Int. J. Pres. Ves.

& Piping 38(1989) 39-55

A New Method of Multisegment Integration for the

Nonlinear Analysis of Shells of Revolution

Md. Wahhaj Uddin

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bangladesh University of

Engineering and Technology,Dhaka, Bangladesh

(Received 24 June 1988; accepted 8 August 1988)

ABSTRACT

A new methodofmult&egment integration has been developedhereJor solving

boundary value problems of a system of nonlinear ordinary differential
equations as encountered in the large deflection analysis of the axisymmetric
deformations of the shells of revolution. Multisegment integration is used to
solve those boundary value problems of ordinary differential equations which
cannot be solved by direct integration, because the latter loses its accuraO, in
the process of subtraction of almost equal numbers in evaluating the unknown
boundary values. The method developed here involves much less computa-
tional work than the multisegment integration developed by Kalnins and
Lestingi. The new method has been applied to a number of problems to
ascertain its soundness and accurao'.

NOTATION

C Eh
D Eh3/{ 12(1 -- v2)}
E Young's modulus
h Shell thickness
H Horizontal stress resultant
k o, k¢ Curvature changes
M,m Number of segments, order of differential equations
Mo,M~ Couple resultants
Uo,~ Meridional and circumferential stress resultants
P Internal pressure
39
Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 0308-0161/89/$03.50 © 1989 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd,
England. Printed in Great Britain
40 Md. Wahhaj Uddin

r0, F Radial distance of points on undeformed and deformed middle

surface
T,,T (m, m) matrices specified by boundary conditions
U, W Radial and axial displacements of middle surface
b/1 , U 2 (m, 1) matrices containing boundary conditions
V Vertical stress resultant
x, Si Independent variable, ith segment
yix) (m, 1) matrix containing m variables
fi -

g'O, '£'~ Middle surface strains

V Poisson's ratio
Angle between normal and axis of symmetry before and after
deformation

INTRODUCTION

Many problems of physical phenomena may be reduced to a set of first-

order nonlinear differential equations of the form a-28
dy/dx = F (x, y l , y 2. . . . . y") (1)
to be solved in the interval a < x < b. Here y represents a column vector of
unknowns, yX, yZ,...,ym, and F a column vector of known functions,
F1, F2 . . . . . F,,. The boundary conditions are usually specified as
Tly(a) = ul T2y(b) = u2 (2)
where T1,/'2 are (m x m) known matrices and ul, u2 are both (m x 1) matrices
with a total o f m of their elements known as boundary conditions. The finite-
difference method of solution of eqn (1) or finite-element method of
formulation of the problem governed by eqn (1) would convert it to a set of
nonlinear algebraic equations, which are always solved by iteration as a
sequence of solutions of a system of linear algebraic equations derived as
approximations to the original equations. However, when eqn (1) is highly
nonlinear, as are the governing equations of flexible shell structures, the
iteration process fails to converge. Equation (1) may also be solved by direct
integration, in which case the unknowns y(a) must be determined through a
process of iteration by solving a set of linear algebraic equations of the form 2
y(b) = Y(b)y(a) + Z(b) (3)
where Y(b) and Z(b) are respectively (m x m) and (m x 1) matrices whose
elements are obtained from initial-value integration of differential equations
derived from eqn (1) by differentiating them with respect to y(a).
 Nonlinear analysis of shells of revolution 41

In shell structures, for a given y(a), y(b) decreases rapidly with increasing
( b - a). This is possible only when subtraction takes place between almost
equal but very large numbers Y(b) and Z(b) in eqn (3). As both Y(b) and Z(b)
are obtained from numerical integration, they are correct only up to a
certain number of digits, all of which cancel out in the process of subtraction.
Thus, when (b - a) becomes large, the method of direct integration of eqn (1)
fails to produce any solution.
Attempts have also been made to solve the nonlinear equations of shells
by the method of collocation using Chevyshev polynomials, 17-19 where the
resulting nonlinear algebraic equations are linearised and then solved
iteratively. But the success of this method is limited to the very simple
problems of shallow spherical caps and circular plates which can be
managed just as well by direct integration. Finite-element formulation of
nonlinear shell problems, which ultimately resolves into solution of a large
number of nonlinear algebraic equations, has often met the problem of
nonconvergence.13
To overcome the difficulty of direct integration of eqn (1), Kalnins and
Lestingi developed a multisegment method of integration 2 which avoided
integration over large ranges of x in order to keep magnitudes of Y(b) and
Z(b) relatively small in eqn (3).
Kalnins' method of multisegment integration consists of the following
steps:
(a) Divisions of the interval (b - a) into M segments (Fig. 1) so that the
length of each segment is less than a critical length as defined in
Ref. 9.
(b) Initial-value integration of eqn (1) and m other sets, obtained by
differentiating eqn (1) with respect to yJ(xi) (j-~ 1, 2 .... ,m) in each
segment i(i = 1, 2 ..... M) from xi to xi+ 1 (Fig. 1). The initial values for
integration of eqn (1) over any segment are arbitrary in the first
iteration but, for subsequent passes, the initial values are the
solutions of the continuity equations of step (c).
(c) Solution of a system of M matrix equations for finding the values of
the variable y at the nodal points of the segments which ensure
continuity of y over the range ( b - a).
(d) Repetition of steps (a)-(c) till full continuity of), over the whole range
is established.

