Ubc - 1990 - A1 K66

SUPER FINITE E L E M E N T S F O R NONLINEAR STATIC AND
D Y N A M I C ANALYSIS OF S T I F F E N E D P L A T E
STRUCTURES
By
TAMUNOIYALA STANLEY KOKO
B. Sc. (Hons), University of Ife, Nigeria, 1982
M . Eng., University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria, 1986
A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN PARTIAL
THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR
DOCTOR
THE
FULFILLMENT
DEGREE
OF
OF P H I L O S O P H Y
in
T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES
D E P A R T M E N T OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
We accept this thesis as conforming

to the required standard
THE
UNIVERSITY
OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A
October 1990
T A M U N O I Y A L A S T A N L E Y K O K O , 1990
OF
In
presenting this thesis
in partial fulfilment of
the
requirements
for an
advanced
degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive
copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be
granted by the head of
department
understood
or
by
his
or
her
representatives.
It
is
that
copying
my
or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.
Department
The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
Date
DE-6 (2/88)
Abstract
The analysis of stiffened plate structures subject to complex loads such as air-blast
pressure waves from external or internal explosions, water waves, collisions or simply
large static loads is still considered a difficult task. The associated response is highly
nonlinear and although it can be solved with currently available commercial finite
element programs, the modelling requires many elements with a huge amount of input
data and very expensive computer runs. Hence this type of analysis is impractical at
the preliminary design stage. The present work is aimed at improving this situation
by introducing a new philosophy. That is, a new formulation is developed which is
capable of representing the overall response of the complete structure with reasonable
accuracy but with a sacrifice in local detailed accuracy. The resulting modelling is
relatively simple thereby requiring much reduced data input and run times. It now
becomes feasible to carry out design oriented response analyses.
Based on the above philosophy, new plate and stiffener beam finite elements are
developed for the nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of stiffened plate structures.
The elements are specially designed to contain all the basic modes of deformation
response which occur in stiffened plates and are called super finite elements since
only one plate element per bay or one beam element per span is needed to achieve
engineering design level accuracy at minimum cost. Rectangular plate elements are
used so that orthogonally stiffened plates can be modelled.
The von Karman large deflection theory is used to model the nonlinear geometric
behaviour.
Material nonlinearities are modelled by von Mises yield criterion and
associated flow rule using a bi-linear stress-strain law. The finite element equations
are derived using the virtual work principle and the matrix quantities are evaluated by
n
Gauss quadrature. Temporal integration is carried out using the Newmark-/? method
with Newton-Raphson iteration for the nonlinear equations at each time step.
A computer code has been written to implement the theory and this has been
applied to the static, vibration and transient analysis of unstiffened plates, beams and
plates stiffened in one or two orthogonal directions. Good approximations have been
obtained for both linear and nonlinear problems with only one element representations
for each plate bay or beam span with significant savings in computing time and costs.
The displacement and stress responses obtained from the present analysis compare
well with experimental, analytical or other numerical results.
111
Table of Contents
Abstract
ii
List of Tables
ix
List of Figures
xiv
Acknowledgements
xv
Introduction
Literature Review
2.1
Analytical Methods
2.2
Numerical Methods
2.2.1
Finite Difference and Finite Element Methods
2.2.2
Finite Strip Method
Description of the Super Finite Elements
3.1
Introduction
3.2
Super Finite Element Discretization
11
3.3
Displacement Functions
14
3.3.1
Plate elements
15
3.3.2
Beam elements
18
3.4
4
Compatibility, Convergence and Order of Accuracy
21
Theoretical Formulation and Analysis of Problem
23
4.1
23
Introduction
iv
4.2
Equations of M o t i o n
23
4.3
Finite Element Formulation
25
4.3.1
Introduction
25
4.3.2
Shape Function Matrices
26
4.3.2.1
Plate elements
26
4.3.2.2
B e a m elements
28
4.3.3
Strain Displacement Relations
29
4.3.4
Constitutive Relations
30
4.3.5
JMass and D a m p i n g Matrices
34
4.3.6
Stiffness Formulation
35
4.3.7
Load Vector
37
4.3.8
Torsion B e a m Element
39
4.3.8.1
Stiffness matrix for beam torsional element
40
4.3.8.2
Mass matrix for beam torsional element
44
4.4
Numerical Integration
46
4.5
Temporal Integration
48
4.6
Computer Code
51
Static A n a l y s i s Results
53
5.1
Introduction
53
5.2
Unstiffened Plates
54
5.2.1
Square Plate I with Simply Supported Edges
54
5.2.2
Square Plate I w i t h Clamped Edges
59
5.3
5.4
Beams
65
5.3.1
Rectangular B e a m with Simple Supports
5.3.2
Rectangular B e a m with Clamped Ends
65
.
72
Stiffened Plates
73
5.4.1
73
C l a m p e d 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I

v
5.4.2
Clamped DRES Stiffened Panel
79
5.4.3
Clamped DRES1B Stiffened Panel
95
5.4.4
Simply Supported 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
6 Vibration Analysis Results
106
120
6.1
Introduction
120
6.2
Unstiffened Plates
121
6.2.1
Square Plates with Various Edge Conditions
121
6.2.2
3-Bay Continuous Plate
123
6.2.3
2 x 2-Bay Continuous Plate .
124
6.3
Beams
6.3.1
6.4
125
Rectangular Beams with Various Boundary Conditions . . . .
125
Stiffened Plates
127
6.4.1
2-Bay Stiffened Plate II with Clamped Boundaries
127
6.4.2
3-Bay Stiffened Panel with Clamped Edges
130
6.4.3
DRES Stiffened Panel
133
6.4.4
2x 2-Bay Stiffened Plate
134
6.4.5
2x4-Bay Stiffened Plate with Clamped Edges
135
6.4.6
4x4-Bay Stiffened Plate
137
7 Transient Analysis Results
141
7.1
Introduction
141
7.2
Unstiffened Plates
142
7.2.1
142
7.2.2
Square Plate I with Clamped Edges
144
7.2.3
Simply Supported Square Plate II Subject to Triangular Load
146
7.3
Beam Example
149
7.3.1
149
Rectangular Beam with Simple Supports
vi
7.4
Stiffened Plates
151
7.4.1
Clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II
151
7.4.1.1
Step Load
152
7.4.1.2
Blast Load
154
7.4.2
Simply Supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II
155
7.4.2.1
Step Load
156
7.4.2.2
Blast Load
158
7.4.3
H O B 315 Loading on Clamped DRES Stiffened Panel
160
7.4.4
162
7.4.5
Clamped 2x2-Stiffened Plate II
166
7.4.6
Clamped 4x4-Bay Stiffened Plate
169
S u m m a r y a n d Conclusions
183
Bibliography
187
Shape Functions
194
Strain-Displacement M a t r i c e s
198
[fi] M a t r i c e s for P l a t e a n d B e a m Elements
202
Formulas for J, I ,
205
zz
J and T
0
vn
List o f Tables
4.1
Strain rate parameters for steel and aluminum
33
4.2
Sampling points and weights for Gaussian integration
47
5.1
Linear elastic response of simply supported Square Plate I
55
5.2
Linear elastic response of clamped square plate I
59
5.3
Linear elastic response of simply supported rectangular beam . . . . .
68
5.4
Linear elastic response of clamped rectangular beam
72
5.5
Linear elastic response of 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
77
5.6
Deflections and strain energy in linear elastic DRES stiffened panel
5.7
Deflections and strain energy in linear elastic DRES1B panel
5.8
Nonlinear elastic response of DRES1B panel
103
5.9
Nonlinear elastic-plastic response of DRES1B panel
103
87
98
5.10 Nonlinear elastic response of 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
115
5.11 Nonlinear elastic-plastic response of 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I . . . .
115
6.1
Eigenvalues of square plates with various edge conditions
122
6.2
Natural frequencies of 3-bay continuous plate
124
6.3
Natural Frequencies of 2x2-Bay Continuous Plate
126
6.4
Natural frequencies of rectangular beams
127
6.5
Comparison of net number of variable in 2-bay stiffened plate
6.6
Natural frequencies of 2-bay stiffened panel
6.7
Comparison of net number of variable in 3-bay stiffened plate
6.8
Natural frequencies of 3-bay stiffened panel
133
6.9
Natural frequencies of DRES stiffened panel
134
viii
. . . .
129
130
. . . .
132
6.10 Natural frequencies of 2 x 2-bay stiffened plates
135
6.11 Natural frequencies of 2 x 4-bay stiffened plate
137
6.12 Net number of variables in 4x4-bay stiffened plate
139
6.13 Natural frequencies in 4x4-bay stiffened plate
140
ix
List of Figures
3.1
Schematic representation of an orthogonally stiffened plate
10
3.2
Assemblage of plate and beam elements
12
3.3
The super finite elements
13
3.4
Shape of the Lagrange polynomials
17
3.5
Shape of the Hermitian polynomials
18
3.6
Shape of the <j> function
3.7
Shapes of the sin 27r and sin47r functions
20
4.1
Bi-linear stress-strain relationship
31
4.2
Stress-strain relation of strain-rate sensitive material
34
4.3
Shapes of typical blast loads
38
4.4
Torsion beam element
41
4.5
Beam cross-section
48
5.1
<rx stress in linear elastic simply supported Square Plate I
56
5.2
Central deflection in linear elastic-plastic simply supported Square
19
Plate I
5.3
57
Central deflection in nonlinear analysis of simply supported Square

Plate I
58
5.4
a at 0.04 N / m m in simply supported Square Plate I
5.5
o~ at 0.2 N / m m in simply supported Square Plate I
5.6
cr stress in linear elastic clamped Square Plate I
63
5.7
Linear elastic-plastic response of clamped Square Plate I
64
5.8
Large deflection response of clamped Square Plate I
65
60
61
5.9
a at 0.2 N / m m in nonlinear elastic clamped Square Plate I
66
5.10 a at 0.8 N / m m in nonlinear elastic clamped Square Plate I
67
5.11 Linear elastic-plastic response of simply supported rectangular beam .
69
5.12 Large deflection response of simply supported rectangular beam
70
5.13 Stresses in large deflection analysis of simply supported
. . .
rectangular
beam
71
5.14 Large deflection response of clamped rectangular beam
74
5.15 Stresses in large deflection analysis of clamped rectangular beam . . .
75
5.16 Configuration of 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
76
5.17 In-plane displacement in 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
78
5.18 Panel centre displacement in 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
79
5.19 Stiffener centre displacement in 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
80
5.20 Displacement shapes along C B of 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
81
5.21 Configuration of DRES stiffened panel
82
5.22 Super element models for DRES stiffened panel
83
5.23 A D I N A discretization of DRES stiffened panel
84
5.24 Displacement of point D in DRES stiffened panel
85
5.25 Displacement of point C in DRES stiffened panel
86
5.26 Normal stress perpendicular to stiffener at 0.5 psi
89
5.27 Normal stress parallel to stiffener at 0.5 psi
92
5.28 Configuration of DRES1B panel
96
5.29 Models for DRES1B panel
97
5.30 Linear elastic in-plane displacements in DRES1B panel . . '.
99
5.31 Linear elastic bending displacements in DRES1B panel
100
5.32 Linear elastic normal stresses in DRES1B panel
101
5.33 Nonlinear elastic in-plane displacements in DRES IB panel
102
5.34 Nonlinear elastic bending displacements in DRES1B panel
104
xi
5.35 Nonlinear displacements of points D and E in DRES1B panel
105
5.36 Large deflection elastic-plastic displacement profiles in DRES IB panel
107
5.37 Nonlinear elastic normal stresses in DRES1B panel
108
5.38 Normal stress a in nonlinear elastic DRES1B panel
109
5.39 Normal stress a in nonlinear elastic DRES1B panel
110
5.40 Details of 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
Ill
5.41 Bending displacements in linear elastic 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
. .
112
5.42 In-plane displacements in linear elastic 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
. .
113
5.43 Normal stress o~ in linear elastic 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
114
5.44 Normal stress o~ in linear elastic 2 x 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
116
5.45 Nonlinear elastic-plastic u displacement profile along y = 15 in in simply supported 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
117
5.46 Nonlinear elastic-plastic v displacement profile along x 7.5 in in

simply supported 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
118
5.47 Nonlinear elastic-plastic w displacement profile along x = 7.5 in in

119
6.1
Configuration of 3-bay continuous plate
123 ^
6.2
Configuration of 2 x 2-bay continuous plate
125
6.3
Configuration and discretizations for 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II
128
6.4
Configuration and discretizations for 3-bay stiffened plate
131
6.5
Configuration and discretization for 2x4-bay stiffened plate
136
6.6
Configuration of 4x4-bay stiffened plate
138
7.1
Dynamic relaxation response of linear elastic simply supported Square

Plate I
144
7.2
Transient response of simply supported Square Plate I
145
7.3
Transient elastic response of clamped Square Plate I
146
xii
7.4
Transient nonlinear elastic-plastic response of clamped Square Plate I
147
7.5
Details of Square Plate II
148
7.6
Central displacement history of simply supported Square Plate II
7.7
Transient linear elastic response of simply supported rectangular beam 151
7.8
Transient linear elastic-plastic response of simply supported rectangu-
7.9
. .
149
lar beam
152
Loads applied to 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II
153
7.10 Linear elastic response of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to step
load
155
7.11 Nonlinear elastic response of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to

step load
156
7.12 Nonlinear elastic-plastic response of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II

due to step load
157
7.13 Panel centre displacement of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to

blast load
158
7.14 Stiffener mid-point displacement of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II

due to blast load
159
7.15 Linear elastic response of simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II

due to step load
160
7.16 Panel centre displacement in nonlinear elastic analysis of simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to step load
161
7.17 Stiffener mid-point displacement in nonlinear elastic analysis of simply

supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to step load
162
7.18 Panel centre displacement in nonlinear elastic-plastic analysis of simply

163
7.19 Stiffener mid-point displacement in nonlinear elastic-plastic analysis of

simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to step load . . . . . . . 164
xm
7.20 Panel centre displacement i n simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate

II due to blast load
165
7.21 Stiffener mid-point displacement i n simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened

Plate II due to blast load
166
7.22 Blast load on D R E S Stiffened Panel
167
7.23 Panel centre displacement of blast loaded D R E S Stiffened Panel . . .
168
7.24 Stiffener mid-point displacement of blast loaded D R E S Stiffened Panel 169

7.25 Discretizations of D R E S I B panel
170
7.26 Displacements of points D and E i n D R E S 1 B panel due to blast load
171
7.27 Displacements of points C and F i n D R E S 1 B panel due to blast load
172
7.28 Displacement along y = 24in i n D R E S 1 B panel due to blast load . . .
173
7.29 Displacement along G D i n D R E S 1 B panel due to blast load
174
7.30 Displacement along B C i n D R E S I B panel due to blast load
175
7.31 Configuration of 2 x 2 Stiffened Plate II
176
7.32 Linear elastic response of 2 x 2 Stiffened Plate II - Step Load
177
7.33 Nonlinear response of 2 x 2 Stiffened Plate II - Step Load
178
7.34 Response of points A , B and G i n 4 x 4 Bay Stiffened Plate - Rectangular Pulse
179
7.35 Displacement profiles along H G F i n 4 x 4 Bay Stiffened Plate - Rectangular Pulse
180
7.36 Displacement profiles along D B A in 4 x 4 Bay Stiffened Plate - Rectangular Pulse
181
7.37 F i n a l displacement profiles along beams D B A and E C B in 4 x 4 B a y

Stiffened Plate - Rectangular Pulse
xiv
182
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express his gratitude to his supervisor Dr. M . D. Olson for
his guidiance, advice and valuable time during the preparation of this thesis. The
valuable suggestions offered by Dr. D. L. Anderson at various stages of the work are
appreciated.
The author would also like to thank Dr. R. Houlston of the Defence
Research Establishment, Suffield, Alberta for providing the A D I N A results for the
DRES IB panel. The author is also appreciative of the many useful discussions he
had with Dr. J . Jiang who also provided some of the comparison dynamic finite strip
results. The support and encouragement offered by P. Kumar, R. B. Schubak, Dr. J .
D. Dolan, Dr. A . Filiatrault and all the author's friends are also much appreciated.
Financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada in the form of a Research Assistantship from the department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia is gratefully acknowledged.
xv
Chapter 1
Introduction
Stiffened plates are structural components consisting of plates reinforced by a sys1
tem of orthogonal beams (or ribs) to enhance their load carrying capacities. These
2
structural components find wide application in various kinds of structures.
For ex-
ample, in naval architecture stiffened plates are used in the construction of the hulls
of ships while in the aircraft industry they are used in constructing the fuselage of
aircraft. Stiffened plate construction is also found in bridges, buildings, railway cars,
large transportation carrier panels and storage tanks.
There are situations in which a stiffened plate structure might be subjected to
complex loads such as air blast pressure waves from external or internal explosions,
water waves, collisions or simply large static loads. These loads can induce large
deformations which stress the material well over the elastic limit to cause significant
plastic deformations in the structure. Hence in the design/analysis of the structures
geometric and material nonlinearities must be taken into account.
The static or dynamic large deflection elastic-plastic analysis of stiffened plates is
a difficult task. Solution of the problem by analytical techiques is practically impossible due to the intractable task of integrating the governing differential equations of
motion. On the other hand the problem can be solved by numerical methods based
Plates are flat surface structures whose thicknesses are small compared to their other dimensions.
Of particular interest in this study are rectangular thin plates whose thicknesses are less than a tenth
of the least other dimension.
A beam is a structure whose length is large compared to its other dimensions and carries load
primarily by bending.
1
Chapter
1.
Introduction
mainly on the finite element technique.
Currently, there are available some com-
mercial finite element programs capable of performing nonlinear analysis of stiffened

plates. However, with these regular finite element programs, the modelling requires
many elements with a huge amount of input/output data and very expensive computer runs. This type of analysis is impractical at the preliminary design stage.
The work presented in this thesis is aimed at improving the situation by introducing a new analysis/design philosophy. It is the objective of this thesis to develop a
simplified numerical formulation which is capable of representing the overall response
of the complete structure with reasonable accuracy but with a sacrifice in local detailed accuracy. This will result in a relatively simple model which requires much
reduced input data and run times and makes it feasible to carry out design oriented
analyses.
On the basis of the above philosophy, new plate and stiffener beam finite elements are developed for the nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of stiffened plate
structures. Using polynomial as well as continuous analytical displacement functions,
the elements are specially designed to contain all the basic modes of deformation
response which occur in stiffened plate structures and are called superfiniteelements
since only one plate element per bay or one beam element per span is needed to
achieve engineering design level accuracy.
Rectangular plate elements are used so
that orthogonally stiffened plates can be modelled.

Following a brief literature review, presented in Chapter 2, the new super elements
are described in Chapter 3. The super element discretization and the displacement
functions are discussed and the chapter ends with a discussion on the justification for
the choice of the displacement functions using a study of the compatibility, convergence and order of accuracy analysis of the elements.
In Chapter 4 the finite element matrix quantities are derived for the super elements.
The mathematical derivations conducted in the chapter include details of
Chapter 1. Introduction
the Gaussian integration, the Newton-Raphson iterative scheme and the implicit
Newmark-/3 temporal integration procedure.
The chapter also highlights some de-
tails of the computer code developed to implement the theory.

The numerical investigations carried out to verify the new formulation are presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. Chapter 5 deals with the static response, Chapter 6
the vibration analysis and Chapter 7 is devoted to transient applications. Unstiffened
plates, beams and plates stiffened in one or two mutually perpendicular directions
are considered.
For the static and transient applications, various combinations of
geometric and material nonlinearities have been incorporated but only linear elastic
vibrations have been carried out in Chapter 6.
Finally, Chapter 8 gives the summary and conclusions derived from the present
study and ends with some suggestions for future research.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1
Analytical Methods
The classical thin plate theory is well known for the linear elastic analysis of isotropic
unstiffened plates.
For large deflection analysis of such plates the large deflection
theory by von Karman is usually employed. The applications of these methods to

analysis of plate structures is well documented in [1].
A comprehensive study of the historical development of analytical procedures for
the analysis of stiffened plates has been presented by Troitsky [2]. It is clear from
the review that the first known attempt at the analysis of stiffened plate structures is
due to Boobnov in 1902. In his work Boobnov applied stress analysis procedures to
two-way stiffened plates and treated the problem as a beam on an elastic foundation
and obtained design charts for stiffened plate structures.
The development of the orthotropic plate theory by Huber in 1914 made significant
contributions to the analysis of stiffened plates. Although the theory was developed
for naturally orthotropic plates it can also be applied to stiffened plates by treating
1
them as being equivalent to an orthotropic plate of constant thickness. In order for

the orthotropic theory to apply it is required that
Natural orthotropy is used to describe the situation in which a body possesses different elastic
properties in orthogonal directions. O n the other hand the elements of the body may be arranged in
proper geometric configurations such that it exihibits different properties in orthogonal directions.
This is called structural or technical orthotropy. Orthogonally stiffened plates are examples of such
structures.
1
Chapter 2.
Literature Review
1. The material of the stiffened plate follow Hooke's law.

2. Plane sections remain plane before and after bending and the out-of-plane displacements be small compared to the plate thickness.
3. The stiffeners be evenly and closely spaced.
4. The stiffeners be disposed symmetrically with respect to the mid-plane of the
plane.
The last assumption is difficult to meet in practice since for most stiffened plate
structures the stiffeners (or ribs) are placed asymmetrically with respect to the midplane of the plate. As a consequence, the inherent assumption of a strain-free midplane is grossly violated by such structures and hence the orthotropic plate theory
cannot be applied rigorously to these structures unless certain modifications are made.
A more rigorous extension of the orthotropic plate theory to eccentrically stiffened
plates has been conducted by Pfluger in 1947. Using the force-displacement relations
for a plate element with ribs on one side he obtained an eighth order differential
equation involving only a displacement component. This method has been employed
by several investigators and Clifton et al [3] have developed an exact theory, based
on the method, for plates with ribs of open or closed box sections.
An important feature associated with stiffened plates subjected to bending loads
is the shear lag phenomenon. This pheneomenon describes the situation where the
normal stress is maximum at the stiffener location and shows a lag with increasing
distance from the stiffener. The analysis of this behaviour has been given considerable
attention by some investigators and some of these have been discussed by Troitsky [2]
and Timoshenko and Goodier [4].
There are very few analytical solutions of stiffened plates exhibiting geometric nonlinear behaviour. Troitsky [2] has reported on the large deflection theories developed
by Vogel in 1961 and Abdel-Sayed in 1963. These theories are, essentially, extensions
Chapter 2. Literature Review
of the large deflection theory for orthotropic plates, following the von Karman large
deflection theory for isotropic plates. Solutions exist to only a few problems.
Modern structures have to be designed into the plastic range to take advantage of
the extra load-carrying capacity afforded by the ductility of the material. However,
incorporating the theory of plasticity into a stiffened plate theory presents enormous
difficulties if an analytical solution is sought.
The problem can be simplified by
assuming a rigid-plastic material behaviour. The yield line analysis is based on this
assumption and proceeds with assumed collapse mechanisms.
With this method
solution to some plate structures have been obtained [5].

A major difficulty in the use of analytical methods is due to the onerous task
of integrating the governing differential equations of motion. The situation is worse
when geometric and/or material nonlinearities are involved. However, with numerical
techniques it has been possible to obtain fairly easily approximate solutions suitable
for engineering purposes. These numerical methods are discussed in the next section.
2.2
2.2.1
Numerical Methods
Finite Difference and Finite Element Methods
The finite difference and finite element methods are well known in the analysis of engineering problems. In the finite difference method, the governing differential equations
of motion are replaced by a set of difference equations written for a finite number
of grid points into which the domain of the problem is divided. The resulting set
of algebraic equations are solved simultaneously for the finite number of unknown
parameters at the grid points and this represents an approximation to the exact solution [6]. Webb and Dowling [7] have applied the method to the large deflection
elasto-plastic analysis of discretely stiffened plates.
In the finite element method, the governing equations are also replaced by a set
of algebraic equations which are obtained by discretizing the continuum into a finite
number of elements. The accuracy of the solution usually depends on the number
of elements and the order of the trial polynomial functions used to approximate
the displacement/stress variations within each element. The finite element method
is by far the most versatile of all numerical methods as it can handle problems with
complicated geometry, boundary conditions or loadings very easily. Most importantly,
with finite elements the ribs of a stiffened plate need not be symmetrically placed with
respect to the midplane of the plate or be densely and equally spaced since the method
is quite capable of simulating the response of plates with discrete stiffeners easily.
Several researchers have applied the finite element method to linear elastic static
and dynamic analysis of stiffened plates.
Extension of the method into the large
deflection elastic-plastic range have also been investigated [8,9,10]. Several all purpose
finite element programs have been developed in recent times. Some of these programs
have capabilities for static and dynamic large deflection elastic-plastic analysis of
stiffened plates. For example the VAST (Vibration and Strength Analysis Program)
and A D I N A (Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis) programs have
recently been used to analyze stiffened plates subjected to air blast loading [11].
Inspite of the existence of these finite element programs there are very few publications dealing with orthogonally stiffened plates subjected to large static or dynamic
loads capable of inducing geometric/material nonlinearities. The reason for this is
that a complete nonlinear finite element analysis requires the use of huge input data
and very expensive computer runs. It is for this reason special finite elements such
as finite strips have been developed to analyze certain classes of problems. These are
discussed in the following subsection.
2.2.2
Finite Strip Method
The finite strip method, developed by Cheung [12], is suitable for the analysis of
structures with regular boundaries. The structure is divided into a finite number of
strips and, unlike the finite element method in which polynomial functions are used
in all directions, the finite strip method uses continuously differentiable analytical
functions in one direction and polynomials in other directions. Furthermore, the continuous functions are stipulated to satisfy a priori the kinematic boundary conditions
at the ends of the strips.
Details of the application of the method to static and dynamic analysis of plate
structures are well documented in [13]. The extension of the method to nonlinear analysis of unstiffened plates has also been investigated by some researchers [14,15,16,17].
Only recently, the method has been extended to static and dynamic large deflection
elastic-plastic analysis of stiffened plates [18,19,20]. However, these applications are
restricted to one-way stiffened plates. Attempts have been made to model orthogonally stiffened plate using compound strips [21,22] but these have been limited to
linear elastic problems.
The major advantage of the finite strip method over the more versatile finite
element method is its simplicity. It requires smaller amount of input data and core
memory and uses much reduced run times compared to the finite element method.
In the present study, the advantages of the finite element and finite strip methods
are combined to develop a relatively simple formulation capable of representing the
response of stiffened plates subject to intense static or dynamic loads with reasonable
accuracy. The method uses special finite elements called super finite elements which
are macro elements having both polynomial and continuous analytical displacement
functions in all in-plane directions. The description of the new elements is presented
in Chapter 3.
Chapter 3
3.1
Introduction
The class of structures which are of interest in this work include rectangular plates
reinforced by stiffener beams placed in one or two mutually perpendicular directions,
as typified by the structure in Figure 3.1. Each panel bay (eg. A B C D ) is modelled
by a rectangular plate element and the stiffeners (such as A B , B C ) are treated as
beam elements running along the edges of the panels. The displacement fields for the
plate and beam elements have been carefully chosen to simulate all possible linear and
nonlinear deformation modes for the elements acting together as in stiffened plates
or separately as simple or continuous beams or plates with all possible boundary
conditions. The elements are termed super finite elements since only a single element
is required to model the basic response. The details of the elements and the associated
displacement fields are presented in this chapter.
In Section 3.2 the super element discretization is presented and the degrees of
freedom associated with each element are described. Section 3.3 gives details of all
the displacement fields for each element and Section 3.4 highlights the justification
for the choice of the displacement functions.
Chapter 3. Description of the Super Finite Elements
10
y. v
B :
i:
c:
z,w
Plan
Jl
a t e
X, u
c.
beams
elevation
Figure 3.1: Schematic representation of an orthogonally stiffened plate
3.2
11
Super Finite Element Discretization
Figure 3.1 shows details of an orthogonally stiffened plate. By the present formulation
each panel bay is represented by a super plate element and each stiffener span by a
super beam element. A panel bay and two adjacent beams are isolated in Figure 3.2
to illustrate the assemblage of the elements in the structure.
Details of the nodal
variables associated with each element are presented in Figure 3.3.

