Sandwich theoryPlantema, F, J., 1966, Sandwich Construction: The Bending and Buckling of Sandwich Beams, Plates, and Shells, Jon Wiley and Sons, New York.Zenkert, D., 1995, An Introduction to Sandwich Construction, Engineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd, UK. describes the behaviour of a beam theory, plate theory, or shell which consists of three layers—two facesheets and one core. The most commonly used sandwich theory is linear and is an extension of first-order beam theory. The linear sandwich theory is of importance for the design and analysis of , which are of use in building construction, vehicle construction, airplane construction and refrigeration engineering.
Some advantages of sandwich construction are:
The behavior of a beam with sandwich cross-section under a load differs from a beam with a constant elastic cross section. If the radius of curvature during bending is large compared to the thickness of the sandwich beam and the strains in the component materials are small, the deformation of a sandwich composite beam can be separated into two parts
Sandwich beam, plate, and shell theories usually assume that the reference stress state is one of zero stress. However, during curing, differences of temperature between the facesheets persist because of the thermal separation by the core material. These temperature differences, coupled with different linear expansions of the facesheets, can lead to a bending of the sandwich beam in the direction of the warmer facesheet. If the bending is constrained during the manufacturing process, can develop in the components of a sandwich composite. The superposition of a reference stress state on the solutions provided by sandwich theory is possible when the problem is linear. However, when large elastic deformations and rotations are expected, the initial stress state has to be incorporated directly into the sandwich theory.
\varepsilon_{xx}(x,z) = -z~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2}Therefore, the axial stress in the sandwich beam is given by
\sigma_{xx}(x,z) = -z~E(z)~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2}where is the Young's modulus which is a function of the location along the thickness of the beam. The bending moment in the beam is then given by
M_x(x) = \int\int z~\sigma_{xx}~\mathrm{d}z\,\mathrm{d}y = -\left(\int\int z^2 E(z)~\mathrm{d}z\,\mathrm{d}y\right)~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2} =: -D~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2}The quantity is called the flexural stiffness of the sandwich beam. The shear force is defined as
Q_x = \frac{\mathrm{d} M_x}{\mathrm{d} x}~.
Using these relations, we can show that the stresses in a sandwich beam with a core of thickness and modulus and two facesheets each of thickness and modulus , are given by
\begin{align} \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{f}} & = \cfrac{z E^{\mathrm{f}} M_x}{D} ~;~~ & \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{c}} & = \cfrac{z E^{\mathrm{c}} M_x}{D} \\ \tau_{xz}^{\mathrm{f}} & = \cfrac{Q_x E^{\mathrm{f}}}{2D}\left[(h+f)^2-z^2\right] ~;~~ & \tau_{xz}^{\mathrm{c}} & = \cfrac{Q_x}{2D}\left[ E^{\mathrm{c}}\left(h^2-z^2\right) + E^{\mathrm{f}} f(f+2h)\right] \end{align}
