In the context of equilibrium equations on structural concrete study, I deal with an system (3 non linear equations) that relates an entry of variables $(\epsilon_0,\kappa_x,\kappa_y)$ (which represents the deformation of a section) with an output $(N,M_x,M_y)$ (force and moments on it). Let $f$ be the function such that $(N,M_x,M_y)=f(\epsilon_0,\kappa_x,\kappa_y)$. I do not have the explicit relation of $f$, but I have a conjecture: looking at many examples, the volume enclosed by the surface defined by the points $(N,M_x,M_y)$ is convex. The points on the surface define the ultimate state of equilibrium of a section loaded with an axial force $N$ and two perpendicular moments $M_x$ and $M_y$, and every point enclosed by the surface represents an equilibrium outside the ultimate state of breaking the section. The system has the form \begin{equation*} N=R_{cc}\left(\epsilon_0,\kappa_x,\kappa_y\right)+\sum_{i=1}^nA_{si}\sigma_{si}\left(\epsilon_0,\kappa_x,\kappa_y\right)\\M_x=M_{cc,x}\left(\epsilon_0,\kappa_x,\kappa_y\right)+\sum_{i=1}^nA_{si}\sigma_{si}\left(\epsilon_0,\kappa_x,\kappa_y\right)Y_{si}\\ M_y=M_{cc,y}\left(\epsilon_0,\kappa_x,\kappa_y\right)+\sum_{i=1}^nA_{si}\sigma_{si}\left(\epsilon_0,\kappa_x,\kappa_y\right)X_{si} \end{equation*} where $R_{cc}$, $R_{cc,x}$ and $R_{cc,y}$ are the force and moments resisted by the compressed concrete (which depends on the deformation); $A_{si}$ is the area of the $i$-th steel bar, with its corrdinatinates $(X_{si},Y_{si})$ and stress $\sigma_{si}$ (which depends on the deformation). All dependences are not linear. What can be the hint to show that convexity? It seems a big challenge to show it since, in order to solve this system, I use, for example, Newton-Rhapson Method (in fact, the conjecture is based on plotting many points of the ultimate state of breaking, that is, it is based on visual fact).
Asked
Active
Viewed 48 times
1
-
I think it would help to provide more detail here. There is almost nothing to go on, and I doubt that there is a "one size fits all" approach to showing convexity, unless your question is that you don't know how to define "convex". I do notice you say the surface is convex, but it would make a little more sense if you mean that the volume enclosed by the surface is convex. – Erick Wong Jul 17 '15 at 16:20