Er Aslan 2005

Acta Mechanica 181, 43–63 (2006)
Acta Mechanica
DOI 10.1007/s00707-005-0276-5 Printed in Austria
On the plane strain and plane stress solutions

of functionally graded rotating solid shaft
and solid disk problems
A. N. Eraslan and T. Akis, Ankara, Turkey
Received March 10, 2005; revised June 9, 2005

Published online: December 9, 2005 Ó Springer-Verlag 2005
Summary. Closed form solutions to functionally graded rotating solid shaft and rotating solid disk
problems are obtained under generalized plane strain and plane stress assumptions, respectively. The
nonhomogeneity in the material arises from the fact that the modulus of elasticity of the material varies
radially according to two different continuously nonlinear forms: exponential and parabolic. Both forms
contain two material parameters and lead to finite values of the modulus of elasticity at the center.
Analytical expressions for the stresses at the center are determined. These limiting expressions indicate that
at the center of shaft/disk: (i) the stresses are finite, (ii) the radial and the circumferential stress components
are equal, and (iii) the values of the stresses are independent of the variation of the modulus of elasticity. It
is also shown mathematically that the nonhomogeneous solutions presented here reduce to those of
homogeneous ones by an appropriate choice of the material parameters describing the variation of the
modulus of elasticity.
1 Introduction
The research on the prediction of stresses in rotating shafts/disks has never ceased because of
the importance of these basic structures in numerous civil, mechanical, electrical and computer
engineering applications. Plane strain analytical solutions of rotating solid and hollow shaft
problems as well as plane stress analytical solutions of rotating solid and annular disk prob-
lems, both in the elastic stress state, have been available for many years in standard and
advanced textbooks [1]–[5]. Solutions involving elastic-plastic stress states, fully plastic stress
state, thickness variability and material nonhomogeneity relevant to this investigation may be
found in recent research articles by Gamer and Sayir [6], Mack [7], Gamer et al. [8], Eraslan [9],
Gamer [10], Güven [11], Eraslan [12], Eraslan and Orcan [13], [14], Eraslan [15], [16], Horgan
and Chan [17], [18], Güven and Çelik [19], and Ma et al. [20].
The aim of this investigation is to derive analytical solutions for functionally graded rotating
solid shafts/disks. A functionally graded material (FGM) is nonhomogeneous in its composi-
tion so that its properties like modulus of elasticity, modulus of rigidity, Poisson’s ratio,
coefficient of thermal expansion may vary continuously throughout the material. Since the
modulus of elasticity E is important in the determination of the strength of the structural
element during operation, it is of engineering interest to find out the effect of a variable
44 A. N. Eraslan and T. Akis
1.6 1.6
Nondimensional modulus of elasticity

Nondimensional modulus of elasticity
n = – 0.4
1.4 1.4
n = –0.4
k = 0.6
k = 0.9 k = 0.6
k = 0.9
1.2 1.2
k = 1.2 k = 1.2
n = 0.0 n = 0.0
1.0 1.0
k = 1.2 k = 1.2
0.8 n = 0.4 0.8

k = 0.9 k = 0.9 n = 0.4
k = 0.6
k = 0.6
0.6 0.6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a r/b b r/b
Fig. 1. Variation of E=E0 with r=b for different values of n using k as a parameter by the use of
a exponential profile, Eq. (1), b parabolic profile, Eq. (2)
modulus of elasticity on the deformation behavior of basic structures. In this work, the
modulus of elasticity E of the rotating shaft/disk material is assumed to vary radially according
to two different continuously nonlinear forms;
(1) Exponential:
r k
E ¼ E0 enðbÞ : ð1Þ
(2) Parabolic:
r k
E ¼ E0 1 n ; ð2Þ
b
where E0 is the reference value of E, r the radial coordinate, b the radius, and n and k are
material parameters. Using the forms given in the equations above, a wide range of nonlinear
and continuous profiles to describe a reasonable variation of E in the material may be achieved.
Using exponential distribution, Eq. (1), the variations of the nondimensional modulus of
elasticity E=E0 with r=b in the range 0 < r=b < 1 are calculated for different values of the
parameters n and k and plotted in Fig. 1a. In this figure, all distributions above n ¼ 0 cor-
respond to n ¼ 0:4 and the ones below correspond to n ¼ 0:4. Parameter n determines the
value of E at the edge (r=b ¼ 1) relative to E0 while k determines the shape of the profile, as
seen in Fig. 1a. The variation of E=E0 according to the parabolic equation, Eq. (2), in the
material with parameters n and k is shown in Fig. 1b. The same scales are used in drawing Fig.
1a and b to allow comparison.
In the closely related theoretical studies by Horgan and Chan [17], [18] the variation of E is
described by the nonlinear function E ¼ E0 ðr=bÞn . An attempt was made by the authors to
predict the stresses in a rotating solid disk using this profile. However, since E ¼ 0 at the center
Functionally graded rotating solid shaft and solid disk problems 45
of the disk, the results obtained are mathematically correct but physically unrealistic as the
center is approached. In this work, the modulus of elasticity is nonzero and equal to E0 at the
center.
Two different problems for each of the two profiles, i.e., Eqs. (1) and (2), are considered.
First, generalized plane strain and then plane stress solutions are obtained. Displacement
formulations are performed, and the resulting hypergeometric differential equations of different
types are solved by the introduction of appropriate transformations. Analytical expressions for
the stresses and their limits at the center are determined. It is apparent from these expressions
that the stresses are finite at the center and independent of the variation of E within the
material. The reduction of the nonhomogeneous solutions to their homogeneous counterparts
are performed by setting n ¼ 0.
The analytical FGM solutions presented in this paper can be applied to various important
problems in engineering. They can be used, for example, to analyze deformations of FGM
rotating or stationary hollow shafts and/or annular disks subjected to different loading and
boundary conditions, to solve some combined material and topological optimization problems
for rotating machinery, and to solve similar problems governed by similar types of differential
equations. To this aim, we include a sample problem in which one of the plane strain solutions
is used to determine the stresses and elastic limit pressure in a thick walled FGM pressure
chamber.
2 Plane strain solution
Cylindrical polar coordinates (r, h, z) are considered. A state of generalized plane strain and
infinitesimal deformations are presumed. Furthermore, the notation of Timoshenko and
Goodier [2] is used. Hence, in the formulation, rj and j denote a normal stress and a normal
strain component, respectively, and u is the radial component of the displacement vector.
Strain-displacement relations and the equations of generalized Hooke’s law together with the
equation of equilibrium in radial direction given by [2],
d
ðrrr Þ rh ¼ qx2 r2 ; ð3Þ
dr
form the basis for the entire analysis. Here, q stands for the mass density and x is the
constant angular speed. In a state of generalized plane strain, i.e., z ¼ constant, stress-
displacement relations take the forms for the radial, circumferential, and axial components,
respectively, as

