Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/

Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions

VITALY SKVORTSOV
State Marine Technical University of St. Petersburg
Leninski Prospect 101
198262 St. Petersburg, Russia

ELENA BOZHEVOLNAYA*, OLE T. THOMSEN AND

ANDERS LYCKEGAARD
Institute of Mechanical Engineering
Aalborg University, Pontoppidanstrde 101
9220 Aalborg East, Denmark

JACK R. VINSON
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Delaware, 126 Spencer Laboratory
Newark, DE 19716, USA

ABSTRACT: Cylindrical bending of a sandwich panel assembly consisting

of straight and curved sections is considered. The sandwich assembly is statically
determinate, loaded by a uniform pressure and possibly by forces and moments at
its edges. The influence of the change of geometry upon the stresses and
displacements at the transition zone between the different panel sections is
investigated. An exact asymptotic mathematical model based on a number of small
parameters is derived. The model assumes the faces of the sandwich panels to be thin
elastic beams obeying the Kirchhoff–Love assumptions, while the isotropic core is
treated as a 2-D elastic medium. An asymptotic expansion technique is exploited to
derive analytical estimate formulae for calculating the deformation and stress
distribution characteristics at the critical sections of the assembly. A numerical
example illustrates the applicability of the derived formulae, and the validity of the
proposed approach is demonstrated through comparison with FEM calculations.

*Author to whom corresponce should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of SANDWICH STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS, Vol. 5—October 2003 309

1099-6362/03/04 0309–42 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/109963603026482
ß 2003 Sage Publications
310 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

INTRODUCTION

HE OUTSTANDING MECHANICAL properties of sandwich structures

T sustained by recent technological progress in their production (RTM-
process) open a new era in the design and applications of sandwich
construction. Manufacturing of geometrically complicated assemblies, that
are tailored to meet a variety of operational constraints, becomes a reality.
Necessarily, the structural analysis of these complicated sandwich structures
turns out to be an important issue. Such analysis will not only expand
the design options but also economize time and efforts of the designers
and manufacturers.
It is known that the structural integrity of any sandwich structure
is endangered by the presence of concentrated forces, rigid inserts, over-
constrained edges, etc., in the vicinity of which severe changes of the stress
and strain distributions, so called localized effects, take place. Considering
the radius of the mid-surface of a sandwich panel to be its major geometric
characteristic one may conclude that this characteristic is strongly distorted
due to above listed design singularities. Namely, the radius may not be a
smooth function of the surface coordinate anymore and, therefore, the
related localized effects are called strong singularities.
In areas where flat and curved panels are joined together into one
assembly, localized effects caused by a sheer geometrical irregularity
are observed. The first specific feature of such a design is a compulsory
increase of maximum stresses in the curved part of the assembly, and this
increase is triggered solely by the change of the geometry. A local distortion
of the stresses at the junction itself is the second important feature of
the sandwich panel assembly. The stress and displacement fields are
characterized by a fairly fast rate of decay at a distance from the junction
between the straight and curved sections. At the same time considerable
local peaks of the bending moments in the sandwich faces as well as shear
and normal transverse stresses in the core are expected at the junction.
Notice that the curvature of the assembly is a step-wise function, but
the smoothness of the first derivative of the curvature is not violated
whenever such a structural irregularity is present. Therefore, geometrical
singularities at the junctions of sandwich assemblies are of a more subdued
nature and may be classified as weak singularities.
It is important to study the last phenomena of the geometry change, since
there is no reliable analytical technique that allows the estimation of the
maximum values of all the stresses and strains in the sandwich elements
at transition zones between flat and curved sandwich elements. So far
analytic calculations of stresses are based on the appropriate models for
straight beams/panels. Such analytical estimates would be useful tools for
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 311

the design of sandwich assemblies as well as for the benchmarking of

more refined analyses.
Thus, the paper aims to elaborate and verify an analytical technique
for the case of a structural sandwich assembly consisting of straight and
curved parts subjected to the cylindrical bending deformation (plane strain
state). The sections of the sandwich panel assembly that are endangered by
the presence of the maximum membrane forces and bending moments are
to be identified, and the stress state of these sections is analyzed. Special
attention is focused on the junction between the flat and curved panels,
where severe local effects are expected to appear. Estimation formulae
are obtained for the normal (longitudinal) stresses in the faces, and for
the normal (transverse and longitudinal) and shear stresses in the core.

Literature Survey

The first-order shear plate theory lays the foundation for the classical
analysis of sandwich beams and panels [1–3]. If a pure 1-D circumferential
deformation of a cylindrically bent panel is treated on the basis of this
approach, then the model of the panel coincides with the model of a curved
beam (within the accuracy of the integral modules of the structure). In
these circumstances, obtaining resultants is an easy matter since the
distributions between the sandwich layers are assumed to be similar to
the distributions in an analogous straight panel. However, it is known that
in the curved panels normal stresses due to bending are distributed non-
linearly [4,5] and transverse normal stresses in the core will arise. The latter
may be amended by means of assigning membrane forces of opposite signs
to the faces of the curved sandwich beams [2,6].
The second-order models account for transverse shear and normal
deformation of the core. Usually these models deal with straight panels.
Symmetrical bending of relatively thick faces connected via the core layer
may be reduced to a problem of a ‘‘beam/panel on an elastic foundation’’
[2, chap. 12]. Anti-symmetrical bending described on the basis of the second-
order shear model is known as ‘‘sandwich with thick faces’’ [1, chap. 6], [4].
However, the application of this approach to curved sandwich panels
does not improve the prediction of the transverse distribution of the stresses.
The next step in the refinement of the analysis is the third-order shear
model applied both to straight [7] and curved [8] panels in cylindrical
bending. This model neglects the longitudinal (circumferential) stress in
the panel core. This leads to the prediction of non-uniform through-
the-thickness core shear stresses, and, consequently, results in the principally
different transverse distributions of all the variables in the core of the
straight and curved panels. Examples of the application of this model to
312 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

assemblies consisting of straight and curved panels is due to Thomsen

and Vinson [9,10]. Besides the above mentioned ideological deficiency
(neglecting circumferential stresses in the core), the presented approach
exploits also a rather vague compatibility condition at the curved/straight
panel junction applied onto the shear stress in the integral sense. Facing a
fact that a practical implementation of this model necessarily requires
the development of a rather complicated numerical routine, one may come
to the conclusion that the above proclaimed intention to derive estimate
analytic formulas for the stresses at the junction would be a useful
benchmark for the high-order and FEM [11] models.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL

General Formulation of the Problem

A sandwich panel consisting of straight and curved parts is shown in

Figure 1(a). Here, a particular case of the panel clamped at its left edge
is shown. The transverse constitution of the panel is the same along its whole
length. A zoom on the junction section is presented in Figure 1(b), where the
principal coordinate system xz is indicated. The chosen reference surface x is
the mid-surface of the core, that is defined by the constant radius R in the
curved part. In this part, the longitudinal (circumferential) coordinate x is a
natural continuation of the rectilinear coordinate x in the straight part of the
joined panel. The polar angle ’, ð0 ’ Þ is related to x: x ¼ R’, while
the transverse coordinate z is shifted with respect to the radial coordinate r
by the radius of curvature: z ¼ r R. ¼ z=hc is a dimensionless analog of z
and has the following limits in the three layers of the sandwich

hc =2 h1 z hc =2 ¼) 1=2 f1 1=2 (bottom face)

hc =2 z hc =2 ¼) 1=2 1=2 (core) ð1Þ
hc =2 z hc =2 þ h2 ¼) 1=2 1=2 þ f2 (top face)

Figure 1. A statically determinate joined sandwich panel assembly (a) and the geometry of
the transition zone of the assembly (b).
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 313

The relative face thickness fi , ði ¼ 1, 2Þ in the above, and an average face

thickness hf are introduced for the sake of the simplicity

h1 þ h2 hi
hf ¼ , fi ¼ , ði ¼ 1, 2Þ ð2Þ
2 hc

Notice that the faces may be of different thickness, and that they
have their own coordinate systems xz1 and xz2 [Figure 1(b)]: z1 zþ
ðhc þ h1 Þ=2, z2 z ðhc þ h2 Þ=2. These systems xz1 and xz2 are placed at
the mid-surfaces of the appropriate faces.
Generally, the panel is loaded by an internal pressure p, as well as by
forces and moments at the edges. The structure is statically determinate, and
all the internal resultants may be found along the panel length. Those
resultants play the role of the known boundary loads if only a transition
zone [Figure 1(b)] with an arbitrary length L and an arbitrary section angle
of the curved part is analyzed. The normal force, shear force and bending
moment in the straight element are denoted by NðxÞ, QðxÞ, MðxÞ,
respectively, while in the curved part they are Nð’Þ, Qð’Þ, Mð’Þ as shown
in Figure 2. The resultants at the junction, N0 , Q0 , M0 , play an essential role
in the further derivations.
The following constraints, that are commonplace for the analysis of the
majority of practical sandwich structures, are to be exploited in the model.
The faces and core of the sandwich panel are thin compared to the
characteristic length of the panel, and, consequently, the local effects extend
only a short distance into the panel length. Thereby, the overall problem is
reduced to a statically determinate formulation. The analysis is to be based
on the classical Kirchhoff–Love theory for the faces, and on the 2-D
elasticity theory for the core. A starting point for the analysis is an
asymptotic expansion based on a set of small design parameters that will be
introduced in due course.

