Table 9: Comparison of normalized central deflections, , of [0/90/0] spherical (r1/a = r2/a = 3) panels under uniform load for different a/h ratios, computed using three shear deformation theories.
|
Normalized Central Deflection, , of [0/90/0] Spherical Panels (R1/a = 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 |
|
21.424 |
19.554 |
Zig-Zag theory yields much greater shear-flexibility than TSDT (51.523% vs. 9.412%) |
|
SS3 [113,115] |
4 |
29.30 |
21.157 |
19.337 |
|
|
SS4 [115] |
4 |
|
13.898 |
13.131 |
|
|
SS2/SS3 [95] |
4 |
|
15.845 |
14.817 |
|
|
C4/SS3 [96] |
4 |
|
12.312 |
|
|
|
C3 [102,115] |
4 |
|
11.990 |
|
|
|
SS1 [101,115] |
10 |
|
8.632 |
8.294 |
Zig-Zag theory yields significantly greater shear-flexibility than TSDT (25.653% vs. 3.915%) |
|
SS3 [113,115] |
10 |
10.11 |
8.361 |
8.046 |
|
|
SS4 [115] |
10 |
|
3.611 |
3.564 |
|
|
SS2/SS3 [95] |
10 |
|
4.571 |
4.486 |
|
|
C4/SS3 [96] |
10 |
|
2.921 |
|
|
|
C3 [102,115] |
10 |
|
3.326 |
|
|