!Derivation of engineering sandwich beam stresses |
Since
\cfrac{d^2 w}{d x^2}= -\cfrac{M_x(x)}{D}we can write the axial stress as \sigma_{xx}(x,z) = \cfrac{z~E(z)~M_x(x)}{D}The equation of equilibrium for a two-dimensional solid is given by \frac{\partial \sigma_{xx}}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial \tau_{xz}}{\partial z} = 0where is the shear stress. Therefore, \tau_{xz}(x,z) = \int \frac{\partial \sigma_{xx}}{\partial x}~\mathrm{d}z + C(x) = \int \cfrac{z~E(z)}{D}~\frac{\mathrm{d} M_{x}}{\mathrm{d} x}~\mathrm{d}z + C(x)where is a constant of integration. Therefore, \tau_{xz}(x,z) = \cfrac{Q_x}{D}\int z~E(z)~\mathrm{d}z + C(x)Let us assume that there are no shear tractions applied to the top face of the sandwich beam. The shear stress in the top facesheet is given by \tau^{\mathrm{face}}_{xz}(x,z) = \cfrac{Q_xE^f}{D}\int_z^{h+f} z~\mathrm{d}z + C(x) = \cfrac{Q_x E^f}{2D}\left[(h+f)^2-z^2\right] + C(x)At , implies that . Then the shear stress at the top of the core, , is given by \tau_{xz}(x,h) = \cfrac{Q_x E^f f(f+2h)}{2D}Similarly, the shear stress in the core can be calculated as \tau^{\mathrm{core}}_{xz}(x,z) = \cfrac{Q_xE^c}{D}\int_z^{h} z~\mathrm{d}z + C(x) = \cfrac{Q_x E^c}{2D}\left(h^2-z^2\right) + C(x)The integration constant is determined from the continuity of shear stress at the interface of the core and the facesheet. Therefore, C(x) = \cfrac{Q_x E^f f(f+2h)}{2D}and \tau^{\mathrm{core}}_{xz}(x,z) = \cfrac{Q_x}{2D}\left[ E^c\left(h^2-z^2\right) + E^f f(f+2h)\right] |
\begin{align} D & = E^f\int_w\int_{-h-f}^{-h} z^2~\mathrm{d}z\,\mathrm{d}y + E^c\int_w\int_{-h}^{h} z^2~\mathrm{d}z\,\mathrm{d}y + E^f\int_w\int_{h}^{h+f} z^2~\mathrm{d}z\,\mathrm{d}y \\ & = \frac{2}{3}E^ff^3 + \frac{2}{3}E^ch^3 + 2E^ffh(f+h)~. \end{align}If , then can be approximated as
D \approx \frac{2}{3}E^ff^3 + 2E^ffh(f+h) = 2fE^f\left(\frac{1}{3}f^2+h(f+h)\right)and the stresses in the sandwich beam can be approximated as
\begin{align} \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{f}} & \approx \cfrac{z M_x}{\frac{2}{3}f^3 +2fh(f+h)} ~;~~ & \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{c}} & \approx 0 \\ \tau_{xz}^{\mathrm{f}} & \approx \cfrac{Q_x}{\frac{4}{3}f^3+4fh(f+h)}\left[(h+f)^2-z^2\right] ~;~~ & \tau_{xz}^{\mathrm{c}} & \approx \cfrac{Q_x(f+2h)}{\frac{2}{3}f^2+h(f+h)} \end{align}If, in addition, , then
D \approx 2E^ffh(f+h)and the approximate stresses in the beam are
\begin{align} \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{f}} & \approx \cfrac{zM_x}{2fh(f+h)} ~;~~& \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{c}} & \approx 0 \\ \tau_{xz}^{\mathrm{f}} & \approx \cfrac{Q_x}{4fh(f+h)}\left[(h+f)^2-z^2\right] ~;~~& \tau_{xz}^{\mathrm{c}} & \approx \cfrac{Q_x(f+2h)}{4h(f+h)} \approx \cfrac{Q_x}{2h} \end{align}If we assume that the facesheets are thin enough that the stresses may be assumed to be constant through the thickness, we have the approximation
Hence the problem can be split into two parts, one involving only core shear and the other involving only bending stresses in the facesheets.
