Search results

Recent progress in element technology in large scale explicit finite element codes has opened the way for the solution of elastoplastic shell problems of unprecedented complexity. This new capability has focused attention on the numerical issues involved in the implementation of elastoplastic material models for shells, particularly when vectorizable algorithms are required for supercomputer applications. This paper reviews four algorithms currently in the literature for plane stress and shell plasticity. First, each of the four methods is described in detail. Next, an accuracy analysis is presented for each algorithm for perfectly plastic, linear kinematic hardening, and linear isotropic hardening cases. Finally, a comparison is made of the relative computational efficiency of the four algorithms, and the importance of vectorization is illustrated.

Presents a review on implementing finite element methods on supercomputers, workstations and PCs and gives main trends in hardware and software developments. An appendix included at the end of the paper presents a bibliography on the subjects retrospectively to 1985 and approximately 1,100 references are listed.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the reason for the discrepancy in estimated and observed damage caused by fragmenting charges in closed environments.

A series of carefully conducted physical and numerical experiments was conducted. The results were analyzed and compared.

The analysis shows that for fragmenting charges in closed environments, dust plays a far larger role than previously thought, leading to much lower pressures and damage.

In light of these findings, many assumptions and results for fragmenting charges in closed environments need to be reconsidered.

This implies that for a far larger class of problems than previously estimated it is imperative to take into consideration dust production and its effect on the resulting pressures.

This is the first time such a finding has been reported in this context.

LAST week I received a bookseller's catalogue. Working my way slowly and pleasantly to G, I found two names in interesting juxtaposition. The first of these was that of GALSWORTHY. A first edition of In Chancery (“Nice, but upper cover a little spotted”) is offered for 12s 6d: the highest price asked is for a copy of Soames and the Flag—first, limited, de luxe, signed by author, edition, at 16s 6d. Ten years ago when I was, in a small way, buying and selling books, there was a Galsworthy “first” that fetched seventy pounds, if my memory serves me right. There were certainly many at ten to twenty pounds. And what were these books but indifferent modern productions, neither good nor bad to look at, nor for the most part could they be called rare: they had not been long printed, and they had often been issued in impressions of several thousands. Those were crazy days, in which book values were extraordinarily ill‐founded. No doubt Galsworthy's large sales and widespread popularity made it seem as though he were an aspirant to supreme fame to a public less judicious than that of Shaw and other writers whose prices were never so considerable. Stevenson, of course, had brought high prices: he was perhaps the first of the moderns to become largely collected: but for this there was rather more reason. Barrie had realised some ridiculous prices. I remember a bookseller telling me of a Barrie “first” that had been put into a safe on the day on which it was bought, and kept there twenty years, then sold, “in mint state,” for two hundred pounds: surely a record interest on a safe deposit!