Currently comparing three analysis methods using the same CFC material and a QI lay-up. The 3 metrhods are Hypersizer as a non-FEA stand alone panel, ESDU 93011 and MSC PATRAN/NASTRAN, with pressure loading only. The panel is simply supported i.e. fixed in translation but not rotation. Panel a/b ratio 2.5:1, 2:1, 1.5:1 & 1:1. The ESDU 93011 & NASTRAN (using non-linear SOL106) methods max panel deflection match exactly but the Hypersizer does not, by a long way.
I have read the "HyperSizer_Analysis_Loading_-_Panel_Pressure.HME" and it looks like it gives good correlation with NASTRAN for edge moments. The ESDU method is based on the elastic, non-linear, large deflection, moderate rotation and orthotropic thin plate theory presented in BASU, A.K. CHAPMAN, J.C. "Large deflection behaviour of transversely loaded rectangular orthotropic plates", Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 35, pp. 79-110, 1966.
Are the Hypersizer method based on linear, small deflection theory? Why such a big difference when same panel sizez, boundary contraints, A & D matrices the same, same pressure, etc.?