Figure 2. Internal resultants in the straight and curved parts of the joined sandwich panel.
314 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONS
In addition to the modulus of elasticity Ec and Poisson’s ratio , the
homogeneous and isotropic core is characterized by the shear modulus Gc .
Furthermore, the following set of parameters is useful in the plain-strain
formulation of the problem

Ec Ec Ec ð1 Þ
Gc ¼ , zc ¼ , Exc ¼ , Ezc ¼ ð3Þ
2ð1 þ Þ 1 1 2 ð1 þ Þð1 2Þ

In the general case of the laminated anisotropic faces, the membrane

stiffness B, the bending stiffness D and the bending-stretching stiffness
C read

Bi ¼ fExf gi , Ci ¼ fExf zi gi , Di ¼ fExf z2i gi , ði ¼ 1, 2Þ ð4Þ

Note that everywhere in the paper, f g defines integration across the

whole thickness of the sandwich
Z hc =2þh2
f g dz,
hc =2h1

while integration across layers is denoted by the appropriate subscript

Z hi =2
f gi dzi , ði ¼ 1, 2Þ
hi =2

Z hc =2
f gc dz
hc =2

In the case of homogeneous faces

1
Bi ¼ Exf hi , Ci ¼ 0, Di ¼ Exf h3i , ði ¼ 1, 2Þ ð5Þ
12

where

Ef
Exf ¼ ð6Þ
1 2f
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 315

SMALL PARAMETERS OF THE SANDWICH PANEL

A set of small parameters is available for any sandwich structure. The first
group of these parameters satisfies a requirement of the localization of the
local effects in the space: the local effects occupy a region that is small
compared to the characteristic length of the structure. According to the
asymptotic analysis performed by Ustinov [12] for multilayered plates,
and the same form of analysis completed by Skvortsov [13] for sandwich
plates, the local/boundary effects arise due to the above mentioned
symmetric and antisymmetric deformation of sandwich panels with thick
faces. These boundary effects are localized in the space defined by two
typical decay lengths:

!1=4 !1=2
Exf h3f hc Exf h3f
l1 ¼ , l2 ¼ ð7Þ
24Ec 6Gc ðhc þ hf Þ

Then, the first group of asymptotic inequalities read

l1 , l2 L, R, R ð8Þ

The second group of small parameters originates from the conventional

models of sandwich shells with thin faces. It should be noted that only
sandwich panels with faces that are thin compared with the thickness of the
core as well as with the characteristic radius of curvature of the structure are
considered in the presented model. These limiting assumptions are expressed
as follows:

h2f h1 h2 h2
h1 , h2 R, 1, max þ c2 ð9Þ
h2c h2 h1 hf

Although the faces are thin in accordance with the above relations, their
membrane stiffness exceeds the membrane stiffness of the core:

Ec hc Exf ðh1 þ h2 Þ ð10Þ

A small parameter g reflects the above relation in a different manner

Gc hc
g¼ ð11Þ
Exf ðh1 þ h2 Þ
316 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

Another small parameter ", that expresses the dimensionless thickness

of the core
hc
"¼ , ð12Þ
R
is rather important, since it will be used as the main expansion parameter
in the forthcoming derivations.
Thus, a complete set of small parameters is set up, and the following
inequalities should hold in order to enable the forthcoming asymptotic
analysis

ð f1 þ f2 Þ4 "2 fi2
"2 , fi2 , g, "fi , , 1 ði ¼ 1, 2Þ ð13Þ
f1 f2 g

Fundamental Problems of the Curved Panel

It is seen from Figure 2 that the straight and curved elements of the
sandwich panel are equivalent in their mathematical formulation. The
geometry of both parts is described in the same terms, i.e., any flat panel is
represented as a curved panel with infinite radius of curvature. The loading
situation is also similar, i.e., constant pressure together with some additional
boundary loads. Thus, one mathematical model, namely a model of the
curved panel, provides a full description of both parts of the joined panel.

EQUILIBRIUM, KINEMATIC AND CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS

Generally, the behavior of all layers of the curved sandwich panel is
governed by the 2-D theory of elasticity. In the polar coordinate system, the
longitudinal normal stress x , the transverse normal stress z , and the shear
stress xz are connected by the equilibrium Equations [14, p.66]

@ @
rz x þ xz ¼ 0
@r @’

1@ 2 @
r xz þ x ¼ 0 ð14Þ
r @r @’

The appropriate kinematic relations for the normal strains "x , "z and
shear strain xz read [14, p.76]

1 @u @w @ u 1 @w
"x ¼ þw , "z ¼ , xz ¼ r þ ð15Þ
r @’ @r @r r r @’
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 317

where w and u are the transverse and longitudinal displacements at the

point ð’, rÞ in Figure 1(b).
The constitutive relations for the core may be written in two forms: either

ð1 Þx z ð1 Þz x z

"x ¼ , "z ¼ , xz ¼ ð16Þ
2Gc 2Gc Gc

or
z
x ¼ zc z þ Exc "x , "z ¼ zc "x þ , z ¼ Gc xz ð17Þ
Ec

The constitutive relations for the faces are obtained from (17) (via c ! f )
by means of the limit transitions

1 1
zf , , !0 ð18Þ
Ezf Gc

The above reflects the Kirchhoff–Love hypotheses; i.e., the absence of

transverse normal and shear stresses and strains in the faces: "z ¼ 0,
z ¼ 0, xz ¼ 0. Then the only constitutive equation for the face reads

x ¼ Exf "x ð19Þ

The longitudinal (circumferential) strains in the faces are denoted as "1

and "2 and may be expressed in terms of their displacements [15]

1 @ui 1 @ @wi
"i ¼ þ wi , i ¼ 2 þ ui ði ¼ 1, 2Þ ð20Þ
Ri @’ Ri @’ @’

where
hc þ h1 hc þ h2
R1 ¼ R , R2 ¼ R þ
2 2
The integral constitutive relations for the normal forces and moments in
the faces become
Ni ¼ Bi "i þ Ci i , Mi ¼ Ci "i þ Di i ði ¼ 1, 2Þ ð21Þ

OUTLINE OF THE SOLUTION PROCEDURE

All the internal resultants and loads are known for both parts of the
joined panel, therefore only a transition zone is considered (Figure 2).
Each part of the panel is considered separately as being loaded by the
318 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

known pressure and forces/moments at the edges. These edge loads are
external loads (if the edge represents the rectilinear outer edge) or internal
resultants (if the edge represents the junction). Solutions for the straight and
curved parts shown in Figure 2 are constructed separately, and then
subsequently fit via boundary conditions at the edges and compatibility
relations at the joint.
The deformation fields in the sandwich elements are found as a
superposition of the partial and general local solutions.
. In the case of the partial solution, distributions of the variables along the
thickness coordinate z satisfy the equations of the theory of elasticity
including the overall balance of forces across the panel thickness.
However, continuity of the variables is not sustained at the junction, and
the boundary conditions at the outer rectilinear edges of the panel are not
satisfied.
. The general local solution has to satisfy the exact boundary conditions at
the rectilinear edges as well as the compatibility condition at the junction.
The local solution corresponds to a self-balanced field of boundary
stresses that is decaying along the longitudinal coordinate in accordance
with the de Saint-Venant’s principle.
The technique of the solution includes two major elements. Firstly, a
partial solution is found, which is self-balanced everywhere in the initial
joined panel except at the outer boundaries and at the internal junction.
Then a local solution is sought in such a way that the local discrepancies
displayed by the partial solution are eliminated by fulfillment of the exact
boundary conditions for the panel left and right edges. The solutions for the
straight and curved parts of the panel are matched at the junction by
satisfying the continuity conditions at this section.

THREE FUNDAMENTAL CASES OF PARTIAL SOLUTION

The curved panel loaded by an internal pressure p along its circumference,
by forces and moments N0 , Q0 , M0 at one edge and Nð’Þ, Qð’Þ, Mð’Þ at
another edge is illustrated in Figure 2. It is rather expedient to realize, that
the partial solution for deformations of the curved panel maybe found as a
sum of solutions of three fundamental problems:
. axi-symmetric tension under inner pressure and circumferential tensile
forces (known as Lame’s problem and shown in Figure 3);
. pure bending (Figure 4);
. transverse bending by a shear force (Figure 5).
These are considered in the rest of this chapter. It should be noted that in
all three cases the same notation is used for the obtained deformation
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 319

Figure 3. The curved panel in axial tension (a) and the internal resultants in the panel
components (b).

Figure 4. The curved panel in pure bending (a) and the internal resultants in the panel
components (b).

