Structural Optimization 18, 173-182 @ Springer-Verlag 1999

Efficient sensitivity analysis and optimization of shell structures by the A B A Q U S code

W . H . Z h a n g a n d M. D o m a s z e w s k i Laboratory of Modelling in Mechanics, Polytechnic Institute of Sevenans, F-90010 Belfort, France

Abstract In this paper, a new efficient sensitivity analysis procedure is presented for the optimization of shell structures without access to the finite element source code. It is devised as a general interface tool to extend existing finite element systems from pure structural analysis to design capability. The implementation is performed based on the ABAQUS code. Kirchhoff flat shell elements are taken into account in the study with the element thickness as design variables. To ensure the performance and the validity of the proposed procedure, satisfactory sensitivity and optimization results are illustrated for numerical examples.

Despite the discretization error, numerical experience reported by Zienkiewicz and Taylor (1991) shows that satisfactory results can indeed be obtained and that convergence could occur as continuously curved shell structures are adequately discretized as an assembly of flat shell elements and the subdivision of finite element mesh is refined. In addition, it is necessary to mention that shell elements are very representative in type. Bar, membrane, beam and plate elements can be considered as the degeneration or simplification of shell elements in the limiting cases of dimensions and/or loading. Therefore, the formulations presented below can also be extended to other types of elements. The sizing optimum design of plate and shell structures is one of the important problems. Haftka and Prasad (1981) surveyed previous work. Yu et al. (1991) proposed a stepped reduction method in the study of thin cylindrical shells with arbitrary axisymetrical boundary conditions and distributed loads. This method permits us to establish the closed relations between the deflection and shell thickness design variables for compliance minimization and the rain max of deflection designs. Leal and Mota Soares (1989) as well as Yamazaki and Vanderplaats (1993) adopted the insideimplementation approach for sensitivity analysis of eightnode isoparametric plate and shell elements based on the Reissner-Mindlin theory. Vanderplaats and Thomas (1993) presented a high-quality approximation for stress in plate structures based on the intermediate approximation of element forces. Recently, Bendsee and Diaz (1993) discussed the minimum compliance design of Mindlin plate of fixed thickness and variable material in the context of topology optimization. In dynamic design, Grandhi and Bharatram (1992) proposed a generalized compound scaling algorithm with element thickness design variables for the weight minimization involving multiple frequency constraints. Barthelemy et al. (1988) studied the accuracy problems associated with semianalytical (SA) derivatives of static response. It was found that the inaccuracy of the SA design sensitivities depends on both the number of elements and the step size. The accuracy of the pseudo-load vector computing is strongly influenced by the rigid body motion of the individual elements. The previous work of Santos and Choi (1988) was oriented to build up the continuous sensitivity analysis approach based on the continuum equations of elasticity. It was coupled with the ANSYS system but with the need of shape functions for the computation of adjoint loads. Barthelemy and Hall (1995) studied the use of automatic differentiation for a given finite element

Introduction

Historically, structural optimization systems are organised by integrating sequentially three basic parts into one module: finite element analysis, sensitivity analysis and optimization algorithms. This scheme is not applicable for program users to extend commercial finite element systems such as ABAQUS from pure analysis capability to design optimization due to the lack of the source code. From this point of view, an alternative approach discussed here is to adopt the open and modular architecture with the separation of the three parts above. Data flows will be transferred between corresponding databases. This separation can make full use of advanced analysis capabilities of existing finite element systems. We do not need to know about computational methods used inside or intermediate steps. The FE system can be considered as a black box. Our concern lies in whether finite element analysis results in the database are complete and how they can be suitably employed for sensitivity computations. As is known, shells are widely applied in the construction of aerospace, automotive and civil engineering structures such as an arc dam, a cooling tower, a barrel vault and so on. they belong to a particular form of a three-dimensional solid. The thickness of such structures is very small as compared with other dimensions so that complete three-dimensional computations are not needed. Flat shell elements considered here are defined as a combination of membrane and thin Kirchhoff plate elements. Geometrically, nodes of each element are coplanar. Due to the assumption that sections normal to the middle plane remain plane during the deformation, shear effects are neglected so that the resulting in-plane and bending deformations are independent and a plane stress state is retained.

