1,239
Views
17
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Geometrically nonlinear vibration analysis of eccentrically stiffened porous functionally graded annular spherical shell segments

, , ORCID Icon &
Pages 2206-2220 | Received 24 Mar 2020, Accepted 16 May 2020, Published online: 29 May 2020

Figures & data

Figure 1. Configuration of annular spherical shells.

Figure 1. Configuration of annular spherical shells.

Figure 2. Geometry of the shell with stiffeners.

Figure 2. Geometry of the shell with stiffeners.

Table 1. Material properties of FGM constituents.

Table 2. Validation of vibration frequency of spherical shell for various material gradient exponent (R/r0=3).

Table 3. Validation of vibration frequency (Hz) of FG spherical shells at curvature radius (p = 1).

Figure 3. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various open angles (R = 200 h, r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 1, ξ = 0.2, Kw=0, Kp=0).

Figure 3. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various open angles (R = 200 h, r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 1, ξ = 0.2, Kw=0, Kp=0).

Figure 4. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various porosity volume fractions (R = 200 h, r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, Kw=0, Kp=0). (a) p = 2; (b) p = 5.

Figure 4. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various porosity volume fractions (R = 200 h, r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, Kw=0, Kp=0). (a) p = 2; (b) p = 5.

Figure 5. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various porosity distribution types (R = 200 h, r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 5, ξ = 0.3, ψ = π).

Figure 5. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various porosity distribution types (R = 200 h, r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 5, ξ = 0.3, ψ = π).

Figure 6. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various porosity distribution types (r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 5, ξ = 0.3, ψ = π).

Figure 6. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various porosity distribution types (r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 5, ξ = 0.3, ψ = π).

Figure 7. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various foundation factors (r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 5, ξ = 0.3, ψ = π).

Figure 7. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various foundation factors (r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 5, ξ = 0.3, ψ = π).

Figure 8. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various number of stiffeners (r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 5, ξ = 0.3, h1=0.5 h, b1=0.5 h, ψ = π).

Figure 8. Variation of vibration frequency versus normalized deflection of annular spherical shells for various number of stiffeners (r1=100 h, r0=0.5r1, p = 5, ξ = 0.3, h1=0.5 h, b1=0.5 h, ψ = π).