# A Unified Spectro-Geometric-Ritz Method for Vibration Analysis of Open and Closed Shells with Arbitrary Boundary Conditions

Authors: Dongyan Shi; Yunke Zhao; Qingshan Wang; Xiaoyan Teng; Fuzhen Pang
Journal: Shock and Vibration
 (2016)

---

## Abstract

This paper presents free vibration analysis of open and closed shells with arbitrary boundary conditions using a spectro-geometric-Ritz method. In this method, regardless of the boundary conditions, each of the displacement components of open and closed shells is represented simultaneously as a standard Fourier cosine series and several auxiliary functions. The auxiliary functions are introduced to accelerate the convergence of the series expansion and eliminate all the relevant discontinuities with the displacement and its derivatives at the boundaries. The boundary conditions are modeled using the spring stiffness technique. All the expansion coefficients are treated equally and independently as the generalized coordinates and determined using Rayleigh-Ritz method. By using this method, a unified vibration analysis model for the open and closed shells with arbitrary boundary conditions can be established without the need of changing either the equations of motion or the expression of the displacement components. The reliability and accuracy of the proposed method are validated with the FEM results and those from the literature.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Open and closed shells, consisting of segments of shells of revolution (e.g., cylindrical, conical, and spherical shells), are important structural elements commonly used in many engineering fields such as aerospace crafts, naval vehicles, and construction buildings, owing to their excellent mechanical and physical properties. It is noticed that the open and closed shells in these applications often work in complex environmental conditions and can be subjected to a variety of boundary conditions including all the classical cases, elastic restraints, point supports, and their combinations as well as suffering various dynamic loads, which may result in violent vibrations and structural collapse. Furthermore, the shells used in the practical engineering may have different geometries based mainly on their curvature characteristics. For the sake of presenting the proposed solution clearly, the open and closed shells considered in the present work are focused on cylindrical, conical, and spherical shells, which are most frequently used in the engineering application.The development of accurate shell theories has been the subjected of significant research interest for many years, and a large number of shell theories based on different approximations and assumptions have been proposed. A careful selection of the appropriate shell theory is crucial for a feasible vibration analysis of practical shells. It has been reported more than a century ago by Lord Rayleigh and A.E.H. Love. And, thenceforth, the wide use of these structures has motivated a huge amount of research efforts in developing more accurate, efficient, and applicable theories and modeling techniques, aiming to provide insight into vibration behaviors and sound radiations and reliable design of these shells. Survey articles and monographs oriented to such contributions may be found in Carrera [1], Liew et al. [2], Qatu et al. [3], Leissa [4], and Reddy [5]. Classical shell theories were developed originally for thin shells based on the Kirchhoff-Love kinematic hypothesis that the straight lines normal to the unreformed reference surface remain straight and normal to the reference surface after deformation. This hypothesis is equivalent to the disregard of the effect of transverse shear deformations of shells.So far, some of the static and dynamic behaviors of the closed shells with classical boundary conditions had been presented precisely by researchers. Starting from Flügge’s three equations of motion for a uniform thin cylindrical shell, Warburton [6] gave a general solution, from which the dependence of natural frequencies on shell dimensions and mode number can be investigated for any end conditions. Bert and Malik [7] made a step forward in furthering the potential of the DQM in the area of structural mechanics by introducing the application of the differential quadrature method (DQM) to the dynamic analysis of thin circular cylindrical shells. Lam and Loy [8] employed a formulation based on Love’s first approximation theory and with beam functions used as axial modal functions in the Ritz procedure to study the effects of boundary conditions on the free vibration characteristics for a multilayered cylindrical shell. Loy and Lam [9] presented an approximate analysis using a layer-wise approach to study the vibration of thick circular cylindrical shells on the basis of three-dimensional theory of elasticity. Utilizing the infinite circular cylinders solution based on the technique of variables separation, Mofakhami et al. [10] developed a general solution to analyze the vibration of finite circular cylinders. Dai et al. [11] obtained an exact series solution for the vibration analysis of circular cylindrical shells with arbitrary boundary conditions using the elastic equations based on Flügge’s theory. In this series solution, each of the three displacements was represented by a Fourier series and auxiliary functions and sought in a strong form by letting the solution exactly satisfy both the governing differential equations and the boundary conditions on a point-wise basis. Chen et al. [12] developed an exact solution to obtain the free vibrations of cylindrical shell with nonuniform elastic boundary constraints using an improved Fourier series method. Khalili et al. [13] presented a closed-form formulation of three-dimensional (3D) refined higher-order shear deformation theory (RHOST) for the free vibration analysis of simply supported-simply supported and clamped-clamped homogenous isotropic circular cylindrical shells. Jin et al. [14] developed a unified and exact solution method for the free vibration analysis of composite laminated cylindrical shells with various boundary condition and arbitrary lamination schemes. Viola and Tornabene [15] used the Generalized Differential Quadrature (GDQ) method to study the free vibration of conical shell structures. Liew et al. [16, 17] carried out the free vibration analysis of thin conical shells under different boundary conditions using the element-free k
p-Ritz method. Shu [18] applied the global method of Generalized Differential Quadrature (GDQ) for the first time to study the free vibration of isotropic conical shells. Tornabene et al. [19, 20] focused on the dynamic behavior of moderately thick functionally graded conical, cylindrical shells and annular plates based on the first-order shear deformation theory (FSDT). Wu and Lee [21] presented the free vibration analysis of laminated conical shells with variable stiffness using the method of differential quadrature (DQ). Tornabene and Viola [22] used the technique known as the Generalized Differential Quadrature (GDQ) to deal with the dynamical behavior of hemispherical domes and spherical shell panels. Lee [23] applied the pseudospectral method to the axisymmetric and asymmetric free vibration analysis of spherical caps, in which the displacements and the rotations were expressed by Chebyshev polynomials and Fourier series. Gautham and Ganesan [24] employed a first-order shear deformable semianalytical shell finite element to deal with the free vibration characteristics of isotropic and laminated orthotropic spherical caps. Kang and Leissa [25] presented a three-dimensional method of analysis for determining the free vibration frequencies and mode shapes of spherical shell segments with variable thickness. Qu et al. [26, 27] introduced a variational formulation for predicting the free, steady-state, and transient vibrations of composite laminated and functionally graded shells of revolution subjected to various combinations of classical and nonclassical boundary conditions. A modified variational principle in conjunction with a multisegment partitioning technique was employed to derive the formulation based on the first-order shear deformation theory. The above review of the literature reveals that problems pertaining to the free vibration analyses of closed shells subjected to classical boundaries such as free, simply-supported, and clamped and their combinations as well as elastic boundary conditions have been comprehensively studied.In contrast to the closed shells, information available for the free vibration analysis of open shells, especially the open conical and spherical shells, is rare. Thus, the free vibration analysis of open shells based on Flügge’s thin shell theory has attracted increasing research effort in the past few years. In order to properly focus on the features and emphasis of the present paper, a brief review of recent works pertaining to the vibration analyses of open shells of revolution, including the cylindrical, conical, and spherical shells, is reported below. Selmane and Lakis [28] presented a hybrid of finite element method for the dynamic and static analysis of thin, elastic, anisotropic, and nonuniform open cylindrical shells based on classical shell theories. The open shells were assumed to be freely simply supported along their curved edges and to have arbitrary straight-edge boundary conditions. Kandasamy and Singh [29] developed a formulation considering first-order shear deformation theory of shells and including rotary inertia and shear deformation to analyze the free vibration of skewed open circular cylindrical deep shells. Zhang et al. [30] presented the vibration analysis of cylindrical panels using a wave propagation method. Yu et al. [31] obtained exact solutions for open circular cylindrical shells with different combinations of primary boundary conditions using the generalized Navier method. Bardell et al. [32, 33] used the h-p version of the finite element method to furnish a detailed study of the vibration characteristics of completely free, open, cylindrical, and conical isotropic shell panels. Lim and Kitipornchai [34] presented a computational investigation on the effects of subtended and vertex angles on the free vibration characteristics of open conical shell panels. Unlike the conventional approximation using a rectangular or cylindrical coordinate system, this analysis adopted a natural conical coordinate system so that any approximation in geometry was eliminated. Zhao et al. [35] analyzed the free vibration of conical panels by the mesh-free k
p-Ritz method. Furthermore, the group in [36] extended this method to spherical panels subjected to different boundary conditions based on the three-dimensional elastic theory. Ye et al. [37] studied the free vibration analysis of open shells with various boundary conditions by using the Chebyshev-Ritz method. Qatu and Asadi [38] presented the first comprehensive study of shallow shell vibrations subjected to as many as 21 possible classical boundary conditions and obtained relatively accurate results for natural frequencies of doubly curved shallow shells including spherical, cylindrical, hyperbolic, and paraboloidal shells of revolution with arbitrary boundary conditions using the Ritz method. Some other contributions are given in [39–64].In view of the aforementioned issues and concerns, it should be emphasized that most of the researches were restricted to the single cylindrical, conical, and spherical shell or subjected to a limited sets of classical supports. The vibration behaviors of open and closed shells with varying geometrical dimensions, subjected to different combinations of classical and nonclassical boundary constraints, have until now remained unsolved. However, in practical engineering applications, the general boundary conditions are often encountered as compared to the classical boundary conditions since the support types of such structures are always complicated and variable in nature. Moreover, to the authors’ best knowledge, no publications dealing with the vibration characteristics of the open and closed shells integrated with a unified, efficient, and accurate formulation have been reported.Recently, an improved Fourier series technique proposed by Li [65, 66] is widely used in the vibrations of beams, plates, and shells with general boundary conditions. And then Jiang et al. [67] proposed a spectrogeometric method (SGM) based on the improved Fourier series method to study different structures and their combination. In this paper, the authors present a spectro-geometric-Ritz method based on the SGM and Ritz method to solve the free vibrations of the open and closed shells with arbitrary boundary conditions. The arbitrary boundary conditions of the shells are realized by applying the artificial spring technique. The equations of motion and the related boundary equations are derived via Hamilton’s principle based on Flügge’s thin shell theory. Regardless of the boundary conditions, the displacement components of the thin shells are represented as the expansion series simultaneously by using the SGM, which can be described as a standard cosine series and auxiliary functions which can be expressed as a sine series. The introduction of the auxiliary functions not only removes all the potential discontinuities at the boundary, but also ensures and accelerates the convergence of the series expansions. All the expansion coefficients are considered as the generalized coordinates and determined using Rayleigh-Ritz method. By using this method, a unified vibration analysis formulation for the open and closed shells with arbitrary boundary conditions is developed without the need of changing the expression of the displacements. The reliability and accuracy of the results and the ease of implementation of the present method are validated by comparing selected cases against the FEM results and those existing in the literature. The effects of boundary conditions and the geometrical dimensions on vibration behavior of the shell are also illustrated.


## 2. Theory and Formulation

### 2.1. System Description

The geometry and coordinate systems for the open shell are depicted in Figure1. The open shell under consideration is thought to be thin and of length L
α, width L
β, and uniform thickness h. The middle surface of the shell where an orthogonal coordinate (α, β, and z) is fixed is taken as the reference surface. The radii of curvature in α and β directions are represented by R
α and R
β, respectively. The displacement components of the shell in α, β, and z directions are denoted by u, v, and w, respectively. Along each end of the shell, three groups of translational springs (k
u, k
v, and k
w) and one group of rotational springs (
K
w
) which are distributed uniformly along the boundary are introduced to separately simulate the given or typical boundary conditions expressed in the form of axial force resultant, tangential force resultant, transverse force resultant, and the flexural moment resultant. Thus, the given boundary conditions can be readily achieved by assigning these springs at proper stiffness. For instance, a clamped boundary condition can be generated by simply setting the stiffness of all the springs equal to infinite (which is represented by a very large number). Specifically, k
α
0
u, k
α
0
v, k
α
0
w, and K
α
0
w denote the set of springs distributed along the edge α
=
0. Similarly, by replacing the subscript α
0 with α
L, β
0, and β
L, the other three sets of boundary springs at corresponding ends can be designated, respectively.Figure 1
Geometry and notations of an open shell with elastically restrained edges: (a) coordinate system and (b) partial view.
(a)
(b)


### 2.2. Energy Functional of the Thin Shells

According to the Kirchhoff hypothesis and Flügge’s thin shell theory [4], the middle surface strains, curvature, and twist changes of the thin shell can be written in terms of displacements components as(1a)
ε
α
=
1
A
∂
u
∂
α
+
v
A
B
∂
A
∂
β
+
w
R
α
,
(1b)
ε
β
=
1
B
∂
v
∂
β
+
u
A
B
∂
B
∂
α
+
w
R
β
,
(1c)
ε
α
β
=
A
B
∂
∂
β
u
A
+
B
A
∂
∂
α
v
B
,
(2a)
κ
α
=
1
A
∂
∂
α
u
R
α
-
1
A
∂
w
∂
α
+
1
A
B
v
R
β
-
1
B
∂
w
∂
β
∂
A
∂
β
,
(2b)
κ
β
=
1
B
∂
∂
β
v
R
β
-
1
B
∂
w
∂
β
+
1
A
B
u
R
α
-
1
A
∂
w
∂
α
∂
B
∂
α
,
(2c)
τ
=
A
B
∂
∂
β
1
A
u
R
α
-
1
A
∂
w
∂
α
+
B
A
∂
∂
α
1
B
v
R
β
-
1
B
∂
w
∂
β
+
1
R
α
1
B
∂
u
∂
β
-
v
A
B
∂
B
∂
α
+
1
R
β
1
A
∂
v
∂
α
-
u
A
B
∂
A
∂
β
,where ε
α, ε
β, and ε
α
β indicate the strains in the middle surface; κ
α, κ
β, and τ are the curvature changes; u, v, and w denote the shell displacement components in the α, β, and z directions, respectively; R
α and R
β represent the radii of curvature in the α, β directions as depicted in Figure 1. The quantities A and B are the Lamé parameters. When the coordinate systems and geometric parameters A, B, R
α, and R
β are given different values, the corresponding type of shells can be obtained. In Figure 2, the specific shells constructed as the three types of curvatures, for example, cylindrical shells, conical shells, and spherical shells, are presented. According to Figure 2, the parameters R
α, R
β, A, and B of the above three types of shells are given as follows:(a)
Cylindrical shell:(3)
α
=
x
;
β
=
θ
;
R
α
=
1
;
R
β
=
R
;
A
=
1
;
B
=
R
.
(b)
Conical shell:(4)
α
=
x
;
β
=
θ
;
R
α
=
1
;
R
β
=
x
tan
⁡
φ
;
A
=
1
;
B
=
x
sin
⁡
φ
.
(c)
Spherical shell:(5)
α
=
φ
;
β
=
θ
;
R
α
=
R
;
R
β
=
R
;
A
=
R
;
B
=
R
sin
⁡
φ
.Figure 2
Definition of shell coordinate system: (a) cylindrical shell; (b) conical shell; and (c) spherical shell.
(a)
(b)
(c)According to Flügge’s thin shell theory, the linear strains in the space of the thin shell are expressed as(6a)
e
α
=
1
1
+
z
/
R
α
ε
α
+
z
κ
α
,
(6b)
e
β
=
1
1
+
z
/
R
β
ε
β
+
z
κ
β
,
(6c)
γ
α
β
=
1
1
+
z
/
R
α
1
+
z
/
R
β
1
-
z
2
R
α
R
β
ε
α
β
+
z
1
+
z
2
R
α
+
z
2
R
β
τ
,where -
h
/
2
⩽
z
⩽
h
/
2. According to general Hooke’s law, the corresponding stresses are obtained as(7a)
σ
α
σ
β
σ
α
β
=
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
21
Q
22
0
0
0
Q
66
e
α
e
β
γ
α
β
,in which σ
α and σ
β are the normal stresses; σ
α
β is shear stress. Q
i
j  (
i
,
j
=
1
,
2
,
6
) denote the constants relating stresses with strains. They are defined as(7b)
Q
11
=
Q
22
=
E
1
-
μ
2
,
Q
12
=
Q
21
=
μ
E
1
-
μ
2
,
Q
66
=
E
2
1
+
μ
,where E and μ are Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, respectively.From the theory of elasticity, the well-known expression for the strain energy stored in a shell body during elastic deformation is(8)
V
p
=
1
2
∫
V
σ
α
e
α
+
σ
β
e
β
+
σ
α
β
γ
α
β
d
V
,where d
V is the element of volume which, expressed in shell coordinates, is(9)
d
V
=
1
+
z
R
α
1
+
z
R
β
A
B
d
α
d
β
d
z
.Recognizing that, for a thin shell,z
/
R
i  (
i
=
α
,
β
) is less than unity, then one can expand the quotient 1
/
(
1
+
z
/
R
i
) into a well-known geometric series by simple division; that is, (10)
1
1
+
z
/
R
i
=
∑
n
=
0
∞
-
z
R
i
n
,
i
=
α
,
β
.Replacing1
/
(
1
+
z
/
R
i
) with (10), neglecting terms raised to powers of z greater than two in the integrand, and substituting (1a)–(7b) and (9) into (8) result in(11)
V
p
=
E
h
2
1
-
μ
2
∬
Q
0
+
h
2
12
Q
1
+
Q
2
A
B
d
α
d
β
,where(12a)
Q
0
=
ε
α
2
+
ε
β
2
+
2
μ
ε
α
ε
β
+
1
-
μ
2
ε
α
β
2
,
(12b)
Q
1
=
κ
α
2
+
κ
β
2
+
2
μ
κ
α
κ
β
+
1
-
μ
2
τ
2
,
(12c)
Q
2
=
-
2
1
R
α
-
1
R
β
ε
α
κ
α
-
ε
β
κ
β
-
1
-
μ
2
1
R
α
+
1
R
β
ε
α
β
τ
+
1
R
α
-
1
R
β
ε
α
2
R
α
-
ε
β
2
R
β
+
1
-
μ
2
1
R
α
2
+
1
R
β
2
-
1
R
α
R
β
ε
α
β
2
,and the maximum kinetic energy of the thin shell can be defined as(13)
T
=
ρ
h
2
∬
w
˙
2
+
u
˙
2
+
v
˙
2
A
B
d
α
d
β
,where the dot above a variable represents differentiation with respect to time. Since the value of the kinetic energy is maximum, the kinetic energy expression in (13) can be rewritten as(14)
T
=
ρ
h
ω
2
2
∬
w
2
+
u
2
+
v
2
A
B
d
α
d
β
.In (11)–(14), E, μ, and ρ, respectively, are Young’s modulus, Poisson ratio, and density of the shell. ω indicates the angular frequency of the shell.


### 2.3. Arbitrary Boundary Conditions and Continuity Conditions

In order to simulate the arbitrary boundary conditions, three groups of translational restraining springs (k
w, k
u, and k
v) and one group of rotational restraining springs (
K
w
) which are arranged uniformly along each boundary with independent stiffness are introduced to separately simulate the given or typical boundary conditions expressed in the form of axial force resultant, tangential force resultant, transverse force resultant, and the flexural moment resultant, which is shown in Figure 1. Thus, the given boundary conditions can be readily achieved by assigning these springs at proper stiffness. For instance, a clamped boundary condition can be generated by simply setting the stiffness of all the springs equal to infinite (which is represented by a very large number). Therefore, the general boundary conditions for an elastically restrained shell can be described as follows:At edgeα
=
0,(15)
k
α
0
u
u
=
N
α
,
k
α
0
v
v
=
N
α
β
+
M
α
β
R
β
,
k
α
0
w
w
=
Q
α
+
∂
M
α
β
∂
β
,
K
α
0
w
∂
w
∂
α
=
-
M
α
.
At edgeα
=
L
α,(16)
k
α
L
u
u
=
-
N
α
,
k
α
L
v
v
=
-
N
α
β
-
M
α
β
R
β
,
k
α
L
w
w
c
=
-
Q
α
-
∂
M
α
β
∂
β
,
K
α
L
w
∂
w
∂
α
=
M
α
.
At edgeβ
=
0,(17)
k
β
0
u
u
=
N
α
β
+
∂
M
α
β
∂
R
α
,
k
β
0
v
v
=
N
β
,
k
β
0
w
w
=
Q
β
+
∂
M
α
β
∂
α
,
K
β
0
w
∂
w
∂
β
=
-
M
β
.
At edgeβ
=
L
β,(18)
k
β
L
u
u
=
-
N
α
β
-
M
α
β
R
α
,
k
β
L
v
v
=
-
N
β
,
k
β
L
w
w
=
-
Q
β
-
∂
M
α
β
∂
α
,
K
β
L
w
∂
w
∂
β
=
M
β
,
whereN
α, N
α
β, and Q
α denote the force resultants acting on the face perpendicular to the α-axis. N
β, N
β
α
(
N
β
α
=
N
α
β
), and Q
α are the force resultants on the face perpendicular to the β-axis. Similarly, M
α, M
β, and M
α
β are the moment resultants on the corresponding face. N
α, N
β, and N
α
β are the normal and in-plane shear force resultants; Q
α and Q
β denote the transverse shear force; M
α, M
β, and M
α
β represent the bending and twisting moment resultants.The force and moment resultants are obtained by integrating the stresses over the shell thickness:(19)
N
α
N
β
N
α
β
=
∫
-
h
/
2
h
/
2
σ
α
σ
β
σ
α
β
d
z
,
M
α
M
β
M
α
β
=
∫
-
h
/
2
h
/
2
σ
α
σ
β
σ
α
β
z
d
z
,
Q
α
Q
β
=
∫
-
h
/
2
h
/
2
σ
α
z
σ
β
z
d
z
.By carrying the integration of stresses over the cross section and integrating the moments of the in-plane stresses over the thickness, the force and moment resultants relations to the strains in the middle surface and curvature changes are defined as(20a)
N
α
=
E
h
1
-
μ
2
ε
α
+
μ
ε
β
,
N
β
=
E
h
1
-
μ
2
ε
β
+
μ
ε
α
,
N
α
β
=
E
h
2
1
+
μ
ε
α
β
,
(20b)
M
α
=
E
h
3
12
1
-
μ
2
κ
α
+
μ
κ
β
,
M
β
=
E
h
3
12
1
-
μ
2
κ
β
+
μ
κ
α
,
M
α
β
=
E
h
3
24
1
+
μ
τ
.Thus, the total potential energy of the spring restrained shell stored in the boundary springs can be expressed as(21)
V
b
=
1
2
∫
k
β
0
w
w
2
+
k
β
0
u
u
2
+
k
β
0
v
v
2
+
K
β
0
w
v
R
β
-
∂
w
∂
β
2
β
=
0
+
k
β
L
w
w
2
+
k
β
L
u
u
2
+
k
β
L
v
v
2
+
K
β
L
w
v
R
β
-
∂
w
∂
β
2
β
=
L
β
A
d
α
+
1
2
∫
k
α
0
w
w
2
+
k
α
0
u
u
2
+
k
α
0
v
v
2
+
K
α
0
w
u
R
α
-
∂
w
∂
α
2
α
=
0
+
k
α
L
w
w
2
+
k
α
L
u
u
2
+
k
α
L
v
v
2
+
K
α
L
w
u
R
α
-
∂
w
∂
α
2
α
=
L
α
B
d
β
.As indicated in the mathematical expressions of boundary conditions, all the force and moment resultants of the open shells are restrained by utilized springs. Therefore, arbitrary boundary constraints can be achieved by varying the values of spring’s stiffness. The classical boundary conditions specially can be simulated by varying the stiffness of the boundary springs to be extremely large or extremely small.When all of the energy expressions are prepared, the complete solution can be obtained by using the Rayleigh-Ritz method. The total energy functional of the open shell is taken as the sum of the energy contributions from the shell, which is composed of the strain energy and the kinetic energy, and boundary constraints. Thus, the Lagrangian energy functional(
L
) of the open shell can be expressed as(22)
L
=
V
p
+
V
b
-
T
.As mentioned earlier, a closed shell can be mathematically viewed as a special case when the inclusion or circumferential angle is set equal to2
π, as shown in Figure 3. However, this simple mathematical operation alone cannot automatically ensure a complete transition of the open shell into a closed shell; that is, the continuities of the displacements and their derivatives at θ
=
0 and θ
=
2
π are not necessarily the same. To overcome this problem, a set of coupling springs (k
c
u, k
c
v, k
c
w, and K
c
w), which are uniformly distributed at the common edge, will be adopted to enforce the continuity conditions of displacements, slope, forces, and bending moment at the junction in circumference. The presence of these coupling springs can be accounted for by the potential energies:(23)
V
c
=
1
2
∫
k
c
w
w
θ
=
0
-
w
θ
=
2
π
2
+
k
c
u
u
θ
=
0
-
u
θ
=
2
π
2
+
k
c
v
v
θ
=
0
-
v
θ
=
2
π
2
+
K
c
w
v
R
β
θ
=
0
-
∂
w
∂
β
θ
=
0
-
v
R
β
θ
=
2
π
+
∂
w
∂
β
θ
=
2
π
2
A
d
α
,where k
c
w, k
c
u, and k
c
v represent the stiffness for translational coupling springs; K
c
w is the stiffness for rotational coupling springs.Figure 3
The sketches of the closed shells with coupling circumferential edge: (a) cylindrical shell; (b) conical shell; (c) spherical shell.
(a)
(b)
(c)Therefore, arbitrary coupling conditions can be obtained by varying the values of coupling spring’s stiffness. The discontinuity and continuity of the displacement and slope specially at the common edge can be achieved by varying the stiffness of the boundary springs to be extremely small and extremely large, which can simulate the open shell with the circumferential angleθ
=
2
π and the closed shell, respectively. In fact, these two cases are different and the two cases will get different vibration behavior. The function of connective springs at the interface for the continuity of the displacement and slope is embodied in the Lagrangian energy functional (
L
) of the closed shell:(24)
L
=
V
p
+
V
b
+
V
c
-
T
.In fact, as the open shell is expanded to the closed one, the boundary restraint spring’s stiffness at the edgesθ
=
0 and θ
=
2
π should be set to zero and the coupling spring’s stiffness should be set infinitely large.