s~ s2 s3 si sM.11 s .
I I I I .... I I .... I I
X1 X2 X3 X4 Xi Xi, 1 XM- 1 X M XM. 1

Fig. 1. Division into segments.

42 M d Wahha/ Uddin

Kalnins' method ofmultisegment integration has been used extensively by

a number of authors 2°- z 8 for solving the nonlinear differential equations of
axisymmetric shells. This method does not suffer from the deficiencies of the
finite-difference and direct integration methods, but requires a substantial
amount of computational work.
This paper is concerned with the development of a new method of
multisegment integration which requires only one initial-value integration
in step (b), instead of the ( m + 1) initial-value integrations of Kalnins'
method, in the second and further iterations.
In order to illustrate the application of the multisegment method of
integration developed in this paper, a number of numerical examples are
presented here. First, numerical results of a second-order nonlinear
differential equation are presented at every pass of computation in order to
show the convergence and accuracy of the method. Next, the results of
different problems of nonlinear shell analysis are presented and compared
with other results.

THE NEW M E T H O D OF M U L T I S E G M E N T I N T E G R A T I O N

The multisegment method of integration developed here is, like the method
of Kalnins and Lestingi, applicable to any system of m first-order ordinary
differential equations with m/2 boundary conditions stated at each end of
the total interval ( b - a) of the independent variable x.
Let the total interval (a<x < b) be divided into M segments (Fig. 1)
denoted by St (i= 1,2 ..... M), where x~ denotes the initial point of the
segment Si. It is now assumed that an initial-value solution of eqn (1) exists
anywhere in segment S; and is unique. Thus, given an initial set of values y(x~)
at the initial point (x~), we will obtain a unique set of values y(x) at some point
x in St. Let this relationship between y(x~) and y(x) be expressed as
y(x~) =f[yl(x), yZ(x), y3(x),..., y"(x)] (4)
where the function f i s uniquely dependent on x and eqn (1).
A first-order approximation for the small changes of the variables in eqn
(4) is given by
~yJ(x~) 6yllx) + Off(x3 6y2(x) OyJ(xi) ~ ,., ,
6/(x,) - +...+~oy ~x~
k=m
= ~ OYJ(Xi)~
oy k,ix), for j = 1, 2.... , m (5)
/_.,
k-1
 Nonlinear analysis of shells of revolution 43

The small changes 6y(x~) and 6y(x) in eqn (5) are expressed in finite-
difference form with the following meanings:

[,~yJ(x~)]~ = y(x~)- I-fi(x3]t (6)

where yJ(x~) are assumed to be the exact values of the dependent variables at
x i which would satisfy the differential eqn (1) and the boundary conditions
(2), and [yJ(xi)]l are certain assumed values at x i. The subscript ["" "It in (6) is
used to distinguish 6yJ(x~) for different assumed values of yJ(x~). Similarly

I-~yk(x)] = y~(x) - r),~(x)]~ (7)

where yk(x) are the exact values of the variables at x in Si corresponding to

yJ(xi) and [yk(x)]~ are the values of the variables at x corresponding to the
assumed values [YJ(xi)]l.
It is now assumed that eqn (6) is evaluated (m + 1) times for (m + 1)
different values ofyJ(x~) which, with the help of notations of eqns (6) and (7),
can be written as
k=m
~ @J(xi)
[6yJ(xi)]l = ayk(x) [6yk(x)]l (8)
k=l

where j = 1, 2 .... , m and l = 1, 2,..., m + 1.

The (m,m) unknown elements OyJ(xi)/Oyk(x) in eqn (8) are obtained by
solving (8) for j, l = 1, 2,..., m, which will result in

c3yJ(xi) Det. A k
(j;k = 1,2 .... ,m) (9)
Oyk(x) Det. A
where

Det. A =

[ I-6),1(x)]1

[6y'(x)L
6y2(x)]i

[6y2ix)L
...

