Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Control of dynamic response of the functionally graded smart sandwich

beam coupled variable Kelvin–Voigt–Pasternak’s model
Hela D. El-Shahrany a, Ashraf M. Zenkour b, c, *
a
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, University of Bisha, P.O. Box 344, Bisha 61922, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80203, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
c
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh 33516, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Navier’s theoretical solution of the dynamic responses of a rectangular smart beam embedded in a variable
Vibration response viscoelastic foundation is presented by applying a higher-order shear deformation theory. The theory presents a
Magnetostrictive actuator valid representation of the transverse shearing strains; therefore, the shear correction factors are not needed. The
Functionally graded material
elastic part of the foundation is assumed as a Winkler-Pasternak medium considering a variation in Winkler’s
Viscoelastic fiber-reinforced material
Variable viscoelastic foundation
layer along a structure side; however, the shear layer stiffness is assumed to be constant. The constant feedback
gain control is employed to control vibration of the studied system. Some numerical examples are introduced to
investigate the dynamic responses of the system with full illustrations of the different geometrical parameters
variation.

1. Introduction experimental study to assess the mechanistic performance of concretes

made of functionally graded materials compared to fiber reinforced
Functionally graded materials are used as structural elements in concretes and plain cement concretes by split tensile, compressive, and
several applications and hard environment conditions. The structure flexural strength tests.
and composition gradually change through volume in functionally A lot of studies are devoted to analyzing and controlling the vibration
graded materials, leading to changes and improvement in the material responses in several applications of concept of the laminated composite
properties and creating novel functions for them. Various studies of the structural systems. Different smart materials are employed to control the
dynamic and static behaviors of functionally graded structural systems noise and vibrations of the composite structural systems such as the
have been analyzed. Thi [1] studied the vibration, static bending, and piezoelectric material and the magnetostrictive material. Talebitooti
buckling responses of the two-layer sandwich curved beam of func­ et al. [7] combined acoustic wave equations with the equation of motion
tionally graded material rested on a Pasternak-type foundation using to analyze the sound transmission loss through a thick plate of the
Timoshenko beam theory. Nguyen et al. [2] discussed the effect of ge­ infinite functionally graded material using hyperbolic shear deforma­
ometry characteristics and material properties on the dynamic response tion theory. Zarastvand et al. [8] analyzed the acoustic features of the
of functionally graded porous plates supported by Winkler-Pasternak’s stiffened doubly curved shells by shear deformation shallow shell the­
model foundation. Marzavan and Nastasescu [3] analyzed the vibration ory. Under uniform, linear, or sinusoidal mechanical loads, Daikh et al.
of a clamped, plane, a circular plate of functionally graded materials [9] presented a comprehensive static investigation of carbon nanotubes
using the finite elements method. Daikh et al. [4] analyzed the vibration reinforced composite laminated nanobeam based on hyperbolic shear
responses of two sandwich types of nanoplate including temperature- deformation theory. Tuyen [10] presented an analytical study of the
dependent functionally graded materials. Daikh et al. [5] discussed vibration and stability of organic nanobeams, a special structure that
the influence of inhomogeneity parameters, gradation function, tem­ transforms solar energy into electric energy, in thermal environments.
perature, and boundary conditions on the deflection and static buckling Several vibration suppression studies for several laminated composite
of axially single-wall carbon nanotubes reinforced composite plate with structures using layer/layers of Terfenol-D magnetostrictive material
graded by different functions. Sabireen et al. [6] presented an were presented for example, [11–15]. MalekzadehFard et al. [16]

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Zenkour).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102476
Received 21 May 2023; Received in revised form 23 July 2023; Accepted 27 August 2023
2090-4479/© 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Hela D. El-Shahrany, Ashraf M. Zenkour, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102476
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

shells on the elastic medium and employed Lyapunov’s indirect

method to investigate the asymptotical stability about the zero point
of the system equilibrium. Under harmonic excitation, Moghaddam
and Ahmadi [31] employed a semi-analytical method (perturbation
theory) to analyze the nonlinear frequency response of functionally
graded truncated conical shells with smart layers. Under a combi­
nation of thermal, electrical, and damping loadings, the nonlinear
vibrational behavior of functionally graded sandwich structures with
smart actuators supported by an elastic foundation has been studied
by Duc and Cong [32] for the plates and by Duc [33] for circular
cylindrical shells based on higher-order shear deformation theory via
Runge–Kutta and Galerkin methods.