### 2.4. Admissible Displacement Functions and Solution Procedure

An admissible function for displacement is essential to achieve an accurate and convergent solution in the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure. However, the original Fourier series expression only applies to a few simple boundary conditions and can lead to unavoidable convergence problem for other boundary conditions, thus limiting the applications of the Fourier series to only a few ideal boundary conditions [65]. Take a beam problem as an example. The governing equations for free vibration of a general supported Euler beam are obtained as(25)
D
∂
4
w
x
∂
x
4
-
ρ
A
ω
2
w
x
=
0
,where D, ρ, and A are, respectively, the flexural rigidity, the mass density, and the cross-sectional area of the beam; ω is frequency in radian. From (25), we can know that the displacement solution w
(
x
) on a beam of length L is required to have up to the fourth derivatives; that is, w
(
x
)
∈
C
3. Generally, the displacement function w
(
x
) defined on an interval [
0
,
L
] can be expanded into a Fourier series inside the interval excluding boundary points:(26)
w
x
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
A
m
cos
⁡
m
π
x
L
,
0
<
x
<
L
,where A
m are the expansion coefficients. From (26), it can be seen that the transverse displacement function w
(
x
) can be viewed as a part of an even function defined on the interval [
-
L
,
L
], as shown in Figure 4. Thus, the Fourier cosine series is able to correctly converge to w
(
x
) at any point over [
0
,
L
]. However, its first derivative w
′
x is an odd function on [
-
L
,
L
] leading to a jump at end locations. The corresponding Fourier expansion of w
′
x continues on [
0
,
L
] and can be differentiated term-by-term only if w
′
0
=
w
′
L
=
0. Thus, its Fourier series expansion (sine series) will accordingly have a convergence problem due to the discontinuity at end points when w
′
x is required to have up to the first-derivative continuity.Figure 4
An illustration of the possible discontinuities of the displacement and its derivative at the end points.Recently, Li [65, 66] proposed an improved Fourier series technique to overcome this problem; in this technique, the displacement function w
(
x
) considers a new function:(27)
w
x
=
w
-
x
+
P
x
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
A
m
cos
⁡
m
π
x
L
+
P
x
,
0
≤
x
≤
L
,where auxiliary function P
(
x
) in (27) represents an arbitrary continuous function that, regardless of boundary conditions equations (15)–(20b), is always chosen to satisfy the following equations: (28a)
P
′
0
=
w
′
0
=
α
0
,
(28b)
P
′
a
=
w
′
a
=
α
1
,
(28c)
P
′
′
′
0
=
w
′
′
′
0
=
β
0
,
(28d)
P
′
′
′
a
=
w
′
′
′
a
=
β
1
.In (28a), (28b), (28c), and (28d), the actual values α
0, α
1, β
0, and β
1 of the first and third derivatives at the boundaries need to be determined from the given boundary conditions equations (15)–(20b). The function P
(
x
) is here introduced to take care of the potential discontinuities of the (original) displacement function and its derivatives at the end points. Essentially, w
-
x represents a residual beam function which is continuous over [
0
,
L
] and has zero slopes at both ends. Apparently, the cosine series with the auxiliary function P
(
x
) employed representation of w
x is able to converge correctly to the function itself and its first derivative at every point on the beam. Thus, based on the above analysis, P
(
x
) can be understood as a continuous function that satisfies (28a), (28b), (28c), and (28d); its form is not a concern but must be a closed form and sufficiently smooth on the interval [
0
,
L
] of the beam in order to meet the requirements provided by the continuity conditions and boundary constraints. Therefore, the addition of the auxiliary function P
(
x
) will have two immediate benefits: (
1
) the Fourier series expansion will be applicable to any boundary condition; (
2
) the Fourier series solution can be drastically improved regarding its accuracy convergence.According to the above analysis, it is simple and convenient to expand the displacement field of beams to one of the shells. In this paper, the functionP
(
x
) is chosen in a trigonometric series form by using SGM. Thus, the displacement field of the thin shells can be described by the SGM and then the detailed expressions of the displacements in z, α, and β directions are given as(29a)
w
α
,
β
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
0
∞
W
m
n
1
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
1
4
W
m
n
2
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
1
4
∑
n
=
0
∞
W
m
n
3
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
sin
⁡
λ
n
α
+
∑
m
=
1
4
∑
n
=
1
4
W
m
n
4
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
,
(29b)
u
α
,
β
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
0
∞
U
m
n
1
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
1
2
U
m
n
2
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
1
2
∑
n
=
0
∞
U
m
n
3
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
+
∑
m
=
1
2
∑
n
=
1
2
U
m
n
4
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
,
(29c)
v
α
,
β
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
0
∞
V
m
n
1
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
1
2
V
m
n
1
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
1
2
∑
n
=
0
∞
V
m
n
3
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
+
∑
m
=
1
2
∑
n
=
1
2
V
m
n
4
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
,where λ
m
=
m
π
/
L
α, λ
n
=
n
π
/
L
β, W
m
n
1, W
m
n
2, W
m
n
3, W
m
n
4, U
m
n
1, U
m
n
2, U
m
n
3, U
m
n
4, V
m
n
1, V
m
n
2, V
m
n
3, and V
m
n
4 are the expansion coefficients for the shells and they can be solved by the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure.For thin shells, the thickness is assumed to be negligible compared to length or radii of curvature of the shell and the normal to the middle surfaces are considered always to be straight and normal to the middle surface. Under these assumptions, Rayleigh-Ritz energy method will be used to establish the theoretical formulation of the thin shells based on Flügge’s thin shell theory.Since the energy expressions and admissible function of the shell have been established, the remaining task is to determine the unknown coefficients and supplemented coefficients of displacement functions. The Lagrangian energy functions(
L
) of the open and closed shell have been expressed in (22) and (24). Thus, the Lagrangian energy function can be expressed with displacement functions by substituting (11), (14), (21), and (23) together with the admissible functions defined in (29a), (29b), and (29c) into (22) and (24). The undetermined coefficients of the expansion series are considered the generalized coordinates and then, using the Rayleigh-Ritz method, the Lagrangian expression is minimized by taking its derivatives with respect to these coefficients:(30)
∂
L
∂
ϑ
=
0
,
ϑ
=
W
m
n
,
U
m
n
,
V
m
n
,where ϑ denotes the undetermined coefficients including W
m
n, U
m
n, and V
m
n. Since the displacement functions of the shell structure are truncated at m
=
M and n
=
N to obtain the results with acceptable accuracy, a total of (
M
+
5
)
∗
(
N
+
5
)
+
2
∗
(
M
+
3
)
∗
(
N
+
3
) equations are obtained.By substituting (22) and (24) into (30), it can be summed up in a matrix form as follows:(31)
K
-
ω
2
M
E
=
0
,where K denotes the stiffness matrix for the structure and M is the mass matrix. The unknown coefficients in the displacement expressions can be described in the vector form as E. They can be expressed separately as(32)
K
=
K
w
w
K
w
u
K
w
v
K
u
u
K
u
v
s
y
m
m
K
v
v
,
(33)
M
=
d
i
a
g
M
w
w
M
u
u
M
v
v
,
(34)
E
=
W
m
n
,
U
m
n
,
V
m
n
T
,
(35a)
W
m
n
=
W
0
,
0
1
,
W
0
,
1
1
,
…
,
W
m
,
n
1
,
…
,
W
M
,
N
1
,
W
0
,
1
2
,
…
,
W
0
,
4
2
,
W
1
,
1
2
,
…
,
W
m
,
4
2
,
…
,
W
M
,
4
2
,
W
1
,
0
3
,
W
1
,
1
3
,
…
,
W
1
,
N
3
,
W
2
,
0
3
,
…
,
W
4
,
N
3
,
W
1
,
1
4
,
…
W
1
,
4
4
,
W
2
,
1
4
,
…
,
W
2
,
4
4
,
…
,
W
4
,
4
4
T
,
(35b)
U
m
n
=
U
0
,
0
1
,
U
0
,
1
1
,
…
,
U
m
,
n
1
,
…
,
U
M
,
N
1
,
U
0
,
1
2
,
U
0
,
2
2
,
U
1
,
1
2
,
…
,
U
m
,
2
2
,
…
,
U
M
,
2
2
,
U
1
,
0
3
,
U
1
,
1
3
,
…
,
U
1
,
N
3
,
U
2
,
0
3
,
…
,
U
2
,
N
3
,
U
1
,
1
4
,
U
1
,
2
4
,
U
2
,
1
4
,
U
2
,
2
4
T
,
(35c)
V
m
n
=
V
0
,
0
1
,
V
0
,
1
1
,
…
,
V
m
,
n
1
,
…
,
V
M
,
N
1
,
V
0
,
1
2
,
V
0
,
2
2
,
V
1
,
1
2
,
…
,
V
m
,
2
2
,
…
,
V
M
,
2
2
,
V
1
,
0
3
,
V
1
,
1
3
,
…
,
V
1
,
N
3
,
V
2
,
0
3
,
…
,
V
2
,
N
3
,
V
1
,
1
4
,
V
1
,
2
4
,
V
2
,
1
4
,
V
2
,
2
4
T
.Obviously, the natural frequencies and eigenvectors can now be readily obtained by solving a standard matrix eigenvalue problem. Since the components of each eigenvector are actually the coefficients of the expansion series, the corresponding mode shapes can be directly determined from (35a), (35b), and (35c). In other words, once the coefficient eigenvector E is determined for a given frequency, the displacement functions of the shell structure can be determined by substituting the coefficients into (29a), (29b), and (29c). When the forced vibration is involved, by adding the work done by external force in the Lagrangian energy function and summing the loading vector F on the right side of (31), the characteristic equation for the forced vibration of the shell can readily be obtained.As mentioned previously, the present method can obtain vibration characteristics for the shells with arbitrary boundary conditions including uniform and nonuniform restraints. Thus, another interest of this paper is focused on the nonuniform boundary restraints, and therefore, as the considerably prevalent cases, the point supported case will be considered here. For the point supported case, instead of being uniformly distributed around the shell ends, the boundary springs are located at discrete points. In this way, the total energy stored by boundary springs is given by(36)
V
b
p
o
i
n
t
s
=
1
2
∑
s
=
0
N
S
k
β
0
,
s
w
w
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
β
0
,
s
u
u
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
β
0
,
s
v
v
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
K
β
0
,
s
w
v
α
s
,
β
s
R
β
-
∂
w
α
s
,
β
s
∂
β
2
β
s
=
0
+
1
2
∑
s
=
0
N
S
k
β
L
,
s
w
w
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
β
L
,
s
u
u
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
β
L
,
s
v
v
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
K
β
L
,
s
w
v
α
s
,
β
s
R
β
-
∂
w
α
s
,
β
s
∂
β
2
β
s
=
L
β
+
1
2
∑
s
=
0
N
S
k
α
0
,
s
w
w
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
α
0
,
s
u
u
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
α
0
,
s
v
v
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
K
α
0
,
s
w
u
α
s
,
β
s
R
α
-
∂
w
α
s
,
β
s
∂
α
2
α
s
=
0
+
1
2
∑
s
=
0
N
S
k
α
L
,
s
w
w
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
α
L
,
s
u
u
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
α
L
,
s
v
v
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
K
α
L
,
s
w
u
α
s
,
β
s
R
α
-
∂
w
α
s
,
β
s
∂
α
2
α
s
=
L
α
,where N
S means the total number of restrained points along each boundary end. k
α
0
,
s
w, k
α
0
,
s
u , k
α
0
,
s
v, and K
α
0
,
s
w are the stiffness of the four groups of boundary springs at the sth point at α
s
=
0. Similarly, k
α
L
,
s
w, k
α
L
,
s
u, k
α
L
,
s
v, and K
α
L
,
s
w denote the stiffness of corresponding springs at α
s
=
L
α; k
β
0
,
s
w, k
β
0
,
s
u, k
β
0
,
s
v, and K
β
0
,
s
w express the stiffness of corresponding springs at β
s
=
0; and k
β
L
,
s
w, k
β
L
,
s
u, k
β
L
,
s
v, and K
β
L
,
s
w represent the stiffness of corresponding springs at β
s
=
L
β. The coordinates of the sth point are represented by (
α
s
,
β
s
). It can be seen from (36) that the numbers and locations of the boundary point supports are little limited, making it available for both equally spaced or asymmetrically located cases. Similar to the uniform boundary restraint case, by solving characteristic equation (31) for the nonuniform boundary conditions, the eigenvalues can be obtained by replacing the energy expressions of uniform boundary restraints, the integrals in (21), with those of the nonuniform boundary restraints, in (36).


## 2.1. System Description

The geometry and coordinate systems for the open shell are depicted in Figure1. The open shell under consideration is thought to be thin and of length L
α, width L
β, and uniform thickness h. The middle surface of the shell where an orthogonal coordinate (α, β, and z) is fixed is taken as the reference surface. The radii of curvature in α and β directions are represented by R
α and R
β, respectively. The displacement components of the shell in α, β, and z directions are denoted by u, v, and w, respectively. Along each end of the shell, three groups of translational springs (k
u, k
v, and k
w) and one group of rotational springs (
K
w
) which are distributed uniformly along the boundary are introduced to separately simulate the given or typical boundary conditions expressed in the form of axial force resultant, tangential force resultant, transverse force resultant, and the flexural moment resultant. Thus, the given boundary conditions can be readily achieved by assigning these springs at proper stiffness. For instance, a clamped boundary condition can be generated by simply setting the stiffness of all the springs equal to infinite (which is represented by a very large number). Specifically, k
α
0
u, k
α
0
v, k
α
0
w, and K
α
0
w denote the set of springs distributed along the edge α
=
0. Similarly, by replacing the subscript α
0 with α
L, β
0, and β
L, the other three sets of boundary springs at corresponding ends can be designated, respectively.Figure 1
Geometry and notations of an open shell with elastically restrained edges: (a) coordinate system and (b) partial view.
(a)
(b)


## 2.2. Energy Functional of the Thin Shells

According to the Kirchhoff hypothesis and Flügge’s thin shell theory [4], the middle surface strains, curvature, and twist changes of the thin shell can be written in terms of displacements components as(1a)
ε
α
=
1
A
∂
u
∂
α
+
v
A
B
∂
A
∂
β
+
w
R
α
,
(1b)
ε
β
=
1
B
∂
v
∂
β
+
u
A
B
∂
B
∂
α
+
w
R
β
,
(1c)
ε
α
β
=
A
B
∂
∂
β
u
A
+
B
A
∂
∂
α
v
B
,
(2a)
κ
α
=
1
A
∂
∂
α
u
R
α
-
1
A
∂
w
∂
α
+
1
A
B
v
R
β
-
1
B
∂
w
∂
β
∂
A
∂
β
,
(2b)
κ
β
=
1
B
∂
∂
β
v
R
β
-
1
B
∂
w
∂
β
+
1
A
B
u
R
α
-
1
A
∂
w
∂
α
∂
B
∂
α
,
(2c)
τ
=
A
B
∂
∂
β
1
A
u
R
α
-
1
A
∂
w
∂
α
+
B
A
∂
∂
α
1
B
v
R
β
-
1
B
∂
w
∂
β
+
1
R
α
1
B
∂
u
∂
β
-
v
A
B
∂
B
∂
α
+
1
R
β
1
A
∂
v
∂
α
-
u
A
B
∂
A
∂
β
,where ε
α, ε
β, and ε
α
β indicate the strains in the middle surface; κ
α, κ
β, and τ are the curvature changes; u, v, and w denote the shell displacement components in the α, β, and z directions, respectively; R
α and R
β represent the radii of curvature in the α, β directions as depicted in Figure 1. The quantities A and B are the Lamé parameters. When the coordinate systems and geometric parameters A, B, R
α, and R
β are given different values, the corresponding type of shells can be obtained. In Figure 2, the specific shells constructed as the three types of curvatures, for example, cylindrical shells, conical shells, and spherical shells, are presented. According to Figure 2, the parameters R
α, R
β, A, and B of the above three types of shells are given as follows:(a)
Cylindrical shell:(3)
α
=
x
;
β
=
θ
;
R
α
=
1
;
R
β
=
R
;
A
=
1
;
B
=
R
.
(b)
Conical shell:(4)
α
=
x
;
β
=
θ
;
R
α
=
1
;
R
β
=
x
tan
⁡
φ
;
A
=
1
;
B
=
x
sin
⁡
φ
.
(c)
Spherical shell:(5)
α
=
φ
;
β
=
θ
;
R
α
=
R
;
R
β
=
R
;
A
=
R
;
B
=
R
sin
⁡
φ
.Figure 2
Definition of shell coordinate system: (a) cylindrical shell; (b) conical shell; and (c) spherical shell.
(a)
(b)
(c)According to Flügge’s thin shell theory, the linear strains in the space of the thin shell are expressed as(6a)
e
α
=
1
1
+
z
/
R
α
ε
α
+
z
κ
α
,
(6b)
e
β
=
1
1
+
z
/
R
β
ε
β
+
z
κ
β
,
(6c)
γ
α
β
=
1
1
+
z
/
R
α
1
+
z
/
R
β
1
-
z
2
R
α
R
β
ε
α
β
+
z
1
+
z
2
R
α
+
z
2
R
β
τ
,where -
h
/
2
⩽
z
⩽
h
/
2. According to general Hooke’s law, the corresponding stresses are obtained as(7a)
σ
α
σ
β
σ
α
β
=
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
21
Q
22
0
0
0
Q
66
e
α
e
β
γ
α
β
,in which σ
α and σ
β are the normal stresses; σ
α
β is shear stress. Q
i
j  (
i
,
j
=
1
,
2
,
6
) denote the constants relating stresses with strains. They are defined as(7b)
Q
11
=
Q
22
=
E
1
-
μ
2
,
Q
12
=
Q
21
=
μ
E
1
-
μ
2
,
Q
66
=
E
2
1
+
μ
,where E and μ are Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, respectively.From the theory of elasticity, the well-known expression for the strain energy stored in a shell body during elastic deformation is(8)
V
p
=
1
2
∫
V
σ
α
e
α
+
σ
β
e
β
+
σ
α
β
γ
α
β
d
V
,where d
V is the element of volume which, expressed in shell coordinates, is(9)
d
V
=
1
+
z
R
α
1
+
z
R
β
A
B
d
α
d
β
d
z
.Recognizing that, for a thin shell,z
/
R
i  (
i
=
α
,
β
) is less than unity, then one can expand the quotient 1
/
(
1
+
z
/
R
i
) into a well-known geometric series by simple division; that is, (10)
1
1
+
z
/
R
i
=
∑
n
=
0
∞
-
z
R
i
n
,
i
=
α
,
β
.Replacing1
/
(
1
+
z
/
R
i
) with (10), neglecting terms raised to powers of z greater than two in the integrand, and substituting (1a)–(7b) and (9) into (8) result in(11)
V
p
=
E
h
2
1
-
μ
2
∬
Q
0
+
h
2
12
Q
1
+
Q
2
A
B
d
α
d
β
,where(12a)
Q
0
=
ε
α
2
+
ε
β
2
+
2
μ
ε
α
ε
β
+
1
-
μ
2
ε
α
β
2
,
(12b)
Q
1
=
κ
α
2
+
κ
β
2
+
2
μ
κ
α
κ
β
+
1
-
μ
2
τ
2
,
(12c)
Q
2
=
-
2
1
R
α
-
1
R
β
ε
α
κ
α
-
ε
β
κ
β
-
1
-
μ
2
1
R
α
+
1
R
β
ε
α
β
τ
+
1
R
α
-
1
R
β
ε
α
2
R
α
-
ε
β
2
R
β
+
1
-
μ
2
1
R
α
2
+
1
R
β
2
-
1
R
α
R
β
ε
α
β
2
,and the maximum kinetic energy of the thin shell can be defined as(13)
T
=
ρ
h
2
∬
w
˙
2
+
u
˙
2
+
v
˙
2
A
B
d
α
d
β
,where the dot above a variable represents differentiation with respect to time. Since the value of the kinetic energy is maximum, the kinetic energy expression in (13) can be rewritten as(14)
T
=
ρ
h
ω
2
2
∬
w
2
+
u
2
+
v
2
A
B
d
α
d
β
.In (11)–(14), E, μ, and ρ, respectively, are Young’s modulus, Poisson ratio, and density of the shell. ω indicates the angular frequency of the shell.


## 2.3. Arbitrary Boundary Conditions and Continuity Conditions

In order to simulate the arbitrary boundary conditions, three groups of translational restraining springs (k
w, k
u, and k
v) and one group of rotational restraining springs (
K
w
) which are arranged uniformly along each boundary with independent stiffness are introduced to separately simulate the given or typical boundary conditions expressed in the form of axial force resultant, tangential force resultant, transverse force resultant, and the flexural moment resultant, which is shown in Figure 1. Thus, the given boundary conditions can be readily achieved by assigning these springs at proper stiffness. For instance, a clamped boundary condition can be generated by simply setting the stiffness of all the springs equal to infinite (which is represented by a very large number). Therefore, the general boundary conditions for an elastically restrained shell can be described as follows:At edgeα
=
0,(15)
k
α
0
u
u
=
N
α
,
k
α
0
v
v
=
N
α
β
+
M
α
β
R
β
,
k
α
0
w
w
=
Q
α
+
∂
M
α
β
∂
β
,
K
α
0
w
∂
w
∂
α
=
-
M
α
.
At edgeα
=
L
α,(16)
k
α
L
u
u
=
-
N
α
,
k
α
L
v
v
=
-
N
α
β
-
M
α
β
R
β
,
k
α
L
w
w
c
=
-
Q
α
-
∂
M
α
β
∂
β
,
K
α
L
w
∂
w
∂
α
=
M
α
.
At edgeβ
=
0,(17)
k
β
0
u
u
=
N
α
β
+
∂
M
α
β
∂
R
α
,
k
β
0
v
v
=
N
β
,
k
β
0
w
w
=
Q
β
+
∂
M
α
β
∂
α
,
K
β
0
w
∂
w
∂
β
=
-
M
β
.
At edgeβ
=
L
β,(18)
k
β
L
u
u
=
-
N
α
β
-
M
α
β
R
α
,
k
β
L
v
v
=
-
N
β
,
k
β
L
w
w
=
-
Q
β
-
∂
M
α
β
∂
α
,
K
β
L
w
∂
w
∂
β
=
M
β
,
whereN
α, N
α
β, and Q
α denote the force resultants acting on the face perpendicular to the α-axis. N
β, N
β
α
(
N
β
α
=
N
α
β
), and Q
α are the force resultants on the face perpendicular to the β-axis. Similarly, M
α, M
β, and M
α
β are the moment resultants on the corresponding face. N
α, N
β, and N
α
β are the normal and in-plane shear force resultants; Q
α and Q
β denote the transverse shear force; M
α, M
β, and M
α
β represent the bending and twisting moment resultants.The force and moment resultants are obtained by integrating the stresses over the shell thickness:(19)
N
α
N
β
N
α
β
=
∫
-
h
/
2
h
/
2
σ
α
σ
β
σ
α
β
d
z
,
M
α
M
β
M
α
β
=
∫
-
h
/
2
h
/
2
σ
α
σ
β
σ
α
β
z
d
z
,
Q
α
Q
β
=
∫
-
h
/
2
h
/
2
σ
α
z
σ
β
z
d
z
.By carrying the integration of stresses over the cross section and integrating the moments of the in-plane stresses over the thickness, the force and moment resultants relations to the strains in the middle surface and curvature changes are defined as(20a)
N
α
=
E
h
1
-
μ
2
ε
α
+
μ
ε
β
,
N
β
=
E
h
1
-
μ
2
ε
β
+
μ
ε
α
,
N
α
β
=
E
h
2
1
+
μ
ε
α
β
,
(20b)
M
α
=
E
h
3
12
1
-
μ
2
κ
α
+
μ
κ
β
,
M
β
=
E
h
3
12
1
-
μ
2
κ
β
+
μ
κ
α
,
M
α
β
=
E
h
3
24
1
+
μ
τ
.Thus, the total potential energy of the spring restrained shell stored in the boundary springs can be expressed as(21)
V
b
=
1
2
∫
k
β
0
w
w
2
+
k
β
0
u
u
2
+
k
β
0
v
v
2
+
K
β
0
w
v
R
β
-
∂
w
∂
β
2
β
=
0
+
k
β
L
w
w
2
+
k
β
L
u
u
2
+
k
β
L
v
v
2
+
K
β
L
w
v
R
β
-
∂
w
∂
β
2
β
=
L
β
A
d
α
+
1
2
∫
k
α
0
w
w
2
+
k
α
0
u
u
2
+
k
α
0
v
v
2
+
K
α
0
w
u
R
α
-
∂
w
∂
α
2
α
=
0
+
k
α
L
w
w
2
+
k
α
L
u
u
2
+
k
α
L
v
v
2
+
K
α
L
w
u
R
α
-
∂
w
∂
α
2
α
=
L
α
B
d
β
.As indicated in the mathematical expressions of boundary conditions, all the force and moment resultants of the open shells are restrained by utilized springs. Therefore, arbitrary boundary constraints can be achieved by varying the values of spring’s stiffness. The classical boundary conditions specially can be simulated by varying the stiffness of the boundary springs to be extremely large or extremely small.When all of the energy expressions are prepared, the complete solution can be obtained by using the Rayleigh-Ritz method. The total energy functional of the open shell is taken as the sum of the energy contributions from the shell, which is composed of the strain energy and the kinetic energy, and boundary constraints. Thus, the Lagrangian energy functional(
L
) of the open shell can be expressed as(22)
L
=
V
p
+
V
b
-
T
.As mentioned earlier, a closed shell can be mathematically viewed as a special case when the inclusion or circumferential angle is set equal to2
π, as shown in Figure 3. However, this simple mathematical operation alone cannot automatically ensure a complete transition of the open shell into a closed shell; that is, the continuities of the displacements and their derivatives at θ
=
0 and θ
=
2
π are not necessarily the same. To overcome this problem, a set of coupling springs (k
c
u, k
c
v, k
c
w, and K
c
w), which are uniformly distributed at the common edge, will be adopted to enforce the continuity conditions of displacements, slope, forces, and bending moment at the junction in circumference. The presence of these coupling springs can be accounted for by the potential energies:(23)
V
c
=
1
2
∫
k
c
w
w
θ
=
0
-
w
θ
=
2
π
2
+
k
c
u
u
θ
=
0
-
u
θ
=
2
π
2
+
k
c
v
v
θ
=
0
-
v
θ
=
2
π
2
+
K
c
w
v
R
β
θ
=
0
-
∂
w
∂
β
θ
=
0
-
v
R
β
θ
=
2
π
+
∂
w
∂
β
θ
=
2
π
2
A
d
α
,where k
c
w, k
c
u, and k
c
v represent the stiffness for translational coupling springs; K
c
w is the stiffness for rotational coupling springs.Figure 3
The sketches of the closed shells with coupling circumferential edge: (a) cylindrical shell; (b) conical shell; (c) spherical shell.
(a)
(b)
(c)Therefore, arbitrary coupling conditions can be obtained by varying the values of coupling spring’s stiffness. The discontinuity and continuity of the displacement and slope specially at the common edge can be achieved by varying the stiffness of the boundary springs to be extremely small and extremely large, which can simulate the open shell with the circumferential angleθ
=
2
π and the closed shell, respectively. In fact, these two cases are different and the two cases will get different vibration behavior. The function of connective springs at the interface for the continuity of the displacement and slope is embodied in the Lagrangian energy functional (
L
) of the closed shell:(24)
L
=
V
p
+
V
b
+
V
c
-
T
.In fact, as the open shell is expanded to the closed one, the boundary restraint spring’s stiffness at the edgesθ
=
0 and θ
=
2
π should be set to zero and the coupling spring’s stiffness should be set infinitely large.


