Thin–Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

An efficient facet shell element with layerwise mechanics for coupled

electromechanical response of piezolaminated smart shells
Adnan Ahmed a, Santosh Kapuria a, b, *
a
Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India
b
CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR Campus Taramani, Chennai, 600113, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this work, an efficient four-node facet shell element is presented for analysis of doubly curved multilayered
Finite element piezoelectric shells, based on an electromechanically coupled third order zigzag theory. It is motivated by the
Shell element excellent performance of the shell element developed earlier by the authors for elastic laminated shells. The
Piezoelectric shell
laminate theory not only incorporates a layerwise description of the inplane displacements but also accounts for
Hybrid shell
the layerwise normal deformation due to the d33 -effect of the piezoelectric layers. The number of primary
Smart composite
Sandwich displacement variables is, however, the same as for the smeared third order theory (TOT). A quadratic variation
Zigzag theory of the electric potential across the piezoelectric layers is assumed, while satisfying the equipotential condition of
Electromechanical coupling electroded piezoelectric surfaces using the concept of electric nodes. The performance of the element is assessed
for the stress analysis under mechanical and electric potential loads, and for the free vibration response of hybrid
piezolaminated deep shells in comparison with the three dimensional piezoelasticity based analytical and finite
element solutions. The comparison shows excellent accuracy of the present element for the deflection, stresses,
sensory potential, electric displacement and natural frequencies of hybrid shells made of composite as well as the
highly inhomogenous soft-core sandwich laminates, for which the smeared TOT is shown to produce highly
erroneous results. It is also shown to yield better accuracy than the other available elements of similar
computational efficiency for hybrid composite shells.

1. Introduction conveniently. Also, the model should be preferably computationally

The first implementation of the finite element method (FEM) for
modeling piezoelectric structures was due to Allik and Hughes [1] who
presented a three dimensional (3D) tetrahedral solid element for vi­
bration analysis of piezoelectric plates. Thereafter, several FE formula­
tions have been presented for the coupled electromechanical response of
hybrid piezoelectric-elastic laminated beam, plate and shell structures
[2]. Among them, studies on hybrid laminated shells have been rather
scarce and relatively recent. The laminate mechanics models for such
hybrid laminated structures should be applicable for any
piezoelectric-elastic laminate lay-up that may have widely different
material properties in adjacent layers, and for thin to fairly thick lami­
nates, covering a wide range of practical applications. It should incor­
porate a layerwise description of the electric potential so as to enable
imposing of electrical boundary conditions at the piezoelectric-elastic
interfaces. The equipotential condition over the electroded piezoelec­
tric surfaces should be allowed to be satisfied accurately and
efficient. Most of the existing FE models for smart shells can be found to
be wanting with regard to these requirements.
Exact and approximate analytical 3D piezoelasticity solutions [3–6]
have been presented for hybrid piezolaminated shells for some simple
geometries (cylindrical shells and doubly curved panels) with
simply-supported boundary conditions. For general geometries and
boundary conditions, a full field 3D FE analysis using the piezoelectric
solid elements [1,7] can be carried out. For practical design problems,
particularly when a dynamic analysis is needed or while solving an
optimization or inverse identification problem, such analysis is
computationally too expensive, time consuming and inefficient. The 3D
FE suffers also from various types of numerical locking problems for
thin-walled structures [8]. Therefore, various 2D shell theories and their
FE formulations have been developed in which only the reference sur­
face of the shell structures is modeled and the distributions of the field
variables across the thickness of the laminate are assumed a priori,
considering that the thickness is small compared to the inplane

* Corresponding author. Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India.
E-mail addresses: kapuria@am.iitd.ac.in, kapuria@serc.res.in (S. Kapuria).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.106624
Received 3 September 2019; Received in revised form 3 January 2020; Accepted 18 January 2020
Available online 20 March 2020
0263-8231/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria
dimensions. Gabbert et al. [9] presented a semiloof shell element with
32 mechanical degrees of freedom (DOFs) based on the classical lami­
nate theory (CLT) for modeling thin smart composite shells. The
two-way electromechanical coupling was considered by taking the
voltage difference across each piezoelectric layer as an elemental DOF.
Recently, a corotational three-node triangular facet shell element based
on the CLT and a layerwise interpolation of the electric potential has
been presented for the analysis of thin shells by Bisegna et al. [10]. The
discrete Kirchhoff triangle (DKT) technique was employed for the
interpolation of the deflection for imposing the C1-continuity. The CLT
neglects the shear deformation effect and, hence, is inadequate in
modeling fibre reinforced plastic composite structures having low shear
modulus to logitudinal modulus ratio. Because of the simplicity of
C0-interpolation, the Reissner-Mindlin type first order shear deforma­
tion theory (FSDT), which accounts for the transverse shear strains, has
been used by many researchers to develop FEs for smart laminated
shells. Among them, those which consider the electromechanical
coupling through independent electric potential DOFs, include the
three-node triangular facet shell elements [11,12], the four-node
quadrilateral facet shell element [13], the eight-node isoparametric
shell elements [14–16] considering large rotation, and the nine-node
isoparametric shell elements [17–20]. A similar eight-node shell
element based on the coupled FSDT, but also incorporating the d33 effect
(as against the usual d31 /d32 effect) has been developed by Sartorato
et al. [21]. Bhattacharya et al. [22] and Vidal el al [23]. have presented
eight-node shell elements for smart laminated composite shells, wherein
the FSDT assumptions are augmented to incorporate the normal defor­
mation with linear and quadratic terms for the transverse displacement.
Degenerate shell elements which basically employ the FSDT assump­
tions, but use the 3D constitutive equations, have also been employed for
the electromechanical analysis of smart composite shells [24–30].
Solid-shell elements [8,31–33] elements have been developed for
piezoelectric laminated shells, which are also based on similar first order
approximation for the displacements, but instead of a single reference
surface, they model both the top and bottom surfaces of the shell
structure. Recently, a four-node shell element has been presented for
analysis of smart piezolaminated shells using the FSDT [34]. The same
shell element has also been employed by neglecting the shear strain
energy in the variational equation [35] and using a modified FSDT [36]
in which a parabolic through-thickness distribution for the transverse
shear stress is imposed to circumvent the need of shear correction factor.
To avoid the use of arbitrary shear correction factors in the FSDT, the
refined third order theory (TOT) of Reddy [37] has been employed to
develop a two-node axisymmetric [38], four-node quadrilateral [39]
and nine-node isoparametric [40] elements for analysis of hybrid shells.
The aforementioned FEs are based on the equivalent single layer
(ESL) theories, which often yield erroneous results in comparison with
3D piezoelasticity based solutions, for moderately thick and even
thinner laminates that have layers of widely different material proper­
ties e.g. in soft-core sandwich laminates. This deviation is due to the fact
that the ESL theories do not account for the slope discontinuity in the
variations of the inplane displacements at the interfaces between layers
of different material properties. The layerwise theories (LWTs) [41]
assume piecewise linear or higher order variations for the displacements
across the thickness. They yield accurate results for such inhomogeneous
laminates. However, the computational effort required by the FE models
based on these theories is in the range of a full 3D FE analysis, and hence
these are not practical options in most cases.
An eight-node isoparametric element based on a unified description
of ESL and LW theories of different order and using the MITC scheme has
been presented for the electromechanical analysis of smart cylindrical
shells [42], and extended to smart shells with node-dependent kine­
matics [43]. The unified formulation allows a mixed description of ESL
kinematics for displacements and LW approximation for the electric
2
Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624
potential, similar to earlier studies [10,14,17]. To incorporate the
layerwise distortion of the normal as in the LWTs while preserving the
computational efficiency of the ESL theories, the ELTs, also known as the
zigzag theories (ZIGTs), for elastic laminated shells, have been extended
to hybrid piezoelectric laminated shells [44–46] by extending the ZIGTs
of Cho and Parmerter [47] and Shu and Sun [48] for elastic laminates,
respectively. The normal deformation of the piezoelectric layer caused
by the electric field is accounted for in the ZIGT of Nath and Kapuria [45,
46] without adding new deflection variables, who presented an
analytical solution for simply supported hybrid cylindrical shells and
shell panels. The theory was shown to yield very accurate results in
comparison with analytical 3D piezoelasticity solutions for a variety of
heterogenous composite and sandwich laminates under electro­
thermomechanical loading. A four-node quadrilateral element for
doubly curved shallow smart piezoelectric laminated shells has been
presented by Yasin and Kapuria [49] based on this coupled ZIGT. To the
best of authors’ knowledge, no FE formulation for general (deep and
shallow) curved hybrid piezolaminated shells has been presented so far
based on such coupled ZIGTs which have been otherwise shown to be
accurate and very computationally efficient. Further, no existing 2D FE
formulations for general curved piezolaminated shells incorporate an
accurate quadratic approximation of the electric potential, while
modeling the equipotential conditions of piezoelectric transducer sur­
faces exactly and efficiently.
The authors [50] have recently presented a four-node facet shell
element for general elastic laminated shells based on the efficient ZIGT,
which was shown to outperform the available FEs in terms of accuracy,
efficiency and simplicity even for shells with highly inhomogenous
soft-core sandwich laminates. Motivated by its excellent performance,
the facet element is extended herein to the stress and vibration analysis
of general piezolaminated shells, considering full two-way electrome­
chanical coupling. In the coupled ZIGT, the inplane displacements are
assumed to follow a layerwise linear variation superimposed on a global
third order variation in the thickness direction, but the number of un­
known displacement variables terms is finally reduced to only five,
equal to that of the TOT by imposing the interfacial continuity and
surface boundary conditions on the transverse shear stresses. The
deflection approximation consists of a constant term and the explicit
contribution in the piezoelectric layers due to the electric field caused by
the piezoelectric coefficient d33 . The electric potential is assumed to be
piecewise quadratic across the thickness, which allows the elastic sub­
laminate between two piezoelectric layers to be treated as one segment
for the potential field discretization. The facet quadrilateral element has
four nodes with nine mechanical DOFs including two drilling DOFs per
node. In addition, it has ðnφ 1Þ number of electric potential DOFs per
node, corresponding to the internal quadratic components of the vari­
ation of the electric potential φ. Here, ðnφ 1Þ is the number of segments
in the electric potential discretization across the thickness. The element
has also an electric node having nφ surface electric potential DOFs. This
concept enables to accurately impose the equipotential condition of
electroded surfaces of the piezoelectric layers, by associating the surface
electric potential DOFs of all elements falling under an eletroded patch
to one electric node. The local reference plane of the facet element is
defined in a way that takes care of the possible non-coplanar nodes in the
mesh, making the element suitable for any arbitrary shape. The accuracy
of the element is assessed in comparison with the 3D coupled piezoe­
lasticity based solutions for stress and free vibration response of deep
hybrid shells with composite and sandwich substrates, covering both
actuator and sensory roles of the piezoelectric layers.
2. Local coordinate system
The shell is modeled as an assembly of four-node quadrilateral facet
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