Figure 5. The curved panel under shear force bending (a) and the stress distributions
across the thickness of the panel at some section ’ (b).

characteristics. That is to say no written distinction is made, for example,

between notation for the transverse stress in the core zc for the case 1, 2
and 3. However in Figures 4–6 that describe the three fundamental cases,
the super-indexes p, M, Q are added to this core stress, to emphasize the
320 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

Figure 6. Decomposition of the initial problem into the three fundamental problems:(a) an
element of the curved panel under realistic loading with all the internal resultants indicated;
(b) the case of axi-symmetric tension; (c) the case of pure bending; (d) the case of shear
bending at the left edge; (e) the case of the shear bending at the right edge.

existing difference. Naturally, this difference in the obtained characteristics

is taken into account in the derivations.

1-D Case: Axi-Symmetric Tension

The curved sandwich panel in axi-symmetric tension is sketched in
Figure 3(a). Obviously, this kind of loading causes deformation of the
isotropic homogeneous core (2-D medium) and deformation of the faces
(thin shells) in a manner as depicted in Figure 3(b). The internal resultants,
namely the normal forces N1 , N2 and moments M1 , M2 appear in the faces.
The interface stresses 1 and 2 play the role of uniform loading of the
sandwich outer layers.
The classic solution for the core loaded by a uniform pressure along
the upper and lower surfaces is obtained via Airy’s stress function
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 321

[14, pp. 69–71], and is written below in the variables adopted in our model
ð1 "2 =4Þ2 ð1 2 Þ 2 ð1 þ "=2Þ2 1 ð1 "=2Þ2
xc ¼ þ , xz ¼ 0
2"ð1 þ "Þ2 2"
ð1 "2 =4Þ2 ð1 2 Þ 2 ð1 þ "=2Þ2 1 ð1 "=2Þ2
zc ¼ þ ð22Þ
2"ð1 þ "Þ2 2"

Rð1 þ "Þ ð1 "2 =4Þ2 ð1 2 Þ 2 ð1 þ "=2Þ2 1 ð1 "=2Þ2
wc ¼ þ ð1 2Þ
2Gc 2"ð1 þ "Þ2 2"
uc ¼ 0
The faces are loaded in a similar manner: 1 and p act on the lower
face, while 2 acts on the upper face [Figure 3(b)]. Classical theory of
cylindrical shells [15] yields a solution for the bottom face

" 1 C1
N1 ¼ R 1 1 þ p 1 " þ f1 , Q 1 ¼ 0 M1 ¼ N1
2 2 B1
ð23Þ
N1 1 þ f1
w1 ¼ R 1" , u1 ¼ 0
B1 2
and for the top face
" C2
N2 ¼ R2 1 þ , Q2 ¼ 0, M2 ¼ N2
2 B2
ð24Þ
N2 1 þ f2
w2 ¼ R 1þ" , u2 ¼ 0
B2 2
The total tensile force is constant along the circumference of the panel.
The static balance of this force reads

p 1
N fx gc þ N1 þ N2 ¼ pR 1 " þ f1 ð25Þ
2
The total bending moment is found with respect to the reference surface z ¼ 0
hc þ h1 hc þ h2
M p fx zgc N1 þ N2 þ M1 þ M2 ¼ kp "pR2 ð26Þ
2 2
where kp is yet unknown.
Prescribing formally some displacements w1 and w2 to the bottom and
top faces, respectively, and demanding continuity of the transverse
displacements at the interfaces
wj¼1=2 ¼ w1 , wj¼1=2 ¼ w2 ð27Þ
one may obtain all the variables via Equations (22)–(24).
322 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

2-D Case: Pure Bending

In Figure 4 the case of pure bending by a moment Mfund is shown. In the
case of a constant moment, the stresses and strains in the sandwich panel
do not depend on the polar angle

w @w
" x ¼ c0 þ , "z ¼ , xz ¼ 0 ð28Þ
r @r

They are axi-symmetric, and consequently, the displacements in the

sandwich constituents read [16, p. 69]

u ¼ c0 r’, w ¼ wðrÞ, c0 ¼ constðzÞ ð29Þ

For the core, the axi-symmetric equilibrium equation [14, p. 66]

d
x ¼ ðrz Þ ð30Þ
dr

together with the constitutive relations (16) provide the governing equation
for the transverse deflection wc in the core

d 2 wc dwc wc 1 2
r2 þ ¼ c0 ð31Þ
dr2 dr r 1

The above differential equation is solved for given transverse displace-

ments w1 and w2 at the lower and upper interfaces, respectively (those are
indicated in Figure 4(b) with the super-index M referring to the pure
bending). The displacement in the core is

1 2 c2
wc ¼ c0 R ð1 þ "Þ logð1 þ "Þ c1 ð1 þ "Þ þ
2ð1 Þ 1 þ "

c4
þc3 ð1 þ "Þ þ ,
1 þ "

1 " 2 " " 2 "
c1 ¼ 1þ log 1 þ 1 log 1
2" 2 2 2 2

1 " w2 " w1
2
1 "4 1 þ "=2
c2 ¼ 1 log , c3 ¼ 1þ 1
2" 4 1 "=2 2" 2 R 2 R

1 "2 " w1 " w2
c4 ¼ 1 1þ 1 ð32Þ
2" 4 2 R 2 R
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 323

The strains and stresses in the core follow from Equations (29), (30)

1 2 c2 c4
"cx ¼ c0 þ c0 logð1 þ "Þ c1 þ þ c3 þ ð33Þ
2ð1 Þ ð1 þ "Þ2 ð1 þ "Þ2

c0 Gc c2
zc ¼ ð1 Þ þ ð1 2Þ logð1 þ "Þ c1 þ ð1 2Þ
ð1 2Þð1 Þ ð1 þ "Þ2

c4 R
þ c3 þ ð1 2Þ
ð1 þ "Þ2

c0 Gc c2
xc ¼ ð2 3Þ þ ð1 2Þ logð1 þ "Þ c1 ð1 2Þ
ð1 2Þð1 Þ ð1 þ "Þ2

c4 R
þ c3 þ ð1 2Þ
ð1 þ "Þ2

Generalized strains in the faces are obtained from (28)

w1 w2
" 1 ¼ c0 þ , " 2 ¼ c0 þ
Rð1 "ð1 f1 Þ=2Þ Rð1 þ "ð1 þ f2 Þ=2Þ
ð34Þ
w1 w2
1 ¼ , 2 ¼
R ð1 "ð1 þ f1 Þ=2Þ2
2 R ð1 þ "ð1 þ f2 Þ=2Þ2
2

The conditions of continuity of the stresses and displacements at the

interfaces are

wj¼1=2 ¼ w1 , wj¼1=2 ¼ w2
ð35Þ
1 j¼1=2 ¼ 1 , j¼1=2 ¼ 2

The membrane forces N1 , N2 and moments M1 , M2 for the 2nd

fundamental case of pure bending are determined from the general relations
(21) since the strains and curvatures are given by Equations (34).
The forces should satisfy the equilibrium Equations (30),which together
with the first two continuity conditions (35) ensure a zero total membrane
force in the panel

Nð’Þ fx gc þ N1 þ N2 0 ð36Þ

324 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

This relation, the compatibility Equations (35) and the expression for
the total moment
hc þ h1 hc þ h2
Mð’Þ fx zgc N1 þ N2 þ M1 þ M2 "pR2 ð37Þ
2 2
enables the calculation of the unknown constant c0 and all the other
constants in the distributions defined by Equations (32), (33).

3-D Case: Shear Force Bending

The curved panel affected by shear forces at its left edge is shown in
Figure 5. For all panel components, the displacement fields read [14, p. 87]

a0 R a0 R
u¼ ’ sin ’ þ UðrÞ cos ’, w¼ ’ cos ’ þ WðrÞ sin ’ ð38Þ
2 2

where UðrÞ and WðrÞ are some unknown functions. Note, that the above
formulae are due to an assumed force distribution and valid within the
accuracy of the rigid body displacements.
Inserting the above displacement fields into the kinematic relations (15)
give the following strains

1 a0 R
"x ¼ Yx ðrÞ sin ’, Yx ¼ UðrÞ þ WðrÞ
r 2
dW
"z ¼ Yz ðrÞ sin ’, Yz ðrÞ ¼ ð39Þ
dr
1 a0 R
xr ¼ ðrÞ cos ’, ¼ U 0 ðrÞ þ UðrÞ þ WðrÞ
r 2

The amplitudes of the strains should satisfy the compatibility equation

dYx a0 R
r Yz þ ¼ ð40Þ
dr r
The stresses in the elastic material are proportional to the strains (39)

x ¼ Sx ðrÞ sin ’, z ¼ Sz ðrÞ sin ’, xz ¼ TðrÞ sin ’ ð41Þ

Notice that at this stage of the analysis, no subdivision into different

layers is yet performed.
The equilibrium Equations (14) for the stresses (41) read

dðr2 TÞ dðrðT þ Sz ÞÞ
þ rSx ¼ 0, ¼0 ð42Þ
dr dr
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 325