Foundations are significant elements for dampening the vibrations of

applications of composite structures in several fields such as rocket-sled
technology, high-speed transportation applications, pile foundations,
buttress foundations, etc. The reaction between the viscoelastic foun­
dation and the displacement and rotational velocity was described
mathematically by Kerr Kerr [34]. Chen et al. [35] analyzed the vibra­
Fig. 1. Smart FG viscoelastic composite sandwich beam embedded in the tion/bending of thick beams supported by Pasternak-type foundations
variable visco-elastic medium. by applying the differential quadrature method and the state space
method. Younesian et al. [36] presented a comprehensive review of
discussed the influence of the geometrical parameters and magnetic several theoretical models of the elastic/viscoelastic foundations and
field on buckling and vibration analyses of a cylindrical sandwich panel insinuated the smart foundations by nanogenerators. The Winkler
with a layer of magneto-rheological fluid. Fadaee and Talebitooti [17] elastic foundation, Pasternak-type, and Kerr-type are common founda­
presented a study to control the amplitude of the vibration for a coupled tion systems in applications of composite structures. Zenkour and Rad­
fluid-nanotube-reinforced beam system by using magnetostrictive wan [37] computed the natural frequencies of the sandwich plate with
layers. Tabbakh and Nasihatgozar [18] presented a study showing that softcore/ antisymmetric cross-ply and angle-ply laminated composite
increasing the frequency of polymeric plates reinforced with carbon embedded in Winkler–Pasternak’s medium permitting four-variable
nanotubes and coated by a layer of the magnetostrictive due to applying refined theory. Under the effect of an in-plane axial magnetic field,
a magnetic field and the buckling load increases by increasing volume thermomechanical loading, and moisture environment, Sobhy and
percent of the carbon nanotubes. Zenkour [38] analyzed the vibration and buckling of viscoelastic sand­
wich nanobeam with a homogeneous core on the viscoelastic founda­
Under concentrated loading, Mori et al. [19] introduced an investi­ tion. Patil and Kadoli [39] used the technique of Navier to solve the
gation to consider the responses of clamped-free giant magneto­ dynamic system of a functionally graded material beam with a Terfenol-
strictive/piezoelectric laminates. Hong [20] computed the frequency D layer (FGMT) embedded in a variable visco-Winkler-two parameter
of the laminated magnetoelastic shell permitting the generalized medium. Asadijafari et al. [40] analyzed the acoustic characteristics of a
differential quadrature method. Mohammadrezazadeh and Jafari doubly curved composite shell resting on Pasternak’s foundation and
[21] used the first-order shear deformation theory to analyze the their results indicated the positive effects of Winkler spring stiffness and
vibrational response of isotropic truncated conical shells containing Pasternak’s layer to improve the noise properties at the low frequencies.
magnetostrictive actuating elements. Mohammadrezazadeh and In the presented study, a variable viscoelastic foundation is used to
Jafari [22] considered the effect of Coriolis, initial hoop tension, and support a smart composite structure and reduce its vibration. The elastic
centrifugal forces in vibration system analysis of rotating laminated part of the foundation is assumed as a Winkler-Pasternak medium
composite cylindrical shells containing magnetostrictive layers. considering a variation in Winkler’s layer along a structure side; how­
Under thermo-magnetic loading, Ebrahimi and Dabbagh [23] ever, the shear layer stiffness is assumed to be constant. Two Terfenol-D
analyzed the phase velocity of the propagated waves and wave fre­ actuators in the beam faces are embedded for vibration suppression of
quency for a three-variable nanoplate model constructed of ceramic the system by applying a simple feedback gain control system. The
face sheets and a magnetostrictive core. Zenkour and El-Shahrany proposed structure can be a part of a smart application which in rested
[24] discussed a distribution of nonlinear moisture concentration on variable mediums in various fields of electro-mechanical
on the vibration response of a viscoelastic laminated composite plate applications.
with Terfenol-D layers on a two-parameter foundation. Arani et al.
[25] found that increasing the magnetic field intensity indicates the 2. Basic equations
modal loss factor decrease and the natural frequency increase for a
sandwich beam with carbon nanotubes/fiber/polymer composite Consider a multi-layered beam with L as the beam length, magne­
face sheets and a core of magnetorheological material resetting to the tostrictive upper and lower surfaces acting as actuators, and h thickness
viscoelastic foundation. Allam et al. [26] studied the electric po­ which is supported by a variable viscoelastic foundation. The beam
tential and the radial displacement and hoop stress for exponentially model consists of smart layers (Terfenol-D actuators), layers of func­
graded piezoelectric hollow spheres under the effect of thermal and tionally graded materials (FGMs), and the viscoelastic fiber-reinforced
hydrothermal environments. material core as shown in Fig. 1. A Kelvin–Voigt model is used to
Several theoretical investigations of nonlinear response for the represent the viscoelastic core where the relation between Young’s
sandwich structural systems containing embedded magnetostrictive moduli E, the shear moduli G, and the viscoelastic structural damping g
actuators were introduced by several researchers such as Kishore takes the following formulation:
et al. [27], Xu et al. [28], and Zhang et al. [29]. Mohamma­ (
∂
) (
∂
)
drezazadeh and Jafari [30] used magnetostrictive layers to control Ev = E 1 + g , Gv = G 1 + g . (1)
∂t ∂t
the nonlinear dynamical response of laminated composite conical

2
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Two layers are used to represent the elastic medium, Pasternak’s ⎧ ⎫(FG) ⎡ ⎤(FG) ⎧ ⎫(FG)
layer that interconnects the layer of springs ⎨ σxx ⎪
⎪ ⎬ Q11 Q13 0 ⎪
⎨ εxx ⎪⎬
⎢ ⎥
[ ] σ
zz = ⎣ Q31 Q33 0 ⎦ εzz , (10)
∂2 ⎩ σ xz ⎪
⎪ ⎭ ⎪
⎩ γ xz ⎪
⎭
R(x) = K(x) − KP 2 w0 + FV , (2) 0 0 Q55
∂x
in which E(z) E(z)
Q11 = Q33 = , Q13 = vQ11 , Q55 = , (11)
( (x) ) 1 − v2 2(1 + v)
∂w0
K(x) = KW 1 − ξsin , FV = cd . (3)
a ∂t where the mass density and the elasticity modulus are presented as
where ξ is constant and the constants KP and KW refer to the stiffness ρ(z) = (ρ2 − ρ1 )V(z) + ρ1 , (12)
of Pasternak’s layer and the stiffness of Winkler’s springs. The constant
cd is of the damper coefficient. E(z) = (E2 − E1 )V(z) + E1 , (13)
⎧ ( )p
2.1. Theories and constitutive relations ⎪ z − h1
⎪
⎪ , z ∈ [h1 , h2 ],
⎨ h2 − h1
The vibration damping behavior of laminated composite beam on V(z) = ( )p (14)
⎪
⎪ z − hk− 1
visco-Pasternak-Winkler foundation employing magnetostrictive ⎪
⎩ , z ∈ [hk− 2 , hk− 1 ].
hk− 2 − hk− 1
actuators is analyzed using the following hyperbolic higher-order
shear and normal deformations theory: in which p is the volume fraction exponent across the cross-section.
E1 , ρ1 and E2 , ρ2 are the corresponding properties of material 1 and
∂w0
u(x, y, z, t) = − z + f (z)φ(x, t), material 2, respectively. For simplicity, a constant value for Poisson’s
∂x
coefficient is taken in the FG layers because it varies in a small range.
w(x, y, z, t) = w0 (x, t) + cf ′(z)w1 (x, t), (4)
( )
( z ) 4z3 1 2.1.3. The viscoelastic core
f (z) = hsinh − cosh .
h 3h 2
2 The stress–strain equations for the viscoelastic fiber-reinforced core
can be expressed as
where f(z), w0 and φ are functions of deformation distribution of the
transverse deflection and the rotation about y-axis, while w1 is an ⎧
⎪
⎫(core) ⎧ ⎫(core)
⎨ σxx ⎪
⎬ ( )⎪ ε ⎪
∂ ⎨ xx ⎬
additional undetermined function of (x, t). Moreover, c = 0 for simple
σ = 1+g εzz , (15)
higher-order shear deformations theory and c = 1 for refined higher-
zz
⎪
⎩ σ xz ⎪
⎭ ∂t ⎪
⎩γ ⎪ ⎭
order normal and shear deformations theory.
xz

{ } [ ](core) { }
Components of the compatible strain displacement are εxx Q11 Q13 εxx
= , γ xz = Q55 γ xz . (16)
f
εzz Q31 Q33 εzz
εxx = zε(1)
xx + f (z)εxx ,
′
εzz = f ′ (z)εfzz , (5) where the coefficients Qij represent the transformed principal
(core)

γ xz = f ′(z)γfxz , material stiffness (Zenkour and El-Shahrany [41]).

where
3. Motion system
⎧ ⎫
⎧ ⎫ ⎪
⎪ 2 ⎪ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪ ∂ w 0⎪
⎪
⎨ ε(1) ⎬ ⎪−
⎨ ⎪ ⎨ f ⎬
2 ⎬ ε
⎪
⎨ w1 ⎪ ⎬ ⎨0⎬ The dynamical system for the smart structure resting on the variable
∂x (6) viscoelastic foundation can be obtained using the principle of Hamilton
xx zz
= , = c ∂w 1
+ .
⎩ εf ⎭ ⎪ ∂φ ⎪ ⎩ γf ⎭ ⎪ ⎪
⎭ ⎩φ⎭
xx ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎭
xz ⎩
∂x as
∂x ∫t
δ (U + V − K)dt = 0, (17)
2.1.1. The smart layers 0

where δ is the variational symbol, and the terms K, U, and V, mean

For the magnetostrictive bottom and top, the linearized constitutive the kinetic energy, the strain energy, and the work done by the external
equations of the smart beam can be given as forces, respectively.