The plate element has 9 actual nodes, numbered 1 to 9. The 'extra nodes' labelled
io>
n,
i5
a r e
actually the amplitudes of the trigonometric functions used to
model the in-plane displacements (described in Section 3.3) and these are lumped at
the mid-side and central nodes labelled 5 to 9. Each of the four corner nodes has
six variables the two in-plane displacements, u, v; the out of plane displacement,
w; the two slopes, w , w and the twist, w ,
x
where w = dw/dx, etc. The positive
xy
directions of u, v and w are shown in Figure 3.2. Each of the mid-side nodes numbered
5 to 8 also has six variables u, v, w and the normal slope w or w , together with
x
two additional in-plane variables. For example, the mid-side node, numbered 5, has
the variables u, v, w, w , u
y
and Ui3; node 6 has the variables u, v, w, w ,

x
and v ; and similarly for nodes 7 and 8. The central node, numbered 9, has seven
14
degrees of freedom u, v, w, u , v ,
u
12
u , and v .
i5
Over all, the plate element has
15
55 degrees of freedom as shown in Figure 3.3(a).

The beam element (Figure 3.3(b)) has 3 actual nodes numbered 1 to 3. In analogy
to the plate element, the 'extra nodes' labelled u and u are amplitudes of the in4
plane displacement and these are taken as variables at the middle node. For bending
and axial action alone, a beam in the ^-direction has three variables u, w, and w
at the end nodes and four variables u, w, u and u at the middle node. However,
4
for problems in which there is significant presence of torsion in the stiffener beams,
additional variables are included to approximate the torsional rotation, 6 and lateral
Figure 3.2: Assemblage of plate and beam elements
12
13
i *
1*14
U12
"15
n
9
wio
12
VX5
X, u
1
1*13
Degrees of Freedom:
At
At
At
At
nodes 1,2,3,4 - u,v,w,w ,wy) xy

nodes 5,7 - u,v,w,w ; plus ( 1 * 1 0 , 1 4 1 3 ) and
nodes 6,8 - u,v,w,w ; plus ( I ; I I , I > 1 4 ) and
node 9 - u,v,w; plus i * , v , W i s , U 1 5
J
(i4n,i4i ),
4
1 2
(^10,^13),
12
(a) plate element
1 1*5 i *

Degrees of Freedom:
At nodes 1,2 u,v,w,w ,9,9

At node 3 - u,v,w,9; plus 1*4,1*5
X
(b) beam element in x direction

Figure 3.3: The super finite elements
respectively
respectively
Chapter 3.
14
bending displacement, v. The additional variables are v, 9, 9 at the end nodes and
X
v and 6 at the middle node.

For beam problems, the nodal variables are located along the beam centroidal
axis and in this case torsional displacements have been ignored so that the beam
element has a total of 10 variables. However, in stiffened plate structures, ,all nodal
variables are assumed to be located at the centroidal plane of the plate. This way,
no additional degrees of freedom are introduced at a beam-plate connection [23]. In
structures with negligible torsional displacements, the stiffener beam element still has
10 variables but the number is increased to 18 if torsion is significant.
Inter-element continuity between two adjacent plate elements or a plate and a
1
beam element is ensured at the three nodes along the plate edge, while continuity
between two adjacent beam elements is provided at the beam end nodes.
3.3
Displacement Functions
The displacement fields for the super elements have been carefully chosen so that all
possible displacement modes in a stiffened plate structure can be modelled fairly accurately with only one super element per bay or span. To achieve this goal continuous
analytical functions (usually, trigonometric and hyperbolic functions) are 'smeared'
with the usual finite element polynomial functions in a fashion similar to the finite
strip formulation, except that, in this case, no boundary conditions are satisfied a
priori and the analytic and polynomial functions all run in the two in-plane directions. The super elements thus combine the simplicity of the finite strip method and
the versatility of the regular finite element method. The displacement fields chosen
for each element are described in the following subsections.
1
T h e continuity is defined in Section 3.4.
3.3.1
15
Plate elements
Figure 3.3(a) shows a typical super plate element of length a and width b. The nodal
variables are as indicated in the figure and the element has 55 degrees of freedom.
The displacement fields associated with the element are given by
u 10
u
Nfm
+ sin 27r[L (7 ),L (77), L (T))\ <

1
12
Ul3
+ sm4ir[L (v),L (-n),L (y)}

l
(3.1)
<
Ul5
VlO
N-Vi + [LT_(0, L ((),
sin 2wn I
L ()]
} +
12
Vl3
[L (aL (aL (()]sm4Trr {

1
(3.2)
'14
Vl5
N^
<l>U)[Hi(v),H ( ),H (r,),H ( )]<

2
Wy 5
} +
y7
w$
+[H ((),H {C) H {aH ((Mv)
1
w.xS
Wx6
+ # 0 M K
(3.3)
Chapter 3.
16
where i 1, 2, . . . , 9; j = 1, 2, . . . , 16; u, v are the two in-plane displacements; w is

the flexural bending (out-of-plane) displacement and
= x/a and 77 = y/b.
The quadratic Lagrange interpolation polynomials are given by:
HO
= n
L2{()
- H + 1
2e-i
(3.4)
These quadratic polynomials are shown in Figure 3.4. The cubic Hermitian polynomials are given by:
H (() = a{i - 2e + e)
2
HsU) = 3( - 2
2
and their shapes are as shown in Figure 3.5. (j>
1S
(3.5)
the first symmetric vibration mode
of a clamped beam and is given by:
4>(0 [o;(sinh fi( sin/x) + (cosh// cos/z)]/<>

where p = 4.7300407448,
cos p cosh fl
sinh p sin p
anc
(p = a(sinh0.5/x sin0.5/i) + (cosh0.5/i cos0.5/x)
The shape of the (f> function is shown in Figure 3.6.
(3-6)
17
1.2
" 0.0
0.5
1.0
x/a
Figure 3.4: Shape of the Lagrange polynomials
iV", TV" are products of the Lagrange interpolation polynomials and JVj" are products of the Hermitian polynomials. These are given explicitly in Appendix A. u,,
are the nodal variables in the x, y directions, ipj are the corner node lateral displacements, slopes and twists; all attached to the midplane of the plate. The corner node
lateral displacement vector is given by
{%/J} =
t
[w ,w ,w ,w - ,w ,w 2,w 2,w ,
l
xl
yl
xy
xy2
(3.7)
w , w ,w ,w
3
where w
x3
y3
, w , w ,w , w ]
xy3
x4
y4
xy4
= dw/dx, etc.
The shapes of the trigonometric functions sin 2 ^ and sin47r used to model
the in-plane displacements are shown in Figure 3.7.
18
x/a
Figure 3.5: Shape of the Hermitian polynomials
3.3.2
Beam elements
Figure 3.3(b) shows a super beam element of length a, with its degrees of freedom.
The membrane and flexural displacement fields referred to the centroidal axis of a
beam in the ^-direction are given by
> + u sin 2TV( + u sin 4ir +

5
+ e4>\)w
+e[H[{(),H' (t),H' (t),H' (t))l

2
Wx2
(3.8)
= [tfi(0,#2(0,#3(0.-^(0M
19
(3.9)
x2
where the primes denote differentiation with respect to x and e is the distance between
the centroidal axis of the beam and the mid-plane of the plate.
T h e effect of torsion and lateral bending i n the stiffener beam element has been
included
i n some cases and the rotation, 6 and lateral displacement, v fields are
approximated, respectively, by
Chapter 3. Description of the Super Finite
20
Elements
1.5
sin(27rx/a)
1.0 h
0.5
0.0
-0.5 h
sin(47rx/a)
-1.0
-1.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
x/a
Figure 3.7: Shapes of the sin27r and sin4.7r functions
01
91
X
* = [ffl(0,tf2(0,#s(0,#4(0]
^ 3
(3.10)
9x2
(
Vl
= [ii(0.ij(0.i(0]
V2
(3.11)
{ V3 )
where 6i,9 i, ...v

x
are the beam nodal rotation, twist or lateral displacement vari-
ables as illustrated in Figure 3.3(b)
3.4
21
Compatibility, Convergence and Order of Accuracy
Consider the w displacement field for the panel A B C D in Figure 3.1. The basic
response of the panel with clamped boundaries all round is represented by the last
term 0(^)^>(T/) in Equation (3.3). Then to allow for support movements and to ensure
compatibility of displacements and slopes between adjacent panels the 16 degree of
freedom plate bending element, developed by Bogner et al [24], having the bi-cubic
polynomial functions (first term of Equation 3.3) is employed. The other two terms
in Equation 3.3 are included firstly to match the plate and beam displacements along
the plate edges and secondly to allow various boundary conditions to be modelled
along the edges. The w displacement field is C continuous and hence will ensure
1
convergence of the solution of linear plate bending problems with the error in strain
energy being of order 0(l )
4
where Z is a characteristic element dimension.
Bi-quadratic shape functions are used for the in-plane displacements u and v in
order to obtain an order of accuracy in energy consistent with the out of plane displacements, C continuity between adjacent elements also being ensured. The sine
terms in the in-plane displacement fields are included to capture nonlinear geometric effects sin
27r
being suitable for simply supported boundaries and sin
47r
for
clamped boundaries [18,19]. These functions are essential in providing a good approximation to the distribution of membrane stresses in large deflection elastic-plastic
analyses as demonstrated by some of the results of the analyses in Sections 5.2.2 and
7.2.3. The sine functions are multiplied by quadratic shape functions in the other
direction to maintain the order of accuracy, ensure compatibility between plate and
beam displacements and also to capture shear lag effects.
In analogy to the plate, the basic response of the beam element A B with clamped
Chapter 3.
22
boundaries is represented by (f>(). Then to allow for arbitrary end motion and to ensure compatibility between elements, the cubic polynomials are included. A consistent
order of accuracy (0(Z )) in strain energy is also ensured. The choice of the in-plane
4
displacement field also ensures compatibility between beam and plate displacements,
continuity of displacements between adjacent beam elements and a consistent order
of accuracy.
The basic rotational response of the stiffener beam element A B with clamped ends
is also approximated by <^>() to correspond to the w displacement field along the edge
y
A B of the plate element A B C D . Then for arbitrary end rotation and for compatibity
between elements the cubic Hermitian polynomials are included in Equation 3.10.
This rotation field is also C continuous and the error in the linear torsional strain
1
energy is of order 0 ( / ) . The lateral bending displacement field, v is chosen to be

4
quadratic for compatibility with the in-plane displacement field in the plate. Consequently, it does not provide C continuity which is normally required for beam
1
bending. However, this is probably of little consequence since the effect of lateral
bending is expected to be very small.
Chapter 4
Theoretical Formulation and Analysis of
Problem
4.1
Introduction
The theoretical formulation and method of analysis of the problem is presented in this
chapter. First, the governing equations of motion are derived in Section 4.2. Then in
Section 4.3 the finite element formulation is introduced. Here, the super elements describeed in Chapter 3 are used in conjuction with the strain-displacement and constitutive relations to derive the finite element matrix quantities. The Newton-Raphson
iterative scheme used to obtain the tangent stiffness matrix is also presented. The numerical integration scheme used to evaluate the matrix quantities is briefly discussed
in Section 4.4, while Section 4.5 highlights the temporal integration scheme. Finally,
Section 4.6 focuses on some important aspects of the computer implementation.
Because the analysis procedures presented in this chapter are widely available in
the literature, only brief summaries are presented to highlight the important aspects
that apply to this work.
4.2
Equations of Motion
The governing equations of motion are obtained via the principle of virtual work. If
a deformable body subject to a set of arbitrary loading and boundary conditions is
23
Chapter
4.
Theoretical
Formulation
and Analysis
24
of Problem
in equilibrium, the principle of virtual work stipulates that
W +W
int
where Wi and W
nt
ext
ext
=0
(4.1)
are kinematically admissible small variations in the internal
virtual work and external virtual work, respectively.
When the applied loading is
temporal in nature d'Alembert's principle is employed to include the inertial forces.

Thus ignoring body forces the equations of motion can be expressed as
J [{d} p{d} + {d} K {d}

T
+ {e} {*})dV
T
- J {d} {q}dS
T
=0
where { c } , {e} are the stress and strain vectors, p the mass density,
(4.2)
is a viscous
damping parameter, q is the applied surface traction, V and S are, respectively,

the volume and surface area and {d} is the displacement vector. The tilde ( * ) is
used to denote a virtual change in the given quantity with respect to a generalized
displacement and the superimposed dot [( ' ) = (d/dt)} denotes differentiation with
respect to time. For static loads, the velocity and acceleration terms {d} and {d} in
Equation (4.2) vanish.
In Equation (4.2) the internal virtual work J {e} {cr}}dV
T
has been stated in terms
of the true (Eulerian) stresses o~ij which are defined in the deformed configuration.
This is made possible by the assumption that the strains considered in this work are
small and hence the true stresses cr^ are approximately equal to the Kirchhoff stresses
Sij which are defined in the undeformed configuration [25].
Equation (4.2) can be specialized for plate or beam structures by appropriately
defining the stress, strain and displacement terms. For plate structures,
(4.3)
UV
f({ })
d
kx,e ,7*J
y
Chapter 4.
Theoretical
Formulation
where <r , cr are the stresses in the x, y directions, respectively, r

x
e,
x
25
and Analysis of Problem
xy
is the shear stress,
are the strains in the x, y directions and *y is the engineering shear strain.
xy
For a beam structure spanning the x-direction, {cr} and {e} contain only the terms
a and e , respectively for planar bending only. If the beam spans the y-direction
x
then the stress and strain terms are a and e , respectively.

y
The governing equations of motion, Equations (4.2), are highly nonlinear due to
the presence of geometric and material nonlinearities.
Since analytical solution of
these nonlinear equations is in most cases impossible, a numerical solution technique

has to be employed. Here, the super elements developed in Chapter 3 are utilized
and the finite element formulation of the problem using these elements is discussed
in detail in Section 4.3.
4.3
4.3.1
Finite Element Formulation

Introduction
In this section the finite element relationships are derived for the super elements developed in Chapter 3. Using Equations (4.2) the matrix quantities (load, mass, damping
and stiffness matrices) are calculated for each element type plate or beam and
these are added together in the usual finite element fashion to obtain the global matrices. First, the shape function matrices are developed in Section 4.3.2 and these
are used to obtain the nonlinear strain-displacement relations in Section 4.3.3. The
nonlinear constitutive relations employed in the work are then discussed briefly in
Section 4.3.4. Section 4.3.5 is devoted to the evaluation of the mass and damping
matrices. Using the strain-displacement relations described in Section 4.3.3 in conjunction with the constitutive relations in Section 4.3.4 the stiffness quantities are
derived in Section 4.3.6, where the Newton-Raphson iteration scheme is also highlighted.
The load vector for each element type is derived in Section 4.3.7.
The
Chapter 4. Theoretical Formulation and Analysis of Problem
26
torsional stiffness and mass matrices for the stiffener beam elements are treated separately in Section 4.3.8 since the effect of stiffener beam torsion has not been included
in all cases.
4.3.2
Shape Function Matrices
4.3.2.1
Plate elements
The displacement fields for the plate elements are given by Equations (3.1), (3.2) and
(3.3). These equations can be written collectively as
(4.4)
= [N]{S }
where {8 } is the element nodal displacement vector which for the plate element is
e
given by
{6e}
l u i , V l , W
,V
W3,
, W
, W
, W
, W
, W
, U
UA,
, V 2 , W
u ,v , w ,w , u ,u ,u ,
5
y5
13
y7
14
, W
, W
2 , W
2 , W
Wy4,
Wxy4
v,w,w ,
v ,v
v,w,w ,
v ,v
u , v , w , w , u , u ,u ,
7
, W
x6
x8
(4.5)
14
l3
u , v , w , u ,v , u , v \
9
12
12
15
15
and [TY] is the shape function matrix which for the super plate element is given by
[N} =
7Y"
O i V j O
Nf
Ng
Ng
Ng
Ng
0 0
7VV 0
2
Ng
Ng
Ng
Ng
Chapter 4.
0
0
0
N%
N
i V
J v
v
4
NX
14
N%
N?
-< ii
TV?
i\17
J V
iV "
J V
13
io
12
i V
10
N
i v
i V
27
14
iv
13
Mw
i V
N?i
22
iv
N%
0
0
T h e shape functions,
iV", . . .
JV
0
0
12
^25
- 12
iv
0
N
i V
( V
ii
J V
14
20
19
i V
N
i V
15
^ 3
v
i v
10
13
15
N
J V
15
i n Equation (4.6) are defined exphcitly i n A p -
pendix A .
In the regular finite element method, a shape function for any nodal variable has a
unit value at that node and zero value at all other nodes. In the present formulation
only the functions TV", . . . , Ng\ N",...
,N% and N, ... , N satisfy this requirement
and.hence, i n a finite element analysis, the magnitudes of the nodal variables corresponding to these shape functions will represent the magnitudes of the corresponding
displacements
at the respective nodes.
tudes of Wi, w i,
x
w i,w i
y
For example, i n any analysis, the magni-
represent the actual out-of-plane displacement,
xy
and twist at node 1; and similarly for other corner nodes.

Ui, u , . ,UQ\ VI, v , ,v
2
slopes
Also, the magnitudes of
give the actual in-plane displacements at the respective
nodal positions.
However, the remaining functions N? ,...
0
, JV^; Nf , ..., 7V" and N , ... , N do

0
not satisfy the requirement of having a unit value at one node and zero at all other
28
nodes. This is due to the presence of the analytical functions in these displacement
functions.
The variables corresponding to these shape functions merely represent
displacement amplitudes at the respective nodes. To obtain the actual displacements

at these nodes, in any analysis, the contributions from other shape functions have to
be included. For example, w , w
5
do not automatically represent the out-of-plane
y5
displacement and normal slope, respectively, of node 5. The displacement and normal
slope at this node will include contributions from these amplitudes as well as those
from other shape functions at that point.
4.3.2.2
B e a m elements
The in-plane and out-of-plane displacement fields for the beam element (Equations
(3.8) and (3.9)) can be combined as
(4.7)
= [N){S }
e
w
where the element displacement vector in this case is given by
{e}
l u
, W
, W
, U
, W
, W
, U
, W
, U
, U
(4.8)
and the shape function matrix for the super beam element is
[N] =
Ng
iV
Nl
m
5
h
3
b
A
N?
b
5
N?
10
(4.9)
The shape functions appearing in Equation (4.9) are presented in Appendix A . The
superscripts m and b denote membrane and bending, respectively.
Again, the function N does not rigourously satisfy the requirements of a shape
b
function and hence the variable corresponding to this function, w , does not auto3
matically represent the displacement at node 3, as discussed for the plate element
Chapter 4.
29
case.
4.3.3
Strain Displacement Relations
In this study, it is assumed that the plates are thin and the beams slender so that
the effect of shear deformation in these structures is negligible. Large deflection
effects are taken into account by including first order nonlinearities in the strain
displacement relations (following von Karman theory). By this theory it is assumed
that the deflections are equal to or larger than the plate or beam thickness, but still
small relative to the other dimensions (a or 6) of the plate or beam. For the plate the
strain-displacement relations are
du
x
where e , e and e
x
xy
dx~~ ~dx^ ^~dx~>

+
dw
x y
1 dw ^
* - * V
^
xy
dv
1 dw
dw
du
' dv
dw
dw dw
dy
dx
dxdy
dx dy
are the strain components in the x y plane and ^
engineering shear strain.
x y
is the
For a beam spanning the x or y direction the relevant
relation is the first or second of Equations (4.10). Using these equations and taking a
small variation with respect to the generalized displacements, the virtual strain vector
{e} in Equation (4.2) can be related to the virtual displacements, {8 }, symbolically
e
as
{i_}
= [[B] + [Co(6.)]]{6 }
e
where [B] is the linear strain-displacement matrix given by
(4.11)
Chapter 4.
30
-2dx
\B\
0
JL
. dy
-z&-
dx
a_
ay
JL -2z
dx
(4.12)
[N]
jsi9
dx&y
2
[Co] is the nonlinear strain-displacement matrix given by
[Co]
dNT" dNV
dx
dx
dN? dNJ
dy
dy
, dN dNJ
dNV
I
1
1
1
dx
dy
dx
\ dx
dv
dx
J
(4.13)
dm
1 \
dy ' 3
dv I 1
w
i,j = 1, 2, .. .25. The relevant expressions for beam elements are obtained by dropping the appropriate terms in Equations (4.12) and (4.13). See details in Appendix B .
4.3.4
Constitutive Relations
The assumption of elastic material behaviour is no longer adequate in the design

of modern structures since emphasis is placed on savings in weight. The theory of
plasticity provides more realistic estimates of the load carrying capacities of structures. To keep pace with modern trends the material of the stiffened plate structure
is assumed to be elastic-plastic with a bilinear stress-strain relationship.
Figure 4.1 shows the elastic-plastic (hardening) model (for uniaxial conditions)
adopted in this study. E and ET are, respectively, the elastic and plastic modulii;
c>o, e the uniaxial yield stress and strain, respectively; and e , e , respectively, rep0
resent the elastic and plastic strains. For the situations considered the elastic and
plastic strains are assumed to be of the same order of magnitude. In plasticity theory
three important aspects of material behaviour, namely, the yield criterion, the flow
rule or normality condition and the hardening rule, must be specified to define the
constitutive relations. These are described briefly in the following paragraphs.
The yield criterion specifies the state of stress which causes yielding of the material.
For a multiaxial state of stress this is equivalent to the state in which an
Chapter 4.
31
Figure 4.1: Bi-linear stress-strain relationship
equivalent effective stress first exceeds the uniaxial yield stress of the material. The
yield function, F has the general form
F({*},K)
= 0
(4.14)
where K is a positive parameter and in general K and F({a}) depend on the existing
level of plastic strain and the plastic strain history. The von Mises yield criterion is
adopted here since it predicts well the behaviour of metals [26,27,28]. This criterion
assumes that yielding occurs when the distortion or shear strain energy equals the
distortion energy at yield in simple tension and the yield condition is given by
" * ) + (*2 a
+ ( ' 3 - * i ) ] = al
2
(4.15)
where, C j , <r , cr are the principal stress components in three dimensions.