Solving these equations subjected to the boundary conditions

x jðz¼hc =2þh2 Þ ¼ 0, x jðz¼hc =2h1 Þ ¼ 0

ð43Þ
xr jðz¼hc =2þh2 Þ ¼ 0, xr jðz¼hc =2h2 Þ ¼ 0

leads to the representation of amplitudes of the normal stresses via the

amplitude T of the shear stress as follows

1 dðr2 TÞ
Sz ¼ T, Sx ¼ ¼0 ð44Þ
r dr

The conditions of balance between the externally applied shear force and
the internal resultants are satisfied automatically in any cross-section of the
panel

Qð’Þ ¼ fxz g fxr gc þ Q1 þ Q2 Qfund cos ’, Qfund ¼ fTðrÞg

Nð’Þ ¼ fx g fx gc þ N1 þ N2 ¼ Qfund sin ’ ð45Þ

hc þ h2 hc þ h1
Mð’Þ ¼ fx zg fx zgc N1 þ N2 þ M1 þ M2 ¼ Qfund R sin ’
2 2

The constitutive relations for the core (16) and the compatibility
Equation (40) yield the following governing equation for the shear amplitude

d2T dT a0 R
r2 2
þ 3r 3T ¼ 2Gc ð46Þ
dr dr 1 r

The solution of this equation exploited in the relations (44) gives the
amplitudes

a2 a0
Sx ¼ 2Gc 3a1 ð1 þ "Þ þ , Sz ¼ T
ð1 þ "Þ3 4ð1 Þð1 þ "Þ
ð47Þ
a2 a0
T ¼ 2Gc a1 ð1 þ "Þ þ þ
ð1 þ "Þ3 4ð1 Þð1 þ "Þ

that are to be used in Equations (41) to find stresses in the core.

326 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

The corresponding strains in the core are found with the help of
Equations (39) via the strain amplitudes

a2 a0 ð1 2Þ
Yx ¼ ð3 4Þa1 ð1 þ "Þ þ 3

ð1 þ "Þ 4ð1 Þð1 þ "Þ
ð48Þ
a2 a0 ð1 2Þ
Yz ¼ ð1 4Þa1 ð1 þ "Þ 3

ð1 þ "Þ 4ð1 Þð1 þ "Þ

The following expression is also used in the subsequent derivations

dU a2 a0 ð1 2Þ
¼ ð5 4Þa1 ð1 þ "Þ þ 3

dr ð1 þ "Þ 4ð1 Þð1 þ "Þ

In the faces, the transverse normal strains as well as the shear strains
are disregarded according to the Kirchhoff–Love hypothesis. However,
the amplitudes of the circumferential normal strains are given by

a0 R a0 a0 R a0
Yx1 ¼ a3 ¼ a3 , Yx2 ¼ a4 ¼ a4 ð49Þ
r 1 þ " r 1 þ "

Note that constants of integration a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 in the above solutions

(47)–(49) are still unknown.
The internal resultants in the faces are obtained using the above relations
together with Equations (44) and (43)

þ 1=2 1=2
Q1 ¼ Exf Yx1 , Q2 ¼ Exf Yx2
1 "=2 1 1 þ "=2 2
ð50Þ
N1 ¼ fExf Yx1 g1 , N2 ¼ fExf Yx2 g2
M1 ¼ fExf Yx1 z1 g1 , M2 ¼ fExf Yx2 z2 g2

Here, Q1 and Q2 are shear forces, N1 and N2 are normal forces, and M1
and M2 are bending moments in the bottom and top faces, respectively.
The shear stresses at the upper and lower face-core interfaces are given by

1 1
T1 ¼ fExf Yx1 ð1 þ "Þg1 , T2 ¼ þ fExf Yx2 ð1 þ "Þg2
ð1 "Þ2 hc ð1 þ "Þ2 hc
ð51Þ
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 327

T1 and T2 appear in the compatibility conditions at the face-core interfaces

ðYx1 Yx Þj¼1=2 ¼ 0, ðYx2 Yx Þj¼1=2 ¼ 0
ð52Þ
T1 ¼ Tj¼1=2 ¼ 0, T2 ¼ Tj¼1=2 ¼ 0
These relations ensure the integrity of the sandwich panel and allow the
determination of the constants of integration a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , which are
necessary to obtain the core stresses via Equations (41), (47), (48), and the
resultants in the faces via Equations (49). The determination of the constant
a0 is performed by satisfying the balance of the shear force (the first
equation of Equations (45)), and this completes the solution of this third
fundamental case.

Partial Solution of the Joined Panel

SUPERPOSITION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL CASES

The general case of a sandwich panel assembly loaded by an inner pressure
and by resultants/loads at both ends is shown schematically in Figure 6(a).
This type of loading may be obtained by superposition of the three
fundamental cases shown in Figures 6(b)–(e). In the figures, the load for each
of the particular cases is indicated, and is a result of the decomposition of the
general loading. Notice that Figure 6(d) and (e) represent similar cases of the
shear loads, but applied in turn at the opposite edges.
The resultants at an arbitrary point of the curved panel, i.e., defined by
the angle ’, are expressed via the resultants at the left edge

Qð’Þ ¼ ðN0 N p Þ sin ’ þ Q0 cos ’

Nð’Þ ¼ N0 cos ’ Q0 sin ’ þ N p ð1 cos ’Þ ð53Þ

Mð’Þ ¼ M0 þ RðQ0 sin ’ þ ðN0 N p Þð1 cos ’ÞÞ

The solutions for these fundamental cases are to be simplified via

asymptotic expansions. For this purpose, the asymptotic inequalities (13)
are exploited, and an expansion of the solution (i.e., stresses and strains)
into power series of " is performed. Only the terms of the order of " are
retained. In addition, the following asymptotic estimates of the resultants
and stresses are taken into account
Q pR, N pR, M QR, ðM NRÞ
This means that the main term for the normal stress f ðMÞ in the faces is
governed by the total moment M and needs an amendment of the order of
328 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

Oð"Þ ’ c" (where C is some constant), while the stress f ðNÞ caused by N is
of the order Oð"Þ itself and therefore does not need any amendment. The
normal stress in the faces due to the shear force Q is neglected as being
asymptotically small. The asymptotic estimates of the face stresses are

M N Q
f ðMÞ , f ðNÞ , f ðQÞ hf ð54Þ
hf hc hf h2c

Note, that any stress caused by an internal pressure is proportional to this

pressure ðpÞ p. For the faces, they are of the order less than f ðpÞ
Oð fi "Þ, where fi is a small parameter too. Consequently, the normal stresses
in the faces due to p are neglected since they are asymptotically small.
This is not the case for the core. Here, c ðpÞ needs an amendment of the
order of Oð"Þ that is compared with the main term. The core stresses caused
by Q and M need an amendment of the order of Oð"Þ. Stresses due to N are
not larger than Oð"2 Þ (i.e. c ðNÞ Oð"2 Þ), and are not accounted for.
The asymptotic estimates of the core stresses are

M Q
c ðMÞ , c ðpÞ p, c ðQÞ ð55Þ
Rhc hc

PARTIAL SOLUTION FOR THE STRESSES

The stresses through the thickness (1=2 1=2) of the core and
the resultants in the faces are found utilizing the 2-D elasticity model within
the above discussed accuracy as follows

c A0 2 3
xz ¼ Qð’Þ 1 " ð56Þ
hc Z 1

c A0 Mð’Þ 1 2 1
z ¼ 1" þ Nð’Þ" þ p þ
hc Z R 1 2

xc ¼ c
1 z

A0 A12
N1 ¼ Mð’Þ 1 " þ Nð’Þ ð57Þ
hc Z 2ð1 Þ Z

A0 A21
N2 ¼ Mð’Þ 1 þ " þ Nð’Þ
hc Z 2ð1 Þ Z
A11 A22
M1 ¼ Mð’Þ, M2 ¼ Mð’Þ
Z Z
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 329

For the general case of the laminated faces, the coefficients of the above
solution read