σ (m) (7)
(m)
ii = εii − e3j Hz , ii = xx, zz, j = 1, 3.
h
∫T ∫L ∫2
[ ( f ″
) f
( ′
)f
]
{ } [ ](m) { }
0= σxx zδε(1)
xx + f (z)δεxx + cσ zz f (z)δεzz + σ xz f (z)δγ xz dzdxdt

εxx Q11 Q13 εxx 0 0 − h

(8)
(m) 2
= , γxz = Q55 γxz ,
εzz Q31 Q33 εzz
∫T ∫L ∫2 [( )
h

∂ẇ0
∂w − ρ − z + f (z)φ̇ ×
Hz (x, t) = kc I(x, t), I(x, t) = c(t) , (9) ∂x
∂t 0 0 − h
2

where the coefficients Qij , e(m)

3j , I, Hz , kc and c(t) denote the trans­
(m)
( ) ( )( )]
formed rigidity matrix, the transformed magnetostrictive coupling − z
∂δẇ0
+ f (z)δφ̇ + ẇ0 + cf ’ (z)ẇ1 δẇ0 + cf ’ (z)δẇ1 dzdxdt
moduli, the coil current, the magnetic field intensity, the coil constant, ∂x
and the control gain. ∫ T ∫ L
+ R(x)δw0 dxdt,
2.1.2. The functionally graded layers
0 0

The stress–strain relations for FG layers are written in the form or

3
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 Table 2
Convergence behavior and comparison of eigenfrequencies and maximum de­ Description of the eigenfrequencies behavior ( − α1 ± ω1 (rad s− 1 )) for [m/FG/θ]
flections for the ply-stacking sequence [m/ ± 45/0/90]s , h/L = 0.01 and cd = 0. beam model for different values of the thickness ratio, volume fraction exponent,
Foundation parameters Theory − α1 ± ω1 Wmax (mm) and Graphite/epoxy core fiber orientations.

KW KP h/L p Theory θ

0 0 RHBT [12] 5.94 ± 98.42 10.161 0 30 60 90

0 0 HSBT (present) 5.934 ± 98.437 10.158 0.05 1 HSBT 34.682 ± 34.670 ± 34.680 ± 34.671 ±
0 0 RHSBT (present) 6.258 ± 98.775 10.124 868.298 841.639 863.682 842.802
102 0 ECBT [42] 5.939 ± 98.494 10.153 RHSBT 40.948 ± 40.942 ± 40.946 ± 40.942 ±
RHBT [42] 5.934 ± 98.452 10.157 876.396 849.932 871.818 851.094
HSBT (present) 5.934 ± 98.452 10.157 3 HSBT 28.483 ± 28.466 ± 28.480 ± 28.467 ±
RHSBT (present) 6.258 ± 98.791 10.122 1370.043 1356.306 1367.643 1356.899
10 4 0 ECBT [42] 5.939 ± 100.001 10.000 RHSBT 34.071 ± 34.056 ± 34.068 ± 34.057 ±
RHBT [42] 5.934 ± 99.960 10.004 1375.094 1361.374 1372.700 1361.971
HSBT (present) 5.934 ± 99.960 10.004 5 HSBT 17.119 ± 17.108 ± 17.117 ± 17.109 ±
RHSBT (present) 6.258 ± 100.293 9.971 1978.678 1972.981 1977.680 1973.226
5 × 104 0 ECBT [42] 5.939 ± 105.871 9.445 RHSBT 20.556 ± 20.546 ± 20.555 ± 20.546 ±
RHBT [42] 5.934 ± 105.833 9.449 1981.336 1975.633 1980.338 1975.880
HSBT (present) 5.934 ± 105.833 9.449 0.1 1 HSBT 67.684 ± 67.686 ± 67.685 ± 67.686 ±
RHSBT (present) 6.258 ± 106.147 9.421 1640.928 1586.696 1631.557 1589.067
10 2
10 2 ECBT [42] 5.939 ± 98.645 10.137 RHSBT 79.768 ± 79.804 ± 79.774 ± 79.802 ±
RHBT [42] 5.934 ± 98.604 10.142 1659.747 1605.880 1650.446 1608.252
HSBT (present) 5.934 ± 98.604 10.142 3 HSBT 57.103 ± 57.052 ± 57.094 ± 57.055 ±
RHSBT (present) 6.258 ± 98.941 10.107 2563.511 2534.491 2558.445 2535.744
102 103 ECBT [42] 5.939 ± 99.996 10.000 RHSBT 68.199 ± 68.157 ± 68.192 ± 68.159 ±
RHBT [42] 5.934 ± 99.955 10.004 2577.793 2548.772 2572.733 2550.035
HSBT (present) 5.934 ± 99.955 10.004 5 HSBT 37.072 ± 37.028 ± 37.064 ± 37.030 ±
RHSBT (present) 6.258 ± 100.288 9.971 3705.125 3692.130 3702.849 4692.689
10 2
10 4 ECBT [42] 5.939 ± 112.619 8.879 RHSBT 44.449 ± 44.407 ± 44.442 ± 44.409 ±
RHBT [42] 5.934 ± 112.583 8.882 3715.359 3702.333 3713.080 3702.898
HSBT (present) 5.934 ± 112.583 8.882 0.15 1 HSBT 98.148 ± 98.243 ± 98.165 ± 98.239 ±
RSBT (present) 6.258 ± 112.879 8.859 2365.020 2285.794 2351. 357 2289.266
RHSBT 115.234 ± 115.436 ± 115.269 ± 115.427 ±
2397.795 2318.983 2384.214 2322.460
∫ ∫
T L {( ) 3 HSBT 85.030 ± 84.950 ± 85.016 ± 84.954 ±
f f
0= Mxx δε(1)
xx + Pxx δεxx + Qf δγ xz + R(x)δw0 3591.068 3546.139 3583.235 3548.083
RHSBT 101.197 ± 101.148 ± 101.188 ± 101.150 ±
0 0

[( ) ( ) 3620.829 3575.806 3612.988 3577.768

∂ẇ0 ∂δẇ0 ∂ẇ0 5 HSBT 59.381 ± 59.286 ± 59.364 ± 59.290 ±
+ cPzz δγfzz − I2 − I3 φ̇ + − I3 + I4 φ̇ δφ̇ + I0 ẇ0 δẇ0 5146.457 5124.601 5142.631 5125.542
∂x ∂x ∂x
RHSBT 70.959 ± 70.870 ± 70.943 ± 70.8 74±
( ) ]} 5172.429 5150.472 5168.589 5151.424

