation as compared to the plates of uniform
thickness. The consideration of non-homogeneous plates material together with
non-uniform thickness of the structural components not only ensures the
reduction in weight and size but also meet the desirability of high strength in
various technological situation of aerospace industry, ocean engineering and
optical equipments.
The main objective of the present work is to provide a mathematical model to
analyze the effect of bi-parabolic temperature variation on the vibrational
properties of visco-elastic non-homogeneous clamped rectangular plate. Also,
thickness of the plate is assumed to vary linear in x direction while poisson ratio
is considered as exponential function of x due to non-homogeneity of plates
material. Rayleigh Ritz method is used to calculate time period and deflection for
the first two modes of vibration for various values of taper constant, thermal
gradient, aspect ratio and non-homogeneity constant. All the numeric results for
time period and deflection are given in tabular form.
3. LITERATURE SURVEY
A lot of work has been carried out to examine the effect of one dimensional
temperature variation on vibration of plates of uniform and non-uniform thickness.
But almost negligible work is found in two dimensional temperature variation along
with non-homogeneity.
Avalos and Laura [1] discussed transverse vibrations of a simply supported
plate of generalized anisotropy with an oblique cutouts. Chakraverty and Petyl
[4] used two-dimensional orthogonal polynomial to find out the natural
frequencies for free vibration of non-homogeneous elliptical and circular plates.
Chyanbin et. al. [5] gave results on vibration suppression of composite sandwich
beams. Gutirrez et. al. [6] investigated vibrations of rectangular plates of bilinearly varying thickness with general boundary conditions. The authors
assumed exponential thickness variation in x direction as well as in y direction.
Gupta et. al. [7] presented an investigation on the vibration of clamped visco
elastic rectangular plate having bi-directional thickness variations. Here, authors
discussed linear temperature variation as well as linear density variation.
Gupta and Singhal [8] discussed the effect of non-homogeneity on thermally
induced vibration of orthotropic visco-elastic rectangular plate of parabolic
varying thickness. Gupta et. al. [9] studied the vibrations of clamped viscoelastic rectangular plate with bi-directional thickness variation (linear in x
direction and parabolic in y direction) and linear temperature variation. Khanna
[10] used Rayleigh Ritz method to solve the vibrations of rectangular plates with
bi-directional thickness variations. Khanna et al. [11] investigated vibration of
non-homogenous rectangular plate with bi-linear temperature variation and
linear thickness variation along with exponential poisson ratio variation. Lal et.
al. [12] used boundary characteristic orthogonal polynomials to analyze
transverse vibrations of non-homogeneous rectangular plates with uniform
thickness.
14
Anupam Khanna and Narinder Kaur

Leissa [13] provided excellent data for vibration of plates of different shapes with
different boundary conditions in his monograph. Leissa and Chern [14] analyzed forced
vibration response of plates. Patel et. al. [15] presented appericiable work on study of
vibrational behaviour of rectangular plate with simply supported edges with angle
shaped stiffeners. Sari and Mehmet [16] observed non linear vibrations of microbeam
bonded to a non-linear elastic foundation. Sharma et. al. [17] worked on the effect of
pasternak foundation on axisymmetric vibration of polar orthotropic annular plates of
varying thickness. Tariverdilo [18] analyzed asymmetric free vibration of coupled
system including clamped circular plate in contact with incompressible bounded fluid.
4. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
4.1. Differential equation of motion
The differential equation of an isotropic visco-elastic rectangular plate is [10]
M x,xx + 2 M xy,xy + M y,yy = hw, tt
where,
(4.1)
w + w ,
M x = DD
,yy
1 ,xx
w + w
M y = DD
1 ,yy
,xx
1 w,xy
and M xy = DD
1
(4.2)
A comma in the suffix denotes partial differentiation of w with respect to suffix