EðrÞ du
rr ¼ rmz þ mu þ rð1 mÞ ; ð4Þ
rð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞ dr

EðrÞ du
rh ¼ rmz þ ð1 mÞu þ rm ; ð5Þ

EðrÞ du
rz ¼ rð1 mÞz þ mu þ rm ; ð6Þ
where m is Poisson’s ratio. Substitution of Eqs. (4) and (5) into Eq. (3), and the use of either
Eq. (1) or (2) lead to the governing differential equation for the radial displacement u. The
general solution is cast into the form
uðrÞ ¼ C1 PðrÞ þ C2 QðrÞ þ RðrÞ; ð7Þ

where Ci is an arbitrary integration constant, P and Q are homogeneous solutions and R is a
particular integral solution which is determined by the method of variation of parameters as
Z r Z r
QðnÞFðnÞ PðnÞFðnÞ
RðrÞ ¼ PðrÞ dn þ QðrÞ dn; ð8Þ
0 WðnÞ 0 WðnÞ
where FðrÞ is the nonhomogeneous term of the differential equation and
dQ dP
WðrÞ ¼ PðrÞ QðrÞ : ð9Þ
dr dr
In view of the general solution, Eq. (7), the stresses become

EðrÞ dP dQ
rr ¼ C1 mP þ rð1 mÞ þ C2 mQ þ rð1 mÞ þ mR
rð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞ dr dr

dR
þ r mz þ ð1 mÞ ; ð10Þ
dr

EðrÞ dP dQ
rh ¼ C1 ð1 mÞP þ rm þ C2 ð1 mÞQ þ rm þ ð1 mÞR

dR
þ rm z þ ; ð11Þ
dr
( " # " #
EðrÞ dP dQ
rz ¼ C1 m P þ r þ C2 m Q þ r þ mR
" #)
dR
þ r ð1 mÞz þ m : ð12Þ
dr
The forms of P, Q and F will be determined next.
2.1 Exponential profile
The governing differential equation is

h r k i
2
1 m 1 kn
d u r k du b
r2 2 þ r 1 kn u
dr b dr ð1 mÞ
r k
k
enðbÞ ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞqx2 r3 kn br mz r
¼ þ : ð13Þ
E0 ð1 mÞ 1m
Hence, the nonhomogeneous term F turns out to be
r k
k
enðbÞ ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞqx2 r kn br mz
FðrÞ ¼ þ : ð14Þ
E0 ð1 mÞ ð1 mÞr
The nonhomogeneous differential equation, Eq. (13), is of confluent hypergeometric type [13],
[14] which may be solved by introducing the transformation: uðrÞ ¼ ryðnðr=bÞk Þ. The homo-
geneous part is transformed into
d2 y 2 þ kð1 xÞ dy 1
x þ y ¼ 0; ð15Þ
dx2 k dx kð1 mÞ
in which the new independent variable x stands for nðr=bÞk . Equation (15) is the standard
form confluent hypergeometric differential equation and its solution is found elsewhere [21]
as
yðxÞ ¼ C1 FC ða; b; xÞ þ C^2 x2=k FC ða b þ 1; 2 b; xÞ; ð16Þ
where FC ða; b; xÞ is the confluent hypergeometric function defined by the series [21]
a aða þ 1Þ aða þ 1Þða þ 2Þ

FC ða; b; xÞ ¼ 1 þ xþ x2 þ x3 þ . . . : ð17Þ
b 1! bðb þ 1Þ 2! bðb þ 1Þðb þ 2Þ 3!
The arguments a and b of FC are determined to be

1 2
a¼ and b¼1þ : ð18Þ
kð1 mÞ k
Finally, using uðrÞ ¼ ryðnðr=bÞk Þ the homogeneous solutions are obtained as

PðrÞ ¼ rFC a; b; nðr=bÞk ; ð19Þ
1
QðrÞ ¼ FC a b þ 1; 2 b; nðr=bÞk : ð20Þ
r
2.2 Parabolic profile
The elastic equation and the nonhomogeneous term become

r k d2 u r k du 1 m n½1 mð1 þ kÞrk
2 b
r 1n þ r 1 nð1 þ kÞ u
b dr2 b dr 1m
k
ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞqx2 r3 kn br mz r
¼ þ ; ð21Þ
E0 ð1 mÞ 1m
k
ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞqx2 r kn br mz
FðrÞ ¼ h k i þ h k i : ð22Þ
E0 ð1 mÞ 1 n br ð1 mÞ 1 n br r
Equation (21) is a nonhomogeneous hypergeometric differential equation [15] and its homo-
geneous part is reduced to standard form using a new variable x ¼ nðr=bÞk and applying the
transformation uðrÞ ¼ ryðxÞ. The result is
d2 y 2 þ k 2ð1 þ kÞx dy 1
xð1 xÞ þ y ¼ 0: ð23Þ
dx2 k dx kð1 mÞ
The homogeneous solution is given in [21] as
yðxÞ ¼ C1 FH ða; b; d; xÞ þ C^2 x2=k FH ða d þ 1; b d þ 1; 2 d; xÞ; ð24Þ
with FH being the hypergeometric function defined by

ab aða þ 1Þbðb þ 1Þ 2 aða þ 1Þða þ 2Þbðb þ 1Þðb þ 2Þ 3

FH ða; b; d; xÞ ¼ 1 þ xþ x þ x þ ... :
d 1! dðd þ 1Þ 2! dðd þ 1Þðd þ 2Þ 3!
ð25Þ
The arguments a, b, and d of FH in Eq. (24) are determined as

2
a¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ð26Þ
ð2 þ kÞð1 mÞ þ ð1 mÞ½ð2 þ kÞ2 ð1 mÞ 4k
2
b¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ð27Þ
ð2 þ kÞð1 mÞ ð1 mÞ½ð2 þ kÞ2 ð1 mÞ 4k
2
d¼1þ : ð28Þ
k
From uðrÞ ¼ ryðnðr=bÞk Þ, the homogeneous solutions P and Q are found in the form