174 analysis program. This method proceeds by identifying firstly dependent and independent variables and then implementing the chain rule of differentiation into the program. Obviously, the finite element analysis program should be available. Sensitivity analysis was interfaced with ABAQUS code for bar and plane stress elements by Zhang and Domaszewski (1998). In this paper, an extension is made to sensitivity analysis and optimization of thin shell structures.

(5)

with

Note that r _

( r 1_ 6 2 1. ~6 2 .

~c

._

4,m

= ( r 1 6 2 1m 62

rn

are

S e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s o f shell e l e m e n t s

For linear static problems, recall that the discrete finite element equation system corresponds to KU = F, (1)

where K is the global stiffness matrix; U is the vector of nodal displacements to be calculated and F is the vector of external loads. Sensitivity analysis can be directly carried out using the direct differentiation method (DDM) to obtain the sensitivity of the displacement vector 3U _ K - 1 ( O F ~/ with cgF
Fp, i - cgti

internal node force and moment vectors of the element i. From (5), it can be concluded that the pseudo-load vector can be easily computed by scaling internal node force and moment vectors. The element stiffness matrix as well as shape functions are not required. Because shell elements are subject generally to both bending and in-plane stresses, the maximum values of the latter take place in the upper and lower layer of the element z = ~ t i / 2 . Therefore, stress sensitivity analysis can be limited only in these two extremity layers. Detailed computations are described in the Appendix.

~Ku~ ~/ ./ = K - 1 F p , i ,

(2)

Numerical examples

OK
cgti U .

The intermediate term Fp, i is called the pseudo-load vector; t i denotes the thickness of the flat shell element i. The comparison between (2) and (1) shows that the sensitivity of displacement vector is in fact the displacement caused by the pseudo-ioad. The first term ~ can often he omitted if the exterior force, e.g. the surface pressure, is invariant with respect to the thickness of the element. The derivative of the global stiffness matrix in the second term of the pseudo-load expression can be reduced as the derivative of the stiffness matrix of the element i, so that

Two shell panels are studied for sizing optimization. The optimization algorithm GMMA (Generalized Method of Moving Asymptotes) is used for numerical solutions of problems. This is a first-order convex approximation method. The input data of the objective function and constraint values come directly from ABAQUS analysis results. Sensitivities are computed by the procedure proposed above.
3.1 Square plane panel

OK
s ,i = - ot u = -

0ki U.
,. (3)

Due to the assumption of independent deformations of the in-plane membrane and the thin bending plate, the stiffness matrix of the flat shell element is diagonal and composed of in-plane stiffness and bending stiffness, which can be written as the multiplication of constant matrices by element thickness of the first and third-order, respectively,

The problem is shown in Fig. 1. The panel is subject to a concentrated load F at the central point Q. Symmetric fixation conditions will be imposed along the edges of the panel. For this reason, only a quarter of the structure will be studied. The mesh is composed of 5 * 5 four-node SdR shell elements of the ABAQUS library. The thickness of each element is considered as one design variable. Initial data are as follows: A B = B C = 20 in, initial thickness: t O = 1 in, lower bound: t_ = 0.1 in; physical properties: E = 107 psi, v = 0.3; loads: F = 4* 104 lb, stress limit: O-vm <_ 25000 psi, displacement limit: lUzl < 1 in. Solutions are firstly carried by the following formulation: min F T u ,
V<_V ~ , t i<t i,

i=1,25.

kb(t~)

ta~b

(4)

Suppose that the element plane is situated parallel to the

x y plane of the global system. This means that the bending

force is oriented in the z direction. According to (3) and (4), we now have

The minimization of the compliance aims at ensuring the rigidity of the design. It is equivalent to the minimization of the amplitude of the vertical displacement of the point Q in our problem. The volume is limited by its initial value. Four fixation conditions are studied for the panel A B C D . 1. Two edges A B and C D are clamped.