Fig. 1. (a) A doubly curved shell (b) Shell as an assembly of facet shell elements.

elements as shown in Fig. 1 (b). The position vectors of the four nodes of considered to be poled in the thickness direction z, to make use of the
an element are r1 ; r2 ; r3 and r4 , respectively. The four nodes on a shell extension modes ðd31 and d32 -modes) for actuation and sensing, which
surface may not be coplanar. To maintain the geometric compatibility are most effective for structural control. The reference xy-plane (z ¼ 0)
for elements with such non-coplanar nodes, the element is projected on is chosen to be the mid-plane of the laminate which passes through or at
the plane that passes through its midpoint rc ¼ ðr1 þr2 þr3 þr4 Þ= 4 and the bottom of the k0 th layer. The z-coordinate of the top surface of the
is parallel to the diagonals d1 ¼ r3 r1 and d2 ¼ r2 r4 [50]. Following kth layer counted from the bottom of the laminate is denoted as zk . The
Macneal [51], the local axes ðx; yÞ of the element are taken in such a way material symmetry direction 1 of the kth layer makes an angle of θk with
that they are optimally parallel to either set of two opposite edges of the the x-axis.
element, as shown in Fig. 2. The unit vectors of the local axes triad are As in most 2D shell theories, the transverse normal stress σz is
given by neglected ðσz ’ 0Þ in comparison with other stress components. How­
ever, the transverse normal strain εz is not taken as zero. Using this
c
d1 þ c
d2 c
d1 c
d2
ex ¼ ; ey ¼ ; ez ¼ ex � ey (1) assumption, the linear 3D constitutive equations of a piezoelectric me­
c
j d1 þ c
d2 j jc
d1 c
d2 j dium of class mm2 symmetry, relating the inplane stresses σ , transverse
shear stresses τ and electric displacements ½Dx ; Dy ; Dz � to the inplane
where dc1 ¼ d1 =jd1 j and d c2 ¼ d2 =jd2 j. The local co-ordinates ðxi ; yi Þ of
strains ε, transverse shear strain γ and electric field components ½Ex ; Ey ;
node iði ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4Þ are obtained as Ez � reduce to
xi ¼ ðri rc Þ:ex yi ¼ ðri rc Þ:ey (2)
(3)
b T
σ ¼ Qε eT3 Ez ; τ ¼ Qγ be E; η E;
D ¼ be γ þ b Dz ¼ e3 ε þ η33 Ez ;

3. Coupled electromechanical zigzag theory where

2 3 2 3 2 3
We consider a hybrid laminate of total thickness h, made of perfectly σx εx Q11 Q12 Q16
bonded layers of fiber reinforced composite materials with surface- σ ¼ 4 σ y 5; ε ¼ 4 εy 5; Q ¼ 4 Q12 Q22 Q26 5;
bonded and/or embedded layers of piezoelectric materials which act � τxy� � γ xy� � Q16 Q26
� Q66 � �
τzx γ zx Q55 Q45 e15
e25 (4)
as distributed sensors or actuators as shown in Fig. 3. The piezoelectric τ¼ ; γ¼ b
; Q¼ ; be ¼ ;
τ γ yz Q45 Q44 e14
e24
materials are considered to have class mm2 symmetry [52] with respect
yz
� � � � � �
Ex Dx η11 η12
to the principal material axes, as observed in the commonly used E¼
Ey
; D¼
Dy
; e ¼ ½ e31 e32 e36 �; η¼
b :
η12 η22
piezoelectric materials, PZT and PVDF. The piezoelectric layers are
Material constants Qij ; eij and ηij denote the reduced elastic stiff­
nesses, constant stress piezoelectric constants and electric permittivities.
For a given orientation θk of the lamina, these constants can be deter­
mined from the engineering material constants Young’s moduli Yi , shear
moduli Gij , Poisson’s ratios νij , constant strain piezoelectric constants dij
and electric permittivities ηij . The strain-displacement and electric field-
potential relations are [53].
εx ¼ ux;x ; εz ¼ w;z ; Ex ¼ φ;x ;
εy ¼ uy;y ; γ xz ¼ w;x þ ux;z ; Ey ¼ φ;y ; (5)
γxy ¼ uy;x þ ux;y ; γ yz ¼ w;y þ uy;z ; Ez ¼ φ;z

where ux and uy are the inplane displacements, w is the transverse

displacement and φ is the electric potential. A subscript comma followed
by, say x, denotes partial differentiation with respect to x. It has been
found from the three-dimensional (3D) coupled piezoelasticity solutions

Fig. 2. Quadrilateral facet shell element with the electric node and its local
coordinate system.

3
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

Fig. 3. Geometry of a hybrid laminate.

[3] that the electric potential φ in a piezoelectric layer generally follows uk and ψ k constitute the layerwise linear variation, while ξ and η
a nearly quadratic distribution across its thickness, which is also correspond to the global third order variation in z. The displacement
required to satisfy the electric charge conservation law [24]. Accord­ field given by Eqs. (8) and (9) involves 4L þ 5 unknown displacement
ingly, φ is assumed to be piecewise quadratic between nφ interpolation variables. However, by imposing the 2ðL 1Þ conditions each for the
points at the surfaces/interfaces of the piezoelectric layers, continuity of transverse shear stresses τ and inplane displacements u at
the ðL 1Þ layer interfaces, and the four shear traction-free conditions
φðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ Ψjφ ðzÞφj ðx; y; tÞ þ Ψlc ðzÞφlc ðx; y; tÞ (6) (τ ¼ 0) at the top and bottom surfaces, the displacement field can be
finally expressed in terms of only five variables as
where nφ � ðL þ1Þ for an L-layered laminate, φj ’s denote the electric
potentials at surfaces/interfaces z ¼ zjφ with j 2 [1, 2, …, nφ ] and φlc ’s uðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ u0 ðx; y; tÞ zw0d ðx; y; tÞ þ Rk ðzÞψ 0 ðx; y; tÞ (11)
correspond to the quadratic component of the potential distribution. The
where u0 ¼ uk0 and ψ 0 ¼ ψ k0 denoting respectively, the translations and
summation convention for repeated indices is used with the indices j and
l with l 2 ½1; 2; …; nφ 1�. Ψjφ ðzÞ is the piecewise linear interpolation shear rotations of the reference surface, and Rk ðzÞ is 2 � 2 matrix of
layerwise functions of z of the form
functions having a value of 1 at z ¼ zjφ and 0 at z ¼ zjφ 1 and z ¼ zjþ1
φ .
Ψlc ðzÞ is a quadratic function given by b k þ zR
Rk ðzÞ ¼ R 1
b k þ z2 R
2
b 3 þ z3 R
b4 (12)
8 . 9
< 4 zlþ1 z� z zl � zlþ1 zl �2
b k; R
b k; R
if ​ zlφ � z � zlþ1 =
b 3 and R
b 4 are 2 � 2 coefficient matrices which depend on the
(7) R
φ φ φ φ φ
l
Ψc ðzÞ ¼ : 1 2
:
0 other ​ wise
; laminate lay-up and material properties. The following conditions were
l
considered in the above derivation: (i) Ψlc and Ψc vanish at the in­
Splitting up the distribution of φ into linear and quadratic compo­ j j
nents allows φj and φlc to be interpolated differently over the element. terfaces, and (ii) φ;x and φ;y are zero in an element because of the
φj ’s are considered to be constant within an element to satisfy the equipotential condition. Thus, no terms involving φ appear in the final
equipotential condition of the electroded piezoelectric surfaces, while expression of u in Eq. (11).
φlc ’s are allowed to vary along the inplane directions. The normal In the smeared TOT, u can be expressed using Eq. (11) with Rk ðzÞ
deformability due to the d33 -effect under the electric field Ez is consid­ replaced by a diagonal matrix RðzÞ comprising of a global function in z
ered in the approximation of the deflection w, which is obtained by given by
� � �
integrating εz ¼ w;z ’ d33 φ;z as (13)
ðkÞ
Rk ðzÞ ¼ RðzÞ ¼ z 4z3 3h2 I2
� j �
(8)
l
wðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ w0 ðx; y; tÞ Ψφ ðzÞφj ðtÞ þ Ψc ðzÞφlc ðx; y; tÞ ; where In is a n � n identity matrix. Equation (11) can be rewritten in
matrix form as
j Rz ðkÞ j l Rz ðkÞ l
where Ψφ ðzÞ ¼ 0 d33 Ψφ;ζ ðζÞ dζ, Ψc ¼ 0 d33 Ψc;ζ ðζÞ dζ. Note that d33 can u ¼ f 0 ðzÞu1 (14)
vary from layer to layer. Thus, a piecewise nonlinear variation of w is
achieved without introducing any additional deflection variables. where
For the kth layer, the inplane displacements ux and uy are approxi­ � �
u1 ¼ u0x u0x ω0;x ω0;y ψ 0x ψ 0y ;
mated to follow a global third order variation combined with a layerwise � � (15)
f 0 ðzÞ ¼ I2 zI2 Rk ðzÞ :
linear variation across the thickness:
Substituting Eqs. (11), (8) and (6) into Eq. (5), the strains and elec­
uðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ uk ðx; y; tÞ zw0d ðx; y; tÞ þ zψ k ðx; y; tÞ þ z2 ξðx; y; tÞ þ z3 ηðx; y; tÞ;
tric fields can be expressed in terms of the displacement and electric
(9)
potential field variables as
where ε ¼ f 1 ðzÞε1 ; γ ¼ f 2 ðzÞε2 ; E¼ f 3 ðzÞε3 ; Ez ¼ f 4 ðzÞε4 (16)
� � � � � � � � � � � �
u ω u ψ ξ η
u ¼ x ; w0d ¼ 0;x ; uk ¼ kx ; ψ k ¼ ψ kx ; ξ ¼ x ; η ¼ x where
uy ω0;y uky ky ξy ηy
(10)