.-
[6ym(x)]i]

[6y~(.~)],J

and Det. Ak is equivalent to Det. A with its kth column being replaced by
- [6yJ(x,)] 1 ]

_[6yJ(x,)L_l
44 Md. Wahha/ Uddm

Substitution of (9) in (8) for / = m + 1 will give

k-m

[/5)'J('vi)]" +~ = ]~--~TA L Y b U +1 (10)

k-1

where j = 1, 2 .... , m.
As Det. A is independent of the subscript k, eqn (10) can be rearranged as
Det. A [•yJ(xl)]. ,+ 1 = Det. A I[6Y~(X)]m +~ + Det. Az[ayZ(x)],,+ ~ + " "
+ Det. A,,[ay"(x)],,+~ (11)
When the values of the determinants A and Ak are substituted in eqn (11) it
can be shown that eqn (11) becomes equivalent to the determinant equations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,12,
[6ya(x,)] m +, [4V'(X)],, +, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 6 y " ( X ) ] ~ +, J
where j = 1, 2,..., m.
Elements o f e q n (12) are replaced by their values as defined by eqns (6) and
(7):
yJixi)- [yJ{xi)], y'tx)- [y'ix)], y q x ) - Fyqx)]~ .-- ~,m{.~)-b,m(x)]~ ]

y J ( x i ) - - [yJ(xi)]m+ 1 y l ( x ) - - [yl(X)]m+ ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . y m ( x ) -- L v m ( X ) ] m + I J

(13)
where j = 1, 2,..., m.
Equation (13) can be explicitly expressed as
k=m

~ yJ~xi~ f ~x ~ -- ~ ' [yk(X)akj(X)] + bj(x) = 0 (14)

k=l
where
[yJ(xi)]l [yl (x)] 1 [yX(x)] l . . . . . . . . [-y"(x)] 1
[yJ(x,)]2 [yl(x)]2 .................... [y'(X)] 2
bj(x) =

[yJ(x,)L+, [y'(x)]m+, .................. [y"~(x)].+,

Det. C(x) is equivalent to Det. bj(x) where the elements of the first column of
bj(x) are replaced by unity and Det. ak~(X) is equivalent to Det. bj(x) with its
kth column elements replaced by a unit column vector. It should be noted
here that in coming from eqn (13) to (14) there should have been additional
 Nonlinear analysis of shells of revolution 45

terms in (14), which vanishes due to the fact that two or more columns are
identical in the determinants.
In eqn (14) all the determinants akj, bj and C are known from the (m + 1)
initial-value integrations o f ( l ) in the segment S/. Evaluating (14) at x~+ 1, we
get
k=m

yS(xi)C(xi +1) + >', Yk(xi+ 1)akj(Xi+ 1) = bj(xi+ 1) (15)

k-1

where j = 1, 2 .... , m.
Equation (15) can be expressed in matrix notation as

Zi ~- Yiy(xi + 1) = Y(Xi) (16)

where the (m, m) matrix Y~ is given by
_[adx,+l)-~
Y' = L C(x,+l) J

and the (m, l) matrix Z i is defined by

Zi= ~C(X,+l)]
For the m o m e n t it is assumed that, instead of the conditions of(2), the first
m/2 elements ofy(xl) and the last m/2 elements ofy(xM + 1) are prescribed by
the boundary conditions. Now, in order to separate the known boundary
values from the unknown elements ofy(x~), eqn (16) is partitioned in the form

z,' l [~l!V-]fy1(x,+1)] [y1(x,)l

z? 3 + I = Ly=m) ]
which results into the following pair of matrix equations:

z / + Y)yl(xi+O + y~2y2(xi+O = yl(x3

I" (17)
z , ~ + r? y l(x, + 1) + r?y2(x, +1) = y2(x,))

In eqns (17), yl(xi) represents the first m/2 elements of yJ(x,), with j =
1, 2 ..... m/2, and y 2(xi) represents the last m/2 elements of y~(xi), withj = m/2,
m/2 + 1..... m. The known coefficients Z7 and Y/" are, respectively, (m/2, 1)
and (m/2,m/2) matrices. Equations (17) represent 2M matrix equations,
where i = 1,2 .... ,M, containing 2M unknowns: yl(xi), with i =
2, 3 . . . . . M + 1, and y2(xi), with i = 1, 2, 3. . . . . M, since y l(xl) and Yz(Xv +1) are
known from the boundary conditions.
46 Md. Wahhaj Uddin