2
The flow rule or normality condition characterizes the behaviour of the material
Chapter
4.
Theoretical
Formulation
and Analysis
32
of Problem
after the onset of yielding. A n associated flow rule is employed. This assumes that
the incremental strain vector at any point on the yield surface is normal to the yield
surface at that point, as opposed to a non-associated flow rule where the strain vector
takes any other direction. The associated flow rule results in an incremental plasticity
theory.
Most structural materials exhibit strain hardening behaviour, in that, the yield
surface changes as yielding progresses. Hardening rules describe how the yield surface changes with yielding. Two commonly used hardening models are the kinematic
and isotropic hardening models. In the kinematic hardening model, the yield surface maintains its original size but translates in stress space as yielding progresses.
This model accounts for the Bauschinger effect, which is a situation in which the
yield surface appears to translate in stress space under cyclic loading situations. In
the isotropic hardening model the yield surface retains its initial shape but expands
uniformly about the origin of the stress space.
Although this model ignores the
Bauschinger effect it is widely used in engineering practice due to its simplicity and
is employed in this formulation.
Based on the plasticity theory described above the incremental stress-strain relations can be written as [29]
{da}
(4.16)
= [D ]{de}
T
where {da} and {de} are the incremental stress and strain vectors, respectively, and
[DT] is the elastic-plastic constitutive matrix given by
[D ] = [D] T
[D]
[D]{A}{A} [D}[E'
+ {A} [I>]{A}]-
is the elasticity matrix, {A} = dF/d{a},
is the yield function,
(4.17)
E" =
E /(1-^-)
T
is obtained from the bi-linear stress-strain curve of Figure 4.1 and E, Ej are the elastic
and plastic modulii, respectively.
33
The stress increment due to a given strain increment can now be obtained from
Equation (4.16) and the state of stress at the end of any iteration step is the sum of
the stress increment and the stress from the previous iteration. Yielding takes place
when the equivalent effective stress, cr exceeds the uniaxial yield stress, <r . For plate
e
elements,
l =
<Tx<7y
+ <r\ + 3r
2
x y
and for beams cr = cr (or a ), depending on the beam direction.

e
Once the yield stress is exceeded, the stresses are scaled back to the yield surface
and the elastic-plastic constitutive relation (Equation (4.17)) is used from then onwards unless unloading occurs (a < cr ) when the elastic constitutive relations are
e
employed.
Many metals exhibit strain rate sensitivity under dynamic loading. A n increase in
strain rate leaves the elastic and plastic modulii practically unchanged but produces a
rise in the yield stress as illustrated in Figure 4.2. The Cowper-Symonds relationship
[30] provides an empirical dependence of the yield stress on strain rate:
1 + o-o
l/2"
where cr^, a are the instanteneous and static yield stresses, respectively, s and s are
0
strain rate parameters which for steel and aluminum have the typical values shown
in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Strain rate parameters for steel and aluminum

Aluminum
6500 s"
4
1
S2
Steel
40 s5
Chapter 4.
34
e
Figure 4.2: Stress-strain relation of strain-rate sensitive material
Strain rate effects can be easily incorporated in elastic-plastic subroutines [20,27],

although these have not been included in the elastic-plastic algorithm in this work.
However, strain rate effects have been taken into account in some cases by upgrading
the static yield stress in accordance with Equation (4.18).
4.3.5
Mass and Damping Matrices
Having established the shape functions, strain-displacement and stress-strain relations, attention will now be focused on the derivation of the finite element matrix
quantities. In this section the mass and damping matrices will be derived.
Using Equation (4.11) and the substitution {d} = [N]{S }, Equation (4.2) can
e
now be written for each element as
Chapter 4.
{S } J
T
[[N] p{N]{S } + [Nf
[N]{S } + [[B] + [C }f{*}} dV = {S }
35
Kd
^[NfqdS
(4.19)
Since {8 } is arbitrary, Equation (4.19) can be written as
T
K K U
+ [c ]{S } + / [[B] + [C ]} {<r}dV = {p}
(4.20)
where
[m ] = / [Nfp[N]dV
(4.21)
is the element consistent mass matrix, with p expressed in units of mass per volume
and
[c ] =
e
J [N]
v
is the element consistent damping matrix.
n [N}dV
(4.22)
For simplicity the damping matrix is
assumed to be proportional to the mass matrix. The stiffness matrix and consistent
load vector, {p} are derived in Sections 4.3.6 and 4.3.7, respectively.
4.3.6
Stiffness Formulation
Suppose that the element is subject to an applied static load. Then Equation (4.20)
takes the form
/ [[B] + [Co\f {o-}dV = {p}

This is a nonlinear equation and has to be solved iteratively.
(4.23)
Here, the Newton-
Raphson iterative scheme is used. First, the stress vector, {cr} has to be expressed
in terms of the displacements and then the left hand side of Equation (4.23) can
be expressed as a function, { $ } = {$((5)}, which is a function of the generalized
Chapter 4.
36
displacements. The equation can now be expanded in a Taylor series about a known
solution {S } so that Equation (4.23) is expressed as
0
{*(*,)}
+
g
({S}-{S })
8
W
e }
+ . ..={?}
(4.24)
Ignoring higher order terms and defining the incremental nodal displacement vector
as {AS} = {S} {S }, Equations (4.24) can be recast as
0
[k }{AS} = {p} - {$(S )}

T
(4.25)
where [k ] = <9{$}/d{S} is the tangent stiffness matrix, obtained by differentiating

T
{$} with respect to the displacement vector and utilizing the constitutive relations
(Equations (4.16) and (4.17)).
I (HB] + lC ]] lD ][\B] + [Coll + Vt])dV
(4.26)
where
For plate elements the terms of [fi] are given by
_ dN? ON?^
fi
13
dx
dx
dN^dN?^
dy
dy
(8N?dN?
v
\ dx
dy
dN?
dy
8N?\
dx )
x y
where i,j = 1,2, . . . , 5 5 and r, s = 1,2, . . . , 2 5 are selected to correspond to the

appropiate w variables corresponding to the i, j indices, with the terms corresponding
to the u and v variables being equal to zero. No summation is intended for any index
or subscript in Equation (4.28).
37
For a beam element in the x-direction the entries in [fl] are expressed as
dN dN
b
where i,j = 1, 2 , . . . , 10; r, s = 1, 2, . . . , 5 are selected to correspond to the appropriate

w variables, with those corresponding to the u variables being zero.
Details of the [fl] matrices are given in Appendix C.
4.3.7
Load Vector
In this thesis it is assumed that the structure is subject to uniformly distributed loads
only. That is, the spatial variation of the load q is not considered.
In the dynamic realm, q is a function of time.
Blast type dynamic loads are
considered, and in general, the temporal variation of the load can be expressed as
q(t) = q (l - i / r ) e x p ( - A i / r )
1
0<t<r
(4.30)
or
q(t) = q (l-t/T)^'
0<t<T
(4.31)
where q is the peak pressure, t is the time variable, r the duration of the load and
m
Ai, A are decay parameters. The shapes of the blast loads for some values of A are
2
as shown in Figure 4.3. It is also possible to account for blast loads of arbitrary time
histories. In this case, q(t) is specified by discrete data points with linear interpolation
between points as in shown the figure.
With the loading characteristics determined the element consistent load vector is
given by
{p} = J [N] qdS

T
(4.32)
where q is the uniformly distributed load. For plate elements q is in units of force per
unit area and the integration in Equation (4.32) is performed over the plate surface
Chapter 4.
Figure 4.3: Shapes of typical blast loads
38
Chapter 4.
Theoretical
Formulation
and Analysis
of Problem
39
area, S. For beam elements q is in units of force per unit length and the integration
is carried over the beam length. In a stiffened plate the load is usually applied on the
plating so there is no loading on the stiffener beams.
Only vertical loads (loads in the out-of-plane direction) are considered in this work,
so the consistent load vector will not contain entries in the locations corresponding
to the in-plane variables. The intergral in Equation (4.32) is evaluated exactly and
the load vector for each element type is given below:
Plate Elements
M
f|f
LO, 0,36, 6, 6,1,0, 0 , 3 6 , - 6 , - 6 , - 1 ,
0, 0, 36, - 6 , - 6 , 1 , 0, 0, 36, 6, - 6 , - 1 ,
0, 0, 72*, 12*, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72*, - 1 2 * , 0, 0,
0, 0, 72*, - 1 2 * , 0, 0, 0, 0, 72*, 12*, 0, 0,
0,0,144* , 0,0,0, 0J
2
(4.33)
where a, b are the length and width, respectively, of the plate element, q is the value
of the load level and the constant factor * is given by
y
* = /
)d(
Jo
<pp
[a(cosh p + cos p 2) + (sinh fi sin u))
Beam Elements
W
4.3.8
= L0, 6,1, 0, 6, - 1 , 0,12*, 0, 0J
(4.34)
Torsion Beam Element
So far, the formulation has been based on the assumption that torsional effects in
the stiffener beams are negligible. However, there are several situations in which
this assumption introduces significant error in the response analysis. In particular,
ignoring stiffener torsion has negligible effect on the static response results since only
40
symmetric loads are considered, but has significant effect on the linear vibration
response of stiffened plates (see Chapter 6 for details of the response results). It has,
therefore, been considered necessary to include the effect of stiffener beam torsion for
dynamic problems.
In this section, the beam torsional stiffness and mass matrices are derived explicitly
from the strain energy and kinetic energy integrals. These matrices are calculated in
a separate subroutine in the computer program and the beam torsional stiffness and
mass matrices are conceptually added to the global stiffness and mass matrices in the
usual finite element fashion.
It should be noted that only linear torsional displacements have been considered
on the asumption that these displacements are small. Also, coupling of bending and
torsional deformations has not been considered in the formulation for simplicity. A
more rigorous formulation might consider the effect of finite bending on the twisting
of the beam and also an investigation of lateral buckling of the beam.
4.3.8.1
Stiffness matrix for beam torsional element
Consider a beam element in the a; direction. The degrees of freedom for torsion and
lateral bending are as shown in Figure 4.4. The variable v represents displacement in
the y direction (lateral displacement). Consider the lateral movement of the beam
(Figure 4.4). The beam centroidal displacement v is given by
c
v = v + e6
c
(4.35)
where vr is the lateral displacement at the top of the beam and is equal to the vdisplacement along the edge of the plate. Along an edge of the plate v is quadratic
(see Equation (3.2)), hence
is chosen to be quadratic to ensure compatibility of
displacements. Using Equations (3.10) and (3.11) the torsional rotation and lateral
Chapter 4.
41
displacement fields can be expressed as

Oi
0x1
02
0
Hi
4>() 0
0x2
(4.36)
> =
<
VT
03
Vl
V2
V3
V, , 0 !
,0x1
V*2, 0 2 .
V , 0J
3
0x2
Figure 4.4: Torsion beam element

The shape functions in Equation (4.36) have been described in Chapter 3. Note
also that for a beam in the x-direction, 9 = w .
y
The strain energy in the beam due to torsion, lateral bending and warping (induced by torsion) is given by
r 9 dx + \EI
\CJ
[\v , ) dx
Jo
\GJ [ e dx
a
Jo
f (4
+ \EI
c xx
ZZ
xi
ZZ
Jo
+ \ET r
TtXX
9 dx
2
Z Jo
+ 2ev e
xx
+ e e )dx
2
tXX
42
+ ÊT f
xx
Jo
e d
2
xx
Z Jo
(4.37)
where a is the beam length, G is the shear modulus, J the torsional constant, T
the warping constant and I
is the moment of inertia about the z z axis. The
Z Z
symbolism ( ) implies differentiation with respect to x. Formulas for the calculation

>x
of J , T, I
for various beam cross-sections are given in [31] and the relevent ones
Z Z
are quoted in Appendix D. Equation (4.35) has been used to obtain the expanded
form of Equation (4.37).
By taking the first variation of the strain energy with respect to the generalized
displacements the torsional stiffness matrix is obtained as
[k] = GJ [ e dx
a
Jo
+ EI
ZZ
r v dx+EI e
2
Jo
xx
zz
I" v
Jo
TiXX
6 dx
+ E(e I +T)
2
iXx
ZZ
f 9 dx
2
Jo
xx
(4.38)
Utilizing the shape functions in Equation (4.36) and carrying out the integrations in
Equation (4.38) the torsional stiffness matrix can be written as
[k] = [k,] + [k ] + [* ] + [fc ]
2
(4.39)
Chapter 4.
Theoretical
Formulation
43
where
6
5
a
10
6
5
6
5
a
10
GJ
[*i]
a
10
2a
15
a
10
a
30
2
zz
pa
x
6
5
a
10
a
10
2a
15
-pia
(4.40)
-u a
Pi
EI e
a
30
2
16EI 2
[*s] =
a
10
a
10
-2
-2
-2
-2
(4.41)
-4
-4
-8
-4
-4
-8
(4.42)
12
6a
-12
6a
0 0 0
6a
4a
6a 2a
0 0 0
6a 0
0 0 0
-12
E(e I
2
zz
+ V)
[*4
6a
12
6a 4a
6a
2a
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
44
0 0 0
0 0 0
where p = 0.5231643586, p = 4.877697585, and u - 198.4629301.

2
4.3.8.2
M a s s m a t r i x for b e a m t o r s i o n a l e l e m e n t
The kinetic energy in the beam due to torsion and lateral bending is given by
T = \w*p (\j 6
I
Jo
+ Av )dx
(4.44)
where J is the polar moment of inertia about the centriod, A is the area of the beam
c
cross section, CJ is the natural frequency of the beam and p the mass density. Substituting Equation (4.35) into Equation (4.44), and defining Jo as the polar moment of
inertia about the top of beam the kinetic energy can now be expressed as
T =
\ L O
[ [Jo0
Jo
a
2
P
+ A(v + 2ev 8)]dx

T
(4.45)
Hence, by variational techniques the torsional beam mass matrix is obtained as

[m] = pj
pa
/a
ya
/ 0 dx + pA
v dx + pAe / v 6dx
Jo
Jo
Jo
2
(4.46)
Utilizing the shape functions in Equation (4.36) and carrying out the integrations
in Equation (4.46) the torsional mass matrix can be written as
[m] = [ ] + [m ] + [m ]
mi
(4.47)
45
where,
13a
35
11a
210
9a
70
11a
210
a
105
9a
70
13a
420
13a
420
[mi]
pJo
a
140
\m
13a
420
a
140
pa
13a
35
11a
210
pa
-p a
5
pa
6
pa
a
105
pa
11a
210
pa
pa
13a
420
-p a
pAa
~3u~
-1
-1
16
[ m ] = pAae
lla
60
a
60
(4.49)
a
60
a
60
(4.48)
a
3
a
15
lla
60
1
3
a
60
a
15
pa
pa
pa
pa
7
11a
60
a
60
a
3
a
60
2
a
60
11a
60
a
60
pa
T
a
15
1
3
a
15
pa
(4.50)
where p = 0.2615821802, p = 0.0562872124, p = 0.396478085, p = 0.0364333308

4
and p = 0.4502976989.
8
Chapter 4.
4.4
Theoretical
Formulation
and Analysis
46
of Problem
Numerical Integration
The well known Gaussian integration scheme is adopted in the evaluation of the
volume integrals in Equations (4.21), (4.22) and (4.26). Let / =
f(,7]X)
be the
integrand in each of the volume integrals, then by the integration scheme the volume
integrals can be presented as
j f
f(t,V,C)dtd dC =
V
lllllljiô^dfjdc
~ EEE^W(6,%,a)
(4.5i)
k j i
where , fj, are the transformed normal coordinates which vary from 1 to +1,
i, Vj> Ck are the sampling points in the x, y, z directions, respectively, W{, Wj,
are the wieghting factors in the respective directions.
The weights and sampling points are selected to minimize the error in the integral.
The scheme employed depends on the form of the integrand, / . In any one direction,
n sampling points can integrate a polynomial of order (2n 1) exactly [29]. However,
for the problem at hand this formula cannot be applied as the integrand, in general,
consists of products of polynomial and circular or hyperbolic functions. Based on
previous experience [18,19,32] and a numerical experiment conducted in this work,
5 integration points are employed in each in-plane direction. In the out-of-plane
direction a 2-point integration scheme is used for elastic analysis. However, for plastic
analysis it is necessary to upgrade the number of sampling points to 4, in order to
capture the plastic stress distribution across the plate or beam thickness [33]. The
location and weights of the sampling points are presented in Table 4.2.
A more
comprehensive list can be found in [34].

For beams of I or T cross-sections an additional point is introduced for each
flange. In the evaluation of the volume integrals for a beam element, the integrand is
evaluated at the sampling point in the beam direction and this is multiplied by the
Chapter 4.
Table 4.2: Sampling points and weights for Gaussian integration
/ /(0tf = w/(6)
+1
1=1
n
2
4
5
02691
63115
10435
98459
93101
00000
0.57735
0.86113
0.33998
0.90167
0.53846
0.00000
89626
94053
84856
38664
05683
00000
1.00000
0.34785
0.65214
0.23692
0.47862
0.56888
00000
48451
51548
68850
86704
88888
00000
37454
62546
56189
99366
88888
corresponding weighting coefficient and a weighted area. The weighted area is equal
to the product ^h t W{] where h , t are, respectively, the height and thickness of
w
the beam web and Wj is the weighting factor corresponding to the sampling point in
the thickness direction. For an extra point in a flange, the weighted area is simply
equal to the area of that flange.
If the beam cross-section is rectangular or has equal flanges, the centroidal axis
coincides with the normal coordinate, axis. But for T or I sections with unequal
flanges these axes do not coincide and it is necessary to transform the normal coordinate variable about the beam centroidal axis.
Consider the beam shown in Figure 4.5. Let A A be the centroidal axis of the
beam section and B B the centroidal axis of the web alone. Also, let ( , be the
c
running variables measured with respect to the axes A A and B B , respectively. Then,
Cc
= C-d
But
d =
=
(C2-/2)-y
h -
- h - \ { h - h - h )
Chapter 4.
48
Hence,
C =C+ ^(2
c
C l
-&-/!+/,)
with = ^Chw. For the extra point in a flange, the variable is measured from the
beam centroid to the middle of the flange.
B
h
2
L
Figure 4.5: Beam cross-section
4.5
Temporal Integration
The element matrix quantities are assembled conceptually in the usual finite element
fashion to obtain the global equations of motion:
[M}{6} + [C}{6} + J [[B] + [C ]} {a}dV = {P}
T
(4.52)
where, [M], [C] are the global mass and damping matrices, respectively, and {P} is
the global load vector. Equations (4.52) are nonlinear ordinary differential equations
in time.
Chapter 4.
49
In this section attention is focused on the time integration of the equations of

motion (Equations (4.52)). For nonlinear problems, direct integration, or step-bystep, methods are preferred to modal or other methods.
In the direct integration
methods, the time derivatives appearing in the governing equations are replaced by a
finite difference approximation. Two main groups of direct integration methods are
available. These are the explicit and implicit schemes. Explicit schemes only require
satisfaction of the equations of motion at the previous time step in order to advance
the solution to the next time step. In contrast, implicit schemes require information
from both the previous and next time steps.
There are several direct integration methods available in the literature [27,35,36]
and, in general, the choice of the scheme to use depends on the nature of the problem
at hand.
In this thesis, the implicit Newmark-/3 method [37] is employed.
The
method is second order accurate and is unconditionally stable for linear problems, in
that the solution does not grow without bound even when a large time step is used.
Unconditional stability of the method also applies for nonlinear problems, although
there is no rigorous proof in this case [27]. As a consequence of this condition the
method allows for the use of large time steps. Hence, time steps could simply be
based on the lowest fundamental frequency (highest period) rather than on the highest
frequency (which requires more effort to evaluate accurately) as would be the case
if a conditionally stable explicit scheme is used. This is particularly useful in the
present work since one of the aims of the study is to develop a simple formulation
which requires reduced run times.
The Newmark-/? method is also self starting, in that it requires only the initial
data to commence the solution and is thus a single step method - a desirable feature.
The method has also been applied successfully to many nonlinear structural problems
[27].
Chapter 4. Theoretical
Formulation
and Analysis
50
of Problem
One major disadvantage of an implicit integration scheme such as the Newmark(3 method is that it requires more storage space and computational effort in each
time step. However, the use of large time steps compensates for this deficiency. The
implementation of the integration scheme now follows.
The governing difference equations are given by
[M}{6}
+ [C}{8}
n+1
n+1
Wn+l =
+ f({S} )
+ A[(l - ) { * }
7
(4.53)
n+1
7tf}n+l]
Wn i = Wn + (At){6} + (At) [( +
= {P}
n+1
(4-54)
(3){6} + 0{8} ]
n+1
(4.55)
where [M], [C] are the global mass and damping matrices and the subscripts refer to
the time step number, A t is the time step interval, 7, f3 are parameters depending
For the Newmark scheme adopted here, 7 = 0.5 and
on the integration scheme.
f3 = 0.25. The nonlinear term
/({} i)
n+
represents the internal force vector at the
(n + l)th time step. Using a Taylor's series expansion this term can be expressed as
/(Wn+i) = /({*}) +
(4.56)
[K ]{AS}
T
N+1
where \KT\ is the global tangent stiffness matrix and

{AS}
n + 1
= {*}n i - {S}n
(4.57)
is the incremental displacement vector.

The acceleration vector is obtained from Equation (4.55) as
{8}
n+l
f3(Aty
{A8}-(At){6} -^(l-2(3){6}
n
(4.58)
which on substitution into Equation (4.54) gives
W i = ^ ) { > + i
M
+ ^ g ^ } " + ^2/3
2
7 )
W"
(4
59)
Chapter 4. Theoretical Formulation
51
Substituting Equations (4.55), (4.58) and (4.59) into Equation (4.53), the difference
equation can be written as
[K]{A6}
= {P}
n+1
(4.60)
n+l
where, [K] is an effective stiffness matrix given by

[K} =
J3(At)
21
W] + ^[C]
1
(3At
(4.61)
+ [K ]
T
and {P} is the effective load vector given by

{p}
,{Pu -m) + [ M ] ( ^ { ^
1
+ [C](^pWn
For linear problems,
displacement term {A6} i
n+
[KT]
[K]
+^ { % ) +
+ At2î{S} )
(4.62)
and f({S} )
n
[K]{6}
and the incremental
in Equation (4.60) has to be replaced by
{c^} i
n+
and the
effective load vector in this case is given by
4.6
Computer Code
A computer code named NAPSSE (Nonlinear Analysis of Plate Structures by Super Elements) has been written to implement the theory. The program is written
in F O R T R A N language. It is presently functioning on an I B M 3081K main frame
computer and a GA-386L microcomputer.
The program has the capabilities to perform static, vibration and transient analysis of unstiffened plates, beams and plates stiffened in one or two orthogonal directions.
Chapter 4.
Theoretical
Formulation
52
For static and transient analyses all possible combinations of material and geometric
nonlinearities can be specified. For these nonlinear analyses, the solution is obtained
by an iterative procedure and convergence is achieved if the maximum norm, defined
by \SAi/Ai\ ,
max
or the Euclidean norm, defined by i = ? ( A ; ) / D | = i ( A - ) , is less

2
than an acceptable tolerance specified by the user, where, A ; is the solution of the
nodal displacement variable i, SAi the correction factor for that variable and n the
total number of nodal variables.
Since not all nodal variables represent the actual displacements at the corresponding nodal points, the program furnishes additional output for the displacements at
specified locations within the plate or beam elements. These displacements have been
computed using the nodal solution vector in conjunction with the values of the respective shape functions at the predetermined locations. The program can also give
information on stresses and strains at the Gauss points, if required.
Chapter 5
Static Analysis Results
5.1
Introduction
In this chapter the super element formulation discussed in Chapter 4 is used to investigate the response of various plate structures subjected to applied static loads. The
governing equations of motion for this case reduce to
(5.1)
where {P} is the global load vector, and the equations are solved by Newton-Raphson
iteration as discussed in Chapter 4.
Although problems with nonlinear geometric and/or material behaviour are of
primary interest, the linear elastic responses have also been investigated to provide a
fuller understanding of the response characteristics of the new elements. In this case,
the governing equations solved are
[K]{8} = {P}
(5.2)
where [K] is the global stiffness matrix and no iteration is required here.
The applied loading is assumed to be uniformly distributed in all cases. For linear
elastic analysis the load is applied in one load step while for nonlinear analysis the
load is applied in several steps and accumulated up to the full load.
In keeping with the objectives of this work only one element is used to represent
a panel bay or beam span as the case may be. However, some exceptions to this
53
Chapter 5. Static Analysis Results
54
general rule have been made, in a few instances, to study the convergence properties
of the super elements or to employ discretizations similar to those used by other
investigators.
The problems analyzed are categorized according to structure type. First, unstiffened plates are analyzed in Section 5.2 and then beams acting alone, with no plating,
are considered in Section 5.3. Finally, Section 5.4 focuses on the response of plates
stiffened in one or two mutually perpendicular directions.
5.2
5.2.1
Unstiffened Plates
The dimensions and material properties of the square plate are as given below:
dimensions
100 mm x 100 mm x 1 mm
elastic modulus, E
205,000 N / m m
Poisson's ratio, v
0.3
The plate is simply supported all round. A uniform pressure load is applied and the
structure is modelled by one super plate element. This model has 55 gross and 15
net degrees of freedom. The boundary conditions are applied as follows:
At the four corner nodes all variables except the twist variable are constrained.
At the four mid-side nodes, all variables except the normal slope (e.g. w
y5
at
node 5) are set equal to zero.

