Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1711~1718

www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x
DOI 10.1007/s12206-012-0438-2

A semi-analytical technique for bending analysis of cylindrical panels with

general loading and boundary conditions
Rahbar Ranji A* and Rostami Hoseynabadi H
Department of Marine Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran 15914, Iran

(Manuscript Received November 16, 2009; Revised September 12, 2010; Accepted April 9, 2011)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

Cylindrical panels are structural elements widely used in engineering structures for high value of strength to weight ratio. Exact solu-
tions of cylindrical panels are available only for a very limited number of cases. The main target of this paper is to utilize a semi-
analytical technique to study bending behavior of cylindrical panels with different boundary conditions under general distributed loading.
The solution of the partial differential equations was reduced to an iterative sequential solution of a double set of ordinary differential
equations using extended Kantorovich method. The competence and accuracy of the method is established by comparison with available
results in the literature and finite element analyses which shows good agreement.
Keywords: Cylindrical panels; Bending analysis; Extended Kantorovich method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

one of the techniques of approximate closed form solution that

1. Introduction
can be used. This method is the extension of the known Kan-
A shell is a curved, thin-walled structure. The primary func- torovich's method [2] of reducing 2D variational problems to
tion of shells may be to transfer loads from one of its edges to ordinary differential equations (ODE) in which its accuracy
another, to support a surface load, to provide a covering, to and convergence is highly increased. EKM, in contrast to
contain a fluid, to please the eye or ear, or a combination of other approximate solutions, is simple to use, rapidly con-
these. Such structures are abundantly present in nature. In fact, verged, more accurate and needs less computational effort.
because of the curvature of the middle surface, shells are very Applications of this method are addressed in many publica-
stiff for both in-plane and bending loads; therefore, they can tions such as vibration analysis of plates [3-6], buckling analy-
span over large areas by using a minimum amount of material. sis of plates [7-9], bending analysis of isotropic and
Shells are largely used in engineering; some shell structures orthotropic plates [10-14] and solving thin isotropic and lami-
are impressive and beautiful. In automotive engineering, the nated panels [15, 16].
bodies of cars are shells; in biomechanics, arteries are shells It is the main aim here to show the applicability of EKM for
conveying flow. Shell structural elements are largely present bending analysis of cylindrical panels under general type of
in the NASA space shuttle, where the solid rocket boosters non-linear loading and various boundary conditions. For the
and the big orange tank for liquid fuels are large shell bodies. worked out examples, this approximate solution shows good
Shells include the hull of a boat and of a submarine and a fu- convergence after two or three iterations. The formulation is
selage and wing panels of a huge civil aircraft. Shells are be- tested on several benchmark problems and the results are
coming more popular in the petrol and chemical and missile compared favorably with closed-form solutions (where avail-
industries. able) and finite element method (ANSYS). The observation of
For efficient and correct design and analyses of shell panels, the results in different cases shows that deviations in deflec-
accurate solutions of them with different boundary conditions tion or stresses are affected by loading and boundary condi-
under various loadings are needed. Finding an exact solution tions, which needs more detailed analysis and is left for future
to the set of shell equations is out of reach and only a limited work. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides
number of cases have an exact solution. Extended Kan- the governing equations for bending a thin cylindrical panel
torovich method (EKM), which was introduced by Kerr [1], is by the proposed method including the boundary conditions. In
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 216 454 3114, Fax.: +98 216 641 2495 Section 3 exact closed form solutions for obtained equations
E-mail address: rahbar@aut.ac.ir are described. The application of the method to different cases

Recommended by Associate Editor Seong Beom Lee

is analyzed and discussed in Section 4. Finally, conclusions
KSME & Springer 2012
1712 Rahbar R. A. and Rostami H. H. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1711~1718

b 2.2 Derivation of the iterative governing differential equa-

3
tions by EKM
4
l
z
To use EKM, it is necessary to assume two separable func-
x tions in terms of variables x and for displacements as:
2
h 1
u ( x, ) = 1 ( x) 1 ( ) ,
a
v( x, ) = 2 ( x) 2 ( ) ,
w( x, ) = 3 ( x ) 3 ( ) . (4)
Fig. 1. Geometry of the panel.
Differential equations for the iteration process are based on
the Galerkin weighted residual method. Eq. (1) is changed to
are drawn in Section 5. following form by Galerkin's method with regard to new form
of displacement functions:
2. Basic equations and boundary conditions
2.1 Governing equations l d 21 1 d 2 1 1 + d 2 d 2

