Advanced search
Publication Cover
International Journal of Smart and Nano Materials Volume 7, 2016 - Issue 3
Submit an article Journal homepage
1,474
Views
43
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Temperature distribution effects on buckling behavior of smart heterogeneous nanosize plates based on nonlocal four-variable refined plate theory

Farzad EbrahimiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, IranCorrespondence[email protected]
View further author information
&
Mohammad Reza BaratiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, IranView further author information
Pages 119-143 | Received 21 Jun 2016, Accepted 08 Aug 2016, Published online: 20 Aug 2016

Figures & data

Figure 1. Geometry of FG nanoplate under magneto-electrical field.

Figure 1. Geometry of FG nanoplate under magneto-electrical field.

Table 1. Magneto-electro-thermo-elastic coefficients of material properties (Ramirez et al. [Citation3]).

Table 2. Comparison of dimensionless buckling load () of simply supported square FG nanoplates (a/h = 10).

Table 3. Variation of critical buckling temperature of FG nanoplate for various electric voltages and nonlocal parameters (a = b = 100 h, p = 1).

Table 4. Variation of critical buckling temperature of FG nanoplate for various magnetic potentials and nonlocal parameters (a = b = 100 h, p = 1).

Figure 2. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus gradient index for various electric voltages and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, µ = 1 nm2, Ω = 0*10-4).

Figure 2. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus gradient index for various electric voltages and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, µ = 1 nm2, Ω = 0*10-4).

Figure 3. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus gradient index for various magnetic potentials and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, µ = 1 nm2, V = 0*10-4).

Figure 3. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus gradient index for various magnetic potentials and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, µ = 1 nm2, V = 0*10-4).

Figure 4. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus electric voltage for various nonlocal parameters and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, p = 1, Ω = 0*10-4).

Figure 4. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus electric voltage for various nonlocal parameters and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, p = 1, Ω = 0*10-4).

Figure 5. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus magnetic potential for various nonlocal parameters and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, p = 1, V = 0*10-4).

Figure 5. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus magnetic potential for various nonlocal parameters and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, p = 1, V = 0*10-4).

Figure 6. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus aspect ratio for various nonlocal parameters and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, p = 1, V = Ω = 0*10-4).

Figure 6. Variation of critical buckling temperature of METE-FG nanoplate versus aspect ratio for various nonlocal parameters and thermal loadings (a/h = 100, p = 1, V = Ω = 0*10-4).

Figure 7. Variation of critical buckling temperature of MEE-FG nanoplate versus side-to-thickness ratio for various thermal loadings (a/b = 1, p = 1, µ = 2 nm2, V = Ω = 0*10-4).

Figure 7. Variation of critical buckling temperature of MEE-FG nanoplate versus side-to-thickness ratio for various thermal loadings (a/b = 1, p = 1, µ = 2 nm2, V = Ω = 0*10-4).

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.