Part of a series on
Continuum mechanics
${\displaystyle J=-D{\frac {d\varphi }{dx}}}$ Fick's laws of diffusion
Laws Conservations Mass Momentum Energy Inequalities Clausius–Duhem (entropy)
Solid mechanics Deformation Elasticity linear Plasticity Hooke's law Stress Strain Finite strain Infinitesimal strain Compatibility Bending Contact mechanics frictional Material failure theory Fracture mechanics
Fluid mechanics Fluids Statics · Dynamics Archimedes' principle · Bernoulli's principle Navier–Stokes equations Poiseuille equation · Pascal's law Viscosity (Newtonian · non-Newtonian) Buoyancy · Mixing · Pressure Liquids Adhesion Capillary action Chromatography Cohesion (chemistry) Surface tension Gases Atmosphere Boyle's law Charles's law Combined gas law Fick's law Gay-Lussac's law Graham's law Plasma
Rheology Viscoelasticity Rheometry Rheometer Smart fluids Electrorheological Magnetorheological Ferrofluids
Scientists Bernoulli Boyle Cauchy Charles Euler Fick Gay-Lussac Graham Hooke Newton Navier Noll Pascal Stokes Truesdell

Vibration mode of a clamped square plate

In continuum mechanics, plate theories are mathematical descriptions of the mechanics of flat plates that draw on the theory of beams. Plates are defined as plane structural elements with a small thickness compared to the planar dimensions.^[1] The typical thickness to width ratio of a plate structure is less than 0.1. A plate theory takes advantage of this disparity in length scale to reduce the full three-dimensional solid mechanics problem to a two-dimensional problem. The aim of plate theory is to calculate the deformation and stresses in a plate subjected to loads.

Of the numerous plate theories that have been developed since the late 19th century, two are widely accepted and used in engineering. These are

• the Kirchhoff–Love theory of plates (classical plate theory)
• The Uflyand-Mindlin theory of plates (first-order shear plate theory)

Kirchhoff–Love theory for thin plates

Deformation of a thin plate highlighting the displacement, the mid-surface (red) and the normal to the mid-surface (blue)

The Kirchhoff–Love theory is an extension of Euler–Bernoulli beam theory to thin plates. The theory was developed in 1888 by Love^[2] using assumptions proposed by Kirchhoff. It is assumed that a mid-surface plane can be used to represent the three-dimensional plate in two-dimensional form.

The following kinematic assumptions are made in this theory:^[3]

• straight lines normal to the mid-surface remain straight after deformation
• straight lines normal to the mid-surface remain normal to the mid-surface after deformation
• the thickness of the plate does not change during a deformation.

Displacement field

The Kirchhoff hypothesis implies that the displacement field has the form

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}u_{\alpha }(\mathbf {x} )&=u_{\alpha }^{0}(x_{1},x_{2})-x_{3}~{\frac {\partial w^{0}}{\partial x_{\alpha }}}=u_{\alpha }^{0}-x_{3}~w_{,\alpha }^{0}~;~~\alpha =1,2\\u_{3}(\mathbf {x} )&=w^{0}(x_{1},x_{2})\end{aligned}}}$

where ${\displaystyle x_{1}}$ and ${\displaystyle x_{2}}$ are the Cartesian coordinates on the mid-surface of the undeformed plate, ${\displaystyle x_{3}}$ is the coordinate for the thickness direction, ${\displaystyle u_{1}^{0},u_{2}^{0}}$ are the in-plane displacements of the mid-surface, and ${\displaystyle w^{0}}$ is the displacement of the mid-surface in the ${\displaystyle x_{3}}$ direction.

If ${\displaystyle \varphi _{\alpha }}$ are the angles of rotation of the normal to the mid-surface, then in the Kirchhoff–Love theory ${\displaystyle \varphi _{\alpha }=w_{,\alpha }^{0}\,.}$

Displacement of the mid-surface (left) and of a normal (right)

Isotropic and homogeneous Kirchhoff plate

For an isotropic and homogeneous plate, the stress–strain relations are

${\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}\sigma _{11}\\\sigma _{22}\\\sigma _{12}\end{bmatrix}}={\cfrac {E}{1-\nu ^{2}}}{\begin{bmatrix}1&\nu &0\\\nu &1&0\\0&0&1-\nu \end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}\varepsilon _{11}\\\varepsilon _{22}\\\varepsilon _{12}\end{bmatrix}}\,.}$