Fp'i = -

[<0 l
Q0 kb 3T[

gi =

2. Same fixations but with the presence of holes on the element l l and symmetric positions.

175 25 24 23 22 21 C

5 4 3 2
1

10 9 8 7
6

15 14 13 12
1l

20 19 18 17
16

Fig. 2. Final thickness distribution in compliance design (Case 1)

B

Fig. 1. Plane shell panel problem 3. Four edges AB, BC, CD and A D are clamped. 4. Four corners A, B, C and D are simply supported. The results of the design variables are given in Table 1 and plotted in Figs. 2 to 5. The first case gives rise to a beamlike solution or a stiffened panel of m i n i m u m thickness. The hole is bypassed in the second cases, stiffeners are obtained along the shortest symmetric lines in the third one. In the last case, materials are distributed along the diagonal line. It can be concluded that materials are concentrated along the shortest path from the loading point to the foundation due to the volume limitation. To validate stress sensitivity computations, suppose an additional distributing traction load Fz = 600 l b / i n is simultaneously applied along the edge B C and A D together with F at the point Q. The edges A B and CD are clamped. As a result, von Mises stresses and the sensitivities are no longer equal for the same point on the upper and lower layers. As indicated in Table 2, sensitivity results by the current method and those computed by finite difference method demonstrate good agreement when tests are made with respect to the thickness of the first element by varying the step size. Furthermore, if the weight mimization is made subject to the constraints to the vertical displacement of point Q as well as to the von Mises stresses at Gauss points of all elements, the final solution leads to the thickness distribution shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 3. Final thickness distribution in compliance design (Case 2)

Fig. 4. Final thickness distribution in compliance design (Case 3) of 38 design variables is defined, each of which consists of a set of 9 elements. T w o edges A B and CD are clamped. Due to the fact that the ratio t o / R = 3 * 10 - 3 < < 1, it is reasonable to use elements based on thin shell theory in this application. Initial d a t a are as follows. Radius: R = 300 in, length: A B = CD = 600 in, open angle: 0 = 80 ~ , initial thickness: t O = 1 in, lower bound: t = 0.01 in, physical properties: E = 107 psi, u = 0.3, stress limit: Crvm < 25000 psi, loads: F0 = 45.35 ib/in, Fz = 63.33 lb/in.

3.2

Weight minimization design of a curved shell panel

The problem is shown in Fig. 7. Optimization will be carried out to minimize the weight of the panel subject to von Mises stress constraints for all elements on the upper and lower layers. A quarter of the whole panel is considered due to symmetry. The finite element mesh is defined by 18 * 18 S4R shell elements of the A B A Q U S library. A total number

176 Table 1. Results of the design variables and the objective function Element no. i Final thickness (in) Case 1 two edges clamped
5.9596 4.4063 3.1403 4.1574 5.3364 0.i000 0.i000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.i000 0.i000 0.i000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.i000 0.i000 0.i000 0.1000

Final thickness (in) Case 2 four edges clamped

4.7100 2.9130 1.9282 1.6941 2.7686 2.9130 0.18211 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 1.9282 0.i000 0.I000 0.i000 0.1000 1.6941 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 2.7686 0.i000 0.i000 0.i000 0.i000

Final thickness (in) Case 3 simply supported

2.8595 1.9924 0.i000 0.i000 0.i000 1.9924 2.8896 1.6625 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 1.6625 2.5752 1.3890 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 1.3890 2.0579 1.0185 0.1000 0.I000 0.1000 1.0185 1.2927

Final thickness (in) Case 4 hole presence

4.7830 0.4035 0.i000 0.i000 0.i000 3.6223 1.4842 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 -3.3816 0.i000 0.I000 0.1000 0.1000 4.2851 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 5.3400 0.I000 0.1000 0.1000

i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Obj. function ( F T u ) Initial value (lb. in) Final value (lb. in)

1398.4 73.242

1060.7 122.01

6926 2410

1473 107.74

!
Fig. 5. Final thickness distribution in compliance design (Case 4) Three loading cases are taken into account. 1. A distributed pressure load Fz along the symmetrical middle line between A B and CD. Fig. 6. Final design of weight minimization subject to both inplane and bending forces 2. Simultaneous pressure loads of Fz and F O. Results of design variables are plotted in Figs. 8 and 9 together with the final distributions of the yon Mises stresses.