0 0
(a 2 1
dx 2
+
2
1
d 2
+
2
a
dx d
Consider a thin, uniform, panel of isotropic material. The
d3
cylindrical coordinate system and dimensions have been + a 3 ) (1 1 )d dx = 0 ,
dx
shown in Fig. 1 in which l is length, a, h are radius of the me-
l d 2 2 1 2 d 2 2 1 + d d
dian surface and thickness respectively (h<<a), and x, , z are 0 0 d 2 + 2 a dx 2 2 + 2 a dx1 d1
( 2
axial, circumferential, and radial coordinates.
The classical small displacement theories of thin cylindrical d 3
+ ) ( 2 2 )d dx = 0 ,
panels are based on the Kirchhoff-Love hypothesis. Such 3 d

theories are called 'first approximation' shell theories. Based l C d C d d 4

on that, the governing equations of the problem include sys-
0 0 ( a 1 dx1 + a 2 2 d2 + D( dx 43 3
tem partial differential equations are as follows [17]: 2 d 2 3 d 2 3 1 d 4 3 C
+ 2 + 3 + 2 3 3 )
a dx 2 d 2 a 4 d 4 a D
2u 1 2u 1 + 2 v w q ( x, )) ( 3 3 )d dx = 0 . (5)
a2 + + a + a =0,
x 2 2 2 2 x x
2v 1 2 2v 1 + 2u w The boundary conditions based on Eq. (4) can be written as:
+ a + a + =0,
2 2 x 2 2 x
4w 2 4w 1 4w x = cons.
D( 4 + 2 2 2 + 4 )
x a x a 4 d 2 3 d1
Simply supported (S) 2 = 3 = = =0,
1 w u dx 2 dx
+ 2 C ( + w + a ) = q ( x, ) . (1)
a x d
Clamped (C) 1 = 2 = 3 = 3 = 0 ,
dx
In this equation, u, v and w are the components of displace- = cons.
ments in x, , z directions, respectively, and q( x, ) is applied d 2 3 d 2
Simply supported (S) 1 = 3 = = =0,
lateral distributed load on outside surface. Constant C and d 2 d
cylindrical rigidity of the shell, D, are defined as: d
Clamped (C) 1 = 2 = 3 = 3 = 0 . (6)
d
3
Eh Eh
D= , C= (2)
12(1 2 ) 12 Assuming prescribed functions as initial guesses for i ( )
and using fundamental lemma of variational calculus, the first
in which E and are elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio. set of ordinary differential equations (ODE) is found as fol-
Boundary conditions on the shell could be defined as [18]: lows:
x = cons.
d 2 1 1+ d d
Simply supported (S) v = w = Mx = Nx = 0, (a 2 F1 2
F4 )1 + a F8 2 + aF7 3 = 0 ,
dx 2 2 dx dx
Clamped (C) u = v = w = w / x = 0.
1+ d 1 2
aF8 1 + ( a F2 F5 ) 2 + F93 = 0 ,
= cons. 2 dx 2
Simply supported (S) u = w = M = N = 0, C d C d4 2 d2
F7 1 2 F9 2 + D ( F3 4 2 F6 2
Clamped (C) u = v = w = w / = 0. (3) a dx a dx a dx
 Rahbar R. A. and Rostami H. H. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1711~1718 1713

1 p (0)
1 C
+ F10 + 2 F3 )3 = B . (7) d 2 p (0)
a4 a D 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B1

d
11 2 2 3 3 4 4 515 6 6 7 7 8 8 B2 3 p (0)
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 B3 d 2 3 p


(0)
.
In the same way, when functions i ( x ) are known, second 11
2
2 2 2 3 3 2 442 5 5 2 6 62 7 7 2 8 8 2 B4 d 2
=
e 1 e 2 e 3 e 4 e 5 e 6 e 7 e 8 B5 1 p ( )
set of ODE is found as:
11e
1
2 2 e 2 3 3e 3 4 4 e 4 515e 5 6 6 e 6 7 7 e 7

8 8e 8 B6 d 2 p


( )
e 1
1
2e 2
3e 3
4e 4
5e 5
6e 6
7e 7
8e 8 B7 d
2 2 2 e 3 3 2 e 5 5 2e 6 6 2e 7 7 2e
11 e
2 1 2 3
4 4 2e 4 5 6 7
8 8 8 B8
2
3p ( )
1 d2 1+ d
d 3 p ( )
2
( G1 2 a 2G4 ) 1 + a G8 2 + aG9 3 = 0 ,
d 2


