Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T17:23:39.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On truncation of the structural potential function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

G. W. Hunt  and
K. A. J. Williams
G. W. Hunt
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College, London
K. A. J. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two, essentially different, criteria for truncating a potential function of a conservative structural system are reviewed, one based on deflection considerations and the other on the mathematical concept of determinacy. Formulations in which they give different results are discussed; most importantly, these include Koiter's 1976 form for mode interaction in stiffened structure [11], which exhibits Thorn's parabolic umbilic catastrophe [15]. For this case, two alternative schemes of perturbation analysis are presented, each describing asymptotically the post-buckling response. The more obvious approach turns out to be the less successful, being linked to an indeterminate, too severely truncated, form of the potential function.

The second, determinacy linked, approach generates as a first-order response a distinctive looping pattern of equilibrium paths, which has recently been identified in a simple model due to Budiansky and Hutchinson[1], by exact, closed-form, solution [8]. The convergence of each asymptotic scheme to the exact solution is briefly reviewed for this simple model, by plotting first and second order results.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 95 , Issue 3 , May 1984 , pp. 495 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Budiansky, B. and Hutchinson, J. W.. Trends in Solid Mechanics 1979 (Proceedings of the Symposium dedicated to the 65th birthday of W. T. Koiter, Delft University of Technology, June 1979) (edited by Besseling, J. F. and van der Heijden, A. M. A.), p. 93 (Delft University Press, Holland, 1979).Google Scholar
[2]Golubitsky, M. and Schaeffer, D.. A theory for imperfect bifurcation via singularity theory. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 32 (1979), 21–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Golubitsky, M., Marsden, J. and Schaeffer, D.. Bifurcation problems with hidden symmetries. In Partial Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems (ed. Fitzgibbon, W.) (Pitman, to be published).Google Scholar
[4]Hunt, G. W.. Imperfection-sensitivity of semi-symmetric branching. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 357 (1977), 193–211.Google Scholar
[5]Hunt, G. W.. An algorithm for the nonlinear analysis of compound bifurcation. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 300 (1981), 443–471.Google Scholar
[6]Hunt, G. W., Symmetries of elastic buckling. Eng. Struct. 4 (1982), 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Hunt, G. W., Reay, N. and Yoshimura, T.. Local diffeomorphisms in the bifurcational manifestations of the umbilic catastrophes. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 369 (1979), 47–65.Google Scholar
[8]Hunt, G. W. and Williams, K. A. J.. Closed form and asymptotic solutions for an interactive buckling model (to appear in J. Mech. Phys. Solids).Google Scholar
[9]Keller, J. B. and Antman, S. (eds.). Bifurcation Theory and Non-linear Eigenvalue Problems (Benjamin, 1969).Google Scholar
[10]Koiter, W. T.. On the stability of elastic equilibrium. Dissertation. Delft, Holland, 1945 (English translation: NASA, Tech. Trans., F10 833, 1967).Google Scholar
(11)Koiter, W. T.. General theory of mode interaction in stiffened plate and shell structures. Rep. WTHD 91, Delft Univ. of Tech., Holland (1976).Google Scholar
[12]Poston, T. and Stewart, I.. Catastrophe Theory and its Applications (Pitman, 1978).Google Scholar
[13]Rabinowitz, P. H. (ed.). Applications of Bifurcation Theory (Academic Press, 1977).Google Scholar
[14]Sewell, M. J.The static perturbation technique in buckling problems. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 13 (1965), 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Thom, R.. Structural Stability and Morphogenesis (translated from the French by Fowler, D. H.) (Benjamin, 1975).Google Scholar
[16]Thompson, J. M. T.. Discrete branching points in the general theory of elastic stability. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 13 (1965), 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Thompson, J. M. T.. Catastrophe Theory in Mechanics: progess or digression. J. Structural Mech. 10 (2) (1982), 167–175.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Thompson, J. M. T. and Hunt, G. W.. A General Theory of Elastic Stability (Wiley, 1973).Google Scholar
[19]Thompson, J. M. T. and Hunt, G. W.. The instability of evolving systems. Interdisciplinary Sci. Rev. 2 (1977), 240–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J.. Theory of Elastic Stability (McGraw-Hill, 1961).Google Scholar
[21]Williams, K. A. J.. Perturbation Equations for Post-buckling Study. Interim report, Imperial College, London (1982).Google Scholar
[22]Zeeman, E. C.. Catastrophe Theory: Selected Papers, 1972–1977 (Addison-Wesley, 1977).Google Scholar