PðrÞ ¼ rFH a; b; d; nðr=bÞk ; ð29Þ
1
QðrÞ ¼ FH a d þ 1; b d þ 1; 2 d; nðr=bÞk : ð30Þ
r
2.3 Closure and remarks
The solution is completed by the evaluation of the three unknowns: C1 , C2 , and z . In view of
Eqs. (7), (20), and (30), C2 ¼ 0. The surface of the rotating shaft is free of any traction and
hence rr ðbÞ ¼ 0. In addition, the shaft can freely contract in axial direction as it rotates since its
R
ends are free. This last condition can be expressed in mathematical terms as rz dA ¼ 0 with dA
being the area element on the cross section. Simultaneous application of the conditions
R
rr ðbÞ ¼ 0 and rz dA ¼ 0 results in
mI2 fm½b þ A12 ðbÞ þ bð1 mÞA22 ðbÞg I3 ½mA11 ðbÞ þ bð1 mÞA21 ðbÞ
C1 ¼ ; ð31Þ
I3 ½ mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ mI1 fm½b þ A12 ðbÞ þ bð1 mÞA22 ðbÞg
mI1 ½mA11 ðbÞ þ bð1 mÞA21 ðbÞ mI2 ½ mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ
z ¼ ; ð32Þ
I3 ½ mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ mI1 fm½b þ A12 ðbÞ þ bð1 mÞA22 ðbÞg
where
Z b
I1 ¼ EðrÞ½PðrÞ þ rP0 ðrÞdr; ð33Þ
0
Z b
I2 ¼ EðrÞ½A11 ðrÞ þ rA21 ðrÞdr; ð34Þ
0
Z b
I3 ¼ EðrÞfrð1 mÞ þ m½A12 ðrÞ þ rA22 ðrÞgdr; ð35Þ
0
with the following definitions:
A11 ðrÞ ¼ PðrÞU11 ðrÞ þ QðrÞU21 ðrÞ; A12 ðrÞ ¼ PðrÞU12 ðrÞ þ QðrÞU22 ðrÞ; ð36Þ
A21 ðrÞ ¼ P0 ðrÞU11 ðrÞ þ Q0 ðrÞU21 ðrÞ; A22 ðrÞ ¼ P0 ðrÞU12 ðrÞ þ Q0 ðrÞU22 ðrÞ; ð37Þ
Z r Z r
QðnÞF1 ðnÞ QðnÞF2 ðnÞ
U11 ðrÞ ¼ dn; U12 ðrÞ ¼ dn; ð38Þ
0 WðnÞ 0 WðnÞ
Z r Z r
PðnÞF1 ðnÞ PðnÞF2 ðnÞ
U21 ðrÞ ¼ dn; U22 ðrÞ ¼ dn; ð39Þ
0 WðnÞ 0 WðnÞ
and in case of the exponential profile
r k
k
enðbÞ ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞqx2 r kn br m
F1 ðrÞ ¼ ; F2 ðrÞ ¼ ; ð40Þ
E0 ð1 mÞ ð1 mÞr
or
k
ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞqx2 r kn br m
F1 ðrÞ ¼ h i
k ; F2 ðrÞ ¼ h k i ; ð41Þ
E0 ð1 mÞ 1 n br ð1 mÞ 1 n br r
in case of parabolic profile. In the equations above, a prime denotes differentiation with
respect to r.
We now deduce the following remarks:
(i) For rotating solid shafts with fixed ends, z ¼ 0, and we decide C2 ¼ 0 by virtue of
Eqs. (7), (20), and (30). Application of rr ðbÞ ¼ 0 leads to
mRðbÞ þ bð1 mÞR0 ðbÞ
C1 ¼ : ð42Þ
mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ
(ii) Taking the limits as r ! 0 we find uð0Þ ¼ 0 and

E0 ðC1 þ mz Þ
rr ð0Þ ¼ rh ð0Þ ¼ ; ð43Þ
ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞ
E0 ½2mC1 þ ð1 mÞz
rz ð0Þ ¼ : ð44Þ
ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞ
(iii) For n ¼ 0: either of Eqs. (1) or (2) gives E ¼ E0 and from Eqs. (17), (25)
FC ða; b; 0Þ ¼ FH ða; b; d; 0Þ ¼ 1, from either of Eqs. (19) or (29) PðrÞ ¼ r, from either of
Eqs. (20) or (30) QðrÞ ¼ 1=r, and finally from Eq. (8)
ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞqx2 r3
RðrÞ ¼ : ð45Þ
8ð1 mÞE0
With these, the stress and displacement expressions for a rotating homogeneous solid shaft with
unrestricted ends are recovered [22] for each of the two profiles. Furthermore, proceeding with
n ¼ 0 we evaluate the integrals in Eqs. (33)–(35) as
ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞqx2 b4 E0 ð1 mÞb2

I1 ¼ E0 b2 ; I2 ¼ ; I3 ¼ : ð46Þ
8ð1 mÞ 2
Therefore,
ð3 5mÞqx2 b2 mqx2 b2
C1 ¼ and z ¼ : ð47Þ
8ð1 mÞE0 2E0
1.5
1.2
sq
0.9
sr
Stresses and displacement
0.6
u
sz
0.3
0.0
Fig. 2. Comparison of stresses and