+ cI5 ẇ0 δẇ1 + ẇ1 δẇ0 + cI6 ẇ1 δẇ1 dxdt,

∫ h
Hence Pzz =
2
σ zz f ″(z)dz
⎧⎛ ⎞ − h
∫ T ∫ L⎨ 2 2
2

⎝− ∂ M xx ∂ ẅ0 ∂φ̈
0= + R(x) − I2 2 + I3 + I0 ẅ0 + cI5 ẅ1 ⎠δw0 ( ⃒ )( { } )
0 0 ⎩ ∂x2 ∂x ∂x ∂⃒ ε(1)
= 1 + g ⃒⃒ [ T1 T2 ] + T3 εf − Pm ,
∂t r=core εf
( ) (
+c −
∂Qf
+ Pzz + I5 ẅ0 + I6 ẅ1 δw1 + Qf −
∂Pxx
− I3
∂ẅ0 where
∂x ∂x ∂x { } { } { }
) } m
Mxx ∑ ∫ zr+1 z ∂w β ∂w
= kc c(t) e31 dz = ,
+ I4 φ̈ δφ dxdt Pmxx r zr f (z) ∂t γ ∂t

∑∫ zr+1
∂w ∂w
∫ T{ ( ) Pm = kc c(t) e33 f ’’ (z) dz = μ , r = 1, k,
∂δẇ0 ∂Mxx ∂ẅ0 r zr ∂t ∂t
+ − Mxx + + I2 − I3 φ̈ δw0
0 ∂x ∂x ∂x
∫ h
}L 2
(r) { }
+ cQf δw1 + Pxx δφ 0 dt, {D11 , E11 , F11 } = Q11 z2 , zf (z), [f (z) ]2 dz,
− h
2

where the stress resultants Mxx , Sxx , Qf may be expressed as

∫ h
{ } ∫h { } ( ⃒ ) 2
(r)
Mxx 2
z ∂⃒ E55 = Q55 [f ′(z) ]2 dz,
= σxx dz = 1 + g ⃒⃒ × − h
2
Pxx − h f (z) ∂t r=core
2
∫ h
([ ]{ } [ ] ) { } 2
(r)
(1) m
Mxx {T1 , T2 } = Qij {z, f (z) }f ’’ (z)dz, i, j = 1, 3,
D11 E11 ε T1 f
+c ε − , (18) − h
2
E11 F11 εf T2 zz m
Pxx
∫ h
2
(r)
∫ h ( ⃒ ) T3 = Q33 [f ’’ (z) ]2 dz,
2 ∂⃒
σxz f ′(z)dz = 1 + g ⃒⃒ (19)
h
Qf = E γf , − 2
− h
2
∂t r=core 55 xz

4
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3 Table 4
Description of the eigenfrequencies behavior ( − α1 ± ω1 (rad s− 1 )) for [m/FG/θ] Description of the eigenfrequencies behavior ( − α1 ± ω1 (rad s− 1 )) for [m/FG/θ]
beam model for different values of the viscoelastic structural damping, feedback beam model for different values of the foundation stiffness and ξ parameter.
gain control, and volume fraction exponent. ξ KW KP Theory cd
g c(t)kc Theory p
102 103 104
1 3 5
0 10 6
10 6 HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
0.0 102 HSBT 0.572 ± 0.470 ± 0.282 ± 869.556 869.472 868.361
868.990 1370.339 1978.752 RHSBT 40.948 ± 42.998 ± 63.505 ±
RHSBT 0.635 ± 0.526 ± 0.317 ± 877.642 877.543 876.297
877.353 1375.516 1981.443 2× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
103 HSBT 3.671 ± 3.015 ± 1.812 ± 106 895.071 894.989 893.910
868.982 1370.336 1978.751 RHSBT 40.949 ± 43.000 ± 63.506 ±
RHSBT 4.297 ± 3.573 ± 2.156 ± 902.901 902.806 901.594
877.343 1375.512 1981.442 3× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
104 HSBT 34.658 ± 28.463 ± 17.108 ± 106 919.878 919.798 918.749
868.299 1370.044 1978.678 RHSBT 40.950 ± 43.001 ± 63.508 ±
RHSBT 40.924 ± 34.052 ± 20.545 ± 927.473 927.380 926.201
876.397 1375.094 1981.336 2× 106 HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
10− 6
102 HSBT 0.596 ± 0.489 ± 0.294 ± 106 872.175 872.091 870.984
868.990 1370.339 1978.752 RHSBT 40.948 ± 42.998 ± 63.505 ±
RHSBT 0.658 ± 0.545 ± 0.328 ± 880.234 880.136 878.893
877.353 1375.516 1981.443 2× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
103 HSBT 3.695 ± 3.034 ± 1.824 ± 106 897.616 897.534 896.458
868.982 1370.336 1978.751 RHSBT 40.949 ± 43.000 ± 63.506 ±
RHSBT 4.321 ± 3.593 ± 2.167 ± 905.421 905.326 904.118
877.342 1375.512 1981.442 3× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
104 HSBT 34.682 ± 28.483 ± 17.119 ± 106 922.354 922.275 921.228
868.298 1370.043 1978.678 RHSBT 40.951 ± 43.001 ± 63.508 ±
RHSBT 40.948 ± 34.071 ± 20.556 ± 929.927 929.834 928.658
876.396 1375.094 1981.336 3× 106 HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
10− 3
102 HSBT 24.057 ± 19.757 ± 11.875 ± 106 874.787 874.703 873.599
868.658 1370.197 1978.717 RHSBT 40.948 ± 42.999 ± 63.505 ±
RHSBT 24.150 ± 19.841 ± 11.925 ± 882.819 882.721 881.482
877.022 1375.374 1981.407 2× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
103 HSBT 27.156 ± 22.302 ± 13.405 ± 106 900.153 900.072 898.999
868.567 1370.158 1978.707 RHSBT 40.949 ± 43.000 ± 63.506 ±
RHSBT 27.813 ± 22.889 ± 13.764 ± 907.934 907.840 906.635
876.914 1375.327 1981.395 3× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
104 HSBT 58.143 ± 47.750 ± 28.700 ± 106 924.824 924.745 923.701
867.047 1369.509 1978.545 RHSBT 40.951 ± 43.001 ± 63.508 ±
RHSBT 64.440 ± 53.368 ± 32.153 ± 932.374 932.281 931.108
874.991 1374.484 1981.183 1 10 6
10 6 HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
868.298 868.213 867.101
RHSBT 40.948 ± 42.998 ± 63.505 ±
and the mass inertias I0 , I2 , I3 , I4 , I5 , I6 can be determined as 876.396 876.298 875.050
2× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
∫ h
106 893.848 893.766 892.686
2 { }
{I0 , I2 , I3 , I4 , I5 , I6 } = ρ 1, z2 , zf (z) , [f (z) ]2 , f ’ (z), [f ’ (z) ]2 dz. RHSBT 40.949 ± 43.000 ± 63.506 ±
901.691 901.595 900.382
− h
2