variable. After substituting the values of Mx, My and Mxy from eqn (4.2) in eqn
(4.1), one gets
(
)
) + D (w + w )
D D1 w,xxxx + 2w,xxyy + w,yyyy + 2D1,x w,xxx + w,xyyy
+ 2D1,y w,yyy + w,yxx
+D1,yy w,yy + w,xx
) (
1,xx
,xx
,yy
+ 2 1 D1,xy w,xy + hw,tt = 0
(4.3)
By using variable separation technique, the solution of eqn (4.3) can be taken in
the form of product of two functions as [11]
(4.4)
( ) ()
w x , y, t = W x , y T t
After using eqn (4.4) in eqn (4.3), one obtains
D W
1 ,xxxx + 2W,xxyy +W,yyyy
(
)
(
)
+D (W + W ) + D (W + W )
T
+2 (1 ) D W hW =
DT
+2D1,x W,xxx + W,xyy + 2D1,y W,yyy +W,yxx
1,xx
,xx
,yy
1,xy
,xy
1,yy
,yy
,xx
(4.5)
Here, dot denotes differentiation with respect to t.

The previous equation is satisfied if both of its sides are equal to a constant.
Denoting this constant by w2, one gets
Vol. 33 No. 1 2014
15
D W
1 ,xxxx + 2W,xxyy +W,yyyy
(
)
(
)
+D (W + W ) + D (W + W )
+2 (1 ) D W w hW = 0
+2D1,x W,xxx + W,xyy + 2D1,y W,yyy +W,yxx
1,xx
,xx
,yy
1,yy
,yy
,xx
1,xy
,xy
and
(4.6)
(4.7)
=0
T + w 2DT
Eqn (4.6) and eqn (4.7) represent the differential equations of motion and time
function for non-homogeneous rectangular plate respectively.
Here, D1 is flexural rigidity of rectangular plate [13] i.e.
D1 =
Eh 3
12 1 2
(4.8)
4.2. Frequency equation

Rayleigh Ritz technique has been adopted to solve the frequency equation. This
method is completely depends upon the law of conservation of energy according to
which maximum strain energy (Es) must be equal to the maximum kinetic energy
(Ek). So, it is necessary for the problem under consideration that [7]
(4.9)
Es Ek = 0
where,
Ek =
and
a
Es =
1
2 0
1 2
w
2
0
hW
D {(W ) + (W )
b
(4.10)
dy dx
,xx
,yy
2W,xxW,yy
+ 2 (1 )(W,xy ) dydx
2
(4.11)
4.3. Assumptions
Authors assumed bi-parabolic temperature variation as:
x2 y2
= 0 1 2 1 2
a b
(4.12)
where, t denotes the temperature excess above the reference temperature at any
point on the plate and t0 denotes the temperature excess above the reference
temperature at x = y = 0.
For most of engineering materials, the temperature dependence of the modulus
of elasticity can be expressed as [11]
E = E 0 1
16
(4.13)

where E0 is Youngs modulus at reference temperature i.e. t = 0 and g is the slope
of the variation of E with t. After using eqn (4.12) in eqn (4.13), one gets
x 2 y 2
E = E 0 1 1 2 1 2
a b
(4.14)
where, a =gt0(0 a < 1), is thermal gradient.

It is considered that thickness varies linearly in x direction (shown in Figure 1) as
x
h = h0 1 +
a
(4.15)
where, h0 is thickness of the plate at x = 0 and b is taper constant.

Also, authors assumed that poisson ratio of material varies exponentially in x
direction as shown below [11]:
= 0e
1x
(4.16)
where n0 is poisson ratio at reference temperature i.e. t = 0 and a1 is nonhomogeneity constant.

On using eqn (4.14), eqn (4.15) and eqn (4.16) in eqn (4.8), one obtains
3
x 2 y 2 x
E 0 1 1 2 1 2 h0 1 +
a
a b
D1 =
21x
12 1 0 2e a
(4.17)
4.4. Boundary conditions

Rectangular plate is assumed to be clamped at the boundary. Therefore, boundary
conditions are taken as:
W = W,x = 0, x = 0, a
(4.18)
W = W,y = 0, y = 0, b
To satisfy eqn (4.18) , the corresponding two-term deflection function is taken as :

x y x y 2
W = 1 1
a b a b
x y x y
F1 + F2 1 1
a b a b
(4.19)
where, F1 and F2 are two arbitrary constants.
h = h0
x=0
Figure 1:
x=a
x axis
Linear thickness variation of rectangular plate in xdirection