A0 ¼ B1 B2 ðhc þ hf Þ þ ðB1 C2 B2 C1 Þ

hc þ h 2 hc þ h2
A12 hc ¼ B1 B2 þ C2 ðhc þ hf Þ þ D1 þ D2 þ ðB1 C2 B2 C1 Þ
2 2

C1 ðC1 þ C2 Þ

hc þ h 1 hc þ h1
A21 hc ¼ B2 B1 C1 ðhc þ hf Þ þ D1 þ D2 þ ðB1 C2 B2 C1 Þ
2 2

C2 ðC1 þ C2 Þ

A11 ¼ D1 ðB1 þ B2 Þ C1 ðC1 þ C2 þ B2 ðhc þ hf ÞÞ

A22 ¼ D2 ðB1 þ B2 Þ C2 ðC1 þ C2 B1 ðhc þ hf ÞÞ

1
Z¼ B1 B2 ðhc þ hf Þ2 þ 2ðB1 C2 B2 C1 Þðhc þ hf Þ
hc

þ ðD1 þ D2 ÞðB1 þ B2 Þ ðC1 þ C2 Þ2 Þ

The above coefficients of the solution (56), (57) are simplified consider-
ably in the case of homogeneous isotropic faces

f1 þ f2
A0 ¼ f1 f2 1 þ ð59Þ
2

1 f1 þ f2 2 1 3
A12 ¼ f1 f2 1 þ þ f1 f1 þ f23
2 2 12

1 f1 þ f2 2 1 3
A21 ¼ f1 f2 1 þ þ f2 f1 þ f23
2 2 12
1 3 1 hi
A11 ¼ f1 ð f1 þ f2 Þ, A22 ¼ f23 ð f1 þ f2 Þ, fi ¼ ði ¼ 1, 2Þ
12 12 hc
2
f1 þ f2 1
Z ¼ f1 f2 1 þ þ ð f1 þ f2 Þ f13 þ f23
2 12
330 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

Since fi2 ði ¼ 1, 2Þ is a small parameter the above equations are supple-

mented by the following relations (cf. Equations (13))

A0 1 A12 1 A21 1
’ , ’ , ’ ð60Þ
hc Z hc þ hf Z 2 Z 2

Due to the equality

A0 ðhc þ hf Þ þ A11 þ A22 ¼ hc ðA12 þ A21 Þ ¼ hc Z ð61Þ

the total balance of the membrane force is satisfied with the accuracy of
OðgÞ, while the total balance of the bending moment is satisfied with the
accuracy of Oð"fi Þ. At the same time the total balance of the shear force is
satisfied exactly.
Partial solution for the core stresses and the face resultants in the straight
part of the sandwich assembly (for x 0 and " ¼ 0) may be obtained by
means of the same formulas (56), (57), where Qð’Þ ! QðxÞ, Nð’Þ ! NðxÞ,
Mð’Þ ! MðxÞ and R ! 1 (Figure 2)

c A0
xz ¼ QðxÞ ð62Þ
hc Z

c 1
z ¼ p þ , ð1=2 1=2Þ
2

xc ¼ c
1 z

A0 A12
N1 ¼ MðxÞ þ NðxÞ ð63Þ
hc Z Z
A0 A21
N2 ¼ MðxÞ þ NðxÞ
hc Z Z
A11 A22
M1 ¼ MðxÞ, M2 ¼ MðxÞ
Z Z

DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR

THE STRESSES
At the junction between the flat and curved panel sections all the resultants
are required to be continuous and equal to Q0 , N0 , M0 . However, comparing
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 331

Equations (56), (57) and (62), (63) reveals that a disagreement exists between
c
the distributions of xz and xc in the partial solutions at the junction

2 3 A0
c
~xz ð curved
xz straight
xz Þjx¼0, ’¼0 ¼ Q0 " ð64Þ
1 hc Z
A 0 M0
~ xc ð curved
x straight
x Þjx¼0, ’¼0 ¼ "
1 hc Z hc
A0
N~ 1 ðN curved
1 N straight
1 Þjx¼0, ’¼0 ¼ M0 ", N~ 2 ¼ N~ 1
2ð1 Þ hc Z
Q~ 1 ¼ Q~ 2 ¼ 0, ~1 ¼ M
M ~2 ¼ 0

Note that in the above, the normal forces in the faces equal each other
with the precision N~ 2 ¼ N~ 1 ð1 þ Oð"fi , fi2 ÞÞ, i ¼ 1, 2. The shear forces and
moments in faces are neglected since they are of an order higher than " :
Q~ i ¼ Q0 Oð"2 Þ, M~ i ¼ hc N~ i Oð"fi , f 2 Þ, i ¼ 1, 2. The terms in disagreement for
i
x are of the order of Oð"2 Þ and, therefore, omitted.
c

All these disagreements in the stresses (64) are self-equilibrated and,

therefore, correspond to stress states that necessarily have a decaying form.
Note also, that zc is not included into Equations (64), because these stresses
do not interfere across the junction.
Typical stress distributions in the vicinity of the panel junction are shown
in Figure 7. The behavior of the shear stress is depicted in Figure 7(a). The
c
model predicts constant shear stress xz in the core of the straight part.
c
Opposite to this, some linear distribution of xz with its maximum at the
bottom interface is expected for the core in the curved part.
The change of the panel geometry leads to a relative increase of the
maximum shear stress in the core

curved straight
xz xz 2 3
straight
¼" ð65Þ
xz 2ð1 Þ

c
Here, the maximum xz at the lower interface to the right of junction is
c
compared with the constant xz to the left of junction.
The distribution of the normal longitudinal stresses at the junction is
shown in Figure 7(b). An analogous increase of the normal longitudinal
stresses in the faces takes place. For the top face

2curved 2straight
¼" ð66Þ
2straight 2ð1 Þ
332 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

Figure 7. Distribution of shear (a) and normal longitudinal (b) stresses in the straight and
curved parts of the sandwich panel assembly and the stress disagreements at the junction
(partial solution).

It should be emphasized that the appearance of transverse normal stresses

in the core is principally a new effect in the curved panel. This bears some
resemblance to the compressive normal stress in the core of curved sandwich
beams in pure bending. This has been investigated by Smidt both
theoretically and experimentally [5,6], where the transverse normal stress
due to the pure bending in the curved panel is estimated as follows

M
zc ’ ð67Þ
Rðhc þ hf Þ

A mean value of zc in the core obtained from the second of Equations (56)

c A0 M0 2 3 1
z ¼ 1" þ N0 " þ p þ
hc Z R 1 2

coincides with the above value (67), but gives a more detailed description of
the transverse stress.
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 333

DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTIAL SOLUTIONS

FOR THE DISPLACEMENTS
Analogously, disagreements exist between the transverse and longitudinal
(circumferential) displacements wc and uc at the junction
A0 M0 "
w~ c wcurved wstraight jx¼0, ’¼0 ¼
hc ZEzc

2 3 A0 Q0 " 2
u~ c ucurved ustraight jx¼0, ’¼0 ¼ 1 ð68Þ
1 ZGc 4
A 0 M0 " A0 M 0 "
w~ 1 ¼ þ , w~ 2 ¼ , u~ 1 ¼ u~ 2 ¼ 0
2hc ZEzc 2hc ZEzc

These discrepancies are schematically illustrated in Figure 8. It is

important to notice that the thickness of the curved part gets smaller, i.e.,
d w~ c =dz < 0, for a positive bending moment M0 . At the junction, the faces
move transversely in opposite directions (note the different signs of w~ 1 and
w~ 2 ). Moreover a parabolic distribution of the longitudinal displacements is
obtained in the core of the curved part (cf. the second of Equations (68) and
Figure 8(b)). This means that a fiber that is initially straight and normal to
the mid-surface of the panel, does not remain straight because of the positive
shear resultant Q0 . All these disagreements are to be compensated by the
local effects at the junction, and this is a subject of the next chapter.

Complete Solution at the Vicinity of Junction

FORMULATION OF THE EQUIVALENT PROBLEM FOR

A STRAIGHT SEMI-INFINITE PANEL
The final stage of the solution consists of finding the general local solution
for the stresses at the vicinity of the junction. Local fields of these stresses are
generated by self-balanced ‘‘disagreement’’ stresses ~ , ~, and ‘‘disagreement’’
displacements w~ , u~ at the junction. Their local fields are to be found and

Figure 8. Disagreements of the transverse (a) and longitudinal (b) displacements in the core
at the panel junction (partial solution).
334 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

added to the partial solutions (56), (57) in order to complete the prediction
of the stress distribution at the junction.
It is important to note that the characteristic lengths l1 and l2 (7) are
small, which means that the local effects do not penetrate deeply into the
structure. Then the fulfillment of the inequalities (8) implies that a response
of the real structure to the given self-balanced stresses and displacements
coincides with a response of the semi-infinite structure. In this considera-
tion, the membrane stiffness of the faces is supposed to be infinite.
Moreover, the difference in the responses of the straight and curved panels is
of the order of magnitude of Oð"Þ. Since the disagreements themselves have
the same order, the final error due to replacing the real structure by the
semi-infinite straight panel is no more than Oð"2 , "g, li =L, li =RÞ, ði ¼ 1, 2Þ.
The disagreements between the normal and shear stresses in the core of
the curved and straight panels at the junction are given by Equations (64),
and the disagreements of the displacements by Equations (68). Based on
this, the local fields may be found as a superposition of two different loading
cases. The first loading case is produced by the normal stress ~ accompanied
by the transverse displacement w~ , and the second loading case is instigated
by the shear stress ~ together with the longitudinal displacement u~ . These
two situations are addressed in the next two sections.