The moments corresponding to these stresses are

${\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}M_{11}\\M_{22}\\M_{12}\end{bmatrix}}=-{\cfrac {2h^{3}E}{3(1-\nu ^{2})}}~{\begin{bmatrix}1&\nu &0\\\nu &1&0\\0&0&1-\nu \end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}w_{,11}^{0}\\w_{,22}^{0}\\w_{,12}^{0}\end{bmatrix}}}$

Orthotropic and homogeneous Kirchhoff plate

For an orthotropic plate

${\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}C_{11}&C_{12}&C_{13}\\C_{12}&C_{22}&C_{23}\\C_{13}&C_{23}&C_{33}\end{bmatrix}}={\cfrac {1}{1-\nu _{12}\nu _{21}}}{\begin{bmatrix}E_{1}&\nu _{12}E_{2}&0\\\nu _{21}E_{1}&E_{2}&0\\0&0&2G_{12}(1-\nu _{12}\nu _{21})\end{bmatrix}}\,.}$

Therefore,

${\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}A_{11}&A_{12}&A_{13}\\A_{21}&A_{22}&A_{23}\\A_{31}&A_{32}&A_{33}\end{bmatrix}}={\cfrac {2h}{1-\nu _{12}\nu _{21}}}{\begin{bmatrix}E_{1}&\nu _{12}E_{2}&0\\\nu _{21}E_{1}&E_{2}&0\\0&0&2G_{12}(1-\nu _{12}\nu _{21})\end{bmatrix}}}$

and

${\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}D_{11}&D_{12}&D_{13}\\D_{21}&D_{22}&D_{23}\\D_{31}&D_{32}&D_{33}\end{bmatrix}}={\cfrac {2h^{3}}{3(1-\nu _{12}\nu _{21})}}{\begin{bmatrix}E_{1}&\nu _{12}E_{2}&0\\\nu _{21}E_{1}&E_{2}&0\\0&0&2G_{12}(1-\nu _{12}\nu _{21})\end{bmatrix}}\,.}$

Dynamics of thin Kirchhoff plates

The dynamic theory of plates determines the propagation of waves in the plates, and the study of standing waves and vibration modes.

Uflyand-Mindlin theory for thick plates

In the theory of thick plates, or theory of Yakov S. Uflyand^[4] (see, for details, Elishakoff's handbook^[5]), Raymond Mindlin^[6] and Eric Reissner, the normal to the mid-surface remains straight but not necessarily perpendicular to the mid-surface. If ${\displaystyle \varphi _{1}}$ and ${\displaystyle \varphi _{2}}$ designate the angles which the mid-surface makes with the ${\displaystyle x_{3}}$ axis then

${\displaystyle \varphi _{1}\neq w_{,1}~;~~\varphi _{2}\neq w_{,2}}$

Then the Mindlin–Reissner hypothesis implies that

Isotropic and homogeneous Uflyand-Mindlin plates

For uniformly thick, homogeneous, and isotropic plates, the stress–strain relations in the plane of the plate are

${\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}\sigma _{11}\\\sigma _{22}\\\sigma _{12}\end{bmatrix}}={\cfrac {E}{1-\nu ^{2}}}{\begin{bmatrix}1&\nu &0\\\nu &1&0\\0&0&1-\nu \end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}\varepsilon _{11}\\\varepsilon _{22}\\\varepsilon _{12}\end{bmatrix}}\,.}$

where ${\displaystyle E}$ is the Young's modulus, ${\displaystyle \nu }$ is the Poisson's ratio, and ${\displaystyle \varepsilon _{\alpha \beta }}$ are the in-plane strains. The through-the-thickness shear stresses and strains are related by

${\displaystyle \sigma _{31}=2G\varepsilon _{31}\quad {\text{and}}\quad \sigma _{32}=2G\varepsilon _{32}}$

where ${\displaystyle G=E/(2(1+\nu ))}$ is the shear modulus.

Reissner–Stein static theory for isotropic cantilever plates

In general, exact solutions for cantilever plates using plate theory are quite involved and few exact solutions can be found in the literature. Reissner and Stein^[7] provide a simplified theory for cantilever plates that is an improvement over older theories such as Saint-Venant plate theory.