Vol. 33 No. 1 2014
17

4.5. Solution of frequency equation
Now assuming the non-dimensional variables as
X=
(4.20)
x
y
, Y =
a
a
On using eqn (4.20) in eqn (4.10) and eqn (4.11), modified maximum kinetic
energy (Ek*) and maximum potential energy (Es*) are obtained as follows:
Ek * =
and
1
E s* = Q 0
1 2 2
a h0
2
(1 + X )W dY dX
1
b a
3
1 1 X 2 1 a Y 2 1 + X
2
b a
b
0
2 X
1 v 0 2e 1
2
2
X
W,XX + W,YY + 2 0e 1 W,XXW,YY
24a 2
E 0h03
1X
) (W ) dYdX
(4.22)
,XY
On using eqn (4.21) and eqn (4.22) in eqn (4.9), one obtains
(E
Here 2 =
(4.21)
+ 2 1 0e
where, Q =
12 2a 4
E 0h02
*
s
2E k * = 0
(4.23)
, is a frequency parameter. Eqn (4.23) consists two
unknown constants i.e. F1 and F2 arising due to the substitution of W . These two
constants can be determined as follows
E s * 2E k *
Fn
) = 0,
n = 1, 2
(4.24)
On simplifying eqn (4.24), one obtains
(4.25)
Q
Choosing F1 = 1, one can easily get F2 from eqn (4.25), which is n1 .
Q
n2
For a non-trivial solution, determinant of the coeffcient of eqn (4.25) must be
zero. Therefore, frequency equation can be obtained as follows:
Qn1F1 + Qn 2F2 = 0,
Q11 Q12
Q21 Q22
n = 1, 2
=0
(4.26)
Eqn (4.26) is a bi-quadratic equation in l from which l can be calculated .

After substituting the values of F1 and F2 in eqn (4.19), one can obtain deflection
function (W) as
18
a
aY
W = XY 1 X 1
b
b
1 + Q11 XY
Q
12
a
1X
b
Time period of the vibration of visco-elastic plate is given by

K=
( )
aY
1
(4.27)
2
w
(4.28)
4.6. Solution of differential equation for time function

Time function of vibration of non-homogeneous rectangular plate can be obtained
from eqn (4.7) [7]:
a
at
T t = e 1 cos b1t + 1 sin b1t
b1
()
where,
a1 =
and
(4.29)
w 2
2G
w
b1 = w 1
2G
After using eqn (4.29) and eqn (4.27) in eqn (4.4), deflection (w) can be
expressed as
aY Q
a
w = XY 1 X 1
1 + 11 XY
b
b

Q12

a
ea t cos b1t + 1 sin b1t

1
b1
a
1X
b
) 1 aYb
(4.30)
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All the numeric results for time period and deflection are calculated for an alloy of
aluminium, Duralium. The following parameters are used for duralium [7]:
E 0 = 7.08 1010
= 2.80 103
M
Kg
M3
, G = 2.632 1010
N
M
, = 14.612 105
Ns
M2
, 0 = 0.345, h0 = 0.01M .
Authors calculated as well as tabulated the results for time period and
deflection for different combinations of taper constant, aspect ratio, thermal
gradient and non-homogeneity constant for first two modes of vibration.
Vol. 33 No. 1 2014
19

Table 1 shows time period (K 10-5) for increasing values of non
homogeneity constant (a1) at fixed aspect ratio (a/b = 1.5) for different
combinations of taper constant (b) and thermal gradient (a) i.e.
b = a = 0.0, b = a = 0.2, b = a = 0.6 and b = a = 0.8
a
Table 2 shows time period (K 10-5) for increasing values of aspect ratio b