4
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

h i h i
f 1 ðzÞ ¼ I3 zI3 Φ ðzÞ ;
k l
f 2 ðzÞ ¼ Rk;z ðzÞ Ψc I2 ; Using Eq. (16), the strain energy terms in Eq. (18) are obatined as
h i �
〈 δεT σ þ δγT τ 〉 ¼ δεT1 F1 þ δεT2 F2 (21)
f 3 ðzÞ ¼ Ψlc ðzÞ; f 4 ðzÞ ¼ Ψlc;z ðzÞ Ψjφ;z ðzÞ ;
2 3
2 3 ψ where F1 and F2 are the normal and shear stress resultants defined by
ε0 6 0 7 2 3
6 7 2 3 2 3
ε1 ¼ 6 0 7
4 k 5; ε2 ðzÞ ¼ 6
6
φlc;x 7;
7 〈σ 〉 N Τ
〈Rk;z ðzÞτ 〉
" #
4 5 6 7 Q
ψ 0d F1 ¼〈f 1 ðzÞσ 〉¼ 4 〈zσ 〉 5 ¼ 4 M 5; F2 ¼〈f 2 ðzÞτ 〉4 h l i 5 ¼ l
T Τ
φlc;y kΤ 〈 Ψ τ 〉 Q
〈Φ ðzÞσ 〉 P c
2 3 2 3
φlc;x φlc (22)
ε3 ¼ 4 5; ε4 ¼ 4 5;
l
φ c;y φj (17)
2 3 N ¼ ½ Nx Ny Nxy �Τ ;
2 3
Rk11 0 Rk12 0 u0x;x P ¼ ½ Px Pxy Pyx Py � ; M ¼ ½ Mx My Mxy �Τ ;
Τ
(23)
6 7 h iΤ
6 7
ε0 ¼ 6 7 � �Τ
k
Φ ðzÞ ¼ 6 0 Rk21 0 Rk22 7; 4 u0;y;y 5; Q ¼ Qx Qy ; Q ¼ Qx Qy
l l
4 5
Rk21 Rk11 Rk22 Rk12 u0y;x þ u0x;y
2 3 N, M and P are the inplane force, moment and higher order moment
ψ 0;x;x 2 3 l
6ψ 7 w0;xx resultant vectors respectively, Q and Q are the higher order transverse
6 0;x;y 7
ψ 0d ¼ 6 7; κ0 ¼
6
4 w0;yy 5
7 shear resultants and electromechanical shear resultants. Similarly, using
4 ψ 0y;x 5
2w0;xy Eqs. (16), the electrical energy terms in Eq. (18) can be obtained as
ψ 0y;y
〈δET D þ δETz Dz 〉 ¼ 〈δεT3 F3 þ δεT4 F4 〉 (24)
4. Finite element formulation
where F3 and F4 are the electric displacement resultants defined as
4.1. Extended Hamilton’s Principle " # 2 l 3 " l # " #
〈Ψ lc ðzÞDx 〉 4 H cx 5 〈Ψ c;z ðzÞDz 〉 Gl
Τ
F3 ¼〈f 3 ðzÞD〉¼ l
¼ l
​ ;F 4 ¼〈f Τ
4 ðzÞDz 〉¼ j
¼ jc
〈Ψ c ðzÞDy 〉 H cy 〈Ψ φ;z ðzÞDz 〉 Gφ
The extended Hamilton’s principle for the hybrid piezolaminated
doubly curved shell (Fig. 1(a)) can be expressed, using the notation (25)
P Rz
〈…〉 ¼ Lk¼1 zkþ ð…Þ dz for integration across the thickness, as Substituting the relations for and Dz from Eq.(3) into Eqs.(21) and
k 1

ne Z �
X � �� �
� h h
〈ρk δuT u
€ þw
€ δw þ δεT σ þ δγT τ δET D Dz δEz 〉 þ p1z 1 1 δwðα; β; z0 ; tÞ
n¼1 2Rα 2Rβ
Ae
� �� � �
h h
p2z 1 þ 1þ δwðα; β; zL ; tÞ þ Dz ðx; y; z0 ; tÞδφ1 Dz ðx; y; zL ; tÞδφnφ dAe
2Rα 2Rβ
Z
〈σ n δun þ τns δus þ τnz δw þ Dn δφ〉 ds ¼ 0 (18)
ΓL

(27), the generalized shell resultants can be related to the generalized

8 δux ; δuy ; δw and δφ, where ne is the number of elements in the FE mesh strains εi as
of the shell, Ae denotes the area of an element and ΓL denotes the
F1 ¼ 〈f T1 ðzÞσ 〉 ¼ Aε1 þ βε4 ; F2 ¼ 〈f T2 ðzÞτ 〉 ¼ Aε2 þ βε3 ;
boundary curve of the shell with normal n and tangent s. p1z and p2z T
denote the pressures on the inner and outer surfaces of the shell F3 ¼ 〈f 3 ðzÞD〉 ¼ β ε2 þ Eε3 ; F4 ¼ 〈f T4 ðzÞDz 〉 ¼ βT ε1 þ Fε4 ;
respectively, and ρk is the mass density of the kth layer. (26)
Using Eq. (8) and (14), and neglecting the contribution of φ related
terms to inertia without any loss of accuracy [54], the inertia terms in where A½ð10 þ2nφ 1Þ �ð10 þ2nφ 1Þ� and A½2nφ �2nφ � are symmetric
Eq. (18) can be expressed as shell stiffness coefficient matrices, β½ð10 þ2nφ 1Þ �ð2nφ 1Þ� and
� β½2nφ �ð2nφ 2Þ� denote the shell electro-mechanical coefficient
〈ρk δuT u€ þ wδw
€ € þ δw0 I w€0
〉 ¼ δuT Iu (19) matrices, and E½ð2nφ 2Þ �ð2nφ 2Þ� and F½ð2nφ 1Þ �ð2nφ 1Þ� are the
shell dielectric constant matrices.
where I and I are the shell inertia constants defined as Substituting Eqs. (19), (21) and (24) into the variational equation
I ¼ 〈ρk f T0 ðzÞf 0 ðzÞ〉; I ¼ 〈ρk 〉 ¼ I11 (20) (18) yields

5
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

ne Z �
X �
δuT1 Iu € 0 þ δεT F1 þ δεT F2 þ δεT F3 þ δεT F4
€ 1 þ δw0 I w P3 δw0 Pjφ δφj dAe
1 2 3 4
n¼1
Ae

2
Z
4Nn δu0n þ Nns δu0s Mn δw0;n þ ðVn þ Mns;s Þδw0 þ Pn δψ 0n þ Pns δψ 0s
ΓL
#
� � X
þ Hnj Vφj n δφj þ Hcl n Vcl n δφlc ds ΔMns ðsi Þδw0 ðsi Þ ¼ 0 (27)
i

variational equation (18) are of first order. Hence, they are interpolated
where using the C0 -continuous bilinear Lagrange interpolation functions Ni , in
i

P3 ¼ p2z ð1 þ h=2Rα Þð1 þ h=2Rβ Þ p1z ð1 h=2Rα Þð1 h=2Rβ Þ; terms of their values ui0x ; ui0y ; ψ i0x , ψ i0y and φlc at the four nodes i ¼
j j 1; 2; 3; 4:
Pjφ ¼ p1z ð1 h=2Rα Þð1 h=2Rβ ÞΨφ ðz0 Þ p2z ð1 þ h=2Rα Þð1 þ h=2Rβ ÞΨφ ðzL Þ
(32)
e

þDz ðx; y;zL ;tÞδjnφ Dz ðx; y; z0 ;tÞδj1 : u0x ¼ Nue0x ; u0y ¼ Nue0y ; ψ 0x ¼ Nψ e0x ; ψ 0y ¼ Nψ e0y ; φlc ¼ Nφlc

(28)
where
si denotes the corner locations, if any, of the shell boundary and Vn , Hjn , 2 3 2 3
1
2 3 2
1
3 2 3
u1 u ψ 1 ψ l1
Vφn and V lcn are the components of the following resultants on the 6 0x 7
6 7
6 y7
6 7
0 6 0x 7
6 7
6 y7
6
0
7
6 φc 7
6 27
boundary 6 u2 7
6 0x 7
6 u2 7
6 0 7
6ψ2 7
6 7
6ψ2 7
6 0 7
6 l 7
6φ 7
ue0x ¼ 6 7; ue ¼ 6 y 7; ψ e ¼ 6 0x 7; ψ e ¼ 6 y 7; φle ¼ 6 c 7
2 3 6 3 7 0y 6 3 7 0x 6 3 7 0y 6 3 7 c 6 l3 7
� � H jx 6 u0x 7 6 u0y 7 6 ψ 0x 7 6 ψ 0y 7 6 φc 7
Vx 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7
V¼ ¼ 〈τ 〉; H ¼4
j 5 ¼ 〈Ψj ðzÞD〉;
φ
4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 45
Vy H jy u0x u0y ψ 0x ψ 0y φlc
2 3 2 3
V jφx V lcx N ¼ ½N1 N2 N3 N4 �; Ni ¼ ð1 þ ξi ξÞð1 þ ηi ηÞ=4
Vjφ ¼4 5 ¼ 〈Ψj ðzÞτ 〉;
φ Vlc ¼4 5 ¼ 〈Ψl ðzÞτ 〉:
c (29) (33)
V jφy V lcy
with ðξi ; ηi Þ ¼ ð�1; �1Þ.
Setting separately each of the terms in the boundary integral in Eq.
The deflection w0 , on the other hand, has second order derivatives in
(27) involving δu0n ; δu0s , δw0 ; δw0;n ; δψ 0n ; δψ 0s ; δφj and δφlc to zero, since
the variational equation, and hence its interpolation has to satisfy the
these variations are independent and arbitrary, yields the variationally
C1 -continuity requirements. However, this requirement is circumvented
consistent essential and natural boundary conditions as
by using the improved discrete Kirchhoff (IDKQ) constraint approach
Essential Natural [55] originally proposed for quadrilateral Kirchhoff plate elements. In
u0n ¼ u0n N n ¼ Nn this approach, the derivatives w0;x and w0;y are initially treated inde­
u0s ¼ u0s N ns ¼ Nns pendently as rotation variables θ0x and θ0y requiring only C0 -continuity,
w0 ¼ w0 V n þ M ns;s ¼ Vn þ Mns;s which are interpolated using a smoothed function of a nine-node
Lagrange element. But, they are subsequently related to w0 by
w0;n ¼ w0;n M n ¼ Mn (30)
imposing the constraints θ0i ¼ w0;i at all the nine nodes of the Lagrange
ψ 0n ¼ ψ 0n Pn ¼ Pn
element to yield
ψ 0s ¼ ψ 0s Pns ¼ Pns
φ ¼φj j Hn
j j
V φn ¼ H jn V jφn θ0x ’ w0;x ¼ Gwe0 ; θ0y ’ w0;y ¼ Hwe0 ; (34)
l l
φlc ¼ φlc H lcn V lcn
H cn V cn ¼ where
h iT
and at corners si : we0 ¼ w10 w10;x w10;y w20 w20;x w20;y w30 w30;x w30;y w40 w40;x w40;y
w0 ðsi Þ ¼ w0 ðsi Þ ΔMns ðsi Þ ¼ ΔM ns ðsi Þ; (31) (35)