\begin{align} \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{f}} & \approx \pm \cfrac{M_x}{2fh} ~;~~& \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{c}} & \approx 0 \\ \tau_{xz}^{\mathrm{f}} & \approx 0 ~;~~ & \tau_{xz}^{\mathrm{c}} & \approx \cfrac{Q_x}{2h} \end{align}
\begin{bmatrix} \sigma_{xx} \\ \sigma_{zz} \\ \sigma_{zx} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} C_{11} & C_{13} & 0 \\ C_{13} & C_{33} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & C_{55} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \varepsilon_{xx} \\ \varepsilon_{zz} \\ \varepsilon_{zx} \end{bmatrix}The assumptions of sandwich theory lead to the simplified relations
\sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}} = C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\varepsilon_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}} ~;~~ \sigma_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} = C_{55}^{\mathrm{core}}~\varepsilon_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} ~;~~ \sigma_{zz}^{\mathrm{face}} = \sigma_{xz}^{\mathrm{face}} = 0 ~;~~ \sigma_{zz}^{\mathrm{core}} = \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{core}} = 0and
\varepsilon_{zz}^{\mathrm{face}} = \varepsilon_{xz}^{\mathrm{face}} = 0 ~;~~ \varepsilon_{zz}^{\mathrm{core}} = \varepsilon_{xx}^{\mathrm{core}} = 0
The equilibrium equations in two dimensions are
\cfrac{\partial \sigma_{xx}}{\partial x} + \cfrac{\partial \sigma_{zx}}{\partial z} = 0 ~;~~ \cfrac{\partial \sigma_{zx}}{\partial x} + \cfrac{\partial \sigma_{zz}}{\partial z} = 0The assumptions for a sandwich beam and the equilibrium equation imply that
\sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}} \equiv \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}}(z) ~;~~ \sigma_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} = \mathrm{constant}Therefore, for homogeneous facesheets and core, the strains also have the form
\varepsilon_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}} \equiv \varepsilon_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}}(z) ~;~~ \varepsilon_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} = \mathrm{constant}
w(x) = w_b(x) + w_s(x)
From the geometry of the deformation we observe that the engineering shear strain () in the core is related the effective shear strain in the composite by the relation
\gamma_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} = \tfrac{2h + f}{2h}~\gamma_{zx}^{\mathrm{beam}}Note the shear strain in the core is larger than the effective shear strain in the composite and that small deformations () are assumed in deriving the above relation. The effective shear strain in the beam is related to the shear displacement by the relation
\gamma_{zx}^{\mathrm{beam}} = \cfrac{\mathrm{d} w_s}{\mathrm{d} x}
The facesheets are assumed to deform in accordance with the assumptions of Euler-Bernoulli beam theory. The total deflection of the facesheets is assumed to be the superposition of the deflections due to bending and that due to core shear. The -direction displacements of the facesheets due to bending are given by
u_b^{\mathrm{face}}(x,z) = -z~\cfrac{\mathrm{d} w_b}{\mathrm{d} x}The displacement of the top facesheet due to shear in the core is
u_s^{\mathrm{topface}}(x,z) = -\left(z - h - \tfrac{f}{2}\right)~\cfrac{\mathrm{d} w_s}{\mathrm{d} x}and that of the bottom facesheet is
u_s^{\mathrm{botface}}(x,z) = -\left(z + h + \tfrac{f}{2}\right)~\cfrac{\mathrm{d} w_s}{\mathrm{d} x}The normal strains in the two facesheets are given by
\varepsilon_{xx} = \cfrac{\partial u_b}{\partial x} + \cfrac{\partial u_s}{\partial x}Therefore,
\varepsilon_{xx}^{\mathrm{topface}} = -z~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^2} -\left(z - h - \tfrac{f}{2}\right)~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^2} ~;~~ \varepsilon_{xx}^{\mathrm{botface}} = -z~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^2} -\left(z + h + \tfrac{f}{2}\right)~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^2}
\sigma_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} = C^{\mathrm{core}}_{55}~\varepsilon_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} = \cfrac{C_{55}^{\mathrm{core}}}{2}~\gamma_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} = \tfrac{2h + f}{4h}~C_{55}^{\mathrm{core}}~\gamma_{zx}^{\mathrm{beam}}or,
The normal stresses in the facesheets are given by
\sigma_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} = \tfrac{2h + f}{4h}~C_{55}^{\mathrm{core}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d} w_s}{\mathrm{d} x}
\sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}} = C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\varepsilon_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}}Hence,
\begin{align} \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{topface}} & = -z~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^2} -\left(z - h - \tfrac{f}{2}\right)~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^2} & = & -z~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2} + \left(\tfrac{2h+f}{2}\right)~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^2}\\ \sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{botface}} & = -z~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^2} -\left(z + h + \tfrac{f}{2}\right)~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^2} & = & -z~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2} - \left(\tfrac{2h+f}{2}\right)~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^2} \end{align}
N^{\mathrm{face}}_{xx} := \int_{-f/2}^{f/2} \sigma^{\mathrm{face}}_{xx}~\mathrm{d}z_fand the resultant moments are defined as
M^{\mathrm{face}}_{xx} := \int_{-f/2}^{f/2} z_f~\sigma^{\mathrm{face}}_{xx}~\mathrm{d}z_fwhere
z_f^{\mathrm{topface}} := z - h - \tfrac{f}{2} ~;~~ z_f^{\mathrm{botface}} := z + h + \tfrac{f}{2}Using the expressions for the normal stress in the two facesheets gives
In the core, the resultant moment is
\begin{align} N^{\mathrm{topface}}_{xx} & = -f\left(h + \tfrac{f}{2}\right)~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^2} = - N^{\mathrm{botface}}_{xx} \\ M^{\mathrm{topface}}_{xx} & = -\cfrac{f^3~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}}{12}\left(\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^2} + \cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^2}\right) = -\cfrac{f^3~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}}{12}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2} = M^{\mathrm{botface}}_{xx} \end{align}
M^{\mathrm{core}}_{xx} := \int_{-h}^{h} z~\sigma^{\mathrm{core}}_{xx}~\mathrm{d}z = 0The total bending moment in the beam is
M = N_{xx}^{\mathrm{topface}}~(2h+f) + 2~M^{\mathrm{topface}}_{xx}or,
The shear force in the core is defined as
M = -\cfrac{f(2h+f)^2}{2}~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^2} - \cfrac{f^3}{6}~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2}
where is a shear correction coefficient. The shear force in the facesheets can be computed from the bending moments using the relation
Q_x^{\mathrm{core}} = \kappa\int_{-h}^h \sigma_{xz}~dz = \tfrac{\kappa(2h+f)}{2}~C_{55}^{\mathrm{core}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}w_s}{\mathrm{d}x}
Q_x^{\mathrm{face}} = \cfrac{\mathrm{d}M_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}}}{\mathrm{d}x}or,
For thin facesheets, the shear force in the facesheets is usually ignored.
Q_x^{\mathrm{face}} = -\cfrac{f^3~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}}{12}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^3 w}{\mathrm{d} x^3}
D^{\mathrm{beam}} = -M/\tfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d}x^2}From the expression for the total bending moment in the beam, we have
M = -\cfrac{f(2h+f)^2}{2}~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^2} - \cfrac{f^3}{6}~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2}For small shear deformations, the above expression can be written as
M \approx -\cfrac{f[3(2h+f)^2+f^2]}{6}~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2}Therefore, the bending stiffness of the sandwich beam (with ) is given by
and that of the facesheets is
D^{\mathrm{beam}} \approx \cfrac{f[3(2h+f)^2+f^2]}{6}~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}} \approx \cfrac{f(2h+f)^2}{2}~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}
D^{\mathrm{face}} = \cfrac{f^3}{12}~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}
The shear stiffness of the beam is given by
S^{\mathrm{beam}} = Q_x/\tfrac{\mathrm{d}w_s}{\mathrm{d}x}Therefore, the shear stiffness of the beam, which is equal to the shear stiffness of the core, is
S^{\mathrm{beam}} = S^{\mathrm{core}} = \cfrac{\kappa(2h+f)}{2}~C_{55}^{\mathrm{core}}
n_x~\sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}} = n_z~\sigma_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}}At both the facesheet-core interfaces but at the top of the core and at the bottom of the core . Therefore, traction continuity at leads to
2fh~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^2} - (2h+f)~C_{55}^{\mathrm{core}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d} w_s}{\mathrm{d} x} = 4h^2~C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^2}The above relation is rarely used because of the presence of second derivatives of the shear deflection. Instead it is assumed that