At the middle node (node 9) all variables are left free.
(See Figure 3.3 for location of nodes and variables). Thus the structure is constrained
against in-plane motion.
55
First, a linear elastic analysis is carried out for an applied load of 0.1 N / m m .
2
The panel centre deflection and strain energy are presented in Table 5.1 together with
those obtained by the finite strip [19] (one mode solution) and exact [1] methods. It
is observed that the super element analysis is in excellent agreement with the finite
strip solution. However, it over estimates the exact central deflection by 1.2% and
under estimates the exact strain energy by only 0.4%. This excellent agreement of the
one-super element solution with both the finite strip and exact analyses demonstrates
its viability.
Table 5.1: Linear elastic response of simply supported Square Plate I
Present
(% Error)
Finite Strip
Exact
Central
Deflection (mm)
2.1887
(1.15)
2.1890
2.1639
Strain
Energy (Nm)
0.4517
(-0.4).
0.4512
0.4535
Contours of the cr stress at the bottom surface of the plate are plotted in Figx
ure 5.1. Note that the stress values have been computed only at the Gauss points
and these have been extrapolated linearly (depth wise) to the bottom or top surface.
Only the stresses computed at the 25 in-plane sampling points are used to plot the
contours.
The force boundary conditions are not exactly satisfied at the boundaries, in that
the stresses do not come out as zero along the edges as expected. However, the stress
distribution away from the boundaries comes out as expected and the peak stress
at the panel centre predicted by the super element is about 300 N / m m
compared
to the exact value of 287.4 N / m m . As expected in an approximate method based

2
on a displacement approach, the error in the stress (4.4%) is bigger than that in
the displacement. Since both the structure and loading are symmetric, the o~ stress
y
Chapter 5.
Figure 5.1: o~ stress in linear elastic simply supported Square Plate I

x
57
contour is also represented by Figure 5.1 with the x and y axes interchanged.
A small deflection, elastic-perfectly plastic (Ej = 0) analysis is carried out with
the yield stress being 300 N / m m . The load-displacement plot is shown in Figure 5.2
2
along with the finite strip and yield line results. The super element collapse load is
quite close to the finite strip prediction and is about 11% higher than the yield fine
solution.
0.25
0.20
S.S. Square Plate I

Small Deflection, Elastic-Plastic Analysis
Present
Finite Strip
Yield Line
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Central displacement (mm)

Figure 5.2: Central deflection in linear elastic-plastic simply supported Square Plate
I
Large deflection elastic and elastic-plastic central displacement responses are presented in Figure 5.3. For the elastic-plastic case, Ex = 1025 N / m m
and <r = 210

0
N / m m . Good agreement is observed between the present and the one mode finite
2
strip solutions.
The stiffening action due to the inclusion of the nonlinear strain
displacement terms is clearly demonstrated, in that at higher loads the central displacement from the large deflection elastic analysis is smaller than that from the
Chapter 5. Static Analysis
58
Results
linear elastic analysis. However, as expected, the solution shows some softening when
material nonlinearities are introduced.
0.5
S.S. Square Plate I
Large Deflection Analysis
Elastic//''/
'/'/ /
P l a s t i c
//
Present Analysis
Finite Strip
iJ /
J /
*//
*//
//
*/s
* f
(0
*J
*f
/ X
*^
0.1
Linear Elastic
0.0.
0.0
'
0.5
1
1.0
1.5
2.0
Central deflection (mm)

Figure 5.3: Central deflection in nonlinear analysis of simply supported Square Plate
I
The o~ stress contours at load levels of 0.04 N / m m and 0.2 N / m m for the large
2
deflection elastic case are plotted in Figures 5.4 and 5.5, respectively. At 0.04 N / m m
all of the bottom surface is in tension (positive stress), with the maximum tensile
stress being about 60 N / m m at the panel centre. However, the top surface is mostly
2
in compression (negative stress) and is only in tension near the middle of the two
edges parallel to the y-axis. The maximum compressive stress at the centre is 25
N/mm
and the maximum tensile stress at the edge is 7.5 N / m m . At 0.2 N / m m ,

2
membrane action predominates and both the top and bottom surfaces are now in
tension. The largest amount of membrane stretching occurs along the middle axis
parallel to the x-axis and a maximum tensile stress of 170 N / m m is noticed near the
2
59
third points along this axis.
5.2.2
Square Plate I with C l a m p e d
Edges
The same square plate discussed in Section 5.2.1 is analyzed again, but this time with
all edges clamped. The structure is again modelled by one super plate element and
all variables are restrained along the plate edges, so that the net number of variables
in the analysis is 7. All these variables are located at the middle node (node 9 in
Figure 3.3).
The linear elastic central displacement and strain energy responses at a load of 0.1
N / m m are shown in Table 5.2 along with the finite strip and exact response results.
2
It is observed that the one super element solution is in excellent agreement with
the one-mode finite strip solution [18] but over estimates the exact central deflection
by 5.8% and under estimates the exact strain energy by 6.2%. These errors are
significantly larger than the corresponding ones in the simply supported case due to
the fact that only one shape function, namely, Ng contributes to the response.
5
Table 5.2: Linear elastic response of clamped square plate I
Present, 1 element
(% Error)
Present, 2 elements
(% Error)
Present, 4 elements
(% Error)
Finite Strip
Exact
Central
Deflection (mm)
0.7102
(5.8)
0.6890
(2.6)
0.6699
(-0.2)
0.6915
0.6715
Strain
Energy (Nm)
0.0972
(-6.2)
0.1000
(-3.5)
0.1027
(-0.9)
0.1004
0.1036
Although the errors in the present analysis are quite acceptable for engineering
design purposes, improved solutions are sought by the use of finer meshes in order to
60
61
62
study the convergence properties of the super elements.
In Table 5.2 the solutions
obtained using 2 or 4 super elements are also presented. Note that i n these cases only
one element is actually used to model one half or a quarter of the structure,
with
symmetry conditions applied along the centre lines. T h e improvement i n the solution
w i t h element refinement is clearly evident.
T h e bottom surface normal stress, a , contours from the one element solution are
x
shown in Figure 5.6. T h e normal stress is compressive near the edges and tensile
i n the middle part.
A t the edges (x = 0 and x = 100 m m ) , the super element
predicts a maximum compressive stress of about 170 N / m m
which is significantly
less than the exact maximum compressive stress of 307.8 N / m m . T h i s large error i n
2
the boundary stress is due to the coarseness of the one element solution. However,
the exact maximum tensile stress at the plate centre is 138.6 N / m m
and from the
figure it is seen that the corresponding super element result is only slightly i n error.
T h e small deflection, elastic-perfectly plastic (E? = 0 and o~ = 300 M P a ) central
0
displacement response is shown i n Figure 5.7 along with the finite strip and yield line
analyses results. The super element predicts a collapse load of 0.415 M P a compared
to 0.400 M P a from the one mode finite strip analysis and 0.360 M P a from the yield
line analysis.
Large deflection, elastic-plastic central displacement responses are presented i n
Figure 5.8. Here, E
= 1025 N / m m
and <r = 210 N / m m .

2
G o o d agreement is
observed between the super element and finite strip solutions.

To study the effect of the sine terms i n the in-plane displacement fields (see Equations (3.1) and (3.2)) the large deflection elastic-plastic analysis is performed again
without the sin2^, sin4^, sm2v and sin4r/ terms i n the in-plane displacement fields.
A t a load of 0.8 M P a the predicted panel centre deflection is 2.08 m m compared to
2.41 m m when all the in-plane displacement functions have been included. Thus i n
this particular case the central displacement is stiffer by 14% i f the sine terms are
Figure 5.6: a stress in linear elastic clamped Square Plate I

x
63
Chapter
5.
Static
Analysis
Results
64
0.50
0.40
'c? 0.30
Clamped Square Plate I

0_
o
o
CO
0.20
Present
Finite Strip
Yield Line
0.10
0.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
Figure 5.7: Linear elastic-plastic response of clamped Square Plate I
ommitted in the formulation. This discrepancy is dependent on the parameters of the

problem and in general it is expected to be more for problems with more geometric
and material nonlinearities. It is important to note that without the sine functions in
the in-plane displacement fields the predicticted in-plane displacements are identically
zero everywhere. This, of course, is grossly incorrect. Hence to model the correct behaviour of the structure in the present formulation, the in-plane displacement fields
must contain the continuous sine functions.
The large deflection elastic normal stress, a contours at load levels of 0.2 N / m m
and 0.8 N / m m are plotted in Figures 5.9 and 5.10. At 0.2 N / m m , the central portion
2
of the bottom surface is in tension while the parts close to the plate boundaries are
in compression. The situation is reversed at the top surface. At 0.8 N / m m , when
2
membrane action is fully developed, the same trend is observed although the area over
65
Figure 5.8: Large deflection response of clamped Square Plate I
which tensile stresses act increases due to the membrane action and the maximum
tensile stress at the centre is about 500 N / m m . It is expected that with further
2
increase in the load level all of the plate will be in tension as observed in the simply
supported case.
5.3
Beams
5.3.1
In the analysis of beams acting alone, the eccentricity e in Equation (3.8) is set equal
to zero and the nodal degrees of freedom are assumed to be associated with the
beam centroidal axis. The rectangular beam previously solved by Abayakoon et al
[19] with the finite strip method has been chosen to evaluate the performance of the
66
Chapter 5.
67
Bottom
100.0
Stresses are in N/mm
Figure 5.10: o~ at 0.8 N / m m in nonlinear elastic clamped Square Plate I

2
Chapter 5.
68
super beam elements acting alone. The beam is simply supported and the dimensions
and material properties are:
length, a
500 mm
width, b
10 mm
depth, h
10 mm
elastic modulus, E
220,000 N / m m
plastic modulus, ET
yield stress, cr
300 N / mm
The beam is subjected to a uniform line load.

One super beam element is used to model the beam. This model has 10 gross and
6 net degrees of freedom. The linear solution central deflection, maximum normal
stress and strain energy at a load of 10 k N / m are displayed in Table 5.3. The super
element results are very close to both the finite strip and exact solutions. The super
element strain energy is on the low side of the exact answer by only 0.14%, while the
maximum stress is over estimated by 2.3%.
Table 5.3: Linear elastic response of simply supported rectangular beam
Present
(% Error)
Finite Strip
Exact
Central
Deflection (mm)
44.486
(0.22)
44.560
44.389
Strain
Energy (Nm)
70.924
(-0.14)
70.924
71.023
Maximum
Stress ( N / m m )
1917.4
(2.3)
1935.1
1875
2
A small deflection, elastic-perfectly plastic analysis is performed and the displacement response is presented in Figure 5.11 along with the yield line and finite strip
results. The present analysis is in agreement with the finite strip analysis and both
of these methods predict a higher collapse load than the yield line method in which
elastic deformations are ignored.
Chapter 5.
69
T h e large deflection, elastic and elastic-plastic central displacement responses are

plotted i n Figure 5.12. It is seen that the present analysis result compares very well
with the Timoshenko [1] and finite strip [19] results for the elastic case. Also, for the
elastic-plastic material case, the results from the present analysis agree well with the
other comparison results [19,38].
3.50
3.00 2.50
Z
2.00
S.S. Rectangular Beam
TJ
CO
*Q 1.50
0.00_
"0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
Figure 5.11: Linear elastic-plastic response of simply supported rectangular beam
Figure 5.13 shows the variation of the normal stress along the beam at various
load levels. T h e beam bottom surface is i n tension at all load levels and the m a x i m u m
stress at mid-span increases from 270 N / m m
at 2 k N / m to 895 N / m m
at 18 k N / m .
However, at the top surface, the beam is in tension near the ends and i n compression
near the middle.
Figure 5.12: Large deflection response of simply supported rectangular beam
Chapter 5.
71
200.0
Top Stresses
100.0
CO
Q.
~
to
0.0
6
CO
-100.0
-200.0
o
z
-300.0.
0.0
q = 2 kN/m
q = 10 kN/m
q = 18 kN/m
100.0
200.0
300.0
Distance (mm)
400.0
500.0
1000.0
Bottom Stresses
q = 18 kN/m
800.0
CO
~ 600.0 h
q = 10 kN/m
| 400.0
o
z
200.0
q = 2 kN/m
0.0.
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
Distance (mm)
400.0
500.0
Figure 5.13: Stresses in large deflection analysis of simply supported rectangular beam
Chapter 5.
5.3.2
72
Rectangular Beam with Clamped Ends
The same beam example considered in Section 5.3.1 is analyzed again but with the
beam ends fixed. All dimensions and material properties are the same. One super
beam element is also used to model the structure and in this case there are only 4
net degrees of freedom.
The structure is first subjected to a line load of 10 k N / m and the results obtained
in a linear elastic analysis are compared with the exact and finite strip results in
Table 5.4. The results obtained from the super element are in good agreement with
the other two solutions. The super element strain energy is only 0.8% lower than
the exact solution. As expected, higher errors are observed in the stress results.
The maximum bottom stress at mid-span is 7.7% higher than the exact value while
the maximum bottom stress at the clamped end is about 18% lower. Note that the
maximum stress at the support has been obtained by linear extrapolation (lengthwise) of the stresses obtained at the Gauss points.
This is partly responsible for
the relatively higher error in the maximum support stress. Only the bottom surface
stresses are presented in the table.
Table 5.4: Linear elastic response of clamped rectangular beam
Present
(% Error)
Finite Strip
Exact
Central
Displ. (mm)
8.975
(1.1)
8.987
8.878
Strain
Energy (Nm)
11.738
(-0.8)
11.754
11.837
Max. mid-span
Stress ( N / m m )
673.2
(7.7)
697.4
625.0
2
Max. end
Stress (N/mm )
-1026
(-17.9)
-1147
-1250
2
The large deflection elastic and elastic-plastic central displacement responses are
plotted along with the finite strip and yield line solutions in Figure 5.14. Excellent
agreement is observed between the super element and finite strip, Timoshenko [1] and
Chapter 5.
73
F E N T A B [39] solutions.
The variation of the normal stress along the beam is plotted at three load levels
10 k N / m when membrane action is just beginning, 40 k N / m when significant membrane action has taken place and 80 k N / m when membrane action is fully developed
in Figure 5.15. At all three load levels the bottom surface is in tension and the
maximum tensile stresses at the middle of the beam at these loads are 664 N / m m ,
2
1340 N / m m
and 1560 N / m m , respectively. At the top surface, at 10 k N / m , the

2
middle portion is in compression while the portions close to the ends are in tension.
But as the membrane force increases due to increase in load a larger portion of the top
surface is now in tension and at 40 k N / m the whole beam section goes into tension.
5.4
5.4.1
Stiffened Plates
Clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
The details of this problem are presented in Figure 5.16. All edges are clamped and
using symmetry, one half of the structure is modelled by one plate element and one
beam element. Note that the symmetry line divides the beam into two, and hence the
relevant beam section properties have to be halved in the computations. The super
element model has 55 gross and 11 net degrees of freedom.
Some of the linear elastic response results at a load of 0.001 N / m m are given in
2
Table 5.5 along with those from a finite strip analysis using 8 strips for one bay of the
structure. It is seen that the super elements overestimate the panel central deflection
by 2.2 percent and underestimate the strain energy by 3.7 percent, with respect to
the one mode finite strip solution.
The distribution of the in-plane displacement v (parallel to the stiffener) along y =
0.125 m is plotted in Figure 5.17. The discretization employed here consists of 2 super
elements (1 plate and 1 beam) for one quarter of the structure.
The present result
120.0
100.0
80.0
T3
60.0
CO
Q
40.0
20.0
Figure 5.14: Large deflection response of clamped rectangular beam

600.0
Top Stresses
q = 80 kN/m
400.0
CO
Q.
I
CO
q = 40 kN/m
200.0 h
0.0
-200.0 h
-400.0
0.0
q = 10 kN/m
100.0
200.0
300.0
Distance (mm)
400.0
500.0
1800.0
1600.0 -
Bottom Stresses
q = 80 kN/m
1400.0
CO
CL
1200.0
1000.0
CO
800.0
o
Z
600.0
^ = A W W
400.0
200.0
0.0
i
100.0
200.0
300.0
Distance (mm)
400.0
500.0
Figure 5.15: Stresses in large deflection analysis of clamped rectangular beam
Chapter 5.
76
y.v
2 Panels at 500 mm centres = 1000 mm
E
E
o
o
in
x, u
z, w
3 mm
10 mm-
LT
21 mm
Young's Modulus = 71,700 N/mm

Hardening Modulus = 358.5 N/mm
Yield Stress
Poisson's ratio
= 284 N/mm
= 0.33
Figure 5.16: Configuration of 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
Chapter 5.
77
Table 5.5: Linear elastic response of 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
Present
Finite Strip
Panel Center
Deflection (mm)
0.471
0.461
Stiffener Center
Deflection (mm)
0.042
0.052
Strain Energy
(Nm)
0.335
0.348
is the solid line, while the finite strip comparison result is shown dashed. The super
elements capture the shear lag effect but the predicted peak in-plane displacement
at the stiffener location is not as high as that predicted by the finite strips. This is
due to the fact that for the super elements the shear lag is modelled by a quadratic
shape function across the whole panel whereas for the finite strip case the shear lag
is represented more accurately by 8 strips parallel to the stiffener. By employing a
discretization which has 2 super plate elements parallel to the stiffener and 1 super
beam element (shown dotted), it is seen that the in-plane displacements from the
superelements approach the finite strip solution.
Figures 5.18 and 5.19 show the load-displacement relationships at the panel centre
and stiffener mid-point (points A and B in Figure 5.16), respectively, in a large
deflection analysis. Note that the super element model used in this case consists of
1 plate element and 1 beam element for one half of the structure. For elastic large
deflection analysis, the predictions from the super elements are quite close to those
by the finite strip method at low loads. However, at higher loads when membrane
action is fully developed, the deflections predicted by the super elements are larger
than those from the one mode finite strip analysis. At a load of 0.8 N / m m , for
2
example, the error in the super element panel centre deflection compared to the finite
strip solution is about 15%. However, at the same load level, the strain energy from
the present analysis is on the stiff side by only 0.8 percent.
This can be explained by making reference to Figure 5.20 where the displacement
78
2.0
1.5 ?1.0 E,
2 super elements for quarter of structure

3 super elements for quarter of structure
Finite Strip
Distance from clamped edge (m)
Figure 5.17: In-plane displacement in 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
profiles at three load levels 0.001 N / m m when the response is purely linear elastic;
2
0.04 N / m m when some membrane action has taken place; and 0.40 N / m m when
2
membrane action is fully developed are presented. It is seen that at all three load
levels, the super element solutions are stiffer along most of the profile, and are only
more flexible near the panel centre.
The super element results for large deflection elastic-plastic analysis also compare
well with the finite strip solution at low loads. At higher loads the results from the
present analysis tend to be more flexible than those from finite strips, although the
predictions from both analyses are still close.
Chapter 5.
79
1.00
0.80
Large Deflection Analysis
Elastic
Plastic
Present Analysis
Finite Strip
0.60
0_
T3
CO
O
0.40
0.20
Linear Elastic
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Panel centre displacement (mm)
25.0
Figure 5.18: Panel centre displacement in 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
5.4.2
Clamped DRES Stiffened Panel
Figure 5.21 shows details of the problem configuration. The panel was constructed
at the Defence Research Establishment in Suffield, Alberta (DRES) [40] and a static
analysis of the panel has been carried out using an earlier version of the general
purpose computer program A D I N A [41]. The material properties are E = 30 x 10
psi, E
= 0.178 x 10 psi, <r = 45 x 10 psi and v = 0.3.

6
The panel is clamped all round and the section A B C D is modelled by one plate
element and one beam element for half of the stiffener B C as shown in Figure 5.22.
Symmetry conditions are invoked along B C , C D and D A respectively. The model has
55 gross and 21 net degrees of freedom. This model, called Model 1, is used to enable
direct comparison with the A D I N A analysis for which only the portion A B C D was
modelled using 964 triangular elements, as shown in Figure 5.23. This representation
Stiffener centre displacement (mm)

Figure 5.19: Stiffener centre displacement in 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
assumes that the panel is effectively infinitely long with identically repeated bays and
stiffeners.
Some of the linear elastic response results at a load of 50 psi are presented in
Table 5.6 along with the ADINA solutions. The super elements under estimate the
panel centre and stiffener midspan deflections by 7.3 and 7.5 percent, respectively, as
compared \o the A D I N A analysis. The strain energy from the A D I N A analysis was
not available.
Load deflection plots for the panel centre (point D) and stiffener mid-span (point
C) from a large deflection analysis are shown in Figures 5.24 and 5.25, respectively.
For elastic analysis the displacement responses obtained from the super finite
elements are stiffer than the ADINA solutions. But for plastic analysis, the super
elements tend to be more flexible than the ADINA solution at higher loads. However,
Chapter 5.
Finite Strip
Present Analysis
Figure 5.20: Displacement shapes along C B of 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
er 5.
0.25 in
in
2.93 i r H
h"
0.53 in
5.645 in
Figure 5.21: Configuration of DRES stiffened panel
Chapter 5.
Figure 5.22: Super element models for DRES stiffened panel
83
Figure 5.23: A D I N A discretization of DRES stiffened panel
Chapter 5.
60.0
Elastic
Plastic
Panel centre deflection (in)
Figure 5.24: Displacement of point D in DRES stiffened panel
Chapter 5.
Figure 5.25: Displacement of point C in D R E S stiffened panel
Chapter 5.
87
Table 5.6: Deflections and strain energy in linear elastic DRES stiffened panel
Present
ADINA
Panel Centre
Deflection (in)
5.19
5.60
Stiffener Center
Deflection (in)
0.37
0.40
Strain
Energy (kip-in)
900
in both cases comparison with the A D I N A result is good and the displacement error in
the super element analysis is never more than 17 percent. The super element elasticplastic curves tend to branch out from the elastic curves earlier than the A D I N A
ones. This is probably due to the difference in the yield criteria: the present analysis
uses the von Mises yield criterion at each Gauss point, whereas the A D I N A analysis
for this example employed the Ilyushin criterion.
In Figures 5.24 and 5.25 the deflection plots obtained from a model which uses one
super plate element for the middle panel and two super beam elements for the two
middle stiffeners are also presented. This model, named Model 2 (see Figure 5.22) is
used to conform with the idea of using only a single element per bay. For both elastic
and elastic-plastic large deflection analyses the panel centre and stiffener mid-point
deflections predicted by Model 2 are larger than those predicted by Model 1. As
explained in the previous example this is only a localized phenomenon. The strain
energy for elastic problems from Model 1 is on the flexible side of that from Model 2,
as expected theoretically.
In Figures 5.26 and 5.27, top surface stress contours from a large deflection elastic
analysis using Model 1 are plotted at three load levels 0.5 psi when the response
is linearly elastic; 20 psi when considerable membrane action has taken place and 50
psi when membrane action is fully developed. Stresses in directions perpendicular
and parallel to the stiffeners are considered and contours are presented for a quarter
of the middle bay (portion A B C D ) . The top line represents the axis of the stiffener,
Results
88
the right line the clamped edge and the others represent lines of symmetry.
The contours for the normal stress perpendicular to the stiffener direction are
presented in Figure 5.26. At 0.5 psi the stress contours obtained from the super
elements are very similar to those from A D I N A . At 20 psi the stress contours from
the super elements are quite similar to those from A D I N A except that the maximum
stress predicted by the super elements is about 60 ksi compared to 80 ksi for ADINA.
However, the contours obtained from the present analysis seem more complete than
those from ADINA and besides, the effect of membrane stretching is more evident in
the present study. At 50 psi the super elements predict a maximum stress of about
90 ksi compared to ADINA's 120 ksi. The contours from the present study seem
reasonable but are not as similar to the A D I N A stress contours as for the previous
load levels, although the A D I N A plot does not look complete.
Figure 5.27 shows the contours for the normal stress parallel to the stiffener direction. There is very good agreement between the stress contours from the super
element and ADINA analyses at 0.5 psi. The stress free contour lines are almost
identical and the predicted maximum stress near the stiffener is about 1 ksi from
both methods. However, at the clamped edge, the super elements are only able to
predict a maximum stress of about 1.25 ksi compared to 3.5 ksi from the A D I N A
solution.
This is expected since the super element discretization is too coarse to
properly model the sharp stress gradient near the clamped boundary. At 20 psi and
50 psi the comparison between the present and A D I N A results is poor, although the
ADINA plot is incomplete. The super elements are, again, unable to model the sharp
stress gradients near the clamped edge and the predicted maximum stresses at the
clamped boundary are considerably lower than the A D I N A prediction. For example,
at the 50 psi load level A D I N A predicts a maximum stress of about 200 ksi while the
super element prediction is only about 70 ksi.
89
CODE
I
ADINA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
STRESS(psi)
- 2000
-I 000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
PRESENT
Figure 5.26(a) Normal stress perpendicular to the stiffener

at 0.5 psi .
90
CODE
ADINA
0
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
STRESS(psi)
-IOOOO
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
PRESENT
Figure 5 . 2 6 ( b ) Normal stress perpendicular to the stiffener

at 2 0 p s i .
:
91
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
STRESS(psi)
0
2000 0
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
PRESENT
Figure 5 . 2 6 ( c ) Normal stress perpendicular to the stiffener

at 5 0 p s i .
:
Chapter 5.
92
Figure 5.27(a) = Normal stress parallel to stiffener at 0.5psi.
93
5
6
7
20000
25000
30000
40000
60000
80000
100000
PRESENT
Figure 5.27(b) Normal stress parallel to stiffener at 2 0 p s i .

:
94
CODE STRESS(psi)
l
ADINA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
IOOOO
20000
30000
40000
50000
100000
150000
200000
PRESENT
Figure 5.27(c) Normal stress parallel to stiffener at 5 0 p s i .

:
Chapter 5.
5.4.3
95
So far, only one-way stiffened plate examples have been considered. This example
attempts to investigate the application of the super elements to two-way orthogonally
stiffened plates. The DRES1B panel is made up of the 5-bay D R E S stiffened panel
discussed in Section 5.4.2 with an additional T-beam located along G G ' of the panel
as shown in Figure 5.28. The beam dimensions are the same as in the DRES panel
and the material properties are E = 30 x 10 psi, E
6
0.178 x 10 psi, cr = 45 x 10
6
psi and v = 0.3.