## 2.4. Admissible Displacement Functions and Solution Procedure

An admissible function for displacement is essential to achieve an accurate and convergent solution in the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure. However, the original Fourier series expression only applies to a few simple boundary conditions and can lead to unavoidable convergence problem for other boundary conditions, thus limiting the applications of the Fourier series to only a few ideal boundary conditions [65]. Take a beam problem as an example. The governing equations for free vibration of a general supported Euler beam are obtained as(25)
D
∂
4
w
x
∂
x
4
-
ρ
A
ω
2
w
x
=
0
,where D, ρ, and A are, respectively, the flexural rigidity, the mass density, and the cross-sectional area of the beam; ω is frequency in radian. From (25), we can know that the displacement solution w
(
x
) on a beam of length L is required to have up to the fourth derivatives; that is, w
(
x
)
∈
C
3. Generally, the displacement function w
(
x
) defined on an interval [
0
,
L
] can be expanded into a Fourier series inside the interval excluding boundary points:(26)
w
x
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
A
m
cos
⁡
m
π
x
L
,
0
<
x
<
L
,where A
m are the expansion coefficients. From (26), it can be seen that the transverse displacement function w
(
x
) can be viewed as a part of an even function defined on the interval [
-
L
,
L
], as shown in Figure 4. Thus, the Fourier cosine series is able to correctly converge to w
(
x
) at any point over [
0
,
L
]. However, its first derivative w
′
x is an odd function on [
-
L
,
L
] leading to a jump at end locations. The corresponding Fourier expansion of w
′
x continues on [
0
,
L
] and can be differentiated term-by-term only if w
′
0
=
w
′
L
=
0. Thus, its Fourier series expansion (sine series) will accordingly have a convergence problem due to the discontinuity at end points when w
′
x is required to have up to the first-derivative continuity.Figure 4
An illustration of the possible discontinuities of the displacement and its derivative at the end points.Recently, Li [65, 66] proposed an improved Fourier series technique to overcome this problem; in this technique, the displacement function w
(
x
) considers a new function:(27)
w
x
=
w
-
x
+
P
x
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
A
m
cos
⁡
m
π
x
L
+
P
x
,
0
≤
x
≤
L
,where auxiliary function P
(
x
) in (27) represents an arbitrary continuous function that, regardless of boundary conditions equations (15)–(20b), is always chosen to satisfy the following equations: (28a)
P
′
0
=
w
′
0
=
α
0
,
(28b)
P
′
a
=
w
′
a
=
α
1
,
(28c)
P
′
′
′
0
=
w
′
′
′
0
=
β
0
,
(28d)
P
′
′
′
a
=
w
′
′
′
a
=
β
1
.In (28a), (28b), (28c), and (28d), the actual values α
0, α
1, β
0, and β
1 of the first and third derivatives at the boundaries need to be determined from the given boundary conditions equations (15)–(20b). The function P
(
x
) is here introduced to take care of the potential discontinuities of the (original) displacement function and its derivatives at the end points. Essentially, w
-
x represents a residual beam function which is continuous over [
0
,
L
] and has zero slopes at both ends. Apparently, the cosine series with the auxiliary function P
(
x
) employed representation of w
x is able to converge correctly to the function itself and its first derivative at every point on the beam. Thus, based on the above analysis, P
(
x
) can be understood as a continuous function that satisfies (28a), (28b), (28c), and (28d); its form is not a concern but must be a closed form and sufficiently smooth on the interval [
0
,
L
] of the beam in order to meet the requirements provided by the continuity conditions and boundary constraints. Therefore, the addition of the auxiliary function P
(
x
) will have two immediate benefits: (
1
) the Fourier series expansion will be applicable to any boundary condition; (
2
) the Fourier series solution can be drastically improved regarding its accuracy convergence.According to the above analysis, it is simple and convenient to expand the displacement field of beams to one of the shells. In this paper, the functionP
(
x
) is chosen in a trigonometric series form by using SGM. Thus, the displacement field of the thin shells can be described by the SGM and then the detailed expressions of the displacements in z, α, and β directions are given as(29a)
w
α
,
β
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
0
∞
W
m
n
1
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
1
4
W
m
n
2
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
1
4
∑
n
=
0
∞
W
m
n
3
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
sin
⁡
λ
n
α
+
∑
m
=
1
4
∑
n
=
1
4
W
m
n
4
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
,
(29b)
u
α
,
β
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
0
∞
U
m
n
1
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
1
2
U
m
n
2
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
1
2
∑
n
=
0
∞
U
m
n
3
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
+
∑
m
=
1
2
∑
n
=
1
2
U
m
n
4
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
,
(29c)
v
α
,
β
=
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
0
∞
V
m
n
1
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
0
∞
∑
n
=
1
2
V
m
n
1
cos
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
+
∑
m
=
1
2
∑
n
=
0
∞
V
m
n
3
cos
⁡
λ
n
β
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
+
∑
m
=
1
2
∑
n
=
1
2
V
m
n
4
sin
⁡
λ
m
α
sin
⁡
λ
n
β
,where λ
m
=
m
π
/
L
α, λ
n
=
n
π
/
L
β, W
m
n
1, W
m
n
2, W
m
n
3, W
m
n
4, U
m
n
1, U
m
n
2, U
m
n
3, U
m
n
4, V
m
n
1, V
m
n
2, V
m
n
3, and V
m
n
4 are the expansion coefficients for the shells and they can be solved by the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure.For thin shells, the thickness is assumed to be negligible compared to length or radii of curvature of the shell and the normal to the middle surfaces are considered always to be straight and normal to the middle surface. Under these assumptions, Rayleigh-Ritz energy method will be used to establish the theoretical formulation of the thin shells based on Flügge’s thin shell theory.Since the energy expressions and admissible function of the shell have been established, the remaining task is to determine the unknown coefficients and supplemented coefficients of displacement functions. The Lagrangian energy functions(
L
) of the open and closed shell have been expressed in (22) and (24). Thus, the Lagrangian energy function can be expressed with displacement functions by substituting (11), (14), (21), and (23) together with the admissible functions defined in (29a), (29b), and (29c) into (22) and (24). The undetermined coefficients of the expansion series are considered the generalized coordinates and then, using the Rayleigh-Ritz method, the Lagrangian expression is minimized by taking its derivatives with respect to these coefficients:(30)
∂
L
∂
ϑ
=
0
,
ϑ
=
W
m
n
,
U
m
n
,
V
m
n
,where ϑ denotes the undetermined coefficients including W
m
n, U
m
n, and V
m
n. Since the displacement functions of the shell structure are truncated at m
=
M and n
=
N to obtain the results with acceptable accuracy, a total of (
M
+
5
)
∗
(
N
+
5
)
+
2
∗
(
M
+
3
)
∗
(
N
+
3
) equations are obtained.By substituting (22) and (24) into (30), it can be summed up in a matrix form as follows:(31)
K
-
ω
2
M
E
=
0
,where K denotes the stiffness matrix for the structure and M is the mass matrix. The unknown coefficients in the displacement expressions can be described in the vector form as E. They can be expressed separately as(32)
K
=
K
w
w
K
w
u
K
w
v
K
u
u
K
u
v
s
y
m
m
K
v
v
,
(33)
M
=
d
i
a
g
M
w
w
M
u
u
M
v
v
,
(34)
E
=
W
m
n
,
U
m
n
,
V
m
n
T
,
(35a)
W
m
n
=
W
0
,
0
1
,
W
0
,
1
1
,
…
,
W
m
,
n
1
,
…
,
W
M
,
N
1
,
W
0
,
1
2
,
…
,
W
0
,
4
2
,
W
1
,
1
2
,
…
,
W
m
,
4
2
,
…
,
W
M
,
4
2
,
W
1
,
0
3
,
W
1
,
1
3
,
…
,
W
1
,
N
3
,
W
2
,
0
3
,
…
,
W
4
,
N
3
,
W
1
,
1
4
,
…
W
1
,
4
4
,
W
2
,
1
4
,
…
,
W
2
,
4
4
,
…
,
W
4
,
4
4
T
,
(35b)
U
m
n
=
U
0
,
0
1
,
U
0
,
1
1
,
…
,
U
m
,
n
1
,
…
,
U
M
,
N
1
,
U
0
,
1
2
,
U
0
,
2
2
,
U
1
,
1
2
,
…
,
U
m
,
2
2
,
…
,
U
M
,
2
2
,
U
1
,
0
3
,
U
1
,
1
3
,
…
,
U
1
,
N
3
,
U
2
,
0
3
,
…
,
U
2
,
N
3
,
U
1
,
1
4
,
U
1
,
2
4
,
U
2
,
1
4
,
U
2
,
2
4
T
,
(35c)
V
m
n
=
V
0
,
0
1
,
V
0
,
1
1
,
…
,
V
m
,
n
1
,
…
,
V
M
,
N
1
,
V
0
,
1
2
,
V
0
,
2
2
,
V
1
,
1
2
,
…
,
V
m
,
2
2
,
…
,
V
M
,
2
2
,
V
1
,
0
3
,
V
1
,
1
3
,
…
,
V
1
,
N
3
,
V
2
,
0
3
,
…
,
V
2
,
N
3
,
V
1
,
1
4
,
V
1
,
2
4
,
V
2
,
1
4
,
V
2
,
2
4
T
.Obviously, the natural frequencies and eigenvectors can now be readily obtained by solving a standard matrix eigenvalue problem. Since the components of each eigenvector are actually the coefficients of the expansion series, the corresponding mode shapes can be directly determined from (35a), (35b), and (35c). In other words, once the coefficient eigenvector E is determined for a given frequency, the displacement functions of the shell structure can be determined by substituting the coefficients into (29a), (29b), and (29c). When the forced vibration is involved, by adding the work done by external force in the Lagrangian energy function and summing the loading vector F on the right side of (31), the characteristic equation for the forced vibration of the shell can readily be obtained.As mentioned previously, the present method can obtain vibration characteristics for the shells with arbitrary boundary conditions including uniform and nonuniform restraints. Thus, another interest of this paper is focused on the nonuniform boundary restraints, and therefore, as the considerably prevalent cases, the point supported case will be considered here. For the point supported case, instead of being uniformly distributed around the shell ends, the boundary springs are located at discrete points. In this way, the total energy stored by boundary springs is given by(36)
V
b
p
o
i
n
t
s
=
1
2
∑
s
=
0
N
S
k
β
0
,
s
w
w
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
β
0
,
s
u
u
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
β
0
,
s
v
v
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
K
β
0
,
s
w
v
α
s
,
β
s
R
β
-
∂
w
α
s
,
β
s
∂
β
2
β
s
=
0
+
1
2
∑
s
=
0
N
S
k
β
L
,
s
w
w
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
β
L
,
s
u
u
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
β
L
,
s
v
v
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
K
β
L
,
s
w
v
α
s
,
β
s
R
β
-
∂
w
α
s
,
β
s
∂
β
2
β
s
=
L
β
+
1
2
∑
s
=
0
N
S
k
α
0
,
s
w
w
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
α
0
,
s
u
u
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
α
0
,
s
v
v
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
K
α
0
,
s
w
u
α
s
,
β
s
R
α
-
∂
w
α
s
,
β
s
∂
α
2
α
s
=
0
+
1
2
∑
s
=
0
N
S
k
α
L
,
s
w
w
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
α
L
,
s
u
u
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
k
α
L
,
s
v
v
α
s
,
β
s
2
+
K
α
L
,
s
w
u
α
s
,
β
s
R
α
-
∂
w
α
s
,
β
s
∂
α
2
α
s
=
L
α
,where N
S means the total number of restrained points along each boundary end. k
α
0
,
s
w, k
α
0
,
s
u , k
α
0
,
s
v, and K
α
0
,
s
w are the stiffness of the four groups of boundary springs at the sth point at α
s
=
0. Similarly, k
α
L
,
s
w, k
α
L
,
s
u, k
α
L
,
s
v, and K
α
L
,
s
w denote the stiffness of corresponding springs at α
s
=
L
α; k
β
0
,
s
w, k
β
0
,
s
u, k
β
0
,
s
v, and K
β
0
,
s
w express the stiffness of corresponding springs at β
s
=
0; and k
β
L
,
s
w, k
β
L
,
s
u, k
β
L
,
s
v, and K
β
L
,
s
w represent the stiffness of corresponding springs at β
s
=
L
β. The coordinates of the sth point are represented by (
α
s
,
β
s
). It can be seen from (36) that the numbers and locations of the boundary point supports are little limited, making it available for both equally spaced or asymmetrically located cases. Similar to the uniform boundary restraint case, by solving characteristic equation (31) for the nonuniform boundary conditions, the eigenvalues can be obtained by replacing the energy expressions of uniform boundary restraints, the integrals in (21), with those of the nonuniform boundary restraints, in (36).


## 3. Results and Discussion

In this section, a systematic comparison between the current solutions and theoretical results published by other researchers or finite element method (FEM) results is carried out to verify the excellent accuracy, reliability, and feasibility of the spectro-geometric-Ritz method. A comprehensive study about the effects on the vibration behavior of various boundary conditions and geometric parameters is also presented. The discussion is arranged as follows. Firstly, the convergence of the current solution is checked. In addition, the influence of the stiffness of boundary spring components is studied. Secondly, the accuracy and reliability of the unified formulation of the open and closed shells with various arbitrary boundary conditions and structural parameters are examined. Finally, the effects on the vibration behavior of the various boundary restraint parameters and structural geometric parameters are investigated.For conveniently referring to the classical boundary conditions, F, SD, S, and C denote, respectively, free, Shear-diaphragm, simply supported, and clamped restraints. In addition to that, a four-letter (two-letter) string is applied for the open (closed) shells to represent the boundary condition. For examples, F-SD-S-C identifies the open shell with edgesα
=
0, β
=
0, α
=
L
α, and β
=
L
β having free, Shear-diaphragm, simply supported, and clamped boundary conditions, respectively. Similarly, C-F represents the closed shell with edges α
=
0 and α
=
L
α having clamped and free boundary restraints. In the following discussion, vibration frequencies of the shell structure with classical boundary conditions, general elastic boundary conditions, and their combinations will be presented. Taking edge α
=
0 as a case, the corresponding spring stiffness parameters for three types of classical boundary conditions and three types of elastic boundary conditions, which are commonly encountered in engineering practices, are given as follows:(37)
B.C.
⁡
F
:
k
α
0
u
=
0
,
k
α
0
v
=
0
,
k
α
0
w
=
0
,
K
α
0
w
=
0
S
D
:
k
α
0
u
=
0
,
k
α
0
v
=
1
0
10
D
,
k
α
0
w
=
1
0
10
D
,
K
α
0
w
=
0
S
:
k
α
0
u
=
1
0
10
D
,
k
α
0
v
=
1
0
10
D
,
k
α
0
w
=
1
0
10
D
,
K
α
0
w
=
0
C
:
k
α
0
u
=
1
0
10
D
,
k
α
0
v
=
1
0
10
D
,
k
α
0
w
=
1
0
10
D
,
K
α
0
w
=
1
0
10
D
E
1
:
k
α
0
u
=
1
0
4
D
,
k
α
0
v
=
1
0
10
D
,
k
α
0
w
=
1
0
10
D
,
K
α
0
w
=
1
0
10
D
E
2
:
k
α
0
u
=
1
0
10
D
,
k
α
0
v
=
1
0
4
D
,
k
α
0
w
=
1
0
10
D
,
K
α
0
w
=
1
0
10
D
E
3
:
k
α
0
u
=
1
0
10
D
,
k
α
0
v
=
1
0
10
D
,
k
α
0
w
=
1
0
4
D
,
K
α
0
w
=
1
0
10
D
,where D
=
E
h
3
/
12
(
1
-
μ
2
) is the transverse flexural stiffness of the shell. The unit of the translational restraining spring is N/m, the unit of the rotational spring is Nm/rad, and the spring’s stiffness values are expressed in a unit length along the edge. The appropriateness of defining the classical boundary conditions of shell structures in terms of boundary spring’s stiffness will be verified by several examples given in following discussion.


### 3.1. Convergence and Stiffness Value Study

Since the expansion series is numerically truncated and only finite terms are counted in actual calculations, the proposed method should be understood as a solution with arbitrary precision. For the sake of validating the convergence of present method firstly, natural frequencies of the open shell, that is, cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, subject to different truncated configurations, are carried out in this subsection. In order to compare with those in other literatures, the dimensions of the shell structures used for the analysis are the following: for cylindrical shell,E
=
210
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800
k
g
/
m
3, R
=
2
m, L
=
3
m, θ
0
=
45
°, and h
=
0
.
01
m; for conical shell, E
=
70
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
2700
k
g
/
m
3, R
0
=
0
.
34
m, L
=
1
.
14
m, φ
=
3
.
8
°, θ
0
=
130
°, and h
=
0
.
002
m; and for spherical shell, E
=
70
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
2700
k
g
/
m
3, R
=
2
m, φ
0
=
75
.
7
°, φ
1
=
104
.
3
°, θ
0
=
28
.
6
°, and h
=
0
.
01
m. Theoretical and experimental results reported by Bardell et al. [33], Zhao et al. [35], and Liew et al. [36] as well as those obtained from finite element analyses have also been provided for comparisons. The first nine frequencies of the open shell subjected to F-F-F-F boundary conditions are listed in Table 1. The symbols “—” in Table 1 are missing frequencies that were not considered by Liew et al. [36].Table 1
Comparison and convergence of the first eight natural frequencies (Hz) for three open shells with F-F-F-F boundary condition.
Model
M
=
N
Model sequence
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cylindrical shell
2
35.77
38.351
43.957
48.779
62.233
63.943
66.038
76.359
4
16.32
25.170
28.765
31.603
35.307
56.076
60.732
61.657
6
8.071
22.883
26.809
30.312
33.721
54.988
58.716
61.556
8
7.467
22.336
26.337
30.125
33.328
54.699
58.374
61.541
10
7.379
22.183
26.207
30.082
33.215
54.609
58.288
61.538
12
7.354
22.133
26.165
30.068
33.177
54.578
58.261
61.537
14
7.345
22.113
26.148
30.063
33.162
54.565
58.250
61.536
16
7.341
22.105
26.141
30.061
33.156
54.560
58.245
61.535
Ref. [37]
7.225
22.096
26.179
30.011
33.105
54.507
58.182
61.535
ANSYS [37]
7.312
22.094
26.096
30.014
33.064
54.400
58.106
61.517
Conical shell
2
38.4
54.85
84.08
103.0
159.23
229.3
353.4
381.1
4
18.7
25.30
32.04
36.89
49.87
72.59
88.88
96.85
6
15.9
15.98
21.86
35.56
46.43
70.10
79.02
83.43
8
10.2
14.45
20.23
35.32
45.74
69.56
76.99
78.38
10
8.37
13.60
19.43
35.25
45.54
69.32
76.40
76.91
12
7.75
13.16
19.04
35.21
45.47
69.18
76.18
76.41
14
7.48
12.92
18.83
35.17
45.44
69.05
76.06
76.19
16
7.48
12.92
18.83
35.17
45.44
69.05
76.06
76.19
Ref. [37]
7.29
12.59
18.54
35.19
45.38
69.06
75.94
76.05
Ref. [33]
7.21
12.32
18.21
34.40
44.32
67.78
75.43
76.05
Experiment [33]
7.50
12.70
18.20
35.60
46.00
59.50
70.40
73.10
Ref. [35]
7.33
12.85
18.80
35.96
46.18
70.46
76.52
76.69
Spherical shell
2
93.009
134.18
136.42
149.49
176.026
207.42
244.63
250.30
4
36.887
53.459
95.559
97.201
126.99
182.01
219.35
225.24
6
34.687
50.676
92.738
94.323
125.45
178.61
217.53
223.42
8
34.462
50.256
92.318
93.893
125.19
178.05
217.20
223.08
10
34.413
50.156
92.221
93.792
125.13
177.92
217.17
222.99
12
34.398
50.125
92.191
93.762
125.11
177.88
217.09
222.96
14
34.393
50.113
92.179
93.750
125.09
177.86
217.08
222.95
16
34.390
50.108
92.175
93.745
125.09
177.85
217.07
222.95
Ref. [37]
33.955
49.944
91.743
92.975
124.21
177.05
216.22
221.60
Ref. [36]
33.460
48.906
91.297
—
121.80
173.11
211.57
—From Table1, we can find that the first eight frequencies converge rapidly with the increasing truncated number and a very close agreement between present solutions and referential results, although different displacement admissible functions and solution procedures were used in the literature. It should be noted that the results provide by Liew et al. [36] are based on 3D shallow shell theory. The convergence study shows the excellent efficiency of the SGM-Ritz solution. To further validate the accuracy and reliability of current solution, more numerical examples will be presented. In each case, the convergence study is performed and, for brevity purposes, only the converged results are presented here. Since the results converge well at the truncated number M
=
N
=
14, the following calculations will be implemented with the truncated numbers.As mentioned earlier, in the current modeling framework, all the classical boundary conditions and their combinations can be conveniently viewed as special cases by setting the values of the linear and rotational boundary springs stiffness either equal to zero or infinitely large. Thus, the effects on the modal characteristics of the linear and rotational spring’s stiffness should be investigated. For the sake of generalizing the effects, the nondimensional elastic restraint parametersΓ
u, Γ
v, Γ
w, and Γ
W, which are defined as the ratios of the corresponding spring’s stiffness of α-axial, β-axial, and z-axial and rotational boundary spring’s stiffness to the transverse flexural stiffness D
=
E
h
3
/
12
(
1
-
μ
2
), are introduced here. Since current investigations about the effects on vibration behavior of the various boundary conditions are mostly concentrated on the closed shell, the open shells, that is, cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, are introduced here to analyze the effects on vibration behavior of the various boundary spring’s stiffness in this subsection. In Figure 5, variations of the 1st-, 3rd-, and 5th-order frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D against the elastic restraint parameters Γ
ζ (where ζ
=
u
,
v
,
w and W) of three different open shells are depicted, respectively. The material properties for the three types of considered open shells are given as follows: E
=
210
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, and ρ
=
7800
k
g
/
m
3. And the geometrical dimensions are employed as follows: for the cylindrical shell, R
=
2
m, L
=
3
m, h
=
0
.
0
1
m, and θ
0
=
90
°; for the conical shell, R
0
=
1
m, L
=
2
m, h
=
0
.
01
m, φ
=
45
°, and θ
0
=
60
°; for the spherical shell, R
=
2
m, h
=
0
.
01
m, φ
0
=
60
°, φ
1
=
120
°, and θ
0
=
60
°. In Figure 5, each of the shells is supposed to be clamped at edge α
=
0, free at edges β
=
0 and β
=
L
β, and elastically restrained at edge α
=
L
α by only one group of spring components with various stiffness value (varying from 10−4 to 1010) and the other three groups of spring components’ stiffness value with zero. Briefly, this type of boundary condition can be denoted by C-F-EI-F.Figure 5
Effects of boundary spring stiffness on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D of open shells with C-F-EI-F boundary conditions: (a) open cylindrical shell; (b) open conical shell; and (c) open spherical shell.
(a)
(b)
(c)From Figure5, it is observed that the frequency parameters Ω increase as the stiffness parameters Γ
ζ increase in the certain range. Specifically, the frequency parameters almost keep at a level when the stiffness parameters Γ
ζ of the boundary springs are smaller than 10−1. As they further increase, a distinct influence can be observed, in which the frequency parameters increase rapidly; when they are beyond 108, the frequency parameters approach the utmost and remain unchanged. As mentioned early, it is reasonable that the classical boundary condition is simulated by setting the ratios of the corresponding spring stiffness to the flexural stiffness D
=
E
h
3
/
12
(
1
-
μ
2
) to be 1010. Similarly, the ratios of the coupling spring stiffness to the flexural stiffness D at the interface are set to be 1010 to satisfy the rigid connective conditions for the closed shells. From Figure 5, it can be concluded that the different restraint springs have different effects on the vibration behavior of the open shells. Comparing Figure 5(c) with 5(a) and 5(b), it can be found that the influence of spring component k
u on the spherical shell is different from the cylindrical and conical shells, which may be because the spherical shell is doubly curved. Furthermore, from Figure 5, it can be seen that the translational spring’s components have effects on the vibration behavior on the shells more than the rotational spring’s component for all the three types of open shells.


### 3.2. Free Vibration Analysis of Open Shells

In order to study the free vibration characteristics of the present method for the unified open and closed shell formulation, the vibration analysis of the open shells, that is, open cylindrical shell, open conical shell, and open spherical shell, is focused on in this section.


#### 3.2.1. Cylindrical Shells

In this section, open cylindrical shells subjected to different boundary conditions with various geometrical and material parameters are investigated. First, the accuracy and reliability of the present method for the unified open and closed shell formulation applied to an open cylindrical shell are studied. Table2 lists the first four natural frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D obtained by present method with literature [38]. The material properties and geometrical dimensions of the open cylindrical shell are E
=
210
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800
k
g
/
m
3, R
=
2
m, L
=
1
m, h
=
0
.
05
m, and θ
0
=
28
.
6
°. Table 3 compares the first seven natural frequencies calculated by present method with those in literature [28, 37]. The material properties of the open cylindrical shell keep the same with the case in Table 2 and geometrical dimensions are R
=
0
.
1
m, L
=
0
.
2
m, h
=
0
.
001
m, and θ
0
=
60
°. In order to further validate the accuracy of the present method, Table 4 compares the first five frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
/
E of the open cylindrical shell obtained by present method with those in literature [29, 37] with various geometric parameters, for example, L
/
R and θ
0, subjected to C-F-C-F boundary condition. The material properties remain unchanged and geometrical dimensions of the open cylindrical shell are R
=
2
m and h
=
0
.
02
m. From Tables 2–4, it can be found clearly that a consistent agreement of present results and referential data is seen. The discrepancy is very small although different shell theories are used in the literature. The small discrepancy in the results may be attributed to the different solution approaches used in the literature.Table 2
Comparison of the first four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open cylindrical shell with various boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Ref. [38]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
F-F-F-F
13.44
21.28
28.12
34.69
13.48
21.17
28.13
34.47
SD-F-F-F
6.640
19.43
25.80
26.10
6.673
19.45
25.79
25.95
C-F-F-F
5.164
8.594
24.65
28.10
5.180
8.587
24.60
28.01
SD-SD-F-F
3.347
17.93
22.68
40.57
3.389
17.73
22.69
40.33
C-SD-F-F
6.779
19.53
28.28
45.24
6.797
19.33
28.29
45.01
C-C-F-F
8.440
25.57
29.56
51.11
8.506
25.42
29.54
50.90
SD-F-SD-F
13.10
16.41
37.22
43.26
13.13
16.41
37.02
43.26
C-F-SD-F
18.64
21.00
40.21
53.51
18.63
20.99
40.26
53.08
SD-SD-SD-F
14.78
29.57
44.94
61.91
14.82
29.35
44.94
61.66
C-SD-SD-F
19.73
33.15
54.56
64.20
19.79
32.96
54.59
63.93
C-C-SD-F
20.08
39.72
54.05
74.34
20.54
39.32
54.88
74.25
C-F-C-F
25.12
26.85
44.33
64.01
25.32
26.91
44.32
64.25
SD-C-SD-F
15.79
36.41
45.24
64.32
15.84
36.22
45.24
64.38
C-SD-C-F
25.96
37.66
65.26
66.90
26.05
37.53
65.62
66.80
C-C-C-F
26.75
43.68
66.05
77.50
26.65
43.41
65.87
77.14
SD-SD-SD-SD
25.48
49.61
55.84
80.46
25.32
49.34
55.71
80.23
C-SD-SD-SD
29.05
52.11
64.19
87.56
28.90
51.86
64.08
87.38
C-C-SD-SD
34.16
61.76
66.44
94.71
34.07
61.55
66.48
94.48
C-SD-C-SD
33.69
55.30
73.85
95.62
33.66
55.13
74.00
95.75
C-C-C-SD
37.38
63.67
76.00
99.98
38.05
64.30
76.14
102.33
C-C-C-C
46.08
74.02
78.10
109.68
46.14
74.11
79.14
109.95Table 3
Comparison of the first seven natural frequencies (Hz) for an open cylindrical shell with various boundary conditions.
Modes
SD-F-SD-F
SD-SD-SD-SD
F-S-F-S
Experiment [28]
Theory [28]
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [37]
Present
1
300
286
285.162
286.012
1059.60
1059.17
837.437
837.467
2
470
476
475.131
476.367
1693.43
1694.86
1862.92
1863.09
3
850
819
817.600
819.124
2061.83
2061.58
1903.48
1903.04
4
870
859
857.365
859.198
2068.16
2068.64
1928.89
1929.87
5
1330
1341
1339.58
952.465
2401.35
2400.62
2436.56
2435.24
6
1460
1440
1437.56
1341.65
3089.38
3088.82
3041.67
3042.74
7
1490
1486
1486.98
1440.09
3412.99
3415.73
3351.38
3350.37Table 4
Comparison of the first five nondimensional frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
/
E for an open cylindrical shell with C-F-C-F boundary condition.
θ
0
Modes
L
/
R
=
1
L
/
R
=
2
L
/
R
=
3
Ref. [29]
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [29]
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [29]
Ref. [37]
Present
30°
1
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.025
0.025
0.025
2
0.169
0.169
0.169
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.028
0.028
0.028
3
0.281
0.280
0.281
0.100
0.101
0.101
0.059
0.059
0.059
4
0.330
0.327
0.331
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.066
0.066
0.066
5
0.338
0.337
0.339
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.094
0.095
0.095
60°
1
0.142
0.141
0.142
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.031
0.031
0.031
2
0.153
0.151
0.153
0.068
0.069
0.069
0.054
0.054
0.054
3
0.305
0.300
0.305
0.118
0.119
0.119
0.074
0.074
0.075
4
0.305
0.303
0.305
0.128
0.129
0.129
0.078
0.078
0.078
5
0.308
0.303
0.309
0.185
0.187
0.188
0.106
0.106
0.106As mentioned early, the unified shell formulation can deal with the free vibration analysis with arbitrary boundary condition. The accuracy and reliability of this method applied to open cylindrical shell with classical boundary condition are validated in Tables2–4. In the following discussion, the elastically supported boundary condition is employed to further illustrate the accuracy and reliability of this method. Table 5 shows the first six frequency parameters expressed in a dimensionless form as Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open cylindrical shell with different elastic boundary conditions. Three sets of classical-elastic combined boundary conditions are examined, namely, the E1-F-E1-F, E2-S-E2-S, and E3-C-E3-C. In comparison with the present method, results obtained by Ye et al. [37] are also included in Table 5. The material properties and geometrical dimensions used for the shells are E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0.3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
=
2 m, L
=
3 m, h
=
0.05 m, and θ
0
=
60°. In Table 5, it can be observed that an excellent agreement can be seen from the comparison, and the difference is very small and does not exceed 0.30606% for the worst case. Moreover, some selected corresponding mode shapes for this open cylindrical shell with E3-C-E3-C boundary constraints are also depicted in Figure 6. From the competition study presented in Tables 2–5, it can be concluded that the present method for open cylindrical shells with arbitrary boundary conditions is numerically accurate.Table 5
First six frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open cylindrical shell subjected to various classical-elastic combined boundary conditions.
Modes
E1-F-E1-F
E2-S-E2-S
E3-C-E3-C
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
1
38.0712
38.1628
0.24050
128.550
128.4335
0.09062
156.917
156.882
0.02209
2
51.5365
51.6942
0.30606
181.842
181.8735
0.01733
214.063
214.044
0.00899
3
87.8899
87.7157
0.19816
206.415
206.1768
0.11538
222.556
222.437
0.05370
4
92.1902
92.3438
0.16660
228.360
228.2684
0.04011
248.105
247.994
0.04464
5
99.7832
99.9866
0.20384
279.383
279.053
0.11811
291.150
290.934
0.07431
6
143.176
143.098
0.05421
289.155
288.959
0.06778
294.611
294.394
0.07367Figure 6
First four mode shapes for an open cylindrical shell with E3-C-E3-C boundary constraints.As mentioned earlier, the unified shell formulation can deal with vibration characteristics subjected to arbitrary boundary conditions including uniform and nonuniform boundary restraint. Some uniform boundary conditions are employed to illustrate the vibration characteristics in the examples above. It is interesting to study the free vibration of the unified shells subjected to nonuniform boundary restraint, for example, point supports, and several examples involving cylindrical shells with nonuniform boundary restraints will be discussed in following discussions. Since the vibration results for shells with point supported are very rare in literature, the first eight natural frequencies of the open cylindrical shell with multipoints clamped-supported are calculated in Table6 as the benchmarking by researchers and reference data for practicing engineers. As a special case, the numbers and locations of the boundary point supports are limited to the equally spaced cases at boundary ends α
=
0 and α
=
L
α, and the other two boundaries are free. The material properties are the same as the model in Table 5 and the geometrical dimensions are R
=
0.5 m, L
=
1 m, h
=
0.005 m, and θ
0
=
90°. Furthermore, by gradually increasing the total number of the clamped points around the edge from 4 to 52, it is found that the frequency parameters become stable when the total number of clamped points reaches 44. In fact, these frequencies finally converge to the ones of the uniformly clamped shell case, as denoted by “C-F-C-F” in the table.Table 6
First eight frequencies (Hz) for an open cylindrical shell with multipoints clamped-supported on the two edgesα
=
0 and α
=
L
α.
Number of clamped points
Mode orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
42.0733
73.7520
124.399
129.400
163.200
175.784
225.104
238.232
8
84.2526
99.8218
184.433
185.978
234.422
265.143
295.010
297.424
12
97.5774
106.417
189.546
194.152
238.902
274.257
299.952
302.187
16
99.7987
107.456
136.231
199.570
249.178
277.450
308.594
308.774
20
102.000
107.095
197.781
201.784
259.985
281.080
308.559
315.573
24
103.398
109.240
200.089
204.168
270.959
283.070
315.387
317.166
28
103.996
109.545
200.608
204.545
274.651
286.455
317.069
318.288
32
104.759
110.067
201.069
205.168
276.958
286.988
317.541
318.674
36
105.207
110.616
201.133
205.606
278.442
288.107
318.179
319.547
40
105.194
111.732
203.235
206.126
279.873
287.052
320.491
321.935
44
106.558
111.801
202.972
207.610
279.990
288.192
320.612
321.992
48
106.610
111.865
203.425
207.548
280.293
288.029
321.033
322.303
52
106.603
111.748
203.412
207.457
280.072
288.051
320.677
321.821
C-F-C-F
106.596
111.739
203.401
207.608
279.849
287.903
320.618
321.542