where the overbar on an entity in Eqs. (30) and (31) denotes its pre­ G ¼ ½G1 G2 … G12 �; H ¼ ½H1 H2 … H12 �
scribed value. For electric boundary conditions, the essential boundary
conditions (φj ¼ φj ; φlc ¼ φlc ) correspond to the close circuit (CC) Gi ðξ; ηÞ and Hi ðξ; ηÞ are the IDKQ interpolation functions whose detailed
condition and the natural boundary conditions (Hjn V jφn ¼ 0; Hlcn expressions are available in Ref. [56]. This interpolation is akin to the
C� -continuous interpolation and hence is suitable for standard FE
V lcn ¼ 0) correspond to the open circuit (OC) condition.
programming.
For computing the consistent mass matrix and the load vector, w0 is
approximated using a bi-cubic shape function within an element as
4.2. Interpolation functions and element matrices
~1
w 0 ¼ ½N ~2
N ~3
N ~4
N ~5
N ~6
N ~7
N ~8
N ~9
N ~ 10
N ~ 11
N ~ 12 �we0
N
The facet shell element developed by the authors [50] for elastic ~ e;
¼ Nw
doubly curved shells is extended herein for the piezoelectric case, by 0

including the electric potential variables as the degrees of freedom. The (36)
highest derivatives of u0x ; u0y ; ψ 0x ; ψ 0y and φlc appearing in the

6
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

where N ~ i are bi-cubic functions. The same interpolation is also used for
where J is the Jacobian matrix given by
relating θ0i to w0;i at the element centre in the derivatives of Eq. (34).
2 ∂x ∂y 3
The generalized nodal displacement vector Ui and the generalized
element displacement vector Ue consisting of the displacement and 6 ∂ξ
J¼6
∂ξ 7
7 (43)
electric potential variables are defined as 4 ∂x ∂y 5
h i ∂η ∂η
i Τ
Ui ¼ ui0x ui0y wi0 wi0;x wi0;y ψ i0x ψ i0y φlc ; l ¼ 1;2;…; ðnφ 1Þ;
2 3 The above area integrals are computed numerically using the 3 � 3
U1 Gauss integration scheme.
6 7
6 U2 7
6 7 (37)
Ue ¼ 6 7 4.3. Transformation from local to global coordinate sysytem
6 U3 7 j ¼ 1; 2;…; nφ :
6 7
4 U4 5
In order to perform summation of Te over all the elements having
φj
different orientations of the local coordinate system ðx; y; zÞ in Eq. (19),
Using Eqs. (32), (34) and Eq. (36), u1 of Eq. (14), w0 and φj are all elemental DOFs need to be transformed to one coordinate system,
expressed in terms of Ue as which is taken as the global Cartesian coordinate system ðX; Y; ZÞ. For
making the transformation possible, two drilling DOFs θ0z and ψ 0z are
u1 ¼ Nu Ue ; w0 ¼ Nw Ue ; φj ¼ Nφ Ue (38)
added for each node to the existing nodal DOF vector Ui to obtain
h iT
where U�i ¼ ui0x ui0y wi0 wi0;x wi0;y θi0z ψ i0x ψ i0y ψ i0z φlic . The local
� � � �
Nu ¼ N1u N2u N3u N4u 0 ; Nw ¼ N1w N2w N3w N4w 0 ; nodal DOFs U�i are then transformed to the global coordinate system as
2
Ni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 [57].
6 0 0 07
6 0 Ni 0 0 0 0 7 U�i ¼ Ri Ugi (44)
6 7
6 0 0 G3i 2 G3i 1 G3i 0 0 0 7
Nu ¼ 6
i 7; g
6
6 0 0 H3i 2 H3i 1 H3i 0 0 0 77 where Ui is the global nodal DOF vector at node i and Ri is the trans­
6
4 0 0 0 0 0
7
Ni 0 0 5 formation matrix for the node, given by
0 0 0 0 0 0 Ni 0 h iT
Ugi ¼ U i0X U i0Y W i0 W i0;X W i0;Y Θi0Z Ψi0X Ψi0Y Ψi0Z φlic (45)
Niw ¼ ½ 0 ~ 3i
0 N 2
~ 3i
N 1
~ 3i
N 0 0 0� ; Nφ ¼ ½ 0 0 0 0 Inφ �
(39) 2 3
R
Using Eq. (38), the generalized strains εi defined in Eq. (16) can be 6 ~
R 7
Ri ¼ 6 7 (46)
expressed in terms of Ue in the following form 4 ~
R 5
Rφ
εi ¼ B i U e ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4 (40)
with
where Bi are the generalized strain-displacement matrices.
Substituting the generalized constitutive equation (26) and the ex­
pressions of εi from Eq. (40) into the area integral in Eq. (27), the
contribution T e of one element to the area integral can be obtained as

Z Z
�
T e ¼ δUeT ½Nu �T INu þ ½Nw �T I Nw � dxdy U
€e þ δUeT
� T
B1 AB1 þ BT1 βB4
T �
þ BT2 AB2 þ BT2 βB3 þ BT3 β B2 þ BT3 EB3 þ BT4 βT B1 þ BT4 FB4 dxdy Ue
Ae
Ae
Z
eT
� j ��
δU NTw P3 þ NTφ Pφ dxdy
Ae
h e e e
i
¼ δUeT M U€e þ K Ue P
(41)

e e e
where M , K and P are the consistent mass matrix, electromechanical
2 3 2 3
stiffness matrix and the electromechanical load vector for element e, ex :bi ex :bj ex : k
b R22 R21 R23
respectively, defined by 4 b b
R ¼ ey : i ey : j ey : bk 5; ~
R ¼ 4 R12 R11 R13 5 ​ ; Rφ ¼ Inφ 1
Z 1 Z 1 n o b b b
ez : i ez : j ez : k R32 R31 R33
e
M ¼ ½Nu �T INu þ ½Nw �T INw jJjdξdη; (47)
1 1
Z 1 Z 1
� T
K ¼
e
B1 AB1 þ BT1 βB4 þ BT2 AB2 þ BT2 βB3 Rij are elements of R. Using Eq. (44), the local elemental displacement
1 1 (42) vector of element e, U�e , can be transformed to the global elemental
T �
þBT3 β B2 þ BT3 EB3 þ BT4 βT B1 þ BT4 FB4 jJjdξdη; displacement vector Uge as
Z 1 Z 1
� ��
(48)
e
P ¼ NTw P3 þ NTφ Pjφ jJjdξdη U�e ¼ Re Uge
1 1

where

7
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

2 3 2 3 vector) are arbitrary, the coefficient of δU in Eq. (18) must vanish. This
* g 2 3
6 U1 7 6 U1 7 R1 yields the global system of equation of motion:
6 *7 6 g7
6 U2 7 6 U2 7 6 R2 7
6 *7
U*e ¼ 6 7
6 g7
Uge 6 7
6
Re ¼ 6
7
7; Rφ ¼ Inφ (49)
€ þ KU ¼ P
MU (56)
6 U3 7; 6 U3 7; 6 R3 7
6 *7 6 g7 4 R4 5
6 U4 7 6 U4 7 where M, K and P are the assembled mass matrix, stiffness matrix and
4 5 4 j5 Rφ
φj φ the load vector, respectively. Loads applied at nodes are added to P at
positions corresponding to their global DOF numbers.
In many cases, shell supports are such that the boundary conditions Some of the surface potentials (φj s) are prescribed for actuation of
0

need to be applied in the tangential and normal directions of the shell the piezoelectric layers (closed circuit condition), while the others are
surface. The tangent directions e1 and e2 can be obtained from the nodal unknown (open circuit condition) with known (zero) applied charge,
director e3 (normal to the surface) and the local direction ey of the which can be used for sensing. The intralaminar electric potentials (φl’c s)
element as are always unknown. To obtain the combined sensory-active response,
ey � e3 e3 � e1 the vector U is partitioned into vectors of mechanical displacements U,
e1 ¼ �� �; e2 ¼ (50)
ey � e3 � je3 � e1 j unknown electric potentials Φs and known actuation voltages Φa .
Accordingly, Eq. (56) is partitioned and arranged as
The transformation of the nodal DOFs to the shell local directions ðe1 ;
e2 ; e3 Þ is then obtained following the same procedure as given in Eqs. 2 uu 38 9 2 38 9 8 9
M 0 0 > < U€ > = Kuu Kus Kua < U = < P =
(44)-(47) as 4 0 0 0 5 € 4
þ K su
K ss
K sa 5
Φ ¼ ​ Qs (57)
>Φ s
€a > : s; : ;
0 0 0 :Φ ; Kau Kas Kaa Φa ​ Qa
(51)
s
U�i ¼ Ri Usi
Applying condensation for Φs in Eq. (57), the equation of motion can
with be expressed in terms of the displacement vector U and unknown electric
2 3 potentials Φs as
Rs
6 es
R 7
s
Ri ¼ 6 7 (52) _ þ �Kuu
€ þ Cuu U
�
Kus ðKss Þ 1 Ksu U
4 es
R 5 Muu U
Rφ � ua �
¼P Kus ðKss Þ 1 Qs K Kus ðKss Þ 1 Ksa Φa