LOCAL EFFECT CAUSED BY NORMAL

STRESS AND TRANSVERSE DISPLACEMENT
This load case corresponds to given ~ and w~ . The infinite panel is
subjected to the facial compressive pressure shown in Figure 9(a). Notice
that the faces of the panel are longitudinally incompressible, and the field of
the boundary displacement is supposed to be linear within the core.
Let a pressure on the right part of the panel be equal to

A0 M0
~ M ¼ " ð69Þ
h2c Z

and a pressure on the left part to be equal to zero. Then the partial
solution for ~ xc , N~ i , M
~ i ði ¼ 1, 2Þ is given by Equations (64), and the partial
c
solution for w~ , w~ i ði ¼ 1, 2Þ by Equations (68). Obviously, the loaded
infinite straight panel is equivalent to the problem of the joined panel, since
the disagreements ~ and w~ at the junction of the latter are exactly the
solution to the former.
The loading pressure is presented as a superposition of the uniform
symmetric (with respect to x ¼ 0) compression ~ M =2 along the whole
structure and the anti-symmetric loading given by ~ M =2 as shown in
Figure 9(b). The symmetric loading gives solutions ~ M =2 and w~ M =2. The
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 335

Figure 9. Infinite straight panel compressed at its half is an equivalent problem for the local
effect caused by the disagreements in the transverse stress and displacement: the original
loading case (a) and its superposition (b).

case of the anti-symmetric compression is solved using the technique of the

integral Fourier’s transformation. The details of this technique as applied to
the sandwich panels with similar rigid faces can be found in [17].
The obtained solution includes expressions for the normal and shear
stresses in the core at the upper interface as well as the membrane force and
the bending moments in the top face

~ M ~ M
xz 2 ¼ fM ðxÞ, z 2 ¼ ð1 þ fM ðxÞÞ, x 2 ¼ z 2
2 2 1
ð70Þ
~ M hc ~ M 2
N2 ¼ þ fNM ðxÞ , M2 ¼ fMM ðxÞ
4 1 2

where
Z 1 Z 1
2 g0 ða Þ cos ðx =Þ 2 g ða Þ sin ðx =Þ
fM ðxÞ ¼ d , fM ðxÞ ¼ d
0 ð 3 þ g ða ÞÞ 0 ð 3 þ g ða ÞÞ
Z 1 Z 1
2 g0 ða Þ sin ðx =Þ 2 sin ðx =Þ
fNM ðxÞ ¼ d , fMM ðxÞ ¼ d
0 a 2 ð 3 þ g ða ÞÞ 0
3 þ g ða Þ

ð3 4Þc2
g ða Þ ¼ , c ¼ cosha , s ¼ sinh a ð71Þ
ð3 4Þcs a
3 4 ð1 2Þcs a
g0 ða Þ ¼
2ð1 Þ ð3 4Þcs a
336 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

The parameter a is governed by the core thickness and related to the

characteristic length of the local effect
1=3
hc ð3 4Þ C2
a¼ , ¼ D , D ¼D ð72Þ
2 4Gc ð1 Þ B

Notice that no indices go with the decay length in the above solution
(70), (71), even though it actually belongs to the upper interface and
should include 2 . The solution for the lower face is determined by
symmetry with regards to the panel mid-surface and includes a1 and 1 .
Thus, both interfaces have their own parameters a and , that are defined
by the stiffness of the faces as described by the above relations.
Local functions fnm ðxÞ ðn, m ¼ N, M, , Þ are important elements of the
solution. They are transformation functions, that describe the distribution
of the variables participating in the local effects. The first index in each
function indicates what characteristic is affected, and the second index
designates the resultant that affects this characteristic. In Figure 10
the qualitative behavior of the transformation functions is shown. Notice
that the parameter a only affects the function fM strongly. The transfor-
mation functions are also interface dependent, i.e., i ¼ 1 or i ¼ 2 for any
fmni ðxÞ ðn, m ¼ N, M, , Þ.

LOCAL EFFECT CAUSED BY SHEAR

STRESS AND LONGITUDINAL DISPLACEMENT
In Figure 11(a), the problem of prescribed shear stress ~ and longitudinal
displacement u~ at the panel edge is illustrated. Here, the right part of the
panel is loaded by the volume force q

2~Q A0 Q0 2 3
q¼ , ~Q " ð73Þ
hc hc Z 2ð1 Þ

Additionally, the faces are loaded by uniform volume forces and external
shear stresses that ensure the horizontal-force equilibrium of the whole
panel and the moment equilibrium of the faces.
The partial solution for the right half of the panel coincides exactly
c
with ~xz , Q~ i ði ¼ 1, 2Þ and u~ c , u~ i ði ¼ 1, 2Þ given by Equations (64) and
Equations (68), respectively. Thus, the infinite straight panel loaded by q
[Figure 11(a)] is equivalent to the problem of the joined panel with local
effects at the junction due to disagreements ~ and u~ .
Similar to the line of action pursued in the previous chapter, the load q is
substituted by two loads: anti-symmetric and symmetric (with respect to
x ¼ 0) as shown in Figure 11(b). The correction stresses and resultants are
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 337

Figure 10. The qualitative behavior of the transformation functions at the vicinity of the
junction: x > 0–curved part; x < 0–straight part.

Figure 11. The infinite straight panel loaded by volume forces through its half is an
equivalent problem for the local effect caused by the disagreements in shear stress and
longitudinal displacement: the original loading case (a) and its superposition (b).

found via the technique of the integral Fourier’s transformation and given
below

~Q ~Q
xz 2 ¼ ð1 þ fQ ðxÞÞ, z 2 ¼ fQ ðxÞ, x 2 ¼ z 2
2 2 1
ð74Þ
~Q ~Q 2
N2 ¼ fNQ ðxÞ, M2 ¼ fMQ ðxÞ
2 2
338 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

where
Z 1 3
2 g1 ða Þ þ g2 ða Þ
fQ ðxÞ ¼ sin ðx =Þd
0 a 2 ð 3 þ g ða ÞÞ
Z 1
2gM ða Þ cos ðx =Þ
fQ ðxÞ ¼ d
0 að 3 þ g ða ÞÞ
Z
2 1 1 3
g1 ða Þ þ g2 ða Þ
fNQ ðxÞ ¼ 2
cos ðx =Þd
0 a 3 ð 3 þ g ða ÞÞ
Z ð75Þ
2 1 gM ða Þ cos ðx =Þ
fMQ ðxÞ ¼ d
0 a ð 3 þ g ða ÞÞ
cs a
gM ða Þ ¼ , c ¼ cosh a , s ¼ sinh a
ð3 4Þcs a

2ð1 2Þs2 3 4 ð1 2Þcs þ a

g1 ða Þ ¼ , g2 ða Þ ¼
ð3 4Þcs a 2ð1 Þ ð3 4Þcs a

The qualitative behavior of the transform functions participating in this

solution is illustrated in Figure 10.

The Final Estimation Formulae

The total solution for the joint section is constructed from the partial
solution, that is represented by Equations (62) and (63), and the general
local solution, that is given by Equations (70)–(72) and (74), (75). Bearing
in mind that stresses across the thickness of the core are distributed
linearly, one should be concerned only with the maximum/minimum
stresses at the face-core interfaces. In addition, the distributions of the
variables that describe the local effects are approximately generalized to
follow variations of the overall resultants NðxÞ, QðxÞ, MðxÞ and the
dissimilarity of the faces. This simplification does not seem to be
unreasonable since the variability of the resultants is much slower than
the variability of the local effects. Moreover, the mutual interaction of
the faces is not considered due to the comparatively thick core. One more
approximated generalization concerns the small terms in the partial
solution for the transverse normal stress z for the curved panel, namely
that the distribution of the variables responsible for the local effects is
assumed to be linear across the core thickness, as it is done for the main
term of z [cf. the second of Equations (56)].
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 339

The final estimate formulae are as follows

CORE :

str ~ M ~Q
xz1 ¼ part þ fM1 ðxÞ þ ð1 þ fQ1 ðxÞÞ
2 2
str ~ M ~Q
xz2 ¼ part fM2 ðxÞ ð1 þ fQ2 ðxÞÞ
2 2
~M " 1 2 ~N ~Q
z1 ¼ p 1þ ð1 þ fM1 ðxÞÞ fQ1 ðxÞ ð76Þ
2 2 1 2 2

~ M " 1 2 ~ N ~Q
z2 ¼ 1 þ ð1 þ fM2 ðxÞÞ fQ2 ðxÞ
2 2 1 2 2

x1 ¼ z1 , x2 ¼ z2
1 1

FACES :

str ~ M hc ~
Q 1
N1 ¼ Npart1 þ þ fNM1 ðxÞ fNQ1 ðxÞ
4 1 2
str ~ M hc ~
Q 2
N2 ¼ Npart2 þ þ fNM2 ðxÞ fNQ2 ðxÞ
4 1 2
ð77Þ
str ~M 21 ~Q 21
M1 ¼ Mpart1 þ fMM1 ðxÞ þ fMQ1 ðxÞ
2 2
str ~M 22 ~Q 22
M2 ¼ Mpart2 fMM2 ðxÞ fMQ2 ðxÞ
2 2
The stresses and resultants along each interface are defined with the help
of the transfer functions

fmn i ðxÞ ¼ fmn ðxÞj¼i , ði ¼ 1, 2Þ, ðn, m ¼ N, M, , Þ ð78Þ

whose particular appearance is described by Equations (71) and (75).