displacement in a rotating FGM
– 0.3 solid shaft with free ends
(n ¼ 0:4, k ¼ 1:2; solid lines) to
those in homogeneous shaft (n ¼ 0;
– 0.6 dashed lines) at rotating speed
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 X ¼ 1:76383 based on exponential
Radial coordinate solution
Substituting C1 and z in Eqs. (43) and (44) one obtains the familiar expressions
ð3 2mÞqx2 b2
rr ð0Þ ¼ rh ð0Þ ¼ ; ð48Þ
8ð1 mÞ
mqx2 b2
rz ð0Þ ¼ : ð49Þ
4ð1 mÞ
2.4 Numerical results and discussion
The following formal nondimensional variables are used: Radial coordinate: r ¼ r=b, stress:
rj ¼ rj =r0 , displacement: u ¼ uE0 =ðbr0 Þ, angular speed: X ¼ xbðq=r0 Þ1=2 , with r0 being the
uniaxial yield limit of the material. Furthermore, Poisson’s ratio m is 0:3 throughout. First,
exponential variation of E, Eq. (1), is considered. For m ¼ 0:3, according to Tresca’s yield
criterion, the elastic limit angular speed for a rotating homogeneous shaft with free ends is
given in Ref. [22] as Xe ¼ 1:76383. Using this value, and n ¼ 0:4 and k ¼ 1:2 for the
material parameters, the stresses and displacement in an FGM shaft are calculated and
compared to those in a homogeneous shaft in Fig. 2. In this figure, solid lines belong to a
nonhomogeneous shaft and dashed lines correspond to the homogeneous shaft solution
obtained by using the exponential solution with n ¼ 0. The effect of material parameter n
on the deformation behavior of the rotating solid shaft is also evaluated. To this aim,
the elastic limit angular speed of the shaft with free ends having parameters n ¼ 0:8
and k ¼ 1:2 is calculated and found to be Xe ¼ 1:51581. Using k ¼ 1:2 and X ¼ 1:51581
the stresses and displacement for n ¼ 0:8, 0:4, 0:0, 0:4 and 0:8 are calculated, and the
results are plotted in Fig. 3a–d. The effect of n on the radial, circumferential and axial
stress components can be seen in Fig. 3a–c, respectively. Figure 3d shows the distributions
of the radial displacement corresponding to different n values.
Considering the parabolic variation of E according to Eq. (2) and using the parameters
n ¼ 0:6 and k ¼ 1:3, the stresses and displacement in a rotating FGM solid shaft with
free ends are calculated at the speed Xe ¼ 1:76383. The results of this calculation (solid
lines) together with the results of the homogeneous shaft (dashed lines) are shown in
Fig. 4. The homogeneous solution is obtained with the help of the parabolic solution by setting
n ¼ 0.
The results presented in this section indicate that the deformation behavior of a rotating
FGM solid shaft, in the elastic range, is similar to that of the homogeneous one with
different magnitudes of stresses depending on material parameters describing the variation
of the modulus of elasticity in the shaft material. As seen in Fig. 2, the stress state satisfies
rh rr > rz throughout, and rr ¼ rh at the center. In a homogeneous shaft the maximum
difference between the principal stresses, i.e., rr rz ¼ rh rz occurs at the center. How-
ever, in an FGM shaft it occurs at r 0:73 according to rh rz . Hence, the rotating
homogeneous solid shaft fails with respect to yielding at the center with increasing angular
speeds, while the FGM shaft yields around r ¼ 0:73, not at the center. If we look at Fig. 4,
which is drawn using the parabolic solution, we see that the maximum difference
between principal stresses based on rh rz occurs at r 0:80. As a result, this FGM
shaft undergoes plastic deformation near r ¼ 0:80 as the rotation speed is sufficiently
increased.
In order to make a clarification of the radial location of yielding we define a nondimensional
yield variable /Y using principle stresses as
/Y ðrÞ ¼ maxfjrr rh j; jrr rz j; jrh rz jg: ð50Þ
Here, the operator maxfa; b; . . .g is used to pick up the maximum entry among those con-
tained in braces separated by commas. Note that according to Tresca’s yield criterion /Y ¼ 1
at an elastic-plastic border and /Y < 1 in the elastic region. The parameters (k ¼ 1:2,
X ¼ 1:51581) used in drawing Fig. 3a–d are reconsidered. Variations of the yield variable /Y
in the shaft corresponding to n ¼ 0:8, 0:4, 0:0, 0:4 and 0:8 are calculated and plotted in
Fig. 5. As seen in this figure, the FGM shaft with parameters n ¼ 0:8, k ¼ 1:2 just yields at
the center under X ¼ 1:51581 as since /Y ð0Þ ¼ 1. Others with parameters n < 0:8 and
k ¼ 1:2 withstand the same speed safely and elastically. It is also evident from Fig. 5 that
FGM shafts with parameters n 0 will undergo plastic deformation at the center, while
the ones with n < 0 not at the center. Figure 5 suggests a parametric analysis to determine
the radial location of onset of yield as n and k vary for FGM shafts of n < 0. Intending to
do this, the radial locations of maximum stress difference rY at which /Y ðrY Þ ¼ 1 are
determined for different n values using k as a parameter. Results of these calculations are
then displayed in Fig. 6a and b for the exponential and parabolic variations, respectively. As
seen in these figures, rY moves toward the surface of the shaft as jnj increases. The effect of k
seems to be insignificant for small jnj, but it affects rY notably with increasing values of jnj.
With the help of Fig. 6a, the radial location of the onset of yield in the FGM shaft for
the one plotted in Fig. 2 (n ¼ 0:4, k ¼ 1:2) is accurately determined as rY ¼ 0:727273.
Similarly from Fig. 6b, the radial location of failure with respect to plastic deformation
is determined as rY ¼ 0:808381 for the FGM shaft studied in Fig. 4 taking n ¼ 0:6 and
k ¼ 1:3.
1.2 1.2
n = 0.8 n = 0.8 n = 0.4
n = 0.4
1.0 n = 0.0
n = 0.0 1.0
Circumferential stress component

sq
Radial stress component
sr
0.8 n = – 0.8 n = – 0.8
0.8
n = – 0.4
n = – 0.4 n = – 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 n = 0.8
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a Radial coordinate b Radial coordinate
0.4 0.7
n = 0.8 n = – 0.4
0.6 n = 0.8
n = 0.0
Axial stress component
0.2
sz
Radial displacement
n = 0.4 0.5 n = 0.4

n = 0.8 u
0.4 n = 0.0
0.0
n = 0.8 n = – 0.4
0.3
n = – 0.8
0.2
–0.2
n = – 0.8
0.1
–0.4 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
c Radial coordinate d Radial coordinate
Fig. 3. Variation of a radial stress, b circumferential stress, c axial stress, and d radial displacement with
material parameter n in a rotating FGM solid shaft (k ¼ 1:2) with free ends at rotating speed
X ¼ 1:51581 based on exponential solution
3 Plane stress solution
Plane stress counterpart of Eqs. (4)–(6) are

EðrÞ du
rr ¼ mu þ r ; ð51Þ
rð1 m2 Þ dr
1.5
1.2
sq
0.9
sr
0.6
u
sz
0.3
0.0
Fig. 4. Comparison of stresses and

−0.3 displacement in a rotating FGM solid
shaft with free ends (n ¼ 0:6,
k ¼ 1:3; solid lines) to those in a
−0.6 homogeneous shaft (n ¼ 0; dashed
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 lines) at rotating speed X ¼ 1:76383
Radial coordinate based on parabolic solution

EðrÞ du
rh ¼ u þ rm ; ð52Þ
rð1 m2 Þ dr
rz ¼ 0: ð53Þ
Elastic equation is obtained by substitution of rr and rh in the equation of equilibrium (3) and
its general solution is put into the form
uðrÞ ¼ C3 PðrÞ þ C4 QðrÞ þ RðrÞ; ð54Þ
in which P and Q are homogeneous solutions, and R is the particular solution determined by the
method of variation of parameters, as before. Accordingly, the stresses become