By means of Gaussian elimination, the system of eqns t17) is brought to

the form

yl(Xi+l)=Aiq-BiY2(Xi+l) )'2(xi)=Z2-} - y/3yl(Xi+l) q- Y/4y2(xi+ 1) (18)

where the (m/2, 1) matrices Ai and the (m/2, m/2) matrices B i are given by

Al=[y~]-l[yl(Xl)_g]] B1 = _ [ y 1 ] ~y2
and
A i = [ y1 _ Bi_l y3] -1EAi_ 1 q._ Bi_l e i 2 -- Z1 ]
Bi = [yil _ Bi_l y/3] [-gi_ 1 ]7/4_ y/2]

The unknowns are then solved by evaluating eqns (18) for i = M to 1 in

sequence. In the next iteration the worst of the (m + 1) initial guesses ofy(x 0
is replaced by its new improved value obtained from (18). Then the system of
equations (1) is again integrated over each segment S~ from xi to x~+~ with
these new initial values y(x O. The result of this integration at .v~+ ~ may not
match the values ofy(x~+ 1) as obtained from (18) because eqns (5) are only
first-order approximations. The iteration process is then continued till the
results of the initial-value integration of(i) in Si with the latest initial values
y(x~) match up to a certain digit with the values ofy(x~ + ~) as obtained from
(18) for all the segments. When this convergence is attained the last
integration results will be the desired solution as these results satisfy the
differential equations over the given interval with continuity at the ends of
the segments and also match with the boundary conditions.
In the above development of a multisegment integration method it has
been assumed that the first m/2 elements are prescribed as boundary
conditions. In reality, the boundary conditions are stated in the form ofeqns
(2), where any m/2 elements o f u l and any m/2 elements o f u z may be specified
as boundary conditions. By rearranging the rows of T 1 and T 2 in a special
order, eqns (2) can always be stated in a manner such that the prescribed
elements of Ul and u 2 become respectively the first and the last m/2 elements
o f u 1 and Uz. When this is achieved, evaluation of(16) at i = 1 and i = M, and
then elimination of y(xO and y(xM + 1) by means of (2), yields

T~ Y~Y(X2)= u I
T 1 Z 1 q- (19)
ZM + YM[T2] -1u2 = y(XM) (20)
We can now retain the form of (16) if we take the coefficient matrices Z~, Y~
and YM, occurring in (16) to represent T1Z1, T1Y 1 and YM[-T2]-1,
respectively. In so doing, the solution of (16) will not yield y(x ~) and y(xM + ~)
but rather the transformed variables Ua and u2. Once u~ and u2 are obtained
we can evaluate y(x i ) and y ( x ~ + 1) from the inversion of the matrix eqns (2).
 Nonlinear analysis of shells of revolution 47

To summarise, the method developed here for the solution of the problem
stated in eqns (1) and (2) will contain the following steps of operations:
(a) (m + 1) initial-value integrations ofeqn (1) over each segment Si from
Xi to xi + 1 with (m + 1) different initial values y(xi) t (l = 1, 2,..., m + 1).
(b) Evaluation of the determinants C ( X i + l ) , bj(Xi+l) and akj(Xi+l) , and
thereafter evaluation of the matrices Zi and Y/.
(c) Solution of the matrix eqns (18) for the new improved values y(xi).
(d) Integration of(I) over each segment Si from xi to xi+l with the new
values of y(xi) obtained in step (c).
(e) Comparison of the values ofy(xi+ 1) as obtained from the integration
of(l) in S~with those obtained from the solution of(16). If they match
within certain tolerance, then the last integration results are accepted
as the solution of the problem. Otherwise the worst of the original
(m + 1) values ofy(x3 is replaced by the new values ofy(x~). Repetition
from step (b) onward is continued until the continuity criterion is
satisfied.
Comparing the new method with that of Kalnins and Lestingi it can be
readily seen that, in the first pass of iteration, ( m + 1) initial-value
integrations in each segment are necessary in both methods. In addition, the
new method requires the evaluation of the determinants akj , bj and C for
each segment. But from the second iteration onward we need only one
initial-value integration of(l) for the new method and thus avoid completely
the additional m initial-value integrations ofeqns (5) of Ref. 2. It is therefore
expected that the computational work in integration in the new method will
take approximately 1/mth of the time required for the method of Kalnins
and Lestingi. Of course, some additional work will be required to evaluate
the determinants which, in comparison with the computational work of the
m initial-value integrations, will be negligible. Moreover, the system of eqns
(5) of Ref. 2, which are derived from (1) by differentiation with respect to
yJ(xi), will be in general much more complicated than (1), depending upon the
amount of nonlinearity present in the latter system of equations. Another
fact which should be taken into consideration is that a single-point
integration formula can be used in this method which is not possible in the
other method. This is because the single-point integration formula requires
the evaluation of derivatives at intermediate points which, due to the
presence of the variables of(l) in eqns (5) of Ref. 2, is not possible unless all
the ( m + 1) initial-value integrations are carried out simultaneously. It
should also be noted that the sequence of matrix operations needed in the
new method to solve the unknowns from the matrix equations should
involve less work than the previous method.
In order to demonstrate the application of this method to the nonlinear
48 Md. Wahha] Uddin