#### 3.2.2. Conical Shells

As mentioned early, the method can obtain the vibration behavior of the open shell, for example, cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, and the accuracy of the formulation of the open cylindrical shell by using this method has been validated. In this subsection, the accuracy of the present formulation is evaluated for the vibration problems of open conical shells with arbitrary classical boundary conditions and their combinations. For comparing the present results with those in literature, the material parameters used areE
=
70 GPa, μ
=
0.3, and ρ
=
2700 kg/m3. And a dimensionless frequency parameter Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D is introduced in the calculations in this subsection. Table 7 shows the comparison of the first four frequency parameters Ω for an open conical shell with various boundary conditions and cone vertex angles. The geometric dimensions of the shell are R
0
=
1 m, L
=
3 m, h
=
0.01 m, and θ
0
=
90°. What is more, the present formulation can also be applied to an annular plate, which involves the following procedure: setting the cone vertex angle to 90°. And then a conical shell can degenerate to an annular sector plate. For the sake of completeness, Table 8 compares the vibration solutions by present method of the annular sector plate, which can be treated as a special case of open conical shells, with those in literature. The material parameters remain unchanged and the geometric dimensions of the shell are R
0
=
1 m, L
=
2 m, h
=
0
.
006 m, θ
0
=
60°, and φ
=
90°. It can be observed from Tables 7 and 8 that the present results match very well with those in literature. The excellent agreements of comparisons between the proposed solutions and the published results for open conical shells with various geometric dimensions and boundary conditions separately given in Tables 7-8 indicate that the present analysis is accurate.Table 7
First four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open conical shell subjected to various cone vertex angle φ and boundary conditions.
φ
Modes
F-F-F-F
SD-F-SD-F
C-SD-C-SD
C-C-C-C
Ye et al. [37]
Present
Ye et al. [37]
Present
Ye et al. [37]
Present
Ye et al. [37]
Present
15°
1
21.7369
21.7869
68.3314
68.4257
276.046
276.156
362.599
362.681
2
33.2499
33.3564
80.3334
80.3412
331.696
331.755
376.082
376.311
3
66.3301
66.4411
95.9809
96.6836
377.556
377.743
517.224
516.001
4
85.5839
85.5869
158.287
158.323
445.588
445.206
540.634
540.451
30°
1
19.7435
19.8247
61.2279
61.2920
246.813
246.896
289.007
289.076
2
20.1969
20.2408
66.1966
66.2187
250.462
250.502
297.547
297.489
3
49.1755
49.1780
134.671
134.7452
303.748
303.453
381.886
379.499
4
57.1880
57.2699
140.764
140.8377
362.315
362.345
412.226
407.261
45°
1
14.1233
14.1762
53.0474
53.0949
203.828
203.843
233.139
233.132
2
19.4793
19.5093
55.4028
55.4244
212.084
212.089
239.744
239.578
3
34.3252
34.3282
114.218
114.295
234.695
234.516
303.960
301.209
4
51.7167
51.7673
121.476
121.563
282.851
280.819
315.028
309.892
60°
1
11.4157
11.4424
43.3049
149.211
161.854
161.862
182.496
182.453
2
18.9259
18.9409
45.8304
151.341
163.326
163.369
186.331
186.280
3
27.0994
27.1017
95.1813
173.651
186.638
186.534
232.598
231.343
4
46.9403
46.9606
102.109
177.658
225.308
223.702
247.410
243.849
75°
1
10.0080
10.0154
31.6590
31.6748
105.540
105.5392
125.150
125.101
2
18.0186
18.0226
34.6073
34.6197
119.710
119.7116
129.281
129.276
3
23.3268
23.3277
73.3475
73.3749
125.399
125.4059
169.937
169.771
4
40.9675
40.9723
76.1915
76.2144
148.330
148.2946
176.065
175.723Table 8
Comparison of the first six frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open conical shell with various boundary conditions.
Modes
S-S-S-S
C-C-C-C
h
-
p FEM [33]
ANSYS [33]
Ye et al. [37]
Present
h
-
p FEM [33]
ANSYS [33]
Ye et al. [37]
Present
1
19.2
19.1
19.100
19.09991
35.2
35.0
35.08838
35.09070
2
43.6
43.5
43.632
43.63151
66.3
66.0
6.20422
66.20527
3
50.9
50.7
50.811
50.81127
74.9
74.4
74.60812
74.60727
4
78.9
78.6
78.942
78.94172
108.4
107.7
108.2133
108.2071
5
83.3
82.9
83.176
83.17624
113.2
112.2
112.8819
112.9004
6
101.1
100.6
100.795
100.7949
134.9
133.0
133.4319
133.4149To further validate the accuracy and reliability of the present solutions, more complex numerical examples are presented. The vibration analysis for the open conical shell subjected to classical-elastic combined restraints is concentrated on. Table9 compares the first six frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D with those calculated by Ye et al. [37] for the conical shell subjected to various elastically supported restraint conditions. The material properties and geometrical dimensions are employed as E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0.3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
0
=
1 m, L
=
2 m, h
=
0.01 m, φ
=
30°, and θ
0
=
90°. From Table 9, it can be found that the maximum difference between present results and those in literature is only 0.84285% for the worst case. And the present solutions match well with the results in literature, which further validate the accuracy and reliability of the current solutions. Moreover, some selected corresponding mode shapes subjected to E3-C-E3-C boundary conditions with various subtended angles θ
0 are shown in Figure 7.Table 9
First six frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open conical shell subjected to various classical-elastic combined boundary conditions.
Modes
E1-F-E1-F
E2-F-E2-F
E3-F-E3-F
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
1
56.9432
56.8022
0.24763
68.0095
67.9740
0.05226
68.3529
68.3048
0.07040
2
57.1139
56.9227
0.33470
69.3596
69.3364
0.03347
69.9152
69.8886
0.03800
3
118.408
118.226
0.15366
130.858
130.957
0.07561
131.411
131.269
0.10843
4
125.462
124.511
0.75773
131.270
131.359
0.06747
131.693
131.559
0.10175
5
137.038
136.743
0.21519
158.506
158.160
0.21803
164.337
164.089
0.15109
6
153.413
152.120
0.84285
178.341
177.884
0.25638
181.088
180.727
0.19913Figure 7
Some selected mode shapes for an open conical shell with E3-C-E3-C boundary conditions.As mentioned previously, the present method is convenient to handle the problem with nonuniform boundary restraints. Thus, a typical case under multipoints supported boundary conditions, in which the locations of the boundary point supports are equally spaced at boundary endsα
=
0 and α
=
L
α and the other two boundaries are free, is considered here. Table 10 shows the first eight frequencies of the open conical shells with the multipoints clamped-restrained. For simplicity and convenience, the material properties and geometry dimensions used for the shells are the same as the models used in Table 9. Similar to the open cylindrical shell with multipoints supported, the frequencies converge to the ones of the uniformly clamped shell case, as denoted by “C-F-C-F” in the table, when the total numbers of clamped points reaches 40.Table 10
First eight frequencies (Hz) for an open conical shell with multipoints clamped-supported at the edgesα
=
0 and α
=
L
α.
Number of clamped points
Mode orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
11.8729
20.0077
32.5122
39.5461
53.0354
55.5817
70.2857
73.8902
8
36.7021
37.0652
68.2869
71.6845
84.1112
90.5067
96.5518
102.390
12
38.0459
39.4913
74.2440
75.3170
92.7235
107.683
114.175
123.842
16
40.6246
41.8082
76.1112
76.4630
96.2314
108.537
119.440
124.762
20
41.5237
42.8696
78.5924
79.2059
98.5312
109.629
124.270
127.001
24
41.9268
42.9051
80.1504
80.3934
101.246
112.015
128.930
129.004
28
42.0010
42.9886
81.3801
81.3833
102.009
112.602
130.785
130.966
32
42.2120
43.2225
81.9266
81.9334
102.514
113.002
131.522
131.946
36
42.6656
43.7936
82.5368
83.2035
103.144
113.490
132.629
132.804
40
42.8653
43.8284
82.6513
82.8204
103.221
113.492
133.088
133.376
44
42.8620
43.8322
82.6605
82.8006
103.223
113.500
133.119
133.339
48
42.8487
43.8083
82.6437
82.8098
103.261
113.488
133.307
133.339
52
42.8579
43.8247
82.6678
82.8223
103.210
113.487
133.093
133.410
C-F-C-F
42.8587
43.8284
82.6528
82.8179
103.219
113.493
133.132
133.349


#### 3.2.3. Spherical Shells

The free vibration analysis for the open cylindrical and conical shells has been studied and the accuracy of the present method is validated well. In order to further investigate the accuracy of the unified formulation for the open shell, in this subsection, the present formulation is applied to study the free vibrations of open spherical shells with arbitrary boundaries for which very limited amount of vibration results is available in the literature. In Table11, comparison solutions by present method and the reported literature [38] of the first four nondimensional frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell with various boundary conditions are presented. The material properties and geometrical dimensions used for the spherical shell are given as follows: E
=
70 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
2700 kg/m3, R
=
5 m, h
=
0
.
05 m, φ
0
=
84
.
3°, φ
1
=
95
.
7°, and θ
0
=
11
.
5°. Having gained confidence in present method, some further numerical results for open spherical shells with several types of classical boundary conditions and their combinations are given in the following presentation. In Table 12, the comparison of the first four nondimension frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell with material and geometric parameters, E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
=
2 m, h
=
0
.
01 m, φ
0
=
45°, φ
1
=
135°, and θ
0
=
90°, subjected to various boundary conditions, is presented. The comparison is performed with numerical solutions by Ye et al. [37]. From Tables 11 and 12, it can be obviously found that the results calculated by present method match well with the corresponding solutions in literatures [37, 38]. The excellent agreement results for the open spherical shell can further illustrate the accuracy of the unified shell formulation.Table 11
Comparison of the first four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell subjected to various boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Ref. [38]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
F-F-F-F
13.46
19.56
25.99
34.85
13.40
19.44
25.77
34.59
SD-F-F-F
6.629
15.34
25.40
27.08
6.582
15.32
25.28
26.76
C-F-F-F
3.754
8.492
21.53
28.26
4.060
8.702
21.58
27.95
SD-SD-F-F
3.367
17.32
20.79
39.71
3.340
17.20
20.61
39.40
C-SD-F-F
5.566
19.35
25.47
44.64
5.753
19.19
25.38
44.47
C-C-F-F
7.894
23.90
27.92
49.27
8.172
23.79
27.75
49.02
SD-F-SD-F
10.07
16.10
38.89
39.59
10.03
15.98
38.43
39.54
C-F-SD-F
15.63
21.68
41.84
49.95
15.76
24.71
41.48
49.83
SD-SD-SD-F
12.22
30.50
41.85
60.14
12.15
30.15
41.77
59.80
C-SD-SD-F
18.01
33.76
52.05
65.24
18.13
33.56
51.89
64.57
C-C-SD-F
18.68
38.58
52.19
72.13
18.69
38.35
52.24
71.80
C-F-C-F
25.30
28.67
45.53
61.34
26.06
30.82
45.31
61.20
SD-C-SD-F
12.95
35.75
42.26
64.09
12.86
35.32
42.17
63.59
C-SD-C-F
26.34
38.07
63.08
68.01
27.07
38.02
63.23
67.31
C-C-C-F
26.62
42.71
63.56
77.64
27.68
42.53
63.53
76.98
SD-SD-SD-SD
23.70
51.04
51.04
80.02
23.45
50.33
50.82
79.36
C-SD-SD-SD
27.32
53.32
60.17
87.13
27.23
52.72
60.00
86.59
C-C-SD-SD
30.64
61.88
62.36
93.66
30.51
61.36
62.02
93.30
C-SD-C-SD
32.47
55.41
70.37
95.06
32.60
55.78
70.43
95.00
C-C-C-SD
35.51
64.76
72.13
101.40
35.63
64.13
72.15
101.09
C-C-C-C
40.26
74.17
74.43
108.66
40.49
73.77
74.42
108.32Table 12
First four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell with various boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Ref. [37]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
F-F-F-S
18.0503
22.6720
48.7319
65.5055
19.2022
22.7991
50.2213
66.8198
F-F-S-S
45.3203
61.1681
139.886
155.410
46.8427
61.6499
142.512
156.769
F-S-S-S
381.345
388.913
713.714
756.822
389.683
395.471
727.650
768.011
F-F-F-C
18.8440
23.4206
49.3404
68.0959
20.0030
23.5524
50.8671
69.2686
F-F-C-C
46.5172
63.1538
144.447
158.654
48.0751
63.6089
147.277
159.850
F-C-C-C
396.124
408.000
756.727
779.639
403.649
415.983
771.244
789.339
S-S-S-S
1528.82
1542.01
1548.17
1601.85
1528.90
1542.11
1548.27
1601.91
S-S-S-C
1531.94
1542.28
1549.23
1603.29
1532.07
1542.39
1549.35
1603.37
S-S-C-C
1534.26
1543.64
1549.31
1604.18
1534.43
1543.59
1549.43
1604.27
S-C-C-C
1537.73
1543.64
1550.42
1605.67
1537.95
1543.77
1550.55
1605.78
C-C-C-C
1540.15
1544.85
1550.50
1606.56
1541.18
1546.99
1553.16
1606.57Although all the above examples fall into the category of the classical homogeneous boundary conditions, it has been demonstrated that they can be solved universally under the current framework by simply modifying the stiffness of the corresponding elastic springs. Since vibration results for the spherical shells with arbitrary boundary conditions are rare in the literature, some further numerical results for an open spherical shell with different elastically supported boundary conditions and their combinations are given in Table13, and first eight corresponding mode shapes with E1-C-E1-C boundary conditions are also drawn in Figure 8. A more complicated problem is one in which the spherical shell is multipoints clamped-constrained at boundary ends and the locations of these boundary point supports are equally spaced at boundaries α
=
0 and α
=
L
α. Table 14 shows the first eight frequencies with the various numbers of the clamped points. The material properties and geometrical dimensions in Tables 13 and 14 are the same as the model in Table 12. From Table 13, it can be seen that the frequency parameter increases with the boundary conditions changing from Λ-F-Λ-F to Λ-C-Λ-C  (
Λ
=
E
1
,
E
2
a
n
d
E
3
), which is due to the increasing boundary spring stiffness. Furthermore, a slight increasing frequency parameter can be observed with the boundary conditions varying from Λ-S-Λ-S to Λ-C-Λ-C while a huge increasing value is found subjected to the boundary restraints changing from Λ
-
F
-
Λ
-
F to Λ-S-Λ-S. From Table 14, it is found that the frequency becomes stable when the total number of clamped points reaches 40 and these frequencies finally converge to the ones of the uniformly C-F-C-F shell case.Table 13
First eight frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell subjected to various classical-elastic combined boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Modes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
E1-F-E1-F
139.644
155.540
177.982
178.238
296.232
297.075
376.141
390.785
E2-F-E2-F
171.100
183.000
189.780
191.112
337.909
374.572
386.047
398.328
E3-F-E3-F
51.1307
187.620
221.996
253.487
358.578
422.613
476.818
517.802
E1-S-E1-S
1527.08
1536.94
1545.89
1600.52
1604.08
1607.37
1614.80
1619.77
E2-S-E2-S
752.556
1379.20
1496.59
1529.73
1543.95
1568.62
1593.51
1602.16
E3-S-E3-S
1197.71
1534.13
1544.01
1553.96
1589.09
1604.06
1608.02
1612.91
E1-C-E1-C
1534.85
1537.51
1548.21
1603.92
1605.13
1612.69
1615.10
1624.01
E2-C-E2-C
1425.59
1513.95
1536.62
1547.13
1554.03
1599.93
1603.55
1606.38
E3-C-E3-C
1539.58
1546.14
1554.80
1590.30
1607.21
1612.97
1614.36
1619.72Table 14
First eight frequencies (Hz) for an open spherical shell with multipoints clamped-supported on the two edgesα
=
0 and α
=
L
α.
Number of clamped points
Mode orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
12.2312
17.9155
19.5800
29.0130
30.5394
51.4391
51.7373
56.4100
8
40.0975
42.7725
48.9036
53.6622
90.4094
94.7601
106.301
111.696
12
12.3097
43.6488
52.7028
63.2851
82.3730
102.290
113.423
115.059
16
28.0964
45.0074
54.4617
64.3798
90.0115
103.671
118.469
129.903
20
20.5605
46.5769
55.9624
63.4935
89.0453
105.809
119.636
127.748
24
10.8180
47.3839
56.3886
60.9230
87.8615
106.645
119.007
120.778
28
47.4370
48.1909
56.1141
61.0136
81.8681
106.898
120.396
120.396
32
47.2956
56.0249
61.1083
65.9971
78.4332
107.184
119.880
120.514
36
46.9057
55.4473
61.0340
73.1757
106.791
107.405
119.547
120.301
40
46.6960
55.3741
60.8831
72.6460
107.236
111.691
119.571
120.434
44
47.2532
55.2890
61.1750
73.6090
105.835
107.287
119.928
120.366
48
46.8644
55.4429
60.9559
72.8072
107.341
110.834
119.432
120.504
52
46.8610
55.3493
61.1851
72.8144
107.345
111.739
119.527
120.262
CC
46.9276
55.3297
61.3200
72.6933
107.363
111.138
119.577
120.454Figure 8
First four mode shapes for an open spherical shell with E1-C-E1-C boundary conditions.


### 3.3. Free Vibration Analysis of Closed Shells

As mentioned earlier, the unified formulation can be applied to open and closed shell structure. In Section3.2, the accuracy of the formulation applied to open shell has been verified. In order to further validate the accuracy of the unified method for the closed shells, the free vibration analysis of the closed shells, for example, the closed cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, will be investigated in the following text. From the procedure of the modeling framework, it can be known that the open shell can be expanded to a closed one conveniently just by setting the value of the coupling springs to be infinitely large when the subtended angle equals 360°. Furthermore, it is noted that the boundary restraint spring’s stiffness at the end edges β
=
0 and β
=
360° is automatically set to be zero. First of all, the coupling spring’s effect on the vibration behavior for the shells, for example, cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, is concentrated on. Similar to the study for the effects on vibration characteristics of the boundary restraint spring, the nondimensional coupling spring parameters Γ
u, Γ
v, Γ
w, and Γ
W, which are defined as the ratios of the corresponding translational spring’s stiffness of α-axial, β-axial, and z-axial and rotational coupling spring’s stiffness to the transverse flexural stiffness D
=
E
h
3
/
12
(
1
-
μ
2
), are employed here. In Figure 9, variation of the 1st- and 3rd-order frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E against the coupling spring parameters Γ
ζ  (where ζ
=
u
,
v
,
w and W) of three different shells are depicted, respectively. It is noted that R denotes the radius of the smaller circular edge R
0 for the conical shell. The material properties for the three types of considered shells are given as follows: E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, and ρ
=
7800 kg/m3. And the geometrical dimensions are used as follows: for the cylindrical shell, R
=
2 m, L
=
3 m, and h
=
0
.
01 m; for the conical shell, R
0
=
1 m, L
=
2 m, h
=
0
.
01 m, and φ
=
45°; for the spherical shell, R
=
1 m, h
=
0
.
01 m, φ
0
=
30°, and φ
1
=
90°. In Figure 9, each of the shells is supposed to be clamped at edges α
=
0 and α
=
L
α, and the junction edge is coupled with all the four groups of springs, three groups of which are with infinite stiffness (1010
D) and the remaining one is assigned at different stiffness value (varying from 10−4
D to 1010
D).Figure 9
Effects of coupling spring stiffness on the 1st and 3rd frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E of shells with subtended angle θ
0
=
360° subjected to C-C boundary conditions: (a) cylindrical shell, (b) conical shell, and (c) spherical shell.
(a)
(b)
(c)From Figure9, it can be found that the frequency parameters Ω increase as the stiffness parameters Γ
ζ increase in the certain range. Specifically, it can be found from Figure 9(a) that the values of the two natural frequency parameters for cylindrical shell increase rapidly in the range of Γ
ζ (10−2–107) and keep at a level outside this range. In Figure 9(b), the frequency parameters for conical shell almost remain unchanged when the stiffness of the spring parameters Γ
ζ is larger than 108 or smaller than 10−2. In Figure 9(c), the influences of the coupling spring parameters of a spherical shell on frequency parameters are given. It is shown that the frequency curves change greatly within the spring parameters range (102 to 107). From Figures 9(a)–9(c), the frequency parameters almost keep at a level when the stiffness parameters Γ
ζ of the coupling springs are smaller than 10−2. As they further increase, a distinct influence can be observed, in which the frequency parameters increase rapidly, when they are beyond 108, the frequency parameters approach the utmost and remain unchanged. Thus, it is reasonable that the rigid connective condition can be simulated by setting the ratios of the corresponding coupling spring stiffness to the flexural stiffness D
=
E
h
3
/
12
(
1
-
μ
2
) to be 1010. In the following discussion, the value is employed to satisfy the rigid coupling condition at the interface for the shell with subtended angle θ
0
=
360° and then the open shells are expanded to corresponding closed shells. Furthermore, comparing Figure 9(c) with 9(a) and 9(b), it can be found that the influence of spring components k
w and K
w on the spherical shell is different from the cylindrical and conical shells, which may be because the spherical shell is doubly curved.


#### 3.3.1. Cylindrical Shells

First of all, the accuracy of the formulation applied to a closed cylindrical shell is validated in Table15. The comparison is carried out with two classical boundary conditions, for example, C-F and C-C, to verify the proposed method using the following material and geometric parameters: E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
28, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
=
0
.
0635 m, L
=
0
.
502 m, and h
=
0
.
00163 m. The other parameters used in the calculations are m = 1~2 and n = 0~5, in which m and n are the axial and circumferential wavenumbers. The comparisons of the first few natural frequencies with [11] are listed in Table 15. Good agreement can be seen between the present solutions and the results in [11].Table 15
Comparison of the natural frequencies for a circular cylindrical shell with C-F and C-C boundary conditions.
Mode orders
C-F
C-C
m
n
FEM [11]
Ref. [11]
Present
FEM [11]
Ref. [11]
Present
1
0
1614.9
1615.2
1615.2
3229.8
3230.3
3230.4
1
467.58
467.34
468.10
1882.8
1880.9
1883.5
2
315.33
316.02
315.30
899.59
898.18
900.78
3
768.38
768.45
768.00
896.97
896.56
897.71
4
1463.3
1462.8
1462.5
1501.9
1501.6
1502.0
5
2363.1
2362.2
2362.3
2386.1
2386.0
2386.3
2
0
2583.1
2581.7
2583.8
5146.0
5139.8
5147.8
1
2044.0
2043.3
2045.1
3850.7
3848.9
3851.5
2
936.02
936.25
937.22
2017.8
2014.1
2019.9
3
914.16
915.13
914.71
1390.9
1388.9
1393.5
4
1518.7
1519.0
1518.6
1676.4
1676.0
1678.0
5
2401.9
2401.8
2401.8
2472.5
2472.6
2474.0In order to further validate the accuracy of the present formulation applied to cylindrical shell, a more complicated case in which the shell is elastically constrained at one end and the other end is clamped is carried out in Table16. For simplicity and convenience, the elastically supported end only has linear springs attached in the radial direction (
k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0
) and k
α
L
w varies from 0 to 108
G, where G represents the in-plane stiffness E
h
/
(
1
-
μ
2
). Table 16 compares the first four frequencies for several spring stiffness values calculated by the present method with those in [11], and the corresponding mode shapes clamped at one end and elastically supported at the other end (k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0 and k
α
L
w
=
0.01
G) are also depicted in Figure 10. Obviously, the case for k
α
L
w
=
0 represents C-F supported boundary conditions. An excellent agreement can be seen from the comparison, and the difference is very small. From Tables 15 and 16, the excellent accuracy and reliability of the current solution are demonstrated. Furthermore, Table 16 shows that the first four frequencies increase when the radial spring stiffness changes from 0 to 106
G, and they almost have no change after k
α
L
w
=
10
6
G.Table 16
First four frequencies for a clamped elastically supported shell (k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0).
Boundary conditionsk
α
L
w
Ref. [11]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
0
131.99
249.82
262.81
377.00
131.57
249.36
262.91
376.55
0.01G
183.01
278.17
279.76
404.12
183.11
278.17
280.00
404.23
0.1G
298.01
310.07
364.98
490.35
299.10
310.28
366.51
490.41
G
315.07
339.86
473.26
491.64
315.65
341.04
478.35
491.70
106
G
315.15
343.43
491.36
501.06
316.26
346.25
491.84
508.34
108
G
315.15
343.43
491.36
501.08
316.25
346.23
491.84
508.25Figure 10
First four mode shapes for closed cylindrical shells with one boundary end clamped and another end elastically supported (k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0 and k
α
L
w
=
0.01
G).
(a)
1st mode
(b)
2nd mode
(c)
3rd mode
(d)
4th modeAs mentioned earlier, the unified method can obtain the vibration characteristics for the shell with arbitrary boundary conditions, for example, uniform boundary restraints and nonuniform boundary supports. For the sake of completeness, the comparison of first eight frequencies for a closed cylindrical shell with single point clamped-supported at each end is listed in Table17. The material and geometrical parameters are E
=
216 GPa, μ
=
0.3, ρ
=
7900 kg/m3, R
=
0.237 m, h
=
0.003 m, and L
=
1 m. The points are located at (
0
,
0
) and (
L
α
,
0
). From the comparison with the results calculated by Chen et al. [12] in the table, an excellent agreement is observed. From Tables 15–17, the accuracy and reliability of the unified shell formulation applied to the closed cylindrical shell are validated well. Furthermore, some other numerical results for the cylindrical shell subjected to single point support with different restraint spring stiffness are presented in Table 17, which can be used for benchmarking by researchers as well as reference data for practicing engineers.Table 17
First eight frequencies (Hz) for a closed cylindrical shell with single point clamped-supported at each end.
Modes
E1-E1
E2-E2
E3-E3
SD-SD
S-S
C-C
Ref. [12]
ANSYS [12]
Present
1
0.15698
0.12164
0.09646
0.01870
0.01658
0.00
3.01
0.33651
2
19.5430
19.8210
19.4759
0.09810
19.8994
18.84
18.83
19.8442
3
21.2045
21.4837
20.8517
20.6303
20.8838
20.55
20.50
21.2408
4
31.9544
31.6035
31.9604
21.5527
31.9508
31.63
34.30
31.9679
5
32.8183
32.6079
32.8190
31.9495
32.8171
32.62
34.33
32.8170
6
70.1945
73.1681
67.2033
32.8171
68.2388
69.05
67.87
70.9657
7
71.3327
75.6887
72.7092
65.8760
76.7896
73.21
72.94
75.7491
8
97.5789
93.7181
97.4584
76.8374
97.5652
96.98
99.49
97.5773


