Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
This paper presents buckling analysis of rectangular
plate by split-deflection method. Here the deflection
was taken as the product of these two components in x
and y directions. The study formulated the total
potential energy functional from principles of theory of
elasticity based on work-error approach using this
assumption. By direct variation, the energy functional
was minimized by and equation for critical buckling
load was obtained. Two examples, one withall edges
simply supported and the other with all edges clamped
were used to test this method. The one used polynomial
function for x component of deflection and
trigonometric function for y component of. For the
second example polynomial function for both x and y
components of deflection.Critical buckling load (in non
dimensional forms) of the two examples for aspect
ratios ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 (at increment of 0.1) were
determined and compared with the values from
previous study. From the comparison, it was observed
that the maximum percentage difference of 0.69 was
recorded. Thesmall valeus of percentage difference
from this studyshow that this present method is
sufficient and reliable for classical plate theory (CPT)
buckling analysis of rectangular plates.
Index
Terms
Critical
buckling
load,
split-deflection, work-error, energy functional,
polynomial function, trigonometric function
I. INTRODUCTION
Classical plate theory (CPT) buckling analysis is
dominated energy methods such as Raleigh,
Raleigh-Rit, Ritz, Galerkin, minimum potential energy,
work-erroretc
(Ugural,
1999,
Ventsel
and
Krauthammer, 2001 and Ibearugbulem et al.,
2014).Most of these energy methods are characterized
by single deflection (un-separated) function. The
deflection is a single orthogonal function, w.This is
evident in the energy functionals. For instance, let us
look at the energy functional of work error method
(Ibearugbulem et al., 2014):
27
www.ijete.org
That is
28
www.ijete.org
That is
Where
29
www.ijete.org
REFERENCES
Present
Past
(Ibearugbulem et
al., 2014)
Percentage
difference
39.49
39.51
0.04
1.1
39.85
39.87
0.04
1.2
40.82
40.84
0.03
1.3
42.28
42.29
0.03
1.4
44.14
44.16
0.03
1.5
46.36
46.37
0.02
1.6
48.89
48.90
0.02
1.7
51.71
51.72
0.02
1.8
54.80
54.81
0.02
1.9
58.15
58.16
0.02
61.74
61.75
0.01
Present
Past
(Ibearugbulem et
al., 2014)
Percentage
difference
108.00
108.67
0.61
1.1
109.53
110.21
0.62
1.2
113.65
114.36
0.62
1.3
119.83
120.59
0.63
1.4
127.75
128.57
0.64
1.5
137.17
138.06
0.65
1.6
147.93
148.91
0.66
1.7
159.91
160.99
0.67
1.8
173.04
174.23
0.68
1.9
187.25
188.55
0.69
202.50
203.92
0.69
30
www.ijete.org