-deformed

A
~undeformed /!]
N ~ ro~ . . . . f ~ " N+ S
Zo'~--
+
Fig. 2. Side view of elements of shell in Fig. 3. Elements of shell showing stress
deformed and undeformed states. resultants and couples.

equations of elastic shells, we present in the following section the governing

equations of large deflection of shells are derived by Reissner 1° in the form
of eqn (1).

Governing nonlinear equations of large deflection shell analysis

The following nonlinear equations are based on Reissner's theory10 of the

axisymmetric deformations of shells of revolution. The intermediate steps
between the equations of Reissner's theory and the present form can be
found in Ref. 3. Though the governing equations of shells can be derived in
the form ofeqn (1) from any available nonlinear theory, Reissner's theory is
preferred as these equations are very suitable for the analysis of shells with
geometrical discontinuity, for which the present method is highly favoured.
The equations are specialised for pressure loading and presented in such a
form that all the quantities of interest are evaluated during the process of
solution of the differential equations. The variables of interest are defined in
Figs 2 and 3. The independent variable ~ is taken to represent the distance
measured along the meridian of the shell so that the differential equations
are applicable to any geometrical shape of the shell meridian. The governing
equations of shells in the form of (1) as derived in Ref. 3 are as follows:
r o = ro(~) (21)
4)o = 4,o(~) (22)
e,o = u / r o (23)
4' = 4'0 --/3 (24)
k o = (sin 4'o - sin 4 ' ) / r o (25)
 Nonlinear analysis of shells of revolution 49

N¢ = H c o s 4) + Vsin ~b (26)
k¢ = M J D - vk o (27)
Mo = D(ko + vk~) (28)
e,¢ = N¢(1 - Y 2 ) / C - YF,,0 (29)
U o = {C/(1 - vZ)}{eo + ve¢} (30)
= 1+ Q (31)
dw/d~ = ct sin q~ - sin ~bo (32)
du/d~ = ~ cos q~ - cos ~bo (33)
dfl/d~ = k~ (34)
d V/d~ = - ~[( Vcos ~)/r - P c o s ~b] (35)
dH/d~ = - ~ [ ( H c o s ¢ - No)/r + P sin ¢] (36)
dM¢/d¢ = - a cos c~(Mo - M¢)/r - ~(Hsin q~ - Vcos ~b) (37)
The six fundamental variables of eqns (21)-(37) corresponding to y ( x ) of
eqn (1) are w, u, fl, V, H and Me. Equations (21)-(37) should be evaluated
serially as each equation requires the result obtained by the preceding
equations. It should be noted that eqns (21) and (22) cannot be expressed
explicitly so long as the geometry of the shell meridian is not known. In some
cases of shell meridian (for example ellipsoidal shell) there exists no algebraic
relation of r o and q5o with ~ and in those cases we have to resort to the
numerical integration of the differential equations expressing the relations of
r o and ¢o with ~.
Regarding the specification of boundary conditions, it appears that, in
most of the practical shell problems, three of the six fundamental variables
(w, u, fl, V, H, Me) are directly specified at either end of the shell meridian.
Thus the matrices T 1 and T 2 of eqns (2) are both unity matrices in this case.
The treatment of the boundary conditions will now involve the rearrange-
ment of the rows of the unity matrices T 1 and T2 in such a manner that the
first and last three elements of the fundamental variables on the right-hand
sides of eqns (2) are, respectively, the prescribed quantities at ~1 and ~M +1.
A computer program in F O R T R A N IV language has been developed by
the author based on the method presented here. The program is now being
tested on the shell problems as given by eqns (21)-(37). Some of the test
results are presented in the following section.