2 3
2 3 Φs ¼ ðKss Þ 1 ½Ksu U þ Ksa Φa Qs � (58)
ex :e1 ex :e2 ex :e3 Rs22 Rs21 Rs23
6 7 In Eq. (58), Rayleigh damping with damping matrix C ¼ α1 Muu þ uu
Rs ¼ 4 ey :e1 ey :e2 ey :e3 5; ~ s ¼ 6 Rs
R 4 12 Rs11 Rs13 7
5 (53)
ez :e1 ez :e3 ez :e3 Rs32 Rs31 Rs33 α2 Kuu is introduced to incorporate damping, where α1 and α2 are the
mass and stiffness damping coefficients. For the undamped free vibra­
tion analysis, the damping matrix Cuu and the right-hand side vector of
where Rsij s
are elements of R . For the elements sharing nodes having
the above equation are set to null matrices. The resulting generalized
boundary conditions prescribed in the shell local directions, the element eigenvalue problem is solved using the subspace iteration method [59]
s
transformation matrix Re is formed by replacing Ri with Ri in Eq. (49) to obtain the undamped circular natural frequencies ωn and mode
for the corresponding nodes. shapes. For transient response, Eq. (58) can be solved using the implicit
Newmark time integration scheme [59]. The stresses are calculated in
the element local directions and then transformed in the desired di­
4.4. Global equation of motion
rections using the same transformation matrices as described in Eqs.
(44) and (51).
The element stiffness and mass matrices K�e and M�e corresponding to
e e
U�e are formed from K and M corresponding to Ue , by including the 5. Results and discussion
stiffness and mass coefficients at the diagonal positions corresponding to
the local drilling DOFs θi0z and ψ i0z at the nodes. These are taken zero The performance of the four-node facet shell element for hybrid
since these DOFs do not form part of the strain energy and kinetic energy piezolaminated shells presented above is assessed here in comparison
computations. However, when all the elements associated to a node are with the 3D piezoelasticity based analytical and FE solutions. The
coplanar, the zero stiffness values lead to ill-conditioning/singularity assessment is done for the static response under mechanical and elec­
problem during the solution. This problem can be avoided by taking a trical loadings, and free vibration response of singly and doubly curved
small value for the corresponding stiffness coefficients, which is taken as hybrid piezolaminated deep shells. 3D FE results obtained by using the
about one-thousandth of the smallest diagonal element of the stiffness commercial FE software ABAQUS are taken as the reference solution for
e
matrix K [58]. non-simply supported hybrid shells. The layer stacking order is
e e
Matrices Ue ; K and M appearing in the expression of Te in Eq. (41) mentioned from the inner to the outer face, and the material properties
can be replaced with U�e ; K�e and M�e respectively, to yield of the laminas are listed in Table 1. S is the radius to thickness ratio ð ¼
� � R =hÞ, where R is the radius of the midplane of the shell and h is the total
€� þ K� U� P�
T e ¼ δU�e M�e Ue e e e (54) thickness. For all the problems considered here, the interfaces between
piezolelectric layers and the elastic substrates are taken as grounded.
Substituting U�e from Eq. (48) into Eq. (54) yields
h e i
T e ¼ δUeT € 5.1. Static response of hybrid shells
T � � e
g Re Me Re U þ Ke Re Ug P�e
g
h i
¼ δUeT
g M e €e
U g þ K e e
Ug Pe (55) 5.1.1. Validation
For validating the present element for hybrid shells for the static
where Ke ¼ RTe K�e Re , Me ¼ RTe M�e Re and Pe ¼ RTe P�e denote respectively, response, we consider a 90� cylindrical hybrid composite panel, actu­
the element stiffness matrix, mass matrix and load vector. Summing up ated by an electric potential of 200 V on the top surface as shown in
the contributions of all the elements in the area integral in Eq. (18), Fig. 4. The panel is simply-supported on all four edges. Saravanos [14]
since virtual displacements δU (U is the global assembled displacement presented its solution using an eight-node quadrilateral element based

8
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

Table 1
Material properties.
Material Y1 Y2 Y3 G23 G13 G12 ν23 ν13 ν12 ρ

(GPa) (Kg m-3)

Gr/Ep-1 [23] 132.4 10.8 10.8 3.6 5.6 5.6 0.49 0.24 0.24
Gr/Ep-2 [49] 181.0 10.3 10.3 2.87 7.17 7.17 0.33 0.28 0.28 1600
Gr/Ep-3 [49] 131.1 6.9 6.9 2.3322 3.588 3.588 0.49 0.32 0.32 1000
Core [49] 0.0002208 0.0002001 2.760 0.4554 0.5451 0.01656 3xl0-5 3xl0-5 0.99 70
PZT-4 [23] 81.3 81.3 64.5 25.6 25.6 30.6 0.43 0.33
0.43
PZT-5A [49] 61.0 61.0 53.2 21.1 21.1 22.6 0.38 0.38 0.35 7600

PVDF [5] C11 C22 C33 C12 Cl3 C23 C44 C55 CGG
(GPa)
238.00 23.60 10.60 3.98 2.19 1.92 2.15 4.40 6.43 7600

PZT 5A [49] d32 d33 d15 d24 ε11/ε0 ε22/ε0 ε33/ε0

(xl0-12mV 1
) (Fm 1)
171.0 171.0 374.0 584.0 584.0 1730 1730 1700
e31 e32 e33 e15 e24 η11/ε0 η22/ε0 η33/ε0
(C m 2)

PZT-4 [23] 5.2 5.2 15.08 12.72 12.72 1475 1475 1300
PVDF [5] 0.13 0.14 0.28 0.01 0.01 12.50 11.98 11.98
12
ε0 ¼ 8:854 � 10 F/m.

Fig. 5. Variation of the mid-surface radial deflection of a hybrid composite PZT

cylindrical shell panel along the circumference.

electric potential across the piezoelectric layer thickness. The oscillatory

variation of the radial deflection is due to the interplay of the effects of
hoop stretching and bending caused by the electric potential, and the
Fig. 4. A quarter cylindrical shell panel under potential load.
constraint on the radial deflection on straight edges of the panel.

on the FSDT, which has been considered by many for validating hybrid
5.1.2. Hybrid composite cylindrical shell
shell elements. The panel has a thickness h of 2 mm with the mid-surface
A simply supported hybrid composite cylindrical shell panel (Rα ¼ R;
radius R ¼ 200 mm and spans a ¼ b ¼ πR=2. The laminate is made of a
Rβ ¼ ∞) with R=a ¼ 1; b=a ¼ 1 and different values of the radius to
four-layer graphite-epoxy (Gr/Ep-1) substrate ð0∘ =90∘ =90∘ =0∘ Þ with
thickness ratio (S ¼ R=h) is considered next for further assessment. In
each layer having a thickness of 0.375 mm and with a PZT-4 layer of
this case, the reference solution is taken as the 3D exact piezoelasticity
thickness 0.5 mm bonded at the top. The variation of the nondimen­
solution obtained using the computer program developed in the study
sional radial deflection w0 =h at the mid-surface along the circumferen­
presented by Kapuria et al. [3]. The ratio R=a is taken as 1, which makes
tial direction at the axial mid-span of the panel ðY ¼ b =2; z ¼ 0Þ is
it a deep shell. The shell is made of a four-layer graphite-epoxy
plotted in Fig. 5 using a 16 � 16 mesh and compared with those reported
(Gr/Ep-2) substrate (0/90/90/0) with a PZT-5A layer of thickness 0:1h
in literature using the eight-node [14,23] and nine-node [27] elements
bonded to its outer surface, as shown in Fig. 6 (a). Due to symmetry, only
based on the FSDT. The 3D FE solution obtained using ANSYS was also
a quarter of the shell is modeled. The shell is subjected to a bi-sinusoidal
reported by Vidal et al. [23] and has been taken as the reference solu­
pressure p2z ¼ p0 sinðπα =aÞsinðπβ =bÞ on its top. The upper surface of the
tion. It can be seen that the present FE solution practically coincides with
PZT layer is in open circuit (OC) condition. The dimensionless results for
reference 3D FE solution of Vidal et al. [23] and shows better accuracy
the deflection, stresses and electric potential obtained using different
than the other available elements. Note that the present element retains
mesh sizes (8 � 8, 12 � 12 and 16 � 16) are presented in Table 2 for S ¼
the induced electric field through the quadratic approximation of the

9
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

Fig. 6. Lay-ups for various hybrid laminates considered.

Table 2 Table 3
Deflection, stresses and sensory electric potential of simply supported hybrid Deflection, stresses and electric displacement of simply supported hybrid com­
composite cylindrical shell ðR =a ¼ 1Þ under sinusoidal pressure load. posite cylindrical shell ðR =a ¼ 1Þ under uniform potential load.
Entity 3D exact [3] ZIGT FE Entity 3D exact [3] ZIGT FE
S S
8� 8 12 � 12 16 � 16 8� 8 12 � 12 16 � 16

6 Wð0Þ 0.9371 0.9678 0.9672 0.9720 6 Wð0Þ 0.3761 0.3657 0.3659 0.3660
σα ð 0:5hÞ 0.3882 0.3781 0.3768 0.3763 σeα ð0:4hÞ 22.809 23.672 23.709 23.723
σβ ð0:5hÞ 0.4510 0.4626 0.4627 0.4627 σpα ð0:4hÞ 29.836 28.993 28.990 28.987
τðcÞ
zα ð0:175hÞ
0.2223 0.2290 0.2283 0.2280 σpβ ð0:4hÞ 27.567 26.639 26.606 26.593
φð0:5hÞ 28.863 28.718 28.935 29.011 Dz ð0:5hÞ 0.8160 0.8328 0.8330 0.8331
10 Wð0Þ 0.5432 0.5497 0.5493 0.5499 10 Wð0Þ 0.2910 0.2814 0.2815 0.2815
σα ð 0:5hÞ 0.2876 0.2844 0.2832 0.2828 σeα ð0:4hÞ 22.122 22.777 22.814 22.826
σβ ð0:5hÞ 0.3409 0.3428 0.3427 0.3427 σpα ð0:4hÞ 30.602 30.235 30.232 30.229

τðcÞ 0.2064 0.2041 0.2035 0.2033 σpβ ð0:4hÞ 29.889 29.760 29.726 29.712
zα ð0:175hÞ

φð0:5hÞ 24.131 23.743 23.915 23.975 Dz ð0:5hÞ 0.8013 0.8086 0.8088 0.8090

20 0.2416 0.2451 0.2457 0.2464 20 Wð0Þ 0.1597 0.1556 0.1556 0.1556

Wð0Þ
σα ð 0:5hÞ 0.1297 0.1339 0.1343 0.1345 σeα ð0:4hÞ 16.295 16.276 16.295 16.299

σβ ð0:5hÞ 0.1945 0.1942 0.1940 0.1939 σpα ð0:4hÞ 33.567 33.545 33.556 33.562

0.1252 0.1210 0.1221 0.1227 σpβ ð0:4hÞ 33.418 33.569 33.559 33.556
τðcÞ
zα ð0:175hÞ
Dz ð0:5hÞ 0.7683 0.7698 0.7699 0.7699
φð0:5hÞ 14.689 14.376 14.473 14.506

ðα; βÞ locations: Wða =2; b =2Þ, σ α ða =2; b =2Þ, σβ ða =2; b =2Þ, Dz ða =2; b =2Þ.Super­
ðα; βÞ locations: Wða =2; b =2Þ, σ α ða =2; b =2Þ, σ β ða =2; b =2Þ, τzα ð0; b =2Þ, φða =2;
scripts e and p in σα and σβ denote their values in the elastic substrate and
b =2Þ
piezoelectric layer, respectively.