177 Table 2. Validation of sensitivities of von Mises stresses at the Gauss point O~ (proposed method) Or1 to = l i n -43577.50 (upper layer) -44064.10 (lower layer) -5244.81 -6442.08 -7541.96 -7412.49 -8918.36 -8861.29 -8965.57 -8919.58 A~ i ~ 1 (finite difference method) At 1 = 10 - 3 in -43579.36 -44064.55 -5272.65 -6471.06 -7537.93 -7408.91 -8921.38 -8864.30 -8965.91 -8919.94 At 1 = 5 . 1 0 - 3 in -43522.16 -44035.92 -5014.01 -6215.50 -7464.24 -7337.78 -883.53 -8826.63 -8923.14 -8877.28 At 1 = 10 - 2 in -43522.03 -44004.33 -4753.92 -5958.31 -7389.52 -7265.67 -8845.00 -8788.29 -8879.66 -8833.92

Element no. i 1

In the first case, the final weight W* is reduced to 39.92% as compared with the initial W 0. Materials are concentrated along the clamped and loading edges. In the second case, the weight W* is reduced to 42.53% of W 0. Materials are mainly distributed along clamped and two loading edges. It can be seen from Figs. 8 and 9 that yon Mises stress constraints are satisfied without constraint violation in both cases and they become active in some regions.

Conclusions

.....

The paper describes the calculation of sensitivity derivatives for shell structures using the ABAQUS program without access to the source code. Numerical examples show that sizing optimization with stress, displacement and weight considerations become practicable by this approach and the precision of sensitivity analysis is ensured. Applications can be also extended to axisymetrical shell structures. In addition, it can be seen that the work of program developing and implementation is very small for users. It takes about one man-month to establish the interface. However, it should be noted that the method depends on separating linear and cubic terms in the thickness, and is therefore limited to problems without membrane-bending coupling. It does not seem to be directly applicable to thick shell elements and composite shells. This issue will be further investigated.

B
Fig. 7. Curved shell panel problem

References Barthelemy, J.-F.M; Hall, L.E. 1995: Automatic differentiation as a tool in engineering design. Struct. Optirn. 9, 76-82 Barthelemy, B.; Chon, C.T.; Haftka, R.T. 1988: Accuracy problems associated with semi-analytical derivatives of static response. Finite Elements in Analysis gJ Design 4, 249-265 BendsCe, M.P.; Diaz, A.R. 1993: Optimization of material properties for Mindlin plate design. Struct. Optirn. 6, 268-270 Grandhi, R.V.; Bharatram, G. 1992: Optimum design of plate structures with multiple frequency constraints. Struct. Optim. 5, 100-107 Haftka, R.T.; Prasad, B. 1981: Optimal structural design with plate bending elements - A survey. AIAA J. 19, 517-522 Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. 1997: Abaqus/Standard user's manuel, version 5.7

Besides, it is necessary to indicate that because the optimization algorithm is based on the duality, the final solution is ensured to verify the Kuhn-Tucker optimality condition after the convergence. Figure 10 shows the iteration histories related to the two loading cases. Finally, to show the efficiency of the developed sensitivity analysis method, the CPU time consumption is compared here versus the finite difference cost for the first case of the curved panel problem. It can be observed that the time saving is about 30% (see Table 3).

178 Table 3. Comparison of computing cost Developed method (sec) One main FE analysis 38 design variables Total CPU time (sec) 1.92 25.81" 27.73 Finite difference (sec) 1.92 38 x 1.92 74.88

* FE solution of the pseudo load problem

SECTION POINT i MISES VAL~

w*/w

39.92%

:"~:~:

Fig. 8. Final thickness and von Mises stress distributions (Case 1)

SECTION POINT i

+3.O6E+01

I
w * / w ~ = 16%
Fig. 9. Final thickness and von Mises stress distributions (Case 2) Leal, R.P.; Mota Soares, C.A. 1989: Mixed elements in the optimal design of plates. Struet. Optim. 1, 127-136 Santos, J.L.T.; Choi, K.K. 1988: Sizing design sensitivity analysis of non-linear structural systems. Part II: Numerical method. Int. J. Nurner. Meth. Engng. 26, 2097-2114 Vanderplaats, G.N; Thomas, H.L. 1993: An improved approximation for stress constraints in plate structures. Struct. Optirn. 6, 1-6 Yamazaki, K.; Vanderplaats, N. 1993: Design sensitivity analysis with isoparametric shell elements. Struct. Optirn. 5, 152-158 Yu, H.R.; Liang, B.; Li, L. 1991: Optimal design of cylindrical