(20) 3× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±

106 918.689 918.609 917.558
The dynamical equations associated with the studied beam can be RHSBT 40.950 ± 43.001 ± 63.507 ±
displayed as 926.295 926.202 925.021
( ) 2× 106 HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
∂2 Mxx ∂2 ∂φ̈ 106 869.664 869.580 868.469
− + I 0 − I 2 ẅ0 + cI5 ẅ1 + I3 + R(x) = 0, (21) RHSBT 40.948 ± 42.998 ± 63.505 ±
∂x2 ∂x2 ∂x
877.748 877.650 876.404
( ) 2× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
∂Qf 895.176 895.094 894.015
c − + Pzz + I5 ẅ0 + I6 ẅ1 = 0, (22) 106
∂x RHSBT 40.949 ± 43.000 ± 63.506 ±
903.005 902.910 901.698
∂Pxx ∂ẅ0 3× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
− + Qf − I3 + I4 φ̈ = 0. (23) 106 919.980 919.900 918.851
∂x ∂x
RHSBT 40.950 ± 43.001 ± 63.508 ±
According to the displacement components, the equations system 927.574 927.482 926.302
can be rewritten as 3× 106 HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
106 871.028 870.944 869.836
( ⃒ )( ) RHSBT 40.948 ± 42.998 ± 63.505 ±
∂⃒ ∂4 w0 ∂2 w1 ∂3 φ
1 + g ⃒⃒ D11 4 + cT1 2 + E11 3 879.099 879.001 877.756
∂t r=core ∂x ∂x ∂x 2× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
) ( 106 896.501 896.419 895.342
RHSBT 40.949 ± 43.000 ± 63.506 ±
3 3 2
∂ w0 ∂ w1 ∂ ∂φ̈
+ β 2 + cβf ′(z) 2 + I0 − I2 2 ẅ0 + cI5 ẅ1 + I3 + R(x) = 0, (24) 904.318 904.222 903.013
∂x ∂t ∂x ∂t ∂x ∂x
3× HSBT 34.682 ± 36.734 ± 57.263 ±
( ⃒ )( ( 2 ) ) 106 921.270 921.190 920.142
∂⃒ ∂ w1 ∂φ ∂2 w0 ∂φ RHSBT 40.950 ± 43.001 ± 63.508 ±
c 1 + g ⃒⃒ − E55 + − T1 + T2 + T3 w1
∂t r=core ∂x 2 ∂x ∂x 2 ∂x 928.852 928.760 927.582

5
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Damping coefficient versus shear layer stiffness change for different
values of the volume fraction exponent.
Fig. 2. Damping coefficient versus ξ parameter for different values of thick­
ness ratio.

Fig. 5. The fundamental frequency versus shear layer stiffness for different
values of the volume fraction exponent.

Fig. 3. The fundamental frequency versus ξ parameter for deferent values of According to Navier’s method and the above conditions, the solution
thickness ratio. can be proposed as
∑∞ nπx
( ) w0 (x, t) = (W0 + cW1 )e(− αn ±iωn )t sin ,
∂w0 ∂w1 n=1 L
+c − μ − f ′(z)μ + I5 ẅ0 + I6 ẅ1 = 0, (25) ∑∞ (28)
∂t ∂t (− αn ±iωn )t nπ x √ ̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅
φ(x, t) = X 0e cos , i = − 1 .
( ⃒ )[ ( )]
n=1 L
∂⃒ ∂3 w0 ∂2 φ ∂w1 ∂w1 The index n is the half-wave number, αn is the damping parameter,
1 + g ⃒⃒ E11 3 − F11 2 − cT2 + E55 c +φ
∂t r=core ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ωn are the natural frequencies, and W0 , W1 and X0 are arbitrary pa­
rameters. Using the formulations in Eq. (28) in Eqs. (24)–(26), the next
∂2 w0 ∂ 2 w1 ∂ẅ0 first-order equations system is obtained
+γ + cγf ′(z) − I + I4 φ̈ = 0. (26)
∂x∂t ∂x∂t 3 ∂x [ ]
Sij {Δ} = [0], i, j = 1, 2, 3, (29)
4. Closed-form solution
where
The simplified form of the simply supported beam edges is presented Sij = ̂ ̂ ij , {Δ} = {W0 , W1 , X0 }t ,
̂ ij + λ2 C
S ij + λ M (30)
as
and
w = φ = Mxx = Pxx = 0 at x = 0, L. (27)

6
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 8. The fundamental frequency versus x variable for different values of the
Fig. 6. Damping coefficient versus x variable for different values of the feedback gain control.
viscoelastic structural damping.

Fig. 9. Damping coefficient versus ξ parameter for different values of Win­

kler’s stiffness.
Fig. 7. Damping coefficient versus x variable for different values of the feed­
back gain control. ⎡ (nπ)2 ⎤
⎡ ⎤
⎡( ⃒ ) ( ) ⎤ ̂ 11
M ⎢ − β L + cd ⎥
∂ ⃒⃒ nπ 4 (nπ)2 ⎢̂ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 + g D11 + KP + KW ⎥ ⎣ M 21 ⎦ = ⎢
⎢ − cμ ⎥,
⎥
⃒
∂t r=core L a ̂ 31 ⎣ (nπ) ⎦
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ M
̂ ⎢ ( ⃒ ) ( ) ⎥ γ
S ⎢ ∂⃒ nπ 2 ⎥ L
⎢ ̂ 11 ̂ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ S 12 = S 21 ⎦ = ⎢ c 1 + g ⃒⃒ T1 ⎥,
̂ ⎢ ∂ t L ⎥ ⎡ ⎤
S 13 = ̂
S 31 ⎢ ( ⃒
r=core
) ( ) ⎥
⎡ ⎤
(nπ )2
⎢ ⎥
⎣
− 1+g ⃒
∂ ⃒⃒
E
nπ 3 ⎦ ̂ 12
M ⎢− β L ⎥
⎢ ⎥
∂t r=core 11 L ⎢̂ ⎥
⎣ M 22 ⎦ = cf ′(z)⎢ ⎥,
⎢ − μ ⎥
̂ 32
M ⎣ (nπ) ⎦
⎡ [ ( ) ] ⎤ γ
nπ 2 L
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ c E55 + T3 ⎥
L
̂
S 22 ( ⃒ )⎢
⎢ (nπ)
⎥
⎥
⎢̂ ⎥ ∂ ⃒ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ S 23 = ̂ S 32 ⎦ = 1 + g ⃒⃒ ⎢ c(E55 − T2 ) ⎥,
̂ ∂t r=core ⎢ L ⎥
S 33 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ (nπ )2 ⎦
(F11 + cT2 ) + E55
L

7
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 12. The fundamental frequency versus x variable for different values of
Fig. 10. The fundamental frequency versus ξ parameter for different values of
Pasternak’s stiffness.
Winkler’s stiffness.