The Reissner-Stein theory assumes a transverse displacement field of the form

${\displaystyle w(x,y)=w_{x}(x)+y\,\theta _{x}(x)\,.}$

The governing equations for the plate then reduce to two coupled ordinary differential equations:

where

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}q_{1}(x)&=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}q(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~q_{2}(x)=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y\,q(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~n_{1}(x)=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}n_{x}(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y\\n_{2}(x)&=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y\,n_{x}(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~n_{3}(x)=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y^{2}\,n_{x}(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y\,.\end{aligned}}}$

At ${\displaystyle x=0}$, since the beam is clamped, the boundary conditions are

${\displaystyle w(0,y)={\cfrac {dw}{dx}}{\Bigr |}_{x=0}=0\qquad \implies \qquad w_{x}(0)={\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}{\Bigr |}_{x=0}=\theta _{x}(0)={\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}{\Bigr |}_{x=0}=0\,.}$

The boundary conditions at ${\displaystyle x=a}$ are

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&bD{\cfrac {d^{3}w_{x}}{dx^{3}}}+n_{1}(x){\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}+n_{2}(x){\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}+q_{x1}=0\\&{\frac {b^{3}D}{12}}{\cfrac {d^{3}\theta _{x}}{dx^{3}}}+\left[n_{3}(x)-2bD(1-\nu )\right]{\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}+n_{2}(x){\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}+t=0\\&bD{\cfrac {d^{2}w_{x}}{dx^{2}}}+m_{1}=0\quad ,\quad {\frac {b^{3}D}{12}}{\cfrac {d^{2}\theta _{x}}{dx^{2}}}+m_{2}=0\end{aligned}}}$

where

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}m_{1}&=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}m_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~m_{2}=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y\,m_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~q_{x1}=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}q_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y\\t&=q_{x2}+m_{3}=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y\,q_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y+\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}m_{xy}(y)\,{\text{d}}y\,.\end{aligned}}}$

