Table 7: Comparison of Normalized Central Deflections, , of [0/90/0] Cylindrical (R1 = ∞, R2/a = 3) Panels for Different a/h Ratios, Computed Using Three Shear Deformation Theories.
|
Normalized Central Deflection, , of [0/90/0] Cylindrical Panels (R1 = ∞, R2/a = 3) under Uniform Load |
|||||
|
Boundary Condition
|
a/h
|
LCST (Zig-Zag) FEA [113] |
TSDT [95,96,101,102] |
FSDT [115] |
Relative Degree of Shear Flexibility‡ (Zig-Zag vs. TSDT) |
|
SS1 [101,115] |
4 |
|
22.024 |
20.058 |
Zig-Zag theory yields much greater shear-flexibility than TSDT (46.079% vs. 9.767%) |
|
SS3 [113,115] |
4 |
29.21 |
21.949 |
19.996 |
|
|
SS4 [115] |
4 |
|
18.530 |
17.155 |
|
|
SS2/SS3 [95] |
4 |
|
21.941 |
19.991 |
|
|
C4/SS3 [96] |
4 |
|
15.427 |
|
|
|
C3 [102,115] |
4 |
|
12.245 |
|
|
|
SS1 [101,115] |
10 |
|
9.248 |
8.861 |
Zig-Zag theory yields significantly greater shear-flexibility than TSDT (23.32% vs. 4.316%) |
|
SS3 [113,115] |
10 |
10.83 |
9.161 |
8.782 |
|
|
SS4 [115] |
10 |
|
6.166 |
6.001 |
|
|
SS2/SS3 [95] |
10 |
|
9.153 |
8.774 |
|
|
C4/SS3 [96] |
10 |
|
4.258 |
|
|
|
C3 [102,115] |
10 |
|
3.452 |
|
|