6; 10 and 20, and compared with the exact 3D piezoelasticity solution

[3]. For reporting stresses, the locations across the thickness are selected
where they are maximum. The results show monotonic convergence
with finer mesh. The present FE results are in excellent agreement with
the 3D exact piezoelasticity solution, showing a maximum error of 3.7%
for the deflection and stresses, and 1.2% for the sensory electric po­
tential among all the shell panels considered here with S � 6. The ac­
curate prediction of the sensory potential confirms accurate modeling of
the two-way piezoelectric coupling effect in the present formulation.
Results for the static response of the hybrid composite cylindrical
shell under a uniform electric potential φnφ ¼ φ0 applied on the top
surface are presented in Table 3. For this load case too, the results ob­
tained using the present FE show a monotonic convergence with the
increase in mesh size and are very accurate with respect to the analytical
3D piezoelasticity solution with maximum error of 3.4% for the
deflection, 3.9% for the stresses and 2.1% for the charge density on the
actuator surface for the shell panels with S � 6.
5.1.3. Hybrid sandwich cylindrical shell
The present element is tested next for the analysis of a highly inho­
mogeneous hybrid sandwich cylindrical shell with widely different
material properties in adjacent layers. A simply supported long
ðb =a ¼ 10Þ sandwich cylindrical shell made of Gr/Ep-3 faces and a soft
core (0∘ =90∘ /core=90∘ =0∘ ) with two PZT-5A layers of thickness 0:1h each
bonded to its outer and inner surfaces (Fig. 6(c)) is considered for the
study. Each ply of the face sheet is of thickness 0:04h and the core is of
the thickness 0:64h. The static response is obtained for (1) a bi-
sinusoidal pressure loading p2z ¼ p0 sinðπα =aÞsinðπβ =bÞ on the top sur­
face when the top surface is under CC condition (with zero electric po­
tential) and the bottom is in OC condition, and (2) a uniform actuation
potential φ0 applied on the bottom and top surfaces.
A quarter of the shell is modeled using uniform mesh size of 8 � 8,
12�12 and 16 � 16. The ZIGT FE results for the dimensionless central
deflection, stresses and electric potential at locations where they are
large are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively, under the pressure
and potential load cases, and compared with the 3D exact solution. The
results show monotonic convergence of the present FE with the increase
in the number of elements used for discretization. As stated before, the
present ZIGT FE has the same number of DOFs per element as the FE
based on the smeared TOT. In order to illustrate the effect of the local
layerwise variation of the inplane displacements on the response, results
are obtained also using the TOT FE for comparison. It can be seen that
the ZIGT FE predicts the deflection with excellent accuracy with a
maximum error of just 1.0% for the pressure loading, while the TOT
performs very badly with a large error of 26.9% in the deflection for S ¼
6. The inplane stress σ x and the transverse shear stress τzx obtained using
the ZIGT FE are also in good agreement with the 3D exact solution, with
a maximum error of 4.9% and 2.1% respectively, while for the TOT, the
corresponding maximum errors are 16.8% and 35.8%, respectively.
Table 5 reveals that for the electric potential load case too, the present

10
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

Table 4 Table 6
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Deflection, stresses and electric potential of simply supported long hybrid Nondimensional fundamental frequency (~ ω ¼ ω1 ρ=C11 ) of simply supported
sandwich cylindrical shell ðR =a ¼ 1Þ under sinusoidal pressure load. laminated piezoelectric spherical shell (R=a ¼ 1).
Entity 3D exact [3] ZIGT FE TOT FE ZIGT FE 3D asymptotic theory [5]
S
8� 8 12 � 12 16 � 16 16 � 16 h=R 20 � 20 24 � 24 28 � 28 ε0 ε4 ε6
6 Wð0Þ 6.1350 6.2179 6.1991 6.1950 4.4869 0.05 1.5289 1.5083 1.4946 1.5427 1.5189 1.5188
0.1 3.4247 3.3883 3.3608 3.5751 3.3540 3.3479
σeα ð0:4hÞ 1.1595 1.1532 1.1484 1.1468 1.2501
0.15 5.8014 5.7688 5.7614 6.3682 5.6015 5.4977
σα ð 1.6022 1.5265 1.5246 1.5239 1.3333
0:5hÞ
τðcÞ
zα ð0Þ
0.4341 0.4449 0.4436 0.4432 0.2785
φð 0:5hÞ 50.242 50.068 50.365 50.477 47.728
Table 7
10 Wð0Þ 3.3633 3.3956 3.3798 3.3764 2.7628
Nondimensional frequencies of simply supported hybrid composite cylindrical
σeα ð0:4hÞ 1.2623 1.2712 1.2666 1.2650 1.3029 shell.ðR =a ¼ 1Þ
σα ð 1.2413 1.2252 1.2234 1.2227 1.1553
S ωn Spatial 3D exact [4] ZIGT FE
0:5hÞ
mode
τðcÞ
zα ð0Þ
0.4292 0.4376 0.4364 0.4360 0.2714
ðm; nÞ 16 � 16 20 � 20 24 � 24
φð 0:5hÞ 44.303 44.288 44.562 44.662 43.777
20 Wð0Þ 2.1845 2.2126 2.1985 2.1958 2.0441 5 ω1 (1,1) 7.2625 7.0804 7.0612 7.0495
σeα ð0:4hÞ 1.3006 1.3139 1.3098 1.3084 1.3183 ω2 (2,1) 13.322 12.950 12.917 12.897
σα ð 1.0755 1.0780 1.0766 1.0761 1.0598 ω3 (1,2) 14.509 14.610 14.595 14.587
0:5hÞ ω4 (2,2) 18.306 18.042 18.009 17.989
τðcÞ
zα ð0Þ
0.4226 0.4298 0.4287 0.4283 0.2646 ω5 (3,1) 20.811 20.827 20.770 20.736
φð 0:5hÞ 40.692 40.615 40.886 40.985 40.828 ω6 (1,3) 22.534 23.279 23.267 23.261
10 ω1 (1,1) 10.636 10.471 10.427 10.400
ðα; βÞ locations: Wða =2; b =2Þ, σ α ða =2; b =2Þ, τzα ð0; b =2Þ, φða =2; b =2Þ. ω2 (2,1) 20.862 20.293 20.223 20.179
ω3 (1,2) 22.248 22.234 22.187 22.155
ω4 (2,2) 28.982 27.890 27.762 27.677
Table 5 ω5 (3,1) 34.755 34.143 34.067 34.019
Deflection, stresses and electric displacement of simply supported hybrid ω6 (1,3) 36.774 37.145 37.133 37.119
sandwich cylindrical shell ðR =a ¼ 1Þ under uniform potential load.
Entity 3D exact [3] ZIGT FE TOT FE
S we consider a simply supported laminated piezoelectric spherical shell
8� 8 12 � 12 16 � 16 16 � 16
of square planform, made of two ð0∘ =90∘ Þ layers of PVDF. The outer and
6 Wð0Þ 1.0927 1.1168 1.1173 1.1173 1.0603 inner surfaces of the shell are grounded. For this problem, a 3D piezo­
σeα ð0:4hÞ 66.607 66.606 66.690 66.716 66.715 lelasticity based asymptotic solution has been presented by Wu and Lo
σpα ð0:4hÞ 28.584 28.679 28.672 28.668 28.666 [5] with the shell dimensions of R=a ¼ 1 and h=a ¼ 0:05;0:10;0:15. The
pffiffi
σpβ ð0:4hÞ 50.478 51.600 51.584 51.580 51.567 dimensionless fundamental natural frequency (~ ω ¼ ω1 h ρ=C11 ) ob­
Dz ð0:5hÞ 1.2299 1.2351 1.2353 1.2354 1.2354 tained using a regular mesh of size 20 � 20, 24 � 24 and 28 � 28, is
10 Wð0Þ 1.0227 1.0580 1.0582 1.0582 1.0378 compared in Table 6 with the analytical 3D asymptotic solutions of
σeα ð0:4hÞ 66.511 66.640 66.705 66.725 66.721
different orders [ [5]. The FE results are shown to converge with finer
σpα ð0:4hÞ 28.439 28.663 28.666 28.668 28.665
mesh. It is observed that ZIGT FE results for the fundamental frequency
σpβ ð0:4hÞ 50.192 51.593 51.593 51.589 51.577
match very well with the 3D asymptotic solution of higher order (ε6 )
1.2348 1.2353 1.2353 1.2354 1.2354
with a maximum difference of 4.9% for the thick shell with h=a ¼ 0:15.
Dz ð0:5hÞ
20 Wð0Þ 0.9902 1.0102 1.0102 1.0102 1.0049
5.2.2. Hybrid composite cylindrical shell
σeα ð0:4hÞ 65.996 66.793 66.853 66.866 66.853
Next, the performance of the present FE is assessed for the free vi­
σpα ð0:4hÞ 28.359 28.594 28.596 28.600 28.602
bration response of simply supported hybrid composite cylindrical shells
σpβ ð0:4hÞ 49.409 51.674 51.664 51.660 51.649
with R=a ¼ 1 and b=a ¼ 1, for two values of radius-to-thickness ratio
Dz ð0:5hÞ 1.2421 1.2342 1.2342 1.2343 1.2344
S ¼ 5 and 10. The laminate lay-up is as shown in Fig. 6(b). The outer
ðα; βÞ locations: Wða =2; b =2Þ, σα ða =2; b =2Þ, σ β ða =2; b =2Þ, Dz ða =2; b =2Þ. Super­ surface of the PZT layer is under CC condition with zero prescribed
scripts e and p in σα and σβ denote their values in the elastic substrate and potential. The first six flexural natural frequencies ωn of the shell ob­
piezoelectric layer, respectively. tained using the ZIGT FE are compared in Table 7 with the 3D piezoe­
lasticity solution [4]. The frequencies are nondimensionalized as ωn ¼
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
FE formulation yields monotonic convergence of results with increasing ωn aS ρ=Y0 , where Y0 is taken as the value of Y2 of the respective
mesh size for all response entities. The ZIGT predicts the response for material for composite shells and of the face for sandwich shells pre­
this load case also with very good accuracy with a maximum error of sented in the following section. The results show excellent accuracy of
3.5% for the central deflection, 4.6% for the stresses and 0.6% for the the ZIGT FE solution with a maximum error of 4.7% among all six modes
transverse electric displacement. The TOT FE predicts the response with respect to the 3D piezoelasticity solution.
equally well for this load case.
5.2.3. Hybrid sandwich cylindrical shell
A simply supported hybrid sandwich cylindrical shell (Fig. 6(c)) is
5.2. Free vibration response of hybrid shells analyzed in this section. The natural frequencies of the first six flexural
modes are obtained for R=a ¼ 1, b=a ¼ 1 and S ¼ 5 and 10. The outer
5.2.1. Validation surface of the shell is grounded, while the inner surface is under OC
To validate the present formulation for the free vibration response,