n_z~\sigma_{zx}^{\mathrm{core}} = \cfrac{\mathrm{d} N_{xx}^{\mathrm{face}}}{\mathrm{d}x}which implies that
\cfrac{\mathrm{d} w_s}{\mathrm{d} x} = -2fh~\left(\cfrac{C_{11}^{\mathrm{face}}}{C_{55}^{\mathrm{core}}}\right)~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^3 w_b}{\mathrm{d} x^3}
\begin{align} M & = D^{\mathrm{beam}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^2} - \left(D^{\mathrm{beam}}+2D^{\mathrm{face}}\right)~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2}\\ Q & = S^{\mathrm{core}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d} w_s}{\mathrm{d} x} - 2D^{\mathrm{face}}~\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^3 w}{\mathrm{d} x^3} \end{align}We can alternatively express the above as two equations that can be solved for and as
Q \approx \cfrac{\mathrm{d} M}{\mathrm{d} x} ~;~~ q \approx \cfrac{\mathrm{d} Q}{\mathrm{d} x}where is the intensity of the applied load on the beam, we have
Several techniques may be used to solve this system of two coupled ordinary differential equations given the applied load and the applied bending moment and displacement boundary conditions.\begin{align} & \left(\frac{2D^{\mathrm{face}}}{S^{\mathrm{core}}}\right)\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^4 w}{\mathrm{d} x^4} - \left(1+\frac{2D^{\mathrm{face}}}{D^{\mathrm{beam}}}\right)\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2} = \frac{M}{D^{\mathrm{beam}}}- \cfrac{q}{S^{\mathrm{core}}} \\ & \left(\frac{D^{\mathrm{beam}}}{S^{\mathrm{core}}}\right)\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^3 w_s}{\mathrm{d} x^3} - \left(1+\frac{D^{\mathrm{beam}}}{2D^{\mathrm{face}}}\right)\cfrac{\mathrm{d} w_s}{\mathrm{d} x} = -\left(\cfrac{D^{\mathrm{beam}}}{2D^{\mathrm{face}}}\right)\frac{Q}{S^{\mathrm{core}}}\, \end{align}
The stress resultants and the corresponding deformations of the beam and of the cross section can be seen in Figure 1. The following relationships can be derived using the theory of linear elasticity:K. Stamm, H. Witte: Sandwichkonstruktionen - Berechnung, Fertigung, Ausführung. Springer-Verlag, Wien - New York 1974.Knut Schwarze: „Numerische Methoden zur Berechnung von Sandwichelementen“. In Stahlbau. 12/1984, .
M^{\mathrm{core}} &= D^{\mathrm{beam}}\left(\cfrac{\mathrm{d} \gamma_2}{\mathrm{d} x} + \vartheta\right) = D^{\mathrm{beam}}\left(\cfrac{\mathrm{d} \gamma}{\mathrm{d} x} - \cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2} + \vartheta\right) \\ M^{\mathrm{face}} &= -D^{\mathrm{face}} \cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2} \\ Q^{\mathrm{core}} &= S^{\mathrm{core}} \gamma \\ Q^{\mathrm{face}} &= -D^{\mathrm{face}} \cfrac{\mathrm{d}^3 w}{\mathrm{d} x^3} \end{align}\,where
transverse displacement of the beam | ||
Shear strain in the core | ||
Bending moment in the core | ||
Bending stiffness of the sandwich beam | ||
Bending moment in the facesheets | ||
Bending stiffness of the facesheets | ||
Shear force in the core | ||
Shear force in the facesheets | ||
Shear stiffness of the core | ||
Temperature coefficient of expansion of the converings |
A more specialized approach recommended by Schwarze involves solving for the homogeneous part of the governing equation exactly and for the particular part approximately. Recall that the governing equation for a sandwich beam is
\alpha := \cfrac{2D^{\mathrm{face}}}{D^{\mathrm{beam}}} ~;~~ \beta := \cfrac{2D^{\mathrm{face}}}{S^{\mathrm{core}}} ~;~~ W(x) := \cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 w}{\mathrm{d} x^2}we get
\cfrac{\mathrm{d}^2 W}{\mathrm{d} x^2} - \left(\cfrac{1+\alpha}{\beta}\right)~W = \frac{M}{\beta D^{\mathrm{beam}}} - \cfrac{q}{D^{\mathrm{face}}}Schwarze uses the general solution for the homogeneous part of the above equation and a polynomial approximation for the particular solution for sections of a sandwich beam. Interfaces between sections are tied together by matching boundary conditions. This approach has been used in the open source code swe2.
Mohammed Rahif Hakmi and others conducted researches into numerical, experimental behavior of materials and fire and blast behavior of Composite material. He published multiple research articles:
Hakmi developed a design method, which had been recommended by the CIB Working Commission W056 Sandwich Panels, ECCS/CIB Joint Committee and has been used in the European recommendations for the design of sandwich panels (CIB, 2000). Davies, J.M. & Hakmi, M.R. 1990. Local Buckling of Profiled Sandwich Plates. Proc. IABSE Symposium, Mixed Structures including New Materials, Brussels, September, pp. 533–538
|
|