#### 3.3.2. Conical Shells

In this subsection, studies on the free vibration of closed conical shells are carried out. The accuracy and reliability of the present method are also examined. Table18 lists the comparison of the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
1
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E with those solutions obtained by Liew et al. [16] using the element free k
p-Ritz method, Shu [18] using the GDQ method, FSDT solutions obtained by Qu et al. [27] employing a modified variational approach, and a unified solution method presented by Su et al. [48] employing a modified Fourier series for conical shells subjected to different boundary conditions (i.e., SD-SD, SD-C, and C-C). The geometric and material parameters for closed conical shells are taken to be E
=
168 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
5700 kg/m3, L
sin
⁡
φ
/
R
1
=
0
.
5, h
/
R
1
=
0
.
01, R
1
=
1 m, and φ
=
45°, where R
1 is the radius of the larger edge. Similar to the study of closed cylindrical shell, m and n are employed to denote axial and circumferential wavenumbers. The wavenumbers used in the calculations are m
=
1 and n = 0~7. It is seen that the present results are in good agreement with those in literature. The slight discrepancies may be due to the different solutions methods in the four studies. From the competition studies presented in Table 18, it is concluded that the present method for closed conical shells is numerically accurate.Table 18
Comparison of frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
1
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed conical shell with different boundary conditions (m
=
1).
BC
Method
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SD-SD
Ref. [16]
0.2234
0.5462
0.6309
0.5061
0.3941
0.3337
0.3235
0.3510
Ref. [18]
0.2233
0.5463
0.6310
0.5062
0.3942
0.3340
0.3239
0.3514
Ref. [27]
0.2230
0.5460
0.6308
0.5061
0.3941
0.3336
0.3232
0.3504
Ref. [48]
0.2233
0.5461
0.6308
0.5062
0.3941
0.3337
0.3233
0.3505
Present
0.2233
0.5461
0.6309
0.5062
0.3942
0.3339
0.3238
0.3515
SD-C
Ref. [16]
0.8691
0.8113
0.6610
0.5244
0.4316
0.3822
0.3732
0.3980
Ref. [18]
0.8700
0.8118
0.6613
0.5246
0.4319
0.3826
0.3737
0.3987
Ref. [27]
0.8693
0.8115
0.6611
0.5245
0.4317
0.3823
0.3731
0.3977
Ref. [48]
0.8694
0.8115
0.6611
0.5246
0.4318
0.3824
0.3732
0.3978
Present
0.8697
0.8117
0.6612
0.5246
0.4318
0.3822
0.3720
0.3948
C-C
Ref. [16]
0.8732
0.8120
0.6696
0.5428
0.4565
0.4088
0.3961
0.4141
Ref. [18]
0.8732
0.8120
0.6696
0.5428
0.4566
0.4089
0.3963
0.4143
Ref. [27]
0.8726
0.8117
0.6694
0.5426
0.4563
0.4085
0.3956
0.4133
Ref. [48]
0.8726
0.8117
0.6694
0.5427
0.4564
0.4086
0.3958
0.4135
Present
0.8729
0.8119
0.6695
0.5427
0.4565
0.4088
0.3960
0.4139Since vibration results for the conical shells with arbitrary elastic boundary conditions are rare in the literature, some further numerical results for a closed conical shell subjected to different elastically supported boundary conditions and their combinations with various wavenumbers (n = 1~7, m
=
1) are given in Table 19 as the benchmarking by the researchers in the future and reference data for the engineers in practical engineering, and some selected corresponding mode shapes are also depicted in Figure 11. Furthermore, the vibration results for the closed conical shell with point supported are not yet available in the literature and this case is widely used in practicing engineering. Thus, some new results are calculated for the closed conical shells with three points supported at each end using different restraint spring stiffness in Table 20, which can be used for benchmarking by researchers as well as reference data for practicing engineers. As a special case, the locations of the three-point supports at each end of the conical shell are equally spaced here. Table 19 presents the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
0
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed conical shell with various classical, elastic boundary conditions and their combinations. Table 20 gives the first eight frequencies for the conical shell with three-point supports of different boundary spring restraints. The material and geometrical parameters of the models in these two tables are employed as follows: E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
0
=
1 m, L
=
3 m, and h
=
0
.
01 m; in Table 19, φ
=
45°; and in Table 20, φ
=
30°.Table 19
First several frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
0
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed conical shell with elastic boundary conditions (m
=
1).
BC
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SD-E1
0.28933
0.20624
0.12470
0.08195
0.06202
0.05701
0.06119
SD-E2
0.16324
0.12524
0.10755
0.09154
0.07779
0.07110
0.07249
SD-E3
0.32825
0.21771
0.14872
0.10699
0.08322
0.07325
0.07373
C-E1
0.30218
0.22873
0.14741
0.09222
0.07081
0.06334
0.06230
C-E2
0.16674
0.12956
0.12594
0.09838
0.08447
0.07970
0.07500
C-E3
0.33006
0.22365
0.15696
0.11607
0.09149
0.07906
0.07638
E1-E1
0.29558
0.20694
0.12597
0.08352
0.06367
0.05809
0.06180
E2-E2
0.14241
0.12291
0.10945
0.09596
0.08341
0.07593
0.07507
E3-E3
0.33004
0.22355
0.15677
0.11584
0.09126
0.07888
0.07627Table 20
First eight frequencies (Hz) for a closed conical shell with three points supported at each end for different boundary spring restraints.
Modes
BC
E1-E1
E2-E2
E3-E3
SD-SD
S-S
C-C
1
5.50848
5.46466
5.49980
2.67591
5.49922
5.50128
2
7.93799
7.99347
7.99228
5.49943
7.82854
8.01669
3
8.08121
8.29333
8.24191
6.10897
8.06805
8.25289
4
10.9531
10.8214
10.9137
6.55139
10.8263
10.9334
5
11.0659
11.0870
11.0938
10.6319
11.0359
11.1099
6
12.4547
13.5535
13.4218
10.8251
13.4350
13.7762
7
13.8351
18.5555
18.9106
13.0829
18.8797
18.9523
8
19.0665
21.1011
21.2714
13.2106
20.8085
21.3206Figure 11
Some selected mode shapes for closed conical shells with various wavenumbersn subjected to E3-E3 boundary conditions (
m
=
1
).
(a)
n
=
1
(b)
n
=
3
(c)
n
=
5
(d)
n
=
7


#### 3.3.3. Spherical Shells

In this subsection, the closed spherical shell with arbitrary boundary conditions, for example, classical boundary constraint, elastically supported boundary, and point supports, is considered. First, the accuracy and reliability of the unified formulation applied to closed spherical shells are verified. Table21 compares the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a spherical shell subjected to various classical boundary conditions with results obtained by Qu et al. [27]. The material and geometrical parameters are used as follows: E
=
168 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
5700 kg/m3, φ
0
=
π
/
8, φ
1
=
π
/
2, h
/
R
=
0
.
05, and R
=
1 m. Similar to the investigation of cylindrical shell, m and n are used to express α-axial and β-axial wavenumbers. The values used in the calculations are m
=
1 and n = 0~7. From the competition in Table 21, an excellent agreement can be found. However, some slight discrepancies are seen in Table 21, which may be due to the different solutions methods in the three studies. From Table 21, it is concluded that the present method applied to closed spherical shells is numerically accurate.Table 21
Comparison of the frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for an annular spherical shell with different boundary conditions (m
=
1).
BC
Method
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F-F
Ref. [27]
0.87054
0.86412
0.05726
0.15323
0.27900
0.42940
0.60188
0.79559
ANSYS [27]
0.87054
0.86427
0.05728
0.15330
0.27924
0.43002
0.60321
0.79810
Present
0.87140
0.86508
0.05789
0.15559
0.28434
0.43914
0.61791
0.82054
F-C
Ref. [27]
0.81661
0.60880
0.34857
0.65733
0.96537
1.11557
1.24402
1.40026
ANSYS [27]
0.81659
0.60890
0.34868
0.65762
0.96592
1.11625
1.24523
1.40254
Present
0.81941
0.61013
0.35461
0.66976
0.97533
1.12665
1.26369
1.42208
C-F
Ref. [27]
0.40549
0.15170
0.07636
0.15412
0.27908
0.42941
0.60189
0.79559
ANSYS [27]
0.40597
0.15184
0.07641
0.15420
0.27932
0.43003
0.60321
0.79810
Present
0.40567
0.12814
0.07251
0.15645
0.28441
0.43914
0.61787
0.82043
C-C
Ref. [27]
0.98710
1.02639
1.00292
0.99803
1.04274
1.12623
1.24578
1.40056
ANSYS [27]
0.98741
1.02682
1.00340
0.99842
1.04314
1.12685
1.24697
1.40283
Present
0.98842
1.01639
0.97129
0.98775
1.04467
1.13639
1.26559
1.43364Since vibration results for the closed spherical shells with more complex boundaries, such as elastic restraints and point supports, are not yet available in the literature, some new results are calculated for closed spherical shells, which can be used for benchmarking by researchers as well as reference data for practicing engineers. Table22 gives the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E with different wavenumbers (m
=
1 and n = 0~7) subjected to various elastic restraints, and the several corresponding mode shapes with E3-E3 are depicted in Figure 12. Table 23 lists first eight frequencies for a closed spherical shell with single point classically and elastically supported at each end. For simplicity and convenience, the single point along each end is located at (
0
,
0
) and (
L
α
,
0
), respectively. The material properties and geometrical dimensions for the two tables are the same as the ones in Table 21. Unlike the vibrations for spherical shells with uniform boundary conditions, an interesting phenomenon can be found from Table 23 in which the discrepancy of the natural frequency is little among the various boundary conditions, which is maybe because some springs stiffness contributes little to the vibrations for single point support.Table 22
First several frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed spherical shell with various elastic restraints (m
=
1).
BC
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
C-E1
1.18313
1.01569
0.95880
0.97538
1.03337
1.12647
1.25696
1.42669
C-E2
0.98843
0.96798
0.93672
0.96724
1.03005
1.12504
1.25641
1.42658
C-E3
0.98274
1.01433
0.97125
0.98774
1.04461
1.13571
1.26302
1.42817
E1-E1
0.95591
1.02259
0.96528
0.97748
1.03389
1.12657
1.25698
1.42669
E2-E2
0.98843
0.90082
0.86780
0.93593
1.02066
1.12285
1.25598
1.42651
E3-E3
0.97787
1.00847
0.97081
0.98792
1.04458
1.13558
1.26293
1.42814Table 23
First eight frequencies (Hz) for a closed spherical shell with single point classically and elastically supported at each end.
Modes
BC
E1-E1
E2-E2
E3-E3
SD-SD
S-S
C-C
1
0.14643
0.14493
0.14529
0.09146
0.14496
0.14487
2
24.2791
23.2846
23.3128
0.14486
24.7998
23.2793
3
42.0388
42.0100
42.0387
20.9759
42.0388
42.0388
4
53.2235
47.4842
47.1233
42.0388
60.6122
47.6368
5
94.8830
90.2265
90.2590
54.9703
115.480
90.2196
6
116.457
115.596
116.457
90.4786
116.457
116.457
7
147.464
145.630
147.464
116.457
147.464
147.464
8
185.994
183.715
182.568
147.464
193.759
183.733Figure 12
Several selected mode shapes for closed spherical shells with different wavenumbers subjected to E3-E3  (
m
=
1
).
(a)
n
=
1
(b)
n
=
3
(c)
n
=
5
(d)
n
=
7


## 3.1. Convergence and Stiffness Value Study

Since the expansion series is numerically truncated and only finite terms are counted in actual calculations, the proposed method should be understood as a solution with arbitrary precision. For the sake of validating the convergence of present method firstly, natural frequencies of the open shell, that is, cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, subject to different truncated configurations, are carried out in this subsection. In order to compare with those in other literatures, the dimensions of the shell structures used for the analysis are the following: for cylindrical shell,E
=
210
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800
k
g
/
m
3, R
=
2
m, L
=
3
m, θ
0
=
45
°, and h
=
0
.
01
m; for conical shell, E
=
70
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
2700
k
g
/
m
3, R
0
=
0
.
34
m, L
=
1
.
14
m, φ
=
3
.
8
°, θ
0
=
130
°, and h
=
0
.
002
m; and for spherical shell, E
=
70
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
2700
k
g
/
m
3, R
=
2
m, φ
0
=
75
.
7
°, φ
1
=
104
.
3
°, θ
0
=
28
.
6
°, and h
=
0
.
01
m. Theoretical and experimental results reported by Bardell et al. [33], Zhao et al. [35], and Liew et al. [36] as well as those obtained from finite element analyses have also been provided for comparisons. The first nine frequencies of the open shell subjected to F-F-F-F boundary conditions are listed in Table 1. The symbols “—” in Table 1 are missing frequencies that were not considered by Liew et al. [36].Table 1
Comparison and convergence of the first eight natural frequencies (Hz) for three open shells with F-F-F-F boundary condition.
Model
M
=
N
Model sequence
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cylindrical shell
2
35.77
38.351
43.957
48.779
62.233
63.943
66.038
76.359
4
16.32
25.170
28.765
31.603
35.307
56.076
60.732
61.657
6
8.071
22.883
26.809
30.312
33.721
54.988
58.716
61.556
8
7.467
22.336
26.337
30.125
33.328
54.699
58.374
61.541
10
7.379
22.183
26.207
30.082
33.215
54.609
58.288
61.538
12
7.354
22.133
26.165
30.068
33.177
54.578
58.261
61.537
14
7.345
22.113
26.148
30.063
33.162
54.565
58.250
61.536
16
7.341
22.105
26.141
30.061
33.156
54.560
58.245
61.535
Ref. [37]
7.225
22.096
26.179
30.011
33.105
54.507
58.182
61.535
ANSYS [37]
7.312
22.094
26.096
30.014
33.064
54.400
58.106
61.517
Conical shell
2
38.4
54.85
84.08
103.0
159.23
229.3
353.4
381.1
4
18.7
25.30
32.04
36.89
49.87
72.59
88.88
96.85
6
15.9
15.98
21.86
35.56
46.43
70.10
79.02
83.43
8
10.2
14.45
20.23
35.32
45.74
69.56
76.99
78.38
10
8.37
13.60
19.43
35.25
45.54
69.32
76.40
76.91
12
7.75
13.16
19.04
35.21
45.47
69.18
76.18
76.41
14
7.48
12.92
18.83
35.17
45.44
69.05
76.06
76.19
16
7.48
12.92
18.83
35.17
45.44
69.05
76.06
76.19
Ref. [37]
7.29
12.59
18.54
35.19
45.38
69.06
75.94
76.05
Ref. [33]
7.21
12.32
18.21
34.40
44.32
67.78
75.43
76.05
Experiment [33]
7.50
12.70
18.20
35.60
46.00
59.50
70.40
73.10
Ref. [35]
7.33
12.85
18.80
35.96
46.18
70.46
76.52
76.69
Spherical shell
2
93.009
134.18
136.42
149.49
176.026
207.42
244.63
250.30
4
36.887
53.459
95.559
97.201
126.99
182.01
219.35
225.24
6
34.687
50.676
92.738
94.323
125.45
178.61
217.53
223.42
8
34.462
50.256
92.318
93.893
125.19
178.05
217.20
223.08
10
34.413
50.156
92.221
93.792
125.13
177.92
217.17
222.99
12
34.398
50.125
92.191
93.762
125.11
177.88
217.09
222.96
14
34.393
50.113
92.179
93.750
125.09
177.86
217.08
222.95
16
34.390
50.108
92.175
93.745
125.09
177.85
217.07
222.95
Ref. [37]
33.955
49.944
91.743
92.975
124.21
177.05
216.22
221.60
Ref. [36]
33.460
48.906
91.297
—
121.80
173.11
211.57
—From Table1, we can find that the first eight frequencies converge rapidly with the increasing truncated number and a very close agreement between present solutions and referential results, although different displacement admissible functions and solution procedures were used in the literature. It should be noted that the results provide by Liew et al. [36] are based on 3D shallow shell theory. The convergence study shows the excellent efficiency of the SGM-Ritz solution. To further validate the accuracy and reliability of current solution, more numerical examples will be presented. In each case, the convergence study is performed and, for brevity purposes, only the converged results are presented here. Since the results converge well at the truncated number M
=
N
=
14, the following calculations will be implemented with the truncated numbers.As mentioned earlier, in the current modeling framework, all the classical boundary conditions and their combinations can be conveniently viewed as special cases by setting the values of the linear and rotational boundary springs stiffness either equal to zero or infinitely large. Thus, the effects on the modal characteristics of the linear and rotational spring’s stiffness should be investigated. For the sake of generalizing the effects, the nondimensional elastic restraint parametersΓ
u, Γ
v, Γ
w, and Γ
W, which are defined as the ratios of the corresponding spring’s stiffness of α-axial, β-axial, and z-axial and rotational boundary spring’s stiffness to the transverse flexural stiffness D
=
E
h
3
/
12
(
1
-
μ
2
), are introduced here. Since current investigations about the effects on vibration behavior of the various boundary conditions are mostly concentrated on the closed shell, the open shells, that is, cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, are introduced here to analyze the effects on vibration behavior of the various boundary spring’s stiffness in this subsection. In Figure 5, variations of the 1st-, 3rd-, and 5th-order frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D against the elastic restraint parameters Γ
ζ (where ζ
=
u
,
v
,
w and W) of three different open shells are depicted, respectively. The material properties for the three types of considered open shells are given as follows: E
=
210
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, and ρ
=
7800
k
g
/
m
3. And the geometrical dimensions are employed as follows: for the cylindrical shell, R
=
2
m, L
=
3
m, h
=
0
.
0
1
m, and θ
0
=
90
°; for the conical shell, R
0
=
1
m, L
=
2
m, h
=
0
.
01
m, φ
=
45
°, and θ
0
=
60
°; for the spherical shell, R
=
2
m, h
=
0
.
01
m, φ
0
=
60
°, φ
1
=
120
°, and θ
0
=
60
°. In Figure 5, each of the shells is supposed to be clamped at edge α
=
0, free at edges β
=
0 and β
=
L
β, and elastically restrained at edge α
=
L
α by only one group of spring components with various stiffness value (varying from 10−4 to 1010) and the other three groups of spring components’ stiffness value with zero. Briefly, this type of boundary condition can be denoted by C-F-EI-F.Figure 5
Effects of boundary spring stiffness on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D of open shells with C-F-EI-F boundary conditions: (a) open cylindrical shell; (b) open conical shell; and (c) open spherical shell.
(a)
(b)
(c)From Figure5, it is observed that the frequency parameters Ω increase as the stiffness parameters Γ
ζ increase in the certain range. Specifically, the frequency parameters almost keep at a level when the stiffness parameters Γ
ζ of the boundary springs are smaller than 10−1. As they further increase, a distinct influence can be observed, in which the frequency parameters increase rapidly; when they are beyond 108, the frequency parameters approach the utmost and remain unchanged. As mentioned early, it is reasonable that the classical boundary condition is simulated by setting the ratios of the corresponding spring stiffness to the flexural stiffness D
=
E
h
3
/
12
(
1
-
μ
2
) to be 1010. Similarly, the ratios of the coupling spring stiffness to the flexural stiffness D at the interface are set to be 1010 to satisfy the rigid connective conditions for the closed shells. From Figure 5, it can be concluded that the different restraint springs have different effects on the vibration behavior of the open shells. Comparing Figure 5(c) with 5(a) and 5(b), it can be found that the influence of spring component k
u on the spherical shell is different from the cylindrical and conical shells, which may be because the spherical shell is doubly curved. Furthermore, from Figure 5, it can be seen that the translational spring’s components have effects on the vibration behavior on the shells more than the rotational spring’s component for all the three types of open shells.


## 3.2. Free Vibration Analysis of Open Shells

In order to study the free vibration characteristics of the present method for the unified open and closed shell formulation, the vibration analysis of the open shells, that is, open cylindrical shell, open conical shell, and open spherical shell, is focused on in this section.


### 3.2.1. Cylindrical Shells

In this section, open cylindrical shells subjected to different boundary conditions with various geometrical and material parameters are investigated. First, the accuracy and reliability of the present method for the unified open and closed shell formulation applied to an open cylindrical shell are studied. Table2 lists the first four natural frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D obtained by present method with literature [38]. The material properties and geometrical dimensions of the open cylindrical shell are E
=
210
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800
k
g
/
m
3, R
=
2
m, L
=
1
m, h
=
0
.
05
m, and θ
0
=
28
.
6
°. Table 3 compares the first seven natural frequencies calculated by present method with those in literature [28, 37]. The material properties of the open cylindrical shell keep the same with the case in Table 2 and geometrical dimensions are R
=
0
.
1
m, L
=
0
.
2
m, h
=
0
.
001
m, and θ
0
=
60
°. In order to further validate the accuracy of the present method, Table 4 compares the first five frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
/
E of the open cylindrical shell obtained by present method with those in literature [29, 37] with various geometric parameters, for example, L
/
R and θ
0, subjected to C-F-C-F boundary condition. The material properties remain unchanged and geometrical dimensions of the open cylindrical shell are R
=
2
m and h
=
0
.
02
m. From Tables 2–4, it can be found clearly that a consistent agreement of present results and referential data is seen. The discrepancy is very small although different shell theories are used in the literature. The small discrepancy in the results may be attributed to the different solution approaches used in the literature.Table 2
Comparison of the first four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open cylindrical shell with various boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Ref. [38]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
F-F-F-F
13.44
21.28
28.12
34.69
13.48
21.17
28.13
34.47
SD-F-F-F
6.640
19.43
25.80
26.10
6.673
19.45
25.79
25.95
C-F-F-F
5.164
8.594
24.65
28.10
5.180
8.587
24.60
28.01
SD-SD-F-F
3.347
17.93
22.68
40.57
3.389
17.73
22.69
40.33
C-SD-F-F
6.779
19.53
28.28
45.24
6.797
19.33
28.29
45.01
C-C-F-F
8.440
25.57
29.56
51.11
8.506
25.42
29.54
50.90
SD-F-SD-F
13.10
16.41
37.22
43.26
13.13
16.41
37.02
43.26
C-F-SD-F
18.64
21.00
40.21
53.51
18.63
20.99
40.26
53.08
SD-SD-SD-F
14.78
29.57
44.94
61.91
14.82
29.35
44.94
61.66
C-SD-SD-F
19.73
33.15
54.56
64.20
19.79
32.96
54.59
63.93
C-C-SD-F
20.08
39.72
54.05
74.34
20.54
39.32
54.88
74.25
C-F-C-F
25.12
26.85
44.33
64.01
25.32
26.91
44.32
64.25
SD-C-SD-F
15.79
36.41
45.24
64.32
15.84
36.22
45.24
64.38
C-SD-C-F
25.96
37.66
65.26
66.90
26.05
37.53
65.62
66.80
C-C-C-F
26.75
43.68
66.05
77.50
26.65
43.41
65.87
77.14
SD-SD-SD-SD
25.48
49.61
55.84
80.46
25.32
49.34
55.71
80.23
C-SD-SD-SD
29.05
52.11
64.19
87.56
28.90
51.86
64.08
87.38
C-C-SD-SD
34.16
61.76
66.44
94.71
34.07
61.55
66.48
94.48
C-SD-C-SD
33.69
55.30
73.85
95.62
33.66
55.13
74.00
95.75
C-C-C-SD
37.38
63.67
76.00
99.98
38.05
64.30
76.14
102.33
C-C-C-C
46.08
74.02
78.10
109.68
46.14
74.11
79.14
109.95Table 3
Comparison of the first seven natural frequencies (Hz) for an open cylindrical shell with various boundary conditions.
Modes
SD-F-SD-F
SD-SD-SD-SD
F-S-F-S
Experiment [28]
Theory [28]
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [37]
Present
1
300
286
285.162
286.012
1059.60
1059.17
837.437
837.467
2
470
476
475.131
476.367
1693.43
1694.86
1862.92
1863.09
3
850
819
817.600
819.124
2061.83
2061.58
1903.48
1903.04
4
870
859
857.365
859.198
2068.16
2068.64
1928.89
1929.87
5
1330
1341
1339.58
952.465
2401.35
2400.62
2436.56
2435.24
6
1460
1440
1437.56
1341.65
3089.38
3088.82
3041.67
3042.74
7
1490
1486
1486.98
1440.09
3412.99
3415.73
3351.38
3350.37Table 4
Comparison of the first five nondimensional frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
/
E for an open cylindrical shell with C-F-C-F boundary condition.
θ
0
Modes
L
/
R
=
1
L
/
R
=
2
L
/
R
=
3
Ref. [29]
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [29]
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [29]
Ref. [37]
Present
30°
1
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.025
0.025
0.025
2
0.169
0.169
0.169
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.028
0.028
0.028
3
0.281
0.280
0.281
0.100
0.101
0.101
0.059
0.059
0.059
4
0.330
0.327
0.331
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.066
0.066
0.066
5
0.338
0.337
0.339
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.094
0.095
0.095
60°
1
0.142
0.141
0.142
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.031
0.031
0.031
2
0.153
0.151
0.153
0.068
0.069
0.069
0.054
0.054
0.054
3
0.305
0.300
0.305
0.118
0.119
0.119
0.074
0.074
0.075
4
0.305
0.303
0.305
0.128
0.129
0.129
0.078
0.078
0.078
5
0.308
0.303
0.309
0.185
0.187
0.188
0.106
0.106
0.106As mentioned early, the unified shell formulation can deal with the free vibration analysis with arbitrary boundary condition. The accuracy and reliability of this method applied to open cylindrical shell with classical boundary condition are validated in Tables2–4. In the following discussion, the elastically supported boundary condition is employed to further illustrate the accuracy and reliability of this method. Table 5 shows the first six frequency parameters expressed in a dimensionless form as Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open cylindrical shell with different elastic boundary conditions. Three sets of classical-elastic combined boundary conditions are examined, namely, the E1-F-E1-F, E2-S-E2-S, and E3-C-E3-C. In comparison with the present method, results obtained by Ye et al. [37] are also included in Table 5. The material properties and geometrical dimensions used for the shells are E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0.3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
=
2 m, L
=
3 m, h
=
0.05 m, and θ
0
=
60°. In Table 5, it can be observed that an excellent agreement can be seen from the comparison, and the difference is very small and does not exceed 0.30606% for the worst case. Moreover, some selected corresponding mode shapes for this open cylindrical shell with E3-C-E3-C boundary constraints are also depicted in Figure 6. From the competition study presented in Tables 2–5, it can be concluded that the present method for open cylindrical shells with arbitrary boundary conditions is numerically accurate.Table 5
First six frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open cylindrical shell subjected to various classical-elastic combined boundary conditions.
Modes
E1-F-E1-F
E2-S-E2-S
E3-C-E3-C
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
1
38.0712
38.1628
0.24050
128.550
128.4335
0.09062
156.917
156.882
0.02209
2
51.5365
51.6942
0.30606
181.842
181.8735
0.01733
214.063
214.044
0.00899
3
87.8899
87.7157
0.19816
206.415
206.1768
0.11538
222.556
222.437
0.05370
4
92.1902
92.3438
0.16660
228.360
228.2684
0.04011
248.105
247.994
0.04464
5
99.7832
99.9866
0.20384
279.383
279.053
0.11811
291.150
290.934
0.07431
6
143.176
143.098
0.05421
289.155
288.959
0.06778
294.611
294.394
0.07367Figure 6
First four mode shapes for an open cylindrical shell with E3-C-E3-C boundary constraints.As mentioned earlier, the unified shell formulation can deal with vibration characteristics subjected to arbitrary boundary conditions including uniform and nonuniform boundary restraint. Some uniform boundary conditions are employed to illustrate the vibration characteristics in the examples above. It is interesting to study the free vibration of the unified shells subjected to nonuniform boundary restraint, for example, point supports, and several examples involving cylindrical shells with nonuniform boundary restraints will be discussed in following discussions. Since the vibration results for shells with point supported are very rare in literature, the first eight natural frequencies of the open cylindrical shell with multipoints clamped-supported are calculated in Table6 as the benchmarking by researchers and reference data for practicing engineers. As a special case, the numbers and locations of the boundary point supports are limited to the equally spaced cases at boundary ends α
=
0 and α
=
L
α, and the other two boundaries are free. The material properties are the same as the model in Table 5 and the geometrical dimensions are R
=
0.5 m, L
=
1 m, h
=
0.005 m, and θ
0
=
90°. Furthermore, by gradually increasing the total number of the clamped points around the edge from 4 to 52, it is found that the frequency parameters become stable when the total number of clamped points reaches 44. In fact, these frequencies finally converge to the ones of the uniformly clamped shell case, as denoted by “C-F-C-F” in the table.Table 6
First eight frequencies (Hz) for an open cylindrical shell with multipoints clamped-supported on the two edgesα
=
0 and α
=
L
α.
Number of clamped points
Mode orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
42.0733
73.7520
124.399
129.400
163.200
175.784
225.104
238.232
8
84.2526
99.8218
184.433
185.978
234.422
265.143
295.010
297.424
12
97.5774
106.417
189.546
194.152
238.902
274.257
299.952
302.187
16
99.7987
107.456
136.231
199.570
249.178
277.450
308.594
308.774
20
102.000
107.095
197.781
201.784
259.985
281.080
308.559
315.573
24
103.398
109.240
200.089
204.168
270.959
283.070
315.387
317.166
28
103.996
109.545
200.608
204.545
274.651
286.455
317.069
318.288
32
104.759
110.067
201.069
205.168
276.958
286.988
317.541
318.674
36
105.207
110.616
201.133
205.606
278.442
288.107
318.179
319.547
40
105.194
111.732
203.235
206.126
279.873
287.052
320.491
321.935
44
106.558
111.801
202.972
207.610
279.990
288.192
320.612
321.992
48
106.610
111.865
203.425
207.548
280.293
288.029
321.033
322.303
52
106.603
111.748
203.412
207.457
280.072
288.051
320.677
321.821
C-F-C-F
106.596
111.739
203.401
207.608
279.849
287.903
320.618
321.542