Numerical examples

It was decided that the method developed here should be applied, first, to
simple problems for which an analytical solution is known so that the
soundness of the philosophy on which this method is based can be verified
50 Md. Wahhai Uddin

and the error involved in programming the procedure of numerical

computation can be easily detected. Thus the method was first applied to a
second-order nonlinear differential equation and, later, to different problems
of shell analysis based on the nonlinear theory.
The nonlinear equation
d2),+ It- ) {d+')
~d.v ~ \dxx] = 0
The above nonlinear equation was solved for/x = 2 and for x from zero to
one in order to check the rate of convergence of the method and the general
accuracy of the results. The total range of the independent variable was
divided into three segments and the values for both y and dy/dx were
obtained at the nodal points. The results are presented in Table 1, where the
instantaneous values o f y and dy/dx are recorded at every iteration, and their
exact values are given at the bottom of the table. It can be seen that the
results obtained at the fourth iteration are correct up to three places of every
number and those at the fifth iteration are almost equal to the exact solution.
The rate of convergence is shown in Fig. 4.

TABLE 1
Solution of Nonlinear Equation
d2y (1- It)(dv~ 2
dx 2
+ v - - _\&] =0

x d v/dx y x dy/dx y

First iteration Fourth iteration

0"0 1.000 2.000 0-0 1.000 2-916
0.2 1.222 2.222 0.2 1-033 3.119
0.5 0-476 2.476 0-5 1.084 3.437
1.0 5.612 4-000 1.0 1.169 4.000

Second iteration Fifth iteration

0"0 1.000 2'192 0"0 1'00000 2"91450
0-2 1.045 2-396 0-2 1-034 17 3.117 85
0'5 0"469 2.622 0-5 1.085 60 3"43578
1-0 5-044 4"000 10 1.171 35 4.00000

Third iteration Exact solution

00 1.000 2-926 0.0 1.000 00 2.91421
0,2 1"028 3129 0'2 1-03431 3"11765
0-5 1"069 3"444 0"5 1"085 78 3.435 66
10 1.157 4.000 1"0 1.171 57 4"00000

Case: p = 2.
Boundary conditions: y = 4 at x = 1; d y / d x = 1 at x = 0.
 Nonlinear analysis of shells of revolution 51

T 4 ~,©,@,® _~-- .J

. Z O.f_O 5s.-" J/
/

/-¢,o,G,®

I. I I I I I I

0 0'2 0"4 0.8 0.8 1-0

Fig. 4. Convergence rate of solution of the equation

d2y (1 --/~) ( d y ~ 2
~dx + - - = 0
Boundary conditions: y = 4 at x = l; dy/dx = 1 at x = O. Symbols: E = exact solution; @ , C ) .
Q , ( ~ , @ = number of i t e r a t i o n ; - - = variable y; = variable dy/dx.

Fixedoedge hemispherical shell with open top

When the numerical procedure of the method was verified with simple
differential equations, the method was applied to nonlinear problems of
shells whose meridional lengths were several multiples of their critical
lengths, as defined in Ref. 8. The method was first applied to a fixed-edge
hemispherical shell with open top whose meridional length was approxi-
mately three times its critical length. The meridional length was divided into
three segments and the problem was then solved by both the new method
and Kalnins' method. The results are presented in Table 2, where the top
values of every row are the results obtained by the new method while the
b o t t o m values are the results of Kalnins' method. It can be seen from Table 2
that the results o f the two methods are identical up to three places for the
stress resultants and meridional bending moment. Thus, within the
limitations of a numerical technique, the results of the new method are fairly
 TABLE 2
Fixed-edge Hemispherical Shell with Open Top

Distance Horizontal Vertical Vertical stress Horizontal stress Meridional

from apex displacement displacement resultant resultant moment
(m) (m) (m) (N/m) (N/m) (Nm/m)

0"798 0-000 0 0 E + 00 0.000 00E + 00 0.511 41E + 03 -0-221 1 4 E + 03 0"437 71E+01

0-000 00E+00 0"000 00E+00 0"511 37E+03 -0.221 19E+03 0437 5 0 E + 01
0"711 0-134 19E-05 -0"965 02E-07 0-467 61E+03 0-956 68E+02 -0"688 1 6 E + 00
0-134 19E--05 -0-109 I1E-06 0"467 58E+03 0-953 85E+02 - 0.684 69E + 00
0-610 0-139 69E-05 -0-468 88E 07 0"301 92E+03 0"117 41E+03 0387 4 3 E - 01
0'139 93E-05 -0-625 06E-07 0-301 92E+03 0"117 24E+03 0-444 9 8 E - 01
0"508 0.144 21E-05 -0-115 02E-07 0-000 00E+00 0"000 0 0 E + 00 0.000 00E + 00
0'142 33E--05 -0"130 25E-07 0.000 00E+00 0.000 00E+00 0"000 00E + 00

Poisson's ratio, v = 0"3; radius, R = 0"508 m; m o d u l u s of elasticity, E = 207 G N / m 2 ; pressure, P = 6897 N / m 2.