In analogy to Model 1 for the DRES panel, a quarter of the two middle bays is
modelled by 3 super elements 1 plate and 2 beam elements to enable direct
comparison to a new version ADINA analysis in which the portion A B C D and the
beams C D and B C are modelled by 220 four node rectangular shell elements.
The
two discretizations are sketched in Figure 5.29. The super element model has 55 gross
and 21 net degrees of freedom.
Linear elastic displacement and strain energy responses at a load of 50 psi are
presented in Table 5.7 along with the A D I N A solution. The super element results
compare very well with those from the A D I N A analysis, with the latter being slightly
on the flexible side as the ADINA model has a finer mesh. In Table 5.7 the DRES1B
panel solutions are also compared with those of the DRES panel to show the effect of
the additional stiffener in the transverse direction. Clearly, the maximum deflection
in the system is reduced from about 5.2 in to about 4.2 in and the overall strain
energy is reduced by 36 percent.
The in-plane displacements parallel to the x- and y-direction stiffeners are shown
in Figure 5.30. In Figure 5.30(a) the u displacement from the super element analysis
is plotted along a line parallel to and 9 in from A D . The plot exhibits the shear lag
phenomenon, in that the displacement has a peak at the cross beam but dies out
away from the stiffener.
The corresponding A D I N A result is not available but in
er 5. Static Analysis Results
y.v
5 Panels at 36 In centre = 180 in
*
G
G"
A'
-Hh- 0.28 in
0.25 in
t
t
f
2.93 in -H
h*
0.53 in
5.645 in
Section G-G'
0.25 in
0.53 In
2 8 i n
Ûfein
5.645 in
Section A-A*
Figure 5.28: Configuration of DRES1B panel
Model 1
Figure 5.29: Models for DRES IB panel
98
Table 5.7: Deflections and strain energy in linear elastic DRES1B panel
Deflection at
Deflection at
Deflection at
Deflection at
Strain Energy
C (in)
D (in)
E (in)
F (in)
(kip-in)
DRES IB Panel
Present ADINA
0.37
0.45
0.38
0.49
4.23
4.20
0.21
0.30
580
DRES Panel
Present
0.37
5.19
4.73
0.21
900
Figure 5.30(b) the v displacement profiles along E F from the two analyses are presented and an excellent agreement between the super element and ADINA solutions
is observed. A n excellent agreement is also observed for the bending displacement, w
profiles along C D and E F as shown in Figure 5.31.
The linear elastic normal stress profiles near the beam axis, B C are plotted in
Figure 5.32 together with the A D I N A prediction. The stresses are computed at the
Gauss points and have been extrapolated to the top surface. Note that for the present
analysis the stresses at only the 5 Gauss points close to B C have been used for the
plotting.
The profiles from the super elements and ADINA follow a similar trend
for both cr and cr , but in general, the ADINA predicts higher peaks than the super
x
elements.
Next, a large deflection analysis is carried out with elastic or elastic-plastic material behaviour. The in-plane displacements along E F for the elastic material case
are compared with the A D I N A results in Figure 5.33. Both analyses predict a similar trend for the u and v displacements, with the ADINA being on the flexible side.
A reasonably good agreement also exists for the w displacement profiles along C D
and E F plotted in Figure 5.34. The maximum panel displacement at E was reduced
from 4.2 in for the small deflection case (see Figure 5.31) to about 0.9 in due to the
nonlinear geometric effects.
er 5.
0.0
8.0
16.0
99
24.0
32.0
40.0
Distance from edge CD (in)

(a), u displ. along x=9 in from edge AD
Figure 5.30: Linear elastic in-plane displacements in D R E S IB panel
48.0
Chapter 5.
100
Figure 5.31: Linear elastic bending displacements in DRES1B panel
The load-deflection responses at points C, D, E and F are given in Tables 5.8 and
5.9 for elastic or elastic-plastic material behaviour. The super finite element (S.F.E)
results compare very well with the ADINA solution.
The nonlinear load-deflection response results for points D and E from the present
and A D I N A analyses are also presented in Figure 5.35. The results from both analyses
are very close and follow the same trend. The ADINA solution is again more flexible
than the super element solution at most load levels.
For large deflection elastic analysis, the deflections at D are always less than those
at E since point D lies along a stiffener. However, for large deflection elastic-plastic
analysis, the deflections at D become larger than those at E for very high loads. This
happens at a load level of about 43 psi in the present analysis, but a little later, at
about 49 psi in the A D I N A solution.
101
500.0
x-stress along BC In L.E. DRES1B panel
"
"o
400.0
Present
ADINA
300.0
16.0
24.0
32.0
40.0
48.0
150.0
y-stress along BC in L.E. DRES1B panel
100.0
tn
|
50.0
0.0
Present
Ei-
-50.0
0.0
8.0
ADINA
16.0
24.0
32.0
40.0
Figure 5.32: Linear elastic normal stresses in DRES1B panel
48.0
Chapter 5
Static Analysis
Results
40.0
. u displ. along EF at 50 psi
*
30.0
DRES1B Panel
Large Deflection Elastic
*
\
20.0
//
//''
o
o
o
10.0
\
V
\
%
^X
/ *
/ *
/*
///y
///
/
//
//
- //
*
*
\ ^
\ ^
\
\
\
0.0
Present
ADINA
-10.0
-20.0.
0.0
...J
i_
3.0
6.0
9.0
12.0
Distance from BC (in)
15.0
18.0
5.0
) o I
' 0.0
'
3.0
6.0
9.0
12.0
Distance from BC (in)
15.0
18.0
Figure 5.33: Nonlinear elastic in-plane displacements in DRES1B panel
103
Table 5.8: Nonlinear elastic response of DRES1B panel

Load
(psi)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Displ. at C (in)
S.F.E. A D I N A
0.0
0.0
0.038
0.075
0.094
0.113
0.150
0.188
0.187
0.224
0.281
0.261
0.297
0.374
0.333
0.369
0.465
Displ. at D (in)
S.F.E. A D I N A
0.0
0.0
0.039
0.078
0.099
0.117
0.155
0.197
0.193
0.231
0.295
0.269
0.307
0.391
0.343
0.381
0.486
Displ. at E (in)
S.F.E. A D I N A
0.0
0.0
0.275
0.404
0.417
0.497
0.573
0.599
0.639
0.698
0.737
0.753
0.803
0.855
0.851
0.896
0.960
Displ. at F (in)
S.F.E. ADINA
0.0
0.0
0.022
0.044
0.058
0.066
0.088
0.115
0.109
0.130
0.171
0.151
0.172
0.226
0.193
0.214
0.281
Table 5.9: Nonlinear elastic-plastic response of DRES1B panel

Load
(psi)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
32.5
33.0
35.0
37.5
38.0
40.0
45.0
49.0
50.0
Displ. at C (in)
S.F.E. A D I N A
0.0
0.0
0.038
0.047
0.075
0.094
0.141
0.113
0.155
0.188
0.201
0.239
0.276
0.316
0.340
0.395
0.470
0.488
0.653
0.721
0.887
0.895
1.373
1.292
1.575
1.774
1.639
Displ. at D (in)
S.F.E. A D I N A
0.0
0.0
0.039
0.049
0.078
0.099
0.117
0.148
0.160
0.198
0.216
0.250
0.283
0.329
0.347
0.410
0.478
0.509
0.662
0.740
0.897
0.915
1.382
1.315
1.598
1.783
1.663
Displ. at E (in)
S.F.E. A D I N A
0.0
0.0
0.275
0.279
0.404
0.417
0.497
0.517
0.577
0.604
0.654
0.685
0.733
0.778
0.785
0.854
0.862
0.927
0.956
1.081
1.063
1.188
1.265
1.426
1.597
1.479
1.636
Displ. at F (in)
S.F.E. ADINA
0.0
0.0
0.022
0.029
0.044
0.058
0.066
0.086
0.091
0.115
0.126
0.146
0.169
0.198
0.207
0.256
0.321
0.276
0.369
0.473
0.488
0.583
0.724
0.830
1.005
0.930
1.045
Figure 5.34: Nonlinear elastic bending displacements in DRES IB panel
In Figure 5.36 the large deflection elastic-plastic displacement profiles along A D

and B C are plotted at three load levels 20 psi when yielding has just begun, 40
psi when considerable yielding has taken place and the displacement at D is still
less than that at E and finally, at 50 psi when the displacement at D has exceeded
that at E . At 20 psi the displacement profiles predicted by the super element and
A D I N A analyses are quite close, with the A D I N A solution on the flexible side. At
this load level, the displacements along B C are much smaller than those along A D .
At higher load levels the predictions from both analyses are still close but it is clear
that the displacements along B C approach those along A D . This phenomenon might
be due to the fact that as yielding progresses, with increased loading, the stiffness of
the beams reduces significantly so that their stiffening action becomes insignificant
and the entire panel deforms effectively as an orthotropic plate. Consequently, the
Results
60.0 i
Displacements (in)
Figure 5.35: Nonlinear displacements of points D and E in DRES1B panel
105
106
displacement at point D becomes larger than that at point E at higher loads.

Stresses at the top surface of the panel near the beam axis B C are displayed in
Figure 5.37, for the large deflection elastic case at a load level of 50 psi. Clearly, the
profiles from both the present and A D I N A analyses follow the same trend, but the
super elements grossly underestimate the maximum stresses since they do not have
enough modes to model the steep stress gradients near the beam B C . This situation is
similar to that observed for the clamped Square Plate I case where the present analysis
grossly underestimates the stresses near the boundaries but gives a good prediction of
stresses away from the boundaries. The x- and y- normal stress contours at the panel
top surface are plotted in Figures 5.38 and 5.39. Unfortunately, the corresponding
A D I N A results are not available for comparison.
5.4.4
Simply Supported 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
Details of this problem are presented in Figure 5.40. The material properties are: E
= 30,000 ksi, Ej 180 ksi, cr = 45 ksi and v 0.3 and the structure is subjected
0
to a uniform pressure load. All the stiffened plate boundaries are simply supported.
This problem has previously been solved by Rossow and Ibrahimkhail [42] using a
constraint method approach in finite element analysis.
One quarter of the symmetric structure is modelled, using one super plate element
and two super beam elements. The structure is unconstrained against in-plane motion
and hence the boundary conditions are applied as follows:
along x = 0; u j+ 0, v = w = w = 0
y
along y = 0; u = 0, v ^ 0, w = w = 0.
x
Thus this model has 25 net degrees of freedom.

A linear elastic analysis is performed for an applied load of 10 psi. In Figure 5.41
the deflected shapes along x = 7.5 in and x 15.0 in are plotted. It can be seen from
&
A Deflections along B C , Present

Deflections along A D , Present
O D e f l e c t i o n s a l o n g B C . ADINA
D e f l e c t i o n s a l o n g A D , ADINA
Figure 5.36: Large deflection elastic-plastic displacement profiles in DRES1B panel

200.0
DRES1B Panel
Large Deflection Elastic Analysis
0-
150.0
50 psi
"Q.
[j
Present
ADINA
0.0.
'0.0
8.0
16.0
24.0
32.0
40.0
48.0
100.0
30 o U
&
60.0
40.0
DRES1B Panel
-20.0
-40.0.
0.0
re-
8.0
50 psi
present
ADINA
16.0
24.0
32.0
40.0
48.0
Figure 5.37: Nonlinear elastic normal stresses in DRES IB panel
Chapter
5.
Static Analysis
Results
Stresses are in ksi
109
5 0 psi
Figure 5.38: Normal stress a in nonlinear elastic DRES IB panel

x
5. Static Analysis
Results
Stresses are in ksi
Figure 5.39: Normal stress o~ in nonlinear elastic D R E S IB panel

y
Results
y.v
0.25 in
5 in
11 0.5 in
CO
Section X X
A
rX
A'
o
CO
0.25 in
i
_
3 in
I 0.5 in
Section YY
B'
15 in
x,u
15 in
Figure 5.40: Details of 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
112
the figure that the comparison between the super element and constraint method
solutions is quite good. The super elements predicts a panel centre displacement
of 0.067 in while the constraint method gives 0.062 in. The strain energy from the
present analysis is 239.1 in-lb.
Constraint Method
-80.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Distance from edge y=0 (in)
25.0
30.0
Figure 5.41: Bending displacements in linear elastic 2X 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
The in-plane displacement distributions obtained from the present analysis only
are presented in Figure 5.42. The displacements are plotted along the two orthogonal
axes passing through the centre of the bay (that is, along x = 7.5 in and y = 15 in).
The bottom surface normal stresses are presented in Figures 5.43 and 5.44 along
with the constraint method results. In general, the super element plots are similar
to the comparison results, but the discrepancies between the two methods are more
pronounced here than in the displacements.
I I
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
Non-dimensional distance from edge to stiffener
1.0
Figure 5.42: In-plane displacements in linear elastic 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
A large deflection analysis is now carried out, first with the in-plane displacements unconstrained at the boundaries as discussed above and secondly, with them
constrained along the boundaries. For the latter case all in-plane displacement variables at the boundaries are set equal to zero and the net degrees of freedom is 21.
Unfortunately no comparison results are available for the nonlinear problem.
The displacement responses at points F and G for the elastic and elastic-plastic
cases are presented in Tables 5.10 and 5.11, respectively.
Consider the elastic case. At a load of 10 psi the imposition of in-plane constraint
results in a reduction of 6.1% in the displacement of point F. This difference in the
deflection of point F for the unconstrained and constrained conditions increases with
load, as membrane action developes, and at 100 psi when membrane action is fully
developed, the difference in the solutions for the two boundary conditions increases

20.0
114
2x2 - Bay Stiffened Plate

Linear Elastic Analysis
10.0
SN
Along y = 15 in
0.0
Along y = 30 in
10.0
-20.0
-30.0
0.0
Present
Constraint Method
5.0
10.0
Distance from edge x = 0 (in)
15.0
Figure 5.43: Normal stress o~ in linear elastic 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I

x
to 24.6%. The same behaviour is observed in the deflection of point G and here, the
imposition of in-plane constraint reduces the deflection by 22.2% and 34.7% at 10 psi
and 100 psi, respectively. The overall strain energy also shows the same trend and at
100 psi the strain energy is reduced by about 25% due to the in-plane constraint.
For the elastic-plastic case, the stiffening action induced by in-plane constraint
is more pronounced at higher loads when considerable plastification has taken place.
For example, at 100 psi the deflections of points F and G are reduced by about
45% and 62%, respectively.
These results demonstrate that in performing a large
deflection analysis of a structure with simply supported boundaries the correct inplane boundary conditions must be apphed.
115
Table 5.10: Nonlinear elastic response of 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I

Load
(psi)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No In-plane Constraint
Displacements (in) Strain Energy
At F
At G
(in-kips)
0.066
0.009
0.24
0.126
0.018
0.91
0.177
0.028
1.93
0.222
3.24
0.037
0.261
0.047
4.81
0.297
0.057
6.61
0.329
0.066
8.62
0.360
0.077
10.8
0.388
0.085
13.2
0.415
0.095
15.8
With In-plane Constraint

Displacements (in) Strain Energy
At F
At G
(in-kips)
0.062
0.007
0.22
0.112
0.013
0.79
0.150
0.020
1.62
0.182
0.026
2.65
0.032
0.210
3.84
0.234
0.038
5.18
0.256
0.044
6.67
0.276
0.050
8.28
0.295
0.056
10.0
0.313
0.062
11.9
Table 5.11: Nonlinear elastic-plastic response of 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I

Load
(psi)
10
20
30
40
50
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
No In-plane Constraint
Displ. at F (in) Displ. at G (in)
0.066
0.009
0.126
0.018
0.177
0.028
0.222
0.037
0.265
0.050
0.312
0.070
0.340
0.090
0.112
0.369
0.407
0.151
0.464
0.232
0.523
0.315
0.587
0.413
0.658
0.527
0.727
0.637

Displ. at F (in) Displ. at G (in)
0.062
0.007
0.112
0.013
0.150
0.020
0.182
0.026
0.211
0.033
0.042
0.238
0.252
0.048
0.268
0.066
0.284
0.074
0.301
0.098
0.323
0.120
0.355
0.183
0.374
0.214
0.393
0.244
Chapter 5.
Static Analysis
116
Results
10.0
Along x = 7.5 in
5.0
0.0
CO
& -5.0
0*
-10.0 -
Along x = 15 in \
2x2 - Bay Stiffened Plate I
-15.0
-20.0
Present
Constraint Method
0.0
5.0
10.0 15.0 20.0

Distance from edge y = 0 (in)
25.030.0
Figure 5.44: Normal stress a in linear elastic 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I

y
The u, v and w displacement profiles at 100 psi in the large deflection, elasticplastic case are plotted along the stated axes in Figures 5.45, 5.46 and 5.47, respectively. The effect of in-plane constraint is clearly displayed by these profiles.
Chapter 5.
117
40.0
Large Deflection Elastic-Plastic Analysis
Profile along y = 15 in at 100 psi
30.0
o
o
o
20.0
Unconstrained
Constrained
10.0
0.0
-10.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Distance from edge x = 0 (in)
15.0
Figure 5.45: Nonlinear elastic-plastic u displacement profile along y = 15 in in simply

supported 2 x 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
Chapter 5.
118
15.0
Profile along x = 7.5 in at 100 psi
Unconstrained
Constrained
-5.0
-10.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Distance from edge y = 0 (in)
Figure 5.46: Nonlinear elastic-plastic v displacement profile along x = 7.5 in in simply

supported 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I
119
Figure 5.47: Nonlinear elastic-plastic w displacement profile along x = 7.5 in in

Chapter 6
Vibration Analysis Results
6.1
Introduction
Prior to the presentation of the transient applications of the super elements, the
adequacy of the consistent mass matrices derived in Chapter 4 is investigated by performing vibration studies of various stiffened plate structures. Only linear undamped
vibrations are considered and, in this case, the governing equations of motion may be
expressed as
(-u, [M] +
2
[K]){6} =
{0}
(6.1)
where u is the frequency, [M], [K] are the global mass and stiffness matrices, respectively, {<!>} represents the global displacement amplitude vector and {0} is a null
vector.
First, results are presented for unstiffened plates with various boundary conditions in Section 6.2. The vibration response of beams acting alone is investigated in
Section 6.3, while the results for stiffened plates are discussed in Section 6.4. In all
the examples illustrated here only one super element per bay or span is used, unless
otherwise noted.
120
Chapter 6. Vibration Analysis Results
6.2
6.2.1
121
Unstiffened Plates
Square Plates with Various Edge Conditions
This problem has been analyzed by several investigators [43] using exact or other
approximate methods.
It is presented here to assess the performance of the super
element formulation against other theories.

In each case, only one super plate element is used to model the structure.
The
gross number of variables in each case is 55 and the net number of variables varies
from 55 for the case with all edges free to 7 for the case with all edges clamped. However, these net numbers include in-plane variables which uncouple from the bending
displacements that are of interest here. So strictly, the clamped case, for example,
has only one variable while the all sides free case has 25 flexural vibration modes.
The natural frequencies are presented in terms of the non-dimensional parameter
A, given by
A =
where D = Eh /12(l
3
>7T
u ) is the plate flexural rigidity, h is the plate thickness,

2
p the mass density, u> the frequency in rad/sec, and a the side length of the plate.
The non-dimensional frequencies for the various combinations of edge conditions are
presented in Table 6.1. The edge conditions are described by a combination of letters
C for clamped, F for free and S for simply supported, starting from the left edge
and moving clockwise.
For the all sides simply supported case the exact eigenvalues are obtained from
the formula [44]
where a, b are the plate dimensions and m, n = 1,2,... are the numbers of half waves
in the in-plane directions of the plate. The other comparison results are as compiled
by Durvasula et al [43] based on the works in [45,46,47,48].
Chapter 6.
122
Table 6.1: Eigenvalues of square plates with various edge conditions

Case
CCCC
cccs
scsc
cess
sssc
CFCF
ssss
FFFF
SCSF
Reference
Present
Ref. [43]
Present
Ref. [43]
Present
Ref. [43]
Present
Ref. [43]
Present
Ref. [43]
Present
Ref. [43]
Present
Ref. [43]
Present
Ref. [43]
Present
Ref. [43]
A
Mode 1
Mode 2
13.37
13.40
10.45
10.49
8.63
8.64
7.55
7.60
5.75
5.77
5.07
5.14
4.00
4.00
2.02
2.04
1.66
1.65
74.83
41.62
41.59
31.13
70.96
37.13
38.07
27.75
7.25
7.27
35.38
25.00
4.11
4.34
11.60
11.22
The fundamental eigenvalues obtained from the super element formulation are
very close to the other results in all nine cases considered. In all cases, the error
in the first eigenvalue from the super element is less than 1.4 percent.
However,
the error in the second or higher modes is significant in some of the cases. This is
expected because of the limited number of variables available in the super element. In
particular, for the C C C C case, since there is only one bending degree of freedom, no
higher modes are obtained at all. However, as the net number of variables increases,
as in the F F F F case for example, the error in the higher mode eigenvalues decreases.
6.2.2
123
3-Bay Continuous Plate
Figure 6.1 shows the configuration of the problem.
The long sides A B and D C
are simply supported and the two other edges are both either clamped or simply
supported. The structure is modelled by 3 super plate elements and the gross number
of variables for this model is 129. When all the sides are simply supported the net
number of bending displacement variables is 21 and the number is 15 for the case
with edges A D and B C clamped.
Figure 6.1: Configuration of 3-bay continuous plate
The natural frequencies are presented in terms of the non-dimensional parameter

A , given by
where w is the natural frequency in radians per second, D is the plate flexural rigidity,
h the plate thickness, p the mass density and I is as defined in the figure.
Chapter 6.
124
In Table 6.2 the first three natural frequencies obtained from the super elements
are compared with a finite strip analysis by Wu and Cheung [49], for the two different
boundary conditions along edges A D and B C . All frequencies predicted by the super
elements are in excellent agreement with those from the finite strip analysis.
Table 6.2: Natural frequencies of 3-bay continuous plate

Mode
Number
1
2
3
6.2.3
A '
A D and B C Simply Supported
Present
F.S. [49]
12.94
12.94
19.74
20.20
21.54
21.61
A D and B C Clamped
Present
F.S. [49]
12.99
12.98
20.84
22.84
25.89
25.67
2 x 2-Bay Continuous Plate
The configuration of the plate, as well as the material properties are as shown in
Figure 6.2. The structure is modelled by four plate elements one for each bay.
This model has 154 gross and 48 or 32 net degrees of freedom for simply supported
or clamped boundaries, respectively.
A n equivalent model, one for which a plate
element is used to represent a quarter of the structure, could be used to reduce the
total number of variables to 55 but this requires four runs for the various symmetry
conditions along the centre lines.
In Table 6.3, the first six natural frequencies obtained from the present analysis
are compared to those obtained by the use of continuous beam functions in a finite
strip analysis [49], for clamped and simply supported boundaries.
The first four
frequencies from the super elements are quite close to the finite strip solutions, with
the error in those modes being less than 2%. However, the error increases from the
fifth mode up. This is expected as the super element representation does not have
125
Line supports
Figure 6.2: Configuration of 2 x 2-bay continuous plate
enough modes to properly represent the higher modes. In this work, only the first
few modes are of interest and hence the representation is quite adequate.
6.3
6.3.1
Beams
Rectangular Beams with Various Boundary Conditions
This example is used to illustrate the vibration characteristics of the super beam
elements acting alone.
T h e beam dimensions are:
length, a = 500 mm; width,
b = 10 m m ; depth, h = 10 m m and the material properties are:
E = 220,000
M P a ; p = 7900 k g / m . Various boundary conditions are considered and in each case

3
the structure is modelled by one super beam element.
Define the non-dimensional
126
Table 6.3: Natural Frequencies of 2x2-Bay Continuous Plate

Mode
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
parameter A = u> y/pA^/EI,
A = UJI ^ /(ph/D)
2
S.S. Case
F.S. [49] Present
19.74
20.05
23.67
23.67
23.68
23.67
27.11
27.11
49.35
58.71
49.74
60.67
Clamped Case
F.S. [49] Present
27.11
27.65
31.92
31.90
31.96
31.90
36.17
36.09
60.78
83.14
61.62
85.38
where, p is the mass density, A the beam cross-sectional
area, u> the frequency in rad/sec, a the beam length and EI is the beam flexural
rigidity.
In Table 6.4 the frequencies obtained for five end conditions are compared with
the exact results [50]. The boundary conditions are specified by the letters: C for
clamped, F for free and S for simply supported. The super element and exact first
mode frequencies for all cases are in excellent agreement. Since the super element uses
the exact first vibration mode for the clamped beam, the super element fundamental
frequency for the C C case is expected to be exact but the result obtained is slightly
in error by 0.13%. This is probably due to errors in numerical integration.
The
second mode frequencies are not as good as the first mode frequencies because of the
limited number of variables in the analysis. Improved higher mode frequencies can
be obtained by using two or more super elements.
127
Table 6.4: Natural frequencies of rectangular beams

Case
FF
CC
CS
SS
CF
6.4
6.4.1
Reference
Present
Exact
Present
Exact
Present
Exact
Present
Exact
Present
Exact
A
Mode 1
22.45
22.40
22.37
22.40
15.44
15.40
9.87
9.87
3.52
3.52
Mode 2
91.65
61.70
61.70
73.80
50.00
50.20
39.50
22.13
22.00
Stiffened Plates
2-Bay Stiffened Plate II with Clamped Boundaries
Figure 6.3 shows details of the problem. One quarter of the structure is represented
by two elements one plate element and one stiffener beam element. This model has
55 gross degrees of freedom and is used to enable direct comparison with the finite
element solution given in [51], where only a quarter of the structure was modelled by
21 elements eighteen 36 degree of freedom high precision triangular elements and
three 18 degree of freedom refined beam elements. The two models are also shown in
Figure 6.3. Four symmetry conditions are considered and the net degrees of freedom
for the four cases are presented in Table 6.5. It can be seen from the table that there
is a significant reduction in the problem size by using the super elements as compared
to the regular finite elements.
The first six natural frequencies from the super elements are compared to the finite
element and experimental results in Table 6.6 for two cases of rib sizes - one, the full
rib case, for which the stiffener dimensions are h = 12.7 mm, t = 6.35 mm; and
a
203 mm
E = 68,900 MPa
Density = 2670 kg/m
E
E
Poisson's ratio = 0.3
X,U
1.37 mm
t = 6.35 mm
8
ymmafry
Super Element Grid
h 8 = 12.7 mm
aymmtry
Finite Element Grid
Figure 6.3: Configuration and discretizations for 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II
129
Table 6.5: Comparison of net number of variable in 2-bay stiffened plate

Symmetry
Case
symm-symm
symm-anti
anti-symm
anti-anti
Net number of variables

Present
F.E. [51]
94
16
15
88
15
85
12
80
the reduced rib case for which h = 9.65 mm and t = 4.83 mm. The experimental
a
results are obtained from real-time holograhic interferometry [51]. The symmetry
conditions apphed along the centre lines C A and A D in the super element analysis
are denoted by the symbols. A for anti-symmetric and S for symmetric in the
second column. Thus AS, for example, stands for anti-symmetry conditions along line
C A and symmetry conditions along line A D . The frequencies in parentheses represent
the results obtained from the super element analysis with the torsional stiffness of
the beams ignored.
The frequencies for modes 2, 4 and 6 are insensitive to the presence of the torsional
beam element. These modes correspond to situations in which symmetry conditions
are apphed along line A D (beam axis) such that the rotation (w ) along this line
x
is zero. However, it is seen that the natural frequencies for modes 1, 3 and 5 are
significantly lower in the analysis with no stiffener beam torsion than the case in which
torsion is included. These modes correspond to situations in which anti-symmetric
conditions are apphed along line A D . For these situations significant beam rotations
occur, which ought not to be ignored. Hence, the effect of beam torsion has been
included in all the dynamic analysis results that follow.
All frequencies from the super elements are very close to the experimental and
regular finite element results. For example, for the full rib case, the first frequency
from the present analysis is only 6.9 and 2.6 percent higher than the experimental
130
Table 6.6: Natural frequencies of 2-bay stiffened panel

