The these outcomes are shown in Figures Figures77 and and8,8, for laminates with clamped and simply supported edges, respectively.Figure 7Influence of area ratio on the bending behavior at distance ratios of (a) 0.44 and 0.56, (b) 0.50, (c) 0.44 and 0.56 (R = 1), and (d) 0.50 (R = 1) from center of plate with clamped edges.Figure 8Influence of area ratio on the bending behavior at distance ratios of (a) 0.44 and 0.56, (b) 0.50, (c) 0.44 and 0.56 (R = 1), and (d) 0.50 (R = 1) from center of plate with simply supported edges.Each curve in Figures Figures77 and and88 is attributed to the same r and R. Again, we have separated plots for R = 1 and R �� 0.8 for the same reason mentioned in Section 3.2.1. Generally, the percentage of difference grows when Ar increases.
In other words, the influence on the central deflection of composite laminate is more significant when the size of the localized imperfection is bigger. Furthermore, the results in Figures 7(a), 7(c), 8(a), and 8(c) provide useful information in terms of the influence of the distance of localized degeneration on the bending behavior of the imperfect composite laminate. The influence of distance is best compared using the pairs of curves (dashed and solid) with the same data point symbol especially in Figures 7(a) and 8(a) where the same R and Ar are considered. It can be noticed that the plate experiences smaller relative central deflection when r is bigger, which represents that the localized degenerated area is further from the center of plate, as a result of close proximity to constrained edges.
Meanwhile, Figures 7(a), 7(b), 8(a), and 8(b) show that the central deflection of the composite laminate is higher corresponding to an increase in R, replicating similar observation as presented in Section 3.2.1 although the magnitudes are considerably lesser than those with R = 1 as shown in Figures 7(c) and 7(d) as well as Figures 8(c) and 8(d) for clamped and simply supported edges, respectively. The responses are somewhat linear in the cases of R �� 0.8, especially for simply supported laminates. The vanishing of linearity in responses can be noticed in the case of R = 1. Percentages of difference are up to 13�C18% and 5�C8% for clamped and simply supported laminates, respectively, when R = 1. When R �� 0.8, they are considerably smaller in the ranges of 0.0025�C0.0032% and 0.0018-0.
0019%, respectively. Again, differences are markedly seen only in the case of total delamination, with an increased severity that directly corresponds to a growth in degenerated area.On the sensitivity of boundary conditions, imperfectly Brefeldin_A bonded composite plates with all clamped edges generally experience greater relative central deflection as compared to those of simply supported. Note that the percentage of difference is merely a relative measure since it demonstrates only, in a comparative manner, the performance of plates for each respective boundary condition.