### 3.2.2. Conical Shells

As mentioned early, the method can obtain the vibration behavior of the open shell, for example, cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, and the accuracy of the formulation of the open cylindrical shell by using this method has been validated. In this subsection, the accuracy of the present formulation is evaluated for the vibration problems of open conical shells with arbitrary classical boundary conditions and their combinations. For comparing the present results with those in literature, the material parameters used areE
=
70 GPa, μ
=
0.3, and ρ
=
2700 kg/m3. And a dimensionless frequency parameter Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D is introduced in the calculations in this subsection. Table 7 shows the comparison of the first four frequency parameters Ω for an open conical shell with various boundary conditions and cone vertex angles. The geometric dimensions of the shell are R
0
=
1 m, L
=
3 m, h
=
0.01 m, and θ
0
=
90°. What is more, the present formulation can also be applied to an annular plate, which involves the following procedure: setting the cone vertex angle to 90°. And then a conical shell can degenerate to an annular sector plate. For the sake of completeness, Table 8 compares the vibration solutions by present method of the annular sector plate, which can be treated as a special case of open conical shells, with those in literature. The material parameters remain unchanged and the geometric dimensions of the shell are R
0
=
1 m, L
=
2 m, h
=
0
.
006 m, θ
0
=
60°, and φ
=
90°. It can be observed from Tables 7 and 8 that the present results match very well with those in literature. The excellent agreements of comparisons between the proposed solutions and the published results for open conical shells with various geometric dimensions and boundary conditions separately given in Tables 7-8 indicate that the present analysis is accurate.Table 7
First four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open conical shell subjected to various cone vertex angle φ and boundary conditions.
φ
Modes
F-F-F-F
SD-F-SD-F
C-SD-C-SD
C-C-C-C
Ye et al. [37]
Present
Ye et al. [37]
Present
Ye et al. [37]
Present
Ye et al. [37]
Present
15°
1
21.7369
21.7869
68.3314
68.4257
276.046
276.156
362.599
362.681
2
33.2499
33.3564
80.3334
80.3412
331.696
331.755
376.082
376.311
3
66.3301
66.4411
95.9809
96.6836
377.556
377.743
517.224
516.001
4
85.5839
85.5869
158.287
158.323
445.588
445.206
540.634
540.451
30°
1
19.7435
19.8247
61.2279
61.2920
246.813
246.896
289.007
289.076
2
20.1969
20.2408
66.1966
66.2187
250.462
250.502
297.547
297.489
3
49.1755
49.1780
134.671
134.7452
303.748
303.453
381.886
379.499
4
57.1880
57.2699
140.764
140.8377
362.315
362.345
412.226
407.261
45°
1
14.1233
14.1762
53.0474
53.0949
203.828
203.843
233.139
233.132
2
19.4793
19.5093
55.4028
55.4244
212.084
212.089
239.744
239.578
3
34.3252
34.3282
114.218
114.295
234.695
234.516
303.960
301.209
4
51.7167
51.7673
121.476
121.563
282.851
280.819
315.028
309.892
60°
1
11.4157
11.4424
43.3049
149.211
161.854
161.862
182.496
182.453
2
18.9259
18.9409
45.8304
151.341
163.326
163.369
186.331
186.280
3
27.0994
27.1017
95.1813
173.651
186.638
186.534
232.598
231.343
4
46.9403
46.9606
102.109
177.658
225.308
223.702
247.410
243.849
75°
1
10.0080
10.0154
31.6590
31.6748
105.540
105.5392
125.150
125.101
2
18.0186
18.0226
34.6073
34.6197
119.710
119.7116
129.281
129.276
3
23.3268
23.3277
73.3475
73.3749
125.399
125.4059
169.937
169.771
4
40.9675
40.9723
76.1915
76.2144
148.330
148.2946
176.065
175.723Table 8
Comparison of the first six frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open conical shell with various boundary conditions.
Modes
S-S-S-S
C-C-C-C
h
-
p FEM [33]
ANSYS [33]
Ye et al. [37]
Present
h
-
p FEM [33]
ANSYS [33]
Ye et al. [37]
Present
1
19.2
19.1
19.100
19.09991
35.2
35.0
35.08838
35.09070
2
43.6
43.5
43.632
43.63151
66.3
66.0
6.20422
66.20527
3
50.9
50.7
50.811
50.81127
74.9
74.4
74.60812
74.60727
4
78.9
78.6
78.942
78.94172
108.4
107.7
108.2133
108.2071
5
83.3
82.9
83.176
83.17624
113.2
112.2
112.8819
112.9004
6
101.1
100.6
100.795
100.7949
134.9
133.0
133.4319
133.4149To further validate the accuracy and reliability of the present solutions, more complex numerical examples are presented. The vibration analysis for the open conical shell subjected to classical-elastic combined restraints is concentrated on. Table9 compares the first six frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D with those calculated by Ye et al. [37] for the conical shell subjected to various elastically supported restraint conditions. The material properties and geometrical dimensions are employed as E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0.3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
0
=
1 m, L
=
2 m, h
=
0.01 m, φ
=
30°, and θ
0
=
90°. From Table 9, it can be found that the maximum difference between present results and those in literature is only 0.84285% for the worst case. And the present solutions match well with the results in literature, which further validate the accuracy and reliability of the current solutions. Moreover, some selected corresponding mode shapes subjected to E3-C-E3-C boundary conditions with various subtended angles θ
0 are shown in Figure 7.Table 9
First six frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open conical shell subjected to various classical-elastic combined boundary conditions.
Modes
E1-F-E1-F
E2-F-E2-F
E3-F-E3-F
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
1
56.9432
56.8022
0.24763
68.0095
67.9740
0.05226
68.3529
68.3048
0.07040
2
57.1139
56.9227
0.33470
69.3596
69.3364
0.03347
69.9152
69.8886
0.03800
3
118.408
118.226
0.15366
130.858
130.957
0.07561
131.411
131.269
0.10843
4
125.462
124.511
0.75773
131.270
131.359
0.06747
131.693
131.559
0.10175
5
137.038
136.743
0.21519
158.506
158.160
0.21803
164.337
164.089
0.15109
6
153.413
152.120
0.84285
178.341
177.884
0.25638
181.088
180.727
0.19913Figure 7
Some selected mode shapes for an open conical shell with E3-C-E3-C boundary conditions.As mentioned previously, the present method is convenient to handle the problem with nonuniform boundary restraints. Thus, a typical case under multipoints supported boundary conditions, in which the locations of the boundary point supports are equally spaced at boundary endsα
=
0 and α
=
L
α and the other two boundaries are free, is considered here. Table 10 shows the first eight frequencies of the open conical shells with the multipoints clamped-restrained. For simplicity and convenience, the material properties and geometry dimensions used for the shells are the same as the models used in Table 9. Similar to the open cylindrical shell with multipoints supported, the frequencies converge to the ones of the uniformly clamped shell case, as denoted by “C-F-C-F” in the table, when the total numbers of clamped points reaches 40.Table 10
First eight frequencies (Hz) for an open conical shell with multipoints clamped-supported at the edgesα
=
0 and α
=
L
α.
Number of clamped points
Mode orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
11.8729
20.0077
32.5122
39.5461
53.0354
55.5817
70.2857
73.8902
8
36.7021
37.0652
68.2869
71.6845
84.1112
90.5067
96.5518
102.390
12
38.0459
39.4913
74.2440
75.3170
92.7235
107.683
114.175
123.842
16
40.6246
41.8082
76.1112
76.4630
96.2314
108.537
119.440
124.762
20
41.5237
42.8696
78.5924
79.2059
98.5312
109.629
124.270
127.001
24
41.9268
42.9051
80.1504
80.3934
101.246
112.015
128.930
129.004
28
42.0010
42.9886
81.3801
81.3833
102.009
112.602
130.785
130.966
32
42.2120
43.2225
81.9266
81.9334
102.514
113.002
131.522
131.946
36
42.6656
43.7936
82.5368
83.2035
103.144
113.490
132.629
132.804
40
42.8653
43.8284
82.6513
82.8204
103.221
113.492
133.088
133.376
44
42.8620
43.8322
82.6605
82.8006
103.223
113.500
133.119
133.339
48
42.8487
43.8083
82.6437
82.8098
103.261
113.488
133.307
133.339
52
42.8579
43.8247
82.6678
82.8223
103.210
113.487
133.093
133.410
C-F-C-F
42.8587
43.8284
82.6528
82.8179
103.219
113.493
133.132
133.349


### 3.2.3. Spherical Shells

The free vibration analysis for the open cylindrical and conical shells has been studied and the accuracy of the present method is validated well. In order to further investigate the accuracy of the unified formulation for the open shell, in this subsection, the present formulation is applied to study the free vibrations of open spherical shells with arbitrary boundaries for which very limited amount of vibration results is available in the literature. In Table11, comparison solutions by present method and the reported literature [38] of the first four nondimensional frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell with various boundary conditions are presented. The material properties and geometrical dimensions used for the spherical shell are given as follows: E
=
70 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
2700 kg/m3, R
=
5 m, h
=
0
.
05 m, φ
0
=
84
.
3°, φ
1
=
95
.
7°, and θ
0
=
11
.
5°. Having gained confidence in present method, some further numerical results for open spherical shells with several types of classical boundary conditions and their combinations are given in the following presentation. In Table 12, the comparison of the first four nondimension frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell with material and geometric parameters, E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
=
2 m, h
=
0
.
01 m, φ
0
=
45°, φ
1
=
135°, and θ
0
=
90°, subjected to various boundary conditions, is presented. The comparison is performed with numerical solutions by Ye et al. [37]. From Tables 11 and 12, it can be obviously found that the results calculated by present method match well with the corresponding solutions in literatures [37, 38]. The excellent agreement results for the open spherical shell can further illustrate the accuracy of the unified shell formulation.Table 11
Comparison of the first four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell subjected to various boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Ref. [38]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
F-F-F-F
13.46
19.56
25.99
34.85
13.40
19.44
25.77
34.59
SD-F-F-F
6.629
15.34
25.40
27.08
6.582
15.32
25.28
26.76
C-F-F-F
3.754
8.492
21.53
28.26
4.060
8.702
21.58
27.95
SD-SD-F-F
3.367
17.32
20.79
39.71
3.340
17.20
20.61
39.40
C-SD-F-F
5.566
19.35
25.47
44.64
5.753
19.19
25.38
44.47
C-C-F-F
7.894
23.90
27.92
49.27
8.172
23.79
27.75
49.02
SD-F-SD-F
10.07
16.10
38.89
39.59
10.03
15.98
38.43
39.54
C-F-SD-F
15.63
21.68
41.84
49.95
15.76
24.71
41.48
49.83
SD-SD-SD-F
12.22
30.50
41.85
60.14
12.15
30.15
41.77
59.80
C-SD-SD-F
18.01
33.76
52.05
65.24
18.13
33.56
51.89
64.57
C-C-SD-F
18.68
38.58
52.19
72.13
18.69
38.35
52.24
71.80
C-F-C-F
25.30
28.67
45.53
61.34
26.06
30.82
45.31
61.20
SD-C-SD-F
12.95
35.75
42.26
64.09
12.86
35.32
42.17
63.59
C-SD-C-F
26.34
38.07
63.08
68.01
27.07
38.02
63.23
67.31
C-C-C-F
26.62
42.71
63.56
77.64
27.68
42.53
63.53
76.98
SD-SD-SD-SD
23.70
51.04
51.04
80.02
23.45
50.33
50.82
79.36
C-SD-SD-SD
27.32
53.32
60.17
87.13
27.23
52.72
60.00
86.59
C-C-SD-SD
30.64
61.88
62.36
93.66
30.51
61.36
62.02
93.30
C-SD-C-SD
32.47
55.41
70.37
95.06
32.60
55.78
70.43
95.00
C-C-C-SD
35.51
64.76
72.13
101.40
35.63
64.13
72.15
101.09
C-C-C-C
40.26
74.17
74.43
108.66
40.49
73.77
74.42
108.32Table 12
First four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell with various boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Ref. [37]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
F-F-F-S
18.0503
22.6720
48.7319
65.5055
19.2022
22.7991
50.2213
66.8198
F-F-S-S
45.3203
61.1681
139.886
155.410
46.8427
61.6499
142.512
156.769
F-S-S-S
381.345
388.913
713.714
756.822
389.683
395.471
727.650
768.011
F-F-F-C
18.8440
23.4206
49.3404
68.0959
20.0030
23.5524
50.8671
69.2686
F-F-C-C
46.5172
63.1538
144.447
158.654
48.0751
63.6089
147.277
159.850
F-C-C-C
396.124
408.000
756.727
779.639
403.649
415.983
771.244
789.339
S-S-S-S
1528.82
1542.01
1548.17
1601.85
1528.90
1542.11
1548.27
1601.91
S-S-S-C
1531.94
1542.28
1549.23
1603.29
1532.07
1542.39
1549.35
1603.37
S-S-C-C
1534.26
1543.64
1549.31
1604.18
1534.43
1543.59
1549.43
1604.27
S-C-C-C
1537.73
1543.64
1550.42
1605.67
1537.95
1543.77
1550.55
1605.78
C-C-C-C
1540.15
1544.85
1550.50
1606.56
1541.18
1546.99
1553.16
1606.57Although all the above examples fall into the category of the classical homogeneous boundary conditions, it has been demonstrated that they can be solved universally under the current framework by simply modifying the stiffness of the corresponding elastic springs. Since vibration results for the spherical shells with arbitrary boundary conditions are rare in the literature, some further numerical results for an open spherical shell with different elastically supported boundary conditions and their combinations are given in Table13, and first eight corresponding mode shapes with E1-C-E1-C boundary conditions are also drawn in Figure 8. A more complicated problem is one in which the spherical shell is multipoints clamped-constrained at boundary ends and the locations of these boundary point supports are equally spaced at boundaries α
=
0 and α
=
L
α. Table 14 shows the first eight frequencies with the various numbers of the clamped points. The material properties and geometrical dimensions in Tables 13 and 14 are the same as the model in Table 12. From Table 13, it can be seen that the frequency parameter increases with the boundary conditions changing from Λ-F-Λ-F to Λ-C-Λ-C  (
Λ
=
E
1
,
E
2
a
n
d
E
3
), which is due to the increasing boundary spring stiffness. Furthermore, a slight increasing frequency parameter can be observed with the boundary conditions varying from Λ-S-Λ-S to Λ-C-Λ-C while a huge increasing value is found subjected to the boundary restraints changing from Λ
-
F
-
Λ
-
F to Λ-S-Λ-S. From Table 14, it is found that the frequency becomes stable when the total number of clamped points reaches 40 and these frequencies finally converge to the ones of the uniformly C-F-C-F shell case.Table 13
First eight frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell subjected to various classical-elastic combined boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Modes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
E1-F-E1-F
139.644
155.540
177.982
178.238
296.232
297.075
376.141
390.785
E2-F-E2-F
171.100
183.000
189.780
191.112
337.909
374.572
386.047
398.328
E3-F-E3-F
51.1307
187.620
221.996
253.487
358.578
422.613
476.818
517.802
E1-S-E1-S
1527.08
1536.94
1545.89
1600.52
1604.08
1607.37
1614.80
1619.77
E2-S-E2-S
752.556
1379.20
1496.59
1529.73
1543.95
1568.62
1593.51
1602.16
E3-S-E3-S
1197.71
1534.13
1544.01
1553.96
1589.09
1604.06
1608.02
1612.91
E1-C-E1-C
1534.85
1537.51
1548.21
1603.92
1605.13
1612.69
1615.10
1624.01
E2-C-E2-C
1425.59
1513.95
1536.62
1547.13
1554.03
1599.93
1603.55
1606.38
E3-C-E3-C
1539.58
1546.14
1554.80
1590.30
1607.21
1612.97
1614.36
1619.72Table 14
First eight frequencies (Hz) for an open spherical shell with multipoints clamped-supported on the two edgesα
=
0 and α
=
L
α.
Number of clamped points
Mode orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
12.2312
17.9155
19.5800
29.0130
30.5394
51.4391
51.7373
56.4100
8
40.0975
42.7725
48.9036
53.6622
90.4094
94.7601
106.301
111.696
12
12.3097
43.6488
52.7028
63.2851
82.3730
102.290
113.423
115.059
16
28.0964
45.0074
54.4617
64.3798
90.0115
103.671
118.469
129.903
20
20.5605
46.5769
55.9624
63.4935
89.0453
105.809
119.636
127.748
24
10.8180
47.3839
56.3886
60.9230
87.8615
106.645
119.007
120.778
28
47.4370
48.1909
56.1141
61.0136
81.8681
106.898
120.396
120.396
32
47.2956
56.0249
61.1083
65.9971
78.4332
107.184
119.880
120.514
36
46.9057
55.4473
61.0340
73.1757
106.791
107.405
119.547
120.301
40
46.6960
55.3741
60.8831
72.6460
107.236
111.691
119.571
120.434
44
47.2532
55.2890
61.1750
73.6090
105.835
107.287
119.928
120.366
48
46.8644
55.4429
60.9559
72.8072
107.341
110.834
119.432
120.504
52
46.8610
55.3493
61.1851
72.8144
107.345
111.739
119.527
120.262
CC
46.9276
55.3297
61.3200
72.6933
107.363
111.138
119.577
120.454Figure 8
First four mode shapes for an open spherical shell with E1-C-E1-C boundary conditions.


## 3.2.1. Cylindrical Shells

In this section, open cylindrical shells subjected to different boundary conditions with various geometrical and material parameters are investigated. First, the accuracy and reliability of the present method for the unified open and closed shell formulation applied to an open cylindrical shell are studied. Table2 lists the first four natural frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D obtained by present method with literature [38]. The material properties and geometrical dimensions of the open cylindrical shell are E
=
210
G
P
a, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800
k
g
/
m
3, R
=
2
m, L
=
1
m, h
=
0
.
05
m, and θ
0
=
28
.
6
°. Table 3 compares the first seven natural frequencies calculated by present method with those in literature [28, 37]. The material properties of the open cylindrical shell keep the same with the case in Table 2 and geometrical dimensions are R
=
0
.
1
m, L
=
0
.
2
m, h
=
0
.
001
m, and θ
0
=
60
°. In order to further validate the accuracy of the present method, Table 4 compares the first five frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
/
E of the open cylindrical shell obtained by present method with those in literature [29, 37] with various geometric parameters, for example, L
/
R and θ
0, subjected to C-F-C-F boundary condition. The material properties remain unchanged and geometrical dimensions of the open cylindrical shell are R
=
2
m and h
=
0
.
02
m. From Tables 2–4, it can be found clearly that a consistent agreement of present results and referential data is seen. The discrepancy is very small although different shell theories are used in the literature. The small discrepancy in the results may be attributed to the different solution approaches used in the literature.Table 2
Comparison of the first four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open cylindrical shell with various boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Ref. [38]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
F-F-F-F
13.44
21.28
28.12
34.69
13.48
21.17
28.13
34.47
SD-F-F-F
6.640
19.43
25.80
26.10
6.673
19.45
25.79
25.95
C-F-F-F
5.164
8.594
24.65
28.10
5.180
8.587
24.60
28.01
SD-SD-F-F
3.347
17.93
22.68
40.57
3.389
17.73
22.69
40.33
C-SD-F-F
6.779
19.53
28.28
45.24
6.797
19.33
28.29
45.01
C-C-F-F
8.440
25.57
29.56
51.11
8.506
25.42
29.54
50.90
SD-F-SD-F
13.10
16.41
37.22
43.26
13.13
16.41
37.02
43.26
C-F-SD-F
18.64
21.00
40.21
53.51
18.63
20.99
40.26
53.08
SD-SD-SD-F
14.78
29.57
44.94
61.91
14.82
29.35
44.94
61.66
C-SD-SD-F
19.73
33.15
54.56
64.20
19.79
32.96
54.59
63.93
C-C-SD-F
20.08
39.72
54.05
74.34
20.54
39.32
54.88
74.25
C-F-C-F
25.12
26.85
44.33
64.01
25.32
26.91
44.32
64.25
SD-C-SD-F
15.79
36.41
45.24
64.32
15.84
36.22
45.24
64.38
C-SD-C-F
25.96
37.66
65.26
66.90
26.05
37.53
65.62
66.80
C-C-C-F
26.75
43.68
66.05
77.50
26.65
43.41
65.87
77.14
SD-SD-SD-SD
25.48
49.61
55.84
80.46
25.32
49.34
55.71
80.23
C-SD-SD-SD
29.05
52.11
64.19
87.56
28.90
51.86
64.08
87.38
C-C-SD-SD
34.16
61.76
66.44
94.71
34.07
61.55
66.48
94.48
C-SD-C-SD
33.69
55.30
73.85
95.62
33.66
55.13
74.00
95.75
C-C-C-SD
37.38
63.67
76.00
99.98
38.05
64.30
76.14
102.33
C-C-C-C
46.08
74.02
78.10
109.68
46.14
74.11
79.14
109.95Table 3
Comparison of the first seven natural frequencies (Hz) for an open cylindrical shell with various boundary conditions.
Modes
SD-F-SD-F
SD-SD-SD-SD
F-S-F-S
Experiment [28]
Theory [28]
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [37]
Present
1
300
286
285.162
286.012
1059.60
1059.17
837.437
837.467
2
470
476
475.131
476.367
1693.43
1694.86
1862.92
1863.09
3
850
819
817.600
819.124
2061.83
2061.58
1903.48
1903.04
4
870
859
857.365
859.198
2068.16
2068.64
1928.89
1929.87
5
1330
1341
1339.58
952.465
2401.35
2400.62
2436.56
2435.24
6
1460
1440
1437.56
1341.65
3089.38
3088.82
3041.67
3042.74
7
1490
1486
1486.98
1440.09
3412.99
3415.73
3351.38
3350.37Table 4
Comparison of the first five nondimensional frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
/
E for an open cylindrical shell with C-F-C-F boundary condition.
θ
0
Modes
L
/
R
=
1
L
/
R
=
2
L
/
R
=
3
Ref. [29]
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [29]
Ref. [37]
Present
Ref. [29]
Ref. [37]
Present
30°
1
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.025
0.025
0.025
2
0.169
0.169
0.169
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.028
0.028
0.028
3
0.281
0.280
0.281
0.100
0.101
0.101
0.059
0.059
0.059
4
0.330
0.327
0.331
0.132
0.132
0.132
0.066
0.066
0.066
5
0.338
0.337
0.339
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.094
0.095
0.095
60°
1
0.142
0.141
0.142
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.031
0.031
0.031
2
0.153
0.151
0.153
0.068
0.069
0.069
0.054
0.054
0.054
3
0.305
0.300
0.305
0.118
0.119
0.119
0.074
0.074
0.075
4
0.305
0.303
0.305
0.128
0.129
0.129
0.078
0.078
0.078
5
0.308
0.303
0.309
0.185
0.187
0.188
0.106
0.106
0.106As mentioned early, the unified shell formulation can deal with the free vibration analysis with arbitrary boundary condition. The accuracy and reliability of this method applied to open cylindrical shell with classical boundary condition are validated in Tables2–4. In the following discussion, the elastically supported boundary condition is employed to further illustrate the accuracy and reliability of this method. Table 5 shows the first six frequency parameters expressed in a dimensionless form as Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open cylindrical shell with different elastic boundary conditions. Three sets of classical-elastic combined boundary conditions are examined, namely, the E1-F-E1-F, E2-S-E2-S, and E3-C-E3-C. In comparison with the present method, results obtained by Ye et al. [37] are also included in Table 5. The material properties and geometrical dimensions used for the shells are E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0.3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
=
2 m, L
=
3 m, h
=
0.05 m, and θ
0
=
60°. In Table 5, it can be observed that an excellent agreement can be seen from the comparison, and the difference is very small and does not exceed 0.30606% for the worst case. Moreover, some selected corresponding mode shapes for this open cylindrical shell with E3-C-E3-C boundary constraints are also depicted in Figure 6. From the competition study presented in Tables 2–5, it can be concluded that the present method for open cylindrical shells with arbitrary boundary conditions is numerically accurate.Table 5
First six frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open cylindrical shell subjected to various classical-elastic combined boundary conditions.
Modes
E1-F-E1-F
E2-S-E2-S
E3-C-E3-C
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
1
38.0712
38.1628
0.24050
128.550
128.4335
0.09062
156.917
156.882
0.02209
2
51.5365
51.6942
0.30606
181.842
181.8735
0.01733
214.063
214.044
0.00899
3
87.8899
87.7157
0.19816
206.415
206.1768
0.11538
222.556
222.437
0.05370
4
92.1902
92.3438
0.16660
228.360
228.2684
0.04011
248.105
247.994
0.04464
5
99.7832
99.9866
0.20384
279.383
279.053
0.11811
291.150
290.934
0.07431
6
143.176
143.098
0.05421
289.155
288.959
0.06778
294.611
294.394
0.07367Figure 6
First four mode shapes for an open cylindrical shell with E3-C-E3-C boundary constraints.As mentioned earlier, the unified shell formulation can deal with vibration characteristics subjected to arbitrary boundary conditions including uniform and nonuniform boundary restraint. Some uniform boundary conditions are employed to illustrate the vibration characteristics in the examples above. It is interesting to study the free vibration of the unified shells subjected to nonuniform boundary restraint, for example, point supports, and several examples involving cylindrical shells with nonuniform boundary restraints will be discussed in following discussions. Since the vibration results for shells with point supported are very rare in literature, the first eight natural frequencies of the open cylindrical shell with multipoints clamped-supported are calculated in Table6 as the benchmarking by researchers and reference data for practicing engineers. As a special case, the numbers and locations of the boundary point supports are limited to the equally spaced cases at boundary ends α
=
0 and α
=
L
α, and the other two boundaries are free. The material properties are the same as the model in Table 5 and the geometrical dimensions are R
=
0.5 m, L
=
1 m, h
=
0.005 m, and θ
0
=
90°. Furthermore, by gradually increasing the total number of the clamped points around the edge from 4 to 52, it is found that the frequency parameters become stable when the total number of clamped points reaches 44. In fact, these frequencies finally converge to the ones of the uniformly clamped shell case, as denoted by “C-F-C-F” in the table.Table 6
First eight frequencies (Hz) for an open cylindrical shell with multipoints clamped-supported on the two edgesα
=
0 and α
=
L
α.
Number of clamped points
Mode orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
42.0733
73.7520
124.399
129.400
163.200
175.784
225.104
238.232
8
84.2526
99.8218
184.433
185.978
234.422
265.143
295.010
297.424
12
97.5774
106.417
189.546
194.152
238.902
274.257
299.952
302.187
16
99.7987
107.456
136.231
199.570
249.178
277.450
308.594
308.774
20
102.000
107.095
197.781
201.784
259.985
281.080
308.559
315.573
24
103.398
109.240
200.089
204.168
270.959
283.070
315.387
317.166
28
103.996
109.545
200.608
204.545
274.651
286.455
317.069
318.288
32
104.759
110.067
201.069
205.168
276.958
286.988
317.541
318.674
36
105.207
110.616
201.133
205.606
278.442
288.107
318.179
319.547
40
105.194
111.732
203.235
206.126
279.873
287.052
320.491
321.935
44
106.558
111.801
202.972
207.610
279.990
288.192
320.612
321.992
48
106.610
111.865
203.425
207.548
280.293
288.029
321.033
322.303
52
106.603
111.748
203.412
207.457
280.072
288.051
320.677
321.821
C-F-C-F
106.596
111.739
203.401
207.608
279.849
287.903
320.618
321.542