Fig. 11. Damping coefficient versus x variable for different values of Pas­
ternak stiffness.
Fig. 13. Damping coefficient versus x variable for different values of the
⎡ (nπ)2 ⎤ damper coefficient.
⎡ ⎤
̂ 11
C I2 + I0
⎢ L ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢C
⎢
̂ 12 = C ̂ 21 ⎥ ⎢
⎥ ⎢ cI5 ⎥
⎥ out detailed parametric analyses to study some effects of factors and
⎢
⎢ ̂ 22
⎥ ⎢
⎥ = ⎢)˝, ˝|¯| |u nderbrace; ˝)[? − − ] >
⎥
⎥. (31) geometrical parameters on the controlled motion of these models in the
⎢ C ⎥ ⎢ cI6 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ context of higher-order shear and normal deformations theory. The si­
⎢ ̂ ⎥ ⎢ nπ ⎥
⎣ C 31 ⎦ ⎢ − I3 ⎥ nusoidal variation of the visco-Pasternak medium is used in the pre­
⎣ L ⎦
̂ 33
C sented investigation in which KW = KP = 106 , cd = 102 , and ξ = 1. The
I4
geometric and numerical values:g = 10− 6 , h/L = 0.05, kc c(t) = 104 ,
The following initial conditions can be employed to find the partic­ n = 1 are utilized to compute the deflection and eigenfrequencies of the
ular system solution [m/FG/0]s beam model. The magnetostrictive material is used at the
upper and lower of the beam in which ρ = 9250 kg m− 3 , E1 = E2 = E3 =
w0 (x, 0) = w1 (x, 0) = 0,
ẇ0 (x, 0) = ẇ1 (x, 0) = 1, (32) 26.5 GPa, v12 = v13 = v23 = 0, e31 = 442.55 N (mA)− 1 , e33 =
φ(x, 0) = 0, φ̇(x, 0) = 0. − 212 N (mA)− 1 . In FGM Layers, the volume fraction of Graphite fiber
material (VG ) varies smoothly across thickness from 0% to 100%, with z
5. Numerical outcomes and discussions changes from h1 to h2 and hk− 1 to hk− 2 . Similarly, as z changes from h2 to
h1 and hk− 2 to hk− 1 , the volume fraction of the matrix material (epoxy)
In the present section, the dynamic response of beams that are (Ve ) varies from 100% to 0% in which ρe = 1200 kg m− 3 , Ee = 3.51 GPa,
coupled by the variable visco-Pasternak medium is analyzed by carrying

8
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 14. The fundamental frequency versus x variable for different values of the
damper coefficient. Fig. 16. Controlled and uncontrolled motion versus damping time for different
values of the feedback gain control.

Fig. 15. Controlled motion versus damping time for different values of the
Fig. 17. Controlled motion versus damping time for different values of the
viscoelastic structural damping.
thickness ratio.

ρG = 1750 kg m− 3 , EG = 230 GPa and Poisson’s ratio is supposed a Bernoulli’s classical beam theory (ECBT). Slight differences in the results
constant v = 0.3. The viscoelastic composite core is modeled according due to the difference between the displacement fields have been
to the modified Kelvin-Voigt viscoelastic relation in which E1 = 40 × E2 observed but in general, the results reveal an excellent agreement. The
GPa, E2 = E3 = 6.895 GPa, v12 = v13 = 0.25, v23 = 0.36, G12 = 0.6 × E2 influence of the foundation stiffness, viscoelastic structural damping
GPa, G13 = G23 = 0.5 × E2 GPa, ρ = 1600 kg m− 3 . For the validation parameter, thickness ratio, fiber orientations, feedback gain control
analysis of the results, the present results are compared with the out­ value, and material variation parameter on the beam vibration of the
comes provided by Reddy and Barbosa [12], and Zenkour and El- system is displayed in Tables 2–4 using HSBT and RHSBT, and Figs. 1–23
Shahrany [42] in Table 1. Comparison and convergence analysis is based on RHSBT.
presented of the eigenfrequency values and maximum central transverse To illustrate the influence of volume fraction exponent and
deflections for the ply-stacking sequence [m/ ± 45/0/90]s according to Graphite/epoxy core fiber orientations for different thickness ratios, the
some theories: refined higher-order normal and shear deformations eigenfrequencies are presented in Table 2 for the variation of thickness
beam theory (RHSBT), higher-order shear deformations beam theory ratio. The damping coefficient and frequencies are very sensitive to the
(HSBT), Reddy’s higher-order beam theory (RHBT), and Euler- thickness ratio. As h/L increases, the eigenfrequencies are increasing.

9
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 20. Controlled motion versus damping time for different values of Pas­
Fig. 18. Controlled motion versus damping time for different values of the ternak’s stiffness.
damper coefficient.

Fig. 19. Controlled motion versus damping time for different values of Win­ Fig. 21. Controlled motion versus damping time for different values of the
kler’s stiffness. volume fraction exponent.

Moreover, the eigenfrequencies are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 along the ξ increases by increasing the value of the volume fraction exponent as
parameter for deferent values of thickness ratio h/L = 0.05, 0.1, 1.5. seen in Fig. 5. The Graphite/epoxy core fiber orientations have an
Fig. 2 shows that the absolute value of the damping coefficient signifi­ important effect on the vibration response of the beam. According to the
cantly increases due to increasing the thickness ratio and the same eigenfrequencies behavior in Table 1, the zero-direction of the core fiber
behavior also occurs in the frequencies as shown in Fig. 3. Further, the is the best direction for the stiffer beam while the 30 angle is the di­
absolute value of the damping coefficient also is very sensitive to the rection in which the beam is weak. On the other side, to display the
volume fraction exponent where it can be noted that the damping ratio influence of feedback gain control, and volume fraction exponent in the
decreases, and the frequencies increases by increasing the volume presence/ absence of the viscoelastic structural damping factor, the
fraction exponent. The damping parameter and frequencies are shown in
eigenfrequencies are presented in Table 3 for g = 0, 10− 6 , 10− 3 . The
Figs. 4 and 5 along the Pasternak’s stiffness for different values of the
viscoelastic structural damping and feedback gain control factors have a
volume fraction exponent (p = 1, 2, 3). From Fig. 4, a significant
significant impact on vibration suppression. It can be observed that the
decrement in the absolute value of the damping coefficient as the vol­
absolute values of the damping coefficient increase by increasing these
ume fraction exponent increases. While the fundamental frequency
factors. Moreover, the effect of viscoelastic structural damping and