Mode
Symmetry
Number
1
Condition
SA
SS
AA
AS
SA
SS
Present
736.8
(597.8)
769.4
(769.4)
1019.6
(899.5)
1032.3
(1032.3)
1483.7
(1376.3)
1488.3
(1488.3)
Natural Free uencies (Hz)

Full Rib
Reduced Rib
F.E. [51] Exp. Present
F.E. [51]
718.1
689
679.1
670.7
(597.8)
751.4
725
716.9
724.0
(716.9)
997.4
977.2
961
990.1
(899.5)
1007.1
986
1002.1
1022.9
(1022.9)
1419.8
1376
1469.3
1408.7
(1376.3)
1424.3
1413
1414.1
1442.3
(1442.3)
Exp.
627
662
924
953
1370
1338
and finite element results, respectively. As expected, the present analysis is on the
stiff side of the experimental results. Also, the present representation, being coarser,
is generally on the stiff side of the regular finite element solution. However, it is
significant that the error in the super element predictions is very small, in spite of
the fact that the present analysis uses significantly fewer variables.
6.4.2
3-Bay Stiffened Panel with Clamped Edges
The structure is made up of a 203 mm square plate reinforced by two equally spaced
ribs as shown in Figure 6.4. The plate thickness is 1.27 mm. For the full ribs h 17.8
s
mm, t = 2.29 mm and for the reduced ribs case h = 12.7 mm, t = 1.85 mm. The
s
material properties are: E = 68,900 M P a , p = 2670 k g / m
and u = 0.3.
This
problem has previously been solved by Olson and Hazel [51] using the regular finite
element method.
The super element and regular finite element discretizations used to model the
ipter 6. Vibration Analysis Results
' y,v
a/3
j-
a/3
a/3
_|
E
E
8
II
CO
x,u
1.27 mm
L
h
symmetry
clamped
Super Element Grid
symmetry
clamped
Finite Element Grid
Figure 6.4: Configuration and discretizations for 3-bay stiffened plate
Table 6.7: Comparison of net number of variable in 3-bay stiffened plate

Symmetry
Case
symm-symm
symm-anti
anti-symm
anti-anti

Present
F.E. [51]
104
36
35
101
33
102
99
30
structure are also displayed in the figure and the net numbers of variables associated
with the two models for the four symmetry cases are compared in Table 6.7. Again,
there are significantly fewer variables for the super element model than the regular
finite element model.
The natural frequencies obtained from the super elements are presented in Table 6.8 along with the finite element and experimental results for both cases of rib
sizes. Stiffener beam torsional effects have been included in all analyses. The super
element predictions are in agreement with the experimental and finite element results
except for mode 1 in the full ribs case which is 18% stiffer than the experimental
result. It is not clear why the error in this mode is much bigger than in other modes.
However, the viability of the super element formulation is clearly exhibited in that
most of the super element solutions are close to the experimental and regular finite
element results, even though the method uses significantly fewer variables.
In general, the super element analysis is stiffer than the experiment, except for
mode 3 in the reduced ribs case and mode 4 in the full ribs case, contrary to what is
expected of a displacement based theory. Since this phenomenon was also noticed in
the finite element solution it is likely that the experimental procedure did not measure
the frequencies of those modes accurately.
132
133
Table 6.8: Natural frequencies of 3-bay stiffened panel

Mode
Symmetry
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Condition
SS
SA
SS
AS
AA
AS
6.4.3
Present
1072.8
1334.2
1410.3
1483.2
1649.2
1730.5
Natural Frequencies (Hz)

Full Rib
Reduced Rib
F.E. [51] Exp. Present F.E. [51]
965.3
909
938.5
928.6
1204 1178.6
1272.3
1205.1
1364.3
1319 1182.4
1229.8
1418.1
1506 1330.4
1274.6
1557.4
1602.9
1560 1569.8
1757.1
1693 1674.5
1714.5
Exp.
859
1044
1292
1223
1503
1650
DRES Stiffened Panel
The panel configuration is the same as that in Figure 5.21, except that in this case the
beams have a depth of 5.85 in and a flange width of 2.95 in. The material properties
are the same, and in addition, the mass density is 0.733 x 10~ l b - s / i n .
3
Using symmetry, half of the structure is modelled by 3 plate elements and 2 beam
elements. The natural frequencies obtained are presented in Table 6.9 along with those
computed by A D I N A and finite strips [11,20]. In the finite strip analysis 11 strips are
used to model one half of the structure. Two symmetry conditions are considered in
the present case so both symmetric and anti-symmetric modes are captured. Only
symmetric mode results are available from the other two methods.
The mode 1 and 3 frequencies obtained from the superelements are significantly
lower than those obtained from the finite strip or ADINA programs. It is suspected
that this anomaly might be due to the significant presence of torsion in the stiffener
beams for these modes. To investigate this, a one mode Ritz approximation of the
fundamental frequency, using the approximating function sin 7r(l C O S 27r7;) is carried
out to check the results obtained from the program. The result obtained from this
analysis 29.8 Hz seems to corroborate the super element solution. Since these
134
Table 6.9: Natural frequencies of D R E S stiffened panel

Mode
Number
1
2
3
4
5

Present F.S. [20] A D I N A [11]
40.33
41.01
30.25
33.32
37.59
41.70
41.99
41.73
43.44
42.50
42.80
two solutions are based on the same theory, it does seem that the discrepancy between
the super element solution and the finite strip and A D I N A solutions might be due
to the difference in the modelling of the stiffeners the super element uses beam
theory while the others use plane stress elements to model the beams.
However, the frequencies of the fifth mode from all three analyses are quite close
and the super element solution is a little on the stiff side as expected.
6.4.4
2 x 2-Bay Stiffened Plate
The structure is made up of a clamped rectangular plate stiffened by two identical,

eccentric, orthogonally placed and centrally located rectangular beams.
The plate
dimensions are: a = 304.5 mm, b 203.0 mm, (a/b = 1.5) h = 1.37 mm and
the beams are 6.35 mm wide and 11.33 mm deep.
The material properties are:
E = 71 x 10 N / m , p = 2700 k g / m and v = 0.3. This example was introduced by

9
Balendra and Shanmugam [52] as an extension of the 2-bay example of Section 6.4.1
with the same width, plate thickness, etc. They have used the grillage method in
their analysis.
For the present analysis symmetry is invoked and a quarter of the structure is
modelled using 1 plate and 2 beam elements. The first five fundamental frequncies
are given in Table 6.10. The letters in parentheses represent the symmetry conditions
Chapter 6.
135
applied along the longer and shorter centre lines, respectively. The letter, A stands
for anti-symmetry and S for symmetry. The first frequency from the super elements
compares well with the grillage method solution and is only 6.3 percent on the stiff
side. No comparisons exist for the higher modes. Note that the first four frequencies
are very closely spaced.
Table 6.10: Natural frequencies of 2 x 2-bay stiffened plates

Mode
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Frequencies (Hz); a/b 1.5

Present
Grillage Method [52]
846.1 (AA)
796.1
846.8 (SS)
849.4 (AS)
862.0 (SA)
1448.0 (SS)
Frequencies (Hz); a/b = 1.0

Present
1149.6 (SS)
1152.5 (AA)
1161.9 (AS)
1161.9 (SA)
2042.1 (SS)
In Table 6.10 the frequencies obtained for the case in which a = b 203 mm (i.e.
a/b 1.0) are also presented without comparison results. However, the stiffening
action of the additional cross beam is clearly displayed, in that, these frequencies are
significantly higher than those for the full ribbed 2-bay stiffened plate (see Table 6.6).
Again, the first four frequencies are all closely spaced.
6.4.5
2x4-Bay Stiffened Plate with Clamped Edges
A schematic representation of the structure is shown in Figure 6.5. The plate is

clamped all round and the material properties are: E = 71 x 10 N / m , p = 2700
9
k g / m and v = 0.3. Due to symmetry only one quarter of the structure is modelled
3
with six super elements 2 plate and 4 beam elements as shown in the figure.
This model has 92 gross number of variables and the net degrees of freedom is never
more than 16 for the four symmetry conditions.
The first six natural frequencies are presented in Table 6.11. The first frequency
y.v
E
E
4 at 76.125 mm centres = 304.5 mm
CM
9>
l B
E
E
io
CO
CM
x,u
1.37 mm
J
T
2.117mm -*IU-
1.37 mm
J
T
12.7 mm
6.35 mm*-l r e -
Section AA (Typical)
12.7 mm
section BB
symmetry
clamped
Super Element Grid

Figure 6.5: Configuration and discretization for 2x4-bay stiffened plate
137
compares well with that obtained by the grillage method [52], with the super elements
being on the stiff side by 9.4 percent. Unfortunately, there are no comparison results
for higher modes but the results obtained look reasonable.
Table 6.11: Natural frequencies of 2 x 4-bay stiffened plate

Mode
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
6.4.6

Present Grillage Method [52]
1113.5
1017.8
1314.1
1327.3
1434.8
1489.9
1526.8
4 x 4 - B a y Stiffened Plate
The 4 x 4-bay stiffened plate is made up of a 4 m square plate reinforced by three

T-beams in each orthogonal direction as shown in Figure 6.6. The plate is 7 mm
thick with all edges clamped. The material properties are: E = 210, 000 x 10 N / m ,
6
p = 7900 k g / m and v = 0.3.

3
Using symmetry one quarter of the structure is modelled by 4 super plate elements
one for each bay, and 8 super beam elements one for each span. This super
element model has 154 gross degrees of freedom and the net number of variables for
the four symmetry cases are presented in Table 6.12.
Four vibration analysis runs are performed to capture all the various combinations of symmetry conditions about the two centre lines, D A B . The first 32 natural
frequencies are presented in Table 6.13. In the table, the symbols in parenthesis represent the symmetry conditions applied about the centre lines. The letter A stands
for anti-symmetry and S for symmetry. Notice that the first 16 frequencies are very
Chapter 6.
138
y.v
4 Panels at 1000 mm centres = 4000 mm
mm
6.5 mrfl^lr*
_!
10.7
mm
128 mrrrH
1
183
mm
Typical side view
Figure 6.6: Configuration of 4x 4-bay stiffened plate
139
closely spaced as expected of a structure with 16 similar bays. Note that the first
mode frequency for one clamped bay is 62.73 Hz. This is slightly higher than the frequency for mode 16 as expected since mode 16 is essentially a half wave per bay with
zero slope along all sides but with support movements along the stiffener locations. It
is anticipated that the frequencies of higher modes, which have 2 half waves per bay,
will be badly predicted by the present grid since the super element does not include
this type of mode when the boundaries are clamped. However, for many practical
blast loaded structures, these higher modes do not contribute significantly to the final
response, therefore, the present grid is quite adequate for the objective of this work.
No comparison results are available for this problem.
Table 6.12: Net number of variables in 4x4-bay stiffened plate

Symmetry Case
symm-symm
symm-anti
anti-symm
anti-anti

80
78
78
73
Chapter 6.
140
Table 6.13: Natural frequencies in 4x4-bay stiffened plate

Mode No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Frequency (Hz)
57.86 (SS)
61.04 ( A A )
61.45 (SA)
61.45 (AS)
61.98 (SA)
61.98 (AS)
62.05 ( A A )
62.14 (SS)
62.24 ( A A )
62.38 (SA)
62.38 (AS)
62.41 (SS)
62.51 ( A A )
62.53 (SA)
62.53 (AS)
62.55 (SS)
Mode No.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Frequency (Hz)
115.69 (SS)
208.02 (SA)
208.02 (AS)
277.36 (AA)
292.41 (AA)
322.68 (SA)
322.68 (AS)
323.45 (SS)
323.51 (SS)
344.92 (AA)
345.05 (AA)
358.24 (SS)
384.72 (SA)
384.72 (AS)
387.60 (SA)
387.60 (AS)
Chapter
Transient Analysis
7.1
Results
Introduction
The super elements are now applied to the analysis of stiffened plate structures subjected to transient loads. Since the ultimate aim of this work is to develop a simplified
numerical method for blast loaded stiffened plates, most of the applied loads are of
the blast-type described in Chapter 4. These loads usually rise instantaneously to a
peak intensity and then decrease monotonically to zero in a very short time. They
are assumed to be uniformly distributed over the surface of the structure.
The equations of motion to be solved in this case are
[M]{S} + [C]{6} + j [[B] + [C ]) {<r}dV = { P }
T
(7.1)
where [M], [C] are the global mass and damping matrices, respectively and {}, {P}
are the global displacement and load vectors, respectively. The equations are solved
by the implicit Newmark-/3 method with Newton-Raphson iteration within each time
step as discussed in Chapter 4. In all the transient example problems presented in
this chapter the effect of structural damping has been ignored, except in the one
example in which dynamic relaxation is carried out to obtain a static solution using
critical damping. Also, the effect of stiffener beam torsion has been included in all
the stiffened plate examples.
To study the complete transient behaviour of the super elements the linear elastic
141
Chapter 7. Transient Analysis Results
142
as well as large deflection elastic and elastic-plastic responses are investigated. However, in some of the examples in which the structures are subjected to intense blast
loads only the large deflection elastic-plastic response has been investigated, since
such structures usually exhibit both geometric and material nonlinearities.
As in the previous two chapters, only one element is used to represent a panel
bay or beam span, except in a few cases in which finer meshes are used to study the
convergence properties of the super elements or to employ discretizations similar to
those used by other investigators. Some of the results are compared to finite strip
results, which in all cases are one mode (in the strip direction) results, except stated
otherwise.
Again, the problems are categorized according to structure type. First, unstiffened
plates with various boundary conditions are analyzed in Section 7.2 and then a beam
example is considered in Section 7.3. Finally, Section 7.4 is devoted to the response
of stiffened plates subject to various dynamic loads.
7.2
7.2.1
Unstiffened Plates
A transient analysis is now performed on Square Plate I with simply supported edges.
The dimensions and material properties of the plate are:
dimensions
100 mm x 100 mm x 1 mm
elastic modulus, E
205,000 N / m m
plastic modulus, ET
yield stress, <x
210 N / m m
Poisson's ratio, v
0.3
Note that this is the same square plate for which a static analysis was performed in
Chapter 5. The plate is subjected to a step load of 67.2 x l O
- 3
M P a and the structure
143
is modelled by one super plate element. This model has 55 gross and 15 net gross
degrees of freedom. The boundary conditions are applied as in the static case:
at the four corner nodes all variables except the twist variable are constrained
to be zero
at the four mid-side nodes, all variables except the normal slope (e.g. w
y5
at
node 5) are set equal to zero

at the middle node (node 9) all variables are left free.
j
That is, in-plane constraint is provided at the boundaries.
From the vibration
analysis, the fundamental frequency cu of the plate is obtained as 3042.9 rad/sec, so

0
that the fundamental period T is 2.07 msec.

0
First, the linear elastic static deflection due to a 67.2 X l 0
M P a uniform load
is computed using the dynamic relaxation technique. In the analysis the damping
factor is taken as 2u>o- To study the effect of the time step size on the solution three
different time steps At = 0.4 msec % To/5, A i = 0.2 msec % T /10 and At = 0.1
o
msec
T / 20 are employed and the panel centre displacement histories for the
0
three cases are shown in Figure 7.1. The results from the three cases are almost
indistinguishable, and the static displacement from all three cases is about 1.47 mm
which compares well with the exact solution of 1.45 mm. This demonstrates that
dynamic analysis will converge to the correct static solution in the steady state. The
results also show that a time step size as large as At % T / 5 is quite adequate for
0
linear elastic analysis.

In Figure 7.2 the central displacement histories for the elastic, linear and nonlinear
geometry responses, due to the 67.2 x 1 0
- 3
M P a step load, are compared to the
finite strip results [53]. A time step size of 0.04 msec (~ T /50) is used for the
o
super element analysis. The super element and finite strip results are in excellent
agreement in both cases. The stiffening action due to nonlinear geometric effects is
Chapter 7.
Transient Analysis Results
144
1.6
Time (msec)
Figure 7.1: Dynamic relaxation response of linear elastic simply supported Square
Plate I
clearly demonstrated, in that the peak central displacement and fundamental period
are reduced by about 56% and 42%, respectively. The apphed load is not high enough
to cause significant yielding of the plate material and hence the large deflection,
elastic-plastic response does not differ much from the large deflection elastic case and
is not presented separately, here.
7.2.2
Square Plate I with Clamped
Edges
The Square Plate I is analyzed again, with all the plate edges clamped. The super
element model has 7 net degrees of freedom.
A step load of 268.8 x 1 0
- 3
M P a is
apphed. For linear elastic analysis a time step of 0.05 msec (< T /20) is used, while
o
a time step of 0.025 msec ( < T /40) is employed for nonlinear analysis.
o
Chapter 7. Transient Analysis
3.5
145
Results
S.S. Square Plate I - Step Load

Elastic Response
>w
\
Present
Finite Strip
\
g 2.0
E
1.5
Linear
Q.
/ .' ~~s
b
" 1.0
15
c
O 0.5
/ J
If
*
X
/
/f
I'
\ *
\ \
\ \
\*
0.5
\
\
\
'
'
\
\
\ \
\\
*
'
/
/
/
N.
/
/
'
1.0
\
/
/
'
/
\
y*
0.0
-0.5.
'0.0
Nonlinear
If /
^x
1.5
2.0
1.
2.5
3.0
Time (msec)
Figure 7.2: Transient response of simply supported Square Plate I
The linear and nonlinear elastic reponses from the super element and finite strip
analyses are shown in Figure 7.3. The agreement between the two methods is excellent.
The presence of geometric nonlinearities causes a 52.5% reduction in the
maximum displacement amplitude and a 42% reduction in the fundamental period.

The nonlinear elastic-plastic response is presented in Figure 7.4 together with the
finite strip response. The results from both analyses are very similar. Due to the material nonlinear behaviour a 9% increase is observed in the peak central displacement
amplitude. Both methods predict a steady central displacement of about 1.4 mm.
On the I B M 308IK mainframe computer the large deflection elastic analysis takes
about 6 sec of cpu time per load step while the large deflection elastic-plastic analysis
takes about 12 cpu sec per load step.
5.0
4.0
E
146
Clamped Square Plate I - Step Load

Elastic Analysis
Present
Finite Strip
/*
Linear
3.0
c
E
CD
to
S 1.0
O
r N
:rr
2.0
Nonlinear
vy
ft
/'
- ^r.
0.0
1
-1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Time (msec)
Figure 7.3: Transient elastic response of clamped Square Plate I
7.2.3
Simply Supported Square Plate II Subject to Triangular Load
Details of the problem are given in Figure 7.5. The plate has a length of 20 in and a
thickness of 0.1 in. The material properties are: E = 10 psi, E
7
psi, p = 0.25 x 1 0
- 3
0, <r = 40,000
0
l b - s / i n and v = 0.3. The plate boundaries are simply supported

2
with rigid restraint against in-plane motion. The load history is triangular in shape
and varies from 200 psi to 0 in a short duration of 2 msec.
The structure is first modelled by one super plate element with 15 net variables.
A linear eigenvalue analysis is carried out and the fundamental frequency is obtained
as 47.54 Hz, which is equal to that obtained by the finite strip method.
A large
deflection elastic-plastic analysis is now carried out with a time step of 0.1 msec
which is approximately equal to T /200, where T is the fundamental period. The
o
147
Time (msec)
Figure 7.4: Transient nonlinear elastic-plastic response of clamped Square Plate I
panel central displacement history is plotted in Figure 7.6 along with the ADINA [54]
and finite strip [20] results.
The finite strip analysis uses 2 in-plane displacement
modes, 8 strips and a time step size of 0.02 msec.

The one super element representation gives a reasonable estimate of the response,
although it is stiffer than the A D I N A and finite strip representations. To see the effect
of element refinement on the solution, the analysis is repeated by using one superelement to represent one quarter of the plate (equivalent to using 4 super elements). As
can be seen from Figure 7.6, this results in an improvement in the solution and the
super element solution is now closer to the finite strip analysis. This indicates that
the present solution will converge to the correct solution as the number of elements
increases. Note that the displacements are extremely high with the panel centre displacement being greater than 20 times the plate thickness. Hence for much of the
Poisson's ratio = 0.3
148
Time (msec)
Figure 7.5: Details of Square Plate II
response the plate behaves as a plastic membrane. This is a severe test of the super
element deformation modes.
In Figure 7.6 the response obtained from the one super element solution without
the sine functions in the in-plane displacements is also plotted (shown chain-dotted).
This model is generally much stiffer than the A D I N A and complete super element
solutions and it predicts a permanent displacement of about 1 in compared to 2.4 in
and 1.8 in, respectively, for the A D I N A and complete one super element analyses.
Thus if for purposes of argument the A D I N A solution is taken as the correct one,
then the one superelement solution with and without the sine functions are in error
by 25% and 58%, respectively. Clearly, the latter is not within design level accuracy.
This example illustrates the importance of modelling the in-plane displacements correctly in the presence of severe nonlinearities. The superelement model with the sine
Chapter 7.
149
functions is better able to model the in-plane displacements, and hence the membrane
stresses, than the one without the sine functions, which predicts very poor in-plane
displacements and membrane stresses.
It takes about 20 and 25 sec per load step, respectively, for the 1 and 4 super
element solutions on the I B M 3081K main frame computer.
Time (msec)
Figure 7.6: Central displacement history of simply supported Square Plate II
7.3
7.3.1
Beam Example
The beam is simply supported (and axially constrained) and the dimensions and
material properties are:
150
length, a
30.0 in
width, b
1.0 mm
depth, h
2.0 mm
elastic modulus, E
30 x 10 psi
plastic modulus, ET
yield stress, a
50 x 10 psi
0.733 x 10~ l b - s / i n
2a b(h/af = 444.4 lb/in
step load
0.75P = 333.3 lb/in
static deflection, A
0.1758 in
density, p
collapse load, P
The beam is subjected to a step load of 333.3 lb/in.

The linear eigenvalue analysis gives the fundamental frequency as 203.9 Hz, so
the fundamental period is 4905 ^sec. Using one beam element and a time step size
of 250 psec (ss T /20) a small deflection elastic analysis is performed and the mido
span deformation history is compared with the F E N T A B [39] solution in Figure 7.7.
Note that the F E N T A B analysis uses 12 cubic beam elements and the explicit central
difference scheme with a time step size of 6.948 psec . The correlation between the
two solutions is quite good.
The small deflection, elastic-perfectly plastic central displacement response using
the same time step is presented in Figure 7.8 along with the finite strip and F E N T A B
results. The one super element solution is in good agreement with the finite strip
analysis, but is stiffer than the F E N T A B solution. However, the present analysis
result improves significantly when two super elements are employed in the analysis.
In this case, the super element and F E N T A B results are almost identical. The loss of
stiffness due to plastification is clearly exhibited, in that the maximum displacement
amplitude and fundamental period are, repectively, 44% and 20% higher than the
linear elastic quantities.
Chapter 7.
151
Figure 7.7: Transient linear elastic response of simply supported rectangular beam
7.4
7.4.1
Stiffened Plates
Clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II
The transient response of the clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II, for which a vibration
analysis was carried out in Chapter 6, is now investigated. The problem configuration
and material properties are presented in Figure 6.3. Only the full-ribbed structure
is considered here.
E
The plate boundaries are fully clamped.
For plastic analysis
= 0.005.&7 = 344.5 M P a and er = 284 M P a . In the present analysis only one

0
half of the structure is modelled using one super plate element and one super beamelement. Note that the symmetry line divides the beam into two, and hence the beam
section properties such as J , Jo, T, etc. have to be halved in the computations. The
super element model has 55 gross and 11 net degrees of freedom.
152
Figure 7.8: Transient linear elastic-plastic response of simply supported rectangular

beam
Two loading cases are considered.
In the first case the structure is subjected
to a step load of 0.3 M P a . In the second case the stiffened plate is subjected to
a blast load given by the exponential variation in Equation (4.30), (that is q(t) =
q (l - t/r)exp(-\ t/T)),
m
with q
= 0.6 M P a , r = 1 msec and A = 0.28. These

x
loads are sketched in Figure 7.9. The response of the stiffened plate to the two loads
are presented in the following subsections.
7.4.1.1
Step Load
Recall that the fundamental frequency of the structure is 736.8 Hz, so To = 1.36 msec.
A time step size of 0.025 msec is employed for both linear and nonlinear analyses,
although larger time step sizes could well be used.
Chapter 7.
153
Pressure (MPa)
Pressure (MPa)
0.3
Time (msec)
Step Load
1.0
Time (msec)
Blast Load
Figure 7.9: Loads applied to 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II
The linear elastic panel centre (point B) and stiffener mid-point (point A) displacement responses are given in Figure 7.10 along with the finite strip response [53].
The finite strip model uses four plate strips and one beam element for one half of the
structure and employs the implicit Newmark integration scheme with a time step size
of 0.025 msec. This finite strip model uses strips for the plate and beam elements for
the stiffeners and employs quadratic functions for the in-plane displacements. The
super element prediction is in excellent agreement with the one mode finite strip
solution.
Good agreement is also observed for the large deflection elastic response presented
in Figure 7.11. However, as can be seen from the figure, for the response at A the
super elements display some higher modes which have not been captured by the
finite strips. Due to the nonlinear geometric effects, the fundamental period of the
154
structure is reduced by more than 40% and the panel centre maximum displacement
amplitude is reduced from 12.1 mm to 4.1 mm. On the other hand, the peak stiffener
displacement increases slightly from 1.64 mm to 2.23 mm. This behaviour is different
from what is observed for other stiffened plate analysis results for which both the
nonlinear elastic panel centre and stiffener mid-point displacents are smaller than the
corresponding linear elastic displacements. The phenomenon is probably due to the
change in the proportions of the load carried by the plate and beam components of
the structure as their stiffnesses change due to geometric nonlinearities, with beam
stiffness showing less change than the plate stiffness.
The large deflection elastic-plastic behaviour is displayed in Figure 7.12. Again the
super elements agree well with the finite strips. The inclusion of nonlinear material
behaviour causes only slight increases in the displacements of points A and B : the
peak displacements of A and B are increased by only 12% and 0.5%, respectively,
with reference to the large deflection elastic case. Note that the increase in the peak
displacements due to material nonlinearities is more pronounced in the beam than
in the plate due to the fact that the beam shows less stiffening due to geometric
nonlinear effects. The higher modes seem to have been filtered out by the material
yielding. The large deflection elastic-plastic super element solution takes about 12
sec per load step on the I B M 3081K computer.
7.4.1.2
Blast Load
Using a time step size of 0.025 msec the large deflection elastic-plastic response of
the 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II is simulated with one super plate element and one super
beam element for one half of the structure. The panel centre and stiffener mid-point
displacement responses are presented in Figures 7.13 and 7.14. The super element
and finite strip predictions are very close. By the super element analysis the peak
displacement amplitudes of points A and B are 5.04 mm and 4.24 mm, respectively.