+4.19E+03 +8.35E+03 +1.25E+04

+1.67E+04 +2.08E+04

+2.50E+04

shells. Struct. Optirn. 3, 252-256 Zhang, W.H.; Domaszewski, M.; Bassir, H. 1998: Developments of sizing sensitivity analysis with ABAQUS code. Struct. Optim. (to appear) Zieukiewicz, O.C.; Taylor, R.L. 1991: The finite element method, 4-th Edition. McGraw-Hill

Appendix

A.1 Computation of pseudo-load vector through system trans-

179

SECTION i POINT MISES ~%LUE ~-+1.35E+02 ~I +4.28E+03 N +8.42E+03 ~+1.26E+04 i - +i' 67E+04

%.,

~I+2'~176
~-+2.50E+04

w*/w ~ = 42.53%

Fig. 10. Convergence curves of panel design optimization

formation

tions,

When the element plane is not parallel to the x y plane of the global coordinate system as shown in Fig. 11, the internal force-moment vector 4 i = [ r 1 6 2 must be scaled in the local coordinate system of the element for the computation of the pseudo-load vector,

x,

= -g12

Y21 z21

= -g12

1{.2-.,}
Y2 -- Yl z2 _ Zl

with g12 = ~/x221 + y221 + z21, and (A1)

= -g13 with

Y31 z31

= -g13

1{.3-.,}
Y3 -- Yl z3 _ Zl

g13 = ~ x 2 1 + Y21 -I-z21 .

(A2)

By properties of the cross-product of two above vectors, the normal direction z I is then

z/
L~

x / x yl Jl x' y' I I

(A3)

"s

~x
N
<

Consider now r = [r q~n] consisting of three force and moment components at each node. As shown in Fig. 11, the force subvector r itself can be divided into two parts: the which is the projection of C f on the local

bending force r

direction z p and the in-plane force subvector qS/f ,y~, which is the projection on the x / y / element plane. Their expressions
are

Fig. 11. Local and global coordinate systems for the flat shell elements The ABAQUS user's m a n u a l (1997) shows that internal node force-moment vector is reported in the global system. This needs the transformation to the local system. To determine the normal direction z I of each element, we can first build up two axes x I and yl in the plane by using node posiThen by scaling in the local system, the corresponding pseudo-load force vector F f 9 related to the force subvector q~f can be obtained through

pfiz ~

180
stresses components vary linearly. Suppose (o'z Cryb, r~b) -b, i so that the pseudo-load force vector Ff,_ expressed in the global system is the resultant of above terms
+

and Qr+b ~+b 7.+yb) denote the point-wise bending stresses of lower and upper layers respectively, e.g. at the Gauss point of the element. The following relation then holds with respect to the middle plane according to (All):

: - [ 4 +, ( 4
Tx y "r~y b

Similarly, the pseudo-load moment vector Fpm,,i in the global system can be obtained rmp,~ = Fmp,iz' + r ~p,iz,y, = - [3r - 2 ( 0 ? " ; ) z'] / t i . (A7) -~ D Wyy 2Wxy

Finally, to check the validity of the above transformation, one can consider the case where the local direction z I coincides with direction z of the global system. That is z r = (0, 0, 1)T. Consequently, (A6) and (A7) will be simplified to give rise to the known solutions produced in (5), f =_ F f Ff F ,i p,iz ~ p,iz~y ~ = ft and Fpm,i = F p,iz I F p,ixlyl = m rn ft

(A12)

Hence, we have from (A10)

(A13) with { r and { ~ - } the resultant stresses at the upper and lower layer, respectively. Considering now the sensitivity of stress resultants in the finite element j with respect to the thickness design variable t i of the element i. By differentiating (A13), we will obtain the general expressions as

A.2 Stress sensitivity analysis of shell elements The plane stress state of the element is supposed as a combination of membrane and plate effects

j =

+t

Tj,

by+~

,(A10)

(A14)

