4.5 Article

Static and dynamic instability analysis of composite cylindrical shell panels subjected to partial edge loading

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2014.03.014

关键词

Composite panel; Prebuckling; Partial edge loading; Patch loading; Chaotic response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The postbuckling and dynamic instability behavior of simply supported composite cylindrical shell panels subjected to dynamic partial edge loadings and transverse patch loadings is studied in this paper considering von karman type of non-linearity. The stress distribution within the panel due to the applied partial edge loadings is evaluated by panel's membrane analysis. Subsequently using these stress distribution and via Hamilton's variational principle, the equations governing the instability behavior of shell panel are derived. Neglecting inertia terms, governing equations for the postbuckling analysis of panel are obtained. Galerkin's method is used in the solution procedure. It is observed from the postbuckling analysis that the cylindrical shell panel subjected to partial edge compression behaves as an imperfect shell panel as the partial edge compression in the x-direction induces tensile stress in the y-direction which makes the shell panel to deflect out-of-plane. It is also observed that by suitably adjusting the lamina number and lamina layup, the snap through behavior of shells can be altogether avoided. Dynamic instability regions of simply supported composite shell panels are traced by the method suggested by Bolotin. The linear and non-linear dynamic responses of the shell in stable and unstable regions are studied. This brings out various features of the instability problem such as, existence of beats and its dependence on forcing frequency and initial conditions, and effect of non-linearity on the response. It is found that for certain value of dynamic partial edge loading, the panel exhibits chaotic behavior. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据