10
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

feedback gain control on the frequencies is clearly negligible. Fig. 6 development, design, and control aim of electro-mechanical applica­
displays the fundamental damping coefficient along x direction for three tions. The results reveal that:
various values of the viscoelastic structural damping. An increment of
the viscoelastic structural damping factor leads to the damping rate • The eigenfrequencies and deflections are sensitive to the volume
significantly increasing. Moreover, the damping and frequency co­ fraction exponent variation and the structural damping coefficient.
efficients are shown in 7 and 8 along x variable for different values of the • The beam becomes stiffer when Graphite/epoxy fiber zero-
( )
feedback gain control c(t)kc = 104 , 2 × 104 , 3 × 104 . Figures show a orientation is considered in the beam core.
slight decrease in the frequencies and an increase in the damping rate • The vibration-damping responses of the beam coupled by the
because of the feedback gain control increase. As discussed before, the viscoelastic foundation and those of the beam coupled by the vari­
results of the table also refer to the volume fraction exponent increase able viscoelastic foundation have the almost same behavior and then
leading to the damping ratio decreasing and the frequency increasing. the proposed foundation can be utilized in advanced structural ap­
The influence of the foundation stiffness presence/absence of ξ plications with the variable medium.
parameter on the eigenfrequencies is illustrated in Table 4 for the • The system vibration control process is improving by the increment
traditional foundation ξ = 0 and the variable foundation ξ = 1. The in the feedback gain control magnitude and the vibration damping in
results behave the same response in the two cases with a slight variation. the absence of the gain controller is due to the presence of the
Figs. 9 and 10 display the fundamental damping and frequencies co­ damper element and the viscoelastic structural damping.
efficients along the ξ parameter for three values of Winkler’s stiffness
( )
KW = 106 , 107 , 108 . The eigenfrequencies are plotted in Figs. 11 and Declaration of Competing Interest
12 along the x variable for different values of shear layer stiffness. The
springs’ stiffness and shear layer stiffness have a significant effect on the The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
imaginary part of the eigenfrequencies while they have an insignificant interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
influence on the real part of the eigenfrequencies. The frequency in­ the work reported in this paper.
crease by increasing Winkler and Pasternak coefficients. Figs. 9 and 10
also show that the curves depend on the ξ parameter. Moreover, the real Acknowledgments
part of eigenfrequencies is very sensitive to the damper coefficient in
which the absolute value of the damping coefficient increases as the The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific
damper element stiffness increase. The eigenfrequencies are plotted in Research at University of Bisha for funding this research through the
13 and 14 along x direction for three damper coefficient values general research project under grant number (UB-GRP-33-1444).
( )
cd = 102 , 103 , 104 . From the Figures, an increase in the damping
References
coefficient values and a slight decrement in the frequencies due to
increasing the cd parameter. Furthermore, with the variation of the [1] Thi HN. On mechanical behavior of two-layer functionally graded sandwich curved
damping time, deflection behavior is shown for various values of the beams resting on elastic foundations using an analytical solution and refined
viscoelastic structural damping in Fig. 15, for the feedback gain control Timoshenko beam theory. Ain Shams Eng J 2022;13:101647.
[2] Nguyen P-C, Pham QH, Tran TT, Nguyen-Thoi T. Effects of partially supported
in Fig. 16, for thickness ratio in Fig. 17, for the damper coefficient in elastic foundation on free vibration of FGP plates using ES-MITC3 elements. Ain
Fig. 18, for Winkler’s stiffness in Fig. 19, for Pasternak’s stiffness in Shams Eng J 2022;13:101615.
Fig. 20, and volume fraction exponent in Fig. 21. These figures show that [3] Marzavan S, Nastasescu V. Free vibration analysis of a functionally graded plate by
finite element method. Ain Shams Eng J 2023;14:102024.
the feedback gain control, thickness ratio, the damper element stiffness, [4] Daikh AA, Drai A, Bensaid I, Houari MSA, Tounsi A. On vibration of functionally
springs stiffness, and Pasternak’s stiffness have an inverse effect on graded sandwich nanoplates in the thermal environment. J Sandwich Struct Mater
deflection amplitude while the volume fraction exponent has a direct 2021;23(6):2217–44.
[5] Daikh AA, Houari MSA, Belarbi MO, Chakraverty S, Eltaher MA. Analysis of axially
influence on the amplitude of the deflection and damping time interval. temperature-dependent functionally graded carbon nanotube reinforced composite
According to previous results, it can be explored that the fiber orienta­ plates. Eng Comput 2022;38(Suppl 3):2533–54.
tions in the beam core have an important influence on the deflection [6] Sabireen F, Butt A, Ahmad K, Ullah O, Zaid HA, Shah T. Kamal, Mechanical
performance of fiber-reinforced concrete and functionally graded concrete with
response where the zero direction represents the best fiber orientations
natural and recycled aggregates. Ain Shams Eng J 2023;14(9):102121.
in the viscoelastic core to suppress the vibration and reduce the [7] Talebitooti R, Zarastvand M, Sharif Rouhani AH. Investigating Hyperbolic Shear
deflection. By comparing the HSBT results with RHSBT results in the Deformation Theory on vibroacoustic behavior of the infinite Functionally Graded
tables, it is observed that considering the non-zero strains in z-direction thick plate. Latin American J Solids Struct 2019;16(1).
[8] Zarastvand MR, Asadijafari MH, Talebitooti R. Acoustic wave transmission
produces a significant change in the eigenfrequencies therefore in the characteristics of stiffened composite shell systems with double curvature. Compos
transverse displacements. This behavior also becomes evident whenever Struct 2022;292(3):115688.
the thickness increases or the volume fraction exponent decreases. [9] Daikh AA, Drai A, Houari MSA, Eltaher MA. Static analysis of multilayer nonlocal
strain gradient nanobeam reinforced by carbon nanotubes. Steel Compos Struct,
Inter J 2020;36(6):643–56.
6. Conclusions [10] Tuyen BV. Buckling and free vibration response of organic nanobeams taking the
temperature into account. Ain Shams Eng J 2023;14:102193.
[11] Al Khateeb SA, Zenkour AM. A refined four-unknown plate theory for advanced
Eigenfrequencies and deflections of magnetostrictive/ functionally plates resting on elastic foundations in hygrothermal environment. Compos Struct
graded material/ viscoelastic fiber-reinforced beam on the variable 2014;111:240–8.
viscoelastic medium are presented according to higher-order deforma­ [12] Reddy JN, Barbosa JI. On vibration suppression of magnetostrictive beams. Smart
Mater Struct 2000;9:49–58.
tion theory in the present study. Shear correction factors are not needed [13] Lee SJ, Reddy JN, Rostam-Abadi F. Transient analysis of laminated composite
because the used theories satisfy the zero traction boundary conditions plates with embedded smart-material layers. Fin Elements Anal Des 2004;40(5–6):
on the structure surfaces and these theories present a correct represen­ 463–83.
[14] Pradhan SC. Vibration suppression of FGM shells using embedded magnetostrictive
tation of the distribution of the normal and shear hyperbolic strains. For
layers. Int J Solids Struct 2005;42(9–10):2465–88.
the elastic foundation part, a variable Winkler stiffness and constant [15] Santapuri S, Scheidler JJ, Dapino MJ. Two-dimensional dynamic model for
Pasternak stiffness are supposed. Sinusoidal variation distribution for composite laminates with embedded magnetostrictive materials. Compos Struct
Winkler springs. Viscoelastic foundation part of Kelvin–Voigt is 2015;132:737–45.
[16] MalekzadehFard K, Gholami M, Reshadi F, Livani M. Free vibration and buckling
considered. The system that describes the vibration of the structure is analyses of cylindrical sandwich panel with magneto rheological fluid layer.
derived employing the principle of Hamilton and solved analytically by J Sandw Struct Mater 2017;19(4):397–423.
using a technique of Navier. The study findings can be used for the [17] Fadaee M, Talebitooti M. Active vibration control of carbon nanotube-reinforced
composite beam submerged in fluid using magnetostrictive layers. Mech Based Des

11
H.D. El-Shahrany and A.M. Zenkour Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Struct Mach Int J 2022;50(3):799–816. https://doi.org/10.1080/ [33] Duc ND. Nonlinear thermo-electro-mechanical dynamic response of shear
15397734.2020.1728546. deformable piezoelectric Sigmoid functionally graded sandwich circular cylindrical
[18] Tabbakh M, Nasihatgozar M. Buckling analysis of nanocomposite plates coated by shells on elastic foundations. J Sandw Struct Mater 2018;20(3):351–78.
magnetostrictive layer. Smart Struct Syst 2018;22(6):743–51. [34] Kerr AD. Elastic and viscoelastic foundation models. J Appl Mech 1964:491–8.
[19] Mori K, Narita F, Shindo Y. Detection and response characteristics of clamped-free [35] Chen WQ, Lu CF, Bian ZG. A mixed method for bending and free vibration of beams
giant magnetostrictive/piezoelectric laminates under concentrated loading. AIMS resting on a Pasternak elastic foundation. Appl Math Model 2004;28(10):877–90.
Mater Sci 2015;2(4):401–13. https://doi.org/10.3934/matersci.2015.4.401. [36] Younesian D, Hosseinkhani A, Askari H, Esmailzadeh E. Elastic and viscoelastic
[20] Hong CC. The GDQ method of thermal vibration laminated shell with actuating foundations: a review on linear and nonlinear vibration modeling and applications.
magnetostrictive layers. Int J Eng Tech Innovation 2017;7(3):188–200. Nonlinear Dyn 2019;1–43.
[21] Mohammadrezazadeh S, Jafari AA. Vibration suppression of truncated conical [37] Zenkour AM, Radwan AF. Free vibration analysis of multilayered composite and
shells embedded with magnetostrictive layers based on first order shear soft core sandwich plates resting on Winkler-Pasternak foundations. J Sandwich
deformation theory. J Theoretical Appl Mech 2019;57(4):957–72. Struct Mater 2018;20(2):169–90.
[22] Mohammadrezazadeh S, Jafari AA. The influences of magnetostrictive layers on [38] Sobhy M, Zenkour AM. Magnetic field effect on thermomechanical buckling and
active vibration control of laminated composite rotating cylindrical shells based on vibration of viscoelastic sandwich nanobeams with CNT reinforced face sheets on a
first-order shear deformation theory. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part C J Mech Eng Sci viscoelastic substrate. Compos B Eng 2018;154:492–506.
2019;233(13):4606–19. [39] Patil MA, Kadoli R. Influence of Winkler and viscoelastic foundation on free
[23] Ebrahimi F, Dabbagh A. Thermo-magnetic field effects on the wave propagation vibration of functionally graded beam integrated with Terfenol-D layer. J Brazilian
behavior of smart magnetostrictive sandwich nanoplates. Eur Phys J Plus 2018;133 Society Mech Sci Eng 2020;42(11):591.
(3):97. [40] Asadijafari MH, Zarastvand MR, Talebitooti R. The effect of considering Pasternak
[24] Zenkour AM, El-Shahrany HD. Nonlinear hygrothermal effects on the vibrations of elastic foundation on acoustic insulation of the finite doubly curved composite
a magnetostrictive viscoelastic laminated sandwich plate resting on an elastic structures. Compos Struct 2021;256:113064.
medium. Arch Civil Mech Eng 2021;21:82. [41] Zenkour AM, El-Shahrany HD. Frequency control of cross-ply magnetostrictive
[25] Arani AG, Zarei HB, Eskandari M, Pourmousa P. Vibration behavior of visco- viscoelastic plates resting on Kerr-type elastic medium. Euro Phys J Plus 2021;136:
elastically coupled sandwich beams with magnetorheological core and three-phase 634.
carbon nanotubes/fiber/polymer composite facesheets subjected to external [42] Zenkour AM, El-Shahrany HD. Vibration suppression of magnetostrictive
magnetic field. J Sandw Struct Mater 2017;21(7):2194–218. laminated beams resting on viscoelastic foundation. Appl Math Mech 2020;41:
[26] Allam MNM, Tantawy R, Zenkour AM. Magneto-thermo-elastic response of 1269–86.
exponentially graded piezoelectric hollow spheres. Adv Comput Des 2018;3(3):
303–18.
[27] Kishore MDVH, Singh BN, Pandit MK. Nonlinear static analysis of smart laminated
Ashraf M. Zenkour graduated from Mansoura University,
composite plate. Aerospace Sci Tech 2011;15:224–35.
[28] Xu X, Han Q, Chu F. Nonlinear vibration of a rotating cantilever beam in a Egypt in Mathematics in 1985 and was awarded the M.Sc. and
surrounding magnetic field”. Inter J Non-Linear Mech 2017;95:59–72. Ph.D. degrees from the same university in 1989 and 1995,
[29] Zhang Y, Zhou H, Zhou Y. Vibration suppression of cantilever laminated composite respectively. He is a Professor of Applied Mathematics at
plate with nonlinear giant magnetostrictive material layers. Acta Mech Solida Kafrelsheikh University, Egypt and he is currently a Professor of
Applied Mathematics at King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Ara­
Sinica 2015;28:50–61.
[30] Mohammadrezazadeh S, Jafari AA. Nonlinear vibration suppression of laminated bia. His research interests are in the areas of structural stability,
vibration, plated structures and shells. He is the author or co-
composite conical shells on elastic foundations with magnetostrictive layers.
Compos Struct 2021;258:113323. author of over 450 scientific publications, and received
[31] Moghaddam SMF, Ahmadi H. Active vibration control of truncated conical shell >12,500 citations with 56 h-factor (ISI Web of Science). He is a
under harmonic excitation using piezoelectric actuator. Thin-Walled Struct 2020; reviewer of many international journals in Solid Mechanics and
151:106642. Applied Mathematics, and an editorial member of many Jour­
nals. In addition, he delivered various lectures at national and
[32] Duc ND, Cong PH. Nonlinear thermo-mechanical dynamic analysis and vibration of
higher order shear deformable piezoelectric functionally graded material sandwich international conferences. Professor Zenkour research papers have been cited in many
plates resting on elastic foundations. J Sandw Struct Mater 2018;20(2):191–218. articles and textbooks.

12