at fixed taper constant (b = 0.2) and thermal gradient (a = 0.2) for different values
of non homogeneity constant (a1) i.e. a1 = 0.0, a1 = 0.05, a1 = 0.10 and a1 = 0.15
From table 1, it can be clearly observed that time period for both the modes
of vibration continuously decreases as the combined values of taper constant and
thermal gradient increases i.e. from b = a = 0,0 to b = a = 0.8 with increasing
non-homogeneity constant from 0.0 to 0.15 at fixed value of aspect ratio i.e.
a
= 1.5 .
b
From table 2, it is found that as aspect ratio increases from 0.25 to 1.5, time
period decreases continuously for different values of non-homogeneity constant
(a1) from 0.0 to 0.15 at fixed value of thermal gradient (a = 0.2) and taper
constant (b = 0.2).
In tables 3- 5, deflection (for both the modes of vibration) is calculated for T =
0K and T = 5K at different values of X and Y i.e.
Table 3: = = 0.0;
Table 4: = = 0.6;
a
= 1.5; 1 = 0.0, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15.
b
a
= 1.5; 1 = 0.0, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15 .
b
Table 1:
Time Period (10-5) Vs Non-Homogeneity constant for fixed aspect ratio (a/b=1.5)
a1
b = a = 0.0
b = a = 0.2
b = a = 0.6
b = a = 0.8
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 1 Mode 2