## 3.2.2. Conical Shells

As mentioned early, the method can obtain the vibration behavior of the open shell, for example, cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, and the accuracy of the formulation of the open cylindrical shell by using this method has been validated. In this subsection, the accuracy of the present formulation is evaluated for the vibration problems of open conical shells with arbitrary classical boundary conditions and their combinations. For comparing the present results with those in literature, the material parameters used areE
=
70 GPa, μ
=
0.3, and ρ
=
2700 kg/m3. And a dimensionless frequency parameter Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D is introduced in the calculations in this subsection. Table 7 shows the comparison of the first four frequency parameters Ω for an open conical shell with various boundary conditions and cone vertex angles. The geometric dimensions of the shell are R
0
=
1 m, L
=
3 m, h
=
0.01 m, and θ
0
=
90°. What is more, the present formulation can also be applied to an annular plate, which involves the following procedure: setting the cone vertex angle to 90°. And then a conical shell can degenerate to an annular sector plate. For the sake of completeness, Table 8 compares the vibration solutions by present method of the annular sector plate, which can be treated as a special case of open conical shells, with those in literature. The material parameters remain unchanged and the geometric dimensions of the shell are R
0
=
1 m, L
=
2 m, h
=
0
.
006 m, θ
0
=
60°, and φ
=
90°. It can be observed from Tables 7 and 8 that the present results match very well with those in literature. The excellent agreements of comparisons between the proposed solutions and the published results for open conical shells with various geometric dimensions and boundary conditions separately given in Tables 7-8 indicate that the present analysis is accurate.Table 7
First four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open conical shell subjected to various cone vertex angle φ and boundary conditions.
φ
Modes
F-F-F-F
SD-F-SD-F
C-SD-C-SD
C-C-C-C
Ye et al. [37]
Present
Ye et al. [37]
Present
Ye et al. [37]
Present
Ye et al. [37]
Present
15°
1
21.7369
21.7869
68.3314
68.4257
276.046
276.156
362.599
362.681
2
33.2499
33.3564
80.3334
80.3412
331.696
331.755
376.082
376.311
3
66.3301
66.4411
95.9809
96.6836
377.556
377.743
517.224
516.001
4
85.5839
85.5869
158.287
158.323
445.588
445.206
540.634
540.451
30°
1
19.7435
19.8247
61.2279
61.2920
246.813
246.896
289.007
289.076
2
20.1969
20.2408
66.1966
66.2187
250.462
250.502
297.547
297.489
3
49.1755
49.1780
134.671
134.7452
303.748
303.453
381.886
379.499
4
57.1880
57.2699
140.764
140.8377
362.315
362.345
412.226
407.261
45°
1
14.1233
14.1762
53.0474
53.0949
203.828
203.843
233.139
233.132
2
19.4793
19.5093
55.4028
55.4244
212.084
212.089
239.744
239.578
3
34.3252
34.3282
114.218
114.295
234.695
234.516
303.960
301.209
4
51.7167
51.7673
121.476
121.563
282.851
280.819
315.028
309.892
60°
1
11.4157
11.4424
43.3049
149.211
161.854
161.862
182.496
182.453
2
18.9259
18.9409
45.8304
151.341
163.326
163.369
186.331
186.280
3
27.0994
27.1017
95.1813
173.651
186.638
186.534
232.598
231.343
4
46.9403
46.9606
102.109
177.658
225.308
223.702
247.410
243.849
75°
1
10.0080
10.0154
31.6590
31.6748
105.540
105.5392
125.150
125.101
2
18.0186
18.0226
34.6073
34.6197
119.710
119.7116
129.281
129.276
3
23.3268
23.3277
73.3475
73.3749
125.399
125.4059
169.937
169.771
4
40.9675
40.9723
76.1915
76.2144
148.330
148.2946
176.065
175.723Table 8
Comparison of the first six frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open conical shell with various boundary conditions.
Modes
S-S-S-S
C-C-C-C
h
-
p FEM [33]
ANSYS [33]
Ye et al. [37]
Present
h
-
p FEM [33]
ANSYS [33]
Ye et al. [37]
Present
1
19.2
19.1
19.100
19.09991
35.2
35.0
35.08838
35.09070
2
43.6
43.5
43.632
43.63151
66.3
66.0
6.20422
66.20527
3
50.9
50.7
50.811
50.81127
74.9
74.4
74.60812
74.60727
4
78.9
78.6
78.942
78.94172
108.4
107.7
108.2133
108.2071
5
83.3
82.9
83.176
83.17624
113.2
112.2
112.8819
112.9004
6
101.1
100.6
100.795
100.7949
134.9
133.0
133.4319
133.4149To further validate the accuracy and reliability of the present solutions, more complex numerical examples are presented. The vibration analysis for the open conical shell subjected to classical-elastic combined restraints is concentrated on. Table9 compares the first six frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D with those calculated by Ye et al. [37] for the conical shell subjected to various elastically supported restraint conditions. The material properties and geometrical dimensions are employed as E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0.3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
0
=
1 m, L
=
2 m, h
=
0.01 m, φ
=
30°, and θ
0
=
90°. From Table 9, it can be found that the maximum difference between present results and those in literature is only 0.84285% for the worst case. And the present solutions match well with the results in literature, which further validate the accuracy and reliability of the current solutions. Moreover, some selected corresponding mode shapes subjected to E3-C-E3-C boundary conditions with various subtended angles θ
0 are shown in Figure 7.Table 9
First six frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open conical shell subjected to various classical-elastic combined boundary conditions.
Modes
E1-F-E1-F
E2-F-E2-F
E3-F-E3-F
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
Ref. [37]
Present
Error (%)
1
56.9432
56.8022
0.24763
68.0095
67.9740
0.05226
68.3529
68.3048
0.07040
2
57.1139
56.9227
0.33470
69.3596
69.3364
0.03347
69.9152
69.8886
0.03800
3
118.408
118.226
0.15366
130.858
130.957
0.07561
131.411
131.269
0.10843
4
125.462
124.511
0.75773
131.270
131.359
0.06747
131.693
131.559
0.10175
5
137.038
136.743
0.21519
158.506
158.160
0.21803
164.337
164.089
0.15109
6
153.413
152.120
0.84285
178.341
177.884
0.25638
181.088
180.727
0.19913Figure 7
Some selected mode shapes for an open conical shell with E3-C-E3-C boundary conditions.As mentioned previously, the present method is convenient to handle the problem with nonuniform boundary restraints. Thus, a typical case under multipoints supported boundary conditions, in which the locations of the boundary point supports are equally spaced at boundary endsα
=
0 and α
=
L
α and the other two boundaries are free, is considered here. Table 10 shows the first eight frequencies of the open conical shells with the multipoints clamped-restrained. For simplicity and convenience, the material properties and geometry dimensions used for the shells are the same as the models used in Table 9. Similar to the open cylindrical shell with multipoints supported, the frequencies converge to the ones of the uniformly clamped shell case, as denoted by “C-F-C-F” in the table, when the total numbers of clamped points reaches 40.Table 10
First eight frequencies (Hz) for an open conical shell with multipoints clamped-supported at the edgesα
=
0 and α
=
L
α.
Number of clamped points
Mode orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
11.8729
20.0077
32.5122
39.5461
53.0354
55.5817
70.2857
73.8902
8
36.7021
37.0652
68.2869
71.6845
84.1112
90.5067
96.5518
102.390
12
38.0459
39.4913
74.2440
75.3170
92.7235
107.683
114.175
123.842
16
40.6246
41.8082
76.1112
76.4630
96.2314
108.537
119.440
124.762
20
41.5237
42.8696
78.5924
79.2059
98.5312
109.629
124.270
127.001
24
41.9268
42.9051
80.1504
80.3934
101.246
112.015
128.930
129.004
28
42.0010
42.9886
81.3801
81.3833
102.009
112.602
130.785
130.966
32
42.2120
43.2225
81.9266
81.9334
102.514
113.002
131.522
131.946
36
42.6656
43.7936
82.5368
83.2035
103.144
113.490
132.629
132.804
40
42.8653
43.8284
82.6513
82.8204
103.221
113.492
133.088
133.376
44
42.8620
43.8322
82.6605
82.8006
103.223
113.500
133.119
133.339
48
42.8487
43.8083
82.6437
82.8098
103.261
113.488
133.307
133.339
52
42.8579
43.8247
82.6678
82.8223
103.210
113.487
133.093
133.410
C-F-C-F
42.8587
43.8284
82.6528
82.8179
103.219
113.493
133.132
133.349


## 3.2.3. Spherical Shells

The free vibration analysis for the open cylindrical and conical shells has been studied and the accuracy of the present method is validated well. In order to further investigate the accuracy of the unified formulation for the open shell, in this subsection, the present formulation is applied to study the free vibrations of open spherical shells with arbitrary boundaries for which very limited amount of vibration results is available in the literature. In Table11, comparison solutions by present method and the reported literature [38] of the first four nondimensional frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell with various boundary conditions are presented. The material properties and geometrical dimensions used for the spherical shell are given as follows: E
=
70 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
2700 kg/m3, R
=
5 m, h
=
0
.
05 m, φ
0
=
84
.
3°, φ
1
=
95
.
7°, and θ
0
=
11
.
5°. Having gained confidence in present method, some further numerical results for open spherical shells with several types of classical boundary conditions and their combinations are given in the following presentation. In Table 12, the comparison of the first four nondimension frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell with material and geometric parameters, E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
=
2 m, h
=
0
.
01 m, φ
0
=
45°, φ
1
=
135°, and θ
0
=
90°, subjected to various boundary conditions, is presented. The comparison is performed with numerical solutions by Ye et al. [37]. From Tables 11 and 12, it can be obviously found that the results calculated by present method match well with the corresponding solutions in literatures [37, 38]. The excellent agreement results for the open spherical shell can further illustrate the accuracy of the unified shell formulation.Table 11
Comparison of the first four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell subjected to various boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Ref. [38]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
F-F-F-F
13.46
19.56
25.99
34.85
13.40
19.44
25.77
34.59
SD-F-F-F
6.629
15.34
25.40
27.08
6.582
15.32
25.28
26.76
C-F-F-F
3.754
8.492
21.53
28.26
4.060
8.702
21.58
27.95
SD-SD-F-F
3.367
17.32
20.79
39.71
3.340
17.20
20.61
39.40
C-SD-F-F
5.566
19.35
25.47
44.64
5.753
19.19
25.38
44.47
C-C-F-F
7.894
23.90
27.92
49.27
8.172
23.79
27.75
49.02
SD-F-SD-F
10.07
16.10
38.89
39.59
10.03
15.98
38.43
39.54
C-F-SD-F
15.63
21.68
41.84
49.95
15.76
24.71
41.48
49.83
SD-SD-SD-F
12.22
30.50
41.85
60.14
12.15
30.15
41.77
59.80
C-SD-SD-F
18.01
33.76
52.05
65.24
18.13
33.56
51.89
64.57
C-C-SD-F
18.68
38.58
52.19
72.13
18.69
38.35
52.24
71.80
C-F-C-F
25.30
28.67
45.53
61.34
26.06
30.82
45.31
61.20
SD-C-SD-F
12.95
35.75
42.26
64.09
12.86
35.32
42.17
63.59
C-SD-C-F
26.34
38.07
63.08
68.01
27.07
38.02
63.23
67.31
C-C-C-F
26.62
42.71
63.56
77.64
27.68
42.53
63.53
76.98
SD-SD-SD-SD
23.70
51.04
51.04
80.02
23.45
50.33
50.82
79.36
C-SD-SD-SD
27.32
53.32
60.17
87.13
27.23
52.72
60.00
86.59
C-C-SD-SD
30.64
61.88
62.36
93.66
30.51
61.36
62.02
93.30
C-SD-C-SD
32.47
55.41
70.37
95.06
32.60
55.78
70.43
95.00
C-C-C-SD
35.51
64.76
72.13
101.40
35.63
64.13
72.15
101.09
C-C-C-C
40.26
74.17
74.43
108.66
40.49
73.77
74.42
108.32Table 12
First four frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell with various boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Ref. [37]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
F-F-F-S
18.0503
22.6720
48.7319
65.5055
19.2022
22.7991
50.2213
66.8198
F-F-S-S
45.3203
61.1681
139.886
155.410
46.8427
61.6499
142.512
156.769
F-S-S-S
381.345
388.913
713.714
756.822
389.683
395.471
727.650
768.011
F-F-F-C
18.8440
23.4206
49.3404
68.0959
20.0030
23.5524
50.8671
69.2686
F-F-C-C
46.5172
63.1538
144.447
158.654
48.0751
63.6089
147.277
159.850
F-C-C-C
396.124
408.000
756.727
779.639
403.649
415.983
771.244
789.339
S-S-S-S
1528.82
1542.01
1548.17
1601.85
1528.90
1542.11
1548.27
1601.91
S-S-S-C
1531.94
1542.28
1549.23
1603.29
1532.07
1542.39
1549.35
1603.37
S-S-C-C
1534.26
1543.64
1549.31
1604.18
1534.43
1543.59
1549.43
1604.27
S-C-C-C
1537.73
1543.64
1550.42
1605.67
1537.95
1543.77
1550.55
1605.78
C-C-C-C
1540.15
1544.85
1550.50
1606.56
1541.18
1546.99
1553.16
1606.57Although all the above examples fall into the category of the classical homogeneous boundary conditions, it has been demonstrated that they can be solved universally under the current framework by simply modifying the stiffness of the corresponding elastic springs. Since vibration results for the spherical shells with arbitrary boundary conditions are rare in the literature, some further numerical results for an open spherical shell with different elastically supported boundary conditions and their combinations are given in Table13, and first eight corresponding mode shapes with E1-C-E1-C boundary conditions are also drawn in Figure 8. A more complicated problem is one in which the spherical shell is multipoints clamped-constrained at boundary ends and the locations of these boundary point supports are equally spaced at boundaries α
=
0 and α
=
L
α. Table 14 shows the first eight frequencies with the various numbers of the clamped points. The material properties and geometrical dimensions in Tables 13 and 14 are the same as the model in Table 12. From Table 13, it can be seen that the frequency parameter increases with the boundary conditions changing from Λ-F-Λ-F to Λ-C-Λ-C  (
Λ
=
E
1
,
E
2
a
n
d
E
3
), which is due to the increasing boundary spring stiffness. Furthermore, a slight increasing frequency parameter can be observed with the boundary conditions varying from Λ-S-Λ-S to Λ-C-Λ-C while a huge increasing value is found subjected to the boundary restraints changing from Λ
-
F
-
Λ
-
F to Λ-S-Λ-S. From Table 14, it is found that the frequency becomes stable when the total number of clamped points reaches 40 and these frequencies finally converge to the ones of the uniformly C-F-C-F shell case.Table 13
First eight frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
L
2
ρ
h
/
D for an open spherical shell subjected to various classical-elastic combined boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
Modes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
E1-F-E1-F
139.644
155.540
177.982
178.238
296.232
297.075
376.141
390.785
E2-F-E2-F
171.100
183.000
189.780
191.112
337.909
374.572
386.047
398.328
E3-F-E3-F
51.1307
187.620
221.996
253.487
358.578
422.613
476.818
517.802
E1-S-E1-S
1527.08
1536.94
1545.89
1600.52
1604.08
1607.37
1614.80
1619.77
E2-S-E2-S
752.556
1379.20
1496.59
1529.73
1543.95
1568.62
1593.51
1602.16
E3-S-E3-S
1197.71
1534.13
1544.01
1553.96
1589.09
1604.06
1608.02
1612.91
E1-C-E1-C
1534.85
1537.51
1548.21
1603.92
1605.13
1612.69
1615.10
1624.01
E2-C-E2-C
1425.59
1513.95
1536.62
1547.13
1554.03
1599.93
1603.55
1606.38
E3-C-E3-C
1539.58
1546.14
1554.80
1590.30
1607.21
1612.97
1614.36
1619.72Table 14
First eight frequencies (Hz) for an open spherical shell with multipoints clamped-supported on the two edgesα
=
0 and α
=
L
α.
Number of clamped points
Mode orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
12.2312
17.9155
19.5800
29.0130
30.5394
51.4391
51.7373
56.4100
8
40.0975
42.7725
48.9036
53.6622
90.4094
94.7601
106.301
111.696
12
12.3097
43.6488
52.7028
63.2851
82.3730
102.290
113.423
115.059
16
28.0964
45.0074
54.4617
64.3798
90.0115
103.671
118.469
129.903
20
20.5605
46.5769
55.9624
63.4935
89.0453
105.809
119.636
127.748
24
10.8180
47.3839
56.3886
60.9230
87.8615
106.645
119.007
120.778
28
47.4370
48.1909
56.1141
61.0136
81.8681
106.898
120.396
120.396
32
47.2956
56.0249
61.1083
65.9971
78.4332
107.184
119.880
120.514
36
46.9057
55.4473
61.0340
73.1757
106.791
107.405
119.547
120.301
40
46.6960
55.3741
60.8831
72.6460
107.236
111.691
119.571
120.434
44
47.2532
55.2890
61.1750
73.6090
105.835
107.287
119.928
120.366
48
46.8644
55.4429
60.9559
72.8072
107.341
110.834
119.432
120.504
52
46.8610
55.3493
61.1851
72.8144
107.345
111.739
119.527
120.262
CC
46.9276
55.3297
61.3200
72.6933
107.363
111.138
119.577
120.454Figure 8
First four mode shapes for an open spherical shell with E1-C-E1-C boundary conditions.


## 3.3. Free Vibration Analysis of Closed Shells

As mentioned earlier, the unified formulation can be applied to open and closed shell structure. In Section3.2, the accuracy of the formulation applied to open shell has been verified. In order to further validate the accuracy of the unified method for the closed shells, the free vibration analysis of the closed shells, for example, the closed cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, will be investigated in the following text. From the procedure of the modeling framework, it can be known that the open shell can be expanded to a closed one conveniently just by setting the value of the coupling springs to be infinitely large when the subtended angle equals 360°. Furthermore, it is noted that the boundary restraint spring’s stiffness at the end edges β
=
0 and β
=
360° is automatically set to be zero. First of all, the coupling spring’s effect on the vibration behavior for the shells, for example, cylindrical shell, conical shell, and spherical shell, is concentrated on. Similar to the study for the effects on vibration characteristics of the boundary restraint spring, the nondimensional coupling spring parameters Γ
u, Γ
v, Γ
w, and Γ
W, which are defined as the ratios of the corresponding translational spring’s stiffness of α-axial, β-axial, and z-axial and rotational coupling spring’s stiffness to the transverse flexural stiffness D
=
E
h
3
/
12
(
1
-
μ
2
), are employed here. In Figure 9, variation of the 1st- and 3rd-order frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E against the coupling spring parameters Γ
ζ  (where ζ
=
u
,
v
,
w and W) of three different shells are depicted, respectively. It is noted that R denotes the radius of the smaller circular edge R
0 for the conical shell. The material properties for the three types of considered shells are given as follows: E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, and ρ
=
7800 kg/m3. And the geometrical dimensions are used as follows: for the cylindrical shell, R
=
2 m, L
=
3 m, and h
=
0
.
01 m; for the conical shell, R
0
=
1 m, L
=
2 m, h
=
0
.
01 m, and φ
=
45°; for the spherical shell, R
=
1 m, h
=
0
.
01 m, φ
0
=
30°, and φ
1
=
90°. In Figure 9, each of the shells is supposed to be clamped at edges α
=
0 and α
=
L
α, and the junction edge is coupled with all the four groups of springs, three groups of which are with infinite stiffness (1010
D) and the remaining one is assigned at different stiffness value (varying from 10−4
D to 1010
D).Figure 9
Effects of coupling spring stiffness on the 1st and 3rd frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E of shells with subtended angle θ
0
=
360° subjected to C-C boundary conditions: (a) cylindrical shell, (b) conical shell, and (c) spherical shell.
(a)
(b)
(c)From Figure9, it can be found that the frequency parameters Ω increase as the stiffness parameters Γ
ζ increase in the certain range. Specifically, it can be found from Figure 9(a) that the values of the two natural frequency parameters for cylindrical shell increase rapidly in the range of Γ
ζ (10−2–107) and keep at a level outside this range. In Figure 9(b), the frequency parameters for conical shell almost remain unchanged when the stiffness of the spring parameters Γ
ζ is larger than 108 or smaller than 10−2. In Figure 9(c), the influences of the coupling spring parameters of a spherical shell on frequency parameters are given. It is shown that the frequency curves change greatly within the spring parameters range (102 to 107). From Figures 9(a)–9(c), the frequency parameters almost keep at a level when the stiffness parameters Γ
ζ of the coupling springs are smaller than 10−2. As they further increase, a distinct influence can be observed, in which the frequency parameters increase rapidly, when they are beyond 108, the frequency parameters approach the utmost and remain unchanged. Thus, it is reasonable that the rigid connective condition can be simulated by setting the ratios of the corresponding coupling spring stiffness to the flexural stiffness D
=
E
h
3
/
12
(
1
-
μ
2
) to be 1010. In the following discussion, the value is employed to satisfy the rigid coupling condition at the interface for the shell with subtended angle θ
0
=
360° and then the open shells are expanded to corresponding closed shells. Furthermore, comparing Figure 9(c) with 9(a) and 9(b), it can be found that the influence of spring components k
w and K
w on the spherical shell is different from the cylindrical and conical shells, which may be because the spherical shell is doubly curved.


### 3.3.1. Cylindrical Shells

First of all, the accuracy of the formulation applied to a closed cylindrical shell is validated in Table15. The comparison is carried out with two classical boundary conditions, for example, C-F and C-C, to verify the proposed method using the following material and geometric parameters: E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
28, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
=
0
.
0635 m, L
=
0
.
502 m, and h
=
0
.
00163 m. The other parameters used in the calculations are m = 1~2 and n = 0~5, in which m and n are the axial and circumferential wavenumbers. The comparisons of the first few natural frequencies with [11] are listed in Table 15. Good agreement can be seen between the present solutions and the results in [11].Table 15
Comparison of the natural frequencies for a circular cylindrical shell with C-F and C-C boundary conditions.
Mode orders
C-F
C-C
m
n
FEM [11]
Ref. [11]
Present
FEM [11]
Ref. [11]
Present
1
0
1614.9
1615.2
1615.2
3229.8
3230.3
3230.4
1
467.58
467.34
468.10
1882.8
1880.9
1883.5
2
315.33
316.02
315.30
899.59
898.18
900.78
3
768.38
768.45
768.00
896.97
896.56
897.71
4
1463.3
1462.8
1462.5
1501.9
1501.6
1502.0
5
2363.1
2362.2
2362.3
2386.1
2386.0
2386.3
2
0
2583.1
2581.7
2583.8
5146.0
5139.8
5147.8
1
2044.0
2043.3
2045.1
3850.7
3848.9
3851.5
2
936.02
936.25
937.22
2017.8
2014.1
2019.9
3
914.16
915.13
914.71
1390.9
1388.9
1393.5
4
1518.7
1519.0
1518.6
1676.4
1676.0
1678.0
5
2401.9
2401.8
2401.8
2472.5
2472.6
2474.0In order to further validate the accuracy of the present formulation applied to cylindrical shell, a more complicated case in which the shell is elastically constrained at one end and the other end is clamped is carried out in Table16. For simplicity and convenience, the elastically supported end only has linear springs attached in the radial direction (
k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0
) and k
α
L
w varies from 0 to 108
G, where G represents the in-plane stiffness E
h
/
(
1
-
μ
2
). Table 16 compares the first four frequencies for several spring stiffness values calculated by the present method with those in [11], and the corresponding mode shapes clamped at one end and elastically supported at the other end (k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0 and k
α
L
w
=
0.01
G) are also depicted in Figure 10. Obviously, the case for k
α
L
w
=
0 represents C-F supported boundary conditions. An excellent agreement can be seen from the comparison, and the difference is very small. From Tables 15 and 16, the excellent accuracy and reliability of the current solution are demonstrated. Furthermore, Table 16 shows that the first four frequencies increase when the radial spring stiffness changes from 0 to 106
G, and they almost have no change after k
α
L
w
=
10
6
G.Table 16
First four frequencies for a clamped elastically supported shell (k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0).
Boundary conditionsk
α
L
w
Ref. [11]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
0
131.99
249.82
262.81
377.00
131.57
249.36
262.91
376.55
0.01G
183.01
278.17
279.76
404.12
183.11
278.17
280.00
404.23
0.1G
298.01
310.07
364.98
490.35
299.10
310.28
366.51
490.41
G
315.07
339.86
473.26
491.64
315.65
341.04
478.35
491.70
106
G
315.15
343.43
491.36
501.06
316.26
346.25
491.84
508.34
108
G
315.15
343.43
491.36
501.08
316.25
346.23
491.84
508.25Figure 10
First four mode shapes for closed cylindrical shells with one boundary end clamped and another end elastically supported (k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0 and k
α
L
w
=
0.01
G).
(a)
1st mode
(b)
2nd mode
(c)
3rd mode
(d)
4th modeAs mentioned earlier, the unified method can obtain the vibration characteristics for the shell with arbitrary boundary conditions, for example, uniform boundary restraints and nonuniform boundary supports. For the sake of completeness, the comparison of first eight frequencies for a closed cylindrical shell with single point clamped-supported at each end is listed in Table17. The material and geometrical parameters are E
=
216 GPa, μ
=
0.3, ρ
=
7900 kg/m3, R
=
0.237 m, h
=
0.003 m, and L
=
1 m. The points are located at (
0
,
0
) and (
L
α
,
0
). From the comparison with the results calculated by Chen et al. [12] in the table, an excellent agreement is observed. From Tables 15–17, the accuracy and reliability of the unified shell formulation applied to the closed cylindrical shell are validated well. Furthermore, some other numerical results for the cylindrical shell subjected to single point support with different restraint spring stiffness are presented in Table 17, which can be used for benchmarking by researchers as well as reference data for practicing engineers.Table 17
First eight frequencies (Hz) for a closed cylindrical shell with single point clamped-supported at each end.
Modes
E1-E1
E2-E2
E3-E3
SD-SD
S-S
C-C
Ref. [12]
ANSYS [12]
Present
1
0.15698
0.12164
0.09646
0.01870
0.01658
0.00
3.01
0.33651
2
19.5430
19.8210
19.4759
0.09810
19.8994
18.84
18.83
19.8442
3
21.2045
21.4837
20.8517
20.6303
20.8838
20.55
20.50
21.2408
4
31.9544
31.6035
31.9604
21.5527
31.9508
31.63
34.30
31.9679
5
32.8183
32.6079
32.8190
31.9495
32.8171
32.62
34.33
32.8170
6
70.1945
73.1681
67.2033
32.8171
68.2388
69.05
67.87
70.9657
7
71.3327
75.6887
72.7092
65.8760
76.7896
73.21
72.94
75.7491
8
97.5789
93.7181
97.4584
76.8374
97.5652
96.98
99.49
97.5773