TABLE 3
Both Edges Built-in Pressurised Cylindrical Shell
(results are based on n o n l i n e a r theory)

Meridional Horizontal Rotation tff Axial Axial stress Transverse Axial

distance displacement normal displacement resultant shear moment
(m) (m) (radian) (m) (N/m) (N/m) (Nm/m)

0-762 0"000 0 0 E + 0 0 0.000 0 0 E + 0 0 0-000 0 0 E + 0 0 0-113 6 8 E + 0 4 0"566 73E+03 0-250 29E+02

-0-566 42E+03" 0-250 0 8 E + 02"
0"508 0-326 9 0 E - 0 6 -0-119 13E-06 -0-644 07E-08 0"113 6 8 E + 0 4 0"325 39E+02 0"163 09E+01
0-254 0-327 0 5 E - 0 6 0"118 0 0 E - 0 6 0'626 2 9 E - 0 8 0-113 6 8 E + 0 4 -0-321 94E+03 0-163 51E+01
0.000 0.000 00E + 00 0'000 00E + 00 0.000 00E + 00 0"113 6 8 E + 0 4 0"566 59E+03 0-250 25E+02
0"566 54E+03" 0-250 26E+02'

Radius, R = 0.508 m; Poisson's ratio, v = 0-3; modulus of elasticity, E = 207 G N / m 2 ; pressure, P = 6897 N/m2; length, L = 0-762 m.
* As given by Kraus.
 Nonlinear analysis ¢?fshells of revolution 53

accurate. It should be noted that there is some discrepancy in the values of

axial displacement, but the values of the axial displacement are so small in
this problem that better agreement is quite unlikely for a numerical
technique.

Both ends'.fixed pressurised cylindrical shell

The solution of this problem was prompted by the fact that Kraus (Ref. 8,
p. 426) cited this problem to show the failure of the direct integration
method. The results as obtained by the new method and the numerical
values of transverse shear and the meridional bending moment at the fixed
ends as given by Kraus are shown in Table 3. The accuracy of the results is
best ascertained here by the condition of symmetry. We can see from Table 3
that our results maintain symmetry quite well and the values of bending
moment and transverse shear at the fixed ends compare favourably with
those given by Kraus (Ref. 8, p. 426). It should be mentioned here that our
results are based on the nonlinear theory presented here in eqns (2) whereas
those of Kraus are based on linear theory, but the two results are almost the
same because there is hardly any difference between the linear and nonlinear
theories at such a low value of loading. As a matter of interest, according to
Kraus, when this problem was attempted by direct integration, the values
obtained for the transverse shear at the two fixed ends were 323"86 and
1846.20 instead of being equal. The values for the bending moments at the
two ends were 260.37 and 4141.20 which, due to symmetry, should have the
same magnitude.

CONCLUSION

The multisegment method of integration developed here is a very powerful

tool for solving the two-point boundary value problems of a set of ordinary
nonlinear differential equations which are beyond the scope of conventional
methods of integration due to their inability to determine the unknown
boundary conditions at the starting point from the given conditions at the
final point when the range of the independent variable exceeds a certain
critical value, no matter what degree of accuracy is maintained in the
numerical calculation. In addition, the method can handle discontinuity in
load, shell geometry and shell thickness along the meridian of the shells of
revolution very conveniently. This method saves a considerable amount of
computational time compared with the multisegment method of Kalnins
and Lestingi 2 as it requires only one initial-value integration ofm first-order
equations at every step of iteration instead of ( m + l ) initial-value
integrations of the same equations by the method of Kalnins and Lestingi.
54 Md. Wahha] Uddin

Actual computational time is very much dependent on the number of

iterations required for the convergence of solution and it is found to be, on
average, about one-half of that of Kalnins' method. In the foregoing the
efficacy and simplicity of the present method of multisegment integration in
solving the nonlinear boundary value problems of shells of revolution have
been demonstrated.