0.0
668.23
169.09
634.98
160.67
586.95
148.48
572.41
144.59
0.05
665.99
168.52
632.80
160.11
584.92
147.92
570.44
144.03
0.10
663.62
167.92
630.50
159.51
582.74
147.33
568.33
143.44
0.15
661.11
167.28
628.04
158.88
580.42
146.69
566.07
142.79
Table 2:
Time Period (10-5) Vs Aspect Ratio for fixed taper constant (b = 0.2) and thermal gradient (a = 0.2)
a
a1 = 0.0
a1 = 0.05
a1 = 0.10
a1 = 0.15
b
20
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 1
Mode 2
0.5
1558.79
389.14
1552.84
387.61
1546.40
385.94
1539.43
384.13
0.75
1338.44
339.93
1333.52
338.64
1328.22
337.24
1322.52
335.73
1.0
1070.33
273.45
1066.54
272.45
1062.48
271.38
1058.13
270.22
1.25
1.5
825.80
634.98
210.31
160.67
822.94
632.80
209.57
160.11
819.89
630.50
208.77
159.51
816.65
628.04
207.91
158.88
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.15
0.10
0
{0}
{0}
{0}
0
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
Mode 2
0.0
Mode 1
0.2
20.8737
{9.1381}
{9.1381}
20.8730
{9.1648}
20.8727
{9.1859}
20.8718
{47.1627}
114.6450
{50.1873}
114.6360
{50.3334}
114.6330
{50.4459}
114.62100
Mode 1
14.9593
{0.6789}
{0.6809}
14.9593
{0.6829}
14.9593
{0.6847}
14.9592
{1.7933}
39.5103
{1.7984}
39.5100
{1.8036}
39.5099
{1.8086}
39.5098
Mode 2
0.4
47.1207
{20.6282}
{20.6282}
47.1184
{20.6885}
47.1174
{20.7335}
47.1142
{107.4270}
259.9090
{113.7790}
259.8900
{114.1080}
259.8770
{114.3570}
259.8370
Mode 1
27.1596
{1.2327}
{1.2363}
27.1595
{1.2398}
27.1595
{1.2435}
27.1595
{0.2877}
6.3393
{0.2885}
6.3383
{0.2893}
6.3378
{0.2901}
6.3376
Mode 2
47.1207
{20.6282}
{20.6282}
47.1184
{20.6885}
47.1174
{20.7335}
47.1142
{107.4270}
259.9190
{113.7790}
263.6660
{114.1080}
259.8770
{114.3570}
259.8370
Mode 1
0.6
*All the values written in bold and {} brackets shows deflection for both the modes of vibration for T = 5K.
0.6
0.2
0.05
a1
X
Y
27.1596
{1.2327}
{1.2363}
27.1595
{1.2398}
27.1595
{1.2435}
27.1595
{0.2877}
6.3393
{0.2885}
6.3383
{0.2893}
6.3378
{0.2901}
6.3376
Mode 2
20.8730
{9.1381}
{9.1381}
20.8730
{9.1648}
20.87271
{9.1859}
20.8718
{47.1627}
115.7550
{50.1873}
115.7550
{50.3334}
114.6330
{50.4459}
114.6210
Mode 1
Table 3:
a
Deffection (10-5) Vs Non-Homogeneity constant for a = b = 0.0; b =1.5 at T = 0K and T* = 5K.
39.5098
Mode 2
14.9593
{0.6789}
{0.6809}
14.9593
{0.6829}
14.9593
{0.6847}
14.9592
{1.7933}
39.5103
{1.7984}
39.5100
{1.8036}
39.5099
{1.8086}
0.8
0
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
Mode 1
1.0
0
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
Mode 2
Vol. 33 No. 1 2014
21
22
a1
Mode 1
0.0
Mode 2
Mode 1
0.2
Mode 2
Mode 1
0.4
Mode 2
Mode 1
0
0
122.4250
39.7135
286.1780
7.0252
286.1780
{0}
{0}
{48.0954}
{2.1676}
{112.4260}
{0.3834}
{112.4260}
0.05
0
0
122.3050
39.7153
285.7710
7.0311
285.7710
{0}
{0}
{47.9064}
{2.2223}
{111.9360}
{0.3934}
{111.9360}
0.10
0
0
122.3900
39.7173
286.0600
7.0380
286.0600
{0}
{0}
{47.7721}
{2.2657}
{111.6560}
{0.4014}
{111.6560}
0.15
0
0
122.4850
39.7197
286.3800
7.0459
286.3800
{0}
{0}
{47.6293}
{2.2312}
{111.3610}
{0.4102}
{111.3610}
0.6
0
0
0
21.4861
14.9753
49.1877
27.2136
49.1877
{0}
{0}
{8.4409}
{0.8175}
{19.3236}
{1.4857}
{19.3236}
0.05
0
0
22.4767
14.9754
49.1557
27.2140
49.1557
{0}
{0}
{8.4123}
{0.8379}
{19.2541}
{1.5228}
{19.2541}
0.10
0
0
21.4834
14.9756
49.1784
27.2146
49.1784
{0}
{0}
{8.3855}
{0.8542}
{19.1956}
{1.5524}
{19.1956}
0.15
0
0
21.4908
14.9758
49.2036
27.2152
49.2036
{0}
{0}
{8.3568}
{0.8719}
{19.1332}
{1.5846}
{19.1332}
0.2
0.6
7.0252
{0.3834}
7.0311
{0.3934}
7.0380
{0.4014}
7.0459
{0.4102}
27.2136
{1.4857}
27.2140
{1.5228}
27.2146
{1.5524}
27.2152
{1.5846}
Mode 2
Table 4:
a
Deflection (10-5) Vs Non-Homogeneity constant for a = b = 0.6;
= 1.5 at T = 0K and T* = 5K.
b
122.4250
{48.0954}
122.3050
{47.9064}
122.3900
{47.7721}
122.4850
{47.6293}
21.4861
{8.4409}
21.4767
{8.4123}
21.4834
{8.3855}
21.4908
{8.3568}
Mode 1
0.8
39.7135
{2.1676}
39.7153
{2.2223}
39.7173
{2.2657}
39.7197
{2.3127}
14.9753
{0.8175}
14.9754
{0.8379}
14.9756
{0.8542}
14.9758
{0.8719}
Mode 2
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
Mode 1
1.0
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
0
{0}
Mode 2
0
{0}
{0}
{0}
0
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
116.3100
{48.5897}
{46.7963}
91.5540
{39.4984}
66.2983
{27.6118}
42.3624
{14.9285}
21.3111
{4.2469}
5.9094
Mode 1
39.5587
{1.8130}
{2.6986}
37.7747
{4.3282}
33.0786
{4.9125}
25.2021
{3.5884}
14.9713
{1.2772}
4.9297
265.5380
{110.9310}
{106.1850}
207.7450
{89.3823}
150.0290
{63.0409}
96.1551
{34.0424}
48.5969
{9.6634}
13.4463
1.5
1.25
0.75
{0}
{0}
0.5
0.25
Mode 2
0.2
0.0
Mode 1
a/b
X
Y
6.5025
{0.2980}
{1.8745}
26.2396
{4.9607}
37.9124
{7.4537}
38.2390
{6.5196}
27.2002
{2.6272}
10.1397
265.5380
{110.9310}
{106.1850}
207.7450
{89.3823}
150.0290
{63.0409}
96.1551
{34.0424}
48.5969
{9.6634}
13.4463
6.5025
{0.2980}
{1.8745}
26.2396
{4.9607}
37.9124
{7.4537}
38.2390
{6.5196}
27.2002
{2.6272}
10.1397
0.8
{46.7963}
91.5541
{39.4984}
66.2983
{27.6118}
42.3624
{14.9285}
21.3111
{4.2469}
5.9094
Mode 1
116.3100
{48.5897}
Deflection (10-5) Vs Aspect ratio for a = b = 0.2;a1 = 0.15 at T = 0K and T* = 5K

