Layered plate with discontinuous connection: Exact mathematical model

Paolo Foraboschi
Universit IUAV di Venezia, Convento delle Terese, Dorsoduro 2206, 30123 Venice, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 October 2012
Received in revised form 31 October 2012
Accepted 4 November 2012
Available online 19 November 2012
Keywords:
A. Layered structures
B. Stress transfer
C. Analytical modeling
Laminate mechanics
a b s t r a c t
The subject of this paper is the plate composed of two identical layers connected to each other in a dis-
continuous way, i.e. via discontinuous elements (connectors). This paper presents a model that describes
the mechanical behavior of this plate by a system of exact, analytical (explicit) equations. The discrete
distribution of discontinuous connectors is replaced by a ctitious continuous medium (interlayer).
Accordingly, the plate is modeled as an equivalent three-layered plate: Two outer layers and a connecting
inner interlayer. In order to obtain a fast and easy to use tool, something that is necessary for an analytical
model to be chosen over nite elements and empirical formulas, modeling process is developed within
the framework of two-dimensional elasticity. In so doing, the model also represents a means for attaining
full comprehension of the mechanical phenomena that are involved, something that neither three-
dimensional elasticity nor nite elements and empirical formulas can attain. The transition from three
to two-dimensional behavior is obtained by relating the normal stress in the direction transverse to
the plate to the distortion in the interlayer. The two-dimensional behavior is governed using kinematic
and force assumptions that do not impose appreciable constraints on the stressstrain state and struc-
tural behavior. Starting from these assumptions, the paper develops the relationships between displace-
ments and interface stresses, for both continuous and discontinuous connection. The latter relationships,
which are used in this model, and the former relationships, which were used in a previously presented
model, are discussed and compared to each other. The subsequent sections of the paper describe the
model and present some real case applications of discontinuously-connected layered plate.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This paper represents the fth step of a research line whose
scope is the analytical and exact modeling of composite exural
members. The rst two steps were devoted to the composite beam
[1,2]; the third and fourth steps were devoted to the composite
plate with continuous connection [3,4]. This last step is devoted
to the composite plate with discontinuous connection.
A composite structure can be dened as a structure made up of
distinct components connected to each other. The connection
transfers in-plane shear stresses between the components, which
provide the composite structure with greater stiffness and strength
than the sum of its components as standalone structural elements.
Composite structures can be broadly subdivided into mixed, lami-
nated, sandwich, and layered structures.
Mixed (or hybrid) structures are composite structures whose
components are made of materials different from one another.
Mixed structures use the in-plane shear stress transfer to make
the components behave in the most advantageous way. Examples
are steelconcrete beams [57], which make the concrete carry
prevailing compressive stress and the steel prevailing tensile
stress, and timberconcrete structures [8], which make the con-
crete carry prevailing compressive stress. The connection between
the components is normally obtained by using discontinuous ele-
ments, named shear connectors. Examples of shear connectors
are welded (headed) studs, short length of steel channels, bolts,
series of sharp teeth (which dig into the wood), connection
enhancements (ribs, embossments, indentations), welded steel
(spiral) bars.
Laminated structures are composite structures manufactured
by connecting two or more layers together, with thin interlayers.
Lamination allows the composite structure to tolerate impacts
and concentrated loads, and to dissipate the energy released by
cracking, so attenuating crack propagation. Moreover, a laminated
structure may have non-structural advantages as regards thermal
insulation, sound attenuation, and radiation absorption. On the
other hand, lamination implies a certain reduction in stiffness
and strength, with respect to the equivalent monolithic structure
(i.e., the monolith with thickness equal to the total thickness of
the laminated). Thus, laminated structures use the interface in-
plane shear stresses to minimize those reductions. Examples are
polymeric laminates [9] and laminated glass [1016]. The poly-
meric interlayer of laminated glass, in particular, prevents the
1359-8368/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.11.004
E-mail address: paofor@iuav.it
Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Composites: Part B
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ composi t esb
propagation of a crack to the other glass ply, eliminates falling
glass shards, and guarantees substantial residual strength after
cracking [16].
Sandwich structures are composite structures fabricated by
attaching two relatively stiff skins (facings or face-sheets) to a
low-to-moderate stiffness core. The design criterion of the cross-
section is to place a stiff material where the normal stresses and
their bending lever arms are greater, i.e. outward from the cen-
troid, and a soft material where the normal stresses and their
bending lever arms are lower, i.e. inward to the centroid. In other
words, an interlayer is interposed between two layers with the
purpose of increasing both the resultant forces in each layer and
their lever arm, without increasing the maximum stress acting in
the layers. Considering that the soft material is much lighter than
the stiff material and that the stiff material has also adequate
strength, sandwich structures can achieve higher stiffness-to-den-
sity and strength-to-density ratios than other comparable struc-
tures, although the stiffness of the interlayer may be drastically
lower than that of a layer. Examples of skin materials are rein-
forced polymers, metals, and timber [1725]. The core can be com-
posed of a continuous materialexamples are polymers, foams,
balsa wood [17,18,2025]or a micro-structured periodic mate-
rialexamples are honeycombs, corrugated, lattice, ceramic tiles
[19,2629].
Layered structures are composite structures manufactured by
connecting two or more equal layers together, without interposing
any space interlayer. The connection can be either discontinuous or
continuous. Examples of discontinuous connections are studs,
nails, dowels, pins, spikes, screws, dovetails, comb joints, ngers
[3044]. Examples of continuous connections are polymers (chem-
ical bonding), welds, post-vulcanization, interlocking devices
(cohesion and mobilized friction mechanisms between the rough
interfaces) [9,1820,22,3133]. The difference between a layered
and a mixed structure is that the components of the latter are dif-
ferent from one another, contrary to the former. The difference be-
tween a layered and a laminated structure is that the latter is
assembled together through the interposition of one or more space
layers (thin, but not negligible), contrary to the former. The same is
true for a sandwich structure, with the difference that the inter-
layer may be thick.
This paper focuses on the layered plate with discontinuous con-
nection (two layers). Laminated plates with discontinuous inter-
layer [58,16] and sandwich plates with discontinuous core are
included [1719,25,34,45]. Moreover, this research is intimately
connected with the topic of composite structures with imperfect
interface, which provides important Refs. [4654].
2. Standard modeling assumptions
Analytical modeling of composite plates can be developed in the
framework of either three-dimensional or two-dimensional
elasticity.
Exact three-dimensional elasticity solutions were constructed in
1969 for the composite laminates in cylindrical bending [55] and in
1970 for rectangular bidirectional composites and sandwich plates
[56]. These analytical models represent important achievements
not only in sandwich theory but in mechanics. Unfortunately, these
models are neither easy nor expressive, and it is neither straightfor-
ward nor fast to obtain the solutions, something that conversely is
necessary for an analytical model to be chosen over nite element
models or empirical formulas. Moreover, the three-dimensional ap-
proach does not capture the dening attribute of layered structures,
because it does not distinguish between essential behaviors and
side effects. Thus, three-dimensional analytical modeling does not
even represent a means for attaining scientic understanding of
the mechanical behavior of the layered plate.
In the two-dimensional elasticity framework, conversely, mod-
eling process can be developed so as to obtain a simple analytical
formulation whose application not only is very easy, but even dras-
tically less time consuming than to generate any nite element
mesh or to apply any empirical formula [3,4]. Furthermore, the
two-dimensional approach reproduces directly and explicitly the
process of deformation and mechanical failure of the layered plate
and the connection between these processes and their underlying
mechanisms, which provides fully understanding of the phenom-
ena involved. For these reasons, this research was developed with-
in the framework of the two-dimensional elasticity.
Two-dimensional elasticity differs from three-dimensional elas-
ticity mainly in the normal stress in the direction transverse to the
Nomenclature
B side of the layered plate parallel to y-axis
E elastic modulus of the layers (in tension and compres-
sion)
E
s
elastic modulus of the connector (discontinuous con-
necting element)
E
t
elastic modulus of the interlayer, which is assumed to
be nil
G shear elastic modulus of the layers
G
t
shear elastic modulus of the interlayer
I
s
modulus of inertia of the individual connector (discon-
tinuous connecting element)
h thickness of each layer
L side of the layered plate parallel to x-axis, with L PB
k half the thickness of the interlayer
M mp/L
N np/B
p lateral load, applied on the upper surface of the upper
layer (F/L
2
)
t
u
, t
v
x and y components of the in-plane shear stress trans-
mitted through the upper interface, between the inter-
layer and the upper layer
u, v, w components of displacements in the x, y, z directions,
respectively
u
t
, v
t
x and y components of the relative in-plane displace-
ment of the upper interface with respect to the to the
plate middle surface (which is immovable)
t
vm
, v
tm
maximum value of t
v
and v
t
T
u
shear force transmitted by an individual connecting ele-
ment in the x direction
w
Max
maximum deection of the plate (at the center)
z
/
, z
/ /
out of plane axes with origin O
/
and O
/ /
on the middle
plane of the upper and lower layers, respectively
D
x
, D
y
x-axis and y-axis spacing of the connectors
m Poissons ratio of the layers
r
yi
r
y
stresses at the upper surface of the lower layer
r
ym
r
y
stresses at the lower surface of the lower layer
r
Max
maximum stress in the layered plate
r
z
normal stress in the direction transverse to the plate
h
ab
angle of rotation of the segment ab
f h + 2k = lever arm of the internal couple of the in-plane
forces
366 P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378
plate, r
z
, which the latter considers while the former ignores. In or-
der to replace the three-dimensional model, thus, a two-dimen-
sional model has to reproduce the effects of the r
z
.
The layered plate is here simulated by the three-layered model
(Fig. 1): Two identical layers of stiff material that reproduce the
behavior of the outer components and a more compliant inner
interlayer that reproduces the connection between the layers. This
model is a thorough and straightforward schematization of any
symmetric composite plate. Therefore, not only does it simulate
the layered plate, but it also simulates laminated and sandwich
plates. In fact, the layers can reproduce the behavior of any outer
face sheets and the interlayer can reproduce both continuous and
discontinuous connections.
The development of the three-layered model within the two-
dimensional elasticity framework calls for the following modeling
assumptions, which are about (1) the plate, (2) the interfaces, (3)
the layers, (4) and the interlayer.
(1) The structural behavior is elastic.
(2) The displacement functions have no discontinuity at the
interfaces.
(3) Each layer behaves according to the Kirchhoff-Love plate
hypotheses.
(4) The interlayer does not transmit any stresses through the
cross-sections and its thickness does not change during
bending.
The rst assumption is supported by the fact that inelasticity
usually provides the ultimate limit states of layered plates with
higher capacity/demand ratios than the serviceability limit states
[511,1620,2427,3841,5557]. With particular regard to the
connection between the layers, if it is relatively compliant, inelas-
ticity would be possible only beyond the ultimate limit state of the
plate, while if it is less compliant, failure is due to delamination,
displaying little inelasticity [11,21,30,35,38,39,42,43,5860]. Thus,
these specic layered plates are dimensioned to satisfy the service-
ability deection, which entails linear behavior, while inelasticity
is pointless for their dimensioning and assessment.
The second assumption coincides with the denition of inter-
layer [4851,60,61].
The third assumption, which consists of modeling the layers
along the lines of classical plate theory, reects that a layer sub-
stantially has a bending deection and falls within the category
of thin plates with small deection [56].
As regards small deection, results from nite element models
showed that the layered plates that fulll the deection limits pre-
scribed by the serviceability limit states of almost all the structural
applications do not exhibit any detectable geometric non-linearity
even at ultimate. Thus, the single layer may be extremely thin,
since the composite action keeps the deection down. As regards
ignoring the shear strain, three-dimensional elasticity solutions
that take into account shear deformation [55,56] showed that the
thickness-to-span ratio beyond which the shear strain noticeably
affects the behavior is very high, to the extent that the layer is
not a plate but a three-dimensional solid [4].
The fourth assumption reproduces every discontinuous connec-
tion directly (the subject of this paper) and, indirectly, the vast
majority of the continuous connections.
A discontinuous connection does not exhibit continuous cross-
sections; thus, no r
x
and r
y
stress is transmitted through the inter-
layer. Moreover, each individual connector does not exhibit any
elongation or shortening; thus, the thickness of the interlayer can-
not change.
The vast majority of the continuous connection have low elastic
modulus or/and small thickness. Thus, the normal stresses acting
on the interlayer cross-sections are negligible and/or have negligi-
ble lever arms. Moreover, the transverse shear stresses that main-
tain the rotational equilibrium are negligible and/or act on thin
cross-sections as well. Hence, the interlayer bending moments
and shear forces are negligible, i.e., the stresses acting onto the
interlayer cross-sections have no effects [1625,47,51,56].
Moreover, almost all the continuous connections change the
thickness only marginally due to the normal stress in the direction
transverse to the plate, r
z
. Changing the interlayer thickness would
imply losing the anti-asymmetry of the behavior, which would en-
tail that a layer has to bear a greater fraction of the external load
then the other layer. Thus, design avoids this undesirable condition.
The fourth assumption does not impose any constraint to the
distortion due to compatibility between interlayer and layers
(deection derivative).
Ultimately, the assumptions do not impose constraints on the
stressstrain state of the layered plate. Thus, a model based on
these assumptions does not need to be veried by experiments
or nite element models. Conversely, such a model allows nite
element models and empirical formulas to be veried.
3. Modeling of the connection through the interlayer
The assumptions, in particular the fourth one, allow one to sim-
ulate the mechanical behavior of the connection between the lay-
ers by using an interlayer.
This section refers to an innitesimal element cut out of the
interlayer by two pairs of planes at an innitesimal distance from
each other, parallel to the xz and yz planes; i.e., innitesimal paral-
lelepiped of sides dx, dy, 2k (Fig. 2), where k is the semi-thickness
of the interlayer.
Let x
a
and y
a
denote the x and y coordinates of the vertex a; u
a
t
its
in-plane translation u
t
, and w
a
its deection w (Fig. 3). The transla-
tions u
t
of the vertexes b, c, d can be obtained by using continuity
and anti-symmetry of displacements with respect to the middle
plane. The deections w of the same vertexes can be obtained by
using the fourth assumption.
u
b
t
= u(x
a
; k) = u
a
t
; w
b
= w
a
(1)
Fig. 1. Diagram of the layered plate. The interlayer may reproduce the behavior of a
discontinuous connection (shown in the gure) or a continuous connection. The
gure accounts for the elastic properties of the components. The out-of-plane axes,
z
/
, z
/ /
, and z have origins O
/
, O
/ /
, and O, which lie on the middle plane of the upper
layer, lower layer, and interlayer, respectively.
P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378 367
u
c
t
= u
a
t