### 3.3.2. Conical Shells

In this subsection, studies on the free vibration of closed conical shells are carried out. The accuracy and reliability of the present method are also examined. Table18 lists the comparison of the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
1
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E with those solutions obtained by Liew et al. [16] using the element free k
p-Ritz method, Shu [18] using the GDQ method, FSDT solutions obtained by Qu et al. [27] employing a modified variational approach, and a unified solution method presented by Su et al. [48] employing a modified Fourier series for conical shells subjected to different boundary conditions (i.e., SD-SD, SD-C, and C-C). The geometric and material parameters for closed conical shells are taken to be E
=
168 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
5700 kg/m3, L
sin
⁡
φ
/
R
1
=
0
.
5, h
/
R
1
=
0
.
01, R
1
=
1 m, and φ
=
45°, where R
1 is the radius of the larger edge. Similar to the study of closed cylindrical shell, m and n are employed to denote axial and circumferential wavenumbers. The wavenumbers used in the calculations are m
=
1 and n = 0~7. It is seen that the present results are in good agreement with those in literature. The slight discrepancies may be due to the different solutions methods in the four studies. From the competition studies presented in Table 18, it is concluded that the present method for closed conical shells is numerically accurate.Table 18
Comparison of frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
1
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed conical shell with different boundary conditions (m
=
1).
BC
Method
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SD-SD
Ref. [16]
0.2234
0.5462
0.6309
0.5061
0.3941
0.3337
0.3235
0.3510
Ref. [18]
0.2233
0.5463
0.6310
0.5062
0.3942
0.3340
0.3239
0.3514
Ref. [27]
0.2230
0.5460
0.6308
0.5061
0.3941
0.3336
0.3232
0.3504
Ref. [48]
0.2233
0.5461
0.6308
0.5062
0.3941
0.3337
0.3233
0.3505
Present
0.2233
0.5461
0.6309
0.5062
0.3942
0.3339
0.3238
0.3515
SD-C
Ref. [16]
0.8691
0.8113
0.6610
0.5244
0.4316
0.3822
0.3732
0.3980
Ref. [18]
0.8700
0.8118
0.6613
0.5246
0.4319
0.3826
0.3737
0.3987
Ref. [27]
0.8693
0.8115
0.6611
0.5245
0.4317
0.3823
0.3731
0.3977
Ref. [48]
0.8694
0.8115
0.6611
0.5246
0.4318
0.3824
0.3732
0.3978
Present
0.8697
0.8117
0.6612
0.5246
0.4318
0.3822
0.3720
0.3948
C-C
Ref. [16]
0.8732
0.8120
0.6696
0.5428
0.4565
0.4088
0.3961
0.4141
Ref. [18]
0.8732
0.8120
0.6696
0.5428
0.4566
0.4089
0.3963
0.4143
Ref. [27]
0.8726
0.8117
0.6694
0.5426
0.4563
0.4085
0.3956
0.4133
Ref. [48]
0.8726
0.8117
0.6694
0.5427
0.4564
0.4086
0.3958
0.4135
Present
0.8729
0.8119
0.6695
0.5427
0.4565
0.4088
0.3960
0.4139Since vibration results for the conical shells with arbitrary elastic boundary conditions are rare in the literature, some further numerical results for a closed conical shell subjected to different elastically supported boundary conditions and their combinations with various wavenumbers (n = 1~7, m
=
1) are given in Table 19 as the benchmarking by the researchers in the future and reference data for the engineers in practical engineering, and some selected corresponding mode shapes are also depicted in Figure 11. Furthermore, the vibration results for the closed conical shell with point supported are not yet available in the literature and this case is widely used in practicing engineering. Thus, some new results are calculated for the closed conical shells with three points supported at each end using different restraint spring stiffness in Table 20, which can be used for benchmarking by researchers as well as reference data for practicing engineers. As a special case, the locations of the three-point supports at each end of the conical shell are equally spaced here. Table 19 presents the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
0
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed conical shell with various classical, elastic boundary conditions and their combinations. Table 20 gives the first eight frequencies for the conical shell with three-point supports of different boundary spring restraints. The material and geometrical parameters of the models in these two tables are employed as follows: E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
0
=
1 m, L
=
3 m, and h
=
0
.
01 m; in Table 19, φ
=
45°; and in Table 20, φ
=
30°.Table 19
First several frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
0
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed conical shell with elastic boundary conditions (m
=
1).
BC
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SD-E1
0.28933
0.20624
0.12470
0.08195
0.06202
0.05701
0.06119
SD-E2
0.16324
0.12524
0.10755
0.09154
0.07779
0.07110
0.07249
SD-E3
0.32825
0.21771
0.14872
0.10699
0.08322
0.07325
0.07373
C-E1
0.30218
0.22873
0.14741
0.09222
0.07081
0.06334
0.06230
C-E2
0.16674
0.12956
0.12594
0.09838
0.08447
0.07970
0.07500
C-E3
0.33006
0.22365
0.15696
0.11607
0.09149
0.07906
0.07638
E1-E1
0.29558
0.20694
0.12597
0.08352
0.06367
0.05809
0.06180
E2-E2
0.14241
0.12291
0.10945
0.09596
0.08341
0.07593
0.07507
E3-E3
0.33004
0.22355
0.15677
0.11584
0.09126
0.07888
0.07627Table 20
First eight frequencies (Hz) for a closed conical shell with three points supported at each end for different boundary spring restraints.
Modes
BC
E1-E1
E2-E2
E3-E3
SD-SD
S-S
C-C
1
5.50848
5.46466
5.49980
2.67591
5.49922
5.50128
2
7.93799
7.99347
7.99228
5.49943
7.82854
8.01669
3
8.08121
8.29333
8.24191
6.10897
8.06805
8.25289
4
10.9531
10.8214
10.9137
6.55139
10.8263
10.9334
5
11.0659
11.0870
11.0938
10.6319
11.0359
11.1099
6
12.4547
13.5535
13.4218
10.8251
13.4350
13.7762
7
13.8351
18.5555
18.9106
13.0829
18.8797
18.9523
8
19.0665
21.1011
21.2714
13.2106
20.8085
21.3206Figure 11
Some selected mode shapes for closed conical shells with various wavenumbersn subjected to E3-E3 boundary conditions (
m
=
1
).
(a)
n
=
1
(b)
n
=
3
(c)
n
=
5
(d)
n
=
7


### 3.3.3. Spherical Shells

In this subsection, the closed spherical shell with arbitrary boundary conditions, for example, classical boundary constraint, elastically supported boundary, and point supports, is considered. First, the accuracy and reliability of the unified formulation applied to closed spherical shells are verified. Table21 compares the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a spherical shell subjected to various classical boundary conditions with results obtained by Qu et al. [27]. The material and geometrical parameters are used as follows: E
=
168 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
5700 kg/m3, φ
0
=
π
/
8, φ
1
=
π
/
2, h
/
R
=
0
.
05, and R
=
1 m. Similar to the investigation of cylindrical shell, m and n are used to express α-axial and β-axial wavenumbers. The values used in the calculations are m
=
1 and n = 0~7. From the competition in Table 21, an excellent agreement can be found. However, some slight discrepancies are seen in Table 21, which may be due to the different solutions methods in the three studies. From Table 21, it is concluded that the present method applied to closed spherical shells is numerically accurate.Table 21
Comparison of the frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for an annular spherical shell with different boundary conditions (m
=
1).
BC
Method
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F-F
Ref. [27]
0.87054
0.86412
0.05726
0.15323
0.27900
0.42940
0.60188
0.79559
ANSYS [27]
0.87054
0.86427
0.05728
0.15330
0.27924
0.43002
0.60321
0.79810
Present
0.87140
0.86508
0.05789
0.15559
0.28434
0.43914
0.61791
0.82054
F-C
Ref. [27]
0.81661
0.60880
0.34857
0.65733
0.96537
1.11557
1.24402
1.40026
ANSYS [27]
0.81659
0.60890
0.34868
0.65762
0.96592
1.11625
1.24523
1.40254
Present
0.81941
0.61013
0.35461
0.66976
0.97533
1.12665
1.26369
1.42208
C-F
Ref. [27]
0.40549
0.15170
0.07636
0.15412
0.27908
0.42941
0.60189
0.79559
ANSYS [27]
0.40597
0.15184
0.07641
0.15420
0.27932
0.43003
0.60321
0.79810
Present
0.40567
0.12814
0.07251
0.15645
0.28441
0.43914
0.61787
0.82043
C-C
Ref. [27]
0.98710
1.02639
1.00292
0.99803
1.04274
1.12623
1.24578
1.40056
ANSYS [27]
0.98741
1.02682
1.00340
0.99842
1.04314
1.12685
1.24697
1.40283
Present
0.98842
1.01639
0.97129
0.98775
1.04467
1.13639
1.26559
1.43364Since vibration results for the closed spherical shells with more complex boundaries, such as elastic restraints and point supports, are not yet available in the literature, some new results are calculated for closed spherical shells, which can be used for benchmarking by researchers as well as reference data for practicing engineers. Table22 gives the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E with different wavenumbers (m
=
1 and n = 0~7) subjected to various elastic restraints, and the several corresponding mode shapes with E3-E3 are depicted in Figure 12. Table 23 lists first eight frequencies for a closed spherical shell with single point classically and elastically supported at each end. For simplicity and convenience, the single point along each end is located at (
0
,
0
) and (
L
α
,
0
), respectively. The material properties and geometrical dimensions for the two tables are the same as the ones in Table 21. Unlike the vibrations for spherical shells with uniform boundary conditions, an interesting phenomenon can be found from Table 23 in which the discrepancy of the natural frequency is little among the various boundary conditions, which is maybe because some springs stiffness contributes little to the vibrations for single point support.Table 22
First several frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed spherical shell with various elastic restraints (m
=
1).
BC
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
C-E1
1.18313
1.01569
0.95880
0.97538
1.03337
1.12647
1.25696
1.42669
C-E2
0.98843
0.96798
0.93672
0.96724
1.03005
1.12504
1.25641
1.42658
C-E3
0.98274
1.01433
0.97125
0.98774
1.04461
1.13571
1.26302
1.42817
E1-E1
0.95591
1.02259
0.96528
0.97748
1.03389
1.12657
1.25698
1.42669
E2-E2
0.98843
0.90082
0.86780
0.93593
1.02066
1.12285
1.25598
1.42651
E3-E3
0.97787
1.00847
0.97081
0.98792
1.04458
1.13558
1.26293
1.42814Table 23
First eight frequencies (Hz) for a closed spherical shell with single point classically and elastically supported at each end.
Modes
BC
E1-E1
E2-E2
E3-E3
SD-SD
S-S
C-C
1
0.14643
0.14493
0.14529
0.09146
0.14496
0.14487
2
24.2791
23.2846
23.3128
0.14486
24.7998
23.2793
3
42.0388
42.0100
42.0387
20.9759
42.0388
42.0388
4
53.2235
47.4842
47.1233
42.0388
60.6122
47.6368
5
94.8830
90.2265
90.2590
54.9703
115.480
90.2196
6
116.457
115.596
116.457
90.4786
116.457
116.457
7
147.464
145.630
147.464
116.457
147.464
147.464
8
185.994
183.715
182.568
147.464
193.759
183.733Figure 12
Several selected mode shapes for closed spherical shells with different wavenumbers subjected to E3-E3  (
m
=
1
).
(a)
n
=
1
(b)
n
=
3
(c)
n
=
5
(d)
n
=
7


## 3.3.1. Cylindrical Shells

First of all, the accuracy of the formulation applied to a closed cylindrical shell is validated in Table15. The comparison is carried out with two classical boundary conditions, for example, C-F and C-C, to verify the proposed method using the following material and geometric parameters: E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
28, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
=
0
.
0635 m, L
=
0
.
502 m, and h
=
0
.
00163 m. The other parameters used in the calculations are m = 1~2 and n = 0~5, in which m and n are the axial and circumferential wavenumbers. The comparisons of the first few natural frequencies with [11] are listed in Table 15. Good agreement can be seen between the present solutions and the results in [11].Table 15
Comparison of the natural frequencies for a circular cylindrical shell with C-F and C-C boundary conditions.
Mode orders
C-F
C-C
m
n
FEM [11]
Ref. [11]
Present
FEM [11]
Ref. [11]
Present
1
0
1614.9
1615.2
1615.2
3229.8
3230.3
3230.4
1
467.58
467.34
468.10
1882.8
1880.9
1883.5
2
315.33
316.02
315.30
899.59
898.18
900.78
3
768.38
768.45
768.00
896.97
896.56
897.71
4
1463.3
1462.8
1462.5
1501.9
1501.6
1502.0
5
2363.1
2362.2
2362.3
2386.1
2386.0
2386.3
2
0
2583.1
2581.7
2583.8
5146.0
5139.8
5147.8
1
2044.0
2043.3
2045.1
3850.7
3848.9
3851.5
2
936.02
936.25
937.22
2017.8
2014.1
2019.9
3
914.16
915.13
914.71
1390.9
1388.9
1393.5
4
1518.7
1519.0
1518.6
1676.4
1676.0
1678.0
5
2401.9
2401.8
2401.8
2472.5
2472.6
2474.0In order to further validate the accuracy of the present formulation applied to cylindrical shell, a more complicated case in which the shell is elastically constrained at one end and the other end is clamped is carried out in Table16. For simplicity and convenience, the elastically supported end only has linear springs attached in the radial direction (
k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0
) and k
α
L
w varies from 0 to 108
G, where G represents the in-plane stiffness E
h
/
(
1
-
μ
2
). Table 16 compares the first four frequencies for several spring stiffness values calculated by the present method with those in [11], and the corresponding mode shapes clamped at one end and elastically supported at the other end (k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0 and k
α
L
w
=
0.01
G) are also depicted in Figure 10. Obviously, the case for k
α
L
w
=
0 represents C-F supported boundary conditions. An excellent agreement can be seen from the comparison, and the difference is very small. From Tables 15 and 16, the excellent accuracy and reliability of the current solution are demonstrated. Furthermore, Table 16 shows that the first four frequencies increase when the radial spring stiffness changes from 0 to 106
G, and they almost have no change after k
α
L
w
=
10
6
G.Table 16
First four frequencies for a clamped elastically supported shell (k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0).
Boundary conditionsk
α
L
w
Ref. [11]
Present
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
0
131.99
249.82
262.81
377.00
131.57
249.36
262.91
376.55
0.01G
183.01
278.17
279.76
404.12
183.11
278.17
280.00
404.23
0.1G
298.01
310.07
364.98
490.35
299.10
310.28
366.51
490.41
G
315.07
339.86
473.26
491.64
315.65
341.04
478.35
491.70
106
G
315.15
343.43
491.36
501.06
316.26
346.25
491.84
508.34
108
G
315.15
343.43
491.36
501.08
316.25
346.23
491.84
508.25Figure 10
First four mode shapes for closed cylindrical shells with one boundary end clamped and another end elastically supported (k
α
L
u
=
k
α
L
v
=
K
α
L
w
=
0 and k
α
L
w
=
0.01
G).
(a)
1st mode
(b)
2nd mode
(c)
3rd mode
(d)
4th modeAs mentioned earlier, the unified method can obtain the vibration characteristics for the shell with arbitrary boundary conditions, for example, uniform boundary restraints and nonuniform boundary supports. For the sake of completeness, the comparison of first eight frequencies for a closed cylindrical shell with single point clamped-supported at each end is listed in Table17. The material and geometrical parameters are E
=
216 GPa, μ
=
0.3, ρ
=
7900 kg/m3, R
=
0.237 m, h
=
0.003 m, and L
=
1 m. The points are located at (
0
,
0
) and (
L
α
,
0
). From the comparison with the results calculated by Chen et al. [12] in the table, an excellent agreement is observed. From Tables 15–17, the accuracy and reliability of the unified shell formulation applied to the closed cylindrical shell are validated well. Furthermore, some other numerical results for the cylindrical shell subjected to single point support with different restraint spring stiffness are presented in Table 17, which can be used for benchmarking by researchers as well as reference data for practicing engineers.Table 17
First eight frequencies (Hz) for a closed cylindrical shell with single point clamped-supported at each end.
Modes
E1-E1
E2-E2
E3-E3
SD-SD
S-S
C-C
Ref. [12]
ANSYS [12]
Present
1
0.15698
0.12164
0.09646
0.01870
0.01658
0.00
3.01
0.33651
2
19.5430
19.8210
19.4759
0.09810
19.8994
18.84
18.83
19.8442
3
21.2045
21.4837
20.8517
20.6303
20.8838
20.55
20.50
21.2408
4
31.9544
31.6035
31.9604
21.5527
31.9508
31.63
34.30
31.9679
5
32.8183
32.6079
32.8190
31.9495
32.8171
32.62
34.33
32.8170
6
70.1945
73.1681
67.2033
32.8171
68.2388
69.05
67.87
70.9657
7
71.3327
75.6887
72.7092
65.8760
76.7896
73.21
72.94
75.7491
8
97.5789
93.7181
97.4584
76.8374
97.5652
96.98
99.49
97.5773


## 3.3.2. Conical Shells

In this subsection, studies on the free vibration of closed conical shells are carried out. The accuracy and reliability of the present method are also examined. Table18 lists the comparison of the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
1
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E with those solutions obtained by Liew et al. [16] using the element free k
p-Ritz method, Shu [18] using the GDQ method, FSDT solutions obtained by Qu et al. [27] employing a modified variational approach, and a unified solution method presented by Su et al. [48] employing a modified Fourier series for conical shells subjected to different boundary conditions (i.e., SD-SD, SD-C, and C-C). The geometric and material parameters for closed conical shells are taken to be E
=
168 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
5700 kg/m3, L
sin
⁡
φ
/
R
1
=
0
.
5, h
/
R
1
=
0
.
01, R
1
=
1 m, and φ
=
45°, where R
1 is the radius of the larger edge. Similar to the study of closed cylindrical shell, m and n are employed to denote axial and circumferential wavenumbers. The wavenumbers used in the calculations are m
=
1 and n = 0~7. It is seen that the present results are in good agreement with those in literature. The slight discrepancies may be due to the different solutions methods in the four studies. From the competition studies presented in Table 18, it is concluded that the present method for closed conical shells is numerically accurate.Table 18
Comparison of frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
1
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed conical shell with different boundary conditions (m
=
1).
BC
Method
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SD-SD
Ref. [16]
0.2234
0.5462
0.6309
0.5061
0.3941
0.3337
0.3235
0.3510
Ref. [18]
0.2233
0.5463
0.6310
0.5062
0.3942
0.3340
0.3239
0.3514
Ref. [27]
0.2230
0.5460
0.6308
0.5061
0.3941
0.3336
0.3232
0.3504
Ref. [48]
0.2233
0.5461
0.6308
0.5062
0.3941
0.3337
0.3233
0.3505
Present
0.2233
0.5461
0.6309
0.5062
0.3942
0.3339
0.3238
0.3515
SD-C
Ref. [16]
0.8691
0.8113
0.6610
0.5244
0.4316
0.3822
0.3732
0.3980
Ref. [18]
0.8700
0.8118
0.6613
0.5246
0.4319
0.3826
0.3737
0.3987
Ref. [27]
0.8693
0.8115
0.6611
0.5245
0.4317
0.3823
0.3731
0.3977
Ref. [48]
0.8694
0.8115
0.6611
0.5246
0.4318
0.3824
0.3732
0.3978
Present
0.8697
0.8117
0.6612
0.5246
0.4318
0.3822
0.3720
0.3948
C-C
Ref. [16]
0.8732
0.8120
0.6696
0.5428
0.4565
0.4088
0.3961
0.4141
Ref. [18]
0.8732
0.8120
0.6696
0.5428
0.4566
0.4089
0.3963
0.4143
Ref. [27]
0.8726
0.8117
0.6694
0.5426
0.4563
0.4085
0.3956
0.4133
Ref. [48]
0.8726
0.8117
0.6694
0.5427
0.4564
0.4086
0.3958
0.4135
Present
0.8729
0.8119
0.6695
0.5427
0.4565
0.4088
0.3960
0.4139Since vibration results for the conical shells with arbitrary elastic boundary conditions are rare in the literature, some further numerical results for a closed conical shell subjected to different elastically supported boundary conditions and their combinations with various wavenumbers (n = 1~7, m
=
1) are given in Table 19 as the benchmarking by the researchers in the future and reference data for the engineers in practical engineering, and some selected corresponding mode shapes are also depicted in Figure 11. Furthermore, the vibration results for the closed conical shell with point supported are not yet available in the literature and this case is widely used in practicing engineering. Thus, some new results are calculated for the closed conical shells with three points supported at each end using different restraint spring stiffness in Table 20, which can be used for benchmarking by researchers as well as reference data for practicing engineers. As a special case, the locations of the three-point supports at each end of the conical shell are equally spaced here. Table 19 presents the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
0
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed conical shell with various classical, elastic boundary conditions and their combinations. Table 20 gives the first eight frequencies for the conical shell with three-point supports of different boundary spring restraints. The material and geometrical parameters of the models in these two tables are employed as follows: E
=
210 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
7800 kg/m3, R
0
=
1 m, L
=
3 m, and h
=
0
.
01 m; in Table 19, φ
=
45°; and in Table 20, φ
=
30°.Table 19
First several frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
0
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed conical shell with elastic boundary conditions (m
=
1).
BC
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SD-E1
0.28933
0.20624
0.12470
0.08195
0.06202
0.05701
0.06119
SD-E2
0.16324
0.12524
0.10755
0.09154
0.07779
0.07110
0.07249
SD-E3
0.32825
0.21771
0.14872
0.10699
0.08322
0.07325
0.07373
C-E1
0.30218
0.22873
0.14741
0.09222
0.07081
0.06334
0.06230
C-E2
0.16674
0.12956
0.12594
0.09838
0.08447
0.07970
0.07500
C-E3
0.33006
0.22365
0.15696
0.11607
0.09149
0.07906
0.07638
E1-E1
0.29558
0.20694
0.12597
0.08352
0.06367
0.05809
0.06180
E2-E2
0.14241
0.12291
0.10945
0.09596
0.08341
0.07593
0.07507
E3-E3
0.33004
0.22355
0.15677
0.11584
0.09126
0.07888
0.07627Table 20
First eight frequencies (Hz) for a closed conical shell with three points supported at each end for different boundary spring restraints.
Modes
BC
E1-E1
E2-E2
E3-E3
SD-SD
S-S
C-C
1
5.50848
5.46466
5.49980
2.67591
5.49922
5.50128
2
7.93799
7.99347
7.99228
5.49943
7.82854
8.01669
3
8.08121
8.29333
8.24191
6.10897
8.06805
8.25289
4
10.9531
10.8214
10.9137
6.55139
10.8263
10.9334
5
11.0659
11.0870
11.0938
10.6319
11.0359
11.1099
6
12.4547
13.5535
13.4218
10.8251
13.4350
13.7762
7
13.8351
18.5555
18.9106
13.0829
18.8797
18.9523
8
19.0665
21.1011
21.2714
13.2106
20.8085
21.3206Figure 11
Some selected mode shapes for closed conical shells with various wavenumbersn subjected to E3-E3 boundary conditions (
m
=
1
).
(a)
n
=
1
(b)
n
=
3
(c)
n
=
5
(d)
n
=
7


## 3.3.3. Spherical Shells

In this subsection, the closed spherical shell with arbitrary boundary conditions, for example, classical boundary constraint, elastically supported boundary, and point supports, is considered. First, the accuracy and reliability of the unified formulation applied to closed spherical shells are verified. Table21 compares the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a spherical shell subjected to various classical boundary conditions with results obtained by Qu et al. [27]. The material and geometrical parameters are used as follows: E
=
168 GPa, μ
=
0
.
3, ρ
=
5700 kg/m3, φ
0
=
π
/
8, φ
1
=
π
/
2, h
/
R
=
0
.
05, and R
=
1 m. Similar to the investigation of cylindrical shell, m and n are used to express α-axial and β-axial wavenumbers. The values used in the calculations are m
=
1 and n = 0~7. From the competition in Table 21, an excellent agreement can be found. However, some slight discrepancies are seen in Table 21, which may be due to the different solutions methods in the three studies. From Table 21, it is concluded that the present method applied to closed spherical shells is numerically accurate.Table 21
Comparison of the frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for an annular spherical shell with different boundary conditions (m
=
1).
BC
Method
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F-F
Ref. [27]
0.87054
0.86412
0.05726
0.15323
0.27900
0.42940
0.60188
0.79559
ANSYS [27]
0.87054
0.86427
0.05728
0.15330
0.27924
0.43002
0.60321
0.79810
Present
0.87140
0.86508
0.05789
0.15559
0.28434
0.43914
0.61791
0.82054
F-C
Ref. [27]
0.81661
0.60880
0.34857
0.65733
0.96537
1.11557
1.24402
1.40026
ANSYS [27]
0.81659
0.60890
0.34868
0.65762
0.96592
1.11625
1.24523
1.40254
Present
0.81941
0.61013
0.35461
0.66976
0.97533
1.12665
1.26369
1.42208
C-F
Ref. [27]
0.40549
0.15170
0.07636
0.15412
0.27908
0.42941
0.60189
0.79559
ANSYS [27]
0.40597
0.15184
0.07641
0.15420
0.27932
0.43003
0.60321
0.79810
Present
0.40567
0.12814
0.07251
0.15645
0.28441
0.43914
0.61787
0.82043
C-C
Ref. [27]
0.98710
1.02639
1.00292
0.99803
1.04274
1.12623
1.24578
1.40056
ANSYS [27]
0.98741
1.02682
1.00340
0.99842
1.04314
1.12685
1.24697
1.40283
Present
0.98842
1.01639
0.97129
0.98775
1.04467
1.13639
1.26559
1.43364Since vibration results for the closed spherical shells with more complex boundaries, such as elastic restraints and point supports, are not yet available in the literature, some new results are calculated for closed spherical shells, which can be used for benchmarking by researchers as well as reference data for practicing engineers. Table22 gives the first several frequency parameters Ω
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E with different wavenumbers (m
=
1 and n = 0~7) subjected to various elastic restraints, and the several corresponding mode shapes with E3-E3 are depicted in Figure 12. Table 23 lists first eight frequencies for a closed spherical shell with single point classically and elastically supported at each end. For simplicity and convenience, the single point along each end is located at (
0
,
0
) and (
L
α
,
0
), respectively. The material properties and geometrical dimensions for the two tables are the same as the ones in Table 21. Unlike the vibrations for spherical shells with uniform boundary conditions, an interesting phenomenon can be found from Table 23 in which the discrepancy of the natural frequency is little among the various boundary conditions, which is maybe because some springs stiffness contributes little to the vibrations for single point support.Table 22
First several frequency parametersΩ
=
ω
R
ρ
1
-
μ
2
/
E for a closed spherical shell with various elastic restraints (m
=
1).
BC
n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
C-E1
1.18313
1.01569
0.95880
0.97538
1.03337
1.12647
1.25696
1.42669
C-E2
0.98843
0.96798
0.93672
0.96724
1.03005
1.12504
1.25641
1.42658
C-E3
0.98274
1.01433
0.97125
0.98774
1.04461
1.13571
1.26302
1.42817
E1-E1
0.95591
1.02259
0.96528
0.97748
1.03389
1.12657
1.25698
1.42669
E2-E2
0.98843
0.90082
0.86780
0.93593
1.02066
1.12285
1.25598
1.42651
E3-E3
0.97787
1.00847
0.97081
0.98792
1.04458
1.13558
1.26293
1.42814Table 23
First eight frequencies (Hz) for a closed spherical shell with single point classically and elastically supported at each end.
Modes
BC
E1-E1
E2-E2
E3-E3
SD-SD
S-S
C-C
1
0.14643
0.14493
0.14529
0.09146
0.14496
0.14487
2
24.2791
23.2846
23.3128
0.14486
24.7998
23.2793
3
42.0388
42.0100
42.0387
20.9759
42.0388
42.0388
4
53.2235
47.4842
47.1233
42.0388
60.6122
47.6368
5
94.8830
90.2265
90.2590
54.9703
115.480
90.2196
6
116.457
115.596
116.457
90.4786
116.457
116.457
7
147.464
145.630
147.464
116.457
147.464
147.464
8
185.994
183.715
182.568
147.464
193.759
183.733Figure 12
Several selected mode shapes for closed spherical shells with different wavenumbers subjected to E3-E3  (
m
=
1
).
(a)
n
=
1
(b)
n
=
3
(c)
n
=
5
(d)
n
=
7


## 4. Conclusion

In this paper, a unified solution method for the free vibrations of the open and closed cylindrical, conical, and spherical shells with arbitrary boundary conditions, for example, classical, elastic, and point boundary supports, has been presented. The classical Flügge thin shell theory based on Kirchhoff assumptions is adopted to formulate the theoretical model. Regardless of the boundary conditions, the displacement of the thin shell is invariantly expressed as the expansion series using SGM, which is composed of a standard cosine series and auxiliary functions introduced to accelerate the convergence of the expansion series and eliminate all the potential discontinuities at the boundary. The boundary conditions can be achieved by the artificial spring technique and different boundary conditions can be simulated conveniently by just varying the stiffness of corresponding boundary springs. The unknown expansion coefficients are solved by using the Rayleigh-Ritz method. In comparison with most existing techniques, the present method does not require any inconvenient formulation or procedural modifications to accommodate different boundary conditions or geometrical shapes for thin shells. The excellent accuracy and reliability of the proposed method have been adequately confirmed by comparing the present results with those available in literature and FEM. Based on this, a number of examples have been carried out to illustrate the influences on the vibration behavior of the geometrical dimensions and the boundary restraint parameters of open and closed shells. Moreover, some new results for the shell with various geometrical dimensions and elastic boundary conditions are presented, which can serve as a benchmark solution for other computational techniques in the future research. It should be pointed out that this solution method can be readily extended to the composite laminated and functionally graded shells with varying distributions of geometrical dimensions. Furthermore this method can also be expected to be applicable to study vibration analysis of shell combinations.



---

*Source: 4097123-2016-01-12.xml*