0.2
0.4
0.6
Mode 2
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 1
Mode 2
Table 5:
39.5587
{1.8130}
{2.6986}
37.7747
{4.3282}
33.0786
{4.9125}
25.2021
{3.5884}
14.9713
{1.2772}
4.9297
Mode 2
0
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
Mode 1
1.0
0
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
{0}
Mode 2
Vol. 33 No. 1 2014
23
a
= 0.25, 0.5, 0.75,1.0,1.25,1.5 .
b
From table 3, it can be noticed that at T = 0K , deflection (for both the modes of
vibration) increases as a1 increases from 0.0 to 0.15 for Y = 0.2 and Y = 0.6. Also,
authors noticed that deflection decreases rapidly as Y increases from 0.2 to 0.6 for both
the modes of vibration. At T = 5K, deflection for both modes of vibration decreases
continuously as a1 varies from 0.0 to 0.15 (for all X and Y ).
From table 4, it can be analyzed that at T = 0K, deflection for the first mode of
vibration firstly decreases then increases as a1 increases from 0.0 to 0.15 while
deflection for the second mode continuously increases. Again, at T = 5K, deflection for
first mode of vibration decreases and for the second mode increases at different values
of X , Y and a1.
From table 5, it is evident that at T = 0K and T = 5K, deflection for first mode
of vibration increases as aspect ratio increases from 0.25 to 1.5. At X = 0.2, 0.4,
0.6 and X = 0.8, at T = 0K deflection for second mode of vibration continuously
increases while at T = 5K, it firstly increases then decreases as aspect ratio
increases from 0.25 to 1.5 for fixed values of taper constant, thermal gradient and
non-homogeneity constant i.e. a = b = 0.2, a1 = 0.15 and Y = 0.2.
Table 5 : = = 0.2; 1 = 0.15;
6.COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS

In table 6, authors compare the results of present paper with [11]. The basic
difference between present paper and [11] is in variation of temperature i.e. biparabolic in present paper and bi-linear in [11]. Authors calculate time period at
fixed value of aspect ratio (a/b = 1.5) and non-homogeneity constant (a1 = 0.0)
for different values of thermal gradient and taper constant for first two modes of
vibration.
It is interesting to note that time period for both the modes of vibration in present
paper is greater than [11] at the same values of corresponding parameters. Based on
the above comparison, authors conclude the following:
* Since time period in present paper is more than [11] for both the modes of
vibration, it implies that frequency of vibration in present paper is lower than [11].
* Frequency of vibration can be actively controlled in present model as compared
to [11] by appropriate tapering and variation in corresponding parameters.
* Present model is more authentic and realistic as compared to [11].
Table 6:
Time Period (10-5) Vs Thermal Gradient and Taper Constant for fixed aspect ratio (a/b = 1.5) and nonhomogeneity constant (a1 = 0.0)
a
0.0
b = 0.0
Mode 1
Mode 2
b = 0.2
Mode 1
Mode 2
b = 0.4
Mode 1
Mode 2
668.28
606.23
552.95
169.09
{668.28} {169.09} {606.23}

0.4
739.53
187.00
668.38
{704.39} {178.24} {637.38}

0.8
841.13
212.12
755.93
{747.06} {189.05} {673.90}
153.42
140.00
b = 0.6
Mode 1
Mode 2
507.20
128.48
{153.42} {552.95} {140.00} {507.20} {128.48}