14.0
Clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I 1 Step Load

12.0
Present
10.0
E,
155
B /
\
\
8.0
6.0
Q.
4fj
B: at half panel centre

A: at stiffener midpoint
Finite Strip
8
b
2.0
0.0
-2.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time (msec)
1.2
.1.4
1.6
Figure 7.10: Linear elastic response of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to step
load
The final permanent displacements of both points are approximately equal at close
to 2 mm. It takes about 13 cpu sec per load step on the I B M 3081K main frame
computer.
7.4.2
Simply Supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II
Transient analysis is now performed on the 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II with simply
supported edges. The plate configuration and material properties are as given for the
clamped case. The structure is again subjected to the two transient loads presented
in Figure 7.9 and the response of the structure to these loads is discussed in the
following subsections.
Chapter 7.
156
5.0
Clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II - Step Load
Present
Finite Strip
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time (msec)
1.2
1.4 1.6
Figure 7.11: Nonlinear elastic response of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to
step load
7.4.2.1
Step Load
Using symmetry, one half of the structure is modelled by 1 plate and 1 beam element.
Restraint is provided against in-plane displacements along the boundaries and hence
the super element model has 15 net degrees of freedom. A step load of 0.3 M P a is
apphed. The first 5 frequencies are obtained as 508.6, 510.3, 805.1, 815.8 and 1060.2
Hz and hence the fundamental period of the structure is 1.966 msec. A time step size
of 0.05 msec (~ T /40) is used for all analyses.
o
Linear elastic displacement responses are displayed in Figure 7.15. The super
element predictions are in excellent agreement with those from the finite strip analysis
[53]. The super element peak panel centre displacement is 24.61 mm and this is only

5.0
4.0
0.0
" 0.0
157
Clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II - Step Load

Present
Finite Strip
B/\\
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time (msec)
1.2
1.4
1.6
Figure 7.12: Nonlinear elastic-plastic response of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II

due to step load
2% lower than the corresponding finite strip value, while the peak stiffener midpoint displacement amplitude, 7.04 mm, is 7.5% higher than the finite strip result.
Compared to the clamped case it is seen that the simply supported boundaries result
in a 51% increase in the panel centre displacement amplitude.
In Figures 7.16 and 7.17 are shown the large deflection elastic displacement responses of the panel centre (point B) and stiffener mid-point (point A ) , respectively.
The super element and finite strip predictions follow a similar trend. The peak displacement of point B has now reduced from 24.61 mm, for the linear case, to 4.71
mm for the nonlinear one. Also, due to geometric nonlinearities the peak stiffener
mid-point displacement is reduced to 4.58 mm. The super elements again predict the
presence of some higher modes which are not shown by the finite strips.
Chapter 7.
6.0
158
Clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II - Blast Load

Present
Finite Strip
Figure 7.13: Panel centre displacement of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to
blast load
Figures 7.18 and 7.19 show the large deflection elastic-plastic displacement responses of points B and A , respectively.
Again the super element and finite strip
solutions compare very well. The nonlinear material behaviour only slightly increases
the peak panel centre displacement to 4.74 mm and the stiffener mid-point peak displacement to 5.39 mm. A permanent displacement of about 3.5 mm is predicted by
the super elements. Some of the higher modes present in the elastic analysis seem to
have been filtered out by the material yielding.
7.4.2.2
Blast Load
A nonlinear elastic-plastic analysis is performed on the simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II subject to the blast load shown in Figure 7.9. The time step size used
Chapter 7.
159
Time (msec)
Figure 7.14: Stiffener mid-point displacement of clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due
to blast load
in the analysis is 0.05 msec. The analysis is first carried out with the in-plane displacements constrained along the boundaries and secondly with them unconstrained.
The panel centre and stiffener mid-point displacement responses are shown in Figures 7.20 and 7.21. In each of these figures the solid line represents the response for
constrained conditions and the dashed line the response for unconstrained conditions.
The imposition of in-plane constraint results in 49% and 45% reductions in the peak
panel centre and stiffener mid-point displacements, respectively.
Also, these peak
displacements occur earlier for the in-plane constrained case than for the in-plane
unconstrained case. For example, the peak panel centre displacement occurs at 0.3
msec and 0.75 msec for the constrained and unconstrained problems, respectively.
Some permanent displacements are noticed at the two points of interest for both the
constrained and unconstrained conditions.

30.0
160
S.S. 2-Bay Stiff. Plate II - Step Load

. B
25.0
Present
Finite Strip
>v V
X \
20.0
E
E,
15.0
A: Stiffener midpoint
E
|
B: Panel centre
if
il
ti
ti
it
10.0
Q.
CO
11
if
5.0 -
* "
\\
\ \
*'/
/ /
^^^^
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
2.5
2.0
Time (msec)
-5.0.
Figure 7.15: Linear elastic response of simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due
to step load
For each of the large deflection elastic-plastic analyses discussed here it takes
about 18 sec per load step on the I B M 3081K main frame.
7.4.3
H O B 315 Loading on Clamped D R E S Stiffened Panel
The panel configuration is as shown in Figure 5.21. A l l dimensions are the same
except, in this case, the depth and flange width of the T-beams are 5.85 in and 2.95
in, respectively. Also, here cr = 54.4 x 10 psi and p = 0.733 x 1 0
3
- 3
l b - s / i n . The
2
panel is clamped all round and one quarter of the middle bay, shown as A B C D in
Figure 5.21 is modelled by one plate element and one beam element. This is Model
1 in Figure 5.22.
The structure is subjected to an intense blast load, named H O B 315, whose history
161
6.0
S.S. 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II - Step Load
Present
Finite Strip
1.0
1.5
Time (msec)
2.0
2.5
Figure 7.16: Panel centre displacement in nonlinear elastic analysis of simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to step load
is shown in Figure 7.22. The symbols on this figure represent data points for the
piece-wise linear representation used in the program.
A transient large deflection
elastic-plastic analysis is performed with a time step size of 250 ^sec and the panel
centre and stiffener mid-point displacement responses are presented in Figures 7.23
and 7.24, respectively, along with the finite strip [20] predictions. Note that the finite
strip analysis uses 16 strips (this version of the finite strip analysis uses strips for
both the plate and stiffeners) for half of the structure and a time step of 5 psec with
an explicit time integration scheme. The permanent displacements predicted by the
two methods are very close and from both figures it is clear that the panel centre and
stiffener mid-point end up with almost the same permanent deflection. The analysis
takes about 26 sec per load step on the I B M 3081K computer.
Chapter 7.
5.0
162

Larege Deflection Elastic Analysis
Present
Finite Strip
-2.0
0.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
Time (msec)
2.5
Figure 7.17: Stiffener mid-point displacement in nonlinear elastic analysis of simply

Clamped DRES IB Stiffened Panel
7.4.4
The configuration of the DRES IB Stiffened Panel has been presented in Figure 5.28.
All material properties are the same, except tr = 54.4 x 10 psi, and p = 0.733 x 1 0
3
- 3
l b - s / i n . The structure is subjected to the H O B 315 blast load shown in Figure 7.22.
2
Two super element discretizations are employed. In the first model, called Model
1, the portion A B C D is modelled by one super plate element and two super beam
elements (for half of beams B C and C D , respectively), with symmetry conditions along
the center lines B C , CD and A D . Model 1 is used to enable direct comparison to the
ADINA solution for which only the portion A B C D is modelled with 220 four node
rectangular shell elements (see Figure 5.29). To include the effects of end restraint
ignored by Model 1 another discretization, called Model 2 is used. In this model
163

Time (msec)
Figure 7.18: Panel centre displacement in nonlinear elastic-plastic analysis of simply
3 plate and 5 beam elements are used to model a quarter of the structure (portion
A D G H ) , with symmetry conditions along GD and A D . For the sake of completeness
Model 1 and the ADINA discretization are presented again along with Model 2 in
Figure 7.25.
A linear free vibration analysis is first carried out using Model 2 and the first ten
natural frequencies obtained, in Hertz, are: 48.7, 50.2, 50.9, 51.6, 51.9, 52.3, 53.2,
53.4, 53.4 and 53.7. It is seen that first ten frequencies are very closely spaced. The
A D I N A solution is not available for comparison.
The transient large deflection elastic-plastic response of the structure due to the
blast load is now evaluated. A time step of 250 psec is used for both the present
and A D I N A analysis. The displacement histories at points D and E are presented in
Figure 7.26. It is observed that the solutions obtained from Models 1 and 2 compare
164
Time (msec)
Figure 7.19: Stiffener mid-point displacement in nonlinear elastic-plastic analysis of
simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II due to step load
very well with the A D I N A solution. Initially, the displacement at E is greater than
that at D as expected but as plastification of the structure progresses with time the
stiffened panel behaves more like a smeared orthotropic plate so that point D being
at the plate center ends up with a larger permanent displacement than point E. The
same phenomenon is also observed for the displacements of points C and F presented
in Figure 7.27.
Figure 7.28 gives some insight into the behaviour of the structure as the response
progresses.
The figure shows the bending displacement profile parallel to the long
side along an axis at y = 24 in at different times using Model 2. At 2 msec the

stiffening action of the stiffeners is still very significant and the deflections at the
stiffener locations are much smaller than in the panel (as evidenced by the bumps in
the figure). However, at 4 msec when significant yielding of the material has occurred
12.0
165
S.S. 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II - Blast Load

Without In-plane Constraint

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Time (msec)
2.0
2.5
Figure 7.20: Panel centre displacement in simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II
due to blast load
the deflections of the stiffeners approach those of the panel. At 6 msec the stiffeners
have completely lost their stiffnesses and the displacement profile is similar to that
expected from an unstiffened plate.
The displacement profiles along the cross beam G D and the longitudinal beam
B C are plotted in Figures 7.29 and 7.30, respectively, at various times. Consider the
displacement profiles along G D . Each profile resembles a plastic hinge mechanism
used in rigid-plastic collapse analysis. At 2 msec the plastic hinge is formed away
from the centre of the beam (that is x = 90 in in the figure). However, as time
progresses the hinges tend to move towards the centre. This behaviour is similar to
the classical travelling hinge mechanism associated with dynamic plastic response of
beams subject to intense pressures [55,56]. The same behaviour is exhibited by beam
B C in Figure 7.30, although it is not as pronounced there.
166
14.0
S.S. 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II Blast Load
Without In-plane Constraint
1.0
1.5
Time (msec)
2.5
Figure 7.21: Stiffener mid-point displacement in simply supported 2-Bay Stiffened

Plate II due to blast load
On the I B M 3081K main frame computer the super element analysis using Model
1 takes about 22 sec per load step while it takes about 7 min per load step on the
GA-386L microcomputer. Although no direct comparison can be made, due to the
differences in the computers used for the analysis, it is instructive to note that the
A D I N A analysis takes about 1 min and 20 min per load step, respectively, on the
FPS 364 and Honeywell main frame computers.
These illustrations clearly exhibit
the savings in time derivable by the use of the super element formulation.
7.4.5
Clamped 2x2-Stiffened Plate II
The 2x2 Stiffened Plate II is made up of the 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II discussed
in Section 7.4.1 with an additional orthogonal cross beam of the same dimentions.
Chapter
7.
Transient Analysis
Results
167
1,000 r
Time (msec)
Figure 7.22: Blast load on DRES Stiffened Panel
Figure 7.31 shows the configuration of the structure.

E = 68, 900 MPa, E
The material properties are:
= 3,445 M P a , <r = 284 M P a , p = 2670 k g / m and v = 0.3. A l l

3
the stiffened plate boundaries are clamped. Note that this is the same stiffened plate
discussed in Section 6.4.4, for the case with a/b = 1. The structure is subjected to
the 0.3 M P a step load also shown in Figure 7.31. No comparison results are available
for this example.
Using symmetry, one quarter of the structure is modelled by one super plate
element and two super beam elements.
This model has 16 net degrees of freedom.
From the vibration analysis carried out in Chapter 6 the fundamental period of the
structure is 0.87 msec and the time step sizes used for the analyses are: 0.04 msec
(% TQ/20) for linear elastic analysis and 0.02 msec (% T /40) for nonlinear analysis.
o
The linear elastic displacement responses of points A and B are presented in
168
16.0
14.0
HOB 315 Load on DRES Stiffened Panel
Present
Finite Strip
4.0
6.0
Time (msec)
8.0
10.0
Figure 7.23: Panel centre displacement of blast loaded DRES Stiffened Panel
Figure 7.32.
Due to the additional beam the peak panel displacement amplitude
is reduced from 11.92 mm, for the 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II, to 5.58 mm, here. The
stiffening effect of the beams is very significant, in that the displacement at B is much
smaller than that at A .
The nonlinear elastic and elastic-plastic displacement responses are displayed in
Figure 7.33. Nonlinear geometric effects account for a 52% reduction in the panel
centre peak displacement amplitude. The stiffening effect due to geometric nonlinearities is also manifested in a 43% reduction of the fundamantal period. On the
other hand, material nonlinearities do not have any significant effect on the response
because the applied load is not high enough to cause significant yielding.
On the I B M 3081K computer it takes about 1.5, 5.8 and 12.0 sec/load step,
Time (msec)
Figure 7.24: Stiffener mid-point displacement of blast loaded D R E S Stiffened Panel
respectively, for the linear elastic, large deflection elastic and large deflection elasticplastic analyses.
7.4.6
Clamped 4x4-Bay Stiffened Plate
This structure is made up of a 4 m square steel plate of 7 mm thickness reinforced

by 6 identical T-beams as shown in Figure 6.6. The plate is clamped all round and
the material properties are: E = 210,000 x 10 N / m , E
6
= 1,250 x 10 N / m ,
6
(T = 375 x 10 N / m , p = 7900 k g / m and v = 0.3. The stiffened plate is subjected

6
to a 2 M P a rectangular pulse load which acts over a duration of 2 msec.

The vibration analysis of this structure has been carried out in Chapter 6, with a
discretization which employs 4 super plate and 8 super beam elements for one quarter
of the structure. From that analysis the fundamental period is 17.28 msec. Hence a
Super Element Mesh

Model 1
ADINA Mesh
15
E
E
ST
Super Element Mesh

Model 2
symmetry
Figure 7.25: Discretizations of DRES IB panel
171
Figure 7.26: Displacements of points D and E in DRES1B panel due to blast load
time step size of 0.15 msec (< T /100) is employed in the transient analysis. For this
o
analysis both geometric and material nonlinearities are taken into account.
Displacement responses at points A , B and G are presented in Figure 7.34. The
solid lines represent the responses from the present analysis, while the dashed lines
are the responses obtained from a rigid-plastic beam grillage solution [57]. The points
A and B displacement response predictions from the two analyses are quite close with
the present analysis being slightly more flexible. The beam grillage solution for point
G is not available.
Note that point A is at the midspan of the middle beams and point G is at the
centre of the bay closest to the centre of the entire structure.
Initially, the super
element displacement of G is bigger than that at A as expected but as time goes on

the displacement at point A overtakes that at G and comes to rest at a permanent
Chapter 7.
172
Figure 7.27: Displacements of points C and F in DRES IB panel due to blast load
displacement of 288 mm compared to 231 mm for point G. This phenomenon can again
be explained by making reference to the displacement profiles along H G F at various
times as shown in Figure 7.35. It is evident that as yielding of the stiffened plate
progresses a time is reached when the beams lose their stiffnesses and the structure
behaves more like an unstiffened plate. Hence, point A being located at the centre of
the entire structure ends up with a larger deformation than point G .
The displacement profiles along beams D B A are plotted in Figure 7.36. The super
element profiles are very similar to the rigid-plastic beam grillage profiles. Indeed,
the travelling
hinge behaviour is exhibited by the two solutions, in that the profiles
resemble plastic collapse modes with the hinges formed initially away from the centre
line but moving towards the centre with time.
Figure 7.37 shows the final permanent displacement profiles along beams D B A
173

10.0
HOB 315 Load on DRES1B Panel
t = 6 msec
8.0
30.0
45.0
60.0
Distance from edge (in)
75.0
90.0
Figure 7.28: Displacement along y = 24in in DRES1B panel due to blast load
and E C B . The excellent comparison between the super element and beam grillage
solutions is clearly evident from this figure. The super element solution comes to rest
after 8.4 msec, while the beam grillage analysis comes to rest after 7.9 msec.
The super element solution takes about 2 min per load step on the I B M 308IK
main frame computer.
Chapter 7.
Figure 7.29: Displacement along GD in DRES IB panel due to blast load
Figure 7.30: Displacement along B C in D R E S IB panel due to blast load
Chapter
7.
y.v
176
2 Panels at 101.5 mm centres = 203 mm
E
E
E
E
to
w
<D
C
(0
CL
y.
CM
1.37 mm
/
6.35
mnT"*"
' 12.7 mm
Typical view
CO
0.3
a.
Time (msec)
Step Load
Figure 7.31: Configuration of 2x2 Stiffened Plate II
x,u
Chapter 7.
Transient Analysis
177
Results
6.0
Time (msec)
Figure 7.32: Linear elastic response of 2x2 Stiffened Plate II - Step Load
Chapter 7.
Figure 7.33: Nonlinear response of 2x2 Stiffened Plate II - Step Load
178
Chapter
7.
350.0
Transient Analysis
Results
179
Rect. Pulse on 4x4 Stiffened Plate

Point A
300.0
_ 250.0
E
E,
? 200.0
o
E
| 150.0
a
<n
100.0
50.0
Present
Beam Grillage
4.0
6.0
Time (msec)
8.0
10.0
Figure 7.34: Response of points A , B and G in 4x4 Bay Stiffened Plate - Rectangular
Pulse
Chapter 7.
180
300.0
Red. Pulse on 4x4 Bay Stiffened Plate
.-250.0
E
E,
t = 8.4 msec
O 200.0
O)
c
1150.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Distance from fixed edge (m)
2.0
Figure 7.35: Displacement profiles along H G F in 4 x 4 Bay Stiffened Plate - Rectangular Pulse
350.0
Rect. Pulse on 4x4 Bay Stiffened Plate

t = 8.4 m s e c
300.0
E
E
250.0
181
Present
Beam Grillage
Q
O) 200.0
c
o
CO
CD
Q.
150.0
100.0
CO
50.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure 7.36: Displacement profiles along D B A in 4x4 Bay Stiffened Plate - Rectangular Pulse
182
350.0
Red. Pulse on 4x4 Bay Stiffened Plate
300.0
E
E,
250.0
Present
Beam Grillage
Beams D B A
200.0
CD
co
Q.
(0
Beams E C B
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure 7.37: Final displacement profiles along beams D B A and E C B in 4 x 4 Bay

Stiffened Plate - Rectangular Pulse
Chapter
S u m m a r y and Conclusions
New plate and beam elements called super finite elements have been developed for
the large deflection elastic-plastic analysis of stiffened plate structures subject to
static and dynamic loads. The displacement fields of the elements are represented
by polynomial as well as continuous analytical functions, and the elements have been
specially designed so that only one plate element per bay or one beam element per
span is needed to model the response.
Large displacements have been taken into account by including the first order
nonlinear terms in the strain-displacement relations (following von Karman theory).
However, for torsion and lateral bending in the stiffener beam elements, only linear
effects have been considered. Material nonlinearities are modelled by von Mises yield
criterion and associated flow rule using a bi-linear strain-hardening law. The finite
element equations are derived using the virtual work principle and the matrix quantities are evaluated by Gauss quadrature. Temporal integration has been performed
by the Newmark beta method with Newton-Raphson iteration within each time step.
The new formulation has been applied to the static, vibration and transient analysis of unstiffened plates, beams and plates stiffened in one or two orthogonal directions.
Good approximations are obtained in most cases using only a single super element
per bay or span.
In the static case, the results for beams and unstiffened plates are very good for
all types of analysis (linear or nonlinear) in that the super element solutions compare
very well with analytical or other numerical solutions.
183
Chapter 8. Summary and Conclusions
184
The results for stiffened plates also compare well with other numerical solutions.
For linear elastic analysis the displacements predicted by the super elements are quite
close to the finite strip or A D I N A solutions. Also, using one super element per bay a
reasonable prediction of the shear lag effect is obtained, although this is not as good
as the more detailed finite strip or A D I N A solutions. However, it has been shown
that the super element solution will converge to the right answer if two or more super
elements are employed per bay. The linear elastic stresses obtained from the super
element analysis are in agreement with the A D I N A predictions for the 5-Bay DRES
and the 2 x 5-Bay DRES1B panels.
The in-plane and out-of-plane displacement results for large deflection analyses
are very good for the cases in which comparison results are available. However, some
of the maximum stresses are underestimated and, in general, the predicted stress
distributions are not as accurate as the displacement results.
The super element linear elastic response of the 2 X 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I compares favorably with another solution based on regular finite elements. No comparison
results are available for the nonlinear case but the results obtained look reasonable
and will be useful to future researchers.
Natural frequency results for beams and unstiffened plates obtained by the new
formulation are in excellent agreement with exact or other numerical methods. For the
two and three bay stiffened panels the super element predictions, with significantly
reduced number of variables, agree well with the experimental and finite element
results. The super element solution is, in general, on the stiff side of the experimental
and finite element solutions and the importance of including the effect of beam torsion
has been demonstrated by the results. The super element fundamental frequencies
obtained for the 2 x 2 - and 2 X 4-bay stiffened plates are only slightly stiffener than a
solution based on the grillage method. The natural frequencies of a 4 X 4-bay stiffened
plate have also been presented with no comparison results.
Chapter 8.
Summary and Conclusions
185
The super element transient displacement responses of various structures to complex loads such as air-blast pressure waves have also been investigated. For beams and
unstiffened plates the super element results are i n excellent agreement with either the
finite strip or other finite element analyses. For the simply supported Square Plate
II subjected to a very intense triangular blast load, the one super element response,
provides a reasonable estimate but is on the stiff side of the finite strip and A D I N A
analyses.
However, it has been shown that by employing more super elements
the
present analysis will converge to the other results.

The transient response of several stiffened plates have been investigated.
First,
the response of the 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II with clamped and simply supported
boundaries subjected to a step load and a moderate blast load has been investigated.
For the step load case, linear as well as nonlinear geometric/material behaviour has
been included and the super element displacement responses agree well with the finite
strip solution. For the blast load case, only large deflection elastic-plastic analysis
has been performed.
The results obtained in this case also compare well with the
finite strip analysis. The super element responses of the 5-Bay D R E S and 2 x 5 - B a y
D R E S I B panels to an intense blast load are also i n good agreement with the finite
strip and A D I N A predictions, respectively. Reasonable results are also obtained for
the transient response of the 2x2-Stiffened Plate II, although no comparison results
are available for this problem. Finally, the large deflection elastic-plastic response of
the 4 x 4 - B a y Stiffened Plate to a rectangular pulse has been obtained by the present
formulation.
T h e response obtained from the super elements agree reasonably well
with a rigid-plastic beam grillage solution.

From the numerical investigations conducted i n this study it is seen that the
super elements provide a relatively simple modelling of stiffened plate structures as
evidenced by the fact that, in most cases, the input file contains less than 50 lines.
Yet, the results obtained are very similar to those obtained from other methods for
Chapter 8. Summary and Conclusions
186
which more complex models, requiring huge data input, are used. Also, most of the
transient analyses have been carried out with very large time step sizes and besides
the super element analysis takes much reduced run times for both static and dynamic
applications. This conforms with the objectives of the present study and indeed the
quality of the results has demonstrated the viability of the new super elements in the
nonlinear analysis of plate structures.
It would be worthwhile to extend the new formulation to other structural mechanics problems. The super elements formulation can be extended to the analysis
of stiffened box and unstiffened or stiffened shell structures. The super elements can
also be extended for the nonlinear analysis stiffened structures made of composite
materials. Furthermore, it would be worthwhile to research into a possible replacement for the clamped beam vibration mode,
predictions for clamped plates.
in order to obtain better stress
Bibliography
[1] Timoshenko, S. and Woinosky-Krieger, S., Theory of Plates
and Shells,
McGraw-
H i l l , New York, 1959.

[2] Troitsky, M . S., Stiffened
Plates
Bending,
Stability
and Vibrations,
Elsevier Sci-
entific Pubishing Company, Amsterdam, 1976.

[3] Clifton, R. J . , Chang, J . C. L . and A u , T., "Analysis of Orthotropic
Bridges", Journal
of the Structural
Division,
Plate
A S C E , V o l . 89, No S T 5 , Proc.
Paper 3675, (Oct. 1963), pp. 133-171.

[4] Timoshenko, S. P. and Goodier, J . N . , Theory of Elasticity,
M c G r a w - H i l l Book
Company, New York, 1970.

[5] Szilard, R.,
Theory
and Analysis
of Plates
Classical
and Numerical
methods,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1974.

[6] Zienkiewicz, 0. C. and Morgan, K . , Finite
Element
and Approximation,
John
' Wiley and Sons, New York, 1982.