The above solution (76), (77) includes the partial solutions for the
straight part of the joined panel [i.e., Equations (62), (63)]

str A0 QðxÞ str A0 MðxÞ A12 NðxÞ

part ¼ , Npart1 ¼ þ ,
hc Z hc Z Z
str A0 MðxÞ A21 NðxÞ
Npart2 ¼ þ ð79Þ
hc Z Z
str A11 MðxÞ str A22 MðxÞ
Mpart1 ¼ , Mpart2 ¼
Z Z
340 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

and the amendments due to the curved part of the joined panel

A0 QðxÞ 2 3 A0 MðxÞ A0 NðxÞ

~Q ¼ , ~ M ¼ , ~ N ¼ ð80Þ
RZ 2ð1 Þ hc RZ 2RZ

The mulitpliers A0 , A11 , A12 , A21 , A22 , Z in the Equations (79), (80) are
defined by Equation (58) (laminated faces) or Equation (59) (homogeneous
faces). The coefficients of the solution are re-written below for the
homogeneous isotropic faces for the sake of quicker reference:

f1 þ f2 h1 h2
A0 ¼ f1 f2 1 þ , f1 ¼ , f2 ¼
2 hc hc
2
1 f1 þ f2 1
A12 ¼ f1 f2 1 þ þ f1 ð f13 þ f23 Þ
2 2 12

1 f1 þ f2 2 1 ð81Þ
A21 ¼ f1 f2 1 þ þ f2 ð f13 þ f23 Þ
2 2 12
1 3 1
A11 ¼ f ð f1 þ f2 Þ, A22 ¼ f23 ð f1 þ f2 Þ
12 1 12

f1 þ f2 2 1
Z ¼ f1 f2 1 þ þ ð f1 þ f2 Þð f13 þ f23 Þ
2 12

To complete the list of the essential formulae, the characteristic lengths 1

and 2 for the bottom and top interfaces are repeated below (the same
as Equation (72)) together with the appropriate parameters a1 , a2 of the
relative thickness
1=3
hc 3 4 Ci2
ai ¼ , i ¼ Di , Di ¼ Di , ði ¼ 1, 2Þ
2i 4Gc ð1 Þ Bi
ð82Þ

In the above, the stiffnesses Bi , Ci , Di , ði ¼ 1, 2Þ are defined by relations

(3)–(6).
The classical formulae for calculation of the stresses in faces are as follows

M1 ðxÞh1
fx1mid ¼ N1 ðxÞ=h1 , fx1 ¼ fx1mid
2D1
ð83Þ
M2 ðxÞh2
fx2mid ¼ N2 ðxÞ=h1 , fx2 f2
¼ x mid
2D2
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 341

Here, a subscript mid denotes the stress in the mid-surface of the face. The
plus and minus signs are used to obtain the stress at the upper and lower
fiber of each face, respectively.
The qualitative behavior of the main variables at the transition zone
between the straight and curved parts of the panel is shown in Figures 12
and 13. Equations (76) and (77) together with Figure 10 are keys to this
qualitative analysis. In both figures, the negative and positive coordinates
of x correspond to the straight and curved panels of the sandwich
assembly, respectively. The through-the-thickness shear stress is constant in
the straight panel, whereas it varies linearly across the thickness in the

Figure 12. Qualitative behavior of the shear (a) and transverse normal (b) stresses in the
core along the face-core interfaces in the vicinity of the junction.

Figure 13. Qualitative behavior of the normal forces (a) and moments (b) in the faces in the
vicinity of the junction.
342 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

curved panel. Figure 12(a) represents the behavior of shear stress

distributions along the face-core interfaces. In the absence of an internal
pressure p, the transverse and longitudinal normal stresses are not present in
the core of the straight part as illustrated in Figure 12(b), but they emerge in
the curved part. The resultants in the faces are presented in Figure 13. The
membrane forces in Figure 13(a) experience a jump across the junction due
to a particular distribution of the transformation function fNM which does
not vanish far from the junction as fNQ does (cf. Figure 10). Functions fMM
and fMQ , which participate in formation of the bending moments in
Equations (77), do not exist beyond the transition zone (cf. Figure 10).
Therefore, the bending moments in Figure 13(b) are of the same magnitude
(with the accuracy of the global internal resultants) in both the flat and the
curved sections of the assembly.
It is important to realize that depending on the behavior of the
appropriate transformation functions, Equations (76), (77) reduce to the
formulae (79), which describe the straight panel of the assembly, or
Equations (76) converge to the formulae (56), (57), which describe the
curved panel. Figures 12 and 13 are a graphical illustration of this.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

To illustrate usage of the derived formulae a numerical example of a

representative sandwich assembly is presented. An assessment of the
formulae derived is carried out via comparison of analytically obtained
data with calculations due to the finite element method (FEM).
A cantilever sandwich beam consisting of Divinycell H-200 foam core and
steel faces is chosen for the analysis. The geometry and the mechanical
characteristics of the assembly are shown in Figure 14. The sector angle of
the curved part of the assembly equals 90 . The width of the specimen equals
1 mm in the analysis, and the plane strain state is declared. The assembly is
clamped at the straight left edge, and loaded by a vertical force F ¼ 44 N
at the free curved right edge.
The global internal resultants at any cross-section along the circumference
of the beam are: normal force NðxÞ, shear force QðxÞ and moment MðxÞ:
8 8
< QðxÞ ¼ F
> < QðxÞ ¼ F cos ’
>
x < 0 NðxÞ ¼ 0 x ¼ R’ > 0 NðxÞ ¼ F sin ’
>
: >
:
MðxÞ ¼ FðR xÞ MðxÞ ¼ FRð1 sin ’Þ
ð84Þ

At the junction: N0 ¼ 0, Q0 ¼ 44 N, M0 ¼ 5324 N m.

Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 343

Figure 14. Geometry and mechanical characteristics of the test specimen.

Analytical Data

In order to structure the analytical calculations a practical calculation

routine is described in the following.

CALCULATION PROCEDURE
1. Determine all global resultants in the structure via equilibrium equations.
2. Calculate the small parameters of the model [Equations (2), (7), (11),
(12)] and control whether they satisfy the model constraints (8) and (13).
3. Find the length of the transition zone via investigating the behavior of
the transformation functions [Equations (71) and (75)].
4. Determine the internal resultants and the stresses in the straight part of
the assembly [Equations (62), (63)].
5. Determine the internal resultants and the stresses in the curved part of
the assembly [Equations (56)–(59)].
6. Determine the internal resultants and the stresses in the transition zone of
the assembly [Equations (76)–(82), (70) and (75)].
To fulfill the first control step, all small parameters are calculated and
placed in the Table below.

Model Constraints

l1 [m] l2 [m] f1 f2 g "

0.011 0.009 0.05 0.05 0.004 0.33

344 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

One can see that l1 and l2 satisfy the inequality (8) and the rest satisfy the
inequality (13). Notice that the accuracy of the analytic estimations is of the
order of Oð"2 Þ ¼ 0:332 ’ 0:1, and therefore an error of the order of 10%
should be expected.
To find the bounds of the transition zone for the particular sandwich
geometry, it is necessary to investigate the behavior of the transformation
functions in the vicinity of the junction. One may choose the slowest
transformation function to diminish, for example, by 10 times to obtain
an upper limit of the length of the transition zone. For the trial case of
Figure 14, the geometrical irregularity, i.e., the junction, affects all variable
distributions with the chosen accuracy at the distance of 6i , ði ¼ 1, 2Þ.
Then the size of the transition zone is equal to 61 ¼ 62 ¼ 62:4 mm to the
left and to the right from the junction.
All the appropriate formulae has been coded in MATLAB 5.1 to ease the
analytical calculations and the subsequent graphical treatment of the data.
Figure 15 shows the distribution of the normal forces and the bending
moments in the sandwich faces. Solid line accounts for the analytical data in
this and all following figures. Note that the longitudinal coordinate x is
measured along the mid-surface of the core (cf. Figure 14). While the normal
forces in the sandwich faces behave smoothly, a violent change of the
bending moment in the faces is observed in the vicinity of the junction,
which indicates that a re-distribution of the shear takes place here, and the
core of the sandwich is to be locally involved.
This is confirmed by Figures 16 and 17, where distributions of the shear
and radial normal stress in the core along the upper and lower face-core
interfaces are presented. A significant change in the stress distributions takes
place in the transition zone. For the given loading, the shear stress is
constant in the straight part of the beam and diminishes to zero in the
curved part as shown in Figure 16. Notice that the presented asymptotic

Figure 15. Distribution of the normal forces (a) and bending moments (b) in the faces.
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 345

Figure 16. Distribution of the shear stress in the core along the sandwich interfaces:
The analytical solution is shown by the solid line and the FEM data by the dash line.