11
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

Table 8 Table 9
Nondimensional frequencies of simply supported hybrid sandwich cylindrical Nondimensional frequencies of hybrid sandwich cylindrical shell ðR =a ¼ 1Þ with
shell.ðR =a ¼ 1Þ non-simply supported boundary conditions.
S ωn Spatial 3D exact ZIGT FE TOT FE S ωn 3D FE ZIGT FE TOT FE
mode [4]
16 � 16 20 � 20 24 � 24 24 � 24
ðm; nÞ 16 � 20 � 24 � 24 � 24
CSSS shell
16 20 24
5 ω1 5.7172 5.6456 5.6389 5.6349 6.3658
5 ω1 (1,1) 4.9072 4.8367 4.8298 4.8255 5.5769 ω2 8.2720 8.3261 8.3006 8.2867 9.7483
ω2 (2,1) 7.7720 7.7456 7.7347 7.7285 9.3672 ω3 9.2873 9.2551 9.2493 9.2457 10.723
ω3 (1,2) 8.8275 8.8141 8.8072 8.8030 10.255 ω4 11.033 11.152 11.109 11.086 12.978
ω4 (2,2) 10.479 10.529 10.504 10.228 12.506 ω5 12.441 12.387 12.313 12.267 14.462
ω5 (3,1) 11.938 12.117 12.089 12.082 14.241 ω6 13.268 13.561 13.541 13.531 15.317
ω6 (1,3) 13.057 13.341 13.337 13.329 15.100 10 ω1 10.315 10.101 10.087 10.078 10.883
10 ω1 (1,1) 8.3371 8.2820 8.2617 8.2491 8.9004 ω2 14.578 14.441 14.396 14.369 16.878
ω2 (2,1) 13.647 13.383 13.359 13.344 15.845 ω3 16.758 16.490 16.480 16.472 18.889
ω3 (1,2) 15.684 15.619 15.603 15.592 17.898 ω4 19.561 19.304 19.263 19.237 20.591
ω4 (2,2) 18.170 18.160 18.126 18.104 20.578 ω5 21.673 21.788 21.704 21.657 22.824
ω5 (3,1) 21.050 20.941 20.914 20.898 21.765 ω6 23.296 23.176 23.089 23.094 25.976
ω6 (1,3) 22.892 22.700 22.697 22.692 25.416 CCSS shell
5 ω1 7.8943 7.8013 7.7983 7.7964 8.4964
ω2 8.6394 8.8085 8.7622 8.7373 10.075
condition. The first six nondimensional frequencies ωn obtained using ω3 10.041 10.014 10.013 10.013 11.466
the present ZIGT FE are compared in Table 8 with the 3D piezoelasticity ω4 11.399 11.650 11.576 11.537 13.318
solution [4] and the TOT FE. The shell is modeled using three mesh sizes ω5 13.373 13.393 13.081 12.881 15.454
to illustrate the convergence of the FE solution. It is observed that the ω6 13.556 13.861 13.841 13.831 16.565
frequencies predicted by the ZIGT FE are in excellent agreement with the 10 ω1 14.780 14.598 14.594 14.591 15.520
3D exact solution for the thick ðS ¼ 5Þ and moderately thick ðS ¼ 10Þ ω2 15.008 15.003 14.924 14.878 17.539
shells. For the thick shell (S ¼ 5), the maximum error in the ZIGT FE ω3 18.359 18.130 18.145 18.152 20.518
results with 24 � 24 mesh is only 2.5% for the six modes of vibration. In ω4 20.039 19.908 19.828 19.781 23.446
contrast, for the thick shell, the maximum error in the TOT FE results ω5 23.069 23.395 23.257 23.180 27.440
with the same mesh size is 20.5%. The large error is due to the strong ω6 23.902 23.716 23.743 23.757 28.200
slope discontinuities in the inplane displacements at the interfaces be­
tween the soft core and stiff faces, which is not captured by the TOT
approximations. multilayered piezoelectric shells has been developed based on an ele­
tromechanically coupled third order zigzag theory considering layer­
5.2.4. Hybrid sandwich cylindrical shell with non-simply supported wise mechanics. The laminate theory not only incorporates a layerwise
boundary conditions description of the inplane displacements but also accounts for layerwise
In order to illustrate the robustness of the developed element, its normal deformation due to the electric field without introducing any
performance is assessed also for shells with non-simply supported additional displacement variables beyond the smeared third order
boundary conditions. For this purpose, a hybrid sandwich cylindrical laminate theory. The electric potential is assumed to follow a piecewise
shell is studied with two non-simply supported boundary conditions quadratic variation across the laminate thickness, which allows the
namely, CSSS (one end at x ¼ 0 clamped (C) and remaining edges simply elastic sublaminate between two piezoelectric layers. The electric po­
supported (S)) and CCSS (two opposite edges at x ¼ 0; a clamped and tential DOFs on the piezoelectric surfaces are associated to electric nodes
remaining two simply supported). The dimensions of the shell and the allowing for exact satisfaction of the equipotential condition of elec­
sandwich laminate are the same as in the previous section. The first six troded piezoeletric surfaces. The system equation of motion has been
non-dimensional natural frequencies obtained using the ZIGT FE with obtained for the combined actuation and sensory response of the
16 � 16, 20 � 20, 24 � 24 meshes are presented in Table 9. For assessing piezoelectric layers.
their accuracy, converged 3D FE solutions are obtained using the The shell element has been validated and assessed for their accuracy
twenty-node quadratic solid element with reduced integration in comparison with the analytical 3D piezoelasticity solutions or full
(C3D20R) in ABAQUS with a mesh size of 100 � 100 � 20. These results field 3D FE solutions for the static response under mechanical and
are also listed in Table 9. It is observed that as expected, the fundamental electric potential loadings, and for the free vibration response of various
natural frequencies are significantly affected by the boundary condi­ singly- and doubly-curved hybrid deep shells with different boundary
tions, increasing with higher stiffness following the order CCSS > CSSS conditions, covering both actuator and sensory roles of the piezoelectric
> SSSS (see Table 8). The frequencies of the higher modes, however, are layers. The results based on the TOT FE which has the same number of
much less affected. The comparison shows that for these non-simply DOFs as the ZIGT FE are also presented for hybrid sandwich shells to
supported boundary conditions also, the ZIGT FE yields excellent ac­ illustrate the effect of the layerwise mechanics. The numerical study
curacy for the natural frequencies for the six modes with a maximum reveals the following:
error of 2.3% and 3.7% for the CSSS and CCSS boundary conditions,
respectively for the mesh size of 24 � 24. The TOT, on the other hand, 1. For a benchmark problem of the static response of a semicylindrical
overestimates the natural frequencies by up to 17.8% and 22.2% for the hybrid composite-PVDF panel, commonly solved in many studies in
CSSS and CCSS boundary conditions, respectively. literature, the present ZIGT based element is shown to yield higher
accuracy than the other available shell elements.
6. Conclusions 2. The element is shown to accurately predict the deflection, inplane
stresses, transverse shear stress, sensory electric potential as well as
An efficient four-node facet shell element for doubly curved transverse electric displacement (charge density) for hybrid deep

12
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624

shells made of single-material composite substrates as well as sand­
wich substrates with soft core, under mechanical and electric po­
tential loadings.
3. The present facet shell element gives very accurate results also for
the natural frequencies of deep hybrid composite as well as sandwich
shells with radius to thickness ratio of 6 and higher for both simply
supported and non-simply supported boundary conditions.
4. The TOT based element with exactly the same number of DOF is
shown to be highly erroneous in predicting the response of hybrid
sandwich shells.
moderately thick shells having radius-to-thickness ratio of 6 and higher,
which cover most of the practical structures.
Author Statement
Adnan Ahmed: Methodology, Software, Investigation, Visualization,
Original draft preparation. Santosh Kapuria: Conceptualization, Meth­
odology, Software, Supervision, Writing-Reviewing and Editing.
Acknowledgements

Thus, the present ZIGT based four-node facet element provides a
simple, accurate and computationally efficient method for coupled
multi-field analysis of general curved inhomogenous smart piezolami­
nated shells including soft-core sandwich shells under electromechan­
ical loading. The ZIGT FE can produce accurate results for thin to
S. Kapuria acknowledges the financial support for this work provided
by the Science & Engineering Research Board, Department of Science
and Technology, Government of India through J. C. Bose National
Fellowship (Grant No. JCB/2018/000025).

Appendix B. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.106624.

Appendix A. Nomenclature

L; h; S number of layers and thickness of the laminate; radius-to-thickness ratio of shell

x; y; z; X; Y; Z; ex ; ey ; ez local and global coordinates; unit vectors of the local axes triad
σ; ε inplane stresses and strains
τ; γ transverse shear stresses and strains
Dx ; Dy ; Dz ; Ex ; Ey ; Ez ; φ electric displacement components; electric field components; electric potential
Gij ; Yi ; νij ; Qij ; ρk shear and Young’s moduli; Poisson’s ratio; reduced elastic stiffnesses; density
eij ; dij ; ηij piezoelectric stress and strain constants; electric permitivities
u; w inplane displacements and deflection
I; I shell inertia constants
N; M; P inplane force, moment and higher order moment resultants
Q; Q
l higher order transverse and electromechanical shear resultants
A; A; β; β; E; F; Bi shell stiffness coefficients; generalized strain-displacement matrices
Ui ; Ue generalized nodal and element displacement vector
M; K; P assembled mass matrix, stiffness matrix and load vector