Derivation of Reissner–Stein cantilever plate equations

The strain energy of bending of a thin rectangular plate of uniform thickness ${\displaystyle h}$ is given by ${\displaystyle U={\frac {1}{2}}\int _{0}^{a}\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}D\left\{\left({\frac {\partial ^{2}w}{\partial x^{2}}}+{\frac {\partial ^{2}w}{\partial y^{2}}}\right)^{2}+2(1-\nu )\left[\left({\frac {\partial ^{2}w}{\partial x\partial y}}\right)^{2}-{\frac {\partial ^{2}w}{\partial x^{2}}}{\frac {\partial ^{2}w}{\partial y^{2}}}\right]\right\}{\text{d}}x{\text{d}}y}$ where ${\displaystyle w}$ is the transverse displacement, ${\displaystyle a}$ is the length, ${\displaystyle b}$ is the width, ${\displaystyle \nu }$ is the Poisson's ratio, ${\displaystyle E}$ is the Young's modulus, and ${\displaystyle D={\frac {Eh^{3}}{12(1-\nu )}}.}$ The potential energy of transverse loads ${\displaystyle q(x,y)}$ (per unit length) is ${\displaystyle P_{q}=\int _{0}^{a}\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}q(x,y)\,w(x,y)\,{\text{d}}x{\text{d}}y\,.}$ The potential energy of in-plane loads ${\displaystyle n_{x}(x,y)}$ (per unit width) is ${\displaystyle P_{n}={\frac {1}{2}}\int _{0}^{a}\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}n_{x}(x,y)\,\left({\frac {\partial w}{\partial x}}\right)^{2}\,{\text{d}}x{\text{d}}y\,.}$ The potential energy of tip forces ${\displaystyle q_{x}(y)}$ (per unit width), and bending moments ${\displaystyle m_{x}(y)}$ and ${\displaystyle m_{xy}(y)}$ (per unit width) is ${\displaystyle P_{t}=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}\left(q_{x}(y)\,w(x,y)-m_{x}(y)\,{\frac {\partial w}{\partial x}}+m_{xy}(y)\,{\frac {\partial w}{\partial y}}\right){\text{d}}x{\text{d}}y\,.}$ A balance of energy requires that the total energy is ${\displaystyle W=U-(P_{q}+P_{n}+P_{t})\,.}$ With the Reissener–Stein assumption for the displacement, we have ${\displaystyle U=\int _{0}^{a}{\frac {bD}{24}}\left[12\left({\cfrac {d^{2}w_{x}}{dx^{2}}}\right)^{2}+b^{2}\left({\cfrac {d^{2}\theta _{x}}{dx^{2}}}\right)^{2}+24(1-\nu )\left({\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}\right)^{2}\right]\,{\text{d}}x\,,}$ ${\displaystyle P_{q}=\int _{0}^{a}\left[\left(\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}q(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y\right)w_{x}+\left(\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}yq(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y\right)\theta _{x}\right]\,dx\,,}$ ${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}P_{n}&={\frac {1}{2}}\int _{0}^{a}\left[\left(\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}n_{x}(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y\right)\left({\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}\right)^{2}+\left(\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}yn_{x}(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y\right){\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}\,{\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}\right.\\&\left.\qquad \qquad +\left(\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y^{2}n_{x}(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y\right)\left({\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}\right)^{2}\right]{\text{d}}x\,,\end{aligned}}}$ and ${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}P_{t}&=\left(\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}q_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y\right)w_{x}-\left(\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}m_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y\right){\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}+\left[\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}\left(yq_{x}(y)+m_{xy}(y)\right)\,{\text{d}}y\right]\theta _{x}\\&\qquad \qquad -\left(\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}ym_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y\right){\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}\,.\end{aligned}}}$ Taking the first variation of ${\displaystyle W}$ with respect to ${\displaystyle (w_{x},\theta _{x},x)}$ and setting it to zero gives us the Euler equations ${\displaystyle {\text{(1)}}\qquad bD{\frac {\mathrm {d} ^{4}w_{x}}{\mathrm {d} x^{4}}}=q_{1}(x)-n_{1}(x){\cfrac {d^{2}w_{x}}{dx^{2}}}-{\cfrac {dn_{1}}{dx}}\,{\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}-{\frac {1}{2}}{\cfrac {dn_{2}}{dx}}\,{\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}-{\frac {n_{2}(x)}{2}}{\cfrac {d^{2}\theta _{x}}{dx^{2}}}}$ and ${\displaystyle {\text{(2)}}\qquad {\frac {b^{3}D}{12}}\,{\frac {\mathrm {d} ^{4}\theta _{x}}{\mathrm {d} x^{4}}}-2bD(1-\nu ){\cfrac {d^{2}\theta _{x}}{dx^{2}}}=q_{2}(x)-n_{3}(x){\cfrac {d^{2}\theta _{x}}{dx^{2}}}-{\cfrac {dn_{3}}{dx}}\,{\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}-{\frac {n_{2}(x)}{2}}\,{\cfrac {d^{2}w_{x}}{dx^{2}}}-{\frac {1}{2}}{\cfrac {dn_{2}}{dx}}\,{\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}}$ where ${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}q_{1}(x)&=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}q(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~q_{2}(x)=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y\,q(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~n_{1}(x)=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}n_{x}(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y\\n_{2}(x)&=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y\,n_{x}(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~n_{3}(x)=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y^{2}\,n_{x}(x,y)\,{\text{d}}y.\end{aligned}}}$ Since the beam is clamped at ${\displaystyle x=0}$, we have ${\displaystyle w(0,y)={\cfrac {dw}{dx}}{\Bigr |}_{x=0}=0\qquad \implies \qquad w_{x}(0)={\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}{\Bigr |}_{x=0}=\theta _{x}(0)={\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}{\Bigr |}_{x=0}=0\,.}$ The boundary conditions at ${\displaystyle x=a}$ can be found by integration by parts: ${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&bD{\cfrac {d^{3}w_{x}}{dx^{3}}}+n_{1}(x){\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}+n_{2}(x){\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}+q_{x1}=0\\&{\frac {b^{3}D}{12}}{\cfrac {d^{3}\theta _{x}}{dx^{3}}}+\left[n_{3}(x)-2bD(1-\nu )\right]{\cfrac {d\theta _{x}}{dx}}+n_{2}(x){\cfrac {dw_{x}}{dx}}+t=0\\&bD{\cfrac {d^{2}w_{x}}{dx^{2}}}+m_{1}=0\quad ,\quad {\frac {b^{3}D}{12}}{\cfrac {d^{2}\theta _{x}}{dx^{2}}}+m_{2}=0\end{aligned}}}$ where ${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}m_{1}&=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}m_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~m_{2}=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y\,m_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y~,~~q_{x1}=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}q_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y\\t&=q_{x2}+m_{3}=\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}y\,q_{x}(y)\,{\text{d}}y+\int _{-b/2}^{b/2}m_{xy}(y)\,{\text{d}}y.\end{aligned}}}$