EðrÞ dP dQ dR
rr ¼ C3 mP þ r þ C4 mQ þ r þ mR þ r ; ð55Þ
rð1 m2 Þ dr dr dr

EðrÞ dP dQ dR
rh ¼ C3 P þ rm þ C4 Q þ rm þ R þ rm : ð56Þ
rð1 m2 Þ dr dr dr
Functional forms of P and Q and the nonhomogeneous term of the differential equation, FðrÞ,
are determined in the following sections.
3.1 Exponential profile
The governing equation is

r k du r k r k
d2 u enðbÞ ð1 m2 Þqx2 r3
r2 2 þ r 1 kn 1 þ knm u¼ : ð57Þ
dr b dr b E0
1.1
1.0
n = 0.8
0.9
Nondimensional yield variable
f
n = 0.4 Y
0.8
n = – 0.8
n = 0.0
0.7
n = – 0.4
n = 0.0
n = – 0.8
0.6
n = 0.8
0.5 Fig. 5. Variation of nondimensional
yield variable /Y (Eq. (50)) with
material parameter n in a rotating
0.4 FGM solid shaft (k ¼ 1:2) with free
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ends at rotating speed X ¼ 1:51581
Radial coordinate based on exponential solution
Hence,
r k
enðbÞ ð1 m2 Þqx2 r
FðrÞ ¼ : ð58Þ
E0
The solution is obtained as described in Sect. 2.1 and the result is

PðrÞ ¼ rFC a; b; nðr=bÞk ; ð59Þ
1
QðrÞ ¼ FC a b þ 1; 2 b; nðr=bÞk ; ð60Þ
r
where FC is again the confluent hypergeometric function defined by Eq. (17) and
1þm 2
a¼ ; b¼1þ : ð61Þ
k k
3.2 Parabolic profile
The elastic equation is derived as

r k d2 u r k du r k ð1 m2 Þqx2 r3
r2 1 n þ r 1 nð1 þ kÞ 1 nð1 kmÞ u ¼ ; ð62Þ
b dr2 b dr b E0
and there corresponds the nonhomogeneous term
ð1 m2 Þqx2 r
FðrÞ ¼ h k i : ð63Þ
E0 1 n br
0.0 0.0
– 0.1 – 0.1
– 0.2 – 0.2
rY
– 0.3 – 0.3
Parameter n
rY
Parameter n
k = 1.2
n = – 0.4 – 0.4 k = 1.3
– 0.4
– 0.5 – 0.5 k = 0.6

k = 0.9
n = – 0.6 k = 0.9
– 0.6 – 0.6
k = 0.6
– 0.7 – 0.7 rY = 0.808381

rY = 0.727273
– 0.8 – 0.8
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 6. Variation of radial location of onset of yield rY in a rotating FGM solid shaft with n for
different values of k based on a exponential solution, b parabolic solution
Using the analytical solution procedure outlined in Sect. 2.2, we find

PðrÞ ¼ rFH a; b; d; nðr=bÞk ; ð64Þ
1
QðrÞ ¼ FH a d þ 1; b d þ 1; 2 d; nðr=bÞk ; ð65Þ
r
where the hypergeometric function FH is defined by Eq. (25) and its arguments pertaining to the
plane stress solution are determined as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 þ k 4 þ kðk 4mÞ
a¼ ; ð66Þ
2k
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 þ k þ 4 þ kðk 4mÞ
b¼ ; ð67Þ
2k
2
d¼1þ : ð68Þ
k
3.3 Closure and remarks
Since both solutions contain the term 1=r in Q, we conclude that C4 ¼ 0. Using the traction free
boundary condition rr ðbÞ ¼ 0 we obtain
mRðbÞ þ bR0 ðbÞ

C3 ¼ : ð69Þ
mPðbÞ þ bP0 ðbÞ
We note the following remarks:

(i) Taking the limits as r ! 0 we find uð0Þ ¼ 0 and
E0 C3
rr ð0Þ ¼ rh ð0Þ ¼ : ð70Þ
1m
(ii) For n ¼ 0: E ¼ E0 , and PðrÞ ¼ r, QðrÞ ¼ 1=r, and using Eq. (8) one obtains
ð1 m2 Þqx2 r3
RðrÞ ¼ : ð71Þ
8E0
Hence, the stress and deformation expressions of a rotating homogeneous solid disk are
recovered [10]. Furthermore, for n ¼ 0 we obtain
ð1 mÞð3 þ mÞqx2 b2
C3 ¼ ; ð72Þ
8E0
and as a result
ð3 þ mÞqx2 b2
rr ð0Þ ¼ rh ð0Þ ¼ : ð73Þ
8
3.4 Numerical results and discussion
As in rotating shaft calculations, m ¼ 0:3 is used. The corresponding elastic limit angular speed
for a rotating homogeneous solid disk is given as Xe ¼ 1:55700 [15]. Using the plane stress
exponential solution and taking the parameters n ¼ 0:5; k ¼ 1:3, the stresses and radial
displacement for a rotating FGM solid disk are calculated at the speed Xe ¼ 1:55700. The
results are shown in Fig. 7, in which solid lines belong to FGM calculations and dashed lines
show the homogeneous disk solution (n ¼ 0).
A similar calculation is performed using the parabolic disk solution. The parameters used
are n ¼ 0:6, k ¼ 1:1 and X ¼ 1:55700. The stresses and displacement in an FGM solid
disk are compared to those in a homogeneous disk (dashed lines) in Fig. 8. The effect of the
parameter n on the stresses and displacement can be seen in Fig. 9a–c. The parabolic
solution is used in drawing these figures, and the values k ¼ 1:1 and X ¼ 1:39879 are taken.
X ¼ 1:39879 is the elastic limit angular speed of the rotating solid disk for n ¼ 0:8 and
k ¼ 1:1. The distributions of radial and circumferential stress components corresponding to
different n values are plotted in Fig. 9a and b, respectively. Figure 9c shows radial
displacement curves as n is changed.
As in the rotating solid shaft, the deformation behavior of an FGM solid disk resembles
the homogeneous disk in the elastic range. The nonzero stress components rr and rh are
equal at the center of the disk, and the stress state satisfies rh rr > rz ¼ 0 throughout.
However, as seen in Fig. 7, the maximum difference in principal stresses, i.e., rh rz in the
solid FGM disk is at the radial location r 0:14. Hence, failure with respect to plastic
deformation takes place inside, near r ¼ 0:14, not at the center like in a homogenous disk.
It is apparent in Fig. 8 that the FGM disk yields around r ¼ 0:19, where the largest
principal stress rh reaches its maximum value. Using the exponential profile, Eq. (1), a
parametric analysis is carried out to expose the radial location of onset of yield, rY , in the
solid disk as the material parameters n and k are varied. Again, Eq. (50) is used with
rz ¼ 0 to find out rY at which /Y ðrY Þ ¼ 1. Figure 10a shows the results of this analysis.
Rotating solid disks with n 0 yield at the center like a homogeneous disk. However, as
shown in Fig. 10a, the ones with n < 0 experience plastic deformation somewhere inside the
disk, not at the center. Figure 10b displays the variation of rY with n for different values
of k in case of a parabolic variation of E.
1.2
1.0
sq
0.8
sr
0.6
0.4
u
0.2 Fig. 7. Comparison of stresses and