2 d 2 d
(10)
1+ d d 2 1 2 d
aG8 1 + (G2 2 a G5 ) 2 + G7 3 = 0 ,
2 d d 2 d Type of B.C: combination of clamped and simply supported
C C d 2 d2 edges
G9 1 + 2 G7 2 + D (G10 2 G6 2
a a d a d To show applicability of this method, other boundary condi-
1 d4 C tions including SCCC, SSCC, SCSC and CSSS are considered.
+ 4 G3 4 + 2 G3 ) 3 = I . (8)
a d a D For example, values of Ai and Bi for SSCC boundary condition
are as follows:
Values of B, I, F's and G's in Eqs. (7) and (8) are defined in
d 1 p
the appendix. EKM can be started either by assuming arbitrary
dx
(0)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A1
function for i or i . Solving ODE of (7) or (8), determines 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A 2 p (0)
1 2 (0)
the unknown function i or i respectively. Then solving an- 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A3
d 23 p
3p

other set of ODE leads to first approximation of the assumed 11
2
22 2 332 44 2 55 2 66 2 77 2 88 2 A4 =
dx 2
(0)

,
e1l e 2 l e3l e4 l e5 l e6 l e7 l e 8 l A
5 1 p (l )
function. Continuing by the same procedure, final form of 1e 1
l
2e2 l 3e3l 4e4 l 5e5 l 6 e6 l 7 e7 l 8e8l A6
2 p (l )
functions i ( ) and i ( x ) can be obtained.
e1l

2 e 2 l 3e3l 4e4 l 5e5l 6e6 l 7 e7 l 8e8l A7
1
( l )
11e
1l
22e l 2
33e l 3
44e l 4
55e l 5
66e l 6
77 e l 7
88e A8
8 l 3 p
d3 p
(l )
dx
3. Closed form solutions 1 p (0)

d
1 1 B1 2 p (0)
The term exact solutions is used here to mean finding a
1
2 2
1
3 3
1
4 4
1
515
1
6 6
1
7 7

8 8 B2 d

1 1
(0)
solution that satisfies both the differential equations and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 B3 2 3 p
d 3p
2
boundary conditions exactly. Exact analytical solutions of Eqs. 11
2
2 2 2 3 3 2 4 42 5 5 2 6 6 2 7 7 2 8 8 B4
=
(0) .
d 2
e 1 e 2 e 3 e 4 e 5 e 6 e 7 e B5
8
1 p ( )
(7) and (8) can be given as [19]:
1e 1 2e 2
3e 3
4e 4
51e 5
6e 6
7e 7
8e B6
8

2 p ( )

e 1

2e 2
3e 3
4e 4
5e 5
6e 6
7e 7
8e B7
8

1
( )
8 8 11e
1
2 2e 2
3 3e 3
4 4e
5 5e
4 5
6 6e 6
7 7e 7
88e B8
8 3 p
d 3 p
1 = Ai exp(i x) + 1 p , 1 = Bi exp( i ) + 1 p ,
d
( )

i =1 i =1
(11)
8 8
2 = i Ai exp(i x) + 2 p , 2 = i Bi exp( i ) + 2 p ,
i =1 i =1 3.2 Loading
8 8
3 = i Ai exp(i x) + 3 p , 3 = i Bi exp( i ) + 3 p (9) A general lateral load is applied in the form of
i =1 i =1

where i , i are solutions for Eqs. (7) and (8), respectively, q ( x, ) = q0 .e k1 x + k2 (12)
and i , i , i , i , i and i are defined in Ref. [15]. Particular
solutions of ODEs depend on the type of loading, and the in which
constants Ai and Bi should be found based on the boundary
conditions. = mx 4 + nx 3 + ox 2 + px + l ,
= Sin(r ) , or = Cos (r ) (13)
3.1 Boundary conditions

Type of B.C: all simply supported edges and m, n, o, p, l, r, k1 and k2 are arbitrary constants. Particular
Constants Ai and Bi in this case are determined as: solutions for this loading can be determined using the follow-
ing relations:
d1 p
(0)
dx
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A1 2 p (0)
5
8 A2 3 p (0)

1
1 2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7 8 A3 d 2 3 p
1 p = e k x B1 U i [ ( k1i + i +1 + 3k1i + 2 ) R1
1

2
22 2 332 44 2 55 2 66 2 77 2

882 A4 dx 2
(0) , i =1
1 1
+ (k13 i + 3k12i +1 + i + 3 ) R2 ] ,
=
e1l 2e l 2
3e l
3
4e l
4
5e l
5
6e l
6
7e l
7
8e l A5 d 1 p
8
1 l (l )
1e 1 2e l 2
3e l
3
4e l
4
5e l
5
6e l
6
7 e l
7
8e l A6 dx
8

e1l 2e l2
3e l
3
4e l
4
5e l
5
6e l
6
7 e l
7
8e l A7 2 p (l )
8 5
2 p = e k x B1 U i (i ) R3 + (k12i + 2k1 i +1 + i + 2 ) R4 ,
1
11 e
2 1l
22 2e l 2
332e l3
44 2e l4
552e l5
66 2e l6
77 2e l7
88 2e l A8 3 p (l )
8 1

d 3 p
2
i =1
(l )
dx 2
1714 Rahbar R. A. and Rostami H. H. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1711~1718

Table 1. Applied loading.