@u
t
(x
a
)
@x
dx; w
c
= w
a

@w(x
a
)
@x
dx (2)
u
d
t
= u(x
a
dx; k) = u
c
t
; w
d
= w
c
; (3)
The strains in the face abdc may be described by using the deriv-
ative of the angle h
ab
, along with the angles h
ac
plus h
ab
of its sides
ac and ab. Conversely, the curvature is meaningless, since the shear
strain is dominant. From (1)(3):
@h
ab
@x
=
1
k

@u
t
@x
(4)
h
ac
=
@w
@x
(5)
h
ab
=
u
t
k
(6)
3.1. Continuous connection between the layers
This Section is devoted to simulating the continuous connection
between the layers by using an interlayer. Novelty does not stem
from the results, which were already presented and used [1,3,4],
but from the generalized mechanical framework within the inter-
layer model is obtained.
According to (4),
@h
ab
@x
induces e
x
and hence r
x
in the face abdc
(Figs. 4 and 5):
e
x
=
1
k

@u
t
@x
z; r
x
=
E
t
k

@u
t
@x
z (7)
where E
t
is the elastic modulus of the interlayer. Tensile strains and
tensile stresses are positive.
Eq. (7) explain the rst statement of the forth assumption. The
elasticity moduli of almost all the cores and interlayers, E
t
, are very
small. Thus, the normal stresses r
x
and r
y
given by (7) are small. If
moreover the interlayer is thin, z is small; consequently the normal
stresses are particularly small and their effects are insignicant.
That is why r
x
and r
y
are ignored (Figs. 4 and 5).
According to (5), the interlayer is subjected to the distortion
@w
@x
.
This distortion results from the anti-symmetric rotations h
ac
and
h
bd
of the two sides ac and bd (Fig. 3). Due to these rotations, the
straight lines normal to the middle surface can exhibit (1) either
anti-symmetric bending (2) or relative deection.
(1) Anti-symmetric bending induces variations of the transverse
normal stresses, r
z
, which are transmitted between the
interlayer and layers through the interfaces. Thus, anti-
symmetric bending implies that any straight line normal
to the middle surface, in particular of the two sides ab
and cd, remain neither straight nor normal to the middle
surface after deformation (i.e., double-curvature bending
shape; Fig. 6).
(2) Relative deection induces shear stresses s
xz
and s
yz
on the
cross-sections of the interlayer. Thus, relative deection
implies that any straight line normal to the middle surface,
in particular of the two sides ab and cd, do not remain nor-
mal to the middle surface after deformation, whereas they
remain straight (as shown in Fig. 3).
Fig. 2. Innitesimal element cut out of the interlayer. Shadowed area: face abdc,
which the developments refer to. The origin O of the axis z lies on the middle plane
of the interlayer.
Fig. 3. Innitesimal face abdc of the element cut out of the interlayer (Fig. 2).
Undeformed face: dashed lines. Deformed face: solid bold lines with shadowed
area. The gure shows the in-plane translation u
t
, the deection w of the vertexes,
and the angles of rotation of the sides, including the signs.
Fig. 4. Innitesimal face abdc of the solid element cut out of the interlayer. Proles
of the normal stress acting on the x cross-sections. Shadowed area: upper semi-
thickness of the interlayer. The gure shows the elongation of the z-ber after
deformation, i.e., from the length dx to dx
/
= 1
1
k

@ut
@x
z
_ _
dx.
368 P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378
The interlayer performs the distortion
@w
@x
following the less stiff
behavior between anti-symmetric bending and relative deection.
The stiffness of each behavior depends on the E
t
/k ratio. If this ratio
is negligible to very low, the stiffness of the anti-symmetric bend-
ing is lower than the stiffness of the relative deection, and vice
versa. Although the critical ratio is very low, the vast majority of
the practical applications can be analyzed under the assumption
that the E
t
/k ratio is nil. Thus, the distortion
@w
@x
induces anti-sym-
metric bending in the interlayer, which consists of variable r
z
(Fig. 6). The variation of r
z
over the sides ac (and over bd) is equiv-
alent to a bending moment (couple).
The variation of r
z
is governed by the anti-symmetric rotations
of the sides ac and bd. Under the working hypothesis that the shear
stresses acting on the cross-sections of the interlayer have uniform
distribution (Fig. 6):
dw
dx
= lim
Dx0
Dr
z
Dy (Dx)
2
k
3 E
i
Dy (Dx)
3
= lim
Dx0
Dr
z
k
3 E
i
Dx
=
k
3 E
i

dr
z
dx
(8)
Eq. (8) proves that r
z
is an exogenous variable, i.e., it can be
determined outside the model of the layered plate, by using an
independent equation.
Eq. (8) is valid for E
t
/k ratios lower than the critical value, other-
wise the distortion induces relative deection instead of anti-sym-
metric bending. For these higher ratios, For these higher ratios of
E
z
/k the distortion is not induced by the r
z
stresses and their vari-
ations, but by the shear stresses.
Ultimately, Eq. (8) explains why the in-plane shear stresses
transmitted by a continuous connection through the interfaces
do not depend on the deection derivative: The distortion is not
Fig. 5. Innitesimal element cut out of the interlayer: proles of the normal stress
acting on the x and y cross sections. The model ignores these stresses.
Fig. 6. Face abdc of the innitesimal element cut out of the interlayer. Shadowed
area: upper semi-thickness of the interlayer. Stresses r
z
acting on the sides ac and
bd (interfaces). The variation of r
z
over the sides ac is equivalent to a bending
moment (couple); the same for the side bd. The gure represents these two bending
moments, together with the balancing shear stresses.
(a) (b)
(c)
Fig. 7. Shear distortion and shear stresses in the interlayer. Positive signs of the
vectors are illustrated (note that t
u
and t
v
are applied to the interlayer). (a) Face
abdc. Undeformed state: solid bold lines. Deformed state due to shear distortion:
dashed lines. Angle h
ab
and h
cd
of the sides ab and cd. (b) Shear stresses acting on the
innitesimal face abdc. (c) Shear stresses acting on the innitesimal element cut out
of the interlayer.
P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378 369
shear distortion. It follows that, the distortion
dw
dx
plays no role in
the composite behavior of the plate.
According to (6), the angle h
ab
induces shear strain c
zx
and c
xz
together with shear stress s
zx
and s
xz
in the interlayer, which are
constant over the thickness k (Fig. 7):
c
zx
=
u
t
k
; s
zx
= G
t

u
t
k
(9)
According to Eqs. (7)(9), hence, the interlayer is free from nor-
mal stresses, bending moments, and transverse shear forces, while
it transmits in-plane shear stresses through the interfaces together
with the balancing shear stresses on the cross-sections (Figs. 8 and
9). The x and y components of the in-plane shear stresses transmit-
ted through the upper interface, t
u
and t
v
, are:
t
u
= G
t

u
t
k
; t
v
= G
t

v
t
k
(10)
The sign of an interface in-plane shear stress is due to the fact
that Eqs. (10) consider the shear stress acting on the lower edge
of the upper layer (Figs. 79). Thus, t
u
and t
v
acting on the inter-
layer have opposite sign with respect to (10). The signs of t
u
and
t
v
acting onto the cross-sections of the interlayer follow from the
rotational equilibrium of the innitesimal element (Figs. 79).
Physical interpretation of Eqs. (8) and (10) can be derived from
the fact that E
t
~ 0 means that the boundaries of the interlayer are
utterly compliant with the two anti-symmetric angles h
ac
and h
bd
imposed by the layers to the interlayer. Conversely, the angles
h
ab
and h
cd
, which are not anti-symmetric, imply the transmission
of signicant shear stress through the interfaces.
3.2. Discontinuous connection between the layers
The research developed the subject in a comprehensive manner.
To reach this, the research did not consider how the discontinuous
connection was made but it considered only the actions that the
discontinuous connection exchanged with the layers. Using this
approach, all the practical applications [3045] can be grouped
into two general categories, according to whether or not the con-
nection transfers bending moments, together with in-plane forces.
The behavior of the discontinuous connection that does not
transmit any bending moment through the interfaces can be repro-
duced by transverse and diagonal straight bars hinged at both
ends, to form a spatial pin-joined truss, with the pins along the
interfaces (Fig. 10). The truss exchanges transverse and in-plan
he forces at the pins. The in-plane forces depend on the in-plane
displacements of the hinges but do not appreciably depend on
the vertical displacement of the hinges (Fig. 11). Accordingly, this
category of discontinuous connection has the same behavior as
the continuous connection, except for the fact that the former is
Fig. 8. Shear and normal stresses acting on the innitesimal face abdc of the
element cut out of the interlayer. Positive signs of the vectors are illustrated. The
model considers only the shear stress t
u
(and t
v
acting on the face abfe, which is not
shown).
Fig. 9. Perspective of the shear and normal stresses acting on the innitesimal
element cut out of the interlayer. Positive signs of the vectors are illustrated. The
model ignores the shear stresses acting on the cross-sections and all the normal
stresses, as well as their effects.
Fig. 10. Diagram of the discontinuous connection that does not transfer any
bending moment to the layers: The behavior of the interlayer is reproduced by a
spatial truss.
Fig. 11. Mesh of the truss of Fig. 10. The in-plane force transmitted through the
hinge depends on the elongation of the diagonal pin-joined truss (solid bold line).
The elongation depends on u
t
and Dw, as well as on k and D
x
. Since Dw/u
t
1 and
k/D
x
1, the in-plane forces depend primarily on the in-plane displacements while
they depend moderately on the variation of the deection.
370 P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378
a discrete system. Thus, the behavior of this truss can be closely
approximated by smearing its stiffness along x and y and then
using (10).
A discontinuous connection that transmits bending moments
through the interfaces can be simulated by transverse straight bars
built-in at both ends, at certain x-axis and y-axis spacing (Fig. 12).
Each end of the bars is xed into the layer at the distance from the
layer edge necessary to rigidly restrain the end against relative
rotation with respect to the layer. This distance, which depends
on the layers and interlayer, is the semi-thickness k.
The bars exchange bending moments (couples) and in-plane
forces at the ends. The bending moment at an end depends on the
rotation of the end and is balanced by the in-plane force at both
the ends of the bar. Thus, the in-plane forces substantially depend
on both the in-plane displacements and the rotation of the bar ends
(deection derivative). This means that this category of discontinu-
ous connection drastically differs from the continuous connection,
regardless of being discrete. More specically, the discontinuous
connection exhibits the same double-curvature bending shape that,
in the continuous connection, is exhibitedby every straight line nor-
mal to the middle surface (Figs. 12 and 13). However, the interface
shear transfer of the latter and the former are different fromone an-
other. Thus, the behavior of the bars cannot besimulatedbyapplying
Eq. (10) to the smeared model. All things considered, henceforward
only this case is referred to as discontinuous connection.
This research dened the interlayer that models the discontin-
uous connection and derived the analytical model of the layered
plate with this interlayer.
Let E
s
and I
s
denote the modulus of elasticity and the moment of
inertia of the individual (transverse) bar. The in-plane translations
u
t
of the upper and lower ends of the bar produces the strain-plane
shear force T
uu
(Fig. 12):
T
uu
=
12 E
s
I
s
k
3
u
t
(11)
where the sign of T
uu
results from the signs of u
t
and from the fact
that Eq. (9) considers the T
uu
vector applied to the lower edge of
the upper layer. Hence, T
uu
adopts the same sign convention as t
u
.
The rotations h
p
= h
w
of, respectively, the upper and lower ends
of the bar produce the in-plane shear force T
uh
(Fig. 13):
T
uh
=
12 E
s
I
s
k
2
h
p
(12)
with the same sign convention; in particular h
p
and h
w
are positive if
clockwise.
In nal analysis, the relationship between the in-plane shear
force T
u
applied to the lower edge of the upper layer and the dis-
placements is:
T
u
=
12 E
s
I
s
k
2

u
t
k
h
p
_ _
(13)
3.3. Interlayer that simulates the discontinuous connection
The in-plane shear force T
u
can be smeared into the in-plane
shear stress t
u
. In so doing, the discontinuous connection is simu-
lated by a ctitious continuous interlayer. Let D
x
and D
y
denote
the x-axis and y-axis spacing of the connectors, respectively, i.e.
the spacing between the bars (Fig. 1).
t
u
=
T
u
D
x
D
y
=
12 E
s
I
s
D
x
D
y
k
2

u
t
k
h
ac
_ _
(14)
The x and y components of the in-plane shear stresses transmit-
ted through the upper interface, t
u
and t
v
, can be nally worked out
by using Eq. (5):
t
u
= G
t

u
t
k
G
t

@w
@x
; t
v
= G
t

v
t
k
G
t

@w
@y
(15)
where G
t
represents the equivalent shear elastic modulus:
G
t
=
12 E
s
I
s
D
x
D
y
k
3
(16)
The sign is due to the fact that Eqs. (15) consider the shear
stress acting on the lower surface of the upper layer. The shear
stresses t
u
and t
v
acting onto the cross-sections of the interlayer
have the sign that follows from the rotational equilibrium of the
innitesimal element (Fig. 7).
3.4. Continuous and discontinuous connection relationships
The interlayer that reproduces the continuous connection,
which is described by Eq. (10), is completely different from the
interlayer that reproduces the discontinuous connection, which is
described by Eq. (15). It could be useful to substantiate this asser-
tion with examples.
Consider an interlayer made of the same material as the layers.
In this case the entire cross-section of the layered plate remains
plane during deformation. At any abscissa, therefore, the cross-sec-
tion of the interlayer rotates through the same angle as the two
cross-sections of the layers:
u
t
k
=
@w
@x
;
v
t
k
=
@w
@y
(17)
Substitution of (17) into the equation that pertains to this situ-
ation, i.e. into (10), leads to:
Fig. 12. Diagram of the discontinuous connection that transfers bending moment to
the layers: the behavior of the interlayer is reproduced by a whole of transverse
bars. Periodic reiteration of a bar at spacing D
x
and D
y
, each one having both ends
rigidly xed against rotation (built-in into the layers). Dotted line: deformed bar.
The distance of the built-in end to the edge of the layer is the semi-thickness k.
Accordingly, the actual interface is the solid line that bounds the shadowed area,
while the dashed line shows the edges of the layers only.
Fig. 13. Element of length dx cut out of the layered plate. Deformation of the bar
(pointed line) due to the rotation of the layers, which causes the upper and lower
ends of the bar to rotate by an angle of h
p
= h
w
. The rotations of the ends of the bar
engender the in-plane shear force T
uh
.
P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378 371
t
u
= G
t

@w
@x
; t
v
= G
t

@w
@y
(18)
which reproduce the real behavior in this limiting condition.
Conversely, substitution of (17) into (15) leads to t
u
= 0 and
t
v
= 0. If the interlayer is modeled using Eq. (15) in lieu of Eq.
(10), thus, no in-plane shear stress is transferred through the inter-
face in this limiting condition, while the real behavior exhibits the
maximum shears stress transfer.
Consider a continuum connection that provides the layers with
no in-plane shear stresses. The cross-section of the interlayer ro-
tates through the angles:
u
t
k
=
@w
@x

h
2 k
;
v
t
k
=
@w
@y

h
2 k
(19)
Substitution of (19) into (10) leads to:
t
u
= G
t

@w
@x

h
2 k
; t
v
= G
t

@w
@y

h
2 k
(20)
For k that approaches innite, t
u
and t
v
of Eq. (20) approach zero,
which reproduce the real behavior in this limiting condition.
Substitution of (19) into (15) leads to:
t
u
= G
t
1
h
2 k
_ _

@w
@x
; t
v
= G
t
1
h
2 k
_ _

@w
@y
(21)
For k that approaches innite, t
u
and t
v
of Eq. (21) approaches
G
t

@w
@x
and G
t

@w
@y
, respectively, while the real behavior is that
the interfaces transfer no in-plane shears stresses.
In (21), moreover, t
u
and t
v
result to be nil for k = h/2, indepen-
dently on G
t
, which is another erroneous prediction. According to
(20), in addition, for both k and G
t
that approach zero in such a
way that their ratio
G
t
k
remains the same, t
u
and t
v
do not vary.
According to (21), on the contrary, t
u
and t
v
vary (i.e.,
h G
t
2 k

@w
@x
and
h G
t
2 k

@w
@y
do not vary, but G
t

@w
@x
and G
t

@w
@y
vary with G
t
).
The real behavior in this limiting condition is that that t
u
and t
v
are almost constant. Again, this behavior is captured by (10) while
it is missed by (15).
To sum up, this Section has explained why [4] has used Eq. (10)
and not Eq. (15). Actually, those numerical models that use Eq. (15)
for continuously-connected layered plates misestimate the stiff-
ness of the connection.
3.5. Thickness of the interlayer that reproduces the discontinuous
connection
Eqs. (15) replace the discontinuous connection with the inter-
layer, as long as Eq. (16) and the semi-thickness k are substituted
into Eq. (15). The input data of Eqs. (15) and (16) can be taken di-
rectly from the layered plate, except for k, which does not repre-
sent a real geometric dimension but a ctitious thickness. In fact,
each transverse bar is built-in at both ends (Figs. 12 and 13) and
the rigid restraint against relative rotation calls for an adequate
insertion depth of the built-in end into the layer. The insertion
depth necessary to x the bar to the layer depends on the stiffness
of the bar and layer. This insertion is reproduced by the semi-thick-
ness of the interlayer k. Accordingly, k is a mechanical parameter
rather than a geometric dimension. This entails that k has to be
determined experimentally by testing a sample of layered plate.
The sample may consist of a portion D
x
D
y
of the plate (a connec-
tor together with the relevant parts of the layers). The test has to
determine the shear stiffness of the connection. To achieve this,
it is sufcient to measure the relative displacement U
t
between
the layers due to a shear action T
u
obtained by a force T
u
applied
to one layer and an opposite force T
u
applied to the other layer
(considering also the balancing couples, since the two forces T
u
are not coaxial).
Let K denote the shear stiffness of the individual connection. By
denition: K = T
u
/U
t
. Considering that the bar is xed against rota-
tion at both the ends:
k =

12 E
s
I
s
K
3
_
(22)
4. Discontinuously-connected layered plate: system denition
The major conclusion which can be drawn from Section 3 is that
the model presented in [4] covers the continuous connection only,
while the layered plate with discontinuous connection has to be
modeled by the interlayer described by Eq. (15). The research
was then focused towards developing the model of the layered
plate with discontinuous connection by using said interlayer.
The reference structure used was the three-layered plate with
cross-section formed by two layers, each one of thickness h, plus
an interlayer of thickness 2k, restrained at the boundary, and sub-
jected to a lateral load p (Fig. 1). The assumptions are stated in Sec-
tion 2; the interlayer is governed by Eq. (15).
The nomenclature adopted throughout this paper is the same as
that adopted in [4]. In particular t
u
and t
v
denote the x and y com-
ponents of the in-plane shear stresses transmitted between the
interlayer and layers through the interfaces. Positive directions of
t
u
and t
v
applied to the lower surface of the upper layer are those
Fig. 14. Element cut out of the layered plate by two pairs of planes parallel to the xz
and yz planes, at an innitesimal distance from each other. Layer out-of-plane shear
forces acting on the x and y cross-sections; layer bending moments and layer
normal (axial) forces acting on the x + dx and y + dy cross-sections. The gure shows
the positive direction of the vectors. The gures illustrate as well the transverse
load p.
372 P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378
of the axes that they are parallel to (Fig. 7). Moreover, u, v, w
denote the components of the displacement in the x, y, z directions
(i.e., u and v are the in-plane displacements, w is the deection);
the positive direction of each displacement component is that of
the relevant axis. Furthermore, u
t
and v
t
denote the x and y compo-
nents of the in-plane displacement of the upper interface with re-
spect to the middle surface of the plate (i.e., u
t
and v
t
are u and v for
z = k). The positive directions of u
t
and v
t
are those of the axis that
they are parallel to. Anti-symmetric behavior implies that the mid-
dle surface of the plate is immovable. Thus, u
t
and v
t
are absolute
displacements.
The material properties of the layers are the elastic modulus,
the shear (elastic) modulus, and Poissons ratio, E, G, and m,
respectively.
The mathematical model developments consider (Figs. 1417)
both an innitesimal element cut out of the upper layer and an
innitesimal element cut out of the layered plate (two pairs of
cut planes at an innitesimal distance from each other, parallel
to the xz and yz planes respectively). Presented here are the devel-
opments for the x direction; the expressions for the y direction can
be obtained by inverting the index x with y and vice-versa in the x
expressions.
5. Model of the discontinuously-connected layered plate
The mechanical behavior of the discontinuously-connected lay-
ered plate is described by the 10 internal actions N
x
, N
y
, M
x
, M
y
, V
x
,
V
y
(Fig. 14), V
xy
, M
xy
(Fig. 15), t
u
(Fig. 7), t
v
(by virtue of s
xy
= s
yx
,
M
xy
= M
yx
and V
xy
= V
yx
), and by the three displacements w, u
t
, v
t
(Figs. 3 and 17). These 13 unknowns are functions of x and y. To ob-
tain the model, rst the relationships between the 10 internal ac-
tions and the three displacements were found, and then 3
equations involving the displacements were dened.
The reduction of the 13 unknowns to V
x
, V
y
, t
u
, t
v
, w, u
t
, v
t
does
not involve the interlayer. Thus, the same reduction carried out in
[4] also holds true here. Hence, the relationships available in [4],
together with (15), represented the starting point of the develop-
ment of the model. Thus, all that was needed to obtain the model
was to nd the remaining relationships between the internal ac-
tions and the displacements, and the equations involving the
displacements.
5.1. Layer in-plane translational equilibrium
The translational equilibrium along the x-axis implies that
(Figs. 7 and 1417):
@N
X
@x

@V
XY
@y
= t
u
(23)
The derivatives of N
xy
and V
xy
are available in [4], while t
u
is gi-
ven by Eq. (15):
a
h
2
2

@
3
w
@x
3
a h
@
2
u
t
@x
2
m a
h
2
2

@
3
w
@x@y
2
m a h
@
2
v
t
@x@y
G h
2

@
3
w
@x@y
2
G h
@
2
u
t
@y
2
G h
@
2
v
t
@x@y
G
t

u
t
k
G
t

@w
@x
= 0 (24)
where:
a =
E
(1 m
2
)
(25)
Fig. 15. Innitesimal element cut out of the layered plate, with the layer twisting
moments and layer in-plane shear forces, acting on the x + dx and y + dy cross-
sections, in the positive direction.
Fig. 16. Layer internal actions upon the x and y cross-sections as well as upon the
upper interface, of an innitesimal element cut out of the upper layer.
Fig. 17. Innitesimal rectangular element dx. Positive signs of the displacements
and the differential internal actions.
P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378 373
5.2. Global rotational equilibrium
The rotational equilibrium of an innitesimal element cut out of
the layered plate around the y-axis is the sum of V
x
, N
x
, V
xy
multi-
plied by the lever arm of these vectors, plus M
x
and M
xy
(Figs. 14
17). The rotational contribution DR given by N
x
and V
xy
has the fol-
lowing nite form:
DR =
@N
x
@x
f
@V
xy
@y
f =
@N
x
@x

@V
xy
@y
_ _
f (26)
where f = h 2 k. Substitution of (23) and (15) into (26) trans-
forms (26) into:
DR = f t
u
= f G
t

u
t
k
f G
t

@w
@x
(27)
The rotational equilibrium of the innitesimal element around
the y-axis provides the following nite form equation, which re-
sults from taking the moments of all the forces acting on the ele-
ment with respect to the y-axis and using (27) as well as some
expressions obtained in [4]:
a h
3
6

@
3
w
@x
3
m
@
3
w
@y
3
_ _

a h
3
(1 m)
6

@
3
w
@x@y
2
f G
t

u
t
k
f G
t

@w
@x
2 V
x
= 0 (28)
5.3. Layer lateral translational equilibrium
The out-of-plane shear forces do not depend on w, u
t
and v
t
. In
order to reduce the unknowns to w, u
t
and v
t
, hence, V
x
and V
y
have
to be eliminated by determining V
x
from (28) and V
y
from the anal-
ogous equation, then substituting them into the lateral transla-
tional equilibrium equation.
@
4
w
@x
4
2
@
4
w
@x
2
@y
2

@
4
w
@y
4

6 f G
t
k a h
3

@u
t
@x

@v
t
@y
_ _

6 f G
t
a h
3

@
2
w
@x
2

@
2
w
@y
2
_ _
=
6 p
a h
3
(29)
5.4. Governing equations of the discontinuously-connected layered
plate
The collection of (29), (24), and the formof (24) written for the y
axis gives a system of three linear differential equations with con-
stant coefcients. The coefcients are known, since they combine
geometric and mechanical characteristics of the plate. Thus, this
system of three differential equations completely describes the
mechanical behavior of the layered plate with discontinuous con-
nection spread onto an equivalent continuous interlayer.
@
4
w
@x
4
2
@
4
w
@x
2
@y
2

@
4
w
@y
4

6 f G
t
k a h
3

@u
t
@x

@v
t
@y
_ _

6 f G
t
a h
3

@
2
w
@x
2

@
2
w
@y
2
_ _
=
6 p
a h
3
a
h
2

@
3
w
@x
3
m a
h
2
G h
_ _

@
3
w
@x@y
2
a
@
2
u
t
@x
2
G
@
2
u
t
@y
2
G
t

u
t
k h

G
t
h

@w
@x
(G m a)
@
2
v
t
@x@y
= 0
a
h
2

@
3
w
@y
3
m a
h
2
G h
_ _

@
3
w
@x
2
@y
(G m a)
@
2
u
t
@x@y
a
@
2
v
t
@y
2
G
@
2
v
t
@x
2
G
t

v
t
k h

G
t
h

@w
@y
= 0
_

_
(30)
6. Analytical solution of the exact equations
The response of the three-layered plate to a doubly sinusoidal
load has double trigonometric distribution along the x and y axes,
with the same period as the load. Thus, the analytical solution of
Eq. (30) can be obtained by expanding the load function p and
the unknown displacement functions w, u
t
, v
t
in double trigono-
metric series with periods equal to the sides of the plate and to
submultiples of them, i.e. double trigonometric series, having argu-
ments Mx and Ny
M =
m p
L
(31)
N =
n p
B
(32)
where m and n are odd, integer numbers; moreover, L and B are the
maximum values of the x and y coordinates that describe the geom-
etry of the plate (0 6 x 6 L; 0 6 y 6 B). This analytical solution is en-
tirely composed of explicit terms and it approaches the exact
solution as precisely as desired. Thus, this analytical solution can
be referred to as exact and closed-form.
This section accounts for the solution of the rectangular layered
plate of sides L and B with L PB, subjected to lateral uniformly dis-
tributed static loading p, being simply-supported at the edges. The
solutions for different geometries, loads, and restraints can be ob-
tained in the same way. Considering the boundary conditions, and
the conditions of symmetry and anti-symmetry, the uniform load
and the unknown displacement functions can be expressed as:
p(x; y) =

m=1

n=1
16 p
m n p
2
sin(M x) sin(N x) (33)
w(x; y) =

m=1

n=1
w
mn
sin(M x) sin(N y) (34)
u
t
(x; y) =

m=1

n=1
u
t-mn
cos(M x) sin(N y) (35)
v
t
(x; y) =

m=1

n=1
v
t-mn
sin(M x) cos(N y) (36)
The orders m and n of each term of the series (33)(36) are in-
cluded into M and N dened by (31) and (32). Upon using the sub-
stitution (33)(36) into Eq. (30), the system of three differential Eq.
(30) can be converted into m n systems of linear algebraic equa-
tions, which can be solved individually. The solution of each mn
system consists of the unknown coefcient w
mn
, u
t-mn
, v
t-mn
of
the series, i.e., the solution of the mechanical problem.
M
4
2 M
2
N
2
N
4

6 f G
t
a h
3
M
2

6 f G
t
a h
3
N
2
_ _
w
mn

6 f G
t
k a h
3
M u
t-mn

6 f G
t
k a h
3
N v
t-mn
=
96 p
m n a p
2
h
3

a h
2
M
3

m a h
2
G h
_ _
M N
2

G
t
h
M
_ _
w
mn

a M
2
G N
2

G
t
k h
_ _
u
t-mn
(G m a) M N v
t-mn
= 0

a h
2
N
3

m a h
2
G h
_ _
M
2
N
G
t
h
N
_ _
w
mn

(G m a) M N u
t-mn
a N
2
G M
2

G
t
k h
_ _
v
t-mn
= 0
_

_
(37)
374 P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378
Arranging Eq. (37) into the matrix form:
[W[
33
/
31
= c
31
(38)
with
W
11
= M
4
2 M
2
N
2
N
4

6 f G
t
a h
3
M
2

6 f G
t
a h
3
N
2
(39)
W
12
=
6 f G
t
k a h
3
M (40)
W
13
=
6 f G
t
k a h
3
N (41)
W
21
=
a h
2
M
3

m a h
2
G h
_ _
M N
2

G
t
h
M (42)
W
22
= a M
2
G N
2

G
t
k h
(43)
W
23
= (G m a) M N (44)
W
31
=
a h
2
N
3

m a h
2
G h
_ _
M
2
N
G
t
h
N (45)
W
32
= W
23
= (G m a) M N (46)
W
33
= a N
2
G M
2

G
t
k h
(47)
/
11
= w
mn
(48)
/
21
= u
t-mn
(49)
/
31
= v
t-mn
(50)
c
11
=
96 p
m n a p
2
h
3
(51)
c
21
= 0 (52)
c
31
= 0 (53)
The inversion of the matrix [W] provides the three-element vec-
tor {/}, which is the analytical solution for the simple term that the
load has been divided into. Hence, w
mn
, u
t-mn
, v
t-mn
obtained from
any odd m and n are the exact, closed-form (explicit) solution for
the simple mn term that the load p has been broken up into.
The series obtained by recombining the terms that the functions
have been divided into, is the exact solution for the load that
approximates p. The automatic calculus immediately reaches the
solution, even for high values of m and n. However, the series
expansion of the load converges fast to p; so, the series expansion
of the displacements converge rapidly to the exact solution w, u
t
, v
t
.
Effectively, a solution with m and n from 1 to 7 is almost exact.
7. Displacement and stress results
In order to obtain the entire structural response, it is sufcient
to calculate the maximum of: deection, layer normal stress, and
interface shear stress.
The maximum deection is: w
Max
= w(x = L/2; y = B/2). Consid-
ering (48):
w
Max
=

m=1

n=1
w
mn
(1)
mn2
2
(54)
The maximum stress function is r
y
at the lower surface of the
lower layer, denoted r
ym
(since L PB). The stress function r
ym
can be obtained by taking into account that (i) r
y
at the upper sur-
face of the lower layer, denoted by r
yi
, differs from r
ym
for the bi-
triangular stress prole due to M
y
, (ii) r
yi
can be obtained by insert-
ing @u
t
=@x and @v
t
=@y into the elastic relationship between strain
and plane-stress, (iii) M
y
can be obtained by the relationship be-
tween bending moment M
y
and deection w. All considered:
r
ym
= a h
@
2
w
@y
2
a h m
@
2
w
@x
2
a
@v
t
@y
m a
@u
t
@x
(55)
The derivatives of u
t
and v
t
are negative since the displacements
u
t
and v
t
given by (30) are those of the upper interface, while
(55) considers the lower interface. The maximum of the stress
function (55), denoted by r
Max
, occurs at x = L/2; y = B/2, i.e.,
r
Max
= r
ym
(x = L/2; y = B/2). Substituting (48)(50):
r
Max
= a

m=1

n=1
[(N
2
m M
2
) h w
mn
N v
t-mn
m M u
t-mn
[ (1)
mn2
2
(56)
At any point of the interface |v
t
| P|u
t
| and [
dw
dy
[ P[
dw
dx
[, since
L PB. Therefore, t
v
Pt
u
. The interface in-plane shear stress t
v
,
interface in-plane displacement v
t
, and cross-section angle
dw
dy
reach the maximum at x = L/2 and y = B.
t
vm
= G
t

1
k
v
t
x =
L
2
; y = B
_ _
G
t

@w
@y
x =
L
2
; y = B
_ _
(57)
The y-component of the shear force T
v
transmitted through an
individual connector reaches the maximum, denoted by T
vm
:
T
vm
= t
vm
D
x
D
y
= G
t

1
k
v
t
x =
L
2
; y = B
_ _

@w
@y
x =
L
2
; y = B
_ _ _ _
D
x
D
y
(58)
The maximum shear force transmitted through an individual
connector can be obtained by calculating the maximum of the vec-
tor composition T
u
+ T
v
.
Table 1
Application of the model to layered plates with discontinuous connection. The table reports as well the values of the ratios K = G
t
/k used in [4].
L (mm) 2000 2500 4000 4250 4500 5000 5250
B (mm) 2000 1800 2500 2750 3500 3500 3500
h (mm) 2.250 6.500 40.00 100.00 30.00 75.00 50.00
2k (mm) 6.000 13.000 80.00 45.00 20.00 75.00 30.00
G
t
(N/mm
2
) 42.00 42.25 500.00 326.25 28.50 90.00 117.75
K (N/mm
3
) 14.00 6.50 12.50 14.50 2.85 2.40 7.85
E (N/mm
2
) 20,7000 20,7000 58,000 16,000 180,000 32,000 12,5000
m 0.30 0.34 0.15 0.25 0.33 0.15 0.20
p (kN/m
2
) 0.75 2.40 3.50 8.50 6.50 10.00 5.50
w
Max
(mm) 3.1721 1.1373 0.0874 0.2186 2.0411 0.7189 0.4662
r
Max
(N/mm
2
) 9.8785 7.0379 0.5161 0.5555 7.8465 1.3503 2.2586
t
um
(N/mm
2
) 0.0557 0.0653 0.0226 0.0434 0.0905 0.0602 0.0582
t
vm
(N/mm
2
) 0.0557 0.0763 0.0280 0.0530 0.1050 0.0720 0.0713
P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378 375
The ultimate load can be obtained by setting up a proportion
between the actual-to-ultimate stress ratio and the actual-to-ulti-
mate load ratio.
8. Application of the model: Case studies
The assumptions of this model synthesize the mechanical
behavior of the layered plate without imposing considerable con-
Fig. 18. Discontinuously-connected layered plate having: L = 4750 mm; B = 4750 mm; h = 55 mm; 2k = 25 mm; E = 7500 N/mm
2
; m = 0.22; G
t
= 6.50 N/mm
2
; K = 0.52 N/mm
2
;
p = 6.00 kN/m
2
. The maximum deection resulted to be: w
Max
= 11.8977 mm. The maximum in-plane interface shear stresses resulted to be t
um
= t
vm
= 0.0818 N/mm
2
. Strain
and stress proles across the layered cross-section at the center (where they reach the maximum): Strains at the edges of the layers and interlayer; stresses at the edges of the
layers. Shadowed areas: tensile strains and stresses. The geometric measures are in mm.
Fig. 19. Discontinuously-connected layered plate having: L = 6750 mm; B = 6750 mm; h = 85 mm; 2k = 45 mm; E = 9400 N/mm
2
; m = 0.23; G
t
= 4.50 N/mm
2
; K = 0.20 N/mm
2
;
p = 8.60 kN/m
2
. The maximum deection resulted to be: w
Max
= 20.0140 mm. The maximum in-plane interface shear stresses resulted to be t
um
= t
vm
= 0.0901 N/mm
2
. Strain
and stress proles across the layer cross-section at the center (where they reach the maximum): Strains at the edges of the layers and interlayer; stresses at the edges of the
layers. Shadowed areas: tensile strains and stresses. The geometric measures are in mm.
376 P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378
straints. Thus, this model does not need experiment or nite ele-
ment verications; moreover it replaces nite element models
and empirical formulas in the majority of the cases.
However, nite element remains the best method for analyzing
layered plates that do not comply with the assumptions (Section 2)
or that entail complicated series expansions (due to the shape,
load, and boundary conditions). Yet, nite element models suffer
from high values of the layer-to-interlayer elastic moduli and
thicknesses ratios, which impinge on the results [57]. Thus, nite
element results have to be checked and nite element models have
to be adjusted against exact results [15,18,20,36,38,41].
In order to estimate the capacity of a nite element model to
simulate the layered plate with discontinuous connection and to
tune the free-parameters, exact solutions are provided in this sec-
tion (Table 1; Figs. 18 and 19). Table 1 also provides a benchmark
for empirical formulas. Figs. 18 and 19 also show the zigzag strain
prole of the layered cross-section [62,63].
This analysis has considered exactly the same cases that were
considered in [4], to allow direct comparisons to be made between
the results. The comparisons of the results of Table 1 with the anal-
ogous results obtained in [4] point out the differences in behavior
due to the same interlayer that models, respectively, a discontinu-
ous and continuous connection. To make the comparison immedi-
ate and explicit, Table 1 also reports the stiffness K that would have
to be used if the connection were continuous rather than discon-
tinuous, i.e. the value of K that was used in [4]. Not only do these
cases highlight the differences in behavior between layered plate
with discontinuous and continuous connections, but also they
underline the errors that can be made if the interlayer is not sim-
ulated with the correct model.
The comparisons show that, all the other parameters being
equal (geometry and elastic parameters), the discontinuously-con-
nected layered plate has signicant extra-stiffness and appreciable
extra-strength with respect to the continuously-connected layered
plate. As regards the cases of Table 1, the maximum deection and
normal stress reached by the layered plate with continuous con-
nection are 1.43.4 times greater and 1.21.6 times greater,
respectively, than the values reached by the layered plate with dis-
continuous connection. This means that the models of the layered
plate with continuous soft connection that erroneously consider
dw
dx
and
dw
dy
as shear distortion are affected by a substantial system-
atic error, as large as is shown by the above comparisons and even
greater if the interlayer is very thick and/or soft.
9. Conclusions
This research focuses on the layered plate with discontinuous
connection between the layers. In order to develop the subject in
a comprehensive manner, the research groups the practical appli-
cations into two general categories. The rst being that the discon-
tinuous connection transmits bending moments through the
interfaces (together with in-plane shear actions), and the second
that it does not. In so doing, the research has been developed con-
sidering only the actions transferred by the connection, but with-
out considering the conguration of the specic connection and
of the individual connectors.
The research proves that the model [4], which is devoted to the
layered plate with continuous connection, applies also to the lay-
ered plates with discontinuous connection that does not transmit
any bending moments through the interfaces, but only in-plane
shear actions. Conversely, the model [4] does not apply to the lay-
ered plates with discontinuous connection that transmits bending
moments together with in-plane shear actions.
Throughout the research, hence, only the latter category is re-
ferred to as discontinuous connection.
Considering that no analytical model was available in the liter-
ature for the layered plate with discontinuous connection, this re-
search has lled this gap. This paper presents the main results of
this research, which are the continuous interlayer that reproduces
the behavior of the discontinuous connection and the model of the
layered plate with discontinuous connection. The mechanical
behavior of the composite plate is simulated by using the three-
layered plate model having the above-mentioned interlayer, which
reproduces the structural response with a system of three exact,
analytical and explicit (closed-form) equations.
Only basic mechanical assumptions are made (in particular Kir-
chhoff-Love plate hypotheses), which do not impose constraints on
the stressstrain state and behavior of the layered plate. Thus, the
model does not need to be veried by experiments or nite ele-
ment models. Conversely, such a model allows nite element mod-
els and empirical formulas to be veried.
The modeling assumptions allow for the reduction of the
mechanical problem into the two-dimensional framework. Transi-
tion from three to two-dimensional behavior has been accom-
plished by reproducing the effects of the normal stresses in the
direction transverse to the plate. In so doing, the model does not
lose any prediction accuracy but is faster and easier to use, com-
pared to the three-dimensional model. Moreover, three-dimen-
sional differs from two-dimensional modeling process in
behaviors that the plate is not explicitly designed to have (side-ef-
fects). Thus, three-dimensional modeling process does not capture
the dening attributes of composite plates, while this model pro-
vides scientic understanding of the mechanical phenomena
involved.
The input data of the model are the geometric and elastic
parameters of the layers and interlayer, plus the ctitious semi-
thickness k of the interlayer. The semi-thickness is the depth nec-
essary to restraint the discontinuous connecting element against
relative rotation with respect to the layer (i.e., to x a connector
into the layer, so as to obtain the built-in end). Hence, the thickness
2k of the interlayer is a mechanical rather than a geometric
dimension. Consequently, k has to be determined experimentally,
by testing the connection. However, any test that can measure
the stiffness of a connection provides adequate results. All things
considered, the thickness of the interlayer is also an easily obtain-
able and objective input data.
An analytical model does not dismiss nite element models as
unnecessary. Actually, nite element models remain a viable
means for structural analysis of layered plates with discontinuous
connection that do not comply with the modeling assumptions
(Section 2) or whose shapes, loads, and boundary conditions entail
complicated series expansions.
However, the way that the discontinuous connection is numer-
ically modeled will greatly inuence the performance of the whole
layered plate and may drastically impinge on the results. Thus, a
nite element model has to be checked and calibrated against ex-
act results in advance. In order to make this task easier and to pro-
vide a benchmark, this paper presents exact solutions.
The applications of this model to practical cases highlight that
the layered plate with discontinuous connection reaches signi-
cantly lower deections and appreciably lower stresses than the
layered plate with continuous soft connection [4], all the other
parameters being equal (in particular, the discontinuous and con-
tinuous connection are smeared into the same continuous inter-
layer). This is due to the stiffness of the connection against the
angles of rotation imposed by the layers to the interlayer (in-plane
axis of rotation). For an individual connector, this stiffness is con-
siderable. Accordingly, the interlayer that simulates the discontin-
uous connection has to include proper shear stiffness against the
P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378 377
deection derivatives (Eq. (15)). For a continuous connection pro-
vided by a compliant core (soft interlayer), conversely, this stiff-
ness is almost nil. Accordingly, the interlayer that simulates the
continuous connection has to be utterly compliant to the angles
imposed by the layers to the interlayer [4].
Those models of the layered plates with soft continuous con-
nection that use the interlayer devoted to the discontinuous con-
nection (i.e., that consider an interlayer shear distortion) are
affected by a bias error of up to 250% for deection predictions
and of up to 60% for normal stress predictions.
References
[1] Foraboschi P. Behavior and failure strength of laminated glass beams. ASCE J
Eng Mech 2007;133(12):1290301.
[2] Foraboschi P. Analytical solution of two-layer beam taking into account non-
linear interlayer slip. ASCE J Eng Mech 2009;135(10):112946.
[3] Foraboschi P. Analytical model for laminated-glass plate. Composites Part B:
Eng 2012;43(5):2094106.
[4] Foraboschi P. Three-layered sandwich plate: Exact mathematical model.
Compos Part B: Eng 2013;45(1):160112.
[5] Li W, Li QN, Jiang WS, Jiang L. Seismic performance of composite reinforced
concrete and steel moment frame structuresstate-of-the-art. Compos Part B:
Eng 2011;42(2):190206.
[6] Shanmugam NE, Lakshmi B. State of the art report on steelconcrete composite
columns. J Constr Steel Res 2001;57(10):104180.
[7] Spacone E, El-Tawil E. Nonlinear analysis of steelconcrete composite
structures: state of the art. ASCE J Struct Eng 2004;130(2):15968 [special
issue: composite and hybrid structures].
[8] Yeoh D, Fragiacomo M, De Franceschi M, Boon KH. State of the art on timber
concrete composite structures: literature review. J Struct Eng 2011;137(10):
108595.
[9] Ascione L, Feo L, Maceri F. An experimental investigation on the bearing failure
load of glass bre/epoxy laminates. Composites Part B: Eng 2009;40(3):
197205.
[10] Amadio C, Bedon C. Buckling of laminated glass elements in compression.
ASCE J Struct Eng 2011;137(8):80310.
[11] Biolzi L, Cattaneo S, Rosati G. Progressive damage and fracture of laminated
glass beams. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(4):57784.
[12] Foraboschi P. Laminated glass column. Struct Eng 2009;87(18):206.
[13] Galuppi L, Royer-Carfagni G. Effective thickness of laminated glass beams: new
expression via a variational approach. Eng Struct 2012;38(5):5367.
[14] Galuppi L, Royer-Carfagni G. Practical expressions for the design of laminated
glass. Compos Part B: Eng 2013;45(1):167788.
[15] Galuppi L, Manara G, Royer-Carfagni G. The effective thickness of laminated
glass plates. J Mech Mater Struct 2012;7(4):375400.
[16] Topbas A. An overview of the state-of-the-art report for glass structures. In:
ASCE conf proc AEI. Building integration solutions; 2008. p. 114.
[17] Correia JR, Branco FA, Ferreira J. GFRP-concrete hybrid cross-sections for oors
of buildings. Eng Struct 2009;31(6):133143.
[18] Gara F, Ragni L, Roia D, Dezi L. Experimental behaviour and numerical analysis
of oor sandwich panels. Eng Struct 2012;36(3):25869.
[19] Ji HS, Song W, Ma ZJ. Design, test and eld application of a GFRP corrugated-
core sandwich bridge. Eng Struct 2010;32(9):281424.
[20] Kim YJ, Fam A. Numerical analysis of pultruded GFRP box girders supporting
adhesively-bonded concrete deck in exure. Eng Struct 2011;33(12):352736.
[21] Langdon GS, von Klemperer CJ, Rowland BK, Nurick GN. The response of
sandwich structures with composite face sheets and polymer foam cores to
air-blast loading: preliminary experiments. Eng Struct 2012;36(3):10412.
[22] Pantelides CP, Surapaneni R, Reaveley LD. Structural performance of hybrid
GFRP/steel concrete sandwich panels. ASCE J Comp Constr 2008;12(5):5706.
[23] Sihn S, Rice BP. Sandwich construction with carbon foam core materials. J
Compos Mater 2003;37(15):131936.
[24] Sohel KMA, Liew JYR. Steelconcretesteel sandwich slabs with lightweight
core static performance. Eng Struct 2011;33(3):98192.
[25] Yeoh D, Fragiacomo M, Deam B. Experimental behaviour of LVLconcrete
composite oor beams at strength limit state. Eng Struct 2011;33(9):
2697707.
[26] Camata G, Shin PB. Static and fatigue load performance of a GFRP honeycomb
bridge deck. Compos Part B: Eng 2010;41(4):299307.
[27] Chen A, Davalos JF. A solution including skin effect for stiffness and stress eld
of sandwich honeycomb core. Int J Solids Struct 2005;42(910):271139.
[28] Chen Z, Yan N. Investigation of elastic moduli of Kraft paper honeycomb core
sandwich panels. Compos Part B: Eng 2012;43(5):210714.
[29] Leekitwattana M, Boyd SW, Sheno RA. Evaluation of the transverse shear
stiffness of a steel bi-directional corrugated-strip-core sandwich beam. J
Constr Steel Res 2011;67(2):24854.
[30] Chen A, Davalos JF. Strength evaluations of sinusoidal core for FRP sandwich
bridge deck panels. Compos Struct 2010;92(7):156173.
[31] De Matteis G, Landolfo R. Structural behaviour of sandwich panel shear walls:
an experimental analysis. Mater Struct 1999;32(5):33141.
[32] Fernandez-Cabo JL, Arriaga F, Majano-Majano A, Iiguez-Gonzlez G. Short-
term performance of the HSB

shear plate-type connector for timberconcrete

composite beams. Constr Build Mater 2012;30(May):45562.
[33] Fung TC, Tan KH, Lok TS. Shear stiffness D
Qy
for C-core sandwich panels. J
Struct Eng 1996;122(8):95866.
[34] Gliniorz KU, Mosalam KM, Nattere J. Modeling of layered timber beams and
ribbed shell frameworks. Compos Part B: Eng 2002;33(5):36781.
[35]
_
Iten MB, Sayman O. Failure analysis of pin-loaded aluminumglassepoxy
sandwich composite plates. Compos Sci Technol 2003;63(5):72737.
[36] Kim SE, Nguyen HT. Finite element modeling and analysis of a hybrid steel-PSC
beam connection. Eng Struct 2010;32(9):255769.
[37] Lawler N, Polak MA. Development of FRP shear bolts for punching shear
retrot of reinforced concrete slabs. J Compos Constr 2011;15(4):591601.
[38] Liu T, Deng ZC, Lu TJ. Analytical modeling and nite element simulation of the
plastic collapse of sandwich beams with pin-reinforced foam cores. Int J Solids
Struct 2008;45(1819):512751.
[39] Lloyd RM, Wright HD. Shear connection between composite slabs and steel
beams. J Constr Steel Res 1990;15(4):25585.
[40] Miotto JL, Dias AA. Evaluation of perforated steel plates as connection in
glulamconcrete composite structures. Constr Build Mater 2012;28(1):
21623.
[41] Nguyen QH, Hjiaj M, Guezouli S. Exact nite element model for shear-
deformable two-layer beams with discrete shear connection. Finite Elem Anal
Des 2011;47(7):71827.
[42] Sen F, Sayman O. Failure response of two serial bolted aluminum sandwich
composite plates. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2010;12(5):55168.
[43] Wallace BT, Sankar BV, Ifju PG. Pin reinforcement of delaminated
sandwich beams under axial compression. J Sandwich Struct Mater 2001;
3(2):11729.
[44] Zhou T, Guan ZW. A new approach to obtain at nail embedding strength of
double-sided nail plate joints. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(2):598607.
[45] Alfredsson KS, Gawandi AA, Gillespie Jr JW, Carlsson LA, Bogetti TA. Flexural
analysis of discontinuous tile core sandwich structure. Compos Struct
2012;94(5):152432.
[46] Benveniste Y, Berdichevsky O. On two models of arbitrarily curved three-
dimensional thin interphases in elasticity. Int J Solids Struct 2010;47(14
15):1899915.
[47] Bigoni D, Movchan AB. Statics and dynamics of structural interfaces in
elasticity. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39(19):484365.
[48] Bigoni D, Serkov SK, Valentini M, Movchan AB. Asymptotic models of dilute
composites with imperfectly bonded inclusions. Int J Solids Struct
1998;35(24):323958.
[49] Brun M, Movchan AB, Movchan NV. Shear polarisation of elastic waves by a
structured interface. Continuum Mech Thermodyn 2010;22(68):66377.
[50] Brun M, Guenneau S, Movchan AB, Bigoni D. Dynamics of structural interfaces:
ltering and focussing effects for elastic waves. J Mech Phys Solids 2010;58(9):
121224.
[51] Gei M. Elastic waves guided by a material interface. Eur J Mech A/Solids
2008;27(3):32845.
[52] Le Quang H, He Q-C. Variational principles and bounds for elastic
inhomogeneous materials with coherent imperfect interfaces. Mech Mater
2008;40(10):86584.
[53] Rubin MB, Benveniste Y. A Cosserat shell model for interphases in elastic
media. J Mech Phys Solids 2004;52(5):102352.
[54] Vasiliev AA, Miroshnichenko AE, Ruzzene M. A discrete model and analysis of
one-dimensional deformations in a structural interface with micro-rotations.
Mech Res Commun 2010;37(2):2259.
[55] Pagano NJ. Exact solutions for composite laminates in cylindrical bending. J
Compos Mater 1969;3:398411.
[56] Pagano NJ. Exact solutions for rectangular bidirectional composites and
sandwich plates. J Compos Mater 1970;4(1):2034.
[57] Bazant ZP, Beghini A. Sandwich buckling formulas and applicability of
standard computational algorithm for nite strain. Composites Part B: Eng
2004;35(68):57381.
[58] DAmbrisi A, Feo L, Focacci F. Bond-slip relations for PBO-FRCM materials
externally bonded to concrete. Compos Part B: Eng 2012;43(8):293849.
[59] DAmbrisi A, Feo L, Focacci F. Experimental analysis on bond between PBO-
FRCM strengthening materials and concrete. Compos Part B: Eng
2012;44(1):52432.
[60] DAmbrisi A, Feo L, Focacci F. Experimental and analytical investigation on
bond between Carbon-FRCM materials and masonry. Compos Part B: Eng
2013;46:1520.
[61] DAmbrisi A, Focacci F. Flexural strengthening of RC beams with cement-based
composites. J Compos Constr (ASCE) 2011;15(5):70720.
[62] Carrera E. Historical review of zigzag theories for multilayered plates and
shells. Appl Mech Rev 2003;56(3):287308.
[63] Vidal P, Polit O. A sine nite element using a zigzag function for the analysis
of laminated composite beams. Compos Part B: Eng 2011;42(6):167182.
378 P. Foraboschi / Composites: Part B 47 (2013) 365378