displacement in a rotating FGM solid
disk (n ¼ 0:5, k ¼ 1:3; solid lines) to
those in a homogeneous disk (n ¼ 0;
0.0 dashed lines) at rotating speed
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 X ¼ 1:557 based on exponential solu-
Radial coordinate tion
4 An application
An FGM pressure chamber of inner radius a with axially constrained ends is considered. The
chamber is subjected to the internal pressure pin . A parabolic profile, Eq. (2), is assumed to
describe the material nonhomogenity. Under these circumstances z ¼ 0, x ¼ 0, and R ¼ 0, and
therefore the solution is easily written with the help of the equations given in Sect. 2 as

EðrÞ dP dQ
rr ¼ D1 mP þ rð1 mÞ þ D2 mQ þ rð1 mÞ ; ð74Þ

EðrÞ dP dQ
rh ¼ D1 ð1 mÞP þ rm þ D2 ð1 mÞQ þ rm ; ð75Þ

mEðrÞ dP dQ
rz ¼ D1 P þ r þ D2 Q þ r ; ð76Þ
uðrÞ ¼ D1 PðrÞ þ D2 QðrÞ; ð77Þ

where Di represents an arbitrary constant and the homogeneous solutions P and Q have the
meanings as explained in Sect. 2.2. The boundary conditions to evaluate D1 and D2 are
rr ðaÞ ¼ pin ; rr ðbÞ ¼ 0, and upon application, one finds
D1 ¼ að1 þ mÞð1 2mÞpin ½mQðbÞ þ bð1 mÞQ0 ðbÞ=d; ð78Þ
D2 ¼ að1 þ mÞð1 2mÞpin ½mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ=d; ð79Þ

1.2
1.0
sq
0.8
sr
0.6
0.4
u
0.2 Fig. 8. Comparison of stresses and

displacement in a rotating FGM solid
disk (n ¼ 0:6, k ¼ 1:1; solid lines) to
those in a homogeneous disk (n ¼ 0;
0.0 dashed lines) at rotating speed
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 X ¼ 1:557 based on parabolic solu-
Radial coordinate tion
where
d ¼ EðaÞf½mQðaÞ þ að1 mÞQ0 ðaÞ½mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ ½mPðaÞ þ að1 mÞP0 ðaÞ
½mQðbÞ þ bð1 mÞQ0 ðbÞg: ð80Þ

According to Tresca’s yield criterion, the chamber undergoes plastic deformation as soon as the
pressure reaches the critical value pe so that rh ðaÞ rr ðaÞ ¼ r0 . Carrying out the algebra, the
elastic limit pressure pe is determined to be
pe
pe ¼ ¼ f½mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ½mQðaÞ þ að1 mÞQ0 ðaÞ ½mPðaÞ þ að1 mÞP0 ðaÞ
r0
½mQðbÞ þ bð1 mÞQ0 ðbÞg=fð1 2mÞ½PðaÞ aP0 ðaÞ½mQðbÞ þ bð1 mÞQ0 ðbÞ
ð1 2mÞ½mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ½QðaÞ aQ0 ðaÞg: ð81Þ
Taking m ¼ 0:3, as before, the elastic limit pressure for a homogeneous pressure chamber
(n ¼ 0) of inner radius a ¼ a=b ¼ 0:7 is calculated from Eq. (81) as pe ¼ 0:255000. From
Eqs. (78) and (79) the corresponding integration constants in nondimensional forms are
determined as D1 ¼ D1 ¼ 2:61170 104 and D2 ¼ D2 =b2 ¼ 6:52925 104 . On the other
hand, for an FGM chamber of the same inner radius and under the same pressure having
the parameters n ¼ 0:6 and k ¼ 1:4, the integration constants are D1 ¼ 4:86063 104
and D2 ¼ 4:86779 104 . Using these, the stresses and displacement in the chamber are
calculated for both FGM and homogenous one and plotted in Fig. 11. Solid lines show
1.2 1.2
Circumferential stress component

1.0 1.0 n = 0.8
n = 0.8
n = 0.4 n = 0.4
Radial stress component
0.8 n = 0.0 0.8 n = 0.0 sq
sr n = – 0.8
n = – 0.8 n = – 0.4 n = – 0.8
0.6 0.6
n = – 0.4
0.4 0.4
n = 0.8
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.7
0.6 n = 0.8
Radial displacement
0.5
n = 0.4
u
0.4
n = 0.0
0.3 n = – 0.4
n = – 0.8
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
c Radial coordinate
Fig. 9. Variation of a radial stress, b circumferential stress, and c radial displacement with material
parameter n in a rotating FGM solid disk for k ¼ 1:1 at rotating speed X ¼ 1:39879 based on parabolic
solution
FGM and dashed lines show homogeneous results. A few points should be mentioned. The
largest discrepancy between FGM and homogenous solutions is observed in the radial
displacement. The axial stress in the homogeneous chamber is constant throughout, while it
varies slowly in the FGM chamber. The variation of elastic limit pressure pe with the
material parameter n is calculated using k as a parameter and plotted in Fig. 12. The inner
radius is a ¼ 0:7. Point n ¼ 0 corresponds to a homogeneous chamber and the limit for it is
0.0 0.0
– 0.1 – 0.1
k = 0.6 k = 0.6
– 0.2 – 0.2
k = 0.9 k = 0.9
Parameter n
Parameter n
– 0.3 – 0.3
rY k = 1.1 rY
k = 1.3
– 0.4 – 0.4
n = – 0.5
– 0.5 – 0.5
n = – 0.6
– 0.6 – 0.6
rY = 0.140414 rY = 0.194019
– 0.7 – 0.7
– 0.8 – 0.8
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Fig. 10. Variation of radial location of onset of yield rY in a rotating FGM solid disk with n for
different values of k based on a exponential solution, b parabolic solution
0:255000. For k ¼ 0, E ¼ E0 ð1 nÞ ¼ constant, hence, the chamber is homogeneous, irre-