Type of loading Parameters in Eqs. (12) and (13)

Uniform X=T=1, r=k1=k2= 0
Hydrostatic T=1, r=k1=k2=m=n=o=l= 0
Periodic X=1, k1=k2=0
Exponential X=T=1, r=0
Polynomial T=1, r=k1=k2=0

5
3 p = e k x B1 U i (i ) R5 + (k12i + 2k1 i +1 + i + 2 ) R6
1

i =1

+ (k14 +4k13 i +1 + 6k12 i + 2 + 4k1 i + 3 + i + 4 ) R7 , Fig. 2. Meshed model of cylindrical panel.

i 1
d
i = ( ) (i = 1, 2,,5)
dx i 1 ing forms are utilized for all solved examples:
i = 0 (i 6) , (14)

1 = exp(1 ) , 2 = Sin( ), 3 = exp( ) . (17)

and
Investigated cases
k 2
e I1 2

2 i{
1p = J [( 1)i 1 i ]R8 4.1 Cylindrical panel
J + ( rJ 2 ) i =1
1
2

Boundary condition, SSSS

+[(1)i 1 (k 2 2 r 2 ) i +2k2 r 2( i 1) 2 ]R9 ,
i
} In this case a cylindrical panel is solved under non-uniform
loading of the following form:
e k2 I1
{
2

2 i
2p = 2 J [(1)i 1 k2 i + r 2( i 1) 2 ]R10 + [(1)i 1 k2
J1 + (rJ 2 ) i =1 i
q ( x, ) = q0 ( x 4 + x 3 + x 2 + x + 1) Sin(5 ) . (18)
(k2 3r ) i + r
2 2 2( i 1)
(3k2 3r ) 2 ]R11 ,
2 2
i
}
e I1 k2 2 For the sake of comparison, this problem is modeled and
3p = J i {[(1)i 1 i ]R12 + [(1)i 1 (k22 r 2 )i
J1 + (rJ 2 ) 2 i =1
2 solved by the FEM using ANSYS computer code. The model
is meshed using shell elements types of SHELL63, which has
+2k2 r 2( i 1) 2 ]R13 + [(1)i 1 (k2 4 6k2 2 r 2 + r 4 ) i
i both bending and membrane capabilities. Both in-plane and
+4k2 r 2( i 1) (k2 2 r 2 ) 2 ]R14 ,
i
} normal loads are permitted, and an element has six degrees of
freedom at each node. A consistent tangent stiffness matrix
d i 1
option is available for use in large deflection (finite rotation)
i = ( ) , (i = 1, 2) . (15)
d i 1 analyses. In Fig. 2 a meshed model of cylindrical panel is
shown.
B1, I1, U's, J's and R's are specified in the appendix. Particu- Comparison between non-dimensional deflection
lar solutions given by Eqs. (14) and (15) can be used for any ( w* = Dw / q0l 4 ) of the panel along the centerline (l/2, ) and
types of loading which can satisfy Eq. (12). Notice that when (x, /2) by EKM and FEM results is presented in Figs. 3 and
there is no periodic loading, r should be zero, while T is equal 4. As can be seen, the maximum deviation is about 2%. Non-
to one. Several examples of applied loading are given in Table dimensional stress components of the panel,
1. ( x * = x h 2 / q0l 2 ) and ( * = h 2 / q0l 2 ) along the centerline
(l/2, ) and (x, /2), are shown in Figs. 5, 6, 7 and 8. The
maximum deviation for x * and * is about 3% and
4. Results and discussion
3.2%, respectively. To check the convergence of the method,
Above-mentioned procedure is converted to a computer deflection and stresses in the center of panel for five iterations
code in MATLAB. A thin cylindrical panel with the following are listed in Table 2. It can be seen that convergence of this
properties is considered for solution: method is very rapid, and the final form is reached only after
three iterations.
= 0.2rad , a = 2.54m , l / a = 0.2 , h / a = 0.00125
E = 3.1Gpa , = 0.3 , q0 = 275.8 Pa . (16) B.C: combination of clamped and simply supported edges
In this case, the same type of loading (Eq. (24)) is applied.
First step is to assume three functions of 1 ( ), For the case of SSCC, non-dimensional deflection ( w * ) along
2 ( ) and 3 ( ) . Any function can be used. Here the follow- centerline (l/2, ) and (x, /2) are depicted in Figs. 9 and 10
 Rahbar R. A. and Rostami H. H. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1711~1718 1715