TXY

V~y 7~xy where sensitivity of bending stress components is computed, in virtue of (A12), as

in which (o"b, Crby,rby) denote pure bending stress components and (4, 4 , rxPy) denote membrane in-plane stress components. Based on ttooke's law and strain-displacement relations, stresses components can be expressed in terms of the displacements

f oo-+b )

~t i o~+b yJ
= D wyy -

Wxy Tx~y Wyy 2Wzy

0o-+ b xy,j ati

{~rP} =
T~y

= D

Vy Uy -I- vx

(All)

OW2g x

where D is the usual elasticity matrix in the function of Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio; (u, v, w) is the displacement vector at the corresponding point of middle plane. It can be seen that along the thickness direction z of the element, the membrane stresses are constant and the bending

~D

C~Wyy Ot i 20Wxy at i

0 ,+b I
(AI5)

with the notation of the second part in the above relation

181
The sensitivity is easily obtained by

=-7 D

(A16)

20wzy Oti
Similarly, in view of (A11), sensitivity of membrane stress components is evaluated as

vmo _ ~+ - 0 5 y3 | + Oti mJ t Oti "-0--~- ) i

(A22)
In the same way, we can also obtain stress sensitivity for the lower layer. From (A20), it can be concluded that the sensitivity of stress resultants in the element j must be computed in two ways: if the sensitivity of the element is made with respect to its own thickness variable (i = j), then the scaled bending stress component must be added to adjust stress sensitivity term (A18) directly resulting from the action of the pseudo-load. Otherwise, the sensitivity results from the solution of the pseudo-load system can be directly used as the sensitivity of true stress resultants if the derivative is made with respect to the thickness of other elements (i # j). Unfortunately, because bending stress components in (A20) belong to intermediate values which are not often stored in the database, only stress resultants ( ~ , ~y, r~-y) and ( r + r + rx+y) are available in practice when finite element analysis, i.e. ABAQUS, is executed for shell structures. To overcome this difficulty, we propose here a stress extraction procedure. Due to the symmetry of the bending stress with respect to the middle plane, we can obtain the following relations by means of (A12),

= Oti
J

C%~Pyj

ati

OVy ~ COUy CgVx

(alr)

By comparing (A16) and (A17) with ( A l l ) , we can find that { 3~ } and { Ot~ can be physically interpreted as the stress responses caused directly by the displacement sensitivity vectors ~ Oti' aw~ '-~i ) and (Ou~ Oji~) but it ~ Oti Ow~ Oti' 9 should be kept in mind that { O~i } is not the true sensitivity of bending stresses. By noting the following combination:

j:
{0~? } 10tj

+t 77j'
f05+b I Oo"p

(A18)

we can write the sensitivity of stress resultants (A14) at the upper layer ~y

{r
(a19) namely

{~+}+{er-}- 21{ ~ - + cr~ } . ~++42

rx'v + r~y

(A23)

}=
(AGO)

j,

i g.

This simple algebraic manipulation permits us to efficiently obtain the stress components needed in (A20) and (A22). From this demonstration, it can be observed that unlike bar and membrane elements studied in our previous work (Zhang et al. 1998), particular attention must be paid to stress sensitivity computations of shell elements. Secondly, it can be seen that this interface tool is very general to be coupled with other finite element analysis systems because internal node forces and stress results are often available in the database. Finally, the numerical sensitivity analysis procedure is summarized below. Step 1. Do an FE analysis of the considered problem by ABAQUS to generate results database (I). Step 2. Read internal force result of each element from the above database (I) and then scale according to (At) and (A7) to compute the pseudo-load vector.

If the yon Mises stress of element j is concerned in design optimization, its calculation corresponds to ~+ = vrno q(~rz+j)2 + + (Cryj)2 - ( ~+~r + ~ xj yj) 3 (rx+ j ) 2 )" y (A21)

182 Step 3. Generate displacement sensitivity results database (II) under the action of the pseudo-load vector by performing a restart procedure of ABAQUS linear analysis. Step 4. Read the stress resultant tensor at the upper and lower layer of each element from the database (I) and then apply extraction procedure (A23) to obtain bending and membrane components. Step 5. Compute the stress sensitivity by means of (A20) with stress tensors related to the pseudo-load from database (II) and bending stress components from Step 4.

Received June 8, 1998 Revised manuscript received October 9, 1998