spective of the value of n.
5 Concluding remarks
Analytical solutions for rotating solid shafts/disks are obtained by considering the nonlinear
variation of the modulus of elasticity E in radial direction. Two different functions, one in
exponential form, Eq. (1), and the other in parabolic form, Eq. (2), are used to describe the
variation of E. Both forms are nonzero at the center and are sufficient to describe a reasonable
variation of E in the material. One of concave, linear or convex distributions of E may be
obtained by suitably adjusting the parameter k, as shown in Fig. 1a and b. The use of the
exponential profile in solid shaft/disk problems leads to an elastic equation of confluent
hypergeometric type which assumes a closed form solution in terms of confluent hypergeo-
metric functions defined by Eq. (17). The series in Eq. (17) converges very rapidly, hence there
is no difficulty associated with its numerical evaluation. On the other hand, the elastic
equation that results from the use of the parabolic profile is a hypergeometric equation and
solved in terms of hypergeometric functions described by Eq. (25). Care must be exercised in
calculating hypergeometric functions because of their slowly converging nature. Several
thousands of terms may be required to add in order to get a numerical value with sufficient
accuracy. To be able to add such a large number of terms, each term should be factorized.
For example, the fourth term T4 in the series is obtained by the following calculation
sequence:
0.8
sq
0.6
u
0.4
0.2
sz
0.0
sr
– 0.2 Fig. 11. Comparison of stresses and
displacement in an FGM pressure
chamber (n ¼ 0:6, k ¼ 1:4; solid
lines) to those in a homogeneous
– 0.4 chamber (n ¼ 0; dashed lines) under
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 internal pressure p ¼ 0:255 based on
Radial coordinate parabolic solution
a aþ1 aþ2 b bþ1 bþ2

t1 ¼ ; t2 ¼ ; t3 ¼ ; ^t1 ¼ ; ^t2 ¼ ; ^t3 ¼ : ð82Þ
d dþ1 dþ2 1 2 3
Then
aða þ 1Þða þ 2Þbðb þ 1Þðb þ 2Þ 3
T4 ¼ x ¼ t1 t2 t3 ^t1 ^t2 ^t3 x x x: ð83Þ
dðd þ 1Þðd þ 2Þ 3!
This calculation procedure avoids evaluation of factorials of large numbers which is practically
not possible.
The results of rotating FGM solid shafts are compared to those of homogenous ones in
Figs. 2–4. Elastic behavior of rotating FGM shafts is seen to be similar to that of a
homogeneous shaft. The stress state satisfies rh rr > rz throughout, and rr ¼ rh at the
center. In a homogeneous solid shaft, the maximum difference between principal stresses, i.e.,
rr rz ¼ rh rz occurs at the center. Accordingly, a rotating homogeneous solid shaft fails
with respect to plastic deformation at the center. However, as shown in Fig. 5, the radial
location of the maximum difference between principal stresses may slide down to the interior
if E increases relative to its value E0 at the center. The results of parametric analyses to
depict how the radial location of yielding is affected by the material parameters n and k are
presented in Figs. 6a and b for the exponential and parabolic variations of the modulus of
elasticity E, respectively. Plastic deformation commences in rotating FGM shafts with
parameters n 0 at the center irrespective of the value of k, whilst it happens somewhere
inside the shaft, not at the center, for the ones with n < 0 as the speed of rotation is further
increased.
0.30
0.28 k = 1.8
k = 1.2
0.26 k = 0.6 pe = 0.255