Table 2. Convergence of method under non-uniform distributed load. 0.07

0.06

Iteration Iteration Iteration Iteration

0.05

Non-dimensional stress(x*)
1 2.04747E-04 1.13727E-002 1.23691E-002
0.04
2 2.80852E-04 3.94723E-002 3.26518E-002
3 2.81115E-04 3.95498E-002 3.27467E-002 0.03

4 2.81115E-04 3.95501E-002 3.27470E-002 0.02

FEM
5 2.81115E-04 3.95501E-002 3.27471E-002 0.01
EKM

0
Table 3. Non-dimensional deflection and stresses at the center of cy-
-0.01
lindrical panel for combinations of clamped and simply supported 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
/
edges under non-uniform loading.
Fig. 5. Non-dimensional stress (of the panel with simply supported
X = l/2, = /2 edges along centerline (l/2, ) - non-uniform loading.
BC Method Method Method Method
FEM 9.74E-05 6.962E-03 2.894E-02
SCSC
EKM 9.695E-05 6.598E-03 2.825E-02 0.09
FEM
FEM 9.51E-05 8.642E-03 2.896E-02 0.08 EKM
SCCC
EKM 9.362E-05 8.050E-03 2.809E-02 0.07

FEM 2.542E-04 3.317E-02 3.157E-02

Non-dimensional stress( *)
0.06
CSSS
EKM 2.505E-04 3.282E-02 3.144E-02 0.05

0.04
-4
x 10 0.03
5
FEM 0.02
EKM
4 0.01
Non-dimensional deflection(w*)

3 -0.01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
/

2
Fig. 6. Non-dimensional stress (of the panel with simply supported
1
edges along centerline (l/2, ) - non-uniform loading.

0
0.045

-1 0.04
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
/ 0.035
Non-dimensional stress (x*)

0.03
Fig. 3. Non-dimensional deflection (of the panel with simply supported
0.025
edges along centerline (l/2, ) - non-uniform loading.
0.02

-4
0.015
x 10
3
0.01
FEM FEM
EKM EKM
2.5 0.005

0
Non-dimensional deflection(w*)

2
-0.005
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
1.5 X/L

1
Fig. 7. Non-dimensional stress (of the panel with simply supported
0.5
edges along centerline (x,2) - non-uniform loading.

-0.5 0.04
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
0.035

Fig. 4. Non-dimensional deflection (of the panel with simply supported 0.03
Non-dimensional stress ( *)

edges along centerline (x,2) - non-uniform loading. 0.025

0.02

0.015

and non-dimensional stress components x * and * along 0.01

centerline (l/2, ) and (x, /2) are represented in Figs. 11, 12,
FEM
EKM
0.005

13 and 14. The maximum deviation for deflection, x * and 0

* is 3.7%, 2.3% and 7%, respectively. -0.005

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
For other boundary conditions, predicted deflection ( w * ) X/L

and stresses ( x * and * ) at the center of panel by EKM Fig. 8. Non-dimensional stress (of the panel with simply supported
and FEM are reported in Table 3. Comparison of results edges along centerline (x,2) - non-uniform loading.
1716 Rahbar R. A. and Rostami H. H. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1711~1718

-4
x 10 0.04
1.6
FEM
1.4 EKM 0.02

Non-dimensional stress(x*)
Non-dimensional deflection(w*)
1.2 0

1
-0.02

0.8
-0.04

0.6
-0.06
0.4 FEM
EKM
-0.08
0.2

0 -0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
/ X/L

Fig. 9. Non-dimensional deflection (of the panel with SSCC edges Fig. 13. Non-dimensional stress (of the panel with SSCC edges along
along centerline (l/2, ) - non-uniform loading. centerline (x,2) - non-uniform loading.

0.04

-4
x 10 0.03
1.5
FEM

Non-dimensional stress( *)
EKM 0.02
Non-dimensional deflection(w*)

0.01
1

-0.01
FEM
0.5 EKM
-0.02

-0.03
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L Fig. 14. Non-dimensional stress (of the panel with SSCC edges along
Fig. 10. Non-dimensional deflection (of the panel with SSCC edges centerline (x,2) - non-uniform loading.
along centerline (x,2) - non-uniform loading.

shows that under the same type of loading, the maximum de-
0.02
viation is related to SCSC boundary conditions. This reveals
0.015
that deviation of results depends on loading and boundary
conditions. Discussion about this topic is left for future work.
Non-dimensional stress(x*)

0.01

0.005 4.2 Rectangular plate

0
A very large value for the radius (a) and small value for an-
FEM
-0.005
EKM gle () of the panel are considered to approximate a flat plate.
-0.01 In Table 4, deflection and bending moments at the center of
-0.015 plate are given for simply supported plate under uniform load-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
/ ing and various aspect ratios by EKM along with exact solu-
Fig. 11. Non-dimensional stress (of the panel with SSCC edges along tions [18] and FEM results using ANSYS. It can be seen that
centerline (l/2, ) - non-uniform loading. the maximum error for deflection is about 0.3% in EKM and
is 0.4% in FEM, while this error for moments is less than
0.8% in EKM and is 1% in FEM. Moreover, in Table 5, de-
0.05

0.04
flection and bending moments at the center of plate under
0.03
hydrostatic loading are listed. It can be seen that the maximum
error for deflection and moments in EKM and FEM is about
Non-dimensional stress( *)

0.02

0.01 0.04%, 1.46% and 0.3%, 0.9%, respectively.

0

-0.01
FEM 5. Concluding remarks
-0.02 EKM

-0.03 The extended Kantorovich method (EKM) is successfully

-0.04 applied to obtain a highly accurate approximate solution for
-0.05
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
bending analysis of cylindrical panels with general non-linear
/
loading and boundary conditions. Application of EKM to the
Fig. 12. Non-dimensional stress (of the panel with SSCC edges along system of partial differential equations reduces the governing
centerline (l/2, ) - non-uniform loading. equations of a problem to a double set of ordinary differential
 Rahbar R. A. and Rostami H. H. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1711~1718 1717

Table 4. Non-dimensional deflection and moments at the center of ous necessity to develop simple and straightforward and yet
rectangular plate with simply supported edges under uniform loading. accurate closed-form analytical methods. In contrast to FEM,
x = l/2, y = b/2 a simple code in MATLAB is prepared with dimensions of
b/l Method Method Method Method
panel, boundary conditions and loading as input data which
Exact 4.06E-03 4.79E-02 4.79E-02
any model can easily and quickly be generated and solved.
1 EKM 4.05815E-03 4.75266E-02 4.75266E-02 By considering a very large value for the radius and a small
FEM 4.06197E-03 4.78934E-02 4.78934E-02 value for the angle of the panel as plate approximation, it is
Exact 5.64E-03 6.27E-02 5.01E-02 revealed that the stability and convergence rate of the method
1.2 EKM 5.64469E-03 6.22096E-02 4.97109E-02 are independent of the values of the radius and angles. Deflec-
FEM 5.64848E-03 6.25815E-02 5.00065E-02
tion, moments and stresses of cylindrical panels and rectangu-
Exact 7.05E-03 7.55E-02 5.02E-02
1.4 EKM 7.07765E-03 7.49867E-02 4.98589E-02 lar plates were determined and results for different cases were
FEM 7.08254E-03 7.54278E-02 5.01504E-02 in very good agreement with other analytical results and finite
Exact 8.30E-03 8.26E-02 4.92E-02 element analysis. It can be inferred that the EKM scheme re-
1.6 EKM 8.29969E-03 8.56004E-02 4.89378E-02 quires less computational effort, has great flexibility for appli-
FEM 8.30559E-03 8.52567E-02 4.92189E-02
cation and completely arbitrary initial guesses.
Exact 9.31E-03 9.48E-02 4.79E-02
1.8 EKM 9.3066E-03 9.41752E-02 4.75499E-02
FEM 9.31337E-03 9.46991E-02 4.78176E-02
Exact 10.13E-03 10.17E-02 4.64E-02
References
2 EKM 10.1187E-03 10.09857E-02 4.60385E-2 [1] A. D. Kerr, An extension of the Kantorovich method, Quart
FEM 10.1261E-03 10.15286E-02 4.65112E-02
Appl Math, 26 (1968) 219-29.
Table 5. Non-dimensional deflection and moments at the center of [2] L. V. Kantorovich and V. I. Krylov, Approximate methods
rectangular plate with simply supported edges under hydrostatic load- of higher analysis (Groningen, Noordhoff, 1958).
ing. [3] R. Jones and B. J. Milne, Application of extended Kan-
x = l/2, y = b/2 torovich method to the vibration of clamped rectangular
plates, J Sound Vib 45 (1976) 309-16.
b/l Method Method Method Method
Exact 2.03E-03 2.39E-02 2.39E-02
[4] M. Dalaei and A. D. Kerr, Natural vibration analysis of
1 EKM 2.02908E-03 2.37633E-02 2.37633E-02 clamped rectangular orthotropic plates, J. Sound Vib 189
FEM 2.03041E-03 2.39057E-02 2.39307E-02 (1996) 399-406.
Exact 2.82E-03 3.13E-02 2.50E-02 [5] I. Shufrin and M. Eisenberger, Vibration of shear deform-
1.2 EKM 2.82234E-03 3.11048E-02 2.48555E-02 able plates with variable thickness-first-order and higher-
FEM 2.82421E-03 3.12907E-02 2.50032E-02
order analyses, J Sound Vib 290 (2006) 465-89.
Exact 3.53E-03 3.76E-02 2.53E-02
1.4 EKM 3.53882E-03 3.74933E-02 2.49294E-02 [6] R. A. Rahbar and H. H. Rostami, A semi-analytical solution
FEM 3.54122E-03 3.77121E-02 2.50754E-02 for forced vibrations response of rectangular orthotropic
Exact 4.15E-03 4.31E-02 2.46E-02 plates with various boundary conditions, Journal of Me-
1.6 EKM 4.14985E-03 4.28002E-02 2.44689E-02 chanical Science and Technology 24 (2010) 357-364.
FEM 4.15181E-03 4.30456E-02 2.46094E-02
[7] S. Yuan and Y. Jin, Computation of elastic buckling loads of
Exact 4.65E-03 4.74E-02 2.39E-02
1.8 EKM 4.65330E-03 4.70876E-02 2.37750E-02
rectangular thin plates using the extended Kantorovich
FEM 4.65668E-03 4.73495E-02 2.39089E-02 method, Comput Struct 66 (1998) 861-7.
Exact 5.06E-03 5.08E-02 2.32E-02 [8] V. Ungbhakorn and P. Singhatanadgid, Buckling analysis of
2 EKM 5.05935E-03 5.04929E-02 2.30193E-02 symmetrically laminated composite plates by the extended
FEM 5.06305E-03 5.0765E-02 2.31439E-02 Kantorovich method, Compos Struct 73 (2006) 120-8.
[9] P. Jana and K. Bhaskar, Stability analysis of simply-
equations in the variables x and . These sets of equations supported rectangular plates under non-uniform uniaxial
were then solved in an iterative manner until convergence was compression using rigorous and approximate plane stress so-
achieved. In any iteration, exact closed form solutions are lutions, Thin-Walled Struct 44 (2006) 507-16.
obtained for ODE systems. It is shown that EKM is a very [10] M. M. Aghdam, M. Shakeri and S. J. Fariborz, Solution to
powerful tool for the engineering analysis and important quan- the Reissner plate with clamped edges, ASCE J Eng Mech
tities such as deflection and stresses with good accuracy for 122 (1996) 679-82.
different boundary conditions and various loadings can be [11] S. Yuan, J. Yan and F. W. Williams, Bending analysis of
easily calculated. Mindlin plates by the extended Kantorovich method, ASCE J
Although FEM can be used, however, when seen from the Eng Mech 124 (1998) 1339-45.
viewpoint of day-to-day engineering practice, purely numeri- [12] M. M. Aghdam and S. R. Falahatgar, Bending analysis of
cal approaches are in most cases not an option due to the in- thick laminated plates using extended Kantorovich method,
volved computational time and effort. Hence, despite the Compos Struct 62 (2003) 279-83.
computer resources that are available today, there is an obvi- [13] M. M. Aghdam, M. Mohammadi and V. Erfanian, Bending
1718 Rahbar R. A. and Rostami H. H. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1711~1718