169.07
{161.34}
190.74
607.84
153.83
{580.14} {146.95}
684.34
{170.63} {611.88}
172.76
556.14
140.82
{531.23}
{134.63}
623.88
157.55
{155.04} {559.09} {141.77}
* Values from [11] are given in bold and {}brackets in above table.
24

REFERENCES
[1] Avalos D.R. and Laura P.A., Transverse vibrations of a simply supported plate
of generalized anisotropy with an oblique cut-out, J. Sound and Vibration,
2002, 258(2), 773776.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Bambill D.V., Rossit C.A., Laura P.A. and Rossi R.E., Transverse vibrations
of an orthotropic rectangular plate of linearly varying thickness and with a free
edge, J. Sound and Vibration, 2000, 235(3), 530538.
Chakraverty S., Vibrations of plates, Taylor and Francis, 2009.
Chakraverty S. and Petyl M., Natural frequencies for free vibration of nonhomogeneous elliptical and circular plates using two-dimensional orthogonal
polynomial, Applied Mathematics Modelling, 1997, 21(7), 399417.
Chyanbin H., Chang W.C. and Gai H.S., Vibration suppression of composite
sandwich beams, J. Sound and Vibration, 2004, 272(1-2), 120.
Gutirrez R.H., Laura P.A., Grossi R..O, Vibrations of rectangular plates of bilinearly varying thickness with general boundary conditions, J. Sound and
Vibration, 1981, 75(3), 323 328.
Gupta A.K., Khanna A. and Gupta D.V., Free vibration of clamped viscoelastic rectangular plate having bi-direction exponentially thickness
variations. J. Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 2009, 47(2), 457471.
Gupta A.K. and Singhal P., Thermal effect on free vibration of

nonhomogeneous orthotropic visco-elastic rectangular plate of parabolically
varying thickness, Applied Mathematics, 2010, 1(6), 456463.
Gupta A.K., Vaibhav P. and Vats R.P., Vibrations of non-homogeneous

rectangular plate of variable thickness in both directions with thermal gradient
effect, Int. J. Appl. Math and Mech, 2010, 6(16), 1937.
[10] Khanna A., Some vibration problems of visco-elastic plate of variable

thickness in two directions, Ph.D. thesis, C.C.S.University, Meerut, U.P. India,
2005.
[11] Khanna A., Kaur N. and Sharma A.K., Effect of varying poisson ratio on
thermally induced vibrations of non-homogeneous rectangular plate, Indian J.
Science and Technology, 2012, 5(9), 32633267.
[12] Lal R., Kumar Y. and Gupta U.S., Transverse vibrations of nonhomogeneous
rectangular plates of uniform thickness using boundary characteristic
orthogonal polynomials, Int. Jl. Appl. Math and Mech, 2010, 6(14), 93109.
[13] Leissa A.W., Vibration of plates, NASA SP-160 in U. S. Govt, Printing offce,
1969.
[14] Leissa A.W. and Chern Tzong Yi, Approximate analysis of the forced
vibration response of plates, J. Vib. Acoust, 1992, 114(1), 106111.
[15] Patel D.S., Pathan S.S. and Bhoraniya I.H., Influence of stiffeners on the
natural frequencies of rectangular plate with simply supported edges,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 2012, 1(3),
16.
Vol. 33 No. 1 2014
25

[16] Sari G. and Mehmet P., Non-linear vibrations of a microbeam resting on an
elastic foundation, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2013, 38(5),
11911199.
[17] Sharma S., Gupta U.S. and Lal R., Effect of pasternak foundation on
axisymmetric vibration of polar orthotropic annular plates of varying
thickness, J. Vibration and Acoustics ASME, 2010, 132(4), 113.
[18] Tariverdilo S., Shahmardani M. , Mirzapour J. and Shabani R., Asymmetric

free vibration of circular plate in contact with incompressible fluid, Applied
Mathematical Modelling, 2013, 37(1-2), 228239.
26

Vibration of Non-Homogeneous Plate Subject

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vibration of Non-Homogeneous Plate Subject

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL