PSI - Issue 41

Efstathios E. Theotokoglou et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 41 (2022) 361–371 Efstathios E.Theotokoglou/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

367

7

100 110

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

p=1 p=5

p=1 (Li, et al., (2019)) p=5 (Li, et al., (2019))

σxy(MPa)

‐10 0

‐100

‐50

0

50

100

y(mm)

Figure 6 Results from our analysis and the results of previous study

For the second case of validation, we compared the distributions of the stresses σ xx , σ xy for the two different volume fraction indexes at the section A (Figure 3) with those from the previous study (Li, et al., (2019)) . It may be observed that we have very good agreement of our results with those from the study of Li et al. (2019) (Figures 5-6). 7. Results and discussion In this work we examined the stress distribution for 4 different values of the volume fraction index. We considered two cases, a sandwich beam with metal core and FGM face sheets and a sandwich beam with ceramic core and FGM face sheets. We also solved the beam with ceramic core and metal face sheets and with metal core and ceramic face sheets in order to compare them with the other configurations. In the Figures 7-9 the stress distributions for the sandwich beam with the ceramic core is presented. Similarly in Figures 10-12, the stress distributions for the sandwich beam with the metal core are illustrated.

p=0.5

p=1

p=5

p=10

discon

‐1,2E+10 ‐1E+10 ‐8E+09 ‐6E+09 ‐4E+09 ‐2E+09 0 2E+09 4E+09 6E+09 8E+09 1E+10 1,2E+10

‐0,12 ‐0,1 ‐0,08 ‐0,06 ‐0,04 ‐0,02 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12

σxx(Pa)

y(m)

Figure 7 Results for σ xx for the case with the ceramic core