References [13] K. Schulz, S. Klinkel, W. Wagner, A finite element formulation for piezoelectric
shell structures considering geometrical and material nonlinearities, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 87 (2011) 491–520.
[1] H. Allik, T.J.R. Hughes, Finite element method for piezoelectric vibration, Int. J.
[14] D.A. Saravanos, Mixed laminate theory and finite element for smart piezoelectric
Numer. Methods Eng. 2 (1970) 151–157.
composite shell structures, AIAA J. 35 (1997) 1327–1333.
[2] A. Benjeddou, Advances in piezoelectric finite element modeling of adaptive
[15] S. Zhang, R. Schmidt, Large rotation theory for static analysis of composite and
structural elements: a survey, Comput. Struct. 76 (2000) 347–363.
piezoelectric laminated thin-walled structures, Thin-Walled Struct. 78 (2014)
[3] S. Kapuria, P.C. Dumir, S. Sengupta, Nonaxisymmetric exact piezothermoelastic
16–25.
solutions for laminated cylinderical shell, AIAA J. 35 (1997) 1792–1795.
[16] M.N. Rao, R. Schmidt, K. Schr€ oder, Finite rotation FE-simulation and active
[4] S. Kapuria, P. Kumari, Three-dimensional piezoelasticity solution for dynamics of
vibration control of smart composite laminated structures, Compos. Struct. 127
cross-ply cylindrical shells integrated with piezoelectric fiber reinforced composite
(2015) 185–198.
actuators and sensors, Compos. Struct. 92 (2010) 2431–2444.
[17] V. Balamurugan, S. Narayanan, Active vibration control of smart shells using
[5] C.P. Wu, J.Y. Lo, An asymptotic theory for dynamic response of laminated
distributed piezoelectric sensors and actuators, Smart Mater. Struct. 10 (2001)
piezoelectric shells, Acta Mech. 183 (2006) 177–208.
173–180.
[6] A.R. Daneshmehr, M. Shakeri, Three-dimensional elasticity solution of cross-ply
[18] V. Balamurugan, S. Narayanan, Shell finite element for smart piezoelectric
shallow and non-shallow panels with piezoelectric sensors under dynamic load,
composite plate/shell structures and its applications to the study of active vibration
Compos. Struct. 80 (2007) 429–439.
control, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 37 (2001) 713–738.
[7] S. Klinkel, W. Wagner, A piezoelectric solid shell element based on a mixed
[19] S. Narayanan, V. Balamurugan, Finite element modelling of piezolaminated smart
variational formulation for geometrically linear and nonlinear applications,
structures for active vibration control with distributed sensors and actuators,
Comput. Struct. 86 (2008) 38–46.
J. Sound Vib. 262 (2003) 529–562.
[8] K.Y. Sze, L.Q. Yao, S. Yi, A hybrid stress ANS solid-shell element and its
[20] S. Raja, P.K. Sinha, G. Prathap, D. Dwarakanathan, Thermally induced vibration
generalization for smart structure modelling. Part II- smart structure modelling,
control of composite plates and shells with piezoelectric active damping, Smart
Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 48 (2000) 565–582.
Mater. Struct. 13 (2004) 939–950.
[9] U. Gabbert, H. K€ oppe, F. Seeger, H. Berger, Modeling of smart composite shell
[21] M. Sartorato, R. de Medeiros, V. Tita, A finite element formulation for smart
structures, J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 40 (2002) 575–593.
piezoelectric composite shells: mathematical formulation, computational analysis
[10] P. Bisegna, G. Caruso, F. Caselli, N.A. Nodargi, A corotational triangular facet shell
and experimental evaluation, Compos. Struct. 127 (2015) 185–198.
element for geometrically nonlinear analysis of thin piezoactuated structures,
[22] P. Bhattacharya, H. Suhail, P.K. Sinha, Finite element analysis and distributed
Compos. Struct. 172 (2017) 267–281.
control of laminated composite shells using LQR/IMSC approach, Aero. Sci.
[11] D. Marinkovi�c, G. Rama, Co-rotational shell element for numerical analysis of
Technol. 6 (2002) 273–281.
laminated piezoelectric composite structures, Compos. B Eng. 125 (2017)
[23] P. Vidal, M. D’Ottavio, M.B. Thaire, O. Polit, An efficient finite shell element for
144–156.
the static response of piezoelectric laminates, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 22
[12] M.A. Neto, R.P. Leal, W. Yu, A triangular finite element with drilling degrees of
(2011) 671–690.
freedom for static and dynamic analysis of smart laminated structures, Comput.
Struct. 108–109 (2012) 61–74.

13
A. Ahmed and S. Kapuria
[24] M. K€ogl, M.L. Bucalem, Analysis of smart laminates using piezoelectric MITC plate
and shell elements, Comput. Struct. 83 (2005) 1153–1163.
[25] D. Marinkovic, H. K€ oppe, U. Gabbert, Numerically efficient finite element
formulation for modeling active composite laminates, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 13
(2006) 379–392.
[26] R. Zem�cík, R. Rolfes, M. Rose, J. Tessmer, High-performance 4-node shell element
with piezoelectric coupling, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 13 (2006) 393–401.
[27] V. Balamurugan, S. Narayanan, A piezolaminated composite degenerated shell
finite element for active control of structures with didtributed piezosensors and
actuators, Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (2008), 035031.
[28] R. Kumar, B.K. Mishra, S.C. Jain, Static and dynamic analysis of smart cylinderical
shell, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 45 (2008) 13–24.
[29] T. Roy, D. Chakraborty, Optimal vibration control of smart fiber reinforced
composite shell structures using improved genetic algorithm, J. Sound Vib. 319
(2009) 15–40.
[30] T. Nestorovi�c, D. Marinkovi�c, S. Shabadi, M. Trajkov, User defined finite element
for modeling and analysis of active piezoelectric shell structures, Meccanica 49
(2014) 1763–1774.
[31] K.Y. Sze, L.Q. Yao, Modelling smart structures with segmented piezoelectric
sensors and actuators, J. Sound Vib. 235 (2000) 495–520.
[32] X.G. Tan, L. Vu-Quoc, Optimal solid shell element for large defromable composite
structures with piezoelectric layers and active vibration control, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 64 (2005) 1981–2013.
[33] G.M. Kulikov, S.V. Plotnikova, Exact geometry piezoelectric solid shell element
based on the 7-parameter model, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 18 (2011) 133–146.
[34] H. Jrad, H. Mallek, M. Wali, F. Dammak, Finite element formulation for active
functionally graded thin-walled structures, Compt. Rendus Mec. 346 (12) (2018)
1159–1178.
[35] H. Mallek, H. Jrad, A. Algahtani, M. Wali, F. Dammak, Geometrically non-linear
analysis of FG-CNTRC shell structures with surface-bonded piezoelectric layers,
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 347 (2019) 679–699.
[36] H. Mallek, H. Jrad, M. Wali, F. Dammak, Geometrically nonlinear finite element
simulation of smart laminated shells using a modified first-order shear deformation
theory, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 30 (4) (2019) 517–535.
[37] J.N. Reddy, Exact solutions of moderately thick laminated shells, J. Eng. Mech. 110
(1984) 794–809.
[38] I.F.P. Correia, C.M.M. Soares, C.A.M. Soares, J. Herskovits, Active control of
axisymmetric shells with piezoelectric layers: a mixed laminate theory with a
higher order displacement field, Comput. Struct. 80 (2002) 2265–2275.
[39] H. Mallek, H. Jrad, M. Wali, F. Dammak, Piezoelastic response of smart
functionally graded structure with integrated piezoelectric layers using discrete
double directors shell element, Compos. Struct. 210 (2019) 354–366.
[40] V.K. Singh, T.R. Mahapatra, S.K. Panda, Nonlinear flexural analysis of single/
doubly curved smart composite shell panels integrated with pfrc actuator, Eur. J.
Mech. Solid. 60 (2016) 300–314.
14
Thin-Walled Structures 150 (2020) 106624
[41] P. Heyliger, K.C. Pei, D. Saravanos, Layerwise mechanics and finite element model
for laminated piezoelectric shells, AIAA J. 34 (1996) 2353–2360.
[42] M. Cinefra, E. Carrera, S. Valvano, Variable kinematic shell elements for the
analysis of electro-mechanical problems, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 22 (2015)
77–106.
[43] E. Carrera, S. Valvano, G. Kulikov, Electro-mechanical analysis of composite and
sandwich multilayered structures by shell elements with node-dependent
kinematics, Int. J. Soc. Netw. Min. 9 (1) (2018) 1–33.
[44] J. Oh, M. Cho, Higher order zigzag theory for smart composite shells under
mechanical-thermo-electric loading, Int. J. Solid Struct. 44 (2007) 100–127.
[45] J.K. Nath, S. Kapuria, Improved smeared and zigzag third order theories for
piezoelectric angle-ply laminated cylindrical shells under electrotheromechanical
loads, J. Mech. Mater. Struct. 4 (2009) 1157–1184.
[46] J.K. Nath, S. Kapuria, Coupled efficient layerwise and smeared third order theories
for vibration of smart piezolaminated cylindrical shells, Compos. Struct. 94 (2012)
1886–1899.
[47] M. Cho, R. Parmerter, Efficient higher order composite plate theory for general
lamination configurations, AIAA J. 31 (1993) 1299–1306.
[48] X. Shu, L. Sun, Thermomechanical buckling of laminated composite plates with
higher-order transverse shear deformation, Comput. Struct. 53 (1994) 1–7.
[49] M.Y. Yasin, S. Kapuria, An efficient finite element with layerwise mechanics for
smart piezoelectric composite and sandwich shallow shells, Comput. Mech. 53
(2014) 101–124.
[50] A. Ahmed, S. Kapuria, A four-node facet shell element for laminated shells based on
the third order zigzag theory, Compos. Struct. 158 (2016) 112–127.
[51] R.H. Macneal, A simple quadrilateral shell element, Comput. Struct. 8 (1976)
175–183.
[52] H.F. Tiersten, Linear Piezoelectric Plate Vibrations, Plenum Publishing
Corporation, New York, 1969.
[53] M.S. Qatu, Vibration of Laminated Shells and Plates, Elsevier, New York, 2004.
[54] S. Kapuria, S.D. Kulkarni, An efficient quadrilateral element based on improved
zigzag theory for dynamic analysis of hybrid plates with electroded piezoelectric
actuators and sensors, J. Sound Vib. 315 (2008) 118–145.
[55] C. Jeyachandrabose, J. Kirkhope, L. Meekisho, An improved discrete Kirchhoff
quadrilateral thin-plate bending element, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 24 (1987)
635–654.
[56] S. Kapuria, S.D. Kulkarni, An improved discrete Kirchhoff quadrilateral element
based on third-order zigzag theory for static analysis of composite and sandwich
plates, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 69 (2007) 1948–1981.
[57] O.C. Zienkiewicz, R.L. Taylor, Solid Mechanics, in: The Finite Element Method, vol.
2, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2000.
[58] K.J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, 2003.
[59] M. Petyt, Introduction to Finite Element Vibration Analysis, Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2010.