k = 0.0
0.24
Elastic limit pressure
k = 0.6
k = 1.8
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
Fig. 12. Variation of elastic limit
pressure pe with n using k as a
0.14 parameter in an FGM pressure cham-
– 1.0 – 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 ber of inner radius a ¼ 0:7 based on
Parameter n parabolic solution
The deformation behavior of rotating FGM solid disks for different values of the parameters
in the elastic state is presented in comparison to that of homogeneous one in Figs. 7 and 8.
Figure 7 is based on the exponential solution, while Fig. 8 on the parabolic solution. Purely
elastic deformation behavior of an FGM solid disk is similar to a homogeneous disk. The stress
state satisfies rh rr > rz ¼ 0 throughout. A rotating homogeneous solid disk plasticizes at
the center as the rotation speed is sufficiently increased. However, the weak point based on the
maximum difference between principal stresses leading to plastic deformation in FGM disks
may appear somewhere inside depending mainly on the value of the parameter n, as depicted in
Fig. 10a and b. As in rotating solid shafts, rotating FGM solid disks with parameters n 0
undergo plastic deformation at the center like a homogeneous disk, while the ones with n < 0
deform plastically somewhere inside.
The fact that rotating solid FGM shafts/disks may undergo plastic deformation in a manner
different from homogeneous counterparts should be taken into account in elastic-plastic
analyses of these systems by analytical means using Tresca’s yield criterion. Results of the
parametric studies presented in Figs. 6 and 10 accompanied by Figs. 2, 4, 7 and 8 contain useful
information not only in pointing the location of the onset of yield but also in the yield criterion
to be used to begin.
A section titled ‘‘An Application’’ is included in order to demonstrate the wide range of
applicability of the FGM solutions in engineering simulations. One of the solutions is easily
adopted to determine the stress state, deformation and the range of elastic behavior for a thick
walled plane strain FGM tube subjected to internal pressure.
References
[1] Timoshenko, S. P.: Strength of materials, part II. Advanced theory and problems, 3rd ed. New
York: D. van Nostrand 1956.
[2] Timoshenko, S., Goodier, J. N.: Theory of elasticity, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill 1970.
[3] Rees, D. W. A.: The mechanics of solids and structures. New York: McGraw-Hill 1990.
[4] Boresi, A. P., Schmidt, R. J., Sidebottom, O. M.: Advanced mechanics of materials, 5th ed. New
York: Wiley 1993.
[5] Uğural, A. C., Fenster, S. K.: Advanced strength and applied elasticity, 3rd ed. London: Prentice-
Hall 1995.
[6] Gamer, U., Sayir, M.: Elastic-plastic stress distribution in a rotating solid shaft. J. Appl. Math.
Phys. (ZAMP) 35, 601–617 (1984).
[7] Mack, W.: The rotating elastic-plastic solid shaft with free ends. Technische Mechanik 12, 119–124
(1991).
[8] Gamer, U., Mack, W., Varga, I.: Rotating elastic-plastic solid shaft with fixed ends. Int. J. Engng.
Sci. 35, 253–267 (1997).
[9] Eraslan, A. N.: On the linearly hardening rotating solid shaft. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 22,
295–307 (2003).
[10] Gamer, U.: Elastic-plastic deformation of the rotating solid disk. Arch. Mech. 54, 345–354 (1984).
[11] Güven, U.: The fully plastic rotating disk with rigid inclusion. J. Appl. Math. Mech. (ZAMM) 77,
714–716 (1997).
[12] Eraslan, A. N.: Inelastic deformations of rotating variable thickness solid disks by Tresca and von-
Mises criteria. Int. J. Comp. Eng. Sci. 3, 89–101 (2002).
[13] Eraslan, A. N., Orcan, Y.: Elastic-plastic deformation of a rotating solid disk of exponentially
varying thickness. Mech. Mater. 34, 423–432 (2002).
[14] Eraslan, A. N., Orcan Y.: On the rotating elastic-plastic solid disks of variable thickness having
concave profiles. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44, 1445–1466 (2002).
[15] Eraslan, A. N.: Elastoplastic deformations of rotating parabolic solid disks using Tresca’s yield
criterion. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 22, 861–874 (2003).
[16] Eraslan, A. N.: Tresca’s yield criterion and linearly hardening rotating solid disks having
hyperbolic profiles. Forschung im Ingenieurwesen/Engineering Research 69, 17–28 (2004).
[17] Horgan, C. O., Chan, A. M.: The pressurized hollow cylinder or disk problem for functionally
graded isotropic linearly elastic materials. J. Elasticity 55, 43–59 (1999).
[18] Horgan, C. O., Chan, A. M.: The stress response of functionally graded isotropic linearly elastic
rotating disks. J. Elasticity 55, 219–230 (1999).
[19] Güven, U., Çelik, A.: On transverse vibrations of functionally graded isotropic linearly elastic
rotating solid disks. Mech. Res. Comm. 28, 271–276 (2001).
[20] Ma, L., Feng, X. Q., Gau, K. W., Yu, S. W.: Elastic and plastic analyses of functionally graded
elements. Functionally Graded Materials VII Materials Science Forum 423 (4): 731–736 (2003).
[21] Abramowitz, M., Stegun A. I. (eds.): Handbook of mathematical functions, 5th ed. Washington,
D.C.: US Government Printing Office 1966.
[22] Eraslan, A. N.: Von Mises’ yield criterion and nonlinearly hardening rotating shafts. Acta Mech.
168, 129–144 (2004).
Authors’ addresses: A. N. Eraslan, Department of Engineering Sciences, Middle East Technical

University, Ankara 06531, Turkey (E-mail: aeraslan@metu.edu.tr); T. Akis, Department of Civil
_
Engineering, Atilim University, Ankara, Incek 06836, Turkey

Er Aslan 2005

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Er Aslan 2005

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Acta Mechanica 181, 43–63 (2006)

On the plane strain and plane stress solutions

Received March 10, 2005; revised June 9, 2005

Nondimensional modulus of elasticity

0.8 n = 0.4 0.8

2 Plane strain solution

uðrÞ ¼ C1 PðrÞ þ C2 QðrÞ þ RðrÞ; ð7Þ

The forms of P, Q and F will be determined next.

2.1 Exponential proﬁle

The governing diﬀerential equation is

yðxÞ ¼ C1 FC ða; b; xÞ þ C^2 x2=k FC ða b þ 1; 2 b; xÞ; ð16Þ

a aða þ 1Þ aða þ 1Þða þ 2Þ

The arguments a and b of FC are determined to be

2.2 Parabolic proﬁle

The elastic equation and the nonhomogeneous term become

yðxÞ ¼ C1 FH ða; b; d; xÞ þ C^2 x2=k FH ða d þ 1; b d þ 1; 2 d; xÞ; ð24Þ

with FH being the hypergeometric function deﬁned by

ab aða þ 1Þbðb þ 1Þ 2 aða þ 1Þða þ 2Þbðb þ 1Þðb þ 2Þ 3

The arguments a, b, and d of FH in Eq. (24) are determined as

2.3 Closure and remarks

with the following deﬁnitions:

(ii) Taking the limits as r ! 0 we ﬁnd uð0Þ ¼ 0 and

ð1 þ mÞð1 2mÞqx2 b4 E0 ð1 mÞb2

Fig. 2. Comparison of stresses and

2.4 Numerical results and discussion

/Y ðrÞ ¼ maxfjrr rh j; jrr rz j; jrh rz jg: ð50Þ

Circumferential stress component

0.4 0.4 n = 0.8

n = 0.4 0.5 n = 0.4

3 Plane stress solution

Plane stress counterpart of Eqs. (4)–(6) are

Fig. 4. Comparison of stresses and

3.1 Exponential proﬁle

The governing equation is

3.2 Parabolic proﬁle

The elastic equation is derived as

– 0.5 – 0.5 k = 0.6

– 0.7 – 0.7 rY = 0.808381

Using the analytical solution procedure outlined in Sect. 2.2, we ﬁnd

3.3 Closure and remarks

mRðbÞ þ bR0 ðbÞ

We note the following remarks:

3.4 Numerical results and discussion

0.2 Fig. 7. Comparison of stresses and

uðrÞ ¼ D1 PðrÞ þ D2 QðrÞ; ð77Þ

D2 ¼ að1 þ mÞð1 2mÞpin ½mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ=d; ð79Þ

0.2 Fig. 8. Comparison of stresses and

 ½mQðbÞ þ bð1 mÞQ0 ðbÞg: ð80Þ

ð1 2mÞ½mPðbÞ þ bð1 mÞP0 ðbÞ½QðaÞ aQ0 ðaÞg: ð81Þ

Circumferential stress component

0.8 n = 0.0 0.8 n = 0.0 sq

0:255000. For k ¼ 0, E ¼ E0 ð1 nÞ ¼ constant, hence, the chamber is homogeneous, irre-

a aþ1 aþ2 b bþ1 bþ2

0.26 k = 0.6 pe = 0.255

Authors’ addresses: A. N. Eraslan, Department of Engineering Sciences, Middle East Technical

Você também pode gostar

½mQðbÞ þ bð1 mÞQ0 ðbÞg: ð80Þ