Figure 17. Distribution of the transverse normal stress in the core along the
sandwich interfaces: The analytical solution is shown by the solid line and the FEM data
by the dash line.

model gives at least a 25% increase of the shear stress at the junction in
comparison with the straight part, which may play an essential role in
the design considerations. Likewise, an emerging possibility to calculate
the transverse normal stress in the sandwich core is also important for
346 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

design purposes. The peak of the normal stress in Figure 17 equals 0:95 Mpa
and should be compared with the tensile strength of 4:8 Mpa for this type of
the foam core.
It is important to mention that the absolute values of the shear and
normal stresses in the core are always higher in the curved part than in the
straight part of the sandwich assembly for the same internal resultants. This
means that the danger of failure is not due to the local effects, induced by
the change of the geometry, but due to the existence of the curvature in the
panel.
The stresses in the sandwich faces are presented in Figures 18 and 19. The
stresses along the neutral axes of the faces indicated in Figure 18 behave in a
manner similar to the behavior of total internal resultants indicated in
Figure 15(a). Contrary to that, the outer fibers of each face are locally
affected due to the specific moment distributions in the faces [Figure 15(b)].
This is illustrated in Figure 19, where the stresses are calculated along the
outer fiber closest to the core according to the formulae (83). Be aware, that
although for this particular configuration and particular loading the
variation of the bending moments in the vicinity of the junction is rather
modest [cf. Figure 15(b)] and the change of the face stresses is not high
[cf. Figure 19], the situation may become completely different under other
loading condition. For example, a constant moment applied at the right
edge of the assembly would cause the highest local stresses to occur exactly
at the junction of the assembly.

Figure 18. Normal stresses along the centroids of the faces: The analytical solution is shown
by the solid line and the FEM data by the dash line.
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 347

Figure 19. Normal stresses in the faces along the face-core interfaces: The analytical
solution is shown by the solid line and the FEM data by the dash line.

FEM model

To corroborate the analytical model a finite element modeling of

the junction of the sandwich assembly is performed. The FE-modeling is
done using the software package ODESSY2. The 2-dimensional sandwich
assembly shown in Figure 14 is considered, and plane strain assumptions are
applied. Both the skin and the core materials are assumed to be linear elastic
and isotropic, and the displacements are expected to be small.
Isoparametric an 8-node quadrilateral elements are used. One layer of the
elements is used to model each of the skins, and 10 layers (across the
thickness) of the elements are used to model the core. Thus, a total of 1128
elements and 7194 degrees of freedom are exploited in the FE-model.
The boundary conditions at the clamped edge are specified by prohibiting
displacements of all the nodes at the vertical boundary. The right edge of the
assembly is provided with the infinitely rigid insert to provide a smooth
distribution of the applied load. It should be mentioned in this connection
that a reinforcement of the areas where concentrated load are applied is a
usual practice in the fabrication of sandwich structures, thus aiming to
reduce the undesirable local effects.
The FEM data obtained are indicated in Figures 15–19 by dash lines.

2
The ODESSY Team, Aalborg University, Denmark, 1991–1996. URL – address is
http:/www.ime.auc.dk/research/design/odessy.
348 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

Comparison of the Analytical and FEM Data

When comparing the analytical and the FEM data one should remember
that the presented asymptotic model is precise with above estimated
accuracy of 10%. Within this estimation and taking into account a
limited number of the FEM elements used one may conclude that an
amazingly good coincidence of the analytical and FEM data is observed in
Figures 15–19.
It is rather important that the lengths of the local effects obtained with the
help of two different models are the same. They are similar for both faces
(due to the symmetry of the sandwich constitution) and equals 62 mm.
Secondly, one should not be discouraged by the fact that the evident
discrepancy between the analytical and the FEM data is most visible at the
beam edges, because the developed analytical model does not take into
account the boundary effects.
Overall it is concluded that the presented asymptotic analytical model
may be confidently used for the estimations of the local effects at the
junctions between straight and curved panels of sandwich assemblies in
cylindrical bending.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The asymptotically exact model that describes cylindrical bending state
of a sandwich assembly consisting of straight and curved panels has been
derived. The sandwich assembly is loaded by uniform pressure and/or
boundary loads. The considered structure is statically determinate or can
be reduced to a statically determinate system with the help of the beam
model.
2. A solution procedure consisting of two steps is developed: partial and
general local solutions.
3. The partial solution satisfies all the equations of the theory of elasticity
for the core and the Kirchhoff–Love theory for the faces, but it does not
satisfy the continuity conditions at the junction between the panels. This
solution is obtained by asymptotic expansion in the form of analytical
formulae describing the transverse and longitudinal distributions of the
panel internal resultants (stresses, forces and moments) exactly at some
distance from the junction and outer boundaries.
4. The general local solution, which is added to the partial solution, satisfies
the compatibility conditions at the junction. The technique of the integral
Fourier transformation is used to obtain this solution that decays at a
distance from the junction.
Asymptotic Analysis for the Curved/Straight Sandwich Panel Junctions 349

5. The final analytic formulae give the internal resultants in the faces and
the stresses in the core in the vicinity of the junction. The local
(transformation) functions of the longitudinal distributions are obtained
in the form of definite integrals and may be easily computed or
approximated by simple functions. The characteristic lengths of the local
effects are estimated.
6. A numerical example of a sandwich panel with a rounded corner is
considered to illustrate the applicability of the presented analytical
estimates. The results are compared with FEM calculations, and an
excellent agreement between the derived analytic formulae and the FEM
data is obtained.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work presented has been co-sponsored by the U.S. Navy Office of
Naval Research, Grant No. N00014001034, the Danish Research Agency
under the program of ‘‘ Material Research’’, and the Institute of Mechanical
Engineering at Aalborg University, Denmark. The financial support
received is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Allen, H.G. (1969). Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panels, Pergamon Press,
Oxford.
2. Zenkert, D. (1995). An Introduction to Sandwich Construction, EMAS Ltd, London, UK.
3. Vinson, J.R. (1999). The Behavior of Sandwich Structures of Isotropic and Composite
Materials, Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster.
4. Zenkert, D. (ed.) (1997). The Handbook of Sandwich Construction, EMAS Ltd,
London, UK.
5. Smidt, S. (1995). Bending of Curved Sandwich Beams, Composite Structures, 33: 211–225.
6. Smidt, S. (1992). Testing of Curved Sandwich Panels and Comparison with Calculations
Based on the Finite Element Method, In: Weissman-Berman, D. and Olsson, K.-A. (eds.),
Proceedings of the 2-d International Conference on Sandwich Construction, 9–12 March,
Gainsville, Florida, USA, pp. 665–681, EMAS Ltd, London, UK.
7. Frostig, Y. and Baruch, M. (1990). Bending of Sandwich Beams with Transversely Flexible
Core, AIAA Journal, 28(3): 523–531.
8. Bozhevolnaya, E. and Frostig, Y. (1997). Nonlinear Closed-form High-Order Analysis of
Curved Sandwich Panels, Composite Structures, 38: 384–393.
9. Thomsen, O.T. and Vinson, J.R. (2001). Conceptual Design Principles for Non-Circular
Pressurized Sandwich Fluzelage Sections – A Design Study Based on a High-Order
Sandwich Theory Formulation, Journal of Composite Materials, 36(3): 313–346.
10. Thomsen, O.T. and Vinson, J.R. (2001). Analysis and Parametric Study of Non-Circular
Pressurized Sandwich Fluzelage Cross Section Using a High-Order Sandwich Theory
Formulation, Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials, 3(3): 220–250.
11. Noor, A.K., Burton, W.S. and Bert, C.W. (1996). Computational Models for Sandwich
Panels and Shells, Appl. Mech. Review, 49: 155–199.
350 V. SKVORTSOV ET AL.

12. Ustinov, Y. (1976). On Structure of Boundary Layer in Laminated Plates, Doklady

Akademii Nauk SSSR (in Russian), 229(2): 325–328.
13. Skvortsov, V. (1997). Boundary Effects and Local Stability of Sandwich Panels, In:
Vautrin, A. (ed.), Proceedings of EUROMECH 360 Colloguium, 13–15 May, Saint-Etienne,
France, pp. 175–182, Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht.
14. Timoshenko, S. and Goodier, J.N. (1970). Theory of Elasticity, 3rd Edn., McGraw-Hill.
15. Kraus, H. (1967). Thin Elastic Shells, John Willey & Sons, New York.
16. Sundström, B. (ed.) (1998). Handbok och Formelsamling i Hållfasthetslära, Inst. for
hållfasthetslära, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden.
17. Skvortsov, V. (2000). Exact Analysis of Sandwich Plates Bending Based on Elasticity
Theory and the Technique of Integral Transformations. In: Meyer-Piening, H.-R. and
Zenkert, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5-th International Conference on Sandwich
Construction, 5–7 September, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 129–140, EMAS Ltd, London, UK.