TABLE 1 



Comparison of Numerical Results with Kendrick's (Part III) Theory 



Relative 



Thickness 



mh/R 



Relative 

 Length 

 Lt,/R 



Relative 



Frame 



Stiffness 



Collapse 



Pressure p^^ 



Mode of Collapse 71 



From 

 Figures 

 1 and 2 



From 



Kendrick's 



Theory 



From 



Figure 



3 



From 



Kendrick's 



Theory 



0.6 



2;194 



4.93 X 10"^ 



1632 



1558 



3 



3 



0.8 





5.99 X 10"^ 



2096 



2036 



3 



3 



1.0 





6.62 xlO^ 



2475 



2409 



3 



3 



1.22 





7.15 xlO"^ 



2850 



2766 



3 



3 



0.6 



4.539 



4.93 X 10-6 



1015 



959 



3* 



2 



0.8 





5.99 X 10-^ 



1260 



1218 



3* 



2 



1.0 





6.62 xlO"^ 



1430 



1464 



3* 



2 



1.22 





7.15 xlO"^ 



1572 



1671 



3 



3 



0.6 



6.884 



4.93 xlO"^ 



529 



520 



2 



2 



0.8 





5.99 x 10-6 



662 



623 



2 



2 



1.0 





6.62 xlO-6 



757 



715 



2 



2 



1.22 





7.15 xlO"^ 



853 



804 



2 



2 



0.6 



9.229 



4.93 xlO-^ 



430 



455 



2 



2 



0.8 





5.99 xlO^ 



530 



534 



2 



2 



1.0 





6.62 X 10^ 



592 



599 



2 



2 



1.22 





7.15 xlO-6 



651 



659 



2 



2 



0.6 



2.194 



1.145 x 10-6 



561 



539 



4 



4 



0.8 





1.385x10"* 



703 



660 



4 



4 



1.0 





1.581 X 10-6 



810 



781 



4 



4 



1.22 





1.773 X 10-6 



937 



923 



4 



4 



0.6 



4.539 



1.145 X 10^ 



310 



293 



3 



3 



0.8 





1.385 X 10"^ 



377 



347 



3 



3 



1.0 





1.581 X 10^ 



435 



401 



3 



3 



1.22 





1.773 X 10^ 



492 



464 



3 



3 



0.6 



6.884 



1.145 X 10-6 



235 



223 



2 



2 



0.8 





1.385 X 10-6 



290 



281 



2 



2 



1.0 





1.581x10-6 



363 



338 



2 



2 



1.22 





1.773 X 10-6 



413 



391 



3 



3 



0.6 



9.229 



1.145 X 10^ 



136 



136 



2 



2 



0.8 





1.385x10-6 



168 



164 



2 



2 



1.0 





1,581 x 10-6 



198 



191 



2 



2 



1.22 





1.773 X 10-6 



229 



223 



2 



2 



*For the 



se three geometries, collapse 



pressures fo 



r n = 2 were nes 



rly the same 



> as 



for n = 3. 