[7] Webb, S. E . and Dowling, P. J . , 'Large Deflection Elasto-Plastic Behaviour of
Discretely Stiffened Plates', Proc. Inst, of Civil Eng. Part 2, V o l . 69, 1980.
[8] Wegmuller, A . W . , "Full Range Analysis of Eccentrically Stiffened Plates",
nal of the Structural
Division,
Jour-
Proceedings of the A S C E , V o l . 100 (Jan. 1974),
pp. 143-159.
[9] Chrisfield, M . A . , 'The Automatic Nonlinear Analysis of Stiffened Plates
187
and
Bibliography
188
Shallow Shells using Finite Elements', Proc. Inst, of Civil Eng., Part 2, Vol. 69,
December 1980.
[10] Owen, D. R. J and Figueiras, J . A . , "Elasto-Plastic Analysis of Anisotropic
Plates and Shells by the Semiloof Element", International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 19 1983, pp. 521-539.
[11] Houlston, R., Slater, J . E . , Pegg, N . and DesRochers, C. G.; "On Analysis of
Structural Response of Ship Panels Subjected to Air Blast Loading", Computers
and Structures, Vol. 21, No. 1/2, 1985, pp. 273-289.
[12] Cheung, Y . K . , 'The Finite Strip Method in the Analysis of Elastic Plates with
two Opposite Simply Supported Ends', Proc. The Inst, of Civil Eng., London,
Vol. 40, May/August 1968, pp. 1-7.
[13] Cheung, Y . K . , Finite Strip Method in Structural Analysis, Pergamon Press,
1976.
[14] Langyel, P. and Cusens, A . R., ' A Finite Strip Method for the Geometrically
Non-linear Analysis of plate Structures', International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 19, 1983, pp. 331-340.
[15] Azizan, Z. G. and Dawe, D. J . , 'Geometrically Nonlinear Analysis of Rectangular

Mindlin Plates using the Finite Strip Method', Computers and Structures, Vol.
21, No. 3 1985, pp. 423-436.
[16] Mofflin, D. S., Olson, M . D. and Anderson, D. L., 'Finite Strip Analysis of
Blast Loaded Plates', Finite Element Methods for Nonlinear Problems, eds. P.
G. Bergan, et al, Spinger-Verlag, 1986, pp. 539-554.

[17] Cheung, M . S., Ng, S. F . and Zhong, B . , 'Finite Strip Analysis of Beams and
Plates with Material Nonlinearity', Proc. 3rd Int. Conference on Computing in
Bibliography
Civil
189
Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada, August 1988, pp. 233-241.
[18] Abayakoon, S. B. S., 'Large Deflection Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Plate Structures by the Finite Strip Method', Ph.D.
Department of Civil Engineer-
Thesis,
ing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1987.

[19] Abayakoon, S. B. S., Olson, M . D. and Anderson, D. L., 'Large Deflection ElasticPlastic Analysis Of Plate Structures by the Finite Strip Method', Int.
for Numerical
Methods
in Engineering,
Vol. 28, 1989,
Journal
pp 331-358.
[20] Khalil, M . R., Olson, M . D. and Anderson, D. L., 'Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
of Stiffened Plates', Computers
and Structures,
Vol. 29, No. 6, 1988, pp. 929-941.
[21] Puckett, J. A. and Gutkowski, R. M . , .'Compound Strip Method for Analysis of

Plate Systems', Journal
of the Structural
A S C E , Vol. 112, No. 1, 1986,
Division,
pp. 121-138.
[22] Puckett, J . A . and Lang, G. J., 'Compound Strip Method for Free Vibration
Analysis of Continuous Plates', Journal
of Engineering
Mechanics,
Vol. 122, No.
12, December 1986, pp. 1375-1389.

[23] Just, D. J., "Behaviour of Skewed Beam and Slab Bridge Decks", Journal
Structural
Division,
of the
Proceedings of the A S C E , Vol. 107, NO. ST2, Feb. 1981, pp.
299-317.
[24] Bogner, F. K . , Fox, F. L . and Schmit, L . A . , "The Generation of Compatible
Stiffness and Mass Matrices by the use of Interpolation Formulas",
of the Conference
on Matrix
Methods
in Structural
Mechanics,
Proceedings
Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base/Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab., Tr-66-80, 1966, pp. 397-443.
[25] Fung, Y . C , Foundations
1965.
of Solid Mechanics,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey,
Bibliography
[26] Mendelson, A . , Plasticity:
190
Theory and Application, MacMillan, New York, 1968.
[27] Heppler, G. R., "On The Analysis of Shell Structures Subjected to a Blast Environment: A Finite Element Approach", Report No. 302, University of Toronto
Institute of Aeronautical Studies, 1986.
[28] Chen, W . F. and Han, D. J., Plasticity for Structural Engineers Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1988.
[29] Zienkiewicz, 0. C , The Finite Element Method, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, London, 1973.
[30] Bodner, S. R. and Symonds, P. S., "Experimental and Theoretical Investigation
of the Plastic Deformation of Cantilever Beams Subjected to Impulsive Loading",
AS ME Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 29, 1962, pp. 719-728.
[31] Roark, R. J . and Young, W . C , Formulas for Stress and Strain, 5th. Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1975.
[32] Kumar, P., "Large Deflection Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Cylindrical Shells using
the Finite Strip Method", M.A.Sc
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1989.

[33] Wu, R. W . H . and Witmer, E . A.,"Nonlinear Transient Responses of Structures
by the Spatial Finite Element Method", AIAA Journal, Vol. 11, No. 8, 1973, pp.
1110-1117.
[34] Abramowitz, M . and Stegun, I. A . , Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover
Publications Inc., N . Y . , 1972.
[35] Belytschko, T. and Hughes, T. J . R., Editors, Computational Methods for Transient Analysis, Vol. 1, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V . , 1983.
Bibliography
191
[36] Cook, R. D., Malkus, D. S. and Plesha, M . E., Concepts and Applications of
Finite Element Analysis, 3rd. Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1989.
[37] Newmark, N . M . , "A Method of Computation for Structural Mechanics", Journal
of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 85 No. E M 3 , Proc. Paper
2094, 1959, pp. 67-94.
[38] Soreide, T. H., Moan, T. and Nordsve, N . T., 'On the Behaviour and Design of
Stiffened Plates in Ultimate Limit State', Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 22, No.
4, December 1978, pp. 238-244.
[39] Folz, B. R., FENTAB - Finite Element Non-linear Transient Analysis of Beams
- Version 1.0, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada, 1986.
[40] Houlston, R. and Slater, J . E . , ' A Summary of Experimental Results on Square
Plates and Stiffened Panels Subjected to Air-Blast Loading', 57th Shock and
Vibration Bulletin, Part 214, pp. 55-67, 1987.
[41] Bathe, K . J., ' A D I N A - A Finite Element Program for Automatic Dynamic
Incremental Non-Linear Analysis ', Report 82^8-1,
Acoustics and Vibration
Laboratory, Dept. of Mechanical Eng., Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975.
[42] Rossow, M . P. and Ibrahimkhail, A . K . , "Constraint Method Analysis of Stiffened
Plates",Computers and Structures, Vol. 8, pp. 51-60, 1978
[43] Durvasula, S., Burbure, R. N . and Srinivasan, S., "Natural Frequencies of Vibration of Isotropic Flat Plates - I", Report No. AE 190 S, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore-12, 1968.
Bibliography
192
[44] Timoshenko, S., Vibration Problems in Engineering, 2nd. Edition, Van Nostrand
Co. Inc., New York, 1937.
[45] Hearmon, R. F. S., "The Frequency of Vibration of Rectangular Isotropic Plates",
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 19, Transactions, A S M E , Vol. 74, 1952, p.
404.
[46] Warburton, G . B . , " The Vibration of Rectangular Plates", Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 168, 1954, p. 371.
[47] Kaul, R. K . and Cadambe, V . , "The Natural Frequencies of Thin Skew Plates",
The Aeronautical Quarterly, Vol. 7, 1956, p. 337.
[48] Fletcher, H . J., "The Frequency of Vibration of Rectangular Plates", Journal of
Applied Mechanics, Vol. 26, Transactions, A S M E , Vol. 81, 1959, p. 290.
[49] Wu, C. I. and Cheung, Y . K.; "Frequency Analysis of Rectangular Plates Continuous in one or two Directions", Earthquake Eng. and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 3, 1974, pp. 3-14.
[50] Thomson, W . T., Theory of Vibration with Applications, 2nd. Edition, PrenticeHall, Inc., New Jersey, 1981.
[51] Olson, M . D. and Hazell, C. R.; "Vibration Studies on Some Integral RibStiffened Plates",
of Sound and Vibration, 50(1), 1977, pp. 43-61.
[52] Balendra, T. and Shanmugam, N . E.; "Free Vibration of Plated Structures by

Grillage Method", J. of Sound and Vibration, 99(3), 1985, pp. 333-350.
[53] Jiang, J., Olson, M . D. and Anderson, D. L., "Nonlinear Transient Analysis of
Cylindrical Shell Structures by the Finite Strip Method", Structural Research
Series, Report No. 35, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, May 1990.
Bibliography
193
[54] Stagliano, T. R. and Mente, L . J . , 'Large Deflection Elastic-Plastic Dynamic

Structural Response of Beams and Stiffened or unstiffened Panels - A Comparison of Finite Element, Finite Difference and Model Solutions', Nonlinear Finite
Element Analysis and A D I N A , Proc. ADINA Conference, 1979.
[55] Vaziri, R., Olson, M . D. and Anderson, D. L., "Dynamic Response of Axially
Constrained Plastic Beams to Blast Loads", Int. J. Solid Structures, Vol. 23, No.
1, 1987, pp. 153-174.
[56] Schubak, R. B., Anderson, D. L. and Olson, M . D., "Simplified Dynamic Analysis
of Rigid-Plastic Beams", Int. J. Impact Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1989, pp. 2742.
[57] Schubak, R. B . , "Nonlinear Analysis of Beams, Grillages and Stiffened Plates
under Blast Loads", Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, In preparation, 1990.
[58] Olson, M . D. and Lindberg, G. M . , "Free Vibrations and Random Response of an
Integrally-Stiffened Panel", Aeronautical Report LR-544, National Aeronautical
Establishment, Ottawa, Oct. 1970.
Appendix A
Shape Functions
Using the notations
u = Y.\U i i>
N u
= T.lL i i
a n d
functions for the plate elements are given by
HOMv)
HOHv)
HOHv)
Ht)Hv)
L {()L {r,)
H()L ( )
HOHv)
Nl
Nt
Nt
3 V
sin 2ITLI(TI)
N?
= sin 2TT(L {TJ)

2
= sin27r^L (n)
= sin 47rZ, 1(77)
JNV
u
1
= sin47r^L (^/)
2
194
" i WjVj
s h a
Appendix A.
195
Shape Functions
Ng = 811147^3(77)
s
for * < 9
^ 0
L ti)sm2Tr
12
L (Osm2irr]
I (Osin47rr
14
= I (Osin47T7/
v
n
^
N
2^(0
sin
2 ^
^5
Ng
^ 3 ( 0 ^ 4 ^
Hi(()Hi(rj)
Ng
Ng
H {i)H ( )
Ng
H (OH (v)
Ng
H (t)H (7,)
Ng
ff (0#ifo)
Ng
H (t)H ( )
Ng
H (t)H ( )
Ng
H (()H ( )
H (0Hs(v)
H (Z)H ( )
H {()H {n)
N
JV
12
Appendix A. Shape Functions
196
HÔHM
N =
H (t)H { )
JVTe =
H (t)H<( )
N? = 4>(t)Hiiv)
7
AT- = 0(O# fo)

a
iV- = i/ (OM)
3
i V - = Hi(t)d>( )
V
iVTs = 0 ( 0 ^ )
Shape Functions for Beam Element in z-direction
The shape functions for a beam element in the x-direction are given by
= MO
N? =
*m)
NT = eH' (C)
2
N =
NT
NT
HO
197
Appendix A. Shape Functions
HO
NT =:
NT =
N? =
sin 27r
= sin 4"7r
Ko
N =
m)
N =
m)
N =
m)
N =
b
N =
b
where the superscripts m and b stand for membrane and bending, respectively.
a beam in the y-direction replace ^ by 77.
For
Appendix B
Strain-Displacement Matrices
The linear and nonlinear strain-displacement matrices, [B] and [C ], discussed in
0
Chapter 4 are presented here. For the super plate elements, these are 3 x 55 matrices
and 1 x 10 for beam elements.
Details of the [B] Matrix

For plate elements, the [B] matrix is given by
2
AT
dx
dx
dx
ft
dN*
2z
dxdy
dy
dx
0
dN%
dy
dN%
dx
0
dNf
dy
dN%
dx
dx2
2
dy
dy
dNl
a A
dy
dy
dNl
d N
2
dxdy
dy
a A7
dx
8N%
dy
aA
dN\
dy
dx
a
0 -
dxdy
dx
N
JV
dy
11
/V
r)
AT
dxdy
dxdy
d N.
2
dx
15
dx
dx
a L5
A
2
dy
JV
-Li
dy
AT
0 ~
a TV.
d Nf.
d N
Z
dxdy
2
dx
2z *
d2N
Li.
dy
d N?
ATW
dx
a2
d N
dxdy
dNl
2z
d N
Z
dx2
Q2 W
dy
dxdy
A
dx
d N
d2N
dxdy
d N
dx2
2
dy
2z *
dx
dx
a jv
2
d N
dN%
13
dxdy
dy
dxdy
198
dy
a iv"
2
aaiay
dxdy
a A
8x2
AT
dy
dxdy
a A
d N
a
2
N ?
dx
dxdy
d N
dy
a A
dy
dx
d N
d N
z
~~dy~
N ?
[B] =
dx
dy
dxdy
Appendix
B.
Strain-Displacement
dNl
dx
dx
9JV
i\j~w
pS
2z
dNl
dy
y AA.
d N
2fj
dx
By
By
dN%
dxdy
SAT"
ox
d
By
9A ""
dN*
dy
dx
dx
dx
dxdy
dNl
dy
2z "
dNl
By
d2N
dxdy
d N
9y
dy
as
A
dy
2z "
~
SATBy
d2N
dx
dx
dx
y a AA.
AT
y dx
dNl
dx
iv
8Ng
dy22
dxdy
8 N
U
dx
y AA.
Z
By
By
dxdy
dNl
dN%
8 N
dx
2
By
8N
dx
d N
d N?2
dx
dx
9y
By
dxdy
dNl
dN%
By
By
By
d N
dNl
dNf
dx
y -Al.
Z
2z
dxdy
dx
By
d2N
dx
dN?
aw-
19
d N
Z
dNl
By
By
dN
dxdy
dx
10
By
dxdy
dx
AT.
2z
17
dx
. La.
dx
dN
By
dNl
By
'
By
dN
dNl
d AT
9 A
.
1
dx
199
Matrices
0
By
dx
0
aA7
dx
F o r a b e a m element i n t h e cc-direction t h e [B] m a t r i x is g i v e n b y
[B} =
dL
dH
2
dx
dx
dH
2
(e-z)
where,
4(1;)
by y a n d by
sin2-7Tc;
77.
dU
dx
'
dx '
dH
, {e-z)
dx
dx
dLi
d (f)
2
dx '
2
dL^ dL%
dx '
dx
a n d L () = s i n 4 ^ . F o r a b e a m i n t h e y - d i r e c t i o n , replace x
5
Appendix B. Strain-Displacement Matrices
200
D e t a i l s o f the.[C ] M a t r i x
0
For plate elements the [Co] is given by
[Co} =
mn
dN?
dN?
dN?
dN?
dN?
~dt^- i
w
i d N f d N V .
dN?
d N ^ d N l
dy
By
9mn{Q
?3 TW-
dN
dN
9x
T 3
a A
9x
^
X
)Wj
)Wj
0 0
0 0
dy
dN?-
dx
dN?.
d x
9mn{
)Wj
dN?
8x
dy
d x
dN?
dx
)Wj
) 3
dN?
- w
dx
dx
3
n
d N
dNV
dy
) 3
W
9mn{
dy
N ?
IS.
dx
? .
)Wj
9rnn{
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
)Wj
dN?
Jtn
dx
dN?
- b t ~ b t
ffi^W
dN?
9A
d N ?
dy
a
9mn{
) 3
dN?
S m n ^ ^ K
9x
d N ?
-bir-dt J
)Wj
al
w
dx
dx
3
dN?.
dN?
*w
dy
By
3
dN?
dN?
8y 3
9 x
dN?
dx*
dN?
N ?
3
n
( _ . _ l _ )
-at-st i
dy
8 x
8N?.
? dN?
dN?
-dt~at i
w
dx
3
9N?
dy
9 \
dN?
dN?
dN?
9x
w
dy
3N?
dN?. dN?
"i
L . M .
w
9x
3
dN?
9x
9AT
9mn{
d N ? d N ? .
9mn\.
dN?
0 0
0 0
dN?-
0 0
0 0
dN
(^^)w
Wa
dx
~ & t ^
d
dN?
^
dy
9ATJ". SAT
-af^-Vi
9 m n \
^
X
dNJ^dNl
dN?. dN?
"
t1tl-
9x
- d ^ ^ t
dy
9mn{
)Wj
~dt^y - i
flfmn(^-^-K-
dN^dNJ^
W
dy
-air-ntî
5mn(^^K~dt^t i
-bf-bt 3
d N ? d N ? .
dN?
dN?
dN? dN?
-i-^r i
dN? dN?
N? dN?
dN?
I)
Xm
n
II
{ ^ - ^ - )
-at~dt J
dN?
0 0 a (^^L)wU
-at-at i
0 0
0
-et-bt i
dN
dN?
Wj
dN?
- e t ^ -
dN? dN?
-af-dy -!
? dN?
dN? dN?
~ d t ^ t
dN? dN?
- d t ~ d t
dN? dN?
-eZBZ-Vj
n
,dN?dm'
0 g (-^-^-)
dN? dN?
i
)U>
Appendix B. Strain-Displacement Matrices
0 0
0 0
n
201
6A"?. SAT
W
'
dx
dx
3
dN
dN
dN
BN*
121
dy
BN
dx
dy
BNV
dy
dy
( ?i F\
aN
dN
SAT,
0 0
2i
0 0
dy
2i
dx
Z_
8N2
i_
yj .
dy
SAT
0 0
0 0 0 0
3 - ( S f - ^ K By
0 0
0 0 0 0
BN
2i
dy
f^ -M
yj .
dx
dN
BNf
dy
BN
0 0
dx
dN?.
SA SAT
0 0
BNV
121
dx
(^22.i-W
0 0
8N
'in
, 8N
0 0 a
dx
dN?
dy
0 0
ID;
,dNBN
9 N
dx
dN
0 0
dx
o o o o
where m, n = 1, 2; j = 1, 2, . . . 25 and Wj consists of the corner flexural displacements given in Equation (3.7). g
mn
is defined as
9mn
where 8
mn
1 8-mn
is the Dirac delta, so that

1 if m / n
0 if m = n
The terms x
define the two coordinate directions, such that, x represents the x-axis
x
and x the y-direction.

2
For a beam in the x-direction the [Co] is given by
[Co} =
dH\dH)
dx
dx
dH dH]
b
dx
dx
dE\dE\
' dx
dx
dE\dE\
^ dx
dx
dE\dE\
'
' dx
where, j = 1, 2, . . . 5 and Wj contains the terms Wi, w i, w , w

x
x2
dx
and w .
s
Appendix
[fi] M a t r i c e s f o r P l a t e a n d B e a m
Elements
The matrix [ft] appears in the tangent stiffness matrix expressed in Equation 4.26. It
is symmetric and has 55 x 55 terms for plate elements and 10 x 10 terms for beam
elements.
The terms in the [ft] matrix for plate elements hace been expressed by Equation 4.28 as
ON? dN?
13
dx
dx
(dN?
dN?
dN?
\ dx
dy
dy
ON? dN?
dy
dy
dN?\
dx J
x y
where i , j = 1, 2,. . . , 55 and r, s = 1,2,..., 25.

The subscripts r, s corresponding to the indices i, j, respectively, can be obtained
from the following chart:
202
Appendix C. [Q] Matrices for Plate and Beam Elements
203
i or j r or s i or j r or s i or j r or s
1
19
37
20
38
21
13
39
21
22
14
40
22
23
15
41
24
16
42
25
43
26
44
27
17
45
23
10
28
18
46
24
11
29
47
12
30
48
13
31
49
14
32
50
15
33
19
51
25
16
10
34
20
52
17
11
35
53
18
12
36
54
55
For example, using the chart, the subscript corresponding to i = 4 is r 2 and

that corresponding to j = 33 is s = 19, so that the term ft
4|33
_ dNg 8N
'
4 33
Similarly,
dx
dx
dNg_dN^
dy
dy
(dNg_dN^
y
\ dx
dy
is given by
dN? dN?
dy
dx
Appendix C. [ft] Matrices for Plate and Beam Elements
5117
? ^ . ? ^ n
dx
<
+ ^ 1 ^ 1 ^
dx
dy
dy
| (MndNZ
\ dx
204
dNdN\
dy
dx J
dy
x y
and so on.
If any of the subscripts r, s corresponding to i, j is zero, then the ftjj term is
zero. Thus,
ftl,12
^37,27 = ^55,20 =
^44,44 =
and similarly for other terms.

For a beam element in the x-direction the entries in the [ft] matrix are given by
Equation 4.29 as
dN dN
iiij
c
dx dx
b
where i,j = 1, 2, . .. , 10; r,s = 1, 2, . . . , 5 and the shape functions N have been
b
described in Appendix A . The values of r, s corresponding to i, j in this case can

be obtained from the chart below:
i or j 1 2
r or s 0
10
1 2
The terms in [ft] are obtained by following the procedure outlined above for the
plate element case. Some examples are given below:
ft
2,5
dN' dN
dx dx
ft8,3
dN dN
dx dx
^6,6
dN\ dN\
dx dx
ftl,9
ftl0,8
ft4,7 ft9,9 0
Other terms can be similarly obtained. For a beam in the y-direction, replace x
by y in the relevant expressions above.
Appendix
F o r m u l a s f o r J , Izz,
Jo a n d F
In the formulas presented here, the symbols in the following figure are used:
-,-f,
Rectangular
Cross-section
l-Beam
Cross-section
Torsional Constant J
For
rectangular cross sections, the torsional constant is given, approximately, by
[58]
T
J
For
bh
64a
, (vb\
r~ tanh
3
Tr
\2hJ
thin I or T sections, the torsional constant is given, approximately, by
J = $bj!
+ b rf + h tl)
2
205
Appendix D. Formulas for J, Izz,
M o m e n t of Inertia,
206
Jo and T
Izz
For beams of I cross sections, the moment of inertia about the z z axis is given
by
Izz=^(hb
f b +t hl)
The moment of inertia about the z z axis for beams of T or rectangular cross
sections can be obtained from the above expression by eliminating the appropiate
flanges.
P o l a r M o m e n t of Inertia, J
For I cross sections, the polar moment of inertia about the mid-plane of the plating
is given expressed as
Jo
^(6l/ +fe /
3
+t h {fi
w
3
2
+ ^^)
+ l(h
+ ^(<p+/l)
+ t )}
p
+ (hb\
+ fe /2{^ + | ( < - / 2 ) } +
+ f b\
2
t hl)
w
where, t is the thickness of the plating which the beam reinforces.

p
The same formula can be used for rectangular or T cross sections by eliminating
the appropiate flanges.
Warping Constant, T
For thin-walled I beam sections the warping constant is given, approximately, by
I2{hb\ +
f b$
2
Note that i n the above expression, the tangential component of T has been neglected as it is very small compared to the normal component, T .
n
angular shapes the normal component, T

sections.
For T and rect-
is zero and hence T = 0 for these cross

Ubc - 1990 - A1 K66

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ubc - 1990 - A1 K66

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SUPER FINITE E L E M E N T S F O R NONLINEAR STATIC AND

We accept this thesis as conforming

presenting this thesis

granted by the head of

Material nonlinearities are modelled by von Mises yield criterion and

Finite Difference and Finite Element Methods

Finite Strip Method

Description of the Super Finite Elements

Super Finite Element Discretization

Compatibility, Convergence and Order of Accuracy

Theoretical Formulation and Analysis of Problem

Finite Element Formulation

Shape Function Matrices

Strain Displacement Relations

JMass and D a m p i n g Matrices

Stiffness matrix for beam torsional element

Mass matrix for beam torsional element

Square Plate I with Simply Supported Edges

Square Plate I w i t h Clamped Edges

Rectangular B e a m with Simple Supports

Rectangular B e a m with Clamped Ends

C l a m p e d 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I

Clamped DRES Stiffened Panel

Clamped DRES1B Stiffened Panel

Simply Supported 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I

6 Vibration Analysis Results

Square Plates with Various Edge Conditions

3-Bay Continuous Plate

2 x 2-Bay Continuous Plate .

2-Bay Stiffened Plate II with Clamped Boundaries

3-Bay Stiffened Panel with Clamped Edges

DRES Stiffened Panel

2x 2-Bay Stiffened Plate

2x4-Bay Stiffened Plate with Clamped Edges

4x4-Bay Stiffened Plate

7 Transient Analysis Results

Square Plate I with Simply Supported Edges

Square Plate I with Clamped Edges

Simply Supported Square Plate II Subject to Triangular Load

Rectangular Beam with Simple Supports

Clamped 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II

Simply Supported 2-Bay Stiffened Plate II

H O B 315 Loading on Clamped DRES Stiffened Panel

Clamped DRES1B Stiffened Panel

Clamped 2x2-Stiffened Plate II

Clamped 4x4-Bay Stiffened Plate

[fi] M a t r i c e s for P l a t e a n d B e a m Elements

Strain rate parameters for steel and aluminum

Sampling points and weights for Gaussian integration

Linear elastic response of simply supported Square Plate I

Linear elastic response of clamped square plate I

Linear elastic response of simply supported rectangular beam . . . . .

Linear elastic response of clamped rectangular beam

Linear elastic response of 2-Bay Stiffened Plate I

Deflections and strain energy in linear elastic DRES stiffened panel

Deflections and strain energy in linear elastic DRES1B panel

Nonlinear elastic response of DRES1B panel

Nonlinear elastic-plastic response of DRES1B panel

5.10 Nonlinear elastic response of 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I

5.11 Nonlinear elastic-plastic response of 2x2-Bay Stiffened Plate I . . . .

Eigenvalues of square plates with various edge conditions

Natural frequencies of 3-bay continuous plate

Natural Frequencies of 2x2-Bay Continuous Plate