analysis of thin annular sector plates using extended Kan- J 2 = (8k2 r 6 + 56k2 3r 4 56k25 r 2 + k2 7 ) H 6
torovich method, Thin-Walled Struct 45 (2007) 983-90. + (6k2 r 4 20k23r 2 + 6k2 5 ) H 7 + (4k2 r 2 + 4k23 ) H 8
[14] M. M. Aghdam and M. Mohammadi, Bending analysis of
+ (2k2 ) H 9 (A4)
thick orthotropic sector plates with various loading and ...,
1+ 1 3
Compos Struct (2008), F. Alijani, M.M. Aghdam, and M. R1 = aF5 F7 + aF8 F9 , R2 = a F2 F7 ,
Abouhamze, Application of the extended Kantorovich 2 2
method to the bending of clamped cylindrical panels, Eur J 1 1+ 2
R3 = F4 F9 , R4 = a 2 F1F9 a F7 F8 ,
Mech A/Solids 2007; 27 (2008) 378-388. 2 2
[16] M. Abouhamze, M. M. Aghdam and F. Alijani, Bending 1
R5 = F4 F5 ,
analysis of symmetrically laminated cylindrical panels using 2
the extended Kantorovich method, Mech Adv Mater Struct 1 2 2 1+ 2 2 2
R6 = ( ) a F2 F4 a 2 F1F5 + ( ) a F8 ,
14 (2007) 523-30. 2 2
[17] H. Kraus, Thin elastic shells (John Wiley & Sons, New 1 4 1 3
R7 = a F1F2 , R8 = a G4G9 ,
York, 1967). 2 2
[18] S. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-kreiger, Theory of 1+
R9 = aG2G9 + aG7G8 ,
plates and shells (McGraw-Hill, NY, 1959). 2
[19] C. R. Wylie and L. C. Barrett, Advanced engineering 1+ 2
R10 = a 2G4G7 a G8G9 ,
mathematics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1985). 2
1 1 4
Appendix R11 = G1G7 , R12 = a G4G5 ,
2 2
Values of B, I, Fs and Gs in Eqs. (7) and (8) are: 1 2 2 1+ 2 2 2
R13 = ( ) a G1G5 a 2G2G4 + ( ) a G8 ,
2 2
l 1
Fi = i 2 d , Gi = i 2 dx R14 = G1G2 . (A5)
0 0 2
d i
2
l d i
2
Fi + 3 = i d , Gi + 3 = i dx , (i = 1, 2,3) Furthermore, S's are defined as:
0 d 2 0 dx 2
l
F7 = 1 3d , G7 = 23dx S1 = H1k18 + H 2 k16 + H 3k14 + H 4 k12 + H 5
0 0
d 2 d2
l S 2 = 8H1k17 + 6 H 2 k15 + 4 H 3k13 + 2 H 4 k1
F8 = 1 d G8 = 1 dx
0 d 0 dx S3 = 28H1k16 + 15 H 2 k14 + 6 H 3k12 + H 4
d 3 l d S 4 = 56 H1k15 + 20 H 2 k13 + 4 H 3k1
F9 = 2 d G9 = 1 3 dx
0 d 0 dx
S5 = 70 H1k14 + 15H 2 k12 + H 3 . (A6)
d 4 3 l d 4
F10 = 3 d G10 = 3 43 dx
0 d 4 0 dx
l In Eqs. (A4) and (A6), H's are the same as in Ref. [15].
B = q ( x, ) 3d I = q ( x, )3dx . (A1)
0 0

Rahbar Ranji Ahmad received his B.S.

In this part of appendix B1, I1, U's, Js and Rs in Eqs. (15) in Civil Engineering from Tehran Univer-
and (16) are presented. sity, Iran, in 1989. He then received his
M.S. from Technical University of Gdansk,
l Poland in 1992 and Ph.D from Yokohama
B1 = q0e k2 d I1 = q0 e k1 x dx (A2) National University, Japan, in 2001. Dr.
0 0

1 S2 Rahbar is currently an Assistant Professor

U1 = , U2 = ,
S1 S12 in the Department of Marine Engineering,
1 AmirKabir University of Technology in Tehran, Iran.
U3 = ( S 2 2 S1S3 ) ,
S13
Rostami Hoseynabadi Hamidreza
1
U4 = ( S2 3 + 2 S1S 2 S3 S12 S 4 ) , received his B.S. in Mechanical Engi-
S14 neering from Azad University, Iran, in
1 2006. He then received his M.S. in
U5 = ( S 2 4 3S1S2 2 S3 + S12 S32 + 2 S12 S 2 S 4 S13 S5 ) (A3)
S15 Marine Engineering from Malek Ashtar
J1 = ( r 8 28k2 2 r 6 + 70k2 4 r 4 28k2 6 r 2 + k28 ) H 6 University of Technology in 2009. He is
currently a Ph.D student in the Depart-
+ ( r 6 + 15k2 2 r 4 15k2 4 r 2 + k2 6 ) H 7
ment of Marine Engineering, AmirKabir
+ (r 4 6k2 2 r 2 + k2 4 ) H 8 + (k2 2 r 2 ) H 9 + H10 University of Technology in Tehran, Iran.