REFERENCES

1. Wilson, R E. & Spier, E. E., Numerical analysis of large axisymmetric

deformations of thin spherical shells. AIAA J., 3(9) (1968) 1716-25.
2. Kalnins, A. & Lestingi, J. E, On nonlinear analysis of elastic shells of revolution.
J. Appl. Mech.,Ser. E, 34(1) (1967) 59 64.
3. Uddin, Md. W., Large deflection analysis of composite shells of revolution. PhD
Thesis, Carleton University, 1969.
4. Thurston, G. A., A numerical solution of the nonlinear equations for
axisymmetric bending of shallow spherical shells. J. Appl. Mech., 28 (1961)
557-62.
5. Famili, J. & Archer, R. R., Finite asymmetric deformation of shallow spherical
shell. AIAA J., 3(3) (1965) 506-70.
6. Huang, N. C., Unsymmetrical buckling of thin shallow spherical shells. J. Appl.
Mech., Ser. E, 31(3) (1964) 447 57.
7. Sepetoski, W. K., Pearson, C. E., Dingwell, I. W. & Adkins, A. W., A digital
computer program for the general axially symmetric thin shell problem. J. Appl.
Mech., Ser. E, 29 (1962) 655-61.
8. Kraus, H., Thin Elastic Shells. John Wiley, New York, 1967.
9. Kalnins, A., Analysis of shells of revolution subjected to symmetrical loads. J.
Appl. Mech., Ser. E, 31(3) (1964) 467 78.
10. Reissner, E., On the Theory of Thin Elastic Shells, H. Reissner Anniversary
Volume. J. W. Edwards, Ann Arbor, MI, 1949, p. 231.
! 1. Alwar, R. S., Nath, Y. & Reddy, B. S., Axisymmetric dynamic buckling of
shallow spherical shells. ZAMM, 60 (1980) 118 20.
12. Alwar, R. S. & Nath, Y., Nonlinear static and dynamic response of spherical
shells. Int. J. Nonlinear Mech., 13 (1978) 157-70.
13. Potel, H. P. & Kennedy, R. H., Nonlinear finite element analysis for composite
structures of axisymmetric geometry and loading. Comput. Struct., 15 (1982)
79-84.
14. Nath, Y., Large amplitude response of circular plates on elastic foundations. Int.
J. Nonlinear Mech., 17 (1982) 285-96.
15. Lehner, J. R. & Betterman, S. C., Nonlinear static and dynamic deflection of
shells of revolution. Int. J. Nonlinear Mech., 9 (1974) 501-19.
16. Nath, Y. & Jain, R. K., Nonlinear dynamic analysis of orthotropic annular
plates resting on elastic foundations. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dynam., 11
(1983) 785-96.
17. Dumir, R C., Ghandi, M. L. & Nath, Y., Axisymmetric static and dynamic
buckling of orthotropic shallow spherical caps with flexible supports. Acta
Mech., 52 (1984) 93 106.
 Nonlinear analysis of shells of revolution 55

18. Dumir, P. C., Nath, Y. & Gandhi, M. L., Nonlinear transient response of
isotropic circular plates. Comput. Struct., 18 (1984) 1009-18.
19. Nath, Y., Dumir, P. C. & Gandhi, M. L., Choice of collocation points for
axisymmetric nonlinear two-point boundary value problems in static of
spherical shells. Engng Trans., 31 (1983) 33140.
20. Chao, Y. J. & Yeh, S. J., Stress concentration and flexibility factor of nozzles in
ellipsoidal pressure vessel heads subject to external moment. Int. J. Pres. Ves. &
Piping, 29(1) (1987) 1 27.
21. Chao, Y. J. & Sutton, M. A., Stress concentration factors for nozzles in
ellipsoidal pressure vessel heads due to thrust loads. Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping,
19 (1985) 69 81.
22. Chao, Y. J. & Sutton, M. A., Stress analysis ofellipsoidal shell with radial nozzle.
Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping, 20(2) (1985) 89-108.
23. Uddin, Md. W., Large deflection analysis of ellipsoidal head pressure vessels.
Comput. Struct., 23(4) (1986) 487-95.
24. Uddin, Md. W., Large deflection analysis of spherical head pressure vessel. Nucl.
Engng Design, 96(1) (1986) 47-61.
25. Uddin, Md. W., A computer program for nonlinear analysis of pressure vessels.
Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping, 22 (1986) 271 309.
26. Uddin, Md. W., Large deflection analysis of conical head pressure vessels.
Forsch. Ingenieurwesen, 52(6) (1986) 146 52.
27. Uddin, Md. W., Large deformation analysis of plate-end pressure vessels. Int. J.
Pres. Ves. & Piping, 29(1) (1987) 47 66.
28. Uddin, Md. W., Buckling of general spherical shells under external pressure. Int.
J. Mech. Sci., 29 (1987) 469-81.